From the "Where's Joe Mendiola" Department...
HONOLULU--An Air Force B-52 bomber carrying six crew members and en route to conduct a flyover in a parade crashed off the island of Guam, officials said.
At least two people were recovered from the waters, but their condition was not immediately available, the Coast Guard said. Rescue crews from the Navy, Coast Guard and local fire department launched a massive aerial and ocean search for the others in and around a vast area of floating debris and a sheen of oil.
The crashed occurred at 9:45 a.m. Monday about 30 miles northwest of Apra Harbor, the Air Force said. The B-52 was scheduled to fly over the Liberation Day parade, marking the day when the U.S. military arrived on Guam to retake control of the island from Japan. The aircraft was from Barksdale LA. God help them find the whole crew.
#1
...Whatever happened sounds like it happened brutally fast - the crew is actually five (pilot, co-pilot, electronic warfare, radar nav and bomb nav) so there had to be an observer aboard for some reason. The pilot, co-pilot, and electronic warfare officer eject upwards from the flight deck and the two navs eject down from their stations, and the observer has to make his way down to the nav stations and physically climb out of the airplane. God bless and comfort the crew members' families - the B-52 community is a small one these days and a loss like this will hurt badly.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
07/21/2008 6:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Sad news my heart goes out to crew and families.
#3
Mike, it was probably an instructor pilot sitting on the jump seat behind the pilots. The gunner's ejection seat has not been removed, although I don't know whether the seat is still serviceable for ejection.
Unfortunately there are more than a few B-52's in the water off of Guam. May the good Lord comfort their families.
... AND another Vote for the G'damn Air Force to re-open the Buff Assembly Line, the A-10 line, A-6 line and the A-14 line until the Clones & Drones take Over.
/money much better spent that some of the Hot Shot Weapons they are dreaming about today.
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
07/21/2008 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
#6
GUAM K57 AM > seems the USAF + Andersen AFB have confirmed TWO as dead, FOUR as still missing, wid one of the former now tentatively identified as Colonel George Martin after notif of next of kin. Iff this is the same B52 I saw flying over northern Guam, I wondering iff the cause was LACK OF LUBE/FUEL? [Sensors again?] AS ENGINES SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS GRINDING OR "CATCHING" - JUST DIDN'T SOUND GOOD???
#7
RIP. Our local radio, reading the newswire, noted a "Stealth Bomber" crashed. First time a B-52 was called stealth, I bet, and a reflection of media war-tools ignorance
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/21/2008 19:43 Comments ||
Top||
I had prepared the edited version, with lots of snarky comments, when - looking for the appropriate photo - backed up and lost the whole thing. Such are the trials of journalism!
You could work for the NYT. Just remember, no named sources ...
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/21/2008 06:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The two 'major' dailies in Chicago have become campaign handouts for Obama, corrupt local Pols, and leftie causes trashing what little credibility they had left; And blowing off over 25% of their readership NOT BECAUSE OF THE INTERNET. Readers are staying away in droves.
#2
Yes it is due to the Internet but the reason is that thanks to Internet peoople now notice that they are being lied to. In the times of the seige of Kesang and the Tet offensive people took at face value what papers said because there was no channel to learn the truth.
BTW: I have the ultimate business model: sell unprinter newspaper paper to people who need to wrap fish, protect floors when painting or kill a a mosquito, things all who can't be done with computers and who until now require to buy newspapers.
#4
If you were in a line of work where your employer moved you every two to three years, you'd be aware that moving packers already were using 'newspaper' quality paper to wrap household belongings in. I'm sure they'd have no problems setting up supplies for your local merchants to take up the slack in the absence of clay tablets the dailies for all those around the house needs of the material.
#6
That is why Queen Nancy gets so hot on the 'fairness doctrine' (to which the MSM will probably be largely exempt). So that you are forced to have a certain amount of lies in your diet.
#7
I know it's hard to believe, but maybe people are tired of:
1)George Bush is the devil
2)We're gonna die from global warming Climate Change.
3)We are losing in Iraq, but shouldn't be there anyway cause we were tricked so Bush/Cheney could make money on it somehow.
#8
Pinch, McClatchy & Co.: "It's that damned new technology that's doing us in! That's the problem! Our decline has NOTHING to do with people disliking our incessant efforts to shove our biased, lying lefty-lib viewpoints down their stupid throats! Our complete disregard for the truth has NOTHING to do with our dropping circulation. NOTHING, I SAY! IT'S THE TECHNOLOGY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"
The results show that papers carry fewer stories on foreign and national news and devote less space to business, science and arts reporting, and many have reduced the crossword puzzle and eliminated television and stock listings.
If it bleeds, it leads - maybe that don't sell too good?
Many editors said they must ask reporters to cover more beats, reducing their ability to produce authoritative stories. Others said, in what may create a vicious circle, that staff cutbacks reduce their ability to shape coverage to fit their communities' needs, and Ureneck said that coverage is shrinking.
So now they can invent stuff, which is easier and faster.
Still, 56 percent of the editors surveyed said their news product is better than it was three years ago because coverage is more targeted.
It's more of what we think they should like, so it's better.
The newsroom is much younger than three years ago, and reporters are more technology savvy and able to meet the demands of print and online stories, according to the study.
Also much better at crafting fiction, better able to fauxtoshop, and have musch less perspective than most living people.
But, other than that, it's a fine article.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/21/2008 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Why would anyone assume that mashing black pigment on ground up tree pulp would be an eternal practice? I would think that the pro-Gore MSM would be delighted to reduce their carbon footprint.
#12
Day old news, unobjective, elitist agenda.
I'll get mine from somewhere else, thanks.
I don't know how the weekly news magazines are staying in business.
#13
This election will be a referendum on the media-industrial complex.
The public has already voted with its wallets, however, as seen in the catastrophic decline of the alphabet news audience (20% in barely a year) and the continuing cycle of layoffs and cutbacks in the dead tree branch.
Obama could pull it out for them, but it is not the foregone conclusion his media shills claim it to be. In any case, an Obama win would only slow, not arrest, the decline. If he loses, if the most media-favored candidate in history cannot defeat the enfeebled GOP and its 72 year old candidate, it will be a blazing asteroid in the media heavens and the harbinger of imminent extinction.
#15
The New York Post, Washington Times, and Wall Street Journal aren't in a "death spiral". So this isn't something that is generic to all newspapers. People still read newspapers ... when the content is worth reading.
Appears the doc has stepped in it again...
Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.
Dr Rowan Williams also criticised Christianity's history for its violence, its use of harsh punishments and its betrayal of its peaceful principles. His comments came in a highly conciliatory letter to Islamic leaders calling for an alliance between the two faiths for 'the common good'. Maybe they'll autograph his kneepads? Or pay for the Vaseline?
But it risked fresh controversy for the Archbishop in the wake of his pronouncement earlier this year that a place should be found for Islamic sharia law in the British legal system. Dr Williams is also facing immense pressures from inside his own Church of England and Anglican Communion. A gathering of Anglican bishops from around the world, which begins today, is on the brink of a devastating split over whether homosexuality and gay clergy should win their approval. Looks like Trouble in Druid City... I'm waiting for the gay imams to show up in Islam. And the ruling that devout Muslims can have up to four gay concubines at a time. I'm waiting for the ordination of female imans.
The Archbishop's letter is a reply to feelers to Christians put out by Islamic leaders from 43 countries last autumn. In it, Dr Williams said violence is incompatible with the beliefs of either faith and that, once that principle is accepted, both can work together against poverty and prejudice and to help the environment. ...and everyone can have cake and ice cream.
He also said the Christian belief in the Trinity - that God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost at the same time - 'is difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims'. Trinitarian doctrine conflicts with the Islamic view that there is just one all-powerful God. Oh, well. Guess we'd better junk it then.
Dr Williams added: 'It is all the more important for the sake of open and careful dialogue that we try to clarify what we do and do not mean by it, and so I trust that what follows will be read in this spirit.' He told Muslim leaders that faith has no connection with political power or force, and that Christians have in the past betrayed this idea. 'Christianity has been promoted at the point of the sword and legally supported by extreme sanctions,' Dr Williams said. Yeah. We're lucky Islam ain't like that. Probably get a lotta people killed. Oh, wait... I was thinking the same thing last week as I was forcibly converting some Egyptian Muslims.
Islam, he continued, has been supported in the same way and 'there is no religious tradition whose history is exempt from such temptation and such failure.' INFIDEL! Take it back or we'll kill you!
The Archbishop appeared to rebuke his colleague, Bishop of Rochester Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, who criticised his sharia lecture and who maintains that Christianity is central to British law, politics and society. 'Religious identity has often been confused with cultural or national integrity, with structures of social control, with class and regional identities, with empire: and it has been imposed in the interest of all these and other forms of power,' he said.
The Archbishop said that faiths which reject the use of violence should learn to defend each other in their mutual interest. 'If we are in the habit of defending each other, we ought to be able to learn to defend other groups and communities as well,' he said. We can together speak for those who have no voice or leverage in society - for the poorest, the most despised, the least powerful, for women and children, for migrants and minorities; and even to speak together for the great encompassing reality that has no voice of its own, our injured and abused material environment.' Can't we all just...get along. He's saying that his brand of Christianity lacks testosterone, to the point where it's unwilling to compete with the Profit's evil henchmen, so the henchmen should protect him. This is a position known as dhimmitude and I've no doubt the Archdruid will be quite happy to pay his jizya.
The Archbishop did not mention sharia at all in his closely-argued 18-page letter. Dr Williams was heavily criticised by MPs and Downing Street after he suggested sharia law could have an established place in British life. But his letter in reply to last year's Islamic approach, A Common Word for the Common Good, chimes with his view expressed in February that people of faith should be able to work together against secularism despite their differences. Lambeth Palace hinted that Christians as well as Muslims should listen to Dr Williams' message. Officials pointed to the Archbishop's call for 'religious plurality' to turn to serving the common good and added: 'This is true even where truth claims may seem irreconcilable'.
#1
Tough titties!
Muslim Doctrine is offensive to: Buddhists, Animists, Christians, Jews and Hindus...
esp.. those Jihad and death to all Infidels bits.
#2
This guy's an Archbishop?!
He sounds rather anti-religion to me, what's his angle?
A gathering of Anglican bishops from around the world, which begins today, is on the brink of a devastating split over whether homosexuality and gay clergy should win their approval.
I'm gonna take a wild guess at which side of the fence he's on with that.
#3
Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.
And Judism was 'offensive' to....
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
#4
"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"
This guy is a joke, the avatar of the politicization and marginalization of Christianity in Europe. What this man and his "church" offer long ago ceased to be Christianity and more resembles San Francisco PC.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/21/2008 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Christian doctrine being offensive to Muslims is soo yesterday's news. The current topic for discussion is whether believing that His Obamaness is the Messiah is offensive to Muslims.
Posted by: Matt ||
07/21/2008 15:24 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Maybe they'll autograph his kneepads? Or pay for the Vaseline?
Better Ask The Imam™ first, tu. I don't know if using them is halaal, mubah, baatil, or haraam.
#12
Hmmm...and how exactly did the Muslims achieve their victories in Syria in 634 AD and Jerusalem in 635 AD? Did they toss love bombs? And were the conversions to Islam based more on force than persuasion?
“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. ..."
-- John 15:18-19
#18
Apparently the Archdruid thinks that Christianity was devised approximately 2000 years ago with the specific purpose of annoying another religion that wouldn't arise until circa 1300 AD.
(Really, how DID he become not only an Archbishop, but the one in control of the C of E?? Was it an April Fools' Day joke that went to far, or what?)
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/21/2008 23:28 Comments ||
Top||
Kim Jong Il Productions presents...
Pyongyang, July 16 (KCNA) -- Many Sea of Blood-style revolutionary operas were produced in the DPRK for the last decades since the revolutionary opera "Sea of Blood" was staged for the first time on July 17, Juche 60 (1971). Kim Jung Il takes no prisoners in "Sea of Blood IV: On the Spot Guidance"!
"The Flower Girl in a Sea of Blood", "A Story of a Nurse in a Sea of Blood", "Tell the Story, Forest in a Sea of Blood!" and "The Song of Mt. Kumgang in a Sea of Blood" were created with the "Sea of Blood" as a classic model. I dunno. I think it needs more cowbell Sea of Blood...
The Sea of Blood-style revolutionary operas are run through with the profound philosophical nature and instill the truth of the class struggle and the revolutionary view on life into the audience and make a proper combination of popular character and national identity and simplicity. They are characterized by new original ways of opera representation such as the introduction of stanzas, pangchang, dances and streamlined three-dimensional stage decor. ... and Seas of Blood.
The first year of the new century witnessed the 1,500th-performance of the revolutionary opera "Sea of Blood". The above-said five revolutionary operas are becoming more popular as the masterpieces of the era with the passage of time. But "Sea of Blood" remains the grandaddy of them all...
Nearly 300 famous music pieces of the operas are greatly loved by the people of the DPRK for being songs of life and struggle. Drowning in a Sea of Blood, Sailing in a Sea of Blood, Let Us Build the New Tractor Factory in a Sea of Blood...
The above-said five revolutionary operas were staged in many countries of Asia, Europe and Africa, demonstrating the vitality of the Juche-based opera art to the whole world. Hey, whadda these people, nuts?
Drawing on the successes made in the creation of the five revolutionary operas, art troupes in Pyongyang and local areas produced such revolutionary operas as "Under the Bright Sun in a Sea of Blood", "The Victory of Revolution Is in Sight in a Sea of Blood", "Sea of Love in a Sea of Blood", "The Bank of the River Tuman Bright with Morning Glow in a Sea of Blood" and "Women of Namgang Village in a Sea of Blood". Coming up next: "River of Fire", the poor man's "Sea of Blood".
But in the German Chancellery a few hundred meters away there is unease with the Illinois senator's cult-like following and skepticism about whether he can live up to the hype. "There is a sort of Obama-mania in Germany right now, but I think a lot of people will have their illusions shattered if he does become president," an official in Chancellor Angela Merkel's office told Reuters, requesting anonymity.
"Euphoria in politics is an invitation for disappointment," von Klaeden said.
"The problem with Obama is that we still don't know very much about what he thinks on foreign policy, he is tabula rasa," said Rafal Trzaskowski, an analyst at the Natolin European Centre, a Warsaw think thank."We know what McCain stands for, we know who we are dealing with," he added. "Obama stands for change, he is an energetic, self-made man, and that is heart-warming, but we need to know more about his policies."
#1
Hard to get excited when your country is seen only as a backdrop, and he chooses as that backdrop a prussian victory tribute to war which was located to that spot by hitler.
Or going to 10 downing without the British Prime Minister.
The Pope has rejected an invitation to address the European Parliament, amid Vatican alarm at what is seen as a drift towards militant secularism.
A letter from the Vatican said that he was declining the request to speak to MEPs owing to other commitments and his age, The Times has learnt. The rejection came soon after the Pope agreed to spend his 81st birthday visiting President Bush and as his tour of Australia was ending. The Parliament, which wanted the Pope to be principal Christian guest in its Year of Intercultural Dialogue, may resort to a less well-known Eastern Orthodox leader.
The Vatican has favoured the White House as a reward for Mr BushÂ’s acclamation of faith in God and help for antiabortion causes. And to bolster the faith of America's 60+ million Catholics. But for the MM, it's all personalties and politics.
At a Mass held at a racecourse in Sydney yesterday the Pope, who has been celebrating Catholic World Youth Day, told 400,000 worshippers that in many societies, “side by side with material prosperity, a spiritual desert is spreading: an interior emptiness, a quiet sense of despair”.
The breakdown in confidence between the Pope and the European Parliament is a sensitive area and observers close to the dispute are unwilling to be identified publicly. One spoke of the church hierarchy’s “great disillusionment” with the European project. Its founding fathers, Konrad Adenauer and Robert Schuman, were deeply Catholic. However, a well-informed observer said that the EU “has become more and more autocratic, elitist, and secularist”.
John Paul II addressed the Strasbourg Parliament in 1988. Since then there have been several clashes between the Vatican and the EU, culminating in dismay over the removal of “God” from drafts of the EU constitution. A polite way of putting it. The "removal" was done with cold contempt.
The Pope’s refusal is particularly hurtful as the Parliament’s president is Hans-Gert Pöttering, a German Catholic and Christian Democrat. After he was elected president last year, Mr Pöttering visited the Vatican to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. “He had a private audience and gave an invitation to the Pope to address the Parliament,” a spokesman for the presidency said.
The Vatican initially acknowledged that the request was being looked at, but early this year its Secretary of State said that the Pope would be unable to come “at least for 2008”.
The European Parliament has been trying to get leaders of world faiths to join its intercultural year. The Grand Mufti of Syria has already attended, BritainÂ’s Chief Rabbi will do so and the Dalai Lama has an open invitation. The Grand Mufti of ... Syria? The Dalai Lama?
“Clearly the Pope is over 80 so they have to be very careful about not exhausting him,” the presidency spokesman said. He should know. Europe is quickly turning into the world's largest nursing home.
Yet the Pope has made arduous trips to America and Australia. Mr Bush is regarded by the Vatican as far more sympathetic to its priorities than Europe. When he withdrew $34 million from the UN family planning programme in 2002, claiming that some money went to abortions, the European Union made up the shortfall.
Has anyone ever held a press conference in the Rose Garden without the President standing by his side? Barack Obama fears the Blair effect: hero abroad, liability at home
Lest there be any illusions about the desired target audience for Obama's trip, the foreign media, including the BBC, have been left on the Tarmac. Only American reporters are on board "Obama One" as his plane heads from one country to the next.
He will have a 45-minute meeting on Saturday morning with Gordon Brown followed by a press conference, which Obama will conduct on his own outside Downing Street in a blatant departure from the usual protocol.
There will be no Brown at his side to spoil the No 10 backdrop for American voters, even though it would be unthinkable for a British prime minister to appear in the White House Rose Garden without the president. Brown will say a few words later in the day, once Obama has gone. Are there any boundaries to His arrogance?
#5
Scathing article - this guy is not only showing himself as completely unlikable but in the process of his hopscotch trip is pissing off major world players.
While at it how bout a big noon rally at Place de la Concorde without Sarkozy, as said a stop by St. Peter's without the pope, hell stop on by Leningrad and talk about how great Svedka vodka is while you are at it.
#6
HMMMM, I'm interpreting this as BARACK attempting to showcase his personal ability as a potens future POTUS - methinks the real test here will be notsomuch his speech but how he handles the Paparazzi = Media questionings.
#2
The few people who still read the NYT editorial page would not read a McCain editorial anyway. They have drunk deeply of the dark blue Obama KoolAid. They are for the most part supercilious wannabe elitists, thoroughly indoctrinated but woefully ignorant socialists, "useful idiots" all.
#4
Of course, if the Fairness Doctrine had been implemented, as the Democrats seem to want, the NYT would have no choice but to run the editorial.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
07/21/2008 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Hmmmmmmmm? I wonder...
Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win
The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago. Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.
A plurality of Democrats—37%-- say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the campaign. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe most reporters are trying to help Obama and 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help McCain. Among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage. As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.
In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether a reporter would release such information while Republicans and unaffiliated voters have less confidence in the reporters. Republicans and unaffiliated voters are more likely to trust campaign information from family and friends than from reporters. Democrats are evenly divided as to who they would trust more.
A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.
A survey conducted earlier this year found that 30% of voters believe having a friendly reporter is more valuable than raising a lot of campaign contributions. Twenty-nine percent (29%) believe contributions are more important and 40% are not sure.
#6
The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
#9
I figured it out. Fred's software kicks out the word "Po**ograph*", which I originally used in the context of the only remaining skill available to the MSM once the current collapse is complete.
In any case, bias is not really the problem with the media-industrial complex, the ridiculous pretense of objectivity and "fairness" is the problem. Nobody faults the Daily Worker for not running McCain pieces, or Rush Limbaugh for not slobbering on Obama, but somehow the dinosaur media pretend to be different. This only means that the dinosaurs can support their agenda by deceit rather than by open discourse.
The public isn't buying it anymore and the dinosaurs are headed for well-deserved extinction.
#10
Well, that was a fine editorial by John McCain . . . nothing the NYT shouldn't want to print as a news organization (now rather a front line campaign megaphone for the Dems --oh, except McCain isn't bowing down to "Obummer Messiah" like they are, nor is he lapping up everything Obama blabs like the rest of the cult members.
#12
With a state controlled press, you only get to know what those who run the government want you to know. With a free press, you only get to know what those who think they should run the government want you to know.
#1
Bloviating butthead. How about a carbon footprint up his a$$? What a huckster. He is getting rich by selling his brand of snake oil to the donk rubes.
#4
HE's a lying cocksucker, he has a $7,000 a month gas and electric bill. Is he trying to say he buys carbon free natural gas?
No JohnQC. He's saying that hey buys carbon credits from a company he owns. So he gives money to himself so he can be "green"... what????? This makes no sense. I think calling it "snake oil" is pretty accurate.
#5
My favorite was when he talked about how we couldn't go on importing coal!
Posted by: bruce ||
07/21/2008 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
We do import coal, we also export coal
Where I last worked was by a main track, a coal train passed every couple of days going to the docks full, and the next day the same train went back the other way, also full.
It took a while before I noticed the coal going one way, and the coal going the other way, were different color
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/21/2008 18:24 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Paging Mr. Newcastle, your coal shipment has arrived...
The Indian government is quaking thanks to a 'safeguards agreement' it wants to ink with the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
But, surprise, surprise a senior safeguards analyst of the IAEA Diane Fischer, said 'what's the point of inspecting a nuclear weapons state like India'. It essentially means that the safeguards agreement which is causing so much heart burn in India may just remain a piece of paper and not the monster it is being made out to be.
Speaking in the Euroscience Open Forum-2008 meeting on a session on 'atomic detectives' she said inspections are very expensive and the IAEA has to make a 'trade off of resources spent (on inspections) versus benefits'.
The IAEA would rather carry out inspections in states that are on the threshold of acquiring nuclear weapons like Iran, North Korea and possibly Syria.
The immediate implication of signing this agreement for India is that inspectors from the IAEA will be able to visit India to verify and account that India is not diverting the imported civilian nuclear material for its weapons program. This essentially means there just may not be any need to conduct safeguards inspections in India since there is nothing that India is doing which is clandestine.
Safeguards inspections are basically intrusive visits by specialist technicians and are undertaken to ensure that whatever nuclear fuel a country imports is not diverted on the sly towards making nuclear bombs. Since India already has enough uranium and plutonium for its weapons programs there just may not be any necessity for the country to divert materials, hence there may just not be that 'smoking guns' the safeguards inspectors are on the look out for.
IAEA director general Dr Mohd ElBaradei while sending the India Specific Safeguards Agreement for the approval of the board of governors has stated that if India puts one facility for safeguards in 2009 it would cost a whopping Euro 1.2 million for the agency to undertake this task. The Board is scheduled to meet on August 1, 2008 to consider this safeguards document.
It is worth noting that there are almost no visits by safeguards inspectors to the five nuclear weapon states of USA, Russia, China, Great Britain and France since there is nothing new that the IAEA safeguards inspectors can find as these states have a declared nuclear weapons program. On the same lines India is also a 'defacto' nuclear weapons state whether the world wants to give its stamp of approval for that or not.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/21/2008 15:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
U.S. businessman Morris Talansky lashed out at the prime minister's lawyer during his third day of cross-examination in a corruption case Sunday, as Ehud Olmert's defense team tried to tear holes in Talansky's testimony and portray him as an unreliable witness.
In the latest court session, Olmert's attorneys played video clips from police interrogations that showed Talansky changing his account of sums he said he had given Olmert.
Asked to explain the discrepancies, Talansky said they stemmed from "a state of confusion and fear" during police questioning - and he insisted figures he had given originally had been accurate. "I'd appreciate if you didn't call me a liar," Talansky told Olmert attorney Eli Zohar after the lawyer asked whether his testimony "is a truth or a lie."
Talansky previously told police he gave Olmert $150,000, much of it in cash-filled envelopes, before Olmert became prime minister in 2006. Both Olmert and Talansky have denied any wrongdoing.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/21/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe they're queer for each other.
How's that for a defense?
An activist group hoping to pressure the Roman Catholic church into dropping its long-standing prohibition barring women from the priesthood says it ordained three women on Sunday.
I just wore a blister on my head from scratching: How does somebody who's not the Catholic Church pretend to ordain Catholic priests?
Church officials did not recognize the ordination, and the Vatican has previously warned that women taking part in ordination ceremonies will be excommunicated. The group known as Roman Catholic Womenpriests held the ceremony at the Church of the Risen Elvis Covenant, a Protestant Church in Boston.
So they ordained women as priests in a Protestant Church? I'm sure that'll go over well with Catholics around the world.
The group said the three women -- Gloria Carpeneto of Baltimore, Judy Lee of Fort Myers, Fla., and Gabriella Velardi Ward of New York City -- are responding to a heartfelt call to serve the church as priests. A fourth woman, Mary Ann McCarthy Schoettly of Newton, N.J., was ordained as a deacon, the group said.
The Archdiocese of Boston issued a statement decrying the ceremony. "Catholics who attempt to confer a sacred order on a woman, and the women who attempt to receive a sacred order, are by their own actions separating themselves from the church," the archdiocese said.
The group says the women who are ordained remain loyal members of the church and will act as priests whether they are excommunicated or not. Sunday's ordination ceremony was performed by two women the group describes as bishops -- Ida Raming of Struttgart, Germany, and Dana Reynolds from California.
Let's be clear: they're not Catholics, whatever they call themselves.
The ceremony "is not in compliance with their man-made rules, but it's certainly in compliance with the Roman Catholic ordination rituals because our bishops were ordained by all-male Roman Catholic bishops who are in good standing with the church," as provided by the church's ordination rituals, said Bridget Mary Meehan, the group's spokeswoman.
The group, which was formed in 2002, has conducted similar ceremonies in the U.S. and other parts of the world.
In March, the archbishop of St. Louis excommunicated three women -- two Americans and a South African who were part of the Womenpriests movement -- for participating in a woman's ordination.
Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, has rebuffed calls to change traditional church teachings on the requirement that priests be male.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/21/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Group says...
I think only a bishop can ordain a priest, and I doubt if any actual Catholic bishops were in the vicinity...
#2
They can call themselves "real" catholics, but they are no more valid in that claim than would be a hand full of loose sand claiming to be a rock.
They have incurred on themselves, by their own actions, a latae sententiae excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church.
No paperwork is needed. THier deliberate and intentional disavowal of the Catechism of the Catholci Chruch regarding the respect of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and their denial of the apostolic nature of the Roman Catholic Chruch pretty much shows them to no longer be a willing part of it.
THis is a fundamental nature of one of hte 7 sacraments, and now matter how much they whine, its not going to change. This is part and parcel of the theological basis for the one holy, catholic and apostoloic Church. Unlike preistly celibacy (which is a tradition that has been changed at times), this is an core part of the Church that always has been and always will be the way that it is.
What these women have done is try to force thier heresy into the Church by press release.
Why does anyone pay these people attention, other than they are attention whores?
#3
There is already a way for women to serve the Church. It's called being a nun.
It isn't quite as glamorous and exciting as being called a bishop, "retaking the Church from the patriarchy", and restoring the "good" name of the nonexistent Pope Joan in a presentation to your womyn's group, etc. But to act like there is no avenue for a woman to serve in an official capacity is total crap, and these "ladies" know it.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/21/2008 5:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I just ordained my cat and my neighbor's hamster as priests in the Roman Catholic Womenpriests, so it's all good times, right?
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/21/2008 8:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Dana Reynolds is part of a group calling themselves the "Progressive Catholic Church" here in California. They can call themselves "Mork from Ork" for all I care but that doesn't mean they are Roman Catholic priests. The Progressive Church here in Sacramento is everything you can imagine goes with the word "Progressive". Personally I care not who/how/why/when you pray but like I can't just declare myself Jewish and be Jewish, you can't just call yourself Catholic. You have to abide by and be totured by the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and (if memory serves me) there is a death match involved. ;-) No shortcuts.
#6
Its pretty easy - jsut obey the Catechism and so on, and you;re a Roman Catholic.
Don't like the rules? Go found your own church. It worked for Martin Luther and centuries of Protestants. Just don't claim to be a Roman Catholic.
The only possible reason that these women have for doing as they do, given all the protestant outlets available, is that they simply wish to destroy the Roman Catholic Church.
Otherwise, they'd simply become Anglicans or Episcopalians.
#8
While, I firmly believe the Roman Catholic Church (to which I belong) has the right to set its own rules, I do question the legitimacy of restricting women from being priests. Does anyone know the biblical proscription against women priests? I don't know the sources of this long-standing rule and would like to read it. Although, I can guess that it probably stems from the mysgonist nature of mankind 2000 years ago. Of course Jesus took 12 men as his disciples, no one in that day in age would listen to women. In this day in age, I would hope people would know better. Obviously, it is up to the Catholic Church to make the change. One day, perhaps they will realize that God created ALL his children in His image and we are ALL equal in the eyes of the Lord. Until, then I'll keep praying that the Church continues to grow and move closer to His will.
#10
2 cows in a pasture.
First cow, "wow have you heard about this mad cow disease; scary stuff."
Second cow, "What do I care, I'm a super bishop helicopter."
#11
the old testament priesthood passed through the sons of Levi... i think that is the most binding link in scripture for women not being established in the priesthood.
Posted by: Abu do you love ||
07/21/2008 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Just following in the footsteps of the Anglican Church of England. That works so well, doesn't it?
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/21/2008 15:40 Comments ||
Top||
#13
"Ring the bell, quench the candle, close the book."
#15
Allahateme, you could not be more wrong in your reasoning and theology regarding the male-only priesthood.
As I wrote earlier this month:
The issue is twofold - first some say jesus was bound by the prejudices of His society that he was in, and would have appointed females if he could have gotten away with it. The second follows my examination of that.
First off, Jesus had ample opportunity to appoint women as disciples - and he was definitely not bound by the cultural norms of his day. Eating with tax collectors, healing lepers, praising a Samaritan in a parable, etc. He was not inhibited by cultural norms of his society if they were in the way of working God's will.
Now to the case of women:
Women are constantly in His company, on one occasion even privately-to the surprise of His returning disciples (John 4:27). He heals them, ignoring if necessary the ritual purity laws (Mk 5:25-34) and the inhibition against touching women (Mt 8:14-15). The story of Martha and Mary shows that the Gospel is for women, too, and that there is no separate or distinct teaching for them. When He teaches, His parables contain examples from women's lives (Lk 13:16); and in the end, at the great climax of the Christian story, as the male authors of John (Jn 20:11-18) and Matthew (Mt 28:1-10) record, it is to women that Jesus first appears after His Resurrection: they are the first witnesses (a role given them by Jesus, which they would have been denied in a Jewish court).
He even challenged the chauvinism in Jewish law that allowed men to divorce their wives. He does not hesitate to depart from the Mosaic law in order to affirm the equality of the rights of men and women with regard to the marriage bond (Mk 10:2-11; Mt 19:3-9).
Note there is no sexual connotation to these events either. Rather there is a deep contrast to his actions and those allowed him by his society. Jesus, as the Divine physician, either healed or evangelized women on a public street as with the Samaritan woman, and those acts were considered "blasphemous" according to the customs of that era.
Jesus clearly called only 12 men to be His apostles. Judas abandoned his call; when he was replaced, as described in Acts 1, it is interesting to note that no women were considered for his position, even though there were many women who would have fit the bill as faithful followers. Instead, Matthias was chosen.
One aspect of this issue that mustn't be overlooked is the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not chosen to receive either the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood. As Christ is the New Adam, the Blessed Virgin Mary has, as one of her many titles, the distinguished title of the "New Eve." She is a sinless creature, "full of grace" (Lk 1:28-31), who certainly was more qualified to be a priest than any man in the history of the world. However, Jesus came to fulfill the will of the Father, and this certainly did not include given priestly faculties to women, including the Blessed Virgin Mary, His very own mother!
So that eliminates the issue of society and choice - Christ deliberately selected men and there were ample opportunities for Him to do otherwise. So that sets forth a huge Tradition (and is documented well in the Catechism and in the Bible), along with the other sacraments, that we follow even today in the Catholic Church.
The second line of rerasoning is that most who advocate women priesthood see the priest as a leader, and a position of power and guidance, and that those are the primary function of the preisthood. This is your apparent argument, "ahm". And its simply wrong and proceeds form faulty asusmptions.
If this were the case, that its leadership and power that were primary concern of a priest, then a credible and powerful argument could be made for women as priests.
Unfortunately, that is a demonstrably wrong functional view of the priesthood in the Catholic Church and its nearly 2000 years of tradition.
The priest has a special charism, and a primary function that differs greatly from the "social" description above (and what you wrongly believe are the functions of the priesthood)- the description above are ancillary and peripheral, not primary functions of an ordained Catholic priest.
The primary function for the Priest is to be a direct representative of God, configured to God the Father and Son, and attended by the Holy Spirit.
Christ is the Bridegroom and His Church is His Bride, and only a validly ordained man can truly represent Christ the Bridegroom. And its not just any man that can fulfill this role and assume this symbol and relationship. Only those chosen by the God, joined to his Church and ordained through apostolic succession can take up this role.
In the New Testament, we know that Christ is called the Bridegroom for His union with His Church is compared to the union between a man and a woman (Mt 9:15, 25:1ff; Jn 3:29). This same comparison is foreshadowed in the Old Testament (Ps 45ff). Using Byzantine theology we learn that as Jesus is the icon (i.e., image) of God the Father, the priest is the perfect icon (image) of Jesus.
Bottom line is that when a priest is ordained, he is ontologically configured to Jesus. A priest represents the same Jesus Who through His Incarnation became man. Therefore, only a validly ordained man can truly represent Christ the God-man. It is physically impossible for a woman to become a priest as it is physically impossible for a man to become a mother!
The Eucharist is involved as well, making thuis a fundamental core faith issue. In saying, "This is My Body...This is My Blood..." the priest cannot integrally be a woman... a woman is not a credible representative of Adam, the man, the one who finalized original sin and from whose finality the New Adam, as a priest on the Cross, liberated us. He did so according to the order of Melchizedek, the ancient priest (Gen 14:18) who prefigured Jesus offering His Body and Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. This prefiguring indicates that a special resemblance is essential to the sacramental character of the priesthood. The figure, or sign, is not a coating that can be removed and replaced by a woman.
This is not to say women are not holy enogh, for certainly they are. Remember in Catholic Theology, the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers and priests, but the saints. Charity and personal holiness are key essentials for entrance into the kingdom of God. Catholic women such as Eternal Word Television Network founder Mother Angelica, Fatima's Sister Lucia, and the late Mother Teresa exemplified and continue to exemplify this fact quite well, as do a multitude of women who were Saints. The ministerial priesthood is not a prerequisite for entrance into Heaven, and it is not uncommon for special graces that Saints exhibit to occur far outside the priesthood.
It all comes down to Christ's teaching by example, and the apostolic succession and continuity from Jesus and the Apostles to this very day, a two millienia continuity of this holy Catholic fundametnal beleif and core Sacrament to reserve the Priesthood to men as Christ did, not "traditionalism" to deny women status arbitrarily.
#16
The primary function for the Priest is to be a direct representative of God, configured to God the Father and Son, and attended by the Holy Spirit.
And I also note the fact that so many have departed so wildly from the above is a source of shame and disgrace to the current Catholic Church, be they the pedophile predators who used the priesthood as a tool to prey on the innocent, or be they that nutbag hate monger racist Obama backer in Chicago.
But these are very notable exceptions to the above - and thank God, they are few and far between, with the vast majority of priests adhering to the description as given.
Plus, it has been said that the floor of hell is paved with skulls of bishops, so the Roman Catholich Church is certainly aware of the costs of deviation from its core.
Also, be sure to NOT confuse this with priestly celibacy. This was imposed oafter sxual scandals and nepotism trheatened the very existence of the Church long ago. Unlike women priests, celibacy in not an unchangeable sacrament, its is a general rule.
For instance, married Anglican priests can convert AND remain married and still be priests in the Roman Catholic Church, so long as the marriage is their one and only, and they agree to "remain chaste within their station" (i.e. if their wife dies before they do, they will be celibate and will not remarry).
That's where the few married priests in the US Roman Catholic Church come from. Also Eastern Orthodox who are allowed to marry prior to ordination can convert to the RCC and still remain married as above.
Personally, I beleive that eventually the RCC will roll back the convention for celibacy adopted long ago. What I've heard is that the Church might allow married "permanent deacons" (who are already validly ordained and under the same vows on chasitity) after 7 years to assume the full priesthood, but limit them to being parish priests, and will not elevate them to the rank of Bishop - that being reserved for those who are married to the Church.
Certainly will that issue will be interesting, and might cut down a lot of the gay/pedophiles being able to operate inside the church.
But as far as ordanation of women?
Its simply not going to happen. There is no theology for it, and plenty against it.
#17
What I've heard is that the Church might allow married "permanent deacons" (who are already validly ordained and under the same vows on chasitity) after 7 years to assume the full priesthood, but limit them to being parish priests, and will not elevate them to the rank of Bishop - that being reserved for those who are married to the Church.
Interesting news, OS. Hadn't heard about that scenario, but it sounds kind of similar to what some Eastern Orthodox churches practice (married men can be priests but cannot rise in the hierarchy).
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/21/2008 18:55 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Swamp Blondie, that's probably where the RCC idea is coming from, the Eastern Orthodox.
It certainly would go a long way toward solving the shortage of parish priests.
#19
Wow, OS. Unfortunately I can't do your post justice tonight. My first take from a quick read is that you are still making assumptions as to the will of God. Sure he deliberately chose men for his disciples. But why? Can that question be answered without making assumptions?
However, Jesus came to fulfill the will of the Father, and this certainly did not include given priestly faculties to women, including the Blessed Virgin Mary, His very own mother
Where does it say this in the bible?
I'm certainly not trying to argue with you, you definitely know the Bible better than I. I do want to seperate Catholic dogma and interpretation from the actual content. Anyways,
hopefully tomorrow I'll have more time to read and digest your lengthy commentary. Thanks.
#21
Did you go to Mass this weekend? I was a lector, and this was the reading (second reading). It seems appropo to the items at hand:
For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
(St Paul's letter to the Romans)
Basically, you need to rely on the Holy Spirit to guide you (one of the saints) to the will of God - our minds are not sufficient in many situations and our own wills may guide us to contrary positions. "Let go and let God" per part of the homily (the rest being about the mustard seed, etc).
AHM, read up - if you are a Catholic, every single one of these is laid out in the Catechism, with scriptural references.
By the way, Catholic dogma and interpretation is what preceded and grew with the Bible from the days of the "upper room" onward.
Catholic dogma informed the canonical formation of the Bible in the various Catholic Biblical councils of Bishops between 300-425 AD. The Bible is the Word of God as "infallibly certified" by the Catholic Church in the early centuries of Christianity.
Trying to seperate Church dogma and traditions form the Bible, especially things that go back before the canonization of the New Testament, is nearly impossible and foolish, except if you reject the dogma and catechism and traditions and Sacraments of the Catholci faith - in which case you are not a Catholic, and this is a moot argument.
The apostolic succession and apostolic traditions are what formed the Church and the Bible, and have formed the Church since then - intertwined as God's way to guide the Church and the faithful. The dogma and traditions were directly carried on from Christ via Saint Peter and St Paul and their successors.
So stop trying to use one to refute the other - they come from the same wellspring, especially fundamental sacraments like baptism and the priesthood.
As for making assumptions about the will of God, its is you who is doing so. I am going off the recorded actions of Christ, and their context, and not trying to project some moderist alteration onto them.
I do not claim to know the will of God, only what I have seen and read. The Bible warns against attempts to do otherwise.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your way and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:8-9
Its YOU who are making assumptions about God's will in ordaining women as priests. I am quoting the actions of Christ and two millenia of faith, tradition and scholarship behind it, instead of projecting bad modern mush-headed "feel good" "everyone is equal" pseudo-theology onto them.
Everyone is NOT equal, get that into the worldview. The thing you have confused in terms of "equality" is that God loves and forgives us, and will save us equally. But we are not all equal - each of us is given according to what God's will is for us, assuming we bend to His will. Sometimes its nice, sometimes its hard. But its the narrow gate by which we enter the Kingdom.
Finally I object to you requiring me to "prove" things while you sit back and only question.
That's an old propaganda trick, with you presuming your (false) position is true and pushing the accusation and burden of proof (wrongly) onto the other party.
Sorry, I see through it. And I reject it.
Recall that it is not me challenging you - its YOU bringing your challenge to two milleniia of apostolic succession and truth.
So its up to YOU to first refute Christ's actions and the arguments presented.
How about this: Start with trying to refute the dogma of "in persona Christi" which is fundamental to Catholicism and several Sacraments, including Holy Orders (preisthood), Baptism, and Eucharist. Its also only one of the many theological bases I presented for a male only priesthood.
When you finish with that then proceed to the other parts of the argument.
Again, its up to YOU to first refute Christ's actions and the arguments presented.
When you do that credibly, then come back to and tell where it says to ordain women as priest in word and deed in the New Testament.
Lotsa luck trying to do what hasn't been done in 2 millinea.
If you cannot do so, then you are faced with a dilemma. Either "let go and let God", and have faith in the Catholic Church, or abandon Catholicism because you cannot bend to the things required of faithful Catholics, namely being well catechised (read the catechism), and having faithin God and fiath that He guides His Church, the one, holy,catholic and apostolic Church (remember your creed you say every Sunday in Mass).
Lest you think I came up with all this on my own, I didn't. Its the result of some good teaching in catechetics and bit of basic apologetics form a Capuchin Monk who was one of my best friends on this world (and in the next, God willing).
I'm not all that smart, I just have shoulders of two millenia giants to ride upon.
You might want to consider the following from Proverbs. Sure, its easier said than done, but still a worthwhile activity to attempt.
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." (Proverbs 3:5, 6)
#22
TW, thats very true - our belief is that Protestants have each taken the fragments of Christianity they liked when they split from the mother Church. We, on the other hand, still have the whole of the faith.
Others disagree with that, but that's stuff for theology school.
Ecuminism is one of the bigger objectives of the modern Catholic Church. That means the Protestants are not condemned, as long as the basic Christian precepts are met.
Its not that high a wall for most denominations: the birth life death resurrection and divinity of Jesus, the unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (the Trinity), baptism, profession of faith, regular prayer, regular worship of God, personal confession of sins and reconciliation with God, and over-all a willing submission to the will of God.
Those are pretty much the core of any truly Christian denomination, and they do share that with Catholicism.
The other differences and errors (such as sola scriptura, and sola fide) are what the doctrine of purgatory solves.
(I'll not get into the relationship with non-Christian religons, and those who never got the chance to "hear the Gospel" - those are intricate theological arguments and not really germane to this topic)
WASHINGTON — The political vision of a summer gas tax holiday died a quick death in Congress, losing to a view that federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel will have to go up if they go anywhere.
Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs.
Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel.
"We'll put all things on the table," Oberstar said, but the gas tax "is the cornerstone. Nothing else will work without the underpinning of the higher user fee gas tax."
With gas prices setting records daily, Republican presidential hopeful John McCain and former Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton called for a 90-day suspension of the federal fuel tax to give drivers a little relief at the pump. The fuel taxes go into the Highway Trust Fund, which is used for road construction and repair and mass transit. Clinton suggested making up for the loss by imposing a windfall profit tax on oil companies, an idea that Republicans rejected.
McCain said the money could come out of the general Treasury fund, in effect adding to the federal deficit, and is still getting mileage from the idea. "Some economists don't think much of my gas tax holiday," he said in a speech this month. "But the American people like it, and so do small business owners."
If the GOP leadership had any guts and brains, they'd use the obstructionism, corruption, pork, etc, against the dems, and ice that cake with this tax hike.
That woudl be enought to get peopel to vote GOP - thats also if the GOP leadership had bothered to put in solid candidates instead of these RINO clones it keeps trying to push.
#4
It's all part of the plan to get us off oil (foreign and domestic) by making it too expensive.
And it'll work - eventually....
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/21/2008 5:56 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Oil prices have at least temporarily peaked and fallen back close to 10%; gas prices 'should' follow on the next tanker load delivered. It would be the perfect time to 'reconfigure' the gas tax so that the consumer does not see it at the pump - instead prices will drop but by less than they should, and the consumer will be angry at the oil companies rather than the government.
In truth, the government actually has a point - it is difficult to budget long-term construction projects on unexpected rapidly changing revenues - but does anyone believe that a percent based tax would work any better? If such had been the case a year ago we would be hearing about grandiose plans to spend the windfall to buy our votes, and then we would be asked for a higher percentage whenever prices dropped back. (And they probably would roll back part of the windfall in return for votes.)
Posted by: Menhaden S ||
07/21/2008 7:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
A sliding gas tax would be nice. We can afford to pay more tax when gas is cheaper, ease up off us when it is higher.
#7
even if funding had remained the same, there has been a huge hit in the deliverable end products due to the enormous rise in concrete, asphalt, and steel prices. Just can't build as much with the funds available. Trouble is, if they raise the taxes, there's no ensuring that the money will be spent on priority projects and not the Robt KKK Byrd parkway with the fools in charge. Oberstar is an idiot
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/21/2008 8:25 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Unfortunately the GOP leadership doesn't seem to have any guts or brains.
#9
If the government does not have the money to continue over budget projects then they should stop. Taxes should not be increased to pay for the increased cost. Here in NJ it all goes to graft anyway.
#10
If we had any leadership in the GOP, it would be a landslide election year for them. The dhimocrats are ripe for pounding with their failure on every aspect of their party platform. As it stands now, we might only just have parity when it comes to seat swapping.
#11
The fact is, economic efficiency requires resources be priced at marginal cost, and marginal cost includes the depreciation of roads and bridges, as well as the damage done to vehicles by poorly maintained infrastructure, excess deaths and injuries, and time wasted. Marginal cost is proportional to weight and miles driven, and miles driven is roughly proportional to the amount of gasoline consumed.
#15
How about just SHOOT all current politicians, and establish a rule that no lawyer can run for public office (conflict of interest). I'm not sure doctors, dentists, engineers, or truck drivers would be any better, but they sure as he$$ can be any worse.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/21/2008 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Raise taxes on gas. Lower gas prices. So simple you'd think it would be obvious to everyone.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
07/21/2008 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Perhaps this effing congress could streamline their allowance instead of stealing from the parent's purse/wallet. If my kids acted like this there would be a spanking of high magnitude.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
An activist group hoping to pressure the Roman Catholic church into dropping its long-standing prohibition barring women from the priesthood says it ordained three women on Sunday. 
