The downside to all of the Kanye West stupidity is that live performances like this one from Pink didn't get the attention it deserved...
For the record? I agree with the President, Kanye West is a jackass.
:-)
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
President Obama, don't blame bloggers - you are saying people are stupid
While this was reported in the Toledo Blade, I felt it was more appropriate for me to rant here, where I do express my opinion more openly than on Glass City Jungle. I am so tired of hearing crap about how bloggers don't fact check or research. Some of us do and the reality is that it is the readers out there who reward the ones that don't who are to blame more than those of us who not only get very little recognition but have to deal with constantly saying "I'm not that kind of a blogger."
In the Blade's, Newspaper journalism gets words of praise Print media's role vital, Obama says here's what tripped my trigger the most in bold:
Just say it, say that you think people are too stupid to be able to tell the difference between opinion and determine what is credible if it comes from a blog and that magically if it's printed in a newspaper where someone is paid to write it that it somehow means more.
I put over 80 hours a week into my blogging, most of it on Glass City Jungle, I work one day a week as a fact checker for the Toledo Free Press, I care about facts. I am not the only blogger out there who cares about facts, who cares about their credibility and even those who do share more opinion than news, if they don't back up their opinion with facts? It's not rocket science...people should know that...We are not responsible for those out there that believe things that have no factual basis either online or in print.
I don't do it for the money, what I make online does not pay my bills, it doesn't even cover the expenses for the blog, so to try to claim that only those who are paid media can do this fairly is complete and utter bull. The Block family wants to create the ability to earn money from online content, they got the President of the US to state he supports that, that news is not free, which considering people no longer have access to "free news" anymore now that the whole process of this digital adapter being required has turned out to be nothing more than a joke with the only way people can actually access news and information is to subscribe to cable or satellite, perhaps he is telling us something really profound. That those of you who are poor or those of you who live in areas where the internet or digital television reception does not work don't deserve to have access to any other opinions than what the traditional mainstream media wants you to know and you should pay for that...
I disagree...
In the Blade's, Newspaper journalism gets words of praise Print media's role vital, Obama says here's what tripped my trigger the most in bold:
"Journalistic integrity, you know, fact-based reporting, serious investigative reporting, how to retain those ethics in all these different new media and how to make sure that it's paid for, is really a challenge," Mr. Obama said. "But it's something that I think is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy."
Across the country, newspapers are struggling to maintain readership and advertising revenue that has been lost to the Internet. Thousands of journalists have been laid off, and over the last year several newspapers have closed.
The Rocky Mountain News in Denver ceased operations, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer now publishes only on the Internet, and several large newspaper corporations have filed for bankruptcy, including the Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times
Mr. Obama said he noted the trend. "I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," the President said.
"What I hope is that people start understanding if you're getting your newspaper over the Internet, that's not free and there's got to be a way to find a business model that supports that."
Just say it, say that you think people are too stupid to be able to tell the difference between opinion and determine what is credible if it comes from a blog and that magically if it's printed in a newspaper where someone is paid to write it that it somehow means more.
I put over 80 hours a week into my blogging, most of it on Glass City Jungle, I work one day a week as a fact checker for the Toledo Free Press, I care about facts. I am not the only blogger out there who cares about facts, who cares about their credibility and even those who do share more opinion than news, if they don't back up their opinion with facts? It's not rocket science...people should know that...We are not responsible for those out there that believe things that have no factual basis either online or in print.
I don't do it for the money, what I make online does not pay my bills, it doesn't even cover the expenses for the blog, so to try to claim that only those who are paid media can do this fairly is complete and utter bull. The Block family wants to create the ability to earn money from online content, they got the President of the US to state he supports that, that news is not free, which considering people no longer have access to "free news" anymore now that the whole process of this digital adapter being required has turned out to be nothing more than a joke with the only way people can actually access news and information is to subscribe to cable or satellite, perhaps he is telling us something really profound. That those of you who are poor or those of you who live in areas where the internet or digital television reception does not work don't deserve to have access to any other opinions than what the traditional mainstream media wants you to know and you should pay for that...
I disagree...
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Medifast structure works for some...
The Medifast Diet program’s concept is a basic one. Frequent small meals with high levels of protein and low levels of carbohydrates put your body into a state called ketosis. With the frequent meals you have less of a chance of feeling hungry and breaking the diet.
Originally, Medifast was only available through physicians, that's where the name came from, now they can be bought on line and in stores with it easy to find Medifast discount codes to reduce the cost. The basic plan, called the 5 and 1 Plan, involves using Medifast’s meal replacements for five daily meals and consuming one main "lean and green" meal you prepare yourself that consists of a protein source and lots of vegetables.
Originally, Medifast was only available through physicians, that's where the name came from, now they can be bought on line and in stores with it easy to find Medifast discount codes to reduce the cost. The basic plan, called the 5 and 1 Plan, involves using Medifast’s meal replacements for five daily meals and consuming one main "lean and green" meal you prepare yourself that consists of a protein source and lots of vegetables.
Animosity Toward Obama is Based on the Fact That He is a Black Man
The comment was made by former President Jimmy Carter. "An Overwhelming Portion of the Animosity Toward Pres. Obama is Based on the Fact That He is a Black Man" is the full sentence quote.
It's created some stir...Jimmy Carter, True Son of the South, Hits Nail on Head by Kai Wright that says in part:
Countered by articles out there like one by Jonah Goldberg, A Tackle Box Full of Race Bait that says in part:
I know some of the tea baggers, I can't say I agree with them on all of their positions, frankly a few of them scare me, but I also don't think the ones I know that dislike or even hate Obama are basing it on race. This reminds me of when I didn't support Obama as a presidential candidate, it was suggested I was racist when it had nothing to do with the color of his skin, it had do with the content of his character...Yet it was attempted to be used against me because if they could make the "racist" charge stick then it deflected any arguments I had as to why I didn't feel he was the right candidate for president. I could be ignored as a "racist" rather than have anything I said be considered.
Jimmy Carter was one of my favorite Presidents, but I can't say I agree with him on this one. If Hillary would have been elected and was trying to do the same things President Obama is? I'm willing to bet that not much would be different except that people wouldn't be as up in arms about the first woman President being attacked...
It's created some stir...Jimmy Carter, True Son of the South, Hits Nail on Head by Kai Wright that says in part:
And as a result, a statement as obvious as Carter’s—that the tea-baggers hate President Barack Obama because he’s black—can be passed off as controversy in 2009.
It’s self-evident that a movement that calls the president a lying, socialist, Nazi eugenicist with a fake birth certificate is about something more than deficit spending. People don’t brandish automatic weapons and pray for the president’s death because they want to keep their employer-sponsored health plans. But to name the stalking beast is more than we can bear.
Countered by articles out there like one by Jonah Goldberg, A Tackle Box Full of Race Bait that says in part:
Meanwhile, no significant conservative politician, pundit, or intellectual has said that they object to Obama's agenda because he's black. Rather, they've said they oppose his agenda for precisely the same reasons they oppose Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's and Barney Frank's agendas. They stand athwart Obama yelling "Stop!" just as they did with Clinton and Democratic presidents before him.
Magically, the alchemic powers of Obama's black skin transmogrify the same arguments and the same rhetoric into racism. Saying "you're wrong" to a white politician is a disagreement; saying it to a black politician is like shouting through Bull Connor's megaphone.
I know some of the tea baggers, I can't say I agree with them on all of their positions, frankly a few of them scare me, but I also don't think the ones I know that dislike or even hate Obama are basing it on race. This reminds me of when I didn't support Obama as a presidential candidate, it was suggested I was racist when it had nothing to do with the color of his skin, it had do with the content of his character...Yet it was attempted to be used against me because if they could make the "racist" charge stick then it deflected any arguments I had as to why I didn't feel he was the right candidate for president. I could be ignored as a "racist" rather than have anything I said be considered.
Jimmy Carter was one of my favorite Presidents, but I can't say I agree with him on this one. If Hillary would have been elected and was trying to do the same things President Obama is? I'm willing to bet that not much would be different except that people wouldn't be as up in arms about the first woman President being attacked...
Friday, September 11, 2009
Fact checking the president's speech last night
It's always nice when someone else does it for you, Newsweek has the information from factcheck.org. I highly recommend that you read the whole thing, but the summary:
Summary
President Obama's prime-time address to Congress and the nation on health care prompted a Republican congressman to shout "you lie!" Did he? Here's what we've found:
* Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn't insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.
* The president said "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." But the House bill would permit a "public option" to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That's true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
* The president repeated his promise that his plan won't add "one dime" to the federal deficit. But legislation offered so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
* The president overstated the degree of concentration in the insurance industry. He said that in 34 states the "insurance market" is controlled by five or fewer companies, but that's true only of insurance bought by small groups, not the entire "insurance market."
* Obama said his plan won't "require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." It's true that there's no requirement, but experts say the legislation could induce employers to switch coverage for millions of workers.
Summary
President Obama's prime-time address to Congress and the nation on health care prompted a Republican congressman to shout "you lie!" Did he? Here's what we've found:
* Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn't insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.
* The president said "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." But the House bill would permit a "public option" to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That's true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
* The president repeated his promise that his plan won't add "one dime" to the federal deficit. But legislation offered so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
* The president overstated the degree of concentration in the insurance industry. He said that in 34 states the "insurance market" is controlled by five or fewer companies, but that's true only of insurance bought by small groups, not the entire "insurance market."
* Obama said his plan won't "require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." It's true that there's no requirement, but experts say the legislation could induce employers to switch coverage for millions of workers.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Part of the video from last nights Mayoral Debate
One of the things that I've been busy with is getting ready for the primary election here in Toledo, it's taken a good deal of my time and is part of the reason I've not had as much time to spend here where I can actually spout off my opinion. Yes, I miss doing that (smile). I know most of you that read here are not following the Toledo Mayoral story, but for those of you interested in seeing the first time I've asked questions while I was live blogging? I'm sharing the video below so you can see me in action.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Monitoring monitors...
I have the biggest flat screen monitor in the house as well as the newest computer since I spend more time on the internet than anyone else and I do generate a bit of income from my net adventures. There is a set line of progression when I replace a computer but most of the time the discussion surrounds the monitor, with several family members eying my monitor and hoping my next upgrade includes a new monitor. Thanks to my oldest daughter, the only person in the house who didn't have an lcd monitor was my husband, but she bought a refurbished one that has a small blemish on the screen, which has him arguing that he's the one that should get my monitor (which I haven't even decided if I am going to get a new monitor) and my almost 15 year old arguing since her flat screen is the oldest and the smallest it should be her and she doesn't want the one with the blemish.
I think I'll just decide to only get a tower if I decide to upgrade at all and avoid monitoring the monitor wars completely...
I think I'll just decide to only get a tower if I decide to upgrade at all and avoid monitoring the monitor wars completely...
Medical billing staff are the problem...
I've discovered one of the main stumbling blocks to getting the medical care or prescriptions you need isn't just the lack of health insurance or bad health insurance coverage -- it's getting past the medical billing people.
Let me share a true life adventure...Our insurance company changed the co-pay for our office visits before the date they were supposed to. So when I went to the doctor I paid what I was supposed to pay but the doctor's office claimed I owed an additional $15.00 before I was supposed to owe it. Then they started adding on late fees even though I called, explained and the insurance company said they would straighten it out.
So then I needed a prescription...since I hadn't paid my balance even though they knew why -- they wouldn't schedule an appointment or ask the doctor for a refill. This is a prescription I need to take, they didn't care. It was either pay the now up to $40.00 or not get my prescription. So, I started to have problems because all this time I'm out of my prescription. I was about ready to go to urgent care which would have been more than a regular office visit because these medical billing people were just plain rude over $40 mind you, that I wasn't even supposed to have to pay. I called the doctor's office today after hours and got to talk to one of the actual doctors. He apologized and told me that I should never have to go without my medication and that he would phone something in. When I went to pick it up? He phoned in two weeks worth...The soonest they told me they could get me in was three weeks...Which means it's either find a new doctors office or end up paying something I don't owe since even with the insurance company telling them I don't owe this they won't budge and still going a week without a prescription I'm supposed to take every day. While everyone is debating health care, there should be better rules in place when it comes to basic rights to medical care...
Let me share a true life adventure...Our insurance company changed the co-pay for our office visits before the date they were supposed to. So when I went to the doctor I paid what I was supposed to pay but the doctor's office claimed I owed an additional $15.00 before I was supposed to owe it. Then they started adding on late fees even though I called, explained and the insurance company said they would straighten it out.
So then I needed a prescription...since I hadn't paid my balance even though they knew why -- they wouldn't schedule an appointment or ask the doctor for a refill. This is a prescription I need to take, they didn't care. It was either pay the now up to $40.00 or not get my prescription. So, I started to have problems because all this time I'm out of my prescription. I was about ready to go to urgent care which would have been more than a regular office visit because these medical billing people were just plain rude over $40 mind you, that I wasn't even supposed to have to pay. I called the doctor's office today after hours and got to talk to one of the actual doctors. He apologized and told me that I should never have to go without my medication and that he would phone something in. When I went to pick it up? He phoned in two weeks worth...The soonest they told me they could get me in was three weeks...Which means it's either find a new doctors office or end up paying something I don't owe since even with the insurance company telling them I don't owe this they won't budge and still going a week without a prescription I'm supposed to take every day. While everyone is debating health care, there should be better rules in place when it comes to basic rights to medical care...
Saturday, September 05, 2009
The middle years a mix of parents & grandparents
Being middle aged, some of my friends are still sending out Baby Announcements for their own children and some of them are grand-parents. It makes for contrast at times when it comes to receiving baby birth announcements, baby announcement cards or photo baby announcements from those expecting their first, expecting their first from a second or third marriage or those who are sharing the news of their latest grandchild. With some of us just about the same age; you end up suggesting places, like Birth-Cards (http://www.birth-cards.com) where you can add a logo, photo or picture to any card on their site and if you want something a bit more unique? They will create a special design just for you.
Friday, September 04, 2009
The Power of the independents...
In Toledo two of the five main mayoral candidates are independents, one is a Republican and two are Democrats. Some have made a big deal out of the rise of the independent candidates for mayor and for City Council yet the reality is Toledo has non-partisan municipal elections so here, the whole party label or no label really is not as critical as on a partisan election basis.
That said, while there is some truth to tomorrow's column by Charlie Cook, Bleeding Independents it's not quite beyond the bandage point. The reality that most like to ignore is that more people who vote are of no party than of D or R. It's something I keep pointing out on my local blog that people love to ignore when they proclaim that "Toledo is a Democrat town" -- No it's not...People in Toledo vote for Democrats but registered Democrats in Toledo do not hold a majority, though there are quite a bit more of them than registered Republicans most voters don't declare a party, which means they don't vote in the partisan primaries. Which realistically leaves them with no voice until the general election where they are forced to decide between the Democrat elected by more voters or the Republican elected by less voters. Simple common sense should dictate how that plays out most times...
Toledo is not some strange microcosm, though some may want to believe that, independents who felt their chances were better with Obama over McCain are not going to abandon ship unless there is a better alternative to what we have now. For Republicans to score big in 2010 they have to do something more than just say "No" -- and political parties know how important 2010 is when it comes to the apportionment boards...Which means both Democrats and Republicans will have their game faces on and be raising money as well as spending money to win and to try to convince a disgusted, at times apathetic public that they are the lesser of two evils...
That said, while there is some truth to tomorrow's column by Charlie Cook, Bleeding Independents it's not quite beyond the bandage point. The reality that most like to ignore is that more people who vote are of no party than of D or R. It's something I keep pointing out on my local blog that people love to ignore when they proclaim that "Toledo is a Democrat town" -- No it's not...People in Toledo vote for Democrats but registered Democrats in Toledo do not hold a majority, though there are quite a bit more of them than registered Republicans most voters don't declare a party, which means they don't vote in the partisan primaries. Which realistically leaves them with no voice until the general election where they are forced to decide between the Democrat elected by more voters or the Republican elected by less voters. Simple common sense should dictate how that plays out most times...
Toledo is not some strange microcosm, though some may want to believe that, independents who felt their chances were better with Obama over McCain are not going to abandon ship unless there is a better alternative to what we have now. For Republicans to score big in 2010 they have to do something more than just say "No" -- and political parties know how important 2010 is when it comes to the apportionment boards...Which means both Democrats and Republicans will have their game faces on and be raising money as well as spending money to win and to try to convince a disgusted, at times apathetic public that they are the lesser of two evils...
Thursday, September 03, 2009
The end of the trick or treat years...
This Halloween Invitation from Holiday-Invitations (http://www.holiday-invitations.com) where they will create a special design just for you and they will print and ship your order the same day it's approved; reminded me that this year will be my first year without having to worry about the "Trick or Treat" part of the invitation Halloween season since my youngest is now in High School. Sure there will be Halloween party invitations, that we might actually go to now instead of having to go from house to house treat gathering, yet despite looking forward to the possible Halloween invitations, I know I'll miss those pillow case laden with candy moments...
You can think about Jesus...Just don't mention his name at City Council...
I'm almost caught up on things I'd like to blog about like this article from yesterday in the Toledo Blade, Council urges caution regarding invocations, I wanted to express my thoughts and have you share your thoughts on this whole debate about prayer and to point out, in my humble opinion there is no such thing as a nonsectarian prayer. There are nondenominational prayers, but one thing that all of those who believe in God share is...they believe in God. That at it's very essence is sectarian. Those who don't believe in God or any higher power are not a part of that "sect."
Yet we play games and pretend that if we just ban naming Jesus and I'm guessing the Virgin Mary too and maybe Jehovah, that it's okay. The Supreme Court has ruled legislative prayer is widely acknowledged to be an exception to the constitutional prohibition on governmental prayer. (link and link as reference) This has come up elsewhere and in Ohio where:
In 2007 a prayer given before the Ohio House made then House members Chris Redfern of Catawba Island and Bob Hagan of Youngstown walk out. Talk about the power of prayer...Logic dictates it was more related to the political positions the pastor was advocating for as opposed to the mere mention of Jesus but Jesus has been a focus in many of these situations. Stone the Preacher has a great example.
I know quite a few people who don't believe in God or any organized religion, I have yet to meet one who was so traumatized by the mere mention of the word Jesus that they could not come before a legislative body such as Toledo City Council. While a Roman Catholic, I also do have to admit that in all of the times I've watched or listened to Toledo City Council or any legislative body that offers a prayer sectarian or nonsectarian, I've yet to see the hand of God come down and inspire legislators either, though some of us have prayed for common sense, for them to get to the point and a variety of other things that have never happened either.
The question that I believe that should be asked is how does the word Jesus harm a person? If I am walking down a public street and a street minister is utilizing his first amendment right to speech, to tell me that if I do not repent I am going to hell, can I sue him because I find his behavior offensive or traumatic to me? The public street is as much mine as the City Council chambers is. If he stops me and tells me I must repent or pray with him at that moment for me to continue on with my business then it would be a problem, but similar to what happens during those few moments used in prayer before a legislative body, no one is forced to pray just as no one is forced to say the pledge of allegiance and no one is forced to sing the national anthem.
Our Founding Fathers did not want there to be an organized national religion, one where you were forced to join or suffered the consequences. Even they didn't agree on religion but they did agree with that. Those who like to argue if we are a Christian Nation or not often cite the Treaty with Tripoli, as proof we are not a Christian Nation, which anyone who has studied the Treaty of Tripoli will tell you, the original document was in Arabic and the original does not contain the same wording. (One of the many links on that topic.) It's also impossible to argue that while the Federal Government did not advocate for a federal or national religion that many of the early state constitutions specifically mentioned God and Jesus...An example, Delaware:
Or Pennsylvania who had a similar form:
We've argued about this for years, but the separation of church and state was not a requirement of the actual states that made up the United States of America, it was the federal state...Using the Treaty of Tripoli ignores a variety of other documents that contradict including the much cited Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, it comes down to an argument over which documents hold more power...
While demanding such an oath of office is today something that would not be demanded to be able to serve as an elected official, is the mere utterance of the name Jesus in a legislative setting a barrier to citizen participation in government? Do we have freedom of religion or freedom from religion? Do we have freedom of speech or do we have freedom from speech...It seems difficult to view telling someone they are not allowed to say Jesus as being just as wrong as forcing someone to say it.
Yet we play games and pretend that if we just ban naming Jesus and I'm guessing the Virgin Mary too and maybe Jehovah, that it's okay. The Supreme Court has ruled legislative prayer is widely acknowledged to be an exception to the constitutional prohibition on governmental prayer. (link and link as reference) This has come up elsewhere and in Ohio where:
We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.
In 2007 a prayer given before the Ohio House made then House members Chris Redfern of Catawba Island and Bob Hagan of Youngstown walk out. Talk about the power of prayer...Logic dictates it was more related to the political positions the pastor was advocating for as opposed to the mere mention of Jesus but Jesus has been a focus in many of these situations. Stone the Preacher has a great example.
I know quite a few people who don't believe in God or any organized religion, I have yet to meet one who was so traumatized by the mere mention of the word Jesus that they could not come before a legislative body such as Toledo City Council. While a Roman Catholic, I also do have to admit that in all of the times I've watched or listened to Toledo City Council or any legislative body that offers a prayer sectarian or nonsectarian, I've yet to see the hand of God come down and inspire legislators either, though some of us have prayed for common sense, for them to get to the point and a variety of other things that have never happened either.
The question that I believe that should be asked is how does the word Jesus harm a person? If I am walking down a public street and a street minister is utilizing his first amendment right to speech, to tell me that if I do not repent I am going to hell, can I sue him because I find his behavior offensive or traumatic to me? The public street is as much mine as the City Council chambers is. If he stops me and tells me I must repent or pray with him at that moment for me to continue on with my business then it would be a problem, but similar to what happens during those few moments used in prayer before a legislative body, no one is forced to pray just as no one is forced to say the pledge of allegiance and no one is forced to sing the national anthem.
Our Founding Fathers did not want there to be an organized national religion, one where you were forced to join or suffered the consequences. Even they didn't agree on religion but they did agree with that. Those who like to argue if we are a Christian Nation or not often cite the Treaty with Tripoli, as proof we are not a Christian Nation, which anyone who has studied the Treaty of Tripoli will tell you, the original document was in Arabic and the original does not contain the same wording. (One of the many links on that topic.) It's also impossible to argue that while the Federal Government did not advocate for a federal or national religion that many of the early state constitutions specifically mentioned God and Jesus...An example, Delaware:
ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.
Or Pennsylvania who had a similar form:
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.
We've argued about this for years, but the separation of church and state was not a requirement of the actual states that made up the United States of America, it was the federal state...Using the Treaty of Tripoli ignores a variety of other documents that contradict including the much cited Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, it comes down to an argument over which documents hold more power...
While demanding such an oath of office is today something that would not be demanded to be able to serve as an elected official, is the mere utterance of the name Jesus in a legislative setting a barrier to citizen participation in government? Do we have freedom of religion or freedom from religion? Do we have freedom of speech or do we have freedom from speech...It seems difficult to view telling someone they are not allowed to say Jesus as being just as wrong as forcing someone to say it.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
More bobbing for apples...
Have you actually ever tried to bob for apples? Especially wearing Halloween make up? Now that would make the perfect set of Photo Halloween Invitations to be able to use year after year if I was going to use a Photo Halloween Invitation. I could also imagine a series of Photo Invitations Halloween involving friends trying to bob for apples. Or you could go for the safer option and have your apple bobbing limited to bobbing it in caramel...Either way through Invitations-Shoppe (http://www.invitations-shoppe.com) you can add a photo, logo or picture to any card on their site and if you don't see the perfect Halloween Party Invitations? They'll create a special design just for you...
