[FairfieldLife] Average income tax refund jumps by 10% to $3,036

[do.rflex]

USA TODAY - The average income tax refund is up nearly 10% from a year ago, 
reflecting tax credits included in last year's economic stimulus package, 
according to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman.

Vice President Biden is expected to announce the increase Monday as part of a 
month-long effort to promote tax benefits available through the Recovery Act of 
2009.

Through March 12, the average tax refund was a record $3,036, up $266 from the 
same period a year earlier, Shulman said in a statement.

"The Recovery Act is a major factor behind these larger, record refunds," 
Shulman said. "About half of all Americans haven't filed their taxes yet, so we 
urge them to look carefully at these Recovery provisions." Some 69 million 
individual tax returns were filed through March 13, according to the IRS.

The Recovery Act provided a tax credit of $400 for workers, or $800 for married 
couples. Most workers who have taxes withheld from their paychecks received the 
credit through an adjustment in their withholding. But those who didn't receive 
the full credit through withholding will receive the balance in their refunds.

Other provisions in the Recovery Act that could boost refunds include:

• A $2,500 American Opportunity Credit for qualified college expenses.

• A tax credit of up to $8,000 for first-time home buyers. Congress expanded 
this credit in November to provide a $6,500 credit for repeat buyers.

• A deduction for state and local taxes on new vehicle purchases.

• An increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit.

• A tax break for unemployment benefits. Ordinarily, jobless benefits are 
taxable, but under the Recovery Act, the first $2,500 in unemployment benefits 
received in 2009 is tax-free.

The new tax credits have created confusion among some taxpayers. More than 2 
million returns filed this year contained an error in connection with the 
Making Work Pay credit, according to the IRS. The IRS will recalculate the 
credit for taxpayers who fail to claim it, but that could delay their refunds.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-03-22-taxrefunds22_ST_N.htm

[FairfieldLife] Ted Kennedy On Health Care 1978

[do.rflex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhYtMmw9OVk

[FairfieldLife] Bush speechwriter David Frum: This is GOP’s Waterloo

[do.rflex]

Waterloo

by David Frum 

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing
legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives
may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today's
expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It's a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about
November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate
goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is
forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle
now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the
hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today's disaster attaches to
conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike,
say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut,
we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no
compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be
Obama's Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton's in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with
53% of the vote, not Clinton's 42%. The liberal block within the
Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in
1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and
also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap
between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The
Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's
Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage
Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican
counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have
leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative
views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive
enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business –
without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans
scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we
muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more
for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind
policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to
banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even
if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and
they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But
they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had
whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making
was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to
murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom
your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their
grandmother?

I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our
overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by
mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information,
overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent
and elected leaders to lead.


The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different
imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on
confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted
President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own
interests.


What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he
also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they
govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out
of office – Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are
less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for
Sleepnumber beds.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is
a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners
and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even
more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on
television and radio.


For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to
represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours.
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

Cry me a river, David...  -jrm

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:37 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] The health care meltdown
>  
>   
> It's really fascinating being in the United States as
> this momentous bill passes. It's even more fascinating
> being stuck in a hotel room working and, contrary to my
> normal habits, watching the 'pundits' on the TV news 
> melt down over this.
> 
> FOX has gone bull goose loony. There is not even the
> pretense of "fair and balanced." It's pure propaganda,
> verging on hate crime. If they're not "preaching to the
> camera" quoting polls that don't exist, they're playing
> "lead the witness" by trying to put words into the 
> mouths of anyone they interview who is even slightly
> in favor of the bill. 
> 
> It's like watching Off or Shemp melt down when something
> they believe could never happen happens. But on TV. 


> Hopefully you're watching the death throes of an outmoded paradigm.
>


I don't think so. I think the Bush administration's publicly successful 
promotion of misinformation and lies gave legitimacy to and empowered the 
normally safely confined in their respective asylum abodes loonie tunes, 
whack-a-doodle alternate reality fringe. 

Now they consider themselves mainstream and even have corporate backing.

And they don't even appear to have the capability to discern that they're not 
telling the truth.

[FairfieldLife] Flashback of the Day

[do.rflex]

"The health care bill, ObamaCare, is dead with not the slightest
prospect of resurrection."

-- Wingnut handjob Fred Barnes, in the Weekly Standard in January
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/health-care-bill-dead

[FairfieldLife] Health reform passage increasingly certain

[do.rflex]

Obama close to health law success that eluded past


"To the ardent liberal, Obama's health care plan 
is a shadow of what should have been, sapped by 
dispiriting downsizing and trade-offs.

"To the loud foe on the right, it is a dreadful 
expansion of the nanny state."


WASHINGTON – Rarely does the government, that big, clumsy, poorly
regarded oaf, pull off anything short of war that touches all lives with one 
act, one stroke of a president's pen. Such a moment now seems near.

After a year of riotous argument, decades of failure and a century of
spoiled hopes, the United States is reaching for a system of medical
care that extends coverage nearly to all citizens. The change that's
coming, if Sunday's tussle in the House goes President Barack Obama's
way, would reshape a sixth of the economy and shatter the status quo.

To the ardent liberal, Obama's health care plan is a shadow of what
should have been, sapped by dispiriting downsizing and trade-offs.

To the loud foe on the right, it is a dreadful expansion of the nanny state.

To history, it is likely to be judged alongside the boldest acts of
presidents and Congress in the pantheon of domestic affairs. Think of
the guaranteed federal pensions of Social Security, socialized medicine for the 
old and poor, the civil rights remedies to inequality.

Change is coming, it now appears, but in steps, not overnight. The major 
expansion of coverage to 30 million people — powered by subsidies, employer 
obligations, a mandate for most Americans to carry insurance, new places to buy 
it and rules barring insurance companies from turning sick people away — is 
four years out.

In contrast, on June 30, 1966, after a titanic struggle capped by the
bill signing a year earlier, President Lyndon Johnson launched
government health insurance for the elderly with three simple words, as if 
flicking a switch: "Medicare begins tomorrow."

Obama practically needs a spreadsheet to tell people what's going on and when.

Yet if the overhaul goes through, he and LBJ will share a distinction:
the only two presidents to succeed with a transcendent health care law.

You can be sure Obama, a student of history, is aware of how LBJ
captured the moment when Medicare became law with his pen. That happened in 
Independence, Mo., in the presence of the very first American to sign up for 
the program: Harry Truman. The ex-president had ended a world war but could not 
achieve national health insurance in his time.

"Care for the sick, serenity for the fearful," Johnson promised that
day. "In this town, and a thousand other towns like it, there are men
and women in pain who will now find ease."

Said Truman: "I am glad to have lived this long."

Ted Kennedy lived long enough to see a goal of his lifetime take shape
but not long enough for it to happen. His death last summer was almost
the death of the whole plan because a Republican won his Senate seat,
changed the voting balance and left despondent Democrats in search of a second 
wind, which they found.

Why is this so hard? In part, because self-reliance and suspicion of a
strong central government intruding into people's lives are rooted in
the founding of the republic, and still strong.

The colonial insurgents who dumped British tea into Boston harbor
inspired the name and agitating spirit of today's tea party protesters, who 
rolled a taped-together health care bill up the Capitol steps like toilet paper 
to show their disdain. 

"Grandma's not Shovel-Ready," said one of their signs last week, playing off a 
fear the aged will see their care rationed away.

In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a national mental health bill on the 
basis that it would be unconstitutional to treat health as
anything but a private matter that is none of the government's business.

Seventy-five years later, the American Medical Association denounced
proposals for organized medical services as an "incitement to
revolution" at the hands of "Medical Soviets."

And that wasn't even about government-run health care. The AMA's fierce 
opposition to collectivism included objections to private health insurance, the 
norm today, and the pooling of doctors into what became health maintenance 
organizations decades later.

No wonder would-be health reformers were thwarted one generation after
another even as they made deep imprints on the nation in other ways.

Teddy Roosevelt couldn't do it — and he's carved into Mount Rushmore.

Franklin D. Roosevelt rewrote the social compact with his job and
retirement security and regulatory expansion, all in the jagged teeth of the 
Depression, then took the nation to war. He made national health insurance a 
second-tier priority and it eluded him.

Even so, social responsibility for medicine grew.

In 1930, citizens paid nearly 80 percent of the nation's medical costs
from their own pocket. Government at all levels covered a mere 14
percent, with industry and philanthropy picking up the few remaining
crumbs. Insu

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 1:13 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times
>  
>   
> What am I missing here? Let's assume the story is true. (i think someone
> posted something to say it wasn't, but let's say it's true) You've go 99% of
> the people in the world applauding this women, who doesn't want someone to
> her steal her hard earned money, and is willing to risk her life to that
> end, and then you've got an unlikely alliance of Barry, Judy, and Rick
> twisting this around to make Dixon appear as though he is advocating
> arbitrary "culling" of those he deems undesireable. 
> His words: "I have no problem *culling* society of those that live on the
> edge, endangering the rest of us for their lack of intelligence or
> compassion." Such a compassionate statement, huh?
> Yes, this guy IS undesireable, and the risk he takes when he violates
> someone else's rights is that he can also lose his own life, or get harmed.
> And aren't we all better for it? Hell yea, we are. 
> The implication of the fictitious story is that execution is an appropriate
> sentence for purse snatching, and that all citizens should be authorized to
> play judge, jury, and executioner on the spot. It might be argued that she
> would have been justified in firing one shot to disable the guy, but her
> intent in firing six or more was obviously to kill him. And then "Bill
> Hicks" took it to the next logical step by saying that we should be able to
> shoot people who take two parking places. The story has no inherent worth.
> It merely panders to the murderous tendencies in those who find it
> inspiring. And I doubt that shooting a purse snatcher or two would stop many
> purse snatchers. It would probably just incline the more hardened criminals
> to shoot first and then take the purse.
> I find it ironic that probably many of those who get their ya-ya's from this
> story consider themselves Christians, yet the mentality the story portrays
> is the polar opposite of what Christ taught. But such hypocrisy is par for
> the course with fundamentalist Christians, and with the right wing in
> general.
>


This kind of ugliness, in my view, is just one example of how the lack of any 
expressed moral base for TMers can manifest itself [even in long term 
practitioners]. To me it shows how the concept that TM somehow automatically 
makes us more moral without any expressed moral base is total crap.

[FairfieldLife] Republican leader: "This is the largest tax bill in history"

[do.rflex]

  "This is the largest tax bill in history," the Republican leader fumed.
The reform "is unjust, unworkable, stupidly drafted and wastefully
financed."

And that wasn't all. This "cruel hoax," he said, this "folly" of
"bungling and waste," compared poorly to the "much less expensive" and
"practical measures" favored by the Republicans.

"We must repeal," the GOP leader argued. "The Republican Party is
pledged to do this."


That was Republican presidential nominee Alf Landon in a September 1936
campaign speech
 . He based his bid for the White
House on repealing Social Security.

Bad call, Alf. Republicans lost that presidential election in a
landslide. By the time they finally regained the White House -- 16 years
later -- their nominee, Dwight Eisenhower, had abandoned the party's
repeal platform.

Circumstances are different now, as Republicans, assuming the Democrats'
health legislation clears the House this weekend, prepare to campaign
this year and in 2012 on the repeal of health-care reform. But the ghost
of Landon should spook them as they do so: The health-care legislation,
if passed, won't be repealed, and the politics of repeal may not work
out as well as Republicans expect. You wouldn't think that based on the
headlong rush to demand a repeal even before the health bill becomes
law.

More than 20 Republican Senate hopefuls have tied their candidacies to
repeal. Mark Kirk of Illinois promises to "lead the effort,"
  while Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), head of
the Senate GOP campaign effort, calls 2010 a referendum on repeal. Sen.
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 Senate GOP leader, sees "an instant
spontaneous campaign to repeal it all across the country."
In the House, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) vows to make the repeal of "H.R.1
and S.1"
  the No. 1 goal if Republicans
take over Congress. The National Review has published a treatise called
"The Case for Repeal,"
  and the Club for Growth is already a couple of months into its
"Repeal It  " campaign.
Other opponents are hoping that Chief Justice John Roberts's Supreme
Court would do the repeal for them. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), among
others, foresees "a real constitutional challenge."


The Republican National Committee issued a news release claiming that
Nancy Pelosi herself once put her name on a legal brief pronouncing
unconstitutional the very deem-and-pass procedure House Democrats plan
to employ to enact health-care reform. (The RNC neglected to mention
that the courts rejected Pelosi's argument, citing a 108-year-old
Supreme Court precedent.)

Even the conservative majority on the Supreme Court would have to be
wary of suddenly rejecting a legislative process that has been tolerated
for years -- all for the purpose of taking health care away from 30
million Americans. That would make Bush v. Gore look relatively
innocent.

Beyond that, it's doubtful that opposition to the measure will ever
again be as high as it is now. Fox News polling found that 45 percent of
voters would favor repeal
 , while 47 percent say leave the reforms alone or add to
them. With the big insurance subsidies years away, the initial changes
stemming from the legislation would be relatively modest -- and that
should come as a surprise to an American public told by Republican foes
of the legislation to expect a socialist takeover of the United States.

What Americans would see -- or at least what Democratic ad makers say
they'd put on Americans' TV screens -- are the benefits that would take
effect this year: tax credits that encourage small businesses to offer
health coverage; a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the
prescription-drug "donut hole" (the checks would start going out June
15); allowing young people up to age 26 to stay on their parents' health
policies; and, above all, a ban on refusing coverage to children with
preexisting conditions.

There will certainly be ads this fall saying Republican Congressman X
voted against tax breaks for small business and voted to deny Junior his
life-saving treatments. These modest changes to the health system
probably wouldn't be widespread and noticeable enough to limit
Democratic losses at a time of 10 percent unemployment. But, at the very
least, voters would see nothing to justify the Republicans' apocalyptic
predictions.

Yet repeal still holds appeal, even to the likes of Mitt Romney, who as
governor of Massachusetts created what the New Republic's Jonathan Chait
calls "the closes

[FairfieldLife] Texas Wingnut Education

[do.rflex]

Cartoon: http://www.bartcop.com/texas-books3.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Obama handles the Teabaggers

[do.rflex]

Cartoon: http://www.bartcop.com/teabagger-one-lump.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Quartet calls for Palestinian state within two years

[do.rflex]

   HAARETZ Newspaper in Israel - The Quartet, which comprises members from 
Russia, the United States, the UN and the European Union, called Israel and the 
Palestinians to renew peace negotiations in order to achieve a two-state 
solution within 24 months. The members met in Moscow on Friday in an effort to 
defuse the latest crisis in peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians.

"The Quartet believes these negotiations should lead to a settlement,
negotiated between the parties within 24 months, that ends the
occupation that began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an
independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state living side by side in 
peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors," said a joint statement 
read by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

"The Quartet reiterates that Arab-Israeli peace and the establishment of a 
peaceful state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza is in the
fundamental interest of the parties, of all states in the region, and of the 
international community," said the statement. "In this regard the Quartet calls 
on all states to support dialogues between the parties."

The mediators also called on Israel following their meeting to freeze
all settlement activities and denounced its recent decision to approve
construction of 1.600 new homes in East Jerusalem.

"The Quartet urges the government of Israel to freeze all settlement
activities ... and to refrain from demolitions and evictions," according to the 
statement read by Ban. The statement also condemned Israel's approval of the 
construction in East Jerusalem.

At the start of the talks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "All of 
us today hope to arrive at some common conclusions which will help to promote 
the beginning of a dialogue between the two sides."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in Moscow, discussed steps to
improve the outlook for Israeli-Palestinian peace by telephone with
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday.

Netanyahu's spokesman Nir Chefetz said the Israeli leader had proposed
some "mutual confidence-building steps" that both Israel and the
Palestinians could take in the West Bank. He declined to spell these out.

Clinton met her Russian counterpart Lavrov, UN Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Quartet
Representative Tony Blair over a closed dinner on Thursday evening
before Friday's formal meeting.

No details of that meeting were disclosed.

"We intend to have a very broad-ranging discussion with our Quartet
partners," Clinton said at a joint news conference with Lavrov on
Thursday. "Our goals remain the same. It is to re-launch negotiations
between the Israelis and the Palestinians on a path that will lead to a 
two-state solution."

The Quartet was formed in 2002 in Spain to assist in mediating an end to 
escalating violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It last met on the 
margins of the UN General Assembly in September.

But its results so far have been meagre, leading some analysts to
dismiss it as an expensive club for diplomats.

Moscow had originally hoped to organise a full-scale international
conference on the Middle East this year but the lack of progress on
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks has forced Russia to settle instead for hosting 
a quartet meeting.

Biden: East Jerusalem decision designed to undermine peace process

Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has called Israel's decision to 
approve 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem week "provocative", adding that it 
was "obviously designed by some in Israel to undermine a peace process George 
Mitchell finally got - our negotiator - finally got back on track."

In an interview with ABC's Nightline which will air on Friday night,
Biden reiterated that "Israel's security is undeniably in our interest
to make sure it is absolutely secure" and Washington and Jerusalem to
"get over" the recent tensions that flared in response to the announcement.

"And so the message is: We've got to get over this," Biden said.
"Granted, I condemn the announcement made by that planning council. 
...The irony is even that planning council acknowledging not a single new unit 
can be built at least for a year and maybe never will be built, it was 
provocative."

The Interior Ministry's decision was made public during Biden's visit to Israel 
last week, a move the United States termed an "insult" as it came amid U.S. 
efforts to see Middle East peace negotiations renewed.

In the interview, Biden denied reports that he had told Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel's policy on settlements puts U.S. troops at risk.

"No, I never said that," Biden told ABC

---UPDATED: 

[Hard right-winger Avigdor] Lieberman on Quartet call: You can't makeartificial 
peace

   FOREIGN Minister Avigdor Lieberman responded Friday to the Quartet
of Middle East peace mediators' call to relaunch Israeli-Palestinian
peace negotiations, saying that peace is not something 

[FairfieldLife] Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?

[do.rflex]

Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty - March 18, 2010
  



Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually
far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible.

- Philip Jenkins, author

  


  

  
  [Pages of the Gutenberg Bible.] Johanna Leguerre/AFP/Getty Images

As the hijackers boarded the airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, they
had a lot on their minds. And if they were following instructions, one
of those things was the Quran.

In preparation for the suicide attack, their handlers had told them to
meditate on two chapters of the Quran in which God tells Muslims to
"cast terror into the hearts of unbelievers."

"Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, arrest them, besiege them,
and lie in ambush everywhere for them," Allah instructs the Prophet
Muhammad (Quran, 9:5). He continues: "Prophet! Make war on the
unbelievers and the hypocrites! ... Hell shall be their home, an evil
fate."

When Osama bin Laden declared war on the West in 1996, he cited the
Quran's command to "strike off" the heads of unbelievers. More recently,
U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan lectured his colleagues about jihad, or "holy
war," and the Quran's exhortation to fight unbelievers and bring them
low. Hasan is accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, last
year.

Given this violent legacy, religion historian Philip Jenkins decided to
compare the brutality quotient of the Quran and the Bible.

Defense Vs. Total Annihilation

"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually
far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says.

Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books
dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark
Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing
controversy.

Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against
attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws
of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane,"
he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that
is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare
laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book
of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And
utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says
through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and
nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by
failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian
history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the
confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill
Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not."

Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem.
During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared the
Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and
19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side
were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed.

'Holy Amnesia'

But Jenkins says, even though the Bible is violent, Christianity and
Judaism today are not for the most part.

"What happens in all religions as they grow and mature and expand, they
go through a process of forgetting of the original violence, and I call
this a process of holy amnesia," Jenkins says.

They make the violence symbolic: Wiping out the enemy becomes wiping out
one's own sins. Jenkins says that until recently, Islam had the same
sort of holy amnesia, and many Muslims interpreted jihad, for example,
as an internal struggle, not physical warfare.

Andrew Bostom calls this analysis "preposterous." Bostom, editor of The
Legacy of Jihad, says there's a major difference between the Bible,
which describes the destruction of an enemy at a point in time, and the
Quran, which urges an ongoing struggle to defeat unbelievers.

"It's an aggressive doctrine," he says. "The idea is to impose Islamic
law on the globe."

Take suicide attacks, he says — a tactic that Muslim radicals have
used to great effect in the U.S., Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East.
It's true that suicide from depression is forbidden in Islam — but
Bostom says the Quran and the Hadith, or the sayings of Muhammad, do
allow self-destruction for religious reasons.

"The notion of jihad martyrdom is extolled in the Quran, Quran verse
9:1-11. And then in the Hadith, it's even more explicit. This is the
highest 

[FairfieldLife] Vote on Health Bill Could Come In 72 Hours !

[do.rflex]

Reconciliation Bill Goes Online, Starts 72-Hour ClockRachel Slajda
  |
March 18, 2010 

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama
  
The House Rules Committee just posted  
the health care reconciliation bill online.

Because the legislative text must be posted for 72 hours before a vote,
the House is looking at a vote sometime mid-afternoon Sunday.

A spokesman for the Rules Committee told reporters that a hearing, which
will set the terms for debate, will likely take place Saturday morning.
The House is scheduled to be in session Friday, Saturday and Sunday for
votes.

Republicans have been pushing Democratic leadership to televise the
Rules hearing. They plan to spend the next three days attacking
  Dems over the "deem
and pass" process -- one they also used when in the majority.

President Obama today postponed
  a planned trip to Indonesia and Guam in
order to be in town when the bill passes, according to White House Press
Secretary Robert Gibbs. He will go to Indonesia in June.

Read the full text here
 . (PDF)

For the latest, check out our Countdown to Reform Wire
 .

[FairfieldLife] Re: Miscellaneous Road Trip updates

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> Just a few sitting-in-a-Borders thinking about being in
> Santa Fe again after 6 years away impressions:
> 
> * The most striking thing is how genuinely friendly most
> people have been. I had forgotten about that New Mexico
> openness and hospitality and just plain courtesy. That's
> a pleasant change from Europe, where people tend to be
> more reserved, especially those in "service professions."
> 
> * The most shocking thing has been working in my hotel
> room from time to time with the TV on and seeing commer-
> cials for literally the first time in over six years. I
> simply don't understand how you people stand for the
> *number* of them, much less the content. 
> 
> * The content is really revealing about the state of
> America. Endless commercials for competing insurance 
> companies ("A 15 minute call will save you 15%"), end-
> less commercials for drugs and medicines to cure what
> ails you, equally endless commercials for companies to
> get debt collectors off your backs or reduce the amount
> of money you owe the IRS. This is not a healthy country,
> or one in good economic shape. Spain is one of the least
> healthy economies in the EU, and we don't see fear-based
> panic pitches like this; it almost feels as if all of 
> these ads are generated by people trying to make a last
> buck from panicky people before it all falls apart. 
> 
> * Shopping, although I don't really need much of anything,
> is interesting in that it's like going to Hong Kong. The
> difference between the Euro and the dollar is so great at
> this point that I look at a price and have to think "40%
> discount" to figure out how much it really costs me. But
> to be honest, about all I'm going to pick up while here
> are some new jeans (still overpriced in Europe for some
> reason) and a big bagful of New Mexico green chiles, 
> which one simply cannot get in Spain, or elsewhere for
> that matter. And maybe a couple of bottles of good
> sippin' tequila, which one also cannot find in Spain.
> 
> * Overall, the women of New Mexico have had my eyes 
> poppin' out since I've been here, but that's more a facet
> of New Mexico than the US. Very little makeup, no need to
> play dressup, no attempt to conceal who they are, and 
> instead a level of comfort with who they are that I find
> very refreshing after France and Spain.
> 
> * On the other hand, it being Santa Fe, sitting in a 
> restaurant forced to overhear the conversation at the
> next table had me close to puking. Endless repetitions
> of New Age Crapola spoken as if the person saying it had
> never noticed that she'd been spouting the same bullshit
> for decades without it affecting her life in any way. I
> finally had to get up and move to another table. 
> 
> * One pleasant thing has been the amount of attention
> paid in Santa Fe to healthier living and sustainable crops
> and GM-free foods. Got to go into my first Whole Foods in
> six years, and found it a pleasurable experience, although
> WAY overpriced. 
> 
> * And, of course, the best thing about Santa Fe when I 
> lived here is still the best thing about Santa Fe now. The
> sunsets. Santa Fe still does sunsets that make you sigh 
> and be thankful you're alive. Makes the whole trip worth-
> while.
> 
> Maybe more later, but now I've got to head out and soak
> up a little sun in today's T-shirt weather before the next 
> snowstorm rolls in. That, too, is part of what makes Santa
> Fe so unique and wonderful. I'm looking forward to tomorrow
> night's Art Walk along Canyon Road, to see where the art
> scene is at these days. 
> 
> Later. Maybe.
>


I went to Santa Fe with a friend some years ago [maybe 20 yrs back] to attend a 
meeting with a Swami Dayananda, a traditional teacher of Vedanta 
http://www.dayananda.org/ with whom I had had some very meaningful acquaintence 
and correspondence. Beautiful man. Wonderful meeting.

I found Santa Fe to be a lovely, laid back and very pleasant place. My only 
complaint in the few short days we were there was that we got hopelessly lost 
one night and there were no fucking street lights in the town to see the names 
of the streets. 

Santa Fe just isn't that big but I remember we floundered driving around in the 
dark for what seemed like hours trying to get back to our motel.

I never realized how we take for granted something as simple as street lights. 
I don't recall going anywhere that they didn't have them. Maybe these days it's 
different in Santa Fe. 

[FairfieldLife] CBO Numbers are out on current Health Care Bill

[do.rflex]

The first set of the much-anticipated CBO numbers are out
 :

1.  CUTS THE DEFICIT Cuts the deficit by $130 billion in the first
ten years (2010 – 2019). Cuts the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the
second ten years.

1.  REINS IN WASTEFUL MEDICARE COSTS AND EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF
MEDICARE; CLOSES THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DONUT HOLE Reduces annual growth
in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year—while
improving benefits and lowering costs for seniors. Extends
Medicare's solvency by at least 9 years.

1.  EXPANDS AND IMPROVES HEALTH COVERAGE FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES
Expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans Helps
guarantee that 95 percent of Americans will be covered.

1.  IS FULLY PAID FOR Is fully paid for – costs $940 billion over
a decade. (Americans spend nearly $2.5 trillion each year on health care
now and nearly two-thirds of the bill's cost is paid for by reducing
health care costs).

This gives wavering Democrats a firm reason to vote yes. Will the final
dominos start falling today?

Update: As noted
  by Ezra Klein:

... that's more deficit reduction than either the House or Senate bill,
and more coverage than the Senate bill.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/18/847405/-CBO-Numbers-Are-Out

[FairfieldLife] Health Care Bill cuts deficit $130B 1st 10 yrs - $1.2T next 10 yrs

[do.rflex]

The first set of the much-anticipated CBO numbers are out.

Health Care Bill:

1.  CUTS THE DEFICIT
Cuts the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years (2010 – 2019). Cuts the 
deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years.


2. REINS IN WASTEFUL MEDICARE COSTS AND EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE; 
CLOSES THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DONUT HOLE
Reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per 
year—while improving benefits and lowering costs for seniors. Extends 
Medicare's solvency by at least 9 years.


3. EXPANDS AND IMPROVES HEALTH COVERAGE FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES
Expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans Helps guarantee that 
95 percent of Americans will be covered.


4. IS FULLY PAID FOR
Is fully paid for – costs $940 billion over a decade. (Americans spend nearly 
$2.5 trillion each year on health care now and nearly two-thirds of the bill's 
cost is paid for by reducing health care costs).

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/CBO_numbers.html 

[FairfieldLife] Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook changes

[do.rflex]

Historians on Tuesday criticized proposed revisions to the Texas social studies 
curriculum, saying that many of the changes are historically inaccurate and 
that they would affect textbooks and classrooms far beyond the state's borders.

The changes, which were preliminarily approved last week by the Texas board of 
education and are expected to be given final approval in May, will reach deeply 
into Texas history classrooms, defining what textbooks must include and what 
teachers must cover. The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson 
among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and 
claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold 
War.

Because the Texas textbook market is so large, books assigned to the state's 
4.7 million students often rocket to the top of the market, decreasing costs 
for other school districts and leading them to buy the same materials.

"The books that are altered to fit the standards become the bestselling books, 
and therefore within the next two years they'll end up in other classrooms," 
said Fritz Fischer, chairman of the National Council for History Education, a 
group devoted to history teaching at the pre-college level. "It's not a 
partisan issue, it's a good history issue."

Each subject in Texas's curriculum is revised every 10 years, and the basic 
social studies framework was introduced by a panel of teachers last year. But 
the elected state board of education, which is comprised of 10 Republicans and 
five Democrats, has made more than 100 amendments to the curriculum since 
January.

Discussions ranged from whether President Reagan should get more attention 
(yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American 
culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis's 
inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln's (yes).

Of particular contention was the requirement that lessons on McCarthyism note 
that "the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist 
infiltration in U.S. government."

The Venona papers document communication between the Soviet Union and its 
spies. Historians dispute the extent to which transcripts show Soviet 
involvement in American government.

Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding 
fathers. Historians say the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to 
religion and faith; some, like Jefferson, were quite secular.

Some textbook authors expressed discomfort with the state board's changes, and 
it is unclear how readily historians will go along with some of the proposals.

"I'm made uncomfortable by mandates of this kind for sure," said Paul S. Boyer, 
emeritus professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison and the author of several 
of the most popular U.S. history textbooks, including some that are on the 
approved list in Texas.

Boyer said he had not fully reviewed the Texas curriculum and did not know how 
he would respond to it. But he added that in theory, changes in his text could 
be required that would make him uncomfortable endorsing his own book.

Texas school districts are able to buy books that the state board rejects but 
designates as containing at least half the required curriculum -- but they'll 
have to use their own money to do so. Almost all currently use state funds to 
buy textbooks off the approved list, said Suzanne Marchman, a spokeswoman for 
the Texas Education Agency.

One publisher said Tuesday that changes in technology, including the 
introduction of online components, make it easier and cheaper to tailor 
textbooks to specific states and requirements, and downplayed the impact that 
Texas's decisions would have on the rest of the country.

"We now have the ability to deliver completely customized content" to different 
states, said Joseph Blumenfeld, spokesman for Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, one of 
three major publishers that supply Texas with most of its social studies 
textbooks.

But some historians weren't so certain. Fischer, who is a historian at 
University of Northern Colorado, noted that first-year teachers fall back on 
what's most readily available to them -- their textbooks.

"Teachers have a lot to do and a lot on their plate, and if there's a nice big 
textbook that the kids have been taking home, they'll use it," he said. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html

[FairfieldLife] GOP to the Rescue

[do.rflex]

  [Lee Judge]
© Lee Judge


Cartoon: http://politicalirony.com/2010/03/18/gop-to-the-rescue/

[FairfieldLife] Teabaggers mock and scorn man with Parkinson's

[do.rflex]

Compassionate Conservatism® in action

Video shot by the Columbus Dispatch contains a segment wherein the
teabaggers mock and scorn an apparent Parkinsen's victim telling him
"he's in the wrong end of town to ask for handouts", calling him a
communist and throwing money at him to "pay for his health care".

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ik4f1dRbP8 

[FairfieldLife] Inside Israeli land grabs

[do.rflex]

How the Israel, under its Zionist leadership, implements it systematic 
incremental theft of Palestinian lands:

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HVa47DvwC0


See also: Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of illegal settlements - 
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060043.html 

[FairfieldLife] Students with New Texas School Books

[do.rflex]

Cartoon link: http://www.bartcop.com/texas-books2.jpg

[FairfieldLife] New Texas School Book 1st Edition

[do.rflex]

See Textbook: http://www.bartcop.com/texas-books.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Fearing Peak Oil, Saudi Arabia Seeks To Diversify Its Economy

[do.rflex]

Fearing Peak Oil, Saudi Arabia Seeks To Diversify Its Economy
By Nicole Belle - Mar 16, 2010
  [saudi oil fields_9c00a_0.jpg]

Well, sort of
 :

Concerns over peak oil — that moment when oil demand exceeds global
oil supply — has produced little more than a disdainful eye roll
from Saudi Arabia
 . After all,  the largest oil
producer in the world has far more pressing problems —  like peak
demand, for example.

In fact, Saudi leaders are so worried that demand for oil could peak in
the next  decade
  they've done the unexpected
— and slightly ironic — by calling for an economy that includes
renewable energy. It's an interesting reversal coming from a country
that has poo-pooed investments in renewable energy in the past.

Let's not forget Saudi Arabia — along with OPEC, the oil cartel
it's a member of — was a major opponent of greenhouse-gas
reduction proposals during the climate summit in Copenhagen last year.
At the time, OPEC's chief said oil-producing countries should be
compensated for lost  revenues
  if any
agreement coming out of Copenhagen leads to cuts in  the use of oil. No,
really.

Earlier this month, OPEC producers had the gall to ask the world to 
give them more clarity and certainty about long-term oil demand
   in order to justify additional investment in new
production capacity,  according to the Petroleum Economist. As Robert 
Rapier over at R-Squared   notes,
that's simply not the way the world works. The best any business can
do is try and estimate where demand will end up and then make decisions
from there.

Now, the renewable energy that so worried  Saudi Arabia before has 
suddenly become a worthy investment. The country is starting  its first
carbon-capture project
  and is investing in other
industries including aluminum and steel in an effort to diversify its
heavily crude-focused economy, according to a Bloomberg report. Mohammad
al-Sabban, oil minister adviser and the lead negotiator at the climate
talks, said the country is working to become the top exporter of energy,
including alternative forms such as solar power.

Saudi Arabia is growing annually at about 4.2%, and needs jobs for the
influx of foreign workers (estimated at about 7.5 million currently).
They are reaching out to the private sector to provide those jobs
 , both through alternative energy and tourism.

Oh, the irony that Saudi Arabia is recognizing the need
  for
alternative forms of energy more readily than our Republican Party.

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/fearing-peak-oil-saudi-arabia-see\
ks-d

[FairfieldLife] Anatidaephobia

[do.rflex]

 
Farside Cartoon: 
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7823/anatidaephobiaviadoctorih0.png

[FairfieldLife] Racism is linked to Religious dogmatism

[do.rflex]

Racism is linked to Religious dogmatismJohn Shook - February 16, 2010

Religious congregations generally express
more prejudiced views towards other races.
Furthermore, the more devout the
community, the greater the racism.


 Religious people can be racist, and that's not news.  But are
they more likely to be racist than non-religious people?  A new study
now confirms this hypothesis.

The February issue of Personality and Social Psychology Review
has published
a meta-analysis of 55 independent studies conducted in the United States
which considers surveys of over 20,000 mostly Christian participants.
Religious congregations generally express more prejudiced views towards
other races. Furthermore, the more devout the community, the greater the
racism.

We also read this additional fascinating conclusion from the authors'
summary:

"The authors failed to find that racial tolerance arises from
humanitarian values, consistent with the idea that religious
humanitarianism is largely expressed to in-group members. Only
religious agnostics were racially tolerant."

Is this a surprising result? Humanistic values, such as equal dignity
and rights for all humanity, are often professed by many Christian
denominations. But does this preaching make any difference to their
members' actual prejudices? Apparently not!

This study finds that a denomination's demand for devout allegiance to
its Christian creed overrides any humanistic message. By demanding such
devotion to one specific and dogmatic Christianity, a denomination only
encourages its members to view outsiders as less worthy.

--- Let's read that conclusion again: "Only religious agnostics were
racially tolerant." Why would religious agnostics be more humanistic and
less racist?

Religious agnostics would be people who combine a religious/spiritual
attitude in living life with a humble admission that they don't know if
their approach is the only right way. Religious agnostics are
pluralistic -- they have no problem admiring how different people can
enjoy different religious paths. And it is precisely this lack of
dogmatism which permits humanistic values to shine through. Religious
exclusivism defeats humanistic universalism, but religious pluralism
enhances humanistic universalism.

The message to humanists? It's not enough to ask religious people to be
more humanistic. Humanists must ask for less dogmatism across the board
-- if Christians would be more humanistic, they must surrender their
conviction that their way is the only way. Humanism does not eliminate
reverence, but it asks for a higher perspective -- something like
"reverence for reverence." Revere your own religious path, but also
respect and revere others' ability to devote themselves to a higher good
in their own way. It is precisely that kind of universal respect for all
paths which can reduce prejudice.

As for the nonreligious, this "reverence for reverence" is essential to
humanism in the first place. We should all be able to create our own way
of relating to the wide universe as we learn to understand it. And the
humanistic ideal is that everyone can do this together in mutual respect
and peace.


http://snipurl.com/uut84   [www_centerforinquiry_net]

[FairfieldLife] After row Sec. of State Clinton presents Israel with List of Demands

[do.rflex]

Israel envoy: U.S. ties at their lowest ebb in 35 years  By
Barak Ravid  , Haaretz Correspondent and
Haaretz Service
 Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has told
the country's diplomats there that U.S.-Israeli relations face their
worst crisis in 35 years, despite attempts by Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu's office to project a sense of "business as usual."

Oren was speaking to the Israeli consuls general in a conference call on
Saturday night.

On Sunday, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee condemned recent
statements by the U.S. government regarding its ties with Israel, amid
tensions over Israel's recent announcement of its plan to build 1,600
new housing units in East Jerusalem.

"The Obama Administration's recent statements regarding the U.S.
relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern," said AIPAC in
a statement issued on Sunday.

AIPAC is considered the most influential pro-Israel pressure group in
the United States.

"AIPAC calls on the administration to take immediate steps to defuse the
tension with the Jewish State," the statement said.

The pro-Israel group urged the U.S. government to move past the recent
diplomatic upheaval between Washington and Jerusalem.

"The Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from
public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, with whom
the United States shares basic, fundamental, and strategic interests,"
the AIPAC statement said.

The leftist pro-Israel group J Street released a statement Monday
supporting the Obama administration's recent actions.

"As Vice President Biden said, 'Sometimes only a friend can deliver the
hardest truth.' That is what he, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and
White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod have done in recent days - and
J Street, along with many friends of Israel, stands solidly behind
them," said J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami.

"Bold American leadership is needed now to turn this crisis into a real
opportunity to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a
fundamental American national security interest."

The Republican Jewish Coalition said Monday that it was deeply upset by
the tone and actions of the Obama administration regarding Israel in
recent days.

"The strident and unwarranted escalation of tension, which has turned a
minor diplomatic embarrassment into a major international incident, has
raised serious concerns about the administration's Israel policy from a
variety of mainstream voices," RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said.
"We believe the administration's actions are disproportionate and
one-sided."

Netanyahu consulted Sunday with the forum of seven senior cabinet
ministers over a list of demands that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton made in a telephone conversation Friday.

Clinton harshly criticized the announcement last week of plans to expand
the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood in East Jerusalem while U.S. Vice
President Joe Biden was visiting Israel.

Haaretz has learned that Clinton's list includes at least four steps the
United States expects Netanyahu to carry out to restore confidence in
bilateral relations and permit the resumption of peace talks with the
Palestinians.

1. Investigate the process that led to the announcement of the Ramat
Shlomo construction plans in the middle of Biden's visit. The Americans
seek an official response from Israel on whether this was a bureaucratic
mistake or a deliberate act carried out for political reasons. Already
on Saturday night, Netanyahu announced the convening of a committee to
look into the issue.

2. Reverse the decision by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building
Committee to approve construction of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat
Shlomo.

3. Make a substantial gesture toward the Palestinians enabling the
renewal of peace talks. The Americans suggested that hundreds of
Palestinian prisoners be released, that the Israel Defense Forces
withdraw from additional areas of the West Bank and transfer them to
Palestinian control, that the siege of the Gaza Strip be eased and
further roadblocks in the West Bank be removed.

4. Issue an official declaration that the talks with the Palestinians,
even indirect talks, will deal with all the conflict's core issues -
borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements, water and
settlements.

Two advisers of the prime minister, Yitzhak Molcho and Ron Dermer, held
marathon talks Sunday with senior White House officials in Washington
and U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell and his staff to try to calm the
situation. Mitchell will return to Israel Tuesday and expects to hear if
Netanyahu intends to take the proposed steps.

At the beginning of Sunday's cabinet meeting, Netanyahu tried to convey
a message that there was no crisis in relations with the United States.
But he sent precisely the opposite message to Oren in Washington.

In Oren's Saturday conference call wit

[FairfieldLife] Political question of the year

[do.rflex]

Howell Raines
 :

One question has tugged at my professional conscience throughout the
year-long congressional debate over health-care reform, and it has
nothing to do with the public option, portability or medical
malpractice.


It is this:


Why haven't America's old-school news organizations blown the whistle on
Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a
propaganda campaign against the Obama administration -- a campaign
without precedent in our modern political history?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR201003\
1102523.html

[FairfieldLife] The New Rove-Cheney Assault on Reality

[do.rflex]

The New Rove-Cheney Assault on Reality By FRANK RICH


THE opening salvo, fired on Fox News during Thanksgiving week,
aroused little notice: Dana Perino, the former White House press
secretary, declared
  that
"we did not have a terrorist attack on  our country during President
Bush's term." Rudy Giuliani upped the ante
  on ABC's "Good Morning America" in January.
"We had no domestic attacks under Bush," he said. "We've
had one under Obama." (He apparently meant
  the Fort Hood
shootings.)

  [The New York Times]    March 14, 2010
[650]   Barry Blitt




Now the revisionist floodgates have opened with the simultaneous arrival
of Karl Rove's memoir and Keep America Safe, a new right-wing noise
machine   invented
by Dick Cheney's daughter Liz and the inevitable William Kristol.


This gang's rewriting of history knows few bounds. To hear them tell
it, 9/11 was so completely Bill Clinton's fault that it
retroactively happened while he was still in office. The Bush White
House is equally blameless for the post-9/11 resurgence of the Taliban,
Al Qaeda and Iran. Instead it's President Obama who is endangering
America by coddling terrorists and stopping torture.


Could any of this non-reality-based shtick stick? So far the answer is
No. Rove's book and Keep America Safe could be the best political
news for the White House in some time. This new eruption of
misinformation and rancor vividly reminds Americans why they
couldn't wait for Bush and Cheney to leave Washington.

But the old regime's attack squads are relentless and shameless. The
Obama administration, which put the brakes on any new investigations
into Bush-Cheney national security malfeasance upon taking office, will
sooner or later have to strike back. Once the Bush-Cheney failures in
Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran again come home to roost, as they undoubtedly
and explosively will, someone will have to remind our amnesia-prone
nation who really enabled America's enemies in the run-up to 9/11
and in its aftermath.

There's a good reason why Rove's memoir is titled "Courage
and Consequence," not "Truth or Consequences." Its spin is
so uninhibited that even "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a
job!" is repackaged with an alibi
 .


The book's apolitical asides are as untrustworthy as its major
events. For all Rove's self-proclaimed expertise as a student of
history, he writes that eight American presidents assumed office "as
a result of the assassination or resignation of their predecessor."
(He's off by only three
 .)


After a peculiar early narrative detour to combat reports of his late
adoptive father's homosexuality, Rove burnishes his family values
cred with repeated references to his own happy heterosexual domesticity.
This, too, is a smoke screen: Readers learned months before the book was
published that his marriage ended in divorce
 .

Rove's overall thesis on the misbegotten birth of the Iraq war
  is a stretch even by his
standards. "Would the Iraq war have occurred without W.M.D.?" he
writes. "I doubt it." He claims that Bush would have looked for
other ways "to constrain" Saddam Hussein had the intelligence
not revealed Iraq's "unique threat" to America's
security.


Even if you buy Rove's predictable (and easily refuted) claims that
the White House neither hyped, manipulated nor cherry-picked the
intelligence, his portrait of Bush as an apostle of containment is
absurd. And morally offensive in light of the carnage that followed.


As Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff,
said on MSNBC
 , it's "not a very comforting thing" to tell the
families of the American fallen "that if the intelligence community
in the United States, on which we spend about $60 billion a year,
hadn't made this colossal failure, we probably wouldn't have
gone to war."

Rove and his book are yesterday. Keep America Safe is on the march. Liz
Cheney's crackpot hit squad achieved instant notoriety with its
viral video demanding the names of Obama Justice Department officials
  who had served as pro bono
defense lawyers for Guantánamo Bay detainees. The video br

[FairfieldLife] The Political Case for Health Care Reform

[do.rflex]

White House pollster Joel Benenson writes in the Washington Post
  that there's "no question that a
majority of Americans oppose a government-run health system. But there
is no government-run health care in the plan, and not a single American
would be forced into any government-run program."

"In politics, new information is always the most potent. When it comes
to health care and insurance, once reform passes, the tangible benefits
Americans will realize will trump the fear-mongering rhetoric opponents
are stoking today."

He concludes: "It is no accident that Republican leaders are warning
Democrats of dire political consequences if health reform passes. But
there is every reason to believe that for Republicans, the negative
consequences will be their own."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/03/13/the_political_case_for_heal\
th_care_reform.html

[FairfieldLife] Lt. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson U.S. Army (ret.): Rove, Cheney are cowards

[do.rflex]

Lt. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson U.S. Army (ret.) calls Rove, Cheney cowards. 
Accuses Cheney of leaking classified information to Rove in violation of law, 
in scathing interview with Lawrence O'Donnell.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/35845599#35845599

[FairfieldLife] Texas Board of Education cuts Thomas Jefferson out of its textbooks

[do.rflex]

Texas Board of Education cuts Thomas Jefferson out of its textbooks

  [thomas-jefferson-big copy]  The Texas Board of Education has been
meeting this week
  to
revise its social studies curriculum. During the past three days,
"the board's far-right faction wielded their power
  to shape lessons on the civil rights movement, the
U.S. free enterprise system and hundreds of other topics":

– To avoid exposing students to "transvestites, transsexuals and
who knows what else," the Board struck the curriculum's
reference
  to "sex
and gender as social constructs."

– The Board removed Thomas Jefferson
  from the Texas curriculum, "replacing him with religious right
icon John Calvin."

– The Board refused to require
  that "students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S.
government from promoting one religion over all others."

– The Board  struck the word "democratic"
  from the description of the U.S. government, instead
terming it a "constitutional republic."

As the nation's second-largest textbook market, Texas has enormous
leverage over publishers, who often "craft their standard textbooks
based on the specs of the biggest buyers
 ."
Indeed, as The Washington Monthly has reported
 , "when it comes to textbooks, what happens
in Texas rarely stays in Texas."

-DJ Carella 
Update Following repeated failed attempts to add figures in Hispanic
history to the textbooks, one board member, Mary Helen Berlanga, stormed
"out of the meeting late Thursday night, saying, 'They can just pretend
this is a white America and Hispanics don't exist
 .'"

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-je\
fferson-out-of-its-textbooks/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , Sal Sunshine 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:32 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , Sal Sunshine 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have
> the experience, and would like to know.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> > > > but do you really get your news off the
> > > > Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> > > > disillusioned.
> > > >
> > > > Sal
> > > >
> > >
> > > Both of which have used photoshopped photos as if they are real for
> years.
> > >
> > > Here is a shot of Jesse Ventura's new book cover: 
> http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW 
> > >
> > > Here is a screenshot of the fake cover that Fox and Friends used 3
> days ago:http://screencast.com/t/MTMwZWI3Z
> >
> > The Fox page was gone, but I can imagine.
> > It's disillusioning when intelligent people fall
> > for that crap.
> >
> > Sal
> >
> 
> Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and
> Friends:
> http://screencast.com/t/NDYxZGM5ZjYt
> 
> 
> ...compared to the actual cover --  http://screencast.com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
> 
> 
> I know the actual cover is also a trumped up version of Ventura, like> any 
> author picture, but the Fox and Friends version went out of their> way to 
> make him look dweeby. News organizations are not supposed to do> that.
> 
> OffWorld
>

FOX is a news organization?

[FairfieldLife] Wingnut Hero

[do.rflex]

Cartoon link: http://www.bartcop.com/massa-hero.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Health Care Reform has its Losers

[do.rflex]

Cartoon link:  http://www.bartcop.com/hc-bites.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Cardinal says celibacy partly to blame for clerical sex abuse

[do.rflex]

Cardinal Schönborn says celibacy partly to blame for clerical sex
abuseRichard Owen, Rome, and Ruth Gledhill


A cardinal seen as a future candidate for the papacy
has broken a Vatican taboo by raising the possibility
that priestly celibacy is among the causes
of the sex abuse scandal sweeping
the Roman Catholic Church.


  [Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn]
(Osservatore Romano)
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn
is seen as a future candidate
for the papacy


 A senior cardinal has called for priestly celibacy to be
re-examined in the  light of sex scandals sweeping the Roman Catholic
Church. Cardinal Christoph  Schönborn, conservative Archbishop of
Vienna and a protégé of the Pope,  shocked the Vatican by
suggesting that it should carry out an "unflinching 
examination" of causes of the scandal.

These included "the issue of priests' training", he wrote in
his archdiocese  magazine, "the question of priest celibacy and the
question of personality  development. It requires a great deal of
honesty, both on the part of the  Church and of society as a whole".

The Vatican said the remarks had been misinterpreted. "Priestly
celibacy is a  gift of the Holy Spirit," Cardinal Claudio Hummes,
prefect of the  Congregation for the Clergy, said at a theological
convention on priestly  fidelity.

Cardinal Schönborn's spokesman, Erich Leitenberger, issued a
clarification  later claiming that the cardinal was not "in any way
seeking to question the  Catholic Church's celibacy rule".
Sources in Rome said he had been obliged  to issue his
"clarification" under pressure from the Holy See.
The cardinal, a respected conservative theologian, has a history of
sparking  controversy. He is an ordinary — or bishop — to
Austria's Eastern Rite  Catholics, whose priests are allowed to
marry, just as priests in the new  Anglican Ordinariates being set up
around the world for ex-Anglican clergy  will be allowed to marry. Last
year in Rome, Cardinal Schönborn, who has  always been close to the
Pope, presented a petition signed by leading  Austrian lay Catholics
calling for the abolition of the requirement for  priestly celibacy.
Cardinal Schönborn told Vatican Radio last year that he did not agree
with the  petition's conclusions, which also included a demand for
women deacons, but  added: "It is important for someone in Rome to
know what some of our lay  people are thinking about the problems of the
Church."

Despite calls by a number of theologians and lay Catholic organisations
for  priestly celibacy to be abolished or made optional, it has been
repeatedly  reaffirmed by successive Popes, including Pope Benedict XVI.
However,  Cardinal Hummes, from Brazil, once observed that celibacy was
"not dogma".

The celibacy rule for priests was not part of the early Christian Church
but  was introduced in the Middle Ages. A number of early Church fathers
were  married, including St Peter himself, according to St Mark's
Gospel.

In his article, Cardinal Schönborn said he could understand the
frustration of  many of the faithful over the paedophilia scandals.
"Enough is enough.  That's what many people are saying and
thinking."

The Pope is due to issue a pastoral letter to the faithful in Ireland on
the  sex abuse issue after meeting Irish bishops last month.


The scandal has come  closer to the pontiff after it emerged that a
former chorister in Regensburg  — where the Pope once taught —
had claimed he was abused while he was a  member of the Cathedral choir,
which was led for three decades by Georg  Ratzinger, the Pope's
older brother. Monsignor Ratzinger this week admitted  he had
"slapped" choirboys but said he knew nothing of sexual abuse.

Today the Pope is to meet Robert Zollitsch, head of the German
bishops'  conference, to discuss the growing crisis over clerical
sex abuse in several  countries including the Pope's native Germany.
Archbishop Zollitsch has  described clerical abuse as
"outrageous" and asked the victims for  forgiveness, but has
denied any link between sex abuse and celibacy.

An article in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, by the
historian  Lucetta Scaraffia, suggested that having more women in
high-level  decision-making bodies would have helped to lift the
"veil of masculine  secrecy" over clerical sex-abuse cases.

This week the dissident theologian Father Hans Küng, who was stripped
of his  licence to teach Catholic theology in 1979 after he rejected the
doctrine of  Papal infallibility, said in The Tablet that denials of any
link between  abuse and celibacy were "erroneous".

He said celibacy was not the only cause of the misconduct but described
it as  "the most important and structurally the most decisive"
expression of the  Church's repressive attitude to sex.

Last November the Vatican said its new rules allowing the conversion of 
Anglicans, including married Anglican priests, did not "signify any
change"  in its rules for priestly celibacy.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article

[FairfieldLife] Reflections on India

[do.rflex]

Reflections on India

by Sean Paul Kelley 


  [And People Wonder Why The Lights Go Out In Delhi So Often?] 
 If you are
Indian, or of Indian descent, I must preface this post with a clear
warning: you are not going to like what I have to say. My criticisms may
be very hard to stomach. But consider them as the hard words and loving
advice of a good friend. Someone who's being honest with you and
wants nothing from you.


These criticisms apply to all of India except Kerala and the places I
didn't visit, except that I have a feeling it applies to all of
India, except as I mentioned before, Kerala.


Lastly, before anyone accuses me of Western Cultural Imperialism, let me
say this: if this is what India and Indians want, then hey, who am I to
tell them differently. Take what you like and leave the rest. In the end
it doesn't really matter, as I get the sense that Indians, at least
many upper class Indians, don't seem to care and the lower classes
just don't know any better, what with Indian culture being so
intense and pervasive on the sub-continent. But here goes, nonetheless.

India is a mess. It's that simple, but it's also quite
complicated. I'll start with what I think are India's four major
problems–the four most preventing India from becoming a developing
nation–and then move to some of the ancillary ones.

First, pollution. In my opinion the filth, squalor and all around
pollution indicates a marked lack of respect for India by Indians. I
don't know how cultural the filth is, but it's really beyond
anything I have ever encountered. At times the smells, trash, refuse and
excrement are like a garbage dump.
  Right next door to the Taj Mahal was a pile of trash that
smelled so bad, was so foul as to almost ruin the entire Taj experience.
Delhi, Bangalore and Chennai to a lesser degree were so very polluted as
to make me physically ill. Sinus infections, ear infection, bowels
churning was an all to common experience in India.


Dung, be it goat, cow or human fecal matter was common on the streets.
In major tourist areas filth was everywhere, littering the sidewalks,
  the roadways, you name it. Toilets in the middle of the
road, men urinating and defecating anywhere, in broad daylight. Whole
villages are plastic bag wastelands. Roadsides are choked by it. Air
quality that can hardly be called quality.
  Far too much coal and far to few unleaded vehicles on the
road. The measure should be how dangerous the air is for one's
health, not how good it is. People casually throw trash in the streets,
on the roads.


The only two cities that could be considered sanitary in my journey were
Trivandrum–the capital of Kerala–and Calicut. I don't know
why this is. But I can assure you that at some point this pollution will
cut into India's productivity, if it already hasn't. The
pollution will hobble India's growth path, if that indeed is what
the country wants. (Which I personally doubt, as India is far too
conservative a country, in the small `c' sense.)

The second issue, infrastructure, can be divided into four
subcategories: roads, rails and ports and the electrical grid. The
electrical grid is a joke.
  Load shedding
is all too common, everywhere in India. Wide swaths of the country spend
much of the day without the electricity they actually pay for. With out
regular electricity, productivity, again, falls.


The ports are a joke. Antiquated, out of date, hardly even appropriate
for the mechanized world of container ports, more in line with the days
of longshoremen and the like.


Roads are an equal disaster. I only saw one elevated highway that would
be considered decent in Thailand, much less Western Europe or America.
And I covered fully two thirds of the country during my visit. There are
so few dual carriage way roads as to be laughable. There are no traffic
laws to speak of, and if there are, they are rarely obeyed, much less
enforced. A drive that should take an hour takes three. A drive that
should take three takes nine. The buses are at least thirty years old,
  if not older.



Everyone in India, or who travels in India raves about the railway
system. Rubbish. It's awful. Now, when I was there in 2003 and then
late 2004 it was decent. But in the last five years the traffic on the
rails has grown so quickly that once again, it is threatening
productivity.


Waiting in line just to ask a question now takes thirty minutes. Routes
are routinely sol

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> 
> > If you're so sure of your position BillyGee, please give us YOUR 
> > interpretation of the atrocities of mass slaughter of helpless prisoners, 
> > the mass slaughter of children and the taking possession of 32,000 virgins 
> > "for themselves."
> > 
> > This should be good...
> 
> 
> The context has been lost in antiquity or perverted during translation; I 
> don't really know what it means scripturally if anything at all. All of 
> scripture is full of ambiguity due to the lapse of time and change in social 
> mores.
> 
> To evaluate something like that with contemporary values and understandings 
> is kind of silly
>


That sounds to me like a pathetically lame excuse, BillyGee. Perhaps everything 
'sgrayatlarge' quoted is also "lost in antiquity or perverted during 
translation," eh? 

And the Ten Commandments then have also been "lost in antiquity or perverted 
during translation," eh? 

Or do you cherry-pick the Bible parts you like that suit your right wing 
Republican biases?

Do you think Jesus would approve of torturing detaineees too, BillyGee ???

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
> > >
> > > Boy you'd think the (in your words made up thing called God)that spoke of 
> > > laws and commandment but could not be seen at Sinai would not have been 
> > > so quickly rejected. Remember what happens..hint here is the where the 
> > > man made small gods come into play:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the 
> > > mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods [a] 
> > > who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of 
> > > Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him." 
> > >  2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your 
> > > sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the 
> > > people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what 
> > > they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, 
> > > fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, [b] O 
> > > Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt." 
> > > 
> > >  5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and 
> > > announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." 6 So the next 
> > > day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented 
> > > fellowship offerings. [c] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and 
> > > got up to indulge in revelry. note: reverly is code for orgies, typical 
> > > of worship back in the day
> > > 
> > >  7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you 
> > > brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to 
> > > turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol 
> > > cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to 
> > > it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out 
> > > of Egypt.' 
> > > 
> > > Exodus 32
> > > 
> > > The  Sinai event was unique in ancient and modern times.  
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > How about THIS part ??? 
> > 
> > Numbers 31:1-54 - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the 
> > Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and 
> > children captive. 
> > 
> > When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you  
> > saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill 
> > every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women 
> > children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for 
> > yourselves." 
> > 
> > So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, 
> > killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 
> > virgins -- Wow! 
> > 
> > - - Let's see... we have the mass slaughter of defenseless prisoners, mass 
> > infanticide and sexual slavery. 
> > 
> > Is THIS the kind of 'godly' behavior at the basis of your moral code Mr 
> > 'sgrayatlarge' ??? 
> > 
> > I'll bet you also approve of torturing the detainees, eh? ...for Jesus?
> 
> Mr. Do-Most scripture is written in allegory and symbolism, to take something 
> like that literally is..well, I think you should take a serious look at your 
> ability to think clearly. It appears your disdain for scripture has corrupted 
> your objectivity.
> 
> It's called reasoning FROM a conclusion and not TO a conclusion, don't you 
> remember Charlie saying that?  He said it often.
>


If you're so sure of your position BillyGee, please give us YOUR interpretation 
of the atrocities of mass slaughter of helpless prisoners, the mass slaughter 
of children and the taking possession of 32,000 virgins "for themselves."

This should be good...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Swami Nithyananda Sex Scandal (Watch Video) | India

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
>
> Boy you'd think the (in your words made up thing called God)that spoke of 
> laws and commandment but could not be seen at Sinai would not have been so 
> quickly rejected. Remember what happens..hint here is the where the man made 
> small gods come into play:
> 
> 
> "When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, 
> they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods [a] who will go 
> before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't 
> know what has happened to him." 
>  2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your 
> sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the 
> people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they 
> handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning 
> it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, [b] O Israel, who 
> brought you up out of Egypt." 
> 
>  5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, 
> "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." 6 So the next day the people 
> rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. 
> [c] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in 
> revelry. note: reverly is code for orgies, typical of worship back in the day
> 
>  7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you 
> brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn 
> away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the 
> shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have 
> said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.' 
> 
> Exodus 32
> 
> The  Sinai event was unique in ancient and modern times.  
> 


How about THIS part ??? 

Numbers 31:1-54 - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the 
Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and 
children captive. 

When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you  saved 
all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every 
woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that 
have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." 

So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, 
killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 
virgins -- Wow! 

- - Let's see... we have the mass slaughter of defenseless prisoners, mass 
infanticide and sexual slavery. 

Is THIS the kind of 'godly' behavior at the basis of your moral code Mr 
'sgrayatlarge' ??? 

I'll bet you also approve of torturing the detainees, eh? ...for Jesus?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chief Catholic Exorcist : Satan Is in the Vatican

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> 
> An important lesson to remember during this subprime mess.  There was an
> article about the person who did not pay their exorcist, and they were
> repossessed.
> 


That warrants a  



> Just sayin.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Chief exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth says Devil is in the Vatican
> > From The Times - March 11, 2010
> > Richard Owen in Rome
> >
> > [Gabriele Amorth, an exorcist in the diocese of Rome poses in Rome,
> > 2005.] Giulio Napolitano, AFP / Getty Images Rev. Gabriele Amorth, who
> > served as
> > the Catholic Church's chief exorcist for
> > 25 years, claims the devil has infiltrated
> > the Vatican.
> > Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that
> > that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican", according to the Holy
> > See's chief exorcist.
> >
> > Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican's chief exorcist
> > for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic
> > possession, said that the consequences of satanic infiltration
> included
> > power struggles at the Vatican as well as "cardinals who do not
> believe
> > in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon".
> >
> > He added: "When one speaks of 'the smoke of Satan' [a phrase coined by
> > Pope Paul VI in 1972] in the holy rooms, it is all true –
> including
> > these latest stories of violence and paedophilia."
> >
> > He claimed that another example of satanic behaviour was the Vatican
> > "cover-up" over the deaths in 1998 of Alois Estermann, the then
> > commander of the Swiss Guard, his wife and Corporal Cedric Tornay, a
> > Swiss Guard, who were all found shot dead. "They covered up everything
> > immediately," he said. "Here one sees the rot".
> >
> > A remarkably swift Vatican investigation concluded that Corporal
> Tornay
> > had shot the commander and his wife and then turned his gun on himself
> > after being passed over for a medal. However Tornay's relatives have
> > challenged this. There have been unconfirmed reports of a homosexual
> > background to the tragedy and the involvement of a fourth person who
> > was never identfied.
> >
> > Father Amorth, who has just published Memoirs of an Exorcist, a series
> > of interviews with the Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti, said that the
> > attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II in 1981 had been the work of
> > the Devil, as had an incident last Christmas when a mentally disturbed
> > woman threw herself at Pope Benedict XVI at the start of Midnight
> Mass,
> > pulling him to the ground.
> >
> > Father José Antonio Fortea Cucurull, a Rome-based exorcist, said
> that
> > Father Amorth had "gone well beyond the evidence" in claiming that
> > Satan had infiltrated the Vatican corridors.
> >
> > "Cardinals might be better or worse, but all have upright intentions
> and
> > seek the glory of God," he said. Some Vatican officials were more
> pious
> > than others, "but from there to affirm that some cardinals are members
> > of satanic sects is an unacceptable distance."
> >
> > Father Amorth told La Repubblica that the devil was "pure spirit,
> > invisible. But he manifests himself with blasphemies and afflictions
> in
> > the person he possesses. He can remain hidden, or speak in different
> > languages, transform himself or appear to be agreeable. At times he
> > makes fun of me."
> >
> > He said it sometimes took six or seven of his assistants to to hold
> down
> > a possessed person. Those possessed often yelled and screamed and spat
> > out nails or pieces of glass, which he kept in a bag. "Anything can
> > come out of their mouths – finger-length pieces of iron, but also
> > rose petals."
> >
> > He said that he hoped every diocese would eventually have a resident
> > exorcist. Under Church Canon Law any priest can perform exorcisms, but
> > in practice they are carried out by a chosen few trained in the rites.
> >
> > Father Amorth was ordained in 1954 and became an official exorcist in
> > 1986. In the past he has suggested that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin
> > were possessed by the Devil. He was among Vatican officials who warned
> > that J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels made a "false distinction
> > between black and white magic".
> >
> > He approves, however, of the 1973 film The Exorcist, which although
> > "exaggerated" offered a "substantially exact" picture of possession.
> >
> > In 2001 he objected to the introduction of a new version of the
> exorcism
> > rite, complaining that it dropped centuries-old prayers and was "a
> > blunt sword" about which exorcists themselves had not been consulted.
> > The Vatican said later that he and other exorcists could continue to
> > use the old ritual.
> >
> > He is the president of honour of the Association of Exorcists.
> >
> >
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Chief Catholic Exorcist : Satan Is in the Vatican

[do.rflex]

Chief exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth says Devil is in the Vatican
>From The Times - March 11, 2010
Richard Owen in Rome

  [Gabriele Amorth, an exorcist in the diocese of Rome poses in Rome,
2005.]  Giulio Napolitano, AFP / Getty Images Rev. Gabriele Amorth, who
served as
the Catholic Church's chief exorcist for
25 years, claims the devil has infiltrated
the Vatican.
 Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that
that "the  Devil is at work inside the Vatican", according to the Holy
See's chief  exorcist.

Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican's chief exorcist
for 25  years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic
possession, said  that the consequences of satanic infiltration included
power struggles at  the Vatican as well as "cardinals who do not believe
in Jesus, and  bishops who are linked to the Demon".

He added: "When one speaks of 'the smoke of Satan' [a phrase coined by 
Pope Paul VI in 1972] in the holy rooms, it is all true – including
these  latest stories of violence and paedophilia."

He claimed that another example of satanic behaviour was the Vatican
"cover-up"  over the deaths in 1998 of Alois Estermann, the then
commander of the Swiss  Guard, his wife and Corporal Cedric Tornay, a
Swiss Guard, who were all  found shot dead. "They covered up everything
immediately," he  said. "Here one sees the rot".

A remarkably swift Vatican investigation concluded that Corporal Tornay
had  shot the commander and his wife and then turned his gun on himself
after  being passed over for a medal. However Tornay's relatives have
challenged  this. There have been unconfirmed reports of a homosexual
background to the  tragedy and the involvement of a fourth person who
was never identfied.

Father Amorth, who has just published Memoirs of an Exorcist, a series 
of interviews with the Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti, said that the 
attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II in 1981 had been the work of
the  Devil, as had an incident last Christmas when a mentally disturbed
woman  threw herself at Pope Benedict XVI at the start of Midnight Mass,
pulling  him to the ground.

Father José Antonio Fortea Cucurull, a Rome-based exorcist, said that
Father  Amorth had "gone well beyond the evidence" in claiming that
Satan  had infiltrated the Vatican corridors.

"Cardinals might be better or worse, but all have upright intentions and
seek the glory of God," he said. Some Vatican officials were more pious 
than others, "but from there to affirm that some cardinals are members 
of satanic sects is an unacceptable distance."

Father Amorth told La Repubblica that the devil was "pure spirit, 
invisible. But he manifests himself with blasphemies and afflictions in
the  person he possesses. He can remain hidden, or speak in different
languages,  transform himself or appear to be agreeable. At times he
makes fun of me."

He said it sometimes took six or seven of his assistants to to hold down
a  possessed person. Those possessed often yelled and screamed and spat
out  nails or pieces of glass, which he kept in a bag. "Anything can
come  out of their mouths – finger-length pieces of iron, but also
rose petals."

He said that he hoped every diocese would eventually have a resident
exorcist.  Under Church Canon Law any priest can perform exorcisms, but
in practice  they are carried out by a chosen few trained in the rites.

Father Amorth was ordained in 1954 and became an official exorcist in
1986. In  the past he has suggested that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin
were possessed  by the Devil. He was among Vatican officials who warned
that J. K. Rowling's  Harry Potter novels made a "false distinction
between black and white  magic".

He approves, however, of the 1973 film The Exorcist, which although
"exaggerated"  offered a "substantially exact" picture of possession.

In 2001 he objected to the introduction of a new version of the exorcism
rite,  complaining that it dropped centuries-old prayers and was "a
blunt sword"  about which exorcists themselves had not been consulted.
The Vatican said  later that he and other exorcists could continue to
use the old ritual.

He is the president of honour of the Association of Exorcists.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece

[FairfieldLife] Re: A proud day for Democrats

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
>
> 
> Why can't Obama clearly explain what the hell is trying to shove down our 
> throats, because he can't 
>


You haven't been paying attention. Did you miss the recent publicly broadcast 7 
hour meeting Obama had with the Republicans on Health Care Reform???

Have you missed the whole last year during which both the Senate and House 
bills were debated and passed???


>
and that's why each day the polls to support this garbage legislation keeps 
going down the ol' drain
> 


That's simply not true:

Poll: 2/3 of Voters Say Pass Comprehensive Health Care Reform

Americans spread the blame when it comes to the lack of cooperation in
Washington, and, in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, most want the
two sides to keep working to pass comprehensive health-care reform...

As party leaders tussle over the proposed bipartisan health care summit, nearly 
two-thirds of Americans say they want Congress to keep working to pass 
comprehensive health-care reform. 

Democrats overwhelmingly support continued action on this front, as do 56 
percent of independents and 42 percent of Republicans.

See Chart: 
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/Poll1.gif

More at link:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/02/americans_spread_the_blame_whe.html


[snip to end]

[FairfieldLife] Re: A proud day for Democrats

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sgrayatlarge  wrote:
>
> Perfect transparency
> 
> " We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"
> 
> -House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
>


It was a poor choice of wording, although you DID leave off the rest of the 
sentence. Here is the COMPLETE sentence: "But we have to pass the bill so that 
you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

This isolated quote "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it" 
is being broadcast all over the Obama/Pelosi/Reid hating fringe wingnut world 
as if to suggest that the the Democrats are hiding something nefarious in the 
bill. 

It's another lame-ass attempt by the right wingers to make a major issue out of 
a non-issue. It's that kind of nonsense that continues to show the wingnuts for 
the sorry losers that they are.

Transparency?

Both the Senate and House health bills that were passed have been scrutinized 
in detail and are publicly available along with the White House's own recent 
proposal. Whatever comes to be finally voted on will no doubt fall within the 
parameters already outlined in those documents. 

[FairfieldLife] Obama Defies Pessimists as Rising Economy Converges With Stocks

[do.rflex]

Obama Defies Pessimists as Rising Economy Converges With Stocks


By Mike Dorning
  [220]
March 10 (Bloomberg) -- The political consensus may be that President
Barack Obama
 's handling of the economy has been
weak. The judgment of money in all its forms has been overwhelmingly
positive, and that may be the more lasting appraisal.

One year after U.S stocks hit their post-financial-crisis low on March
9, 2009, the benchmark Standard & Poor's 500 Index
  has risen more
than 68 percent, and it's up more than 41 percent since Obama took
office. Credit spreads have narrowed. Commodity prices have surged.
Housing prices have stabilized.

"We've had a phenomenal run in asset classes across the
board," said Dan Greenhaus
 , chief economic strategist for Miller
Tabak & Co. in New York. "If he was a Republican, we would hear a
never-ending drumbeat of news stories about markets voting in favor of
the president."

The economy has also strengthened beyond expectations at the time Obama
took office. The gross domestic product grew at a 5.9 percent annual
pace in the fourth quarter, compared with a median forecast of 2.0
percent in a Bloomberg survey of economists a week before Obama's
Jan. 20, 2009, inauguration. The median forecast for GDP growth this
year is 3.0 percent, according to Bloomberg's February survey of
economists, versus 2.1 percent for 2010 in the survey taken 13 months
earlier.

"You have to give them -- along with the Federal Reserve - - a lot
of credit," said Joseph Carson
 , director of economic research at
AllianceBernstein LP in New York. "A year ago, there was panic, as
well as concern. And a lot of the expectations were not only that we
were going to have declines in activity but they would stretch all the
way to 2010, if not 2011."

Job Losses Ease

Since then, monthly job losses have abated, from 779,000 during the
month Obama took office to 36,000 last month. Corporate profits have
grown; among 491 companies in the S&P 500 that reported fourth-quarter
earnings, profits rose 180 percent from a year ago, according to
Bloomberg data. Durable goods
  orders in
January were up 9.3 percent from a year earlier. Inflation is tame, and
long-term interest rates remain low.

Still, the economy has become a political burden for Obama. Voters give
his administration little credit for its performance, while the
unemployment rate remains high, at 9.7 percent in February.

Public opinion of Obama's handling of the economy has gone from 59
percent approval in February 2009 to 61 percent disapproval this
February, according to Gallup polls.

Critical of Deficit

The budget deficits
  the
administration has run up have stirred criticism from investment
managers and economists, as well as voters. The Congressional Budget
Office projects
  Obama's
spending proposals would produce a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit
this year and a $1.3 trillion deficit
  in 2011.

The investment returns and economic data don't impress some Obama
critics.

"Coming off a level that was ridiculously low isn't much to
boast about," said Dean Baker
 , co-director of the Washington-based
Center for Economic and Policy Research. "What most people care
about is the economy creating jobs. It's still not."

Mark Zandi
 , chief economist at Moody's
Economy.com  , said the public's
opinion of the economy is likely to improve as the gains companies have
made begin to translate into more jobs and higher wages.

"Businesses are doing very well but households have yet to
benefit," Zandi said. "Households will eventually benefit, but
they'll have to see it before they believe it."

300,000 Jobs Seen

The U.S. may add as many as 300,000 jobs in March, the most in four
years, David Greenlaw

[FairfieldLife] When a Republican electoral victory is a good thing

[do.rflex]

When a Republican electoral victory is a good thing  by kos
  - Mar 09, 2010
Phew
 .

The top conservative activist on the powerful Texas Board of Education,
who rejects evolution and has pushed for a revisionist right-wing U.S.
history curriculum, is on the way out, after a moderate candidate
defeated him in a tight primary last week.

For months now, TPMmuckraker has been covering Don McLeroy as a major
player in the battle over the drafting of nationally influential history
textbook standards by the Texas board.

Lobbyist Thomas Ratliff edged out McLeroy 50.4%-49.6% in a GOP primary
for the seat McLeroy has held since 1999.

Close as it was, Ratliff's win is significant because he represented a
clear alternative to McLeroy, and he pulled through in a deeply
conservative district. McLeroy's home county went 64-35 for McCain in
'08, and no Democrat is even running for the board seat.

Ratliff is younger, moderate, and emphasized listening "to teachers and
superintendents in determining what students should know," according to
the endorsement column of the Dallas Morning News.

How bad was McLeroy?

*  In 2008, he objected to including Chinese literature in English
classes: "[Y]ou really don't want Chinese books with a bunch of crazy
Chinese words in them. Why should you take a child's time trying to
learn a word that they'll never ever use again?" He conceded some terms,
such as "chow mein," might be useful, the San Antonio Express-News
reported.


*  He said during a 2008 debate over science standards: "Is
understanding of evolution 'vital' to the understanding of biology? No."


*  Last year he instructed curriculum writers to "read the latest on
[Joseph] McCarthy -- he was basically vindicated."


*  He described his textbook evaluation process this way to the
Washington Monthly: "The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see
how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald
Reagan--he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and
for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered
taxes." [...]


*  Finally, McLeroy successfully offered an amendment to U.S. history
standards to require students to be able to "describe the causes and key
organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the
1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schafly, the Contract with America,
the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle
Association." There is no liberal counterpart clause in the current
draft of the standards.

This guy was a full-fledged member of the American Taliban (and
certainly made my forthcoming book titled, fittingly, American Taliban).
His ouster, however narrow, suggests that there are still enough
Republicans uncomfortable with this kind of theocratic agenda. Still, I
don't doubt that given the dearth of hotly contested Democratic races in
the primary, that challenger Ratliffe wasn't boosted by crossover
Democratic and independent support in this open primary. Clearly, there
was no margin to spare.

Permalink

[FairfieldLife] Re: Guru Dev - What do we say is a jagadguru?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > In samsara there are two sorts of people - astika (religious) and
> > nastika (unbeliever) - in the world of the atheist there isn't any
> > guru.
> 
> *Not* to get into debating "What Guru Dev believed
> or didn't believe" (because the guy means nothing 
> to me and I don't give a crap), I should point out 
> that the above "intro" to this talk makes a pretty 
> heavy assumption.
> 
> That is, that only those who believe in God can be
> spiritual seekers or appreciate a "guru."
> 
> Not true. Buddhists are essentially atheists in that
> they have no need to postulate a sentient God of any
> kind. That does not mean that they are not seekers
> of enlightenment, or that they wouldn't benefit from
> working with a "guru," if they encountered someone
> they chose to address by that name.
> 


Anyone can choose anyone they wish to be a 'guru' of just about anything. 
Generically, the word 'guru' simply means 'teacher.' Guru Dev was defining the 
meaning of a jagad-guru, not a generic 'guru.'


> Just sayin' that when you're talking to a group of
> people who *assume* some mighty heavy-duty things
> about the nature of the universe (such as...uh...a
> belief in God), you might wanna spell that out right
> at the beginning, so that you're not excluding whole
> groups of spiritual seekers.  :-)
>


The snippet from Guru Dev suggests the concept that the non-differentiated 
formless Absolute is included as a theistic concept - as Guru Dev expounds in 
other discourses on the concept that Paramatma [God] is both manifest [with 
form] and unmanifest [without form] and can be realized either way.

[FairfieldLife] Guru Dev - What do we say is a jagadguru?

[do.rflex]

In samsara there are two sorts of people - astika (religious) and
nastika (unbeliever) - in the world of the atheist there isn't any
guru.

Of the world of the astika (religious) that guru should really be called
"jagadguru".

Amongst the religious there are two kinds of believers. Some folk are
setting their belief in a sakara (form) of Brahma and some in the
nirakara (formless). The one who holds the ability to be guru to both,
those who are speakers of the sakara (form) and those who are speakers
of the nirakara (formless), the very same can be called a jagadguru.

The meaning of this is that; of the sakara deities there are five Vedic
deities, that is to say; Bhagwan Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Surya and
Ganesha.

There are different instructions for worship of all of these and for
those who do not believe in the five deities he can also give
instruction, the same is really a jagadguru.

The person who instructs in the method of worship for devata (deities)
is similar to the lowly paid vaidya (physician) who sets phials of
medicine for all diseases, without also having the status of a
"compounder" but calls himself a "civil surgeon".

Anybody can name their own son Rama. Who can stop them then? But merely
from a name he does not become Rama. Then who stops anybody writing
jagadguru in front of his own name?

But when you ask the mark of the jagadguru then the proper indication
really is this that nobody with faith in any deity goes away from the
door disappointed.

Recently sampradaya (sects) have allotted a relationship of worshipping
Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu etc., this is improper.

In the five deities there is not any inferiority or superiority. Every
deity is similarly capable of dealing with the welfare of their own
devotees, however much a worshipper they are, all are vaishnava, since
all deities are parts of Bhagwan.

Bhagwan states that:-

" GYaanaM gaNesho mama chakShurarkaMaH ,
shivo mamaatmaa mamashaktiraadhya .
vibheda buddhayaa mayi ye bhajanti ,
mamaaN^gahiinaM kalayanti mandaaH .. "

That is, Ganesh ji is the head of Bhagwan, Surya are the eyes of
Bhagwan, Shiva is the atma of Bhagwan, Adya Bhagavati is the shakti of
Bhagwan.

Therefore these five gods are several equal parts, which cannot be
measured and split from one another, and they are to be worshiped as
equals. [If not] then worship is not being done but [instead] the
cutting off of parts is being done.

It is clear that denying Ganesha in desiring to be a devotee of Vishnu,
but he one who is cutting off Bhagwan Vishnu's head. If any devotee
of Vishnu denies Shiva then he is cutting off the atma (soul) of Bhagwan
Vishnu. This is really the manner of someone denying Devi (goddess)
making Bhagwan powerless.

Therefore, nowadays sectarian people have ill-will and malice towards
one another but call themselves vaishnava (devotees of Vishnu) or of
Bhagwan Shiva, has been calling himself shaiva (a devotee of Shiva),
denying Bhagwan Vishnu.

They are not really shaiva and not really vaishnava, they are merely
hypocrites. A vaishnava is really he who is a devotee of Bhagwan Vishnu

- "vishnauratah vaishnavah"
" uurdhvapuMD.hvatvaM vaishhNavatvam "

`Those who possess a urdhavapund (perpendicular marking on the
forehead) are said to be vaishnava.'

This is not a rule.

He who worships Bhagwan Vishnu, he then is really a vaishnava. But also
because all deities are different parts of Bhagwan, the worshipper of
any deity can be called a vaishnava. At the time one is worshipping any
deity, really at that time he is a vaishnava. The whole religious world
is vaishnava.

Those who say that only those who have perpendicular marking on the
forehead are vaishnava, and who call others non-vaishnava, are
unacquainted with reality. They are a disgrace to Bhagwan Vishnu.

Any devotee of Shiva or worshipper of Shakti, if they do not accept
themselves as vaishnava, then they are also in error. Anyone else in
samsara (worldly existence) after this manner he is not vaishnava. Those
sects who voice sectarian arguments do not achieve anything for
themselves nor for others either.

[Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita kaNa 78 of 108]

translation - Paul Mason © 2006, 2007, 2009


Full English text of Guru Dev's 108 Discourses here:
http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/upadesh.htm

[FairfieldLife] Political dictionary

[do.rflex]

"Obstructionism," for example, only refers to Democratic minorities
opposing Republican proposals.

"Tyranny" is found when an elected Democratic majority passes
legislation that Republicans don't like.

"Reconciliation" describes a Senate process that Republicans are allowed
to use to overcome Democratic "obstructionism."

"Terrorism" refers to acts of political violence committed by people who
aren't white guys.

"Bipartisanship" is found when Democrats agree to pass Republican
legislation.

"Big government" describes a dangerous phenomenon to be avoided, except
in cases relating to reproductive rights or gays.

"Treason" refers to Democrats criticizing a Republican administration
during a war.

"Patriotism" refers to Republicans criticizing a Democratic
administration during a war.

"Fiscal responsibility" is a national priority related to keeping our
deficit in check, which only applies when Republicans are in the
minority.

"Parliamentarian" is a seemingly independent official on the Hill who
Senate Republicans are allowed to fire when the GOP disapproves of
his/her rulings.

"Government-run health care" doesn't refer to popular government-run
health care programs like Medicare.

"The heartland" is the most wonderful place in America, even if no
conservative pundit would be caught dead living there.

"Serving your country" is honorable if you're a Republican, but a
subject of derision when Democrats do it.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/022745.php

[FairfieldLife] MIT student creates wheelchair for developing world

[do.rflex]

Some students go to MIT to plumb the mysteries of the atom, or of outer
space, or to press the limits of computer science.

Interactive Graphic  [Leveraged Freedom Chair] 
Leveraged
Freedom Chair 
Amos Winter went another way: He's trying to revolutionize the
wheelchair. Specifically, he wants to make that most familiar aid to the
disabled work in the Third World, where roads are bad, money tight, and
the need immense.

A doctoral candidate in mechanical engineering, Winter calls his
invention the Leveraged Freedom Chair - leveraged because it is powered
by hand levers.

Abdullah Munish has another name for it. "I call it my little angel
machine,'' he said.

For years after he survived a car crash but lost the use of his legs,
Munish struggled to move his wheelchair along the rutted, hilly roads of
his hometown in Tanzania. Frustrated, he often just stayed indoors, and
lost touch with friends and relatives.

Now, with the help of Winter's invention, he has reclaimed his
freedom and sense of connection. He can push himself up the hill to a
neighborhood playing field where he can once again toss a ball around
with friends. He can scoot along the gravel paths of Moshi to visit
people again.

"We believers, we know that anything that changes your life in terms
of mobility, that is something that comes from heaven,'' said
Munish. A 31-year-old wheelchair technician, he is one of six wheelchair
users in Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda who have been testing the prototype
since August.
Here's the full story
  with
video: http://snipurl.com/uqgzd   [www_boston_com]

[FairfieldLife] GW Bush: "Miss Me Yet?"...Well...Apparently Not

[do.rflex]

In early February, it became one of those intriguing little political
stories that gets 30 seconds at the end of the national evening news.

You might recall that it was then that some enterprising Republican
business owners erected a billboard along I-35 in Minnesota featuring
George W. Bush's grinning visage and three critical words: "Miss Me
Yet?"

Well, according to a new poll conducted by John Zogby on behalf of the
right-wingers over at Newsmax, the answer to that question
is...well...no.

  [A billboard along Interstate 35 in...] Photo by AP-A
billboard along Interstate 35 in
Wyoming, Minn., carries an image of former President
George W. Bush and reads "Miss me yet?".
Photo:
http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/20100210/724d06_ltpBushBi\
llboard.jpg

A new Zogby/Newsmax poll shows President Obama would beat George W. Bush
in a hypothetical match up, 48% to 38%.

Said Zogby: "Despite the turbulent crises that face Barack Obama and the
sense of dashed expectations that Americans, especially independents and
moderates, feel, he still handily defeats George W. Bush in a face-off."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/03/08/voters_still_prefer_obama_t\
o_bush.html

[FairfieldLife] Teabagger candidates falling short at ballot box

[do.rflex]

Today POLITICO has a lengthly article out about the lack of success by
teabagger candidates. Basically, it's three long pages of wondering why,
oh why:

  ... success at the ballot box has been elusive for these grass-roots
conservative activists — if not entirely nonexistent.

Speculation abounds as to why teabagger candidates have been complete
failures around the country:

* Some observers raise the question of whether the tea party crowd is
cut out to achieve electoral success — or whether it is more influential as a 
more radical, guerrilla movement.

* The main reason seems to be a predictable growing pain of any new
political movement. While tea party partisans have proved effective in
organizing rallies and protests, they have yet to show they possess the 
bread-and-butter on-the-ground campaign skills it takes to win races ...

* Then there is the question of fundraising ...

* But the tea party electoral losses are also indicative of a broader
challenge: Tea party leaders must find a way to define its platform and 
communicate to mainstream voters just what it stands for.

* As they seek to dislodge establishment Republican candidates in
primaries across the country, tea party-inspired contenders are facing
yet another challenge: fractured fields of like-minded, grass-roots
conservative hopefuls that result in a splitting of the tea party vote.

... but the most obvious explanation isn't explored. That the teabagger 
"movement" is nothing but a collection of right-wing extremists who were 
initially given a platform by Fox News and that the rest of the sheep-like 
traditional media ran with.

The traditional media was happy to ignore the hundreds of thousands who 
protested against the Iraq War or for immigration reform, but a few thousand 
lunatics, that the Republican Party gleefully leeched onto, screamed at town 
hall meetings and suddenly, a movement was born? Pfft.

POLITICO article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34041.html#ixzz0hd1Wjlkg

via:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/8/844178/-Another-Possible-Explanation

[FairfieldLife] Re: Scientology article in today's NY Times.

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of do.rflex
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 9:59 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Scientology article in todays NY Times.
>  
>  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , scienceofabundance 
> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > To get a visual of the "ruling class" in the TM organization currently,
> have a look at this YouTube video uploaded in January 10, 2010:
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Qu7a2lbkw
> > 
> > Having been closely involved with the TM organization for 15 years, I see
> many similarities in the way it attempts to present itself as normal and the
> reality behind the scenes.
> >
> 
> The video clip reveals an incredibly embarrassing clownish display of
> disconnected-from-the-practical-realities-of-human-life cartoonish buffoons
> babbling loads of meaningless horseshit. 
>  
> Another way of putting it is that otherwise intelligent and successful> 
> people have allowed their faith in Maharishi's "infallible vision as an> 
> Enlightened Master" to lead them deep into cult mentality.
>


The result is painful to watch.

[FairfieldLife] Welcome to Glox News!

[do.rflex]

Not enough shiny stones accumulated to pay for the biological upkeep and
repair of sentients? The debate continues

By Tom Tomorrow 

  [This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow]
  Cartoon link:
http://www.salon.com/ent/comics/this_modern_world/2010/03/08/this_modern\
_world/story.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Scientology article in todays NY Times.

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, scienceofabundance  wrote:

[snip]

> To get a visual of the "ruling class" in the TM organization currently, have 
> a look at this YouTube video uploaded in January 10, 2010:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Qu7a2lbkw
> 
> Having been closely involved with the TM organization for 15 years, I see 
> many similarities in the way it attempts to present itself as normal and the 
> reality behind the scenes.
>


The video clip reveals an incredibly embarrassing clownish display of 
disconnected-from-the-practical-realities-of-human-life cartoonish buffoons 
babbling loads of meaningless horseshit. 






> 
> 
> SOA
>

[FairfieldLife] Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

[do.rflex]

  
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? Link to this page
  The
skeptic argument...
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the
petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (Petition Project
 )

SEE:  The Great Petition Fraud: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ

What the science says...
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies
of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organisations that
study climate science. More specifically, 97% of climate scientists
actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Inevitably, there will be scientists who are skeptical about man-made
global warming. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do
you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in
changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009
 ). More than
90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master's degrees.


Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what is most
interesting is responses compared to the level of expertise in climate
science.


Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research,
77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively
publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active
research and specialization in climate science increases, so does
agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.


Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity
is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global
temperatures?" (Doran 2009
 ) General
public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll
 .

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%)
and the general public (58%). The paper concludes "It seems that the
debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by
human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the
nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The
challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this
fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly
perceive debate among scientists."

Scientific organisations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organisations endorse the consensus position
that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to
human activities":

* American Association for the Advancement of Science

* American Astronomical Society

* American Chemical Society

* American Geophysical Union

* American Institute of Physics

* American Meteorological Society

* American Physical Society

* Australian Coral Reef Society

* Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

* British Antarctic Survey

* Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

* Environmental Protection Agency

* European Federation of Geologists

* European Geosciences Union

* European Physical Society

* Federation of American Scientists

* Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

* Geological Society of America

* Geological Society of Australia

[FairfieldLife] Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The Video Series

[do.rflex]

The collected videos of Peter Sinclair's excellent "Climate
Denial Crock of the Week" series:

All videos at link: http://snipurl.com/unzam   [greenfyre_wordpress_com]





MYTH: Stolen CRU emails "prove" (Insert lie/fable)

Smacking the Hack Attack


MYTH: Fighting climate change hurts the poor

"Denial was a River in Africa"


MYTH: The Medieval Warm Period proves climate change is natural (and the
"Hockey Stick" is broken Myth)

"The Medieval Warming Crock"


MYTH: The EPA censored scientist Alan Carlin

"Creepy at the EPA"


MYTH: Arctic ice is recovering

Polar Ice Update:
  Arctic Perennial Ice and
Methane

"Ice Area vs Volume"
 : Debunking the "Ice is back
to 1979 levels" idiocy (see also here)

MYTH:  The climate models are unreliable

This Year's Model
 : Climate models and modeling

MYTH: Climate change is good for plants and crops

Don't it make my Green World Brown
 : CO2 and plant growth

MYTH: Water vapour, not CO2 is driving climate change

The Big Mist Take


MYTH: CO2 is not driving climate change

Sense from Deniers on CO2? Don't hold your breath….


MYTH: The "lag" shows CO2 does not cause climate change

The "Temp leads Carbon" Crock

 


MYTH: Climate change ended in 1998 aka decade of cooling

"1998 Revisited"


Party like it's 1998


MYTH: Scientist Mojib Latif predicts decade of a decade of cooling

"Birth of a Climate Crock"


MYTH: Sea levels are not rising, or not like they said

All Wet on Sea Level rise


MYTH: 30,000 scientists signed a petition

The great Petition Fraud
 :

MYTH: Other planets warming prove it's the sun

Mars Attacks!!


MYTH: Weather stations are unreliable

Watts Up With Watts?

The "Urban Heat Island" Crock


MYTH: They were predicting global cooling in the 1970s

"I Love the 70s!!"
 : CAUTION: may contain disco
music  [;-)]

MYTH: It's a natural 1500 year cycle

That 1500 Year Thing


MYTH: "The Hockey Stick" is broken

Medieval Warming?
  (& the Hockey Stick)

MYTH: It's the Sun &/or Sunspots

Solar Schmolar
 : Debunking the "It's
the Sun" fable

MYTH: A cold day in  proves climate change isn't happening

"It's cold. So there's no Climate Change"





You ca

[FairfieldLife] Where ya' gonna go?

[do.rflex]

Link to cartoon:  http://www.bartcop.com/socialist-potties.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rachel Maddow gets arrested as Al Qaeda sympathizer !!!

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride" 
 wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:54 PM, do.rflex  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > http://vodpod.com/watch/3174087-rachel-maddow-on-liz-cheney
> >
> >
> That was funny.  But isn't Rachael Jewish?  Wouldn't that mean the State of
> Israel is Al Quaeda?
>


FWIW . . .


Q: Is Rachel Maddow Jewish?


A: No She is not Jewish.
Her Mother is from Canada and is of Irish decent, and her Father of Russian 
descent. Rachel Maddow was raised as a Catholic.

On the January 28, 2010 episode of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, Maddow said 
she was "distantly" Jewish during an interview with Tracey Ullman. 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Rachel_Maddow_Jewish

[FairfieldLife] Rachel Maddow gets arrested as Al Qaeda sympathizer !!!

[do.rflex]

http://vodpod.com/watch/3174087-rachel-maddow-on-liz-cheney

[FairfieldLife] Eight BRILLIANT videos debunking climate change skepticism

[do.rflex]

Anyone who wants to have a serious discussion dinner-table type about climate 
change with someone who doubts anthropogenic climate change should watch these 
videos. They are as thorough as YouTube videos can get for a general audience.

Each video is about seven to ten minutes in length.

Scroll down for videos: http://snipurl.com/unitp   [www_dailykos_com] 

[FairfieldLife] White, American right wing terrorists are Freedom Fighters... right?

[do.rflex]

  [600]


Link to cartoon: http://snipurl.com/unifn   [media_mcclatchydc_com]

[FairfieldLife] White, American right wing terrorists are Freedom Fighters... right?

[do.rflex]

  [600]

Link to cartoon: http://snipurl.com/unifn   [media_mcclatchydc_com]

[FairfieldLife] Jon Stewart: GOP Back-Up Plan To Stop Health Care -- The Rapture

[do.rflex]

Watch: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-4-2010/the-med-menace

[FairfieldLife] The Rachel Maddow Show - Best. Graph. Ever

[do.rflex]

Consider three bills -- two of them passed under budget reconciliation,
the third heading for budget reconciliation. Each had an effect on the
fiscal health of the nation, calculated by the Congressional Budget
Office.

The first two, the tax cuts pushed by President George W. Bush, blew a
hole in the budget. The third, the Senate's health reform bill? As you
can see from the CBO projection, that's a different story
 .



  [Best Graph Ever (Modified)] 


Link to graph:  
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2720/4407203486_9cd4a3a587.jpg


- - - Frank Rich joins Rachel to discuss GOP popularity and how
Teabaggers are splitting the conservative vote to the benefit of
Democrats

Watch:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35698968

[FairfieldLife] Darrell Scott - River Take Me

[do.rflex]

You can't not like this . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDdQHbTLTc

[FairfieldLife] Anti-Gay GOP State Sen. Got DUI After Leaving Gay Nightclub

[do.rflex]

Entering the Larry Craig Pantheon  Josh Marshall
  | March  4, 2010,  1:36AM

Sen. Roy Ashburn (R)
It's no good for a family values Republican to get picked up on a
DUI. But substantially worse to get picked up for a DUI after leaving a
gay nightclub with an unidentified man
  in a state vehicle.

That's the sorry state that befell California state Senator Roy Ashburn
(R-Bakersfield) early Wednesday.

[[SLIDESHOW: Greatest GOP Sex Scandals
 ]]

In better days Ashburn, a fierce opponent of gay rights, was fighting
marriage equality and organizing anti-gay marriage rallies as part of
his "Traditional Family Values" campaign.

But he hit a bump in the road -- figuratively, not literally --
Wednesday at around 2 AM when CHP officers observed him weaving and
driving   erratically
in downtown Sacramento. After a field sobriety test, officers determined
that Ashburn, who reeked of alcohol and had bloodshot, watery eyes, was
under he influence of alcohol and placed him under arrest. He was
released from jail
  just
before 4 AM.

Initial reports only noted the DWI arrest and Ashburn issued a contrite
apology
  on Wednesday.  But late this evening, the
CBS affiliate in Sacramento reported
  that
"sources" confirmed that Ashburn had left Faces
 , a gay nightclub in downtown
Sacramento, just prior to his arrest.

The state issued black Chevrolet Tahoe Ashburn was driving has been
impounded at the state Capitol.

http://snipurl.com/un0z6   [www_talkingpointsmemo_com]

[FairfieldLife] Re: The word "socialist": be afraid, be very, very afraid.

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > ShempMcGurk wrote:
> > >> BTW, you didn't answer this question the other day: would you let your 
> > >> house burn than have the local fire department put out the fire?
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >
> > >
> > > ???Why would I do that?  I pay my taxes and expect the services.  But 
> > > even if I didn't pay taxes I would still expect the fire company to come 
> > > and put out the fire.
> > 
> > Okay and you would also want to police department to come if you had 
> > someone break into your house.  And you would want the potholes in your 
> > streets and highways fixed to keep your car from being damaged.  You 
> > probably like to walk in parks that are kept up.
> > 
> > All these things are "socialistic" programs to maintain the commons.  
> > You wouldn't want a privatized fire department who would let your house 
> > burn because you didn't pay them their yearly fee?  Or a privatized 
> > police department to tell you to get lost because you didn't pay up as a 
> > burglar with a gun makes his way towards the room you're in.
> > 
> > And Arizona already has a health care program.  You probably avoid that 
> > so you can enjoy paying expensive premiums to a private insurer?
> > 
> > Nobody is saying everything has to be socialized. It makes no sense for 
> > the family owned corner grocery or gas station to be socialized.  The 
> > latter is the mistake some countries made in implementing socialism.
> 
> "That government is best which governs least" 
>


"A stitch in time saves nine" ...

[FairfieldLife] Republican Jesus on the Persecution of His People

[do.rflex]

  [BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5444646617535839666] 

Cartoon link: http://snipurl.com/umu7y 

Alabama Family Values

* Marry at 14  .
* Marry your cousin  .
* No homosexualist
 s.

>From Gen. JC Christian, patriot:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2010/03/republican-jesus-on-persecution-o\
f-his.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Learning from the Sin of Sodom?

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
>
> OK, that makes it official for me. Judy has achieved what I had thought was 
> unachievableshe actually IS crazier than Tex! Wowwho-da-thunk it!
> 


I used to really think she was a genuine crusader for the truth and mistakenly 
backed her self-superior game - as others have done who've since seen that 
folly.  Yoiks!... that was a painful and humiliating lesson for me as I began 
to see how she continuously tore people down just for her entertainment. 

She uses her editorial verbal skills as a sadistic exercise of 
self-aggrandisement. I vaguely recall her having said it was like an 
exhilarating tennis match for her.

But I learned from it and had the benefit of having closely observed her 
methods, and have come to recognize how she operates as a pathological 
self-superior and self appointed arbiter of how everyone else should think and 
behave by HER standards. 

Like I said, I've never seen anything like it. 


> Question: ever been married Judy?
> 






> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > 
> > > > > OK so you are saying that saying it was interesting that
> > > > > it was ONLY TM people who gave is not a statement at all
> > > > > about non TM people not giving.
> > > > 
> > > > *You* said "ONLY." I said "all."
> > > 
> > > This is not a reasonable distinction.
> > 
> > Obviously it is in this context, because your
> > reading--reflected in your term "ONLY"--caused you
> > to think it was a slight on non-TMers.
> > 
> > "ONLY" is, as you said, the "flip side," the side
> > you focused on, the negative side, the assumption
> > of a slight, so you could pick a fight.
> > 
> > "All"--the word I used--focused on the positive side,
> > the fact that TMers were eager to help, contrary to
> > Barry's vicious slur, which bothers you not at all.
> > You're focused only on slights on non-TMers from
> > TMers. Hypocrite.
> > 
> > 
> > > > Obviously you didn't ask why TMers gave because what you
> > > > had in mind was that they felt sorry for the poor Haitians.
> > > 
> > > If that was not a part of it they are not human.  It was
> > > not a bad guess.  I assumed they give a shit.  Remember my
> > > view of TMers is that they are just ordinary people.
> > 
> > Not the point. Disingenuous.
> > 
> > 
> > > > > > That was *my* point. It didn't make any sense to say
> > > > > > "I'm glad you got to donate" as if I might *not* have
> > > > > > gotten to donate. If you miswrote, fine, just say so.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It makes perfect sense and I didn't miswrite anything.
> > > > > It was a turn of phrase
> > > > 
> > > > Which didn't make sense.
> > > 
> > > We are not getting anywhere here.  It sure makes sense
> > > to me that TM people might care about Haitians.
> > 
> > Not the point. Disingenuous.
> > 
> > 
> > > > > Because its flip side of your "interesting" point was
> > > > > that non TMers had not contributed to this specific fund.
> > > > 
> > > > That was *your* flip side, not one I was pointing to.
> > > 
> > > OK but I felt like making sure my own point got made.
> > 
> > One more time: *I* made that point before you did.
> > That should have clued you in right away that you
> > had misinterpreted my point. But then you'd have had
> > to give up on the fight you chose to pick, so you
> > managed not to notice.
> > 
> > > I'm pretty sure that is how it works here.  I didn't 
> > > accuse you of anything I asked you a question.
> > 
> > I didn't say you accused me of anything. And your
> > question was obviously rhetorical; you had an
> > answer in mind, you weren't looking for one from
> > me.
> > 
> > Interestingly enough, you *still* haven't been
> > willing to state what that answer was.
> > 
> > > Then you demonstrated why non TM people might not want
> > > to get involved in your agenda with Barry.  And I don't
> > > give a shit who started it because there is no real start. 
> > 
> > Yeah, there is. You just don't want to acknowledge it.
> > 
> > 
> > > > > OK.  So now we both made the points interesting to us.
> > > > 
> > > > Except that yours had nothing to do with mine.
> > > 
> > > Yeah that's because I don't live in your head, I am
> > > outside here in another body with another perspective.
> > 
> > You mistakenly assumed it had something to do with mine
> > because you were looking for a fight.
> > 
> > 
> > > > We all had "other channels to give," of course. But
> > > > since you raised the issue of non-TMers not donating to
> > > > the FFL fund, the question arises as to why they didn't
> > > > join in, why there wasn't group solidarity in helping
> > > > Haiti. As I pointed out, none of those who donated
> > > > waved the TM flag; we were waving the *FFL* 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The W T F Factor

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
>
> Yep. I find that trying to have meaningful conversation with Judy and Tex to 
> be equally pointless, other than as a source of personal amusement, like 
> tossing the ball with my dog. It's very predictable but my dog never seems to 
> tire of the game.
> 
> I used to think Tex was the really crazy one. Now I'm not so sure. She might 
> be the champ in the borderline personality disorder sweepstakes.
> 


I've never seen anything like it.


> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Speaking only for myself, your reason is bogus.
> > 
> > There is only one "reason" for all of this, Curtis, and I think we both
> > know what it is.
> > 
> > She'd "laid low" for the early part of the week and had not achieved her
> > normal quota of using at least half her posts to rag on one or the both
> > of us. Now she has.
> > 
> > And it's only Tuesday. I'm betting that once the W T F Factor really
> > kicks in she'll have spent 2/3 of her posts for the week ragging on us. 
> > :-)
> > 
> >   [http://i.imgur.com/reuZh.jpg]
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Republican bipartisan ideas

[do.rflex]

Cartoon link: http://www.bartcop.com/gop-cleaning-ideas.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Millions of women throng Kerala festival

[do.rflex]

Millions of women throng Kerala festival
[Women in Kerala pay homage - 28 February 2010]  Attendance at the
festival has grown year after year (Photos: Haris Kuttipuram)
By John Mary
Trivandrum, Kerala
[0]

India's southern state of Kerala may have hosted the largest gathering
of women ever seen on the planet.

Clad in traditional Kerala saris and bearing offerings of food, more
than two million women - perhaps more - thronged the state capital
Trivandrum on Sunday.

The women braved searing heat to offer a special meal at the Attukal
temple to Hindu goddess Bhagavathy - one incarnation of the potent
goddesses Kali and Saraswati.

Women howled shrilly, as is the custom at the culmination of this 10-day
annual event, and they joined the chief priest in offering their
earthenware pots overflowing with rice and jaggery - an unrefined sugar
- to the presiding goddess.

They were seeking her blessing for the health and prosperity of their
families - and the special meal, known as the pongala, was later
distributed among family and friends back at home.

Aerial count
  [Women in Kerala pay homage - 28 February 2010]  Women howl shrilly
as they make their offering
This is a unique festival the size of which is unmatched - the
congregation at Attukal temple has grown exponentially over the years.

Such festivities used to be modest affairs and the annual gathering was
confined to the temple premises until about 25 years ago.

But once families associated with the temple formed a trust, the
festival became more organised, there was more publicity and it
attracted women from across the state and even foreign countries.

Guinness Worlds Records certified the crowd strength was 1.5 million
when it was assessed for the first time in 1997.

Last year turnout was 2.5 million and this year, according to festival
organisers, it was estimated to be 3 million.

Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust secretary KP Ramachandran Nair says that
from next year an agency associated with the National Geographic channel
will conduct aerial surveys for a more scientific headcount.

It is an elaborate logistical feat: almost 3,000 police, 600 of them
women, were on duty around the clock. Two hundred priests positioned
themselves at different points to sprinkle holy water on the pongala.
Fifty portable toilets were also provided.

Tearful devotees

At Sunday's mass offering, the ceremonial cooking began at 1015 local
time (0445 GMT). The chief priest lit up the main hearth in front of the
temple.
  [0]
[24] There is nothing like this anywhere else in the world. It is
amazing the way a whole city makes arrangements for women to make this
offering [0]
Diane Jennet, devotee
Smoke billowed from hundreds of thousands of temporary hearths and hung
above the city.

Tearful women swayed to the chanting of mantras, invoking the blessing
of the goddess until next year's festival.

Popular Malayalam television actress Chippi was also present: "I've lost
count of the number of times I've participated in the pongala festival.

"And why I do it is because I am sure Attukalamma [the mother goddess]
will take care of me and family till I come back next year."

Not everyone manages to make their offering close to the temple: many
had to set up hearth wherever they could.

People who live near the temple host dozens of women to cook the
pongala. One retired professor of English, MS Hema, hosted more than 100
friends and relatives at her home.
  [Crowds at the temple]  The size of the women's festival is
unmatched
Among her guests was Dianne Jennet, who has been coming every year since
1997 from San Francisco. The collective spirituality she observed in
female devotees at Attukal became the subject of of her PhD dissertation
back in the United States.

"It's difficult to explain. I just develop this desire to make the
journey every year. Pongala is all about community, devotion and
equality.

"There is nothing like this anywhere else in the world. It is amazing
the way a whole city makes arrangements for women to make this offering.
Nobody could imagine shutting down San Francisco for a day, blocking the
vehicles for a women's gathering," she said.

The legend goes that Bhagavathy once visited the spot where the temple
stands today on the banks of the Killiyar river.

The goddess, in the guise of a girl, sought the help of the head of a
local family to cross the river. He helped her - but she vanished soon
after.

In the ancient religious texts, Bhagavathy is said to annihilate evil
and protects the good in this world - she grants every wish of her
devotees. This is also the fervent hope of the women who come year on
year.

At the end of the ceremony a small plane hovered above the masses
showering flowers.

It was the end to a tiring but spiritually nourishing session. Devotees
picked up their belongings and boarded buses and trains to head home.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8544038.stm

[FairfieldLife] Professional, reliable, accurate news - News you can trust

[do.rflex]

News you can trust: http://www.bartcop.com/palin-book-fox-news.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Liberals and atheists smarter?

[do.rflex]

Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in
Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds

The study found that young adults who said they were
"very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious"
have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
while those who identify themselves as "very religious"
have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) — More intelligent people are
statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and
religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species
in evolutionary history.

Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women),
preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a
new study finds.

The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed
scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to
explain why people form particular preferences and values.  The theory
suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less
intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values,
but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are
old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."

"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are
not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not
possess.  In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of
years are "evolutionarily familiar."

"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our
ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for
which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an
evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and
Political Science.  "As a result, more intelligent people are more
likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations
than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations
are preferences, values, and lifestyles."

An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals
were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less
intelligent individuals.  Because our ancestors lacked artificial light,
they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after
dusk.  Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.

In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily
designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and
friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of
genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is
evolutionarily novel.  So more intelligent children may be more likely
to grow up to be liberals.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add
Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis.  Young adults who subjectively
identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during
adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative"
have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive
agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at
work behind otherwise natural phenomena.  "Humans are evolutionarily
designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are
paranoid," says Kanazawa.  This innate bias toward paranoia served
humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and
clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers.  "So, more
intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their
natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become
atheists."

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an
average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify
themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during
adolescence.

In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary
history.  Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually
exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were.  In
sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage,
women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate.  So
being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for
women.  And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more
likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but
general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual
exclusivity.  Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these
sex-specific predictions as well.

One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that
more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such
evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and
friends.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/1002241

[FairfieldLife] The Axis of the Obsessed and Deranged

[do.rflex]

The Axis of the Obsessed and Deranged  - by Frank Rich

...The leaders embraced by the new grass roots right are a different
slate entirely: Glenn Beck, Ron Paul and Sarah Palin. Simple math
dictates that none of this trio can be elected president.

As George F. Will recently pointed out
 , Palin will not even be the G.O.P. nominee "unless
the party wants to lose at least 44 states" (as it did in Barry
Goldwater's 1964 Waterloo).

But these leaders do have a consistent ideology, and that ideology plays
to the lock-and-load nutcases out there, not just to the peaceable (if
riled up) populist conservatives also attracted to Tea Partyism.

This ideology is far more troubling than the boilerplate corporate
conservatism and knee-jerk obstructionism of the anti-Obama G.O.P.
Congressional minority...

Read full article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28rich.html

[FairfieldLife] Conservatives target their own fringe

[do.rflex]

Conservatives target their own fringe

By KENNETH P. VOGEL
  |
2/27/10

  [Tom Tancredo and a tea party activists are shown in this composite.]
The conservative establishment is looking to
eliminate the appearance of extremism within
the GOP.   Photo: AP photo composite by POLITICO


After months of struggling to harness the energy of newly engaged
tea party activists
 , the
conservative establishment - with critical midterm congressional
elections on the horizon - is taking aim for the first time at the
movement's extremist elements.



The move has been cast by some conservatives as a modern version of the
marginalization of the far-right anti-communist John Birch Society
  during the reorganization of
the conservative movement spearheaded in the 1960s and 1970s by William
F. Buckley Jr
 .

"A similar effort will be required today of conservative political
and intellectual leaders," former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson
wrote in his column in the Washington Post
  . "It will not be easy. Sometimes it takes courage
to stand before a large crowd and proclaim that two plus two equals
four."

But for Gerson and other conservatives, this is not just an intellectual
exercise. They have a very specific political goal – to deprive
Democrats and their allies a potentially potent weapon to use against
the GOP in November.

"I don't believe we should be giving (extremists) a platform or
empowering them to do anything based off their conspiracy theories,"
said Ned Ryun, president of American Majority, "because they give
the left ammunition to try to define the tea party movement as crazy and
fringy."

The attempt "to clean up our own house," as Erick Erickson,
founder of the influential conservative blog RedState, puts it, is
necessary " because traditional press outlets have decided to
spotlight these fringe elements that get attracted to the movement, and
focus on them as if they're a large part of this tea party movement.
And I don't think they are."

Until recently, organizers and activists mostly seemed content to
ignore, or in some cases tolerate, extremists in their ranks, confident
they'd be drowned out by the hundreds of thousands of activists who
took to congressional town halls
  and marches
  around the
country to protest big-spending initiatives pushed by President Barack
Obama and the Democratic Congress.

But inflammatory rhetoric such as former congressman Tom Tancredo's
racially tinged speech at this month's tea party convention, reports
of the involvement of right wing militia groups, and the continued
propagation of conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama have
sometimes cast the movement in an unfavorable light.

Erickson has advised new tea party organizers on how to avoid
affiliations with extremists, and this month banned birthers –
conservatives who believe that Obama was not born in the United States
and is, therefore, ineligible to be President – from his blog (he
has long blacklisted truthers, those who believe that the U.S.
government was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks – a
conspiracy theory with devotees
  across the political spectrum).

"At some point, you have to use the word `crazy,'" said
Erickson.

Ryun's American Majority
 , a
group that trains tea party activists and others around the country, has
done much the same thing. Its website has moved to close its sessions to
activists who identify themselves with the birther, truther or militia
movements, or the John Birch Society.

Ryun conceded that extremists are involved in the tea party movement,
but he said "it's just such a small percentage and it should not
be portrayed as representative of the broader movement ."

The fringe-fighters' methods range from censuring signs at rallies
or banishing unruly participants completely to challenging the
media's focus on the fringe and highlighting the movement's
diversity and tolerance.

They have gone out of their way, for example, to promote activists
  and movement-backed candidates of
color, including tea party stars Marco Rubio and Allen West, running for
U.S. Senate and House, respectively, in Florida, and Texas Senate
candidate Michael Williams – all Republicans.

Ryan has 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's hear it for Jerry+Any particular question lingering for the last 30 years

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >  
> > > Really, if Hagelin *believed* what he was saying
> > > at the end of this clip, I can imagine that he
> > > had some problems with the revelation. That he
> > > immediately sent out an email "press release" 
> > > saying what he did...uh...reinforces my take on
> > > him as a "well-practiced bullshitter" above.
> > 
> > You "left" the TMO more than 30 years ago, why do you care ?
> 
> A reasonable question -- and one that I will
> address because I woke up in a really silly 
> mood today, Sir Nabs. Caveat emptor.  :-)
> 
> I don't "care," in the sense that it affects
> my view of who or what I am. I "care" in the
> sense of someone who has occasionally tuned 
> into the latest episode of "All My Children." 
> In other words, from the point of view of a...
> uh...gulp!...former soap opera junkie.
> 


That's funny. I used to watch that soap too. I was hooked for a couple of 
years. I recall 'Trevor' who often referred to his girlfriend 'Janet' as "my 
doll,' ha ha ha...

Then there was that stinker, Adam Chandler, always messing with other people's 
lives... Erica too.

I finally got sick of watching after it sunk in that the damn thing never 
ended. No one's problems EVER really finished getting solved.

Reminds me of the soap opera right here in Pine Val... I mean Fairfield Life.






> I have been fortunate in my consultant life, and
> have rarely spent more than a few weeks "between
> gigs" during my "on the beach" periods between
> contracts. *During* those few "on the beach" eras,
> while I was interviewing for a new contract, I
> confess to spending my lunch hours between inter-
> views at bars that showed my favorite American 
> daytime soap operas. 
> 
> It's not as if you *could* interview anywhere in
> the hours between 12:00 and 14:00 (Euro time), 
> right? The potential interviewers -- both in the 
> HR departments and among the tech interviewers -- 
> were all too busy getting schnockered over lunch.
> Which is one reason I always preferred after-
> lunch interviews. Does that make me a Bad Person?
> 
> Anyway, during that two-hour stretch between 
> potentially money-making interviews, I became...
> uh...addicted to "As The World Turns," and in
> particular its resident hariden, Erica Kane.
> 
> "*Supreme* Being In Denial" was Erica Kane. I once
> ran into the actress who played her in an elevator
> bound for Windows On The World, and my "short take"
> on the actress (Susan Lucci) was that she was...uh
> ...short. 5 feet 2 inches short. I had to look way
> *down* in the elevator to even notice she was there.
> 
> And yet she -- member of a soap opera troupe since
> the age of 23 (in 1970) -- had managed to encapsulate
> onscreen the essence of self-absorbed, all-powerful 
> bitchiness such that in her industry she pretty much 
> *defined* the essence of a Soap Opera Evil Queen.
> 
> I watch -- with unashamed glee -- the ongoing attempts 
> of a spiritual movement that saw its "high point" 
> back in the late 60s to appear to Still Be Relevant 
> with the same sense of enjoyment that I occasionally 
> still download an episode of "All My Children."
> 
> It's a "What could I have been thinking?" thang.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: On Editing

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
>
> Ahhh, the start of another posting week. So refreshing to see Judy start it 
> all off with a post about(drum roll)...none other than BARRY! I know 
> people will be on the edge of their seats, eagerly waiting each pearly drop 
> of wisdom from her. Wisdom about..(drum roll) BARRY!
> 


It's hard to believe.



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Oh, heck, I might as well use my first post this week to
> > respond to this one of Barry's as well; there are more
> > yucks in it than I realized at first.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > "All editors are failed authors." - Samuel Johnson
> > > 
> > > "Every editor should have a pimp for a brother, so he can
> > > have someone to look up to." - H.L. Mencken
> > > 
> > > You may have gotten the impression from what I wrote earlier
> > > that I have somewhat of a 'tude about editors. That is only
> > > partially true.
> > > 
> > > I do have respect for some editors I have met, I have none
> > > for those who got into the business because they were closet
> > > control freaks who wanted to hide their lack of creativity
> > > by being able to "correct" creative people.
> > 
> > First, note again that Barry has no idea *whatsoever*
> > what kind of editing I do, or how good I am at it, or
> > why I "got into the business." (And yes, the above is
> > intended to refer to me.)
> > 
> > Not long ago he demanded to know:
> > 
> > "Why would a person claim on an Internet forum that 
> > they know the 'truth' about what someone they've never
> > met is 'really' thinking and what his 'real' motives
> > are? Why would *anyone* say something that ludicrous?"
> > 
> > Barry Wright, maintaining his claim to the title of
> > Master of Projection.
> > 
> > Then there's his notion of hiding one's lack of
> > creativity by being able to correct creative people.
> > Sounds good until you try to figure out what it could
> > possibly mean.
> > 
> > Obviously, the definition of "creativity" would be
> > important. Some have a very narrow definition, involving
> > the ability to produce original works of art (visual,
> > literary, musical, etc.).
> > 
> > That's fine as far as it goes, but if one uses that
> > definition, it's difficult to see how a person could
> > "hide" their lack of creativity. How does one "hide"
> > the fact that they haven't produced any original works
> > of art?
> > 
> > If that's not the definition Barry is using, what is it
> > that the editor is "hiding" the lack of? And how does
> > "correcting" somebody else's creative work "hide" it?
> > 
> > Just on its own terms, this makes no sense.
> > 
> > What's really going on here is that Barry intensely
> > resents being CORRECTED. He believes, being what he
> > thinks of as a "creative person," that he needs no
> > CORRECTION.
> > 
> > In fact, of course, this is just as much the
> > perspective of the control freak as is Barry's
> > cartoon version of editing being no more than
> > CORRECTION. So there's more projection for you.
> > 
> > In my experience, the better and more creative the
> > writer, the more they *appreciate* correction when
> > they get things wrong or don't express themselves
> > as clearly as they might. It's only the hacks who
> > resent it. (I've had the good fortune to have worked
> > with only a very few hacks.)
> > 
> > But here comes the really funny part:
> > 
> > > What makes me worth my not inconsiderable fees as a tech
> > > writer
> > 
> > (How creative!)
> > 
> >  is that I care enough about what I do that my stuff
> > > doesn't need editing. In the company I've contracted to for
> > > the last six years, we didn't have the staff for full-time
> > > editors, so we tech writers were expected to do it on our
> > > own, or resort to "peer-editing."
> > > 
> > > Now that the company has been acquired by IBM, it's theo-
> > > retically a different story. They have a whole team of
> > > editors, whose job it is to "pass muster" on any manual
> > > before it is released. I now hold the distinction of being
> > > the only tech writer from ILOG whose manuals can be
> > > released without editorial approval.
> > > 
> > > This is because when ILOG was acquired they took a repre-
> > > sentative manual from each writer and sent it through the
> > > editorial process. In mine, they found only one thing to
> > > complain about -- I had not followed their convention of
> > > showing Windows drive letters in lowercase. That is, they
> > > wanted me to write pathnames as c:\ILOG\ODME\Developer\...
> > > and I wrote them C:\ILOG\ODME\Developer\...
> > > 
> > > When they brought this to my attention, I pointed out that
> > > their convention violated all industry standards, *and*
> > > Microsoft's own Style Guide. As a result, IBM changed its
> > > standard.
> > > 
> > > A small victory for writers over editors, but a satisfying one.  :-)
> > 
> > Actu

[FairfieldLife] The Philosophy of Me (First and Only)

[do.rflex]

The Philosophy of Me (First and Only)by Mike Lux - February 26, 2010


Conservative philosophy has been on full-throated display in recent
days. Between the Republican talking points at the Health Care Summit
(which essentially boiled down to "we don't care about the uninsured or
less healthy people, especially if it might cost any rich people a penny
in taxes"), the Senate floor where Republicans held hostage 
 a bill to help unemployed people because they wanted a chance
to let mega-millionaires off the hook on inheritance taxes, and the
speeches at the CPAC conference, the last few days have allowed us all
to see the modern conservative philosophy in all its undisguised glory.

My reaction to all this is that I owe Ayn Rand an apology. Given that
she's been dead for a while, she's not likely to care, but even so Ayn:
I'm sorry. I underestimated your influence.


Where I wrote my book about the history of the American political
debate, The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In America Came To Be,
I neglected to mention Rand. I did this for a couple reasons. One was
because her extreme form of libertarianism seemed to me only one modest
strand compared to the intellectual and/or political giants of
historical American conservatism such as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton,
John C. Calhoun, the Social Darwinists, or even the modern day
conservative movement builders like Buckley, Helms, Goldwater, or
Reagan.

The other reason that I discounted her was, well -- how do I put this
diplomatically? She was such a freak. Her twisted novels extolling
selfishness and cruelty -- apparently based in part on her admiration of
a kidnapper and murderer
  who dismembered his twelve-year-old victim and threw her head and
torso at the girl's father as he sped away in a car -- are so twisted
and nasty that I had trouble believing she really merited note in a
discussion of influential conservatives.

But the victory of libertarian Ayn Rand disciple Ron Paul at the CPAC
straw poll, the strong influences of her thinking on such CPAC heroes as
Michele Bachmann and Glenn Beck, and the increasingly strident
me-first-and-only-me rhetoric of a Republican party utterly captured by
Tea Partiers have made me realize just how big Rand's influence is.


Rand's philosophical magnum opus was a book she entitled "The Virtue of
Selfishness." In it she argues not only that selfishness is moral and
good, but that altruism, charity, and even kindness are evils - a "moral
cannibalism" is what she called it.


Like Glenn Beck, who glorified (to the laughter and cheers of the CPAC
audience) the "lion eating the weak," people who are poor or weakened or
in trouble for any reason are just parasites, nothing more.

Rand went even further, writing that people who place even their
families and friends above their own work and desires are immoral.


Rand and Beck's philosophy that selfishness is the ultimate virtue, and
that any kindness or generosity or compassion toward others - even your
own family and friends -- is so the opposite of what all the world's
great religions and moral traditions teach us that you would think Bible
toting conservatives would run from these beliefs. You'd think that the
contradictions would be too great, and there are certainly rifts at
times between the true libertarians and the Christian conservatives.


But for political reasons conservatives try hard to keep a combination
of these two philosophical strains in place at the same time, a sort of
hybrid conservative that scours the Bible for quotes that can be somehow
interpreted as pro-free market and against taxing the rich.


My personal favorites in this genre include a Christian Coalition issues
guide which argues against labor unions by quoting a verse about how
slaves should obey their masters, and a guy named David Barton who
argues that the Parable of the Talents (which some Bible readers might
have thought was an analogy about spiritual matters) means that there
should be no Capital Gains tax.

The great irony is that the length these conservatives go to in order to
find and squeeze every last verse they can find to justify selfish
libertarianism is overwhelmed by the literally hundreds and hundreds of
verses about helping the poor, loving thy neighbor, showing mercy and
kindness, lifting up the oppressed, etc., etc.


The fact that the parable of the talents verse that Barton uses to
justify not taxing the wealthy is immediately followed by the famous
passage in which Jesus we could all be judged by how we treated "the
least of these" is completely ignored by him and all the Rand-Beck
libertarian conservatives.

It seems so strange to have to actually point out to the modern
Rand-Beck conservatives' movement that most Americans do n

[FairfieldLife] Most Credible Climate Skeptic Not So Credible After All

[do.rflex]

Most Credible Climate Skeptic Not So Credible After AllBy Kate Sheppard
 | Fri Feb. 26, 2010

Patrick Michaels has more credibility than your average climate
skeptic. Unlike some of the kookier characters that populate the small
world of climate denialists—like Lord Christopher Monckton
 , a sometime adviser to Margaret
Thatcher who claims that "We are a carbon-starved planet," or H.
Leighton Steward, a retired oil executive and author of a best-selling
diet book who argues
  that carbon dioxide is "green"—Michaels
is actually a bona fide climate scientist. As such, he's often quoted by
reporters as a reasonable expert who argues that global warming has been
overhyped.

But what Michaels doesn't mention in his frequent media appearances is
his history of receiving money from big polluters.

Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, has some
impressive-sounding credentials. He has a PhD in ecological climatology
and is a senior fellow in the School of Public Policy at George Mason
University. He's a past president of the American Association of State
Climatologists and a former program chair for the Committee on Applied
Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He regularly touts
his work as a contributing author and reviewer of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change reports. (Almost every climate scientist in the
world has at some point contributed to or reviewed an IPCC study.)


Unlike climate skeptics who implausibly claim that there's no such thing
as global warming, Michaels accepts that it's happening, but downplays
the severity of the problem and the role that human activity plays in
the phenomenon.

With climate science increasingly under siege, Michaels has been getting
plenty of airtime lately. Following reports of errors and sloppy
research procedures with the reports produced by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
 ,
Michaels featured prominently in a CBS News report

last month, claiming that there is "no doubt the trust in the UN panel
has been undermined."

And after hacked emails
  revealed that a
group of climate scientists had tried to block skeptical views from
academic papers and journals, Michaels appeared on CNN's Anderson Cooper
360 to debate Bill Nye (the "Science Guy"). Michaels said he was
"troubled" that scientists at the heart of the controversy might have
tried "to hide things" from Freedom of Information Act requests.


He was also featured prominently in a New York Times piece
 
calling the controversy "a mushroom cloud" for climate science, and
appeared several times in the Wall Street Journal complaining
  that
scientists said mean things about him
  in the emails. (It's worth emphasizing that while the incident
revealed scientists behaving unprofessionally, nothing in the emails
undermined the underlying science of climate change.)

But Michaels' credibility on climate is called into question by a trove
of documents from a 2007 court case that attracted almost no scrutiny at
the time. Those documents show that Michaels has financial ties to big
energy interests—ties that he's worked hard to keep secret. Here's
the back story:

Several years ago, the auto industry launched a salvo of lawsuits
challenging the tougher vehicle emissions standards that had been
introduced in many states. In 2007, Michaels was scheduled to appear as
an expert witness on behalf of a challenge by Green Mountain
Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge and the Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers to emissions standards in Vermont.


The auto industry's lawyers planned to put Michaels on the stand as an
expert witness who would question the scientific finding that greenhouse
gas emissions are warming the planet. But it soon became clear that
lawyers defending Vermont's law were going to ask Michaels about the
clients of his "advocacy science consulting firm," New Hope
Environmental Services  .

Michaels had never made a list of his clients public, and he refused to
do so now, arguing that it was a confidential matter. The judge
disagreed, and ruled that Michaels' clients were a "viable area of cross
examination." "I understand that maybe it's a little embarrassing," said
Judge William K. Sessions III. "[But] it's not highly confidential
information."

In a rare move, the auto dealers pulle

[FairfieldLife] Re: Climate Skeptics Are Recycled Critics Of Controls On Tobacco And Acid Rain

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> Yawn.
> 
> Jeffrey Sachs, like his fellow wacko alarmist Al Gore, isn't a scientist.  
> 
> 'Nuff said.
> 



You don't have to be a scientist to report the news, McJerky.



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > CLIMATE SCEPTICS ARE RECYCLED CRITICS OF CONTROLS ON TOBACCO AND ACID RAIN
> > By Jeffrey Sachs
> > The Guardian
> > February 19, 2010
> > 
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-s
> > ceptics-science
> > 
> > In the weeks before and after the Copenhagen climate change conference last
> > December, the science of climate change came under harsh attack by critics
> > who contend that climate scientists have deliberately suppressed evidence --
> > and that the science itself is severely flawed. The Intergovernmental Panel
> > on Climate Change (IPCC), the global group of experts charged with assessing
> > the state of climate science, has been accused of bias.
> > 
> > The global public is disconcerted by these attacks. If experts cannot agree
> > that there is a climate crisis, why should governments spend billions of
> > dollars to address it?
> > 
> > The fact is that the critics -- who are few in number but aggressive in
> > their attacks -- are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25
> > years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific
> > disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special
> > interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.
> > 
> > Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change
> > deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set
> > for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their
> > misbehaviour. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given
> > a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's
> > editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit
> > the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended
> > environmental harm.
> > 
> > Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases
> > backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with
> > the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung
> > cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from
> > coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was
> > discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were
> > causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a
> > nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.
> > 
> > Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that
> > second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting
> > mainly in the 1980s, this same group took on the battle against climate
> > change.
> > 
> > What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong
> > for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts. The truth is
> > that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is
> > companies that don't want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or
> > free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls.
> > 
> > The latest round of attacks involves two episodes. The first was the hacking
> > of a climate-change research centre in England. The emails that were stolen
> > suggested a lack of forthrightness in the presentation of some climate data.
> > Whatever the details of this specific case, the studies in question
> > represent a tiny fraction of the overwhelming scientific evidence that
> > points to the reality and urgency of man-made climate change.
> > 
> > The second issue was a blatant error concerning glaciers that appeared in a
> > major IPCC report. Here it should be understood that the IPCC issues
> > thousands of pages of text. There are, no doubt, errors in those pages. But
> > errors in the midst of a vast and complex report by the IPCC point to the
> > inevitability of human shortcomings, not to any fundamental flaws in climate
> > science.
> > 
> > When the emails and the IPCC error were brought to light, editorial writers
> > at The Wall Street Journal launched a vicious campaign describing climate
> > science as a hoax and a conspiracy. They claimed that scientists were
> > fabricating evidence in order to obtain government research grants -- a
> > ludicrous accusation, I thought at the time, given that the scientists under
> > attack have devoted their lives to finding the truth, and have certainly not
> > become rich relative to their peers in finance and business.
> > 
> > But then I recalled that this line of attack -- charging a scientific
> > conspiracy to drum up "business" for science -- was almost identical to that
> > used by The Wall Street Journal and others in the past, when they 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gadfly gives it -- but good! -- to Al Gore

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> At the first opportunity for audience participation just several minutes into 
> the proceeding, a longtime and well-known Apple shareholder--some would say 
> gadfly--who introduced himself as Shelton Ehrlich, stood at the microphone 
> and urged against Gore's re-election to the board. Gore "has become a 
> laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted," Sheldon said, referring to 
> Gore's views on global warming. "If his advice he gives to Apple is as faulty 
> as his views on the environment then he doesn't need to be re-elected." 
> 
> from: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-10459872-260.html
>


Another fringe conspiracy theory right winger:

...The man took the floor each time a proposal was introduced to criticize them 
and advance various conspiracy theories against former Vice President Al Gore, 
President Barack Obama and "socialists." 

Gore, an Apple board member who was sitting a few feet away during the tirade, 
responded by rolling his eyes and chewing "his gum a bit more distractedly," 
according to a commenter on an AppleInsider forum.

An Apple spokesperson said he did not know Urlick, why he was angry or even if 
that was his real name.

It turns out that it's not his real name. It's actually Shelton Ehrlich, a 
retired Palo Alto man who spoke with the Industry Standard on Friday about his 
appearance at the Apple gathering.

"I don't agree with the proposals," Ehrlich said, when asked about his comments 
at the meeting. "They're politically motivated, and have nothing do with the 
profit and loss of the company."

It's not the first time Ehrlich has appeared in front of shareholders and board 
members of a major technology company. Last May, he came to Mountain View and 
criticized shareholder proposals before Google's board. 

But Ehrlich said he wasn't singling out technology companies. He told the 
Standard that when he retired, he bought shares in a number of "local 
companies," and felt compelled to speak at some of the shareholder meetings.

"I was interested in what I would learn there," Ehrlich said. "There were 
proposals that were made that had nothing to do with the companies." 

Among Apple shareholders, Ehrlich has his fans. AppleInsider poster Razorpit 
wrote, "I'm glad Shelton stood up and kept the company on track to build 
computers and gadgets. If I wanted to invest my money in to social programs I 
would have donated it to the government."

Admiring self-described Christian twitterer Nealcampbell wrote, "Who the heck 
is Shelton Urlick? I think I love him."

But most who heard about the rumpus thought it odd. Tweeted Middleclasstool, "I 
don't know who Shelton Urlick is, but I'm impressed he can speak so clearly 
while tongue-kissing Joe the Plumber."

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/27/agitated-apple-shareholder-disses-board-member-gore-his-face

[FairfieldLife] US economy grew revised 5.9 percent in fourth quarter

[do.rflex]

The US economy grew a robust 5.9 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, 
stronger than previously estimated and beating market expectations, revised 
government data showed Friday.

Growth in gross domestic product -- a broad measure of the country's goods and 
services output -- initially had been estimated at a 5.7 percent annualized 
rate compared with the third quarter of 2009.

The Commerce Department's upward revision surprised most analysts who had 
expected the second GDP estimate to remain unchanged.

The powerful surge in the October-December quarter remained the strongest since 
2003 and followed a 2.2 increase in GDP in the third quarter, the first 
economic growth after four consecutive quarters of contraction.

The acceleration in GDP growth largely reflected increases in private inventory 
investment, nonresidential fixed investment and exports that more than offset 
declines in spending by consumers and the federal government, the Commerce 
Department said.

Inflation remained tame, with the GDP price index revised down 0.2 percentage 
points to 1.9 percent. Prices rose 1.3 percent in the third quarter.

So-called "core" inflation, excluding food and energy prices, climbed 1.3 
percent following a 0.3 percent rise in the third quarter.

Consumer spending, which drives two-thirds of US economic activity, increased 
1.7 percent, slowing from a 2.8 percent rise in the third quarter.

"The second GDP release for the fourth quarter lays out the path for the 
economy over 2010," said Augustine Faucher at Moody's Economy.com.

"Inventories will continue to provide a boost to growth in the first half of 
this year, as firms need to add to their stocks now that demand has firmed."

For the full-year 2009, the Commerce Department said the economy contracted an 
unrevised 2.4 percent, the worst performance since 1946, due to the collapse in 
economic activity in the early part of the year.

In 2008 the economy grew a weak 0.4 percent amid a global financial crisis that 
began with a mortgage crisis in the US housing sector.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100226/pl_afp/useconomygrowth

[FairfieldLife] 2/3 of voters want Comprehensive Health Care Reform passed

[do.rflex]

Americans spread the blame when it comes to the lack of cooperation in
Washington, and, in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, most want the
two sides to keep working to pass comprehensive health-care reform.

Nearly six in 10 in the new poll say the Republicans aren't doing enough to 
forge compromise with President Obama on important issues; more than four in 10 
see Obama as doing too little to get GOP support. Among independents, 56 
percent see the Republicans in Congress as too unbending and 50 percent say so 
of the president; 28 percent of independents say both sides are doing too 
little to find agreement.

As party leaders tussle over the proposed bipartisan health care summit, nearly 
two-thirds of Americans say they want Congress to keep working to pass 
comprehensive health-care reform. Democrats overwhelmingly support continued 
action on this front, as do 56 percent of independents and 42 percent of 
Republicans.

See Chart: 
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/Poll1.gif

More at link:
http://snipurl.com/uj3oy   [voices_washingtonpost_com] 

[FairfieldLife] Paul Krugman: What We Learned From the Health Care Summit

[do.rflex]

What We Learned From the Health Care Summit

By PAUL KRUGMAN
  - February 25, 2010
If we're lucky, Thursday's summit will turn out to have
been the last act in the great health reform debate, the prologue to
passage of an imperfect but nonetheless history-making bill. If so, the
debate will have ended as it began: with Democrats offering moderate
plans that draw heavily on past Republican ideas, and Republicans
responding with slander and misdirection.

Nobody really expected anything different. But what was nonetheless
revealing about the meeting was the fact that Republicans — who had
weeks to prepare for this particular event, and have been campaigning
against reform for a year — didn't bother making a case that
could withstand even minimal fact-checking.

It was obvious how things would go as soon as the first Republican
speaker, Senator Lamar Alexander, delivered his remarks.


He was presumably chosen because he's folksy and likable and could
make his party's position sound reasonable. But right off the bat he
delivered a whopper, asserting that under the Democratic plan, "for
millions of Americans, premiums will go up."

Wow. I guess you could say that he wasn't technically lying, since
the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate Democrats'
plan does say that average payments for insurance would go up. But it
also makes it clear that this would happen only because people would buy
more and better coverage. The "price of a given amount of insurance
coverage" would fall, not rise — and the actual cost to many
Americans would fall sharply thanks to federal aid.

His fib on premiums was quickly followed by a fib on process. Democrats,
having already passed a health bill with 60 votes in the Senate, now
plan to use a simple majority vote to modify some of the numbers, a
process known as reconciliation. Mr. Alexander declared that
reconciliation has "never been used for something like this."
Well, I don't know what "like this" means, but
reconciliation has, in fact, been used for previous health reforms —
and was used to push through both of the Bush tax cuts at a budget cost
of $1.8 trillion, twice the bill for health reform.

What really struck me about the meeting, however, was the inability of
Republicans to explain how they propose dealing with the issue that,
rightly, is at the emotional center of much health care debate: the
plight of Americans who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions. In
other advanced countries, everyone gets essential care whatever their
medical history. But in America, a bout of cancer, an inherited genetic
disorder, or even, in some states, having been a victim of domestic
violence can make you uninsurable, and thus make adequate health care
unaffordable.

One of the great virtues of the Democratic plan is that it would finally
put an end to this unacceptable case of American exceptionalism. But
what's the Republican answer? Mr. Alexander was strangely
inarticulate on the matter, saying only that "House Republicans have
some ideas about how my friend in Tullahoma can continue to afford
insurance for his wife who has had breast cancer." He offered no
clue about what those ideas might be.

In reality, House Republicans don't have anything to offer to
Americans with troubled medical histories. On the contrary, their big
idea — allowing unrestricted competition across state lines —
would lead to a race to the bottom. The states with the weakest
regulations — for example, those that allow insurance companies to
deny coverage to victims of domestic violence — would set the
standards for the nation as a whole. The result would be to afflict the
afflicted, to make the lives of Americans with pre-existing conditions
even harder.

Don't take my word for it. Look at the Congressional Budget Office
analysis of the House G.O.P. plan. That analysis is discreetly worded,
with the budget office declaring somewhat obscurely that while the
number of uninsured Americans wouldn't change much, "the pool of
people without health insurance would end up being less healthy, on
average, than under current law." But here's the translation:
While some people would gain insurance, the people losing insurance
would be those who need it most. Under the Republican plan, the American
health care system would become even more brutal than it is now.

So what did we learn from the summit? What I took away was the arrogance
that the success of things like the death-panel smear has obviously
engendered in Republican politicians. At this point they obviously
believe that they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying
things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price. And they may well
be right.

But Democrats can have the last laugh. All they have to do — and
they have the power to do it — is finish the job, and enact health
reform.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02

[FairfieldLife] Rachel Maddow Exposes GOP Lie On Reconciliation

[do.rflex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sjJPJ2sQaw

[FairfieldLife] Re: GOP Populism

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Cartoon:
> > http://bartblog.bartcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/cartoon-gop-hey-i\
> > ts-fake.gif
> > 
> > 
> >   [cartoon-gop-hey-its-fake]
> >
> 
> 
> Only a racist could come up with such trash.
> 
> And only a racist would go to the trouble of reproducing it.
>


McJerky the Shremp just won't give up with his nonsense as he continues to 
pride himself in his "Greed is good, Selfishness is the only virtue, Me first, 
I've got mine so fuck everybody else" ideology.

He's one of these right wing assholes who because of his entrenched pathology 
of selfishness and greed, is simply incapable of grasping the concept of "We 
the People."

Mr McShremp's OWN "capitalist" company barely scrapes by with a
measly reported annual income of $40k.

He can't see how pwned 'he himself' is by the unrestrained, 
anti-Democracy,oligarchic Corporate run machine described in the cartoon.

>From his real life online bio [redacted]:

___ is a private company categorized under Management Investment
Open-End and located in . Current estimates show this company has an 
annual revenue of $40,000 and employs a staff of approximately 1.

Ask him to tell you about his 'inventions' and how well they're doing.

Then maybe he'll tell you about the 'successes' of the two books he wrote - one 
of them is how to make money [ha,ha,ha] and the other one is seemingly a 
political rag about his home country and McShremp's brilliant solutions to all 
their 'problems.'

Ask him how many copies he's sold.

LOL

[FairfieldLife] GOP Populism

[do.rflex]

Cartoon:
http://bartblog.bartcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/cartoon-gop-hey-i\
ts-fake.gif


  [cartoon-gop-hey-its-fake]

[FairfieldLife] Poll after poll shows American people support essence of HCR

[do.rflex]

The public's take on "the president's proposal"By Jon Cohen |
February 22, 2010 -Washington Post


Determined to push ahead on major reform of the country's
health-care system, the White House today 
 stitched together a series of proposals that have
broad, but often malleable, public support. Of course, many of these
ideas were in the House and Senate packages that have divided Americans
since last summer, putting the focus on the politics of a "reset" as
much as on the substance of the new 12-page framework.

Here's how the items in the plan stack up in the polls, where data are
available. (Some bullet points -- such as the call to curtail "waste,
fraud and abuse" -- hardly need polls to assess their popularity.)

"It sets up a new competitive health insurance market giving tens of
millions of Americans the exact same insurance choices that members of
Congress will have." A new Newsweek poll shows 81 percent support for a
"new insurance marketplace -- the Exchange -- that allows people without
health insurance to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive
rates."

"It will end discrimination against Americans with pre-existing
conditions." In a Washington Post-ABC News poll this month, 80 percent
said insurance companies should be required to sell coverage to people
regardless of preexisting conditions; 67 percent said so "strongly."

"It puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the
deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years." A January poll by the
Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56 percent of those surveyed would
be more likely to back a reform package that reduced "the federal
deficit by at least $132 billion over 10 years."

It talks about "closing the Medicare prescription drug 'donut hole'
coverage gap." In a Kaiser poll in late November, 68 percent of
Americans said closing this coverage gap is an "extremely" or "very"
important component of reform. The January Kaiser poll showed that 60
percent were "more likely" to support a reform bill if it helped fill
the gap.

A plan for a new "individual mandate" is outlined under the heading 
"Improve Individual Responsibility." In the most recent Post-ABC poll,
56 percent said they back a requirement "for all Americans to have
health insurance, either from their employer or from another source,
with tax credits or other aid to help low-income people pay for it." On
this question, polls have consistently revealed wide swings in opinion
depending on the details. For example, a June Post-ABC poll had support
for the individual mandate range from 44 percent if sanctions were
included for noncompliance to 70 percent if a tax credit accompanied the
rule. (The president's proposal features both.)

An "employer mandate" is branded "Strengthen Employer Responsibility."
The February Post-ABC poll showed 72 percent support for requiring
businesses to offer private health insurance for their full-time
employees. A June Post-ABC poll found that 62 percent backed a
requirement that businesses provide insurance or "pay money into a
government health insurance fund." But the new Newsweek poll finds broad
opposition -- 62 percent -- to fines on larger business that don't offer
insurance and on individuals who don't get it (the poll asked about
these together). In the January Kaiser poll, 45 percent said they were
more likely, but 33 percent said they were less likely, to favor a bill
that "penalize[d] all but the smallest employers if they don't offer
health insurance to their workers."

The new proposals also include new taxes on individuals with incomes
above $200,000 and joint-filers who make more than $250,000: "Broaden
the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Tax Base for High-Income
Taxpayers." In the June Post-ABC poll, 60 percent supported raising
taxes on these higher-income individuals to pay for health-care reform.
And in a January Post-ABC poll, 58 percent preferred a tax targeted at
wealthier Americans rather than new levies on high-benefit plans,
matching the rebalancing in the president's plan (see: "Delay and Reform
the High-Cost Plan Excise Tax"). The new plan does include a tax on
"Cadillac" plans, which is opposed by 55 percent in the new Newsweek
poll.



"Within months of legislation being enacted, it requires plans to cover
adult dependents up to age 26." In the January Kaiser poll, 56 percent
of Americans said they would be more apt to back a plan that allowed
"children to stay on their parents' insurance plans through age 25."
http://snipurl.com/uii53   [voices_washingtonpost_com]

[FairfieldLife] Curtis has some tough competition

[do.rflex]

One man band (cigo man band)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2xOw-VXe_g

[FairfieldLife] Death penalty 'on the wane' worldwide

[do.rflex]

Death penalty opponents see executions on the wane   GENEVA   Wed
Feb 24, 2010 12:52pm EST
  [Main Image]

GENEVA (Reuters) - An increasing number of countries are abolishing the
death penalty and even the most active users of capital punishment are
taking steps to restrict it, a congress of abolitionists heard on
Wednesday.

The three-day World Congress Against the Death Penalty hopes to give
momentum to a trend that has seen roughly 4 countries a year, especially
in Africa and Central Asia, join the ranks of abolitionists in recent
decades.

"There is a new trend against the death penalty that is something new
for the world," said Mario Marazziti, spokesman for the Community of
Sant'Egidio, an Italian advocacy group that is one of the driving forces
in the global campaign to stop the death penalty.

The congress is backed by the Swiss government and draws strong support
from Italy and Spain -- reflecting the fact that Europe is now almost
entirely free of executions.

The campaign was given support by a non-binding United Nations
resolution in 2007 calling on countries who use the death penalty to
introduce a moratorium and arguing that capital punishment undermined
human dignity and was not a deterrent.

Marazziti told a briefing that 56 countries continued to execute people,
while 141 countries did not use the death penalty, including 93 that had
formally abolished it altogether.

Since 2007 the African states of Rwanda and Burundi have abolished the
death penalty, joining Cambodia to show that even countries that have
suffered genocide can drop it.

In China, which probably executes more people annually than any other
country, the supreme court ordered judges earlier this month to limit
the use of the death penalty to the most serious crimes. Amnesty
International estimates that at least 7,000 people were sentenced to
death in China in 2008 and 1,718 executed in that year.

Abolitionists hope that a series of countries, mainly in Africa, that
have moratoriums on the death penalty and backed the U.N. resolution
will move to full abolition, while others can be persuaded to adopt
moratoriums.

In the United States, where capital punishment is largely controlled by
the states, New Jersey and New Mexico have repealed the death penalty in
recent years.

Campaigners hope President Barack Obama will set an example by declaring
a moratorium on the federal death penalty.

They also see diminishing support for the death penalty among the
public, now that many states offer the alternative of life in prison
without parole, and the high cost of running death row and executions is
worrying some state governments.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61N4MH20100224

[FairfieldLife] The Lunatics Have Taken Over the Salon

[do.rflex]

The Lunatics Have Taken Over the Salon

by James Wolcott 
- February 23, 2010
Vanity Fair colleague Michael Wolff, though not a licensed
clinician or chiropodist, renders what seems to me an inarguable
diagnosis of the current conservative condition, i.e., they've gone loco
 :

Republicans, once the party of boring sobriety and solidness, are now
the party of the kooky, the cracked, the unhinged. Republicans are not
conservative in the least. Rather, they act out in the most deranged and
dramatic ways.

Having whipped themselves into dishrag fatigue over the
socialist-fascist-satanic-nanny statism-TelePrompter totalitarianism
cheese doodlies of the Obama administration, they've now revived to turn
on each other, writing and pasting nasty things all over freshman
Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown's high-school yearbook
  for voting for cloture on the jobs bill
 , thus betraying everything conservatism has
stood for since the late William F. Buckley first lifted a salad fork
and speared asparagus. How dare he, or as Wonkette's Ken Layne put it
 :

Handsome nudist truck driver Scott Brown was the GOP's BFF until he
started "going rogue" on Monday with that whole "I'll
just give a helping hand to the Socialists, because we are the Communist
Brotherhood" thing he pulled right there on C-SPAN, as if teabaggers
didn't even matter. Why doesn't Scott Brown respect his Facebook
friends and the, uh, Constitution?

Scott Brown is but the latest of the beauty-salon graduates driving
conservatives to spazzy distraction. As NYCweboy argues
 , the Republican Party has become
the fan club for attention-deficit teenage girls of all ages and sexes,
unable to decide between Fabian and Frankie Avalon, infatuated with Zec
Efron one month and all moony over Rob Pattison the next, smitten with
Mitt Romney one campaign and pining over Marco Rubio the next. "[If] if
Republicans have a crisis of leadership, it may be because conservatives
have become some of the most fickle lovers of new faces: as fast as a
new handsome dude (usually white, but occasionally tan) enters the room,
their love of last year's model goes out the window."

So many male starlets have strutted the gangplank, only to splash into
the briny deep, given the nudge by political purists and the easily
bored. Why, I can recall--it wasn't that long ago--when Norm Coleman was
going to be the new savior, with National Review types suggesting that
his inquiry into George Galloway might do for him what the Alger Hiss
case did for Richard Nixon--launch him into national prominence on a
wave of vindication--and then there was that other NRO man-throb crush,
Rick Santorum, and the on-again off-again romance with Bobby Jindal.
That anyone could ever get a tingling sensation from the beaky-geeky Tim
Pawlenty is just so weird, a sign of desperation.

Further proof that the Republican Party's "big tent" has become a
bughouse.


http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2010/02/vanity-fair-colleague-m\
ichael-wolff-1.html

[FairfieldLife] Religious insanity in the USA

[do.rflex]

VA Legislator:
'Disabled kids are God's punishment for Abortion'

RICHMOND — State Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas says disabled
children are God's punishment to women who have aborted their first
pregnancy.

He made that statement Thursday at a press conference to oppose state
funding for Planned Parenthood.

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with
handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the
first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent
children," said Marshall, a Republican.

"In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man,
was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would
suggest."

Marshall was among more than 20 people, mostly Christian pastors and
clergy, who gathered for the press conference in the General Assembly
Building.

They called on Virginia officials to eliminate state funding for Planned
Parenthood because the organization provides abortions.

"We are gathered this afternoon to draw attention to the unethical,
immoral and racist practices of the largest abortion provider in
America," said Dean Nelson, executive director of the Network of
Politically Active Christians.

Delegate Brenda Pogge, R-Williamsburg, has joined Marshall in
co-sponsoring a budget amendment to eliminate state funding for Planned
Parenthood.

"I think that the reason it's gone on so long is that most people don't
have a clue what's being paid for by taxpayer dollars," Pogge said.

The press conference was held by a group called Virginia Christian
Action. Its members presented a petition calling on Gov. Bob McDonnell,
Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to stop
funding for Planned Parenthood. All three top officials are Republican.

The petition was signed by a number of prominent Christian leaders,
including the Rev. Jonathan Falwell of Lynchburg and the Rev. Pat
Robertson of Virginia Beach.

McDonnell has publicly supported calls to cut off funding for Planned
Parenthood. His predecessor, Democrat Tim Kaine, supported funding for
Planned Parenthood.

"Looking at it from a cultural, historical perspective, this
organization should be called 'Planned Barrenhood' because they have
nothing to do with families, they have nothing to do with
responsibility," Marshall said.

Nelson suggested that the organization be called "Klan Parenthood,"
saying that the group's founder, Margaret Sanger, made racist comments
in the 1930s and that the organization has shown a "willingness to take
donations from people who are racist."

According to Marshall, Planned Parenthood receives "about $500,000 a
year" from the state.

But Jessica Honke, director of public policy for Planned Parenthood
Advocates of Virginia, said the only state funding Planned Parenthood
receives is from Medicaid reimbursements. That amount was about $35,000
in the 2009 fiscal year, according to the Department of Medical
Assistance Services.

Planned Parenthood provides a wide range of gynecological and other
health services, from cancer screening and HIV prevention to birth
control for low-income women. Honke pointed out that abortions represent
a minority of the group's services.

http://www.newsleader.com/article/20100222/NEWS01/2220318

[FairfieldLife] Our enlightened discourse

[do.rflex]

  [This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow]

Cartoon:
http://www.salon.com/ent/comics/this_modern_world/2010/02/22/this_modern\
_world/story.jpg

[FairfieldLife] CSPAN: White House Q&A on Obama Health Care Reform Proposal

[do.rflex]

Linda Douglass, White House Office of Health Reform Communications Director, 
discusses President Obamas Proposal for Health Care Reform.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05_ClWR_gyc

[FairfieldLife] Health Care Reform: Obama's Strategy against GOP Obstruction

[do.rflex]

Obama releases Health Care Reform Proposal - (full 11 page proposal at
link):  http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting

A Deserved Trap

Booman Tribune    - Feb 22nd,
2010
Responding to the release of Obama's health care plan
 , the House
Minority Leader forgets to mention that the plan pulls the plug on
grandma
 :

"This new Democrats-only backroom deal doubles down on the same failed
approach that will drive up premiums, destroy jobs, raise taxes, and
slash Medicare benefits," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner
(R-Ohio). "This week's summit clearly has all the makings of a
Democratic infomercial for continuing on a partisan course."
What's interesting about this official response is that it appears to
fall directly into a trap that the White House has been quite candid
about in their off-the-record comments.


The White House is using this summit on Thursday to "shine a light" on
the lack of any serious counterproposals from the Republicans. They will
also be able to demonstrate that independent experts disagree with
Republican assertions that the proposed legislation will drive up
premiums, increase the budget deficit, create death panels, raise taxes
(except on the wealthiest Americans), or slash Medicare benefits.

There's a basic clash that is being set up on the White House's terms.
On the one side, the White House is presenting this as a situation where
health care reform is going to pass. That aspect is removed as part of
the debate. All that remains to decide is what precisely will be in the
legislation.


On the other side, the Republicans simply want to defeat any health care
reform, no matter what is in the bill. But that position violates the
entire premise and spirit of the summit, including its aspirational
bipartisanship.


It also means that the Republicans do not concede that some reform is
urgently needed. That's why the Blue Anthem rate hikes of 39% are being
put forward by the White House. How can hikes that large not require a
response?

The Republicans had already convinced their supporters that the battle
to kill health care reform was won. This puts them in a bind. How can
they concede that something needs to pass? How can they accept the very
premise of the summit that they feel politically compelled to attend?


Yet, if they do attend the summit and they behave in the way they've
been behaving, they'll be sharply corrected by representatives of the
Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, and
the Joint Committee on Taxation.

It appears that the Republicans are headed full-steam into a political
trainwreck. If they engage seriously during the summit, embracing the
premise that reform needs to pass, they'll enrage their base beyond
description. But if they petulantly refuse to accept the premise and
keep repeating their mantra that the American people have already
rejected reform, they'll come off exactly the way the White House wants
them to come off. And then the Democrats will have renewed momentum for
passing a bill under reconciliation rules.

There's no good strategy for the Republicans, which is why this summit
was a very good idea.


http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/2/22/133449/852

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry, McJerky, but sea levels ARE rising

[do.rflex]

Poli-Carp

poli - poly

'Poly' as a prefix, often meaning more than one or many

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/poly-#Etymology


Dictionary – carp, as a verb

To raise unnecessary or trivial objections: cavil, niggle, nitpick, pettifog, 
quibble

http://www.answers.com/topic/carp




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >  , "PaliGap" 
> > wrote:
> > > I may be related to the pleasant-sounding Poli-Carp,
> > > but this other person is surely someone your are communicating
> > > with off-list?
> > 
> > "Polycarp (ca. 70 – ca. 156) was a second century bishop
> > of Smyrna[1]. According to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, he
> > died a martyr when he was stabbed after an attempt to
> > burn him at the stake failed[2]. Polycarp is regarded as
> > a saint in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox,
> > Anglican, and Lutheran Churches
> 
> Good lord. Poor old Polycarp! They certainly knew how to
> put a chap "off-list" in them days. 
> 
> > "With Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp is
> > regarded as one of three chief Apostolic Fathers. The
> > sole surviving work attributed to his authorship is his
> > Letter to the Philippians; it is first recorded by
> > Irenaeus of Lyons."
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry, McJerky, but sea levels ARE rising

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> > 
> > Apparently when it comes to denying AGW, Mr Poli-Carp 
> > supports 'dowsing' as a credential for a fellow AGW denier
> > who has been exposed as misrepresenting himself by the 
> > current president of the scientific body he once headed. 
> > He's further been discredited by the research of the
> > hundreds scientists of that very body:
> 
> I may be related to the pleasant-sounding Poli-Carp,
> but this other person is surely someone your are communicating
> with off-list? You see I have made no such assertion to
> the effect that dowsing is a credential for anything to
> do with AGW. But I do want to say that belief in dowsing
> is no disqualification for valid and reasonable views on,
> say, sea levels (or for that matter, what's on tele tonight,
> who will win the 4:30 race at Haydock this afternoon, or what
> to do about the fiscal deficit).
> 
> I was privileged to meet Nobel prize winner Brian 
> Josephson once (quantum tunneling). We met on a course for
> fruit cakes, the presupposition of which was that a simple
> meditation technique could have earth-shattering effects. By
> most folks' lights we all qualified as first class, 100%, 
> foaming-at-the-mouth nutballs. But most folks would not 
> think his interest in wacky meditation says anything whatsoever
> about the validity of his physics and mathematics, would they?
> 
> But you have no politics or *self* invested in Quantum Tunneling,
> whereas you do (bizarrely) in the technicalities of global
> sea level measurement (a very, very tricky and difficult
> challenge for science by the way).
> 
> As mike Dixon said: "I think once people get emotionally 
> involved in an issue, they don't like to find out their
> *investment* is or could be wrong, so they defend it to the end"
>


The vast body of evidence for AGW gathered over decades and published in tens 
of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers from legitimately credentialed 
professional scientists from all over the world overwhelming speaks for itself.

Deniers of the soundness of that body of evidence, yourself apparently among 
them, are the one's whose emotional investment in it's repudiation should be 
scrutinized... Mr Poli-Carp.

[FairfieldLife] Climate Change Deniers can Celebrate Now!

[do.rflex]

Cartoon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_0010\
_520.gif

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sorry, McJerky, but sea levels ARE rising

[do.rflex]

Apparently when it comes to denying AGW, Mr Poli-Carp supports 'dowsing'
as a credential for a fellow AGW denier who has been exposed as
misrepresenting himself by the current president of the scientific body
he once headed. He's further been discredited by the research of the
hundreds scientists of that very body:

...I am writing to inform you that Dr. Mörner has misrepresented his
position with INQUA. Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on
Sea Level Change until July 2003, but the commission was terminated at
that time during a reorganization of the commission structure of INQUA.

Dr. Mörner currently has no formal position in INQUA, and I am
distressed that he continues to represent himself in his former
capacity.

Further, INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of
researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to
Mörner's position on climate change. Nearly all of these
researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth's climate, a
position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner's point of view.

Sincerely,

John J. Clague
President, INQUA

http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf

= =

Current sea level riseCurrent sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate
of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1]
 [2]
 [3]  
to 3.1 ± 0.7[4]
  mm per year (1993-2003).

Current sea level rise is due significantly to global warming
 ,[5]
  which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer
periods.[6]
 [7]


Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal
expansion   of water and
through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of
continental ice sheets  .

At the end of the 20th century, thermal expansion and melting of land
ice contributed roughly equally to sea level rise, while thermal
expansion is expected to contribute more than half the rise in the
upcoming century.[8]


Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of this century
typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm.
Models of glacial flow give a theoretical maximum value for sea level
rise in the current century of 2 metres
  (and a "more plausible" one of
0.8 metres), based on limitations on how quickly ice can flow.[9]
  and
more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4

See Graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

  [File:Recent Sea Level Rise.png] 



Much more at link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote:
> >
> > I think once people get emotionally involved in an issue, they don't
like to find out their *investment* is or could be wrong, so they defend
it to the end. You got to know when to hold'm, know when to fold'm. Of
course, if you've learned anything from TM, it should be, *let it go,
take it as it comes*. As for satisfying liberal agendas, I've always
thought man made global warming was just an attempt for *big government*
to control our lives via energy, punish success, reward those that
contribute little or nothing. Damn, what would Darwin think of that?!
>
> And also... On this forum of all places (where the
> wackies discuss the wackiest), it seems a bit rich
> of Knee-jerk-reflex to imply that Nils-Axel Mörner is
> a "nutbag" because he has an interest in dowsing?
>
> "The nutbag dowser and liar, Nils-Axel Mörner"
>
> (former head of the Paleogeophysics and GeodynamicsStockholm
> University...retired in 2005...president of the International
> Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Commission on Neotectonics
> (1981-1989)...headed the INTAS Project on Geomagnetism and
> Climate)
>