Oh horror of horrors, the NSA website deposits a "cookie" on your computer. The story, complete with blaring headline and small type admission of banality, seems aghast at this spying behavior.
Ok let's be semi-intelligent beings. This is the NSA we're talking about. If they really wanted to spy on your web surfing do you think they'd result to the lowest denominator technology to do it? Find me a website that DOESN'T leave a cookie- that would be news.
Folks in the interest of full disclosure I must tell you that your visit to this site has been logged. I can track your IP, your ISP, and even your OS.
Scarlett Says: The NSA and I, partners in non-crimes.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Rejoice, Rejoice
"There is but one Lord Jesus Christ. All the rest is trifles." -Elizabeth I
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage - St. Paul
It's Christmas, folks. Rejoice in the birth of the Lord and let the blessings of peace and liberty shine upon you for the rest of your days.
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage - St. Paul
It's Christmas, folks. Rejoice in the birth of the Lord and let the blessings of peace and liberty shine upon you for the rest of your days.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
On intelligent design:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If the schools in Pennsylvania were only teaching ID/creationism instead of straight evolution then that would be the government (in the form of government schools) establishing a religion through common law practice. However that was not the case here.
The case was that ID should be offered as an alternative and open to debate. Perhaps, as some have said, ID should be taught in a religious studies course. But many schools don't have the staff or hours to teach a religious studies class. So an alternate theory, faulty or not, is not even discussed. Instead we spoon feed our students the straight line on accepted science and leave them without the recourse, or practice of, debating and thinking on their own.
How are the court and the school system/school board, not abridging the right of "free exercise" of religion by denying students and teachers the right to speak on their religious beliefs in the forum most available to them- school? Furthermore how is this not a restriction of freedom of speech? We've shut down debate.
Spoon feeding information that has been government approved and carefully scrubbed of all religious connotations- and people call right wingers the facists?
If the schools in Pennsylvania were only teaching ID/creationism instead of straight evolution then that would be the government (in the form of government schools) establishing a religion through common law practice. However that was not the case here.
The case was that ID should be offered as an alternative and open to debate. Perhaps, as some have said, ID should be taught in a religious studies course. But many schools don't have the staff or hours to teach a religious studies class. So an alternate theory, faulty or not, is not even discussed. Instead we spoon feed our students the straight line on accepted science and leave them without the recourse, or practice of, debating and thinking on their own.
How are the court and the school system/school board, not abridging the right of "free exercise" of religion by denying students and teachers the right to speak on their religious beliefs in the forum most available to them- school? Furthermore how is this not a restriction of freedom of speech? We've shut down debate.
Spoon feeding information that has been government approved and carefully scrubbed of all religious connotations- and people call right wingers the facists?
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Invocation revocation
A Catholic priest was giving the invocation before the lighting of the town Christmas tree and he dropped the "J bomb."
That's right, the priest had the audacity to mention — cover your ears, kiddies — Jesus Christ.
That caused an immediate ruckus.
A city councilman took over the microphone and insisted the tree lighting was not a Christmas tree but a holiday tree and there was to be no religion in the observance of the lighting of the holiday tree.
Ooook. Let me get this straight. There was a priest- a man of God- giving the invocation at a tree lighting ceremony and his mentioning of the Lord brought about an uproar?
Just what precisely did the city council think a priest was going to invoke?
"I, an ordained priest in the one true Holy Apostolic Church, do hereby invoke the spirit of the forest and the fireflies during this tree lighting. I ask the blessings of the tree people on our humble town"
Truthfully the controversy over "Happy Holidays" vs. "Merry Christmas" really doesn't phase me. I have Jewish friends and Christian friends and even one very odd atheist internet friend (We all point and laugh at him and won't let him join in any reindeer games- but I digress). When we are together in a group, for the sake of inclusiveness and brevity, I say "Happy Holidays". That doesn't mean I've forgotten what Christmas is about or that I am less of a Christian. I just happen to be respectful of my friends.
But, back to the point, come on! It's a Christmas tree. You asked a priest to come and say a few words before you turned on the pretty lights. Get over the silly offensiveness and get back to doing what government is supposed to be doing.
You know, "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
That's right, the priest had the audacity to mention — cover your ears, kiddies — Jesus Christ.
That caused an immediate ruckus.
A city councilman took over the microphone and insisted the tree lighting was not a Christmas tree but a holiday tree and there was to be no religion in the observance of the lighting of the holiday tree.
Ooook. Let me get this straight. There was a priest- a man of God- giving the invocation at a tree lighting ceremony and his mentioning of the Lord brought about an uproar?
Just what precisely did the city council think a priest was going to invoke?
"I, an ordained priest in the one true Holy Apostolic Church, do hereby invoke the spirit of the forest and the fireflies during this tree lighting. I ask the blessings of the tree people on our humble town"
Truthfully the controversy over "Happy Holidays" vs. "Merry Christmas" really doesn't phase me. I have Jewish friends and Christian friends and even one very odd atheist internet friend (We all point and laugh at him and won't let him join in any reindeer games- but I digress). When we are together in a group, for the sake of inclusiveness and brevity, I say "Happy Holidays". That doesn't mean I've forgotten what Christmas is about or that I am less of a Christian. I just happen to be respectful of my friends.
But, back to the point, come on! It's a Christmas tree. You asked a priest to come and say a few words before you turned on the pretty lights. Get over the silly offensiveness and get back to doing what government is supposed to be doing.
You know, "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Saturday, December 10, 2005
We few, we happy few
John Kerry blamed top conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh Friday morning for the uproar over his claim that U.S. troops were terrorizing Iraqi women and children. "You know, the only people who are trying to make anything out of that, to be honest with you, are Rush Limbaugh and a few people on the right," Kerry told radio host Don Imus.
Poor Senator Kerry, still laboring under the delusion that there's a small but potent vast right wing conspiracy out to spell his, and the Republic's, doom. Wake up Kerry. Those "few people on the right" include every single conservative blog site I've encountered in the past few days. From the uproar on Free Republic, to the raging debate on an internet gamers board, private emails, and even a parenting group I visit, that idiotic quote has been the center of attention.
For those of you who don't belong to the VRWC (vast right wing conspiracy) let me re-iterate the nonsense:
And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...Iraqis should be doing that.
That, friends, from the man who might have been President. That from a man who routinely criticized President Bush's "casual" relationship with the English language. Not only did Senator Kerry use the word terrorize in regard to American troops while we are engaged in a global war on terror, but he made the implication that such activities are a daily aspect of American soldiers’ routine and that really, Iraqi's should be doing the terrorizing.
Senator Kerry is not only incapable of articulating his points clearly and without slanderous accusations, but he's incapable of accepting responsibility for his faux paus. Instead it's just a tempest in a tea pot for Rush (read: the ant-Christ) and a few right wingers.
Scarlett says: And this from the man who "has a plan".
Poor Senator Kerry, still laboring under the delusion that there's a small but potent vast right wing conspiracy out to spell his, and the Republic's, doom. Wake up Kerry. Those "few people on the right" include every single conservative blog site I've encountered in the past few days. From the uproar on Free Republic, to the raging debate on an internet gamers board, private emails, and even a parenting group I visit, that idiotic quote has been the center of attention.
For those of you who don't belong to the VRWC (vast right wing conspiracy) let me re-iterate the nonsense:
And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...Iraqis should be doing that.
That, friends, from the man who might have been President. That from a man who routinely criticized President Bush's "casual" relationship with the English language. Not only did Senator Kerry use the word terrorize in regard to American troops while we are engaged in a global war on terror, but he made the implication that such activities are a daily aspect of American soldiers’ routine and that really, Iraqi's should be doing the terrorizing.
Senator Kerry is not only incapable of articulating his points clearly and without slanderous accusations, but he's incapable of accepting responsibility for his faux paus. Instead it's just a tempest in a tea pot for Rush (read: the ant-Christ) and a few right wingers.
Scarlett says: And this from the man who "has a plan".
Tax "cuts" for the wealthy
A common mantra of anti-Bush forces is that his tax cuts benefit the super rich and hamper the "working poor". This has always struck me as particularly funny, since the tax "rebates" were based on the amount of taxes we had "over-payed" to the government. The so-called rich pay more than the so called-working poor. In fact the people whom we routinely visualize as working poor, those who earn minimum wage or slightly more, don't pay anything in taxes beyond Social Security deductions. The earned income credit rebates their taxes at the end of the year in addition to any tax refund they are eligible for.
The idea that the tax cuts are actually not benefiting the rich is evidenced in a new study published here and discussed at length in this excellent NRO article.
The synopsis, for those of you not really up to slogging through IRS data, is that "the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year [2003]. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent." Add to this "but looking at [the data] over time shows that the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthy has risen even as statutory tax rates have fallen sharply" and you have some statistical proof that, as corporate profits and revenues have grown, the rich in this country are paying more in taxes than they were many years ago.
Next on tax issues for the working oppressed (you saw him, he's oppressing me!): the Alternative Minimum Tax and why you are now "rich".
Scarlett Says: We can cut $8 billion dollars a year from the Federal budget by eliminating the IRS.
The idea that the tax cuts are actually not benefiting the rich is evidenced in a new study published here and discussed at length in this excellent NRO article.
The synopsis, for those of you not really up to slogging through IRS data, is that "the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year [2003]. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent." Add to this "but looking at [the data] over time shows that the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthy has risen even as statutory tax rates have fallen sharply" and you have some statistical proof that, as corporate profits and revenues have grown, the rich in this country are paying more in taxes than they were many years ago.
Next on tax issues for the working oppressed (you saw him, he's oppressing me!): the Alternative Minimum Tax and why you are now "rich".
Scarlett Says: We can cut $8 billion dollars a year from the Federal budget by eliminating the IRS.
Some Old Faces I Miss
Add to the list of folks I grew to admire during my time in government, Joe Lieberman. Sen. Lieberman is and will always be a Democrat. He often sides with his party on issues I feel strongly, and differently, about. But Sen. Lieberman is a man with deeply held beliefs and he sticks by them, even in the face of reprobration and scorn from his fellow caucus members.
Following up on his Wall Street Journal article Tuesday defending the Iraq war, Sen. Joseph Lieberman is reminding Bush administration critics that it's wrong to claim that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked in 2003.
"The so-called Duelfer Report, which a lot of people read to say there were no weapons of mass destruction - concluded that Saddam continued to have very low level of chemical and biological programs," Lieberman told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity on Wednesday.
"[Saddam] was trying to break out of the U.N. sanctions by going back into rapid redevelopment of chemical and biological and probably nuclear [weapons]," Lieberman said, calling the Iraqi dictator "a ticking time bomb."
"I have no regrets" that the U.S. toppled Saddam, the former vice presidential candidate explained. "I think we can finish are job there, and as part of it - really transform the Arab-Islamic world."
Lieberman said that his fellow Democrats haven't taken kindly to his decision to buck his party on Iraq. "There's been some grumbling," he told Hannity. "In Connecticut there's a 'Dump Joe' web site that has cropped up." But Lieberman added, "I've been here long enough where, at this stage in my career, I'm going to do what I think is right."
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/2/132602.shtml
Scarlett Says: Joe you get to join Phil Graham, Fred Thompson, and Zell Miller in my personal "Hallowed Halls of Good Guys".
Following up on his Wall Street Journal article Tuesday defending the Iraq war, Sen. Joseph Lieberman is reminding Bush administration critics that it's wrong to claim that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked in 2003.
"The so-called Duelfer Report, which a lot of people read to say there were no weapons of mass destruction - concluded that Saddam continued to have very low level of chemical and biological programs," Lieberman told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity on Wednesday.
"[Saddam] was trying to break out of the U.N. sanctions by going back into rapid redevelopment of chemical and biological and probably nuclear [weapons]," Lieberman said, calling the Iraqi dictator "a ticking time bomb."
"I have no regrets" that the U.S. toppled Saddam, the former vice presidential candidate explained. "I think we can finish are job there, and as part of it - really transform the Arab-Islamic world."
Lieberman said that his fellow Democrats haven't taken kindly to his decision to buck his party on Iraq. "There's been some grumbling," he told Hannity. "In Connecticut there's a 'Dump Joe' web site that has cropped up." But Lieberman added, "I've been here long enough where, at this stage in my career, I'm going to do what I think is right."
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/2/132602.shtml
Scarlett Says: Joe you get to join Phil Graham, Fred Thompson, and Zell Miller in my personal "Hallowed Halls of Good Guys".
White House Christmas cheer
Do you want to support a great cause this Christmas season, an organization that promotes the preservation of, and education about, the White House? The White House Historical Association is a wonderful, non-partisan, group of people dedicated to preservation of American history.
"The White House Historical Association is a charitable nonprofit institution whose purpose is to enhance the understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the White House. To fulfill its purpose, the White House Historical Association produces educational literature and films, develops special programs, and maintains a web site interpreting the White House and its history and the persons and events associated with it. From private funding and the sale of its educational products, the Association supports the acquisition of artwork and objects for the White House collection and contributes to the conservation of the public rooms. "
Every year the Association authorizes the "official" White House Christmas ornaments. Senators, Congresswomen, Federal employees, and residents of DC know all about these lovely treasures that add class and charm to any holiday display. It's time the rest of the country learned too.
This year's ornament commemorates President Garfield. You can view a picture and order the ornament here: http://www.whitehousehistory.org/shop/p-2005
Happy decorating!
"The White House Historical Association is a charitable nonprofit institution whose purpose is to enhance the understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the White House. To fulfill its purpose, the White House Historical Association produces educational literature and films, develops special programs, and maintains a web site interpreting the White House and its history and the persons and events associated with it. From private funding and the sale of its educational products, the Association supports the acquisition of artwork and objects for the White House collection and contributes to the conservation of the public rooms. "
Every year the Association authorizes the "official" White House Christmas ornaments. Senators, Congresswomen, Federal employees, and residents of DC know all about these lovely treasures that add class and charm to any holiday display. It's time the rest of the country learned too.
This year's ornament commemorates President Garfield. You can view a picture and order the ornament here: http://www.whitehousehistory.org/shop/p-2005
Happy decorating!
Sticks and stones might work better
First you should read the silly (and rather anti-productive) complaints about Katherine DeBrecht's children's book.
See here: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/11/prweb316240.htm
What really cracks me up are these quotes: former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan incorrectly asserted that the book contained a nude likeness of Congressman Barney Frank and, though he eventually retracted his error, he went on to liken it to the propaganda of Chinese dictator Mao Tse-Tung. ...and Daily Kos, the most trafficked left-wing blog, likened the book to Nazi propaganda.
So, folks, when arch-liberals get really, really, angry at you, the most cutting insults they come up with are to call you a.....socialist and a communist.
Scarlett Says: the irony is strong with these folks.
See here: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/11/prweb316240.htm
What really cracks me up are these quotes: former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan incorrectly asserted that the book contained a nude likeness of Congressman Barney Frank and, though he eventually retracted his error, he went on to liken it to the propaganda of Chinese dictator Mao Tse-Tung. ...and Daily Kos, the most trafficked left-wing blog, likened the book to Nazi propaganda.
So, folks, when arch-liberals get really, really, angry at you, the most cutting insults they come up with are to call you a.....socialist and a communist.
Scarlett Says: the irony is strong with these folks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)