Archive for » August, 2009 «

cheneys….arghhh!!!

i have watched clips from the fox news chris wallace interview with cheney from this past sunday and just can’t take it anymore! first of all…as i’ve said before…cheney is evil incarnate. if i believed in god…i would hope that a thunderbolt would eradicate all evidence of cheney from earth. but alas…i don’t believe…

for cheney to claim that morale amongst cia officers would be hurt but an investigation is ridiculous! just because they might feel down doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be investigated for criminal activity! hurt feelings are no excuse to avoid an investigation.

of course, i feel that the investigation should go straight up the ladder and fall squarely in the lap of the man responsible for these crimes…cheney.

i had to do a bit of editing here and add the ’s’ to cheney after watching a clip of liz on with sam donaldson at the round table with stephanopolous. she is like an automaton! they have uploaded a series of phrases and talking points and she just makes the round to these shows and spits them out. if i’ve heard her say once i’ve heard it a thousand times…’if you would only read the documents in their entirety…’ i don’t believe she has. i think this is a talking point devised by she and her father. if she repeats these things enough times…maybe people will start to believe it.

the drones that listen to every word that drops from the cheneys’ lips would listen to anything else. i watch this stuff because i want to hear what both sides are saying. i’m disgusted with the democrats lack of backbone to back up the investigation into torture and to call out this misinformation spewed by the cheneys and fox news EVERY SINGLE DAY.

misstatements…

recently there was a controversy surrounding the statement by gop rep. lynn jenkins (r-kan.). she said that the gop would need to find the ‘great white hope’ to run against obama in the next election. wow…oops!

after having read about the origins of this statement…i understand that it has a racist origin. it was a poor choice of words on jenkins’ part but i have no doubt that it was an innocent mistake.

this seems to be happening more and more. i think that the political correctness of our speech is for outpacing the understanding of what is and is not inappropriate. i truly believe that many of these statements are inadvertent. such as the statement by sen. majority leader trent lott regarding strom thurmond. i have no doubt that in saying things would be better had strom been elected were nothing more than an attempt to say something nice about an old guy who wouldn’t be around much longer. i doubt that anything malicious was intended. it was an unfortunate bit of praise and it cost lott his job.

i want people to be more sensitive but we need to realize and acknowledge the fact that sometimes no ill was intended. people will learn if you explain to them the error. i bet jenkins’ will never use the phrase again without thinking first…

partisan investigations…

i read on huffington post this morning that dick cheney says “it offends the hell out of him” that obama has allowed an investigation into cheney’s torture after saying some months ago that he wouldn’t investigate.

this is what bugs me about the media in this day and age. first of all, the department of justice is a separate entity from that of the executive office. secondly, just because obama said he wasn’t opening an investigation does not mean that when new details emerge that this wouldn’t change obama’s mind.

i think cheney’s worried, or at least as worried as the devil can be. if i believed in a biblical devil, i would say that cheney is he. i have never had such a feeling of revulsion wrapped in disgust as i do when i even see a picture of cheney’s face.

as i discussed the impeachment of bill clinton with my husband back in the day, at first i was really pissed and thought it was definitely a partisan witch hunt. it was. no doubt about that. however, clinton did break the law. he lied and did it in the most public of ways. many democrats supported the case against clinton. the media jumped on board. it was partisan, sure, but justified. republicans hated/hate clinton.

so…this investigation of cheney and his minion…absolutely justified. this man allowed torture. this man put america at risk. more so than 9/11 ever did. to say that torture kept us safe is ridiculous. it may have allowed for a piece of information to stop an attack (which i doubt) but it allowed thousands more recruits into radical islam. thousands more young islamic militants that hated our way of life before who now have a cause to rally around.

what i would like to know is why the so called ‘liberal mainstream media’ allows cheney to continuously get away with saying that obama promised not to investigate so why is he breaking that promise now. if new information has come to light or the independent justice department decided to investigate…what is that to do with obama’s former promise? it invalidates it.

had the senate said it would promise not to investigate after clinton said he ‘did not have sexual relations with that girl’ should they be held to it after it came to light that he did? no…

i guess i’m just sick of the ‘i can do and get away with anything’ attitude of the bush administration. why should they be above the law?

i do agree with dick on one point: i don’t think the lower level cia agents should be persecuted for a crime that was authorized, sanctioned and given a blessing by cheney. it should go all the way up to his and his attorney’s door.

still more things atheists didn’t do……

i first saw this list on http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/still-more-things-atheists-didnt-do/ and i think it’s amazing! it really brings to light the ridiculous behavior of religious people.

Still More Things Atheists Didn’t Do

By Dave Hitt on Jun 26, 2009 in Featured, Things Atheists Didn’t Do

This is another installment in our continuing series of Things Atheists Didn’t Do.

A pedophile priest, not an atheist, claimed he was only giving his victim anatomy lessons.

Muslims in Pakistan stoned a Christian man to death. His crime? Drinking tea at a roadside stall that was designated for Muslims only.

When a Christian church that tortured a gay teen via an exorcism to rid him of his faggy demon was criticized for their stupidity, Dr Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission slammed the critics, accusing them of intolerance.

An Oregon couple let their 15 month child die of pneumonia, refusing medical treatment and praying for her instead. If her parents had been atheists she would be alive right now.

A orthodox Jewish couple are suing their neighbors, claiming that an automatic hall light, which is triggered by people entering the hall, imprisons them in their apartment. This, they claim, prevents them from leaving on the Sabbath. If they were atheists instead of idiots they could leave whenever they want.

Eight people drowned a 22 year old mother of two trying to lift a curse from her. She would have been much better off with atheist friends.

An Islamic woman starved one of her children to death, after torturing her, because she thought she was possessed. Her other five children were seriously malnourished. Too bad her mother wasn’t an atheist.

By Fr. Alphonse de Valk has declared that Atheism is a threat to civilization. If he were an atheist he’d be smarter than that. Not to be outdone, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor has declared that atheists are not fully human.

Opening a dialog between religions may not be a good idea. Ernest McCullough, a Christan, got into an argument about religion with a Muslim, who ended the debate by shooting him in the leg.

In Maryland, a woman starved her son to death because he wouldn’t say Amen. She’s expecting him to be resurrected. That hasn’t happened so far. Yet another child who would have been much better off with atheist parents.

In India at least 50 people went blind staring into the sun looking for an image of the Virgin Mary. Atheists are never blinded by the light.

When woman with an atheist boyfriend asked Pat Robertson for advice about finding a middle ground with her atheist boyfriend, Pat told her to break up with him because he’s “serving the devil.”

In India a “Hindu Taliban” is attacking woman for drinking in bars and dressing inappropriately, including those wearing bathing suits at the beach and t-shirts with pictures of their deities on them. There are no reports of atheists beating up women over religion.

In Afghanistan a Mullah who spoke out against suicide attacks was murdered by other members of his religion of peace.

In Russia two Jehovah’s Witnesses went on a murder spree killing 13 people to rid the world of sin. (They should have just become vampires.)

In India two seven year old girls were married to frogs to prevent the disease outbreaks in the village. Atheists don’t advocate girl-frog marriage.

A pretty sixteen year old girl was stabbed to death by her Muslim brother for listening to rock and roll and wearing makup. He stabbed her 26 times. He was preserving the family honor.

can atheists be parents…

it really makes me wonder how far we’ve come and how far we’ve fallen back when i read an article of this sort:

After six years of childless marriage, John and Cynthia Burke of Newark decided to adopt a baby boy through a state agency. Since the Burkes were young, scandal-free and solvent, they had no trouble with the New Jersey Bureau of Children’s Services—until investigators came to the line on the application that asked for the couple’s religious affiliation.

John Burke, an atheist, and his wife, a pantheist, had left the line blank. As a result, the bureau denied the Burkes’ application. After the couple began court action, however, the bureau changed its regulations, and the couple was able to adopt a baby boy from the Children’s Aid and Adoption Society in East Orange.

Last year the Burkes presented their adopted son, David, now 3 1/2, with a baby sister, Eleanor Katherine, now 17 months, whom they acquired from the same East Orange agency. Since the agency endorsed the adoption, the required final approval by a judge was expected to be pro forma. Instead, Superior Court Judge William Camarata raised the religious issue.

Inestimable Privilege. In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes’ right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes’ “high moral and ethical standards,” he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that “no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.” Despite Eleanor Katherine’s tender years, he continued, “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being.”

The Burkes are now living in Carterville, Ill., near Southern Illinois University, where John Burke has worked for the past year as a speech pathologist. Nevertheless, Judge Camarata ordered the parents to send David’s sister back to the New Jersey adoption agency. Two weeks ago, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Burkes appealed directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. If they fail in their appeal, Eleanor Katherine may have to leave the only family she has ever known and await adoption by another couple whose religious convictions satisfy the State of New Jersey.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html?iid=digg_share

i think that under the bush regime, so many freedoms and rights were curtailed or removed completely. we reverted to a puritan type government. i won’t go into the whole separation of church and state argument again….it’s old news and well known.

but…and it’s a huge but…how on earth in the year 2009 can a judge possibly rule against someone for their belief system or lack thereof. the court has no business interferring with this sort of thing.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html?iid=digg_share