Black Entitlement TV

Prof. HotWind,
Prejudices. Let's talk briefly about BET, Black Entertainment Television. How much opposition would be aroused if someone was to try launching the White Entertainment Television Network?
- Disgusted

Dear Disgusted,
I have wonderful news. You can tear the boards off your windows, put the rifles back in the gun case and eat uncanned foods again. WET exists! It began in 1949 showing Gene Autry and Hopalong Cassidy Westerns .

Sure, those rascally Black entertainers tried to infiltrate the White-man's gig ever since, making buffoons of themselves for us in Amos and Andy satires or that snake Rochester on the Milton Berle show, but rest assured, we Pink People never let them get much more substantial exposure than that. (Unless of course you want to throw "Sanford and Son" in my face. There was another wonderful example of Black sensitivity training at work.)

My memory of Blacks employed to advertise home products doesn't seem to stretch further back than the late seventies; Ahh, remember OJ running for his Rent-A-Car? Yeah, we troubled White folk are doing OK. We just always seemed to have more class . . . no running our cultural dominance up the flag pole or junk like that.
Better to lay low and control the buying power of the typical American couch potato. . . invisibly.

Reminds me of an essay I wrote last year I called "On the Liberal Media". You'll find it on the Blog, "August". It was a response to an e-mail from Harry that called on America to wake from the Liberal Media's hypnotic manipulation of the Nation's news services, undermining our war efforts and selling the country to our enemies. One afternoon of research was enough to gather statistics on Broadcast dominance, audience reach and Newspaper circulation. All results clearly supported the Conservative Right's vast superiority in the game. I urge you to read it.

I say, Let them have their little program . . . we'll simply use the remaing seven-hundred channels or so to quietly seduce "our own people" into puppet-like consumers with little regard for cultural content.

I simply hate it when the Star whines about the conditions of his dressing room. In your case, you made me laugh. Thanks.
- HotWind

Terrorism: the movie

This next one from Somewhere out West:

Dear Prof. Pacifist:

AP - President Barack Obama on Monday vowed to use "every element of our national power" to keep Americans safe and said the failed Christmas Day plot to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner was "a serious reminder" of the need to continually adapt security measures against changing terrorist threats.

-comment-

I'm actually surprised this happened. Who would dare defy Obama after he spent the past year inviting everyone to be his facebook friend? The man's wisdom is astounding, and with Eric Holder at his side, hell they're like . . . . . Batman and Robin. Just knowing they're on the case makes me feel so much safer.

Oh, I was confused about one thing. Obama said terrorist in his little speech. I thought we had purged that word from the National Vocabulary?

- Unbewitched


Dear UnBewitched,

This one is rich in venom but a little obscure in info . . . why did this one make you angry? I promise you I have no interest in becoming Obama's Facebook friend, however I just don't get the connection. Without some extra effort to help me, I am left to assume that you either don't want him to use "every element . . " or think he should not have tried to be so friendly.
Throw me a bone here.

The point of this Administration's referencing the word "terrorism", as I understand it, was to stop the over-use. Words like "genius", "excellent" or "awesome" have simply lost their connection to the original level of significance they received just a few generations ago.

The word terrorism was recently associated with a hate crime in Farmingville, the rampage at Virginia Tech., the killings at Fort Hood and a host of other non-terrorist crimes. We used to call these mass murders, a term which the public understood to mean "unrelated to organized subversive activity". Son of Sam would have been a "Terrorist" if the word had any credence back in the 1970's.

Using the term for shock points just distracts from its effectiveness by our security organizations who need to connect with a public sense of legitimate urgency. I think a guy wearing C-4 socks on a packed jet warrants the word.

I would like some time to read from Obama bashers one, single alternative approach to any situation that does not employ "Rat Patrol"/cowboy diplomacy.

- Prof HotWind

Dear Prof.,

For some reason, I'm finding it necessary to back though your letter with the answers to some of your questions.

I don't know of any methods to dispose of rats other than the deployment of snare traps or poisons. They can't be reasoned with. Yes, a rat is not a human being, but how do you protect yourself against those that infest as rats do and are willing to die for their beliefs? We do, as Americans? No, we don't. We've hired from within to take care of that dirty job. Do you suggest our military should trade in their weapons for note pads; write letters asking the rats to stop? You wish for an imaginary line to be drawn on the shore line. Beyond this point we are civil. For a terrorist to step foot on US soil with the intentions of in gauging in any form of terrorism should be dealt with by the military in a swift manner. Giving the terrorist page one coverage in court houses reserved for Americans only helps their effort. Turn these individuals over to the military, and without parade, guarantee our citizen justice will be served. And punishment doesn't need to be death. Maybe American citizens might fear treason once again.

Now, in picking on HisObamaness' use of the word terrorist, he really couldn't resist. Why not call a spade a spade. I can appreciate the President's desire to hang curtain and install glade plug ins on this one, but you can't sweep this shit under the carpet. This stinks. We have to look it in the face and deal with it for what it really is and it's more than a line item in the budget. The American citizen's killing people are criminals and terrorists as well. Once again, turn off the fucking microscope. It makes no sense to arm wrestle over a word.

Now, the facebook comment. Obama has really done a great job in reaching out to countries and cultures that our past administrations misunderstood, used and bombed.
I was pointing out the incident regardless of our efforts to be friend the world. I wasn't trying to be trite. Fanatics and terrorists have been opened for business for all of time. There will always be someone that feels it's necessary to hurl a rock in order to get their point across. They may be right as there is always someone that doesn't want to hear about it.

My anger stems from this. I love our country. I love our freedoms. As I take a stand in defense of these things, peaking over my shoulder, I've come to realize that clowns are wearing the ringmaster's hat. So many elements and elected officials of our government are criminal. It's the pomp and circumstance that surrounds this group of people that have taken these temporary jobs that has me so angry. The President is nothing more than a temporary landlord. In fact, better described as a CEO on a board of directors. The government has lost it's honor. It's been examined, exposing so much corruption, by the very microscope that you and yours find so necessary to look through. I have no respect for what is said by our government officials. They should keep their mouths shut and try to do a good job. The media needs to get off the White House front lawn and stop the applause. It sickens me. These has nothing to do with Obama as an individual or as the President. I'm examining his campaign promises. It's possible that he sold us to get. It's also possible that he had to sell himself out to maintain a certain degree of cooperation. I don;t know and never will but he has three years to go.

By the way, Somali pirates grabbed two more ships but I don't give a shit and neither does anyone one else, right?

I have to break from this. The news is going to post a picture of the underwear the plane bomber was wearing. See, it was C4 boxers and not socks.

- UnBewitched

To Catch a Thief

Dear Prof. HotWind,

-excerpt-

LONDON – For a priest in northern England, the commandment that dictates "thou shalt not steal" isn't exactly written in stone. The Rev. Tim Jones caused uproar by telling his congregation that it is sometimes acceptable for desperate people to shoplift — as long as they do it at large national chain stores, rather than small, family businesses.

-comment-

Apparently, our online bible scholar has a little competition. Talk about drifting from what you hold true, in a sometimes acceptable manner. We all thought George Carlin was just being funny when he said, “Sometimes the church grants dispensation”. Man, he would have a field day this. I would like some insight on the good Reverend’s twenty first century view on the coveting of thy neighbor’s wife.

We need to reset for a moment. The Reverend isn’t throwing out a blessing to would be thieves. His sermon is a reminder that we need to help our brother in his time of need; turn a blind in a manner of speaking. Other religious factions sanction the taking of life in HIS name. We’re only talking about a loaf of bread here, not a beheading. And hi def telis are right out!

Although the Reverend meant well, the phrasing of his thoughts should have been reconsidered. If we really need to hang a priest, we should go after the dirty bastards that like touching little boys.

Puzzled in a pew


Dear Puzzled,

A fine and sensitive treatment of the story my dear friend.

I marvel at a cozy scene where you, still bent over a warm internet keyboard, are visited by the resplendent visage of sweet Wisdom herself, draped in a shimmering irridescent lame' with an open back and plunging neckline. Whose soft council spills like sunlight over the war torn fields of your fatigued philosophy.

"Think of the poor, the tired, the homeless", she purrs, "it is Christmas."
. . and your dick stirs.

"But think also of the victims and their ruined plans, their loss " she whispers, and the soft folds of her loose gown slide over the smooth white skin of her naked shoulder.


You smile weakly, turning your eyes from her fresh licked lips, but find your nose a mere two inches from the deep roundness of her anxious, rolling bosoms, almost begging to be set free . . .
"Remember the story of Lot." she teases, "What manner is a village that simply watches its saddest, most unfortunate die without helping?"

Her hand runs across your hair; at this point you can't possibly stand from your chair without embarrassment . . .

"Remember also" she breathed, "this same village might well perish but for its love of the truth in the Commandments and the law."

At this point a small, bare foot steals out from the garments trailing hem.

"So small, so perfect." you think to yourself as you stare helplessly at the tiny toes which slowly brush, seductive yet somehow indifferently across your leg.

"But we can't just go around, having our priests tell the people that its plum all right to go around stealing tits from Wallmart ! ! ! . " you shout, . . . . at which point you freeze having realized the slip of the tongue.
"I mean 'shit'; that's 'shit from Wallmart' " you explain.

If your priest can only find the right rhetoric, I'll bet we can anticipate a future where some judge releases a poor, desperate homeless man who was arrested by a friendly cop who answered a 911 call from Wallmart who eventually gave the wretch a scarf they caught him trying to steal. Every one is happy, every one feels good about helping the poor; everyone feels good about obeying the law.

Now how are you going to "adjust" your metrics of morality and tear a piece off Wisdom?

The UnForgiven

jt,
-excerpt-
CHARLESTON, W.Va. – The Gospel of Luke records that, as he was dying on the cross, Jesus showed his boundless mercy by praying for his killers this way: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
Not so fast, say contributors to the Conservative Bible Project. The project, an online effort to create a Bible suitable for contemporary conservative sensibilities, claims Jesus' quote is a disputed addition abetted by liberal biblical scholars, even if it appears in some form in almost every translation of the Bible.

Comment: In these hard times, to thrash out at the center figure of the beliefs of so many spiritual factions is an affront to those that worship his godliness and is more than in poor taste. If they need to soften the power of mercy for conservative sensibilities, let them first examine the feeding of many with two fish and six loaves of bread. Can't get too much more conservatively merciful than that.
hoop
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoop,
I've come to a workable compromise when faced with the similar frustration born of dealings with powerful groups and their misguided aggressions. Aren't these the same people that would have America's socialized education system withhold Darwin's theory of evolution from our children on the principle of Biblical infallibility? And all this while simultaneously denouncing Socialism? Philosophy, like personal hygiene, is an abstraction from nature of its more intrinsic subtleties directed toward the development and employment of a system devised to neutralize man's vulnerability to the natural order.

From these elements and axioms we sculpt our laws and physics, humanize our enigmas and sanitize all record of our contemporary membership in the animal community. But as Jerry Seinfeld once remarked, personal hygiene is a labor intensive compulsion. "If your body was a car, you wouldn't buy one." If clear, logical thought came without effort to an individual, you would most likely find him heavily sedated in some Asylum for the Fragmented and Despondent. We debate as a species for the simple reason that no argument is of itself an end, but rather an invitation for a multitude of contradictions. No great campaign was ever satisfied but that it edited life to fit some predisposed, amputated objective; each man satisfied to yield some portion of fact for a tidy summation of his personal, inevitable truth.

And what is an opinion but some position along a scale on which the pleasant is measured against the unpleasant by virtue of an individual's agility with numbers and ingenuity with the language. Many a fact was held to be unsound for centuries before that certain "character" arrived with the skill to express its evolved truth. Though the metrics of the condition remained fixed for those many years, it was the elasticity of the words, the rough distinction of their definitions and the syntax which provided a fresh opportunity for the new interpretation.

Take for example the Pythagorean superstitions of numeric coincidences; the five "Platonic solids" and subsequent "music of the spheres"; our profoundly diverse interpretations of the appearance of life on Earth or the polarized approaches of Keynes and Friedman to economic practices in the United States. Each "truth" exists consequent to the edit and particularly, the dismissal of related data whose mere acknowledgement would challenge the primary objective.

In the case of Pythagoras, the crisp, objective discovery of numeric coincidence transposed a degree of unwarranted authority to a framework of intangible spirituality, a cosmic force, whose legitimacy survived the absence of equivalent interrogation.
Pythagoras' legacy alone was enough to excite Johannes Kepler's imagination to conclude the existence of a relationship between planetary orbits and the geometric volumes of Plato's five ideal solids. Although he outlived the conviction of own his epiphany, he would survive to witness a greater personal achievement.
Darwin's version of evolution simply challenges the authority of Judeo/Christian scripture. A true mess here.
. . . and Keynes, noted British Economist, would take your paycheck and put it in the bank for a steady, moderate return, whereas Friedman, (think "de-regulation"), would aim for higher profits at the track.

In every case we approach our subject with some primary assumption, trusting our scales, watches and thermometers to reveal some accountable fact of its nature. These instruments then cough out their numbers onto pages where they are arranged and subsequently shuffled into some context. Though the numbers present themselves as metaphorical stones whose face value is presumed eternal and unyielding, such is not the case with the language used to relate them.

Words begin at their core like the pit inside a peach, firm and distinct. But through context and metaphor, idioms are born and layers are grown onto the seed, not unlike the juicy meat of the peach. It is through this process we learn to value and treasure our language and cultivate our long fascination with literature. And from this peach we must provide a context to our arithmetic.
How could one expect mankind to have the accuracy of our deliberations keep pace with our predilection for ambiguity; our love for association? Philosophy is as difficult on the mind as weight training is on the body; an inconvenient fact has never stopped the idiot from expressing an opinion, formed in the vaccuum if its conspicuous exclusion. Outmatched by disciplined logic, these passionate yet compromised individuals have leveled the playing field with a spurious approach to an art form called Rhetoric, designed by their adversary and used to considerable effect against them.

Rhetoric is the skill of leaning words of specific innate potential, soft sides back to back, until they no longer stand perpendicular to the flat baseline of reason, creating instead a fresh, innovative angle closer to the craftsman's object yet further from the original ideal, namely: Truth. Cases are constructed in this manner that conform to a logical framework, woven of dubious, unsubstantiated or concocted material; a Christmas tree adorned with sugar ornaments in the rain. It is small wonder therefore that the history of our development, through its art, literature and science, has continually wrestled with a reluctance to acknowledge the ironic reflection staring back at us from the shiny lenses and forceps of our kitchens, laboratories and temples. It was essential that God's decision to create man in accordance to his own likeness was addressed so early on in the Bible. In this manner it was established as an axiom, beyond further analysis.

I believe firmly that our single common denominator as a species is a specific form of loneliness, that painful emptiness felt most figuratively by the child in an orphanage. We ache to discuss our achievements, our self love and our plans for the future with some paternal, guiding soul. We desperately wish to impress, to be counseled and caressed by something not simply equal to our race. How ironic that this wonderful blue planet, teeming with life, should leave us so lonely this way. So our Gods came to interview for the position. Some came and left for better employment elsewhere, some were layed off and some were fired. Some are with us today, hired when the company was smaller and charged to reinvent themselves as the corporation grew.

In light of this brief discussion of my opinion of opinions, I would like to close by applying some principles to the subject of your letter.

1] If there did indeed exist a man named Jesus, was he the Son of God?
- if yes, then move on to his life's work.
- if no, then the issue is done.

2] Was he executed for his life's work?
- if yes, then move on to his dying words
- if no, then why was he executed? (i will not continue this here)

3] Did he ask forgiveness for his executioners?
- If yes, what are the positive and negative implications?
- If no, what are the positive and negative implications?

Assuming these individuals who are editing the current version of the book of Luke are concerned with the Bible's legitimacy as an authoritative text, I can only conclude that they are amputating such knowledge from their rhetoric to protect a higher ideal, some greater good. If this is correct, I need someone to explain the potential, viral harm which hides in Forgiveness.
Then I would like an explanation for the use of the "infallibility" clause with respect to Genesis. The Bible is infallible or it is not. You must not confuse your stones for peaches lest you lose a tooth.
jt,

A rare occasion it is when, meeting at the railway depot of thought, we're not found standing on opposite platforms. Although easy to follow, the simplicity of your flow chart seems to have eluded many "great thinkers" of these times. But the true/false method of quizzing time-honored "givens" leaves little room for the filibustering responses of those who like to think they know better than the annals of the brilliant, celebrated and/or righteous ones.

The analogy to the peach with regard to this discussion was appropriate. As such, I offer the rhetoric of the worm and it's need to feed as nothing more than an attempt to spoil the fruit for the many that enjoy it's nourishment. Our twenty first century, online bible scholars need a reminder. Our beliefs are healthy and living well within the pit of our souls. And lest they fear otherwise, our fruit is dusted daily. If I may quote a phrase, most associated with the journalist Ernie Pyle, "There are no atheists in fox holes".

Believing must be complete. Besides, The Pearly Gates would be an awful place to learn of holes in their sacred story, and peaches as well.
- hoop

Hoop,
Why must "believing" be complete?
- jt

jt,
With respect to your response, you've got quite the economy of words. Running low on hot air to keep your balloon aloft? I doubt it.

I’ve apparently used a phrase that didn’t convey my thought as I intended. Perhaps I should have written "We must be true to the beliefs we embrace". Stated facts are often questioned. This can be expected and is often necessary to reach a full understanding of what one has engaged. In taking hold of a belief, specifically one's spiritualism, we can’t simply pick and choose specific aspects of the facts, myths, and tales, ignore the rest and still profess our faith. If you wish to believe in the legend of Paul Bunyan, that's OK with me, but then you can't disavow the existence of his rather large blue ox.

Do Christians believe that Jesus turned water to wine? Was it the process of fermentation or divine intervention? Did Jesus walk on water or did he step on the backs of turtles sunning in a shallow stream bed? Whatever the circumstances of these (apparent) miracles, free of physical evidence, they will always remain miracles in the hearts of those who have chosen to believe in Christ and his teachings.

Did Christ forgive those who put him to death? The question relates to the speaking of these words as he, nailed and tied to a cross, was dying. Writing of a verbal forgiveness may have been done to exemplify the height of his mercifulness. From what I’ve learned of crucifixion he would have had difficulty breathing let alone attempting to speak. So when asked if Christ forgave his executioners I answer, in accordance with his teachings, yes. By the way, research concludes that a cross true to the shape we now associate with the son of God may be inaccurate. Do we strike this image from the records as well?

Our Conservative Computer Bible Scholar has a right to question the Book of Luke. This freedom however doesn’t permit him to re-write Luke to meets his needs. To edit the Bible could therefore only be for his personal gain and is suspiciously hypercritical. Personally, I don’t think he knows how to believe. Oh ye of little faith. Sorry, you can't change the control group so the hypothesis is correct without raising the price of the book.
-hoop (aka:Our Lady of Pulpit Software V1.2)

. . . and this from Karen in Fla.:

Merry Meet Jeff......
I was reading your blog the other day. I found the topic of Jesus going on between you and hoop... I loved your questions.

Your first question, "was he the son of God" got me wondering. My initial reaction is then who was his mother?? How are we created through man? Why can't it be Mary?
How would God, a spirit, be able to do that...?

My next question: is there one shred of evidence that Jesus existed.? The stories tell us he died for our sins. What sins ! ! ? What did you or I do when we were born that we already had sin? I don't understand a religions that claims we are bad the minute were born. And this man died for these sins? How much guilt is that to be on our heads from young children to adults?

I guess I spent most of my young life believeing in him. That was what I was taught. As I grew older I began to question it. Now, I don't really want to say too much because I don't pretend to know any of these answers. Everyone is has the right to their own beliefs. I happen to believe that John Lennon said it best : "What ever gets you through the night."
......Blessed BE
-your little pagan friend...
( karen) I don't want you to get me mixed up with any of your other pagan friends.. love you

From the desk of: H. Smorgasbord, NV

More letters of urgency from my dear friends:

Dear Hot Wind,

A handful of politicians, regardless of party, are making me sicker than usual. They're all standing forward and using the Fort Hood shootings as a photo-op by voicing their opinion on what's happened and how they feel about it in the hopes of letting the voters know how intelligent and caring they are. It's too bad that they can't do this through the efforts and results as elected officials. Obama needed to address this nationally, and did so, but the rest of them have crossed that fucking line once again. On a last note, having someone sing "Amazing Grace" while Obama delivered his eulogy was an especially nice touch.

- Hoodwinked in Nevada

Dear Hoodwinked,

Some people have the gift of summarizing complex situations, using brief sound bites to expose the crocodile behind the tears. I question whether you would have been compelled to write if thirteen service men, women and civilians were murdered and our elected officials remained silent. It is certainly tempting to view every twitch and syllable from Congressional representatives as insincere and self-serving, but a time comes when the difficulty of having the office and wishing to express your sympathy and indignation are not mutually exclusive. I think John McCain, for all his polarizing political gymnastics, is an fine example of the many effective members of Congress who used the press to eulogize these fallen soldiers for the purpose of helping the nation through a period of stunned grief. I'm asking you now, to question whether your skepticism is sincere or if you are simply trying to draw attention to your self.
**************************************************************************************************
Dear P. Giov,
And speaking of the Fort Hood shootings, well, I'll keep this really simple. Some guy shoots 40 some odd people, killing a minority of them. He is confronted by the police who, in order to stop the guy from his shooting rampage, shoot to kill him. The shooter is only wounded and now hospitalized. Now, a lot of tax payer money will be used to save his life so we can judge him in court and then execute him; a definite as he is in Texas. We could have accomplished the same goal for the cost of one bullet if the police would have been trained in the art of "the coux de gras". (...I thought I saw him go for his gun, Sir...)

- the Lynch-Tax Kid

Dear Kid,

Its wonderful that your freedoms were protected these past two-hundred and thirty-three years by brave and brilliant men, women and children so you could live healthy, privileged and long enough to make a mockery of their sacrifice. Though Fort Hood is indeed in Texas, with its own rich frontier history of "field justice", don't expect the people of that great state to rally around some disturbing lawless call to forego twenty-first century judicial codes to save a few taxpayer dollars. Adding insult to mockery, you further suggest that our civilian police officers take an interpretive approach to their vows and lie to the courts when they conclude a particular situation begs their judicial intervention. I for one will continue to see that my taxes are used to keep the United States Judicial System a brick and mortar situation, complete with fabulous paneling and wood benches.

Paganism; an appeal

Hi Jeff...

Paganism is a spiritual path that honors the old ways of the triple goddess and her consort the triple god who have many names and visages that vary from culture to culture. The blessings of Gaia, the earth mother, the moon mysteries, and the transcendent wonder of the human body as a reflective vessel of immanent divinity. We celebrate the passage of the season, to honor the goddess and god in their many aspects and guises and to proactively seek personal spiritual growth. It is an expression rather than suppression of the feminine aspect of divinity in conjunction with the male aspect, a hand in hand style of empowered partnership; the journey together through life, and acceptance of feminine wisdom in healing and teaching.

Most of us celebrate the eight seasonal festivals, spaced equally over the year. There are four major sabbaths:
- Samhain (oct.31-nov.6)
- Imbolc (feb. 12)
- Beltane (apr. 30-may 1)
- Lammas (aug. 1-2)

and four minor:
- Spring equinox (mar. 20-21)
- Summer solstice (june 20-22)
- Fall equinox (sept 21-22)
- Winter solstice (dec. 21-23).

Our motto:
As it harm none, do as thou wilt....

Fundamental ethical guidelines of the pagan movement:
- Founded by Gerald Gardner (1884-1964), an amateur anthropologist and British civil servant, in 1954 with the publication of his book Witchcraft Today.

- The triple goddess is split into three aspects...maid-mother-crone. These aspects correspond to the three phases of the moon, namely waxing moon, full moon and waning moon.
maid- childhood, adolescence, purity independence,courage.
mother- mother hood, protection fertility,growth and sexuality.
crone- old age wisdom. change, transformation., death, rebirth/banshing.

The Goddess, recognized for thousands of years as one whole, divided into three aspects, was a concept later adopted by the christian religion as its trinity. Which now brings me to Sgt. Patrick Stewart who died September 25, 2005, a soldier who died in combat in Afghanistan. He was a pagan. The United States Army refused to allow his wife to place the emblem of the Pentacle on his grave. His wife Roberta Stewart announced to the press that America "remember that all freedoms are worth fighting for." And so her fight for the acknowledgement of religious diversity among the soldiers who make up the United States armed forces had begun.

Over the years families have used religious symbols such as the Jewish Star of David, the Christian Cross and the Islamic Crescent and Star, on the headstones of fallen loved ones to honor their lives, service and sacrifice. The office of Veterans Affairs had been considering such a request for 9 years with no decision. This is roughly 234 years after our country first began its fight for civil liberties, religious freedom and the freedom from arrogance and oppression by government. While the stonewalling continues, families of soldiers who gave the ultimate sacrifice are still waiting for these basic, equal rights.

My son Cory, who recently returned from honorable service with the U.S. army in Afghanistan, was under the impression that if something happened to him, the same U.S. Army for which he fought would honor his spiritual beliefs without prejudice. I am glad that we never had to discover that he was mistaken. Although our country was founded on a Judeo-christian base, the framers of the Constitution understood that religious freedom was for everyone, not just christians. The only way that this freedom can prevail is for christians to stand up and fight for the minority beliefs and religions of others. There is no way to arrive at our goal of democracy and real freedom by ignoring this uncomfortable fact. ( Can you even see this happening?) So on April 23, 2007 Americans United held a press conference to announce the settlement of Roberta Stewart's case, and in so doing, the VA added the pentacle to the list of emblems. ( . . yeah....now!)

Presidential meeting: August 2007, President Bush hosted a meeting with family members of those who had died in Iraq and Afghanistan, including some members of the Stewart family. Very compelling is the fact that Bush failed to invite Patrick's wife Roberta. True to his lack of form, President Bush later called to apologize. So I think to my self, did she really change anything? She got the emblem on his grave, but she still wasn't excepted, was she?

Cory and I talked about this when he was leaving for war and we both had to come up with something just in case. I wanted him to wear the pentacle but I was afraid for him.

- Miss you and love you... peace, Blessed Be,
Karen

Hi Jeff,

I thought I would fill you in on you a few more differences between the Pagan and Christan religion. First, Christianity sees life and the world as linear, i.e.: a beginning or "creation" and a day of judgement, which is the end of thia creation. The Pagan view is circular, the endless cycle of the seasons of birth, death and rebirth.

Christmas celebrates an event that happened 2,000 years ago. Yule celebrates an annually recurring event, the rebirth of the sun. Pagans have no concept of sin or Satan, so there is no fiery hell to worry about either.

We have our own values and ethics. The bible and gospels are the guiding rules for Christian's, Pagans are responsible for their own actions and the consequences that follow. The emphasis is on what is good in life rather than what is bad or sinful. The Pagan ethic "do what thou wilt, but harm none." is a positive morality, not a list of "thou-shalt-nots." We believe in the concept of both Goddess and God, rather then the suppression of either the female or male principle.

The Pagan religion does not have fancy written rules, for the simple fact that they can be broken and bent so easily. Why does a religion have to have these 10 commandments, a list of rules that can be bent and than frowned upon for doing so. Morally you should just know right from wrong. What is the point of the 10 commandments if people like Rev. Jim Jones are going to bend the rules for some. What makes it okay for him to make these changes in the rules? Is it because he is a rev, because he has "power" he can change it at anytime for whoever he wants? What gave him the power to change something that has been around long before his time?

love to all
karen

From the Desk of . . . . Las Vegas

jt
I was reading yet another article on what will soon be a dead bill regarding Health Care Reform and I came across this excerpt. And I quote, "Catholic bishops also eager to expand society's safety net may yet endorse the final legislation."Now, with the exception of wearing a real cool hat, is there any reason why any should give a shit about what these hypocrites endorse? I can't believe there's still a faction of individuals that actually listen to these fucking guys, not to mention a continued respect for the Catholic Clergy as well.
**************************************************************************************************

Joe Lieberman is my hero. His thoughts about wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to investigate the army for not spotting the shooter in the Fort Hood incident is a very good idea. There were warning signs and red flags. Didn't anyone see this coming? Lee's see, we can actually do this right here. Will religious profiling be an acceptable tool with in the parameters of our investigative research? Hope so cause without it we won't have a case and neither will he, regardless of how many dollars he'll waste or photo opts he'll be besieged with. It won't change the outcome either. With hundreds of witnesses we should be able to hang his evil ass tomorrow, right? Too insensitive? Oh....I'm sorry.......( sometimes I just don't understand what the Jews are thinking)*************************************************************************************************
I just had to include this borrowed article knowing how interested you are in science:BIGFOOT. It's a riddle wrapped in mystery, or something like that. But it is an enigma because it doesn't exist (say it isn't so) or because we haven't had the technology to properly document the evidence? Members of Sasquatch Watch are definitely in the ladder camp. And a group of intrepid Bigfoot hunters were on the move in the Allegheny Mountains of West Virginia, armed with all the gee-whiz gadgets needed to prove, for sure, without ambiguity, definitely, that Bigfoot exists. Maybe. Although some suspicious footprints were preserved with plaster of Paris in areas where there have been so-called sightings of the beast, un-fun skeptics are unsure if this is the real deal. But enthusiasts of the furry biped have already launched big buzz on the Web. Searches on "latest Bigfoot sightings" shot up 100% overnight. Amateur sleuths also sought out "real Bigfoot pictures", "Bigfoot evidence", and "Bigfoot research organization". I was actually checking into employment opportunities when I ran across this article. I just don't see myself out there with a big net but you can't say that this isn't interesting.
*************************************************************************************************
Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. I just saw a picture of the three standing on the Capital Steps or somewhere important. "The Three Stooges Go To Washington". In all seriousness, I am a very easy going person. I have a very hard time knowing and accepting the fact that I can't seem to agree with anything that our government is doing. I feel like one in a heard of cattle and my resistance is futile. The government that my tax dollars helps to support doesn't hear my voice and for that matter doesn't want to. I don't contribute massive funds, trade sexual favors, bribe or extort into the system. I'm not a threat by being part of a minority group. I'm a regular legal citizen of this country, therefore my beliefs don't benefit the few that have made a career of using me and others like me for personal gain. The display of arrogance from the leadership of this country is unacceptable. I feel dared to oppose their agenda and stared down upon for even thinking that they are unstoppable with what they believe is right for me. Once again, if I don't want the smile of a Hollywood star then I'm not thinking correctly. And Joe Lieberman? All murders are investigate. Why waste everybody's time and money by calling a news conference to state the obvious? Now he's a man that definitely has our concerns in his heart and to the center of his agenda.Fuck them all.
- Hoop