I was reading the LA Times and and they published this article on the statistics regarding legalizing Marijuana in California. I don't care about the article or people's opinions on Marijuana, I loved the statistics.
According to the article 57% of voters said they had never tried marijuana. 37% said they had tried marijuana. What about the other 6%, were they unsure? Were they like Bill Clinton, they puffed but did not inhale? Nationally this would mean somewhere around 20 MILLION people don't know if they have tried marijuana.
Marijuana legalization
Monday, May 31, 2010
Idiot Contest
Michele Obama was recently at a school and a child asked her about the President wanting to deport illegal aliens. Mrs. Obama responded by saying only people without the proper papers would be deported. The little girl said that her mother didn't have any papers. The little girls mother ran out of the room and is now in hiding. The little girl was born in the United States.
The article about the girl
Lets start with the obvious. Do you really believe that every child in that class didn't get a background check along with their parents? How dumb do they think we are? The first lady doesn't go to places at random, there is an office of people dedicated to managing everyone of her public appearances. The timing is also perfect in light of the law passed in Arizona.
The argument will now be over whether or not children of illegal aliens should be given citizenship. The argument continues to be over what rights people should have. People are being led by their biases and bigotry to destroy our national rights. It is not about illegal aliens, it is about rights.
Some will argue that being born here does not entitle one to citizenship. That is a dangerous and slippery slope. How far back do you want to go, how many came here legally. The American Indian might argue that none of us is here legally.
UPDATE
So the idiots have already been posting responses to the article on Yahoo News. They have found a novel interpretation of the Constitution. The article in question says, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The writer states that this clause was meant to deny citizenship to those who held allegiance to other countries; but, were born here.
730 idiots agreed with his interpretation. I think it is the 6% that don't know if they have ever smoked marijuana. Lets start simple. It says born or naturalized. Two different things. If you are born in a country you are almost always a citizen of it. When are you not? When you are not subject to it's jurisdiction. Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but are born here?
Two cases I can think of. Firstly, people born here while their parents were on vacation. This was especially true in the 1700s, vacations went on for months. Secondly, and more importantly, children of people who were part of an embassy. The question was concerned with not denying someone their own citizenship. It was answered by their parents, a parents choice if you will.
The coming argument will have to do with pledging allegiance to ONLY the United States. Personally, I am unwilling to pledge allegiance to a piece of dirt or a governmental structure. Dirt is just dirt and governmental structures change. The founding fathers pledged their fortunes and lives to each other not to the land or the government.
A country is not a place, boundaries change. It is not a form of government or financial system. It is each other. We promise our help to each other, we commit to each other.
The article about the girl
Lets start with the obvious. Do you really believe that every child in that class didn't get a background check along with their parents? How dumb do they think we are? The first lady doesn't go to places at random, there is an office of people dedicated to managing everyone of her public appearances. The timing is also perfect in light of the law passed in Arizona.
The argument will now be over whether or not children of illegal aliens should be given citizenship. The argument continues to be over what rights people should have. People are being led by their biases and bigotry to destroy our national rights. It is not about illegal aliens, it is about rights.
Some will argue that being born here does not entitle one to citizenship. That is a dangerous and slippery slope. How far back do you want to go, how many came here legally. The American Indian might argue that none of us is here legally.
UPDATE
So the idiots have already been posting responses to the article on Yahoo News. They have found a novel interpretation of the Constitution. The article in question says, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The writer states that this clause was meant to deny citizenship to those who held allegiance to other countries; but, were born here.
730 idiots agreed with his interpretation. I think it is the 6% that don't know if they have ever smoked marijuana. Lets start simple. It says born or naturalized. Two different things. If you are born in a country you are almost always a citizen of it. When are you not? When you are not subject to it's jurisdiction. Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but are born here?
Two cases I can think of. Firstly, people born here while their parents were on vacation. This was especially true in the 1700s, vacations went on for months. Secondly, and more importantly, children of people who were part of an embassy. The question was concerned with not denying someone their own citizenship. It was answered by their parents, a parents choice if you will.
The coming argument will have to do with pledging allegiance to ONLY the United States. Personally, I am unwilling to pledge allegiance to a piece of dirt or a governmental structure. Dirt is just dirt and governmental structures change. The founding fathers pledged their fortunes and lives to each other not to the land or the government.
A country is not a place, boundaries change. It is not a form of government or financial system. It is each other. We promise our help to each other, we commit to each other.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
News of the Day
The New York City Science Fest is a gathering of scientists to discuss, well, science. One of the major topics this year is "Are we holograms". Yes, science has gone so far as to become spiritual and ask about consciousness. While I applaud their investigation, science can never answer the question of consciousness, it cannot be measured or replicated. LOL. It is and always will be the elephant that science and logic and all the garbage can never explain.
Science asks if we are Holograms
Lets talk about Near Death Experiences and Scientists
From India, NDE caused by electric surges in the brain. The article claims this is the first time someone had a physical reason for NDEs. Not so, read the other articles.
NDEs have been blamed on Carbon Dioxide, oxygen deprivation, hallucinations and whatever you can imagine. The scientists can no more explain death than they can consciousness. Neither fits with science, it goes beyond mechanical. My answer to the scientists is simple, if you can, duplicate it. LOL. Don't give me a scientific answer that you cannot duplicate or accept other beliefs that cannot be duplicated, hypocrites.
I will simplify my answer. How can science explain any conscious experience if it cannot explain self awareness? It cannot. We are taught by science how meaningless we are and how important nature and the universe are. We are merely coincidental to the universe, that is sciences answer. How can it therefore explain the importance of being, it cannot.
The meaning of the show Lost
Science asks if we are Holograms
Lets talk about Near Death Experiences and Scientists
From India, NDE caused by electric surges in the brain. The article claims this is the first time someone had a physical reason for NDEs. Not so, read the other articles.
NDEs have been blamed on Carbon Dioxide, oxygen deprivation, hallucinations and whatever you can imagine. The scientists can no more explain death than they can consciousness. Neither fits with science, it goes beyond mechanical. My answer to the scientists is simple, if you can, duplicate it. LOL. Don't give me a scientific answer that you cannot duplicate or accept other beliefs that cannot be duplicated, hypocrites.
I will simplify my answer. How can science explain any conscious experience if it cannot explain self awareness? It cannot. We are taught by science how meaningless we are and how important nature and the universe are. We are merely coincidental to the universe, that is sciences answer. How can it therefore explain the importance of being, it cannot.
The meaning of the show Lost
In Honor of one of my Teachers
There has been a big fuss recently regarding a cross in the middle of the Mojave desert. To see it you would have to drive quite a distance from any city. The cross was erected to honor some WWII soldiers that died. The complaint, by a few, is that the cross is on government and therefore violates the separation of church and state.
I will begin by pointing out that I am a Christian. Now you know my bias. Alas, I do not include my bias in my understanding of the constitution. One of my professors was a true gentleman named Robert L. Cord. He was a great scholar of the constitution and wrote on it's meaning. He took the position that the constitution and the founding fathers did not prevent any spiritual beliefs. Oh, he was not religious and did not believe in God. In fact, I cannot say for sure if he was an atheist although we discussed such things. He was honest in his intellect.
I can say that I learned much from him and truly enjoyed his company. What he taught me helped me later to graduate Law School and receive the American Jurisprudence Award for Constitutional Law. I miss him and his teachings. I wish to honor him by showing that I heard and passing his simple teachings on.
In regards to the cross on government property. Ladies and gentlemen, many a fine person is buried in government property. Should they be denied a cross above their final resting place? I think not. The founding fathers placed many a cross on government property to fallen soldiers, should they be removed? That is what Mr. Cord would ask.
Mr. Cord and I disagreed on prayer in school. He accurately proved that the constitution would allow it, he was not a Christian. I, as a Christian, stated that I did not want it in school because I did not want non-Christians teaching Christianity to my children nor did I want non-Christians to teach any religion to my children, I don't want the government teaching spiritual beliefs to anyone.
I am posting an article where Professor Cord completely destroys the arguments of a professor taking the opposing side. On occasion, I reflect upon the people who taught me to look at things in new ways. I was very blessed in my life to have such fine friends and teachers.
I am reminded on one day when Professor Cord invited myself and a couple of other students to his apartment to discuss the law. I was an undergraduate and very brash, I had opinions and argued them. Professor Cord sat us down and gave us some 25 year old scotch. It was too strong for me; but, what an honor to sit with the man in his home and discuss the law.
Sometimes I teach people. Usually in a work setting, Professor Cord thought I should become a teacher; but, stubborn me, I wanted to be a practitioner. Perhaps someday I will teach, we shall see. Whereas Professor Cord was more in agreement with Plato and Socrates, I am with Aristotle and Rousseau, I do not trust government or right thinkers.
I doubt anyone will bother reading the link; however, I want to put it there. I want to put it there in remembrance of someone who told the truth rather than justifying his beliefs. My hat is off to you Professor Cord. Thank you for your integrity.
Church and State
I will begin by pointing out that I am a Christian. Now you know my bias. Alas, I do not include my bias in my understanding of the constitution. One of my professors was a true gentleman named Robert L. Cord. He was a great scholar of the constitution and wrote on it's meaning. He took the position that the constitution and the founding fathers did not prevent any spiritual beliefs. Oh, he was not religious and did not believe in God. In fact, I cannot say for sure if he was an atheist although we discussed such things. He was honest in his intellect.
I can say that I learned much from him and truly enjoyed his company. What he taught me helped me later to graduate Law School and receive the American Jurisprudence Award for Constitutional Law. I miss him and his teachings. I wish to honor him by showing that I heard and passing his simple teachings on.
In regards to the cross on government property. Ladies and gentlemen, many a fine person is buried in government property. Should they be denied a cross above their final resting place? I think not. The founding fathers placed many a cross on government property to fallen soldiers, should they be removed? That is what Mr. Cord would ask.
Mr. Cord and I disagreed on prayer in school. He accurately proved that the constitution would allow it, he was not a Christian. I, as a Christian, stated that I did not want it in school because I did not want non-Christians teaching Christianity to my children nor did I want non-Christians to teach any religion to my children, I don't want the government teaching spiritual beliefs to anyone.
I am posting an article where Professor Cord completely destroys the arguments of a professor taking the opposing side. On occasion, I reflect upon the people who taught me to look at things in new ways. I was very blessed in my life to have such fine friends and teachers.
I am reminded on one day when Professor Cord invited myself and a couple of other students to his apartment to discuss the law. I was an undergraduate and very brash, I had opinions and argued them. Professor Cord sat us down and gave us some 25 year old scotch. It was too strong for me; but, what an honor to sit with the man in his home and discuss the law.
Sometimes I teach people. Usually in a work setting, Professor Cord thought I should become a teacher; but, stubborn me, I wanted to be a practitioner. Perhaps someday I will teach, we shall see. Whereas Professor Cord was more in agreement with Plato and Socrates, I am with Aristotle and Rousseau, I do not trust government or right thinkers.
I doubt anyone will bother reading the link; however, I want to put it there. I want to put it there in remembrance of someone who told the truth rather than justifying his beliefs. My hat is off to you Professor Cord. Thank you for your integrity.
Church and State
Saturday, May 29, 2010
My post on citizenship
My post drew some comments so I will add a little to the discussion. The issue of losing citizenship has nothing to do with illegal aliens, they are not citizens and cannot lose it. My concern is over having different rankings of citizens in our country. Earning additional rights.
What is being proposed by some is that you do not attain full citizenship unless you commit to some type of national service, be it military or to the community. I work for the government so I am not against national service, I am for choice. What I question is which rights will be limited to "partial" citizens. This is the heart of the matter and the threat to our liberties.
The political discussion by Lieberman, Clinton, Obama... starts with a conversation about illegal aliens, it then turns to the question of terrorists, finally it turns to the issue of what we have to do to earn citizenship. They attempt to link issues to citizenship that do not apply.
Illegals are not citizens. Foreign terrorists who obtain citizenship could always lose it, these laws will not change that. People born in this country are citizens as of right. That is the right to live somewhere. Yet, we are not free to go to other countries, our own country can refuse to let us leave. We are not free, if we are not free than we must be allowed rights or no social contract can exist with our government and it loses any right of legitimacy.
What is being proposed by some is that you do not attain full citizenship unless you commit to some type of national service, be it military or to the community. I work for the government so I am not against national service, I am for choice. What I question is which rights will be limited to "partial" citizens. This is the heart of the matter and the threat to our liberties.
The political discussion by Lieberman, Clinton, Obama... starts with a conversation about illegal aliens, it then turns to the question of terrorists, finally it turns to the issue of what we have to do to earn citizenship. They attempt to link issues to citizenship that do not apply.
Illegals are not citizens. Foreign terrorists who obtain citizenship could always lose it, these laws will not change that. People born in this country are citizens as of right. That is the right to live somewhere. Yet, we are not free to go to other countries, our own country can refuse to let us leave. We are not free, if we are not free than we must be allowed rights or no social contract can exist with our government and it loses any right of legitimacy.
Oprah, Magic and the "Law of Attraction"
I was drinking my coffee and came across this article on Oprah's website.
Dream Boards
Oprah was a big proponent of a belief set called "The Law of Attraction"
If one reads the Rosicrucian literature, or the Masonic or even the Satanist literature you will discover that it is the same type of "magic" except the spiritual aspects are played down. It is the magic of the Kabuki Dance. You do the dance/ritual and if things work out as you want, you attribute it to the dance. If things do not go as you wanted, you continue the dance.
I was a magician when I was younger. Not a mystical one, for entertainment. I did tricks, not "magic". I learned that the trick was all about misdirection. Magicians have long sought to disprove attempts by some to prove that they could do real magic. It is because we know, it is just a trick.
The famous Satanist, Anton LaVey, was in a documentary. In the documentary he spoke about how he had worked in carnivals and would talk to the psychics that were part of the carnival. He stated that they were people who were better at reading body language and intent, he saw no psychic powers. Perhaps that is where we should start.
If you read your horoscope, which I do not, it may say that you will someone new. If you believe in it, you will look for that opportunity and are therefore more likely to find it. The horoscope did nothing. Ignoring the "spirituality" of the thing, the problem with the law of attraction is that it focuses one on the cookies of this world rather than morals, growth or even improving ones practical skills.
There is a "christian" version of this (even though it is clearly non-Christian), it is the "Name it and claim it" movement. The belief that we are here to get cookies and that if we have enough faith in the cookies we will get them.
In Haiti there are many proponents of voodoo, it follows the same format as "the law of attraction" and it didn't prevent the earthquake. We so want shortcuts that we give up our free will to the cookies. There is no "Secret" and the world is not all about you or me, it about all of us.
Dream Boards
Oprah was a big proponent of a belief set called "The Law of Attraction"
If one reads the Rosicrucian literature, or the Masonic or even the Satanist literature you will discover that it is the same type of "magic" except the spiritual aspects are played down. It is the magic of the Kabuki Dance. You do the dance/ritual and if things work out as you want, you attribute it to the dance. If things do not go as you wanted, you continue the dance.
I was a magician when I was younger. Not a mystical one, for entertainment. I did tricks, not "magic". I learned that the trick was all about misdirection. Magicians have long sought to disprove attempts by some to prove that they could do real magic. It is because we know, it is just a trick.
The famous Satanist, Anton LaVey, was in a documentary. In the documentary he spoke about how he had worked in carnivals and would talk to the psychics that were part of the carnival. He stated that they were people who were better at reading body language and intent, he saw no psychic powers. Perhaps that is where we should start.
If you read your horoscope, which I do not, it may say that you will someone new. If you believe in it, you will look for that opportunity and are therefore more likely to find it. The horoscope did nothing. Ignoring the "spirituality" of the thing, the problem with the law of attraction is that it focuses one on the cookies of this world rather than morals, growth or even improving ones practical skills.
There is a "christian" version of this (even though it is clearly non-Christian), it is the "Name it and claim it" movement. The belief that we are here to get cookies and that if we have enough faith in the cookies we will get them.
In Haiti there are many proponents of voodoo, it follows the same format as "the law of attraction" and it didn't prevent the earthquake. We so want shortcuts that we give up our free will to the cookies. There is no "Secret" and the world is not all about you or me, it about all of us.
Creativity and Insanity
The BBC, the Queen's television, is reporting that creativity is akin to insanity. How convenient. I guess they are saying that if you are not a sheep than you are insane. Again, that is a good position for government to take.
If you are not one of the sheep that agree with what you are told then you need to be watched because you may be crazy. It is science. Don't you trust science and scientists, they are immune from bias or being bribed by the cookies of this world. If we determine you are a scientist, we must agree with you without question or we may be crazy.
Crazy or sheeple
Do not misunderstand, science does have value when truthful and not biased by personal gain. Question everything; but, do not refuse to take a stand or come to a conclusion. That is gutless and based on a want to have options as opposed to take a stand based on what you believe. Jesus said that some were neither hot nor cold so he would spit them out. Do not be gutless and driven by the wind, the cookies, be yourself and commit. Expect your choices to be met with consequences.
If you are not one of the sheep that agree with what you are told then you need to be watched because you may be crazy. It is science. Don't you trust science and scientists, they are immune from bias or being bribed by the cookies of this world. If we determine you are a scientist, we must agree with you without question or we may be crazy.
Crazy or sheeple
Do not misunderstand, science does have value when truthful and not biased by personal gain. Question everything; but, do not refuse to take a stand or come to a conclusion. That is gutless and based on a want to have options as opposed to take a stand based on what you believe. Jesus said that some were neither hot nor cold so he would spit them out. Do not be gutless and driven by the wind, the cookies, be yourself and commit. Expect your choices to be met with consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)