Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Recent Comments:
Peacock gives thanks to a turkey: Parade is one saving grace for NBC {Daily Finance}
Nov 25th 2009 10:15AM I love big parades, but I don't do well in big crowds. And as mentioned in other posts, you have to stare at the screen to not miss the few bits of the parade they flash in between the Hosts' commentary, so why bother trying to watch? I think they should make the parade available on PPV. You know, pay $7 bucks and watch the parade with spoken commentary only, such as "look up in the sky and you'll see Tweety Bird coming this way". That's the way it used to be when they showed the parade on TV... they built up the anticipation by showing you what the balloon line-up was, etc.
But for those attending the Macy's TG Parade... have fun!
Ho, Ho . . . Whoa! Secularists Get the Holiday Spirit {Politics Daily}
Nov 24th 2009 4:43PM The abbreviated version of Secular Humanism (SH) is the belief that human beings, without the influence or interference of ANY supernatural being or Deity, will ultimately act and behave in ways which are positive and beneficial for all of humankind because it is in their best interest, and the best interest of human survival to do so. But many religions worship the supernatural and act in accordance with their beliefs in relation to those spirits, but their religious convictions do not include a belief in God, or a god. Some religions worship multiple gods. Some worship ancestors, some worship nature, some worship objects, some worship animal deities, and so on. Genuine Secular Humanism denies the role of any of these elements in how people think and act. Given this definition of Secular Humanism, why is there such a campaign underway to attack Christianity this Holiday Season?
The people in the ad are wearing traditional, if not religious, Christmas colors and the slogan "No God... No Problem" will be run throughout the Christmas Season. This does not promote the values of Secular Humanism, rather it promotes religious intolerance specifically aimed at Christian beliefs. While the AHA pretends it supports the sentiment "Be good for goodness' sake", this controversial and incendiary ad promotes the opposite presumption of Secular Humanism; it is being naughty and contrary for goodness' sake, which ultimately is impossible. I adamantly believe they are pushing this public attack against Christianity because it is socially acceptable. Secular Humanism denies the tenets of Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, ancestor worship and most all recognized religions, but it is only acceptable to attack Christianity. If the AHA attacked any of these other religions outright, the Anti-Defamation League, the ACLU and a whole host of other entities would rise up against this campaign policy... and prevail.
I hope all persons interested in the true gifts of the season... love, peace and joy... will make their voices heard in protest against this attack on religion. In order to protect our own personal religious freedoms, we need to collectively fight religious attack whenever possible. Although I don't personally ascribe to Secular Humanism, I believe it is a valuable and reasonable belief system. The problem is when an unreasonable, fringe element, like AHA with its dubious potentate Roy Speckhardt, high jack the essential goodness within the concept of Secular Humanism and distort it into a weapon of disrespect and persecution.
As for the milktoast argument that the AHA's message is so "far out there" that it no longer holds specifically religious content? Anyone who believes such bullsh*t shouldn't be allowed to sit on our Supreme Court panel. If making a statement FOR God is religious content, how can making a statement about the uselessness of the image and belief in God be anything but religious intolerance? To turn a blind eye to such unreasonable behavior is to shirk one's responsibility in maintaining religious freedom for all faiths in the United States, and it passes the buck of decision making about such fundamental rights on to someone else. When those in power do not want the responsibility of making choices to sustain our fundamental rights and freedoms, this country will be broken.
Child-care issues are an impossible challenge for Army moms and dads {Daily Finance}
Nov 23rd 2009 9:34AM I feel no sympathy for Alexis Hutchinson. It isn't the Army's fault she got pregnant, and it isn't the Army's problem to solve. She enlisted in the Army, took the training, pay and benefits. She then proceeded to become pregnant and live as a single parent. All the while the Army held up its end of the contract, but when it came time for Hutchinson to fulfill her end, things weren't working out for her so she just didn't show. At first I thought jail time wouldn't make any difference. But I do now solemnly believe not showing or showing up ill-prepared to deploy (as in toting a young 'un on your hip) is desertion, and should be prosecuted.
It is time for the U.S. Military to invest in much needed, new policy development.
1. If you are a single parent, a childcare plan must be submitted and approved by the commanding officer. If things "aren't working out" when deployment or transfer is ordered, the soldier is given a 30-day period to make proper arrangements. If things "aren't working out" at the delayed date of deployment/transfer, the soldier must resign or will be discharged and either way will forfeit all future military benefits. This rule applies to single women, and to single men who have sole custody of their children.
2. If both parents are in the military, a childcare plan must be submitted and approved by the commanding officer. If things "aren't working out" (both parents deployed simultaneously), one of the parents must deploy while the other one is given a given a 30-day period to make proper arrangements. If at the end of that period the other parent is still unable to fulfill their commitment, that parent must resign from the military and their portion of military benefits will end. (But the enlisted spouse's benefits remain intact)
It is not the U.S. Military's place to keep you from getting pregnant, to provide childcare for your family, to weep and apologize because it had the gall to expect you to act like a soldier, to "hold your spot" until things in your life ARE going well enough for you to decide you can be deployed or anything else of such nature. I'm all for women's rights, etc., but the more stories I hear about female soldiers' and all their damn complaints and problems and reasons they cannot deploy, I'm rethinking my stance on women in the military.
Philip's Interactive LED Tattoos Could Be the Future of Body Art {Switched.com}
Nov 22nd 2009 12:05PM I don't care how modern and savvy a guy is. If ANY THING he has lights up while he is asleep... I'm gone. I won't even wait to see what it's doing.
PETA Feasts on Brutalized Flesh When Lobster-Stunners Get Lost in Transit {Switched.com}
Nov 22nd 2009 11:59AM I think the CrustaStun system is a bad idea for taking lobsters meant to be eaten. Lobsters begin to degenerate from the inside out immediately upon death. The only way to safely cook and eat lobster is to kill it immediately before cooking, or dropping live into a boiling pot of water or oil, or to immediately freeze them for later use.
However, if you are scuba diving or snorkeling, the CrustaStun might come in real handy should you or your group meet a shark, a sea snake or whatever else might be above you in the marine food chain. Although it might not kill the shark, it should repel it quite effectively....
White Collar Reset: Kidney for sale? Dozens of readers willing to give it a go {Daily Finance}
Nov 22nd 2009 11:32AM I would sell an organ only if I needed to in a life-or-death situation for my children where I had no other means of getting the money. But I would still hold out for $250k. Otherwise, if someone I know and love needed one of my kidneys... it's theirs. Finally, if I die with both kidneys, my family would NOT be allowed to sell my body parts which I have earmarked for donation to those with the greatest need.
Couple arrested after refusing to pay tip at Pennsylvania pub {Daily Finance}
Nov 21st 2009 10:45AM "Tipping is capitalism at its core. You have to give something to get something." WTF? Tipping is NOT capitalism at its core. You are giving something (your money) in exchange for something (palatable food and professional service) when you pay your tab. Tipping is arbitrary; it is optional giving of something extra to show your appreciation after receiving something extra.
The complaints made by the couple were legitimate. Over an hour for wings and a salad? Damn. Did they have to wring the chicken's neck in the kitchen? And having to get your own drink refills, napkins and silverware? Since when is a tip in order when you have to get the essentials for you and your friends?
Maybe things have changed since I waited tables, but back then if the patrons at your table didn't have, at the very least, napkins and silverware, you didn't get to take a break. It was because of the higher standard of giving good service to a restaurant's customers because that's what the restaurant offered its patrons, and that's what the restaurant expected of its employees.
It just saddens me that when this couple made a series of valid complaints at this restaurant, and even after their complaints were backed up by their friends, the manager wasn't mortified at the bad service they received, and even apologetic. They called the police because their server did not get rewarded for ignoring patrons and giving detestable service. This is wrong.
Did Texas' Same-Sex Amendment Accidently Outlaw Marriage? {Politics Daily}
Nov 21st 2009 9:46AM To me, this says the State of Texas has defined marriage in its Constitution as between one man and one woman. As the State Constitution is stronger than the sitting legislative body in Texas at any given time, neither the state nor its political enclaves can create or legally acknowledge anything but this one definition of marriage. I mean, "identical and similar" mean "almost" the same, except for... blah, blah. I think it's the blah, blah this legislation prevents. And heaven knows blah, blah will get you every time!
So This is Blasphemy? I'll be Darned {Politics Daily}
Nov 19th 2009 6:55PM Interesting. Secular Humanism essentially teaches that humankind will ultimately think and act in ways which are beneficial to the human race and good for the natural world without the interference or influence of a supernatural being. And then these people pull a stunt like this which defies the actual premise of Secular Humanism. Any organization promoting a Blasphemy Day for any reason has zero credibility. It amazes me that so many people blindly support this effort and yet have the gumption to call themselves Secular Humanists. Of course, we all know what happens when the blind follow the blind. They all shall fall into the pit. I have it on Good Authority.
Gender Disappointment: When Parents Don't Get The Child They Wanted {ParentDish}
Nov 19th 2009 3:30PM So many things which are perfectly normal are being turned into "mental health issues" these days. The person who tells you there is something wrong with you because you wanted a son or had hoped for a daughter is the crazy one.
There is nothing wrong or shameful about wanting to have a boy or a girl, either one, or one of each. Once the healthy baby arrives and is placed in your arms, and you look into that tiny perfect face, everything is alright. If after counting fingers and toes, and becoming totally mesmerized by this little thing you still feel "resentful" and only dress your son in sundresses with bonnets, THEN you really should talk to somebody.
