I saw this posted on a corkboard at work and I thought it was very funny.
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers.
They lived on deer in the mountain during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer (or as I would prefer Dr. Pepper) and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to th beer. These were the foundations of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals, and
2. Conservatives
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle or the aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That is how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservtive movement.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQs and doing the sewing, fetchig, and hair dressing. This was the beginnng of the Liberal movement.
Some noteworthy Liberal achievements include the domestcation of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on erarth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by he jackass.
Mobern liberal like imported beer (with lime added) but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish and prefer their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are all standard liberal fare. An interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern those who work to produce and decide what to o with the production. Liberals believe European are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
Here ends today's lesson in World History.
It should be noted that a liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it (this message was originally an email)
A conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to tick them off.
And there you have it.
Let your next action reveal your true self.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Delayed movie reviews
Opportunities for going to the movie theatre are pretty much non-existant or Stephanie and me
but movies I have seen in somewhat recent history I will review a bit.
Terminator, Salvation
My grade: B
John Conner battles machines and cyborgs in a potential future created by man's misuse of an artificial intelligence gone bad and spiteful. Pretty good actually. It didn't try to get into the whole time travel thing and kept it simple. Christian Bale (Conner) was great and the movie flowed well. The twist with the convict who "voluntarily" participates in experimental surgery was predictable, but still satisfying. My only complaint was the impromtu critical medical operation at the end in the middle of a desert without proper sanitation, staff, or equipment. That didn't help me sustain my suspension of disbelief.
Year One
My grade: D
Jack Black and his androgenous pal Michael Cera play two villagers equivalent to cavemen. They are exilled to the outside world and have adventures with people of the Biblical era. It had its moments of humor, but they were inconsistent and sometimes incoherent. I do not unjoy discomfort and gross out humor. I don't mind a little, but this movie had it off the scale at times. The fight between Caine and Abel was amusing but the pranks with Abraham and Issac were in poor form and just not funny. Jack Black is hit and miss with me and this one is a miss. I loved him in School of Rock and Be Kind Please Rewind. In my opinion it is not worth buying or watching.
Four Christmases
My grade: A-
This one surprised me a little, but Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon are excellent together in this one. Vince Vaughn is very hit and miss with me as well but this one is a hit with me for sure. Perhaps it depends greatly on who his co-stars are. His and her families have been split by divorces and they've been avoiding them until they are caught in a lie and have to spend Christmas with all 4 of their father's and mother's re-established units. Stephanie and I had a great time with this one and we laughed profusely.
Star Trek
My grade: A+
The origins of Kirk and Spock and their battle with a time travelling bad dude. The time travelling part is all too familiar for Star Trek plots, but they pull this one of masterfully.
Wow. This one was amazing. Being a fan of the series and some of the movies probably helped me get into it and enjoy it, but the story stands alone enough on its own I think. The commitment to detail was supreme. The actors they cast to do the classic parts of the crew were uncanny in their ability to emulate and embody their parts. Especially that of Karl Urban playing Dr. McCoy. It was as if watching DeForest Kelly reincarnated (but perhaps even better) The only slight I would have against it is that they make Jim Kirk and the cadets full fledged fleet members at the end without completing their training. That I am sure is required and forgivable so that they can set it up for the probably sequel coming forthwith.
but movies I have seen in somewhat recent history I will review a bit.
Terminator, Salvation
My grade: B
John Conner battles machines and cyborgs in a potential future created by man's misuse of an artificial intelligence gone bad and spiteful. Pretty good actually. It didn't try to get into the whole time travel thing and kept it simple. Christian Bale (Conner) was great and the movie flowed well. The twist with the convict who "voluntarily" participates in experimental surgery was predictable, but still satisfying. My only complaint was the impromtu critical medical operation at the end in the middle of a desert without proper sanitation, staff, or equipment. That didn't help me sustain my suspension of disbelief.
Year One
My grade: D
Jack Black and his androgenous pal Michael Cera play two villagers equivalent to cavemen. They are exilled to the outside world and have adventures with people of the Biblical era. It had its moments of humor, but they were inconsistent and sometimes incoherent. I do not unjoy discomfort and gross out humor. I don't mind a little, but this movie had it off the scale at times. The fight between Caine and Abel was amusing but the pranks with Abraham and Issac were in poor form and just not funny. Jack Black is hit and miss with me and this one is a miss. I loved him in School of Rock and Be Kind Please Rewind. In my opinion it is not worth buying or watching.
Four Christmases
My grade: A-
This one surprised me a little, but Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon are excellent together in this one. Vince Vaughn is very hit and miss with me as well but this one is a hit with me for sure. Perhaps it depends greatly on who his co-stars are. His and her families have been split by divorces and they've been avoiding them until they are caught in a lie and have to spend Christmas with all 4 of their father's and mother's re-established units. Stephanie and I had a great time with this one and we laughed profusely.
Star Trek
My grade: A+
The origins of Kirk and Spock and their battle with a time travelling bad dude. The time travelling part is all too familiar for Star Trek plots, but they pull this one of masterfully.
Wow. This one was amazing. Being a fan of the series and some of the movies probably helped me get into it and enjoy it, but the story stands alone enough on its own I think. The commitment to detail was supreme. The actors they cast to do the classic parts of the crew were uncanny in their ability to emulate and embody their parts. Especially that of Karl Urban playing Dr. McCoy. It was as if watching DeForest Kelly reincarnated (but perhaps even better) The only slight I would have against it is that they make Jim Kirk and the cadets full fledged fleet members at the end without completing their training. That I am sure is required and forgivable so that they can set it up for the probably sequel coming forthwith.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Tommy Boy Hanks
originally posted on myspace.com/kbp54
March 16, 2009 - Monday
Its old news but in light of some other things he has more recently taken part in I'm taking a shot at Tom Hanks and his comment that "The Mormon church is un-American" because it backed the movement to not allow gays the marriage right in California. There are some things Tom is unenlightened about. Elder Neil A. Maxwell (modern day Apostle, now deceased . I won't say Mormon Apostle because that implies he is only an Apostle to Mormons. He is one to the world.. but I digress....) He said "To be politically correct is to be incorrect with God." To be an American means to stand up for what you believe in even if it is not popular opinion. It also means to tolerate (but not necessarily embrace) those who do not agree with you. The First Amendment wasn't created to defend those who agree with you, it was created to protect those who didn't. It wasn't just Mormons who voted to deny gays the marriage right. Were all those people un-American too? What must be unterstood is that the practice of homosexuality is unacceptable to Mormons. We will not stand idly by while our beliefs are trampled. The people spoke and they said NO! They said NO more than once! That is the democratic process. Liberals (some more left wing than others) don't seem to want to accept that. Instead they boycott Mormon business and harass Mormons outside our Temples. They are such big fans of free speach and tolerance when it is in their favor but when someone calls into questions their thoughts and desires they seem to go pieces and call us "un-American" Case in point: Liberals want to terminate conserative talk raido (yes, I listen to 104.1 The Truth... give it a try! I am a big Laura Ingraham fan) because as I have said they don't want anyone to question what they do or say or hold them accountable for it. That is fearfully un-American. America is a democratic Republic, NOT a Socialist state and God willing it will remain so. Case in point. During the Presidential campaign McCain said that the fundamentals of the American economy are sound, and later said that he meant the American worker is sound. Obama criticized him for it. But now Obama is essentially saying the same thing... gee there... what is so different now? The fact that you're saying it? Not to be misunderstood I'm not a big fan of McCain either. My preferred candidate didn't make it out of the primaries. While I am on the subject of Obama I want to point out something else disturbing I saw on news clips. Donovan McNabb (Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback) and other black men are quoted (and shown on video) saying that they only voted in this Presidential election because there is a black man running. Isn't that insulting to Barack and to black people? I don't Obama but not because of his race. I have issues with his politics, not skin color. I would have voted for someone like Condolesa (spelling?) Rice but she wasn't what "progressive" people wanted to see in there. (yes I know she isn't a Democrat, but still a black female) I find these statements and actions disturbing because where they heck were they for the other elections? That shows a woeful lack of responsibility and foolishness on their parts. Thats like saying I voted for Mitt Romney just because he is a Mormon. For those out there that might be liberal in at least part of their hearts understand that I respect your views, I just think they are misguided. Real Mormons stopped practicing polygamy when directed by the leaders of the church and the U.S. Government. I believe they handled it with more dignity than I've seen in recent history. Wouldn't that also be a violation of our civil rights as some gays are harping on? We also believe in, quoting the Prophet Joseph Smith "Obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law of the land" (Articles of Faith #11) Does that sound un-American to you? No, I'm not in favor of the practice of polygamy, but I will do as my faith in the Lord dictates, and that includes following the directives of my church leaders and our Prophet. They have my trust. They directed members of the Church to take an active stand against gay marriage. The Church does not involve itself in the politics of the land except on very rare occations... so in that regard we have just witnessed history. My mind also goes back some time ago when a motion to incorporate Saint David as its own town failed and some nut wrote a letter to the Benson paper basically saying that we had a local "cult" to thank for the motion not passing. I can only assume this dingbat meant the Mormon church. Again another person shooting their mouth off is uninformed. There were Mormons on both sides of that fence.I understand that to be a Mormon means to have a target painted on my back, whether literally or otherwise. I also understand that to be a Mormon is to BE a Mormon, and not sit idly by. We must champion the ideals of Christendom and of good morals. We do not do so alone but it must be done by us as well.Also, being a celebrity doesn't make their political views or opinions any more valid than the common man or woman. What it does is make them more accountable for it for good or ill because more people will hear or read what they say. People who base their political opinion or spiritual beliefs on what some dirtbrained popular figure says is just as dirtbrained as that person is. What source of guidance is Hollywood in the matter of political competence or moral authority? Making themselves miserable in the shortest amount of time possible is about all they seem to know how to do. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between. Also, a good part of the world only sees us through what they see Hollywood produce in movies and T.V. if thats all they see then how can they not think thats how we all are. No wonder we are hated by so many. If you want to drive that point home you could say that Hollywood people are un-American because they are tarninshing our image with the filth they spew forth (not all of, I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water) I'm going on a bit of a stretch there, but I felt like doing it.That is all for now.
March 16, 2009 - Monday
Its old news but in light of some other things he has more recently taken part in I'm taking a shot at Tom Hanks and his comment that "The Mormon church is un-American" because it backed the movement to not allow gays the marriage right in California. There are some things Tom is unenlightened about. Elder Neil A. Maxwell (modern day Apostle, now deceased . I won't say Mormon Apostle because that implies he is only an Apostle to Mormons. He is one to the world.. but I digress....) He said "To be politically correct is to be incorrect with God." To be an American means to stand up for what you believe in even if it is not popular opinion. It also means to tolerate (but not necessarily embrace) those who do not agree with you. The First Amendment wasn't created to defend those who agree with you, it was created to protect those who didn't. It wasn't just Mormons who voted to deny gays the marriage right. Were all those people un-American too? What must be unterstood is that the practice of homosexuality is unacceptable to Mormons. We will not stand idly by while our beliefs are trampled. The people spoke and they said NO! They said NO more than once! That is the democratic process. Liberals (some more left wing than others) don't seem to want to accept that. Instead they boycott Mormon business and harass Mormons outside our Temples. They are such big fans of free speach and tolerance when it is in their favor but when someone calls into questions their thoughts and desires they seem to go pieces and call us "un-American" Case in point: Liberals want to terminate conserative talk raido (yes, I listen to 104.1 The Truth... give it a try! I am a big Laura Ingraham fan) because as I have said they don't want anyone to question what they do or say or hold them accountable for it. That is fearfully un-American. America is a democratic Republic, NOT a Socialist state and God willing it will remain so. Case in point. During the Presidential campaign McCain said that the fundamentals of the American economy are sound, and later said that he meant the American worker is sound. Obama criticized him for it. But now Obama is essentially saying the same thing... gee there... what is so different now? The fact that you're saying it? Not to be misunderstood I'm not a big fan of McCain either. My preferred candidate didn't make it out of the primaries. While I am on the subject of Obama I want to point out something else disturbing I saw on news clips. Donovan McNabb (Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback) and other black men are quoted (and shown on video) saying that they only voted in this Presidential election because there is a black man running. Isn't that insulting to Barack and to black people? I don't Obama but not because of his race. I have issues with his politics, not skin color. I would have voted for someone like Condolesa (spelling?) Rice but she wasn't what "progressive" people wanted to see in there. (yes I know she isn't a Democrat, but still a black female) I find these statements and actions disturbing because where they heck were they for the other elections? That shows a woeful lack of responsibility and foolishness on their parts. Thats like saying I voted for Mitt Romney just because he is a Mormon. For those out there that might be liberal in at least part of their hearts understand that I respect your views, I just think they are misguided. Real Mormons stopped practicing polygamy when directed by the leaders of the church and the U.S. Government. I believe they handled it with more dignity than I've seen in recent history. Wouldn't that also be a violation of our civil rights as some gays are harping on? We also believe in, quoting the Prophet Joseph Smith "Obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law of the land" (Articles of Faith #11) Does that sound un-American to you? No, I'm not in favor of the practice of polygamy, but I will do as my faith in the Lord dictates, and that includes following the directives of my church leaders and our Prophet. They have my trust. They directed members of the Church to take an active stand against gay marriage. The Church does not involve itself in the politics of the land except on very rare occations... so in that regard we have just witnessed history. My mind also goes back some time ago when a motion to incorporate Saint David as its own town failed and some nut wrote a letter to the Benson paper basically saying that we had a local "cult" to thank for the motion not passing. I can only assume this dingbat meant the Mormon church. Again another person shooting their mouth off is uninformed. There were Mormons on both sides of that fence.I understand that to be a Mormon means to have a target painted on my back, whether literally or otherwise. I also understand that to be a Mormon is to BE a Mormon, and not sit idly by. We must champion the ideals of Christendom and of good morals. We do not do so alone but it must be done by us as well.Also, being a celebrity doesn't make their political views or opinions any more valid than the common man or woman. What it does is make them more accountable for it for good or ill because more people will hear or read what they say. People who base their political opinion or spiritual beliefs on what some dirtbrained popular figure says is just as dirtbrained as that person is. What source of guidance is Hollywood in the matter of political competence or moral authority? Making themselves miserable in the shortest amount of time possible is about all they seem to know how to do. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between. Also, a good part of the world only sees us through what they see Hollywood produce in movies and T.V. if thats all they see then how can they not think thats how we all are. No wonder we are hated by so many. If you want to drive that point home you could say that Hollywood people are un-American because they are tarninshing our image with the filth they spew forth (not all of, I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water) I'm going on a bit of a stretch there, but I felt like doing it.That is all for now.
Sign of the time
originally posted on myspace.com/kbp54
March 25, 2009 - Wednesday
As some people have heard, from T.V., etc. there is a "man" giving birth or in acuality has given birth to a baby. I won't bother giving the names, its a fairly well known story on the news.Basically its a woman who has legally changed her status to being a man, removed her breasts, and taken testosterone in large quantities to at least make her appear to be a man. She (I won't call her a man) is in a relationship with an older woman and they are raising the child together. There are ramifications aplenty from such an arrangement. I'll make my thoughts short here with a longer explanation of them to follow here.If this person wanted to be thought of and to legally be a man, then she/he should act like it and accept the fact that she/he got his/her wish and is no longer a woman and cannot or should not act in that capacity. Just because something walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck does NOT make it a duck. The media says its a man giving birth, but in the real sense of it all, she is NOT a man.Why am I writing about it? Because I like to use blogging to throw my thoughts out there as I analyze and reflect on what I see in the world.Now the extra stuff...Some time ago I read about this she/he's situation in People magazine I believe it was. Tracy (as her birth name is) is of islander decent, and was a teenage model. As I recall in the article, which details of I have yet to hear of anywhere else because perhaps they are unsavory to some, this young woman met her now lover/wife when she was still a minor and started her relationship with her around that time frame. The older woman in the relationship, whose name eludes me at the moment, is/was a family friend and at least 20 years older. I don't have an issue with significant age gaps. I do have issues when what I see as abuse being done. i.e. a much older woman starting a homosexual/lesbian relationship with a female minor. It really is immoral.This person (Tracy, who is now called Thomas) wanted to become a man. She/he felt like thats what she should have been, etc. Initally I can understand that even though I do not readily approve of it. Its that person's choice however wrong I may view it to be. Keep in mind that in "A Proclamation to the World" from the leaders of the LDS Church states: "Gender is an essential characteristic of premoral, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose" To me that implies that despite our efforts here, we will be what we were born as, unless there is some special judgement by God. That is His ultimate decision of course. What a shock it will be to 99.9% of transgender people when they are resurrected (as all people will be) to find themselves restored to what particular sex they were when they were born. Michael Jackson is also in for a rude awakening. As Dave Chappele said about Michael "Only in America can a poor black boy grow up to be a rich white woman" Ok, thats a bit crass, but to me its essentially on point. Speaking of which I'll meander my way back to a semblance of one.Despite my misgivings about this unacceptable union of these two people and for Tracy/Thomas' gender reasignment I have an even deeper one. Tracy/Thomas is legally a man, even though she/he still has all her female organs intact (minus her surgically removed breasts). It is she, not the legitimately still female partner, that bore and gave birth to this couples baby. They wanted kids, and the female partner couldn't get pregnant (perhaps because of her advanced age?) so they decided that Tracy/Thomas would get sperm from a bank and take care of that issue. What my real issue with this all is that Thomas who wants to be looked upon and accepted as a man is carrying out the function of life that only women are privy to. If she wanted to be a man then she should have gone the distance and truly accepted her decision to be one. In my mind a person cannot be both. They are either a man, or a woman, with the powers and responsibilities inherent in each sex. It is not in a man's power to grow a baby, and it never will be by divine design. Is this all a sham to get what these two want? How did they ever think that any of this would be acceptable to people? They have recieved death threats and harrassing communications. I'm not abdicating that, but I question their thoughts and motives and actions. I find it all sick and offensive.A person could ask me "Don't they deserve to be happy, or to do what they think will make them happy?" To that I would say yes, but I would also say that there is a right way to do things, and a wrong way to do things. I would also say that if you don't feel inclined to be with a member of the opposite sex don't go through the motions of becoming a member of the opposite sex and then go back on it when its convienient to get what you want.That would be like me having my man parts surgically removed so I could legally go watch women in the shower because women are still what I prefer to be attracted to.Also I think of Alma 41:10 (Book of Mormon) "Wickedness never was happiness" and I believe it was President Monson who said "You cannot do wrong and feel right"It is also a sign of the time, as this blog's topic is. The scriptural reference eludes me at this time but as was foretold, in the last days it will become hard to distinguish men from women and women from men. I think this situation fills that to a T.
March 25, 2009 - Wednesday
As some people have heard, from T.V., etc. there is a "man" giving birth or in acuality has given birth to a baby. I won't bother giving the names, its a fairly well known story on the news.Basically its a woman who has legally changed her status to being a man, removed her breasts, and taken testosterone in large quantities to at least make her appear to be a man. She (I won't call her a man) is in a relationship with an older woman and they are raising the child together. There are ramifications aplenty from such an arrangement. I'll make my thoughts short here with a longer explanation of them to follow here.If this person wanted to be thought of and to legally be a man, then she/he should act like it and accept the fact that she/he got his/her wish and is no longer a woman and cannot or should not act in that capacity. Just because something walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck does NOT make it a duck. The media says its a man giving birth, but in the real sense of it all, she is NOT a man.Why am I writing about it? Because I like to use blogging to throw my thoughts out there as I analyze and reflect on what I see in the world.Now the extra stuff...Some time ago I read about this she/he's situation in People magazine I believe it was. Tracy (as her birth name is) is of islander decent, and was a teenage model. As I recall in the article, which details of I have yet to hear of anywhere else because perhaps they are unsavory to some, this young woman met her now lover/wife when she was still a minor and started her relationship with her around that time frame. The older woman in the relationship, whose name eludes me at the moment, is/was a family friend and at least 20 years older. I don't have an issue with significant age gaps. I do have issues when what I see as abuse being done. i.e. a much older woman starting a homosexual/lesbian relationship with a female minor. It really is immoral.This person (Tracy, who is now called Thomas) wanted to become a man. She/he felt like thats what she should have been, etc. Initally I can understand that even though I do not readily approve of it. Its that person's choice however wrong I may view it to be. Keep in mind that in "A Proclamation to the World" from the leaders of the LDS Church states: "Gender is an essential characteristic of premoral, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose" To me that implies that despite our efforts here, we will be what we were born as, unless there is some special judgement by God. That is His ultimate decision of course. What a shock it will be to 99.9% of transgender people when they are resurrected (as all people will be) to find themselves restored to what particular sex they were when they were born. Michael Jackson is also in for a rude awakening. As Dave Chappele said about Michael "Only in America can a poor black boy grow up to be a rich white woman" Ok, thats a bit crass, but to me its essentially on point. Speaking of which I'll meander my way back to a semblance of one.Despite my misgivings about this unacceptable union of these two people and for Tracy/Thomas' gender reasignment I have an even deeper one. Tracy/Thomas is legally a man, even though she/he still has all her female organs intact (minus her surgically removed breasts). It is she, not the legitimately still female partner, that bore and gave birth to this couples baby. They wanted kids, and the female partner couldn't get pregnant (perhaps because of her advanced age?) so they decided that Tracy/Thomas would get sperm from a bank and take care of that issue. What my real issue with this all is that Thomas who wants to be looked upon and accepted as a man is carrying out the function of life that only women are privy to. If she wanted to be a man then she should have gone the distance and truly accepted her decision to be one. In my mind a person cannot be both. They are either a man, or a woman, with the powers and responsibilities inherent in each sex. It is not in a man's power to grow a baby, and it never will be by divine design. Is this all a sham to get what these two want? How did they ever think that any of this would be acceptable to people? They have recieved death threats and harrassing communications. I'm not abdicating that, but I question their thoughts and motives and actions. I find it all sick and offensive.A person could ask me "Don't they deserve to be happy, or to do what they think will make them happy?" To that I would say yes, but I would also say that there is a right way to do things, and a wrong way to do things. I would also say that if you don't feel inclined to be with a member of the opposite sex don't go through the motions of becoming a member of the opposite sex and then go back on it when its convienient to get what you want.That would be like me having my man parts surgically removed so I could legally go watch women in the shower because women are still what I prefer to be attracted to.Also I think of Alma 41:10 (Book of Mormon) "Wickedness never was happiness" and I believe it was President Monson who said "You cannot do wrong and feel right"It is also a sign of the time, as this blog's topic is. The scriptural reference eludes me at this time but as was foretold, in the last days it will become hard to distinguish men from women and women from men. I think this situation fills that to a T.
I don't buy the hype
originally posted on myspace.com/kbp54
April 25, 2009 - Saturday
The issue is global warming.I'm no expert and I'm not the best informed but I've heardsome reports that make me think the whole panic of globalwarming is bunko. Of course I welcome counter points here.What I heard on Michael Savage's radio show, from a scientist(name escapes me again) is that for the past 10,000 years the sun has been in a "cool down stage" meaning its not been burning as hot.We're a bit on the rise now, but they project that it will begin cooling down again in the near future.What I found most enlightening about what this man said was this:from the year 1700 to 1735 the world's temperature increased by 4 degrees.From the year 1900 to 2000 (the twentieth century) it has only increased by 1.3 degrees. What does this mean? That we as humans in reality have very little control on what goes on climate wise on this earth. Think about it. All the polution that we've made since the industrial revolution hasn't really made an effect on this planet's climate. Nature does enough of that on its own. Conversely I don't think any efforts we do will do anything to change nature from doing what it wants anyway. Its just windowdressing in my opinion.I'm also sure most of us have heard about the Black Plague. Some would attribute that to the what is called "The Little Ice Age" sometime around 1300. I'm not going to bother researching dates. It was the bubonic plague, spread by the fleas of rats and mice, etc. The drop in temperature forced them to reside even closer to their human counterparts. Why do I bring this up? Before this time period grapes were able to be grown in Southern England (the Romans did it) and they are not able to be now. The little ice age drove the Vikings out of their northern homes and forced them to integrate with European society. The bottom line is that this great change was only a few hundred years ago, and it had a drastic effect on humanity. Millions starved, froze to death, and died of plague. The earth will do what it will regarding its own climate. Us trying to change it is as effective and trying to rope the wind.Also, don't forget the same man who started this global warming paranoia frenzy (Al Gore) is also the same man who claimed to have invented the internet. While he did help organize the effort and get the ball rolling for it, he didn't actually invent it. How reliable do we think he is?I also read an article in The National Geographic about ice bridges in the Niagra Falls area. While they have experienced some thawing they, according to their own reports, do not expect any significant warming within the next 50 years, and perhaps even a cooling off. So, as I said, I'm not buying the hype. At least not yet.One point I do want to clarify is that while I'm not sold on this theory of global warming, I am perfectly in favor of our efforts to be more enviromentally friendly. We should have more energy and fuel effecient cars/homes/etc. It just makes sense. Recycling isn't really feasible but it makes some people feel better to do it and it might make some small difference so what the hay, let them do it. Right now I think its more trouble than its worth to expend the energy and resources to recycle but I'm not really informed about that. Its a good idea, and with some work it will work efficiently.Car batteries, old oil, and some other products should definately be recycled or at least disposed of properly.
Our well spent tax dollars
Originally posted on myspace.com/kbp54
May 5, 2009 - Tuesday
The study of the the night life of gay men's nocturnal activities inArgentina.http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNuc25ld3MuY29tL3B1YmxpYy9jb250ZW50L2FydGljbGUuYXNweD9Sc3JjSUQ9NDc1MjM=Because we really need to know what goes on in the night life there.(sarcasm)Oh, and one more thing... We're not suppose to refer to it as Swine Flu, but rather its scientific name: H1N1Why? I guess we don't want to offend pigs... and who can blame that thought... they taste so good.Another case of political correctness running amok.
Feds Will Spend $400,000 to Study Drinking and Sex Habits of Homosexuals in ArgentinaMonday, May 04, 2009By Matt Cover, Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) – The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is funding a study that seeks to discover a link between drinking and having sex among homosexuals in Argentina.The study will send researchers to six bars in Buenos Aires to interview both patrons and proprietors in an effort to discover what it is about those bars that may encourage the risky behavior. The study began on Sept. 30, 2008, and runs through Aug. 31, 2010. It already has cost taxpayers $198,776. By the time the project ends, it will have cost $403,902, according to NIH. The grant, awarded to the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was provided by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), the division of NIH that studies the effects of alcohol and alcoholism. The study’s primary focus is to determine the relationship among drinking, bars frequented by homosexuals, and risky sexual behavior to see if certain bars in Argentina might be good targets for HIV-prevention campaigns. “Targeting public venues in Buenos Aires where men meet, alcohol is consumed, and sexual behavior occurs, the goal of this two-year exploratory study is to understand the various factors that contribute to the creation of a high-risk sexual space,” the study’s abstract explains. "To that end, the study seeks to describe the relative contribution of physical characteristics of the place, patron characteristics, type and level of alcohol consumption, and social dynamics that are at play and potentiate each other to result in sexual risk behavior." The study has six goals, including the collection of information on six specific bars in Buenos Aires; the appearance, of those bars, alcohol availability, patrons, and types of sexual behavior taking place. The study also seeks to identify which factors contribute to alcohol consumption and sexual behavior in the bars. “The specific aims of this study are to … 2) identify factors that contribute to alcohol use and high-risk sexual behavior in the venues,” says the abstract. Researchers will interview 48 of the men who patronize the bars, as well as the bar staff to gather information on the types of alcohol consumed and sexual behavior engaged in. “Venue patrons will also undergo a brief quantitative assessment to gather descriptive data on sexual behavior and substance use.” After discovering why men who drink in these bars have homosexual sex, researchers will then try to discover whether it is possible to conduct anti-HIV interventions and how to conduct those interventions. The study will “4) assess willingness of venue owners/personnel to partner with HIV prevention organizations in reducing HIV risk in these settings and [what] types of prevention programs they find acceptable.” While the study is being conducted in Argentina, it is being funded with U.S. tax dollars. The grant recipients--who could not be reached for comment--say in the abstract that information gathered in the bars in Argentina might help inform similar efforts in America. “We expect findings to be useful in informing venue-based interventions for these types of venues in other countries.” The study is among a number funded by the NIAAA to examine the relationship between drinking and the spread of HIV, including a study of tourism, prostitution, and HIV in the Dominican Republic and another study examining drinking and HIV among prostitutes in China.
May 5, 2009 - Tuesday
The study of the the night life of gay men's nocturnal activities inArgentina.http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNuc25ld3MuY29tL3B1YmxpYy9jb250ZW50L2FydGljbGUuYXNweD9Sc3JjSUQ9NDc1MjM=Because we really need to know what goes on in the night life there.(sarcasm)Oh, and one more thing... We're not suppose to refer to it as Swine Flu, but rather its scientific name: H1N1Why? I guess we don't want to offend pigs... and who can blame that thought... they taste so good.Another case of political correctness running amok.
Feds Will Spend $400,000 to Study Drinking and Sex Habits of Homosexuals in ArgentinaMonday, May 04, 2009By Matt Cover, Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) – The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is funding a study that seeks to discover a link between drinking and having sex among homosexuals in Argentina.The study will send researchers to six bars in Buenos Aires to interview both patrons and proprietors in an effort to discover what it is about those bars that may encourage the risky behavior. The study began on Sept. 30, 2008, and runs through Aug. 31, 2010. It already has cost taxpayers $198,776. By the time the project ends, it will have cost $403,902, according to NIH. The grant, awarded to the New York State Psychiatric Institute, was provided by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), the division of NIH that studies the effects of alcohol and alcoholism. The study’s primary focus is to determine the relationship among drinking, bars frequented by homosexuals, and risky sexual behavior to see if certain bars in Argentina might be good targets for HIV-prevention campaigns. “Targeting public venues in Buenos Aires where men meet, alcohol is consumed, and sexual behavior occurs, the goal of this two-year exploratory study is to understand the various factors that contribute to the creation of a high-risk sexual space,” the study’s abstract explains. "To that end, the study seeks to describe the relative contribution of physical characteristics of the place, patron characteristics, type and level of alcohol consumption, and social dynamics that are at play and potentiate each other to result in sexual risk behavior." The study has six goals, including the collection of information on six specific bars in Buenos Aires; the appearance, of those bars, alcohol availability, patrons, and types of sexual behavior taking place. The study also seeks to identify which factors contribute to alcohol consumption and sexual behavior in the bars. “The specific aims of this study are to … 2) identify factors that contribute to alcohol use and high-risk sexual behavior in the venues,” says the abstract. Researchers will interview 48 of the men who patronize the bars, as well as the bar staff to gather information on the types of alcohol consumed and sexual behavior engaged in. “Venue patrons will also undergo a brief quantitative assessment to gather descriptive data on sexual behavior and substance use.” After discovering why men who drink in these bars have homosexual sex, researchers will then try to discover whether it is possible to conduct anti-HIV interventions and how to conduct those interventions. The study will “4) assess willingness of venue owners/personnel to partner with HIV prevention organizations in reducing HIV risk in these settings and [what] types of prevention programs they find acceptable.” While the study is being conducted in Argentina, it is being funded with U.S. tax dollars. The grant recipients--who could not be reached for comment--say in the abstract that information gathered in the bars in Argentina might help inform similar efforts in America. “We expect findings to be useful in informing venue-based interventions for these types of venues in other countries.” The study is among a number funded by the NIAAA to examine the relationship between drinking and the spread of HIV, including a study of tourism, prostitution, and HIV in the Dominican Republic and another study examining drinking and HIV among prostitutes in China.
Southwest sucks for car owners
Originally posted on myspace.com/kbp54
September 3, 2009 - Thursday
Take a look at this articlehttp://www.automopedia.org/2009/04/13/top-25-car-theft-cities/12 of the 25 worst cities for car theft are in California and 18 total are in the Southwest area (to include Texas, Nevada, Arizona, California, and New Mexico)I can attest to Detroit being terrible for car theft having witnessed many burnt out shells of cars scattered along the way but its scary to think that Tucson (just 45 miles away) which is a city we go to a lot for Doctor trips and whatnont, is number 13 on the list. I've always heard that Tucson was a hotbed for car theft. Very disturbing.
September 3, 2009 - Thursday
Take a look at this articlehttp://www.automopedia.org/2009/04/13/top-25-car-theft-cities/12 of the 25 worst cities for car theft are in California and 18 total are in the Southwest area (to include Texas, Nevada, Arizona, California, and New Mexico)I can attest to Detroit being terrible for car theft having witnessed many burnt out shells of cars scattered along the way but its scary to think that Tucson (just 45 miles away) which is a city we go to a lot for Doctor trips and whatnont, is number 13 on the list. I've always heard that Tucson was a hotbed for car theft. Very disturbing.
Strange days are here
originally posted on myspace.com/kbp54
September 8, 2009 - Tuesday
My topic is current political currents and trends. I'm not an alarmist, but I feel that if some attention isn't drawn to some disturbing trends and events then things really will become a Mell of a Hess.
I've read and seen some videos that are, for lack of a better way to put it, bonkers. One that I have seen that Stephanie directed me to on YouTube had some Hollywood celebrities saying that they would pledge themselves as servants to Obama (in this case it was Demi Moore) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTQawLBC59g Trust Hollywood types to be hair brained about things and to get them backwards. Mr. Obama is a servant of the people. He is an elected official. When I saw packs of trading cards of him at Target I thought it was innapropriate but when I hear and see the liberal left wing loonies talking about this obedience to Obama crap it makes the hair on my neck stand on end. I support Mr. Obama because he is our elected President but that does not mean I swear fealty to him as these nuts imply we should. Maybe they're not being as serious as I deem them, but I take them at their word in this. Have we learned nothing from history? Adolf Hitler demanded his followers swear loyalty to him directly (and they did) and not the office of Chancellor (even that is not a good idea) or to the constitution (or form of one) of Germany. Its the kind of stuff that freaks me out. Do people really realize what they are setting themselves up for with that kind of thinking and talk? This will give you some idea of what people should really be thinking: Oath of Enlistment In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vdXNtaWxpdGFyeS5hYm91dC5jb20vb2Qvam9pbmluZ3RoZW1pbGl0YXJ5L2Evb2F0aG9mZW5saXN0Lmh0bQ==our loyalty should be to the Constitution of America and to the orders of the President as mentioned above. It says "according to regulations" but that means that any order that is unlawfully given (such as shooting innocent civilians) is to be disregarded and refused. If the President gives an unlawful order (it can happen) it should be disregarded as well. The tired old excuse "I was just following orders" that has been given an innumerable amount of times is no alibi for misbehavior. It didn't save the Nazi leaders in the Nuremburg trials and it won't save anyone else either. My intent is not to tar this administration for being like the Nazis. I look at it as a cult of personality which is always a disturbing thing. It has happened time and time again in history and it has always gone bad.
September 8, 2009 - Tuesday
My topic is current political currents and trends. I'm not an alarmist, but I feel that if some attention isn't drawn to some disturbing trends and events then things really will become a Mell of a Hess.
I've read and seen some videos that are, for lack of a better way to put it, bonkers. One that I have seen that Stephanie directed me to on YouTube had some Hollywood celebrities saying that they would pledge themselves as servants to Obama (in this case it was Demi Moore) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTQawLBC59g Trust Hollywood types to be hair brained about things and to get them backwards. Mr. Obama is a servant of the people. He is an elected official. When I saw packs of trading cards of him at Target I thought it was innapropriate but when I hear and see the liberal left wing loonies talking about this obedience to Obama crap it makes the hair on my neck stand on end. I support Mr. Obama because he is our elected President but that does not mean I swear fealty to him as these nuts imply we should. Maybe they're not being as serious as I deem them, but I take them at their word in this. Have we learned nothing from history? Adolf Hitler demanded his followers swear loyalty to him directly (and they did) and not the office of Chancellor (even that is not a good idea) or to the constitution (or form of one) of Germany. Its the kind of stuff that freaks me out. Do people really realize what they are setting themselves up for with that kind of thinking and talk? This will give you some idea of what people should really be thinking: Oath of Enlistment In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vdXNtaWxpdGFyeS5hYm91dC5jb20vb2Qvam9pbmluZ3RoZW1pbGl0YXJ5L2Evb2F0aG9mZW5saXN0Lmh0bQ==our loyalty should be to the Constitution of America and to the orders of the President as mentioned above. It says "according to regulations" but that means that any order that is unlawfully given (such as shooting innocent civilians) is to be disregarded and refused. If the President gives an unlawful order (it can happen) it should be disregarded as well. The tired old excuse "I was just following orders" that has been given an innumerable amount of times is no alibi for misbehavior. It didn't save the Nazi leaders in the Nuremburg trials and it won't save anyone else either. My intent is not to tar this administration for being like the Nazis. I look at it as a cult of personality which is always a disturbing thing. It has happened time and time again in history and it has always gone bad.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Seeing 20/20 on 2012
originally posted on myspace.com/kbp54
November 11, 2009 - Wednesday
There is some speculation that the world will end on December 21st 2012 but I think that such thought is false. As a true Christian and believer in the Bible (as far as it is translated correctly) I am highly skeptical.
Matthew 24:36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angles of heaven, but my Father only.
Mark 13:22
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither he Son, but the Father.
We are not meant to know when Jesus will return. If we were, we would know already. It seems that we as humans like to think we know so much, even more than God Himself. Or some like to think that God doesn't exist anyway, so it is easy to dismiss His word. We seem more inclined to believe human predictions than those of true prophets of God. Interestingly there are more than one civilizations that predict close to this time, as I have watched on the History Channel. But so many civilizations also believed in the existence of vampires and werewolves that I don't buy into that so easily. Perhaps their predictions only pertained to their own individual civilizations. According to their line of thought at the time, they probably thought they were all there was in the world. Think about it, how much interaction did they have with civilizations beyond their own scope? Until 1492 Europe didn't know about the existence of the Americas. I see so many plausable mistakes in these predictions. Remember how paranoid people got about Y2K? I recall hearing about a man in China who said the world would end in 1994. He missed the mark on that one.However, it is my suspicion that God Himself doesn't even know the day of the second coming (which may not be the cataclysmic end of the world) because it is, as I understand, dependent on our own agency as a world collectively. Meaning the faster we become corrupted, the sooner the second coming will occur. Perhaps our world will be vastly devastated before he returns, say from the fallout from Armageddon. I'm not sure on the timetable, but I as I said, I believe what the Bible says as long as it has been translated correctly. Make no mistake there will be trials and tribulations as predicted in the Bible, the question remains as to how bad and when it will all happen.The only truly momentous event that I think will happen around December 2012 is the Presidential election, which is when Mr. Obama is up for re-election. Perhaps he won't be re-elected and that will spark some hysteria. Who knows?
This blog may seem choppy and inconsistent in its flow. This is probably due to my slipshod editing. Bear with me please.
November 11, 2009 - Wednesday
There is some speculation that the world will end on December 21st 2012 but I think that such thought is false. As a true Christian and believer in the Bible (as far as it is translated correctly) I am highly skeptical.
Matthew 24:36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angles of heaven, but my Father only.
Mark 13:22
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither he Son, but the Father.
We are not meant to know when Jesus will return. If we were, we would know already. It seems that we as humans like to think we know so much, even more than God Himself. Or some like to think that God doesn't exist anyway, so it is easy to dismiss His word. We seem more inclined to believe human predictions than those of true prophets of God. Interestingly there are more than one civilizations that predict close to this time, as I have watched on the History Channel. But so many civilizations also believed in the existence of vampires and werewolves that I don't buy into that so easily. Perhaps their predictions only pertained to their own individual civilizations. According to their line of thought at the time, they probably thought they were all there was in the world. Think about it, how much interaction did they have with civilizations beyond their own scope? Until 1492 Europe didn't know about the existence of the Americas. I see so many plausable mistakes in these predictions. Remember how paranoid people got about Y2K? I recall hearing about a man in China who said the world would end in 1994. He missed the mark on that one.However, it is my suspicion that God Himself doesn't even know the day of the second coming (which may not be the cataclysmic end of the world) because it is, as I understand, dependent on our own agency as a world collectively. Meaning the faster we become corrupted, the sooner the second coming will occur. Perhaps our world will be vastly devastated before he returns, say from the fallout from Armageddon. I'm not sure on the timetable, but I as I said, I believe what the Bible says as long as it has been translated correctly. Make no mistake there will be trials and tribulations as predicted in the Bible, the question remains as to how bad and when it will all happen.The only truly momentous event that I think will happen around December 2012 is the Presidential election, which is when Mr. Obama is up for re-election. Perhaps he won't be re-elected and that will spark some hysteria. Who knows?
This blog may seem choppy and inconsistent in its flow. This is probably due to my slipshod editing. Bear with me please.
Nobel is not so noble now
Originally posted on myspace.com/kbp54
October 9, 2009 - Friday
President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and to that I say "What a load of horse dung!"
He was given the award for what he is "expected to do"If that was how things should really be I should give the Super Bowl trophy to the Chicago Bears because I "expect" them to win it. (not really, but it would be nice)
Case in point: The nominations for the Prize were due when Obama had been in office just 11 days. That means someone put him in for it before he could effectively do anything. The reasoning behind his nomination and eventual win was that he "changed the political climate of the world." How did he do that before he had time to do anything? Is it just because he is black and is now President? If I were black I would find that HIGHLY insulting. I do anyway.
Seems like affirmative action run amok.
Wouldn't it be nice to get 1 million dollars before we even try anything.
I'm reminded of a favorite quote from The Simpsons.
Lisa Simpson asks her Grandfather, when it was revealed that he was recieving royalties for cartoons that Lisa and Bart had been writing using his name:
"Grandpa, didn't you wonder why you were getting all this money for doing nothing?"
To which Grandpa Simpson replies: "I just thought the Democrats were in power again"
and indeed they are. It is through this kind of tripe that we will eventually see the fall of Capitalism (trust me, that WON'T be a good thing despite what crackpots like Michael Moore might say) and the decline of Western Civilization and Judeo Christian culture. Not that I'm necessarily against Islam, but I question its benevolent nature, or lack thereof but that is another story. Admittedly there are problems with Capitalism now, but it is also the driving force in innovation and the free market system. If we lose Capitalism both will take a serious setback.http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vbmV3cy55YWhvby5jb20vcy9hcC9ldV9ub2JlbF9wZWFjZQ== --- 8/16/10 update. Looking back at what I wrote here I ponder what I was thinking with this last paragraph or segment. It is a bit much of a stretch to associate all of this with the downfall of capitalism. I won't delete it because it is something I wrote and I won't deny that I wrote it.
The above article has expired, so I found another one.
This time I'll copy and paste almost all of it here. I stopped when it shifted to talking about Bush's war.
OSLO — The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon. Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament and diplomacy too good to ignore.
The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee — four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.
They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.
"Some people say — and I understand it — 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP. "It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us."
Jagland said the committee whittled down a record pool of 205 nominations and had "several candidates until the last minute," but it became more obvious that "we couldn't get around these deep changes that are taking place" under Obama.
Obama said he was surprised and deeply humbled by the honor, and planned to travel to Oslo in December to accept the prize.
"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," he said at the White House. "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."
Obama will donate the $1.4 million cash award that comes with the prize to charity.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize in 1984, said the decision showed that great things are expected from Obama and "wonderful recognition" of his effort to reach out to the Arab world after years of hostility.
"It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama's message of hope," Tutu said.
Many were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in a presidency that began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline for the prize and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.
"So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is only beginning to act," said former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the peace prize in 1983.
Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counterterrorism strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.
Jagland told AP that while the war in Afghanistan was a concern, the Obama administration "immediately started to reassess the strategy."
"That itself is important, because when something goes wrong, then you need to ask yourself why is it going wrong," he said.
Obama said he was working to end the war in Iraq and "to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies" in Afghanistan, where he is seriously considering increasing the number of U.S. troops on the ground and asking for help from others as the war enters its ninth year.
Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi in Afghanistan condemned the Nobel committee's decision, saying Obama had only escalated the war and had "the blood of the Afghan people on his hands."
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called the Nobel decision "hasty."
"The appropriate time for awarding such a prize is when foreign military forces leave Iraq and Afghanistan and when one stands by the rights of the oppressed Palestinian people," he was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.
Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the Nobel committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as "support and a commitment for Obama."
"And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament and disarmament," she told AP in a rare interview. Members of the committee usually speak only through its chairman.
The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts, but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than those of past winners, and the committee acknowledged they may not bear fruit at all.
"If everything goes wrong, then one cannot say that this was because of Barack Obama," Jagland said. "It could be that it is because of us, all the others, that didn't respond. But I cannot exclude that Barack Obama also can contribute to the eventual failure."
In Europe and much of the world, Obama is praised for bringing the U.S. closer to mainstream global thinking on such issues as climate change and multilateralism. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.
http://www.journal-news.com/news/nation-world-news/obama-says-hes-a-surprised-by-nobel-prize-too-338923.html?showComments=true
and more
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.process/index.html
October 9, 2009 - Friday
President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and to that I say "What a load of horse dung!"
He was given the award for what he is "expected to do"If that was how things should really be I should give the Super Bowl trophy to the Chicago Bears because I "expect" them to win it. (not really, but it would be nice)
Case in point: The nominations for the Prize were due when Obama had been in office just 11 days. That means someone put him in for it before he could effectively do anything. The reasoning behind his nomination and eventual win was that he "changed the political climate of the world." How did he do that before he had time to do anything? Is it just because he is black and is now President? If I were black I would find that HIGHLY insulting. I do anyway.
Seems like affirmative action run amok.
Wouldn't it be nice to get 1 million dollars before we even try anything.
I'm reminded of a favorite quote from The Simpsons.
Lisa Simpson asks her Grandfather, when it was revealed that he was recieving royalties for cartoons that Lisa and Bart had been writing using his name:
"Grandpa, didn't you wonder why you were getting all this money for doing nothing?"
To which Grandpa Simpson replies: "I just thought the Democrats were in power again"
and indeed they are. It is through this kind of tripe that we will eventually see the fall of Capitalism (trust me, that WON'T be a good thing despite what crackpots like Michael Moore might say) and the decline of Western Civilization and Judeo Christian culture. Not that I'm necessarily against Islam, but I question its benevolent nature, or lack thereof but that is another story. Admittedly there are problems with Capitalism now, but it is also the driving force in innovation and the free market system. If we lose Capitalism both will take a serious setback.http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vbmV3cy55YWhvby5jb20vcy9hcC9ldV9ub2JlbF9wZWFjZQ== --- 8/16/10 update. Looking back at what I wrote here I ponder what I was thinking with this last paragraph or segment. It is a bit much of a stretch to associate all of this with the downfall of capitalism. I won't delete it because it is something I wrote and I won't deny that I wrote it.
The above article has expired, so I found another one.
This time I'll copy and paste almost all of it here. I stopped when it shifted to talking about Bush's war.
OSLO — The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon. Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament and diplomacy too good to ignore.
The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee — four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.
They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.
"Some people say — and I understand it — 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP. "It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us."
Jagland said the committee whittled down a record pool of 205 nominations and had "several candidates until the last minute," but it became more obvious that "we couldn't get around these deep changes that are taking place" under Obama.
Obama said he was surprised and deeply humbled by the honor, and planned to travel to Oslo in December to accept the prize.
"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," he said at the White House. "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."
Obama will donate the $1.4 million cash award that comes with the prize to charity.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize in 1984, said the decision showed that great things are expected from Obama and "wonderful recognition" of his effort to reach out to the Arab world after years of hostility.
"It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama's message of hope," Tutu said.
Many were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in a presidency that began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline for the prize and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.
"So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is only beginning to act," said former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the peace prize in 1983.
Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counterterrorism strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.
Jagland told AP that while the war in Afghanistan was a concern, the Obama administration "immediately started to reassess the strategy."
"That itself is important, because when something goes wrong, then you need to ask yourself why is it going wrong," he said.
Obama said he was working to end the war in Iraq and "to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies" in Afghanistan, where he is seriously considering increasing the number of U.S. troops on the ground and asking for help from others as the war enters its ninth year.
Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi in Afghanistan condemned the Nobel committee's decision, saying Obama had only escalated the war and had "the blood of the Afghan people on his hands."
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called the Nobel decision "hasty."
"The appropriate time for awarding such a prize is when foreign military forces leave Iraq and Afghanistan and when one stands by the rights of the oppressed Palestinian people," he was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.
Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for the Socialist Left party who joined the Nobel committee this year, said she hoped the selection would be viewed as "support and a commitment for Obama."
"And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament and disarmament," she told AP in a rare interview. Members of the committee usually speak only through its chairman.
The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts, but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than those of past winners, and the committee acknowledged they may not bear fruit at all.
"If everything goes wrong, then one cannot say that this was because of Barack Obama," Jagland said. "It could be that it is because of us, all the others, that didn't respond. But I cannot exclude that Barack Obama also can contribute to the eventual failure."
In Europe and much of the world, Obama is praised for bringing the U.S. closer to mainstream global thinking on such issues as climate change and multilateralism. A 25-nation poll of 27,000 people released in July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found double-digit boosts to the percentage of people viewing the U.S. favorably in countries around the world. That indicator had plunged across the world under President George W. Bush.
http://www.journal-news.com/news/nation-world-news/obama-says-hes-a-surprised-by-nobel-prize-too-338923.html?showComments=true
and more
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.process/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
