Misty, The learning Curve

Debates, arguing and my opinion

2006-08-30T11:36:00.000-07:00

It's been said that I have a pretty strong opinion and am not afraid to share it. I agree. No argument from me there. I did think that maybe a bit of background might help others understand where this wonderfully annoying ability came from. It wasn't always there and others helped me in getting to this point.

About 6 years ago, I fell onto some mom-boards and found that they had an argument, er..I mean debate boards. Every type of debate you could possibly imagine and who would have thought mothers (and some fathers) around the world would even consider arguing over whether staying home or working was better for your children. I generally do not learn new information unless I can question it. Nature of the beast, I guess. So all the million-gazillion support boards this particular site had was completely out of the question. Support boards were all rosy and full of hugs. One did not disagree with a poster on the support boards without possibly getting themselves in a lot of trouble and having their membership yanked.

So, off to the debate boards I went. The first one was affectionately titled "spanking debate" and I can accredit those fine ladies with better parenting skills that I have today. Not that I have the best skills, but they certainty took a diamond in the rough, argued with her, debated with her and basically chomped her down and called her out whenever possible. I asked questions, argued over points and found better ways to parent. New rule of thumb in parenting: "mean what you say, say what you mean" and "no arbitrary rules simply because you can. Too many is too hard to keep track of and guarantees some level of failure."

One day, I fell upon a board where people actually argued over breast feeding versus bottle feeding. The joys that were had there. How was I too know that people would get all in a tizzy over formula ad's or breast feeding in public? It was a fun board and information I gleaned from there has helped me to this day when friends ask advice.

The all time favorite board was a parenting issues board. These ladies debated, argued and basically pulled out the claws over some of the weirdest things. Use of a pacifier, whether or not a two piece bathing suit was a acceptable for a three year and my favorite "they can dress like a ho if they want too." If the subject had anything to do with parenting choices of any kind, we were all over it like bees to honey. The board would divide up, the snarky remarks would ensue and the sarcastic humor would fly. The best part was that one day, you might side with a certain group of ladies and the next day, you were completely against them.

Probably, the worst board I visited and posted on for a while was a board that debated which was better, staying at home or working. The values that lead to either choice are apparently pretty strong because that board was constantly getting cleaned out by the powers that be. I lasted about a year or a bit longer there until I had to bail.

One other favorite board was during the last presidential election and they debated strictly politics. Up until that point, I wasn't into politics much and really had no clue. Through argument and exchange of idea's, discussions...my political views were born. Now it is one of my all time favorite subjects and have found it to be a very hot topic. Which leads me to the board I used to debate, religion. I never really debated it, it was more of a reading and learning board from those that followed any particular faith or belief. If I did pipe up, it was to ask a question or defend someone who was getting picked on by others.

Except for the last three, all the other boards I helped lead at some point or another. Leading a board basically consisted of keeping the conversation going, even if it meant playing devils advocate.

The ladies that were on those boards (and they know where they are!) were awesome and there are times I still think to myself "what would so-and-so do in this situation?" I learned a lot from them on how to form an opinion, what goes into it and that it is ok to change the opinion if called for.

Debates and arguments on the internet are tough because all you have to go by is words. You have no facial expressions and no body signs. Just words. And sometimes, if the subject is close to you heart, emotions can run deep. Through trial and error, you find those that you can use certain types of humor with (sarcastic for instance) and those who are sensitive. And they learn the same about you.

Probably the most important thing that I have learned from the boards and my board friends is to never close your mind to an idea or an opinion until you have mulled it over a bit. Reading about another's opinion or listening to them and thinking about it isn't going to sway yours unless you want it to. So I read, I learn and I either stick with my original thought or I change it. Sometimes just a little, sometimes all the way.

Heaven Re-explained

2006-08-30T11:23:00.000-07:00

Because dang, that last one sounded a bit nasty in parts. I just re-read it and was like wow, what type of mood was I in that day?

Anyway, I figured I better explain the part where I said "no thought process of their own" because that's the rude part I'm talking about.

It came across like people who believe in heaven can't think for themselves. They do and they can. However (cause you knew that would be there) if they are following something that has been written or said prior to them and agreeing with what was written or said...the thought really isn't theirs. They don't own it, they didn't come up with it and they are simply following what another has said or written before them. Not a bad thing at all, everyone does it every day.

The process that got them to agree with the person is their own. Hopefully, the process took some time and is never taken at face value. But once they agree with the person who had the original thought, they are no longer "thinking" for themselves. They have agreed with someone else who already thought.

Clear as mud I am sure, but I don't know how else to explain it.

Anyway, sorry if the previous post came off a bit snooty and rude. Wasn't my intention. My writing skills of the day basically depend on the mood of the day.

testing!

2006-08-27T05:40:00.000-07:00

Heaven and why I don't want to go

2006-08-27T04:36:00.000-07:00

Catchy little title if I say so myself. I had this discussion some time ago with a friend and although she certaintly didn't agree with me, she found it interesting. I thought I would share it here as it may help others understand part of why I don't accept the Christian way.

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve and with Adam and Eve came free will. God gave that gift under the impression that even though they could choose to not obey him, they would not. But they did and here we sit.

From my understanding of Heaven, all will be perfect, beautiful and no worries. The part that becomes a bit confusing for me is that there is no one set standard way to get into heaven. Some Christians believe it is faith alone, others believe it is faith and deed, some feel that it's particular deeds or following the bible to the T and yet others feel that there is only a select number going. So my first concern would be "how exactly does one get into heaven?" I have no answer for that because whenever the question is asked, the person answering always says my way and that way is often different from the previous person I asked. I only know one common denominator and that is accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, the rest is up for grabs.

Setting the "how do I get there" dilemma aside, my next thought on Heaven is one that really bothers me. If Heaven is perfect, then where does free will come into the equation? Ok, I get that free will means you freely chose Jesus as your Savior. I am sure that is definitely one part of heaven.

But to me, having only those who think alike, act alike and choose alike is a recipe for disaster. Unless God removes free will once you arrive at the pearly gates. But why would he do that if that is how he wanted to create us to begin with? But I guess the only way to have the "perfect" heaven is to remove free will.

So, you get to heaven and everyone there is exactly like you. They think the same, they act the same, their emotions are the same, there is no disease (which I can appreciate), there is no pain (again, I appreciate that) and everyone is a thought process replica of everyone else. That's the part that bothers me.

I don't know if I want to go someplace where everyone thinks and acts like everyone else. That doesn't seem like a good place to end up. Where free will is no longer accepted or encouraged and where diversity no longer exists. If you have a thought that is not the same as others, you get booted from the club and not allowed to return. It would remind me of little automated robots serving their master because they yearn to be the perfect person and accepted.

For me, the 'perfect' heaven would have all good people in it regardless of their beliefs. God would welcome a bit of diversity and it would be a peaceful place to live. A different viewpoint wouldn't equate to getting booted from the kingdom or taking over the kingdom (cause we are in heaven, who would want to fight?). It would be harmony and happiness.

Whether or not it's faith, deeds, a mix of the two or asking forgiveness and accepting, there are many people going that I don't think I want to rub shoulders with.

I'm not all that sure I want to hang out for eternity with people who think alike and act alike with no clear thought of their own. I don't think I want to hang out with a bunch of people who didn't even try to behave while they were alive and begged forgiveness in their final hours. I'm not all that sure about some of those who claim to believe and their actions speak louder then their words and their faith.

I guess I don't view heaven as the happy final destination. I view it as a hodge podge of special club members. Some who held their status life long and others who took advantage of God's kindness at the end and wormed their way in.

Others view heaven as the glorious final destination and I can respect that. Believing in heaven is not wrong and believing in it differently then I do is also not wrong. Everyone has to have something to get them through life, heaven just doesn't happen to be mine.

(thoughts welcome, even those I don't agree with. Be assured I am reading and learning.)

Tolerance

2006-08-25T04:57:00.000-07:00

It's a word that thrown around a lot lately. So I figured I would do a post about tolerance and what it really means.

Here's the definition from the on-line dictionary, one-look-encarta:

tolÂ·erÂ·ance (plural tolÂ·erÂ·ances)
noun
Definition:
1. acceptance of different views: the acceptance of the differing views of other people, e.g. in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views
2. tolerating of somebody or something: the act of putting up with somebody or something irritating or otherwise unpleasant
3. ability to endure hardship: the ability to put up with harsh or difficult conditions
4. medicine ability to remain unaffected: the loss of or reduction in the usual response to a drug or other agent as a result of use or exposure over a prolonged period
5. engineering allowance made for deviation: an allowance made for something to deviate in size from a standard, or the limit within which it is allowed to deviate
6. biology ability to withstand extremes: the ability of an organism to survive in extreme conditions

Since I am not writing about hardship, medicine, engineering or biology, I will concentrating on definitions 1 and 2. They describe that act of tolerance and that is what has been tossed around the blogs lately.

Acceptance, definition 1

What exactly does that mean? Does it mean you need to throw open your doors, lay out the welcome mat and invite the person who holds the different view into your home? Maybe serve them some coffee and offer them your firstborn? I think not. What it does mean is to realize that others will have different view points and you just simply need to accept the fact that they have different viewpoints. You don't have to agree with them. You can tell them you don't agree with them. You can demand that their view is not played out in your house. You can even demand that they never enter your home.

There might come a time where one of you might decide that the public rule in question may need to be changed or altered to your side of the equation. That doesn't mean you get to boot the opposing view out of the public territory before the rules are changed or altered . It also doesn't mean you get to start disregarding the current rules in place or that you are above them simply because you don't agree.

You can go through the proper channels and try to get the rules changed to better accommodate yourself and others that think like you. You can ask for a bit of special rule-bending during your duration there and it is up to the rule-maker to decide if they want to accommodate. If they refuse to bend or change the rules, then you must follow them. If a public place decides to bend rules for someone who is on the different view side of the equation and it makes you mad, you would not lack tolerance for petitioning the rule makers to continue following the rules with no deviation. If they choose not to grant you the request, you need to decide if that's a place you want to be.

Tolerating, definition 2

When the time comes and for every single one of us, the time will come, and your faced with rules that you do not agree with or behavior you find lacking then it is your duty to tolerate the behavior by realizing you cannot dictate to another how they will or will not behave.

In my opinion, tolerating comes in two different forms, ignore or try to change. You get to choose which form you wish to use or do both. If you choose to ignore certain behavior that you find unacceptable, that does not mean you cannot teach your children or those around you that you disagree with the behavior. You can also go as far as telling the person or place that you disagree with the behavior they are promoting. What you can not do is physically or verbally attack them in any way, shape or form. You cannot cuss or swear at them. You cannot grab at them. You cannot shoot them. You cannot call them derogatory names. Although you can tell them that you disagree with their behavior and are going to fight the rule makers at an attempt to make their behavior unlawful in any particular public place.

Conclusion, mine anyway:

Why do I feel the need to point all this out? Because I am a liberal. That's why. It's really simple. To me anyway. When faced with a far right conservative, I get the defensive mechanism thrown into my face all the time. It's very common to hear a far right conservative yell out "If I call out the deviant behavior, your Liberal no morals self will cry out lack of tolerance!" Nice try, but doubt it. Unless of course your trying to squash their rights to liberty, protection and justice. Then I will not only throw the tolerance card at you, but also the race card. That's not saying I will claim lack of tolerance and racism if your trying to change the rules or keep certain rules in your favor. That's just politics folks.

Look, there is no law that says you have to throw your arms wide open for behavior that you find unacceptable. Laws do not state that you cannot work to change or keep laws that you feel works better for you. Laws protect your right to speak out against behavior or ideas that you find unacceptable.

What the law does say is that you need to tolerate those who are different and be respectful towards them. That's it. You can whoop and holler all you want against the behavior as long as you are not attacking. You can fight to keep laws on the books and you can fight to get laws off the books.

What you cannot do is break laws yourself or verbally/physically attack another person or try to take away their right to liberty, justice and protection.

Seems real simple to me. How about you?

Parenting; Liberal versus Conservative

2006-08-24T04:59:00.000-07:00

On Wadical and Mysti's blogs, we are discussing parenting and Mysti asked me the difference between Liberal political views and Liberal parenting. On her blog (link in blog roll), she mentioned that she feels political party affiliations dictate parenting skills. She has a very good article on there and they also mention "liberal/permissive" parenting. However, under the area that speaks about "authoritarian/dominating' parenting, there is no mention of "conservative" so it got me thinking.

If "liberal" political affiliations mean permissive parenting, then it stands to reason that conservative would fall under "authoritarian/dominating" parenting. However, to me, that makes no sense on either end and I did point that out in Wadical's comment section (same one as before, which is where the question was asked). I did try to explain why I feel there is a difference, but I know I didn't do a good job, so I figured I would post it here.

After thinking about it for a bit, maybe she does have a very valid point. Maybe how I view the world does carry over into my household. I just don't think it is in the way she views "liberal" parenting as "permissive" parenting. I still don't agree with that (but I also don't agree with Wadical's idea that liberals have no morals, values or beliefs as well as no boundaries) and probably never well. I'll get into that a bit furthe down.

I'll take religion as my first example. PDQ, who will be 10 in November, has embraced Christianity. I am not a Christian. She has done this on her own and with my support to choose what is best for her, even if it is something I personally do not believe in.

So where else might my political views lend into our lifestyle? Well, certain rules are hard and steadfast now but I know they will change later as my children get older:

They have set bedtimes that are strictly enforced and I rarely allow them leeway into staying up late. But! I do get that the bedtime my children are on now will not work later as they grow up. A teenager going to bed at 8:30pm just isn't going to happen. Homework, extra activities, work, etc are not conducive to popping a teen into bed at 8:30pm.

Currently, my children do not go anywhere or with anyone unless I have met the friends and the parents. As a teen, that isn't always going to work out so well. Meeting the friends will be a must, but meeting the parents in person might sometimes be difficult. Will I stop her from meeting a friend at the movies for a group outing just because I don't know the parents? Doubtful.

Curfews are another biggie. Right now, there is no need for a curfew because they are young. When they get older, the curfew will match what they are doing. I won't have a hard and stead-fast 10pm curfew. It won't work in many instances. If they just got off from work and want to go see a movie, the curfew will be directly after the movie. If they are going to the prom, it will be after the prom.

I also work my parenting towards my girls personalities and I want them to learn to use their voice. To have an opinion and not be afraid to tell me what that opinion is. It's not a "I am the only one who can speak" type of household. If they don't like a rule, they are more then welcome to tell me about it. Doesn't mean I will change my rules, but it does mean that I will hear them out. Yes, if they have a legitimate argument, I will entertain the idea of a compromise.

Basically, I guess it boils down to my need to raise children who are not afraid of the world or themselves. To be able to stand up for themselves, to accept that others are different and they are allowed to stand up for themselves as well. I want them to be comfortable in their own skin, to be thinkers. To not be afraid to acknowledge the differences around them and to let those differences help form their own personal opinion. My goal is not to have little me's running around that feel only my view is the acceptable view. My goal is to have PDQ and Ms. RB be true to themselves and be productive members of society. To be happy with themselves and proud to be themselves.

Am I strict? I think so. But I am also fair. Am I my child's friend? Nope. Never wanted to be and do not concern myself if they dislike me today because I am made them clean their room or do their chores.

So I guess Mysti is right. Liberal political views do fall into the way I parent. Just not in the way she might view liberal as a permissive parent who wants to befriend their children and give them limited boundaries or let them flounder about on their own.

How would a conservative raise their children? Well, if you go with the notion that liberal equals permissive...one would think that conservative equals dominating and controlling. Which would mean that the children are not being raised as free-thinkers and they have their life mapped out for them regardless of what they want. They would not have any say in any household subjects and if their parents want them to jump through hoops, they better ask how high. They are not allowed to express their opinion or disagree with a parent.

For whatever reason, I am not seeing that either. I'm sure, in fact, I know there are parents like that. But I tend to think they are the extreme of "conservative" parenting, just like "permissive" would be the extreme of "liberal" parenting. These are the parents that fear life itself for their kids and think that any alteration from the rules or any self-thinking is a threat to the parent. A direct hit and personal. Just like a permissive parent feels the world is all rosy and their child is the perfect little human being who needs minimal guidance.

In all honesty I think most parents have a bit of both in them. Good parents anyway. Parents who realize that their children do have brains of their owns and want them to use it. Parents who will reasonable rules and boundaries and that will alter over time. Parents who want their children to be themselves and to form their own opinions and do not take it personally when said child thinks differently at times then the parents themselves.

Good parenting takes a bit of conservative and a bit of liberal in order to make sure that they do not become either dictators or friends to their kids.

Teen Pregnancy (graphic)

2006-08-23T13:09:00.000-07:00

I was reading one of my friends daughters teen magazines called Seventeen (May 2006) and they had an article about teen pregnancy.

The article was about Timken High in Canton, Ohio that apparently has 64 girls our of 490 that were pregnant during the 04-05 school term. According to their statistics, the average is nearly double the national teen pregnancy rate. Almost double. 64 teenage girls out of 490 teenage girls ranging from 9th grade to 12th grade.

My first thought was what was in the water? How are so many girls in one school district managing to almost double our national level? What in the world are these kids being taught and by whom? Do they not know what or how to use contraceptives? Are they not getting that if you have sex, a baby very well could result? Maybe they were absent the day sex education was taught or maybe they zoned out their parents when the birds and bees were brought up? I

The article said that they teach the reproduction system and how the egg is fertilized by the sperm. But they do a 100% skip over the part about if you don't use protection every single time, you have an even higher chance of getting pregnant. They teach about STD's. But they don't teach safe sex. They teach abstinence. Alright, I can buy that. It really isn't the schools place to be showing a teen how to properly apply spermacide gel, roll down a condom, pop a pill or put in a diaphram.

So, I am guessing the parents are teaching this stuff right? I have to wonder considering that 64 out of 490 girls are pregnant and they are all walking around like it's a badge of honor (and I quote) "Being Pregnant at Timkin is no big deal. Some girls even think it is cool, like it'll get them attention and make them popular." Then reading the article a bit more, I found a girl that hooked up on some dating site on-line for teens and the mom agreed to let the teen boy move into the house. We can all imagine this leading them to having sex while mom was out of said house. Why in the world would a mom do that? Why would they invite the behavior, hang out the welcome mat and say..."Hey live here...get my daughter pregnant, she'll be cool in school!"

I completely and 100% understand and get that our children will, one day, be responsible for their own body. They will have to make that daunting choice to have or not have sex and who they will share the first most intimate moment of their lives with. I get that it will not be my choice. I know that I don't want either of my girls to have any form of kissing, let alone sex until they are like a gazillion years old. But I also realize that is a very unrealistic outlook. I hope that they would even go so far as to wait until such time they are mature adults who if they do end up pregnant, can make wise sound decisions. I realize that may not be all that realistic either.

What I do know is that I really prefer my child to know the possibilities, to know how to protect herself and to realize that protection is important on so many levels. It's not just about having a baby. Sex could very well be about living or dieing. I don't hold onto the belief that if I educate my child about safe sex, I am necessarily not condoning her having sex. I do look at it as if I am giving her all the tools and information to hopefully make the right choice with the awareness that if she does make the wrong choice, she can at least be educated enough to protect herself.

I'm not going to leave my childrens sex education up to a school. I'm not going to leave it up to her friends or a movie (one girl learned how to put on a condom by watching Drew Barrymore roll one down a banana in Never Been Kissed).

Even though I agree with those who state sex education is not a schools responsible, I do think it is turning into a schools responsibility. If parents are not going to step up to the plate and education their children on how to protect themselves...then someone has to.

I leave you with this as a good reason to offer sexual education courses in school since parents are turning a blind eye to the situation:

In the fall of 2005, Timken began offering a class called "Pregnancy Life Skills" and urged new and expectant mothers to attend. When asked why they haven't taken more preventative measures, the reply was "We've move on from that at Timken."

My reply would be..."Yeah...you have."

Parents, even if you don't want your child to have sex. Even if you demand that they wait until they are married or out of your home. Be warned that hormones rage and in the heat of the moment, kids may do what you don't want them to do.

Teach them, prepare them, warn them. Your the only voice they should be receiving this information from, but if your not going to do it, the someone else might. The outcome may not be the one you desired or wished for your child.

Responsible for your own actions

2006-08-23T12:29:00.000-07:00

Once again, Wight Wing Wadical has managed to push my buttons, as I am sure I have managed to push his.

Apparently his small town has been afflicted with a young man in the school district who has decided to dress in drag. For the full details, I urge you to visit his site and read the comment section to see what transpired. I will say that the comment section is a bit heated and leaped off of my statement that said to ignore the behavior since this is most likely a stunt to gain attention. Once the attention is no longer there, the 'child' will stop behaving the way he is. From there, the discussion went towards bully behavior. Again, I suggest reading his site in order to get the full conversation and both sides of the equation.

The point that I became extremely upset is when Wadical mentioned that this child should expect to be laughed at and jeered at. That those who are doing the taunting are only doing what kids do when faced with things that are different from them or faced with things that they cannot or do not want to accept or understand. That is what public school is all about and this kid deserves what he gets and is responsible for any poor behavior that comes his way from his peers. In Wadicals defense, he did state that if anyone beat up this particular child he would be the first to demand the beaters expulsion. However, as of my last visit, he apparently did not feel that running up to the kid and grabbing his fake breasts (yuck), pulling off his wig or any other form of taunting was bully behavior. I retaliated and stated that no person deserves to be bullied and taunted. I don't care if this particular boy is doing this for an attention stunt, I don't care if he has chosen to be different or is different by default. He is not responsible for another persons behavior.

It amazes me that people still carry the old school tradition of condoning poor behavior based on another persons actions. That it is acceptable to treat others poorly simply because they are different, by choice or default. That because they are the ones who are different and did not or cannot conform to what standards are being held in the area of which they live, they deserve and are held responsible for other peoples behavior towards them.

Where is self responsibility for everyone? Does the drag queen in question have self-responsibility for his actions? Most definitely. If he chooses to be different then he better expect to be ignored. As far as I am concerned, he should be forced to adhere to whatever dress code the school system has established and if he isn't, then he should be suspended until such time that he is willing to follow the rules that all the other children are forced to follow. Does his responsibility end there? Yes, it does end there. He is not responsible for actions against him because he is only responsible for himself, not for others. He can't be blamed for others actions towards him. He can't control them, just like they cannot control him.

Are the other students responsible for their own behavior towards this particular student? Yes, they are. If they choose to behavior poorly towards him, taunting him verbally or physically, that is on them. Not on him. They have 100% complete control of their own actions.

Where am I going with this? In one breath we claim "No tolerance for bullies" and in the other breath we claim "he deserved it and is responsible for it because he is different." Then we go on and state "it's normal behavior for students in a public school to attack others who are different."

I don't know about you, but that makes absolutely no sense. We either do not tolerate bullies for any reason, or we do. We can't say "don't bully the kid with glasses or rips in his jeans and dirty hair because he just happens to be a product of his upbringing." And then go and say "But you can be mean and taunt this kid because he is an attention seeking whore who refuses to conform and just wants to stir up trouble."

What the hell are we teaching our kids? Where is the morals coming from? Why is it ok and acceptable to physically or verbally harm another because we feel they are choosing to be different and not ok to harm another because their difference is beyond their control? When do we make our children responsible for their own actions and demand that they treat others with respect even if they completely disagree or are afraid of what another represents? When do we start to tell our children that violence only begets more violence and the proper and moral behavior is to ignore those that behave out of our own personal code of conduct?

It sickens me to think that bully behavior is accepted as the norm simply because the victim is choosing a path in order to gain attention he so desperately needs and is not getting it from traditional means. This child should be ignored by his peers, that should be his consequence.

Parents that are faced with what they view as 'deviant' behavior should teach their children how to handle it and to do so in a manner that is respectful of themselves and in a way that would make them proud.

Would I be proud if my daughter came home and told me she picked on Tom because he wore drag to school? No, I would not be. I would be severely disappointed that she lowered herself to such standards. Would I be proud if my daughter came home and said she witnessed Tom being picked on because he wore drag to school and did nothing about it? No, I would not be. I would be upset that she didn't speak out and tell her classmates that they need to just leave him alone and go about their day. That if they don't like how he looks or what he is trying to convey, then they should just ignore him.

Parents have a responsibility to society and that is to teach their kids to behave in a manner that harms none. They need to teach their kids that they are responsible for their own actions and that nobody makes them do anything. If they choose to pick on someon, then they are just as wrong as the one who choose to be different to get attention.

In other words, there is never an acceptable form of bully behavior.

Holistic Medicine Illegal

2006-08-17T04:37:00.000-07:00

Why is that? It seems that many natural medicines that can be grown in your own backyard are completely illegal in this country.

I was reading about the teen boy who fought the system in order to stay off of Chemo. He was diagnosed with Hodgkins, went through one round of Chemo and decided he didn't want to go through it again and found a holistic medicine called Hoxsey to help him. Not available in the US, he went to Mexico for treatment and when social services found out, they tried to force him back into scientific chemical based treatment by claiming his parents were negligent.

Hoxsey is a mixture of potassium iodine, licorice, red clover, burdock root, stillingia root, berberis root, poke root, cascara amarga, prickly ash bark, and buckthorn bark. It was first used when John Hoxsey mixed a batch together to treat a horse back in 1840. John passed it down to his son, Harry and in 1920's founded the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic in Dallas, Texas which was limited to Herbal mixtures. The American Medical Society caught wind and granted Henry the ability to test the mixture. The test was proved successful, but the terms of release for general public that the AMS/FDA placed on Henry was not acceptable (they wanted the ingredients and he wasn't giving them up).

During the 1940's, another Doctor (Mohs) used the same exact paste previously labeled by the AMS as fraudulent, during an experimental surgery and was labeled as acceptable because it was followed by radiation. They refused to acknowledge the ingredients in the paste were identical and leaned towards Mohs because he also had scientifically acceptable surgery and followed up with radiation.

Today, if one wants to use this sort of medicine to treat a cancer, they must cross the border into Mexico. Even though new evidence has linked just about every item within the concoction as cancer fighting. The FDA and AMS have not looked back into the information nor do they appear to have it on their list of "must do's" anytime soon. Scientists from other countries have researched it and found many cancer fighting elements to be within the mixture.

In any case, here we sit. We have to go to court to and allow a judge to decide what it and isn't acceptable treatment for our children. We have to rely on "experts" who may or may not choose to look at documented evidence from around the world to determine if treatment is acceptable. This boy and his family were very lucky that the court sided with him. Next time, in another place, they may not. They did have to make a few small concessions, like allow radiation (to go with Mohs theory on the paste) if a scientific doctor feels it is a requirement. They must update the courts every 3 months until age 18 or cured (the teen is 16). But other then, they are "free" to do as they wish.

I'm all for good sound choices, even if they go against scientifically acceptable chemicals and rely on more holistic methods. Unfortunately, this is just one of many methods that are not acceptable within our country because they step on the toes of the scientific community.

It's scary to think my options are limited because they FDA and AMS of the country are not getting their pockets lined. It's even more scary because, as a parent, my options are severely limited or face the possibility of loosing my child.

Not sure where to put this

2006-08-07T04:43:00.000-07:00

I was reading on Quaker Agitator's blog about certain Iraq Militants mercy killing homosexuals because they were going against the word of God and could not longer live. This really saddened me but I thought I had read something similar in the Old Testament of the Christian bible. So I went in search of it and found it. Which is why I wasn't sure where to put this, political or religion, so I slapped it here. Because it is religious, but at the same time, it's also political.

Leviticus is full of reasons why someone must be killed or banished; worshiping other Gods, committing adultery, sleeping with the wrong person (son sleeping with fathers wife, his own sister, ect) and it also includes a man sleeping with another man: Leviticus 20:13 "If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death. They are responsible for their own death. 14 is also interesting because it states how someone should die (burning) for marrying both a mother and a sister. Back then, it was common for having multiple wives (polygamy).

Basically the reason why I looked for this is because I started to wonder what would Islamic beliefs be like if someone like Jesus had come forward in their religion and changed things around a bit. For instance, Jesus preached that killing in the name of God was not a good idea, but before that killing in the name of God or because someone worshiped "wrong" was not only acceptable, it was demanded by God.

If Jesus changed much of the "rules" for Christians, what could someone of that caliber do for Islamic beliefs? Would that person have changed much of the "rules" for Muslims? I think so. As it sits, many Islams follow their Qur'an to the letter and take their beliefs very seriously. There are different denominations within the Islamic Community and some take it more seriously then others. However, they have never had anyone come in and say "You know those old rules? Let's get rid of them and make following God a bit more easier and a lot more loving."

If Islamic belief had similar experiance to the Christian belief that wiped out alot of the hate and killing in the name of God, I don't think there would be such anger between the two religions, such feelings of threatening towards each other. I think both (instead of one) would be more peaceful religions. Not only towards others each other, but towards themselves as well.

Lebanon

2006-08-05T15:44:00.000-07:00

Gathered from Wikpedia (some links are left in versus using my own words for further research and clarification):

Government:

Lebanon is a republic in which the three highest offices are reserved for members of specific religious groups:
the President must be a Maronite Catholic Christian.
the Prime Minister must be a Sunni Muslim, and
the Speaker of the Parliament must be a Shi'a Muslim.

Parliament of Lebanon Seat Allocation based on religious belief, which is more important then ideology:
Confession Before Taif After Taif
Maronite 30 34
Greek Orthodox 11 14
Greek Catholic 6 8
Armenian Orthodox 4 5
Armenian Catholic 1 1
Protestant 1 1
Other Christians 1 1
Total Christians 54 64
Sunni 20 27
Shi'a 19 27
Druze 6 8
Alawite 0 2
Total Muslims 45 64
Total 99 128

The population of Lebanon is composed of three predominant ethnic groups and religions: Muslims (Shi'ites, Sunnis, Alawites), Druze, and Christians (mostly Maronite Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Melkite Greek Catholics, as well as Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Catholics, Syriac Catholics, Chaldean, Latin Rite Roman Catholics, Assyrians, Copts and Protestants).
No official census has been taken since 1932, reflecting the political sensitivity in Lebanon over confessional (religious) balance. It is estimated that about 35% are Christians, 35% are Shia Muslims, 25% are Sunni Muslims and 5% are Druze [29] There used to be a small minority of Jews, mostly living in central Beirut. Also, a small community (less than 1%) of Kurds (also known as Mhallamis or Mardins) live in Lebanon. There are approximately 15 million people of Lebanese descent, mainly Christians, spread all over the world, Brazil being the country with the biggest Lebanese community abroad. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Colombia, France, Mexico, Venezuela and the US also have large Lebanese communities.

Basic History

1943 Independence:

During WWI, it became part of the the Syrian Mandate of France and was distinguished as mainly the Christian sector with areas for Muslims and Druzes. While France was occupied by Germany, both Syria and Lebanon established independence and were occupied by Britian out of fear that Germany would try and use both countries as a route to attack Egypt and the Suez Canal. The unwritten national pact of Lebanon required that the President be a Christian and the Prime Minister be Muslim. Troops were withdrawn following WWII and the nation has a mixture of political strife and stability as well as prospering as the regions main finance and trade center.

In 1947, the Muslim Prime Minster had the brilliant idea of attacking Israel, an act that failed miserably. After the conflict, many Palenstinians seeked refuge in Lebanon and more were to come during the 1967 Arab-Israel war. This lead to the Lebanon Civil war which pitted Christians against Muslims and left the nation with no real governement.

1976 saw Syria stepping in by sending 40,000 troops to help the Christians with pushing back the Muslims to the Southern borders of Lebanon and also occupying the country to help maintain peace until 2005. During this time, Syria started to see a seperation of support and started to ally themselves with the Palestinians while some of the Christians allied themselves with Israel.

After the Militant Palestinian attacks on Israel in 1978, and the following war between Palestines and Israel, the UN stepped in and demanded a ceasefire. The cease fire resulted in Israel removing their troops from the south borders and themilitant Palestines to leave the area. It also resulted in the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) to take over peacekeeping duties. In 1978 Israel completed the withdrawal of its troops, and turned over control of southern Lebanon to the pro-Israel South Lebanon Army of mostly Christian locals. Pro-Palestinian forces remained in the region in violation of the UN cease fire agreement.

The armed forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) continued to use Lebanon as a base to attack Israel with rockets and artillery, and with cross-border attacks aimed at Israeli civilians. On June 6, 1982 Israel again invaded Lebanon with the objective of evicting the PLO. Israeli forces occupied Ezzat areas from the southern Lebanese border with Israel northward into areas of Beirut. Israel's plans for Lebanon suffered a severe setback on September 14, 1982, with the assassination of the Phalangist leader and President-elect Bachir Gemayel, who was regarded as secretly sympathetic to Israel. In the days following, the Phalangist militia, under the command of Elie Hobeika, moved into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, and committed the first Sabra and Shatila massacre, with the consent of the Israeli Defense Force under the direction of Ariel Sharon as the Minister of Defense, who was later found personally responsible for not avoiding the massacre by the Kahan Commission.

This is also the same time that Hezbollah was formed in order to combat the Israel occupation.

A multinational force landed in Beirut on August 20, 1982 to oversee the PLO withdrawal from Lebanon, and US mediation resulted in the evacuation of Syrian troops and PLO fighters from Beirut.

This period saw the rise of radicalism among the country's factions, and a number of landmark attacks against American forces, including the destruction of the US Embassy by a truck bomb and an even deadlier attack on the US Marines barracks.

1988 and 1989 saw unprecedented chaos. The Parliament failed to elect a successor to President Amine Gemayel (who had replaced his slain brother Bachir in 1982), whose term expired on 23 September. Fifteen minutes before his term expired, Gemayel appointed an interim administration headed by the army commander, General Michel Aoun. His predecessor, Selim al-Hoss, refused to accept his dismissal in Aoun's favour. Lebanon was thus left with no president, two rival governments that feuded for power, and more than 40 private militias.

On May 25, 2000, Israel unilaterally completed its withdrawal from the south of Lebanon in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425 of 1978. On September 2, 2004, the United Nations Security Council, recalling previous resolutions, especially 425 (1978), 520 (1982) and 1553 (July 2004), approved Resolution 1559, sponsored by the US and France. The resolution suggests that "all foreign forces should withdraw from Lebanon" to allow for free elections. Although not explicitly mentioned, the aim of the resolution was to invoke a withdrawal of Syrian forces. The enactors of the Taif agreement however did not enact the clause asking the Syrian occupation to withdraw from Lebanon, or heed the UN Security Council’s decision. The Lebanese patriotic movement has intensively lobbied for the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon since 1989 in governments throughout the western world. This withdrawal was catalyzed in its final stage by the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri in 2005.

On February 14, 2005, after 10 days of relative political stability, Lebanon was shaken by the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in a car bomb explosion. The timing of this bomb coincided with the announcement of the provisional Election results in Iraq released the previous day, in which the US backed candidate failed to win, and so may also have been timed to distract from that event.

On June 2, 2005, the journalist and historian Samir Kassir, also a founding member of the Democratic Left Movement was assassinated by a car bomb.

Less than one month later, on June 21, 2005, George Hawi, the former Secretary General of the Lebanese Communist Party was also assassinated by a car bomb in Beirut.

On September 25, 2005, there was a failed assassination attempt on a Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation news anchor, in which May Chidiac lost her left leg below the knee and received severe injuries to her left arm, later resulting in the amputation of her left hand. Since then, May Chidiac won the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize 2006.

On December 12, 2005, the journalist Gebran Tueni, editor-in-chief and CEO of the An-Nahar newspaper, was assassinated by a car bomb in the suburbs of Beirut.

The assassination of Hariri resulted in huge anti-Syrian protests by Lebanese citizens in Beirut demanding the resignation of the pro-Syrian government. Following the examples of the Rose Revolution and Orange Revolution in 2004, the popular action was dubbed the "Cedar Revolution" by the US State Department, a name which quickly caught on among the international media. On February 28, 2005, with over 70,000 people demonstrating in Martyrs' Square, Prime Minister Omar Karami and his Cabinet resigned. They remained in office temporarily in a caretaker role prior to the appointment of replacements, as outlined by the constitution.

In response, Hezbollah organized a large counter-demonstration of 1.2 million people [1], staged on March 8 in Beirut, supporting Syria and accusing Israel and the United States of meddling in internal Lebanese affairs.
On March 14, one month after Hariri's assassination, throngs of people rallied in Martyrs' Square in Lebanon with up to 1.5 million people, [2]. Protestors of all sects (even including a number of Shiites) marched demanding the truth about Hariri's murder and independence from Syrian occupation. The march reiterated their desire for a sovereign, democratic, and unified country, free of Syria's hegemony.

In the weeks following the demonstrations, bombs were detonated in Christian areas near Beirut. Although the damage was mostly material, these acts demonstrate the danger of Lebanon relapsing into sectarian strife.

Eventually, and under pressure from the international community, Syria withdrew its 15,000-strong army troops from Lebanon. The last Syrian uniformed soldier left Lebanon on April 26, 2005. On April 27, 2005, the Lebanese celebrated their first free-from-Syria day.

During the first parliamentary elections held after Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2005, the anti-Syrian coalition of Sunni Muslim, Druze and Christian parties led by Saad Hariri, son of assassinated ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, won a majority of seats in the new Parliament.
The combinations were interesting in that in some areas the anti-Syrian coalition allied with Hezbollah and others with Amal. They did not win the two-thirds majority required to force the resignation of Syrian-appointed President Lahoud voted for by Rafic Hariri parliamentary bloc, due to the unexpectedly strong showing of retired army general Michel Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement party in Mount Lebanon. Aoun is arguably the strongest Christian figure in the new parliament: known previously for his anti-Syrian sentiment, Aoun aligned with politicians who were friendly to the Syrians in the past decade: Soleiman Franjieh Jr and Michel Murr. The alliance proved temporary and the last vestiges of civility between Joumblatt, who has called for the disarmament of Hezbollah, and the Shi'ite coalition came crashing down in December 2005. On February 6, 2006, Hezbollah signed a memorandum of understanding with Michel Aoun.

Major General Jamil Sayyed, the top Syrian ally in the Lebanese security forces, resigned on April 25, 2005. The following day the last 250 Syrian troops withdrew from Lebanon.
During the departure ceremonies, Syria's Chief of Staff Gen Ali Habib said that Syria's president had decided to recall his troops after the Lebanese army had been "rebuilt on sound national foundations and became capable of protecting the state."

Give Up? I think not.

2006-08-05T15:01:00.000-07:00

I was over on another persons blog and a comment was made to me that this particular person used to have my ideals when they were "very" young. They have since grown up and gave up on the ideal. What's the ideal I have?

World peace.

Of course, that made me start to wonder...how does one give up on the ideal of world peace and why? How can someone not want world peace? Isn't that the ultimate goal? The only alternative to world peace is world fighting. For me, that doesn't seem like a very plausible solution. Fighting, wars, death. Not a very good goal for me to try and attain.

Then I started thinking about the comment "when I was young." Nothing can send me over an edge quicker then attempting to pull a pathetic level of rank based on age. If one thing will shut me up, it will be someone blaming their ideas and theories on age. Age alone does not alter your ideas or theories. Life does, experience does, maturity does. Some can gain that early on, others take a bit longer. Age has nothing to do with a persons views. How they LIVED during those years has everything to do with the views.

Will mine change as I grow older? I certainly hope so as I feel that is a very important part of the process. What I hope never happens is closing my mind to the idea that our world can live in peace. That wars will be a thing of the past and innocent people will no longer be killed because of disgreements in the political or religious spectrum.

If that ever happens, someone shoot me because it would be pretty darn obvious that I have turned jaded and ugly within. It would mean that I have learned to hate simply because I can and have figured out a way to blame someone else for my hate instead of taking credit for it myself. To assume that someone's life is worth less then mine because they happen to be living a lifestyle that I disagree with or believe in something that I disagree with.

That's not someone I ever want to become.

Alrigh, I can admit it

2006-08-03T11:54:00.000-07:00

I knew absolu-freakin-nothing about Hezbollah up until recently. You know, the whole Hezbollah (commonly and mistakenly referred to as Lebanon) verses Israel pissing match that is currently sucking up lives and airwaves everywhere. So I decided to do a bit of research and find out what exactly is Hezbollah anyway.

Here's what I found (and you can learn about it to if you dare and check out wikpedia, which is where most of my information came from)

-Islamic Shi'a Group formed around in the mid 1980's in defense of Israels previous attempt to occupy Lebanon.

-Trained by Iran with weapons provided by them as well (which I think they deny), interestingly enough...they are most likely some of the weapons stash that we sold to Iran back in 1986 (funny how illegal stuff comes to kick us in the ass as time goes on). Supported by Syria (who deny the arms link) and at one time also financially supported by Iran.

-Active in the Political process of Lebanon (currently holds seats in parliament)

- Provides many social services; collecting the garbage, running and maintaing hospitals, repairing schools, improving education and the health system, trains and assists farmers

-Main mover of supplies to area's hit during the current Israel/Lebanon conflict.

-Operates TV broadcasting from France and had their hands slapped for trying to pass off hate messages regarding the Jewish communities.

-Released a video game offering the same hate messages.

-The US insists there are ties between AQ and Hezbollah while other informants state there is no such thing and Hezbollah is very adament about denying the link exists.

-The following are suggested acts by Hezbollah (copied and pasted directly from Wikpedia for links):

1. believed by the United States and some other countries' intelligence agencies to have kidnapped and tortured to death U.S. Marine Colonel William R. Higgins and the CIA station chief in Beirut, William Francis Buckley, [93] and to have kidnapped around 30 other Westerners between 1982 and 1992, including U.S. journalist Terry Anderson, British journalist John McCarthy, the Archbishop of Canterbury's special envoy Terry Waite and Irish citizen Brian Keenan.

2. Hezbollah was accused by the US government of being responsible for the April 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 63; of being behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, a suicide truck bombing that killed 241 U.S. marines in their barracks in Beirut in October 1983; of bombing the replacement U.S. Embassy in East Beirut on September 20, 1984, killing 20 Lebanese and two U.S. soldiers; and of carrying out the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome. These accusations are denied by Hezbollah

3. The U.S. claims Hezbollah carried out two Argentine terrorist attacks in the early 1990s: the 1992 Israeli Embassy bombing in Buenos Aires, killing 29 people, and an attack two years later on a Jewish community center there, killing 85. Hezbollah denies these claims.

4. On July 26, 1994, Eight days after the community center bombing, the Israeli Embassy in London was car bombed by two Palestinians. United Kingdom, Israel and Argentina blamed Hezbollah for the attack.[100]

Interesting enough, they have also spoke out and condemned certain terrorist acts (again, cut and paste):

1. denounced and forbade some acts of terror which result in killing innocent people including "tourists, or intellectuals, doctors, or professors who have nothing to do with this war" Nasrollah said In an interview with the Washington Post [111] . For example: it condemned the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, but not the attack on the Pentagon.[112]

2. It denounced Armed Islamic Group massacres in Algeria, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya attacks on tourists in Egypt [113], and the murder of Nick Berg [114].

3. However, it expresses support and sympathy[115] for the activities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Islamist groups responsible for suicide attacks and armed resistance in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

4. The Lebanese government confirmed it as a legitimate resistance against occupation.[22][23] Also Hezbollah is regarded by the Iranian [116] and Syrian [117] and some other Islamic governments as a legitimate resistance, a view common in the Arab and Muslim world.[118][119]

Now the most interesting part is that both Hezbollah and the Lebanonese Prime Minister has asked for Israel to remove themselves from occupying the South Lebanon border which will lead to working with Hezbollah regarding thier arms issues (ie--get the guns away!).

Most countries list Hezbollah as a Resistance Movement that was put into place in order to fight the Israel Occupation of the south. This listing is because they are a strong political and social services force within Lebanon and other then what the US has accused them (with no proof and no claiming on their behalf), the negative impact that had in the early 90's is outweighed by the positive impact on the country of Lebanon at this point (right or wrong, that's the view folks--not mine...the general consensus of other countries leaders)

The following countries claim that they are terrorists; United States, Canada and Israel.

The United Kingdom, Netherlands and Australia officially list only the External Security Organization of Hezbollah (ESO) as a proscribed organisation. (left the link there cause I had to look it up too).

The European Union only lists Imad Mugniya, who heads up the internation branch.

He has a point

2006-08-03T03:59:00.000-07:00

"The push for democracy in countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia is off the table now. They can say, "look, we have our own problems just like you see in Lebanon, and we can't let [Islamic parties] win an election because we'd have the same thing that's happened there, or happened in Gaza, and you know how bad that is, so give us a little slack here."

Editor's Note: Hot Zone Senior Producer Robert Padavick spoke with Yahoo! News consultant Milt Bearden about the shifting developments in Israel News News Photos Images Web Israel's battle with Hezbollah. In a career spanning three decades, Bearden headed the CIA News News Photos Images Web CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe Division, and served as station chief in places like Pakistan and Sudan. He also ran the CIA's covert war in Afghanistan News News Photos Images Web Afghanistan from 1986-1989.

The full interview:

Has Hezbollah emerged as a victor of sorts after three weeks of fighting with Israel?

Milt Bearden says yes. And he's in a good position to address the question. Now retired, he serves on the board of directors of Conflicts Forum, a U.K.-based nongovernmental organization that works to foster dialogue between Islamist groups and the West. In that role he says he has been in talks with Hezbollah officials about the group's transition to a more politically-focused party, both before and after the 2005 Lebanese elections in which Hezbollah won 14 parliament seats nationwide.

Milt Bearden
Hezbollah, Bearden says, has begun to look a bit like an overmatched boxer who has stood up to 15 rounds of pounding and made it to the closing bell without being knocked out — like the movie character Rocky.

"In the movie," Bearden says, "Rocky lost. But nobody believes that. All you have to do is go the distance. And the reality here is that, I think you're going to see Hezbollah has gone the distance."

Bearden dismisses the idea of knocking out Hezbollah through military activity. "The concept of dismantling or eliminating Hezbollah is fatally flawed from the very start. Hezbollah is an organic part of that 40 percent of the Lebanese population that is Shia."

And with Hezbollah still standing, he says, a new power dynamic has emerged. "There's nothing to compare with the Israeli Defense Force in the Mideast," he says, but Hezbollah's persistence through weeks of air strikes has shown the limits of Israel's strength. "We talk about 20 Hezbollah fighters killed today, or whatever the new numbers are. That's nothing. There are 500 that will pick up the weapons behind them now."

"In the Middle East," Bearden says, "the winners and losers are never who you might think they are."

I asked Bearden about Hezbollah's possible role at the bargaining table.

"They've got a lot of very smart people. These are not a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics," he says.
"But they've always been willing to try to broaden the dialogue quietly. In the last year I've been in many hours of meetings with some of them, to where I can guarantee you that they would have welcomed a quiet dialogue with the United States, and they have repeatedly said they have no great quarrel with the United States."

But in the West, Hezbollah is widely labeled a terrorist organization. It has been responsible for numerous attacks against Israel, including the incident that sparked the latest conflict, as well as the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, which left 241 servicemen dead.As Israel ramps up its ground offensive against Hezbollah amid faltering diplomatic efforts for a resolution to the crisis, I also discussed with Bearden the implications of a rapidly evolving landscape in the Mideast. Below are excerpts of our conversation.

PADAVICK: Why do you think the Bush administration is so resistant to joining the international chorus here, and calling for an immediate cease-fire as a first step, and then working from there?

Fierce ground fighting and Israeli air strikes destroyed Bint Jbail

BEARDEN: Well I think they're going to have to get closer to that. But I think they still believe what (Israeli Prime Minister) Olmert is telling them, "Just give us two more days, five more days, 10 more days ... and we'll have this thing cleared up and we'll be okay."

PADAVICK: To push that point, to what extent do you think that is backfiring, or at least creating a unity on the Arab street that we haven't seen before? You have even al-Qaida seemingly joining the cause here and uniting behind Hezbollah.

BEARDEN: The costs will get down into the grass with this, on cooperation with everything, from counterterrorism to energy. The U.S. used to have the red flag. In every other conflict, it would go for a while, and if we waved the red flag, I guarantee you, the thing stopped.

But now we're the ones that are in lockstep [with Israel] ... and this is not even good for Israel. It must come as a shock to the cooler heads in Israel that we weren't there as some sort of restraint. And giving that up can't be good for Israel, because now they have exposed one thing that they never wanted to expose, and that is that invincible military prowess is a myth, no matter whether it's Israel or the U.S.

PADAVICK: A very important issue obviously is how Iran News News Photos Images Web Iran is looking to emerge from this.

BEARDEN: They haven't been hurt at all. First off, Hezbollah is the current darling of everybody in the Middle East, and even the Sunni-Shia thing is put aside from that, mainly because of what they've accomplished by not being destroyed. And if you step back and look at a larger piece of the Middle East, the Iranians must wake up every morning and say, "What's the catch?"
Think about it. They've got a Shia south of Iraq News News Photos Images Web Iraq.

They've got the Shia that could emerge as the dominant force in Lebanon. They've got the Americans bogged down forever doing the Shias' heavy lifting in the Sunni areas of Iraq. Kurdistan is independent already in [northern Iraq]. And we've got ourselves a narco-state war in Afghanistan that goes on without end. What would you say? You'd say, "What's the catch?"

PADAVICK: How do you see this affecting the broad swath of U.S. Middle East policy?

BEARDEN: I think we've probably given up any possible role as honest broker, even though there's no one to replace us ... The concept of a tsunami of democracy (in the Middle East) is done for. I think that's ended, particularly when the world realizes that the first two democratically elected entities — Hamas and Hezbollah — that we have been providing the weaponry to take them down.

The push for democracy in countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia is off the table now. They can say, "look, we have our own problems just like you see in Lebanon, and we can't let [Islamic parties] win an election because we'd have the same thing that's happened there, or happened in Gaza, and you know how bad that is, so give us a little slack here."

How a war should be fought

2006-08-02T03:58:00.000-07:00

Minimal civilian death and maximum soldier containment/death.

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hizbollah guerrillas battled up to 6,000 Israeli troops on five fronts in south Lebanon on Wednesday, escalating a conflict which Israel News News Photos Images Web Israel's prime minister vowed to pursue until a strong international force arrived.

Israeli commandos snatched suspected Hizbollah members from Lebanon's ancient city of Baalbek in a helicopter-borne night raid backed by air strikes that killed 19 people, including four children.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Reuters in an interview the army would keep fighting Hizbollah in south Lebanon until peacekeepers arrived.

Olmert said he wanted the international force to be mandated to enforce a U.N. resolution calling for Hizbollah to be disarmed, adding that Israel had already destroyed much of the Shi'ite Islamist group's military capacity.
"If indeed, as we hope, the international force will be an effective force made of combat units, then we will be able to stop fire when the international force will be on the ground in the south part of Lebanon," Olmert said.
Asked if that meant Israel would carry on fighting until then, he said: "Yes."

Israel is seeking to damage Hizbollah as much as it can before diplomacy ends the war. U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice News News Photos Images Web Condoleezza Rice said a ceasefire could be reached within dayss.

But the U.N. Security Council News News Photos Images Web U.N. Security Council has yet to agree on a mandate for any international force and a French diplomatic source said France would not attend a meeting of potential troop contributors at the United Nations News News Photos Images Web United Nations in New York on Thursday.

France has been touted to lead the force, but it wants a truce and an agreement on a framework for a permanent ceasefire before any troops deploy. That is at odds with the U.S.-Israeli view that the ceasefire can wait until the force moves in.

MIXED SIGNALS

Israel has sent mixed signals on the duration and scale of its offensive in Lebanon, but it already has sent thousands of troops across the border to tackle Hizbollah guerrillas.
Lebanese security sources reported fierce battles on five fronts in the south on Wednesday. Israeli artillery fire pounded frontier villages as tank-led forces pushed in. Guerrillas were firing back mortars, anti-tank rockets and machineguns.

Hizbollah said it had destroyed four tanks and a military bulldozer. The Israeli army had no immediate comment.

Three Lebanese army soldiers were also killed in a separate Israeli air strike in south Lebanon, security sources said.

The latest violence shattered a partial lull in Israeli bombing and erupted despite international diplomacy aimed at halting the three-week-old war in which at least 646 people in Lebanon and 54 Israelis have been killed.

More than 70 Hizbollah rockets fell on northern Israel, slightly wounding one person. The barrage marked a sharp increase in attacks after a two-day lull.

Fighting raged for four hours around Baalbek in eastern Lebanon after the Israelis landed near a previously evacuated Hizbollah-run hospital, supported by helicopters firing missiles and heavy machineguns.
The Israeli army said commandos seized five suspected Hizbollah militants before returning safely to base. Hizbollah denied any of its militants were taken.

HELICOPTER-BOURNE ASSAULT

It was the first helicopter-borne assault deep inside Lebanon in the conflict that flared after Hizbollah guerrillas captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12.
At least 13 civilians were killed when Israeli warplanes hit Jammaliyeh, a village near Baalbek, where five family members were found in the rubble of their house, security sources said. Another family of five died in a strike on the village of Saath.

One motorist was killed by a strike in Hermel to the north.
After the Israeli commandos left, air strikes destroyed the three-storey al-Hikmah hospital.
The raid on Baalbek, 100 km (60 miles) inside Lebanon, followed the expiry of a 48-hour bombing pause agreed by Israel under U.S. pressure after an air strike killed 54 civilians, including 37 children, in the southern village of Qana.

Israeli aircraft also wrecked at least three bridges in the northern tip of the Bekaa and in northern Lebanon.
Israel's deputy chief of army staff, Major-General Moshe Kaplinsky, told The Jerusalem Post the army was now working to a plan in which troops would push to the Litani river, some 20 km (13 miles) from the border with Israel, but could go beyond it.

Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, was due in Beirut on Wednesday with humanitarian aid, diplomats said. He also plans to travel to Damascus. The foreign ministers of Jordan and Egypt also arrived in Beirut.

Why the citizens of lebanon did not ALL flee

2006-08-01T04:48:00.000-07:00

As I stated to AuntieD on her comment section, there are so many reasons as to why the children were not removed from the towns prior to the bombing.

She asked about Qana and without saying so...felt the men left them there to die unprotected. Yes, in a way they did. Just like American men would leave their women and children at home and fight for what they believed as right..many of the lebanese men ALSO moved their women and children to safe keeping (Qana) so they could go fight for what they believe in.

Israel bombed Qana because they "thought" Hezbollah was firing from there. They weren't. Just like the conflict back on April 18, 1996 when Israel did bombed the same place and over 100 Lebanonese who sought safe-keeping were murdered. Qana is the holding ground for the United Nations Compound where many of those women and children were sleeping. They thought they were safe. They were wrong.

Israel has apologized for the deaths of all those women and children who thought they were in a safe zone AND sleeping in basements to further protect themselves in case a mistake happened. Apparently, the UN is going to look into how and why Qana and it's occupants were destroyed.

This is the first time this happened:

UN Report on Israel's Bombing of the United Nations Compound at Qana, Lebanon
Annex
Addendum
Map SECURITY COUNCIL
DISTR. GENERAL
S/1996/337 7 MAY 1996
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
LETTER DATED 7 MAY 1996 FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL
I have the honour to transmit to members of the Security Council the report submitted to me by my Military Adviser, Major-General Franklin van Kappen, following his mission to Lebanon and Israel. My decision to send the mission was taken in the light of the tragic events that took place at Qana on 18 April 1996, in which more than 100 Lebanese civilians were killed in the headquarters of the Fijian battalion of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

Members of the Council will note that the mission sought to establish, to the extent possible, the facts surrounding those events. General van Kappen had extensive discussions with UNIFIL commanders, Lebanese and Israeli authorities, and eyewitnesses. As indicated in the report, while the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, the pattern of impacts in the Qana area makes it unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of technical and/or procedural errors. For their part, the Israel Defence Forces maintain that the incident was due to a sequence of operational mistakes and technical failures, compounded by chance.

I view with utmost gravity the shelling of the Fijian position, as I would hostilities directed against any United Nations peace-keeping position. But this incident is all the more serious because civilians, including women and children, had sought refuge in the United Nations compound at Qana.

I welcome the cease-fire agreement announced on 26 April 1996, and it is my earnest hope that the restoration of calm in the area will enhance the prospects for negotiations leading to a comprehensive peace settlement which would preclude further tragic events. In the meantime, I have instructed the Force Commander of UNIFIL, Major-General Stanislaw Wozniak, to enhance cooperation with the Government of Lebanon and the Lebanese Armed Forces in maintaining peace and stability in UNIFIL's area of operation. I have also given instructions for arrangements to be worked out with the Israeli authorities to see to it that United Nations positions in Lebanon are not fired upon in the future.

It remains of the greatest importance that the parties to this conflict should ensure that innocent civilians do not become victims of the hostilities.

In view of the seriousness of the events at Qana, I have decided to transmit the report to the Security Council.

Following the tragedy at Qana, the ceasefire was initiatied:

TEXT OF CEASE-FIRE UNDERSTANDING

Following is the text of the "understanding" reached on Friday, April 26, 1996, for the cease-fire in Lebanon:
The United States understands that after discussions with the governments of Israel and Lebanon, and in consultation with Syria, Lebanon and Israel will ensure the following:

Armed groups in Lebanon will not carry out attacks by Katyusha rockets or by any kind of weapon into Israel.
Israel and those cooperating with it will not fire any kind of weapon at civlians or civilian targets in Lebanon.
Beyond this, the two parties commit to ensuring that under no circumstances will civilians be the target of attack and that civilian populated areas and industrial and electrical installations will not be used as launching grounds for attacks.

Without violating this understanding, nothing herein shall preclude any party from exercising the right of self-defense.

A Monitoring Group is stablished consisting of the United States, France, Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Its task will be to monitor the application of the understanding stated above. Complaints will be submitted to the Monitoring Group.

In the event of a claimed violation of the understanding, the party submitting the complaint will do so within 24 hours. Procedures for dealing with the complaints will be set by the Monitoring Group.
The United States will also organize a Consultative Group, to consist of France, the European Union, Russia and other interested parties, for the purpose of assisting in the reconstruction needs of Lebanon.

It is recognized that the understanding to bring the current crisis between Lebanon and Israel to an end cannot substitute for a permanent solution. The United States understands the importance of achieving a comprehensive peace in the region.

Toward this end, the United States proposes the resumption of negotiations between Syria and Israel and between Lebanon and Israel at a time to be agreed upon, with the objective of reaching comprehensive peace.
The United states understands that it is desirable that these negotiations be conducted in a climate of stability and tranquility.

This understanding will be announced simultaneously at 1800 hours, April 26, 1996, in all countries concerned.

The time set for implementation is 0400 hours, April 27, 1996.

Bush's real thoughts on the Lebanonese Crisis

2006-07-31T04:33:00.000-07:00

Transcript: Bush and Blair's unguarded chat

The conversation A transcript of the off-the-cuff conversation between US President George W Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair during a break at the G8 conference in Russia.
The president was caught on tape using an expletive as he described the actions of Hezbollah in attacking Israel.

They also discussed the exchange of gifts.

Bush: Yo, Blair. How are you doing?

Blair: I'm just...

Bush: You're leaving?

Blair: No, no, no not yet. On this trade thingy...[indistinct]

Bush: Yeah, I told that to the man.

Blair: Are you planning to say that here or not?

Bush: If you want me to.

Blair: Well, it's just that if the discussion arises...

Bush: I just want some movement.

Blair: Yeah.

Bush: Yesterday we didn't see much movement..

Blair: No, no, it may be that it's not, it may be that it's impossible.

Bush: I am prepared to say it.

Blair: But it's just I think that we need to be an opposition...

Bush: Who is introducing the trade?

Blair: Angela [Merkel, the German Chancellor]

Bush: Tell her to call 'em.

Blair: Yes

Bush: Tell her to put him on, them on the spot. Thanks for the sweater - it's awfully thoughtful of you.

Blair: It's a pleasure.

Bush: I know you picked it out yourself.

Blair: Oh absolutely - in fact I knitted it!!!
(laughter)

Bush: What about Kofi? [Annan] - he seems all right. I don't like his ceasefire plan. His attitude is basically ceasefire and everything sorts out.... But I think...

Blair: Yeah, no I think the [indistinct] is really difficult. We can't stop this unless you get this international business agreed.

Bush: Yeah.

Blair: I don't know what you guys have talked about, but as I say I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is, but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral.

Bush: I think Condi [US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice] is going to go pretty soon.

Blair: But that's, that's, that's all that matters. But if you... you see it will take some time to get that together.

Bush: Yeah, yeah.

Blair: But at least it gives people...

Bush: It's a process, I agree. I told her your offer to...

Blair: Well... it's only if I mean... you know. If she's got a..., or if she needs the ground prepared as it were... Because obviously if she goes out she's got to succeed, if it were, whereas I can go out and just talk.

Bush: You see the irony is what they need to do is get Syria, to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's all over...

Blair: [indistinct]

Bush: [indistinct]

Blair: Dunno... Syria....

Bush: Why?

Blair: Because I think this is all part of the same thing...

Bush: (with mouth full of bread) Yeah

Blair: Look - what does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine. If you get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way

Bush: Yeah, yeah, he is struggling.

Blair: He's had it. And that's what the whole thing is about. It's the same with Iraq.

Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Assad and make something happen.

Blair: Yeah

Bush: [indistinct]

Blair: [indistinct]

Bush: We are not blaming the Lebanese government.

Blair: Is this...? [Blair taps the microphone in front of him and the sound is cut.]

Before it gets lost in the shuffle

2006-07-30T14:00:00.000-07:00

CAIR Condemns Attack on Seattle Jewish Center

Group Says Mideast Conflict Must Not Be 'Transplanted' To America
WASHINGTON, July 29 /PRNewswire/ -- The Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) today condemned an attack on a Jewish community center in
Seattle, Wash., that left one person dead and several more injured. (A
statement signed by representatives of the Seattle Muslim community,
including CAIR-Seattle, is attached below.)

A lone gunman who reportedly said, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at
Israel," entered the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle and began
shooting. The alleged gunman was later arrested.

In a statement, the Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy
group said:

"We condemn this senseless attack on a religious institution and offer
sincere condolences to the loved ones of those killed or injured. The
American Muslim and Jewish communities must do whatever is within their
power to prevent the current conflict in the Middle East from being
transplanted to this country. We also urge local, state and national law
enforcement authorities to step up security measures at synagogues, mosques
and other religious institutions of both faiths."
CAIR, America's largest Muslim civil liberties group, has 32 offices,
chapters and affiliates nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance
the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties,
empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and
mutual understanding.

STATEMENT BY SEATTLE MUSLIM COMMUNITY

The Muslim community of the Greater Seattle area watched in horror as
news broke of a shooting at the Jewish Federation building. While many of
the details of this shooting remain to be determined, what is clear is that
a senseless and ruthless act of violence has taken place and resulted in
the loss of at least one life.
We categorically condemn this and any similar acts of violence. We pray
for the safety and health of those injured and offer our heartfelt
condolences to the family of the victims of this attack. We also hope that
the perpetrator of this crime is brought to justice.
There is no room for such acts of violence in our city and community.
When one of us is attacked, none of us are safe. We refuse to see the
violence in the Middle East spill over to our cities and neighborhoods.
We reject and categorically condemn any attacks against the Jewish
community and stand in solidarity with the Jewish Federation in this
tragedy.

Statement issued by:
Council on American-Islamic Relations, Seattle
Contact: Rami Al-Kabra, 206-349-5995, roalka00@yahoo.com
Ithna-Ashari Muslim Association of the Northwest
Contact: Jawad Khaki, iman@iman-wa.org
Muslim Association of Puget Sound
Contact: Mahmood Khadeer, mhkhadee@hotmail.com
Islamic Educational Center of Seattle
Contact: Hamid Afsari, ershad@ershad.org
American Muslims of Puget Sound
Contact: Jeff Siddiqui, jeffsiddiqui@msn.com
Arab American Community Coalition
Contact: Ibrahim Al-Husseini, info@aacc.org
Islamic Center of Tri-Cities
Contact: Dr. Mahmoud Al-Hawamdeh, nullah@gmail.com
CONTACT: CAIR-Seattle President Arsalan Bukhari, 206-384-1565; Rami
Al-Kabra, 206-349-5995; CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim
Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair-net.org

Wanted: Real Peace, not that fake stuff

2006-07-28T04:36:00.000-07:00

If Israel is only bombing Lebanon because Hizbollah (or is that Hezbollah..it's mixed in the news) happens to be hanging out there and the goal is to take out Hizbollah...due to some kidnappings and threats to Israel, then why does the death toll look like such:

Israel documents 51 deaths with less then half being civilians.

Lebanon documents 456 with Israel claiming 200 of them Hizbollah and Shiite guerrilla's stating only knowing of 31 Hizbollahs dyeing in the attacks.

Palestine documents 30 killed during an attack by Israel (same reasoning for attacking Lebanon) with half of them being citizens.

Then, there is President Bush dragging his butt and not going with so many other countries that want a cease fire and stating he wants an early end to the violence, but not a fake peace. Ok...whatever the hell that means. Let's just wait for more innocent civilians to die so real peace can be established. It might take oh...another couple of centuries (cause it ain't like this hasn't been going on forever) but that's ok. We will wait for real peace. So what if children are getting their heads blown off and their limbs forever removed. So what if the infastructure of Lebanon is pretty much non-existent in certain areas at this point. Palestine's apparently also at risk now as well--but we are sending them weapons or at least Bush wants to...so they'll be just dandy...we'll just hold out for some..you know... Real Peace when it comes to Lebanon.

I don't think I'm too confused on this...usually in war, unless you have some sort of dictator who gets a thrill out of murdering civilians simply because he can and is having a bad day...death reports should run higher on troops from either end then any civilian death. That, to me, is just common sense. You have troops, they are fighting, some will die. Got that. Understood. However, currently we are sitting on more then HALF of the deaths as civilians with the much higher count being Lebanon. Yes, civilians die in war. I get that, accept it and although it breaks my heart, understand it.

Here's the kicker, if Lebanon had the ability (as Israel states they do or should I say did) to wipe out Israel, why is Israel's death list so low. 51 is not a very high number and less then half is civilians (which is also children and that hurts as well). One would think that if Lebanon were that much of a threat, they would have come out bombs blazing, guns firing and destruction on Israel would have ensued after the first attack Israel placed on Lebanon. That didn't happen though. Lebanon flees and fires back whenever they can and basically sits and watches their world get destroyed around them while picking half bodies of children up off the street because they had the unfortunate luck of not being able to get out (damn those parents anyway for not running when they had the chance...gotta love that mentality, especially coming from people sitting in the comforts of their own home and not worrying about getting their ass blasted to no-where at any given second of the day). Where is this threat that Israel claims Lebanon has? Why isn't Israel showing a higher count? Is it because they are winning or is it because they are winning AND Lebanon wasn't that much of a threat to Israel as a whole to begin with?

And why won't we jump on board asking for a ceasefire with other nations?

Oh-yeah...we want real peace. Keep forgetting that part. Deaths of civilians are ok until such time as real peace is established.

What the Heck?

2006-07-27T15:46:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A handful of U.S. lawmakers have launched an 11th-hour attempt to block the sale of U.S.-made F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan but have garnered little immediate support.

Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Ed Markey introduced a bill on Thursday to bar the sale unless
President George W. Bush News News Photos Images Web President George W. Bush certifies that Pakistan has stopped building a big, newly-reported, plutonium-production reactor.

Markey, co-chair of a bipartisan task force on curbing the spread of nuclear arms, acted just before the end of a 30-day window, during which Congress has statutory power to block the proposed arms sale.
He said the F-16s were capable of delivering nuclear weapons "and if this arms sale goes through, we will only be putting additional fuel on the fire of an Indian-Pakistan nuclear arms race."
Barring a resolution of disapproval in both houses of Congress by this weekend, Bush will have the authority to go ahead with the supply to Pakistan of up to 36 Lockheed Martin Corp. F-16C/D models and related gear worth up to $5.1 billion if all options are exercised.

Congress would still have the power to pass laws to block the sale "up to the point of delivery," which could be years away, said Richard Grimmett, an arms expert at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
News News Photos Images Web Israel Klein, a Markey spokesman, said: "We believe there's still an opportunity for Congress to weigh in and block the sale."

New York Democrat Rep. Gary Ackerman (news, bio, voting record), co-chair of a congressional caucus on India, has also introduced legislation to prohibit the F-16 sale. He said in a statement he feared technology leakage to China among other risks. Ackerman has collected five co-sponsors -- four Democrats and Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, said Jordan Goldes, an Ackerman spokesman.

A spokesman for Senate Foreign Relations Committee News News Photos Images Web Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar said he had not heard of any resolution of disapproval introduced in the Senate.

The White House acknowledged on Monday that the U.S. government had long known of the Pakistani heavy-water reactor project that might produce enough plutonium for 50 bombs a year. It said it was working to dissuade Pakistan from using the plant to expand its nuclear arsenal.

Color me confused but why in the world would we sell arms to an area that is already inflicted with war? Not to mention a country that has the ability to use the weapons in conjunction with an already established nuclear arsenal?

Ok, so there is one thing that Bush did right

2006-07-27T13:17:00.000-07:00

I am sure I can come up with more if I took the effort:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush News Photos Images Web' President George W. Bush on Thursday signed legislation that will establish a national sex offender registry and try to make it harder for sexual predators to reach children on the Internet.

The legislation, called the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, is named for Adam Walsh, a 6-year-old boy who was abducted 25 years ago on July 27, 1981, and eventually killed.
The boy's death prompted his father, John Walsh, to lead a long effort to seek greater protections against violence crime. He became host of "America's Most Wanted," a television show aimed at catching criminals.
"The bill I sign today will strengthen federal laws to protect our children from sexual and other violent crimes, will help prevent child pornography, and will make the Internet safer for our sons and daughters," Bush said in signing the new law in the White House Rose Garden.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children estimates that there are more than 560,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. About 100,000 are not registered or do not have up-to-date registrations.
The legislation will create a national sex offender registry, available to the public, to plug gaps in existing state systems and community notification requirements.

An offender who does not keep his registration up to date in any state in which he lives, works or attends school could face felony charges and up to 10 years in prison.
It will also create a registry for substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect to help law enforcement and child protective services.

Addressing concern about Internet predators and online pornography, the bill establishes education grants, and provides for 200 new federal prosecutors and 45 new computer forensic scientists to work on such crimes.

It's about time!

Blogging, Reading and Thinking

2006-07-25T14:52:00.000-07:00

Of course that just leads to a jumbled mess in my brain. Good luck trying to decipher any of this, but here goes anyway:

I've been reading newsclips and blogs the past two days regarding the Lebanon/Israel attacks. There is definitely two camps, both that are very vocal. Those who state that Lebanon needs to deal with it and those who state Israel needs to stop it. There is a third camp and that consists of a small minority that states they are both wrong and both should stop their antics. I'm not sure which camp I am in, other then the camp that says that civilians from both sides have died for no reason at all. Innocent children that could not escape. That is never right. I don't care what side your on, when children are caught in the crossfire, your heart should hurt.

Then I also started to pay very close attention to how Americans, in general, feel about Muslims. They claim that if the Muslims who are against the Radicals would just stand up and denounce the radicals, all would be well. There would be no harsh feelings. I wonder if that is true. There have been plenty of Muslims who HAVE stood up and denounced and they were ignored. Then I wonder if more did stand up, would they still be alive? Would we (collectively) help them out on the street when they were attacked? We don't exactly run and assist when a Mosque is blown up. So why would a Muslim put themselves out there with no guarantee of safety? I have read a lot that Muslims, all Muslims are evil. Not just the radical Muslims who have taken the religion to a whole new level, but ALL Muslims are not worthy. That includes children, grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles...every single one of them should be dead because the world would be better off. I just can't make myself go there. I refuse to believe that a fraction of people within a larger group speaks for all, even if the larger group no longer speaks out.

Why is that? Because past history tells me that isn't the case. Past history tells me that one small portion does not make a whole. Remember when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and America went a bit crazy with their own special form of Japanese Concentration Camps here in the US (I don't remember...I wasn't even alive...but it's our history, so I learned about it). Come to find out that the majority of the Japanese here were of no threat to us. No, they were not speaking out because they KNEW no-one would listen. They were right, we were to busy throwing them into a camps and containing them for safety purposes.

Past history also tells me that not all of Germany hailed Hitler, but could not speak out for fear of death. On that note, not all of those who were "associated" with Hitler through faith agreed with what he was doing or where he wanted the world to go.

So if not all who were "associated" with past terrorist's threats and not all who lived in the area's affected the most from past theorist's threats did not agree with the way things were going AND if it is true that history repeats itself.....why would I agree to call out in favor of an entire group of people to be wiped off the face of the planet? Why would I side with one over another when I am not really sure which is right or which is wrong?

Wouldn't that make me just like those who are trying to wipe ME out? How does that make ME better then THEM? Wouldn't I be the terrorist then for wanting their entire being taken off the face of the earth?

Is war really worth it?

2006-07-24T15:22:00.000-07:00

This is extremely graphic (and I do mean that seriously). If you have a weak stomach or do not wish to see children who suffer because of war...do NOT look.

to make it a bit more difficult, I am not creating a link. You will need to copy and paste this information into your browser in order to follow it to the correct page. I am doing this to protect those who truely cannot or do not want to see from accidently clicking on it.

The link makes me realize that war is never good. Insisting people deserve to die is never the answer.

Pray for peace, pray for the innocents who are caught up in the tragedy.

http://www.correntewire.com/snowflakes_from_faraway_lands

Sigh

2006-07-24T15:02:00.000-07:00

It's definitely beyond the power of understanding:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5573752

(forwarned that the link holds graphic material.)

I would like to thank Quaker Agitor (who will appear in my links some point soon) for bringing this forward.

2006-07-21T11:13:00.000-07:00

I was reading a blog about the number of deaths in Iraq during one particular month (January) and this is what was listed:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq. When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, note the following.

I just thought I would put a bit of overall perspective into the total of deaths and wounded of our Soldiers in Iraq and also point out that although Saddam was a threat to his own country, Bush was seriously mislead or ignored reports that he was no threat to US directly. It has been proven that Saddam had no ties with the Taliban, Al Qaeda or the bombings of 911 with no terrorist's movement on the horizon towards our country:

There have been 2,782 coalition deaths, 2,556 Americans, two Australians, 114 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, three Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 31 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, two Romanians, two Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of July 20, 2006, according to a CNN count. (Graphical breakdown of casualties). The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose deaths have been reported by their country's governments. The list also includes seven employees of the U.S. Defense Department. At least 18,988 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon. View casualties in the war in Afghanistan and examine U.S. war casualties dating back to the Revolutionary War.

Those numbers are nowhere near the deaths and wounded our country felt during previous wars, but they are still pretty high considering the constant questioning as to whether or not we should even be there. My personal opinion is that we should have stuck with Afghanistan. Taken out The Taliban, taken out Al Qaeda and went after Bin Laden instead of hitting on Iraq. Saddam could have been taken care of with a good marksmen of the special forces (please don't tell me he wasn't in their crosshairs several times over) and the concentration could have remained on the real threat.

As it sits, Bin Laden is still running loose, we celebrate getting the second, third or fifth in command when there are ten guys for every one waiting on the sidelines to fill the shoes. We celebrate that there have been no attacks on US soil but forget there have been elsewhere (bombing of Londons underground subway system to refresh the memories). And yet, our biggest threat(s) remain at large because we went off task.

As much as I do not like our President and feel that he has made some bad choices, I have to believe that misinformation led our President to do what he did and I know that the majority of the country was behind him when he decided to invade Iraq. I simply cannot believe (although it would be very easy to) that any President would lead our nation into a war without just cause. I also know that his standing has drastically fallen once the truth and reality started to sink in. There were no nuclear weapons, there was no link with terrorist attacks and it was just a dictator that was not a current overall threat compared to the real threat that is still at large.

American's also started to realize that his original plan to take out Saddam and then go about our merry way was not going to happen. Again, I think even the President was misguided on how long this war would really last. War is ugly and war means death, long hard years of fighting and now no-one really knows what we are fighting for. The war on terror has hit the sidelines and except for a few blurbs here and there we have forgotten who did attack us, kill our people needlessly and they go on planning the next attack on our country as well as others.

Do I think a liberal could have done a better job? I don't know. Would a liberal had waited for a UN council or to see what other information might have surfaced? I don't know. Would they have done the same thing as our President did? I don't know.

To state that they WOULD have, without a shadow of a doubt is downright impossible. That would take great talent to re-wind history, put someone new in the Presidency, see how it plays out and then rewind it again so nobody else knows but the person who did the re-winding. Dang, that would be one talented individual and too bad they didn't share that information back when the President was going through the daunting task of deciding what to do. This person could have cleared up all the questions in a matter of a few sentences and we would have known exactly what Saddam had planned, we would have known exactly where the war on Iraq would lead and best of all, we would have known before hand that Bin Laden was planning to highjack a few of our airliners, kill thousands of people for no reason and the best part? We could have put a stop to it before it even happened.

Alas...I know of no such person. But what an amazing concept!

Now can we please remember WHO attacked us so we can get down to business fighting THEM so our country is TRUELY protected from harm? Because until AQ is pulled out and put in front of a firing line, the threat remains.

Gay Pride and children

2006-07-19T12:03:00.000-07:00

I was reading a blog about the Gay Pride parades around our nation and only two things stood out that made me question a few things. Not so oddly, the gay part wasn't one of them.

For the record, I have never gone to a Gay Pride parade. Never had the urge because I always figured it was just a way for a whole bunch of people to get together and do crazy things under the guise of "standing together for their rights." In all honesty, I find the concept a joke because it is about as flamboyant as they come and in my personal opinion, does not do much for the Gay Rights movement. Another thing I need to clarify (just in case someone is confused and has not read my profile), I am a heterosexual woman so I pretty much felt that the Gay Pride Parades were not for me anyway.

The first question that was raised was if I, a heterosexual woman from the Northeast knows that Gay Pride parades are simply flamboyant show-it-alls-and-anything-goes WHY in the world would ANYONE take their children to one? What in the world are these people thinking? It's rather hard for me to understand where any parent gets off complaining that they had to leave with their children because condoms for safe anal sex were being handed out. They should not have had their children attending the parade to begin with and shame on them for even doing so. It reminds me of parents over in Europe that complained about a concert Pink had where they had to leave because she was being sexual graphic on stage. I would have to think these parents are either pretty clueless as to the type of music she sings or seriously thought she was some sort of Teen Bop Idol because of "Let's get the Party Started." Parents really need to do a bit of their own research and stop complaining because they decide to walk blindly into something. Nobody forced them to take thier children, that was thier own stupidity. Blame them, not the parade participants. It's not like these parades are some sort of secret until the day off. Advertisements go out, flyers are placed on windows, radio announcements are made. Roads are blocked off and it's pretty dang obvious once the first drag queen shows up what the parade is going to be all about. It does baffle my brain a bit that parents would take a child to witness the sort of spectacle and then complain because they had to leave as it was too much for their children to handle.

The other question that comes to mind is where in the world do homosexuals figure they are going to be taken seriously by labeling a parade "pride" that involves handing out safe sex condoms and wearing drag? Nobody is going to take that crap seriously, just like few people take pro-lifers who fling cow patties at patrons of abortion clinics. All the theatrics do is hurt their cause and set them back. It gives the opposing party yet one more link in the chain to claim lack of morals and they actually have proof that the morals are lacking.

Look, I have no issue with marches or parades for any particular cause. It's a surefire way to get attention from the media and to get your point across. The key thing is to take it seriously and not act like it's a big freak show carnival circus where anything goes.

If you want to have a circus, rent a tent and have at it. Charge a bit of admission and make a couple of bucks. If you want to show pride in who or what you and help others realize you are also human deserving of rights then gather together for a march or get a band and some floats with statistics and have a parade.

Stem Cell Research

2006-07-19T05:26:00.000-07:00

Many different sides and I always wonder who is right. I have my opinions, but sometimes they are a bit wobbly.

The embryo's used for stem cell research are living entities that could become humans if they had been given the chance. However, they are not given the chance and are destined to land in the garbage heap. They are from fertility clinics that the parents no longer want or need. By allowing scientists to use the embryo's, they may find a cure for so many different illness's and diseases that take lives every single day. My own daughter might be cured instead of living life wondering when her disease is going to rear it's ugly head again. Autism might be cured someday. Maybe paralysis. They would be able to research alzhiemers and stop it. Diabetes and so many other infliction that take a life on a constant basis. Shouldn't these embryo's have a chance to be something and do something good even if they can't be what they are supposed to be?

Many people feel that because they could be human, they should not be used in any sort of research and they are better off in the trash. Some feel that research done on animals is perfectly acceptable because they are not human. I wonder about that too. Isn't all creatures made by God? So why is it acceptable to torture a fully developed being based on it not being a human, but not acceptable to torture an embryo that never had a chance to develop into a human at all? Because that is what it comes right down to, torture in order to do research. I can't imagine the testing being pleasant or pain free.

The thought process surrounding stem cell research is a very difficult one. You have to harm a living entity in order to save a breathing human. Is it better to let millions of breathing humans die from various infliction as well as a the living entity and end the research until scientist can find a way to research without using humans? Is it better to use animals, which are also God's creatures and sleep well at night because a human is not being used? Is it better to allow some living entities to be killed in order to save million of human beings?

I wish I had a firm answer. One one hand I say save the breathing people. On the other hand, all things are created by God and we are all meant to die someday. Then I stop and realize that if God didn't want us to do these sort of things, he would not have given us the capability to learn.

It's tough.

Christians versus Islamic

2006-07-08T04:13:00.000-07:00

Maybe I have this totally wrong, but I see something in common with the two and only one has accomplished it so far.

Both want the world to be ruled by their values, beliefs and morals. Only Islamics have been able to get at least a country or two that requires a person to be Islamic and follow the religion and utilize the beliefs as a rule maker. They haven't been able to spread to the rest of the world yet because they have a fierce contender. The Christians, who although haven't been totally able to rule a country with laws established through their faith, keep on trying.

On a few blogs and boards I read, there is much talk about laws in America being established on behalf of Christian beliefs. They believe in God and Jesus and all else is wrong, so therefore the laws need to revolve around their beliefs because that is what God wanted and Jesus preached about.

Maybe I am looking at this totally wrong, but isn't that just as bad as what they despise the most? Islamic Religion?

When Christianity was "established" as a religion, they used to persecute anyone who believed differently. To a certain degree, that carried on through the centuries and into the New World (America). They had Witch hunts out of fear, they pushed the Mormons out of our country (which is now known as Utah), murdering children, mothers and fathers. All in the name of God. Slowly, Christianity (like most religions) have become a more peaceful religion and they no longer hunt and seek anyone different and string up with a noose or shoot them in the back as they are running with their babies.

Islamics still continue with the death sentances and still have blood on their hands in the name of Allah. There are countries that are run completely from one religion, laws are established on behalf of furthing that religion and believing in anything else is equal to death by fire squad. They have not tolerance for other religions and for some areas within those countries, if your caught with a bible, you might be signing your death sentance. Certain areas of Islamic power holds that anything other then the laws established through their religion for an entire country is wrong. Somewhere along the line those countries decided that their laws should revolve around one particular religion or belief system. And that is what they got and most are still current today. There are even fractions of the Islamic religion (the Taliban for instance) who feel the Islamic religion needs to expand out further and thier followers are willing to die to obliterate others and their beliefs.

Christians on the other hand are still trying to convince the world at large that God is the only way to go, that he is the savior and all else will burn in the pits of Hell. They have become a much kinder religion and no longer spilling anyone's blood to further their agenda. But they still have people willing to risk life and limb in order to pass on the word and convert the world to their beliefs. I see people on the net and in real life claiming that the country needs to be ruled by their values and beliefs and all else is unworthy. That God wants them to preach to the world and convert the world to what they belief because it's the only true way to live life to it's fullest.

Maybe I am missing something, but I really don't see the difference in what Islamic religion does now verus what Christians want to achieve.

(btw--I realize all religions have blood on their hands at some point through history. Christians just have the unfortunate luck of having a lot of blood on their hands. Morman exiling can be found in American History throughout the web, any of which are not linked to any Mormom run website. Persecution throughout the early ages by Christianity (and also Christian against Christian, which is the most common of persecutions in their history) can also be found the same way and not linked to any Christian website for those curious or think I am blowing smoke.)

What would a liberal and conservative compromise on?

2006-07-07T05:24:00.000-07:00

Believe it or not, homosexual "marriages."

Homosexuals are simply looking for protection afforded the states of which they live that guarantees financial obligation to each other, guarantees that their children will not be taken from a surviving spouse and placed with other family members or foster care, social security benefits, death rights, funeral rights, etc.

With that said, traditionally the word "marriage" was equated with a union of two people through the eyes of a God that made them one. The word "marriage" was adopted by the government to define how two people become financially obligated to each other through the state.

Conservatives are worried about the sanctity of marriage and generally do not differentiate between the two different "marriages" that are done in our country on a daily basis. One through the eyes of a God by a person of the cloth and the other done by fulfilling certain state requirements and sending money and a completed application to the state for a certificate stating your now acknowledged as "one" and are financially responsible for each other (as well as the other "perks").

Liberals simply want homosexuals to have the same state government rights that heterosexuals have. We don't really care what a person does in the bedroom and feel that bedroom antics are not enough to stop a homosexual couple from becoming state approved "marriage." We are not so much worried about the sanctity of marriage because heterosexuals have already screwed that up royally by allowing Elvis and Elvira to marry them on the Strip and then a year later, divorce because it's just not working out. We have also screwed that up by allowing cheating on one's spouse to become common and basically acceptable form of behavior (get ye to a marriage counselor!!). Homosexuals and their marriages have absolutely nothing to do with the sanctity of a hetrosexual marriage or any one particular persons marriage. That's all on us and our lack of morals and values when it comes to what marriage really means.

Now, how to unite the two sides? That one is easy, civil union. Thist allows homosexual couples rights to the state's marriage laws and saves the sanctity of marriage because the word marriage never plays into the equation. The word marriage should really be stricken from the record books and given back to the church's/synagogues of our world anyway. Which means that my "marriage" would also become a civil union. I was not married in a church or by anyone of the cloth so in all reality...I am just as guilty as ruining the sanctity of marriage as any homosexual would be if we were just using the definition of "Sacred in the eyes of God."

So anyone who was not married in a church would then be in a civil union. Which affords the same rights and also further differentiates a marriage within a church and a union acknowledged by the government.

What to do about those church's who do allow homosexual marriages performed by a person of the cloth? Not to worry, that church is not your church and therefore are sinners anyway....so it doesn't concern you or your beliefs.

I think I need to change my name

2006-07-06T09:19:00.000-07:00

It seems that anytime anonymous posters disagree with me, my name is slung back to me like some sort of insult. I find it funny and yet annoying. I get things like "you really are foreverlost"..."you need to go find yourself" and other such nonsense. Stupid stuff showing low IQ, but whatever. (there, I slammed someone). The least they can do is disagree with my comments instead of telling me to climb back under the rock that I came from. When someone resorts to such juvenile tactics, all hopes of intelligent conversation fades into the background and the only thing I hear is reminescent of Charlie Browns teacher "waaahhhaa waawwaa wwwaaawawawa...."

I enjoy argueing, debating or whatever it is you want to call it. I especially enjoy it when the person argueing/debating with me is intelligent is firm in their beliefs and not afraid to say so. I particularly like the idea that ideas are exchanged and even if it does get a bit heavy at times...the respect is still there somewhere. I can't have that with someone who resorts to using my name as some sort of pissing contest and thinking they are getting a point across. You have to have a point in order to get it across. Moaning about how lost I am is not a point or one even worthy of discussion and will most likely have smartass strawberry smooch blown your way.

Just a bit of background on the name; It is derived from two different names I used on the net way before I started blogging. I have a set of friends on the net who know me by certain names. So I combined the two and came up with Mistyforeverlost. That way, they wouldn't be confused with who I am. They know my real name, but since we almost always use the nick's on public boards, they are used to calling me Misty and foreverlost or just forever or maybe bitch and the occasional silly girl. It's easier for them and easier for me and it makes my husband happy because my real name isn't on a overly public board that anyone can see. He's a bit neurotic that way ;O)

Really, I'm not lost. I know right where I am and stand firm on my ground like most other people I know (wink). I guess it would be better if I just nodded my head in agreement, followed the crowd and did whatever pleased them without an original thought in my head. Better for them, but not particulary pleasant for me.

Immigrants, interpetors, health insurance

2006-07-03T05:08:00.000-07:00

Wadical, AuntiD and a few others, including myself have been discussing work ethics, immigrants as well as the requirement of a interpetor and how that affects job status for Americans. I was getting a bit heavy over on Wadicals comments so I figured I would just list all my concerns here. We all basically do agree (which is a tad scary, but bound to happen) on the view points.

First, immigrants who come to our nation should be required to know our language. I fully support that. However, I do realize that the English language is one of the hardest to learn and I blame that on us being the most difficult people in the world who enjoy making things harder for ourselves then it really needs to be. Our language has sounds that no other language has and we have more words sounding the same but meaning something different then any other language in the world. So I get that it can be very difficult for others to learn, especially adults. They have spent their entire life speaking their own relatively easy language and learning ours is going to be hard and for the elderly, it might even be downright impossible.

So where do I stand with employer required interpetors? I think we should have them in certain employments. Mainly because if one thing was missed or something was not understood, then you could possibly looking at a lifetime of pain and suffering. The medical field is one of them. If we have no issue hiring a person to help discuss necessary medical needs with a deaf person, then I don't see the uproar for requiring someone to make sure a Hispanic mom knows she is to only give 1.5 milligrams of prednisone to her baby during chemo/steriod sessions to help make the luekemia go away. Yes, this does put a burden on our healthcare, yes it does make our costs go up. But it might also save a baby from dieing. I also see no issue with hiring someone to interpret in other jobs as well. I do not agree with firing someone because they won't or can't learn spanish, chinese or any other language in order to become an interpetor for others. That's wrong. It's just a hard for an english speaking adult to learn a foriegn language. If the leader of the organization that needs an interpretor cannot learn or will not learn and they are qualified in all other ways and have been a leader prior to any law demanding interpetors....then hire an interpetor seperate from the leader. That simple.

That leads me to allowing free health care for those who cannot afford it, citizens, illegal immigrants or just plain poor people who make one dollar above the alotted government amount of money that allows them free health care. I would love to see healthcare free for everyone and supported by the government. Much like Canada. Sure, our tax dollars would be a bit higher (I have an idea for that too) but then every single person would have health care provided to them. I was raised poor, but not poor enough to qualify for heathcare, so we went without because we could not afford to buy it either. There are so many families that make just one dollar above the government alloted amount of assistance with health insurance that have to go with out health care. I find that very sad as a nation we are not willing to take care of our own. We say "everyone can have it" but they can't. They have to be able to afford it. You have a single father (like mine) working full time and throwing in jobs wherever he can and still only bringing home around $20,00 a year and how can you claim everyone can afford it? Two kids to raise, a roof to put over their head and food on the table with clothes on their back (no name brands for us thankyouverymuch) and where is he supposed to pull the money from?
It's a bit different now, most states have the Chip program for parents to buy into or receive free health care for thier children. But those programs still have caps and depending on the parents situation depends on whether they qualify or not. And that insurance is for the children, not the parents. The parents still might be out of luck and have to go with out.

How would we pay for the government provided insurance? Taxes. Yup, taxes. You live in America, you pay real estate taxes. Even if you don't own a home. I am sick and tired of my taxes going up every blasted year because I chose to own a home. Meanwhile over at the apartment complex, the renters are only paying 1/4 of the owners taxes each to make up the whole he owes. Look at it this way. As a homeowner, you are responsible for paying all the real estate taxes on your house. If you were to rent, you would be responsible for only a small portion of that built into the rental cost. If your complex has 4 apartments, you are only paying 1/4 of the tax cost and your landlord is paying nothing. If everyone were to pay real estate taxes, it would not only be cheaper, but there would be more money coming into the government too. Money that they cannot purchase $10 screws with (yes, they do) or $15 thumbtacks (have they never heard of Staples or Office Max? Walmart maybe?). Money that would go directly to a state fund which would cover health care costs for all of their residences. Keep the cap on number of employees for employers to provide insurance and allow those who do not work for such an employee state accessed FREE health care regardless of their income.

I know, I know..there are flaws here and most likely major adjustments, but it's an idea.

Great, they are not mental, but they still can't serve

2006-06-28T13:46:00.000-07:00

But this does raise a point. Do homosexuals have equal rights under the constitution or are they discriminated against if they cannot participate in the armed forces? Is our nation that homophobic that letting a gay man or woman wield a gun next to a straight guy is going to cause that much of an uproar? When are we going to grow up?

After a 1996 Pentagon document placing homosexuality among a list of "certain mental disorders" came to light this month, the American Psychiatric Association and a handful of lawmakers asked the Defense Department to change its view.
The Pentagon said in a statement: "Homosexuality should not have been characterized as a mental disorder in an appendix of a procedural instruction. A clarification will be issued over the next few days."

"Notwithstanding its inclusion, we find no practical impact since that appendix simply listed factors that do not constitute a physical disability, and homosexuality of course does not," the Pentagon added.
The 1996 Pentagon document, which had been recertified as "current" three years ago, had listed homosexuality as a mental disorder alongside mental retardation, impulse control disorders and personality disorders.
The American Psychiatric Association, responsible for a definitive listing of mental health classifications, declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973.
In fiscal 2005, which ended last September 30, 726 military personnel were discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the Pentagon said.
Adopted by Congress in 1993, the policy allows homosexuals to serve in the armed forces only if they do not reveal their sexual orientation and abstain from gay sex.
It was a compromise worked out with Congress under President
Bill Clinton who had tried to lift the military's long-standing prohibition on homosexuals.
Those opposed to gays in the military have argued the presence of homosexuals could undermine good discipline and order in the ranks.
RATE OF DISCHARGES SLOWED
Changing the classification "will be consistent with the scientific consensus on homosexuality and mental health," said Nathaniel Frank, a researcher at the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California at Santa Barbara.
The center recently found and released the 1996 document.
"I'm glad the language has been changed," said Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which opposes limits on gays in the military.
Ralls said he believed it was a simple oversight by the Pentagon, not malice, that the document continued to list homosexuality as a mental disorder.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said the rate of troops discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy had fallen by about 40 percent since the beginning of U.S. military operations following the September 11 attacks on the United States.
"There is no good reason for keeping the ban in place and there's every good reason for repealing it," Ralls said. "It's discriminatory and robbing the military of talented men and women who want to serve. It's unnecessary. We've seen bans lifted among our closest allies. In Iraq serving alongside openly gay British troops."

Legislation in the House of Representatives to lift the restrictions on homosexuals in the military appears to have little chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress. There is no similar Senate bill.

What exactly is a Liberal anyway?

2006-06-24T05:03:00.000-07:00

Truth be known, I had no idea what the official definition was, so I looked it up. This is how onelook dictionary explains liberal in a Quicklook sort of way:

Quick definitions (liberal)
noun: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
noun: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
adjective: having political or social views favoring reform and progress
adjective: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
adjective: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness (Example: "A liberal newspaper")
adjective: not literal
adjective: given or giving freely (Example: "A liberal backer of the arts")

All right, I can buy that. I like change and the idea that we are moving forward as a nation. For our nation to stay stagnant means that we didn't learn from our past mistakes. I like the idea of not being stuck in tradition to the point that I no longer grow or learn. Not so sure on "self-regulating markets" because I do think some rules need to be in place and I think most liberals feel that way as well. It's more on how the rules are established and why they are established that gets us into a bit of a tizzy.

You might be surprised how many liberals are conservative within their own lifestyle. The thing to remember about liberals is that we are not running around rule-less or thinking all things are acceptable. We have morals and values and our beliefs are held very close and lived by as much as humanly possible. We accept that we are responsible for ourselves and our behavior and acknowledge the fact that what is acceptable to us may not be acceptable for anyone else.

Take abortion for instance. I am a liberal at heart when it comes to abortion. I do not want Roe versus Wade overturned. I do not want some stuffy hats in a room deciding for me what I can and cannot do with my body. However, you will never see me on an abortion table unless some dire circumstance calls for it (ie, health related, I do have two other children to worry about as well) and even then, it would take much praying. However, I realize that my little old self cannot and should not make that same decision for every other woman on the face of the planet. It's not my job or anyone else's to decide what they should and should not do with their unborn child or their own body. With that said, myself and most other liberals will agree that there needs to be some common sense laws put into place. Late term abortions for instance. Most of us will agree with a conservative that late term abortions are not necessary and not acceptable under any circumstances except the most dire (and finding out your going to have a special needs child is not acceptable circumstances!). Using abortion for birth control is also not something most of us would agree with.

Homosexual marriage is another example. Liberals want the same rights afforded to them through the government based on sexual orientation (dumb luck of liking the opposite sex) afforded to homosexuals as well. Yet, we are going to stay in our heterosexual marriage. You won't see many of us running out of our own marriages just so we can take advantage of state afforded protection of a homosexual marriage. You also won't find many liberals backing a homosexual demanding a particular faith marry them that does not accept homosexual lifestyle as acceptable. Liberals would stand up with conservatives on that one and support the faiths right to not marry someone that they don't accept and view as a lifestyle choice.

The hard one is the current war on Iraq. I'm not sure how many of us liberals became tagged as non-patriotic based on the idea that we don't agree with the war in Iraq. There are plenty of conservatives right now feeling that heat as well because they have since changed their mind on the war and the President. It's also interesting how we are viewed based on not liking the President or what he has done with our nation. Great thing about America is that we don't have to like our President and we can say so without fear of death by firing squad. We do have to fear our fellow Americans though. We have to watch what we say because it could cause a mass riot and death threats (look at the Dixie Chicks just for instance...They didn't agree with the current War on Iraq or the President and had death threats...How American is that?).

I think the problem comes with the lack of understanding that just because we don't agree with the war or agree with our President does not mean we automatically do not or cannot support our troops overseas. First, those troops are there fighting and many are giving their life for another country. Second, they signed up to do a job whether they personally agree with it or not. How can a person NOT support that? My brother in law was overseas for a bit and although I have no idea what he was there for (other then security), he is my hero because he was brave enough to sign himself up during peace time with the realization that it won't always be a peaceful. He didn't run from his duties but took them head on. It was very scary with him over there and it's still scary knowing that so many are still over there. We want them home safe and alive just like everyone else. We may not agree with why they are there, but we support them for being there.

Tolerance. Another thing that conservatives don't get. Tolerance does not mean welcoming a lifestyle you don't agree with into your home. It just means that you tolerate the right of others to lead a lifestyle that they want to. Great example would be me and my views on White Supremacist and others of their ilk. I personally think they are a waste of good breathing space. They think I am a waste of good breathing space. It's pretty mutual on our views of each other. However, I have to tolerate the idea that they are allowed to say and believe in what they do as long as they are peaceful about it (oxymoron if I ever heard one). Because if I cannot or refuse to tolerate them, then I am not for a free America. Everyone should have the same rights, even if I don't agree with their beliefs or what they have to say. I can't claim free speech to tell the world how I feel unless I am willing to give that right to another person or group. I can't claim that they are trying to shut me up with their opinions when I am just as loud with my own.

What I am trying to say is that being a liberal means that we want America to be equal in justice, to be equal in rights. We don't want rules and regulations to be made for everyone based on a personal belief/faith system. We don't want anyone to shut up and sit down, because we are not willing to shut up and sit down ourselves.

Censorship

2006-06-22T10:26:00.000-07:00

This is a very touchy subject, one that I debated a million times in the past. What responsibility does the government have in marketing products and what responsibility does the marketers have towards the public? And where does the parents responsibility fall?

From what I see, the government has minimal responsibility and the marketing has none because the parents do not want any themselves.

First, if you start expecting those who market products to have some level of morals within their marketing strategy, you can kiss the marketers goodbye. They have a job to do and that is sell their product. Any way they can. For some companies, that means going very sexual, degrading both men and women (have you seen that new camera commercial where the guy takes too long to turn it on and the wife or girlfriend leaves with another man? Personally, I find that degrading to both genders). The reason they use these marketing ploys is because people are stupid and buy the products thinking it will make them smarter, sexier or whatever else it is that the product is supposed to do. That is there job. To market to people who choose to not be marketing smart.

Second, the government involvement. Especially right now. It astounds me how many people want interference of some sort on what type of commercials are out there, what shows are out there and what music is out there. They don't want just ratings, they want removal. And yet, these very same people cringe when they hear of other countries requiring companies like Google to remove certain search capabilities in order for the people in that country to use the search engine. How weird is that? On one hand, your shocked that their government holds such tight control over what the people are allowed to watch or learn and how that choice is being taken away from them. On the other hand, you want the same thing to happen here in America.

From where I stand, America was founded on freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of beliefs, freedom to make it or not, freedom to purchase what you want and not purchase what you don't want. We get all sorts of freedom. The three very best freedom categories would be the ability to choose what we will and will not buy into, the freedom of religion and free speech. Without those three categories, you have a dictatorship. Something our men and women are dieing to provide for another country.

How does that relate to us being parents? Well, it makes things harder. As a parent, you have two choices; hide all negative things from your children as much as possible or you can use those negative influences as the ultimate learning experience. I choose learning experience because if you hide the negatives, then they will be bombarded with them once they are out on their own and they will will have limited ability to make very important life choices. Parents who attempt to remove all negative influence from their children lives are not doing their children any favors. Children need to learn. They need parents to guide them and they need to make mistakes along the way. Making mistakes means they are becoming self thinkers. Becoming a self thinker means that they will be able to handle the grown up world a lot better.

This isn't a liberal versus conservative issue. This is about parents being parents. Doing their own dirty work and stop assuming others should do it for them. It's about realizing we are responsible for our own children. That we are responsible for the values that our children are raised with. Their moral foundation and their belief system. Just because your kid sees a sexy woman on TV with the words "bite me" written across her butt by Abercombie and Finch doesn't mean you have to run out and buy it. Instead, you can tell your kid no. Tell them why your saying no "because said sexy girl looks like a slut and will then be treated like a slut."

It's not about lacking respect for someone else's beliefs. Not all. It's about realizing that we are the parents and it is our responsibility to raise our own children. Not the guys and gals in marketing and not the government. The only thing the government should step in and censor is rating guides (thanks Tipper who originally wanted ALL things censored and removed and had to make due with the rating guide) and making sure certain shows are not on during family hour (cause most of us would be a bit pissed if we turned on CBS at 3pm to find porn (although Jerry Springer does tow the line sometimes).

Conservatives claim liberals lack respect because we tell them to shut the tv off or turn the channel. Yet...there they sit wanting everything and anything removed from viewing that does not fit into their personal belief system in case their children should happen across the information. Has anyone ever stopped to think that there are lots of stuff on TV that liberals also don't like? Words in music that liberals can't stand? Or movies that are out which plainly goes against everything they are trying to teach their children? It happens all the time. The only difference between a conservative and a liberal is that we are willing to exercise the freedom given to us by choosing to use it either as a learning tool for our children or not allowing it at all. We aren't expecting someone else to come along, make up a rule that says "No-one in this country can view this information any longer because I personally do not agree with it and find it a threat to the morals and values I am trying to teach my children."

It's not our place to decide for others what will or will not be viewed in their home. It's not our place to decide the moral or value foundation in which another parent will raise their children. It's not the governments place either and if Americans ever decided to actually stop buying the products, then the marketing people might clue in that their strategy is no longer working.

It's a choice folks. Use it or loose it. If you loose the ability to choose, then we are no longer free.

Homosexual Marriage

2006-06-19T05:46:00.000-07:00

I'm putting this here only because I can't figure out where to put it. It's religious, but I don't want to single out any one particular faith and it's political because homosexuals are fighting for their right to have state approved marriages, which is different then faith based marriages. So here it sits.

Homosexual marriages is a hot topic and probably will be for a very long time. The two basic sides (as if they need to be explained) are the faith based side which claims that is goes against the sanctity of marriage and against their beliefs. The non-faith based side acknowledges that state approved marriages are not faith based to begin with so there are no beliefs for it to go against.

The US has two different marriages that are performed:

Legal state approved marriage. This is a process that all couples who wish to be acknowledged by the state must go through. They need to enter a courthouse and apply and pay for a marriage license. Some states have waiting periods, some states have or had blood work requirements and once the requirement has been fulfilled, they can go to any person who is licensed within their state and have a marriage performed (including but not limited to Mayors, Justice of the Peace, Person of the Cloth and Elvis impersonators). There is not a single state within America that has a "must be married on sacred ground or by a Person of the cloth" requirement.

A legal state marriage binds two people together financially in life and upon death. It allows them to make life and death decisions for each other. It allows them to collect each others social security benefits upon death and it also grants them the right to all properties of the deceases spouse. It gives them full rights to healthcare policies and any children they have together or adopt together are automatically entitled to those same benefits. State legally approved marriages give the spouses rights to determine if they will live on life support or if the life support will be removed. It allows them access to each other on death beds and in nursing homes. It forces the spouse to pay out any monies due to other parties should debt occur prior to death. It guarantees that in the case of a divorce where children are involved, the non-custodial parent will be held financially responsible to take care of the children they had or adopted together.

A sacred marriage or a marriage of faith is performed by a person of the cloth and most commonly, on sacred ground. This marriage has one sole purpose and that is to bind two (or more, which I will get to) individuals together in the eyes of God. Unless a legal marriage license has been paid for and obtained then sent in to the state of which the marriage was performed...the marriage itself is not a legally binding contracted through the eyes of the state.

Perfect examples of the different marriages are as follows:

State approved marriage but not faith based marriage would be mine. My husband and I applied for our marriage license, filled out the requirements and was then married by the Mayor of our town.

Faith based only marriage would be polygamy. Having more then one spouse is illegal in America. So those who practice polygamy have only their faith based marriage holding them together. They do not have a legally binding contract within their state that makes them financially responsible towards each other or allows them state protection or access to each others benefits. Which is probably why the government hasn't done much about them. It's not illegal in the US to have a harem of girlfriends.

An example of combining both a legal state marriage and a faith marriage would be those who applied for the marriage license within the state that they are getting married and had a Person of the Cloth send in their license after performing a faith based marriage.

Ok..now that the two separate entities have been explained...the thing that baffles me is how can a state approved marriage of two people from the same gender ruin the sanctity of marriage? They are not asking to be married within sacred ground, by a person of the cloth. They are simply asking for the rights afforded them through the State of which they live. They want to be financially responsible for each other. They want to be able to share health benefits, they want their children to be protected and provided for upon separation or death. They want to make decisions for each other without the interference. Can you imagine having just a sacred marriage with no protections of the state?

Homosexuals are not asking to be married in a church that has condemned them for a lifestyle that is not worthy of the God being worshipped within that church. They are not beating down the doors saying "Your God is sending me to the netherworld, but marry me anyway!" I'm sure someone might try and I can just see the headlines now "Homosexual wants to be married in a church that condemns them!" Most of the world will be shaking their head wondering "what the hell is s/he thinking and what a wingnut lawyer for taking on the case that will most likely loose!" along with "Hope the church wins!" Because that would just be an idiotic attempt of..well..idiocy.

Homosexuals are only asking to receive legally binding contracts through the government, just like any other couple who wishes to get married. And just like any other law on the books, it does not affect anyone who does not want to enter into a gay marriage. The government isn't going to all of a sudden demand you to divorce your opposite sex spouse and marry a same-sex spouse. They aren't even telling homosexuals that they have to get married. They would just be telling them they can get married if they so choose. Just like heterosexuals do not have to get married, but they can if they want too.

I really don't see what the fuss is all about. I honestly don't. Two separate forms of marriage. A law that protects a legally approved state marriage which is very different then a faith based marriage and nobody being forced to do anything that they don't want to do.

Besides, hetrosexuals have done enough damage to the sanctity of marriage. With approximately 50% (or more) of all first time marriages ending in divorce, I highly doubt a homosexual marriage is the worst of our concerns. We can't even manage to stay married approx. 50% of the time. Shouldn't we be concentrating on ways to keep our own marriages sacred without worrying about someone elses marriage?

Because in the end, we would still have ourselves to blame if our own marriages fall apart (and folks, you get a 50/50 chance of it not falling apart).

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer

2006-06-14T03:14:00.000-07:00

This is the stuff that tends to piss me off. Congress receives another raise, 7 years straight. Due to cost of living increases.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/13/congress.payraise.ap/index.html

"This year, Vice President Cheney, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Chief Justice John Roberts receive $212,100. Associate justices receive $203,000. House and Senate party leaders get $183,500.

As part of an ethics reform bill in 1989, Congress gave up their ability to accept pay for speeches and made annual cost-of-living pay increases automatic unless the lawmakers voted otherwise.
The pay issue has been linked to the annual Transportation and Treasury Department spending bill because that measure stipulates that civil servants get raises of 2.7 percent, the same as military personnel will receive.

Despite record low approval ratings, House lawmakers Tuesday embraced a $3,300 pay raise that will increase their salaries to $168,500."

Because then I look up statistics like this:

Census Bureau statistics, I tried to link but it was too long and messed up the page.

Where the federal minimum wage law is still at $5.15 unless you happen to live in a state that issued their own minimum wage laws which is 19 states.

The poverty level from 2004 by the US Census Bureau:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income04/prs05asc.html

Median household money income in the nation in 2004 was $44,400, and was unchanged from 2003 in real terms.

There were also no changes in the most commonly used measures of income inequality between 2003 and 2004.

The median earnings of both men and women who worked full-time, year-round declined in 2004.

The official poverty rate for the nation rose from 12.5 percent in 2003 to 12.7 percent in 2004.

The number in poverty increased also, by 1.1 million people, to 37.0 million in 2004.

The number of people with health insurance coverage rose by 2.0 million from 2003 to 2004.

The number of people without health insurance coverage rose by 800,000 over that same period, from 45.0 million to 45.8 million people.

The net result was that percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance did not change in 2004, remaining at 15.7 percent.

The percentage of children not covered by health insurance also did not change, remaining at 11.2 percent.

Hybrids and cloning

2006-06-10T09:54:00.000-07:00

Last night I was watching the Science Channel and there was a show on called "Humanzee." This was about a chimpanzee named Oliver who did not look chimp or ape. He walked on his hind legs like a human, smoked cigars, shook hands and sat like a human. He didn't have much to do with "normal" chimps and even became sexually attracted to his handlers wife. At one point, Oliver was sold to a lawyer out of New York who, in hopes of chromosome testing promised, allowed him to tour in China. During this tour, testing was done and it came back inconclusive. After a while, he was sold a number of times and lost track of. Eventually he was found in a research lab and with the help of donations, Oliver and other chimps were sent to live out his life at a Primarly Primates where some more testing was finally done in hopes of answers. The answers came back and Oliver had the proper number of chromosones to be a chimp, but his DNA was slightly different. So the conclusion was that Oliver was indeed a primate, although possibly an undiscovered relative of the chimp.

Which brings on the question in my mind of Hybrid animals. There are few different forms this can take; inter-breeding among the same species, breeding two different species that share common traits to form a new species and then also molecular biology. The breeding we see often in animals is the inter-breeding within the same species. Most common occurrence is the dog breeding business. An example of this would be the cockapoo, which is a hybrid between a spaniel and a poodle.

The one I am most interested in is the hybrid that involves taking two separate species that share traits and creating a new animal. This has already been done and one of the first hybridization was the Lonicera fly (fruit fly family) which was taken from the blueberry and snowberry maggots. Some examples of Hybrid species are:

Zeedonk, a zebra and a donkey
liger, cross between tiger and lion
Mule, horse and a donkey
Grizzly Polar bear hybrid, cross between a grizzly and a polar bear

While I was watching the show, they talked about human hybrids. They spoke of a rumor about the Yerkes National Primate Research center having already established that a chimp and a human can be hybrid. There is no confirmation of the reports, but it was said that the rumor states a chimp gave birth to a baby with human and chimp dna and then was euthenized a short time later. Another rumor had a chimp impregnated with human sperm in China but was killed by a mob before giving birth. Whether any of this was ever really done or not is unknown as there are not any reports that confirm either way.

The one experiment there is proof on is the one that involved human DNA and a cow is more of the cloning kind. A scientists removed the DNA from a cow egg and replaced it with his own personal DNA. The experiment was put to an end about a week after it had started. The outcome of what might have been is unknown, but they do think if it had produced a live birth, the offspring would have been 99% the scientists twin and 1% cow. One of the ideas for cow/human cloning is to make cows that can produce medicines for humans. If they have the human DNA, then the theory is that they can produce medicine that will help fight diseases that humans are subjected to.

Scientists are also highly interested in attempting human/chimp hybrids. They claim much can be done with a hybrid that might save lives in the future. It has even gone so far as a scientist attempting to gain a patent on a hybrid, but was turned down because the hybrid would have been too human. This particular scientist was more interested in whether or not the US government would issue a patent on a living thing that was a hybrid. He is unsure if they would have given it to him if it were less human and more chimp. His goal now is to bring the possibility of scientist learning how to create a hybrid between a human and another species with low human DNA and attempt to patent it. If this sort of experiment was ever patented, he feels it could cause problems for the world A patent would essential protect the "owner" do with the hybrid whatever they wished. There would be limited amount of intervention from the government for misuse of the hybrid and afterall, the hybrid would be a living breathing entity.

He raised the question of social, moral, ethical and even political and religious issues a human hybrid would bring to the world.

The government very well could decide to use these hybrids in war, they could decide to not allow them any rights even if they are free-thinkers and capable of surviving on their own.

Religious groups could claim they are not of this world and need to be eradicated which would start new wars that we might not be able to contain.

Would it be moral to make such a creature and maintain them without any rights that other animals are already offered.

Would it be ethical to create a hybrid for the specific purpose of maintaining body parts a human would not reject?

Is it proper to take any animal and inject another animals DNA in hopes of creating a new hybrid?