Philosophy: questions that may never be answered.

Religion: answers that may never be questioned.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A whole new low. Higher Education anyone?


http://ph.news.yahoo.com/gma/20110221/tph-ust-profs-give-bonus-points-to-anti-d6\
cd5cf.html

UST profs give bonus points to anti-RH students[image:
GMANews.TV]<http://sg.rd.yahoo.com/sea/news/article/GMAlogo/SIG=111l7efii/**http\
%3A%2F%2Fwww.gmanews.tv%2F>
GMANews.TV - Tuesday, February 22

    -
Send<http://mtf.news.yahoo.com/mailto?cid=549&ncid=14&prop=ph09news&locale=sg&ur\
l=http://ph.news.yahoo.com/gma/20110221/tph-ust-profs-give-bonus-points-to-anti-\
d6cd5cf.html&title=UST+profs+give+bonus+points+to+anti-RH+students&h1=/gma/20110\
221/r_t_gma_ph_nation/tph-ust-profs-give-bonus-points-to-anti-d6cd5cf&h2=T&h3=54\
9&s=oM31GYfniZJh_5nEGb.1FyBCEeM->
    - IM
Story<http://ph.news.yahoo.com/gma/20110221/tph-ust-profs-give-bonus-points-to-a\
nti-d6cd5cf.html>
    -
Print<http://ph.news.yahoo.com/gma/20110221/tph-ust-profs-give-bonus-points-to-a\
nti-d6cd5cf.html?printer=1>

A youth group expressed its disapproval of the alleged credits given by some
University of Santo Tomas (UST) teachers to students who oppose the
Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

In a statement, Akbayan Youth claimed that certain UST teachers gave a
"voluntary and optional assignment" to their students to oppose the
Reproductive Health bill in exchange for extra credit.

"Students... were allegedly asked to refute the pro-RH position of Akbayan
on its Facebook page in exchange for 'extra grades,'" Akbayan said in a
statement posted on its Facebook page. "Some of the students who made the
said posts admitted this."

In an interview with GMA News Online on Monday, Akbayan Youth
Secretary-General Cheann Matriz said they noticed the comments several days
after Valentine's Day, when Akbayan distributed free condoms at a public
market in Quezon City.

*"'Yung reactions nila were against the activity and the RH bill. 'Yung
ibang students hindi raw sila happy with the event (giving away free
condoms). May nagsabi pa na Akbayan is promoting premarital sex,"* Matriz
said.

(Their reactions were about the activity of distributing condoms and about
the RH bill. Other students said they were not happy with the event. Some
even said that Akbayan is promoting premarital sex.)

Akbayan members who were moderating the Facebook discussions noticed that
students who were posting their anti-RH views were leaving their full name,
section and school.

For example, Denice Sharina Lao, who left a post on Akbayan's Facebook page
on February 15, said she thinks giving away condoms to teenagers will give
the impression that "sex with protection is okay even if you're not
married."

"The more you promote contraception, the higher chances (sic) of passing on
AIDS and STDs since more and more people will engage in pre-marital sex,"
she said.

At the end of her post, Lao introduced herself as "Lao, Denice Sharina P.,
UST, 2CA2."

"2CA2" refers to her year level, the course she is taking up, and the
section she is in - in which case, she is a second year Communication Arts
major from Section 2.

GMA News Online tried to get an official reaction to the Akbayan statement
from the University of Santo Tomas through Public Affairs Director Giovanna
Fontanilla, but Fontanilla said UST cannot issue a statement about the
"optional assignment" of some professors as of posting time.

Journalism student Ann Remedios Dungca Reyes posted her opposition to
Akbayan's distribution of free condoms on the group's Facebook page, even
likening the use of condoms to eating ice cream with a sock on it. *Screen
grab from Akbayan's Facebook page* The students who posted on the Akbayan
page introduced themselves as coming from the following courses and
sections: "2LM1", "2Pol2", "2JRN1" and "2CA2".

A UST student identified the following course abbreviations for GMA News
Online: Legal Management (LM), Political Science (Pol), Journalism (JRN) and
Communication Arts (CA).

Akbayan claimed that most of the comments came from the four sections, which
may have been the classes assigned to do the optional homework.

It was also noted that the students were not members of the Akbayan page and
never participated in other discussions before they posted their comments.

*Bonus points*
*

Matriz said some students admitted that they were asked to post anti-RH bill
comments on the Akbayan page for "bonus points."

"It's a sad thing because they make their students disagree (to the bill)
without discussing the bill itself," Matriz said.

Some students said they refused to do the assignment even if it meant they
forgo the bonus grade.

"I am one of the students of UST who had the said task, but I intentionally
didn't comply because I feared [that] regardless of my positions and
arguments on the issue, the integrity of my opinion can be [questioned]
because of the said incentives," said Aaron Gabriel Santos.

UST student Aaron Gabriel Santos said he intentionally did not comply with
the 'task' assigned by his professor. Screen grab from Akbayan's Facebook
page In its statement, Akbayan said although the activity was for an
"optional grade" and not a requirement for their classes, the activity
privileges a certain position over another and hinders the expression of a
counter-opinion.

"That it takes place in an academic setting where the ferment of free
opinion should be given premium, and that the clear asymmetrical power
relations (teacher-student) were deployed, makes it even more
reprehensible," Akbayan said.

UST supports CBCP stand on RH bill

According to a 2008 article from the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the
Philippines (CBCP) website, the "Pontifical and Royal University of Santo
Tomas will focus on the promotion of 'faith and life issues.'"

In the same article, UST's Fr. Filemon de la Cruz, Vice-Rector for Religious
Affairs, added that UST has a responsibility to defend and promote the
church's teaching and stand on pro-life matters.

The article also said UST will continue to support the stand of the Filipino
Bishops against the reproductive health bill. No new statement regarding the
RH bill has been released by UST since then.

Divided on the issue

Matriz said a source from UST told Akbayan that the faculty is "divided"
when it comes to the issue of the RH bill.

The Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP), a national
association of Catholic educational institutions in the country, said they
subscribe to the CBCP's stand on the RH bill.

However, CEAP President Fr. Gregorio Bańaga told GMA News Online that they
have not given directives to their 1,360 member schools regarding the
schools' position on the RH bill and the way the bill is taught to the
students.

Bańaga said the matter will be taken up in their next board meeting in
March.

University of Santo Tomas is a member school of CEAP. Other Catholic
universities like the Ateneo de Manila University and De La Salle University
are CEAP members as well.

Not all UST profs are anti-RH

Gene Michael Atanacio, who introduced himself on Akabayan's page as a UST
professor, said not all UST professors are against the RH bill.

"UST fosters academic freedom just like other colleges and universities. UST
has a strong conviction in teaching Christian values as taught by the
doctrines of the church and on the Pope's stand on issues like this," he
said.

Professor Gene Michael Atanacio said that despite UST's stand on the RH
bill, the university fosters academic freedom. Screen grab from Akbayan's
Facebook page Atanacio refused to name the professors who gave the
assignment to the students who posted anti-RH remarks.

"As for the issue of professors asking their students to post here (Akbayan
page) for the incentive of a good grade, I do agree it is not right," he
said. "I asked (sic) Akbayan not to blame ALL professors of UST... not all
professors in UST are anti-RH bill."

Teachers challenged to a debate

Akbayan said they are challenging the UST teachers who gave the assignment
to a debate on the issue of reproductive health.

"We challenge them to stop using their students as transmission belts of
their own opinions," Akbayan said.

Matriz added that the group will hold fora where students can learn about
the RH bill if their school or university refuses to discuss the bill inside
the classroom.

"Our next step is to find these professors, engage them in debate, and
hopeully they can open their classes to us," she said. "We challenge
professors to open their classes so we can state the merits of the bill." –
VVP/HS, GMA News
*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Lionel,
 
Thank you so much for sharing the story of the  the deportation of the young
children of a multi religious multi racial school from  Israel.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t0hs-0S-4k
 
A similar idea is being tried in Northern Ireland without such tragic results as
in Israel but meeting with little success.

 
There attempts are being made to bring young Catholic and Protestant children
together in non denominational schools to remove the prejudices that occur when
they are educated separately.
 
The problem is that each religion believes that such a process would dilute
their dogmas and therefore not acceptable even if it such a dilution would have
positive influence in the peace and reconciliation process.  
 
Underlying all this is the thought that children seeing that children of the
other faith are no different to them basically, might come to the conclusion
that religion was not absolutely necessary.
 
Of course in that case a reason to fight and die would also be removed and that
would possibly upset the political balance.
 
Jews led by Zionists took land away from the Palestinians with religion as the
excuse, if that religion were to be diluted by mixing faiths together, Then the
fervor that motivates Israel to  continually expanding its borders might
diminish over a few generations and the reason for a Jewish theocratic state
would be removed.

 
This could lead to a secular democratic form of government that would remove all
religious and racial discrimination.

 
This is not acceptable not only to Zionists but also unacceptable to those who
see Israel as a surrogate state for its own ambitions in the Middle East.
 
Basically the removal of a multi religion, multi racial school boils down to:-
 
In the case of Zionism, the maintenance and extension of land administered under
an Apartheid system
 
In the case of multi-national corporations, continued and increasing profits
from oil.
 
Doug.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Fellow Posters,
 
First when I say the U.S. or the U.S.A.  I am referring to the politicians and
the elite there. I want to differentiate between those and ordinary American
families.
To continue,
When one discusses international affairs with Neo Conservatives, two themes
always emerge.
First.
The USA is being picked on unfairly and after all the US is not the only player
on the world stage so the apologists cry.
 
One can say straight away that the US is the main player in the world today in
fact one could say it dominates the world with an arrogance that is astounding.

 
Every time one turns on the T.V. for the news there is rarely an occasion when
either Obama or Hilary Clinton are not ordering some country or other to do
their bidding.
 
Here are some examples:
The US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton demands China to explain why it has
increased its arms expenditure. This when the US expenditure on weapons is
almost 50% of the total world expenditure whilst China spends only a fraction of
that amount with miles of hostile borders to defend which is not the case with
the U.S.

 
When the US is arming one side to the teeth in a civil dispute between mainline
China and Taiwan (which was a part of China.)
 
 At other times US orders China to change the exchange rate of its currency more
to the benefit of the U.S. dollar and so it goes on.

 
Then we have Obama ordering the leaders of various nations to step down e.g. the
leaders of Egypt and Libya and otherwise warning other countries to follow
policies that suit corporate U.S.

 
They conduct this bullying always in the shadow of some nuclear armed base or
nuclear carrier support group, after all that is what the show of military might
is all about.
 
What moral right has Obama to order a change in any government?
 
That is why the U.S. is the centre of attention or, if you like, PICKED ON. But
in reality it is the US that is doing the picking.
 
Second.
Not only does the U.S. dominate the world militarily it also dominates it
economically, for when it sneezes the rest of the world gets pneumonia as the
saying goes.
 
This has been proved to be correct, witness the Wall Street meltdown which has
had and continues to have repercussions all over the world.
 
In these circumstances the manner in which the U.S. economy is conducted is the
concern of the rest of the world and of course more urgently by ordinary working
Americans.
 
But,  we are told do not worry about any  abuses that may occur these are always
dealt with by the tax collector  (IRS) and/or  The Securities and Exchange
Commission  (S.E.C.)  and various regulations and controls.
 
The problem is Wall Street, the banks, investment brokers and the financial
institutions had long campaigned to have less controls and regulations which
they claimed was an impediment to their businesses.
 
 In this they were spectacularly successful, the controls were relaxed, in some
cases abandoned which allowed investment brokers such as Madoff and his Ponzi
Schemes to go undetected because of the environment in which business knew best
and could regulate it self.

 
Madoff would have remained undetected in his unbridled greed had it not been for
the collapse of the whole economic pack of cards.
 
This is what exposed Madoff, not an investigation by the SEC which refused to
investigate when red flags where flying everywhere and were being brought to the
attention of the economic watchdog which remained asleep.
 
If it had not been for the economic crisis that caused an investment strike so
to speak that meant no money was coming in at the bottom of the Madoff pyramid
he probably would have operated indefinitely.
 
There were many other scams like Enron, in fact too many to mention here who
were well thought of by the political elite at the time but who were plundering
the life savings and retirement nest eggs of ordinary working families.
 
The question is should the U.S. rulers be under the international microscope? 
Too bloody right they should, specially as the GOP and its financial supporters
are calling for more of that that caused the present economic debacle with loss
of job and homes of ordinary American working families.
 
Ordinary American folk have to be less trusting of their politicians who in the
majority of cases are owned and controlled by the plunderers of the wealth of
the nation revealed by the ever widening of the wealth gap.
 
This vigilance is needed to protect jobs, wages and conditions and the security
of their investment in their homes
 
Doug.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would like to enquire if I am still subscribed to this group please?

Doug Adam




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, james libres <jimat420@...>
wrote:
>
> Do we really need to answer their question? I mean does it matter?
What's the
> point?


Two reasons,

One. like a mountain it is there.

Two, idle curiosity.

Doug



>
>
========================================================================\
======================================
>
> From: Silts silnore@...
> To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, December 2, 2010 6:08:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [pinoy_atheists] GOD GIVEN FREE WILL
>
> I'd say, if god created us and would want us not to commit evil deeds,
then
> why gave us free will in the first place?
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM, doug adam theadamfamilyoz@...wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Fellow Atheists,
> >
> > How do you answer the faithful who say all the evil in the world is
> > nothing to do with the creator, the problem is that God wants us to
have
> > FREE WILL?
> >
> > Cheers Doug
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> http://www.philippineatheists.org/Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I can read your posts, so, yes.





________________________________
From: doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...>
To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 11:09:19 AM
Subject: [pinoy_atheists] Re: MY SUBSCRIPTION


I would like to enquire if I am still subscribed to this group please?

Doug Adam

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kuya Ogie,
 
Thank you for you contribution on Noam Chomsky, in my opinion you were right on.
 
When I was young I was taught about a man who was concerned about sharing and
sacrifice which was the very antithesis of the powerful establishment of the day
and so he was crucified.
 
I now see that as a parable which in fact represents present day
relationships,(perhaps it always was)  between a powerful greedy elite
establishment versus the majority, an elite that would crucify, metaphorically
speaking,  anyone who would suggest that things are not quite right and changes
could be brought about to make the world more peaceful and fairer.
 
So when some voice begins to attract attention of the multitude, even though he
does not work magic tricks like feeding thousands with a few fish and a little
bread,  then is time for the powerful elite establishment to demonize such a
voice with what every method is necessary.
 
Such men in my opinion are Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky et al.
 
These are the voices  being demonized today therefore this is the time when
ordinary people should sit up and make up their own minds, independently of the
powerful establishment, e.g. Rupert Murdoch via his Fox News, as to the meaning
in message these thinkers bring.

 
The FBI had a good edict, FOLLOW THE MONEY.
 
I have found this works in relation to those that appropriate, by a  confusion
of a series of smoke and mirrors, from the national wealth more than is their
fair due.
 
Doug




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For those those with attention spans longer than  five second soound bites on
TV.

http://www.thenation.com/video/157441/peak-oil-and-changing-climate

Doug




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Fellow Posters,
 
The most profitable business without risk, without tendering and with cost plus
clauses is in the area of defence procurement.
 
Ask the former Vice President of the USA Dick Chaney.
 
Off course it is very expensive for the taxpayer but who cares about that?
 
Without any previous business experience, Cheney leaves the Department of
Defense to become the CEO of Halliburton Co., one of the biggest oil-services
companies in the world and with an amazing coincidence his company  garners
$2.3
billion in U.S. government contracts, which almost doubles the $1.2 billion it
earned from the government previously. How about that for a nice little earner?
 
Under Cheney's leadership, Halliburton moves up from 73rd to 18th on the
Pentagon's list of top contractors.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html
 
Oh and by the way Dick Chaney as CEO of Halliburton profited from a deal with
Iraq through a European subsidiary just to prove he had no prejudices towards
the Dictator Saddam.
 
Then on March 8, 2003: US Grants Halliburton No-Bid Contract to Restore Iraqi
Oil.
 
Quote:
  
The US Army Corps of Engineers awards Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown &
Root (KBR), a sole-source monopoly contract to repair and operate Iraq’s oil
infrastructure. The contract is awarded in secrecy without any competing bids
from other qualified companies.

 
Halliburton will eventually charge the government $2.4 billion for its work. The
Defense Contract Audit Agency will find that about $263 million of these costs
are either questionable or unsupported.

Despite this, the US Army will pay Halliburton all but $10.1 million, or 3.8
percent, of the disputed costs.
Source:
 New York Times, 2/27/2006; US Congress, 3/28/2006, pp. 3-4 
 
What a difficult job it must have been for Dick Chaney to continue working for
peace when he was making millions from the preparation of war and war itself?
 
But Dick Chaney was worth his weight it gold almost. 
 
Actual it was roughly $250 million the amount that Halliburton and its former
subsidiary KBR Inc. are reported, by Nigerian officials and international
observers, to have paid to get the government of the African country to drop
bribery charges against the former corporate CEO and other Halliburton employees
and operatives.

 
THE CHANEY GET OUT OF JAIL CARD
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/28/opinion/main7190454.shtml
 
Is it not comforting to know that the keeping of world peace is firmly in the
hands of CEOs like Chaney and the US industrial military complex?

Doug.
Suggested reading:
Dick Cheney, American Warmonger
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/09/06/notes090\
602.DTL

Iraq under US Occupation,
Halliburton.http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?us_occupation_of_iraq_tml\
n_contractors=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln_halliburton&timeline=us_occupation_of_i\
raq_tmln

Cheney/Halliburton Chronology Published by CitizenWorks.org and
HalliburtonWatch.org http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/iraq.html




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 
Bobby,
 
Thank you for your post on the spread of armaments around the world.
 
Of course International corporations have sold arms for short term profits
despite the fact that such sales can come back to bite the supplying nations,
(for instance in Afghanistan.)  The excuse for the sales is that if we do not
supply others will.
 
The other reason why the sales continue is that they provide jobs and we have
seen the reaction of workers and managements when arms contracts have been
withdrawn, even from that point of view armament sales are a hot political issue
for local politicians wanting to save their political arses.

 
It is therefore essential that international treaties are agreed upon.
 
The United Nations has been attempting to bring these about without much success
if one cares to check the voting records of UN members and the use of the Veto
in the Security Council.
 
However the United States Senate is to be congratulated in agreeing to the New
START bilateral nuclear arms treaty with Russia that was passed after much
obstruction by the GOP which failed when 13 Republican Senators bravely crossed
the floor to vote for the Treaty with the Democrats.
 
Quote:
 
The treaty can only be considered as a first step because it does not mandate
that the warheads be destroyed - they would be added to the thousands the United
States keeps in storage. But the treaty is a first step in President Obama's
nuclear agenda, which envisions moving on to a second round of more ambitious
negotiations.

 
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122103961.\
html

 
The overwhelming task however is to control the sales of conventional weapons.
 
According to the data in the new report, 45 of the top 100 companies are based
in the United States.

 
These companies generated just under 247 billion dollars in total arms sales,
which is 61.5 percent of the top 100 arms sales, while 33 are based in nine
Western European countries: Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland and the UK.

 
These companies generated 120 billion dollars in total arms sales, which is 30
percent of the top 100 arms sales, while 26 of the key Western European arms
producers are based primarily in four countries: France, Germany, Italy, and the
UK.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23512
 
In fact it would appear that if it was not for the production of weaponry the
United States, and some other countries, there would few manufacturing
industries left because the rest have been exported to China etc.
 
One small step to avoid terrible injuries even in peace time is the spread of
land mines.
 
Is it not incumbent on the wealthiest nation in the world, a nation that
accounts for almost half the worlds expenditure on arms to take the lead and
work for the banning land mines?
 
These weapons are maiming and killing people in places where wars have long
gone, it is a humanitarian disgrace,
 
Quote:
Three quarters of the world's nations have joined the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty,
including virtually all of NATO, except for the United States.
 
Campaign to ban landmines
http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/landmines/about/global-landmine-problem.html\
?print=t

 
Bobby world public opinion has a lot of work to do for disarmament and peace.
 
Doug




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Has Walker's Giant Overreach Screwed Republicans? 3 Major Mistakes That Might
Sink the GOP in November
By Robert Creamer, Huffington Post
Posted on March 7, 2011, Printed on March 8, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/150149/
The weatherman on TV describes it every day. "A cold front will pass through our
area tomorrow afternoon and with it, a major wind shift."
Historians may one day pinpoint the last several weeks as the time when the
front passed -- and the political winds shifted decisively.
The combination of Governor Scott Walker's proposal to strip middle class union
members of their rights to have a seat at the table in determining their wages
and working conditions -- and the draconian cuts in services to average
Americans promoted by Republicans in Congress -- have caused a fundamental shift
in American public opinion and political momentum.
 
 
Three major Republican political mistakes have contributed mightily to their
sinking political fortunes, and they could spell disaster for their candidates
next November.
 
 
First, Republicans forgot the fundamental truth that it is much more difficult
to take something away from people that they already have, than to prevent them
from getting something for which they aspire.
It's one thing to campaign against the possibility of better health care -- or
against legislation that would restrain the power of banks to sink the economy.
It's quite another to propose measures that would cut someone's pay, eliminate
their power to bargain, or slash services that benefit everyday Americans --
even worse to propose cutting Social Security or Medicare. Those kinds of
proposals are downright personal. They really make people angry.
 
 
Nothing changes a political calculus like "facts on the ground." That's why the
Republicans are crusading so hard to prevent the Affordable Health Care Act from
being implemented. Once it's in force, millions of stakeholders will form a
political army that will prevent it from ever being repealed.
 
For the year after Medicare was passed in 1965, support was pretty lukewarm.
Once people started benefiting, support skyrocketed. Now, of course, it's the
Republicans (who actually opposed Medicare) who tried to convince seniors that
the Affordable Health Care Law would cut their Medicare benefits -- which of
course it did not.
 
During the health care battle, Republicans banked heavily on the fact that those
who aspired to get health insurance would not be as well organized or as vocal
as those who feared that the law might cause them to lose the health coverage
they already had. Their entire strategy was based on building fear among the
vast majority who had insurance or Medicare. That is one of the reasons why it
was so difficult to pass health care reform. It's also why -- even though
Democrats won the battle to pass the bill -- we, temporarily at least, lost the
war for public opinion.
 
Had a public option -- or Medicare buy-in for those under 65 -- been part of the
measure, a large number of people would have been vested with benefits much
sooner than the 2014 effective date, when most of the other benefits take
effect. It simply would not have taken four years to construct a system that
allowed people below 65 to buy in to Medicare, which of course is an on-going
concern. That would have increased levels of public support for the law much
more rapidly, and is one of the reasons Republicans fought these provisions so
doggedly.
 
Of course there are, in fact, many Americans who already benefit from the health
care law -- including hospitals full of sick kids who are no longer subject to
the insurance industry's outrageous lifetime caps or limitations on coverage for
pre-existing conditions. And more and more of the public is coming to realize
that Republican claims that the law would degrade their current benefits are
simply deceitful propaganda.
 
But the fact is that most historic changes in the political wind have happened
as a result of major political battles that involved actual or perceived
attempts to take away concrete benefits already enjoyed by a large segment of
the electorate.
 
The game-changing battle that turned the tide after the Republican sweep of 1994
involved the Republican shutdown of the Government and their attempt to cut
Medicare and Medicaid. After the disastrous Bush re-election of 2004, the winds
shifted toward Democrats when Bush tried to privatize Social Security. The
health care battle -- and the perceived attempt by Obama to undermine current
health care benefits -- set the table for the Democratic defeat in 2010.

 
Of course, the financial collapse that cost millions of Americans their pensions
and jobs closed the door on any possibility that the Republicans who presided
over the disaster could defeat Barack Obama in 2008.
 
The Republicans have forgotten this important history lesson. Take away things
that people already have and you're in for a world of trouble.
 
Want to know how completely they've forgotten this lesson? Just last week, House
Speaker John Boehner actually told the Wall Street Journal that his budget will
attempt to cut Social Security and Medicare. This, in spite of polling that
shows virtually zero support among the voters. There will be a firestorm of
opposition. Go right ahead, John, make our day.
 
 
Second, the Republicans have forgotten the all-important political principle,
that you can't believe your own spin. That's especially true if you spend all of
your time talking to the small group of people who agree with you. Take the
House of Representative's newly-elected Tea Party Caucus. This insular crew
talks to each other -- repeats each other's slogans -- listens to Fox News and
has convinced themselves that most Americans agree that government spending is
the worst thing since murder and mayhem.
 
 
They have talked themselves into actually believing that the "American people"
sent them to Washington to cut back on the "massive growth" of the federal
government and cut spending at all costs. This was, of course, never the case.
The Republicans won in November mainly on the strength of a protest vote from an
electorate that was furious that the economy had not improved -- that there were

not enough jobs.
 
But now that the Republicans have begun to propose concrete cuts to important
public services, their view of what the "American people" want is completely
disconnected from reality.
 
Last week's NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that a 51% to 46% majority says
the government should do more, rather than less. Fifty-six percent say that jobs
and economic growth should be the government's top priority compared to 40% who
rate deficit reduction that way.
 
By 54% to 18%, Americans do not believe that cuts in Medicare are necessary to
reduce the deficit. Forty-nine to twenty-two percent say cuts in Social Security
are not needed. Fifty-six percent say cuts in Headstart Programs are "mostly" or
"totally unacceptable." Seventy-seven percent say the same of cuts in primary
and secondary education. Majorities also call unacceptable cuts to defense,
unemployement insurance, student loans, and heating assistance to low-income
families.
 
On the other hand, while Republicans rail against increases in taxes -- even for
the rich, a whopping 81% favor placing a surtax on people who make more than a
million dollars.
 
Sixty-eight percent want to end the Bush tax cuts on those who make over
$250,000.
 
An overwhelming 77% support the right of public employees to collective
bargaining.
 
To top it off, a Rasmussen (Republican) poll shows Wisconsin Governor Walker's
positives dropping to 43%, and his negatives soaring to 57%.
 
The winds have shifted -- and because they believe their own spin, many
Republicans have yet to notice.
 
Bottom line is that these guys think they're flying straight and level, and
they're really in a steep dive.
 
Third, the Republicans have failed to learn that you can tell people that up is
down, and black is white, for only so long. Or to paraphrase one of the founders
of the Republican Party: "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but
you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
 
Over and over, the Republicans have repeated their mantra that we need to "cut
spending" in order to create jobs. Now, it is certainly true that controlling
the nation's long-term deficit will benefit the economy in the long haul. You
can even make a case that when government debt begins to sop up lots of
available credit, it can be a drag on private sector investment and growth. But
no reputable economist agrees that cutting spending now -- as we are just
emerging from a recession -- will create jobs. Just the opposite.
 
Companies are sitting on two trillion dollars of cash. There is no shortage of
capital for expansion. There is a shortage of economic demand. Businesses invest
in new plants and equipment and hire new workers when there are people out there
demanding their products and services.
 
That's why economists like Mark Zandi, of Moody Analytics, who was an economic
adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign, issued a study last week showing
that the HR1 -- the Republican spending bill for this year -- would destroy
700,000 jobs.

That's why Goldman Sachs -- hardly a left-leaning economic institution -- issued
a report saying that the Republican budget plan will knock 2% off this year's
GDP, which would do real damage considering that the Government expects the GDP
to increase only 2.7% this year.
 
And the public is beginning to get the picture. The polling shows that voters
want investments that actually do increase long-term growth -- investments in
education, research and infrastructure -- that will allow us to win the future.
 
American voters are a pretty smart group. If they are presented a choice between
recklessly slashing the budget on the one hand, and investing to assure that our
kids will have more opportunities than we do, they choose the future every time.
After all, what Americans really want is to feel confident that together we can
once again reclaim the American dream.
 
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of
the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Do you mean, Doug, that we can dare hope that Dick Cheney's prediction that
Barack Obama will be a one-term president, will prove to be wrong?
Butch


--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...> wrote:
>
> Has Walker's Giant Overreach Screwed Republicans? 3 Major Mistakes That Might
> Sink the GOP in November
> By Robert Creamer, Huffington Post
> Posted on March 7, 2011, Printed on March 8, 2011
> http://www.alternet.org/story/150149/
> The weatherman on TV describes it every day. "A cold front will pass through
our
> area tomorrow afternoon and with it, a major wind shift."
> Historians may one day pinpoint the last several weeks as the time when the
> front passed -- and the political winds shifted decisively.
> The combination of Governor Scott Walker's proposal to strip middle class
union
> members of their rights to have a seat at the table in determining their wages
> and working conditions -- and the draconian cuts in services to average
> Americans promoted by Republicans in Congress -- have caused a fundamental
shift
> in American public opinion and political momentum.
>  
>  
> Three major Republican political mistakes have contributed mightily to their
> sinking political fortunes, and they could spell disaster for their candidates
> next November.
>  
>  
> First, Republicans forgot the fundamental truth that it is much more difficult
> to take something away from people that they already have, than to prevent
them
> from getting something for which they aspire.
> It's one thing to campaign against the possibility of better health care -- or
> against legislation that would restrain the power of banks to sink the
economy.
> It's quite another to propose measures that would cut someone's pay, eliminate
> their power to bargain, or slash services that benefit everyday Americans --
> even worse to propose cutting Social Security or Medicare. Those kinds of
> proposals are downright personal. They really make people angry.
>  
>  
> Nothing changes a political calculus like "facts on the ground." That's why
the
> Republicans are crusading so hard to prevent the Affordable Health Care Act
from
> being implemented. Once it's in force, millions of stakeholders will form a
> political army that will prevent it from ever being repealed.
>  
> For the year after Medicare was passed in 1965, support was pretty lukewarm.
> Once people started benefiting, support skyrocketed. Now, of course, it's the
> Republicans (who actually opposed Medicare) who tried to convince seniors that
> the Affordable Health Care Law would cut their Medicare benefits -- which of
> course it did not.
>  
> During the health care battle, Republicans banked heavily on the fact that
those
> who aspired to get health insurance would not be as well organized or as vocal
> as those who feared that the law might cause them to lose the health coverage
> they already had. Their entire strategy was based on building fear among the
> vast majority who had insurance or Medicare. That is one of the reasons why it
> was so difficult to pass health care reform. It's also why -- even though
> Democrats won the battle to pass the bill -- we, temporarily at least, lost
the
> war for public opinion.
>  
> Had a public option -- or Medicare buy-in for those under 65 -- been part of
the
> measure, a large number of people would have been vested with benefits much
> sooner than the 2014 effective date, when most of the other benefits take
> effect. It simply would not have taken four years to construct a system that
> allowed people below 65 to buy in to Medicare, which of course is an on-going
> concern. That would have increased levels of public support for the law much
> more rapidly, and is one of the reasons Republicans fought these provisions so
> doggedly.
>  
> Of course there are, in fact, many Americans who already benefit from the
health
> care law -- including hospitals full of sick kids who are no longer subject to
> the insurance industry's outrageous lifetime caps or limitations on coverage
for
> pre-existing conditions. And more and more of the public is coming to realize
> that Republican claims that the law would degrade their current benefits are
> simply deceitful propaganda.
>  
> But the fact is that most historic changes in the political wind have happened
> as a result of major political battles that involved actual or perceived
> attempts to take away concrete benefits already enjoyed by a large segment of
> the electorate.
>  
> The game-changing battle that turned the tide after the Republican sweep of
1994
> involved the Republican shutdown of the Government and their attempt to cut
> Medicare and Medicaid. After the disastrous Bush re-election of 2004, the
winds
> shifted toward Democrats when Bush tried to privatize Social Security. The
> health care battle -- and the perceived attempt by Obama to undermine current
> health care benefits -- set the table for the Democratic defeat in 2010.
>
>  
> Of course, the financial collapse that cost millions of Americans their
pensions
> and jobs closed the door on any possibility that the Republicans who presided
> over the disaster could defeat Barack Obama in 2008.
>  
> The Republicans have forgotten this important history lesson. Take away things
> that people already have and you're in for a world of trouble.
>  
> Want to know how completely they've forgotten this lesson? Just last week,
House
> Speaker John Boehner actually told the Wall Street Journal that his budget
will
> attempt to cut Social Security and Medicare. This, in spite of polling that
> shows virtually zero support among the voters. There will be a firestorm of
> opposition. Go right ahead, John, make our day.
>  
>  
> Second, the Republicans have forgotten the all-important political principle,
> that you can't believe your own spin. That's especially true if you spend all
of
> your time talking to the small group of people who agree with you. Take the
> House of Representative's newly-elected Tea Party Caucus. This insular crew
> talks to each other -- repeats each other's slogans -- listens to Fox News and
> has convinced themselves that most Americans agree that government spending is
> the worst thing since murder and mayhem.
>  
>  
> They have talked themselves into actually believing that the "American people"
> sent them to Washington to cut back on the "massive growth" of the federal
> government and cut spending at all costs. This was, of course, never the case.
> The Republicans won in November mainly on the strength of a protest vote from
an
> electorate that was furious that the economy had not improved -- that there
were
>
> not enough jobs.
>  
> But now that the Republicans have begun to propose concrete cuts to important
> public services, their view of what the "American people" want is completely
> disconnected from reality.
>  
> Last week's NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that a 51% to 46% majority
says
> the government should do more, rather than less. Fifty-six percent say that
jobs
> and economic growth should be the government's top priority compared to 40%
who
> rate deficit reduction that way.
>  
> By 54% to 18%, Americans do not believe that cuts in Medicare are necessary to
> reduce the deficit. Forty-nine to twenty-two percent say cuts in Social
Security
> are not needed. Fifty-six percent say cuts in Headstart Programs are "mostly"
or
> "totally unacceptable." Seventy-seven percent say the same of cuts in primary
> and secondary education. Majorities also call unacceptable cuts to defense,
> unemployement insurance, student loans, and heating assistance to low-income
> families.
>  
> On the other hand, while Republicans rail against increases in taxes -- even
for
> the rich, a whopping 81% favor placing a surtax on people who make more than a
> million dollars.
>  
> Sixty-eight percent want to end the Bush tax cuts on those who make over
> $250,000.
>  
> An overwhelming 77% support the right of public employees to collective
> bargaining.
>  
> To top it off, a Rasmussen (Republican) poll shows Wisconsin Governor Walker's
> positives dropping to 43%, and his negatives soaring to 57%.
>  
> The winds have shifted -- and because they believe their own spin, many
> Republicans have yet to notice.
>  
> Bottom line is that these guys think they're flying straight and level, and
> they're really in a steep dive.
>  
> Third, the Republicans have failed to learn that you can tell people that up
is
> down, and black is white, for only so long. Or to paraphrase one of the
founders
> of the Republican Party: "You can fool some of the people some of the time,
but
> you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
>  
> Over and over, the Republicans have repeated their mantra that we need to "cut
> spending" in order to create jobs. Now, it is certainly true that controlling
> the nation's long-term deficit will benefit the economy in the long haul. You
> can even make a case that when government debt begins to sop up lots of
> available credit, it can be a drag on private sector investment and growth.
But
> no reputable economist agrees that cutting spending now -- as we are just
> emerging from a recession -- will create jobs. Just the opposite.
>  
> Companies are sitting on two trillion dollars of cash. There is no shortage of
> capital for expansion. There is a shortage of economic demand. Businesses
invest
> in new plants and equipment and hire new workers when there are people out
there
> demanding their products and services.
>  
> That's why economists like Mark Zandi, of Moody Analytics, who was an economic
> adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign, issued a study last week
showing
> that the HR1 -- the Republican spending bill for this year -- would destroy
> 700,000 jobs.
>
> That's why Goldman Sachs -- hardly a left-leaning economic institution --
issued
> a report saying that the Republican budget plan will knock 2% off this year's
> GDP, which would do real damage considering that the Government expects the
GDP
> to increase only 2.7% this year.
>  
> And the public is beginning to get the picture. The polling shows that voters
> want investments that actually do increase long-term growth -- investments in
> education, research and infrastructure -- that will allow us to win the
future.
>  
> American voters are a pretty smart group. If they are presented a choice
between
> recklessly slashing the budget on the one hand, and investing to assure that
our
> kids will have more opportunities than we do, they choose the future every
time.
> After all, what Americans really want is to feel confident that together we
can
> once again reclaim the American dream.
>  
> Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author
of
> the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Bobby,
 
Your faith in the altruism of US leading   politicians of both parties, the
elite, the controllers of industry, the banks, the financial institutions, the
corporate controlled mass media and  the justice system,
I.E. THE U.S. ESTABLISHMENT
 is very touching Bobby but, in my opinion sadly misplaced.
 
As George Carlin pointed out
 
THIS IS ONE BIG CLUB AND YOU AINT IN IT!
 
One has only to glance at Wikileaks to understand that what goes on behind the
closed doors by  these people is not the same as when the doors are opened to
the public.

 
Not only this but, they have the gall to purport they believe in transparent
open government.

 
They do not, it’s a lie because basically those in the above elite club
believe
that the people
 
Quote
AMERICANS CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH DEMOCRACY,   Noam Chomsky.
 
Then we have the US Industrial Military Complex juggernaut.
 
Quotation.
       In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and
will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and
military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that
security and liberty may prosper together.

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Why should Eisenhower have issued this warning?
 
For several reasons.
 
The most profitable business for corporations and individuals to be in is the
defence procurement business which is worth billions of dollars
Mostly contracts are awarded in
NO BID CONTRACTS with COST PLUS clauses. This means :-
 
 1) Contractors do not have to meet competition.
2) These are no loss contracts, which in peaceful competitive businesses is
rarely the case.
3) They have no motive to reduce costs.
4) They have no motive to work for peace
5) On the contrary they have every motive to increase costs.
(6) They do this by creating fear and trepidation in the nation.
 
Quotation
Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a
continuous stampede of patriotic fervor — with the cry of grave national
emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous
foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind
it. General Douglas Macarthur
 
Is it not plain that those who benefit from the threat of war or actual war to
the tune of Billions of taxpayers money are not, at the very least anxious to
have the gravy train halted? In fact they have every motivation to keep running.
 
Is it not fair to call them War Mongers? That was the name the US gave the
Japanese and German leaders of their INDUSTRIAL MILITARY COMPLEXES at the post
war crimes trials.
 
What government judicial body can indict the US variety?
 
The US Supreme Court?
 
Is that likely considering they are carefully selected by the  politicians who
appointed them?
 
This is putting the Foxes in charge of the Hen house.
 
 Dick Chaney (before he became Vice President of the USA)  served in a
prominent
position in under George Bush as Secretary of Defence, in February 1991, the
Pentagon, led by one Dick Cheney, the afore mentioned Secretary of Defence, paid
Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root Services over $8.5 million to study the use
of private military forces with American soldiers in combat zones [1]
 
When he left the Whitehouse he was appointed CEO of the same corporation he had
awarded contracts to, the Halliburton Corporation without any real knowledge
about its business.  Wow! [2]
 
Within a relative short period of Chaney becoming CEO the position of
Halliburton on the list of military procurement corporations rose substantially.

 
In any properly democratic system of awarding contracts that would have resulted
in a charge of having a conflict of interests or at least a JOB FOR THE BOYS
sort of thing.
 
Then what about the US 350 million dollar Halliburton paid for the GET OUT OF
JAIL CARD FOR CHANEY 

paid to stop his trial by Nigeria Courts  that were about to bring him to court
on bribery charges related to the procurement of contracts.[3]
 
Then what about the contracts Halliburton had with Saddam Hussein when he was
CEO? [4]
 
Well at least there one can say when he was making direct profits in Iraq, he
was not prejudiced from working with the cruel dictator Saddam Hussein.
 
Business is business after all, human rights do not enter into it. It was not a
reason to send young lives to die in Iraq AT THAT TIME.
 
What changed his mind, was it that Saddam was going to deal in Euros instead of
US dollars?
 
Then we have the Vietnam war that cost the lives of 80O,000 young Americans and
four million Indo Chinese which the super patriot Chaney described as a JUST
WAR, he still does but, not JUST enough for him to get conscripted into. Oh shit
no! His life was too precious to have it lost in Vietnam, so he got several
deferments that saved him for the draft, but please do no call him a DRAFT
DODGER.[5]
 
These people lied and lied again and again, they should be indicated for
misleading the public.
They lied about the reasons to go to one war after another; they should be
indicted for war crimes on the same basis as the US tried the Nazi politicians.
 
In fact they still lie as they lied for the reason to invade and occupy Iraq,
 as they lied about the  invasion and occupation of the Philippines, they lied
about nuclear weapons in Iraq, they told us exactly were these weapons were but
they lied, there were none.

 
 
How do we know the Iraq War was about oil?
 
Iraq Oil was in the hands of the Iraq government  before the war, now after the
war? It is being distributed to multi-national oil corporations as we speak with
Exxon Mobil the first in line to have benefited from all the deaths and all the
destruction.

 
The cost has been paid for by the deaths of thousands of Americans in the prime
of their lives and by the American workers through their taxes. This is not even
to mention most importantly the lives of thousands of Iraqis.
 
Did Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice get indicted for their lies? Did
the justice system work to get them their just desserts? Of course not, the
justice system was on their side for Christ sake.

 
These politicians appoint the judges in the courts who work for them, not for
the interests of ordinary folk, if it so happens sometimes their decisions are
for the benefit of the people it is unintended.
 
Human rights and fairness only come about by grass roots organisations forcing
them on a hostile establishment.
Yes,  sometimes there is a break in the cover for these lies, like Watergate.
But this only after two brave investigative journalists risked their lives in
pursuing the evil doers to the very end. [5A]
Where are such investigative journalists today in the US?
Embedded in the military that is where, writing on behalf of the
Pentagon. Others are riding with whatever President on Air Force One, and/or
enjoying tête-à-têtes  (i.e. Whitehouse briefings,)  being highly paid as
stenographers to pass the Whitehouse political thought of the day to a gullible
public, via of course a compliant corporate mass media. (At least they did until
they got a black President.)
 
We do have the investigative Wikileak journalist in Europe but, the US elite
want to get hold of him and indict him as a terrorist. [6]
 
Of course they can do that without evidence or charge, without a trial, without
a jury, without Habeas Corpus for an indefinite period, even for life, or even
execute him because they have already torn up the Bill of Rights and have
trampled on the US Constitution.
 
Jus to make sure they do not have to abide by the much diluted US law they avoid
such niceties by sending prisoners out of US jurisdiction to the US occupied
part of Cuba, Guantanamo Bay, for torture or, as previously has been done to
send  prisoners into the hands of the Egyptian dictator without telling anyone.
It is now revealed Mubarak when he was the idle of the Whitehouse had a penchant
for cruelty more vicious than that applied in Abu Graib or Guantanamo [7]
 
That is freedom and democracy US establishment style.
 
So much for open transparent democratic government once again.
 
The reality is Bobby,
 
US politicians and CEOs such as Chaney,  despite the SEC,   are getting away
with murder and plunder.
They are doing this under cover of a corporate mass media that screens
information from the public and often distorts it.
 
They are causing massive loss of jobs, loss of homes for working people, loss of
pensions and retirement nest eggs of ordinary wage and salary earners.

 
Further to all that many Americans have  have seen the value of their saving in
US dollars drastically lose value
 
They are sending jobs to China because by so doing they can make more profit,
that is for greed. How patriotic is that?

 
Has the establishment been brought account account for their misadministration,
no of course not, they blame everyone else but themselves, they say they were
helpless to do anything then, in the next breath say vote us in again for more
of the same.
 
The wealthy CEOs of TOO BIG TO FAIL CORPORATIONS which did fail, are getting
billions of dollars in performance bonuses for their failures, paid out of the
taxes collected from working Americans.[8]
 
 How is that for distribution of wealth, of course upwards but, do not say
that.
At the same time reducing the wages and conditions of working families.
 
Fuck patriotism that is for the masses, we are for greater wealth that is the
driving force of the establishment. Greed is great.
 
That is THE GREATEST STORY EVERY SOLD!
 
Doug.
[1] The company has become the object of several controversies involving the
2003 Iraq Warand the company's ties to Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney.
Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential
electioncampaign with a severance package worth $36 million.[40]As of 2004, he
had received $398,548 in deferred compensationfrom Halliburton while Vice
President.[41]Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to
2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton.[42]
In the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for
which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid.[
 
[2] Nigeria will file charges against former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and
officials from five foreign companies including Halliburton Co. over a $180
million bribery scandal, a prosecutor at the anti-graft agency said.
[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/28/opinion/main7190454.shtml
[4]Iraq Chaneys Halliburton profited from deals with Iraq during Saddam
Hussein's dictatorship and during Dick Cheney's tenure as CEO. The deals, which
began before Halliburton acquired the two subsidiaries responsible for them,
were conducted discreetly through several Halliburton subsidiaries in Europe.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/shareholder2004.html
1.    [5] How Dick Cheneydodged thedraft. - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine
10 Sep 2010 ... 19, 1966: The Selective Service reclassifies Dick Cheney 3-A,
"deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his
...
www.slate.com/id/2097365/- Cached- Similar
[5a]  Watergate,. CBS News and the Los Angeles Times aggressively pursued the
story behind the botched break-in. But the scandal made Post reporters Carl
Bernstein and Bob Woodward famous. Their months of dogged reporting won the
newspaper a coveted Pulitzer Prize for public service -- and won the journalists
a book contract. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman portrayed the reporters in
the 1975 film version of their best-selling Men" -- a movie that inspired an
entire generation of reporters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/post.htm
             
[6]Assange to be triedin 'terrorism' court?
To secretive power, this is journalism at its most dangerous. .... They don't
want the public to know these things and scapegoats must be found." ... What
WikiLeaks has given us is truth, including rareand precious ... the extent to
which politicians in the West have been lying to their citizens. ...
www.wikileaksforum.net/topic/assange-to-be-tried-in-terrorism-court- Cached
 
[7]   Guantanamo Bay Located at the southeastern end of Cuba, Guantanamo Bay
is
the site of a U.S. Naval base ... their lives to the destruction of America and
Western civilization. ... the Bill of Rights Defense Committee; Human Rights
Watch; Human Rights ...
www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=135...- Cached- Similar
 
 
[8] Will Perpetrators of Financial Crimes Ever Face Justice? | BanksterUSA
25 Aug 2010... involvement in the secret payout of a $3.6 billion dollar bonus
... These firm may be too big to fail, but their executives are not too big for
jail. .... The Complaint: “The Bank of America Corporation has agreed to buy
back ... the two banks agreed to buy back billions of dollars of illiquid ...
www.banksterusa.org/.../will-perpetrators-financial-crimes-ever-face-justice-
Cached 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bobby,
 
Revisiting the question of absolutes.
 
But first I want to go back to your statement that you have been provided with a
good life as the result of the US Imperialism as it applied to the Philippines
which as you say gives you a reason to be grateful to America.
 
Of course every Imperial Power going back Rome, to the conquistadores in Latin
America, to the empires of Britain, Germany, Holland, Belgium and Japan too
mention just a few,  all brought  benefits to some but, the question to be
asked
is,  was the price paid by the majority too high?

 
Bobby
The price to be paid by your Kababayans/countrymen was the American war against
the Philippines (1899-1902)

Quote:-
The war lasted three years, until Aguinaldo’s surrender on July 4, 1902,
although hostilities continued on a smaller scale for a dozen years after that.
It was a brutal war. 

 
The Anti-Imperialist League, formed in opposition to it by such diverse figures
as Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, and William James, published letters from
American soldiers in the Philippines describing the extermination of whole
villages of Filipinos, the torture of prisoners by pumping salt water into their
bodies, water boarding, the execution of soldiers who had peacefully
surrendered, and explicit orders to kill everyone over the age of ten.  Letters
to the New York World, on October 6, 1900.
 
 Mark Twain described the war, in terms which would echo throughout the new
century and beyond, as
 
A MESS, A QUAGMIRE FROM WHICH EACH FRESH STEP RENDERS THE DIFFICULTY OF
EXTRICATION IMMENSELY
GREATER.http://www.suite101.com/content/the-americanphilippine-war-of-18991902-a\
189071

 
President McKinley and his administration, as well as many newspapers, justified
American intervention in the Philippines on humanitarian grounds: to free the
Filipinos from Spanish tyranny and to give them Christianity (he did not know
they were already Christians)  but Senator Albert Beveridge was more forthright
when he told his colleagues, Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus?
Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer.... The
Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East....
 
Bobby you appear to describe this as A MISTAKE by the US? Please tell me if I am
wrong.
 
If it was a MISTAKE  then the United States has been making such mistakes one
after another before and since.
 
One of the most recent glaring MISTAKES, is the American war against Vietnam,
Laos and Cambodia  in which some Indo Chinese would have benefited but again
was
the price paid too high for the majority?

Quote:-
…..the true civilian casualties of the American Vietnam war were 4,000,000 ,
 Military casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600,000 wounded in 21 years of
war (1963-74). …..On the US side, the figures given are 58,200 US soldiers
killed, 223,748 South Vietnamese soldiers, and 5,200 South Koreans, Australians,
New Zealanders, and Thais…..The total therefore comes to around 5.4 million
deaths in Vietnam alone (including the US and its lacayos), but these figures
don't factor in Laos and Cambodia.

Source:
Text of Agence France Presse (AFP) release from Hanoi April 1995, on the 20th
anniversary of the end of the Vietnam
War.http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/casualty.html
 
Then we have the other US MISTAKES, The wars and military interventions against
several of the Latin American countries.*  
 
The list of the number military actions of Islamic countries is too long to post
here, but it would  include; The Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, The Sudan, Iran, Iraq
and Afghanistan.
Quote:-
…..nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name
of FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY, nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships
controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the
Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending FREEDOM (at the same time it was
removing freedoms at home)  but an ideological agenda (such as defending
capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments).
In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as in
Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people from
overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic
government more to their
liking.http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mar2009/century-military-intervention\
s.html

 
There were reasons given for all these US generated wars, most were lies such as
to:-
1) Bring civilization to ignorant savages.
2) Bring Christianity to heathen Flipinos.
3) Bring freedom and democracy to people to dumb to achieve it on their own
4) Bring and end to communism
5) Bring and end to Moslem terrorism
But the hidden reason is for US Imperialism the same as all Imperialist powers
that went before, for economic domination through military aggression.
 
Bobby, your wellbeing can rightly be at the cost of your fellow country men
 and
their sacrifices but also at the cost of the millions of deaths caused by the US
in wars and military interventions in all corners of the world.

 
You could be accused, as you accused Chomsky,  of having blood on your hands
but
in both cases that is absurd but, you should try and remember the price that was
paid for your good life and where to place your gratitude.
 
I have not mentioned the rights that you now enjoy in the US which were won by
ordinary working Americans   pressing for them in class struggles against the
elite class, ( by the way these benefits and human rights  are  being slowly
but
inexorably taken away by those who would turn the US into an oligarchy.)
 
Bobby, this is where absolutes come in.
 
One cannot say the US is evil period, because there are two Americas, the one of
the military Industrial military terrorist complex of war profiteers which you
Bobby you seem to extol, (I hope you can deny this)  and the America of the
peace and human rights movements that I see as shining beacons to the rest of
the progressive world.
 
Doug.
*
COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Forces Comments
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone
1914.

HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
 
Suggested reading US Veterans Against the Vietnam War.
http://www.vvaw.org/about/warhistory.php
//////////////////
From Wounded Knee to Iraq:
A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS Dr. Zoltan Grossman,
academic.evergreen.edu
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mar2009/century-military-interventions.html
/////////
A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present by William Blum
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There some points to consider here ;
1- How you define (good life)..., our lives seems very miserable in a world
that seems to be controlled by the US
2- There are difference between providing (good life) to people or citizens
and providing (good life) only to those loyal to US policy or those
protecting , promoting , in favor ..etc  to its policy worldwide
3- Speaking from Jordan ; it seems that ; those US agents there are the
sources of all corruptions in that country...required further researches to
determine that

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 7:47 AM, doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...>wrote:

>
>
> Bobby,
>
> Revisiting the question of absolutes.
>
> But first I want to go back to your statement that you have been provided
> with a
> good life as the result of the US Imperialism as it applied to the
> Philippines
> which as you say gives you a reason to be grateful to America.
>
> Of course every Imperial Power going back Rome, to the conquistadores in
> Latin
> America, to the empires of Britain, Germany, Holland, Belgium and Japan too
>
> mention just a few,  all brought  benefits to some but, the question to be
> asked
> is,  was the price paid by the majority too high?
>
>
> Bobby
> The price to be paid by your Kababayans/countrymen was the American war
> against
> the Philippines (1899-1902)
>
> Quote:-
> The war lasted three years, until Aguinaldo’s surrender on July 4, 1902,
> although hostilities continued on a smaller scale for a dozen years after
> that.
> It was a brutal war.
>
>
> The Anti-Imperialist League, formed in opposition to it by such diverse
> figures
> as Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, and William James, published letters from
> American soldiers in the Philippines describing the extermination of whole
> villages of Filipinos, the torture of prisoners by pumping salt water into
> their
> bodies, water boarding, the execution of soldiers who had peacefully
> surrendered, and explicit orders to kill everyone over the age of ten.
>  Letters
> to the New York World, on October 6, 1900.
>
>  Mark Twain described the war, in terms which would echo throughout the new
>
> century and beyond, as
>
> A MESS, A QUAGMIRE FROM WHICH EACH FRESH STEP RENDERS THE DIFFICULTY OF
> EXTRICATION IMMENSELY
>
>
GREATER.http://www.suite101.com/content/the-americanphilippine-war-of-18991902-a\
189071
>
>
> President McKinley and his administration, as well as many newspapers,
> justified
> American intervention in the Philippines on humanitarian grounds: to free
> the
> Filipinos from Spanish tyranny and to give them Christianity (he did not
> know
> they were already Christians)  but Senator Albert Beveridge was more
> forthright
> when he told his colleagues, Where shall we turn for consumers of our
> surplus?
> Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer.... The
> Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East....
>
> Bobby you appear to describe this as A MISTAKE by the US? Please tell me if
> I am
> wrong.
>
> If it was a MISTAKE  then the United States has been making such mistakes
> one
> after another before and since.
>
> One of the most recent glaring MISTAKES, is the American war against
> Vietnam,
> Laos and Cambodia  in which some Indo Chinese would have benefited but
> again was
> the price paid too high for the majority?
>
> Quote:-
> …..the true civilian casualties of the American Vietnam war were 4,000,000
> ,
>  Military casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600,000 wounded in 21
> years of
> war (1963-74). …..On the US side, the figures given are 58,200 US soldiers
> killed, 223,748 South Vietnamese soldiers, and 5,200 South Koreans,
> Australians,
> New Zealanders, and Thais…..The total therefore comes to around 5.4 million
>
> deaths in Vietnam alone (including the US and its lacayos), but these
> figures
> don't factor in Laos and Cambodia.
>
> Source:
> Text of Agence France Presse (AFP) release from Hanoi April 1995, on the
> 20th
> anniversary of the end of the Vietnam
> War.http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/casualty.html
>
> Then we have the other US MISTAKES, The wars and military interventions
> against
> several of the Latin American countries.*
>
> The list of the number military actions of Islamic countries is too long to
> post
> here, but it would  include; The Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, The Sudan, Iran,
> Iraq
> and Afghanistan.
> Quote:-
> …..nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the
> name
> of FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY, nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships
>
> controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the
> Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending FREEDOM (at the same time it was
> removing freedoms at home)  but an ideological agenda (such as defending
> capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company
> investments).
> In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as
> in
> Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people
> from
> overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic
> government more to their
>
>
liking.http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mar2009/century-military-intervention\
s.html
>
>
> There were reasons given for all these US generated wars, most were lies
> such as
> to:-
> 1) Bring civilization to ignorant savages.
> 2) Bring Christianity to heathen Flipinos.
> 3) Bring freedom and democracy to people to dumb to achieve it on their own
> 4) Bring and end to communism
> 5) Bring and end to Moslem terrorism
> But the hidden reason is for US Imperialism the same as all Imperialist
> powers
> that went before, for economic domination through military aggression.
>
> Bobby, your wellbeing can rightly be at the cost of your fellow country men
>  and
> their sacrifices but also at the cost of the millions of deaths caused by
> the US
> in wars and military interventions in all corners of the world.
>
>
> You could be accused, as you accused Chomsky,  of having blood on your
> hands but
> in both cases that is absurd but, you should try and remember the price
> that was
> paid for your good life and where to place your gratitude.
>
> I have not mentioned the rights that you now enjoy in the US which were won
> by
> ordinary working Americans   pressing for them in class struggles against
> the
> elite class, ( by the way these benefits and human rights  are  being
> slowly but
> inexorably taken away by those who would turn the US into an oligarchy.)
>
> Bobby, this is where absolutes come in.
>
> One cannot say the US is evil period, because there are two Americas, the
> one of
> the military Industrial military terrorist complex of war profiteers which
> you
> Bobby you seem to extol, (I hope you can deny this)  and the America of the
>
> peace and human rights movements that I see as shining beacons to the rest
> of
> the progressive world.
>
> Doug.
> *
> COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Forces Comments
> ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
> CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
> NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
> PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
> NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
> CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
> PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation
> continues.
> GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
> NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
> NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
> PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal
> Zone
> 1914.
>
> HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
> DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
> CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
> NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
> HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
>
> Suggested reading US Veterans Against the Vietnam War.
> http://www.vvaw.org/about/warhistory.php
> //////////////////
> From Wounded Knee to Iraq:
> A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS Dr. Zoltan Grossman,
> academic.evergreen.edu
>
>
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mar2009/century-military-interventions.html
> /////////
> A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present by William Blum
> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
No regrets , Professional Engineer , Adviser /Atheist ; Scientific :
Straight Man


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The unfolding multiple nuclear reactor catastrophe in Japan is prompting overdue
attention to the 104 nuclear plants in the United States—many of them aging,
many of them near earthquake faults, some on the west coast exposed to potential
tsunamis.
   
Nuclear power plants boil water to produce steam to turn turbines that generate
electricity. Nuclear power’s overly complex fuel cycle begins with uranium
mines
and ends with deadly radioactive wastes for which there still are no permanent
storage facilities to contain them for tens of thousands of years.
   
Atomic power plants generate 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Over
forty
years ago, the industry’s promoter and regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission
estimated that a full nuclear meltdown could contaminate an area “the size of
Pennsylvania” and cause massive casualties. You, the taxpayers, have heavily
subsidized nuclear power research, development, and promotion from day one with
tens of billions of dollars.
   
Because of many costs, perils, close calls at various reactors, and the partial
meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, there has not
been a nuclear power plant built in the United States since 1974.
   
Now the industry is coming back “on your back” claiming it will help reduce
global warming from fossil fuel emitted greenhouse gases.
   
Pushed aggressively by President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu, who refuses to
meet with longtime nuclear industry critics, here is what “on your back”
means:

1. Wall Street will not finance new nuclear plants without a 100% taxpayer loan
guarantee. Too risky. That’s a lot of guarantee given that new nukes cost $12
billion each, assuming no mishaps. Obama and the Congress are OK with that
arrangement.


2. Nuclear power is uninsurable in the private insurance market—too risky.
Under
the Price-Anderson Act, taxpayers pay the greatest cost of a meltdown’s
devastation.

3. Nuclear power plants and transports of radioactive wastes are a national
security nightmare for the Department of Homeland Security. Imagine the target
that thousands of vulnerable spent fuel rods present for sabotage.

4. Guess who pays for whatever final waste repositories are licensed? You the
taxpayer and your descendants as far as your gene line persists.  Huge
decommissioning costs, at the end of a nuclear plant’s existence come from the
ratepayers’ pockets.

5. Nuclear plant disasters present impossible evacuation burdens for those
living anywhere near a plant, especially if time is short.

Imagine evacuating the long-troubled Indian Point plants 26 miles north of New
York City. Workers in that region have a hard enough time evacuating their
places of employment during 5 pm rush hour. That’s one reason Secretary of
State
Clinton (in her time as Senator of New York) and Governor Andrew Cuomo called
for the shutdown of Indian Point.


6. Nuclear power is both uneconomical and unnecessary. It can’t compete
against
energy conservation, including cogeneration, windpower and ever more efficient,
quicker, safer, renewable forms of providing electricity. Amory Lovins argues
this point convincingly (see RMI.org). Physicist Lovins asserts that nuclear
power “will reduce and retard climate protection.” His reasoning: shifting
the
tens of billions invested in nuclear power to efficiency and renewables reduce
far more carbon per dollar
(http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf). The country should
move deliberately to shutdown nuclear plants, starting with the aging and
seismically threatened reactors. Peter Bradford, a former Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) commissioner has also made a compelling case against nuclear
power on economic and safety grounds
(http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf).

There is far more for ratepayers, taxpayers and families near nuclear plants to
find out. Here’s how you can start:

1. Demand public hearings in your communities where there is a nuke, sponsored
either by your member of Congress or the NRC, to put the facts, risks and
evacuation plans on the table. Insist that the critics as well as the proponents
testify and cross-examine each other in front of you and the media.

2. If you call yourself conservative, ask why nuclear power requires such huge
amounts of your tax dollars and guarantees and can’t buy adequate private
insurance. If you have a small business that can’t buy insurance because what
you do is too risky, you don’t stay in business.

3. If you are an environmentalist, ask why nuclear power isn’t required to
meet
a cost-efficient market test against investments in energy conservation and
renewables.

4. If you understand traffic congestion, ask for an actual real life evacuation
drill for those living and working 10 miles around the plant (some scientists
think it should be at least 25 miles) and watch the hemming and hawing from
proponents of nuclear power.

The people in northern Japan may lose their land, homes, relatives, and friends
as a result of a dangerous technology designed simply to boil water. There are
better ways to generate steam.

Like the troubled Japanese nuclear plants, the Indian Point plants and the four
plants at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon in southern California rest near
earthquake faults. The seismologists concur that there is a 94% chance of a big
earthquake in California within the next thirty years. Obama, Chu and the
powerful nuke industry must not be allowed to force the American people to play
Russian Roulette!

End.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell your friends to visit Nader.Org and sign up for E-Alerts.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: alerts-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: alerts-help@...




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Fellow Posters,
 
I would like to make it clear that what I am about to say is not a reflection on
the American people who mostly are law abiding caring people.

 
The problem is we all  have been given the Mushroom treatment  by the corporate
controlled mass media which has kept us in the dark and fed us bullshit.

 
This is my way to throw some light on the matter
 
Definition of a criminal.
 
One who openly shows contempt for laws and conventions, disobeys and defies
them.
International law The United Nations Charter paragraph 4 of Article 2, and the
principle of the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by force.
 
International Court of Justice.
 
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a 1984 case of
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of
Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua.

 
The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting 
Honduran Contra terrorist  against the democratically elected Nicaraguan
government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors.

 
The Court found in its verdict that the United States was in breach of its
obligations under customary international law
 1) NOT TO USE FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER STATE
2) NOT TO INTERVENE IN ITS AFFAIRS
3) TO VIOLATE ITS SOVEREIGNTY
4) NOT TO INTERRUPT PEACEFUL MARITIME COMMERCE AND  WAS IN BREACH OF ITS
OBLIGATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XIX OF THE TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP  COMMERCE AND
NAVIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES SIGNED AT MANAGUA ON 21 JANUARY 1956.
 
The Court had 16 final decisions upon which it voted.
 
In Statement 9, the Court stated that the U.S. encouraged human rights
violations by the Contra terrorists by the US manual entitled PSYCHOLOGICAL
OPERATIONS IN GUERRILLA WARFARE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
 Quote.
In 1989, Human Rights Watch released a report on the situation, which stated:
"[The] contras (Supported by the Reagan Administration) were major and
systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict,
including by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively
murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners.  Several other human rights
organizations, including the

CATHOLIC INSTITUTE
FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,
 
released similar reports, each coming to roughly the same conclusions.
 
After five vetoes in the Security Council between 1982 and 1985 of resolutions
concerning the situation in Nicaragua [6], the United States made one final veto
on 28 October 1986[23] (France, Thailand, and United Kingdom abstaining) of a
resolution calling for full and immediate compliance with the Judgment.[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
 
Nicaragua brought the matter to the U.N. Security Council, where the United
States vetoed a resolution (11 to 1, 3 abstentions) calling on all states to
observe international law.

 
Nicaragua also turned to the General Assembly, which passed a resolution 94 to 3
calling for compliance with the World Court ruling. Two states, Israel and El
Salvador, joined the United States in opposition.
 
The United States has consistently stated it has no intention of deferring to
international law and has arrogantly stated its right to attack, invade  and
install puppet governments  in any country that does not work in the interests
of corporate US.
 
This is not an isolated incident of violation International law by the US and of
using terrorism as an instrument of its foreign policy, there are too many too
describe here.

 
The US is a pariah state whilst it hypocritically brands others with the same
title.
Doug.
For further info. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6DVr7kUd5o&feature=related




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And while anti-nuke factions continue to delay nuclear development, millions and
millions of people are dying from coal and oil power plants. But hey, screw
science and evidence. We're scared of things we don't understand!!!!




________________________________
From: doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...>
To: James Zamora <jameszamora@...>
Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 8:27:15 AM
Subject: [pinoy_atheists] Fw: Nuclear Nightmare




The unfolding multiple nuclear reactor catastrophe in Japan is prompting overdue

attention to the 104 nuclear plants in the United States—many of them aging,
many of them near earthquake faults, some on the west coast exposed to potential

tsunamis.

Nuclear power plants boil water to produce steam to turn turbines that generate
electricity. Nuclear power’s overly complex fuel cycle begins with uranium
mines

and ends with deadly radioactive wastes for which there still are no permanent
storage facilities to contain them for tens of thousands of years.

Atomic power plants generate 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Over
forty
years ago, the industry’s promoter and regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission
estimated that a full nuclear meltdown could contaminate an area “the size of
Pennsylvania” and cause massive casualties. You, the taxpayers, have heavily
subsidized nuclear power research, development, and promotion from day one with
tens of billions of dollars.

Because of many costs, perils, close calls at various reactors, and the partial
meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, there has not
been a nuclear power plant built in the United States since 1974.

Now the industry is coming back “on your back” claiming it will help reduce
global warming from fossil fuel emitted greenhouse gases.

Pushed aggressively by President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu, who refuses to
meet with longtime nuclear industry critics, here is what “on your back”
means:

1. Wall Street will not finance new nuclear plants without a 100% taxpayer loan
guarantee. Too risky. That’s a lot of guarantee given that new nukes cost $12
billion each, assuming no mishaps. Obama and the Congress are OK with that
arrangement.

2. Nuclear power is uninsurable in the private insurance market—too risky.
Under

the Price-Anderson Act, taxpayers pay the greatest cost of a meltdown’s
devastation.

3. Nuclear power plants and transports of radioactive wastes are a national
security nightmare for the Department of Homeland Security. Imagine the target
that thousands of vulnerable spent fuel rods present for sabotage.

4. Guess who pays for whatever final waste repositories are licensed? You the
taxpayer and your descendants as far as your gene line persists.  Huge
decommissioning costs, at the end of a nuclear plant’s existence come from the
ratepayers’ pockets.

5. Nuclear plant disasters present impossible evacuation burdens for those
living anywhere near a plant, especially if time is short.

Imagine evacuating the long-troubled Indian Point plants 26 miles north of New
York City. Workers in that region have a hard enough time evacuating their
places of employment during 5 pm rush hour. That’s one reason Secretary of
State

Clinton (in her time as Senator of New York) and Governor Andrew Cuomo called
for the shutdown of Indian Point.

6. Nuclear power is both uneconomical and unnecessary. It can’t compete
against
energy conservation, including cogeneration, windpower and ever more efficient,
quicker, safer, renewable forms of providing electricity. Amory Lovins argues
this point convincingly (see RMI.org). Physicist Lovins asserts that nuclear
power “will reduce and retard climate protection.” His reasoning: shifting
the
tens of billions invested in nuclear power to efficiency and renewables reduce
far more carbon per dollar
(http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf). The country should

move deliberately to shutdown nuclear plants, starting with the aging and
seismically threatened reactors. Peter Bradford, a former Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) commissioner has also made a compelling case against nuclear
power on economic and safety grounds
(http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf).

There is far more for ratepayers, taxpayers and families near nuclear plants to
find out. Here’s how you can start:

1. Demand public hearings in your communities where there is a nuke, sponsored
either by your member of Congress or the NRC, to put the facts, risks and
evacuation plans on the table. Insist that the critics as well as the proponents

testify and cross-examine each other in front of you and the media.

2. If you call yourself conservative, ask why nuclear power requires such huge
amounts of your tax dollars and guarantees and can’t buy adequate private
insurance. If you have a small business that can’t buy insurance because what
you do is too risky, you don’t stay in business.

3. If you are an environmentalist, ask why nuclear power isn’t required to
meet
a cost-efficient market test against investments in energy conservation and
renewables.

4. If you understand traffic congestion, ask for an actual real life evacuation
drill for those living and working 10 miles around the plant (some scientists
think it should be at least 25 miles) and watch the hemming and hawing from
proponents of nuclear power.

The people in northern Japan may lose their land, homes, relatives, and friends
as a result of a dangerous technology designed simply to boil water. There are
better ways to generate steam.

Like the troubled Japanese nuclear plants, the Indian Point plants and the four
plants at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon in southern California rest near
earthquake faults. The seismologists concur that there is a 94% chance of a big
earthquake in California within the next thirty years. Obama, Chu and the
powerful nuke industry must not be allowed to force the American people to play
Russian Roulette!

End.

----------------------------------------------------------
Tell your friends to visit Nader.Org and sign up for E-Alerts.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: alerts-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: alerts-help@...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John,
 
I agree with you we tend to be afraid of things we do not understand.
This is the way we have evolved to be aware of danger.
 
 This of course is a good thing especially if we do not know what snakes kill
and. what mushrooms are poison.
 
But we do know the coal and oil kills and we do know that radiation from nuclear
generators also kills.
 
Ralph Nader the successful consumer advocate who has been responsible for many
campaigns including those that have made motor vehicles safer, is putting
forward as I understand it the following view.
 
What needs to be done as a matter of urgency is to find ways of creating power
without using any of the above or at least to find ways of eliminating the
dangers in the extraction and use of these products.
 
The problem with this is some people do not mind sacrificing the health of
people and future generations for their short term profits and in their greed a
putting out misinformation.
 
We have to avoid jumping out of the frying pan of power by fossil fuel burning
into the fire of power by nuclear energy.
 
What we need to start doing is sorting out the claims of scientist who are paid
by the fossil burning polluting industries and the majority of the scientist who
have no vested interest in the outcome of their research.

 
Meanwhile funds must be allocated to find a way of preventing pollution from
fossil burning power plants and in research to provide power supply with out
using non renewable energy resources.
 
As far as nuclear power is concerned this should not be used until it can be
insured, (including the nuclear waste which can contain dangerous radiation for
thousands of years) with private for profit insurance organisations at
reasonable sustainable premiums.
 
This seems eminently reasonable to me.
 Doug



________________________________
From: John <harmless168@...>
To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 19 March, 2011 12:03:57 PM
Subject: Re: [pinoy_atheists] Fw: Nuclear Nightmare

 
And while anti-nuke factions continue to delay nuclear development, millions and

millions of people are dying from coal and oil power plants. But hey, screw
science and evidence. We're scared of things we don't understand!!!!

________________________________
From: doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...>
To: James Zamora <jameszamora@...>
Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 8:27:15 AM
Subject: [pinoy_atheists] Fw: Nuclear Nightmare

The unfolding multiple nuclear reactor catastrophe in Japan is prompting overdue


attention to the 104 nuclear plants in the United States—many of them aging,
many of them near earthquake faults, some on the west coast exposed to potential


tsunamis.

Nuclear power plants boil water to produce steam to turn turbines that generate
electricity. Nuclear power’s overly complex fuel cycle begins with uranium
mines


and ends with deadly radioactive wastes for which there still are no permanent
storage facilities to contain them for tens of thousands of years.

Atomic power plants generate 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Over
forty
years ago, the industry’s promoter and regulator, the Atomic Energy Commission
estimated that a full nuclear meltdown could contaminate an area “the size of
Pennsylvania” and cause massive casualties. You, the taxpayers, have heavily
subsidized nuclear power research, development, and promotion from day one with
tens of billions of dollars.

Because of many costs, perils, close calls at various reactors, and the partial
meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, there has not
been a nuclear power plant built in the United States since 1974.

Now the industry is coming back “on your back” claiming it will help reduce
global warming from fossil fuel emitted greenhouse gases.

Pushed aggressively by President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu, who refuses to
meet with longtime nuclear industry critics, here is what “on your back”
means:

1. Wall Street will not finance new nuclear plants without a 100% taxpayer loan
guarantee. Too risky. That’s a lot of guarantee given that new nukes cost $12
billion each, assuming no mishaps. Obama and the Congress are OK with that
arrangement.

2. Nuclear power is uninsurable in the private insurance market—too risky.
Under


the Price-Anderson Act, taxpayers pay the greatest cost of a meltdown’s
devastation.

3. Nuclear power plants and transports of radioactive wastes are a national
security nightmare for the Department of Homeland Security. Imagine the target
that thousands of vulnerable spent fuel rods present for sabotage.

4. Guess who pays for whatever final waste repositories are licensed? You the
taxpayer and your descendants as far as your gene line persists. Huge
decommissioning costs, at the end of a nuclear plant’s existence come from the
ratepayers’ pockets.

5. Nuclear plant disasters present impossible evacuation burdens for those
living anywhere near a plant, especially if time is short.

Imagine evacuating the long-troubled Indian Point plants 26 miles north of New
York City. Workers in that region have a hard enough time evacuating their
places of employment during 5 pm rush hour. That’s one reason Secretary of
State


Clinton (in her time as Senator of New York) and Governor Andrew Cuomo called
for the shutdown of Indian Point.

6. Nuclear power is both uneconomical and unnecessary. It can’t compete
against
energy conservation, including cogeneration, windpower and ever more efficient,
quicker, safer, renewable forms of providing electricity. Amory Lovins argues
this point convincingly (see RMI.org). Physicist Lovins asserts that nuclear
power “will reduce and retard climate protection.” His reasoning: shifting
the
tens of billions invested in nuclear power to efficiency and renewables reduce
far more carbon per dollar
(http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf). The country should


move deliberately to shutdown nuclear plants, starting with the aging and
seismically threatened reactors. Peter Bradford, a former Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) commissioner has also made a compelling case against nuclear
power on economic and safety grounds
(http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf).

There is far more for ratepayers, taxpayers and families near nuclear plants to
find out. Here’s how you can start:

1. Demand public hearings in your communities where there is a nuke, sponsored
either by your member of Congress or the NRC, to put the facts, risks and
evacuation plans on the table. Insist that the critics as well as the proponents


testify and cross-examine each other in front of you and the media.

2. If you call yourself conservative, ask why nuclear power requires such huge
amounts of your tax dollars and guarantees and can’t buy adequate private
insurance. If you have a small business that can’t buy insurance because what
you do is too risky, you don’t stay in business.

3. If you are an environmentalist, ask why nuclear power isn’t required to
meet
a cost-efficient market test against investments in energy conservation and
renewables.

4. If you understand traffic congestion, ask for an actual real life evacuation
drill for those living and working 10 miles around the plant (some scientists
think it should be at least 25 miles) and watch the hemming and hawing from
proponents of nuclear power.

The people in northern Japan may lose their land, homes, relatives, and friends
as a result of a dangerous technology designed simply to boil water. There are
better ways to generate steam.

Like the troubled Japanese nuclear plants, the Indian Point plants and the four
plants at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon in southern California rest near
earthquake faults. The seismologists concur that there is a 94% chance of a big
earthquake in California within the next thirty years. Obama, Chu and the
powerful nuke industry must not be allowed to force the American people to play
Russian Roulette!

End.

----------------------------------------------------------
Tell your friends to visit Nader.Org and sign up for E-Alerts.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: alerts-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: alerts-help@...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John,
 
I agree with you,  we tend to be afraid of things we do not understand.
 
This has been programmed in us and other creatures through thousands of years
evolution, we should not try to eliminate this fear which is a good thing
especially if we do not know what snakes kill and what mushrooms are poison for
example.
 
But we do know the coal and oil kills and we do know that radiation from nuclear
generators also kills.
 
Ralph Nader the successful consumer advocate who has been responsible for many
campaigns including those that have made motor vehicles safer, is putting
forward as I understand it,  the following view.
 
What needs to be done as a matter of urgency is to find ways of creating power
without using any of the above or at least to find ways of eliminating the
dangers in the extraction and use of these products.
 
The problem with this is some people do not mind sacrificing the health of
people and future generations for their short term profits and in their greed
are putting out misinformation.
 
What we need to start doing is sorting out the claims of scientist who are paid
by the fossil burning polluting industries and the majority of the scientist who
have no vested interest in the outcome of their research.

 
Meanwhile funds must be allocated to find a way of preventing pollution from
fossil burning power plants and in research to provide power supply with out
using non renewable energy resources.
 
As far as nuclear power is concerned this should not be used until it can be
insured, including the nuclear waste which can contain dangerous radiation for
thousands of years
 
This guarantee should be provided by  private for profit insurance organisations
at reasonable sustainable premiums. This they definately are not going to do at
the moment which speaks volumes  so taxpayers are the insurance and the cost is
tremendous.
 
This all seems eminently reasonable to me.
 Doug




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I wanted to share something with my fellow Atheists here. I got into an argument
with one of my coworkers today.  I was just minding my own business and doing my
job. Then, just before lunch Frank came up to me and started talking to me about
christianity.
I told him that he was wasting his time and not to bother me as it is against
policy to discuss religion at work. He persisted and just wouldn't shut up.
Finally I couldn't take it anymore and realized the only way to get him to leave
me alone was to tell him about a site I had found some time ago.
I remembered the site was called exposingchristianity.com, as soon as I told him
to check it out; he totally freaked, and then proceeded to tell me what a waste
of time I was. I thought this was pretty funny because that was the first thing
I had said to him when he started witnessing to me.
Apparently, he had also seen that site and was very offended that I would bring
that up. This shows how dumb those christians really are, and truly defines them
as insane. I believe insanity is defined as repeating the same action over and
over again each time expecting different results. Frank had tried this crap
before but I wasn't very successful at getting him to just go away.
Now I have some ammunition for the next time any christian tries something like
that again, I just wanted to share that with all of you. Enjoy.

I've had to deal with devout and overzealous Christians too, so I can understand
your being pissed off.
But out of curiosity I checked out that exposingchristianity.com website, and I
have to tell you that I was totally shocked and triple pissed off.
Whoever is behind that movement really gives science and rationality a very bad
name.
Those idiots are even worse than opus dei.
One wonders. What in heaven's name is happening to humanity?
Butch


--- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "luna.glow" <luna.glow@...> wrote:
>
> I wanted to share something with my fellow Atheists here. I got into an
argument with one of my coworkers today.  I was just minding my own business and
doing my job. Then, just before lunch Frank came up to me and started talking to
me about christianity.
> I told him that he was wasting his time and not to bother me as it is against
policy to discuss religion at work. He persisted and just wouldn't shut up.
Finally I couldn't take it anymore and realized the only way to get him to leave
me alone was to tell him about a site I had found some time ago.
> I remembered the site was called exposingchristianity.com, as soon as I told
him to check it out; he totally freaked, and then proceeded to tell me what a
waste of time I was. I thought this was pretty funny because that was the first
thing I had said to him when he started witnessing to me.
> Apparently, he had also seen that site and was very offended that I would
bring that up. This shows how dumb those christians really are, and truly
defines them as insane. I believe insanity is defined as repeating the same
action over and over again each time expecting different results. Frank had
tried this crap before but I wasn't very successful at getting him to just go
away.
> Now I have some ammunition for the next time any christian tries something
like that again, I just wanted to share that with all of you. Enjoy.
>

Whatever was the arguments about we must remember ; the truth is important ;
i remember watching funny movie that is called ; (the invention of
lying)..that may give an idea ....maybe people at at that time didn't know
who lied and who didn't , ..etc...
Morals are also important ; morals that does not contradict with respecting
human and nature....,...there are some countries that give good (hints or
"muse") in this regards ; like Sweden...etc...,

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Butch <masilver@...> wrote:

>
>
> I've had to deal with devout and overzealous Christians too, so I can
> understand your being pissed off.
> But out of curiosity I checked out that exposingchristianity.com website,
> and I have to tell you that I was totally shocked and triple pissed off.
> Whoever is behind that movement really gives science and rationality a very
> bad name.
> Those idiots are even worse than opus dei.
> One wonders. What in heaven's name is happening to humanity?
> Butch
>
> --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "luna.glow" <luna.glow@...> wrote:
> >
> > I wanted to share something with my fellow Atheists here. I got into an
> argument with one of my coworkers today. I was just minding my own business
> and doing my job. Then, just before lunch Frank came up to me and started
> talking to me about christianity.
> > I told him that he was wasting his time and not to bother me as it is
> against policy to discuss religion at work. He persisted and just wouldn't
> shut up. Finally I couldn't take it anymore and realized the only way to get
> him to leave me alone was to tell him about a site I had found some time
> ago.
> > I remembered the site was called exposingchristianity.com, as soon as I
> told him to check it out; he totally freaked, and then proceeded to tell me
> what a waste of time I was. I thought this was pretty funny because that was
> the first thing I had said to him when he started witnessing to me.
> > Apparently, he had also seen that site and was very offended that I would
> bring that up. This shows how dumb those christians really are, and truly
> defines them as insane. I believe insanity is defined as repeating the same
> action over and over again each time expecting different results. Frank had
> tried this crap before but I wasn't very successful at getting him to just
> go away.
> > Now I have some ammunition for the next time any christian tries
> something like that again, I just wanted to share that with all of you.
> Enjoy.
> >
>
>
>



--
No regrets , Professional Engineer , Adviser /Atheist ; Scientific :
Straight Man


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What truth are you talking about?


Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by mobily

-----Original Message-----
From: Osama <Osama1964@...>
Sender: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:58:22
To: <pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pinoy_atheists] Re: Dealing with christians

Whatever was the arguments about we must remember ; the truth is important ;
i remember watching funny movie that is called ; (the invention of
lying)..that may give an idea ....maybe people at at that time didn't know
who lied and who didn't , ..etc...
Morals are also important ; morals that does not contradict with respecting
human and nature....,...there are some countries that give good (hints or
"muse") in this regards ; like Sweden...etc...,

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Butch <masilver@...> wrote:

>
>
> I've had to deal with devout and overzealous Christians too, so I can
> understand your being pissed off.
> But out of curiosity I checked out that exposingchristianity.com website,
> and I have to tell you that I was totally shocked and triple pissed off.
> Whoever is behind that movement really gives science and rationality a very
> bad name.
> Those idiots are even worse than opus dei.
> One wonders. What in heaven's name is happening to humanity?
> Butch
>
> --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "luna.glow" <luna.glow@...> wrote:
> >
> > I wanted to share something with my fellow Atheists here. I got into an
> argument with one of my coworkers today. I was just minding my own business
> and doing my job. Then, just before lunch Frank came up to me and started
> talking to me about christianity.
> > I told him that he was wasting his time and not to bother me as it is
> against policy to discuss religion at work. He persisted and just wouldn't
> shut up. Finally I couldn't take it anymore and realized the only way to get
> him to leave me alone was to tell him about a site I had found some time
> ago.
> > I remembered the site was called exposingchristianity.com, as soon as I
> told him to check it out; he totally freaked, and then proceeded to tell me
> what a waste of time I was. I thought this was pretty funny because that was
> the first thing I had said to him when he started witnessing to me.
> > Apparently, he had also seen that site and was very offended that I would
> bring that up. This shows how dumb those christians really are, and truly
> defines them as insane. I believe insanity is defined as repeating the same
> action over and over again each time expecting different results. Frank had
> tried this crap before but I wasn't very successful at getting him to just
> go away.
> > Now I have some ammunition for the next time any christian tries
> something like that again, I just wanted to share that with all of you.
> Enjoy.
> >
>
>
>



--
No regrets , Professional Engineer , Adviser /Atheist ; Scientific :
Straight Man


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

http://www.philippineatheists.org/Yahoo! Groups Links

What truth are you talking about?


Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone provided by mobily

-----Original Message-----
From: Osama <Osama1964@...>
Sender: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:58:22
To: <pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [pinoy_atheists] Re: Dealing with christians

Whatever was the arguments about we must remember ; the truth is important ;
i remember watching funny movie that is called ; (the invention of
lying)..that may give an idea ....maybe people at at that time didn't know
who lied and who didn't , ..etc...
Morals are also important ; morals that does not contradict with respecting
human and nature....,...there are some countries that give good (hints or
"muse") in this regards ; like Sweden...etc...,

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Butch <masilver@...> wrote:

>
>
> I've had to deal with devout and overzealous Christians too, so I can
> understand your being pissed off.
> But out of curiosity I checked out that exposingchristianity.com website,
> and I have to tell you that I was totally shocked and triple pissed off.
> Whoever is behind that movement really gives science and rationality a very
> bad name.
> Those idiots are even worse than opus dei.
> One wonders. What in heaven's name is happening to humanity?
> Butch
>
> --- In pinoy_atheists@yahoogroups.com, "luna.glow" <luna.glow@...> wrote:
> >
> > I wanted to share something with my fellow Atheists here. I got into an
> argument with one of my coworkers today. I was just minding my own business
> and doing my job. Then, just before lunch Frank came up to me and started
> talking to me about christianity.
> > I told him that he was wasting his time and not to bother me as it is
> against policy to discuss religion at work. He persisted and just wouldn't
> shut up. Finally I couldn't take it anymore and realized the only way to get
> him to leave me alone was to tell him about a site I had found some time
> ago.
> > I remembered the site was called exposingchristianity.com, as soon as I
> told him to check it out; he totally freaked, and then proceeded to tell me
> what a waste of time I was. I thought this was pretty funny because that was
> the first thing I had said to him when he started witnessing to me.
> > Apparently, he had also seen that site and was very offended that I would
> bring that up. This shows how dumb those christians really are, and truly
> defines them as insane. I believe insanity is defined as repeating the same
> action over and over again each time expecting different results. Frank had
> tried this crap before but I wasn't very successful at getting him to just
> go away.
> > Now I have some ammunition for the next time any christian tries
> something like that again, I just wanted to share that with all of you.
> Enjoy.
> >
>
>
>



--
No regrets , Professional Engineer , Adviser /Atheist ; Scientific :
Straight Man


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

http://www.philippineatheists.org/Yahoo! Groups Links

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/channel-v-censors-lady-gagas-born-way-20110322-200442-0\
90.html

them christians are having a field day. help me out.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jean,
 
Thank you for a most interesting email of Saturday March 26 from which I gained
much from your thought provoking contribution to  the discussion.
 
I was not aware of the William Tyndall story; your remarks made me check it out.
 
I discovered you are right of course; he was tried for heresy on behalf of the
Vatican, strangled and burnt at the stake in 1536.

 
Further to this,  the Tyndale Bible after his torture and execution,   still
continued to play a key role in spreading  the Protestant Reformation across
Europe.
 
Which is  why the Vatican had him TAKEN CARE OF, (as the Mafia would put it)
Thank you for sharing.
 
I can agree with all you put forward, without caveats because it just makes
eminent sense.
 
Shakespeare for instance wrote about the machinations of rulers, their greed,
their murders ( even of their own kith and kin.) The bible would have given many
plots upon which he could weave his magic use of the English language.
 
Of course many Artists who were commissioned mainly by the Church, Monarchies
and the wealthy in general to portray the myths and legends of the bible
produced magnificent masterpieces.

 
Churches today are wonderful examples of artistry, architecture and workmanship;
they are a joy to behold that without the bible would not exist.
 
Regarding your reference to William Wilberforce.
 
You are correct again, he did lead in the  movement for the abolition of
slavery, based of course on his interpretation of the bible.
 
But people including Popes and many religions used the bible also as
justification for slavery and the use of slave labour.
 
 The bible was used by present generations as justification for Apartheid in
South Africa and for Segregation and the Jim Crows laws in the USA and the
terrorism that brought about the seizure and occupation by Easter European
Zionists  and their continued expansion into Palestine.
 
This underlines what I have and others here on the internet have been
saying i.e.

 
That the bible is a mass of contradictions which by careful CHERRY PICKING  can
be mean what ever one wants it to mean.
 
 In other words it is all things to all men.
 
What also must be understood, that before Charles Darwin and his THE ORIGIN OF
SPECIES ,  the only belief system one could adhere to was to the  CREATION
THEORY, EVOLUTION had hardly been formulated and publicised.
 
Thus the bible is hardly a guide to morality and the understanding of life and
nature; it is like the CURATES EGG*  rotten but,  quite good in parts,
unfortunately quite unfit for human consumption.
 
Thank you for your invitation to pray but that I will forgo.
 
 I used to pray a lot but it seems I only achieved what I would have achieved
without prayer.
 
For example I always prayed to god to render me safe through my various journeys
on land, sea and in the Air.
 
 I found out after fifty years of no praying  I  achieved the same results as of
I had prayed, funny that eh?

 
After all if god has a plan for me why should I come along to him with a 50
pesos prayer book asking him to change his carefully formulated, infallible
 divine plan? 
 
 If god wants me to be consumed by an earthquake or a tsunamis why should I
interfere?
 
 If god wants to strike me down with some very painful malignant growth why
should I beg him for mercy, it does not seem right to me,  especially when my
prayers were mostly made on

SUNDAYS HIS DAY OFF!
 
Better to leave it to the WILL OF GOD in the first place (apologies to the late
George Carlin)
 
Thank you again for a very good post, more power to your elbow. Keep those
emails a commin and may your god be with you always.
 
Doug.*Curate's egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The expression "a curate's egg" originally meant something that is partly good
and partly bad, but as a result is entirely spoiled. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curate's_egg- Cached- Similar




________________________________
From: poch suzara <pocholosuzara@...>
To: Jean Morton <jean.athome@...>
Cc: doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...>; Ricardo B. Boncan
<dboncan@...>; Bob Gabuna <kapihan@...>;
rivera1211@...; merfa5398@...; Lionel Tierra <neltierra@...>;
manny.amador@...; isip2nay@...; arando@...;
CePol-digest@yahoogroups.com; merfa yap-bataclan <merfa5398@...>
Sent: Sun, 27 March, 2011 6:03:43 AM
Subject: The Bible and Isaac Asimov and Poch Suzara


      "Properly read, the Bibleis the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." ... Isaac Asimov

         And if I may add, it does not matter which version you read - Duane,
King James, Good News, Catholic bible, etc. Indeed, there are 57 different
versions of the Bible sold in bookstores today.

                      Cheers!
                      Poch Suzara




________________________________


The other point I made was that at one time the Church banned the laity for
owning and reading the bible under penalty of personal punishment and having
their dwellings burnt down because the bible is at variance to Vatican doctrine.
- Dougie

You are right Dougie but one religious dude from old Blighty translated the
Bible into the old English.  His name was William Tyndall and for his effort he
was strangled and burnt at the stake. Ouchhhh!!!  However his Bible became the
basis for the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible, which is celebrating its
400 years anniversary this year.

Without the  King James Bible, the English language would have been as dead as a
dodo and joined Latin into the archaic heaven.  Without the King James Bible,
Shakespeare's masterpieces would have not been as we know them.   The King James
Bible also is the basis of Western democracy.   And refer to the American
independence also.  The King James Bible toppled down naughty monarchies, the
first time little people were able to exercise people's power - through the word
of God.   The King James Bible inspired the very devout Christian, William
Wilberforce to lead in the abolition of slave trade.  Slaves in America found
strength from the King James Bible.  Those who can read used to read from the
King James Bible to the slaves who would congregate underground in
their Invisible Church.  From the Bible they were able to create their own
"speak" which they used to warn others about clear and present dangers even in
front of clueless slave owners and traders.

that is just scratching the surface, I have to leave you and love you for now as
I have not had my brekkie yet.
So what you dismiss as something of abomination has done more than anything in
this world.  Say your prayers Dougie.
I have a dream........ Rev Martin Luther King.

Wishing the King James Bible a Happy 400 Anniversary. It truly is the most
wonderful, profound and important book ever written.  
Because of it, although my grammar is a bit wonky, I can write and speak the
Queen's English!  Bravo.  
 Jean
XXX




________________________________
From: doug john <theadamfamilyoz@...>
To: Ricardo B. Boncan <dboncan@...>; Bob Gabuna
<kapihan@...>; pocholosuzara@...; rivera1211@...;
merfa5398@...; Lionel Tierra <neltierra@...>;
manny.amador@...; isip2nay@...; arando@...
Cc: CePol@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 26 March, 2011 9:18:58
Subject: Re: The Pinoys and the Jews and Jesus Christ


Ricardo,
 
You are right, I was almost going to say you are absolutely right but I decided
not to use the word absolute but, you are right,  that the very fact that
Priests read scriptural texts to their congregations during the mass does not
indicate, in itself, that they do not want people to read the bible.
 
Nor does it suggest that they positively encourage people to study the bible
independently from the Church which is one of the points I made.
 
I gave my suggestion as to why it is not against Church Law now because it is
the biggest selling book and the least read book because of its contradictions
and its archaic language.

 
I could have added because of the horrors and crimes  committed in its pages on
the authority of the Jealous god Yahweh and of the various mistakes made of
natural facts.

 
 
The other point I made was that at one time the Church banned the laity for
owning and reading the bible under penalty of personal punishment and having
their dwellings burnt down because the bible is at variance to Vatican doctrine.
 
I can understand how the truth is shocking to those who have been indoctrinated
from childhood but in the end the truth sets one free.
 
Doug




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

How can i clearly say that i am an atheist?
I don't pray but I go to church whenever my friends and my family go there
because I don't want to be out.
But I still don't pray even if im in the church.