Kensington Market - 3PM-5PM Monday, June 22nd, 2009 – By Moses
3PM
- There were 4 people at a ‘circle’ and one other nearby neighbor.
- 1 Person has a bit of weed.
- The wrong person is tackled into submission with zero resistance (also known as Passive Resistance).
- The wrong person is set to be charged with the Trafficking of Narcotics
- He is searched and is NOT found in possession of any Narcotic
- 2 People from the circle stay behind (including this writer) after being told to leave as they make it known that they want their names on the report as ‘The man wasn’t doing anything wrong’ and ‘We’re just musicians’.
- A shop-owner at ‘Hotshot’ comes out for the 2nd time within 1 week of two separate ‘Black’ Males being tackled by the Police (3 times in two weeks), for the ‘possibility’ of Marijuana Possession (Both times the shop-owner saw that neither person was in possession).. Another shop-owner at ‘Aspetta’ saw the first event and called it ‘disgusting’.
4PM
- The shop-owner at ‘Hotshot’ asked for each of their badge numbers to include himself as a witness (as had the two ‘Brothers’), and finally after 1 Man is taken into 14 Division, the other ‘Black’ accused is let go. While waiting to put my name on the report it was explained to me how Bob Marley and Peter MacIntosh were bad. THIS IS NOT A WEED ISSUE.
- Abraham is now in Custody at 14 Division for Possession of Narcotics (Marijuana).
- In the last two months Kensington Market has had two separate incidence of ‘Stabbings’ and Belleview Park is currently under 24/7 surveillance. Peaceful demonstrations have been discouraged by the authorities and the local community is becoming anti-social by this behavior. My question is this; does a Parent want his child to be suspicious of others in a Public Park in Toronto, Ontario, Canada?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Decriminalization of Marijuana - By Moses
The Decriminalization of Marijuana
Roughly 20 Million People in North America are regular Marijuana smokers. In our day we see Mega-Cities’ Court Houses clogged with simple possession of Marijuana charges. It has become a societal epidemic. To a person that carries in their belief that Marijuana is a ‘legal’ product this dichotomy is grossly offensive. At what point does authority become skewed, with respect to this issue?
For example; a man smokes a joint, works an eight hour day, five days a week. He does his job well and is conscientious. To what level of a microscope do we want to live? Are people to believe that Marijuana is the Devils’ drug? In our day there is somewhat of a breakdown in communication. Plainly put, we’re taught within the home what is acceptable, and then, taught what is acceptable outside the home. For an issue like Marijuana to be considered unequivocally illegal outside the home is essentially telling a person that they are an illegal quantity. This societal condemnation causes us to mistrust the system.
In 1976/77 the U.S President Jimmy Carter was pushing for the decriminalization of Marijuana. Congress at the time refuted, and this issue has been sidestepped (Albeit a brief interlude in 1996 within Canada).
Here’s the bottom line; dissecting a person on this issue brings countless, needless, and unjust measures. In other words, don’t judge a man for keeping his custom.
By decriminalizing the use of Marijuana, the Government would see Tax Dollars on the Manufacturing and Distribution of this product. The Government would also set a level playing field for the people. Caught smoking in Public and you’d be issued a ticket, as one currently is when in possession of alcohol in the Public domain (outside the home, or in the bar).
We, the Public, are in a crossroads today. A person believes what they believe, and, in the same breath told to lie about it. This element of fear is man-made and causes compounding issues. Let’s not forget that Prohibition of alcohol existed across the U.S.A in the Thirties, and that caused so much turmoil in that day that the policy had to be overturned.
Roughly 20 Million People in North America are regular Marijuana smokers. In our day we see Mega-Cities’ Court Houses clogged with simple possession of Marijuana charges. It has become a societal epidemic. To a person that carries in their belief that Marijuana is a ‘legal’ product this dichotomy is grossly offensive. At what point does authority become skewed, with respect to this issue?
For example; a man smokes a joint, works an eight hour day, five days a week. He does his job well and is conscientious. To what level of a microscope do we want to live? Are people to believe that Marijuana is the Devils’ drug? In our day there is somewhat of a breakdown in communication. Plainly put, we’re taught within the home what is acceptable, and then, taught what is acceptable outside the home. For an issue like Marijuana to be considered unequivocally illegal outside the home is essentially telling a person that they are an illegal quantity. This societal condemnation causes us to mistrust the system.
In 1976/77 the U.S President Jimmy Carter was pushing for the decriminalization of Marijuana. Congress at the time refuted, and this issue has been sidestepped (Albeit a brief interlude in 1996 within Canada).
Here’s the bottom line; dissecting a person on this issue brings countless, needless, and unjust measures. In other words, don’t judge a man for keeping his custom.
By decriminalizing the use of Marijuana, the Government would see Tax Dollars on the Manufacturing and Distribution of this product. The Government would also set a level playing field for the people. Caught smoking in Public and you’d be issued a ticket, as one currently is when in possession of alcohol in the Public domain (outside the home, or in the bar).
We, the Public, are in a crossroads today. A person believes what they believe, and, in the same breath told to lie about it. This element of fear is man-made and causes compounding issues. Let’s not forget that Prohibition of alcohol existed across the U.S.A in the Thirties, and that caused so much turmoil in that day that the policy had to be overturned.
North American Economics - By Moses
U.S.A Economy from a Canadian Perspective
Workforce – 100 Million People
Total Income @ $50,000/Person/Year Employed = $5 Trillion
Current System
The top 1% of all income earners’ in the U.S.A encompass roughly 1 million people of their population, and earn approximately $50,000,000 ($50 Million)/person/year on Average. The bottom 10% of all income earners’ encompass roughly 10 million people (NOT including people in jail and hard drug users – Cocaine and Heroine), and earn approximately $7,000/person/year.
Therefore; the total income of the top 1% income earners’ is roughly $50 Trillion
(1 million people X $50 Million), and, the total income of the bottom 10% income earners’ is roughly $70 Billion (10 million people X $7,000).
This means that there are 71,485 intervals of $70 Billion within $50 Trillion;
Therefore; to adjust the disparity in half, cut the top 1% income earners’ income to $25 Million/person/year, and quadruple the bottom 10% income earners’ income to $28,000/person/year. This would bring down the top 1% total income of 1 million people down to $25 Trillion, and bring up the bottom 10% income (Total Income) to $280 Billion. There would be a SURPLUS of 24.74 TRILLION U.S DOLLARS. In other words, there would be absolutely, unequivocally a ZERO U.S National Deficit.
Another dichotomy; a 4% tax on people earning $5 million+/year, means that on an average of $20 Million/Person/Year amongst 3,000,000 people (a rough estimate) would mean that $2.4 Trillion Dollars would materialize.
What we see World-wide is a completely different economic restructuring compared to the U.S. A Dollar (or any measurement of currency for that matter). The Dollar goes further. This is what we see in Southeast Asia and Northeast Africa; whereas $1 U.S is measured in a microscopic sense. For example, one could look at $1 U.S as being 100 U.S Cents. What tends to happen is that things get twisted and people are now looking at the currency exchange. 1/400th of 1/400th @ a rate of exchange in micro-pennies could theoretically provide 160,000 Pennies per $1 U.S. That is why we see people in Southeast Asia earning less than $1 U.S/Day.
Analysis
It seems to me that somewhere down the road there was a communication breakdown between responsible sensibilities that were in the U.S as recent as 1977. At that time in the U.S.A a person never really believed that they’d make Millions of Dollars. Maybe if they were lucky they’d win the lottery. They knew however, that they’d allows be able to achieve gainful employment. These days it almost seems that you’re screwed if you don’t earn at least $100,000/year. What is a Country that is poor to the point of mass starvation and plague supposed to think about us, the fortunate? Are we honestly supposed to tell them that it is because we were lucky enough to be born here? It DOESN’T hold water.
Workforce – 100 Million People
Total Income @ $50,000/Person/Year Employed = $5 Trillion
Current System
The top 1% of all income earners’ in the U.S.A encompass roughly 1 million people of their population, and earn approximately $50,000,000 ($50 Million)/person/year on Average. The bottom 10% of all income earners’ encompass roughly 10 million people (NOT including people in jail and hard drug users – Cocaine and Heroine), and earn approximately $7,000/person/year.
Therefore; the total income of the top 1% income earners’ is roughly $50 Trillion
(1 million people X $50 Million), and, the total income of the bottom 10% income earners’ is roughly $70 Billion (10 million people X $7,000).
This means that there are 71,485 intervals of $70 Billion within $50 Trillion;
Therefore; to adjust the disparity in half, cut the top 1% income earners’ income to $25 Million/person/year, and quadruple the bottom 10% income earners’ income to $28,000/person/year. This would bring down the top 1% total income of 1 million people down to $25 Trillion, and bring up the bottom 10% income (Total Income) to $280 Billion. There would be a SURPLUS of 24.74 TRILLION U.S DOLLARS. In other words, there would be absolutely, unequivocally a ZERO U.S National Deficit.
Another dichotomy; a 4% tax on people earning $5 million+/year, means that on an average of $20 Million/Person/Year amongst 3,000,000 people (a rough estimate) would mean that $2.4 Trillion Dollars would materialize.
What we see World-wide is a completely different economic restructuring compared to the U.S. A Dollar (or any measurement of currency for that matter). The Dollar goes further. This is what we see in Southeast Asia and Northeast Africa; whereas $1 U.S is measured in a microscopic sense. For example, one could look at $1 U.S as being 100 U.S Cents. What tends to happen is that things get twisted and people are now looking at the currency exchange. 1/400th of 1/400th @ a rate of exchange in micro-pennies could theoretically provide 160,000 Pennies per $1 U.S. That is why we see people in Southeast Asia earning less than $1 U.S/Day.
Analysis
It seems to me that somewhere down the road there was a communication breakdown between responsible sensibilities that were in the U.S as recent as 1977. At that time in the U.S.A a person never really believed that they’d make Millions of Dollars. Maybe if they were lucky they’d win the lottery. They knew however, that they’d allows be able to achieve gainful employment. These days it almost seems that you’re screwed if you don’t earn at least $100,000/year. What is a Country that is poor to the point of mass starvation and plague supposed to think about us, the fortunate? Are we honestly supposed to tell them that it is because we were lucky enough to be born here? It DOESN’T hold water.
The Nuclear Family - By Moses
A Fifteen Person Nuclear Family versus a Four Person Nuclear Family
Principles
In Jamaica and the Middle East (including some parts of Africa) a 15 Person Nuclear Family is legal, while in Asia (East of India), it is not.
Contraceptives are illegal in roughly 1/3rd of the World. What this means is this; a man and his wife HAVE to have children in these parts of the World with ZERO choice.
Contraceptives are legal in roughly 2/3rd of the World and this promotes Freedom of choice with respect to having children.
Contraceptives are made mandatory in roughly 1/3rd of the World, to the point of being institutionalized within the home.
Some Countries discriminate within their own Country as to who are subsidized and who aren’t with respect to THEIR children. I.E – Israel, Sweden and Saudi Arabia.
Custom to having as many wives as you want carries limits and boundaries. I.E Bedouin in the Middle East region.
Repercussions
What happens to the children of a family of 15 should his/her parents die when they’re young?
What does a Man and his Wife do if they are only allowed to have one child by their Countries Sovereign Laws, when they feel condemned by this hypocrisy?
How many Martial Arts are in existence for this reason? (In other words, how many Do-Jos should Canada promote?)
Is a person required by Law to learn each of these arts? And, if so, who makes this distinction?
Analysis
Be fruitful and multiply DOES NOT mean to have 30 children. Nor does it mean added rights for Bedouin to have as many Wives as they’d like. Maybe we shouldn’t be so sensitive when it comes to the Bedouin of the Middle East and grant unlimited rights. What would be wrong with a Bedouin man having to account for a maximum 5 wives and a maximum 5 children from each wife? This would be an allowance of a maximum 25 children. Are we to honestly believe that this dichotomy isn’t offensive to a man in China? What this writer does not understand is this; a man that is ORDERED by their Countries Sovereign Laws to have only one child immigrates to Canada; Him, his wife and their one child live their life instilling the practice that they were ordered before they came to Canada. Their preconceived notions are adding a dichotomy to the microcosm that hadn’t been there before. Are we, as Canadians, to be stymied into triggered and rigid lives with ZERO headspace when it comes to the raising of our families? That is how many people in Mega Cities in North America feel with respect to living their lives.
Principles
In Jamaica and the Middle East (including some parts of Africa) a 15 Person Nuclear Family is legal, while in Asia (East of India), it is not.
Contraceptives are illegal in roughly 1/3rd of the World. What this means is this; a man and his wife HAVE to have children in these parts of the World with ZERO choice.
Contraceptives are legal in roughly 2/3rd of the World and this promotes Freedom of choice with respect to having children.
Contraceptives are made mandatory in roughly 1/3rd of the World, to the point of being institutionalized within the home.
Some Countries discriminate within their own Country as to who are subsidized and who aren’t with respect to THEIR children. I.E – Israel, Sweden and Saudi Arabia.
Custom to having as many wives as you want carries limits and boundaries. I.E Bedouin in the Middle East region.
Repercussions
What happens to the children of a family of 15 should his/her parents die when they’re young?
What does a Man and his Wife do if they are only allowed to have one child by their Countries Sovereign Laws, when they feel condemned by this hypocrisy?
How many Martial Arts are in existence for this reason? (In other words, how many Do-Jos should Canada promote?)
Is a person required by Law to learn each of these arts? And, if so, who makes this distinction?
Analysis
Be fruitful and multiply DOES NOT mean to have 30 children. Nor does it mean added rights for Bedouin to have as many Wives as they’d like. Maybe we shouldn’t be so sensitive when it comes to the Bedouin of the Middle East and grant unlimited rights. What would be wrong with a Bedouin man having to account for a maximum 5 wives and a maximum 5 children from each wife? This would be an allowance of a maximum 25 children. Are we to honestly believe that this dichotomy isn’t offensive to a man in China? What this writer does not understand is this; a man that is ORDERED by their Countries Sovereign Laws to have only one child immigrates to Canada; Him, his wife and their one child live their life instilling the practice that they were ordered before they came to Canada. Their preconceived notions are adding a dichotomy to the microcosm that hadn’t been there before. Are we, as Canadians, to be stymied into triggered and rigid lives with ZERO headspace when it comes to the raising of our families? That is how many people in Mega Cities in North America feel with respect to living their lives.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Paganism and Forgiveness by Gråulf
There is nothing in Paganism about forgiveness, or turning the other cheek. In fact, pagans did not believe that forgiveness was something you begged for, and expected to receive if you said you were sorry. That is so weak and pathetic, and implies that forgiveness is something you have a right too for the asking. That is not how it worked in a tooth for a tooth, and an eye for an eye world. If you wronged someone it was your responsibility to make the transgression right to the wronged persons satisfaction.
In pagan Europe the notion that forgiveness comes with a price evolved into a system of wergild, a fine that could be paid for murder or manslaughter if the victims family chose to accept it. The size of the wergild depended on the social rank of the victim. A regular freeman was worth 200 shillings in 9th century Mercian law, and a nobleman was worth 1200. The wergild for a Welshman was 110 if he owned at least one hide of land, and 80 if he was landless. Thralls and slaves technically commanded no wergild, but it was commonplace to make a nominal payment in the case of a thrall and to pay the value of a slave in such a case. A shilling was defined as the value of a cow in Kent, or a sheep elsewhere, so 200 shilling for a free man was enough to impoverish most families. The wergild for women relative to that of men of equal rank varied: Among the Alamanni, it was double the wergild of men, and among the Saxons half that of men a man.
I like the Jewish concept of forgiveness. So much of Paganism has been lost, but Judaism is almost as old as Paganism, and most contemporary religions have some commonality. By Jewish law there is a date every year by which time you have to be square with the world. That means paying your debt, and repairing any evil committed by you during the past year. Even then, you must ask the wronged person for forgiveness, and the wronged person gets to decide what compensation forgiveness will require. If forgiveness is refused three times that is the way it stands, because even God cannot forgive a transgression on behalf of one wronged.
Gråulf.
In pagan Europe the notion that forgiveness comes with a price evolved into a system of wergild, a fine that could be paid for murder or manslaughter if the victims family chose to accept it. The size of the wergild depended on the social rank of the victim. A regular freeman was worth 200 shillings in 9th century Mercian law, and a nobleman was worth 1200. The wergild for a Welshman was 110 if he owned at least one hide of land, and 80 if he was landless. Thralls and slaves technically commanded no wergild, but it was commonplace to make a nominal payment in the case of a thrall and to pay the value of a slave in such a case. A shilling was defined as the value of a cow in Kent, or a sheep elsewhere, so 200 shilling for a free man was enough to impoverish most families. The wergild for women relative to that of men of equal rank varied: Among the Alamanni, it was double the wergild of men, and among the Saxons half that of men a man.
I like the Jewish concept of forgiveness. So much of Paganism has been lost, but Judaism is almost as old as Paganism, and most contemporary religions have some commonality. By Jewish law there is a date every year by which time you have to be square with the world. That means paying your debt, and repairing any evil committed by you during the past year. Even then, you must ask the wronged person for forgiveness, and the wronged person gets to decide what compensation forgiveness will require. If forgiveness is refused three times that is the way it stands, because even God cannot forgive a transgression on behalf of one wronged.
Gråulf.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Land Settlements in Israel Today,and the 1973 Yom Kippur War - By Moses
Land Settlements in Israel
In the 19th and early 20th Centuries in the Soviet Union, a Jew was documented by medical rcord and segregated from every other denomination, until their death. A Jew was tortured at will of the Soviet Government and given lifetime imprisonments in the name of Psychiatric Hospitalizations (the Dicotamy of Dicotamy). Jews were defined stringently as 'White Jews' in the Soviet at that time, as any person darker in skin complection were defined as 'Jews', and not allowed in this region.
'Fiddler on the Roof'' comes to mind when thinking of bltant anti-Semetism.
In Israel today, it is reported from Canada that 'the Jews' have set up similar camps amongst the Palestinian People. In truth, no Arab Nation has adopted Pilgrimage for the Palestinian People. Why should Israel be the only Arab Nation to house another Nation (as Palestine - Phillistine People - are distinctly geneologically Not Arab People but rather Aegian).
!973 Yom Kippur War
Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia (Persia)} invaded Israel during YomKippur, as all Military Posts were kept at a bare minimum to allow Jews innate right to make ammends with the Lord (in Christian Proverb - with Jesus) - our Day of Atonement.
Izchak Rabin, Israel's Defence Minister at the time (Head of the Bait Shin), warned Israel's Prime Minister Golda MEir 1 month prior to the attack that an attackwas plausibly coming, and suggested that Militasry Posts be upheld. Meir Followed Hebrew Custom, that a Man, Woman, and Child needed to Atone for their sins on Yom Kippur. This is Paramount to being a Jew. Gist. Understanding where you stand in life. With this Cultural theme comes direction of propagation (affluence/influence).
When Syria reached the Sea of Galilea, they stopped and waited for Damascus to clear a unilateral strike 0n Jerusalem. While the Chaganah oversaw the Israeli Militaries restoring their posts, Damascus was slow in response, and enough IDF were in place to fight the converging Nations. In fact, there were Israeli Arabs fighting for Israel, and today in Israel roughly 1/8th the population are Isreali Arab.
As a result of the Yom Kippur War, Israel is very sensitive about the Golan, the Northern Most and Highest Plain separating Israel from Syria. During the Six Day War of '67, the Golan Heights was claimed by Israel as Syria was set to attack from there. Currently, in the Southern Most points of Syria and Lebanon, there are terrorist camps of Hezbollah within 100 miles of Israel. (In War excercises a man never lights the same cigarettes twice over the course of 10 minutes - for proximity purposes).
In the 19th and early 20th Centuries in the Soviet Union, a Jew was documented by medical rcord and segregated from every other denomination, until their death. A Jew was tortured at will of the Soviet Government and given lifetime imprisonments in the name of Psychiatric Hospitalizations (the Dicotamy of Dicotamy). Jews were defined stringently as 'White Jews' in the Soviet at that time, as any person darker in skin complection were defined as 'Jews', and not allowed in this region.
'Fiddler on the Roof'' comes to mind when thinking of bltant anti-Semetism.
In Israel today, it is reported from Canada that 'the Jews' have set up similar camps amongst the Palestinian People. In truth, no Arab Nation has adopted Pilgrimage for the Palestinian People. Why should Israel be the only Arab Nation to house another Nation (as Palestine - Phillistine People - are distinctly geneologically Not Arab People but rather Aegian).
!973 Yom Kippur War
Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia (Persia)} invaded Israel during YomKippur, as all Military Posts were kept at a bare minimum to allow Jews innate right to make ammends with the Lord (in Christian Proverb - with Jesus) - our Day of Atonement.
Izchak Rabin, Israel's Defence Minister at the time (Head of the Bait Shin), warned Israel's Prime Minister Golda MEir 1 month prior to the attack that an attackwas plausibly coming, and suggested that Militasry Posts be upheld. Meir Followed Hebrew Custom, that a Man, Woman, and Child needed to Atone for their sins on Yom Kippur. This is Paramount to being a Jew. Gist. Understanding where you stand in life. With this Cultural theme comes direction of propagation (affluence/influence).
When Syria reached the Sea of Galilea, they stopped and waited for Damascus to clear a unilateral strike 0n Jerusalem. While the Chaganah oversaw the Israeli Militaries restoring their posts, Damascus was slow in response, and enough IDF were in place to fight the converging Nations. In fact, there were Israeli Arabs fighting for Israel, and today in Israel roughly 1/8th the population are Isreali Arab.
As a result of the Yom Kippur War, Israel is very sensitive about the Golan, the Northern Most and Highest Plain separating Israel from Syria. During the Six Day War of '67, the Golan Heights was claimed by Israel as Syria was set to attack from there. Currently, in the Southern Most points of Syria and Lebanon, there are terrorist camps of Hezbollah within 100 miles of Israel. (In War excercises a man never lights the same cigarettes twice over the course of 10 minutes - for proximity purposes).
Social Inequities and Political Dilemma - By Moses
Case Study
1. A Nazi Officer fled Germany because he did not want to partake in the Holocaust anymore. He was protected by the Iclandic Government as he fled voluntarily. Do you kill him or try him for War Crimes? What Governing body makes that decision?
2. One man says 'Nigger' to another man and he is warmly greeted. The man who recieves 'Nigger' says 'Nigger' to another man and that man breaks his arm. The first man says 'Nigger' to the third man and is warmly greeted.
Here is the logistic being used; Men 1 and 3 are 'Black', and man 2 is Caucasian.
Are we to honestly to believe that it's alright for a 'Negro' Male or Female to say 'Nigger', and not alright for a Caucasian Male or Female to use that word.
My Grandfather was darker than me, does this give me added Rights?
As we can see from the aforementioned exaqmples, these issues are real. I personally know someone who broke another mans' arm based on the exact same argument. He will gladly call another man the 'N' word, or of himself for that matter. It's when someone not noticeably 'Black' says the word that he breaks arms. This is, in my opinion, the reason we are instituting Afro-Centric Schools across Canada.
It leaves me wondering why Oprah Winfrey hasn't put this issue before the American people on her Nationally Syndicated T.V Show. By burying our heads in the sand, means we're living the life of an osterich, and this is where we see blinded ignorance of the majority.
With the first case study example, it's pretty safe to say that Sovereign Nations expel former Nazi Party members, or at the very least these former Party members are made known to the United Nations for Security reasons. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live next door to Joseph Mengele (the Head Butcher of 'Jew Children' - as they were referred).
1. A Nazi Officer fled Germany because he did not want to partake in the Holocaust anymore. He was protected by the Iclandic Government as he fled voluntarily. Do you kill him or try him for War Crimes? What Governing body makes that decision?
2. One man says 'Nigger' to another man and he is warmly greeted. The man who recieves 'Nigger' says 'Nigger' to another man and that man breaks his arm. The first man says 'Nigger' to the third man and is warmly greeted.
Here is the logistic being used; Men 1 and 3 are 'Black', and man 2 is Caucasian.
Are we to honestly to believe that it's alright for a 'Negro' Male or Female to say 'Nigger', and not alright for a Caucasian Male or Female to use that word.
My Grandfather was darker than me, does this give me added Rights?
As we can see from the aforementioned exaqmples, these issues are real. I personally know someone who broke another mans' arm based on the exact same argument. He will gladly call another man the 'N' word, or of himself for that matter. It's when someone not noticeably 'Black' says the word that he breaks arms. This is, in my opinion, the reason we are instituting Afro-Centric Schools across Canada.
It leaves me wondering why Oprah Winfrey hasn't put this issue before the American people on her Nationally Syndicated T.V Show. By burying our heads in the sand, means we're living the life of an osterich, and this is where we see blinded ignorance of the majority.
With the first case study example, it's pretty safe to say that Sovereign Nations expel former Nazi Party members, or at the very least these former Party members are made known to the United Nations for Security reasons. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live next door to Joseph Mengele (the Head Butcher of 'Jew Children' - as they were referred).
Thursday, June 4, 2009
When Life Begins by Gråulf
One of the big issues of the day is when does life begin? Many Christians insist that life
begins at conception, and present as proof that a fetus is genetically human from the very beginning. Well, so is the pimple on my rear end, and there is nothing sacred about that. Then there is the predominant belief that life begins when a fetus is viable, which is a moving target as technology becomes ever more sophisticated. Now tiny fetuses are kept alive to grow up with all sorts of horrible physical problems.
Throughout most of history life began when a newborn took its first breath. However, a newborn did not become a person until it was named, or if Christian, baptized. Until then it was legal to put an unwanted newborn out for the wolves. Baptism was an invention of monotheistic religions that consider it a sin to believe in other Gods, and that baptism conferred some magical connection to God. Muslims to this day kill those who abandon their faith, and Christians used to do the same. Note, the inquisition, when the Catholic Church burned Jews who were accused of practicing Judaism after they were baptized, and Charlemagne who executed thousands of pagans because they returned to paganism after being forcibly baptized. Pagans, who believe in many Gods, do not baptize children, because it would be meaningless. They may consecrate a child to the protection of a particular God by making the sign of the hammer over it, but that does not commit the child to that particular God, because no one can make that sort of commitment on someone else's behalf. Praying to a particular god is situational, and does not mean that you forsake your preferred god. If you are on the water you pray to Njord,, and if it is a matter of truth or justice you may pray to Tyr, etc. To a pagan the naming ceremony makes the child a provisional member of the community, and that commitment is affirmed when that child becomes an adult and a full member of the community. At that point a person can participate in religious ceremonies, and can make binding oaths. That is usually around the age of 13 or 14, and that was the most important ceremony of a persons life. So important that coming of age is still practiced in many forms, depending on the culture, although now it is mostly symbolic since people are not legally of age until they are eighteen or twenty-one.
The belief that a fetus becomes human with the first breath is confirmed by many old sayings, such as “Death begins with life’s first breath”; “From my first breath to my last”; “God breathes the soul into the body with the first breath”. Before that first breath the fetus is just a parasite with the potential of becoming human being.
Gråulf.
begins at conception, and present as proof that a fetus is genetically human from the very beginning. Well, so is the pimple on my rear end, and there is nothing sacred about that. Then there is the predominant belief that life begins when a fetus is viable, which is a moving target as technology becomes ever more sophisticated. Now tiny fetuses are kept alive to grow up with all sorts of horrible physical problems.
Throughout most of history life began when a newborn took its first breath. However, a newborn did not become a person until it was named, or if Christian, baptized. Until then it was legal to put an unwanted newborn out for the wolves. Baptism was an invention of monotheistic religions that consider it a sin to believe in other Gods, and that baptism conferred some magical connection to God. Muslims to this day kill those who abandon their faith, and Christians used to do the same. Note, the inquisition, when the Catholic Church burned Jews who were accused of practicing Judaism after they were baptized, and Charlemagne who executed thousands of pagans because they returned to paganism after being forcibly baptized. Pagans, who believe in many Gods, do not baptize children, because it would be meaningless. They may consecrate a child to the protection of a particular God by making the sign of the hammer over it, but that does not commit the child to that particular God, because no one can make that sort of commitment on someone else's behalf. Praying to a particular god is situational, and does not mean that you forsake your preferred god. If you are on the water you pray to Njord,, and if it is a matter of truth or justice you may pray to Tyr, etc. To a pagan the naming ceremony makes the child a provisional member of the community, and that commitment is affirmed when that child becomes an adult and a full member of the community. At that point a person can participate in religious ceremonies, and can make binding oaths. That is usually around the age of 13 or 14, and that was the most important ceremony of a persons life. So important that coming of age is still practiced in many forms, depending on the culture, although now it is mostly symbolic since people are not legally of age until they are eighteen or twenty-one.
The belief that a fetus becomes human with the first breath is confirmed by many old sayings, such as “Death begins with life’s first breath”; “From my first breath to my last”; “God breathes the soul into the body with the first breath”. Before that first breath the fetus is just a parasite with the potential of becoming human being.
Gråulf.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Guantanamo and Torture by Gråulf
I never thought I would live in a country where habeas corpus didn’t apply. The bush administration got around that by holding prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, and they claimed that the US constitution only applies within the United States’ borders, and to US citizens. Holding prisoners indefinitely without charging them, or bringing them to trial, is morally reprehensible, and has no place in civilized society. Now the Obama administration is closing Guantanamo, but Obama intend to hold some prisoners (those who cannot be convicted in an American Court because the evidence against them was supplied by informants), in indefinite administrative detention in US jails. That is just moving Guantanamo somewhere else, and his solution does not even pretend to respect the intent of the Constitution. If terrorists are brought to the US they come under the halo of the Constitution, and should have access to our judicial system.
In my opinion Guantanamy should be kept open, but prisoners should be charged, and brought in front of a Military Court within a reasonable time. That is provided for in the Constitution. Even terrorists merit justice, and we owe them a quick trial, and a speedy execution.
There is endless debate about torture, and what it is. It is nonsense to assert that water boarding is not torture, just as it is nonsense to say that harsh treatment is. Once someone has been convicted of terrorism we should be able to torture them to get information about the organizations they belong to, and about their intentions, but only if we have indisputable reason to believe they have information that will save lives, or prevent a terrorist attack. Even then, torture should only be allowed after a court has sanctioned it. I can think of numerous possible scenarios where torture might not only be reasonable, but the only rational choice, and it is mad to make torture illegal under all circumstances.
Gråulf.
In my opinion Guantanamy should be kept open, but prisoners should be charged, and brought in front of a Military Court within a reasonable time. That is provided for in the Constitution. Even terrorists merit justice, and we owe them a quick trial, and a speedy execution.
There is endless debate about torture, and what it is. It is nonsense to assert that water boarding is not torture, just as it is nonsense to say that harsh treatment is. Once someone has been convicted of terrorism we should be able to torture them to get information about the organizations they belong to, and about their intentions, but only if we have indisputable reason to believe they have information that will save lives, or prevent a terrorist attack. Even then, torture should only be allowed after a court has sanctioned it. I can think of numerous possible scenarios where torture might not only be reasonable, but the only rational choice, and it is mad to make torture illegal under all circumstances.
Gråulf.
American Cars by Gråulf
What is the difference between a Fiat and a Jehovah’s Witness…. You can close the door on a Jehovah’s Witness.
Fiat will own Chrysler, but part of the deal with the Union is that Fiat will not be able to sell their small, fuel sipping cars in the US. Ford owns Volvo, and Volvo developed a turbo diesel that puts out 200 horsepower, and gets 52 miles per gallon in their small sedan, and 40 miles to the gallon in their full size station wagon. So, why is Ford claiming that developing engines for the new mileage standards will add $2000 dollars to each new car?
American auto companies have been screwing their customers for years. I certainly thought so when the paint flaked off my Jeep Grand Cherokee, and Chrysler refused to do anything for me because the two-year warranty had expired. The Jeep also overheated if I used the air conditioner on hot days, and there was no fix for that. Then there was the Chevy Blazer I owned before the Jeep, which was so badly designed that you had to detach the engine mounts and jack the motor up above the frame to change the fuel pump. Why would anyone buy a Ford after they found out that Ford made a deliberate decision not to fix exploding fuel tanks in the Pinto, because it was cheaper to pay off lawsuits than to fix the problem. Why would anyone buy a Chevy Pickup after they found out the Chevy Pickup shown jumping a berm in the TV advertisements was totaled, and they used trick photography to show it continuing on undamaged. Why should we believe that it is important to “buy American” when at least one quarter of every American car is made in third world countries.
American auto companies once made the best cars in the world. On the way they discovered consumerism, and created the demand for new and different models every year. Their energy went into design rather than into improving their product. When foreign cars eventually surpassed American cars in quality American manufacturers increased their advertising budgets instead of improving their vehicles. American manufacturers also exploited the notion of class, and the idea that you can tell the quality of a person by the car they drive. Chevrolet was for the lower classes, and you had to buy a Buick or an Olds when you became middle class, and a Cadillac if you were fortunate enough to become upper class. The main difference between models was the price, the upholstery, and the name on the hood.
Now it appears we all spent seventy billion dollars and became owners of General Motors, and I expect them to deliver my new pickup as soon as possible. I would like a blue one. Meanwhile I would like someone to show me where in the Constitution the Federal Government was granted the power to take over private businesses. I have two copies of the Constitution, and cant find that passage anywhere.
Gråulf.
Fiat will own Chrysler, but part of the deal with the Union is that Fiat will not be able to sell their small, fuel sipping cars in the US. Ford owns Volvo, and Volvo developed a turbo diesel that puts out 200 horsepower, and gets 52 miles per gallon in their small sedan, and 40 miles to the gallon in their full size station wagon. So, why is Ford claiming that developing engines for the new mileage standards will add $2000 dollars to each new car?
American auto companies have been screwing their customers for years. I certainly thought so when the paint flaked off my Jeep Grand Cherokee, and Chrysler refused to do anything for me because the two-year warranty had expired. The Jeep also overheated if I used the air conditioner on hot days, and there was no fix for that. Then there was the Chevy Blazer I owned before the Jeep, which was so badly designed that you had to detach the engine mounts and jack the motor up above the frame to change the fuel pump. Why would anyone buy a Ford after they found out that Ford made a deliberate decision not to fix exploding fuel tanks in the Pinto, because it was cheaper to pay off lawsuits than to fix the problem. Why would anyone buy a Chevy Pickup after they found out the Chevy Pickup shown jumping a berm in the TV advertisements was totaled, and they used trick photography to show it continuing on undamaged. Why should we believe that it is important to “buy American” when at least one quarter of every American car is made in third world countries.
American auto companies once made the best cars in the world. On the way they discovered consumerism, and created the demand for new and different models every year. Their energy went into design rather than into improving their product. When foreign cars eventually surpassed American cars in quality American manufacturers increased their advertising budgets instead of improving their vehicles. American manufacturers also exploited the notion of class, and the idea that you can tell the quality of a person by the car they drive. Chevrolet was for the lower classes, and you had to buy a Buick or an Olds when you became middle class, and a Cadillac if you were fortunate enough to become upper class. The main difference between models was the price, the upholstery, and the name on the hood.
Now it appears we all spent seventy billion dollars and became owners of General Motors, and I expect them to deliver my new pickup as soon as possible. I would like a blue one. Meanwhile I would like someone to show me where in the Constitution the Federal Government was granted the power to take over private businesses. I have two copies of the Constitution, and cant find that passage anywhere.
Gråulf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
