To Saudi, with love.

Not that we, as Americans, have the right to tell anyone else what to do with their lives (but we will anyway, dammit), but this goes just too far. A Saudi woman, after accepting a ride from a man, was taken to his home; gang raped, and became pregnant. Her sentence? (Of course, she must have a punishment; she wasn’t smart enough to grow a dick) One year in prison, plus 100 lashes once the child is born. Just to be clear, this woman will go through childbirth in prison, then will have her hands tied above her while a guard whips her 100 times. For comparisons sake, a man caught smoking on a commercial flight was given 30 lashes for his crime, and an army officer that used his cell phone on a plane on an airplane was given 70 lashes. So, for the record, that’s

Smoking on plane...... 30 lashes

Cell phone on plane....... 70lashes

Getting gang raped and becoming pregnant............. One year in prison and 100 lashes

Oh, and.......Priceless

While we often categorize the terrorists as extremists, and therefore not indicative of the Muslim people as whole, the examples above are not of this group. These were judicial rulings handed down in a court of law; not by the same groups that flew planes into the towers or attack ships. There were no protests outside the courthouse, no ACLU to argue the case, no petitions signed, and no politician standing up for a change. This is the norm; and if there are those with reservations, they are certainly not going to put their lives on the line for the cause. It is simply a matter of social laws being dictated by religion.

And the issue of religious involvement came to the fore this week with the introduction of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. With the announcement, the Obama administration has gone to great lengths to be clear that this organization will work with all groups, “no matter their religious or political beliefs,” despite the fact that the majority of the council members are deeply rooted in religion. These include Rabbi David N. Saperstein, Director & Counsel for the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Dr. Frank S. Page, President emeritus, Southern Baptist Convention; Rev. Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church; Eboo S. Patel, Founder & Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Corps; and Dr. William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, among others. This seems odd.

Certainly, one can understand the political reasons to maintain at least the illusion that one is working in the best interests of religion. Many have been the presidential candidates that have suddenly found god just prior to a run for higher office. However, this is a blatant disregard for separation of church and state. Ignoring the enormous cost of setting up this new “office” and the 11 actual offices and staff needed, this “office” the first step in the Obama re-election campaign for 2012. The 40 million evangelicals that could always be counted on by the Republican Party as guaranteed votes might think twice now that a Democrat has set up a religious office. If you thought he scored a mandate last November, you haven’t seen a thing yet.

The last thing we need is more religious influence in our government. However, we have gone a step further now by actively funding faith-based activities, using tax-payer dollars in the name of Christ. No matter how honorable the cause, it is just the next step on the road to abortion warranting jail time and homosexuality resulting in a death sentence. Seem far-fetched? Just how long do you think it will take for those 40 million votes to become 60 million? Or 80?

Come to think of it, maybe the fact that “faith-based” is in the title really doesn’t mean anything. I am sure there would be no issue getting the “White House Office of Atheist Affairs” started.

Just felt like posting this...

I received this joke a while back, and since am working on 2 new postings, I decided to post this in the interim. Let me know what you think..

Why did the chicken cross the road?

SARAH PALIN: I'll find ya a reason and bring it to ya.

BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a change! The chicken wanted change!

JOHN MC CAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.

HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure right from Day One that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn't about me.

GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.

DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?

JOE BIDEN: I'm tired of walking on egg shells because of this chicken.

COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.

BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken. What is your definition of chicken?

AL GORE: I invented the chicken.

JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.

AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white? We need some black chickens.

DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding new problems

OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.

NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.

PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.

MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information

DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Did he cross it with a hare? Did he cross it with a bear? Did he check if the road was hot? I kinda doubt it, I think not! Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed, I've not been told. Just one more thing I have to say, it's been bugging me to this very day. If the chicken is a she, why do we keep saying HE?

ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.

JERRY FALWELL: Because the chicken was gay! Can't you people see the plain truth? That's why they call it the other side. Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay, too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like "the other side". That chicken should not be crossing the road. It's as plain and as simple as that.

GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.

BARBARA WALTERS: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heartwarming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.

ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.

BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2009, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2009 This new platform is much more stable and will never cras##$%###.......reboot

ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?

COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?

SARAH PALIN: Because it could see Russia from there.

For all the panties in India

A few weeks back, a radical group called the Sri Ram Sena (Lord Ram’s Army), took responsibility for an assault on several young women last month in a pub in Mangalore, a college town in the southern state of Karnataka. The group (think right wing Jerry Falwell conservatives) has fought against everything from couples kissing in Bollywood films to cheerleaders at sporting matches. An article in TimesOnline details the story, and I urge you all to read and support the cause. In just over a week, the Facebook page that was started in response to the attack has over 12,000 members, and is growing rapidly. A campaign for all members to send pink panties to the leader of the group on Valentines Day is simply brilliant. I will keep this blog updated with any new news on the story, and I applaud what may be one of the more effective non-violent social statements in recent memory.

Damn you to hell, Socialist!

Earlier today, the Obama stimulus package passed the House 244-188, 11 of the dissenters being Democrats. While it remains to be seen what happens in congress, it seems to be a foregone conclusion it will pass. What is interesting are the numerous posts found, primarily written by Republicans, immediately after the vote was taken, that label this stimulus package as part of Obama’s “socialist” agenda. All of which begs the question: Do these people even know what socialism is? And if they did, would they react the same way?
It is interesting to note that there currently is only one openly socialist member of the Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and he typically is lumped in with the Democrats for caucusing and a variety of assignments. What is even more interesting are those that have backed and endorsed him throughout his years in the House of Representatives, a list including Harry Reid, Howard Dean, and even Barack Obama. Seeing that some of the more popular politicians have campaigned for him, it is certainly worth an additional and closer look as to what this whole “socialism” thing really is.
The overriding foundation of socialism is that every member of a socialist society has an equal voice. The concept of the most attention going to the ones that can most afford it and/or give the most to a political campaign would be non-existent. Wages would be based on effort and hours, eliminating the drastic salary difference between, say, major league baseball players and 3rd grade teachers. While there are wide variations of ideas as to how this would be accomplished, it would include the state controlling major parts of industries that affect a large percentage of the population, such as power and water companies. Ideally, the government is elected democratically, thus serves as an extension of the people, giving the general population control of these industries.
Despite some obvious benefits, the general perception of a socialistic society is negative. Why? Seemingly because most seem to consider it a form of communism, which will always leave a bad taste in one’s mouth. The fact is, they are drastically different. Socialism says nothing of religion, and typically is not against the freedom of it (there are many socialist factions however, with varying views). Additionally, the end of a free market economic system is often perceived as an attack on human rights, a perception of which is debatable.
While it would have been political suicide for President Obama to admit this during the campaign, Senator McCain was correct with the accusation that Obama wanted to “spread the wealth around.” His timing was terrible, however, as the concept does not sound so bad in the current economic situation we now find ourselves in. But any plan to tax those making large incomes a greater amount than others, and then use that revenue in programs to assist the middle and lower class certainly has socialist aspects to it. Whether it is the right path or not would take a book to discuss, if not multiple volumes. It is time though, to reconsider the options that, in the past, we so quickly dismissed.

Lost in Gauntanamo....

Before we even took a breath following the inauguration of our new President, the photos of numerous well decorated generals surrounding Obama as he signed the order closing Guantanamo and eliminating secret CIA prisons were plastered on every newspaper and website, a drastic reminder of the sweeping change facing former President Bush’s controversial policies. The event gave clear indication to a hungry nation that the new commander-in-chief would stand by his campaign promises, at least in this area, and gave weight to the incessant fundraising emails we continually receive from the Democratic Party.
However, closing the location where torture was performed will do little to end its occurrence. Simply shipping the prisoners overseas avoids a nightmarish public relations issue, and allows the old interrogation methods to continue unabated without the watchful eye of the general public. Many countries we consider allies have little to no guidelines on the use of torture, and do not face enough political pressure for that to change. Simply sending our dirty work overseas may work well politically in the short term, but in actuality falls well short of eliminating the issue. Closing GitMo is nothing short of a public relations ploy unless accompanied with a drastic overhaul, and specific consequences to those nations that fail to abide by them.
And what of the information we already have, much of which has been garnered by the use of illegal torture? Can this information be used at trial? If not, what becomes of the prisoner that cannot be convicted that has obvious yet unsubmittable evidence against him? Is he now free to walk the streets, or simply shipped back to become 2nd in charge at a Yemen terrorist camp?
An issue facing the Obama administration is to develop an intricate balance needed between the desire for increased transparency and the need for ambiguity in laying out what will be considered both legal and illegal in the acquisition of intelligence from prisoners. A step-by-step how-to manual will allow the enemy to prepare its members for the tactics that would be used, making it highly unlikely that they would ever be truly effective. However, not disclosing this would be seen as a return to the bush secrecy of the last eight years, opening the administration to immense criticism from both sides of the issue.
Certainly, the hands of the President are full. The issue of Guantanamo Bay is far from over, the executive order signed last week just the tip of the iceberg. It was a strong gesture, not only here but abroad, but lacks any significant weight without a real policy to back it up.

Can I pray to God from hell?

Recently, while speaking in a class on the topic of the authenticity of the biblical account of Jesus, a class member, an older, African American woman, stood up and left the room. I continued on discussing the similarities between the Christian leader and the ancient Egyptian god Horus, and answering questions after. The woman then returned, and during the discussion, interrupted, announced that she could not, in good conscience, keep quiet, and proceeded to give her account of God speaking to her in a dream and whatnot, and concluded by, in no uncertain terms, announcing I was, in fact, going to hell. My reply was an explanation that while she walked out on my speech, I had in turn listened intently to every word she had spoken (including the much appreciated fortune telling sequence). From that point she remained silent, and class resumed.
Following the class, she approached and actually apologized for her condemnation of me, and explained why she had actually left the room. It seems that her religion orders her to leave when the topic turns to religion, and she willingly obliged. She was very kind in this discussion, and I give her credit for her ability to calm down and actually approach me.
But a question must be asked. Why would any human subject themselves to a rule that did not allow them to think for themselves? Is ones’ self respect so low that they no longer have this ability? And if it is believed, as it is in every major Christian religion, that God has given us free will, why would one disrespect God by refusing to use it? Does free will end after one selects a denomination?
No amount of logic could convince a reasonable person that there was a talking snake, or a man walked on water, or any human came to life after being dead for three days. If, however, at some moment of weakness or need, when ones’ ability to think logically were somehow altered, they were convinced of these things, to then submit to an inane rule that you must not speak with or listen to an opposing opinion, or anything that may cause you to question your faith in such beliefs, is nothing short of a shocking level of naiveté.
And how could any religion, working in the name of God, enforce this? It must be an extraordinary experience for a pastor, looking out every Sunday to a sea of drones, lacking the ability and even desire to think for themselves, as they spew idiotic, illogical babble to the starving masses. If it were just one man, alone, telling us of these supposed miracles, these fanciful stories, and he led his life by them, we would lock him away in a padded room. A few million believing the same insanities however, and we give them a city in Italy.

How to get your name in the paper (or How much publicity does a politician really need?)

Since her selection by the Obama team months ago, it has been a foregone conclusion Hillary Clinton would have no real issue assuming her position as Secretary of State come inauguration day. All seemed well last week, when the nomination was backed with a 16-1 vote by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, seemingly easing the way through the Senate. With the overwhelming popularity of the new President, and a nation currently on an Obama-high, there exists not a single figure in Washington that would question the inevitability of the appointment.
Hold on just a minute. Just when we thought this “bi-partisan” concept might actually work, enter John Cornyn to pull us back to reality. Cornyn, the republican senator from Texas, is demanding a “full and open debate” to examine the source of funds donated to Bill Clinton’s foundation. Never mind that the Clinton Global Initiative brings together political and business leaders to develop poverty-relief solutions and raise money for education, health care and environmental projects, and let’s forget that the Clintons have already made huge concessions to the Obama team before she was selected for the post. What really matters is that now, being the lone dissenter, Senator Cornyn get his name mentioned in every article and news broadcast for the next two weeks fighting for a cause that no one has deemed worth fighting, no one wants to fight, and no one really cares about. In fact, fellow Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah echoed this sentiment particularly well. “I don’t think we should hold things up,” said Hatch. “Look, she’s going to be secretary of state, and I think we should support her.”
Mr. Cronyn, we appreciate your need to be seen and heard, and it is completely expected from our politicians. We would be shocked if it didn’t happen. But in a floundering economy, with a million worthwhile causes worth fighting for begging for attention, fighting a foregone conclusion is insanity. The cost of an additional Senate session allowing you more time to pander to the camera while rambling on about desperately needed donations going to a worthwhile cause that only you, in your infinite wisdom, have deemed “questionable” is not only regrettable but a complete misuse of the trust of those you represent. Save us, please, the time and money. We will be glad to give you attention, Mr. Senator, once you do something worthwhile.