been a while...

and im not really sorry about that.

im going to make this a quick one, and try to get back in the rhythm of posting regularly.

i just read a book called the laughing jesus: religious lies and gnostic wisdom. its an amazing book, and id recommend all christians read it.

ive become convinced that there were two "spiritual" fathers of the bible. the literalists and the gnostics (gnostics is derived from gnosis, which is greek for knowledge). literalists, or fundamentalists, are at the root of the war on terrorism. islamic fundamentalists attacked the usa on 9/11, and american fundamentalists attacked iraq in 2003. this class of people believes their book to be the inerrant word of god, a direct manuscript answering every relevant question derived from "how then should we live?"

the literalists dominated a large majority of the bible. however, the gnostics managed to sneak some wisdom into those books. enough wisdom in fact, to liberate oneself from literalist translation of the bible. the key to freedom is actually buried in the book of slavery. you just have to look deep enough.

im gonna throw some scripture up, and then interpret it afterwards:

Numbers 14:18 - "The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

Exodus 20:5 - "for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me"

Levitivus 26:39 - "Those of you who are left will waste away in the lands of their enemies because of their sins; also because of their fathers' sins they will waste away."

there are plenty more examples of this pearl of truth, but three should be sufficient. i believe the true interpretation of these passages to be hidden gnostic wisdom. it is absolutely unconscionable to believe that a loving god would punish children for sins that were committed before they even existed.

i think that the moral of these passages is clear - the children of today are being punished for the sins of the fathers of the organized, literalist church. we suffer today, for misdeeds performed millenia ago. we dont need to though - we can free ourselves from their "sins," by simply waking up to the truth that can be found in everything. if every experience and moment is approached with awe and naivete, we find how truly amazing this world we have is. it is only the literalists who wish to trap us in a perception of the world that is absolute and stagnant.

more on why they must believe in absolutes and stagnation at a later time. i hope this post was clear enough.

happy new year

may this one, as always, be better than the last.

they are all the same though - we humans just like to name things.

off to bed, and maybe a post tomorrow?

happy post-turkey day

boo to thanksgiving. special boos to black friday. jeers to celebrating genocide, and jeers to rampant consumerism in the name of jesus, an advocate of the poor.

cheers to this idea: everyone just pays a flat fee to get into a store and we let natural selection sort them out. what a herd mentality we humans have.

BOOOOO to ann coulter. have a healthy dose or three of outrage via reading her article here. i wrote her an email, i dont expect a reply, nor do i think she'll actually give a damn. she's just another talking head spouting msm propoganda. truth or facts or reporting are irrelevant to them.

and a big ole fuck off to the mindless drones at dkos. is it that hard to understand? if you cant stand up to homegrown cops, you're not gonna cut it in DC. period. end of story.

fucking morons.

have a good one folks, ill be around.

quick thoughts on the iraq debacle

yesterday, democratic representative john murtha introduced a resolution calling for withdrawal from iraq. here's the text:

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";
Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;
Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,
Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;
Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;
Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.
Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

this is the language of the bill republicans put forth and want a vote on:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

notice any differences? why do republicans play political games with our troops lives?

personally, it was a terrible idea to invade iraq. preemptive wars of aggression against countries that offer no real threat to us, are, well, dumb.

that being said, i take a lot of flak for my opinion on how to handle this whole mess. im of the opinion that we should stay in iraq. we made the bed, now we sleep in it.

heres my proposition:

1) apologize to the world for our blundering ineptness and bullheadedness
2) request aid from the un for rebuilding the country
3) fire rumsfeld; beg shinseki to come back and manage our forces
4) reinstitute the draft
5) put as many boots on the ground as required, and match that number with civilians to actually rebuild, as opposed to looting our treasury
6) commit half of our troop levels to training iraqi military and police, dedicate the other half to building and maintaining peace

i considered adding "dont torture" but i figure that goes without saying. any thoughts?

wow

its been so long my browser didnt even remember blogger.com

dont you find it interesting that this:

Q Whether there's a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's accurate.

Q So aside from the question of legality here, you were wrong, weren't you?

doesnt match up with this short and nasty mp3? feel free to cross check the mp3 with the video link found here. and please consider giving crooks and liars a pageload.

spread the news. what news? we're living 1984; and i mean that.

why does spain hate america?

a spanish judge has issued an international warrant for the arrest of three american soldiers involved in the shelling of a hotel in baghdad in 2003. US officials say the tank crew believed they were under fire; the video of the event shows no evidence of fire from the hotel. earlier that day a journalist for al-jazeera was killed when US missiles hit their network office in baghdad.

friendly fire is a common occurence in war. this is not to say its acceptable; just that it is inevitable. consider pat tillman for a minute.

however, this is a war of aggression against a former US client state. a war of choice, costing tens of thousands of human lives and hundreds of thousands of casulaties, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars. however, the criminals are not shawn gibson, philip wolford and philip de camp (odd 2 of the 3 are named philip?); the true criminals are bush, cheney, rumsfeld, the neocons, and an american congress that allowed the executive branch to horribly misuse our troops and resources.

what a terrible shame - my condolences to the families of every person that has suffered due to our war crimes. not just in this one, but in cambodia, laos, panama, nicaragua and cuba, as well as all of the rest. what a terribly history we have to overcome.

update: here's a comment from a redstate thread about the incident

the yahoo news article linked in the diary mentions that there have been constant protests since the killing, and I'm guessing this is just Spain's way of appeasing them.

appeasing them? isnt spain a democracy? isnt the government held accountable to the will of the public in a democracy? when did the rules change and spain's government become accountable to our executive branch as opposed to their own people? deflect and spin, no matter how patently obvious the falsehoods are.

ill have the mugshot when its on the web...

but for now, let us all rejoice: a texas court has issued an arrest warrant for one Tom Delay. looks like there's going to be booking and a mugshot after all. score one for the good guys, folks. bond stands at 10,000 and will be posted immediately, im sure. this warms my heart, although schadenfreude isnt the most enlightened of emotions, itll do for now.

santorum vs casey

here are the latest poll numbers from Strategic Vision, a republican polling outfit:

Santorum (R) 36 (38)
Casey (D) 52 (52)

man on dog is going down, down, down. parens, as always, represent the former poll numbers.

why do i call him man on dog you ask? this is why:

That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.

another crazy republican (i cant remember offhand) came out with the same kind of assertion several weeks ago. even one of my winger family members brought it up. the argument goes something like this - if we legalize marriage between homosexuals, then we enter the slippery slope terrain where we will have to endorse marriage between 3 or more people, between humans and animals, etc etc.

allow me to kick the legs out from under that fallacious argument right here and now. marriage/civil unions are contracts formed between two adults (occasionally, minors with their parent's permission). as such, the whole concept of a man marrying a dog or a mule or a monkey is asinine - said animal clearly cannot consent. they lack language as well as legal standing to enter into a contract. its as simple as that.

im not a terribly big fan of dems in general, but at least santorum looks like he's going to lose power here in PA. there's another year before elections and a 16 pt lead can evaporate overnight, but man on dog is too tightly tied to the bush administration to weasel out, methinks.

abortion

this one's gonna be a quickie, in three parts.

numero uno: men are not allowed to legislate anything regarding abortion. as we lack the proper plumbing to conceive and carry a child, there is no way we can make an objective informed decision about abortion. this issue should be left to women.

dos: people that support repealing roe v wade and other subsequent laws are not pro-lifers. this is political spin. they are pro-birth. remember that the large majority of people who think abortion should be illegal support the death penalty. calling them pro life grants them a framing victory which cannot be allowed.

tres: let us grant the basic premise their argument is based on - life starts at conception (if anything, life starts when the blastocyst takes up its parasitic relationship with the uterine wall). so this week old fetus is a baby. the argument goes that the state is allowed to compel the mother to carry the child to term for the sake of the unborn child. it then follows that the state is allowed to compel any of its citizens to carry burdens for the sake of supporting other life.

consider the case of someone who desperately requires a transplant. if my dna matches theirs, it stands to reason that the state can compel me to surrender a kidney, or part of my liver, or a lung. this is a natural and logical conclusion to the pro birth argument. it grants totalitarian power to the state in order to compel the sacrifice of my privacy and body for the sake of others. who will compensate me for time lost from work? what of future medical costs or other consequences from the transplant? people even die from shock, albeit only rarely.

it boils down to this - both sides of the fence would like to see a decrease in the number of abortions. cons and libs alike would prefer a country where every child had a loving home. they just think they can get it different ways. the pro-birth people think its supply/demand and by reducing supply, they can lower demand. pro-choice people think that by encouraging alternatives (multiple forms of birth control and family planning) and educating the public will reduce abortions. ill let you decide which one is more effective.

its off to bed for me, for now.

ill be posting more often, hopefully.