Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

Deep down in the most patriotic bones of my body, I feel betrayed by God tonight. I thought, as George W. Bush said, that God was on our side in the struggle against evildoers. Now I can see that God is nothing more than another Islamofascist!

I was reading my Holy Bible, which all American patriots must do, when I found a disturbing, anti-American verse in the book of Leviticus. Take a look at what it says:

“These are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle..”

God is saying that eagles are abominations! As Stephen Colbert has rightly showed us all, anyone who loves the American bald eagle is a good, patriotic citizen. It logically follows that if someone does not love the American bald eagle is anti-patriotic and anti-American.

Here is Biblical proof that God hates all eagles! He calls them an abomination!

George W. Bush spoke the truth when he said, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us!” We see that God hates eagles, and therefore stands against America.

We all know who stands against America. It’s the evildoers - in other words, the Islamofascists! Thus, I have arrived at the unavoidable conclusion that God is an Islamofascist!

Why did God attack America on September 11, 2001? Why does God hate America?

November 2, 2007 - Friday

1678 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3845
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28385

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 75971
(MAXIMUM): 82776
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $465,145,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

‘lo and behold, what do I find when I wake up and log into Yahoo this morning?

(link)

Bush vetoes water projects bill
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago

An increasingly confrontational President Bush on Friday vetoed a bill authorizing hundreds of popular water projects even though lawmakers can count enough votes to override him.

Bush brushed aside significant objections from Capitol Hill, even from Republicans, in thwarting legislation that provides money for projects like repairing hurricane damage, restoring wetlands and preventing flooding in communities across the nation.

This level of opposition virtually assured that Bush would have a veto overridden for the first time in his presidency. He has used the veto very sparingly for most of the time he has been in office, but has made more use of it recently.

“When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

“More than two years after failing to respond to the devastation and destruction of Hurricane Katrina, he is refusing to fund important projects guided by the Army Corps of Engineers that are essential to protecting the people of the Gulf Coast region.”

The $23 billion water bill passed in both chambers of Congress by well more than the two-thirds majority needed to vacate a veto and make the bill law.

Bush objected to the $9 billion in projects added during negotiations between the House and Senate. He hoped that his action, even though it is sure not to hold, would cast him as a friend to conservatives who demand a tighter rein on federal spending.

But Bush never vetoed spending bills under the Republican Congress, despite budgetary increases then, too. Attempting to demonstrate fiscal toughness now, in the seventh year of his presidency, carried the risk being criticized for doing too little, too late or as waging a transparently partisan attack against the Democrats who now run Capitol Hill.

The president took the gamble, making it part of a broader effort to more pointedly and frequently take on Democratic leaders.

The legislation originally approved by the Senate would have cost $14 billion and the House version would have totaled $15 billion. Bush and a few Republicans complained that the final version was larded with unneeded pet projects pushed by individual lawmakers — sending the overall cost of the bill much higher.

“Only in Washington could the House take a $14 billion bill into a conference with the Senate’s $15 billion bill and emerge with a compromise that costs taxpayers over $23 billion,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino.

She also said Bush vetoed the bill because it is “fiscally irresponsible” and falls outside the scope of the Army Corps’ mission.

Critics noted that the bill piles more work on the Army Corps of Engineers, which already has a backlog of $58 billion worth of projects and an annual budget of only about $2 billion to address them.

If Bush is overridden, the measure would give a green light to projects in virtually every state. It only authorizes the projects; the actual funding must be approved separately.

The authorizations include:

_$3.6 billion for major wetlands and other coastal restoration, flood control and dredging projects for Louisiana, a state where coastal erosion and storms have resulted in the disappearance of huge areas of land;

_nearly $2 billion for the restoration of the Florida Everglades;

_nearly $2 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to build seven new locks on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers;

_$7 billion for various projects related to hurricane mitigation in Mississippi and Louisiana, including assuring 100-year levee protection in New Orleans;

_hundreds of smaller dredging, wetlands restoration and flood control projects across the country.

The Congressional Budget office says the bill includes projects that, if fully funded, would cost $11.2 billion over the next four years and $12 billion in the decade after that. The bill also calls for increased oversight of the Corps, requiring an outside review of water construction projects.

The veto was Bush’s fifth. Four of those have come since Democrats took over Congress in January, but this one was unusual because it also pits the president against a sizable number of lawmakers from his own party. Previous Bush vetoes include two of bills allowing expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells, and a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq.

Last month, Bush vetoed a major expansion of a children’s health insurance program, also over objections from some Republicans. But he has far more partisan unity on that issue than on the water projects bill. It was the first time Bush went into a veto knowing it was a futile effort. This turns the tables somewhat on him, as he has been criticizing Democrats almost daily for wasting time by passing legislation they knew he would not accept.

Isn’t it funny that now that there’s a Democratic majority in Congress Bush is finally taking the packaging off his veto pen? Ain’t it also funny that Bush considers things that will cost around 14 billion over the next 14 years to help fix some badly needed things is “fiscally irresponsible” and yet I just found an article that report economists are speculating that the war in Iraq could balloon to over $1 TRILLION dollars. Whether that is true or not that same article is reporting that the daily cost is over $200 million a day.

Which is fiscally irresponsible? Adding in things to help protect American citizens from natural disasters and restore the environment for $14 billion, or continue an occupation of a foreign nation that serves as nothing but a black hole for the economy and is turning this into the most expensive military campaign in American history?

You want to be fiscally responsible? Pull troops out of Iraq and STOP GIVING TAX BREAKS TO COMPANIES FOR OUTSOURCING AMERICAN JOBS!

I’m participating in the National Novel Writing Month challenge for this year, in which the goal is to write 50,000 words of a fictional novel between November 1 and November 30, 2007. The goal is quantity, not quality, something that is designed to smash down the perfectionist’s writer’s block. I’m giving it a shot for the first time in my life. I’ve never so much as written a fictional short story, so this will be a real challenge and growth experience.

Here’s a fragment from yesterday’s writing:

“Why did he have to give me a name like ‘Bingley?’” asked the boy over a dinner of chicken drumsticks, jasmine rice and green peppers an hour and a half later.

With a teenager in the house, Carl had learned the value of maintaining what he called “meal sets” at the ready for deployment at a moment’s notice. Not only could a kid in high school be occasionally too moody to come down for a scheduled dinner, but there were the second breakfasts, the midnight snacks, and the unannounced visitors who seemed to have a way of nudging a space open at the dinner table. Carl didn’t mind this challenge; on the contrary, he seemed to savor it as a test of his abilities as a parental surrogate not just for Bingley but for all the kids who found their way to his kitchen.

When he was growing up, Carl’s mother on occasion would tell him stories about his grandfather, who would bring all sorts of what she’d call “characters” home for dinner without so much as a phone call. Grandma would complain around the edges, but she always seemed to be able to pull a meal together out of the contents in the pantry, no matter how meager they were. Any complaints by Carl as a boy when he was denied a wanted toy were met by his mother’s story about the potato – one large russet potato split six ways to feed a family of four and two homeless guests.

Even now, the bare mention of the potato story would prompt Carl to roll his eyes. Nevertheless, the tale’s repetition had accomplished its intended purpose in setting a standard for Carl to meet in his domestic life as an adult. “Just in case,” Carl would mutter to himself at the grocery store when he encountered an unnecessary item that might prove useful in the future. A pork tenderloin that surely would fit in the basement freezer. A head of cabbage; now that would keep from wilting or rotting longer than most other fresh vegetables. Packets of ramen would do in a pinch, too, as long as there was some green onion, some leftover chicken to shred, and maybe an egg to scramble into it.

Carl didn’t stock his kitchen like this for the hobos. Really, Carl had no idea how he would even find people to help out like that. Maybe homeless travelers didn’t make themselves public like they used to; almost nobody hitchhiked any more or stayed in the parks past dawn. Maybe Carl’s grandfather’d just had the knack, or maybe he’d had an open face. Or maybe it was Carl who had an unusual deficit in that regard. Carl had joked more a few too many times to his friends that he wouldn’t know how to find recreational drugs if he’d even wanted to try them, or how to find a prostitute if he’d been feeling lonely and inclined. His friends would to pause a few uncomfortable seconds before bringing up another more wholesome subject.

No, Carl wouldn’t know how to find such people to bring home for dinner. The way it had worked instead was that the kids found Carl. He’d stocked his kitchen well-enough, and treated area kids to delicious snacks and meals at odd times of the day for long enough, that eventually one of those kids would get locked out of the house accidentally and just know where to go until mom came home with her extra key. From there it was a combination of word spreading from friend to friend and the acceleration of events. From a kid getting locked out accidentally, to a kid who’d gotten drunk and didn’t want to face the music at home just yet, to a kid needing refuge from fights at school, to a kid getting locked out on purpose, to a kid finding refuge from getting knocked around at home. Because Carl worked from home, his kitchen was pretty much always open, and he just wasn’t the kind of man to say no to someone with a need. With some of the kids, he’d never even get to know their name; they’d just come in on the trails of someone else and drift out before anybody noticed. Some of the kids would stick around a while longer.

If I can write this dreck, surely you can write something better. Go ahead, give it a shot.

New York’s senior US Senator, Charles Schumer, just lost my vote. He is supporting the nomination of Michael Mukasey to become Attorney General of the United States, even though Mukasey flatly refused to tell the U.S. Senate whether he will regard waterboarding is a form of torture.

The problems are twofold:

1. Michael Mukasey directly insulted the right of the Senate to practice oversight and to be anything but a rubber stamp in the confirmation process
2. Michael Mukasey has implicitly endorsed a form of torture. That’s illegal. The new Attorney General of the United States is going to be endorsing, if not directing, criminal behavior on the part of the government.

Thanks to Charles Schumer, this will pass. Senator Schumer makes a weak Senate the new status quo.

This is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It started with Chuck Schumer’s decision to help George W. Bush start a war in Iraq, and goes downhill to this point.

Senator Chuck Schumer is now on the record as supporting torture.

Thanks for nothing, Senator Schumer.

I will support any progressive who runs for Senate in 2010. I will not support Chuck Schumer. He does not represent the values of New York State.

I’ve discovered myself during National Novel Writing Month. The exercise has helped me figure out with a bit more detail exactly who I am. I am… a person who is not really interested in writing fiction. I love to read fiction, and I love to write non-fiction. I thought the two would somehow combine into an interest in writing fiction. But no, no dice! I’ve been writing fiction for the past three days and it’s like driving a car with a really messed-up alignment. I keep on veering back into non-fiction. I’m writing little non-fiction passages from fictional non-fiction books inside my novel, and those are the parts of writing my “novel” that I enjoy the most. Getting back to the story and the plot and character development is so boring to me compared to that.

Up until right now, I’ve countered that tendency by taking a deep breath and diving right back in to the fictional parts. But why do that? I want, I very clearly want, to write non-fiction. I think I’m going to do that instead. Am I limiting myself? Maybe. Might I want to give fiction writing another shot some other year? Sure. But the situation is akin to my “new food” policy with my children; I won’t let them complain about and refuse food without at least trying one bite of it (I mean, you know, unless it’s horribly burnt or infused with radon or something like that). I’ve had my bites for now, three days’ worth of them, and right now I don’t like the dish. When my kids say they don’t like a food after tasting it, I’ll take it off their menu for a few months and then maybe try it again. Sometimes they like the food on the second go. Maybe I’ll enjoy writing a novel with my second attempt, even though I didn’t like it this time. We’ll see — next year.

November 4, 2007 - Sunday

1680 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3849
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28385

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 76075
(MAXIMUM): 82883
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $465,712,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

Tonight I was researching various topics on paganism and ancient revivalism when I came across a Wikipedia article about a group of pagans in Greece who were trying to gain equal rights in the eyes of the Greek government. It seems that prior to 2006, all religions except Christianity, Judaism and Islam had been banned. An Athenian court seems to have overruled that.

The story regarding this can be found here (I may post a separate diary entry about this later).

When I read about their desire to be allowed to worship in the Parthenon, I looked it up on Wikipedia for clarification. The article listed pollution hazards and I found myself curious enough to read on. It seems that acid rain from the growth of Athens and the exhaust from cars has caused irreparable damage to the sculptures in the Parthenon.

Pollution is a bad thing, not only for the harm it does to ourselves and our environment but for the harm it does to our history. When historical landmarks and wonders of the ancient world are threatened by our pollution, isn’t it time to do something?

I see this and then I see conservatives calling for less restraints put on pollution control and I find it hard to believe that they could be so caviler and arrogant not to see the harm that is already happening. Is there nothing at all more important than grabbing for that extra dollar?

Hi. I’m God. I live up on a cloud that crosses many countries and continents, and so I guess you could say that I’m a citizen of the world.

I just wanted to let you all know that I’ve started an advice column because I think I have had some experiences that other people might find informative. Go ahead and ask me whatever you like, and I’ll try to respond.

Well, as they say, I just wanted to put that out there in the universe.

George W. Bush and his Republican followers love to talk about the value of good hard work. They hate people just sitting around unemployed, they say. Their message to Americans having hard times is: Get a job!

It’s an odd thing, then, that Republicans actually oppose programs that help people get work. In the federal budget the Republicans have proposed for 2008, the funding for vocational and technical education programs is cut in half.

Those programs help give students the skills that will make them valuable to employers, keeping the economy strong. The programs encourage and enable people to get a job, just like Republicans say everybody ought to.

Republicans may talk about the value of hard work, but they don’t back up their talk with action. They show the low regard they have for working people in the funding cuts they hurl at the pro-work programs in the federal budget.

November 7, 2007 - Wednesday

1683 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3857
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28385

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 76226
(MAXIMUM): 83042
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $466,567,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

Read this one. Last week, on “60 Minutes,” one of Bush’s LIES, that’s LIES, not faulty intelligence, LIES, was clearly exposed. Three weeks before the invasion of Iraq, the primary source for “intelligence” about chemical weapons of mass destruction was exposed. Not after the invasion but before.

Faulty Intel Source “Curve Ball” Revealed

60 Minutes: Iraqi’s Fabricated Story Of Biological Weapons Aided U.S. Arguments For Invasion

(CBS)*Did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction? No, he did not. We’ve known that for some time now. So where did the intelligence come from that he was building up his arsenal? Fantastically, the most compelling part came from one obscure Iraqi defector who came in and out of history like a comet. His code name, ironically, was “Curve Ball” and his information became the pillar of the case Colin Powell made to the United Nations before the war. Who is Curve Ball and how did he fool the world’s elite intelligence agencies?

…

U.N. inspectors in Iraq visited a suspected WMD location — Djerf al Nadaf, Curve Ball’s secret site. And what did they find there? A wall — the very wall that had appeared on the overhead imagery back in 2001. Curve Ball had claimed the mobile bio-weapons trucks entered through doors at one end of a warehouse.

“When the inspectors examined the facility, they found that this was an impossibility,” explains Jim Corcoran, whose job it was to relay intelligence to the inspectors in Iraq.

Corcoran learned the wall blocked any entrance to the warehouse. As for Curve Ball’s hidden doors at the other end that would allow the trucks to exit?

“Again, there was a wall there, no doors. And outside there was a stone fence that would have made it impossible for this to have occurred,” Corcoran says.

Corcoran knew Djerf al Nadaf was of great importance, so he sent inspectors back 20 days later to take samples, to see if any traces of biological agents were there. “They proved negative,” Corcoran tells Simon. “There was nothing there.”

But the inspectors’ findings in Iraq made no impact; the war began three weeks later.

RED DAVE

They all thought that I was just kidding, or that I was some kind of crazy conspiracy theory kook, but who’s laughing now?

New Scientist is reporting that the collosal volcano underneath Yellowstone National Park has begun to swell, and swell, lifting the entire land up, as a gigantic mass of molten rock rises, as a bubble of death, toward the surface. It’s just like I said it would happen.

When it reaches the surface, the inevitable will happen: An immense explosion that will set the United States on fire, burying half of North America under red hot burning ash, suffocating us, murking up the entire northern hemisphere with clouds of acidic sulfur rain that will poison the seas and cause everything but the smallest slimiest bottom dwellers to plunge into agony as they die, never to breed again, entire trunks of the tree of life withering with a fungus that cannot be contained, and on the land, here and there, miserable, zombie-like children watching the dogs pull the corpses from the earth because the Alpo factories have all burned down, and nobody is left to make them new Barney videos to watch as the world falls down!

Laugh at Disaster Dan, if you will, laugh, if it makes you feel better. I understand that you all need someone to pick on, to cast your anxieties at, as my worst predictions come true before your eyes. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

          History of the human race, so far it is available, says that people always were in debate on religion. Because, always there were people who were denying the existence of God and hence rejecting the necessity of religion and others were claiming the existence of God or more than one god. On the other hand those who were trying to prove the existence of God were differing about definition of His existence and attributes. Even followers of one religion were differing each other regarding the same and more than that regarding religious injunctions.

            Sometimes we see that people of different religions debate regarding one or more particular religious injunctions of a religion. It is not a wise method. Rather we should try to solve basic differences. If we can solve those then solving subsidiary questions will become easy.

The Standard or Criterion

            But before entering the debate we have to decide about the standard or criterion. This standard or criterion must be acceptable to all irrespective of religious faith and even to the atheists. Otherwise it will not be possible to reach a solution. We think, the only criterion that may be and should be acceptable to all, however to solve the basic queries of life, (not the queries related to expertise), is the reason.

            Now we have to serialize the questions according to logical preferences. When the first question is solved then we can enter the second one.

Is the Truth Attainable?

            Now the first question:

            To us the first question that must be solved is that whether the truth or the reality is attainable or not. This question always existed throughout the history. Always there were some people who used to argue that truth or reality is not attainable. Their argument is like such: When we are asleep we dream, but in dream we can’t understand that it’s a dream; we think it true or real. Then wake up and can understand that it was not real. May be also our present life is like something like dream and after death we would understand that it is not true or real. Another one of their argument is that our senses are not reliable means of collecting information; sometimes we can clearly understand that those are giving us wrong information. For example, we see a plane in the sky as small as bird, but when it lands in the airport we see that it is a large thing. So we can not trust our eyes. Then if I put one of my hands into a buckets of water having 60 degree temperature and the other in a bucket of water having 30 degree temperature, then I put both of my hands at the same time into a third bucket of water having 45 degree temperature then one of my hands will inform me of hot water and the other will inform of cold water, though the temperature of the water is same.

            The solution:

            Beyond doubt that we can not attain the truth or reality regarding every phenomenon, but we can attain the truth or reality regarding many. For example, may be that the reality of my existence is as I feel or may be actually it is otherwise, but at any condition I can not doubt about my very existence. Because, I feel, I observe, I think, so I have existence (1). I have five senses and five physical organs, so those are true or real (2), though may be those are giving me all the wrong information or some wrong and some correct information. There are some external phenomenon (beyond my existence)(3), though may be those are as I observe or those are different than my observation. I sleep (4), I dream (5) and I awake (6) and I will die (7), I eat and drink (8), I talk and debate (9), I live (10); may be real nature of these phenomenon are different than that I observe, but I can not deny very reality of those. I have an analysis power in me (11) other than my physical senses that can analyze information collected by the senses and detect at least some the wrong information. If we proceed in this way we must find that we can attain the truth or reality regarding uncountable number of phenomenon, though there remain other uncountable number of phenomenon that we know nothing about those or our knowledge is fully or partly incorrect regarding those.

            Human experience says that through sincere effort with truth-seeking mind one can attain the truth or reality at least regarding basic queries of life that are not related to expertise.

Is there any Creator?

            Now the second question:

            Is there any creator behind our existence?

            To reach the goal through a shortest possible way we should try to find the solution through philosophical argument based on reason:

            Any existence may be either essential or possible. A possible existence comes into existence when all the conditions of existence are fulfilled, otherwise not. All kinds of existence within the domain of our “experience” are possible existences which are depended upon causes and effects. The causes that brought a thing into existence are in fact effects of some other previous causes. Thus if we go back and back and back then we must reach to the starting point where there must be a cause or some causes which is or are not effect or effects of other causes. Or in other words there is no other cause or are no other causes before that. In other words, this cause is or these causes are the first cause or causes, or cause/ causes of all causes. Then this cause is or these causes are essential existence or existences which the followers of religions call God or gods.

            However, many material scientists tried to explain the beginning of the existence of material world, though it is not their subject, but it is beyond the jurisdiction of their experience and experiment. Previously in the name of science it was claimed that at the beginning there was motionless primary mater, then accidentally the motion was created and the process of change in the matter started. Recently
Stephen Hockings claimed that the creation started from the primary particle. But none of these theories told us wherefrom did that motionless primary matter or the primary particle come? If there would be nothing before that how did it get its existence? Then who created motion in the primary matter or explosion within the primary particle? When the primary matter or the primary particle was void of cause and effect process or in other words natural rules wherefrom it came? The strange and mysterious collection of causes and effects or natural laws transformed this complex world; who or what did form those laws? Can those come into existence accidentally? The natural rules are many time more complex than the rules conducting a super computer; but also the rules conducting the super computer are part of the natural rules of the world; scientists only discovered and utilized those. Yet the super computer has come into existence after hundred year’s restless efforts of dozens of top-ranking scientists, not accidentally. Then how can these natural rules come into existence accidentally? Moreover, what does the accident means? Does it mean that something may happen without any cause? Only ignorant people may believe it? We face accident due to our lack of previous knowledge about a happening, but no accident is void of cause or causes. When there was no cause and effect process or natural rule then how accident may occur in the primary matter or primary particle? So any reasonable human being must accept that the beginning of the creation started by a willful and conscious essential existence or an Everlasting Great Scientist, whatever may you name Him, Allah, God, Jehovah, Ishwar or any other name.

Oneness of the Essential Existence

            Now the third question:

            Can such essential existence or the primary source of all existences be more than one? The reply of the reason is negative. Because for being essential existence and primary source of all existences that existence must be everlasting, all-knowing, all-powerful, willful, sovereign, free of any need or imperfectness and beyond time, space, change, division or analysis. So He must be void of equals, partners, helpers, spouse or and children. We need those due to our weakness and imperfectness; the essential existence must be free of those weakness and needs. If there would be more than one perfect and sovereign essential existence then all the creations would be destroyed. Because, we know that having two sovereign kings in a kingdom and their peaceful coexistence is impossible. (However, may be two persons termed as ‘king’ may coexist in one kingdom under constitutional bindings, but it is quite clear that none of them is sovereign beyond constitutional bindings.)

            So it is beyond doubt that the essential existence is essentially one.

            Let us discuss about this subject with sincere and truth-seeking mind and arguments based on reason.

            Then we can discuss regarding attributes of the Essential Existence.

As I wrote earlier, I have failed in my first attempt to write a novel during National Novel Writing Month. The goal was to write 50,000 words during the month of November. I burned out on the task on just the third day, finding it to be un-fun and feeling the need to accomplish other tasks.

I’m not going to jump back on the NaNoWriMo bandwagon for this year. But I have been thinking about why I fizzled. I think the answer is that I didn’t structure the attempt enough. I just had an idea in my head and jumped right in, flailing around for a few days and getting really tired in the process. I’m not ashamed to say I failed, big time. OK, maybe a bit ashamed. I’d like to do better.

So I’m going to start again at the beginning of next month, but I’m going to do things differently. December will be Figure Out the Parameters of How I’m Going to Structure My Novel Month. January will be Compose the Particulars of the Structure for My Novel Month, and the rest of the year will by my Novel Writing Year. It’s a longer period of time for a long project. I think this is more realistic, less rushed and panicky than National Novel Writing Month, and so I think I’m more likely to succeed. I will try again, at a less manic pace.

Wish me luck! I would appreciate any advice anyone might have to offer.

I’ve been browsing through some fundamentalist religious quotes on Fundies Say The Darndest Things and from what I can tell most of those quotes can be broken up into five basic categories:

-Anti-Evolution
-Anti-Homosexuality
-Anti-Abortion
-Anti-other religions
-Miscellaneous

Now, while I could go and tackle each and every one of those points and their reasons behind them, I want to focus on the Anti-Homo part of it during this entry.

I’ve heard many justifications for this type of bigotry and they’ve come in many forms from calm explanations to near hysterical SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS-LOCK!!!1!111!!

But whatever form it takes on it always seems to come back to one thing: “Its an abomination against God” and to support this stance and their own bigotry they’ll site Leviticus 18:22. However most of these same people, when you point anything else out they’ll say that the New Testament did away with the Old Testament and therefore the Old Testament is now invalid. Except, just now to confirm what I was already pretty sure of, I looked up the book of Leviticus, and guess what I found?

Leviticus is a part of the Old Testament.

Now, rather than use the point of eating shell-fish to counter their argument and show them as hypocrites, I’m just going to start pointing out what they already believe; that Jesus’ sacrifice rendered the Old Testament obsolete (seeing as they seem so intent on ignoring Matthew 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17 when it suits them) and that therefore Homosexuality must be just fine so long as those damn homos except Jesus as their savior. After all, the Old Testament is invalid according to them, right?

Now, if they somehow claim that homosexuality is a sin and yet the Old Testament is still void, I feel I’d be well justified in pointing out their hypocrisy.

Through the Military Commissions Act, right wing Democrats and Republicans in Congress have helped George W. Bush revoke the writ of habeas corpus, which requires governments to provide specific information about the reason that prisoners are being held. Habeas corpus is an essential tool in the prevention of arbitrary imprisonment.

What would America’s founding fathers think of the Military Commission Act’s removal of this protection? Alexander Hamilton certainly wouldn’t have approved of it. In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton wrote that “arbitrary imprisonments have been in all ages the favourite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”

Hint to Young Republicans: Tyranny is a bad thing.