what number is it...

#3: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

or

#9: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

that Monica Goodling is afraid of breaking by refusing to testify in Congress and calling on the Fifth Amendment?

If she swears "...so help me God," in the oath required, she could be breaking #3. If she testifies or refuses to testify, she could be doing one of two things: lying about what she knows or omitting what she knows.

The first would be a sin of commission - ... a positive act contrary to some prohibitory precept. The second would be a sin of ommission - a failure to do what is commanded. A sin of omission, however, requires a positive act whereby one wills to omit the fulfilling of a precept, or at least wills something incompatible with its fulfillment. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sin

So in the sin of commission, she would actively be committing the sin if she swears and lies. In the sin of ommission, she could still be lying if she pleads the 5th because she would be commanded by law and oath to tell the truth.

I wonder what the classes dealing with the 5th Amendment teach at Regents University School of Law? Would the discussion be about sin or protection from "self-incrimination?" AND what laws are they actually learning?

just asking...

agenda, agenda...?

Let's talk about who has an agenda.

The christianists constantly employ the use of amorphous phrases such as the liberal agenda, a homosexual agenda, and an anti-christian agenda as a tactic to incite fear, and they hide behind the conservative agenda. But who has the the biggest agenda?

Yeah, right, the christitanist agenda. And what is that agenda?

The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.

But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to “dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.” And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge. For God’s Sake, Paul Krugman, New York Times op ed, Friday, April 13, 2007

Please, read the entire op ed by Krugman by clicking on the link. It succinctly puts into perspective what's been going on not just for the last 6 years but for the last 26 years.

Can anyone say that no one hasn't seen it coming? How did it get this far? AND, though it hasn't been widely spotlighted to date, as Krugman points out, do people realize that the US is in the midst of possibly not only its biggest constitutional crisis but also in a civil war? One that is splitting this country not just apart but into many different segments? A war based in words rather than organized bloodshed?

A religious civil war...

I don't usually take on the role of alarmist, but I think I have referred to this in at least one previous post. If you are not familiar with Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, now, more than ever, people should be aware of it. It scared the sh*t out of me in 1985, again with the movie in 1990, and even more so today. It's been transforming into a possible reality, one step at a time. Could armed camps become a reality?

just asking...

no obfuscation here...

He's following the law too. He's on a leash and walking himself. This dog's a lot smarter in more ways than one...

new blog title...

kinda, sorta...

I've been debating for awhile about changing the title of the blog. I've been blogging no matter what... since January 2005. The content has evolved. My cynicism has reawakened, dozed off and then reawakened again.

When I looked back over the last two year's of blogs, I realized that in addition to adhering to my intitial goal of spreading my belief that everyone has the right to be, say and do whatever is right for them - as long as it does not physically harm another person - there has been a current of seeking out the hypocrisy and getting people to ask questions by thinking about things in ways from many and different perspectives, not just one.

Rather than changing the title completely, I realized that the one I was considering actually fit with no matter what.... Hence the original title + the new one =

no matter what... eschew obfuscation

So, what does it mean?

The phrase eschew obfuscation is a bit esoteric and arcane, and that's the point of it. A little vocabulary lesson:

eschew /es chü/ verb: to avoid, to shun
obfuscation /ob'fu skā shən/ noun: the act of rendering obscure, unclear, or unintelligble

To put the meaning in a clearer form - no matter what... avoid being unclear...

and have we had a time dealing with that for the last several years. As a point of reference: April 9, 2003. The reasons for invading Iraq are the height of obfuscating, lie after lie, spin after spin, revision after revision.

The phrase eschew obfuscation has personal history also. Working in education, one of the biggest problems of teaching is making things clear for all students. When you have students gaining information in different modalities, processing it in several learning styles, and understanding it with different abilities, it can be very difficult when there are 25 - 30 kids in front of you.

Also, if you stop and think about it, relationships rely heavily on eschewing obfuscation. When two people, or more for that matter, are being unclear either inadvertently or on purpose all kinds of misunderstanding can happen. So, yeah, I've obfuscated at times and paid the price. [I have the t-shirt to prove it!]

In a way, whether it's a personal relationship or a problem between two countries, obfuscation of some sort will probably be at the base of it.

What we need then is to eschew obfuscation.

and they still have that bridge in New York for sale...

a misnomer...

Global warming is actually a misnomer - a wrong or inaccurate name or designation.

When people hear it they're thinking, "It's gonna get hot." Yes, it's going to get hot, but in the wrong places. All of the talk of the warming is pointing to places like Antactica and the Artic: the massive icebergs falling off of the glaciers; the giant ozone hole at the bottom of the earth. This is causing a major problem for the rest of the world but not necessarily with it getting warmer. Yes, there will be droughts and great heat but what about the rest of the world? Not every place will become overheated.

What it is actually doing is playing havoc with weather patterns, seasonal changes, moisture levels, violent storms, etc.

In Chicago today we have had a snowfall, actually more slush than snow, and we're into April. One commenter on a blog wanted to know where the global warming was. We had warm weather - in February & the beginning of March - 70's. That's unusual. We're having snow today. That's unusual too but not unheard of.

The naysayers on global warming are pointing to the literal act of warming and say that they aren't seeing it. That's not what it's all about. It's much more complicated than this. The Earth is a very large space, no matter how small it seems at times, and has an enormous range of climate differences. Not all are going to be effected in the same way.

The problem is that no one really knows what's going to happen in the long run.

That may be the greatest misnomer. If the experts don't really know what's going to happen and the naysayers are wont to admit that the phenomenum actually exists, will it be too late to do anything about it?

for more information: An Inconvient Truth

the spin...

al Sadr calls for demonstration against the occupiers after telling both Sunis and Shiites to oust them with violence.

The spin from the White House - Democracy at Work.

What am I missing here? How does this support the troops? When did the US start advocating democracy through violence?

oh, wait... four years ago.

monday morning mayhem...

this weeek, a tribute to the wiser folk among us...

1. elderly pre-nup...

An elderly couple in their 80's were about to get married.

She said: "I want to keep my house."

He said: "that's fine with me."

She said: "And I want to keep my Cadillac."

He said: "That's fine with me."

She said: "And I want to have sex 6 times a week."

He said: "That's fine with me... Put me down for Fridays!"

2.heart exam...



3. sleeping in church...



4. whatever Lulu's grandma wants...

Lulu was a prostitute, but she didn't want her grandma to know.
One day, the police raided a whole group of prostitutes at a sex party in a hotel, and Lulu was among them. The police took them outside and had all the prostitutes line up along the driveway when suddenly, Lulu's grandma came by and saw her granddaughter.

Grandma asked, "Why are you standing in line here, dear?"

Not willing to let her grandmother know the truth, Lulu told her grandmother that the policemen were passing out free oranges and she was just lining up for some.

"Why, that's awfully nice of them. I think I'll get some for myself," Grandma said, and before Lulu could stop her she proceeded to the back of the line.

A policeman was going down the line asking for information from all of the prostitutes. When he got to Grandma, he was bewildered and exclaimed, "Wow, still going at it at your age? How do you do it?"

Grandma replied, "Oh, it's easy, dear. I just take my dentures out, rip the skin back and suck them dry."

The policeman fainted!

(I couldn't help it. This one made me dizzier than usual, literally, when I read it.)



see what we all have to look forward to when we are members of the wiser folk. I can't wait.

Ohhhhh... I'm almost there...

what's going on here (part XXII)...

can someone explain...

1. North Koreans Arm Ethiopians as U.S. Assents

Three months after the United States successfully pressed the United Nations to impose strict sanctions on North Korea because of the country’s nuclear test, Bush administration officials allowed Ethiopia to complete a secret arms purchase from the North [Korea], in what appears to be a violation of the restrictions, according to senior American officials.

The United States allowed the arms delivery to go through in January in part because Ethiopia was in the midst of a military offensive against Islamic militias inside Somalia, a campaign that aided the American policy of combating religious extremists in the Horn of Africa.

All right. The US assents. Why? Because the Ethiopians are fighting the Islamic fundamentalists in Somalia. North Korea, part of the axis of evil. The Bush administration talks out of both sides of its mouth - at the same time. For what reason? They are so transparent...

2. Al-Sadr to followers: Fight Americans, not Iraqis

A powerful and radical Shiite cleric implored his followers Sunday to stop killing Iraqis and focus their violent efforts on ousting American forces from the war-torn nation.

Muqtada al-Sadr also called on Iraqi forces to join the insurgents in the battle against "the occupiers."

What is the effect of the surge? It's working; it's workng; it's working. Right, and that bridge in New York is still for sale. Could it be that Iran is really the one who wants to buy it? just asking...

3. Iraqi insurgents recruit among U.S.-held detainees

U.S.-run detention camps in Iraq have become a breeding ground for extremists where Islamic militants recruit and train supporters, and use violence against perceived foes, say former inmates and Iraqi officials.

Yes, yes... The surge is working. But for whom?

4. Iraqi Insider Details U.S. Mismanagement

In a rueful reflection on what might have been, an Iraqi government insider details in 500 pages the U.S. occupation's "shocking" mismanagement of his country _ a performance so bad, he writes, that by 2007 Iraqis had "turned their backs on their would-be liberators."

"The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order," Ali A. Allawi concludes in "The Occupation of Iraq," newly published by Yale University Press.

and the Iraqis are very, very grateful for that. They are enjoying the surge to no end. got that right - no end...

5. Guantanamo hunger strike staged

Scores of detainees at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have begun a hunger strike, human rights lawyers have said.
The prisoners, many of whom have been held for more than three years without charge, are believed to be demanding an immediate trial or release.

Lawyers for the detainees say about 200 are refusing all food. Military officials put the number at 76.

The New York Times is reporting that the hunger-strikers are being force fed. However,

A military spokesman at Guantánamo, Cmdr. Robert Durand of the Navy, played down the significance of the current hunger strike, describing the prisoners’ complaints as “propaganda.”

Excuse me? Wouldn't some people say that Guantanamo is US propaganda itself? Oh, and the detainees are the ones fighting for habeas corpus?



So, I have to ask. Where is the outrage? Where is the disgust? Where is the fight to protect the Constitution? Are only the detainees demanding it?


Sources: New York Times, cnn.com, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, BBC NEWS

hop, hop, hoppity...

ALL I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT LIFE
I LEARNED FROM THE EASTER BUNNY


don't put all of your eggs in one basket...

walk softly and carry a big carrot...

everyone needs a friend who is all ears...

there's no such thing as too much candy...

all work and no play can make you a basket case...

a cute little tail attracts a lot of attention...

everyone is entitled to a bad hare day...

let happy thoughts multiply like rabbits...

some body parts should be floppy...

keep your paws off other people's jellybeans...

good things come in small sugarcoated packages...

the grass is always greener in someone else's basket...

an Easter bonnet can tame even the wildest hare...

to show your true colors you have to come out of your shell...

the best things in life are still sweet and gooey.

remember - you always bite the ears off first...

kill 'em with kindness & love...

An op ed in this morning's New York Times by Robert Wright entitled Easter Sermon makes a point I've referred to on a few occassions.

Consider a teaching of Jesus that seems on its surface devoid of strategic import. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Christians often cast this verse as innovative, a sharp break from Jesus’ Jewish tradition. But the same idea can be found in the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), and here it is clear that the point of the kindness is to thwart the enemy: “If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat; and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink; for you will heap coals of fire on their heads.”

This was the major stepping off point for a little unkown radical group called Christians two thousand years ago that helped bring about the fall of the mighty Roman Empire. A small group with the radical idea of love over all - and the peace it brings.

The world is facing another of those small unkown groups - radical islam. Here's the money quote from the op ed that sets it all in perspective:

The ultimate in viral marketing was Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice. Deemed a threat to the social order, he was crucified under Roman auspices. But the Romans forgot one thing: If you face a small but growing movement that threatens the imperial order, you shouldn’t attack the men in ways that help the memes.

Mr. Bush says his favorite philosopher is Jesus. One way to show it would be to spend less time repeating the mistake of the Romans and more time heeding the wisdom of Christ.

George W has done everything to keep the radical islamists in the limelight, proven every idea they have concocted against the west, recruited more and more believers to their cause, and given them the ability to keep the focus on the cruelty that the US spreads.

George W acknowledges that he was not a good student. I guess he slept through most of his history classes. Don't you think that insead of clearing brush and parasailing at his ranch this week he should be reading Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? just asking...

let's start the weekend with some fun...

A koala was sitting in a gum tree...... smoking a joint



when a little lizard



walked past, looked up and said,

"Hey, Koala! What are you doing?"

The koala said,

"Smoking a joint, come up and have some."

So the little lizard climbed up and sat next to the koala where they enjoyed a few joints.

After a while the little lizard said that his mouth was "dry" and that he was going to get a drink from the river.

The little lizard was so stoned that he leaned too far over and fell into the river.


A crocodile



saw this and swam over to the little lizard and helped him to the side. Then he asked the little lizard,

"What's the matter with you?"

The little lizard explained to the crocodile that he was sitting smoking a joint with the koala in the tree, got too stoned and then fell into the river while taking a drink.
The crocodile said that he had to check this out and walked into the rain forest, found the tree where the koala was
sitting finishing a joint. The crocodile looked up and said,

"Hey you!"



So the koala looked down at him and said,

"Shiiiiiiiiiiit dude.....
How much water did you drink?!!"

promote the general welfare...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

A couple of questions: What does promote the general welfare mean? To whom's general welfare is it referring? Is anyone excluded from the general welfare?

The Bush administration has taken stand after stand in favor of big business and big government time after time, at the expense of the general welfare for individual citizens. Look at the EPA, the DoJ, and Medicare/Medicaid.

SCOTUS yesterday said that the federal government has the right and responsibility to maintain and reach safe levels of hothouse gases. Bush's response: we're doing enough already. The general welfare is not being promoted allowing continued pollution levels.

The DoJ, or specifically Bush's political appointees, last year interfered with a federal lawsuit against Big Tobacco. It ordered the US attorneys handling the case to lower the sought after settlement and placed strictures on the course of action they should take in conducting the case. The general welfare is not being promoted by tying the hands of jurists in seeking to regulate not only a proven health issue but also another pollutant.

Medicare and Medicaid are on the horizon for millions of baby boomers and in the forefront of the minds of current retirees. They have seen their coverage more controlled and their contributions heightened. Funding is in question for future retireees. In addition, Social Security is in dire problems and could even disappear. The general welfare is being totally ignored when lip-service is the only thing addressing these issues.

In addition, certain groups are being specifically excluded from the general welfare when the Bush administration's base is fighting to exclude them from federal hate crimes legislation, specifically a person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The present law only specifies race, religion or ethnic background. Clearly, there are people/groups who fit into other or broader categories. What is the problem with including everyone in support of the general welfare?

So, again: What does promote the general welfare mean? To whom's general welfare is it referring? Is anyone excluded from the general welfare?

just asking...

etymological lesson...

ar-ro-gate
/arrəgayt/
• verb: take or claim for oneself without justification
ORIGIN: mid-16th cent.: from Latin arrogat- 'claimed for oneself,' from the verb arrogare

ab·ro·gate
/abrgāyt/
• verb: formal repeal or do away with (a law or agreement)
ORIGIN: early 16th cent.: from Latin abrogat- 'repealed,' from the verb abrogare, from ab- 'away, from' + rogare 'propose a law.'

USAGE: The verbs abrogate and arrogate are quite different in meaning. While abrogate means 'repeal (a law),' arrogate means 'take or claim (something) for oneself without justification,' often in the structure: arrogate something to oneself; as in The committee arrogated to itself whatever powers it chose.

ar-ro-gant
(ăərōgənt)
• adjective: having an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.
ORIGIN: late middle English: via Old French from Latin arrogat- 'claiming for oneself,' from the verb arrogare (see abrogate)

*signing statements, USA firings, the surge, unamerican liberals, bush?

just asking...

*see post below for other examples and a good laugh...

from multiple dictionary sources: Cambridge Dictionaries Online, The American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford American Dictionary

bush collector plates...

This is from Bill Maher's Real Time, Season 5, Episode 7. Nothing else needs to be said? does it...?

what's going on here (part XXI)...

can someone explain...

1. New Generation of Qaeda Chiefs Is Seen on Rise

As Al Qaeda rebuilds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, a new generation of leaders has emerged under Osama bin Laden to cement control over the network’s operations, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials....

Top American officials said that, despite the damage to the structure of Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attacks, concern is still high that the group is determined to attack globally.

There is an Aesop fable that immediately comes to mind. This is the end:

"We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"

Sad, isn't it, that we have become a country who operates at two extremes: fear for the worst and doubtful of a possibe reality? My father always told me to never tell a lie - no one believes the truth anyway...


2. Supreme Court Denies Guantanamo Appeal

he Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration's legal strategy in its fight against terrorism.

This is not as bad as it seems.

The victory may be only temporary, however. The high court twice previously has extended legal protections to prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Cuba....

At issue is whether prisoners held at Guantanamo have a right to habeas corpus review, a basic tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment....

But the administration said that because of changes in the law since 2004 there was no need for the justices to hurry. Congress has authorized military hearings to assess whether the prisoners are being properly detained as enemy combatants. Those decisions can be appealed in a limited fashion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the same court that ruled in the administration's favor in February.

In other words, because of a change in the law after earlier court cases, the procedure is in place. So...

''There is no need for this court to assess the adequacy of the...review before it has taken place,'' Solicitor General Paul Clement, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote.

The revisions in the re-worked law haven't been tested yet. SCOTUS is saying that they would be jumping the gun, if they ruled right now. The article ends by saying the court will have to hear the cases eventually. Though the bushies are claiming this as a victory, it is not. They will still have to go through the process and the court, in those cases having followed the process, have basically sided with habeaus corpus and the detainees. This shows that the court system is functioning, even though it does not like the knots the administration has put it into. It is going to take years for the U.S. to get out of the messes that King George W and Crown Prince Cheney have gotten us into.

3. Justices: EPA Can Control Car Emissions

The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars....

The Bush EPA has refused to determine if greenhouse gases are a threat to the environment. Massachusetts, eleven other states and thirteen groups brought suit against the EPS.

The dissention, written by Chief Justice Roberts, didn't focus on the issue of global warming. Rather, he put his attention the the right of states and groups to file suit:

In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit.

The court should simply recognize that redress of the kind of grievances spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Roberts said.

That's it. Don't face the issue - work harder to give the imperial presidency more power to expand its empire and wealth...


4. Briton tells of his four-year ‘nightmare’ at Guantanamo just some highlights from the timesonline -

A former Guantanamo Bay detainee spoke yesterday of the sense of hopelessness he felt during his 4½year incarceration at the internment camp.... Mr al-Rawi was detained in The Gambia in 2002 while on a business trip and flown to Afghanistan and then Guantanamo by the CIA.

“The hopelessness you feel can hardly be described. You are asked the same questions hundreds of times. Allegations are made against you that are laughably untrue but you have no chance to prove them wrong.

“There is no trial, no fair legal process. I was alleged to have participated in terrorist training in Bosnia and Afghanistan. I’ve never been to Bosnia and the only time I visited Afghanistan was thanks to the hospitality of the CIA in an underground prison – the Dark Prison – outside Kabul.”

“Bisher has been through almost unimaginable difficulties . . . kept in an underground prison, beaten, subjected to temperature extremes and to extended isolation.”

We are quite a democratically civilized country. aren't we?


5. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a strictly Christian policy.
Holy Orders

And, if we want to incorporate the entire Judeo-Christian tradition into current policy, it is true that the Old Testament does say harsh things about sodomy. So, just as--following Biblical tradition--they don't mix milk and meat, observant Jews, for instance, should be pretty tough on gay people. But why do Christians pay the Old Testament's commandments any mind? After all they stopped keeping Kosher centuries ago, when Jesus wiped the rulebook clean except for the ethical code--e.g., the Ten Commandments. And the Judeo-Christian ethics don't say anything about sodomy. The whole apparatus of condemnation rests on three letters from Paul, decades later, in which he called homosexuality "against nature." Homosexuality thus presents the purest instance of whether a democratic republic should enforce a purely theological (rather than ethical) prohibition--one with not the slightest secular defense. It's as if Pace had said the Army would not take people who eat bacon.

Paul = closet case? think about it. who else is so vehement against gays? ted haggart et alia, anyone? just asking...


Sources: New York Times, New York Times, Huffington Post Wires, The Times Online, The New Republic Online