GeezerSue

So, man's free will was part of a perfect creation...even though the one creating it knew that man's exercise of free will would cause pain and suffering even to the most innocent? Not too perfect a plan, then, was it? You can't have it both ways. Here's a simpler explanation and one that DOES make sense. There is no God. Prayer is superstition. Man, primitive man, at that, created Gods to explain things he couldn't understand. People cling to a belief in the supernatural to help explain the things they can't understand and because they cannot deal with the notion that they have no control and that no one is in charge of what happens and when it's over, it's over.

So...he created Adam and Eve...and they were perfect and we were perfect and then Adam and Eve sinned and now we DESERVE to get AIDS and little children DESERVE cancer because Adam and Eve sinned...just the way God knew they would when he created them..so, the little kids never stood a chance, right?

Only in ambiguous situations. IOW, you have to believe that God can and will heal to come to the conclusion (faulty though it is) that God HAS healed. There are no unambiguous healings. I give you: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god5.htm

Yup. That'll do it.

Victoriana...I'm sorry, but I see a WORLD of difference between telling a child to NOT do something and his choosing to do it anyway and getting a boo-boo that needs a band-aid and his doing it anyway and dying of AIDS...or, even, his doing NOTHING wrong and dying of a childhood-onset leukemia. Ron is saying that ALL of this is from his god. I'm missing the wisdom and the connections in "God is good," "God COULD fix stuff if he wanted to, that's why we pray to him and ask for recovery from disease and injury," and "The babies are dying but everything happens for a good reason." Samuel Clemens said, ""If there is a God, he is a malign thug."

Perhaps more prayer for the patience to deal with the unenlightened might be in order...otherwise, prayer for a career where everyone will agree with you from the get-go might be a good choice. Meanwhile, zealots are zealots...whether they call themselves Christian or Taliban.

Boy, Heather! You have been through the grinder with your band. But my experiences in observing which wls surgery is the most effective don't match yours. Mine more closely match what all the medical research says. A group of us--about 40-50 wls patients--got together a couple of years ago. Someone asked, "Which ones had the DS?" I--inadvertantly, because I was still banded--said, "Just look around...it's the skinny bitches." And it was. I've been researching wls since about the time you were banded and I haven't met anyone--not one person--who had a DS and was unhappy with the way the surgery had performed. I *DID* encounter a person with a drug and alcohol problem who returned to drugs and alcohol and regained about 50 pounds, but even she didn't regain everything. OTOH, many of the banded people I know have had to have revisions and many are still MO, even after years of trying to make the band work for them. I really think that, especially for someone who has had all the problems you have had, your success is really outside the normal range of results. But bravo to you for achieving it! Sue

I thought so...I just wish I knew who the hell Roberts is/was. He's quoted on several sites...

So, Ron...what makes YOUR conservative religious beliefs any different than the conservative religious beliefs of, say, the Taliban? And before you answer, you might want to consider the words of Stephen F. Roberts, who said: I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

So...YOUR God created man in his image and likeness, considers mankind his children and then punishes them with the likes of AIDS? I wouldn't hang out with ANYONE who treated their kids that way...but you go ahead and take your walks with whomever you please.

Yup...my VA meds --provided to me as part of my "free medical care for life" deal--have a copay three times the copay of my huband's medical insurance. (And, btw, the VA bills my medical insurance for any service I receive there. The only reason I don't have to be poor is that I have a service connected disability.)

I, too, live a fairly moral life...I haven't staple-gunned kittens to any fence posts...I don't blow up doctors when I hear voices (well, I don't actually hear voices, but if I did)...haven't stood outside clinics telling people they'll burn in hell because they disagree with me...haven't sent any kids off to foreign lands to kill or be killed so that my buddies can make a buck...haven't believed or said that AIDS is a just punishment from God...haven't robbed any banks, that kind of thing. I wonder how you think you know what atheists have experienced, though. Could be we're just as happy as you are and don't need validation through some external locus of control. But, since Christians haven't experienced the true atheistic life, you'll never know. Oh, and if I were to drop dead tonight, I'd probably regret the time and money I gave to the hucksters in the name of God...but I outgrew that shit early on, so I don't have THAT much to be sorry for.

I can take a stab at it... We realists already get it. Let's DO talk about the madrassas. The funding for the Wahhabi madrassas comes from Saudi Arabia. You remember the Saudis? The friends of the Bush family? THEY pay for these exported, fanatic, Mini-West Point training camps. (In my background, they were less militant, unarmed and called seminaries.) They got a good start in training poor Pashtun kids to go to war with the old Soviet Union when THEY thought it was brilliant to go to Afghanistan. All they've done recently is change their cast of "bad guys" and spread out to more areas of operation. Maybe is has something to do with who has most recently invaded their lands. Funny how that connection keeps popping up. Unless some other fools invaded them after we left. Then THEY would move to the head of the list. Deal is, the alternative to backing out of the fight is to wipe out every Muslim on the planet and take over all Muslim lands. We can't leave any Muslims in place or they'll eventually turn into "insurgents," occupied people almost always resort to THAT ruse. We need to get out. We need to leave the Middle East to the Middle East. They don't need the "crusading" (his word, not mine) jerk in the White House or any other leader of a Christian Nation bulldozing their way into Muslim countries to help. Our values in this country are heavily informed by the values of the (mostly) Christians who founded this land. Muslims in Muslim lands have values based on the values THEIR religion promotes. Having us there is not only AS insulting as having a bunch of Muslims decide I shouldn't go out of the house with bare arms or drive a car or let my hair show...it is, to them, even WORSE...because "defending the faith" is as integral to their belief system as "sharing the body and blood of Christ" is in most Christian religions. You can't take communion out of the Christian religions that practice it and you can't take "defending the faith" out of the Muslim belief system. And (at the risk of repeating myself), our going there to impart our values on their religious practices (because their religion is in every part of their day) is never going to be okay. We agree there...that's why I NEVER liked Bush, even after 9/11. Do you include all the media throught the world as being involved in this vast conspiracy to which you allude? We get the most sanitized news in the world. We don't even see what we are doing to others and what we have done to our own. No. I don't want my media serving as cheerleaders for the White House. They did that in WWII (Democrat in the White House) and that's why Japanese Americans were robbed of their homes and possessions and sent off to camps in the desert...and hardly anyone said a word. And, btw, that was a war in which we were attacked by another country and where we knew where to retaliate, so there was a chance of winning. The Geneva Conventions--at least the ones I had to learn about when I was in the Army--did not apply to going to "war" against "bad ideas and practices." They would not apply to a "war on evil" or a "war on meanness" or a "war on bad manners." They apply to warring NATIONS. We are not warring against a nation. We are fighting terrorism. (Brilliant.) Declaring a vague war on terrorism (which, of course, can NEVER be won) makes every man, woman and child on the planet who gets in your (philosophical) way a target. I'm tired now...but I'll work more later. But, I'd suggest a subscription to Mother Jones for the time being.

We Vets have somewhat mouthier lobbyists.

NOW he wants us to pay income tax on our employer-provided medical benefits. Smooth move, Dubya. The proposal will include: -- A standard deduction for health insurance -- singles with health insurance will not pay income or payroll taxes on the first $7,500 -- Families with health insurance will not pay income or payroll taxes on the first $15,500 -- Health insurance should be considered taxable income, including those who currently have health insurance through their employment The result, says Bush, will be that 80% of people with health cover will pay less tax. So, before I retired, I had insurance that, when I converted to COBRA and had to pay it myself, cost me about $750/month. (And that was five years ago, so we know it's gone up.) That means that the folks I was working with would now be paying income tax on another $1500/year with no increase of any kind in any benefits. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=61278

So, because we have uniforms, we're the good guys? I think not. We were an almost unilateral force (we bulldozed the little guys into helping us), which invaded another country without the support of the UN, but under the pretenses of enforcing UN mandates. But we have uniforms! You ever see Eddie Izzard? (paraphrased) "We stake this flag on this land and claim this land for the British Empire." "But, there are several milllion of us here in India and we don't need you here." "Do you have a flag?" "No." "Then we win. We have a flag."

It is scary that some people are so bigoted and ill-informed that they believe this. But it wold be nice if you wouldn't spread around such malicious claims. In fact, the really scary militant Christians are predominantly home schoolers who keep their kids out of the mainstream altogether. And historically, while we Catholics were not taught to kill anyone, we were taught that the sacrament of Confirmation made us "soldiers for Jesus Christ." Likewise, Muslims are taught to "defend the faith." Devout Muslims cannot fathom keeping their religion in one pocket and their daily lives in another. Their religion is part of every minute of every day. THEREFORE, when we butt the hell into their governments and their politics and their daily lives, we are attacking their faith because their faith is a part of everything.

I looked at A BIT of the report and discovered that to determine economic status of enlistees, the military used the average income--from the 2000 census, back when we had more people working at real jobs and the minimum wage was what is still is but it bought more--for the zip code of the enlistee. Well, DUH.... Do we think that the military really thinks that the kids from the HIGH end of the zip code's income level enlist at the same rate as kids from the LOW end? No, the military's number crunchers just know how to skew stats as well as any other propoganda outfit. All it takes is a couple of very successful business owners in a small rural town and there goes the neighborhood! [For non-math folks, this means that if WE moved to my husband's very small home town (population <1200), it would increase the income averages (our RETIREMENT CHECKS will be about five times the average income in that zip code) but the same poor kids with the same low incomes would be the ones enlisting. In fact, just for fun, there are only seven Latinos in that town. If we moved there and my stats were added in, the average income for Latinos in that town would triple. And we're just civil servant type folks!] Also, most of the Heritage Foundation people have probably NOT been graced with the experience of being enlisted swine (as we were/are called) in our military. I have. While there are enlistees from all over the socioeconomic map, there is a REASON that part of basic training includes instructions on how to brush your teeth. Some statistics classes teach even MORE political science than political science classes do.

Using the Heritage Foundation as a source of information on political issues is like using one of these as a source information about racial equality: * Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging * American Front * American Nazi Party * Aryan Brotherhood * Aryan Nations * Australia First * Blood and Honour * British National Front * Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team * Canadian Heritage Alliance * Combat 18 * Council of Conservative Citizens * Confederate Hammer Skins * Creativity Movement (formerly World Church of the Creator) * Forsyth County Defense League * Hammerskins * Heritage Front * Hrisi Avgi * Ku Klux Klan * Libertarian National Socialist Green Party* National Alliance * National Association for the Advancement of White People * National Socialist Movement of Denmark * National Socialist Movement (United Kingdom) * National Socialist Movement (United States) * Nationalist Party of Canada * Northern Alliance (White supremacist organization) * Imperium Europa * Patriotic Youth League * Russian National Unity * The Order * The Posse Comitatus * Tri-City Skins * Vigrid * Volksfront * Western Canada For Us * White Aryan Resistance * White Citizens' Council * White Patriot Party The concept of propaganda outfits masquerading as legitimate organizations was best illustrated when Pat Robertson and some Middle Eastern investors were, at the same time, both trying to buy UPI (United Press International) to better control what news reached us and how "upstanding" it looked. Middle Eastern dudes won and a few years later, UPI passed to the hands of an arm of Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. Know thy sources.

If I visit a lot, can I claim Mauston?

I don't recall mentioning Chelsea...but her dad was NOT waging war. The Bobsey-Tramps have a dad who IS waging war. Weenie-wagging is not ALWAYS about penises...it has come to refer to a contest to establish bragging rights. As in, Mr. "Bring-'em-ON Bush." False bravado, that kind of thing. But I am always amazed by the ongoing interest in a penis in the Oval Office...it's certainly better than the ass we have there now. Do you all REALLY still think that that was the first piece of nookie knocked off in the Oval Office? Amazing!!!

And Dubya and company have succeeded in making you so. They have succeeded far more than they--or anyone else--will ever succeed in a "war on terror." Because, as I have stated before, it can NEVER be won. Nor can anyone even come up with a plausible "winning end product" of such a conflict. You wrote earlier "There is an effort, worldwide, to attack the US for its freedoms." That statement is 100% "party line" and 100% false. "They"--the undefined bad-guys--do NOT hate us for our freedoms...they hate us when we butt into their lives. There are Mulsims--some of them rather extreme in their beliefs--all over this country. They aren't blowing up the 7-11's because they have dirty magazines. They aren't sacrificing warriors at the League of Credit Unions (because they don't believe in charging or paying interest.) They aren't closing down breweries or wineries or shooting women who work in "Genlemen's Clubs." They don't CARE if we go to hell. They don't care about the freedoms that will allow us to do that. They only care that each and every Muslim has a personal responsibility to defend the faith if it is attacked. And they see it as being attacked. (Of course, there are myriad bad guys on both sides who are explointing that...but the whole "they hate us because we're free" line is just nonsense.) If you cannot understand THEIR perspective, you will never understand the problem. America helped create a new Christian country in East Timor, taking it from the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, Indonesia. That would be the same as if Iran hepled carve out a little Muslim corner of the US, taking over Michigan, maybe. Would we be a little irate? You betcha. We occupy Iraq and Afghanistan...Muslim countries. How would we feel if a Muslim power took over a couple of Christian-dominated countries? We have bases in Kuwait...for the good and for the bad as far as they are concerned. The US back's Israel's position on the Palestinian lands. We back the "more moderate" governments of Kuwait, Saudi, the UAE, Jordan and Egypt. We demand--for our reasons which seem good to us--that Muslims track their charitable giving programs which--even the bad ones--are based on one of the Five Pillars of Islam and the people who are NOT the bad guys find that very offensive...like we innocent travelers find physical patdown searches at the airport, only very much more so. It's a mess, for sure. But not because a bunch of psycho Musims woke up one morning and decided that they were offended by the democratic process. That's what Dubya has been preaching and it's bullshit. They hate us because we don't respect them and continually exert our influence in their world. If you believe that they hate us because of our freedoms, it is because you haven't put enough thought into how the typical decent Iraqi (for example) woman who would be your counterpoint in her country is experiencing this entire weenie-wagging thing. Do not misunderstand...I am not defending the actions that EITHER side has taken. I'm just explaining that many Americans are confused about what is motivating "the other side." And until we understand what motivates an enemy, we are in trouble in any conflict.

Today is my 60th birthday. The remembering part is a double-edged sword. The details are more like looking at a family photo album...things you personally remember. But the "mood" of the time is something you almost have to have experienced to "get" what was going on and it's something that can't be easily factored out of the memories. I was born during Truman's administration. I remember seeing Eisenhower on television when I was a kid. I remember my parents and my friend's parents being on opposite sides of the Stevenson-Eisenhower contest in 1952. So my political awareness goes back "a ways." But, since I was there, I can't remember it totally objectively. I was a duck-and-cover kid. The neighborhood boys had wild cowboys-vs.-Indians games AND commies-vs.-good guys games. The Cuban Missle Crisis is not a page in a history book for me or a made-for-tv-movie...it was the day my senior year of high school that I took my five-pound (because that's what they weighed), green, leaky-battery (because that's what they did), portable radio (pre-"transistor") to school even though no such thing had been done before. (Girls were still not allowed to wear pants...it was the Recent Dark Ages.) Every teacher had me put the radio in the window (you had to, to get reception) so we could listen to that crisis all day long. It is an emotion-packed memory...as are the entire Nixon thing and the day the Kennedy era ended and how I somehow went from "what's the matter with these protestors?" to "why the hell did we GO to Viet Nam?" (That move took a while.) Anyway, the having-been-there thing can help, but it carries its own baggage.

Cripes...now I have to post my photos of me on the tarmac with Air Force One?

Jodie, It is reasuring to me to see someone your age take a Political Science class so seriously. It is also a nice little trip down Memory Lane for many of us who have also dabbled in the subject matter ourselves. Just remember, that after a first course in Human Anatomy, nobody is quite ready to perform open heart surgery.