"Hate disguised as theology" - Me

If you think that is off base, I present to you the Christian Coalition's voter's guide. This is cropped from the full-page guide that includes local races. But these "issues" are unique to the presidential section.

"Hate disguised as theology" was one of my quotes from the last blog. Another was "Family values is a euphemism for fascism". So I ask, how many of these have anything to do with Christianity, family, and love?

I would start with the fifth one from the top, which brags that John McCain opposes the addition of "sexual orientation" to the definition of hate crimes. I am not going to presume John McCain would ever support this, because I don't think he would. But Sarah Palin would!

Why would the "Christian" Coalition hand out voter guides that say who supports/opposes the removal of gay people from hate crime laws? If someone wants to be against hate crime laws in general, because it is a form of affirmative action... fine. But to imply hate crime status is dandy, except in the case with homosexuals? That is hate and clearly advocates violence against gay people. It is ironic that the people most clearly agitated by homosexuality are the ones that want violence against homosexuals taken out of hate crime laws. As if the hate crime status is holding them back.

Who gets the brunt of abuse in high schools? Black people? Jewish people? Mexican people? Or could it be the gay students that are harassed on a daily basis by the macho, redneck status quo? Who gets the most double takes, stares, and judgment when walking down the street? My point is that they are the ones who need a hate crime bill the most, because they are the most widely "hated" by all ages and ethnicities. Let's be honest, the murder of a gay person will RARELY be for any other reason.

English as the "official language"? I suppose Jesus spoke English.

Not sure what flag burning has to do with Christianity, either. It is just as un-Christian to pledge allegiance to a flag than to burn a flag.

Also, the notion of Christians with guns furthers the example of the manipulation of Christianity that began in 325 AD.

This is more of a conservative-issue litmus test than having anything to do with Christianity.

Florida’s Amendment 2 and the Republican Conspiracy Theorists

Wesley's quick amendment guide:
No on 2.
Yes to everything else (Amendment 3 is at the bottom).

Funny how the Christian-right ("Republicans") tout freedom and liberty everywhere they go...yet support a constitutional amendment that takes away freedom and liberty. Discrimination has no place in a constitution.

Vote NO on 2

One of the things I ask, is what is "marriage"? The supporters of Amendment 2 (those against gay marriage) believe it is a Christian "family values" issue. Yet it is perfectly legal for a minister to marry two Christian men (or women) under God and put rings on their fingers. They are MARRIED! The 1 reason, which is the Bible, that people are against gay marriage....can be fully realized in a church with loved ones witnessing their first kiss as husband and husband, or wife and wife. They are married, and that is between them and God, and you can do nothing about it. That is their freedom and liberty.

But no, it is the civil, legal banning of gay marriage that they are after. Which has nothing to do with religion! And is, in fact, quite an inappropriate mixing of church and state. Not to mention a dangerous creation of theocratic law. We criticize middle-eastern Theocracies for denying freedoms, and want to show them "democracy". Yet here we are, putting laws into constitutions based on religion, and religion only.

In regards to "family values", I have one question to fundamentalist Christians. If you had your wish, and Roe v. Wade was overturned, and abortion was outlawed...
Would you allow gay couples to adopt all those unwanted babies?

Or would you deny those children loving homes, based on your bullshit hate disguised as theology, possibly sending millions of children into a life in the bureaucratic adoption/foster care system?? Oh, that's right. Gay folks want to turn all the children into a homosexual army, marching to showtunes, to unleash the pleasures of sodomy upon America.
Family values my ****. "Family values" is a euphemism for fascism. I thought Republicans wanted the government out of their lives? Sure is an awful lot of rules to have "freedom and liberty".

Part 2

In the last few weeks leading up to election day, the right-wing fervor over Barack Obama, his "religion", and his "intentions" with America has gotten much nastier. I would like to see actual numbers somewhere, but it seems a large percentage of that die-hard Republican base does not trust Barack Obama and are quite smitten with the internet rumors of his heritage. And, in turn, the conspiracy that he is a Muslim Trojan Horse sent to destroy America.

I will let you have your conspiracy theories...have fun with it. But NEW RULE!!!!

I am one of those that believes 9/11 was an inside job. Or at the very least, that The 9/11 Commission Report is complete horseshit, edited by Dick Cheney & Co.

So the new rule is, if you believe the Obama theories, then you aren't allowed to call me crazy for believing the World Trade Center was an organized demolition.

The irony is, the people that buy into the official 9/11 story are the same ones that buy into the Obama myth, yet call 9/11 conspiracy theories crazy. There is far more "evidence" to support my theories than those that say Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. There is NO evidence of that. The demolition theory of the World Trade Center is FAR more credible than anything coming out against Barack Obama.


Part 3

Vote YES on Amendment 3. It gives a tax break to homeowners who harden their homes against hurricanes or add alternative energy devices.

"Christians" and "Wealth Redistribution"

Matthew 6:19-24 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

Matthew 25:31-46 - "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Mark 12:41-44 - Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

Luke 3:11 - The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same. (John the Baptist)

Luke 14:12-14 - Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

But you say, "Yes, Wes...but this is about personal responsibility, not a framework for government taxation."

I agree, Jesus preached and lived like an anarchist. Not with the government, not against the government, but separate from the government. Living for God and nothing else (Matt 4:8-10). But to follow that logic, you would have to relieve the government of all demands and expectations to act "Christian".

So then I say, it is your personal responsibility not to get an abortion, and not the responsibility of the government to outlaw abortion.

It is your personal responsibility not to marry someone of the same sex, not the responsibility of the government to outlaw gay marriage.

If you are a fundamentalist Christian and misguided into thinking any nation can ever be "Christian"...and that this nation should outlaw abortion and gay marriage...then it has the same Biblical responsibility to take your second tunic and give it to the poor man that has none. If you don't like that, then you need to give up the abortion and gay marriage argument.

And if you still want to argue it, and bring up "welfare queens" and people that aren't "poor", but simply don't work and get free handouts...then do this: First, you can take a Styrofoam plate, plastic fork, and a plastic knife. Picnic style. Squeeze out a hot turd onto the plate. Then cut a slice off. The knife will slide through it like butter. Put it in your mouth, and let is sit on your tongue like a piece of fine chocolate. Letting it melt and puddle onto your tastebuds. Savor it, then swallow it. Repeat.

YES on Amendment 4 (Florida)

The way they word amendments on the voting ballots boggles my mind. Amendment 4 reads:

Provides for assessment based upon use of land used predominantly for commercial fishing purposes; land used for vessel launches into waters that are navigable and accessible to the public; marinas and drystacks that are open to the public; and waterdependent marine manufacturing facilities, commercial fishing facilities, and marine vessel construction and repair facilities and their support activities, subject to conditions, limitations, and reasonable definitions specified by general law.

What that actually means, is that large landowners can get tax breaks if they set aside land for conservation... Provides for assessment? Who the hell is going to know what this amendment is about, unless you do your research? It's a shame, really.

The only people that should be voting NO on this are hard-left environmentalists that see this as a moneyed ploy to temporarily get out of paying taxes while using conservation as the bait. I come pretty close to that. But the possibilities of success are too great, and necessary, to worry about conspiracies. Especially the possibility of lifetime, complete tax exemption if you permanently set your land aside for conservation.

This amendment satisfies the property/money-obsessed "right" and us environmentalists.

Vote YES on Amendment 4!!

Here is a great article from the Miami Herald that explains both sides of the issue:

Environmentalists back state Amendment 4 -- with caveat
There is wide support to provide owners tax relief to help preserve wild Florida, but even supporters caution that the devil is in the details.
BY CURTIS MORGAN

.. --> begin /production/story/credit_line_format.comp --> .. --> end /production/story/credit_line_format.comp -->

This is the first in a series examining the six constitutional amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Environmentalists are backing a big tax break for Florida's largest land owners.

You read that right. In an election year notable for nastiness, two typically partisan factions have reached accord over at least one thing: Amendment Four, a measure that would reduce or eliminate property taxes for owners who protect their land from bulldozers.

Environmental groups embrace the proposal as a promising, painless option for expanding preservation in a state with a dwindling budget to buy prime parcels. The amendment is one of six on the Nov. 4 ballot.

''Given the economy and amount of money available for land acquisition, this provides a way of promoting conservation management without using tax dollars,'' said Janet Bowman, legislative policy director for The Nature Conservancy.

Proponents believe it could prove especially helpful in places like South Miami-Dade, where suburban sprawl drives up land values -- and pressure to subdivide -- on remaining rural lands. The pitch is that owners now spending money to run small farms or nurseries mainly to claim agriculture tax breaks could profit by letting land revert to wetland.

''The value of land in South Dade is very high,'' said Eric Draper, policy director for Audubon of Florida. 'One of the reasons that land is even being farmed right now is to qualify for ..green-belt' exemptions.''

Amendment 4 boasts bipartisan political support and no organized opposition. It is endorsed by virtually every major environmental group in the state and dozens of obscure ones, like the Sebastian Fishin' Chics. The Florida Chamber of Commerce, guardian of business and development interests, backs it. So does the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the nonpartisan watchdog, Florida TaxWatch.

THREE SCARY WORDS

So what could there be to worry about? Three scary words: The Florida Legislature.

''It's a long way between the amendment on the ballot and actually implementing the law, because it's left up to the Legislature to write it,'' said Kurt Wenner, director of tax research for TaxWatch.

The amendment would create two tiers of incentives to take effect in 2010. Setting aside land forever -- a covenant intended to carry over in a sale -- would earn total exemption from property taxes. Setting it aside temporarily would earn a lower tax rate, similar to farm land.

It's that ''temporary'' category that adds an asterisk to TaxWatch's endorsement. Details remain to be filled in by lawmakers, who are known from time to time to cater to powerful development interests.

''We're going to be watching closely,'' said Wenner.

State Rep. Dan Gelber, a Miami Beach Democrat running for a Senate seat, has similar concerns. ....On its face, it's not a bad idea. It's how it's implemented. I just think that second part could potentially leave room for mischief.''

Gelber posted a qualified endorsement on his blog, cautioning that if the Legislature made it too easy to claim conservation status, ....the measure could become a giveaway for mega-developers and have a great fiscal impact that shifts the tax burden to homeowners and active businesses.''

A lenient definition, for instance, could allow developers to tag vacant lots for short periods simply to ride out the cold housing market -- meaning they would pay little or no taxes. There have been past abuses with similar ''green-belt'' tax breaks, most visible in the form of a few ''cash cows'' grazing on cleared suburban tracts.

Supporters share those concerns. They've drawn up proposed standards for the ''temporary'' land-protection classification: a 10-year commitment, a minimum of 40-acre tracts, management plans and back-tax penalties at higher rates if the land is developed.

The amendment was spearheaded by environmental groups. But it was proposed to the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission in April by Brian Yablonski, vice president for public affairs for the St. Joe Co., the state's largest landowner with some 700,000 acres, mostly in the Panhandle.

REASON FOR SUPPORT

Yablonski, who also serves as a state wildlife commissioner, said he supported it to enhance wildlife and habitat protections. When asked if the amendment would profit St. Joe, he answered in a word: ....No.''

''Amendment 4 was an organic idea advanced by respected conservation organizations across the state, and they are enthusiastic about its benefits to the environment,'' he said in a written statement.

Preston Robertson, vice president of the Florida Wildlife Federation, dismissed any St. Joe role as ''a red herring'' and said the amendment could be a critical tool when the current development downturn invariably ends.

RESULTS ELSEWHERE

Florida, with 34 million acres, now has only about 165,000 acres of private land under conservation easements. Similar programs in Georgia and Texas have dramatically expanded conservation set-asides.

Because the amendment was approved by the Taxation Commission, no estimates were required for what the revenue impacts might be or how much land might qualify. With undeveloped land usually taxed at a lower rate, Audubon's Draper doesn't anticipate a big difference in the ad valorem bottom line.

The Association of Counties, whose 67 members would have to tweak millage rates to cover revenue shortfalls, agrees that potential benefits outweigh expected minor costs, said association spokeswoman Cragin Mosteller.

''Being able to conserve land is very important to many of our local governments,'' she said.

Because conservation lands remain private, unlike state-owned land, there is the potential for creating large tracts that would be off-limits to public access. But Draper believes most land would be open to hunting and fishing.

While some developers sitting on suddenly unsellable subdivision blueprints might well take advantage, Robertson argues that smaller land owners are the ones most likely to pursue the option. He intends to seek permanent conservation status for his own small farm in North Florida.

LOVE OF THE LAND

''If we protect 10,000 acres or 100,000 acres in this state, then this is well worth it,'' Robertson said. ....I think there are a number of people in this state who love their lands and they want to leave them to their kids.''

King of the Demo

Thanks for the heads up! Where else would it be, but Will Ferrell's website?!

Fred Simmons, King of the Demo, on Conan.

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

The Foot Fist Way

I just watched this long-awaited movie tonight. I'm not going to write anything regarding my opinion of the movie, although it would be positive and something along the lines of "funny as hell. That Danny McBride is one funny dude.

I was lucky enough to find clips of some of my favorite scenes. If you are waiting to see it and prefer to take in the "whole" experience, then skip. But if you don't care and want to laugh, check it!

Videos of People Playing Music

The Legendary....

Even John McCain can't tell you...

She was a member of the PTA, has a very special child, and her husband races dogs.



Please stop saying that Sarah Palin is anything but a frightening person to have as President.

This goes both ways...

Signs don't do anything but get people annoyed at each other. So just leave 'em alone.

The Church of Alcohol

Enjoy your NFL Sunday.

Toby Keith would say that being a member of the "D.T.C." is BEIN' SOMEBODY!

At least we aren't dicks...

DON'T BE A DICK.

If a media outlet is "liberal", shouldn't they be the "liberal" equivalent of this?? Spouting hatred and violence in the name of their agenda? But they don't. So if the mainstream media is "liberal", as "conservatives" say, then that settles it...."liberals" are nice people, and "conservatives" are assholes. Dicks. Un-dude.

On the other hand, if there are "liberal" media outlets that are full of hatred and violence...then that means the mainstream media is NOT "liberal", and right in the middle where they should be.

The "quotations" are because there is no such thing as liberal and conservative. They are just words used to label and polarize people. It is quite effective for right-wing radio. However....Liberals call for environmental conservatism. Conservatives are liberal with defense spending, or for that matter, any spending in the last 8 years. Many people would call me liberal because I think consumerism is a disease. But doesn't that make me conservative? Yet it is the conservatives that want you to SPEND your tax cuts.
The media uses these words to turn politics into a sport. So you can pick sides and spew verbal garbage back and forth. It makes people pawns. So the next time you decide to label people, ask yourself "is it really as simple as this"? Can you call me a liberal? Why? Did you give me a litmus test to fit into your definition of a word? What about the things that make me conservative? Like being pro-life and being against 24-7 tits on MTV? (BUT, if you are against tits on MTV because of "family values", you are conservative. If you are against tits on MTV because you are a feminist that believes it degrades women, you are a liberal. WTF?! Get off it, people!)

Or does the word mean something else entirely? Like the amount of mashed potatoes on Thanksgiving. "A liberal amount of mashed taters, please!" "WHAT?! No son of mine is gonna be queer and have liberal mashed potatoes. You eat CONSERVATIVE mashed potatoes! Pile it high! You eat those conservative mashed potatoes 'til you can't eat any more!"

Back to who is and who isn't a dick....why do conservatives use "liberal" as a dirty, name-calling word, but liberals don't call people "conservatives"? Is "liberal" the equivalent of the N-word, while "conservative" is the punchless "cracker"? Who made that rule?

NOW we are supposed to know who The Weathermen are...

McCain/Palin decided now is the time to share with everyone who The Weathermen were. When I learned of them a few years ago, I was amazed that this was not common knowledge in America. As if somehow they had been erased from the history books. Obviously, you could find books about them...but there is information that finds its' way to you, and information you have to seek out. A radical 60's group that bombed government buildings without killing anyone (that was the plan)? Shouldn't this bit of the 60's be as well-known as the overrated Janis Joplin ? I suppose they'd be more famous if people died.

Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln both advocated revolutions against tyrannical government. (Quite ironic that John Wilkes Booth shouted "Sic semper tyrannis" after he broke his foot.) The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So I ask, who gets to decide what a tyrannical government is? Who gets to decide what a free State is, and who or what is preventing the state from being free? Can the State prevent the State from being free? Who gets to define free? Obviously, a government that is tyrannical will consider all that oppose it a terrorist. A State that has taken away freedoms will consider those that physically oppose their sanctions against freedom terrorists.

Bill Ayers opposed, with physical force, what The Weathermen considered to be a tyrannical government (I am sure they weren't the only ones). So they are deemed "terrorists" of the State. The Weathermen saw tyranny in Vietnam and an unholy alliance between America and the Military Industrial Complex. They saw tyranny in COINTELPRO and the murder of Fred Hampton. They saw tyranny in a prison system that profited from oppression. So who has the authority to tell them they are wrong? You? Me? Why? Because you disagree? Who is a "freedom fighter" and who is a "terrorist"? Who says which side is right? I assume in a democracy that means the majority. But in my 30 years, I have learned the majority is almost always wrong.

I'm guessing that Sarah Palin will be kept away from the media, and given written stump-speeches the rest of the way. They will use her as a "pitbull with lipstick" to spit nasty smears and half-truths all over America...and Barack Obama's association with Bill Ayers, an ex-Weatherman, will be the 1 attack. It will get a big emotional response from the fast-food crowd in their sequined American flag t-shirts, and the heretical right-wing Christians that bask in their prosperity theology and war-rabidity.

Here is a CNN fact-check on their relationship.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/05/fact-check-is-obama-palling-around-with-terrorists/

And if any grumpy right-wingers want to sneer at a "CNN factcheck" as an oxymoron, what information is left? That they spoke on SECRET occasions!? OOOOH. Really? Who cares if they talk to each other. Why doesn't Sarah Palin tell everyone that their relationship isn't based on golf games, but foundations to raise money for the education of Chicago schoolchildren? And they coincidentally lived in the same neighborhood, which was the prologue of their relationship.

What about the corporate friends of John McCain, that are responsible for destroying thousands of lives? Banks? Weapons manufacturers? They have done far more damage to life on Earth than Bill Ayers. But everyone "approves" of those relationships, because building weapons that murder women and children in other countries is not terrorism.

Personally, I think Barack Obama is in the wrong for distancing himself from Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. It makes Palin's accusations more scandalous, and opens him up for attack if he had coffee with Bill Ayers last year. But he is a politician, so whatever's clever for him.

Workin' in your undies.

You know, if American companies were serious about the conservation of energy and the environment, they would begin to revolutionize the "workplace" by seriously offering more opportunities to work at home. That is, on a large scale.

When I worked at Hewitt, which is essentially a benefits call center, there were about 4000 people in the building (I think). At least 3,500 of us were on the phones, in front of computer, with very little required interaction and physical work to be done. Most documentation is scanned and accessed electronically. Can you imagine the reduction in their "footprint" if half the workforce took those calls at home? What if every call center began doing this?

Come to think of it, they have moved so far towards a temp workforce that it would be unreasonable.

And it would take a leap of faith in their employees to trust they aren't smoking weed and watching porn while speaking with customers. But I still like the idea.


This guy's MySpace page is funny. Check his pictures. Google image searches produce comedy.