EMK and Health Care Reform

25% of people on CNN voted Ted Kennedy as the Most Influential Kennedy brother. I'd like to find those roughly 15000 people and break their hands. JFK was voted 67% and RFK only 8%? It's obvious that the readers of CNN aren't very impa...ssioned about their history. It's a shame to see a nation jumping on the bandwagon of a Senator who I will admit did some great things in his life (apartheid, the IRA, fair pay) but was also a huge failure both (and more importantly) in politics and life. We mourn the loss of a human life, but we must also look in retrospect with cold eyes.

I see people scrambling and worrying about health care reform now that EMK is dead. I find it pathetic and appalling to hear that fellow Americans are pushing this Health Care Reform plan to be passed just for the sake of reforming health care, and nothing else. We know the system is flawed, and in some aspects seriously, but when the government ... Read Morerushes to pass legislation that pulls on the heartstrings of emotional citizens (who literally have no clue what is included in the plan) then fatal mistakes are made. Americans are urged to play an active role in deciding the future of our country. That means we read legislation and keep our elected officials in check, not blindly follow them off into the desert because they've assured us the promised land. Don't be stupid. We've seen socialized health care fail miserably around the world. Get off of your 'holier than thou' pedestal and wade through the health care reform bill instead of paddling down shit creek with your nose in the air.

HR 3200

Open Congress page on HR 3200

Necessary Justice?

I Stumbled Upon an article today about a man called Jermoe Ersland. Mr. Ersland was working at a pharmacy when two younger men walked in and tried to hold the place up. And here's where it gets interesting. Mr. Ersland shot one of the young men whilst the other fled. After shooting the man, Mr. Ersland retrieved another gun and shot the man, who was lying on his back incapacitated, five more times in his stomach. The man died. Now, old Jerome Ersland is charged with first degree murder.

Now, I'm at odds with myself over this one. On one end I think that Jerome went slightly overboard when he shot the assailant five more times. But on the other I think that he should have shot him in the head five more times. I mean, if you try to rob me or harm me or my employees (Jerome had thought that the assailants had shot one of his coworkers because of her crying) I'm going to kill you. That's all there is to it. If you have the balls to perpetrate a crime, you should have the bals to get shot at and killed.

Now on to the good stuff. The assailants were two young black "men" and the one that Jerome killed was 16 (which is tragic of course, and the other robber was 14). Now the president of the Oklahoma NAACP, Anthony Douglas, is calling this an "execution-style murder" and is praising the DA for bringing the charges up. Of course Anthony Douglas isn't saying anything about the scum who helped the two teens rob the store...of course not, because they're probably black too, and the NAACP isn't really concerned about the black community until a white guy is involved in the story. I hate the NAACP if you haven't figured that one out yet. They only help people when they run into a situation that they can brand as racist. I don't think they truly care for the advancement of the lowest of the low, which is who really matters. They're bastards.

Anyways, some anonymous donor got Jerome out on $100,000 bail and he is now awating trial. Pretty crazy story. I'm not sure I would have done it, but at least him and the other employees are still alive.

Article with parts of interview

Article from Oklahoma with the assailant's families reaction

Married Priests

The following is a small email thread that I sent out a couple weeks ago. I involves my Uncle Miron, a wise old sage of a man, and myself (I get no cool afterthought).

Me:

Good article from Rev. Donald Cozzens. I guess he's a convert?

Nonetheless, his argument makes sense and I've always thought that priests should be allowed to marry.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/15/cozzens.celibacy.discussion/index.html

Thoughts?

Uncle Miron:

I agree, he makes an excellent argument, but to me, it is just that, a very good point of view backed-up with historical facts and it is hard to argue with Rev. Cozzens' logic, so I will not even try. Instead, I would like to give my humble thoughts as to why a real hard look needs to be taken as to why priests should or should not be allowed to marry. Too, unlike the Rev., I am not going to even try to get into the mind of God. Additionally, large, old, entrenched "businesses" like the Roman Catholic Church move slow. Gosh, look at all the negative fallout that came out of and still exists as a result of Vatican II, but that is a whole other issue.

To allow priests to marry just to solve the shortage is not a good reason, it is too simple of an answer to, what I believe, is a serious and economic issue. My Mom used to say, How can a priest give marriage advice when they have never been married?" I never bought in to her reasoning and we always were on opposite sides of the issue of married priests with Mom being pro-marriage. In all due respect to my Mom, her question, which is only a tiny bit of her side of the issue, is the same as saying that if I am depressed, I need to go to a psycologist who is also depressed in order to get help and one in a wheelchair at that would be better yet! Now I do not want to argue with the Carl Yung "Wounded Healer Theory" which I believe is valid in many ways, but I digress.

Priests, I believe, should be in the business of saving souls, bringing folks to have a personal relationship with Jesus and tending the flock. They should not have to worry about all kinds of "non-religious" work that takes then away from their true work at hand. A parish the size of St. Elizabeth should at least have a part-time, if not a full-time, business manager to handle the day-to-day operations of the parish. Surly a simplification, but Father Dale should not have to be concerned if the parish monthly utility bills have been paid. Spring-A-Rama is next week, a time when the parish community has the opportunity to come together, mingle and have fellowship. Sorry, it is about earning money to pay bills. Same with bingo, which a priest usually has to take time out of his "important" duties to say hi to the folks.

If we, the flock, want a church building, a school building, a rectory, etc., it needs to be paid for, period. The people in the pews do not want to hear about finances, hey, we all know the Roman Catholic Church is wealthy beyond belief why does our parish need "my" hard earned money? Let the Vatican sell some of those rare paintings and send the money to St. Elizabeth of Hungary Church! All of this brings me to the economic issues surrounding priests being allowed to marry. If your parish priest is married he is entitled to a salary that will support his family. Too, if the parish, at no cost, is not going to supply a private home for the priest and his wife, he needs a bigger salary. Throw a few or more children into the mix and instead of the priest being able to have a clear head while visiting the sick in the hospital, he is worried if he has enough money to purchase ground meat to go with the Hamburger Helper that is planned for tonight's dinner at home with the wife and children. No cost health insurance would be a nice job related benefit for the priest and his family along with a food allowance.

Oh yeah, I can just hear those pious folks on the parish committee, "I have to pay for part or all of my health benifits, why not Father". "Food allowance, are you kidding, let Father apply for Food Stamps". "Better yet, why doesn't Father's wife get a job outside the home just like my wife; I do not care if they have five children, that horney couple, why don't they practice birth control". $50,000 a year salary, ha, I do not earn that much and no priest worth his weight would even ask for that kind of money, don't they take some poverty vow, and too, no priest is worth that kind of money, he does not do any real labor". And on and on and on, the folks just do not want to pay the piper. Also, what about the stress of having a wife and children? Selfish, you bet, I want my priest treating me, at any time I want him to, as if I am the only concern he has during the moments he spends with me and he better be available on my time schedule, his wife and kids will just have to wait. "Father gave me some advice I did not appreciate, let's take a vote to fire him, you mean the last parish leaders gave him a five year contract, well, let's just buy him out and get a priest who cares about my feelings".

Purely from an economic standpoint, I do not think the folks are willing to pay the price of married priests. As it is, so many already balk at giving to support their parish.

Then there is the bad logic, if priests were allowed to marry there would not have been or ever will be another sex scandle. Not true! Being married, I believe, has nothing to do with perverts going after young boys. Again, another issue altogether.

If you are drawn to the priesthood then go for it with its rules and regulations. Every vocation comes with a price and a set of work rules. If you stray with one or many female relationships, that is between you and God. Everyone reading this knows of a certain priest who had affairs with women and even fathered a child, and I am willing to bet that every one of us would agree he was one of the "best" priests we ever knew, a priest among priests, who did what most of us would probably agree is what priests should do, watched over and nurtered the flock given to him to care for and love.

One question, why have you always thought priests should be allowed to marry? I would very much like you to expand on that and tear into my words above as I enjoy a lively debate of serious issues facing us. Take care...Uncle M

Me:

While I agree with most of what you say U.M., I don't think that finances should prevent priests from being married. Nor do I think that a priest needs to be payed enough to support a family. There is nothing in canonical law or anywhere else that says the wife can't work to support the bulk of the household. A priest being married is no different. If it is the economic impact of the married priest on the congregation, then the priest's wife needs to get a job. They are no different from any other ordinary wife. At least that's how I see it.

This is purely a matter of the church sticking to a decision that some guy made 800 years ago or so, just because. I understand that you want the priest to have his congregation at the front of his mind at all times, but what's the difference between his longing for married life constantly tugging at his mind and his eight year old's baseball game at three o'clock?

As for the priest who had affairs with women and fathered a child...I genuinely don't know who you are talking about. Maybe that was before my time. But you called him one of the "best" priests. So obviously his affair didn't affect his duties and in that shows that a married priest has all of the potential to do his job accordingly.

When a company has a set of rules that hinders many of it's potential employees, so much so that no one applies for a job there, they need to change those rules.

Uncle Miron:

Your points are well taken and well presented. However, having been married for almost 31 years, the amount of stress of just being married, let alone having child/ren can, at times be so powerful that you can find yourself going to the brink. Married priests, just like regular folks, are also going to end up divorced priests, how do we deal with that...it is forbidden in the Roman Catholic Church. If you do not like the rules a job presents to you, do not apply. Again, my point that if the idea of married priests is just to attract more applicants to solve the shortage problem, to me, that is not a sound decision. Non-Roman Catholic married reverand's wifes have demands on them too, like having tea with the ladies, organizing whatever, etc. I do not think the wife of a priest should have to juggle a career, along with every thing else expected of her, just to put food on the table. She could be more of an asset to her husband in helping behind the scenes and even helping to win over converts. We need more lay people involved in the church and that does not mean the wife of a priest. Perhaps I am stuck in my traditional background, but I want my priest to be focousing on the flock, not being worried that his wife and/or child/ren have the flu and are puking their guts out. To me, priests are not like everyone else, it take a special person to be a priest as it would take a special kind of woman to be married to a priest. She would have to understand that her marriage is going to take a back seat to her husband's primary work duties. The priest is "Father" as representative of our Father in heaven who almost certainly is not married...Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven. Too, I believe a married priest deserves to be paid a decent salary, provided with housing, retirement, and so forth. If his job is just like very other job, which I do not believe it is, then he should receive a commpetitive salary with benefits, period. At this point, in closing, I am still very interested in your explaination as to why you have always felt that Roman Catholic priest should be allowed to be married, what is the benefits, do you see any drawbacks?

Me:

I can't honestly speak to what married life is like, only what I've seen. My parents, while it always seems like a good time, must have gone through hard times. I have no way of really knowing that as they are both finance and personal stuff ninjas who don't ever share that stuff with us...and probably for good reason.

Nonetheless, worry about divorced priests is like worrying about getting in a car accident every time you get into a car. It doesn't help anyone and it will never stop it from happening. Allowing priests access to the internet is allowing pornography directly into their homes...should we disallow the internet due to its possibility of sin? After all, priests are truly just men, and men sin...sometimes constantly.

When I said that allowing priests to marry could be used to attract more applicants, I suppose I misspoke. What I meant was that I am sure there are many, many men who are called to the priesthood but do not act on it due to their desire to marry and have a family of their own in Christ. In my eyes it doesn't make any sense, religiously or otherwise, to forbid a priest to marry.

I also don't think that any more stress would be put on a wife of a priest than would be put on the wife a school superintendent or community leader. Sure their husbands may make more money, but that is not always the case. To say that priests should be allowed to marry in part because of any undue stress presented to the spouse isn't part of the argument. If a woman wants to enter into a relationship with a priest prior to or after his ordination, they will surely understand the implications of their rule. Not just any woman would agree to those terms. And if they do agree to those terms I have no pity on them.

When a priest is ordained, his memory isn't erased. He still has family...brothers, sister, nieces, nephews mothers and fathers. Any one of those family members could take his mind off of his flock at any given time. I know that when Jaedon, Carmin, Olivia or Luke is sick I constantly think about them. However, that doesn't stop me from performing my duties. To think that a priest couldn't do the same isn't necessarily fair. I know it is different when it is your wife or children with the problems, but I think my point is somewhat clear.

All of the excuses for not allowing a priest to marry are trivial in my opinion. The benefits of allowing a priest to marry are widespread. Anywhere from greater numbers of men applying to be priests to happier more fulfilled lives of men who have always wanted to be husbands and fathers in the biological sense. There is no biblical context in which disciples were forbade from marrying. If Jesus didn't have a problem with it, I don't think some zealous 12th century bishop or pope should.

Holocaust Deniers (deniers really looks like it's spelled wrong)

If you haven't figured it out yet, I think the Intarwebz should be a place where you can go, do or say whatever the hell you want. If certain websites don't allow what you have to say, then go somewhere else or create your own little piece of virtual grass to piss on (like I did). What drives me insane is when people start to infringe on the basic principle of free speech, no matter how crazy or ridiculous it may sound.

Recently, the brother of millionaire Mavericks owner Mark Cuban (Pittsburgh!!), Brian Cuban decided to wage a personal war against Holocaust deniers who carved a niche for themselves over at Facebook by sending Zuckerberg a letter about it. Of all things to fucking worry about, Briann Cuban thinks the 300 members spread across five or so groups are an apparent threat. His letter is a follow-up to a previous article in which he reprints his letter to Facebook where he tattles like a school-girl on the five Holocaust Denying groups (of which, only three are operating). His first mistake is claiming that Facebook is a prime example of,"social media where anonymity protects deniers like a white sheet" when clearly Facebook is one of the biggest personal social websites...people aren't hiding behind anything when they join groups like that. Shit, all of their friends were probably updated when they joined the group.

He then goes on to note that there, "is no such thing as a 1st Amendment private right of free speech in the United States" and uses this to pretend that he believes that Facebook has the right to put anything on their site, but really believes that Facebook has the right to CENSOR anything on their site. He claims that because Facebook's ToS protect international law, the Holocaust denier groups are specifically breaking the law in countries where denying the holocaust is illegal, which is ridiculous (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Israel, Slovakia and Switzerland). I call bullshit. The way I see it, when you start censoring groups across the board because their words or ideas are illegal in one place then you leave yourself open to censoring everything or anything that offends anyone. I wish Frank Zappa were still alive today..."We're talking about words."

Watch Zappa on Crossfire debate censorship in music. I think this relates perfectly. FZ was awesome.


Cuban's miasma goes on in his second "open letter to Facebook" to ask Zuckerberg why Facebook decided to allow the groups, as if Zuckerberg owed him an explanation...as if Cuban had some sort of paying interest in Facebook. Like he said in the beginning of his little girly rant, there is no garauntee of free speech in a private setting or in a private business. Zuckerberg has no need or obligation to explain himself.

Furthermore, if Cuban's real quest is to make sure groups on Facebook are within the ToS why isn't he trying to get Christian groups banned. After all, Facebook is now available in Arabic and Saudi Arabia.

When you begin to censor the internet you begin to censor thought and intellectual property. When you censor thought, you've lost all freedom. Seriously, Brian Cuban, WTF...


On a related note, I think that people who deny the holocaust are probably retarded. And possibly severely. I also think that their opinion is just as vital as those who believe that the holocaust happened. To deny people the right to debate things like denying the holocaust is to deny the basic social needs of any society. Open free speech and debate is what drives societies to greatness. When you limit that free speach and make those people you disagree with go underground, you create a hostile caldera of extremism, resentment and hatred. Good luck with that.

Paying for Necessity

I'm not talking about food or water, but the news. I'm convinced that paying attention to and understanding the News/World is an absolute necessity today. I mean, unless you're living in the woods off the land. Which, frankly wouldn't be that bad of a life. You could grow a big giant beard, shoot stuff, fish and maybe even farm. No cell phones or facebook. Sounds awesome to me.

Anyways, it seems ol' Rupert Murdoch thinks that the current system of reporting the news online is "malfunctioning" which means he's not making enough money. He claims that customers would pay handsomely to access the Wall Street Journal online. Until someone hacks it. Or realizes that they can get any important news story that the Wall Street Journal would report on over at the Drudge Report or any number of free online news sites.

Murdoch says, "The current days of the Internet will soon be over." I think he's out of his fucking mind. There is no way in hell that people will pay for the news online. No chance. I mean, think about the other things people DON'T pay for online that are MUCH more important on a relative level to people: porn (there's so much free porn it's ridiculous), movies, music and books. All which are more important to people on a personal level than online news. Everyone gets free local channels providing that you have a TV, antennaes (pre digital conversion, which is basically free) and power. That's all you need to get the news...even if it's on a local level, there are still national news reports broadcast on local channels. There is NO WAY people will pay for their news online. Rupert Murdoch is a fucking asshole globalist bitch.

Paying for shit in general pisses me off, let alone digital material on the internet. Which is why I refuse to pay for anything online. I haven't bought a DVD in probably 5 years with a couple exceptions (like anniversary edition of Monster Squad, cause it's the shit) and I rarely buy CDs unless I have a good reason (recently bought the new Zao CD which was an 8000 limited run with a T-Shirt!!). Other than those rare occurrences, I refuse. Most of the new movies that come out are shit anyways. I saw the latest X-Men movie, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, before all of the special effects were added and it totally sucked. Not because of the special effects either. Things like that save me money. I also saw Return of the King before it came out in theaters. Amazing. And that got me to GO to see it in the theaters. It's a double edged sword. I know that at least one of my brothers doesn't agree with me and one does. The one who doesn't agree with me is wrong in disagreeing but he won't admit it even though he knows it. Regardless, long live the Bay!

The Pirate Bay

Sickly Pig

So I was thinking about the whole Swine Mexico Flu outbreak and it had my conspiracy gears turning, in low gear, but turning nonetheless. I'm happy to say that the Mexico Flu isn't anything like Queen Bavmorda's curse. So, we're all good there.



It seems that in the wake of epidemics like SARS, Mad-Cow disease, bird-flu and now Mexico-Flu one thing (besides death) that emerges is world-wide concern, over-thinking and in some cases panic. I was at Hobby Airport picking up a friend and saw two people with medical masks on. In my opinion, that's absolute insanity.

When you stop to think how excitable the global community is when an "epidemic" is announced, how easy would it be to engineer one? Let's just say the government has a flu strain that kills one in ten people that contract it and leave the other people sickly for a couple weeks. What stops them from using an epidemic like that from striking panic and fear into the feeble minds of the American and Global community only then to declare marshal law upon it's citizens to "protect" and isolate them. It's literally that easy.

One way to spread it to assure that people catch it is through those damn mosquito sprayers. For those of you who don't live in an area where this happens I'll explain what this is. Overnight, usually around midnight, trucks that are marked and sometimes unmarked drive around the neighborhoods with tanks affixed to their beds. From those tanks a small pole is extended upwards and sprays whatever the hell they're spraying up into the air behind the vehicle. I have a HUGE problem with this happening for the simple reason that literally anything could be in there. Anything. As a private citizen I think it is ridiculous for the local, state or federal government to be able to spray some mysterious chemical, even if it is indeed for mosquitoes, around me when I haven't agreed to it. That may sound ridiculous, but then again you probably trust everything the government tells you.


(Vid of a mosquito truck. The one in this vid looks just like the ones we have in Houston)

Anyways, it's not too hard to believe something like this could happen when you start to read the news detailing the actions some people and governments are taking. Here are som interesting articles and snippets:

Obama speaks! Utmost precations? What's that mean??

Egypt orders the slaughter of all pigs in the country...an estimated 300,000 animals?? That's just plain old crazy. I like that some pig farmers are telling the government to fuck off.

Who discredits the 150 death claim. I like this story because WHO is actually being honest with reporting the numbers.

I feel like Jerry Fletcher.

Marblecake, also the game.

I started trolling /b/ around 4 years ago, maybe even 5. It's a blurred line that doesn't really matter. I'm not a newfag and that's all that matters.

It seems that anon, sometimes referred to as Legion has made a mockery out of Time.com and their online poll of most influential people. The founder of 4chan, moot (aka Christopher Poole, CP) has recently been voted Time.com's most influential person. To be honest, all hacking aside, this is probably true when you take into account what has stemmed from 4chan's /b/ board. Almost anything you see on the internet that's funny started on /b/, including those stupid pictures of the lolcats. So his position as number one on the list is most likely deserved unless you count anonymous as a person, then I say they are the most influential. But it seems that some foul play was at work this year at Time.com's online poll. If you look closely at the first letter of the names for the first 21 people on the top 100, something interesting happens. "Marblecake, also the game" appears. Legion has struck again.

Read about it over at MusicMachinery where Paul Lamere has a great writeup of how it happened.

Inside the Precision Hack