At Least He Gets To Keep His Reason And Sanity

Posted by BGH

~
A musician who was a member of a Christian band is not taken with open arms by his fellow band members when he expresses doubt in religious doctrine, and belief in god. Instead he has been booted from the band and now his ex band members are clasping hands 'wishing' him better.

From my perspective, he has gotten better. At least now he is thinking about his indoctrination and trying to determine whether what he believes is true. Too many people uncritically accept the mythology taught as religion their whole lives, never giving the existence of such supernatural events much thought. They become comfortable with the mob mentality and therefore decide to just follow along.

This musician may have lost his job with the band but has gained his intellectual freedom and hopefully he will retain it.
----
"These things I'll carry on
And when you're gone I'll honor you
Each day, however long"

Religion Harbors Insanity

Posted by BGH

~
People are insane. Many, many people are bug-nutter crazy and they just don’t realize it.

Why? Well, religion, a doctrinal set of beliefs and prescribed thought syllabus, gives them a societal asylum. They are able to hide behind the ‘faith’, claim the most insanely delusional things, and society says, “well, that is their religion, that is their right”.

Just check these stories to see how the insanity hides under the cover of religion.

Bible, watermelon stop stray bullet

A bible stopped the bullet? This is divine intervention? What about the first girl who was hit, did god just wake up from a nap in time to stop it from hitting the second girl? The family isn’t told, “you’re crazy, it’s pure luck and coincidence that the WATERMELON and the bible were able to stop the bullet”. No, they are told “praise Jesus”.

Dubai Detains Foreigners Accused Of Being Gay

It is illegal (???) to be gay? Because Muslim doctrine says so, it is permissible to arrest an individual with different preferences; almost no-one in society says anything because, well, the Qu’ran dictates that homosexuality is wrong. So, who are we to argue with their ‘faith’? The western nations can't go after Islam because, if the largest religion in our country (Christianity) says it's okay to hate fags, we can't tell Muslims they are wrong for their beliefs.

Lorna Byrne: 'To me, seeing angels is natural'

This woman is delusional at best and instead of being told she is batshiat crazy, she gets a six-figure book deal because other batshiat crazy people want to read about angels. If someone said they were having visions of mailboxes with “its golden wings in such detail. I could see the feathers individually", a psychological evaluation would be in order, but because ‘angels’ are part of a religious doctrine they are completely believable. If the woman were to be diagnosed with a disorder causing her to have these visions, credit would still be given to the faith and ‘god’, for giving her the gift.

And then there is a faith that makes this an acceptable treatment of women.



Sure, the westernized nations criticize this treatment, but not too much. After all, it is their religion and it wasn't long ago we used our religion (Christianity) to justify similar treatment of the female members of society.

I don't know if religion were to disappear tomorrow if the insanity would go away, or if humans would find another harbor for bigotry, delusion and hatred. I would love to find out. Maybe tripping off the deep end of the sanity pool wouldn't be so easy. Maybe people would be less inclined to boldly display such synapse misfirings. I am not saying disappearance of 'faith' would end all such activity, but it would certainly have one less place to duck for cover.
----
"These things I'll carry on
And when you're gone I'll honor you
Each day, however long"

10 Tenets Of My Skepticism

Posted by BGH

~
These are a set of thoughts that drive my skepticism and inspire me towards continuous inquiry.

1. I do not need the opiate they call religion, for I shall hold nothing on faith alone. I will require evidence, reason and critical thought to arrive at conclusions.


2. Because I may know your holy book better than you does not mean I am repressing a hidden inner 'true' belief in your deity, it means that I care if what I believe is true. I will spend time and energy looking into claims to verify there is substantial reason believe and when there is not I will abandon those beliefs.


3. I will not only research and investigate one side of an issue, I will try to inform myself of many facets of a topic.


4. I shall hold arguments from popularity as irrelevant. How many people believe a 'thing' does not necessitate 'truth'.


5. I shall dismiss arguments from ignorance. Because we do not know the true cause does not infer that a supernatural or pseudo scientific explanation is the correct one.


6. I believe extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


7. My systematic doubt is not a negative, it is an asset, along with continuous inquiry, for I value the truth.


8. "We don't know", is a perfectly acceptable answer instead of a made up one. I accept that there are limits to knowledge.
   


9. I shall exhibit a joy and wonder in learning about the world while trying to keep at bay emotion driven thinking.
   


10. I will question, question, question, question, question, question, question....

----
"These things I'll carry on
And when you're gone I'll honor you
Each day, however long"

Inflicting 'God' On Others

Posted by BGH

~
Some of you who have visited us before may have read about my 'holy co-worker'. Our relationship dynamic is an odd one. He is not really a subordinate or colleague, we merely work on separate projects in the same lab so interactions between us are much more casual.

He is aware that I am an atheist and that skepticism is what drives my non-belief, I require substantial evidence to believe the spectacular claims of religion and thus far, the criteria has not been met. On the other hand, he is a fervent Christian and though he claims to follow scripture to live his life, he has not read the complete bible (a real deficiency in my opinion of many fervent believers).

We are able to have many benign conversations about religion and 'god' without any hard feelings on either side, usually we end up agreeing to disagree. There is one issue though that is a bit irksome, he incessantly claims that one day my mind will change, I will no longer need evidence for supernatural claims and become just as relentless as he is about the existence of god. While I always leave my mind open to new evidence and seldom say "never", I have looked very deeply into religious claims and all of them came up lacking where they pertain to evidence. A change of mind is highly unlikely.

The arrogant assumption that one day everyone will join his 'club' is an indication to me of the Holy Co-Worker's insecurities with his faith and beliefs. An uncomfortable tone coats his words when he speaks of those who do not believe exactly as he does, this even applies to other Abrahamic faiths such as Judaism and Islam. There is a tension exhibited by the 'insecure' believers when they encounter others who do not hold the same beliefs. It appears that they feel their faith, their so-called "personal" beliefs are at risk when not everyone tows the line.

On the other hand... I am secure in my non-belief. I do not need another person on this planet to be a atheist for me to hold confidently to what I believe is (or isn't) true.

I have encountered many believers such as my co-worker, they do little to support their faith and only display to me the weakness and deep welled strife within that possibly comes from belief in 2000 year old myth and legend.
----
"These things I'll carry on
And when you're gone I'll honor you
Each day, however long"

Jackass: U.S. Politics Version - Race For The Presidency

Posted by JCE

***

I've been watching this election closely, monitoring the debates, sifting through the rhetoric delivered by various talking heads and I am disappointed. There is overwhelming evidence that Barack Obama will win the election in November and there are many points on which I agree with him but there seems to be something lacking in his approach. What is it? Jackassishness.

This country needs a real leader and one who is not afraid to fly in the face of convention because he/she knows they are right and is able to support their position with facts and evidence. This is not the same as displaying the congnitive dissonance shown by our current Commander in Chief. I have discussed this many times with BGH (who often displays jackassishness) and as I have explained to him, a good leader knows they are right regardless of naysayers. They do not bow to public opinion and at the end of the day they gain respect because they were right. Naturally, a certain amount of arrogance (hence the term 'jackassishness') is usually found in the character make-up of these individuals, but it isn't false pride - it is earned through hard work and intellect.

There are times I have nearly beat my head against the wall during discussions with BGH - "But saying such and such is rude!" "You can't do/say that!" "Why do you have to be so contrary? Can't you just go with the flow?" "Why do you always have to have your own way?" Well, I will tell you why - because he is nearly always right and if he is wrong, he admits it and fixes the problem. There was a time in our history that such a person would be called a visionary.

Visionaries often possess deep wells of common sense and a clear sense of right and wrong. They are protective of their rights and do not allow themselves to get mired down in semantics or manners. They are practical and respectful without sacrificing their own self-worth. There are times when the opponent is just plain wrong and visionaries see that and can usually express that idea clearly and convincingly without demeaning the opponent. (Thomas Jefferson was one such visionary who was not gifted at verbally expressing himself or his ideals, but his writings more than made up for that deficiency.)

We are in desperate need of a visionary:

• Visionaries are not afraid to assess current crisises and formulate answers based on logic and critical thinking.
  
  
• Visionaries will listen to dissenting opinions if for no other reason than to test their own opinions and make them stronger.
  
  
• Visionaries will utilize the resources available - economists, scientists, sociologists - to assist them in determining a wise course of action. Our current president has a penchant for surrounding himself with yes-men and lackeys whose only key to success is telling the president what he wants to hear. All others have been shown the door.
  
  
• Visionaries inspire others - such a person could turn this country around and return it to the productive, well-respected country that it once was. They could force all of us take a good look at ourselves and strive for self-improvement – someone we all want to emulate. There are some who might even use the term ‘elitist' and that is fine; they ARE elitists, we should ALL want to be bit more elite too.
  
  
• Visionaries employ foreign diplomacy before resorting to playground bully tactics and they do so without diminishing the integrity of this country.
  

The media has led us to believe we should actually care about what kind of suit a candidate wears or how she gets her hair styled. In order to give the impression of intellect and importance, the media has given vast amounts of air-time and ink to issues they conjure up out of thin air. I do not care if Obama wears a flag lapel pin, I do not care if Clinton has tree-trunk legs and I surely do not care about McCain period.

I do care about integrity, honesty, common sense and knowledge of the constitution, but mostly I care about whether or not our next president is a visionary. Are they capable of simply standing up and saying "We are fucked. We are going to have to fix it together and it might sting a little, but we can do it." And they must possess the conviction to follow through.

As far as Barack Obama is concerned I have my doubts. Admittedly I have fewer doubts with him than the other candidates, but I would feel much more at ease if he would practice a little less appeasement and stand firm on jackassishness.

***

On Censorship

Posted by BGH

~
Throughout history of the written and spoken word there have existed efforts to deter or silence opposing viewpoints. This type of attitude, while having the appearance of protecting and insulating your stance from criticism, only indicates the insecurity of your position and gives others an open door to also squelch your ideas from being heard.

Once we start censoring ideas we don’t agree with, all ideas can be silenced, even our own, and nothing is beyond reproach. I don’t agree with the neo-Nazi, the 9/11 truther, the extremely far right, the extremely far left, or many other viewpoints for that matter, but they have a right to speak their mind.

I am strong proponent of free speech, defending the marketplace of ideas and protecting all speech, even that with which I strongly disagree. I feel I can make my case, defend my arguments and if someone can prove me wrong or convince me otherwise, I am willing to accept it. Censorship has no place in society, to wall up sensibilities from scrutiny and brand certain discussion ‘off limits’ pushes modern society backward, causing regression of thought and basically creates automatons from the citizenry.

Say what you will; say what you want, if we disagree, great! At least there is a discussion, and no one’s viewpoints are silenced. We learn best when being confronted with many varied and wide ranging viewpoints, we remain ignorant when only having access to like-minded speech.

On this blog we do not delete comments we disagree with, we let the criticism remain, we state our case in response but DO NOT expel differences of opinion.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” - The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre
----

A Looming Recession Is Now Called A 'Rough Patch'

Posted by BGH

~
President Bush, in another awesome display of his infinite wisdom and ethereal insight declared the U.S. economy is in a 'rough patch'.

"We're in a rough patch right now," Bush said in answer to a question at a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

In the last two days there have been news stories regarding rising food prices, crude oil tipping out over $115 a barrel and increasing unemployment. Our president, the financial wizard that he is, thinks the best terminology to describe the flailing state of the economy is 'rough patch'. A fight with the wife over doing chores is a rough patch, the U.S. economical situation is more akin to pushing your wife over a cliff.

I can't say I am surprised by the comment though, George W. Bush is an excellent denialist and will dispute evidence a mile high in order to keep from admitting mistakes. This is just another example of his complete detachment from reality and propensity to diminish the seriousness of situations that may be on his shoulders.

People are losing their homes, stores and shops are closing up and it is becoming increasingly more expensive to feed a family, for fuck's sake, wake up GWB!!
----

Delusions Of The Desperate To Rationalize The Belief

Posted by BGH

~
What level of cognitive dissonance must one hold to believe that when confronted in tragedy a 'god' will save you while your friends, who attend the same Christian school, die around you?

A teen in New Zealand, along with a group of fellow students, was 'canyoning' in a national park when the group was taken over by a flash flood. There was an unfortunate series of event's where six students and an instructor from the school lost their lives while one student, Kish Proctor, managed to survive.

"All I can say is this is my story and this is what happened to me and God saved me," he told the Herald.

Kish does himself, whatever god he believes in, and his friends who lost their lives a very large disservice. It must be offensive to the families of those who were lost to listen to Kish credit 'god' with saving his life while their children perished in the raging water.

A common rationalization is that 'god' has a plan and he called the deceased 'home'. In an instance such as this story, it comes across as arrogant and self righteous to make the claim that your life, your future is somehow more important, more valuable than others who were not so fortunate as to have survived. I find this one of the most disgusting parts of god belief, that the faithful willfully insult the lives and importance of friends, family and even strangers by claiming they were spared by a divine hand while others perished without the same intervention.
----

Skepticism And Trust

Posted by BGH

~
Often, because of the incessant skepticism I apply to nearly everything, I am accused of being distrustful. I don’t view it that way; I just require proof when most others do not.

I have never been much of a credulous person and most times I find myself questioning even the smallest minutia, nothing is beyond scrutiny. If someone describes for me a particular news event, though I believe them, I look it up to be sure they got the facts right. If a doctor diagnosis my seasonal sneezing as allergies, I heed his advice but I also look it up to verify my symptoms match. If someone tells me they got the bolt tight enough, though stood there and watched them perform the work, I put the wrench on it to see if it budges a little more. I simply just have to verify, for my own sanity, what I have been told is true. Exhausting as it may seem, this drive for proof, is my path to reality.

I don’t like this behavior being called distrust.

Skepticism to me is inquisitiveness. It is a want to learn and verify through data, even regarding things we already ‘know’. It is my way of not being duped, deluded or diverted. I may take the wrong position on an issue but it won’t be because I have been fooled, it will be because I applied some sort of bias. I may apply faulty reasoning to a dilemma, but I will have at least applied SOME reasoning. Granted, there is always the chance of deception, but in most cases the lies will be detected and dispelled.

I am not saying my way is better, but that it works for me. I feel safe relying on my skepticism to lead me through life and, though I trust certain people, it doesn't mean I will refrain from verifying something they purport to be true.
----

Spirituality #2: If You Can’t Clearly Define It Why Worry About It?

Posted by BGH

~
Spirituality to me is a puzzle. I don’t understand the idea or the term, and at least 99% of the definitions I have heard. I delved into the lack of understanding here, “Spirituality??”.

As addressed in a few of the comments on that post, the definition of this concept is as vague as the definition of ‘god’ by most theists. That’s just it, if we are supposed to be rationalists and use good reasoning when evaluating claims, how can a skeptic/rationalist even begin to discuss the ‘search for atheistic spiritualism’?

We can discuss feelings such as ‘awe’ or ‘wonder’ when speaking about experiences while observing the cosmos through a telescope, or we can discuss ‘meditation’ and ‘focus’ when talking of calming oneself and relaxing. These terms have fairly clear definitions and are fairly universal feelings. We do not discuss ‘needing’ these feelings; they are emotions we experience in certain situations. We enjoy these feelings, they may even be calming or cause us to look at the world in a new way but terming them 'spiritual' removes valid, definable emotions and replaces them with a vague, ambiguous term akin to 'god'. It becomes a meaningless discussion at that point.

Alas, I have met a few well reasoned atheists who state that they base their disbelief in god on logic and rationality, yet also claim to have spiritual needs or to have found a spiritual longing since leaving theism. Why the disconnect? Isn’t it obvious that every feeling of happiness had when a theist can also be had without belief? I would even argue more so because of the lack of guilt heaped upon them when following Christian doctrine.

It really is a mystery to me where this ‘spiritualism’ leaves a ‘hole’, but then again, I was never a ‘spiritual’ theist either…..

[If you have a definition please tell me, I would love to understand.]
----

A State Of Affairs; Democrats and Republicans Have Failed The American People

Posted by BGH

~
Where seven years of a George W. Bush / Dick Cheney / Donald Rumsfeld / Karl Rove / Lazy Congress / Lying Democrats / Lying Republicans / Excessive Greed / Apathetic Public has taken the U.S. These are just headlines from the last week or two:

• US Nears 4,000 Dead in Iraq

• Greenspan: Financial Crisis Likely Worst Since WWII

• Bleak picture of Iraq conditions

• Our "black Monday" for oil

• FBI Found to Misuse Security Letters

• US credit crisis deepens

• The costs of the Iraq war: A fall in U.S. power, prestige and influence

• American Soldiers' Suicide Rates Still Rising

• Big U.S. Job Losses Are Sign Recession May Be Under Way

• Censored Science

There will be a lot of pressure on the next administration, to do something. Unfortunately it will take longer than four years to fix most of this.

Legislators should have been stronger, less concerned about steroid abuse in baseball. Our Judiciary should have been more honorable. The Executive branch should have been more truthful and less self centered and selfish.

MOST OF ALL!!!
The American people should have cared more, they should have fought for more, they should not have been taken in by scare tactics and lulled into a false sense of security, they should have required more of their leaders and they should have GIVEN A DAMN!!!

The apathy is disgusting, as JCE says, it is the greatest enemy of all.
----

Bush Credits Faith In Killing All Them Damn Foreigners

Posted by BGH

~
Our great diplomat, orator and all around reasonable leader, George Walker Bush, President Of The United States Of America, proclaims he has done the right thing by waging war in the mid-east, according to his faith in the 'Almighty'.

He pandered to Christian broadcasters by proclaiming freedom is being spread through Iraq and Afghanistan via bombs and guns, tanks and jets, death and mayhem, and all sorts of assorted warfare. Those who do not die are being delivered their "God given" freedom from President Bush. Sure, there is more death and destruction than when Saddam and the Taliban were in power, but the people can freely experience pain and suffering instead of under the control of dictators.

These claims of spreading liberty are the poorest reasoning used to validate the illegal invasion of Iraq. As I have said in previous posts, the administration has taken their eye off Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, and stretched our military very thin by invading Iraq. The White House has used as an excuse, WMD's, spreading freedom and purported links to 9/11, all to validate the Iraq war. All of these have panned out to be false, and George claims to be doing God's work.

He has 'accomplished' these acts of aggression through lies, deception and scare tactics. I am sure his God is proud, just like in the Bible.
----

Seniors, Scare Tactics and Skepticism

Posted by BGH

~
Yesterday while at lunch I had the privilege of overhearing a very interesting conversation between, what seemed like two very sweet, elderly women. These women were a classic example of the type of mindset that the Bush Administration targets with scare tactics. These women did not look like crackpots, if you saw them you say they were normal Midwestern elderly housewives, nothing screamed “Conspiracy Theorists” about them.

There was one woman I will call “Leader” and another I will call “Follower”. These monikers are very descriptive of the roles each woman played in the conversation, one was professing all types of theories and the other mostly responded with “oh, I heard that” or “I had no idea”.

The point where I began ‘eavesdropping’ (although the women were talking loud enough I could clearly hear without straining too much), ‘Leader’ was describing how the government controls the weather and can make torrential downpours in Arkansas or drought in California. Her reasoning was that because the technology to send a spacecraft with astronauts to the moon exists, the government “MUST” have the ability to control the weather by seeding the clouds or breaking up weather systems. It really sounded like this woman had read way too many “Weekly World News” rags.

‘Leader’s’ explanation to ‘Follower’ for why certain areas are affected by natural disaster purposefully is so that the government can come in and ‘help’ people, therefore getting access to their homes and lives and gaining more control. ‘Leader’ did not feel this was a bad thing because government protects us and keeps us safe. Somehow, they harm us to keep us safe…

Then ‘Leader’ went on about cameras being “everywhere” and how she looked up her house on her friend’s computer and they could even see the pond in the back yard. She did not seem to understand that these are satellite images that are most likely a few months old, if not a few years old. ‘Leader’ appeared to believe that these were live images and that people could see into her house at any time. ‘Follower’ was very alarmed by this and began discussing on which windows she needed to install drapes.

The discussion jumped around quite a bit after that but ‘Leader’ brought it back around to cameras being “everywhere” again and began making an argument that in most public places there are cameras in outlet covers where the screw is and in your own home the outlets send information to the electric company. She claimed the electric company could tell specifically what you have plugged into the power supply and then turns this information over to the government.

I got up and left about the time that she began talking about getting a ‘crank’ radio she would put by her bedside so she could listen to weather alerts, I guess because the government creates weather systems, and if she cranked it up, left it powered on and tuned to the weather channel it would not lose a charge unless something was actually being broadcast.

This is a prime example of the audience who hears the FOX list of terror events and thanks her “lucky stars” and “Jesus”, that we have George W. Bush protecting us.

Ugh.
----

Anti-Abortion Star Bellied Sneetches Protest "Horton Hears A Who"

Posted by BGH

~
At the premiere of "Horton Hears a Who" a group of pro-lifers made a stand, they felt the message, "After all, a person is a person, no matter how small.", supported their stance on an adult issue. So, they decided to chant anti-abortion slogans to the children.

Word has it that their last slogan chant before putting red tape over their mouths with the word "Life" on it, was:

I do not like them in a box.

I do not like them with a fox.

I do not like them in a house.

I do not like them with a mouse.

I do not like them here or there.

I do not like them anywhere.

I do not like abortions because the churches need more tithing automatons.

I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

So, thankfully these ass hats never miss a chance to preach a message, no matter the audience or situation.
----

Five Years Of Illegal War Has Wrought So Much

Posted by BGH

~
Five years ago we were told that the weapons were there, the evidence was good and this “Had to be done”. Our president had much support both at home and abroad, thus forming a “Coalition Of The Willing”. When the Iraqi invasion began we had just been fairly successful in the Afghanistan offensive and though the main objective of finding Osama Bin Laden had not yet been accomplished, it did seem inevitable. We marched into Iraq and Saddam’s regime fell, statues of the leader were toppled, the imperial guard was crushed and our president stood aboard an aircraft carrier in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner.

What utter and complete arrogance. We were lied to. Our trust was abused. Our president deceived the American people for personal gain. Whether it was a financial motive or personal vendetta, he pushed us into conflict under false pretenses, fabricated evidence and willful deception.

Some will argue that Saddam was a ‘bad man’, he gassed his own people (the Kurds), he led an oppressive regime or that he was somehow connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001. All of this is moot, there are many ‘bad men’ as heads of state around the world, and we don’t go after them all. There are many leaders oppressively leading their countries and killing their own people, some are even our allies (Saudi Arabia). Additionally, the purported links between Saddam and 9/11 have never been completely verified and many experts say they were never there to begin with. In essence we are in a stalled conflict with an anonymous enemy and every day soldiers are killed, civilians are killed, contractors are killed and lives are shattered.

We are five years into this conflict and no further along than we were when the president stood on the deck of that aircraft carrier, some will argue we have even taken huge steps backward. The ‘insurgents’ have flooded across the borders since the conflict began, there is infighting between the Shia and the Sunni, all while Americans and innocents are dying because our Commander In Chief refuses to admit he has failed. The ‘Coalition’ has all but disbanded, the troops are stretched thin between Afghanistan and Iraq, Osama still taunts us from his cave with periodic videos letting us know that our President and his administration have taken their eye off the initial target while walling themselves inside a buffer zone of “yes” men and lies.

Our troops who are not killed in battle come back to the States tormented by the memories of the war zone, a growing number are choosing to end their own lives and the ones that return injured are being treated and housed in sub-standard conditions. Their families struggle with the government for benefits, the divorce rate for veterans has exploded and the highest level leaders in this country are oblivious or apathetic.

All I can say is, “Thank you Mr. Bush. Thank you for lowering the standard by which all future presidents will be judged. No longer will they be evaluated on their ineffectiveness, no, because now we can assess whether they have fucked up the country and world opinion of the U.S. as bad as you have. You have been the most damaging, most inept, most arrogant and most deceitful President in America’s history.”

Please, when you leave office Mr. Bush, piss off you dirty rotten scoundrel. Though I doubt I will see the day it happens, I would love to turn on the news and catch a video of our finest FBI lifting the doorway to a "spider-hole", unveiling your hideout and taking you into custody on charges of treason, perjury and other assorted high crimes. Sleep well now Mr. Bush for we have a growing group of concerned citizens and this dream may become reality.

For the rest of you, read these stories of what this illegal war has done to families who have sacrificed so much.
For few, Iraq war has changed everything
----

Bullshit

Posted by BGH

~
I do not usually post whole articles but this deserves to be assessed as is.

Two things on this article:
How many of these were real, and valid "terror threats"?
And if these were valid, at what price were they averted, what did we forfeit to feel protected?

(This is from FOX News so you can count on GOP propaganda being contained.)

List of Thwarted Terror Attacks Since Sept. 11

Thursday , March 06, 2008
By Joseph Abrams

The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.

• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.

• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking "dirty bomb," convicted of conspiracy.

• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.

• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge.

• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.

• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).

• August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.

• August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.

• June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.

• August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.

• December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up refinery in Wyoming, convicted of providing material support to terrorists.

• February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.

• April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.

• June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.

• July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to hit New York City train tunnels.

• August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.

• May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey.

• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries underneath JFK Airport in New York.

• March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

----

Congress Without Purpose, A Grandstanding Elite

Posted by BGH

~
As we are threatened to endure another media blitz if Roger Clemens is called before congress again, I am growing more aggravated.

Whether one or ten thousand people die from illegal steroid use, it remains against the law without a prescription and users/suppliers should be investigated and prosecuted as criminals. In the United States we have federal law enforcement agencies in order to investigate and prosecute these crimes if they are interstate offenses, if they are local offenses we have local agencies to investigate and prosecute. Joe-Bob, the local meth user is not called before congress for investigation, his ass is arrested by law enforcement.

Why the fuck is Congress wasting time and money investigating the illegal use of these substances in Major League Baseball? There is no need for further legislation; the legality is already covered in previous law. The matter should be pursued by law enforcement and the judiciary, not our senators and representatives.

In America, while Congress proceeded with this folly for two weeks during the last round of testimony (not to mention the previous sessions of depositions):

• Approximately $270 million dollars were spent on the war each day, where little or no progress appears to be forthcoming.

• An estimated $273,972,602 for ten days, lost through waste and mismanagement in Iraq.

• Approximately 108 U.S. soldiers killed for ten days in Iraq.

• Approximately 794 U.S. soldiers seriously wounded for ten days in Iraq.

• An estimated 1,460 children die each year from neglect and child abuse, this is not counting those that survive but are subjected to abuse. This number figures to be an estimated 40 children per day while the hearings were underway for two weeks. Additionally this number is suspected to be low, as many cases go unreported.

• Exponentially increasing deficit and debt.

• Crumbling roads and infrastructure.

• Flailing education system.

• Health care prices skyrocketing.

• Stalling economy.

• Underfunded education system.
  

The list could go on and on regarding more pressing issues to the nation's health and welfare but I think you get the point. What is the purpose of making a congressional matter of whether or not Roger Clemens got a shot in his ass from a personal trainer? If the trainer wants to confess and implicate Clemens for a crime, then he needs to approach a law enforcement officer and they can get the investigation under way.

If this issue threatens MLB's anti-trust status, when the case is prosecuted by law enforcement and the courts arrive at a verdict, then congress can decide whether to revoke the anti-trust privilege. Until that time it seems inane for our legislators to be involved.

It is really disgusting to see so much time and tax-payer money wasted on this 'sport', in our legislative branch when other matters appear to be much more urgent.

It really reminds me of a ‘Fark’ headline, “Having Solved All The Nation’s Problems, Congress Turns To Straightening Out Baseball Players”.
----

9/11, The Non-Sequitur & George W. Bush

Posted by BGH

~
Before I continue with this post I need to define what a non-sequitur argument is for those that are unfamiliar.

Non sequitur:
Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow."), in formal logic, is an argument where its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.

Ha! I ran into a very poor argument for republican/George W. Bush support the other day at my son's hockey practice and while some people may feel it is valid reasoning, it is not.
The conversation and argument went like this:

Another hockey dad was speaking to a group of us and decided to make a joke, something about the ineptitude of the Democrats. Now, I am not republican or democrat, as sadly I feel there are too many crooks in all of politics it really doesn't matter the party. Corruption is rampant in government and neither side is blameless.

Well, he continued his little joke and then delivered the punch line, I really forget what it was, but my response was "Yeah, or you could vote republican and end up with te same thing we have had the last seven years.

To this, his response was... "Well, have we been attacked since 9/11?".

Are you fucking kidding me? That reasoning does not follow at all. It really surprised me because it fails on so many levels, and this guy still thought it made sense enough to use it.

Let's list a few flaws:

• 9/11 happened while he was president. Hello?

• We (or property, soldiers, and civilians) WERE attacked since he has been president, period. American Consulate Karachi, Pakistan. The U.S. Embassies. Soldiers in Iraq. Soldiers in Afghanistan. Civilians in Iraq.

• Attacked how, does this guy mean in the U.S.? In the middle east? Our embassies? Our naval ships? Our interests abroad?

• What does George W. Bush have to do with the lack of another 9/11 style attack? Did he personally stop attempts? Did he tackle the shoe bomber? Is he protecting the borders personally? Proposing legislation is one thing but it does not make you solely responsible for it's effectiveness.

• If he has protected the country from a homeland terrorist attack, how has he done it? By merely saying, "have we not been attacked since", does not really say anything.
  

At any rate, here is how I replied.

"Well, terrorists tried twice during the 1990's when Bill Clinton was President to bring down the World Trade towers but failed, only under the George W. Bush presidency were they able to kill all those people and demolish the buildings. Yay, Bushie!"

My very own non sequitur, fighting fire with fire, he didn't take the bait. He seemed unsure what to say so he just walked away.
----