Recent Blog Posts: Bakersfield.com

The People vs. Vincent Brothers: Rental agency employee testifies

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:04:11 PDT

Deputy District Attorney Lisa Green calls to the witness stand Cheick Omar Tall.

He works for a rental car agency, Dollar Rental Car, in Los Angeles. He is the city fleet manager and the custodian of records.

Green would like to prove that Brothers put enough miles on the car he rented in Ohio to cover a trip to Bakersfield and back because she believes Brothers drove back to Bakersfield to kill his family.

But the defense has said the rental agency does not keep accurate records about mileage, in part because renters are not charged per mile. Tall confirms that renters are not charged per mile. He says employees track mileage for maintenance reasons.

Cars remain in the fleet for six months to one year or up to 30,000 miles. Tall says the oil is changed every 6,000 miles. He says the miles are noted after each time a renter returns the car.

An employee has a handheld device used to track the miles and gas levels when a vehicles is returned.

Very frequently the mileage is off, Tall said.

Comments:
smcwilli commented: I think the prosecution has so many opinions in this case, however no clear evidence. The Defense in the case had made so many clear points and arguments, where is the strong hard evidence that the prosecution claims to have. Resonable doubt, that is definately an issue, an opinion is an opinion, but where are the facts? This is like a tennis match, just produce the cold hard facts.
OldBlue56 commented: Like the prosecution said in their opening statements, a large part of their case is based on "circumstantial" evidence. This is different than cold hard facts, but is still legally acceptable. Both sides can present theories, but not opinions.
randomfactor commented: As I understand it, all evidence but eyewitness testimony is "circumstantial." But I don't think they've done a good job of nailing down the case.
OldBlue56 commented: Random, you are incorrect about what circumstantial evidence is. Some other comman types of evidence are direct, hearsay, and scientific.

The People vs. Vincent Brothers: Criminalist questioned on time of death

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:33:06 PDT

Deputy District Attorney Lisa Green continues to question criminalist Greg Laskowski. He previously testified that the Harpers appeared to have a light lunch of sandwiches and nutritional drinks based on what he saw on the kitchen. The prosecution believes the family was killed after they church and eating lunch out with friends. The defense believes they were killed later than that.

Makes Things Go: A few odds and ends

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:31:42 PDT

As a lot of you know, I was in Bako this weekend for the Bloggers' Roundtable or whatever we're calling it now and I was also help my mom out with a few projects around the house. So we added an outdoor outlet for her fountain and patio lights and hung up a hammock.

The outdoor outlet was a simple but long job, the main issue being we had to go through the stucco on the side of the house in order to mount the outlet. since she's using it for a device that stays plugged in in an outdoor location, we used a plastic flip cover faceplate and a GFCI outlet. She had an outlet inside that backed up to the exterior outlet location, we made the jump with a short run of Romex and were on our way.

The other project was the hammock. It runs from the outside of the house to a tree. So the first thing to do is to find a stud in the inside of the house. I use a magnet for this rather than a studfinder just because I find them more reliable. You run the magnet over the wall and it finds the stud by sticking to the screws that are used to hold up the sheetrock. Then you go to the outside of the house and transfer your measurement, drill through the stucco into the stud and mount your first screw eye. The other end is easy, since you're almost assured of a solid connect when going into a tree.

The hammock looks great and the fountain and porch lights are lovely. In a fit of geekiness, my mom added in a plug in device that is designed to go outdoors that allows you to control an outlet by remote control. So now she can walk out and click everything on. Pretty sweet.

If you've got a project or problem, this is your construction and green building open thread.

Comments:
TomW commented: Any updates from the field on our ongoing renovation projects? I'm almost done with the rocking on my current one. Then the electrical and plumbing get tied up and we're good to go.

Deep Thoughts~whats in ,on my mind and whats out there.: Whales,memories and Lost Opportunity

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:07:46 PDT

The whale currently frolicking about the Santa Babara bay is causing quite the stir,people are amazed it is so close to the shoreline.The story brought to mind my Aunt Aileen.

She is quite the lady,native of the Ozarks,fisher woman,huntress,winner of Senior Olympic Gold medals for archery~Compound bows!~.At the age of 76 she set a new record. She tells a tale in her autobiography about the trip out west to investigate buying property. It was 1920,great- great -grandfather seriously considering buying a tract of land called Newport Beach for a sum of $3,600. Only two things stopped him from doing so.One night a siren blast woke everyone from their beds~earthquake! As unsettling as that was, the second event drove the whole family back home to stay.Yet the visit to California led to my grandfather years later to choose this state as his new home.

Fishing from the pier several days later,Aileen and her cousins heard the siren scream again.Not a earthquake but a herd of whales approaching the pier,everyone had to get off the wooden structure as 100 whales went under, through the pylons,spouting water high into the air.Splashing their tails,cavorting past tiny Newport, they did not disturb the pier at all. That settled it~ California was too unstable,what with the quakes and the whales.Some other fool bought Newport...

Apparently the migration came close to the shore then, and in startling numbers.Amazed at one whale today,I am sure of one thing.Human activity clearly had nothing to do with the whales decision to swim farther off shore.Well maybe one segment did~I hear it was the paparazzi!

Comments:
woofwoof commented: Would've loved to have been a witness to the whales....and wish i could've had a piece of Newport Beach for 3600 bucks. I dunno about the earthquakes, though.
sagefever commented: the sight of that many whales would be great to see! Thats Newport beach deal is why my life is "a rain of snakes"..close but no cigar.what would have that me been like, would i have been? lol clearly i have way too much time on my hands!

Talk of the Town: Can blogging be a way to expose that confidential stuff?

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:35:56 PDT

Some professions aren't supposed to rat you out — doctors and lawyers, for example.

But what if they could take advantage of the anonymity of blogs to tell the truth about patients and clients?

Such an issue was raised in a story by Detroit Free Press reporter Margarita Bauza on medical blogs.

One doctor complained, for example, about an 18-year-old who on Christmas day had her third baby.

The story suggests the doctor or perhaps, a hospital employer, could wind up in big trouble if a patient recognized himself and decided to sue.

That's too bad. It would be fun to hear the nitty gritty truth about patients and clients.
And it could be expanded to what would be my personal favorite, auto mechanics.

There is nothing that I would like more than for mechanics to point out the types of repeated problems certain cars have.

Or teachers could rat out the impossible parents or bratty kids they have to deal with.
These blog things could be fun reading.

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

Comments:
redkernhero commented:

Exposing others is not new to the blog as it is done on this blog with impunity.

But what do we have to hide in Red Kern where we are all good guys that never do anything wrong, you don’t get it, Life as it should be.

Once in a while someone tries to throw dirt on one of our good guys like councilman Weir, but they are wrong, wrong, wrong!

woofwoof commented:

(Plays Soap Opera Music) I see blogs changing our view, for the better, permanently. How many of us have signed up to other peoples blogs, just to wait for the next installment. A reading show, if you will. TV producers would give their left leg to tap into this kind of reality show. Can't beat that!

mildmannered1 commented: I would love to blog about how my teenage customers behave in public, but I need this job.
steveeswenson commented: Just,
   We'll differ on this. I loved the account by the nurse. I'd like to see more first-hand reports on matters in the news.

    Having said that, there are authenticity issues with anonymous postings. Still, we all love the inside scoop.
OldBlue56 commented:

Steve, there really is no such thing as "anonymous" in this day and age. A couple of times I have written blogs, and your moderator has deleted it, and sent me an e-mail to my personal e-mail address to advise me of such. (Remember, we all have to sign up on your website in order to sign in). Everything we look at and send on the computer is stored somewhere. "If" an employee of the Californian chose to, I am sure he/she could let someone know who sent an anonymous blog, if they wanted to, or had the right motivation. And even though you might have a company policy prohibiting such a breech, those types of things still take place in the real world. So see, I am sure many people who could add insight into certain things learned through their work, probably won't.

"Anonymous" :)

steveeswenson commented: Just,

    Yes and no. I'm not so much interested in the names as I would be in the information — life as it really is.
    Do I expect this to happen? No. For the reason anonymous gave because if push came to shove, a lawyer could find out who wrote what.
    So my wish is wishful thinking. But cool to think about.
possummomma commented:

I'm torn on this issue.

On one hand, I think it would be enlightening to read about the true thoughts of physicians or nurses (with regard to their patients). I think it would allow many of us to actually cut our caregivers some much needed slack, in terms of long waits at the ER or Urgent Care, or wondering why the nurses always appear to take frequent Tetris breaks. ;-) Maybe the Tetris break is the only thing keeping them from telling us how whiney and demanding we are?

On the other hand, the internet is soooooooo connected to reality now. Heck- I had an issue where a member of a Bakersfield church got WAY too close for comfort and crossed the line. I didn't have my name anywhere on the blog that he was stalking, but he still managed to find out who I was (IP searches, other websites, etc.,.). So... if doctors and nurses start fessing up, then they would have to protect their own identity (to eliminate someone going, "HEY! He/She is talking about me!") to the extreme that they really wouldn't be able to prove they were a physician. (Hope that makes sense?) Plus, how horrible would it be if they accidently gave away a bit too much information?

GotREALITY commented:

For an account of what some professors think about their students check this out: http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com/

Being in the same profession I get a good laugh from this blog and realize that I am not alone in my frustration with students.

msemilyh commented:

gotreality-

what an absolutely fantastic website. i was laughing outloud at some of the venting in the blogs. thanks for sharing.

possummomma commented: That's an awesome website. I'll have to show it to my husband.

Words for/of the day . . .: Today's Word is . . . . . WHY ME?

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:29:47 PDT

Have you ever had one of those moments, good, bad or funny that just make you ask yourself really "Why Me?"

Comments:
SunSh1yn1981 commented: I passed gas at the mall today and i thought it would be a small smell like it came out, judging by the look on everyones face, it so was not ! ! I
I heard that if you hold it in you can get colon cancer, I'm not going to die just to save face.
JustAThought commented: I am sure Vincent Brothers is asking the same question....."Why Me?"
woofwoof commented: (Theme song from my name is Earl) My name is WoofWoof.....I've got that kinda karma that follows me around like a ghost. You know, when you get your items up to the register and suddenly it's outta tape, or the Credit Card machine malfunctions. How 'bout the gas station pump that won't start right. This morning, I tried to throw something in the garbarge can, and I had it spot on. But NO, it just tipped a little and fell out. I go to restuarants and my order IS ALWAYS messed upand I don't special order anything.....is it a joke? No, it's not, even my kids say, gee mom, you really have some messed up luck. I expect it now.....and just laugh, like it really is a ghost messin' with me. Probably my Grandma, she had a wicked sense of humor....
randomfactor commented: Only on days of the week ending in "why?"
Termite commented: I often say this to myself when I look back on my "career path," which frequently needs weed-whacking. But then again...I've made it this far! No sense in throwing a Pity Party.

Editorials: Unify attack on street gangs

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:15:44 PDT

PUBLISHED 3-21-2007

Our streets are under siege. Gang members are inflicting pain and fear every day in our community. They do this with deadly force.

This is a war. It goes beyond Kern County’s border. It is statewide and national. It requires a creative, intelligent and coordinated strategy to fight it.

A Joint City/County Standing Committee to Combat Gang Violence has drafted a plan to prevent and reduce local gang activity. City, county, schools and community members of the committee have come together to address the growing problem.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also has weighed in. He proposes a statewide counterattack on street gangs and plans to call a statewide summit. He says the effort may result in increased state funding.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein and 19 other senators introduced legislation that calls for more than $1 billion in federal funding for gang enforcement, prevention and intervention programs. The bill establishes new crimes and tougher federal penalties.

City/county committee members are keeping an eye on the state and federal initiatives to bolster Kern County’s strategy.

Meanwhile, Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, introduced a bill that will include parks in the “safe zone” for gang crimes. “Safe zones” are located within 1,000 feet of schools. If a person commits a gang crime in a “safe zone” the penalty is enhanced.

With heightened awareness, timing couldn’t be better for the local committee to introduce its coordinated plan of attack.

The proposed plan calls for unity and teamwork from the community. Even though law enforcement will provide the big guns, they can’t do it alone.

The plan lists good ideas, such as increasing: availability of after-school academic programs; mentoring services for youth who are at risk of gang involvement; and increased jail time for gang crimes. It also calls for vacancies in the Sheriff’s Department to be filled.

With an estimated 6,000 gang members terrorizing Kern County, every idea listed is a good one if implemented properly.

The committee seems motivated to effectively implement its plan. County and city members are being creative and cooperative in outlining a strategy to combat gangs.

Additional help is needed. Neighborhoods also must participate by making law enforcement aware of gang activity.

By holding the committee accountable, having financial resources available and working on both the long-term and short-term goals, this plan can come a reality.

Bakersfield City Council members and Kern County Supervisors voiced strong support for the plan when they met Monday in a joint session.

The test will come when they are asked to allocate money and resources to implement the plan.

Comments:
CarLozano commented: Here's an idea...make it to where police can shoot first ask questions later when it comes to gang members. The Police know who they are. Make it where a gang member's family (mother, father, siblings) can't rent or buy homes. Push back, we have an embargo against Castro, why not do the same to the gang members. Kick their butts out of school, no questions asked. Make gang related crimes punishable by death.
murphyslaw commented: And afterwords, they can turn to the rest of the gang members with the famous saying, (I'LL BE BACK)
TomW commented: Here's a question, anon: What if the question is whether *you* are a gang member?
mattloch commented: Anon: "Here's an idea...make it to where police can shoot first ask questions later..." Have you ever lived here? Sweet jesus on a stick, man! LA sheriffs chase suspects up here so that we can finish them off. I don't think we've had a bank robbery that didn't end in a shootout in the past decade. We have more "justified" shootings here than they do in LA, and that's saying something. Stab a cop? That's a shooting. Hit a cop's car with a hammer? That's a shooting. Look suspicious and run when the cop pulls a gun on you? You can bet that's a shooting.
randomfactor commented: TomW, couldn't be. Gang members have darker skins than he does. You can tell.
TomW commented: BTW, for anyone else looking for the document: http://www.bakersfield.com/static/images/pdf/draftgangplan.pdf
redkernhero commented:

There go the dissenters again, Red Kern is under siege and the gang annual roundup is forming on the North forty. It is time to round them up and head them out, no don’t worry if you make a few mistakes and get a few non-gang members in the net that is just collateral justice.

They claim that the round up is going to have several parts who cares, law enforcement is going to get the money and those who want to have a more comprehensive will have god on their side, what can be more fair than that. The gangs members are puckering right now, the word out in the hood is that they will be placed on a trampoline and given three jumps, those who come down will go to jail, those who stay up will be saved by god, what plan!

As always these things have unintended but wonderful result for some and not so good for others, you can bet that at the end of the round up many gang members will be on temporary at our vast system of Prison resorts or in neighboring states, law enforcement will gain personnel and resources and a bulging database for next years roundup as well as next years budget session, but most wonderful of all, politicians will be able to pound their chests at election time a say that they are tough on crime. As for me, probably the best result is that our local pastors will get a lot of respect and press, even if they just make the meeting for a photo-op.

There, nothing wrong with any of this as perception is as good as action, cry liberals is fun to watch you! This war on gangs after all, is just the like the war on terror, it must be won by shock and awe as the local politicians voted for, negotiation is not an option.

AudreyB commented:

It's going to take extreme measure to rid America of gangs. Bring our troops home from Iraq to fight neighborhood terrorists. Like anything else, when kids find that being a gang member is counterproductive to their lives and freedom, they'll quit. Hit them hard.

redkernhero commented: Oh and I hear you gang members all have dark skins, and shaved heads.
AudreyB commented: Actually, some have light skins, tattoos and shaved heads. But they all have weapons.
redkernhero commented: Not true, not true, what city do you live in?
CarLozano commented: Doesn't matter what color, hair cut or if they wear tattoos... They need to be exterminated like the pests they are. I am glad that the police have justifiably shot would-be bank robbers. However, this attitude needs to be taken up with the fight against gangs. Officers should be rewarded for every gang banger that they rid the world of...like the old west.
msemilyh commented: it all starts at home with the family. parents who are good parents and take responsibility for their kids, discipline their kids, teach them respect and right from wrong, monitor the tv they watch and the music they listen to, the friends they hang with. until this happens, the problems will continue
CarLozano commented:

From your profile I assume you're a teacher. I completely agree, but what are we to do with the kids who's parents are in jail or are drug addicts themselves. Fact is, we need to find a solution because the reality is family/home life is not gonna change in the gang infested neighborhoods. Kids at risk need to be taught that they have an uphill battle, but that they will still be held accountable, regardless of there home life.

redkernhero commented:

I agree "Officers should be rewarded for every gang banger that they rid the world of...like the old west"

But you should upgrade your database, we already reward them and NICE.

Sgt. Scott step up and enlighten this man, tell how we take care of our own.

Editorials: Eyeball-to-eyeball

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:13:38 PDT

PUBLISHED 3-21-2007

Monday night’s joint meeting of the Bakersfield City Council and the Kern County Board of Supervisors proves how incredibly useful the sessions are.

Before a packed house in city hall, council members, supervisors and staffs of both agencies sought agreement on such important and difficult issues as reducing gang warfare; coping with metropolitan Bakersfield’s rapid development and resulting traffic congestion and air pollution; and Isabella Dam safety.

There were other narrow, but important matters brought before the public. For example, in the absence of a traffic light, suggestions for reducing pedestrian dangers at the Bakersfield Homeless Shelter; health education, and youth job opportunities.

Government agencies take joint action all the time. But the importance of these joint meetings is the personal interaction among community leaders and the public. The same holds true at the staff level.

These government leaders know each other well and they know each agency’s policy and procedures. But memos go only so far. Looking a colleague in the eye and saying, “Let’s see what we can do to solve this problem now” is a powerful stimulus to action.

Supervisor and former City Council member Mike Maggard had a perfect analogy to explain the process’ value. If two people look at a dice, each will see a different number even though they are looking at the same object — in short, perspective counts for a lot.
As difficult as the staff preparation for these meetings is, the result is well worth the effort to expand the process.

Comments:
AudreyB commented:

Why do we need two government bureaucracies in Kern County anyway. This isn't the ark you know. Why not do away with the City Council?

BTW I'm cranky today

mattloch commented: The city is incorporated, so they're their own bosses. The county takes care of everything not incorporated. The city is better providing urban services, and the county is pretty adept at new development and suburban and rural projects. There are some gray areas and a bit of crossover, but essentially it's like asking why we need states when we have the federal government.

Think you're cranky now? Bush speaks at 5:45.

tkozy commented:

It’s just like we are trying to keep up with the Arvin’s, the Lamont’s, the Ridgecrest’s and the Delano’s?

Sorry Audrey. Couldn’t pass that one up.

AudreyB commented: Well that explains it. But it seems like a duplication of services. Police - Sheriffs Firemen - Firemen Parks - Parks
redkernhero commented: Whoa, hold up, government cannot be combined , San Francisco did it and they turned into liberals.
randomfactor commented: Small price to pay, RKH. Kern Countians might even learn to enjoy brie and gay marriage.

The People vs. Vincent Brothers: Judge considers vomit evidence

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:27:55 PDT

Deputy District Attorney Lisa Green said she wants to put on evidence that Vincent Brothers appeared as though he was going to vomit when one of the detectives was talking to him once they contacted him in Elizabeth City North Carolina after the defense believes he just found out about the deaths.

Green believes Jasper Robinson saw Brothers hosing off vomit just after killing his family. Green said he vomits all the time.

“That would cause that kind of reaction even from the most evil man,” Green said.

Gardina said there is no evidence that anyone threw up in the back yard of the Harper house.

Green said detectives weren’t looking for anything like that.

“I think the more times I show this man shows up the more valuable this evidence becomes,” Green said.

Kern County Superior Court Judge Michael Bush said he doesn’t think it’s relevant, but he is going to consider it.

Comments:
blognroll commented: It would have been stronger evidence if there had actually been actual vomit to present : ) Now that's just plain gross! I hope I have the good sense to enter this anonymously.

The People vs. Vincent Brothers: Prosecution wants detectives to testify about phone call

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:20:26 PDT

The prosecution would like to present evidence that Vincent Brothers did not return a call to detectives when he was driving from Ohio to his mothers’ house in North Carolina.

Deputy District Attorney Lisa Green believes that if Brothers didn’t know about the killings, he would have returned a call from detectives. She wants to argue that to the jury.

But the defense believes the cell phone was not working at that time and Brothers did not receive it.

The defense believes Brothers did not find out his family was killed until his family and a minister met him at a gas station in North Carolina.

The judge says a pre-arrest silence can be introduced unless the defendant is exercising the right to remain silent, according to case law.

Green said several people called Brothers that day in regard to the homicide. When you’re across country you’re going to have your cell phone with you and you are going to have it on because you may need to talk to your family if you are a loving father and husband, Green said.

Green said she can’t prove Brothers got the message.

The judge asked if there is any record that Brothers retreived those messages. Green said she doesn’t have the evidence to show he retreived the messages.

Green said she has evidence another woman left Brothers a message.

Gardina said Brothers used his sister’s phone to call back to Bakersfield to find out what was going on from friends.Bush said he always has his cell phone and asks how a loving father would allow his cellular phone to die?Gardina said it is innocent.

Green argues and Gardina interrupts her.

”We’re going to have Friday night jail sessions,” the judge said if the attorneys don’t stop making accusations at eachother.

Bush said he will allow civilians to testify about not getting a return call from Brothers, but not detectives. The detectives cannot testify that Brothers did not return a phone call.

Green also wants to show the jury that the defendant’s mother did not return a detective’s call that same day because she is biased toward her son and against the investigators.

Gardina said Brothers’ mother was worried about her son and her first concern was not with the investigators. She also helped bring Vincent Brothers’ immediately to the police department.

Green said the mom will say she did not receive the message.Kern County Superior Court Judge Michael Bush said if she didn’t receive the message, the message itself would be irrelevant.

Green said she believes she is lying.Bush said it will only be an issue if she says she listened to the message.If she did hear it, Green can ask why the mom didn’t return the call.

The People vs. Vincent Brothers: Defense motion about paying cash at the gas pump

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:00:02 PDT

Defense motion to introduce pay at the pump numbers. There are only a couple of places where you can pay at the pump, Gardina said. The prosecution seized hundreds of tapes from gas stations they believes Brothers may have used driving to California where the prosecution believes he drove to kill his family. But none of the tapes showed Vincent Brothers and the defense would like to submit this information to the jury. The judge said this is not meaninful enough because only some of the videos at some of the gas stations between Ohio and Bakersfield were seized. The defense wants the court to reconsider the ruling based on the new pay at the pump information, that there are few places to pay at the pump. Green said she wants to know which judge authorized an investigator to drive across country to get this information about which gas stations allow you to pay at the pump. “It’s outrageous,” Green said. She said how many gas stations allow to pay at the pump is “of no consequence.” She said out of 500 gas stations between Bakersfield and Ohio 350 didn’t have surveillance. “My ruling on the video tapes had nothing to do with if you have to pay at the pump or go inside the store,” the judge said. “It would be a waste of time...given the small percentage of stores where video tape was taken..and the small percentage of time video tape was taken,” the judge said about screening the video tape. Gardina said he wants to prevent Green from arguing that Brothers made it across the country stealthilly by paying for gas with cash at the pump. Green said she plans to argue he paid with gas. He paid for it with a $1,200 cash withdrawl he made before the trip, Green said. Gardina said he wants to put on the investigator who has found few gas stations between Ohio and Bakersfield that allow someone to pay at the pump. Green objects to this testimony. Green said she isn’t arguing if someone can pay at the pump. “What is that going to tell the jury?” Green asked. “That is a sheer waste of time.” Kern County Superior Court Judge Michael Bush said he doesn’t see the relevance. The motion is denied.

There is a Chance: No Oath. No transcripts..

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:53:36 PDT

No Oath. No transcripts..

Bush says for Rove, Miers and his staff.

Sounds no better than the Weir deal..

No facts or truth can be observed, unless the testimony is under oath.

Sen Leahy will not accept Bush's offer

Comments:
tkozy commented:

U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242

VERMONT

Comments Of Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy
After A Private Meeting With White House Counsel Fred Fielding
Tuesday, March 20, 2007

“I was glad to meet Mr. Fielding and I welcome the fact that these issues have his full attention.

“I don’t accept his offer. It is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome.

“Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investigating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large portions that they do not want to see the light of day.

“Testimony should be on the record, and under oath. That’s the formula for true accountability.

“I hope the President will agree to be forthcoming.

“The straighter the path to the truth, the sooner we will finally know the facts.”

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200703/032007b.html
AudreyB commented:

Oh God! Not more transcripts. It took me days to get through Lewinsky's deposition detailing what transpired between her and Bill in the anteroom.

And these transcripts won't even have nasty sex to keep them interesting.

tkozy commented:

Audrey says:

Lewinsky's deposition

TK asks:

I had trouble reading through it.

Did I get the redacted version? Or was mine just stained?

AudreyB commented:

I read it on the Druge report. All the best parts were highlighted.

TomW commented: And the point of this would be? Let's hope Conyers starts the subpoena process.
randomfactor commented: Was it worth the $50 million, Audrey? :)
AudreyB commented: No. There wasn't much plot and the characters weren't fully developed. If you've seen one May-December sex romp, you've seen them all.
redkernhero commented:

What do you mean no sex to keep you excited? We can be as sexy and exciting if we want to, Newt is our leader in that department.

I don’t care what you think; Bush has a right to keep anything he wants secret, legal or illegal. This 2007 anything President Bush says can be used by Osama Bin Laden like he everything else since 9/11, don’t you watch Foxnews?

This ridiculous, Bush is “the President” not just any bozo, he is the commander in chief, not a snotty buck private in the National Guard, he does not have to follow the law unless it is a national emergency and only he can declare a national emergency, so chill liberals, Bush is the man.

Bush is the most honest, and has the most integrity of any President since 2000, how anyone question his motive. Bush is no Nixon, or even a Clinton or a Spiro Agnew, all you liberals misjudge him.

mattloch commented: I prefer my governmental sex reports to be much better than that junk Starr tried pawning off on us. It was done better ten years earlier. Honestly, it puts Starr's report to shame. You want a real "page turner"? There you go. Enjoy.
randomfactor commented:

*SOMEONE* doesn't think the "executive privilege" dodge will wash:

"Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up."

"Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."

--Tony Snow, 1998

randomfactor commented:

Mattloch, the illustrated version's even better.

TomW commented: The quotes don't get much better than that, RF.
AudreyB commented:

Redkernhero (snicker) "The most integrity of any president since 2000." Very funny!

Mattloch Whaaaat? Did I miss a sex scandal? I thought I heard them all. From George Washington and his sexy next door neighbor to Tom Delay.

tkozy commented:

Snow's Da Man..

--TK, 2007

bakodon commented: Give it a break! You left wing libs still do not get it! I watched the President and he has offered an olive branch. You left wing libs won't take it because you want to play politics and ensure you keep the fires burning until November 08. Nothing but a bunch of cry babies!
randomfactor commented:

Here's a rundown of what's at stake. The Constitutional Crisis is here, folks. This one's for the soul of the nation:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/20/192727/375

randomfactor commented: Bakodon, it's Bush who wants to keep the fires burning until November 08. That's his war plan: Let it burn until it's someone else's problem. Now he's applying the same plan to the Constitution of the United States.
redkernhero commented:

Did I say 2000, I’m sorry. The President did offer a dove, unfortunately it may get messy, for the Democrats that is.

TomW commented:

The left is crying, bakodon? The President has just said he won't obey the law. The Democrats, along with a number of Republicans, want to uphold the law. Now the President says he'll offer a reasonable solution to the fact that he doesn't want to follow the law and crying that the big bad Democrats are out to get him. If he doesn't like being President, he's free to leave at any time. He serves at the pleasure of the President too.

bakodon commented: FOOL, the dems are out to get him any way they can. Its all politics until November 2008. Wake up and smell the coffee!
TomW commented: Bakodon, you mean the Democrats and Republicans, right? it's not just Democrats who are pressing on this. Maybe you'd like this to be a partisan thing, but it's not. Looks like the grownups in both parties are starting to take charge again and they aren't going to listen to the President's crybaby act.
drilnliftcrude commented: So what crime is Congress investigating anyway? US attorneys can be fired anytime for any reason. At least that is this dumb okies' understanding. After seeing how Victoria Toensing was berated last week by the Democrats and the Republicans kinda looked cowardly in their behavior during Valerie Plame's testimony, I think the Dems smell blood and are thinking a Stalin style show trial will be good for their chances in '08.
bakodon commented: At least one perosn on the blog understands!
tkozy commented:

Dri, What is your complaint. Bush has no problem with his cronies talking to Congress. In fact he has approved of Gonzales testifying under oath to Congress.

Are you suggesting that the regime boys would lie to Congress. Unless they were handcuffed and under oath?

If that’s the case. Perhaps that should be investigated.

Victoria Toensing while under oath. Told a different story than she did to Chris Matthews on Hardball.. Maybe the Oath thingy works.

During this last bit of Bush Regime Charade. There has been many different stories regarding the AG situation.

There is a cover-up.

That’s what is being investigated.

drilnliftcrude commented: Covering What up?
tkozy commented:

Dri, says:

Covering What up?

TK says:

Did you honestly think thru your question?

Lies were told as to the reason for firing 9 AG’s

The Question? Why the lies?

If the answer is known to that question. There wouldn’t need to be a investigation.

Investigations precede trials. Except in the case of Lynching’s.

drilnliftcrude commented: What lies?
tkozy commented:

The Lies in part: (More contaned in the information released to Congress yesterday)

But group firings in the middle a presidential term are highly unusual. Though Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted to Congress that "I would never, ever make a change in a U.S. attorney position for political reasons," critics were outraged at the December dismissals, among them the firing of an Arkansas U.S. attorney to make way for Timothy Griffin, a prot�g� of White House political guru Karl Rove. The outcry forced Griffin to withdraw. Gonzales' top deputy later claimed the firings were necessary because of "performance-related" issues. But it was later revealed that all but two of the dismissed prosecutors had won outstanding evaluations for competence.

Those revelations set the stage for Tuesday's dramatic appearance of six of the ousted Republican prosecutors before House and Senate committees dominated by Democrats. One of the fired prosecutors, David Iglesias of New Mexico, testified that he felt "leaned on" by Sen. Pete Domenici over a case he was pursuing. Iglesias said the New Mexico Republican and former mentor hung up on him after learning Iglesias would not seek indictments in a criminal investigation of Democrats before the 2006 election. "He said, 'Are these going to be filed before November?'" Iglesias recalled. "I said I didn't think so... to which he replied, 'I'm very sorry to hear that.' And then the line went dead. "I had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach," Iglesias testified. "Six weeks later I got the call that I had to move on." The ousted prosecutor also said that Heather Wilson, a Republican House member from New Mexico, had called him about the same issue.

Both Domenici and Wilson confirmed that they had gotten in touch with Iglesias, but denied pressuring him in any way. The Justice Department also acknowledged that Domenici had called Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his top deputy four times to complain about Iglesias' behavior, inquiring whether he was "up to the job."

Another fired U.S. attorney, H. E. "Bud" Cummins of Arkansas, testified that he had e-mailed fellow ousted prosecutors last month, warning them of a threatening message conveyed by a senior Justice Department official. Cummins' e-mail, which was released publicly, quoted the Justice official as warning that if fired U.S. attorneys continued to talk to the media or volunteered to testify before Congress, the department "would feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off" and fight back. The DOJ denied the allegation.

Yet another sacked U.S. attorney, John McKay of Seattle, declared that a top aide to Rep. Doc Hastings, the former Republican chairman of the House Ethics Committee, had called him to ask detailed questions about a politically charged investigation McKay was conducting into the disputed 2004 election of Washington state's Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire. Hastings and his aide have denied the allegation.

The day before the Congressional hearings, Michael Battle, the Justice Department official who had made the telephone calls to dismiss six of the eight prosecutors, announced he was leaving his job. The Department described the sudden departure as long planned, having nothing to do with the controversial terminations he had been required to carry out. But Democrats immediately questioned that version of events. Said Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat: "The wheels are coming off the Bush Administration's increasingly hollow defense of its decision."

drilnliftcrude commented: Well, it still doesn't look like alot there to get riled about. But of course America will be happy to see the democrats fighting hard for lawyers, the most loved and respected profession on earth.
tkozy commented:

Dri

I don’t know how many times it has to be said before you understand. ..

This investigation is being pursued by Republicans and Democrats. In fact the Senate vote to prevent Bush from permanently appointing the New AG’s without Senate approval, was passed by the Senate..

94 to 2 with 4 not voting.

That’s a large majority of the Republicans that joined with the Democrats in chastising Bush and his regime.

tkozy commented:

NAYs ---2
Bond (R-MO)	Hagel (R-NE)

Not Voting - 4
Biden (D-DE) Johnson (D-SD)	McCain (R-AZ) Mikulski (D-MD)

randomfactor commented:

There's another vote not going Shrub's way:

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/30848.content.html

randomfactor commented: House subpoenas authorized.
sfinboston52 commented:

Bush is saying "why me"

If they dont have anything to hide then they would do it under Oath and w/ transcripts and public. By trying to hide it, makes you wonder what they really did!

mattloch commented: Bakodon, this started out with the Administration making political decisions, not the Democrats. These were Republican USAs, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Republican Congress. Yes, they serve at the President's "pleasure", but they are also supposed to be independent of the political realm. The USAG and USAs should not become the legal arm of the President and the party in power. That is precisely what Bush's Administration has turned them into: political operatives. They were removed because they were not doing the President's bidding, and going after corrupt Republican politicians instead of innocent Democratic ones. The bipartisan Congress is performing its oversight duties. It's called "checks and balances". Look into it sometime. I know it may be a foreign concept to you, since it hasn't been mentioned too much these past seven years, but it really is in the Constitution. Trust me.
randomfactor commented: Keep in mind that the White House specificially snuck a provision into the update of the Patriot Act to allow them to bypass Congress.
randomfactor commented: Mattloch, did you read that Fitzgerald was originally on their "hit list"?
GotREALITY commented:

It's funny how the rethuglicans can go after a president and it's ok but when the tables are turned it's dismissed as "the dems are out to get him any way they can. Its all politics until November 2008." Like the gop never plays politics? Give me a break!

randomfactor commented: IOKIYAR.
sagefever commented: *Sniffs the air* Something smells rotten to me and it isn't fish! If our government is not transparent we lose.This is a situation,like the local Weir mess, that deserves the light of day shone on it,and a good airing out!
redkernhero commented:

Yes, we play politics; however, we play clean politics both locally and otherwise. We would never go after anyone that did not deserve it. Our spokesman like Limbaugh, Savage, and Hanity, and Inga Barks are non-partisan and only speak the truth, they don’t hurt people, yes they sometimes make mistakes, but they are honest mistakes.

We don’t trash the opponent, we expose because we expect them to meet the same integrity standards as President Bush, Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham, how else can this country remain as pristine and uncorrupted.

Liberals are just suffering from envy because we can keep secrets, and Vice President Cheney is our filter, he and Rush can do our thinking for us, thank you or ditto if you prefer.

mattloch commented: I didn't hear that his name was specifically mentioned Random, but I heard that one of their plans was to have every USA resign, and only retain the ones they wanted. This thing is shaping up into a Constitutional showdown at the OK Corral. At least the WH (and Faux News) is sticking to plan, blaming "partisan Democrats" for (a bipartisan Congress) investigating their criminal and partisan moves. The only thing that I'm pissed about is that there's so much that happened before November 2006 that Congress can't look into because these scandals are breaking so fast.
mattloch commented:

Subpoenowned.

TomW commented: Mattloch, you're busting my margins. Can you resize that sucker?

Also, for the tech team, is there a way to put hard margins in so images or long unbroken character strings don't blow the margins?
mattloch commented:

"New Rule: Controlling Congress is for closers. Listen up, Democrats, it's as simple as A-B-C. "Always Be Closing." First prize: subpoena power in the new Congress. Second prize: set of steak knives. Third prize: you're fired. The election is four days away and I'm through d--king around with you." --Bill Maher, New Rules

randomfactor commented:

Newest wrinkle: Eighteen day's worth of e-mails are missing. In-between the initial decision to fire, and the election.

Does Mary Jane Woods still work at the White House, on the e-mail servers?

mattloch commented: This email thing is an interesting angle that you've provoked (in me) with that article you linked to last week, Random. I'm wondering if Congress notices the off-site (GWB43.com) tactic or not, since these emails are only from Justice and not the WH itself. Bush may try to claim executive privledge, but Watergate proved that presidents can't do that for their underlings. This may not be "The Big One", but it is certainly setting the ground rules for all upcoming ones, including many Big Ones.
randomfactor commented:

It underscores the necessity for getting people under oath. "Are you SURE nobody sent any relevant e-mails for 18 days at the height of this controversy?"

Of course, as the other article I cited notes--a complaint for Abu Gonzales' lying to Congress would be presumably executed by...the Attorney General's office. I sure hope Pat Fitzgerald is available.

As someone said, those Democrats who were concerned with "keeping their powder dry" in previous years need to realize that *THIS* is "the big one."

mattloch commented: If they get Rove and Miers up in front of them, unless what the Administration did was criminal, they can't claim the Fifth. If they do, it'll send this thing into overdrive. It's funny to hear them claim "they (USAs) serve at the President's pleasure", like firing them for purely spurious reason, or on a whim is a good thing. The only defense Bush has is cronyism, pure and simple. It may not be illegal to do that, but god help them if an email turns up showing how investigations were stopped (or started) because of these actions. This has potential to turn into something very ugly, and it won't be for partisan reasons. To claim otherwise is just insulting.
randomfactor commented:

Looks like they've found *ONE* e-mail inside the gap. Which, as any creationist would tell you, simply means now there are *TWO* gaps. :)

Looks like General Custer's Press Secretary Snow has given the indians ONE LAST CHANCE to surrender and head off a "Constitutional Crisis."

randomfactor commented:

Holy crap, we *ARE* living in "1984."

They're about to cut the *CHOCOLATE RATIONS*!

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/WorldChocolateShortageAhead.aspx?GT1=9215

mattloch commented: Why do the chocolate companies hate America? First the banana growers, now this. Pretty soon we'll have to rename the "banana split" to the "terrorist split". I can't wait for the Super Bowl ads, though....
randomfactor commented: Just noted at FireDogLake in the comments: Why's it important not to let Rove testify except under oath? Remember: Even under oath and penalty of perjury at the Plame Grand Jury it took him *FIVE TRIES* to tell the truth.
randomfactor commented: Guess the White House doesn't have to let its guys testify under oath about the firings after all. The guy they pinned it all on (and fired) will testify next Thursday, under oath and voluntarily. I'm sure he won't leave anything out.
mattloch commented: ...assuming that he doesn't suffer a massive heart attack, a mysterious car accident, or an overdose of prescription medication before then.

For the people who think this is a "non-issue", or a "media manufactured" story, or a "partisan witch-hunt", read this. Find out precisely and exactly what this USA story is all about, in a nutshell. "High crimes and misdemeanors" comes to mind....

randomfactor commented:

The impeachment articles already exist and would need very little editing to be re-used:

http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

Amazing how history keeps repeating itself...

dusty1215 commented: The executive privilege claim will take this all the way to SCOTUS. Bush won't cooperate, I would bet my last buck on it.
redkernhero commented:

Be serious, we will prevail, we will unfurl our Mission Accomplished banner at the new Iraq memorial site on November 9, 2008. This confrontation is just liberal biased press designed by Democtrat to obscure our near victory in Iraq.

dusty1215 commented: Right redkern..and the tooth fairy is alive and well, as is Santa Claus.
sfinboston52 commented: What is the Whitehouse trying to hide? BTW is Bush a evangical christian? What would Jesus do?
dusty1215 commented: sfinboston... Carol Lam was bringing down republican's left and right..consider this email if you will that was written right after she notified the DOJ she was issuing search warrants for Foggo and Wilkes houses.

randomfactor commented:

The White House is claiming they don't need Congress in order to run the country. While the case is pending before SCOTUS, I'd suggest zero activity other than hearings into Executive Office behavior.

As to what the White House is trying to hide, criminal obstruction of justice.

randomfactor commented: Almost, Dusty. Lam was bringing down Republicans right and right.
dusty1215 commented: lol..my bad random :)
mattloch commented: Depending on how long these shenanigans last, we may get to see whatever Republican front-runner get to toss Bush & Co. under the bus before the election (and we know that BushCo has no problem doing the same thing to their "own" people), just to have a shot at winning. Given that potential, this is actually as good at it'll get for BushCo. Everything from here on in is going to get a lot less pretty. The Dems waited in the tall grass (not necessarily by choice) for a long time, and the list of things to hold hearings on is so much longer than the list of things that were actually done right (meaning legal / Constitutional, and accomplished the stated goals). Bush making his "offer" just looked like Elmer Fudd trying to convince Bugs Bunny to get into the oven, and we all know how that ended.......

Bush's "final" offer to Congress.

dusty1215 commented: For 12 years the Republican's held sway over Congress. They don't know how to react with the other party now having the power to snoop and control.
dusty1215 commented: Mattloch, I love the latest talking point from Snow:

Snow: Congress Has No "Oversight Responsibility over the White House"
sfinboston52 commented: Oh that is right I forgot you give a finger once to a group of reporters. I just remember when he was running the 1st time, he never had travel outside the country and didnt know where Bosnia was.
mattloch commented: The members of the WH media pool need to start laughing out loud when he says things like that, just like Jon Stewart did the other night when he interviewed John Bolton. Snow's stammering is getting worse, and the look in his eyes is getting dangerously deer-in-headlights, like his brain is having problems even comprehending the words coming out of his mouth. I heard that someone asked him about his quotation from 1998 about executive privilege, and all he could say was that the two situations aren't "analogous". Like the President then was Democratic, and the President now is Republican.....
randomfactor commented: Moreover, the Congress then was Republican, and now it's Democratic.
mattloch commented: Yea, and that was way back in the 20th Century, and now we're in a post-9/11 world.....
randomfactor commented: 11/7 changed everything.
mattloch commented: Congress needs to break this "bull". Wrestle it to the ground, brand it, castrate it with a red-hot knife, and turn it loose on the back forty where it can't do any more damage. Negative reinforcement goes a long way, but after a certain amount it just turns into sadistic pounding on an animal too stupid to realize its been beat. We aren't there yet, but I can't say for sure that this Administration is savvy enough to "know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em".
TomW commented: They are trying to replay the Nixon drama and see what happens if they go the other way. The motto seems to be they can do anything that they can't be stopped from doing. The problem is that it forces the Congress to run the country because the President has no sense of working with anyone.
randomfactor commented: Exactly correct, TomW. It's the same people, too, right down to Fred Fielding.
mattloch commented: Op ed piece in the LA Times about Rove, and what Congress could/should expect from him if/when he testifies. By the author of Bush's Brain. This guy is to Rove what Molly Ivins was to Bush, so he knows what he's talking about.
mattloch commented: Here is a link to the issue of the White House using outside email servers to circumnavigate the mandatory records-keeping laws. It looks like the only person that can do anything about it is Waxman, since the Act is outside judicial oversight. Hopefully he will push this issue this week, using it as leverage against Bush and Rove ed. al.

The People vs. Vincent Brothers: Defense motion considered

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:32:26 PDT

The defense's motion to dismiss based on the China Buffet receipt is considered.

Defense attorney Michael Gardina said a receipt bearing Brothers’ signature was destroyed by the prosecution with a chemical used to test for finger prints.

Gardina said the prosecution has refused to stipulate the signature on the receipt belonged to Vincent Brothers.

Deputy District Attorney Lisa Green said the value of a receipt from July 3, 2003, is not exculpatory to the defendant because she believes the killings happened on July 6, 2003.

Brothers said he was in Ohio at the time of the killing, but Green believes Brothers drove back to Bakersfield to kill his family.Green said Brothers’ neices will testify they went with Brothers to the China Buffet.

There were also bank records recording the purchase.But Brothers’ brother testified he used Vincent Brothers’ credit card in Ohio on the same day the prosecution believes Vincent Brothers’ killed his family.

There would be no way to authenticate the receipt anyway because neither side has a sample of the defendant’s signature for comparison purposes, Green said.Green said there is no replication of the receipt that she can find.

A detective testified at the preliminary hearing that the signature he seized from the China Buffet had a signature that he believed was similar to that of Vincent Brothers, Gardina said. The detective compared it to signatures from other signatures known to be that of Vincent Brothers’.

A handwriting expert did examine the receipt from China Buffet to determine if the receipt was signed by Vincent Brothers’ brother and the expert said it was not signed by Vincent Brothers’ brother, Gardina said.

Green promises to to attack the witnesses on this issue. But Gardina said Green will attack them on other issues and the jury will be left to consider her entire testimony.

The receipt was sent to the FBI for testing in 2003. While there a chemical was placed on it to determine if it there were any fingerprints. The chemical ruined the signature.

Bush says he wants to determine what the neices who went with Brothers to the China Buffet will testify to. Bush says he doesn’t know how valuable this evidence is to the defense.

Comments:
kaybug commented: I do not think a receipt should be enough for the case to be dismiss there is a lot of stuff that points to Mr Brothers and I think his defense is just trying everything to get it dismiss on what ever grounds they can use. There is three babys dead and that receipt is not that how case here.

There is a Chance: Cheney, Is he on his way Out?

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:14:26 PDT

Cheney, Is he on his way Out?

Cheney visits hospital for leg ‘discomfort'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17704205/

Comments:
randomfactor commented:

If he goes, do they replace him with Giuliani and annoint him, or Rice and throw her to the wolves?

TomW commented: Probably not. I mean, it's not like he shot someone in the face or something.
tkozy commented:

Random

Rumor around this joint, (Tom started it), is that Fred Thompson would send them both packing..

My money is on McCain. Lotsa kissing up with Bush in the past year. And McCain and Thompson are great personal friends. No chance of a Thompson Challenge.

Can’t see a future in Thompson politics.

Unless McCain is looking for a V.P.

AudreyB commented:

The clot might travel to his brain if he had one.

tkozy commented:

Mean, Mean, Really Mean..

AudreyB commented:

He makes me mean.

tkozy commented:
redkernhero commented: No Cheny is not on his way out, but he did have his ticker adjusted, good for another thousand miles or a new war which ever comes first.
possummomma commented:

Probably not. I mean, it's not like he shot someone in the face or something.

LOL!!!

My blog: Twinkie + 7 story building = ???

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:12:33 PDT

The web team at the Bakersfield Californian newsroom took a few minutes off work yesterday to answer a burning question:

What does a Twinkie look like after falling seven stories?

Being web video geeks, we shot the whole thing. Enjoy.

Comments:
TomW commented:

I see a series.

NancyII commented:

Tom, what do you think they should call the series? "Death Of A Twinkie?"..."The Rise And Fall of Twinkie?"

TomW commented:

Nancy, I was thinking more along the lines of "7 Stories"... Centered more around the fall than the Twinkie. Though "50 Ways to Leave Your Twinkie" has a nice ring to it.

Talk of the Town: Are today's college students too full of themselves?

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:39:12 PDT

And, if so, is that a bad thing?

The question comes up in a study that says today's college students are 30 percent more narcissistic and self-centered than the same age group in the early 1980s.

The experiment examined 16,475 college students' responses to the Narcissistic Personality Inventory between 1982 and 2006. Led by Professor Jean Twenge, students were asked questions such as, "If I ruled the world, it would be a better place because," "I think I am a special person because," and "I can live my life the way I want to because."

The test results prove the professors' theory that Generation Y, or Generation Me as the researchers say, has become so narcissistic that current students' NPI scores have risen more than 30 percent since 1982.

What inspired this study is what researchers call "the self-esteem movement," which emerged in the mid 1980s. According to Twenge, this movement can be credited to parents repeatedly assuring self-confidence and "special-ness" throughout their child's development.

The study says the self-absorption can have negative effects on themselves and society, namely, the breakdown of close, intimate relationships, acts of infidelity, lack of emotional connections, playing games with others' feelings, dishonesty, controlling issues and aggression towards others.

I'm not sure I'm buying all of this. I think parents who have promoted a good self image in their children, as I have with mine, are rewarded with better people.

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

Comments:
GotREALITY commented:

Many of today's college students think that because they are paying for their education they don't have to work hard. There's a sense of entitlement to their thinking.

sfinboston52 commented:

I have intererview some recent college grad who felt they deserved a 6 figure salary and perks and didnt want to have to do that work to earn that type of money. But on the other hand there have been some very bright recent college grads who know the lay of the land and come in and work hard and want to learn.

One of the worst recent college grad, didnt want to arrive at work until 10ish and want never to have to stay later than 5 and massive amount of stock options. This was in the 1st and only interview, it lasted less than 20 minutes.

adampayne commented: I don't think this is a generational dilemma, unless you want to say that every generation suffers from self absorbtion. Narcissism crosses all age boundaries, and to posit in a study that the current batch of young people suffer from too much "me-ness" means nothing. Since we are all the centers of the universe assured of eternal life in the hereafter, with little motivation to improve our learning skills to acquire factual knowledge, how could we not be full of ourselves. Each one of us has already been chosen to ascend to the Throne. We are the chosen ones! Praise Jesus, Allah, Moses, Vishnu, Zoraster and pass me-me-me the biscuits.
woofwoof commented:

The disorder is almost never diagnosed in adolescents. Although teenagers may exhibit narcissistic personality traits, these features are usually corrected by experiences that influence adult personality development.

I almost started a blog on narcissism....my early childhood was spent with a narcissistic mother.....I didn't figure it out until just last year....here are the traits:

Grandiose self-image
Fantasies about having exceptional qualities
Sense of being so special that only other special people can understand or relate to the individual
Need for excessive admiration
Sense of entitlement
Exploitation of other people
Lack of empathy
Envy of other people or a belief that you are the subject of other people's envy
Arrogant behaviors or attitudes

The Pulse: Doctors' role in executions

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:33:46 PDT

What role should medical professionals have in executions? Some states require a doctor to be present, but many physicians say this is unethical.

Stateline.org, a journalist-staffed Web site focused on policy issues, came out with an interesting story today on the dilemma.

As the story says:

The American Medical Association is adamant that it is a violation of medical ethics for doctors to participate in, or even be present at, executions. But recent court rulings have called for people with medical expertise to assist in executions by mixing and injecting the lethal drugs or monitoring the inmate’s vital signs.

“That’s the conundrum, right? The people who are best able to ensure that the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment is not going to be violated are the people who want to have nothing to do with this,” said Deborah Denno, a professor at Fordham University School of Law and a capital-punishment expert.

Using people with little or no medical training has led to botched or poorly executed executions, the story says.

In Florida, the December execution of Angel Diaz, who killed a topless club manager, required 34 minutes – twice the usual time – and two lethal doses because, on the first attempt, the needle missed the vein and went into soft tissue. It was later revealed that the lead executioner had no medical training whatsoever.

In Missouri, a lawsuit by inmate Michael Taylor, who killed and raped a 15-year-old honor student, exposed that a dyslexic surgeon was mixing the lethal drugs, despite little training in anesthesiology, no written execution protocol and little oversight.

The AMA says helping with executions goes against the doctor's duty to "do no harm."

"The use of a physician's clinical skill and judgment for purposes other than promoting an individual's health and welfare undermines a basic ethical foundation of medicine — first, do no harm. Therefore, requiring physicians to be involved in executions violates their oath to protect lives and erodes public confidence in the medical profession," said Dr. Priscilla Ray, chairwoman of the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, in a press release.

What do you think about this? What's more important: a doctor's ethics or a prisoner's right to an execution free of cruel and unusual punishment?

Comments:
tkozy commented:

There is no question that it would be un-ethical for a Dr. to participate in a execution..

Dr. Kevorkian is dieing in jail, for the very same thing.

randomfactor commented: There's a difference between unethical and illegal. Why isn't the executioner himself doing time for premeditated murder?
AudreyB commented:

Why don't they train someone in the process. There must be a toxicologist who can mix the drugs and who will be on call to the prison for executions.

Frankly I think it's unethical and immoral for the medical profession to deny a prisioner the easiest execution possible. A doctor wouldn't be agreeing to the process. He would be providing the knowledge that would guarantee the least amount of suffering.

tkozy commented:

Random says:

Why isn't the executioner himself doing time for premeditated murder?

TK says:

Who said he shouldn’t be in the hooscow… Not me..

Personally, I think the executioners, must all have a note from the Attorney General.

That type of note really doesn’t impress me much. They were handing them out to Boston Crime Bosses also.

By the way. You mention a HE for executioner. Do you have a problem with Ms. Executioner.

Audrey:

You know, I just can’t wait to read in the Yellow Pages..

The Executioner Doctor.

Kind

Friendly

He’s a Gas.

666 DownDa Rd.

TomW commented: As we've already gone over recently and extensively, you can't compel a doctor to take a "patient" for any reason. I think the doctors are right in recognizing that their duty is to helping people. On the other hand, I'm not a doctor and I still feel bound by the oath to do no harm.
tkozy commented:

Sissy!

AudreyB commented:

Tkozy

There's a section already provided ....."Exterminators" Vermin control

BTW I think women would make great executioners. We're so tidy and pragmatic.

tkozy commented:

And Really, Really mean..

AudreyB commented:

Oh and mean, really, really mean.

The People vs. Vincent Brothers: criminalist questioned on stabbing

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:27:47 PDT

Defense attorney Michael Gardina continued to question criminalist Greg Laskowski. Isn’t it true that Joanie Harper was standing when she was attacked? Gardina asked. I don’tbelieve there is any evidence she was standing when she was attacked, Laskowski said. That is your expert analysis? That is my opinion. Are the wounds superficial because the person who stabbed Joanie did not have a lot of strength? That is possible. Could the stabber not have had the strength because he or she was using the wrong hand? Possible. Could the stabbing be superficial because Joanie was struggling with the killer? Laskowski doesn’t think that’s possible. Wasn’t the room in disarray? Laskowski says some things were out of position. “I wouldn’t say the room was in disarry,” Laskowski said. Was perpetrator male or female? He doesn’t know? The shell casings could have bounced off the ceiling when the killer shot Earnestine Harper. It is also possible the casing would have bounced off the ceiling in Joanie Harper’s bedroom Would that be consistent with a “gang style” shooter shooting with the arm extended. That’s possible.

Sam Heath: Fred Thompson for President

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:09:34 PDT

If you haven’t signed a “Draft Fred” petition yet you are definitely out of the loop. From The Chattanoogan: “Rep. Zach Wamp said Monday that former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is very likely to run for president. The Third District congressman told the Chattanooga Pachyderm Club, ‘I had a follow-up conversation with Fred Thompson, and there is a real, real strong possibility that he will run.’ He said Thompson ‘has to meet some obligations’ with the ‘Law and Order’ TV show and with broadcaster Paul Harvey.”

The prospect that Fred Thompson may in fact become a candidate for President is sending a sub-zero chill through the Democrat camp, and isn’t exactly making Republican contenders warm and cozy. And while I very early endorsed Fred, it would be a mistake to characterize him as the Republican hope of another Reagan. Not only is this not true, but I would say “God forbid!” America does not need another Reagan, our nation needs a leader that as I have said knows both Hollywood and politics and can tell the difference. Fred Thompson is that man. I am convinced he not only knows how to act presidential with consummate and inspiring confidence, but would in fact be a genuine person and strong leader of real and trustworthy values as the President in fact and I will do all in my power to support him.

Even those most opposed to a Fred Thompson candidacy are having great difficulty finding any real fault with him. Most of such attempts have already proven one thing; those opposed are downright afraid of him! Imagine a President of the United States that would use that bully pulpit to confront the enemies of America both without and within! Even his enemies know he is not a man to trifle with; he has the strength of honest convictions We the People need and his enemies are well aware of this.

America suffers mightily from an image problem because of the Clintons followed by Bush. As I wrote some time ago we need a strong man as a leader and projects the image of real strength, not someone like Bush who is not strong but projects the image of a fool believing himself to be strong because of intransigence, a fool that by his own admission needs no advisors because he “speaks to God and God speaks to him.” Fred Thompson not only makes no such claim, but will select the best and the brightest who will automatically be attracted to him as an honest man who will encourage these to speak their minds and will listen to them. If you haven’t signed a “Draft Fred” petition, please do so now. There are several circulating but if you have difficulty one can be found at GOPUSA.com

Comments:
tkozy commented:

Fred’s antics are a publicity stunt.

Outside of Tennessee. He is a politically unknown.

Hey Sam. What about the reports that he only drives his red Pick up around the corner from his political events. Then hops into his B’mer?

Another hypocrite. That’s all the conservatives need in this back wash of political prospects.

samheath commented: As I said: "Fear."
tkozy commented:

No, reality.

He is a 65 year old Movie star. With a 3 year old daughter and great grand children.

Not to mention a Wife half his age.. :)

redkernhero commented:

Nothing wrong with a 65 year old B movie star with a trophy wife running for President, the last one that did that got elected and became our patriot saint. He taught us that what we always needed to learn that a top five percent of the rich can run the country and down the road we would all benefit and has that not happened?

He proved that we do not have to depend on our schools to provide our leaders and intellectuals; we can import them from other countries cheaper and preformed. Even in liberal bastion California this works, hence Arnold and by the year 2010 all the Doctors at Kaiser Permanente and other HMO's will be from China or India.

Reagan was a leader, he taught than wimpy industrial America how to break a union, fire them! Yes, Thompson, bring 'em on as our great President would say, Reagan only made half the country rich, Thompson will finish the job, their will be no doubt we will be finished.

Thompson will very likely emulate Ronald Reagan and improve on the Presidency. Besides consider the Democratic opposition, a Black man and a woman, neither of who is an delectable candidate in America.

tkozy commented:

There is some truth in what you said Red Kern.

Just too much hate and a bit of bigotry in the tone of your post.

The manner of your expression, doesn‘t highlight the points you make..

Instead your thoughts are rendered meaningless.

TomW commented: I think he seems like a great choice now, but once we get into a campaign, he's going to look like a nut. His positions are way outside the mainstream. That said, he's probably one of the best choices on the Republican side currently.
tkozy commented:

Oh, MY, MY,MY ...

redkernhero commented:

I'm just a good old boy who loves Ronny.

The People vs. Vincent Brothers: Defense ask for another mistrial

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:02:46 PDT

Defense attorney Michael Gardina asked criminalist Greg Laskowski if the killer would have had to get on the bed to stab Joanie Harper.

Laskowski said he would.

During the break, Deputy District Attorney Lisa Green asked if she could inquire further on this topic.

Previously the judge ruled she could not.Kern County Superior Court Judge Michael Bush said that because the defense raised the topic, he would allow the prosecution to pursue it further.

The defense asked for a mistrial.

The judge denied the motion.

There is a Chance: Four Way Stop, (outside normal parameters)

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:41:58 PDT

Four Way Stop, (outside normal parameters)

An Un-Evangelical Situation. ( Or should I have said, Un-Orthodox).

I know the Law says that at a four-way stop. One should yield to the right. But here is the deal.

While at a four-way stop. If those gentlemen to the right of you. Are applying a Liberal amount of make up. (No this did not happen in Colorado Springs, Colorado.)

Is it okay to proceed. Prior to his application of:

1. Eye shadow.

2. Lipstick, w/wo glitter

3. Foundation

4. Blush

The People vs. Vincent Brothers: The defense further questions a criminalist about blood spatter and other issues

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:26:58 PDT

Would there be blood transfer to the perpetrator? Gardina asked. Not necessarily, Laskowski replied. What about with Earnestine Harper? Not necessarily. If a person shot another person with a gun, the shooter may be spattered with the blood from the person shot, Laskowski said. Did you examine the defendant’s apartment for blood? Yes, on July 24, 2003. Blood was not detected, Laskowski said. Laskowski said his agency also took traces of plants and carpet fibers and other types of trace evidence from the crime scene to see if they would match trace evidence to the perpetrator. Laskowski observed the kitchen has not been cleaned with the breakfast items were still in the kitchen and possible a light lunch was prepared. At the preliminary hearing, Laskowski called the gun Earnestine Harper had as a Smith and Wesson. But Laskowski said he used it to designate the caliber. Three live .38 rounds were also attempted to be fired by Laskowski. Did you look for evidence in Brothers’ truck? Yes, on July 11, 2003. Laskowski photographed it, looked for blood stains and collected for trace evidence. He also vaccumed the Harper house for evidence on July 19, 2003.

The People vs. Vincent Brothers: The defense continues to question criminalist

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:52:59 PDT

Defense attorney Michael Gardina continues his cross examination of criminalist Greg Laskowski. Laskowski said the gun in question is fairly common. It could be manufactured by a person in his garage. These guns pop the casing out to the right between four and ten feet, Laskowski said. But once they strike a hard service, they bounce. The house was carpet, making the casings less likely to bounce. Joanie Harper’s stab wounds are superficial, Laskowski says. Could the stabs be inflicted at the time of death to Joanie Harper? Yes. Is that true of all her stab wounds? Yes. A remote control was between Joanie’s legs, Laskowski said. Her legs were dangling off the bed. There was no blood on Marques’ chest, Laskowski said. There was blood on the sheet where Joanie and the children were found, but Laskowski does not know whose blood that is. The first two shots to Joanie Harper were to her head, Laskowski testified, because those two would decapacitate her instantly allowing the rest of the wounds to be landed without her moving. Would the person have to climb on the bed to inflict the stab wounds? Yes. There are no kneeling prints in the blood? Correct. Was there any trace evidence someone was on the bed? No.

The People vs. Vincent Brothers: criminalist continues testimony

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:34:59 PDT

Deputy District Attorney Lisa Green continues to question her witness, criminalist Greg Laskowski. He examined 11 shell casings found at the Harper house. All match and were fired from the same firearm, Laskowski said. They are .22 caliber brass cartridge casing. The gun used to kill the Harper family were .22 caliber bullets, the prosecution believes. The gun that killed the family was never found, Laskowski said. Defense attorney Michael Gardina questions criminalist Greg Laskowski. Laskowski looked through the Harper’s house and Brothers’ apartment and vehicles, but did not find the gun used to kill the Harper family. The criminalist also looked on a database of guns to find a match for the spent shell casings, but has not searched that database for a couple of years.

Right Thinking: Antic may end up hurting free speech rights

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:57:38 PDT

It's maddening to stand by and watch when others publicly mock the standards and values many of us hold dear, especially when they're doing it just because they can.

But a stand-and-watch attitude is likely what the U.S. Supreme Court will insist high school principals adopt the next time one of their students chooses to make an idiot out of himself in the name of free speech.

And so they should.

On Monday, such a case came before the court, which is expected to decide just how far the long arm of school law may reach in regard to student speech.

The case started in 2002 when Joseph Fredrick, then 18 and a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska, decided to go for his 15 seconds of fame when the Olympic torch relay passed by his school.

After carefully choosing a vantage point across the street from the school, Fredrick and his friends held up a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" when local news crews rolled by.

The act apparently infuriated the school principal, who confronted Fredrick and then suspended him for 10 days, saying the banner violated the school's anti-drug policies.

It's hard to work up much sympathy for Fredrick, a self-confessed troublemaker who told reporters he held up the stupid slogan, which he found on a snowboard, to test his civil rights.

But Fredrick is not your run-of-the-mill smarty-pants; his "joke" was carefully orchestrated.

At the time he held the banner aloft he was not on school grounds, was not representing the school and was not participating in a school activity.

Here in Kern County, and most everywhere else in America according to previous Supreme Court decisions, school administrators have authority over students off campus only if the student is involved in a school-sanctioned event or are representing the school.

"If they're not doing one of those things, the administration is not going to have any authority over the student except if the student is an athlete and is violating the athletic code he committed to honor when he signed on to play that sport," said John Teves, Kern High School District spokesman.

So it looks as if the exasperated principal flunked the test, rewarding Fredrick with the mantel of victimhood he so enthusiastically pursued.

Now, everybody is in on the act with the Bush administration, anti-drug groups and others misguidedly supporting the principal and Juneau schools. Kenneth W. Starr, independent counsel of Clinton-Lewinsky fame, is even assisting the school district pro bono.

But other conservative groups supporting Fredrick's case, like the American Center for Law and Justice, are rightly concerned with the "larger constitutional principals at stake" and about the impact the case will have in public schools, colleges and universities, where there exists "a constant temptation to impose a suffocating blanket of political correctness upon the educational atmosphere."

Sure, the slogan is ridiculous and offensive, but in these times of extreme political correctness, conservatives should pick their battles wisely. This one could turn around and bite us where it truly hurts.

Fredrick, incidentally, is reportedly now living in China, where he teaches English to Chinese students and the subject of free speech never seems to come up.

Go figure.

Comments:
randomfactor commented:

I have discovered the cause of global warming. It's an escape of thermal energy from the pit of Hell, causing it to freeze over completely.

In other words, I seem to agree with MaryLee--who seems to disagree with the great legal mind embodied in Ken Starr. And the ACLJ and ACLU both on the *CORRECT* side of an issue? Satan must be shivering...

robbwillis commented: http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/talkofthetown/6665
randomfactor commented: Well, sure, Robb. But no subject can be considered closed until MaryLee's gotten her say, conservatively speaking.
tkozy commented:

The reports I have read is that this was a ‘School sanctioned off campus event‘. No different than a Liberty High/Bakersfield High football game played at BC Stadium.

The student claims that the restrictions do not apply because he did not attend school that day. And the event was off campus..

Now I ask you. Should school rules apply to the student that does not attend school on the day he attends a Liberty High/Bakersfield High football game played at BC Stadium.

Off course they should.

The point that must be stressed is the following

He chose to display the banner during a school-sanctioned event to watch the Olympic torch relay as it passed through Juneau on its way to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City.”

1. The sign should not have been posted.

2. The penalty imposed was to strict. The Original 5 day suspension was actually to strict. The imposition of an additional 5 days because a free speech argument was put into play, was a violation of the students free speech rights.

In reality it wasn’t the students actions that caused a disruption at the school. It was the reaction of school officials that was the cause of the disruption.

The student stated that the sign was not meant to promote drugs. It was only meant to get him attention and on the TV..

At least here in Bakersfield. There are many options for schooling. Including home schooling. If you are unable to promote yourself and attract the types of recognition you require during your off time. Perhaps another form of education would be a better stage for your antics.

http://www.usatoday.com/new...
mattloch commented: If it wasn't for those damn liberals and their insistence on adopting no-tolerance punishment policies in schools, and the whole "War on Drugs" thing, we wouldn't be in this situation. How dare they put conservatives into this difficult position or arguing for "politically-correct" censorship.

Wait, what?

We are truly through the looking glass, folks.....

tkozy commented:

Somebody order a Pizza. This could get interesting ..

That is if we ever got a response from Marylee.. (She doesn't like me anymore)

woofwoof commented: When I heard the "offensive" poster was OFF campus, it reminded me of the other day. I saw a bunch of kids on top of someones house, just off campus (elementary and jr high area). I'm driving up to pick up my kids, and I see the principal heading down toward them, and I'm thinking, what's she gonna do? Her juridiction is on campus. Of course, just the power of "seeing the principal coming" was enough for the those stupid kids to get down and flee.
tkozy commented:

It’s called truancy. The same offence it appears that the Alaska student had committed..

Take their pictures.

Call the cops.

randomfactor commented: No, it's not truancy. Truancy is when you're supposed to be at school and you aren't. These students weren't supposed to be at school, and they weren't.
redkernhero commented:

Hurting? Never, consider this just an extension of the Patriot act and the protection of our country from enemies both from home abroad.

We have been heading in this direction aggressively since 2000 and before and 9/11 confirmed our need to concentrate these to the rights to the right people such as principles, governors and Presidents.

These are dangerous times and we need religion more than we need first amendment freedoms, God come first, after that, take a number.

Since when are the rights of minor’s been raised to the same level as rights for adults? The Principle, god bless his soul, has taken a page from the President Bush’s book of governance and deservedly so, as he too is the decider.

So do not dump on Marylee, she is merely the messenger.

TomW commented: I posted the other day on Robb's blog thinking the event took place on campus. If he was off campus and not representing the school, Marylee is absolutely right. The school has no jurisdiction. As for the kid going to China to teach English, that is great. The more we can expose them to American ways of thinking, the sooner they'll demand their own freedoms.
randomfactor commented: 3221.
tkozy commented:

Tom

Marylee is wrong..

It WAS a school sanctioned off campus event.. See link above

Now consider this.

Should the Child be allowed to do as he pleases, at the High School graduation parties celebrated at Disney Land?

randomfactor commented:

It was off campus.

It was *NOT* an event organized by the school.

The principal was way out of line, but squarely in tune with the student's low opinion of him.

To answer your question, that's for the Disneycops to decide--not the school principal back home.

tchudilowsky commented:

This is exactly why I do not pay attention to or really give a rats patoot about things of this subject anymore. This kid is a brat that wanted attention. The principal had every right (in my own opinion thank you) to rip the sign down. But because there is ALWAYS someone to jump on every thing...all of the sudden it is the worse thing ever! OMG!! The humanity!

Sheeesh.....His Freedom of speech?? HA!!

randomfactor commented: In your opinion the student has no rights, off campus? Suppose the sign had stated a political position? Still OK to rip it down?
randomfactor commented: Why would this case "hurt free speech rights," by the way. Have some justices been recently appointed who don't give a damn about the Constitution, or something?
tkozy commented:

The conservative stand is:

It would restrict the right to on campus speech concerning religion and homosexuality for instance.

tkozy commented:

Random says:

To answer your question, that's for the Disneycops to decide--not the school principal back home.

TK says:

No, Those things are decided prior to the student accepting entrance to the school and reaffirmed prior to the student being allowed to travel on the school sponsored/sanctioned event.

sfinboston52 commented:

The student did not go to school that day and was on public land when he displayed his sign. So the Principal was way out of line and should be force to pay for freedom of speach. The principal made a mountain out of a mole hill.

tchudilowsky commented:

What happened to just having common respect and discipline enough to be in a group with your School and School authority figures and ACT RIGHT!?

Did that cross this brats mind I wonder? I doubt it.

Why didn't he hang the sign on his house or his car? He did it for attention.

Like I said SHEEESHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

randomfactor commented:

What happened to free speech, Tina? Was there *ANOTHER* clause in the Patriot Act we don't know about?

What happened to proportional response? What happened to laughing at a joke?

tkozy commented:

Random says:

What happened to proportional response? What happened to laughing at a joke?

TK says:

I agree with that Random.

I have said the response to the sign was over reaching.

But, Bong hits for Jesus. Is disrespectful of many peoples religion and should never have been shown as a poster. No matter what the forum. This issue should have been raised by the principle. Then left at that. No suspension.

I agree that an addition 5 days of suspension. Because the student argued free speech. Was a violation of the child’s right to free speech.

tchudilowsky commented:

OK well, I am all for free speech, but I must say my problem with this dumb case IS...this kid admitted to being a troublemaker and to seeing just how far he would get. He was being a jerk he wanted to push the limits and cause trouble.

Instead of seeing this kids stunt for what it was, someonel screamed "rights!"

I'm sure the principal knew this guys "trouble making" history and ripped the sign down for THAT reason NOT to take away the fools rights!

But what do I know.

randomfactor commented: All human progress is made by troublemakers, Tina. There was once this guy who physically overturned the tables at a religious place of worship. *HE* was clearly out of line, but the officials knew how to deal with *HIS* type.
tkozy commented:

Troublemaker is a curious profession.

Under certain circumstances, it has been known to be the cause of swelling in one or both eyes..

AudreyB commented:

It was across the street from the school? He was not participating in a school activity? He was just a kid standing next to a school principal?

The principal should be suspended for assaulting a fellow citizen. A smart principal would have used the event as a starting point for class discussion.

rightthinking commented:

tkozy, the argument that the banner incident took place during a "school -sponsored event" is flimsy at best. The event was the Olympic torch run, which the school, of course, did not sponsor. School authorities merely dismissed the students so they could watch the torch carrier as he ran by the school.

The law in regard to the limits school authorities may place on student speech were established years ago. While I sympathize with this poor principal, who was probably driven to distraction by this kid and his stupid stunts, I believe she overstepped the law by ripping down the banner.

tkozy commented:

Right Thinking says:

"school -sponsored event" is flimsy at best.

TK says:

Nothing flimsy about the Truth. No one is arguing that this was not a school-sanctioned event to watch the Olympic torch relay.

Right Thinking says:

authorities merely dismissed the students

TK says:

No different than when the students are dismissed after school and latter appear at a Liberty High/Bakersfield High State Championship Football game at Bakersfield College. There is no doubt the entire community was aware that the students would be at the event. And that the School had sanctioned their presence there.

In other words. The students must obey school rules while they are at the relay representing the school. Or they must not leave school or attend the event..

TK continues..

Furthermore

Students are routinely suspended and expelled from school due to actions outside of school sponsored events.

dragoon commented:

I believe that all sides are making far too much of this incident. You don't spank a baby with a hatchet. This kid wanted attention and the overreaction by the pricipal gave him exactly want he sought but more so because he gained national attention. That being said, it is noteworthy that such attention seekers sometimes develop into very productive citizens. My step-brother was alot like this kid always having to be the center of attention and a smart-alec. But, he matured, became a world traveler, and, eventually, a deputy district attorney. Go figure!

Annon 42

randomfactor commented: 3223.
randomfactor commented: 3228.
blognroll commented:

I am one of those Republicans that happens to support the boy, and I'm still waiting for somebody to gong my bong song:

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

http://www.drblt.net/music/bongHITS4.mp3

randomfactor commented: 3236.

There is a Chance: Why restrict yourself to Thomas Jefferson?

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:42:31 PDT

Why restrict yourself to Thomas Jefferson?

The federalist. And the Anti Federalist Papers.

http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html

Comments:
tkozy commented:

The Federalists

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm
tkozy commented:

The Anti Federalists

http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm
tkozy commented:

By reading these papers. You will have a insight into the 1788 era Blogg-o-sphere

tkozy commented:

Now on DVD. The Federalist Papers.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QRHz1VTjSwE

GotREALITY commented: I don't get it. Are you seriously advocating this because the video makes a joke of it.?
tkozy commented:

I had hoped to add a little humor. To something many believe to be absolutely boring…

Many people will be turned away, because there is at first, some difficulty in understanding the old style of American writing.

Hey give it a try folks. Have your kids read some of it..

They may learn a few new adjectives and adverbs, of the non-four-letter-word variety.

Talk of the Town: No roads, no houses, what's hard about that?

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:40:22 PDT

Kern County planners finally put the brakes on development in west Bakersfield where roads are already clogged with houses that shouldn't have been approved earlier.

And now it appears some developers will try to force their additional problems on the community anyway.

Developer Matt Wade calls it unfair for the county to drop the whole metropolitan's area's traffic troubles on the heads of 13 developers. There's always been traffic problems, he says.

Of course, that's the point. Californian stories by James Burger have detailed how developers have pretty much always gotten their way until the area has clogged the transportation system without enough money to fix it.

I applaud the hard choice that the planners made. Life as it should be doesn't mean a bunch of parking lots with traffic lights and stop signs.

I also applaud developer Steven Ness of Beech Street Development in Huntington Beach who said he's willing to work with the county to solve the problem. I think that is incumbent on all of us.

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

Comments:
JustAThought commented: Now will someone wake up the traffic light department planners and have them set properly?
tkozy commented:

nooneisabovethelaw commented:

Gee. Imagine that. The people who actually work and live here might actually want to have a say in how they work and live here. The mind boggles. Meanwhile, out of town developers want to come in, throw in some money to make more money and then take the profits with them. "Can't see it from my house," is the saying that comes to mind.

My favorite line in this whole thing was Roger McIntosh, saying something to the effect of he couldn't imagine why anyone would block this. Hey, Mac, do you ever drive anywhere in this town? You're part of the problem, pal...how about being part of the solution, for a change?

redkernhero commented:

The County's latest antics sound like a vast communist conspiracy to place the fault for our uncontrolled growth on the shoulders of those who brought us the second horse in what was a one horse town.

They are not responsible, they came here to make money and that is the American way. It is no sin to weave your way seamlessly into the local political fabric, it is good business.

They knew what everyone else knew, there is too much crime in the old city, and they were just making the City safer by expanding its borders and building communities where good people can live in peace free of the masses and the crime they bring. These people who are merely looking for a better life in the suburbs need roads, but not at developers and builders’ expense, that should be an inners city expense, they caused the problem by making it unsafe for good folks to live there.

Now the local politicians want to not only blame their benefactors, the innocent developers and builders, but the want to stop expansion and curb their ability to make a decent living.

Be warned, Supervisors, do the right thing, big Ag and big oil are no longer the best source of reelection money. The toe you step on may be your own.

tkozy commented:

Redkern also said:

The best thing we did last was to turndown the 1/2 cent tax increase. Strongly Reagan would turn over in his grave if he knew we almost voted for higher taxes, Ms. Shrider, you are not conservative and should be ashamed. If you increase taxes it is bad policy our developers have a right to make money if they expand the City’s boundaries, the older non-productive parts of the City should pay for the road needed, they waste too many City resources on controlling gangs and fighting drugs, money that could be used for new road improvements. They clog up the courts and make us hire more officers with money we should use road improvements. I see where they are about to launch a gang roundup again, stop wasting that money and fix Rosedale for those who really need to get to their new homes. NO, new taxes, what are we communists?

TK says:

Are you trying to suggest that Verdugo and Jenkins are crime free? Sorry bubba. That’s just a pipe dream..

Put the ½ cent into parks and recreation, fire and law enforcement. You might get my vote..

tinaburke commented: Kudos to the County for exposing the development-driven gridlock we're living in! Have you noticed how mum the City is on the problem? why, some City Council members apparently don't know that we have a traffic problem. But the City staff do! Why doesn't the City Manager communicate to his Council? because it's BAD NEWS and we can't afford the solution! Beware Bakersfield! The City is selling us out in the name of development.
tinaburke commented:

Another bit of news, that will add even MORE to the gridlock on the westbound drive home....Cal State's master plan update will add another 10,000 students to what's already known as a commuter school. (ck out their website for more info...) Where the heck are THOSE cars going to be?? On Stockdale Highway with everyone else. Add that to the new commercial develoment the City has approved on the south side of Stockdale, across from CSUB, and the whole string of medical offices farther west. Yep, gridlock here we come....

tkozy commented:

Roads, The Final Solution

1% sales tax increase at all Rosedale area retailers.

Oh, lets not forget the Future Wal-Mart and Lowe’s on Panama Road.

AudreyB commented: Can it be! Is the county actually going to stand up to big money?
Crankpin commented:

Redkern,

I think your point of view is a bit myopic in your implied assumption that "inner city" folks do not have "good folks" in their ranks and that the "innocent" developers and buildiers should be elevated to saintly status for providing "good folks" with safe housing. But that's another topic for another day.

As a planner for a major environmental company here in town that has oncall contracts with the City and County as well as major developers, I can say from first-hand experience that developers typically will try to distort truth, piecemeal projects, etc. in order to push their projects through--time is money. It is my job to push back and say what is in an objective manner.

It is one of the County's jobs to take a hard look at new development and ask if the developer has adequately discussed the impacts and developed sufficient mitigation to offset both individual impacts to the environment as well as cumulative impacts. This is mandated in the California Environmental Quality Act. This is why County staff make recommendations to the County Board--yea or nay. If the County really wants a project and there are significant and unavoidable impacts, they can always draft a statement of overriding considerations stating why the need for the project outweighs the environmental costs (in both the natural and manmade environment).

I personally applaude the County, and it is my hunch that they saw that the cumulative effect of all this development cannot be sustained with the current circulation system and that the need for the projects do not outweigh the costs to the human environment (i.e., impacts to traffic and transportation).

Crank

adampayne commented: Very well put, Crankpin. I, too, would like to thank the County planners for finally saying enough is enough and making the tough call. It is encouraging to see that civics works.

Things that interest ME: CPS returns toddler allegedly abused in foster care.

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:26:48 PDT

It seems I inadvertantly deleted this post while thinking I was deleting another. Sigh..some days I'm concerned about my head.

The story is here.. http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/ViewPost/20425 about the Tehachapi toddler who was removed by CPS and placed in foster care. 6 weeks later she was returned to her grandmother covered in bruises. It's under investigation.

Jason..thanks for the link. Sorry for the mixup.

Comments:
adampayne commented: This might be a long investigation. There appears to be a lot more to this story than meets the eye from this initial report at the Tehachapi News.
sagefever commented: I was in a silly mood when you had posted this~now I am ashamed at myself for not checking this one out...how can something like this happen? It makes me wonder about CPS and what are they doing to earn their money? This child will have to work through this her whole life,while the perpetrator will,if society "gets 'em", receive a few years.Check out Angela Shelton ~ she has a excellent web site, for some startling statistics about abuse at any age.

Things that interest ME: Thomas Jefferson quotes

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:39:11 PDT

2nd amendment? Too much government?

I ran across these and thought they were pretty good.

Quotes - Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press." Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.-Thomas Jefferson

Power is not alluring to pure minds.-Thomas Jefferson

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?-Thomas Jefferson

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.-Thomas Jefferson

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.-Thomas Jefferson

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.-Thomas Jefferson

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.-Thomas Jefferson

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.-Thomas Jefferson

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.-Thomas Jefferson

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.-Thomas Jefferson

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

(Disclaimer..I did NOT research these to see if they were accurate.)

Comments:
CurtDalton commented:

Jefferson was such a Subversive!

The sad thing is if these speeches were made today, Homeland Security would no doubt have Jefferson imprisoned in Guantanamo.

possummomma commented:

It's a good thing Thomas Paine isn't alive today, either.

Bush would have him on the terrorist watch list.

samheath commented: Good reminders from a great American Nancy; thank you.
antiextremism commented:

"Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion."

randomfactor commented:

Well, some of the quotes on quick inspection appear to be bogus. Here's one which isn't:

".this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on.."

(Jefferson seemed more interested in the First Amendment than the second, by my count...)

tkozy commented:

“A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither”

Thomas Jefferson

robbwillis commented: In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes. Thomas Jefferson
tkozy commented:

Blasphemy

mattloch commented: Blog here on this very subject. I know some of you will ignore it based on where it is being hosted, but it's still a good read.....
redkernhero commented: I can't quote Thomas Jefferson, but I can quote George Jefferson "You got that right!"

Things that interest ME: Children see and do

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:49:04 PDT

Hopefully this little video will come through.

Children see....

Comments:
NancyII commented:

Apologies for the mess folks. I put the link up again but it needs to be through youtube to view. I think I finally got it right. This video was sent to me by motopoet and I wanted to share it with you.

woofwoof commented: That's powerful Nancy....when a child is born, every parent should receive this in a DVD....
jasonsperber commented: Wow. Thank you for that, Nancy. I think you know that outside of work, most of my blogging centers around parenting--I just sent the YouTube link to a bunch of my blogger contacts in that world. Again, thank you.
redkernhero commented:

What have these bigCity problems have to do with our wonderful perfect community and it is perfect ask anyone, I don’t get it. These are liberal big Cities.

NancyII commented: It's a shame this video is getting lost in all the political arguments...this is an important message. 76 views for the kids..and how many for politics?
dgrealish commented:

Reminds me of the poem, Children Learn What They Live. It is a sad fact that all too many people refuse to own up to.

NancyII commented:

Murphey...in our day men beat women..it's just that no one knew about it. Or thought that much about it. I really don't think times have changed as far as abuse goes, we're just hearing about it more thanks to the media.

As far as kids go, yes, they learn what they see. From diapers and first steps to drinking, using and flipping people off with the kids in the car..... we are constantly teaching childen something.

Hopefully people will become more aware that teaching them to be honest and have good ethics has to be by example.

That's how they learn....good or bad.

NancyII commented: What kid? You lost me.
NancyII commented:

Murphey..it doesn't always have to be "that" kind of town or neighborhood. Spousal abuse come in all forms..just as child abuse does. If you never saw any of it you were lucky. It happened fairly often with my relatives in "those days."

The little boy probably did see kids in school flip people off but if he's in the car when dad does it he learns that's how you express yourself.

When my grandson was in preschool I was doing the co-op thing. When recess was over they asked me to go out and bring the kids in. All of them ran for the door except one 4 year old who kept swinging away. When I went over and told him it was time to go in, he looked up at me and said "F*** you." My mouth dropped open and stupidly I asked "What did you say?" And he repeated it. I went in to the teacher and told her she needed to get out there and do something with that kid. She told me that his parents talked like that all the time and the kid picked it up from them. That was over 25 yeas ago...kids learn what they see and hear.

TomW commented: Nancy, great video. Thanks for the link.
msemilyh commented: not seeing a video link :(
TomW commented: EmilyH, just click the arrow in the screen at the top to play the video or click it twice to open it in a new window.
msemilyh commented: i can see it now. maybe youtube is blocked at my work, i dunno. excellent video.

The Possum Den: Atheism in Bakersfield?

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:41:36 PDT

As I stated in my profile, I keep an internationally read blog on atheist parenting. It's been a great resource for many and I've even helped in the creation of atheist communities in other parts of the globe. Interestingly, I have never attemped to create an atheist community, locally, for myself. I fortuitously stumbled into an Austin based "non-prophet" organization and have attached myself to their members and cultivated some great friendships.

But, the question remains: Why have I never given Bako' a chance? I moved here in 1995 and was a member of MOPS and several other religious groups. I suppose I should've known, at the time, that I was too skeptical to find a connection with the Christian community. I never seemed to have the right answers for the Bible studies and I usually disagreed with the conclusions that they came to. When I finally started intensively researching my beliefs (or lack thereof), I accepted honesty and my position of atheism/agnosticism.

I suspect that my hesitancy to "out myself" as an atheist, in Bakersfield, stems from the fact that, when I first told a dear friend about my "conversion" (if you will), she looked at me like I'd sprouted a third eye and told her I was moving to Timbuktu. The silence that filled the room is only comparable to the silence I've heard at weddings when the drunk bridesmaid admits that she's slept with the groom the night before. Bakersfield, while friendly in every other regard, seems like the last place you'd find an atheist. Why is that?

So, anyway... I'll be happy to answer any questions or clear up any misconceptions that people might have about atheism. And, should there be more than a few of us reading these blogs... let's get something together.

Comments:
redkernhero commented:

You are in the wrong City we love our Bible here in Bakersfield. We count on him for everything from making us wealthy to solving our social problems. Just this week Councilwomen Irma Carson and Councilman Michael Rubio held hands with Chief Rector and Sheriff Youngblood to ask God to help with the annual gang roundup, no not help, lead the way.

We could never do this if everybody was an atheist like you, we would have to actually spend money on these nonsense.

How can you live with yourself without God, if there was not god, heaven forbid, what would we do with all those big nice churches and the men of god would be unemployed or have to work for minimum wage.

I suggest you pick another subject as religion is not something we would give up or take lightly.

woofwoof commented: How 'bout instead of praying to god for help with the gang problem, you come up with ideas to solve it, redkern?
redkernhero commented:

I agree with them, God is the one. But some money for anything other than for new keys for the jail cells would not hurt. But that is not our problem, get them out of town, we have plenty of jail space in our neighboring states and plenty of room in the courts. It’s a slam dunk; these slugs can’t afford lawyers, easy pickings.

And when they come back in a few years, we can do it again god will always be here just as he always is at election time.

You are right I could not do it, nor could you only god can take care of business without the need for money, I am sorry that I do not have enough faith to believe that God will solve it for us, however, he will fill our databases for next budget session..

possummomma commented:

Redkernhero,

One of the consequences of posting sarcastic comments on every blog means that you've created a character instead of actually putting your real thoughts on these blogs. As such, it would be difficult for me to respond to your commentary (that I hope is sarcasm, because... if you are being genuine, you are making several baseless assumptions and commiting logical fallacies left-and-right).

Should you like to posit serious questions, with the expectation of serious answers, I would be more than happy to indulge your curiosity. I would also relish the opportunity to correct your incorrect assumptions about atheism and it's effects on society. Until then... as someone else said, you're doing an incredible job of cementing every negative stereotype that one can have about residents of Bakersfield.

-PM

redkernhero commented:

Negative, no, no we are what we are. I am sorry you find my comments sarcastic; I’m just a good old Bakersfield boy who loves his Bible as much as he loves his neighbor?

NancyII commented: Smacks of Neo but then, what do I know?
possummomma commented:

Who's "we", Redkernhero? Are you now speaking for the entire city? Are you quite sure that you are the voice of Bakersfield?

If you are genuinely a "good old Bakersfield boy who loves his Bible as much as he loves his neighbor.", then I would suggest that you must not know your Bible very well...as you certainly don't have an accurate perception of your neighbors (myself included). Loving your neighbor requires actually getting to know them before you pass judgement on their beliefs or positions.

--------

NancyII, who/what is Neo?

redkernhero commented: Bless you child!
redkernhero commented: You just do not understand about the Bible and me, I love my dog but I don't know him nor do I speak with him, same with the Bible. I call it faith!
possummomma commented:

"You just do not understand about the Bible and me" - You're probably right.

"I love my dog but I don't know him nor do I speak with him, same with the Bible. " - Responding to this would be like shooting fish in a barrell.

"I call it faith!" - Good for you. I'm glad you have a positive label for believing in things for which there is no emperical evidence. :)

NancyII commented: Possum...a poster who now posts under whatever name suits him at the moment. This Redkern person has the same style. Sarcasm.
AudreyB commented: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..................................
ki6amd commented: It's funny how stongly atheism is so strongly tied to christianity. Obviously possummomma knows her bible (at least a little), but does she know the Quaran, Buddist teachings, or Wiccan principles? My guess is not, but sure you could say it's a cultural thing, but if you're an atheist wouldn't it be a little contradictory to label yourself as an atheist? Just a thought...
robbwillis commented:

Hey Possum,

The trick to being an atheist is to have a hobby, oh let's say golf, and pursue it on Sunday mornings. Not only are the fairways cleared of the faithful, you get a parking space near the clubhouse. The like-minded friends you make on Sunday mornings are hilarious cussers also.

randomfactor commented:

In this country, perhaps, because Christianity is the "dominant opposition?" I mean, the Republicans seldom seek to demonize the Likud party. That doesn't mean atheism is anti-Christianity. More the opposite.

Your last point doesn't parse well for me, Ki6. Could you expand on it?

koztarr commented: When I observe the statements and actions of others [and myself], I cannot help but think we are all atheists.
woofwoof commented:

Ki6amd, I just got a shiver down my spine....you have no idea who you are messing with, when it comes to this lady. YES, SHE DOES KNOW about all Religions. She is a sponge, that's why she can give a good debate, because she's absorbed so much from everything she's reads. Even more funny, we were just discussing Wiccan last nite.

And PM, it's obvious to me, that I'm PINKY!

randomfactor commented: Koztarr, it's true that almost everyone is an atheist up to the last god. Hardly anyone believes in Zeus anymore. Atheists just disbelieve in one more god than Christians do.
ki6amd commented: RF, I don't think you get it. atheism doesn't try to spread like Christianity does. So there is no "opposition". Sure there is opposition is government when religious based bills are passed, but I know I'll never see atheist missionaries knocking at my door. But you saying, "That doesn't mean atheism is anti-Christianity. More the opposite." is a little funny.
randomfactor commented:

No, atheism doesn't try to spread. We just try to maintain what we have against the onslaught of believers spreading nonsense.

Glad I could amuse you.

randomfactor commented: So, Pinky, what are we going to do today?
ki6amd commented: random, let me tell you how I deal with people trying to sell me their religon... "no thanks, have a nice day" NOT "You're religon is wrong and I must convince you denounce your beliefs" (Using that method, you're trying to sell someone on your beliefs) If you're truely atheist (which I am not, for those who're wondering) your place isn't the church or amongst the believers telling them to stop spreading religion amongst themselves. Your business should be just living your life they way you think is best. Trying to stop christians from praying in schools (if they're not trying to convert you) is trying to convert them as much as Johova's Witnesses do by knocking on your door. It's rude, obnoxious and intruding on other people's lives.

That said, I wouldn't try to convert someone to my beliefs, so why should atheists try to convert people to their beliefs (or lack thereof)?
woofwoof commented:

Try to take over the world, of course.

And I'm not against Christianity, I felt comfort in it when I was young. Now I'm a free thinking adult without imaginary friends.

randomfactor commented:

That's how I do it, too. Unless they're obnoxious about it, in which case I'm quite capable of matching them nox for nox.

I have no problem with the religious "spreading religion amongst themselves." I have a problem with them trying to write it into our laws. There is nothing that prevents Christians from praying in schools. There are laws which prevent the school from sanctioning the prayer and insisting that all conform. *THAT* is rude, obnoxious and intrusive.

And B-dot-com is not a church, it's a discussion forum where anyone can play. When I attend church (haven't for about six months, but it does happen) I sit and listen respectfully.

For the record, I *AM* truly atheist--but I suppose it shows.

woofwoof commented: You know, now I know why Nancy stays out of these.....same ole song and dance.
randomfactor commented:

Ki6, given that (many) religionists are actively trying to convert others to their faith, is there some special reason I shouldn't try to persuade them that my non-faith is better?

This is the real subject of Dawkins' "The God Delusion," that religion has for centuries been given a free pass not extended to any other subject. Ending *THAT* seems a good idea to me.

ki6amd commented: I'm sorry I'm busy reading an old article on a group stopping students from praying in school.
GotREALITY commented:

I find it amazing when people complain that certain amendments are being eroded (eg Second Amendment) then choose to ignore other amendments (eg First Amendment i.e. separation of church and state).

The only time I "argue" is when those who proselytize come knocking on my door. I figure they are coming into my world to indoctrinate me so I let them have it, but in a polite way.

randomfactor commented:

Get back to us when you can, Ki6. Please note that they're opposing a law, not a church. And good for them.

I'm reading a book about how Christians are lying in order to insert Genesis into school textbooks.

steveeswenson commented: Possum,
   Welcome to blogging.
   Here's my take on athiesm. First of all, I believe in God. Athiests don't.
   Neither side will win the other over with arguments, because it really is a belief — faith if you will. I'm very comfortable with mine and with an afterlife that rewards believers. If I was God, I'd set it up that way too.
   I believe all people have a spiritual capacity which is why we get worked up on these topics.
   Nothing in the Bible undermines evolution. The only requirement is to believe God put a soul in man.
   The New Testament overrode the Old Testament.
    On another blog, you wrote that Matthew 5:17 supports that God approved atrocieties in the Old Testament. It does not. It says God fulfulls the prophets of the Old Testament who predicted a Savior would be born, die and then raise Himself from the dead.
    Athiests don't believe that. That is their choice. I believe it is a choice given to them by God.



ki6amd commented: GotREALITY, Show me where the first amendment says there's a seperation of church and state. It gives you freedom of religion, not freedom from it. (Although personally I think those that choose an antheist position should be allowed to refrain from religion, but they shouldn't interfere from those who want to participate in religon)
randomfactor commented:

If you don't have freedom from religion, you don't have freedom of it.

Thus spake Jefferson, hallowed be his name.

ki6amd commented: Praise Jefferson! But he's speaking of different religons, not atheism. In his time atheism wasn't a political movement, it was just people who didn't believe in God. I understand the opinions of those who don't want to participate in religion, but by trying to stop people from participating in theirs (whereever they are, and what ever time of day... including schools) is criminal, and goes directly against the beliefs of the founding fathers.
Hardliner4freedom commented:

Possummomma, please check your email. I sent a message through your profile. If for some reason it didn't get through, please send me a message through mine.

randomfactor commented:

Did he tell *YOU* he was speaking of different religions? The Founding Fathers would be horrified by the Istook Amendment.

Scientology wasn't a "religion" in those days either. Guess he didn't mean for *THEM* to have freedom either. The Internet didn't exist--so the First Amendment doesn't apply there either. The Colt .45 was nowhere to be found, so it's not in the Second. And so it goes.

mattloch commented: Ki6amd: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The government shall not establish a "state-sanctioned" church, and shall not infringe on the practice of churches. This means that official "support" of religions is prohibited, as well as stopping religious practices of citizens. There are various regulations that have been established over the centuries, however. But then again, I'm sure you already knew this. Just like you knew that the Second Amendment was established as a collective right, and not an individual one; for the purpose of preventing a standing army and not to defend yourself against an overzealous federal government. Right?
GotREALITY commented:

Heh...I will not revisit the religion argument because we have already been beat over the head with it in this blog.

I agree; no interference. You keep your prayers in church and I'll keep my thoughts in school. Religion has NO place in public schools. If you want to pray in school either keep it to yourself or go to a private school.

"...including schools) is criminal." ----- Show me this law.

"and goes directly against the beliefs of the founding fathers." --- again, this dog has been beat to death; that's your opinion but the evidence does not support it.

randomfactor commented:

For what it's worth, when a bill is proposed outlawing churches, I'll oppose it.

When a bill is proposed forcing churches to pay property taxes like the rest of us, I'll support it.

redkernhero commented: .

God I love religion shoppers in our community, especially those who believe that they are smarter than Gandhi.

However, I do not lose my faith, nor do I lose my Bakersfield upbringing, there is a god and he sees all does all and touches all unlike all those atheist and other false religions.

If there were no God we would not be the most compassionate, fair, and caring people in the world. We would be at war with our neighbors all the time year after year however; god guides our path to better ways.

Having said that, I cannot imagine anytime soon an atheist society to flourish in our garden spot of the world, it would be ungodly.

GotREALITY commented: I agree RF...why should they escape taxes?
randomfactor commented: "Ungodly." Isn't that the textbook definition of atheism?
blognroll commented:

Have you thought about becoming an agnostic? Being an atheist means closing your mind. I've always found that everytime I close my mind, I miss out on many opportunities for personal growth. I was also wondering if people have treated you poorly in the name of Jesus. Most atheists I know are not atheists for intellectual reasons, but rather, for emotional reasons based on bad experiences they've had with those who abuse their faith.

randomfactor commented:

"Don't be agnostic...be *SOMETHING*." --Robert Frost.

You don't know that many atheists, BLT?

sfinboston52 commented:

"(Although personally I think those that choose an antheist position should be allowed to refrain from religion, but they shouldn't interfere from those who want to participate in religon)" and vise versa, those who want to participate in a religon should be forcing those of us or the generally public to accept or support their religion, regardless, if it is Christian, Judaism, Muslim, Hindu etc.

While I respect peoples religion I also expect them to give me the same respect.

ki6amd commented: RF The founding fathers came to these shores from a place that chose what demonination of the church the country would practice. When you read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", it becomes obvious that they're talking about specifics of which demoniation of the "church". How do I know this? Read the next part... "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Prohiting kids from praying in school (alone or in a group) is illegal. When atheists try to change laws to prevent kids from praying in school or laws to prevent prayer in public, it shows their disregard for the founding fathers intentions.

Now while the colt 45 didn't exist other handguns did, and New Jersey citizens weren't going to give them up, so if the Untied States was to exist (and include New Jersey, among other colonies) they needed the second amendment. The colt45, while more powerful, has much small munitions than some pistols of the revolutionary war.

"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."

robbwillis commented:

The agnostic quarters in hell are better than those for atheists also. Kind of like summer in Palm Springs compared to Phoenix...

randomfactor commented:

I agree with you that preventing schoolkids from praying is illegal. So is leading them in a school-sanctioned prayer, or one of the "runarounds," student-led prayer that always, wink-wink, seems to favor the predominant faith. The founding fathers' intention--spoken in print by Jefferson--was to erect a "wall of separation" between church and state. And it's wrong--as the Istook Amendment seeks to do--to grant special government protection to religions just because they're religions.

If the Second Amendment covers Colt's products, then the First covers freedom from religion--atheism--as well as television.

One's quarters in Hell are exactly as one imagines them. Mine don't exist.

GotREALITY commented:

Sorry to bust your bubble but the first colony was established to make a profit. Yes there were those who were fleeing religious persecution but the colonies were established for profit.

blognroll...I would classify myself as agnostic, some might say a "militant agnostic" becasue I have never died before (at least I can't remember); People just can't fathom "nothing" after death so they make up a religion to cope with it.

ki6amd commented: Not true robb willis, Matthew 12:30
redkernhero commented:

It hurts me when some do not respect religion and make it seem that there are degrees of punishment for those who do not believe in the hereafter.

There are only two types of souls for believers and non-believers those that are saved, and those who are damned. Contrary to popular belief, there are no fence sitters.

robbwillis commented: What about Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50?
randomfactor commented:

How cute, Ki6. Now quote something from the Koran to justify Mohammad being the Prophet, and what happens to Christians who don't accept Islam.

You might follow it up with a quote from LeVey's Satanic Bible for balance.

robbwillis commented: You're right redkernhero, old friend. Of course there are three levels: Palm Springs, Phoenix and Bakersfield.
mattloch commented: BLT, I can't talk for anyone else, but I'm an athiest because I've never met any god, yours or otherwise. Being an athiest doesn't "close" my mind to a religious experience; it only means that if I have one, I'll remember to analyze it critically and make sure that what it was, and not a reaction to some bad seafood.
GotREALITY commented:

You know there are those out there who try their hardest to fit the square in the circle.

It's kinda of like applying the rules of baseball to a basketball game.

randomfactor commented:

With a big enough hammer, it's a cinch, GotReal.

woofwoof commented:

RKH said: If their were no God we would not be the most compassionate, fair, and caring people in the world. We would be at war with our neighbors...

Woofie says, you don't need god to be compassionate, fair and caring people in the world. And what do you think an "Atheist Society" in Bakersfield would do at their meetings? Would they sit around and figure out ways to convert you to athesim? I think it would be a group of like minded, scientific, philosophically engaging conversations.

And as for prayer in school...that worked in the 60's, maybe when most people where just Christians. How can you do that now? In my 4th graders class there is someone Jewish, Mormon, Pentacostal, Islamic, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist Presbytarian....

sfinboston52 commented: Kids can pray in school...the school just cant lead the students in prayer. That is a big diffierence. Also I grew up in an evangical home, I remember how my christian friends and I would put down people who were not "christian" or worse..atheist.
randomfactor commented:

I'd love to see something like a lottery system, where everyone--including atheists--got an equal chance to say the prayer at the football game. But most religions don't want to give a fair shake to anyone else.

The Agnostic's Prayer by Roger Zelazny:

Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.

robbwillis commented:

Hey Woofer,

Wouldn't your description of an atheist meeting also describe a Unitarian church service?

redkernhero commented: Blasphemous to compare Bakersfield to hell, there is no comparison, we are better.
sfinboston52 commented: Dante anyone?
randomfactor commented:

The pasta chef? Al Dante? :)

(Always liked the way he put folks he didn't like in Hell. Especially what he did to advertising executives...

blognroll commented:

I think that one of the reasons so many people become agnostic or have become atheists, is because of the hell-fire-and-brimstone flavor of Christianity that has been gratuitously offered by the self-righteous among us.

If you examine the life of Christ as portrayed in the New Testament, you'll notice that he typically drew folks to himself, he didn't drive them to the kingdom with alot of talk of hell and brimstone. When a person comes to God out of fear of hell, they will not be freed by their conversion, they will become slaves. When a person is drawn to the kingdom, out of love, his/her conversion will be real, and will represent true freedom. That person will then not be intent on driving others to Christ with fear and judgement, but will rather live out a life characterized by love--------the type of love that will, in turn, draw others to Christ.

randomfactor commented:

You may be right, BLT. But the brimstone types get all the attention because they've allied themselves with the Devil (the GOP, for those benighted few.)

But another reason is that the agnostic/atheist position *MAKES SENSE LOGICALLY*. And we live in a world where logic and critical thinking have brought us so very much, in contrast to religion's contribution.

woofwoof commented: Robb, Unitarian Universalist church invites all kinds of spiritual orientations. I think a better description for an athesist would be free thinker, humanist or anti-authoritarian.

possummomma commented:

Ki6 - "It's funny how stongly atheism is so strongly tied to christianity. Obviously possummomma knows her bible (at least a little), but does she know the Quaran, Buddist teachings, or Wiccan principles? My guess is not, but sure you could say it's a cultural thing, but if you're an atheist wouldn't it be a little contradictory to label yourself as an atheist? Just a thought..."

No. What's funny is that I could post a blog that inquires about possibly getting together a group of atheists in Bakersfield and, by morning, it's got 65 responses...and most of them are defensive positioning by theists. :) I do know the Quaran, the Vedas and Upanishads, the Gita, the Torah, the Book of Mormon, and many other religious titles. With the exception of the Veda and the Upanishads (which, by the way, are older than the Bible AND more applicable to today's societal ills), I find all of them to be equally unnecessary. What most theists fail to recognize is that MOST atheists grew up in a deeply religious environment. And, because we were taught that atheists would suffer the worst of the worst: almost none of us came to the position of "no belief" in a deity without doing some serious examination of ALL faith(s). Why would it be contradictory to label myself an atheist. I think you are confusing what you've been told about atheists with what the position of atheism actually means. Atheism means, simply, no belief in any deity. Labeling myself an atheist carries with it no specific core beliefs that address any other position but that one position: "No belief in a deity." I think you're actually trying to play apologist and say, "Hey! Look at the shiny thing over here." by suggesting that atheism is "just another belief system like Christianity or *insert religion here*." Not true. Getting atheists together is like trying to herd cats: most of us are too independent and have independent thoughts and positions on other issues.

Atheism is not anti-Christianity. Atheism is simply a position. I don't preach or proselytize. I don't get gold stars for converting theists to atheism. I don't spend thousands of dollars to take vacations to third world countries so that I can teach them about religion.

Random Factor said: Atheists just disbelieve in one more god than Christians do.

Exactly! Most Christians disbelieve in many other Gods.

Ki6, I don't think you get it. atheism doesn't try to spread like Christianity does. So there is no "opposition".

Are you being intentionally obtuse? There is plenty of opposition to atheism. Hence some of the knee-jerk commentary on this blog. My son is going to be asked to leave his Boy Scout troop, very, very soon, because he doesn't want to sign an oath of allegiance to God. He's fulfilled every other requirement and is a spectacularly moral kid, but the national organization of Boy Scouts does not allow atheists or agnostics to be Boy Scouts. Kind of makes me wonder why they are allowed to openly recruit in public schools? And, for the record, we allow our children to attend different churches, study other religions, and come to their own conclusions about faith. For the last five years, he was comfortable signing the "oath to God" because he hadn't made a decision. Now he has.

Also, I have run into multiple forms of "opposition". And, the "opposition" was not shy about stalking my daughter to her bus stop, sending hate mail, and festooning our front porch with Bibles and Chick Tracts.

As for atheism "spreading like Christianity": I hope not! I would hate for people to come to the position of atheism by the sword or by childhood indoctrination. Atheism has NO uniting value system or dogma. I teach my children to operate on humanitarian/moral axioms. I also teach them to examine all claims with reason, rational thought, and critical thinking skills. I ask them to employ the scientific method and encourage them to identify myth/superstition from reality. Gee... is all of that really that threatening?

Ki6- your place isn't the church or amongst the believers telling them to stop spreading religion amongst themselves.

Hence the reason I no longer attend a church. ;) As for coming "amongst true believers...blah, blah, blah." Have I told you to stop believing? Have I told you to stop spreading religion amongst yourself? I don't believe that I have. Again, knee jerk responses...

This, last time I checked, was not a church. It's a public blog. By sharing my beliefs, I am being no more rude or obnoxious than any other poster who voices an opinion. And, frankly, I think it's insanely hypocritical that, in your first response, you chided me for not knowing the other positions on religion, and yet... you obviously know SO LITTLE about atheism that you're, quite obnoxiously, making unfounded statements about what atheism is.

Unfortunately, it has been my experience, that most Christians are not comfortable just "spreading religion amongst themselves". They willfully reinterpret history (as shown by your claims about the colonization of America) and try to force THEIR code of ethics upon others. In reality, should you care to discuss what my ethics and morals are, I think you would find that we differ very little on the important issues. I could be wrong, but seeing as I've never had so much as a traffic violation and have never done anything that would even possibly tow the line of the law, AND the fact that I encoruage charity and "love-thy-neighbor"... I would think that we're probably more alike than you would like to believe.

Steves -Nothing in the Bible undermines evolution. The only requirement is to believe God put a soul in man.
While this is not atheist related, I must say that the Bible actually does undermine evolution. The Christian bible very clearly states that the world was created by a Creator. Evolution is the ascertion that, over a very large period of time, elements of physics, chemistry, and biology, created single celled organisms which then evolved into multiple celled organismz, which... this could really go on for several pages. The Bible says, in Genesis: "God did it."

blonnroll-Have you thought about becoming an agnostic?

Actually, I am both an atheist and an agnostic.

Atheism addresses what you "believe". A-theism means, specifically, "no belief". Atheists usually identify themselves on a scale from weak to strong (and, these are in no way supposed to describe your conviction: only your position). A weak atheists sees very little reason to believe in God. A strong atheist believes that no God can exist.

Agnosticism addresses your position about what one can "know". A-gnostic (gnosti being the root word for knowledge). A weak agnostic would have to admit that they knew very little about the supernatural, but that it may be knowable. A strong agnostic says that they have enough knowledge to strongly predict (or know) that God(s) doesn't exist or that God(s) can't be known.

I am a moderate atheist, strong agnostic.

As for God making society more "compassionate",... I just have to say, "HA!" Again, are you being intentionally obtuse? Religion has been the most divisive factor since it's inception. But, if the only thing making you act compassionate is the threat of hell, then I say: KEEP YOUR RELIGION. If you can't rationally examine your morality and see the biological and humanitarian reasons that you should be a good person, then please remain indoctrinated in the belief that keeps YOU from beating the crap out of me. I, however, will treat you as I wish to be treated because I believe in the moral precept laid out centuries before the Christian God and the Christian "code" came about. I will rely on Socrates, Plato, the Vedas, and MY OWN RATIONALE, and treat you as I wish to be treated. I will respect you and do you no harm because you are a part of my community and it behooves me to support your growth, your life, and your well-being.

mattloch commented: Random, if we did have the lottery system, I could see many people registering as Jedi as they did in Australia. Now that's a prayer I'd love to see.
randomfactor commented:

The problem with a "lottery system" is that Christians, being the majority around these parts, would stuff the box to keep out any competition.

Jedi makes as much sense as any other belief system--or it did, until Lucas started babbling about Midiclorians. He's basically turned it into Scientology, the only religion *SCIENTIFICALLY* proven not to be true.

blognroll commented:

As for God making society more "compassionate",... I just have to say, "HA!" Again, are you being intentionally obtuse?

If not sure if you were continuing to address me with this line. If so, I have been called abstruse, but never obtuse. I will admit that I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that's what keeps me humble, and that's what stops me from delcaring myself to be God. I'm not suggesting that you are declaring yourself to be God, but aren't you sort of suggesting that human beings are gods unto themselves?

And no, God does not make society more compassionate, but when we allow his love to fill our souls, we begin to take on his loving, compassionate nature.

Religion has been the most divisive factor since it's inception.

That's why I don't recommend religion without a personal relationship with God. Religion without love can quickly develp into rage.

But, if the only thing making you act compassionate is the threat of hell, then I say: KEEP YOUR RELIGION.

I agree. Fear makes for a exceedingly poor motivational force. Those who accept Christ out of love, and not out of fear of hell, will likely be less judgemental and will be more at peace with themselves and others than those who accept Christ out of fear of hell. That's why I don't recommend or condone hell-fire-and-brimstone messages.

If you can't rationally examine your morality and see the biological and humanitarian reasons that you should be a good person, then please remain indoctrinated in the belief that keeps YOU from beating the crap out of me. I, however, will treat you as I wish to be treated because I believe in the moral precept laid out centuries before the Christian God and the Christian "code" came about.

AKA human beings are gods unto themselves.

I will rely on Socrates, Plato, the Vedas, and MY OWN RATIONALE, and treat you as I wish to be treated.

Why would you rely upon philosophy consistent with Christianity and based on scriptural principles to support your atheistic doctrine?

I will respect you and do you no harm because you are a part of my community and it behooves me to support your growth, your life, and your well-being.

My spiritual and emotional wellbeing are sustained by my relationship with Jesus Christ. When I am close to Christ, I am at peace with myself, and I love my neighbors as myself. To the extent that I stray from the truth laid out in the scriptures, my well-being suffers. I pay the price, and so do those around me. Encourage me to draw near to the love of God, and you will be doing the very best thing you can do to support my growth, my life, and my well-being.

possummomma commented:

Blognroll : ...but aren't you sort of suggesting that human beings are gods unto themselves?

Not in the way that I think you're suggesting. I believe that humans DO ultimately have control over their own actions. I do not believe that there's a magic sky puppet that pulls my strings and influences my behavior. If I screw up: I have to accept the consequences of my mistake. I can't "confess" to a deity and have the error erased. I have to own-up to my responsibility and try to "right the wrong". If I take part in self-harming behaviors, then I have to pay the price (which is why I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, or engage in promiscuous behavior). There are biological consequences that far outweigh the "Don't do it because God says so." mentality. And, in the same vein, if I do good things, then I also reap the consequences of those good actions. It's not about "BEING GOD." I don't believe God(s) exists. I don't think I'm Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Zeus, Thor, or Allah, either. I *do*, however, that I have ultimate responsibility for myself. If "ultimate responsibility" translates to God, for you, then I suppose you might form the conclusion that you arrived at.

Blognroll :... but when we allow his love to fill our souls, we begin to take on his loving, compassionate nature.

I would agree with you completely...except for the HIS part. You don't need someone elses love to fill your soul and encourage a compassionate/loving nature. You actually do have the power to love within you- all by your self. I can tell you that I am twice, or three times, as "loving and compassionate" to humanity as I ever was when I was involved with a church.

When I left the church, I realize that true compassion came from ACTUALLY CARING about the person and not worrying about whether their philosophy was in line with my own. I could minister (ha!) to people and actually consider THEIR needs, not my own selfish need to convert. I think, and this is just my opinion, that- quite often- Christians do compassionate things because they believe it will help bring souls to their god. Or, that it will elevate their status on their god's list. I would suggest that that's a selfish reason to help someone else. If I cook you a meal when you are ill, then you can rest assured in the knowledge that I cooked that meal because I empathize with your situation and want to ease your burden a bit. There's no strings attached to any gift that I give.

Blognroll:Religion without love can quickly develp into rage.

So can religion with love. The men who carried out the attacks on 9/11 did so because they loved Allah and they loved their faith. They truly, truly believed that their God would reward them. Their love for Allah led them to see other humans are mortal enemies. Love is a powerful, powerful emotion. Hence the term; crimes of passion.

Blognroll: Why would you rely upon philosophy consistent with Christianity and based on scriptural principles to support your atheistic doctrine?

Why wouldn't I? I don't really care what religion makes the good point. If it's a good message and positively influences the world around me. WHY NOT? My point was that those messages transcend Christianity. The principles aren't uniquely scriptural: they are timeless observations about the nature of humanity and communal society. FURTHERMORE, and I can't state this boldly enough: THERE IS NO ATHEIST DOCTRINE. My code of ethics is my code of ethics. You will find that every atheist has their own beliefs/codes.

Blognroll: Encourage me to draw near to the love of God, and you will be doing the very best thing you can do to support my growth, my life, and my well-being.
Do what you have to do. As long as your practice of your religion doesn't infringe upon my rights or inspire you to come stalk my children (as has been done by your breathren in Christ), then I'll drive you to church on Sunday. :)

possummomma commented:

Random Factor: But another reason is that the agnostic/atheist position *MAKES SENSE LOGICALLY*. And we live in a world where logic and critical thinking have brought us so very much, in contrast to religion's contribution.

We also live in a world where logic and critical thinking are NOT encouraged in public life. Emotional appeals, appeal to common practice, circumstancial ad hominem, and appeals to popularity rule the day.

But,... *sigh* I could go on for HOURS about that.

steveeswenson commented: Possum,
   You and I are going to disagree on this. I believe that God created the beginnings of forces, substance and life that evolved into our planet as we know it. The Bible says he did that in 7 days, but in the beginning, there were no days and nights, and therefore the time period is undefined.
   I believe God began the process. You don't.
   But I don't think the Bible excludes evolution.
   One of us is right. The other is wrong. I believe I'll let you know when I reach the place where I am able to do so.
AudreyB commented:

KI6amd

When Jackquie Sullivan placed a religious sentiment on a public building, paid in part with my taxes, SHE chose which religious denomination Kern County should follow. Even though she coyly denied that the purpose of the plaque was to imply that the only true God is the one worshipped by Christians, her real intent was clear since most of those in attendance at the ceremony were Christians.

What happened to my right to enter a building that I help pay for and not be bombarded with someone elses belief system.

In this same vein, I suggest that it's wonderful that a child prays, as long as it isn't on ground that is owned by the community nor during school hours that are paid for by the community. He can pray on the sidewalk outside of the school's boundary, before and after school.

randomfactor commented: And Possum, you've put your finger on the reason why critical thinking skills are not encouraged. Lots of people are making lots of money with uncountered nonsense. But you're right--even listing that could go on for *HOURS*.
randomfactor commented:

I *LIKE* seeing IGWT on public buildings and coinage. It shows how shaky "their" faith is, that they need such public displays to shore it up.

Inscribing "In God We Trust" in stone is practically an oxymoron.

possummomma commented:

Steve said: The New Testament overrode the Old Testament.

Well, since you brought it up... if the New Testament overrode the Old Testament, then why are Christian groups peeved because of the cases wherein it's suggested that the 10 Commandments be removed from public buildings? If the OT was overrode by the NT, you'd think Christians would be like, "Let's put up the beatitudes!" Furthermore, if the OT has been over-rode, then you cannot use the fact that "Jesus must be true because he fulfilled the prophecies of the OT." as a rationale for existence. If the NT over-rides the OT, it has to do it completely or not at all. Otherwise, it's cherry picking.

AudreyB commented:

Will something new come along one day and override the New Testament. Won't that piss off a lot of people who follow the new testament as the word of god? Is the new testament like an upgrade or something?

possummomma commented:

Steve: I believe that God created the beginnings of forces, substance and life that evolved into our planet as we know it.

First off, Steve. I want to thank you for discussing this in the manner you have. I appreciate it. :)

Like I said, I'm a bit hesitant to turn this thread into a debate on biology. We can, if you wish, but...atheism and the origins of the universe are really separate topics. :)

I have spoken to people who hold your beliefs and I respect that they have at least given scientific fact a nod. However, I think breaking "the days" down into "not days" is semantically silly. I agree that, prior to the earth falling into orbit around the sun, that the premise of "days" is ridiculous and undefined. So, if you back up far enough...sure, I'd concede that time is relative. That's a fair point (and thanks for making me think about it).

However, a lack of knowledge doesn't automatically mean "God did it." For a very long time, science did not give us answers to phenomenas that were attributed to God. As science answers more questions, it seems like Christians just keep backing up, and backing up, and backing up. Again...I'm tempted to get in depth with the dicsussions of creation versus abiogenesis. Or, inteligent design versus evolution. I will happily discuss that, but I don't want to change the intent of this thread. The one thought that I think *is* relevant to the topic hand is the idea of a default position: the Christian default for everything they can't explain or understand is, "God did it." Atheists do not hold this default position.

possummomma commented:

Audrey, I felt much the same way about Jackie Sullivan's "decision" for Kern County. It was incredibly arrogant.

Random Factor, I suspect you and I could pass many, many hours discussing the, seemingly, untanglable mess of money and faith.

I would also like to suggest, as I did in my original post, that....If you are an agnostic or atheist, or freethinker, then please e-mail me. I would love to get together a group, in Bakersfield, that supports positive atheism and busting stereotypes that people have of atheists. I think it would be a phenomenal way to build a stronger community.

randomfactor commented:

Audrey, the successor to the New Testament already has. It's called the Koran. Most folks in this country are still clinging to the old ways, alas.

(It's always been amusing to me when people say the OT has been superceded--then proceed to go all Levitican on such things as homosexuality. I feel like giving them a Bible, a marks-a-lot and a $20 and saying "please cross out for me the stuff I don't have to follow anymore.")

AudreyB commented:

Possummama

Most christians are arrogant. In this town they're arrogant and belligerent.

randomfactor commented: I wouldn't say "most," Audrey, but the ones causing the trouble sure are.
blognroll commented:

We disagree on the source of goodness. I don't think humans are incapable of doing good. After all, we are created in the image of God. However, I believe that we are all damaged goods. We need a savior to redeem us, and without that restorative, redemptive power, our good deeds are done in vain. God demands moral perfection. None of us are capable of moral perfection, so we need a savior and we need his blood to cover our imperfections. Evil things have been done in the name of Christianity. That is a fact. That explains why so many are tempted to deny the existence of God. I'm not saying that this is the force behind the views you have adopted, but I suspect that it may have played a role in your abandonment of God. If this is the case, don't let human beings sour your sentiments concerning God, and matters of faith. God is love. Once you've truly experienced the presence and love of God, your mind can present all sorts of doubts and plaguing questions, but your faith will survive any storm.

xlnt1 commented:

Here's another subject for debate. A couplemonts ago i was watching a news show on t v.The story was about a black preacher, a fourth generation preacher,who went to Oral Roberts school, and Oral greatly admired him.put his arm around his shoulders and praised him. Well, the preacher built a church in Houston,and shortly, with a congregation of 16,000 was getting tithes of $250.ooo a week On day,.the preacher was watching tv and saw a scene that i'm sure you all have seen,tths large group of black women.each with a baby in her lap, obviesly starving looking up to heaven,and he said to himself ,"that must be hell" He went to church sunday.and said there is no hell,as we've been taught. The word got around,Oral Roberts comdemned him,it did'nt take too long,his congregation was gone,he couldn't make his mortage payments and was out of work AMEN.

randomfactor commented:

I don't think humans are "damaged goods," I think we're "beta software." Untested, barely working, tossed out there by evolution to survive or crash.

It's a wonder we're as good as we are, have achieved what we have. Our brains are running a program Microsoft would be ashamed to have written. We don't need a savior, we need a debugger.

AudreyB commented:

Random

Most Christians ARE arrogant. They try to hide their arrogance, but it's there. They are so sure of their superior belief system that they need to share it with every hottentot. Scratch a Christian and you will find a religious bigot.

randomfactor commented: Well, one test of that will be how many of 'em refuse to vote for Romney...
possummomma commented:

All bolded parts are blognrolls commentary:

We disagree on the source of goodness. I don't think humans are incapable of doing good. After all, we are created in the image of God.

What is your proof for this assertion? Because, if you have scientific evidence that proves man was "created" (let alone by God), then you're probably going to win a Nobel Prize. Your statement is based on a belief and an ancient book. Those are not evidentiary support for your claim.

However, I believe that we are all damaged goods. We need a savior to redeem us, and without that restorative, redemptive power, our good deeds are done in vain.

At the genetic level, you're right! We are all "damaged" and constantly progressing towards "irreperable" by death. But, it has nothing to do with a deity. We do not need a magic savior to redeem us... I've not done anything that requires redemption. Original sin is a man-made concept. If you need a mystical stamp of approval on all of your good deeds, then I actually pity you. What a depressing world view.

God demands moral perfection.

Again, you're making claims and you haven't yet demonstrated your proof of God. Furthermore, the Christian God is hardly an exemplary role model of moral perfection. The God of the Christian Bible was an atrocious monster who isn't worthy of worship. Even if you proved a God's existence, you have to further prove that he/she/it deserves the adolation.

None of us are capable of moral perfection, so we need a savior and we need his blood to cover our imperfections.

Of course no one is capable of "moral perfection". The concept of moral perfection is relative. It doesn't exist. Suggesting that you need a savior to cover your imperfections is akin to suggesting that the tooth fairy is needed to help fix the tea pot that is orbitting venus. Neither the tooth fairy, nor the tea pot, has been proven to actually exist. So, to suggest that two non-existant entities are working in tandem is kind of superfluous.

Evil things have been done in the name of Christianity. That is a fact.

FINALLY- we agree!! Not only HAVE evil things been done in the name of Christianity, but they CONTINUE to be carried out in the name of Christianity. What are you doing to make sure that those evil acts stop occuring?

That explains why so many are tempted to deny the existence of God.

Not even close! People who operate on reason aren't swayed by such obvious, emotional strawmen. People don't deny the existence of God becaue bad things happen to good people (no matter what you've heard). It's hard to deny something that doesn't exist. People do examine the claims of religions because of the claims that religions make. People who deny that a God exists do so because they have found no credible evidence to believe in god(s). Are you angry at the Easter Bunny for not bringing you chocolate? Of course not,...the easter bunny isn't real.

I'm not saying that this is the force behind the views you have adopted, but I suspect that it may have played a role in your abandonment of God.

I didn't abandon God. God doesn't exist. Contrary to what a lot of theists would like to believe, I really didn't have any bad experiences in church. I'm not angry with an unproven deity. That would be pointless.

If this is the case, don't let human beings sour your sentiments concerning God, and matters of faith.

Nope. Human beings are human beings. Some of them will act irresponsibly and do cruel things. Some will be rational, wonderful people. I don't let other humans "sour" my sentiments. I'm perfectly capable of looking at all of the evidence presented and forming my own opinion. And, I can do so without falling back on emotional pleas and superstition.

God is love. Once you've truly experienced the presence and love of God, your mind can present all sorts of doubts and plaguing questions, but your faith will survive any storm.

And, once you begin to buy into a fairytale or false reality, your imagination can run free and form all sorts of nifty castles in the air. That doesn't mean you should abandon reality in favor of fantasy. You're arguing for the case of God based on statements regarding how comfortable and "good" the idea of God makes you feel. Do you care if it's the truth? Do you care if it's real? If you do care, then you owe it to yourself to examine the evidence and study it objectively.

redkernhero commented: Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!
AudreyB commented:

But Random

Christians are even superior to each other!

NancyII commented: OUCH !!
adampayne commented: What an interesting blog topic. Thanks for your cogent thoughts possummomma. Nice to see another kindred spirit on the local network.
possummomma commented:

Adam - What an interesting blog topic. Thanks for your cogent thoughts possummomma. Nice to see another kindred spirit on the local network.

Thanks, Adam.

I, actuallly, got a really good response on my original blog topic. I had about seven people e-mail me (to say they'd be interested in getting together). Of course, I had some other e-mails that, let's just say, weren't so supportive. ;) But... throwing them aside, I think we may have the makings of something good here.

Essentially, what I would like is for people to e-mail me (clbedell@bak.rr.com). I'm thinking that it might be fun to do a monthly get-together, for starters. Maybe a pot-luck and play some board games, cards, or watch movies. So, if you're interested, drop me a line and I'll try and organize something. Let me know your thoughts on some possible activities and/or places to meet.

Once I get some e-mail addresses, I'll be able to keep everyone in the loop without posting on the boards (as to location times and what-not...). I helped set-up an atheist community in a suburb of Montreal and they're now doing the following activities:

1. "Godless Gamers" - board games and potluck.

2. Lecture series - Inviting people from the community to come lecture on various topics related to atheism/logic/debate/philosophy/religions/biology/anthropology. We have CSUB and BC as pools of "experts" on topics. So, this would be entirely feasible.

3. Community Service Activities that support positive atheism - canned food drives, holiday "adopt-a-family" type things, etc.,., and - in Montreal- blood drives and first aid courses.

4. "BRIGHTS" - a playgroup (of sorts) for children who are encouraged to be free-thinkers and compassionate members of society. Activities usually include getting respected ministry, professors, and/or theists who will come and present other religions in a positive light and share the cultural customs. Our children are growing up in a global society and they need to understand the beliefs of other faiths so that they may make choices regarding their own spirituality and interactions.

5. Family activities.

Again, these are just a few ideas...

ki6amd commented: Possummomma, I want to make it clear to you, that I don't feel threatened (as some might) by your openness about being atheist. I am not part of the "knee-jerk" crowd, and personally I'm equally miffed at those who have lashed out at you as I am at those who use witty remarks like "I won't teach in your church, if you don't pray in my school". Neither of these types of people are concerned with allowing freedom of/from religion. As for the boy scouts thing, it is a religiously based organization, if it weren't I might be more inclined to agree with your position on that, but personally I wouldn't join a Jewish organization and complain when I'm asked to sign an oath to not pray to Jesus, that's just silly. Nobody is stopping you from starting a non-religious version of the same type of organization.

    My personal problem with atheism stems from those who try to remove religion from people's lives. Be it the school, work or where ever, I think people should be allowed to pray. If a teacher or other faculty member wants to lead the prayer I don't see that as a problem for atheists, or people of another faith (other than the one being prayed to). Now if there's some penalty for not joining in prayer with the group I would be VERY concerned, hell, I'd even join you in protest. (That's saying a lot since most people that go to protests are people I'd rather not be around).

    With regards to our money and the pledge of allegiance.... these are national symbols and tradition. If you're offended by seeing/hearing the name (word) "God" on/in them you have the right not to use/say them. In today's world we have plastic cards that don't mention any religous figures (well, Paris Hilton might pray to "Visa", but that's her problem). Sure there are times that cash is needed, but does it really matter that much to you? Do you get sick when you touch something that has "God" printed on it? Or is it the word "we" in the phrase "In God we trust" that offends so many atheists? If so, how many atheists work at The US Mint? I'd gather none, since that's what is says in their literature.

    As for public buildings having religious quotes or references again I ask what does it hurt you? You don't want to pay for that sort of thing? The amount of money spent on plaques, etc amounts to < $0.001 per citizen so what does it matter? Do you want your money back? If so, I'll give it to you myself, as long as you do the math to figure out exactly how much of your money paid for it. Don't forget, you don't get credit for items built before you started paying taxes, or for items that aren't funded by other states' taxes or donations. Once you get the total come see me, we'll cut the penny together for your exact change.


possummomma commented:

As for the boy scouts thing, it is a religiously based organization, if it weren't I might be more inclined to agree with your position on that,...

Aye, but that is the rub, isn't it? A private, religious organization that- every year since Kindergarten (five years ago) has walked into my son's PUBLIC SCHOOL CLASSROOM and recruited. Did this private organization go around to each desk and ask, "Are you a God fearing child?" Of course not. Did this private, RELIGIOUS organization write, on their flyer, "YOU MUST BE A CHRISTIAN to join the BSA!"? No. So... tell me then...why is this private, Christian organization, that openly discriminates againsts homosexuals and non-theists, allowed to walk into my son's school and distribute information? What is the difference between THIS "religious based organization" and any church? And, by the way, you need to do some homework: the BSA was NOT a Christian organization until the 1970's and IT IS STILL secular in most nations (including England, the nation in which it was founded). And, in fact, right after the "religious oath", there's a note that says: The Boy Scouts of America do not discriminate based on race or ethnic background. It's their "Non-Discrimination Policy." Ironic, no?

I was a Girl Scout troop leader, right here in Kern County, and the Girl Scouts have no such bigotry.

Nobody is stopping you from starting a non-religious version of the same type of organization.

The point is: I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO! If they're a non-discriminatory program and advertising in public schools, then they should be open to all boys. Lord Bayden Powell, the founder of Boy Scouts didn't care about the child's religious preference (or lack of one)... and, in fact, prior to 1970, the word "God" was not even in the scout oath. FURTHERMORE, why should my ten year old son have to choose a religion, or lie about believing in God, just to be a scout? And, yes,... we were quietly told that he could sign the oath "but...not really mean it." Hmmmm...that doesn't exactly meet our standards of integrity.

My personal problem with atheism stems from those who try to remove religion from people's lives

You are painting atheism with a very wide brush. Atheism is not an organization. There are no stated goals of atheism. ATHEISTS and THEISTS, both, have voiced opposition to things that clearly violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Atheists and theists, both, signed petitions asking for the phrase "...under God" to be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Once again, communist fears were responsible for the addition of the phrase in 1954. Since atheism and communism are not the same...and there's no longer the threat of communist Russia, why do we have a pledge of allegiance that uses those words?

I don't have a problem with your practice of religion. In fact, I stand behind your right to practice it in your home, in your church, and in your private school (if you so choose). Why would I want to remove something, from your life, that obviously brings you comfort and peace? Like I said before, if religion is the only thing keeping you from being a bad person...keep your religion. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy... have at it! If you want to pray at school. Go for it! However, should your prayers interupt my child's learning time or the rest of the class, then the child's right to an education trumps your prayer time.

If a teacher or other faculty member wants to lead the prayer I don't see that as a problem for atheists, or people of another faith (other than the one being prayed to).

So...if a Muslim teacher wanted to interupt math class to slap down a mat and pray to Allah, you'd be okay with that?

If the Wiccan teacher wanted to lead fourth graders in an invocation for fertility, you'd be defending her right to do so?

If a Hindu teacher wanted to lead your child in a prayer to Vishnu, you'd fully support him/her.

If a polygamist, FLDS wanted to ask all of the children to face Hilldale Utah, raise their right hand, and pray to Warren Jeffs, you'd be alright with the teacher doing so?

Wow. I guess you are more tolerant than I am. I have a huge problem with all of the above.

Now if there's some penalty for not joining in prayer with the group I would be VERY concerned, hell, I'd even join you in protest.

Ok. So, win my children voice discomfort with being ask to pray to Allah, you'll be right there with me in the principal's office?

When my child is teased on the playground for not reciting a prayer, you'll come down and paint signs for the protest?

There are penalties for not following the herd. Children can be cruel.

Where were you when a Sikh child, in my daughter's class, was asked to sing "Silent Night"?

With regards to our money and the pledge of allegiance.... these are national symbols and tradition. If you're offended by seeing/hearing the name (word) "God" on/in them you have the right not to use/say them.

Once again, you seriously need to educate yourself as to the origins of these symbols and mottos. Until the mid-50's, the words "In God We Trust" were not on our currency. I don't actually mind the fact that they are on the money: if you need a reminder of how shaky your grasp on your faith is every time you open your wallet, then so be it. But, do not pretend that the words are there for any other reason than to quell the fears of communism. Furthermore, if we're going to honor the religious tradition of this country: we need to put a turtle, with the world on it's back, on our money. The Native Americans were here first and, if we truly want to honor our heritage, you should respect the natives.

Do you get sick when you touch something that has "God" printed on it?

Lol. Actually, ironically enough: I do get sick when I touch money. I have lupus and a compromised immune system. I don't handle cash...in fact, I don't even get to go shopping anymore.

No. I don't get sick when I touch something with the word God on it. I have several Bibles in my room, along with other theological and philosophical literature. I *do* get a bit tired of the arrogance of Christians who think their God should hold precedence over other Gods on our country's documentation and currency. I mean, if you're going to represent all of the American people (as democracies are supposed to do), then why not list ALL possible belief systems?

As for public buildings having religious quotes or references again I ask what does it hurt you?

I suppose it doesn't hurt me (physically). I've walked into several churches and came out alive. But, I have this -apparently- backwards belief that a government "of the people and for the people", that claims to be non-discriminatory and welcomes all beliefs (or non-beliefs), should maybe reflect that in practice. Again, would you be okay if public buildings put up plagues and signs that covered all of the non-Christian denominations in this country? If not, then you're being hypocritical. And, let's flip the situation around: how much would it hurt you to walk into a public building and NOT see the word God? Would you run from the building screaming? Would you be psychologically damaged beyond repair?

ki6amd commented: possummomma, "suggesting that atheism is "just another belief system like Christianity" You catch on quicker than most (thankfully), I was referring to liberalism though. Many liberals are atheists, but some (from my experiences "most") use liberal causes as a religion. You can't be liberal if you support the war in Iraq (ie: Hillary Clinton), you can't be liberal if you think we aren't the cause of global warming, you can't be liberal if you think.... I think you get the point.

    Sure not every atheist feels this way, but I dare you to a share a view point you have that doesn't share the left's major view points and see how many people show up to your meetings. I've seen what happens to people in some protests that don't share all the same view points, and from what I've seen a broken nose only means you were given a warning.

    As an outspoken conservative, many other conservatives disagree with some of my view points (ie: my stance on legal abortion, gay marriage, etc), but none of them have denounced me in the same way many liberals in Berkley have denounced Nancy Pelosi. The comparison could be made that we're in the reddest county in the state, and Berkley is in the bluest county.

    As for the reasons I support (but don't actively fight) for my more liberal view points, is because they don't directly affect me... I'm not gay, and I can't have an abortion. Sure my beliefs don't allow for homosexuality, or abortions, but because I believe that people should have freedom of/from religion, it is up to their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to decide how to live their lives. It should not be up to the government to decide, this isn't a theocracy, so laws shouldn't be based on religious values, but rather on protecting the people. It is in this spirit that I think abortion should be legal (but WELL regulated) because it does pose a health risk to women. I don't see a health risk in letting gay people get married (well it may cause harry palms on young boys if two lesbians get married, but that's a health risk that doesn't pose a major threat)
possummomma commented:

but I dare you to a share a view point you have that doesn't share the left's major view points and see how many people show up to your meetings

Actually, I must admit that I am a rare sort of atheist.

Some of my more "conservative" stances:

1. I believe that, when possible, one parent should stay at home with the children.

2. I don't support illegal immigration.

3. I am financially conservative.

4. I think that the topic of sex is ideally to be broached by the child's parents and NOT in school.

5. I believe there is too much violence on television.

6. I believe that there should be caps on welfare payouts.

7. I would, and have, voted for republicans.

Those are just the conservative, political issues I support.

Contrary to your belief that atheists don't agree on everything. Some atheists support abiogenesis. Some atheists do not believe in homosexual marriage. Some atheists believe that negative atheism. There are democratic atheists and republican atheists.

The comparison could be made that we're in the reddest county in the state, and Berkley is in the bluest county.

I would whole heartedly agree with you.

ki6amd commented: P-Momma, As far as some of the questions you asked regarding different religious practices being offered to students, I don't see the harm (so long as it doesn't interrupt class time). But if it were an every day thing where my child was asked to join in prayer (I don't have a kid, so I'm probably not in a great position to comment) and my kid said no, I would have a problem with it. I'm sure LDS families in Utah would have a problem with McD's offering Coke every time someone ordered french (freedom) fries (once is enough).

Where were you when a Sikh child, in my daughter's class, was asked to sing "Silent Night"?
Was she asked once or asked many times and made to feel bad about her choice? If the latter I would've been there, but I wasn't told about it, or asked to help in any way.

Ok. So, win my children voice discomfort with being ask to pray to Allah, you'll be right there with me in the principal's office?
Again, if it was a question asked everyday, I would be there, more so if it interrupted class time, but if asked only once (or twice, if the teacher is as forgetful as I am) I would let it slide. Now if they were told to pray to Allah, I'd have to borrow a used rusty pitchfork, groan, and limp (Night of the Living Dead style) all the way to the district office with a torch light in my free hand (even during the day).

When my child is teased on the playground for not reciting a prayer, you'll come down and paint signs for the protest?
I would first talk to the parents of the other kid(s), but if that doesn't work and the school backs the other kid (and punishes ONLY your kid if there's a "problem") call me Van Gogh. I might refer you to a recent post about a Mormon girl who was punished for using the phrase "That's so gay" when she was first insulted with "Don't you have 10 moms?"

Again, would you be okay if public buildings put up plagues and signs that covered all of the non-Christian denominations in this country?
As long as it wasn't written in blood or feces I would probably be okay with it.

How much would it hurt you to walk into a public building and NOT see the word God? None at all. Actually I don't notice many of the plaques on public buildings that do have references to God. Would you run from the building screaming? Only if it smelled like feces (or worse) inside. Would you be psychologically damaged beyond repair? I have so many good replies for this question but they're all R rated (or worse), so I'll just say "No"
sfinboston52 commented:

If my VP of my org at my company decided to start each weekly staff meeting w/ a prayer or having morning prayer mtgs before w/ fellow christians, I would be concerned. I would have become odd man out and in turn this could hurt my position w/in the department, since I dont join in. Luckly that is not the case.

NancyII commented:

Anyone see the irony in this statement?

"Did he tell *YOU* he was speaking of different religions? The Founding Fathers would be horrified by the Istook Amendment."

Woof..you were on the money when you said you know why I don't get involved in these discussions. Have you learned anything new? Every now and then someone drags religion (or lack of) out and gives it a thorough thrashing. Heh...samo samo.

NancyII commented:

Try this site on for size...it should have something for everyone.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm

And from this site (among others)..

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

randomfactor commented: What, the religionists can conjure up the dead spirits of the Founding Fathers (and misquote them and misrepresent their beliefs) but atheists can't?
randomfactor commented:

Ki6 wrote:

"If so, how many atheists work at The US Mint? I'd gather none, since that's what is says in their literature. "

Cite please.

Where's the inscription at the City Hall which says "About ten percent of us *DON'T* trust in God"? I presume you'll be happy to place that right underneath the other motto? It'll only cost you a penny or so.

randomfactor commented:

As to the penalty for not mumbling along with a high-school-directed prayer:

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/smalko3.htm

I presume you're outraged at this, Ki6.

sfinboston52 commented: I remember a kid who was an atheist when I was in 2nd grade. US christians kids called him fag, commie and any other remark. HE was told repeatedly he was going to hell. As an adult I regret what I did to this poor kid. The teachers didnt do anything to help or protect him and this was in the earlier 70's.
woofwoof commented: Ok, so now what do I do? If I have to go to court and put my hand on the bible: I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me *WHO*?
NancyII commented:

Ah yes RF..but you were taking him to task while doing the same thing. None of can know what would have had the founding fathers turning in their graves....we can only guess.

We live in different times than they did, who's to say what would have happened it that were not so? The fight for freedom, commerce, and religion was just beginning and conditions were different. When schools had prayer in those days, where were the protests? Where were the marches? They didn't have mass media to help spread the word (either word) so who can say how many people agreed with, or disagreed with the constitution then? Or the prayer in school issue? What changed?

Remember that almost all functions in those days were centered around churches. Town meetings, socials, even schools doing double duty as churches. If you're going to decide what those people would think now, or what they meant, you need to include the lifestyle of the times too.

We may not have been founded on religion but it sure played a huge part in their lives. Come to think of it..it still does today.

Gotta go..I'll have to check back tonight. Duty calls...gotta pay the bills you know.

(Sorry woofwoof..I failed you and got in it after all...lol)

randomfactor commented:

They don't use a Bible, Woofwoof. I've been there. You just have to say "I do" at the end. Everyone lies about part of it, it's no more meaningful than the marriage vow. :) Remember in "Oh, God," where George Burns swears "So help Me, Me"?

Lots of alternatives abound--might be fun to insist on one of the alternatives. Can't find it right now, but there's a (religious) oath that involves breaking a china saucer and reflecting on the result...

randomfactor commented: Of course I was, Nancy. Showing that two can play the same game. It's enough that *I* am outraged by the Istook Fiasco and can explain why. Unless you're a SCOTUS judge looking for "original intent," anything else is "appeal to authority."
talkofthetown commented: Possum,
   The reason I brought up the beginning of the universe was I subscribe to the Prime Mover theory — someone started it all.
But forget that.

    Let's go to Jesus Christ. Do you believe he existed? Do you believe in the resurrection?

   I do. Here is one report on the reason why.

In a nutshell, the report describes the reasons why the Roman soldiers would be too afraid to leave their post at the tomb; the 500 people who saw Jesus after his death; the confirmation from people who hated Jesus; the transformation of the apostles after they saw Jesus; the authenticity of documents that report these things.

    P.S. The other Biblical issues I raised can be another topic so I will dispense with them for now and stick to your topic.

Posted by Steve E. Swenson
randomfactor commented:

TotT, all the reports you cite are from a minimum of 30 years after the fact, heavily redacted and edited to support the party line. Nobody who actually met Jesus wrote a Gospel.

I believe he existed, died and did not rise again.

woofwoof commented: Why is there always a problem with the difference of, Jesus Christ the man, and a diety?
redkernhero commented:

If liberals and aethists had their way the plaque above Jacquie Sullivan’s head in they City Council Chambers would read “The Devil Made Me Do IT” not “In God We Trust” and that would not be accurate, would it?

randomfactor commented: Because they built the religion around the myth, and not the man. Paul was, at heart, a salesman--and salesmen love the flashy packages more than the installed features.
mattloch commented: Ki6amd, (one of) the problem(s) with your argument has consistently been that when teachers do anything in the classroom, it automatically becomes "government sanctioned". Go no further than the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision to see where the courts have upheld the idea that teachers cannot become advocates for religious acts in the classroom.

P.S. I'm glad to see you're no longer saying that there's no Constitutional separation between church and state. I'm not sure why you said that in the first place, but I'm not sure why you say 99% of what you do say.
sagefever commented: To my mind there is something, a known something and a unknown known something, then there are known unknowns that we do not know...well you get the idea. Whatever dogma that gets a human being through this world is fine and dandy with me.I am a eternal girl scout in that I like to leave the campground cleaner than I found it.I know enough to realize how little I can be sure of for myself,let alone any of you.Many physicists and Zen Masters agree on the flow of matter,energy in the universe.How vast and intricate is our current reality and our view.Happy sailing fellow travelers.
randomfactor commented:

No, it wouldn't, RKH. Because there's no more a Devil than there is a God.

Now, "The Tooth Fairy Made Me Do It" is somewhat plausible. I've actually gotten cold hard cash from the Tooth Fairy.

woofwoof commented:

This blog was started to find out if people wanted to get together to talk about doing something good as a group, who have the similar beliefs about atheism. Not to discus whether Jesus Christ existed or not.....

woofwoof commented: The tooth fairy(ies) leave notes at our house.....wait till they find out it was me the whole time.....I can see them pointing their fingers at me screaming, LIAR! (that'll be a sad day *sniff*) Some favorite toothfairy names have been, Fred, Frank, Selma, Ethel.....not all fairies are girls, ya know!
josephschmow commented: I'm surprised that nobody has figured out who RedKernHero is yet.
ki6amd commented: RF, after reading the article you pointed to, "Atheists file civil right suit in 'Oaklahoma Outrage'", I'll put it it lightly....I was a somewhat in an outrage myself, BUT when I saw the artcle refer to potential jurors opinions it cooled the waters a little bit. An artcle that is obviously biased could be exaggerating on other facts too. (I am not talking about the bias of it being from an atheist site, but the fact that they talk about POTENTIAL jurors who didn't make the cut. It would be nice to see an article that wasn't as biased, but given what I've read, I am still pissed. Having been through the Bible belt MANY times I know first hand how ignorant some people can be about what they preach.

I once worked for a comany in Tennessee that was owned by some Bible thumpers that actually had a chapel in their office building. I used to get looks because I didn't show up for services on Sunday when I was at the main office. I actually had someone look for me to see if I was okay (because I wasn't in the chapel when services started). When they found I was reading my Bible alone instead of going to services, the looks didn't stop, but they were a little less worried looks. (Personally I don't like the way most churches run themselves. There is a long story there...

Personally I used to go to church every Sunday, but then we got a new pastor who shared a new light on the church, that I wasn't going along with, there were certain flaws in his statements that I wouldn't let stand so I talked to him about it. Being quite young at the time I quit going to church out of rebellion against the pastor. I did try other churches, but noticed the much of the same flaws. Without going into too much detail I had the same opinions of the Bible you might have about it. I started looking at different faiths as you may have done and came to realize (and notice) there was a God, and there was a Jesus, and there were many other people who put pen to paper to write the Bible, they were all as fallible as you and me, so I had to look at the overall message of God's and Jesus' (no I don't think Jesus was God in human form) teachings to find out what passage might be more correct than others. I didn't stop at the Bible either, I looked to the Book of Mormon and others too. (Not just Christian beliefs), while there were MANY things that were quite contradictory, there were also MANY similarities. I don't think God chose middle easterners as his only group of people to speak to, I think that some have misunderstood his words/messages. I don't claim to know everything, and I don't think that would be possible. I still question my understanding of God (and certainly other's understanding of him), but I don't question if he exists.
steveeswenson commented: Sorry. Didn't realize I was signed on as TofT. Meant to do that under my name.

And when the accounts were written doesn't detract from their authenticity.
randomfactor commented:

One problem is that the closer the origin of the religion (say LDS or Scientology) the less time they've had to edit out the mistakes and the less plausible it seems.

All religions would benefit from the same kind of inquiry that scientific thought has to go through. But few could withstand it.

randomfactor commented:

Steve, it wouldn't bother you that someone reported conversations, word-for-word, that your grandfather had with his friends--despite the writer's not being alive when they occurred?

We're not talking things which were videotaped for later study. We're talking repeated rumor.

blognroll commented:

My prior comment: We disagree on the source of goodness. I don't think humans are incapable of doing good. After all, we are created in the image of God.

Possum's prior reply: What is your proof for this assertion? Because, if you have scientific evidence that proves man was "created" (let alone by God), then you're probably going to win a Nobel Prize. Your statement is based on a belief and an ancient book. Those are not evidentiary support for your claim.

My present response: The only prize I may desire is a Grammy. I'm not interested in a Nobel Prize, because the powers that be who offer such awards seem to be politically motivated in their selections. Coming to think of it, the Grammys are no different (Dixie Chicks?)

Furthermore, I don't offer proof for adamant atheists because I believe all the proof in the world won't convince their souls to become more aware of their spiritual surroundings, and all the proof in the world is not enough to humble them, and get them to acknowledge that they might not be their own gods.

My prior comment: However, I believe that we are all damaged goods. We need a savior to redeem us, and without that restorative, redemptive power, our good deeds are done in vain.

Possommama's reply: At the genetic level, you're right! We are all "damaged" and constantly progressing towards "irreperable" by death. But, it has nothing to do with a deity. We do not need a magic savior to redeem us... I've not done anything that requires redemption. Original sin is a man-made concept. If you need a mystical stamp of approval on all of your good deeds, then I actually pity you. What a depressing world view.

My present reply: You seem to consistently want to apply the term "magic" to a belief in a supernatural ultimate cause in an ostensible attempt to marginalize those who believe in God. In fact, what is a prime example of magical thinking, is the notion that none of this was caused----that life just appeared out of nowhere---that extremely complex organisms, magically someone just formed themselves.

Original sin is not a man-made concept, it is a man-made condition that we all need to be redeemed from. And I don't need a mystical stamp of approval on my good deeds. The Bible makes clear that "...all of our righteousness is as filthy rags." I need a savior. We all need a savior. Acknowledging that is not depressing. Discovering a savior is extremely liberating and exhilarating. "The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of eternal life is ours through Jesus Christ our Lord." This is indeed, cause for celebration, not sorrow.

My prior statement: God demands moral perfection.

Possommama's reply: Again, you're making claims and you haven't yet demonstrated your proof of God. Furthermore, the Christian God is hardly an exemplary role model of moral perfection. The God of the Christian Bible was an atrocious monster who isn't worthy of worship. Even if you proved a God's existence, you have to further prove that he/she/it deserves the adolation.

My present reply: Once again, I don't even attempt to offer "proof" to adamant atheists. I believe that the opinions we feel strongly about are not based in logic or reason. They are formed on the basis of emotionally-charged experience. I believe the acknowledgement of the possibility of a God is a matter of the heart, not a matter of the head. No proof is proof enough for the adamant atheist because their hearts are not open to the possibility of a God other than themselves as gods.

In fact, there is nothing, even in the world of science that can be proven once and for all---definitively, now and forever. Those who believe in science, and those who believe in God (I happen to believe in both) all must base their beliefs on faith.

My prior statement: None of us are capable of moral perfection, so we need a savior and we need his blood to cover our imperfections.

Possomamma's reply: Of course no one is capable of "moral perfection". The concept of moral perfection is relative. It doesn't exist. Suggesting that you need a savior to cover your imperfections is akin to suggesting that the tooth fairy is needed to help fix the tea pot that is orbitting venus. Neither the tooth fairy, nor the tea pot, has been proven to actually exist. So, to suggest that two non-existant entities are working in tandem is kind of superfluous.

My present reply: Once again, you are resorting to diminishing the beliefs of believers with a marginalizing technique. This time you are bringing in fairy tales as a hyperbole to render the rest of us ridiculous in our assumptions. Once again, what more closely approximates magical thinking is the notion that somehow this universe just put itself together randomly.

My prior comment: Evil things have been done in the name of Christianity. That is a fact.

Possummama's reply: FINALLY- we agree!! Not only HAVE evil things been done in the name of Christianity, but they CONTINUE to be carried out in the name of Christianity. What are you doing to make sure that those evil acts stop occuring?

My present response: I am trying to hold up the real Jesus for people to see, that's what I am doing. I am trying to do this, not only through my words, but through my example. I try to show love, even to those who would position themselves as my enemies. I fall short consistently, because not only am I a doubting believer, but also a stumbling follower, but to the extent that I open my heart to the love that Jesus freely gives, I am able to do my part in countering evil in the world.

My previous comment: That explains why so many are tempted to deny the existence of God.

Possumma's reply: Not even close! People who operate on reason aren't swayed by such obvious, emotional strawmen. People don't deny the existence of God becaue bad things happen to good people (no matter what you've heard). It's hard to deny something that doesn't exist. People do examine the claims of religions because of the claims that religions make. People who deny that a God exists do so because they have found no credible evidence to believe in god(s). Are you angry at the Easter Bunny for not bringing you chocolate? Of course not,...the easter bunny isn't real.

My present reply: I disagree. I believe that those things that we feel strongly about are not built upon reason, but upon emotionally-charged events or personal experiences. We then look for logical, reasonable ways of supporting our strong feelings. As for the reference to the Easter Bunny, it's another example of how you try to make Christians look ridiculous and you try to marginalize believers with references to fairly tales and the like. Once again, magical thinking seems like a better explanation for those who believe that the universe somehow put itself together and there was no cause or impetus behind it.

My prior statement: I'm not saying that this is the force behind the views you have adopted, but I suspect that it may have played a role in your abandonment of God.

Possummama's reply: I didn't abandon God. God doesn't exist. Contrary to what a lot of theists would like to believe, I really didn't have any bad experiences in church. I'm not angry with an unproven deity. That would be pointless.

My present reply: I can't read your mind and I can't know your heart, but I believe that those things we feel passionately about are born of emotion, not thought.

My prior statement: If this is the case, don't let human beings sour your sentiments concerning God, and matters of faith.

Possummama's reply: Nope. Human beings are human beings. Some of them will act irresponsibly and do cruel things. Some will be rational, wonderful people. I don't let other humans "sour" my sentiments. I'm perfectly capable of looking at all of the evidence presented and forming my own opinion. And, I can do so without falling back on emotional pleas and superstition.

My present reply: Once again, you've made an attempt to marginalize believers by your use of the term "superstition." I believe that you are "perfectly capable of looking at the evidence and forming (your opinion)," but I believe that you have closed your mind, and your heart, to any sort of divine revelation and therefore you don't have access to a wisdom that goes far beyond human understanding. That sort of wisdom is acquired through humility, a humility that produces the awareness that I may not have all the answers, that there may be a truth that is greater than what the human mind is capable of capturing.

My prior statement: God is love. Once you've truly experienced the presence and love of God, your mind can present all sorts of doubts and plaguing questions, but your faith will survive any storm.

Possumma's reply: And, once you begin to buy into a fairytale or false reality, your imagination can run free and form all sorts of nifty castles in the air. That doesn't mean you should abandon reality in favor of fantasy. You're arguing for the case of God based on statements regarding how comfortable and "good" the idea of God makes you feel. Do you care if it's the truth? Do you care if it's real? If you do care, then you owe it to yourself to examine the evidence and study it objectively.

My present reply: Once again, you've attempted to marginalize and render ridiculous those who believe in a divine cause by associating our beliefs with fairy tales and with wild imaginations. You are basically saying, from a condescending posture, that we are all "out there," and that you are the reasonable one. It is represents a rigid intolerance towards those who don't share your beliefs. This comes across as a bigoted and arrogant point of view.

steveeswenson commented: When Paul wrote his, he noted that there were many people who were still alive.

He used to persecute Christians until he saw the light. He had a great motive to blast the alleged resurection myth.

And the gospel writers independently wrote very similar accounts.

So, no, in the context of the time these things happened, it doesn't bother me.
randomfactor commented:

But he himself never saw Jesus--and he had great motive to PUSH the resurrection myth--it put Jesus on an equal footing with several competing religions. Without that, he was just a prophet.

How independently? What's been added or taken away in the intervening centuries by well-meaning (or not) redactors. And there are serious contradictions of fact between some (such as how Jesus came to be in Bethlehem, for one.)

mattloch commented: BLT, not to speak for possummomma (who is doing an awesome job in here, by the way), but I believe that "magic" would be a fair description of religious beliefs and dogma, and not hyperbole in the least. Trying to twist evolution around by saying the same term could describe it is wrong at even the most basic level: evolution is a scientific concept, and as such can be proven (or disproven) using verifiable methods. As such, it is one of the most evidenced and stable theories (in the scientific sense) that we currently have. Saying "God spoke and the Earth was created" is the textbook definition of "magic". It is no more verifiable or testable than any other religious creation story. You can make your statements about "souls", "sin", and other religious concepts, but when you try to attack evolution you're moving from the emotional (as you yourself admit your beliefs are) and trying to use the same standards for matters of the head. Why do you feel using "head" standards for "heart" matters is (rightfully) inconsistent, but the reverse is not then true as well?
robbwillis commented:

"...what more closely approximates magical thinking is the notion that somehow this universe just put itself together randomly. "

Speaking of the universe, one of the keys to the good deal we have going here on planet Earth is the massive object that crashed into the Earth and later became our moon. Tides, weather, seasons, heavy metals near the surface, etc. are a few of the goodies we have as a direct result of this event.

Would you consider this a divine stroke or random luck?

woofwoof commented: BLT....there can be spirituality without god.
randomfactor commented:

But the question is why "spirituality" is considered a good thing in itself.

Robb. I'd consider it random luck myself--but those who think "God did it" should have to explain why He couldn't get it right the *FIRST* time.

mattloch commented: Woof, another example is "the Force".
woofwoof commented: May it be with you Mattloch...and all of us. RF, ahh, good food for thought!
ki6amd commented: We do all know what Steven Hawking most recently said? The universe came from nothing (not some tiny "thing" as previously thought).

Video available [Real Player required]
randomfactor commented: Ki6, the "tiny thing" came from nothing.
ki6amd commented: Random, not quite... watch the video
possummomma commented:

Pot, meet Kettle.

It's not about being "humbled". It's about the appeal to emotion and "It makes me feel good", rather than "This can be proven with emperical evidence." You don't have to present me with "all of the proof in the world", you very simply have to give me a reasonable, scientific proof of God's existence. As far as not being my own god, I don't think I ever made the claim that I was my own God. I'm sorry if you're misunderstood my words and twisted them around to make opposing atheism justifiable in your head. Oh and,...since you want to play by the Christian rules: isn't desiring a Grammy breaking several deadly sins? Pride? Envy? It's kind of ironic that you would say that *I* need to be humbled, but here you are gunning for a Grammy. :)

You seem to consistently want to apply the term "magic" to a belief in a supernatural ultimate cause in an ostensible attempt to marginalize those who believe in God.

I don't make such analogies to marginalize YOUR belief, but to point out the silliness of the claim. If you don't want your faith "marginalized", then stop making claims that it has the power to do "magical" or "miraculous" things.

that life just appeared out of nowhere---that extremely complex organisms, magically someone just formed themselves.

You clearly don't understand my view on origination of complex organism...nor science's view.

To discuss the origins of the universe, you need to understand the basic concepts of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, and biology. Physics tells us that the universe emerged about 14 billion years ago...and all matter in the universe was condensed into one single point of energy. Is that God? Maybe... but, I've not seen proof of that, yet. That single point of energy was under immense pressure. All of that pressure was so great that it released all of it's stored up energy in a giant explosion. This is what scientists refer to as the big bang theory. Do you remember that old equation E=MC(squared)? If mass is accelerated to high enough speeds, it will become energy. Inversely, should energy be slowed down, it will slow into matter. Just about as soon as the Big Bang happened, matter began to form, as the energy slowed, into particulates. The forces of this explosion, and the forces in these particles themselves, bonded to create larger particles. These were the first sub-atomic particles. They settled into objects known as atoms: hydrogen, lithium, and deuterium atoms.

So...far from a magical explanation. This is actually a scientifically testable and proven explanation for the origins of the universe. We know how particles and matter react when taken apart and put back together. We know how atoms are formed and how to monkey with them.

While all of this is happening, the universe is still expanding from the force of the first explosion. The laws of gravity state that all matter is attracted to other matter. Hydrogen atoms, particularly, LOVE this law. They congregate to form vast clouds. Two forces work on the hydrogen atoms simultaneously: one that propelled them further into space and one that caused them to further gravitate towards each other. The force of gravity always falls toward the center of the object, which results in tremendous amounts of pressure at the core of these hydrogen clouds. When the pressure gets high enough, the hydrogen atoms fuse to one another to form a heavier atom we call helium (look at your periodic table). When this happens, though, not all of the mass is retained within the helium. Some of the mass is still lost as energy which then radiates outward in the forms of light and heat. Our sun is a perfect example of this process.

After that sun (and many others) is formed, after millions of years of grooving hydrogen atoms, it begins fusing it's heavier, Helium element. When helium atoms fuse, they become heavier elements of carbon. As this process continues, you get newer, heavier atoms and elements. After a star depletes it's fusible matter, it becomes unstable and results in a supernova. (another explosion). This throws all of those new elements into the still expanding universe with more great force.

At this point, we could go into chemistry...and start talking about the origin of single celled organisms. But, I suspect I've lost half of you, already.

The important point to note is that I am, in no way, being "just as magical" as believers who say, "God did it." I have a greater than passing understand of the way physics operates and feel that that data is a better explanation than "God did it."

Once again, what more closely approximates magical thinking is the notion that somehow this universe just put itself together randomly.

I think I just gave you proof that it did not happen "randomly". Random is a word that theists like to throw in to try to draw attention away from the actual principles of science. The universe is far from random: that still doesn't prove your God. I've given you a soupcon' of explanation for my thoughts on the origins of the universe, but please tell me how your God did it. Oh. Wait. The Bible says, "God did it."

Again, you clearly misunderstand the most basic concepts regarding the scientific method and evidence. Scientists do not believe their evidence on faith, they believe because they have a reasonable expectation, supported by duplicitous testing and observation, that a something is likely to occur. That's not faith.

Once again, I don't even attempt to offer "proof" to adamant atheists.

Of course you don't.

I believe that those things that we feel strongly about are not built upon reason, but upon emotionally-charged events or personal experiences. We then look for logical, reasonable ways of supporting our strong feelings.

That might be the way that most theists operate, but it's not the way I operate. And, no scientist starts any experiment with a stated goal in mind. That's the forte' of creationists and intelligent designers. They presume to know the end and work backwards. Real scientists make an observation of the world and ask a question. Then, they form a hypothesis for how that phenomena might work. Then, they test that hypothesis by setting up an experiment. Then, they observe and record the data. They use that data to draw a conclusion, which is then presented to other scientists to pick apart and re-test.

but I believe that you have closed your mind, and your heart, to any sort of divine revelation and therefore you don't have access to a wisdom that goes far beyond human understanding.

Wow. it took you less than two days to write my soul off forever. Kudos! That's rather judgmental of you.

Actually, if your God wants to come down and make reasonable demonstrations that prove his existence, then I'd most certainly take a look. My mind is actually very open. I have actually stated, repeatedly, that I believe there are things not yet known or explained. The difference, between you and I, is that I'm not asking people to sign up to a "God of the Gaps" mentality. I willingly admit: I don't know everything and science doesn't have all the answers. That still doesn't mean "God did it."

randomfactor commented:

He also said he thought we'd be able to TEST his idea. That takes it out of the realm of religion and into science.

I believe 'brane theory says the universe originated as a crash between two multidimensions membranes. Hawking's "bubbles" could be a poetic way of saying that. (Can't watch the video at the moment, but will get back to it. Apparently no transcripts, drat.)

randomfactor commented: Possummomma, I'm sure God's got *MY* cell-phone number if he wants to give me a call...
ki6amd commented: Random, I found the transcript for you... (the jokes are only funny with the video though)

HTML version can be found here.

P-Momma, sorry to contradict what you talked about earlier (E=MC^2), but the latest Hawking theory talks about the "tiny thing" comming from nothing. (I'm a HUGE science fan too). The video is in my previous post, as is a short summary. The transcript from his talk @ Berkley is above too.
xiomberg commented:

Hi possummomma, my but you seem to have stirred up a hornets nest. It seems some people are REALLY touchy when one dares state they don't find any evidence for believing in god(s). I wish you luck in getting an atheist group going here in Kern, the county really needs one.

Love your blog.

Love,

Natasha

randomfactor commented:

Thanks, I found it myself (badly formatted) and was about to post it here. I don't see anything particularly new in it, but then it's geared-down to very low levels for people like me.

I've sent in an e-mail query to my favorite ex-astrophysicist (who happens to live in the Berkeley area and might have been at the lecture) to see whether there's any change in underlying theory implied by what Hawking said.

robbwillis commented:

"After that sun (and many others) is formed, after millions of years of grooving hydrogen atoms, it begins fusing it's heavier, Helium element. When helium atoms fuse, they become heavier elements of carbon. As this process continues, you get newer, heavier atoms and elements. After a star depletes it's fusible matter, it becomes unstable and results in a supernova. (another explosion). This throws all of those new elements into the still expanding universe with more great force."

Another interesting "element" of this is that the original star's core gets down to iron when it supernovas. Before this point, there are no heavier elements. Gold, silver, lead, platinum, etc. are created through the atom smashing that takes place in the explosion. This is the proof that our sun and solar system are second generation. Without these second generation elements, which are in our very bodies, life is impossible.

I have no problem with anyone believing their God touched this off, but it seems more likely the God would have been checking the results of an unstoppable process. "Hey, looks like Eden will work out here." Too many complications for me, but if it floats your religion boat, go for it.

possummomma commented:

P-Momma, sorry to contradict what you talked about earlier (E=MC^2), but the latest Hawking theory talks about the "tiny thing" comming from nothing. (I'm a HUGE science fan too). The video is in my previous post, as is a short summary. The transcript from his talk @ Berkley is above too.

I am, too, very familiar with the Hawkings' paradox. Fortunately, for my argument, everything I have described above is unrelated to his paradox. Steven Hawkings addresses the nature of blackholes, not the origins of our universe, solar system, and- untilmately- our earth. Nor does the mistake he found in his own science effect the science that I spoke of in the explanation I gave of how this universe came to be. Surely, you would know that.

I wasn't giving a summation of Hawkings theories. I was giving my own answer to the argument that theists often pose about their wrongful assertion that atheists belief everything happened "randomly".

Hawkings speech at Berkley changed some small points of clarification for what happens inside a black hole. He did not re-write the laws of physics.

ki6amd commented: Steven Hawkings addresses the nature of blackholes, not the origins of our universe, solar system, and- untilmately- our earth...
...Hawkings speech at Berkley changed some small points of clarification for what happens inside a black hole.

Actually the speech I linked to had VERY little to do with black holes and MORE to to with the creation of the universe and solar systems (and the nature of time). This speech was given only a week ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Renowned Cosmologist Draws Sold-Out Crowd

BY Andrea Lu

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Last night, nearly 3,000 people received a mini lesson on the origin of the universe from perhaps the world’s most famous cosmologist, Stephen Hawking.

Hawking spoke to a packed audience in Zellerbach Hall about how Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity and quantum theory explained the creation of the universe.

Full article

possummomma commented:

This speech was given only a week ago.
Yes. I realize that... and the transcript was available within hours of the speech on the internet.

This happened to be my favorite quote: In fact, this question would arise even if the histories of the universe went back to the infinite past. But it is more immediate if the universe began only 15 billion years ago. The problem of what happens at the beginning of time, is a bit like the question of what happened at the edge of the world, when people thought the world was flat. Is the world a flat plate, with the sea pouring over the edge. I have tested this experimentally. I have been round the world, and I have not fallen off. "

I was similarly fond of this comment: "This means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe, was like the south pole of the Earth , with degrees of latitude, playing the role of time. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe, would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole.

Time, as measured in degrees of latitude, would have a beginning at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point, at least so I have been told. I have been to Antarctica, but not to the South Pole.

The same laws of Nature hold at the South Pole, as in other places. This would remove the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning, that it would be a place where the normal laws broke down. The beginning of the universe, would be governed by the laws of science."

The explanation I gave, above, as to why I believe the universe was formed not by God, but but the laws of nature and scientifically explainable phenomena is NOT, in any way, harmed or less accurate by virtue of Hawking's speech. In fact, Hawking is adding more credibility to the idea.

Another quote: "The irregularities in the early universe, will mean that some regions will have slightly higher density than others. The gravitational attraction of the extra density, will slow the expansion of the region, and can eventually cause the region to collapse to form galaxies and stars. So look well at the map of the microwave sky. It is the blue print for all the structure in the universe. We are the product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe. God really does play dice."

I suspect that you are clinging to this last, bolded part, as a proof for your God. I hate to tell you that Hawking is an incredibly funny guy! I've sat in on one of his lectures and was bowled over by his sense of humor. Hawking was not proving God's existence. He was addressing the "God did it" creationists and poking a little fun at their claims that the universe happened at random. Hawkings is saying "of course there is some differences in the way things form...so what? They all adhear to the same basic principles of physics."

randomfactor commented:

Ki6, it's important to note that Hawking doesn't say the Universe was created by God--that wouldn't be science, unless you're prepared to say what created God.

possummomma commented:

Ki6, it's important to note that Hawking doesn't say the Universe was created by God--that wouldn't be science, unless you're prepared to say what created God.

Precisely.

steveeswenson commented: In the small world department, Ms. Possum, you will be amused that we have a woman here who doesn't believe in God.
Her name — clbedell.

Christine Louise.

So I'm thinking, it's more of a name thing. ;=)
randomfactor commented:

"Christine," "follower of Christ."

"Louise," "reknowned figher."

ki6amd commented:

Many scientists are still unhappy with the universe having a beginning, because it seemed to imply
that physics broke down. One would have to invoke an outside agency, which for convenience one can
call God, to determine how the universe began.
--Oops!

	Even Hawking addresses the question of whether science can create something (the universe)
from nothing (south of the south pole).

randomfactor commented:

Science cannot create--it can only study what's already there. "South of the South Pole" is a semantic nonsequitur like "before the beginning of time." It sounds more significant than it is.

As to scientists being "unhappy," well, Einstein went to his grave convinced that Quantum Mechanics was wrong, because he didn't like its implications. Darwin held off publishing for years because he knew what the truth about evolution would do to organized religion. If the singularity at the start of the universe is "inconvenient," it remains--what's that term again? Oh, yes: "An inconvenient truth."

(Apparently 'brane theory, unlike competitors, doesn't have to stop at the singularity, but goes right past it with a "whooshing" sound. )

randomfactor commented:

Actually, while "science" can't create, scientists obviously can. It's be observed that human beings have already created conditions which (so far as we know) never existed naturally in the Universe before we came along.

Maybe *WE* created the Universe.

blognroll commented:

She: Pot, meet Kettle.

Me, now: This is getting fun. Too bad I'm stuck with a day job. If I am the pot, then lets get together and make bong hits for Jesus. All kidding aside: When has science definitively proven anything?

I am a scientist, though some would consider psychology a "soft" science. I have yet to come across a scientific study that didn't have a margin of error attached to the results. Moreover, most studies, once believed to be the definitive answer turn out to be refuted down the road. Furthermore, that fact that something feels good does not necessarily mean there is no evidence to support it. Some things are too beautiful not to be true, like the arrival of a savior.

But, as I've stated, I don't waste my time with intellectual arguments to prove the existence of God. I truly believe that this is a battle of the heart and of the soul. You are clearly emotionally invested in this issue and the passion that you apply to the subject matter suggests that you have been persuaded by the outcome of an emotional struggle within your soul, not an intellectual one. As for the Grammy desire, if it is a sin, and if it is shallow and vain to want a Grammy, I would not be surprised. If I was being hypocritical, I am not surprised by that either. It is my nature to sin. That's what I do best. I was born in sin. Without Jesus, I would be a lost cause. I get to cloth myself in his righteousness. It's part of my inheritance as a child of God. It's a free gift, and I'm taking advantage of it.

Me, earlier today: You seem to consistently want to apply the term "magic" to a belief in a supernatural ultimate cause in an ostensible attempt to marginalize those who believe in God.

She: I don't make such analogies to marginalize YOUR belief, but to point out the silliness of the claim. If you don't want your faith "marginalized", then stop making claims that it has the power to do "magical" or "miraculous" things.

Me, now: Now you're splitting hairs. Your desire to marginalize my faith is conspicuously transparent. Why should I stop making claims of miraculous things. Don't you see anything miraculous in the birth of a brand new baby? Don't you see anything miraculous when you see the wondrous beauty in nature? Don't you see anything miraculous in the way that gang members who were once bitter enemies reconcile with one another and become the best of friends? Don't you see anything miraculous in witnessing a person once filled with bitterness and hatred beginning to show a deep compassion for his fellow human beings? You can't put love or beauty in a test tube. Like the divine presence of God, you must experience them and you must have a deep appreciation for their miraculous nature.

Me, earlier today: ...that life just appeared out of nowhere---that extremely complex organisms, magically someone just formed themselves.

She: You clearly don't understand my view on origination of complex organism...nor science's view.

Me, now: Do you see the condescending, patronizing sentiment conspicuously apparent in this statement?

She: To discuss the origins of the universe, you need to understand the basic concepts of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, and biology. Physics tells us that the universe emerged about 14 billion years ago...and all matter in the universe was condensed into one single point of energy. Is that God? Maybe... but, I've not seen proof of that, yet. That single point of energy was under immense pressure. All of that pressure was so great that it released all of it's stored up energy in a giant explosion. This is what scientists refer to as the big bang theory. Do you remember that old equation E=MC(squared)? If mass is accelerated to high enough speeds, it will become energy. Inversely, should energy be slowed down, it will slow into matter. Just about as soon as the Big Bang happened, matter began to form, as the energy slowed, into particulates. The forces of this explosion, and the forces in these particles themselves, bonded to create larger particles. These were the first sub-atomic particles. They settled into objects known as atoms: hydrogen, lithium, and deuterium atoms.

Me, now: When we say something has to be "proven" in accordance with laws we have adopted, and when we say that a given phenomenon has to be subject to the laws of science to be true, then we become involved in a circular, and therefore, absurd argument. IE: It can't be true, because my definition of truth is that it has to be scientifically verifiable. Furthermore, not every stage of the scientific process involves pure science. Coming up with a hypothesis involves brainstorming and guessing, clearly not phenomena that would fit under the category of "pure science."

When we look through the eyes of science, and dismiss all other ways of knowing about the universe under the rubric of "fairy tales," then our wisdom and our knowledge will be restricted accordingly. Furthermore, what you've issued are theories, based on what was apparent at the time the theories were established. In science, we only know what appears to be the case at the moment of our observation, given our limited access to wisdom and knowledge. The "purely scientific" observations have further been tainted by our very presence as an "objective" observer. There have been frequent paradigm shifts in science in which what was once deemed scientifically verifible fact becomes fiction in the face of a brand new, profound finding.

She: While all of this is happening, the universe is still expanding from the force of the first explosion. The laws of gravity state that all matter is attracted to other matter. Hydrogen atoms, particularly, LOVE this law. They congregate to form vast clouds. Two forces work on the hydrogen atoms simultaneously: one that propelled them further into space and one that caused them to further gravitate towards each other. The force of gravity always falls toward the center of the object, which results in tremendous amounts of pressure at the core of these hydrogen clouds. When the pressure gets high enough, the hydrogen atoms fuse to one another to form a heavier atom we call helium (look at your periodic table). When this happens, though, not all of the mass is retained within the helium. Some of the mass is still lost as energy which then radiates outward in the forms of light and heat. Our sun is a perfect example of this process.

At this point, we could go into chemistry...and start talking about the origin of single celled organisms. But, I suspect I've lost half of you, already.

Me, now: On the contrary, you haven't lost me (quite an arrogant and condescending assumption I must say), you've lost sight of the fact that your understanding of the our current state of affairs is based on a theory that will one day be challenged by the very "objective" scientific process that led to these conclusions. I repeat, in science, there is no such thing as definitive truth. All theory is based on appearances not fact. But if your theory were definitive in nature, it still would not exclude the possibility of what Aristotle referred to as an "unmoved mover."

She: The important point to note is that I am, in no way, being "just as magical" as believers who say, "God did it." I have a greater than passing understand of the way physics operates and feel that that data is a better explanation than "God did it."

Believers say "God did it," and you are explaining in more detail how God did it, according to the prevailing scientific paradigm, one that is constantly shifting. But you are not giving God the credit, and believers are. Furthermore, you take comfort in "data" that is forever shifting in accordance with the prevailing scientific paradigm. I take comfort in that truth that is universal, and that which transcends the vicissitudes of science.

Me, earlier today: Once again, what more closely approximates magical thinking is the notion that somehow this universe just put itself together randomly.

She: I think I just gave you proof that it did not happen "randomly". Random is a word that theists like to throw in to try to draw attention away from the actual principles of science. The universe is far from random: that still doesn't prove your God. I've given you a soupcon' of explanation for my thoughts on the origins of the universe, but please tell me how your God did it. Oh. Wait. The Bible says, "God did it."

Me, now: Where is your proof. You've given me a woefully incomplete explanation based on the vicissitudes of a scientific model that will some day be declared obsolete, null and void by that very scientific community that once put their stamp of approval on it.

You see a complex blueprint, but you assume there is no designer, that the blueprint made itself. Is that what you do when you decide to build a house? It must be difficult to build a house with such an assumption, not having anybody to complain to if the blueprint does not match your expectations. Why is it so ridiculous and silly to see a complex design and to assume that there must be a designer?

Me, earlier today: In fact, there is nothing, even in the world of science that can be proven once and for all---definitively, now and forever. Those who believe in science, and those who believe in God (I happen to believe in both) all must base their beliefs on faith.

She: Again, you clearly misunderstand the most basic concepts regarding the scientific method and evidence. Scientists do not believe their evidence on faith, they believe because they have a reasonable expectation, supported by duplicitous testing and observation, that a something is likely to occur. That's not faith.

Me, now, or rather, my dictionary: "Duplicitous": adj. Given to or marked by duplicity.

duplicity: Deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech; double-dealing.

Me, now: You must not present the findings of the scientific community in such a disparaging manner. While their methods are limited in accordance to the types of phenomenon that are subject to their five sense, which can be unintentionally "duplicitous" and while they base their understanding and security on a constantly shifting scientific paradigm, they have been instrumental in coming up with some very useful information, some of which has actually saved lives.

Me, prior: Once again, I don't even attempt to offer "proof" to adamant atheists.

She: Of course you don't.

Me, now: And why not? Because I believe this is a matter of the heart not wanting to humble itself, not a mind that is hungry for, and will ultimately be satisfied with "proof" as if there is such a thing as "proof."

She: That might be the way that most theists operate, but it's not the way I operate. And, no scientist starts any experiment with a stated goal in mind. That's the forte' of creationists and intelligent designers. They presume to know the end and work backwards. Real scientists make an observation of the world and ask a question. Then, they form a hypothesis for how that phenomena might work. Then, they test that hypothesis by setting up an experiment. Then, they observe and record the data. They use that data to draw a conclusion, which is then presented to other scientists to pick apart and re-test.

Me, now: Been there, done that. I've been trained at both an undergraduate level and a doctoral level on the scientific method and I've applied it in a Masters thesis and then a Doctoral dissertation. That's why I use it as a tool, but will not worship it or offer it as a means for securing definitive, unshakable truth.

Ne earlier today: ...but I believe that you have closed your mind, and your heart, to any sort of divine revelation and therefore you don't have access to a wisdom that goes far beyond human understanding.

She: Wow. it took you less than two days to write my soul off forever. Kudos! That's rather judgmental of you.

Me, now: If I had written off your soul I wouldn't be responding to your blog thread, but would consider it a waste of time. I will always see hope for a person who puts God (or not God) at the center of his/her Weltenshauung or world view. When I use the tails side of a coin to shape my views, I am completely dependent on the very coin that contains the opposite, or heads side. So God (ie. not-God) is the centerpiece of your world view and the motivation behind your statements.

No, I didn't judge your soul. I made an tentative observation of what appeared to be coming from your heart and from your soul. If that's being judgemental, then you have just been judgemental of me for being judgemental. You see, you and I just can't seem to get around our sinful natures.

She: Actually, if your God wants to come down and make reasonable demonstrations that prove his existence, then I'd most certainly take a look. My mind is actually very open. I have actually stated, repeatedly, that I believe there are things not yet known or explained. The difference, between you and I, is that I'm not asking people to sign up to a "God of the Gaps" mentality. I willingly admit: I don't know everything and science doesn't have all the answers. That still doesn't mean "God did it."

Me, now: But God has already come down to demonstrate his love for us in the form of Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, so that we may be set free from the bondage of our self-destructive human natures. Your mind may be open, but is your heart? Or is your heart like the Inns that put up a "no vacancy" sign when the baby Jesus came to town? If the "God of the Gaps," had filled in all of the gaps, there would be no need to get on our knees and beg of him, "Why? Why" Why did you let this happen?" when a loved one dies. We would all love to be spared from the grieving process, but it is the lack of answers that forces us to do the soul seraching that, in the end will make us strong and bring us closer to God (if we allow our sorrow to become the canvas upon which he paints).

possummomma commented:

Her name — clbedell.

Christine Louise.

Actually, Christina Bedell is my name. Christine Bedell is my husband's distant cousin. :) Ironically, we both share the same middle initial and, when my third child was born, a delivery man for Graco - who was delivering a recalled play pen- tried to deliver, for two weeks, a playpen to Christine. She's listed. I'm not.

My husband is the Professor at CSUB. I don't believe Christine is/was married. But, let me tell you, between Christine and I, we've sure confused a few places in this town.

randomfactor commented:

BLT wrote: When has science definitively proven anything?

Well, there's evolution...

My heart's open at the left and right atria*. It's enough to keep the blood flowing. Any more and it would leak out.

Maybe we shouldn't *HAVE* to beg for an explanation of childhood cancer, parasitic wasps, and George W. Bush's election. It's a kindness to decide there is no God, over the alternative proposed by Sam Clemens. Or at least the one proposed by Woody Allen.

(Corrected after the fact. Mixed up my ventricles and atria...)

possummomma commented:

Blognroll, that was incredibly hard to read (just from a formatting standpoint). There's no need to include three or four generations in one post- we can all read back and find the necessary statements (and logical progression of the argument).

When has science definitively proven anything?

When has religion/faith proven anything?

The scientific method has been tested time-and-time again. That's why science seemingly changes and adapts to fit the constant introduction of new information. That doesn't mean that you completely throw out every old assumption or conclusion: it means you might have to reevaluate a position. Science, in an anthropomorphic way, doesn't prove things (and, I concede that I may have used the term incorrectly). Science, does however, provide us with a better way of understanding our universe. The scientific method has repeatedly demonstrated, almost to the point of proof (but, a theory can never be 100% proven) that gravity does, in fact, exist. We have been able to use science to predict what would happen in the other envrionments (water, space, land) because of our understanding of gravtitaional forces and gravity. That's just one example. You rely on the "proofs" and benefits of science every day of your life.

Moreover, most studies, once believed to be the definitive answer turn out to be refuted down the road.

Uh. Yeah. That's the beauty of science. If a conclusion is later proven to be incorrect, or is even SUSPECTED of being incorrect, then other scientists may apply their own tests and lead us to a better understanding of the world around us. It's called the scientific method.

Alot of religious beliefs, that were posited as the "definitive answer" have also refuted. Should we throw that baby out with the bathwater, too?

I am a scientist, though some would consider psychology a "soft" science.

I think psychology is an incredibly interesting field of discovery. But, yes...I do consider it a soft-science. That's not meant to be negative...like I said, I think evolutionary psychology is a fascinating field. However, there's a reason why you're not allowed to write prescriptions. There's a reason why psychiatry is a hard science and psychology is a soft-science. Both fields are equally important and necessary. But, there are differences in the practice.

I'm going to boil down your emotional plea about my ability to see miracles and answer it:

Yes. I think a newborn baby is quite remarkable. I think the fact that the infant is the product of billions of cells working harmoniously to form the genetic offspring of the two genetic donors (and all of their ancestral line) is quite beautiful. The odds of an egg and sperm meeting to create an embryo is, indeed, awe inspiring. But, the definition of "miracle" is that it is not a common occurence. The definition of "miracle" is something beyond belief. Babies are born every day. While beautiful, cute, remarkable, lovable beings...they are not miraculous in a divine sense. I don't need God to tell me that my children are valuable or beautiful creatures. Similarly, I can appreciate the complexities of nature and find beauty in the process.

Some things are too beautiful not to be true,...

I agree. Ebola, when studied at great magnification, is an amazingly beautiful virus. No. Seriously. It's gorgeous. It's awe inspiring, immensely powerful, and NOT believing in it is potentially deadly. The perfection and efficiency of the ebola virus is almost "too beautiflul" to be true. That doesn't mean that I'm going to set up a religion and start praising the ebola virus.

You've given me a woefully incomplete explanation based on the vicissitudes of a scientific model that will some day be declared obsolete, null and void by that very scientific community that once put their stamp of approval on it.

I believe I did mention that a complete and thourough explanation would take far more time and would best be suited to another blog post. I realize that my explanation was "woefully incomplete"...then again, your explanation of God has been pretty shoddy, as well. Probably because it would take you more than a paragraph or two to sum up what you believe God actually is.

And hence the crux of our disagreement. I feel very strongly that our choices should be based THOUROUGHLY upon reason whenever possible. I believe that choices made based on purely emotional grounds or personal experience often can lead one in the wrong direction. And, furthermore, HOW can you call yourself a scientsist and make a statement like this: "We THEN look for logical, reasonable ways of supporting our strong feelings."??????? NO. That's not how it works in science. If you are doing it correctly, you do not start out with an conclusion (strong feelings) and work backwards until you find a logical way that you can support your conclusion. You are saying, "God exists. I know he exists because it's such a strong emotion that I can't deny it. I'm now going to look for evidence that supports my claim that god exists." THAT'S NOT SCIENTIFIC. It may be comforting. It might make you feel warm and fuzzy. But, it's not scientific and it's neither rational, nor reasonable.

You see, you and I just can't seem to get around our sinful natures.

Your uneducated presumption that my nature is sinful is insulting and condescending. If you need to feel bad about your inner-core so that you have a reason to wake-up every morning and try to improve yourself, then you go right ahead and base your life on that presumption. If you can't take responsibility for your own character flaws or bad choices and need to USE the excuse of original sin so that you can justify your poor behavior, then knock yourself out. I, however, am not sinful by nature. I certainly make errors of judgement and bad choices on occasion, but I do so because I sometimes make choices that make me feel good rather than what is rational. ;) Keep your sin and guilt to yourself. As a psychologist, you should know better than to project your character flaws or issues onto others.

Your entire final paragraph is like one large plea to emotions. There's no physical, baby Jesus that showed up on my doorstep so that I could play the "mean old atheist" part in your novella and turn him away. When someone dies, I accept that it's sad becuase I will miss that persons laugh, smile, thoughts, presence in my life. I don't need to fall on my knees and ask a deity, "Why? Why?" I know that life ends. Simple as that. It's not as comforting. it's not warm and fuzzy. But, it's truth.

possummomma commented:

RandomFactor said: My heart's open at the left and right atria*. It's enough to keep the blood flowing. Any more and it would leak out.

You and I think far too much alike. :)

I have never understood the whole "Open your heart to God" thing. My heart was "open to God" for 24 years of my life. I was the best little, Catholic girl around- pious, humble, fearful, obedient... I truly believed that God was my protector and Jesus my savior.

Then, a wierd thing happened: I actually read the Bible cover-to-cover, without a nun, or priest, standing over my shoulder "guiding me". And so began the process of becoming an atheist...

blognroll commented:

In an ideal world, our views are formed on the basis of objective observations. In the real world, nobody can claim to be completely objective. An experimenter, by his/her very involvement in an experiment, corrupts and taints the findings. There is no such thing as pure science. Furthermore, no matter how scientific we claim to be, we are all profoundly influenced by emotion, and the stronger we feel about certain issues, the more emotionally-laden experiences have contributed to such views.

My understanding that we are all sinners, in need of salvation, is not a projection of my own guilt. It is part and parcel of my world view, one that is grounded in scripture. It would be condescending if I were to assume that you are a sinner, but I am above sinning. I put myself on your level, so it cannot be condescending.

I'll tell you what, I'm going to propose a less than purely scientific experiment: You keep not praying to your not God that I will come around and face reality (or at least your version of it), and I will pray to my God that he will reveal himself to you in ways that will allow you to actually to apply (and passionately apply) the word, "miracle!" to a real life event. I wouldn't be surprised or shocked if you changed your mind someday. But if you were to have a change of heart? Now that would truly be a miracle!

randomfactor commented:

As I said earlier, the Bible is a prime cause of atheism. As San Clemens pointed out, it wasn't the stuff that he couldn't understand that bothered him so much as the stuff he *COULD*.

I was an altar boy (unmolested.) *TAUGHT* altar boys. There's a reason the Catholics discouraged solitary bible-reading in place of sermons beginning "what God *MEANT* to say here was..."

randomfactor commented:

BLT, better be careful with your thought experiment. These things have a way of backfiring:

http://www.slate.com/id/2139373/

blognroll commented:

"Then, a wierd thing happened: I actually read the Bible cover-to-cover, without a nun, or priest, standing over my shoulder "guiding me". And so began the process of becoming an atheist...

To understand the Bible, one needs to understand Greek and Hebrew and one needs to understand the cultural and historical context in which the books of the Bible were written. Otherwise things are too easily taken out of context and misinterpreted. Maybe it wasn't so bad after all to have those nuns or priests around to help you with the translation. When left to your own devices, you turn to yourself, and your own human ways of understanding.

Random, did you simply look at the headline, or did you simply rely upon this secondary source, or did you go to the study itself, and examine the methodology that was implemented, to make sure that it was sound, and did you juxtapose the interpretation with the methodology to determine if the two matched?

robbwillis commented: The birth of your kid or your relative's kid or your friend's kid is a miracle. With six billion people on the planet and by 2050, nine billion, pardon me if the process has somewhat lost its aura of miraculousness. But if you could arrange the parting of the Red Sea, I'll shave my head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1kqqMXWEFs&mode=related&search=
randomfactor commented:

I searched for a popular article on the study whose conclusions I had already seen in previous reports. The methodology of the study itself is irrelevant to the point that religionists seem continually to want to "prove" the efficacy of prayer. As the Slate article mentions, it's all a question of the supposedly separate magisteria of science and religion.

Science is content to play in its own sphere; religion is always asking to come and play on the science side--so long as they don't have to play by the "house rules" which bind scientific inquiry. Or in simpler terms, a study which shows prayer "works" would be trumpeted from the steeples, whereas a study which shows no effect--or negative effect--prompts complaints about the methodology.

blognroll commented:

If it's your own newborn baby, no matter how many billions that may have come before him/her, you will declare your own to be a miracle, and no other parent who has known that feeling will deny you the pleasure of calling it a miracle. The feeling you get is nothing short of miraculous.

Random, I agree that studies should not be cherry-picked to support any particular world view. Let the data speak for itself. On the other hand, there are plenty of scientists out there who are skilled in the art of deception, with axes to grind, and they hide behind the scientific method, and their biased application of it, in order to hide the axe.

But when you look closely at the methodology, you will find it to be abysmally flawed, and you will find them making abysmally unwarranted generalizations in order to ostensibly sharpen the axe.

PS: Possummamma: Why haven't you visited my Personal Jesus blog thread lately? Is the picture of Jesus, or my cover of that Depeche Mode song scaring you away? Why not fight this war on two fronts? It's more interesting that way. Oh, I suppose I should warn you, there is even more agape love present under that thread then there was when your soul paid a visit. It's agape love, not logic, that will sway your soul in the end. That's my prediction.

randomfactor commented:

BLT, that's the built-in self-deception also seen in religion. You may feel your wife is the most beautiful, your baby is the most exceptional, and your religion the most truthful in the world. That doesn't make it so.

And the scientific method is set up to detect such fakery as you allege--and it does (as in the study on prayer-for-fertility that apparently was a con job.) There have been frauds aplenty--from Piltdown Man to the Korean cloning. There have been misunderstandings and outright mistakes, like Nebraska Man. As I've said before, would that religion had the same kind of error-correction method that science does...

There's a Nobel Prize waiting for the first person to disprove evolution. And it ain't gonna happen.

robbwillis commented: Perhaps if plopping out kids was viewed as a cold, biological fact instead of a miracle, there would be some hope for the planet's ecology. Nah, let's just overun the joint with miracles like rats on a corndog...
blognroll commented: I'm glad you were not aborted, Robb. What would we do without your miraculous wit?!
randomfactor commented: Aw, wit's not so miraculous. Just not often used at full power. Most folks tend to use like like they've gotta conserve 50 percent.
possummomma commented:

I have four kids. No doubt... I was over-come with love the minute they were born (and, possibly, even BEFORE they were born). I was over-come with wonder and love for these tiny creatures. But,...it's not miraculous. It's awesome. It's incredibly emotional. it's sort-of a beautiful thing (...the blood made the DH a bit woozy). But, it happens every day, in most every species. Birth is part of the life cycle.

I have to ask you... is death miraculous to you? It's incredibly emotional. It's moving beyond reason. It's sometimes beautiful and peaceful. It's sometimes grisly and barbaric. It's just as meaningful as birth. Often, death is the result of a series of unplanned events. Is it a miracle?

To understand the Bible, one needs to understand Greek and Hebrew

Why would you presume that I do not speak one (or both)? Been there, done that....didn't get any better answers. In fact, the mistakes in the Bible became even MORE glaring.

When left to your own devices, you turn to yourself, and your own human ways of understanding.

You say that like it's a bad thing. When you stand on the curb, poised to cross the street: do you close your eyes, plug your ears, and pray to God that you'll make it to the opposite side? If you do, then you may very well have complete faith in God. If, however, like most rational adults, you: stop, look both ways, use your brain to calculate/estimate the amount of time that it will take to cross versus the distance of any on-coming traffic, attune your senses to the task at hand, and cross the street on your own accord, then you are employing human ways of understanding and...look at you- YOU MADE IT! Your crossed the street all by yourself. *thumbs up* I would suggest that your odds are of surviving your street crossing are far better by employing your "human understanding" than by completely trusting your faith.

On the other hand, there are plenty of scientists out there who are skilled in the art of deception, with axes to grind, and they hide behind the scientific method, and their biased application of it, in order to hide the axe.

Yeah...'cause we all know that religions/churches have NO agenda or axes to grind. I can't even respectfully respond to your comment about scientists and deception--- have you taken a look around at the religious zealotry in this world? HOLY BAD EXAMPLES, BATMAN!

And here is where your intent and true nature are exposed. I'm not at war with you. This is not a battle.

I did respond to your post. Why haven't I visited the thread lately?? Maybe because I've been busy managing the four pages of this thread...plus all of the other pressing issues of the world: like... "Mom! Have you seen that thing?" or those gosh darned beds that don't make themselves. Hey... I know! If God wants me to believe in Him, he'll send representatives to clean my house at no cost to me. God would also have the omniscience to know where all of those rogue socks are, too.

chastetastic commented: I havnt read through all of the comments, dont have the time nor the drive at the moment. One quick thing :

Good for you. I'm glad you have a positive label for believing in things for which there is no emperical evidence. :)
- Would it then be safe to say that a cure for AIDS is out of the question since there is no evidence of a cure yet?

My point in that is not to argue against your perspective, but I just see those kinds of rebuttals as holding no water.     However, with RedKern it seems as though rational thinking is beyond him.

but I digress:

RedKern, answer me this, as I have still yet to find anyone to tackle it... be it in the church or otherwise: Why the discrepency between the two creation accounts and why does God find it suitable for Adam to be paired with an animal before he decides upon Eve?

And upon that, I will pose this question to all of Bakersfield... or rather... all of Bakersfield who reads blogs.

On the subject of Athiesm as a political movement... Athiesm is fine... but when you have somebody suing San Diego for a forty foot cross at a War Memorial, thats a little ridiculous. And beside that, to how many does the cross bear any real religious symbolism?

On that, I love the Bill Hicks view that wearing a cross around your neck is like people wearing a pendent of a rifle out of memory of JFK. "Just keepin the memory alive Jackie!"
chastetastic commented: And before somebody tries to nail me on it, I know the SD issue is not representative of all athiests, just as RedKern is not representative of any majority of Christianity. These are just the things and impressions we get when dealing with the extreme versions of any ideology.
mattloch commented:
blognroll commented:

Try telling your children you love them using only scientific terms. They may have a little trouble warming up to such sentiments.

When it happens to a loved one, it feels like hell. It's not the kind of emotion that anyone wants to feel. You say that it's moving beyond reason, but I thought you never travelled beyond the land of reason. Knowing that your loved one will be in heaven is comforting. It makes things feel a little more warm and fuzzy, but you may prefer to explain to someone who just lost a loved one, what a beautiful scientific process it really is. You won't dry any tears by trying to capture them and put them into a test tube.

Me: To understand the Bible, one needs to understand Greek and Hebrew

She: Why would you presume that I do not speak one (or both)? Been there, done that....didn't get any better answers. In fact, the mistakes in the Bible became even MORE glaring.

I didn't presume that. You presumed that I presumed that. But I did presume that at some point you became impatient in your attempt to understand scripture. Really, you didn't get any better answers? Well, what questions were you asking and what answers were you looking for? And BTW, what you refer to in the Bible as "mistakes" are "ostensible contradictions." You don't know that if you had been more persistent in your studies and in your prayers, that you wouldn't have found a well to resolve these apparent or ostensible contraditions.

Me: When left to your own devices, you turn to yourself, and your own human ways of understanding.

She: You say that like it's a bad thing. When you stand on the curb, poised to cross the street: do you close your eyes, plug your ears, and pray to God that you'll make it to the opposite side? If you do, then you may very well have complete faith in God. If, however, like most rational adults, you: stop, look both ways, use your brain to calculate/estimate the amount of time that it will take to cross versus the distance of any on-coming traffic, attune your senses to the task at hand, and cross the street on your own accord, then you are employing human ways of understanding and...look at you- YOU MADE IT! Your crossed the street all by yourself. *thumbs up* I would suggest that your odds are of surviving your street crossing are far better by employing your "human understanding" than by completely trusting your faith.

When I stand on the curb, poised to cross the street, I open my eyes, open my ears and pray to to God that I'll make it to the opposite side. All of the above. God provided me with a brain and enough resources to help myself out, but just when I start to believe that I am in control of my own destiny, I am likely to be blindsided by something I wasn't expected to cross my path. We have the illusion that we control our own destiny. But we can't control everything.

Me: On the other hand, there are plenty of scientists out there who are skilled in the art of deception, with axes to grind, and they hide behind the scientific method, and their biased application of it, in order to hide the axe.

She: Yeah...'cause we all know that religions/churches have NO agenda or axes to grind. I can't even respectfully respond to your comment about scientists and deception--- have you taken a look around at the religious zealotry in this world? HOLY BAD EXAMPLES, BATMAN!

There are plenty of folks in religious circles with axes to grind. Some of them can actually drive people into atheism because they are overly controlling, legalistic and hypocritical. You can find people with axes to grind in all walks of life. There are plenty of good and bad examples to go around.

Me: PS: Possummamma: Why haven't you visited my Personal Jesus blog thread lately? Is the picture of Jesus, or my cover of that Depeche Mode song scaring you away? Why not fight this war on two fronts? It's more interesting that way.

She: And here is where your intent and true nature are exposed. I'm not at war with you. This is not a battle.

I used the term figuratively. It is a war of ideas, not a violent war, and not a war involving animosity, at least not from me. I consider agape love to be a weapon of mass construction in the war for the soul. Unfortunatley, as a mortal human, I'm not very good at delivering it, but the more I conform to the image of Jesus, through God's strenght, the better I will become at delivering it.

Good, I hope you will always feel welcome to visit and drop comments under my blog threads. You voice strong disagreement with me, and sometimes you come across a bit condescending, but basically you are respectful and I respect that. And BTW, God allows us to lose our socks, and maybe even contributes to their loss because he intended for us to go barefoot.

Be careful, you are in danger of falling back into the chasm of belief. You just talked about God as if he actually existed.

blognroll commented:

Mattloch, try posting an antedeluvian Muslim cartoon in which their great prophet is riding the same beast. You won't get the same agape love you typically get from me, and you won't get the same understanding and compassion, based on the realization that you've been poisoned by the cyanide of cynicism. Aren't you thankful that you live in a predominantly Christian nation?

redkernhero commented: If possum and Sam Heath got into a discussion, how much web space would they need, any guesses?
blognroll commented: That sounds like bait Sam won't be able to pass up on if he becomes aware of it. Sam?
possummomma commented:

Try telling your children you love them using only scientific terms. They may have a little trouble warming up to such sentiments.

*thinks* I must say that you did make me stop and think with this response.

I actually HAVE had discussions about the chemistry, physiology, biology, and "science" of love, with my children (the older two, especially). When I was pregnant with child #4, my first two children had many, many questions about love and sex. Plus, having two pre-teens in the house has led to several discussions about how/why humans love/show love in the ways that they do. And, to be quite honest, I've found that explaining the physical and biological process of attraction to be an incredibly easy way to prepare them for the "abstinence talk." Love and lust are physiological processes. We can observe the changes that organisms undergo during different emotional processes. My daughter, age 12, was immensely interested when I explained the process of maternal-infant bonding. Biology has put SEVERAL physiological responses in place to help create a bond between mother and child. When an infant is born, they are attuned to their mother's voice and smell. Immediately after birth, the body releases hormones -in the mother AND child- that create a sense of euphoria. The infant and mother's pupils dilate, which is a universal signal of love and interest, and the mother "falls in love" with her child. IN FACT, as a psychologist, you should know what the consequence is if the mother's brain is NOT able to balance these hormones and create a bond. I would think you would also be aware of the chemical markers of post-partum depression and post-partum psychosis. So... with that in mind- WHY would you think that it would be "rough" or troublesome to explain these things to my kids. And, furthermore, why would you assume that my chidlren would somehow be saddened by such an explanation (which is what I assume, and you are free to correct me if I'm wrong, you are trying to suggest). My children are secure in the knowledge that I love them because experience has never given them any reason to doubt that I love them immensely. My actions, and our bond (forged with these very chemical and physiological signals), "proved" my love for them before they even had words to equate to the term "love". To dove-tail into that: the fact that I have been frank, and taken the time to explain the body's cues/reactions to love, has made it very easy to teach them about "puppy love", dating, crushes, sex, and other emotions that, as they enter puberty, they are sure to begin experiencing. Rather than just tell them that some God has deemed their feelings "immoral", I can rationally and logically explain the feelings that they may experience and prepare them for those experiences.

I'm sorry, I assumed you were inteligent enough to see that as a metaphor ("beyond all reason"). Grief is an intense emotion.

Knowing that your loved one will be in heaven is comforting. It makes things feel a little more warm and fuzzy, but you may prefer to explain to someone who just lost a loved one, what a beautiful scientific process it really is. You won't dry any tears by trying to capture them and put them into a test tube.

Ahhhh...but what is comforting and what is true are two different things. As a psychologist, is it not important to recognize the reality of a situation before moving on? In any other area of counselling, is it not best to encourage people to take an inventory of the reality of the situation and form a response that helps them better deal with reality? Why do you stop that rationale when dealing with theism?

We actually have, as a family, experienced intense loss. I'm not going to share details, but we went through the loss of two pregnancies and a few family members in very short order (within 18 months). And, actually, reality did dry some tears. Explaining to my children that their un-met siblings had "died" was difficult, but they dealing with the reality (that my body had produced antigens that formed blood blots, which clotted the placenta and starved the "babies" of oxygen and nutrients) helped us all move on and TAKE POSITIVE STEPS TO AVOID a repeat problem. When I had to take multiple injections of blood thinner to sustain the following pregnancies, my children knew why and it enabled them to understand how/why mommy was being so careful. When a family member died, we told the children that the beloved member was dead. We then helped them recall all of the positive memories that they had and record them in scrapbooks, art, pictures, letters, etc.,. Frankly, I've found that it's best to avoid making promises if you can't guarantee the results. Why would I tell my children that they would definitely see "Uncle Bob" in heaven if I don't know that that is the case? Grief is a physiological response. We should cry and grieve. Death is a reminder that this life is precious and we should take advantage of every moment. You don't have to muddy the waters with Gods, angels, heaven, and any number of temporarily pleasing crutches to get you over the hump of the initial grief. There are lifetimes of memories to sooth you while you are grieving. There are family members who come together to help you past those darkest days. And, honestly,... when we lost our first child...I was very annoyed when someone looked at my oldest daughter and said, "It's part of God's plan." God plans to kill innocennts to make a point? That's a REALLY sick message to send a child. Interjecting God into grief only gives the grieving, and the dying, one more thing to worry about. "Was grandma good enough to get ino heaven?", "What if Poppa isn't in heaven? What if he did something bad?", "What if I (a child) did something and didn't make ammends...am I going to hell?" Far from soothing the feelings of loss, it adds anxiety and uncertainty.

But I did presume that at some point you became impatient in your attempt to understand scripture. Really, you didn't get any better answers? Well, what questions were you asking and what answers were you looking for?

No. I actually took a very long time to make the transition between theist and atheist. There was no impatience. There was a bit of anger, because I felt like I had been lied to by almost every authority figure up until that point. There was quite a bit of disbelief that people would subject children to such needless worry. There was a lot of questioning and self-examination. And, REALLY- knowing Greek and doing research (sticking to faith promoting literature, at first) did not help. The questions that I had are far too numerous to get into here. However, for simplification, the biggest question was: Does God exists and, if so, what evidence is there to support his existence? And, is the Bible the infallible, inerrant word of God?

We have the illusion that we control our own destiny.

Wait a minute, I thought you said you believed in freewill. So, I suppose everyone in prison is there because God deemed that to be their destiny? Did Judas have freewill? Did he have a choice about whether or not to sell out Christ (if any of those people even existed)? If he didn't sell out Jesus, then the world could not have received Christianity. So, why is Judas made out to be evil? If God created Judas so that he could sell out Jesus, then God is a cruel jerk who uses people to make idiotic parables. If Judas didn't have free will, then God is not omnipotent and Jesus was not the son of God (for how could he have known would betray him with a kiss?).

But we can't control everything.

Obviously. I can only control my own actions. What you might do or what nature might do is beyond my control.

Be careful, you are in danger of falling back into the chasm of belief. You just talked about God as if he actually existed.

Nope. :) I used your preconceived belief in God to illustrate a point. It's a literary technique and, as you just pointed out, works very well. I played off of your beliefs to make a point.

possummomma commented:

That sounds like bait Sam won't be able to pass up on if he becomes aware of it. Sam?

Sam has contacted me via e-mail. And, I have to say, has not brought religion up. Is he perhaps trying to gather ammunition of some sort?

blognroll commented:

Try telling your children you love them using only scientific terms. They may have a little trouble warming up to such sentiments.

*thinks* I must say that you did make me stop and think with this response.

You didn't answer my question. Explaining about the birds and the bees is not the same as telling your children you love them. Try using scientific terms to tell somebody, in this case, your children, you love them.

Me: When it happens to a loved one, it feels like hell. It's not the kind of emotion that anyone wants to feel. You say that it's moving beyond reason, but I thought you never travelled beyond the land of reason.

I'm sorry, I assumed you were inteligent enough to see that as a metaphor ("beyond all reason"). Grief is an intense emotion.

Insults? Has it come to insults as a way of getting your message across?

Ahhhh...but what is comforting and what is true are two different things.

Scientific language certainly isn't comforting to the grieving. But is the fact that words are comforting necessarily make them not true?

As a psychologist, is it not important to recognize the reality of a situation before moving on? In any other area of counselling, is it not best to encourage people to take an inventory of the reality of the situation and form a response that helps them better deal with reality? Why do you stop that rationale when dealing with theism?

But I am not only a psychologist, but one who embraces spirituality and the spiritual dimension as a valid aspect of that reality.

Now I'm beginning to understand more about the emotional basis of your atheistic stance. You were taught to believe that people get into heaven if they do good things and go to hell if they do bad things. You really were exposed to a poisoned theology. You weren't offered a gospel of freedom and liberty, but a gospel of bondage, not the real gospel at all. You don't seem to have been exposed to the real basis of the gospel, which is that none of us have to be condemned to hell no matter how many bad things we've done. Jesus came to die for our sins so that we would not have to bear that punishment.

Me: But I did presume that at some point you became impatient in your attempt to understand scripture. Really, you didn't get any better answers? Well, what questions were you asking and what answers were you looking for?

She: No. I actually took a very long time to make the transition between theist and atheist. There was no impatience. There was a bit of anger, because I felt like I had been lied to by almost every authority figure up until that point. There was quite a bit of disbelief that people would subject children to such needless worry. There was a lot of questioning and self-examination. And, REALLY- knowing Greek and doing research (sticking to faith promoting literature, at first) did not help. The questions that I had are far too numerous to get into here. However, for simplification, the biggest question was: Does God exists and, if so, what evidence is there to support his existence? And, is the Bible the infallible, inerrant word of God?

If you were told that your salvation depended on how many good things you did compared to how many bad things you did, they you were lied to, and I would be angry to. In fact, in some circles I was exposed to the same crap, and I too am angry that someone would place such a burden upon me. The anger may explain your motivation for not wanting God to have any place in your heart.

If you're looking for proof that God exists, you may not find it if you restrict what is real to what is consistent with empirical evidence (also not definitive in nature). Is the Bible the infallible, inerrant word of God? I believe that it is, but as I've said before, I'm a doubting believer and a stumbling follower. Jesus was confident enough to quote it with authority, so I guess I can be too. But unlike Jesus, sinning, and doubting, is what I do best.

Me: We have the illusion that we control our own destiny.

Yes, I believe in free will. If I didn't, I would just tell my patients to do nothing to further their own mental health. But for those who believe nothing can touch them, and for those who believe they know beyond a shadow of a doubt, what tomorrow will bring, I try to get them to understand the limits of that free will.

You are putting forth the hypothesis that God is a cruel jerk. I thought you didn't believe in God. It's a Freudian slip, otherwise you would have said, God, if he existed, would be a cruel jerk. It is my hypothesis that your beliefs have been shaped by an image of God as just that---a cruel jerk. Perhaps some cruel priest and nuns reinforced that image of God in your mind. It is a false one.

Me: But we can't control everything.

She: Obviously. I can only control my own actions. What you might do or what nature might do is beyond my control.

My warning: Be careful, you are in danger of falling back into the chasm of belief. You just talked about God as if he actually existed.

Nope. :) I used your preconceived belief in God to illustrate a point. It's a literary technique and, as you just pointed out, works very well. I played off of your beliefs to make a point.

To me, thou doth protest too much. Declaring God non-existent is a good way of making that big scary God you were raised with appear to magically disappear. This is not rendered as my professional opinion, just a gut feeling.

possummomma commented:

Go back and read it again. I did indeed answer your question.

Insults? Has it come to insults as a way of getting your message across?

I did not insult you. I pointed out my error in assuming you understood the concept of metaphor ("beyond all reason"). The general use of the term implies that something is beyond normal comprehension.

But is the fact that words are comforting necessarily make them not true?

No...I didn't make that claim.

But I am not only a psychologist, but one who embraces spirituality and the spiritual dimension as a valid aspect of that reality.

My apologies, then. I must have you confused with another poster who claimed to have a degree in, and practice, the "soft science" of psychology.

Now I'm beginning to understand more about the emotional basis of your atheistic stance.

Something tells me that you truly don't. There really is no emotional basis for my atheistic position.

You really were exposed to a poisoned theology. You weren't offered a gospel of freedom and liberty, but a gospel of bondage, not the real gospel at all. You don't seem to have been exposed to the real basis of the gospel, which is that none of us have to be condemned to hell no matter how many bad things we've done. Jesus came to die for our sins so that we would not have to bear that punishment.

You're right in the sense that the theology I was exposed to, as a child, was not a positive message. And, it certainly didn't include a personal relationship with Jesus/God. However, it's kind of like saying: "Oh, I'm sorry you weren't exposed to the loving, tooth fairy that I knew as a kid." If Jesus/God doesn't exist, then the exposure one has to the non-entity is really a non-issue. And, even if I had believed as you do, it wouldn't have changed the medical issues that I had.

If you were told that your salvation depended on how many good things you did compared to how many bad things you did, they you were lied to, and I would be angry to.

Hmmm...then I suppose that all of the people who attend Catholic churches in Bakersfield should be very, very angry and approach Father Craig and Bederman and tell them that they've been poisoned and lied to? I'm angry that adults lied to me about religion and supernaturalism. You are free to disagree, but I honestly don't think that the version of the lie matters. It's the fact that someone lied- PERIOD.

The anger may explain your motivation for not wanting God to have any place in your heart.

Have you not read anything I have said? I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove God exists. God, for me, is the same as any other fictional, "Dr. Feel Good". You can't shut out a deity if the deity doesn't exist.

If you're looking for proof that God exists, you may not find it if you restrict what is real to what is consistent with empirical evidence (also not definitive in nature).

Thank you for answering my question with a nod to reality. Now we're getting to the part of the apologist script where you say: "You just have to believe on faith." You've just said, "If you restrict your belief to what can be proven as reality, then there is no evidence for God/the Bible."

Jesus was confident enough to quote it with authority, so I guess I can be too. But unlike Jesus, sinning, and doubting, is what I do best.

Unless you're a Mormon, Jesus did not quote the Bible (as in, the Old and New Testament).

If Jesus came and created a new covenant with a New Testament, then who cares WHAT he quoted about the Old Testament?

Yes, I believe in free will. If I didn't, I would just tell my patients to do nothing to further their own mental health.

*bug eyes* Didn't you just say that you weren't a psychologist? What is it, exactly, that you do? And,...you still didn't answer MY question: isn't the first step, in facing a problem, to acknowledge the reality of the situation?

But for those who believe nothing can touch them, and for those who believe they know beyond a shadow of a doubt, what tomorrow will bring, I try to get them to understand the limits of that free will.

I hope you're not referring to me. I believe that there are many things that "can touch me." There are many, many obvious impediments to life: illness, injury, the law, social constraints, humanitarianism, the judgement of others, the will of some to impose their beliefs on my own. Of course there are limits to freewill: humans have evolved to form society and community. For the safety and protection of all, we give up freedoms. That's not a difficult concept to grasp (and it doesn't require theism).

You are putting forth the hypothesis that God is a cruel jerk. I thought you didn't believe in God.

I don't. Once again, are you intentionally ignoring the fact that I am trying to put this in terms you might understand and, as such, might approach this from your perspective. I used a lot of "if/then" lines. IF being the key word. And, just so we're clear, God is a frequently used term. Just because I say the name does not mean such a deity exists OR that I believe. I talk about Santa Claus at Christmas time. It doesn't mean I believe he exists. I have made mention of the tooth fairy. I don't believe that he/she exists either. But, you're not jumping on the opportunity to turn either of those into an "AHA!" moment.

You actually counsel people? Because, you really are a horrible listener. Do you read your own agenda into what your patients tell you, too? Or, do you reserve that for people you've never met on the internet? ;) I'm glad it wasn't your professional opinion... and I really hope you don't practice off of gut feelings. Then again, we're not even clear on what your profession is. Maybe you could clear that up?

possummomma commented:

Blognroll,

You are trying to define my position for me and it's getting tiresome.

You keep positing that I'm "defying" your God because I'm "scared"/wasn't taught what you've been taught/"sinful" and a variety of other emotionally dependent claims. This suggests to me that you've really NOT listened to one word I've said, but instead projected your own beliefs into my claims. You are insisting that I use emotion to define reality.

You seem completely incapable of understanding the fact that I base my belief/lack of belief by; examining the evidence, applying logic and reason to the evidence, and drawing rational conclusions based on said evidence. What I want to believe doesn't matter. What would make me feel all warm-and-fuzzy, doesn't matter. What I might want does not influence what actually is. My emotional comfort has nothing to do with how the universe actually is/operates.

I think that this discussion is becoming pointless. Rather than accept that I am the authority on what I believe and how *I* perceive logic, you insist on projecting your beliefs onto my paradigm. This will get us no-where.

Please answer yes or no, to the following questions, so that we can understand each other better:

1. Do you or do you not believe that in order to face a problem, one needs to examine the facts which make up that problem in terms of externally verifiable evidence?

2. If your answer is "no", then what approach do you advocate?

woofwoof commented: DING DING DING....Please go to your corners. This is the end of round.....what....?
ki6amd commented: round ....... 74? Please, let's beat the dead dog some more.

Just agree to disagree and be done with it. The arguments have gone from the silly into the realm of stupid. I could try and maintain a balance and say both sides had good arguments, but I'd be a liar. So I'll just say the debate has come to the end point and you've all successfully polarized the crowd, no further discussion is needed.
woofwoof commented: Did you not get to witness the passion that these two in particular expressed? They're not getting anywhere though, with each other. Our beliefs are our own. Que Sara.
NancyII commented:

At least start a new blog so people don' t have to read 4 pages of repeated rhetoric. At this point you guys really should agree that you disagree because there doesn't seem to be any point to this discussion other than to flex your vocabulary and mental muscles. None of you will ever convince the other on this subject.

steveeswenson commented: Ms. Possum,
So it does not go unsaid, although you and I disagree on this God thing, I like you. You have a nice style. And what a fun blog. Passion about core beliefs is always entertaining.
robbwillis commented:

After wading through, my favorite line has to be:

"I didn't presume that. You presumed that I presumed that. But I did presume that at..."

xiomberg commented: Well that was fun in a knock down drag out sort of way.

Got to say though there is nothing like studying a religious text or better yet studying and comparing several religious texts to help move one to atheism.

randomfactor commented: "There's glory for you," said Humpty Dumpty.
mattloch commented: It is always interesting to see people trying to use logic and deduction to prove the existance of (a) (G)god(s). Even more so to argue for religious beliefs, which rely on the absence of logic and evidence.
randomfactor commented: I'd love to see someone use, say, the "argument from design" to prove conclusively that there *IS* a Zeus.
Crankpin commented:

The big walls of text make my eyes bleed. Paragraphs, people. Know them, learn them, love them.

As for religion, none will know definitively until the bucket's kicked. As for me, I hedge my bet by praying on a prayer rug facing east and then north and burning incense, holding Buddhist beads, a crucifix, and a flaming sword. Just in case.

Crank

possummomma commented:

None of you will ever convince the other on this subject.

And, this is where I will give my final word on the subject.

I was never trying to convince anyone to take my position. I made a post asking if there were other atheists in Bakersfield. That's it. I didn't invite anyone to debate my position. I didn't ask anyone to defend theirs. When people made incorrect claims about atheists and atheism, or me I corrected them.

It's rather unfortunate that there are some people who can't even stand the suggestion that atheists might want to congregate in their town.

Peace.

blognroll commented:

It's just your charm, possummama. We couldn't resist it. I never believed for a moment that I would convince you of anything. I'm leaving that up to God, but I have a feeling that if he decides to restore your faith in him, and to restore the relationship with him (that if once present, apparently turned sour when you were sold a false gospel of hell, fire and brimstone), he will likely start with your heart rather than your head.

I'll skip your stab at psychoanalyzing me. A little knowledge on the subject of psychology can be dangerous, and you must know that you can't out-shrink a shrink. But I am not here in a professional capacity, and I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you. I'm simply sharing with you my impressions about you. Impressions are just that---impressions. It's like an impressionistic artist, when he/she paints a portrait. It's not a photograph and shouldn't be judged as a photograph.

If the shoes I'm throwing your way don't fit, all you have to do is throw them away. All I ask is that you try them on first.

BTW, your most recent response was, once again, condescending, and I don't think you do yourself a favor, or atheists a favor by coming across in a haughty, condescending manner.

Now, on to your questions:

1. Do you or do you not believe that in order to face a problem, one needs to examine the facts which make up that problem in terms of externally verifiable evidence?

I certainly do not discourage the examination of "external" verifiable evidence, but I don't restrict myself or narrow my options by only looking at the trees, and missing the forest in the process. You seem to have erected an arbitrary dichotomy between faith and science. I believe that the two compliment one another.

2. If your answer is "no", then what approach do you advocate?

My answer is not "no."

randomfactor commented:

Ki6, heard back from my astrophysicist-on-retainer. As I suspected, he and his better half attended Hawking's lecture in person.

He confirmed it was aimed at a very low level of audience, astrophysically-speaking. "Nothing new," was his basic summation. There are at least four viable explanations for the Big Bang, one of which more-or-less the idea Hawking mentions: a quantum fluctuation which "takes off on its own."

He pointed out that the Large Hadron Collider may give us some hints which alternative is correct in as little as two years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

The beam itself will hold as much energy as something like 350 pounds of TNT.

(He also criticized Hawking's PowerPoint skills... :)

possummomma commented:

A little knowledge on the subject of psychology can be dangerous, and you must know that you can't out-shrink a shrink.

I believe you said you weren't a shrink. You claim to be a "clinical forensic psychologist" in your profile. Like you said, a little knowledge can be dangerous when you try to use it without proper authority. So... who are your patients?

All I ask is that you try them on first.

Been there and done that.

AudreyB commented:

The Bible is shorter than this Blog. I can't say I read every single word, but I read enough to know that it's all stuff that been hashed and rehased. I'll stick with my own peculiar belief system for now.

At least it didn't resort to name calling. : )

ki6amd commented: Random, perhaps I should have mentioned that the speech was primarily aimed at the Freshman @Berkley (in the introduction of the video [before Hawking begins] they welcomed scientists in the area and the freshman attending Berkley. It WAS a very low level talk. In fact the book "A Briefer History of Time" was given to a few of the students in attendance. I guess freshman don't have the required attention span to read the full "A Brief History of Time". And on a side note I too thought his power point presentaion skills were lacking...
blognroll commented:

I'm not allowed to disclose who my patients are, possumamma. It's part of their protection of confidientiality. Since you and I are not in a patient-psychologist relationship and we're simply engaged in a blogger-to-blogger debate, my comments should not be taken to represent any particular clinical opinion. It's just me spouting off.

We've already made peace with one another, and that process helped me realize that I need to not be so invested in trying to change you. Each of us is at the point in our respective personal journeys based upon where our life experiences have taken us. Your journey is not my journey.

It's really not up to me to re-direct your path or to pressure you into joining me on my own journey. I only wish you the very best as you continue on your own personal journey! I will delete any comment or comments I made under my blog thread that you take offense to. I hope you will feel free to delete anything I've said under your blog thread that is offensive to you.

BluePizza commented: I'm not allowed to disclose who my patients are, possumamma. It's part of their protection of confidientiality.

You are being deliberately obtuse. She isn't asking you for the names of your patients, silly. She is asking you what kind of patients do you purport to treat.

I will delete any comment or comments I made under my blog thread that you take offense to. I hope you will feel free to delete anything I've said under your blog thread that is offensive to you.

A perfect example of revisonist.
Your words shoud stand as the exemplar of Emotional Appeals, Poor Logic, and Circular Reasoning.

There is a Chance: Shrider. I don’t think much of your ½ cent sales tax

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:01:08 PDT

Shrider. I don’t think much of your ½ cent sales tax

We are told regulation is the root of all evil.

We need to build to promote growth.

We need to hire illegals to build the buildings for cheap wages.

We need to have illegals to occupy the buildings we are building that promotes growth.

What we are not told, is that all the above equates to inflation, not growth..

And in the end, those that have prospered, have gathered their wealth and headed on..

While the rest of us are left to suffer their prosperity..

Comments:
tkozy commented:

Shrider's Blog link..

http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/rightthinking/6657

redkernhero commented:

If you increase taxes it is bad policy our developers have a right to make money if they expand the City’s boundaries, the older non-productive parts of the City should pay for the road needed, they waste too many City resources on controlling gangs and fighting drugs, money that could be used for new road improvements. They clog up the courts and make us hire more officers with money we should use road improvements.

I see where they are about to launch a gang roundup again, stop wasting that money and fix Rosedale for those who really need to get to their new homes. NO, new taxes, what are we communists?

tkozy commented:

Are you trying to suggest that Verdugo and Jenkins are crime free? Sorry bubba. That’s just a pipe dream..

Put the ½ cent into parks and recreation, fire and law enforcement. You might get my vote..

There is a Chance: Investigation complete. Imposter revealed.

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:26:17 PDT

Investigation complete. Imposter revealed.

After 1000’s of hours of diligent investigation. It has now been confirmed that the imposter that appeared as Tkozy at the Dagny’s social function..

Was indeed Anne Mouse. A miserable being, who had in the past, appeared on the Bakersfield bloggosphere.

Thank heaven for this revelation, Said TK..

‘My once soiled reputation. Has sprung forth new fruit”

For the rest of the story turn to the following links…

http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/BdotCOM/6642

http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/NancyII/6643

Comments:
randomfactor commented: Darn. I was hoping it'd turn out to be Mucus. :)
tkozy commented:

Although I am not suggesting that it should be a required practice.

In light of the identification fiasco at past Blogg-O-Field social functions.

I have decided it would be in my best interest to post a actual photo of me for future identification.

This photo is the most recent NSA/Homeland Security photo that is available.

I will on a timely basis, keep this photo information updated.

Thanks,

TKozy, AKA Buster, Buster

NancyII commented: Ummmm...the link is bwoken. :-(
randomfactor commented: His clearance got yanked.
tkozy commented:

-.-. .- .--. - .- .. -. / - --- / -.-. .-. . .-- --..--

-.. --- ..- -... .-.. . / -.-. .... . -.-. -.- / -.-- --- ..- .-. / -.. . -.-. --- -.. . .-. ... / .-. .. -. --.

woofwoof commented: Dadgum, I lost my decoder ring.... it also has a good beat and I can dance to it.
tkozy commented:

Decision of the Full Panel

Captain, Your appeal is denied.

Restrictions:

Upper Escalon only..

Grade 18 and above.

Need to know.

Inside Sports: This big guy is a wuss in the Joey Porter fight

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:23:07 PDT

It's probably not good for my health to call a 6-foot-5, 307-Pound guy wuss, but that's exactly what Cincinnati Bengals offensive tackle Levi Jones is for not derailing a battery complaint against new Miami Dolphins linebacker Joey Porter.

The two took some trash talk inside a Las Vegas casino outside where Jones suffered a small cut over his eye with the one punch Porter, 6-foot-3, 250 pounds, threw.

I'm thinking Jones gets hurt more than than on every down he plays, and he might watch out for Porter the next time the two teams meet.

I'm not condoning the fight — both guys are dumbbells for that — but if the two agree to go outside, they also agree to the consequences. That's just the way it is between men.

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

P.S. I ain't going outside with either of these guys. They can call me names if they want to but that's as far as I'm taking this fight.

P.P.S. My boss, Davin McHenry, put me up for this blog so if either of the gentlemen come to Bakersfield to make things right, they can take him outside. Seems fair to me.

Comments:
tkozy commented:

I tried taking the shuffle Board outside last Saturday at the Westfair.

Just a little bit of Shuffle pavement. And look at my eye.

antiextremism commented:

I don't care how big you are, with those size arms, that I'm sure are as quick as his 4.6 40 legs are....... you're goin' down!

robbwillis commented: Jones should have asked for a kiss like the one Cowher got.
OldBlue56 commented:

Here is a question?...

If the community is going to band together to combat gang violence, but a local NFL hero has STRONG ties to local street gangs, and supports them with his money, is he still a local hero?

ReneBrown commented:

annoy how do you know he has STRONG ties to local street gangs? How do you know he supports them with his money?

Those are strong statements coming from someone who hides behind a no name on the blogs.

And YES he is a local hero

redkernhero commented: All these pro Football players are suspect from that Green Bay Packers Center, to Porter, too bad to because that Green Bay packer was one of us.
OldBlue56 commented: A very few years ago a local crack cocaine dealer was arrested and charged with distributing the drug. Joey paid for his defense attorney. The case went to a jury, and the dealer was found guilty and sent to prison. And ask the local gang task force officers about his involvement...
redkernhero commented: You are on a roll, tell them about the former Packers, meth habit , let it all out.
steveeswenson commented: I may take back what I said about Jones if the facts show that both men were escorted out by security guards and Porter punched Jones, but Jones didn't fight at all. Then it's all on Porter.

The problem with initial police reports is how vague they are on such details. And the truth is in the details.
CarLozano commented:

anon, why don't you post your name. You make bold statements then hide. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you. I just think if you are going to make accusations like that, stand behind them.

You also have to remember where Joey grew up; I am sure alot of his childhood friends are not the most upstanding citizens. But you are insinuating that he too is into criminal activity. What has he "had his boys take they fall for"...elaborate.

As for what the BPD thinks of anyone is irrelevant, we have seen how law enforcement officers conduct themselves...DUIs, arrests for steroids/drugs, beating inmates to death (sheriffs).

District 32: Legislation Would Penalize K-12 Reduced-Price Meals

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:43:18 PDT

Assembly Bill 1503 claims to “discontinue the use of unhealthy fried foods and trans-fats in order to receive a 6 cent increase (from 15 to 21 cents) in the state reimbursement rate for free and reduced-priced meals.”(Quote found on Assemblywoman Jean Fuller’s Assembly Web page) This description of AB1503 is not entirely accurate. Schools, according to current law, already receive a 21 cent reimbursement rate for free and reduced-priced meals. This legislation would amend current law to require schools to discontinue the use of fried foods and trans-fats. If schools don’t or are unable to comply then they will be Penalized by reducing their reimbursement rate from 21 to 15 cents. AB 1503 does not increase the reimbursement rate 6 cents for schools which comply it actually penalizes schools for non-compliance.

This bill is essentially an unfunded mandate. It requires schools to serve our children more nutritious food but does not provide any additional funding. Ensuring that our children receive nutritious and well balance meals is a good and noble cause. Most people would readily support such a cause. However, penalizing schools by reducing the meal reimbursement rate is not a good idea. The description of AB1503 put forth by Ex-Superintendent Fuller and her staff is deceptive and should be revised.

Assemblywoman Fuller ran as a fiscal-conservative. If she wants to help balance the budget then perhaps she should look to save money in ways that doesn’t include taking money away from our kid’s cafeteria.

I invite you to read the Legislation for yourself. The following is a link to the actual bill. The italicized portions of the bill are the changes she is proposing. You will see that the reimbursement rate is already 21 cents. I also invite you to visit her website to see the description of AB1503 for yourself.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1501-1550/ab_1503_bill_20070223_introduced.pdf

Comments:
redkernhero commented:

It is about time, we do not need this socialism in our community! Most of these meals probably go to illegal aliens anyway. Thank God for Lou Dobbs, without him these things would continue on forever. Don’t blame Assemblywoman Fuller for doing her job, we sent her to Sacramento install our values in the right places and she has made a good start. What is next, free education and health benefits, thank god Ms, Fuller will never allow this to happen as she knows the value of education for legals and illegals need not apply. That is tough, but we live in a tough world, and anything we have should be for us good Americans. Once we clear the Cafeteria deck of illegals, steak is what kids should get. However, for a price, there is no free lunch.

CALCAPITALEYE commented: redkernhero,
If your intent is to fulfill every negative stereotype regarding Conservative Republicans then you are doing an excellent job. I have a feeling that Assemblywoman Jean Fuller, whom you so vehemently defend, would probably not endorse your defense.
redkernhero commented: I love everyone, I read the rules, but I still have my family values.
CALCAPITALEYE commented: Back on subject... The proposed changes through AB1503 will most likely adversely affect all students K-12. This Legislation has little to do with Illegal immigration. Unfunded mandates which carry a penalty clause are usually bad ideas.

Sound Off: If you stab an officer, are you a shooting victim?

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:15:32 PDT

Sound Off

Reader:Wednesday's bakersfield.com article on the theft of the knife, stabbing and subsequent shooting at the Valley Plaza displayed a photograph depicting medical personnel administering first aid to the subject that had been shot by the police officer. The caption for the photo referred to the "victim of the shooting," inferring that the wounded individual was somehow an innocent party.

A more accurate caption would have been something to the effect of "medical personnel administer first aid to the suspect, shot after stabbing a police officer." In this case, the police officer was the victim, as well as the merchant that had the knife stolen. The "shooting victim" chose to become a suspect based on his actions.

I have been in law enforcement for more than 35 years, and I have seen many officers become victims of assaults and other crimes, yet the media rarely identifies the officers as victims. Police officers are not infallible, but the media should accurately describe the event, the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" of what happened.

-- Gregory Verbeck

Jenner: I agree.

The caption that appeared online missed the mark. It was written before all the details about the events that led to the shooting were known and confirmed.

The caption that appeared on the front page of The Californian did not refer to the man who was shot as a "victim."

Once we had all the information, an editor should have noticed the online caption and revised it to point out that the man was shot as he was attacking the police officer with a knife.

Editors and reporters are indeed sensitive to the issue you bring up. We need to describe the events leading to officer-involved shootings accurately and as completely as possible.

Reader: Thank you for bringing your coverage of the Condors to a place on the front burner. The front page of Wednesday's Sports page included a nice piece on our Condors team.

A few days ago, I sent a note to the paper regarding the lack of commitment the print media had to the Condors. The Condors' quest for a hockey championship rated a bit more attention from your sportswriters. I do not know if my previous letter had any effect on this, but I felt I had to recognize your effort and to say THANK YOU. Thank you for the Condors Team and thank you for all their fans.

Enthusiasm is contagious. Cheering on your hometown is wonderful. Thank you for cheering on our Condors.

-- Michelle Claxton

Jenner: Thanks for your note. I did see your earlier letter chiding us for not giving the Condors' playoff-clinching victory in Utah a position on last Saturday's Sports cover.

The placement of that story had more to do with deadlines than a lack of commitment. In that case, the lateness of the game caused us to put that story on the third page of the section. If we'd gotten the story earlier, we would've put it on the cover.

We recognize and respect the following the Condors have developed. And I do appreciate your note.

We have an obligation to cover the positive as well as the negative news in our community. Because the news isn't always happy, I'd probably stop short of calling our coverage "cheering."

That said, we're committed to celebrating the good news and the success stories in our community (see below).

Reader: On behalf of the hundreds of ladies and gentlemen who daily and nightly serve in our numerous hotels, restaurants and attractions may I stand up on their behalf and applaud The Bakersfield Californian for your insightful and comprehensive coverage of our city's tourism industry in last Friday's newspaper.

Further commendation is also warranted for the previous week's coverage welcoming visitors to the CIF state wrestling tournament.

Those of us who work in the hospitality and tourism industry each day realize the outstanding growth that Bakersfield has realized over the past few years in the convention and visitor business.

In fact, we recently surpassed the billion dollar mark in Kern County and anticipate a 28 percent increase in visitor spending in Bakersfield next year.

It is most encouraging for us to know that our hometown newspaper supports our marketing efforts to bring in more visitors and I can only hope that more businesses throughout Bakersfield and Kern County will follow the lead of The Californian and welcome our visitors and assist them with a positive experience while they are here.

As we all know, business goes where it is welcomed and returns where it is appreciated. Let us all make tourism in Bakersfield a team sport.

-- Bob Marx, PhD

President/CEO, Bakersfield

Convention and Visitors Bureau

Reader: Your editorial on the firing of U.S. attorneys was short on facts and long on hot-button words. Without bothering to present supporting facts, you claim President Bush fired prosecutors for "political" reasons and endangered "equal justice." You said Bush has the right to do this, but it's a "scandal" and "cronyism" for him to fire these "apolitical professionals." How do you know it's "cronyism?" Their replacements have not been named.

You say each administration "appoints" its own 93 district-based prosecutors, which implies they all start from scratch. They do not. So why use "appoints" instead of "nominates?" Maybe because after taking office in 1993, President Clinton ordered Attorney General Janet Reno to fire all 93 Republican appointees. Yeah, I know. Only 92 were fired. Sen. Bill Bradley intervened for Michael Chertoff, current Homeland Security boss. In August 2001, Bush "nominated" 6 new prosecutors, leaving 87 Clinton "appointees" in office. Does that mean Bush "appointed" them?

Which above episode sounds more like politics? Cronyism?

More importantly, why have we not seen these facts in the media?

You say the Bush administration inserted a sentence in last year's reauthorization of the Patriot Act, thereby allowing the president to replace U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. I hesitate to insert an inconvenient truth into your argument, but what the heck. Bush does not write the laws. Congress writes, debates, and upon passage, sends them to the president for his signature or veto.

And you blame Bush for what Congress wrote?

Wow! That is just ... wow!

-- Ray Stamper

Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty responds:

I had to re-read our editorial. I did not recognize it from Ray Stamper's description.

The editorialdid not call the firings political. It noted evidence is mounting to support that conclusion and urged Congress to investigate. The editorial did not say the firings endangered "equal justice." Rather it noted the system was supposed to administer equal justice, regardless of "politics."

Call it what you like, but when a high-ranking official already has resigned, the attorney general is under pressure to resign and the president is acknowledging mistakes were made, it is looking like a "scandal."

Increasingly we are hearing from administration supporters that the media is picking on President Bush. They note President Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. Typically when administrations change, the new president fires all the sitting U.S. attorneys. Ronald Reagan did this in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993.

George W. Bush allowed some to stay on the job for several months when he took office in 2001, although eventually all were replaced, according to Associated Press Washington correspondent Tom Raum. It is unusual, but not illegal, for a president to fire so many U.S. attorneys midterm, as President Bush has.

Comments:
redkernhero commented:

Of course not, if you are a suspect you are not a victim, you are guilty, guilty, guilty none of this sissy innocent until proven guilty.

This is America!

dragoon commented:

redkernhero, you will not find the words "innocent until proven guilty" anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. It can be found in the evidence code, however. It applies within the walls of the court to insure that a defendant receives a fair trial. Outside of the court, each and everyone of us is entitled to think what we damn well please about a suspect.

Annon 42

redkernhero commented:

I hear you, and I agree with you, no one is innocent until proven guilty, that is a liberal myth used to tarnish law enforcement. I don't disagree with you this guy had his chances, this guy had a knife and the officer only had a gun and a dog, I would call that an even fight.

That is what I loved about Sgt. Scott; he took no prisoners and handed lead chocolates to his customers. These guys have no rights in our City and the sooner they learn that the sooner they will avoid serious lead poisoning on site without question.

dragoon commented:

Ohhhkay.......I think.

Annon 42

murphyslaw commented: If they're innocent until proven guilty,,,, why do they have to stay in jail???
dragoon commented:

They don't have to stay in jail. They can post bail and be released. The bail is supposed to insure their appearance in court.

Annon 42

redkernhero commented:

Hey just say they are fair game, that is all they need to know. Instant justice is good justice, no court dates, no testifying no questions plus a few days off to recharge, I can live with that. After all, this is not liberal bastions Boston or New York where they find 100 bullets in a suspect suspicious.

Sam Heath: Worth considering: Muslim Repellant

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:08:03 PDT

It’s undoubtedly only my imagination, but I could swear the figure of Sam Clemens on my desk, the gift of my friend Byron, is winking at me as I write about this today. Among the responses to my article suggesting using pig grease as a weapon against Muslim terrorism some knew about the historical use of pork and pig grease against Muslims in this manner. A very few even confirmed its present use in Afghanistan and Iraq as I already knew, though it is not publicized. And given the sensitivity of such a thing quite understandably if you ask any of our troops about “oinkers” you will get a puzzled look. However, when you hear of “progress” being made by our troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan perhaps those pig grease coated bullets just might have something to do with this as word gets around to the enemy. What you will not hear about, though it is a passing thought, is whether any progress with Iran may depend on threats of pig grease laden bombs being used against that rogue Muslim nation.

Bad enough politicians and judges, jails and prisons, even some businesses are going to insane extremes to accommodate Muslims in America, but for my part I applaud such a method as pork and pig grease used against the terrorists, and what if the prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo had been made to play football with the ‘ol pigskin? Hey, whatever works; whatever terrorizes the terrorists and saves our troops, though undoubtedly the ACLU will sue if they can for such a thing being used against terrorists; you know, “cruel and unusual.” To which I have only one word in reply: Oink!

Perhaps it may be possible to correct sexual orientation in the womb, but why isn’t science bending its efforts to find a Moslem gene so it can be corrected in the womb? I just know anyone born to believe in such a fairytale as Islam has to have a genetic disorder; how else account for those with a predisposition of approving the murder of anyone not sharing their religious beliefs?

Those despicable anti-American Imams that purposely made themselves targets of suspicion on US Airways are salivating at the prospects of the lawsuits; their intention being not just money, but more importantly using the courts to enable terrorists. These execrable creatures are also threatening to sue passengers that reported their suspicious activities with the obvious intention of making all of us fearful to report anyone acting suspiciously. I have a suggestion for the airlines: I once owned a vehicle, an East German manufactured Wartburg with pigskin covered seats. While this would be far too expensive for the airlines, perhaps just a small patch of pigskin added for décor in the seats of all airliners including the seats of the pilots. Do you suppose if this had been done in airliners before 9/11; well, it’s a thought. Another thought: How about making pigskin a part of all the cells in jails and prisons throughout America, even offering pigskin covered copies of the Koran to the “faithful?”

One of my high school students of many years ago was a gifted artist; his cartoons were especially well done. But being a Christian fundamentalist he did one illustrating people using “Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness Repellant Spray” to rid such people from knocking on your door. While he outgrew such “humor” and went on to become a very successful illustrator, the idea did come to me how about those in danger of Muslim kidnappers instead of cans of pepper spray or Mace they equip themselves with cans of pig grease spray? What if Jessica Lynch and others had been so equipped with “Muslim Repellant?” And what if airline passengers begin to carry such repellant, how many would-be terrorists would risk being sprayed? Listen up folks, when the terrorists begin eyeballing school buses as a way to attack America using one of the most distinguishable symbols of children for the purpose (though our government “assures” us this isn’t true) I say “Whatever it takes!”

If only there was such an effective thing as pigskin or pig grease we could use against the ACLU, judges, and politicians. Unfortunately, as a species politicians are addicted to pork and have become immune to the efficacious remedy of such a thing as pig grease being applied to them. However, being vampires sucking the blood of We the People they are not immune to the bright light of the sun if that could only be made to shine upon them fully exposing their dark deeds.

While he is usually correct, columnist Erik Rush got it wrong about the most dangerous organizations in America. The first is our federal government, second is the ACLU, and the third may be the one Erik names second, the Washington-based “Progressive Majority.” Alas, if politicians, the fanatics of Islam, and the fanatical ACLU have their way together with the invasion of America by Mexico it will come down to the old fashioned “Kill ‘em all and let God sort out the dead.”

Comments:
randomfactor commented:

And just which part of the US Constitution would the despicable and counter-productive practice of pig-greasing bullets violate, prompting an ACLU lawsuit? The separation of lard and state?

As I said the first time you brought up this topic, it seems the Pentagon is working hard to find *NEW* ways to lose the war. This one's a doozy.

hondaboss commented:

Sam,

I'm all for dropping several nukes disguised as a pigs. How about pig ranches along their boarders to keep them in? Long Live "The Other White Meat!"

TomW commented: Crusades and eugenics. Lovely. What we really need is a spray for all the extremists of any stripe.

Restaurant reviews, dishes, recipes, and more: Do you like chile verde pizza?

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:53:44 PDT

Is that like asking do you like Kung Pao goulash?

How does chile verde, a staple at Mexican restaurants, end up on Italian pizza?

I can't answer that. Go to Tony's Pizza at 4130 California Ave. near Circuit City and find out because Tony (which in Spanish is Antonio) has it.

We would like to know how you like it.

Does it taste good or is this a blatant violation of the one dish, one nationality rule? Is there such a rule or did I make that up?

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

Comments:
randomfactor commented: Well, I love both Chile Verde and pizza. Tony's is on my list.
anglo1 commented: I opened a Pizza place a few years ago and made Chili Verde pizza for my friends and family only. I found the crust needed to be pre baked about half way to done before spreading the chili on or it would end up very soggy, tasty but soggy. L&Rs in Delano makes a pretty good version. My place was called Tonys also [my partner]. We had a Mexican pizza with chorizo that was pretty popular so I think anything goes.
FinchFarm commented: King Leo's Pizza was more spicy and the crust was different. Really good.
tonyh commented:

Dale,

Chorizo Pizza? That sounds GREAT! ........................I really miss the food in Kern County. For years, I couldn't buy Chorizo locally. My Mom would bring me 20 lbs. of it once a year, whe my folks would come visit. I absolutely love it scrambled with eggs, for breakfast.

A couple of months ago, I actually got a bowel of Menudo at a local Restraunt that was really good. That was a first. The lady makes it on Saturdays, so I now go and get some every Saturday Night. She knows that I'm coming, and is ready with a BIG bowel, and a Scotch on the rocks................................................... I look forward to it all week.

My Wife won't allow me to make it in the house anymore, because she can't stand the smell of the tripe boiling down. For awhile I was so desparate that I would make it in a big pot, outside on my gas grill. When you're the only one in the house who will eat it, and you make 4 gallons of it, a lot gets frozen for later. It's not as good after it's been frozen.

JustAThought commented: Has anyone checked the Health Departments review of Tony's? You may want to do that before dinning there, unless of course you want to get sick.
Anthony73 commented: Just to let you know In Delano at a pizza/bar called LR's makes the chile verde pizza.
From experience it will leave you breath takeing,your nose running,drinking lots of water/soda/beer and still asking for more.So i'm just going to have to check this place out to see if it compares to LR's.

Who's doing the thinking?: WHO'S DOING THE THINKING?

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:34:25 PDT

Today's Californian had two articles of intrest. #1 The parks and rec. decided to take out soccer goal posts from a park that was used for games and practice of soccer teams, both children and adults. Right under that article was another that stated that the City Council had on their agenda to discuss,among other things, gangs.

The Parks dept; rather than limit the use to apease the home owners around the park would rather kick everyone out so that the city council will have something on their agenda (Gangs). Where are the kids supposed to go? Cal. State ended the use of their area to the Southwest soccer leagues. Oh sure, the Parks dept. stated they have two fields that can be rented. Wow! Cal. State had dozens of soccer fields. What are these teams supposed to do while wating for another facility to be built? There are many parks that can be utilized for soccer. Spread them around and there won"t be a congestion problem. Limit the hours and have them on a reservation basis.

Deep Thoughts~whats in ,on my mind and whats out there.: Reflections on the War

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:06:28 PDT

Watching the Today show as I do most mornings, the news after four years, with too many lives lost, so many more changed beyond recognition, seems bleak and hopeless. Then the familiar chords of breaking news interrupted the mornings flow. My heart sunk to my chest, my body immediately entering what I call “deer in the headlights” response. How changed I am by that September morn. How resentful that that momentous day so many left this earthly coil used by some to promote their agenda. How very tired I am of Fear. Thankfully, it was just a White House “stay the course” speech. Looking at our President, no one can say the office does not take its toll on the occupant. This is just~ balancing somewhat the toll on us, the citizen.

Listing first to the Secretary of State Ms Rice, then to the current President Bush, I was struck by something. I chose not to believe that they are inherently evil, they believe in what they do, that this is the best course. Clearly, they also believe in Peter Pans theory: just keep saying, “I believe”, and like Tinkerbelle, Iraq will be what they wish. We have done what we set out to do, Saddam is gone, no weapons of mass destruction. Now even General Petraeus has said a diplomatic end is the only way to stabilize the region. We must involve the United Nations truly making this a unilateral effort. With 92% of the people of Iraq afraid that violence will strike them personally, no one can say we are helping them.

If only half of the misspent funds had gone into rebuilding their economy, much of the unrest would be diminished. A working person, fed, warm, with water and electricity is less inclined to agitate than one who is not in that condition. Recently I had reason to talk with tech support. The man, with an accent, helping me actually laughed when I had said I could not afford a product. Reflecting after I realized how some in less affluent countries must see us. While in his country I might be affluent, here I am “the working poor”. My point is that while I do participate in our system of government I have no real reason to “take to the streets”, become radicalized. If I lived somewhere else .in dire straights? That question haunts me, unanswerable. It is however likely that I might well assail the powers that I perceived were keeping me down. Especially now as I have not a lot left to lose.

There are many ways to hasten the demise of terror, fundamentalist hate. I am sure that like spanking a child for hitting, we are sending at best a very mixed message.

Comments:
randomfactor commented:

Operation Iraqi Liberation is going as planned:

http://www.gregpalast.com/its-still-the-oilsecret-condi-meeting-on-oil-before-invasion/

sagefever commented: Great link; I did say that I chose not to think they are evil....I have been wrong before..
robbwillis commented: Isn't the Today Show the one where all the people press up against the window trying to get on TV?
redkernhero commented:

Secretary Rice just cannot please anyone these days; everyone wants to pick on her even though she has done a good job and is the only one in the administration with a promotion in her resume.

She has made consistently good decisions in advising Mr. Bush, that is why we have been successful in our Iraqi liberation mission. Stop criticizing Secretary Rice or she will not be there when we get to Iran, than what?

randomfactor commented:

Just these days? It's nice to know a woman can still get ahead in a Republican administration (that is, if she's sleeping with the boss.)

Nice shoes, though.

samheath commented: Thanks for sharing your thoughts so openly sagefever. I believe millions of Americans have the same thoughts.
redkernhero commented:

Again you denigrate Secretary of State Rice. You liberals just don’t want to give her credit for her good work. According to the only free press, that of Fox news, she brought pay toilets to the Green Zone, and that is something they did not have under Saddam.

She introduced free enterprise to a region that had never enjoyed the benefits of free trade, so get off her case and recognize her good work and tremendous accomplishments.

randomfactor commented: Well, she does play piano purty. And is an expert on a country which doesn't exist anymore...though she seems determined to bring it back. I do compliment George Bush on figuring out how to avoid beriberi, though...
sagefever commented: redkernhero Sir~ in America a critique is not considered denigration,which is dispairing of a reputation.Many people,aparently yourself included, ascribe to the "if I keep saying it it will become truth" theroy.While I am lost in admiration to the pay toilets in the green zone, perhaps she should leave that off her resume~ grandstanding you know?. Again I chose not to see these folks a evil,just misguided.Thank you for your opinion however~long may we be able to excange ideas.
randomfactor commented:

I think RKH was referring to me, not you.

I think these people *WANT* to be evil, but aren't competent enough to accomplish it.

GotREALITY commented: It's funny how the rt. wing conservative rhetoric never changes.
randomfactor commented: It's intended to be funny, here.
sagefever commented: heck I wanna play too!!..I did not think he was refering to me personally but I could not let the whole pay toilets thing go..sorry if I stepped on your toes random.
jasonsperber commented: I think RF's on the right track. Does our new compatriot not seem a bit, well, Colbert-ish? :)
NancyII commented: I'm curious..why are you folks so determined that Rice slept with Bush when it's no more than gossip at this point? Is it so tittilating that you just can't resist it?
sagefever commented: Not all of us are, as I am sure you know;) I think it is, was, just silly back and forth banter,but thats the sort of thing we divide ourselves with..and it might hurt Lora's feelings..
randomfactor commented:

Nancy, it has to do with fifty million wasted dollars and thousands of wasted Congressional hours in a politically-driven impeachment trial. Nothing personal.

Oh, and it's not "you guys," it's just me. But how can you deny the lurid front-page headlines on the tabloids? After the Anna Nicole fiasco (didja see the judge just got busted for pot possession?) the tabloids are practically the Gray Lady.

redkernhero commented:

Again you misjudge Ms. Rice, she is competent enough to be evil and she can prove it, apparently you don’t watch Foxnews. It is just that you liberals don’t want to see anyone in the administration succeed. Had she not had that mean streak intact, she would have interfered with Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and the war in Lebanon would still be going strong, give her credit.

randomfactor commented: Give her credit? She's already helped her boyfriend borrow against the national treasury for the next two generations. What's she want now, cab fare?

Editorials: No 'final vindication' for victims

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:03:38 PDT

PUBLISHED 3-20-2007

The Kern County District Attorney’s decision not to retry two of three defendants in the Desert Counseling Clinic case is not the “final vindication” defense attorney Timothy Lemucchi claims.

In 2004 Ira Cooke, Bobbi Cumberworth and her husband, Terry Cumberworth, were accused of stealing funds from the clinic they operated. Lemucchi represented Cooke in the case.

Desert Counseling provided mental health services to clients under contract to the Kern County Department of Mental Health.

The contract was largely funded by taxpayers through the Medi-Cal insurance program for the poor.

Cooke and Bobbi Cumberworth were found guilty of stealing $57,000 of clinic funds. They appealed their conviction, which was overturned by the 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno on the grounds of numerous procedural errors made by Kern County Superior Court Judge John Kelly. In an unusually harsh ruling, the court said many of his decisions were “arbitrary, capricious and patently absurd.”

Between them, the pair has made restitution of the $57,000.

Bobbi Cumberworth’s husband, Terry, was tried separately for theft of $750,000 from the clinic. He is not appealing his seven-year sentence.

In explaining the decision not to retry the case against Cooke and Bobbi Cumberworth, Supervising Deputy District Attorney Michael Yraceburn pointed out that the pair could not receive and greater punishment than they already had.

The appeals court decision dealt with process, procedure and flawed legal rulings by Judge Kelly.

It did not examine evidence or consider the impact of the clinic’s closure due to bankruptcy.

The appeals court’s decision is not vindication for taxpayers whose funds were squandered, employees who lost their jobs and clients whose continuity of care was disrupted.

Comments:
koztarr commented: My spouse was on the Cumberworth/Cooke jury. She spent many weeks on that trial, plus keeping up her job. From all indications, the jury , to a member, worked hard to reach a fair and honest verdict with the information presented.

Editorials: Light idea gets brighter

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:01:38 PDT

PUBLISHED 3-20-2007

A bill introduced in the Legislature recently by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, banning incandescent light bulbs for interior home use wasn’t the brightest idea in the world. It’s intent to force people to use energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs is good, but it quickly created more rhetorical heat than policy light.

Now a competing bill, AB 1109, does what is really needed. AB1109 by Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, essentially does two things.

First, its orders the California Energy Commission to set energy efficiency and lighting standards for indoor residential use and indoor and outdoor commercial use in a series of steps over the next 10 years.

Its second major thrust is to require manufacturers to reduce the use of toxic chemicals in bulbs. Fluorescent lamps have mercury and incandescent lamps often contain lead. Both are toxic substances that should not go into landfills. The bill requires manufacturers to reduce the level of toxic substances and to provide incentives for recycling.

The new bill’s approach to set standards and allow industry to innovate is based on the history of technology. The record has innumerable examples of how competition produces more benefits than bans or edicts.

The threat of bill may already be having a competitive effect — both General Electric and Philips companies now say they have higher efficiency incandescent bulbs in the works. It’s going to be a tough competition.

Although fluorescent bulbs are expensive to buy, they more than pay back the investment in longevity — on average they last eight times as long as incandescents — and are three to four times as energy efficient.

In fact, many people who converted their lighting to spiral-shaped fluorescents during the state’s energy crisis in 2000 have yet to replace a bulb.

Goldeneyes: Morning Rendezvous

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:54:54 PDT

I am not a morning person.

Most of the time I'm up until the wee hours, either writing or doing something to avoid writing - and then I sleep half the morning away. I can do that now - it's one of the perks to having an empty nest.

But not today.

I crawled into bed sometime just prior to 3 a.m. this morning (oh, make that yesterday morning - it's after midnight now), only to have my eyes pop open at about a quarter to six. I blinked sleepily and looked to my window, noticing the colors of dawn still streaking the sky. Dawn? Huh-uh! I plumped my pillow and turned over to go back to sleep. It was NOT time to get up.

"Come talk to Me."

It was just a whisper. A tiny little voice. I must have imagined it.

"Pssst! In here. I'm waiting."

He kept it up, gently nudging me. Finally I groaned and said, "OK, Lord, I'm awake. What's the deal?"

But lying in bed pretending to pay attention wasn't working. I finally had to crawl out of my nice warm cocoon, grab my little devotion book and Bible, and park myself on the sofa for some time with the Lover of my soul. Turns out I'd been putting that at the bottom of my To Do list a little too often, and God - being the good Friend that He is - had to wake me up and tell me He missed me.

I realized just how much I had missed Him, too, when He snuggled me up close and whispered, "Beloved ... where have you been?"

The glory of that early morning rendezvous has been reflected in every moment of my day. How could it not? The King of Kings and Lord of Lords desired my company enough to disturb my coveted slumber to get it.

I am blessed!

Comments:
robbwillis commented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
delialatham commented:

Thanks for the link, Robb! :O)

Please don't send a therapist, though. If I'm schizophrenic, I want to stay this way. I love the "voices in my head"! I love my unseen Visitor! I'm thrilled with the sweet words whispered into my ear by the Lover of my soul!

Guess that makes me one of those crazy Christians, doesn't it? Woo-hooo! Go ahead ... lock me up and throw away the key. Just ... whatever you do ... don't lock my God away from me. I want to keep hearing His voice.

I am not a Starbucks drinker!: Clinton 1984

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:24:10 PDT

I'm sure you all have plenty to say about this video, but before you begin, no I didn't create this video, I'm just posting it.

Enjoy!

Comments:
DoctorMason commented:

Re: Clinton 1984

I have been unable to embed a video, so here is a link:

randomfactor commented:

Actually, Senator Clinton could be the woman tossing the hammer next year. We're in "1984" right now...

We've always been at war with Eastasia. We've got Big Brother snooping through our e-mails. Sexual repression is the norm.

And the Ministry of Love has been relocated to Guantanamo Bay. Complete with rats.

ki6amd commented: RF Sexual repression? In California? Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, sure, but here? I really hope you're not talking about California as a sexually repressive state. As for reading your e-mails, it would take the all of the super computers to be clustered to be able to "sniff" less than 50% of all American e-mails.
randomfactor commented:

Damn right I am. Exhibit one: the Californian's piece on "hooking up" featured on the blog this morning.

As for the need for massed computer power--then what *IS* the US doing behind that closed door? What was Echalon all about?

http://www.spamdailynews.com/publish/ATT_tech_outs_NSA_spy_room.asp

ki6amd commented: Echalon is nothing, BlueGen is #1 as far as super computers go. Echalon is used for crypto, both cracking, and creating keys for military use. Agian, if you think California is sexually repressive, see the link in my last post.
randomfactor commented:

Ki6, what happened when a (covered) nipple appeared for a half-second at a Superbowl halftime? How does that affect California, no matter how "free" the state may seem?

Molly is wonderful (and sadly gone). The book I'm currently reading, she wrote in 1992 and pointed out then that possession of six or more dildos was a felony in her beloved "National Laboratory for Bad Government." She also wondered how "electable" a Presidential Candidate named Clinton was, and whether George Bush would expand the war in Iraq for political gain.

Oh, and whether there'd be a costly economic repercussion from badly-managed S&L loans...

sfinboston52 commented: saw the video this morning. It wasnt produced by the Obama team and hasnt been authorized by Obama or his team. Also, I would question if it just isnt an amateur video, rather than a real political ad..since it is almost exactly like the orginal Apple ad, using an apple logo at the end even.
ki6amd commented: Personally RF, I know people at CRG West (you may not know who that company is), but trust me, the governemnt can't listen to everything, or close to half of it.

As for Bush expanding the war for political gain it sure isn't working is it?
randomfactor commented: Since when did *THAT* stop him from doing something dumb again?
ki6amd commented: sfinboston52, I'm guessing it's one of the apple lovers who's also a Obama fan.
randomfactor commented: sf, it *IS* an amateur effort. We're entering a period where bloggers and YouTube amateurs will have as much influence on the political scene as the paid consultants.
randomfactor commented: By the way, the 1984 piece will be featured on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" tonight for that reason.
ki6amd commented: Amen RF, the difference though is that we'll never know who's agenda they are trying to promote
randomfactor commented: And I don't see any way of putting the genie back in the bottle. The Swift Boat attacks on Kerry show that the media can't seem to do a job of screening out the bandini anymore. It's up to the bloggers.
sfinboston52 commented:

Oh totally agreed...also glad more bloggers are gaining power. I am so tired of both left/right spokesperson/PR lying to the people or twisting the truth.

redkernhero commented: She is one of us, after all!
randomfactor commented: Got that right, redkern. Her husband was the most successful Republican president of the last 25 years or so. She's too conservative for my tastes.
ki6amd commented: LMAO
randomfactor commented: Laughing, KI6? I *WOULD* much prefer a liberal as President.
ki6amd commented: Sorry RF, the laugh was originally meant for RedKernHero, but it still applies to your comment. I know you think Hillary is conservative, but we don't need to take votes or a poll to see if conservatives (or even moderate conservatives) would vote for her. She's probably not liberal enough for you (and many other liberals), and not conservative enough for me, but sadly I think she'll win. I think that says something for my faith in the American voting public.
sagefever commented: Nice entertainment,anybody with an editor/phot shop type app. can be funny...but ,the old tactic of confusing the issue with facts is a bad habit of mine. but its good to laugh, thanks
antiextremism commented: I have no problem with bashing Hillary, but the video didn't really match her rhetoric much.
randomfactor commented: Gee--misrepresenting an opponent's stance. Who'dathunkit?

Confessions of a Pet Parent: Recalled pet foods information

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:08:23 PDT

Information regarding which brands and varities of canned and pouched pet food are involved in the Menu Foods recall can be found in this thread:
http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/bakoblue/6638

Talk of the Town: Hookup culture, male fantasy come true

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:01:57 PDT

In the latest example of how males of the world get females to do silly things, like wear high heals, teens and young 20-somethings are into "hooking up," casual sexual encounters with no strings attached.

A Washington D.C. author, Laura Sessions Stepp, wrote a book, "Unhooked," which suggest these arrangements are not good for girls.

She says hookups can be damaging to young women, denying their emotional needs, putting them at risk of depression and even sexually transmitted disease. Plus it may make them ill-equipped for real relationships later on.

Of course, Stepp was criticized for her view with on critic, Meghan O'Rourke, saying Stepp is "buying into alarmism about women," and making sex "a bigger, scarier, and more dangerous thing than it already is."

So, what's your take on this — if you're young, are hookups the way to go? If you're a parent, what kind of advice would you give your kids?

Posted by Steve E. Swenson

Comments:
woofwoof commented:

What's good for the goose is not good for the gander???? After my divorce when I was 24, I certainly didn't want a relationship (he cheated on me). I had a a couple "friends with benefits". I was a normal gal with needs too....

I'd say it's only damaging if your not in control of your own situation. Letting some guy talk you into something that's not good for you, then you can be emotionally charred.

randomfactor commented: And that's true no matter what the situation. If friends-with-benefits prevent unhappy marriages, hooray!