The News for 2007

Ever since the "low-keyed" meeting between Fox, Martin, and Bush took place through the same time frame that Terri Schaivo's fate was making the headlines, a thought now enters my mind regarding the news and the media. I just wonder what we're missing, when we are hearing about something that evokes intense emotional division, or worse, when tabloid interests become news headlines. I remember reading about 'the North American this or that' and realized while America watched a family torn apart in grief, the US was becoming just a part of the "new lay of the land," so to speak.
And this year, while the life and death of Anna Nicole swept the headlines, what was really going on that we missed. How did Anna Nicole become an indepth national interest? I realize she was famous for being famous, but when the fighting in Iraq intensified, was America too mesmerized with Anna to question that there might be a correlation between the murder of Saddam Hussein and the increase of American military casualties? When Petraeus came back and reported that the military surge really wasn't producing the desired results, and I do remember that; Brittany Spears became the new national interest. Brittany became the headlines, her divorce, her custody battle, her wild night life, even her panties were mentioned on the home page of most News sources, FOX was no exception. And now suddenly, after the not so great report in September, the troop surge was a success . . . How did that happen and when? Call me cynical, but I really think 'we the people' might just be on the business end of a bit of news filtering. Maybe, 'we the people' want our news filtered and sorted. I know the people that listen to conservative talk radio aren't even aware of much of the news in the world, only what they hear from their one source, and most of that is so incredibly biased; the news itself is lost in repetitive editorializing and criticizing. I've spent the past two and a half years absolutely certain, for those of us that listen to more than one news source, that the information we call news is nothing more than a diversion from greater facts. I've thought the media, be it internet, TV or talk radio wants to program the thinking rather than actually inform, and the headline of the past few days have given confirmation. There has been something just absolutely haunting about the death and the reports of the death of Benazir Bhutto. Today, I realized the haunting factor. I read a headline that said the video clips of the last few minutes of her life do not align with the reports. I also read that her husband did not choose to have an autopsy performed because he didn't believe a true report would be issued. And I realized, this sounds just like November of 63, here in America. I don't know what Pakistan will do, but I do know the majority of the American citizens chose then, to believe what the media reported and what their government claimed, regardless of what the film clips showed. It just seems that 2007 News confirms that the American public would rather be told what to think or simply believes that celebrity gossip is news!
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. New Testament

Things That Make One Pause and Question . . .

I don't understand why America didn't surround the Tora Bora mountains six years ago. That's the place that Osama bin Laden has supposedly hidden, if there really is an Osama bin Laden . . . I realize the FATA region of Pakistan is some sort of "hands off" zone for everyone, well aparently everyone but the Taliban and Osama bin Laden . . . The Pakistani government has very little jurisdiction over this area, and since the Pakistani government is supposed to be a strong anti-terrorist ally with the US, I would think that government would have welcomed the military presence of the US right after the invasion of Afghanistan, but that isn't what happened. Now, as I've read the headlines of the past 24 hours, I just don't know what to think. The woman that was under house arrest by Musharraf's "state of emergency," has been killed, but we are going to blame the Taliban and alQaida, without offering a military presence in that country? So, into what sort of democracy have we fed nearly 10 billion dollars, and where is their ally in anti-terrorism? Musharraf leans toward tyranny and there is no question about that throughout the world. I've found it interesting that now that Bhutto has been killed, her house arrest was for her own protection . . . I think we're all becoming more familiar with that "lock down for freedom" version of democracy, here in America. Perhaps that's why our President has found Musharraf to be such an ally, as they are both willing to hold their people captive to "protect" their liberty.
I'm also wondering as the story changes of what she died of and how . . . I've read three different headlines in the past 24 hours and none of them agree on the cause of death. First, it was said that it was a direct shot to her head or neck. Next it was shrapnel from an explosion. Now I read she hit her head on her vehicle. It's listed almost like a simple accident in the middle of chaos, now. She was, after all, the leader of the opposition party. The more I hear about the democracy the US has spread, and the more I read about the two parties here that are campaigning, the more I see how divisive our brand of democracy truly is.
These six things doth YHVH hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto Him . . . and he that soweth discord among brethren. a Proverb of Holy Scripture

A "Star" . . . the East

I read that Mars is going to be highly visible and quite bright this evening and it "got me thinking." As I read the article and the writer had changed the words to Rudolph, since Mars would be so bright, I thought of shepherds and wise men coming to offer gifts to the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes. And tonight while I look for the brightness in the sky, that is what I will be thinking of. I celebrate Hanukkah, but I do believe the Messiah has come. I don't quite understand that message in America's version of Christmas celebration, however. Yesterday, I spoke with a Christian woman that doesn't celebrate Christmas, but she's going to be with her family tomorrow and she's already told them she won't be bringing gifts. Sounds like a fun guest doesn't it? I don't really believe the Messiah was born on December 25 and I have very compelling evidence to support my belief. The Gregorian calendar didn't exist at the time of his birth, so there was no December 25, that year. I, personally, as do many, believe the Messiah was born in the fall, but Scripture doesn't say specifically, so the date is conjecture at best and it shouldn't be a doctrinal issue for anyone. This same woman proceeded to tell me, she knew it wasn't in December because it can snow in Israel and the shepherds were wearing short sleeves . . . hello? I couldn't find that in Scripture either. I realize it can snow in Israel, the weather there is very similar to the weather where I live in the states, and you know, today, our livestock are out grazing . . . So, who knows?
I didn't buy Christmas gifts and I'm not going to, because I don't know anyone that was born on December 25 and as I used to explain to my daughter when she was young. December 25 isn't her birthday and I don't buy other people gifts on hers. But we have always had a wonderful tradition, and this year will be no different.
We bake a cake, I don't add candles, but we do sing HAPPY BIRTHDAY to Messiah. I don't believe this is the anniversary of the exact day, but I can't think of a single reason to not celebrate his birth!
Glory to G~d in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. Luke 2: 14

A Few Concerns About Travel . . .

Well, the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) is certainly going to be in their height of glory for the next few days. These people with badges and control issues really offend me; to the point, I no longer travel. When I first began blogging, we had recently done some international traveling and until we travelled outside of the US after 9/11, I didn't realize what a crazy place the US airports had become. I was treated with more respect at a Palestinian checkpoint than I was at KCI. Dealing with TSA did change one thing in my life for the better. I gave up underwire bras. I certainly wasn't groped in any other country, but I digress. It really has concerned me that people have died in US airports and it doesn't seem to bother Americans. I've read blogs and comment posts after articles and for the most part, the American readers feel that TSA can just treat American travelers like dumb animals and if someone doesn't like it, they need to know their life may depend upon their ability to stuff their frustration.
Now, on a different note, we have some Congressman that isn't happy about the US requiring passports for visitors entering from Canada. It's been postponed for at least another year and a half, which truly offends me also. The Congressman thought the passport matter was a terrible way to treat "our neighbors." NO KIDDING! Our government treating foreigners like they do us? Where was this Congressman when our state driver's license became national ID cards? I'm guessing, since Canadians don't have to put up with America's rules, they simply won't. I think we are going to discover very soon, the more stringent the regulations of Homeland Security become, the fewer foreigners will be visiting. And the republican constituents, at least the faithful followers of Bush will utter a collective, "Good, if they had nothing to hide . . ." Meanwhile, we Americans will just come to accept the fact that we are being held captive for our own good, but since we're Americans, nobody is going to come rescue us from our government. The whole world is sick of dealing with our government.
And my last concern regarding travel is this new Congressional matter about the auto makers. The pundits have just been like old dogs with bones. They've chewed and 'wollered' and dug and scratch and chewed and 'wollered' some more, all the while salivating and growling about the new car regulations and how many people will die over oil. Really, now! That's what those of us against the Iraq war have been concerned about for the past five years! Our President doesn't like what Congress has handed him for a bill, or so he says . . . So why doesn't he veto this one? Without the last health care bill, the American kids may not stay healthy enough to live long enough to pay for this one he doesn't veto. I thought a 3 branch system of our government was to protect the people from being discounted by the government.
And for those of us that are considering going back to the old fashioned method of transportation, I have already heard, the government plans to inject radio frequency chips in horses and everyone must report by phone or by computer any time the horse leaves the place, for any reason.
All of this pseudo travel security is simply about our government knowing our every move.
And yet the TSA is defined by our government as: Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.
and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces . . . a prophecy of Holy Scripture

The Unity Behind The Division

Is a half trillion dollar budget, not a joke? Sadly, the fact that they are serious, is overwhelming. I'd like to blame Congress and I'd like to blame President Bush, but basically they are just taking care of themselves. How did our country get so far away from the hands of the common citizen? Easy, we let go, and those behind the scenes that have joined in their quest for absolute power, have thrown out just enough nonsense in just the right voices that the people have divided, blaming each other. You know the old saying, "divide and conquer?" Well, the powers that be know that old saying, too. If I take a step back and look at this, I find that President Bush and a democratic Congress actually work quite well together, in this theatre against "we the people." Bush gets a few more months of his war and Congress gets more of their pet issues and somebody said it all happened without raising taxes! If they've been collecting enough taxes to cover all this, what have they been doing with the excess up until now? I'd like to know . . .
Another of the "issues" is this animal rights stuff. Now the conservatives are blaming PETA, but it's not PETA that is insisting upon radio frequency chips in our livestock to buy and sell; oh contrare, that insistence is coming from corporate political America, but if the people will continue to just throw the blame back and forth, "they" will get away with the next step of tyranny and "we the people" will find ourselves that much further under the fray.
Part of this budget and bill is about changing the auto manufacturing, and I heard Mark Levin discussing the fact that America has a smaller percentage of change in fuel emissions than China. The fact that China has dramatically increased in their oil consumption and fuel emissions is pretty simple. One, they've only been included in the stats of global data in the past few years, and two, Mr. Levin, as they have become a key player in the global economy of materialism, cars use more oil and emit more carbon than rickshaws. And the environmentalists are hollering about not drilling and you know what, everyone is missing the point. America has always had more emissions, so the fact that there is increase at all, tells me much of the population just isn't worried about it, or doesn't believe the political propaganda from either side. The big 3 are already on their way out, so with SUV's having no resale value with this new fuel regulation, a.k.a. CAFE, this is the moment of truth for auto manufacturing in America, the fork in the road. Now which path is not the dead end? They can pour tons of money into new engineering and sell all new vehicles or they can stop in their tracks, give up and lay off the rest of the AutoWorkers Union. Only time will tell which was the best plan, but meanwhile back behind the scenes, there is one auto manufacturer that will ultimately have the global solution for energy and emissions.
Behind the scenes, someone is benefiting from the liberal outcry and the pundits keeping the conservatives stirred up. Behind the scenes someone is getting all their ducks in a row, while we in the stands are cheering opposite sides like some sort of sporting event.
This is no sporting event, this is no game, this is real life! We've been divided and we are being conquered!
So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof. a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Congress is Losing More Ground than the President

Congress has lost ground dramatically. I mean, they were just elected in November of '06. The party leadership has been changed less than one year and already they have gone from 50 + percent down to 20 - 25%. I use the figure 50 + simply in reference to the results of the election, but the current polls are clear. Nearly everyone thinks Congress is doing a very poor job, and they are. Congress hasn't done anything they promised to do, and the momentum of damage is overwhelming, already. Their political aspirations are merely fodder for the pundits. Why is Congress going down more rapidly than President Bush ever thought of? Because, very early on in Bush's administration, we were informed there would be war and rumors of war. He's lived up to the expectations we were led to believe. Now, I don't agree with most of his choices, but at least he's consistent with his promise. Congress, on the other hand is simply full of promises and bluster and then not only caves, but adds a ton of expensive overbearing earmarks that only serve to devastate what is left of our pathetic economy. Every time the President has asked for more, they have blustered and fussed and said something about "no blank checks" and "no rubber stamp." Then, what does Congress do? They add a ton of extra expenses onto the outrageous demand for warring and then send it for White House approval. That is another area that President Bush has not been wishy-washy. Although, he's a republican, there's nothing fiscally conservative about him, and he never presented himself as such. You can look at him and see that he'd "buy a round for the house," then ask his friend to loan him the money after everybody ordered, 'cause he didn't have any small bills. So, when Congress adds on these billions of dollars of expenses, he's not going back on his word when he signs. Congress loses both ways, in more war funding and irresponsible spending. This last mid-term election was America's last hope for any semblance of logic in Washington, and possibly the democrat's last hope of being taken seriously. This last mid-term election result has been a great disappointment. And that's why the polls show a lower approval rating for Congress than for the President. We quit expecting anything good out of him, ages ago. Congress, however; made campaign promises to the American people that aren't being kept. The biggest one, being, accountability in Washington. Congress wasn't supposed to get elected, then gripe about the President's decisions, then go along and fund them all. They could have stayed home like the rest of us and done that! That's why they have plummeted in the polls. They were elected to rein him in, not reign with him.
but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. - James, brother of Messiah

Bush or Gore . . . Who Has More Power?

As I've listened to all the "hate comments" aimed at both men through these last 7 years, I just can't help but think, it was really only a coin toss by the real powers that be. I feel like we are living the moment of truth in the Emerald City with the Wizard of Oz. Remember, when the big booming voice said, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain ?. . ." Then that man behind the curtain came out and gave certificates and baubles of sentiment that supposedly gave the recipient the valued trait or recognition, he had requested. Now, let's consider Al Gore and George W. Bush, in any of the three roles you choose. There are of course, the munchkins, a.k.a. "we the people," that hoop and cheer or run for cover at every possible situation. And so far, the designation of the "wicked witch" just has too many contenders, and her role is not significant in this commentary, so we'll leave all those women in the news that act like someone just dropped a house on their sister, for another day. Let's get back to our two stars. The republicans will go to their graves knowing George W. Bush won the election and Al Gore was a disgruntled, poor sport, lacking gentlemanly qualities. The democrats on the other hand will go to their grave knowing George W. Bush was appointed as president and Al Gore was denied the presidency. I, as an independent, think it was already decided and the people's vote had no bearing on the outcome. I lived with this hunch for 4 years, until the same but slightly different thing happened in '04. In 2000, it was Florida, the deciding state for the electoral college, with their pregnant chads. In 2004, Ohio, with their electronic ballot mishap, was the deciding electoral college votes. Anyone that can't follow that simple point A to point B is probably simply going to live and die an unquestioning republican, and would prefer to not be bothered with the facts. Now, the flip side of this situation is not that Kerry lost. Get real. If the dems really wanted to be in the White House, the ticket would have been reversed to begin with, but I digress. Al Gore was already on his environmental warpath. It would have been counter productive for Gore's purpose, if there was a fellow party member in the White House. Al wouldn't have needed to go global . . .
This is no longer a republican/democrat issue. This is not a matter of stopping terrorists or global warming. This is the foundation of two issues that will never be resolved and both men have assumed their responsibility beautifully in that they rally the hatred for the other so well. George W. Bush has given the world, the war on terror. Now, if there is an organized alQaida, let me tell you this, there is no end to the ideology. Every warrior that doesn't blow himself up for 70 virgins in the after life has about 12-15 in this life, and they are prolific. That means, each of these children born are born under the teaching that they are a people at war. This war cannot be ended militarily or politically, it will require divine intervention and neither side seems to be able to access that.
Now, for our ecological concerns. There will never be a balance, there will never be a safe and friendly poison emission level. There are tons of people who all want to use, use, use. Oh, I know, there are those that are willing to recycle and buy hybrid vehicles, and vote to not drill for oil, but they keep buying gas, and if we suddenly discover their microwave and i-pod are causing irreparable damage, will they be so zealous? This environmental cause is perfect. There is no way to ever get 6 billion people to come to an agreement about this at all. The most they will do is sell expensive light bulbs and teach the kids to tell grown ups how to throw trash away.
Bottom line on this tandem ideology of George and Al. If the terrorists don't kill you, the lack of oxygen from the trees will suffocate us all. We're all going to die, either way. My thought here is simple. The terrorist countries have most of the crude oil and fewest of the trees. Let's give them all the gas hogs and in a few years, the ecological crisis should resolve the terrorist problem.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with G~d. New Testament

Can the Majority Be Wrong?

I remember laughing out loud when my sister-in-law said this to my husband. It's so memorable in that it was the one and only time she's ever brought humor into my life. Thank G~D, I was just overhearing the phone conversation and she didn't hear my laughter, as she was certainly in high volume, and didn't sound like she intended to be funny. They were discussing their view of my beliefs and she loudly asked, "Can all of us be wrong?" I could share many examples, Scripturally and historically, in which the answer to that question would be an emphatic "YES!" The topic today is not religious but political, however; and I think everybody can clearly be wrong.
Hillary and Barack are both obviously needing something. If Barack really had anything to offer, would he need the Oprah hype? I think not. And if Hillary had any real political solutions, could she be diminished in the polls by the queen of daytime TV? Again, I think not. So the two front running democrats obviously lack substance . . .
I like Edwards, in that he is the only candidate that doesn't bow down to the medical profession and the power of pharmaceuticals, but that hardly puts him in touch with mainstream America.
Moving right along to John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney. American Republicans don't want John McCain, they didn't in 2000 and they don't now. They are grateful that he was a war vet, but the warmongers don't want him, and that's plain and it's simple. Now, Rudy has gained the endorsement of some religious leaders, but he's still lacking the moral rigidity of the mainstream right and that will be a problem for him, especially now that Hillary is beginning to look "defeatable." When it looked as if Hillary was untouchable, Rudy was the right wing, moderate hope, but if Oprah can beat Hillary, Rudy will need to do better on his social moral issues. On to Fred. So many of the right wing are disappointed in the impact Fred has had on the race. They expected him to come in and shake up the race. And he did, about like a speed bump. I'm sure they saw the potential Ronald Reagan in Fred Thompson. He's a bit older, obviously preoccupied with other matters in life, so we can just write him a script and he can stand there and be authoritative . . . I think they should move on to alternate Plan B, although many pundits are still giving Fred good coverage. As for Mitt Romney, America does like a certain appearance for the White House. He and his wife have an air of aristocracy in their presence. And we know that much of the republican constituency is pretty comfortable with moral and financial superiority. I think Mitt Romney commands the same presence as Billy Graham. He's sure in what he believes, and that does touch a number of Americans emotionally and passionately.
I guess I shouldn't leave Ron Paul out of the race. I just have a hard time taking him seriously. He claims to have Libertarian values, but running as a republican because 3rd Party candidates don't get the backing . . . so if he's willing to answer to another party and present himself to be associated just for the sake of the popular vote, what would he agree to while saying otherwise, if he truly had power?
This blog just wouldn't be complete without mentioning the rising star of the GOP that was once considered the absolute long shot of the race, Mike Huckabee.
Obviously the powers behind the pundits are not happy about Mike Huckabee's rise in the polls. Although, I disagree with much of Mr. Huckabee's religious and political views, he's the one candidate that has personified the hope that the entrance to the White House does not have to be purchased. This guy has literally campaigned and appealed to the American public, the old fashioned way. He simply meets them where they are and speaks their language. What a concept in America, electing someone that is in touch with the common people . . .
Considering the questions regarding Mitt Romney's religion and Fred Thompson's church affiliation, I just don't see how the religious right can not vote for Huckabee.
As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. New Testament

Can We Talk About Drugs?

I heard that the Clinton camp and the Obama camp have exchanged a few comments regarding drugs. I also heard the President comment on the drug use of American teens and frankly, I think drug use in general has increased dramatically.
There are people still wanting to feel something or not feel something. There are tons of people that use drugs out of fear and still there are those that simply think a pill should solve everything.
So, where are we, here in America after Obama discovered his youthful drug experimentation was not a good path? And will we all find out where Hillary was when Bill didn't inhale? And what about this report from the President about drugs with teens? He said that illegal drug usage is down, but abuse of prescription meds are dramatically increased. Now, I'm not a rocket scientist here, but from the listener's perspective, this is what I have gleaned regarding drug use and American teens.
It would seem to me, that American teens have figured out how to have legal suppliers. The pharmaceutical industry has done what no ordinary street pusher could manage. Mom and Dad or insurance or medicaid are providing the drugs. No longer does a teen have to spend his hard earned wages and worry about getting caught or busted. Simply have mom or dad take them to the doctor and see what euphoria is offered in the way of a small tablet or capsule for whatever symptoms a teen manages to convey or a concerned or frustrated parent describes. The frightening statistic was something like 54% of prescription drugs are abused. That sounds like a bigger drug problem than America has had with percentages of teens and illegal drugs in the past.
And only G~d knows where Hillary and Barack will settle things before they just manage to give the GOP more ammunition. I am glad that Obama made the comment about Bill C's drug experimentation. I wondered when Bill said he didn't inhale, why someone would take a toke but not inhale. It was just proof to me then, that Bill Clinton could "participate" and completely miss the purpose.
I'd like to share an interesting fact about drugs. The Bible doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal, but the word sorcery, pertaining to the occult and magic, in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word: pharmakeus . . . which of course is the source for the English word for pharmaceutical.
And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee . . .for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. the Revelation

Experience or New . . .

I've wondered for some time just what the big difference between Obama and Clinton really are, when it comes to these words: EXPERIENCE and NEW. Hillary claims to have years of experience, while Obama was relying on his fresh new, no stale old politics approach. Well, I see things a bit differently than either of them have projected. First, I find Obama's use of the race card to be nothing fresh or new. The only thing new I have found about his campaigning and fund raising, is that it is even more invasive and high pressure than anyone previous. As far as Obama rallying Hollywood, what's new about the dems relying on Hollywood backing? And last, but certainly not least, the guy grew up outside of the country . . . Why does he continue to try to present himself with regular middle class American roots?
Now, on to Hillary. What exactly does her resume say? She is an attorney. She is the farthest thing from a feminist you could have in this country. She lived in the Governor's Mansion, because her husband was elected. She lived in the White House because her husband was elected. She stayed with an unfaithful husband for whatever reason, but considering her ongoing political aspirations, it would seem that marriage has provided her with the same security it does the rest of us "stand by your man" kind of women. So, what's the message for feminists. 'Women, you can be anything you choose to be, if you marry the right man, and stay with him.' Now, as to her experience to prepare her for the White House. If being married to a President is what has provided her experience, then by that same logic . . . My husband is a retired electrician, would you like me to wire your house?
Give her credit for what her hands have made . . . a Proverb of Holy Scripture

Transparency in Government

I guess by now, we've all heard the latest on our "intelligence" gathering about Iran. Pertaining to nukes in Iran: they were, now they're not, but they could be again, any time.
I find it interesting that right after we assembled and hosted as much of the Arab world as would attend, in a meeting where many of them refused to even recognize the State of Israel, we have now announced to the world that Iran doesn't have the potential to be as dangerous as we previously said, but they still need to be watched . . . All this announcement has done is let Israel know, once again, with the US as her friend, she just doesn't need any more enemies. And as for the rest of the world listening to our latest intelligence, don't you just wonder how intelligent they think we are by now? I mean no WMD in Iraq, still no bin Laden, and now Iran stopped pursuing the making of nukes in 2003??? I had to laugh when some pundit said Iran stopped their nuke program when they saw the US meant business in Iraq. Excuse me, Iran watched us tell Israel we were too busy to help them defend themselves against Hezbollah, whom America named as a terrorist organization and if you're not for us you're against us and blah, blah, blah.
Now, I find the spin from the White House, just priceless. The President says, this latest intelligence report is an example of transparency in government. When the intelligence changes, we don't change our stand, we just announce that the information is different. So which information would we call intelligence? And Dr. Rice has mentioned our transparency in government as something the rest of the world should aspire to. So, I looked up the word transparent in WordWeb and I'd like to share my findings, which I consider to be "intelligence." I found a myriad of synonyms which I will share and then the definition.
Synonyms for TRANSPARENT: cobwebby, crystal clear, diaphanous, filmy, gauzy, gossamer, sheer, vaporous. Now in my mind, that eludes to several possibilities for transparency in our government. On to the definition and there were four listed, and the fourth used the word in sentences for greater clarity and understanding.
TRANSPARENT: 1. transmitting light, able to be seen through with clarity.
2. so thin as to transmit light
3. free of deceit
4. easily understood or seen through
as in: "a transparent explanation" or "a transparent lie"
Now, doesn't that explain our transparent government, clearly?
. . . Put the vision in writing and make it clear . . . a prophet of Holy Scripture

Video Games

I have been doing a bit of reading about some new video games. I am not an advocate of them, in any form, really, as I see them as a major waste of time, but some headline caught my attention, so the search for information was on. There's just really nothing like spending time learning about something you think is a waste of time, now is there? Back to my information though. Actually, it's a question that covers not just video games, but movies, and TV as well. I'm not much of a movie fan, and to be honest, I just don't have time to own a TV, but I have a real concern about the "virtual interest" of the American observer regarding entertainment. What has happened to us, to make violence so entertaining? I remember when video games began as Atari, and the days of the Mario brothers. There was always a special household that had the latest and greatest in techno-toys and that is where the neighborhood children gathered. I was a mom by then and what I recall of these video games at the neighbor's, was a goal to get somewhere or rescue a princess or something. Albeit, there were some battles and dragon slaying and various forms of aggression, it wasn't the point of the game. The prize or the princess's rescue was the point! Somebody tell me, how has it happened that video games had to get more grotesque to be interesting? Why is more violence needed to sell the games? And do the children playing these "virtual" games become desensitized to violence and gore? I'm not saying there isn't still some sort of a goal involved in these games and movies, but must the quest be so fraught with violence? Perhaps I'm missing the intended goal, as many recruiting stations are right next to arcades and video exchanges.
Gone are the days of the blood baths in the coliseums, the public executions, and community viewed duels.
Does our society view itself to be more civilized and less barbaric that other cultures or ancient civilizations simply because our interest in violence, blood, and gore is neatly packaged in the entertainment industry? Is this really the legacy our sophisticated society intends for our children?
. . . take forth the precious from the vile . . . a prophet of Holy Scripture

HAPPY HOLIDAYS !

Chanukah begins this evening and I am very excited about it this year. I don't really know any specific reason why this year, more than last, but I simply am excited. Perhaps, it's because I actually got to see our grandchildren's faces light up when they saw their gifts. We don't live in the same city, so usually their Chanukah gifts are packed into a huge box and shipped, but this year I had their gifts ready before their visit, the end of November. So maybe that's the excitement. Next year Chanukah and their school Christmas vacation overlap, so they can actually visit through the eight days next year. But today's blog isn't about the joys of being a grandma, it's about the holidays and everyone's varying concerns to keep everything politically correct.
I think political correctness and pseudo-tolerance is just silly through the holidays. I don't expect the stores and malls to be playing "Chanukah, Oh Chanukah" or "I Have a Little Dreydle." When I am shopping between Thanksgiving and the New Year, I expect to hear Christmas Carols, even if I don't understand the religious significance of Santa. I would think in this economic slump we're going through, the stores and malls would be doing everything they could to appeal to their customer base at this time of year, which is predominantly those that celebrate Christmas. It doesn't offend me, it makes good business sense. And I really don't need to hear about a holiday tree, it's a Christmas tree. The holiday I celebrate doesn't have a tree. As a matter of fact, decorated trees are forbidden in our faith and festive observance, so again, no need for a generic term that truly doesn't apply.
I realize for many, this time of year has become a time to take joy in being offended. Some non-Christians are offended by Merry Christmas and some Christians are offended that everyone isn't observing properly. And you know, to these people that take holiday joy in being offended, I hope to bring them some of that joy, myself.
I say, this year, since all the holidays are times of joy and good will, everyone should simply and specifically celebrate what they believe and not devalue the celebration with vague and generic terms! Every day can be special.
This is the day which YHVH hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. a Psalm of Holy Scripture

FAIR: Another Four Letter Word

I heard, once again, the advantage to the Fair Tax. The advantage is completely for the government, which only makes sense, since it is the government that will be collecting. If it was to benefit the tax payer, we could just keep our money and the politicians could get honest work, but, I digress. I can't wait to find out what the word FAIR becomes an acronym for, or already is.
Let's start with the basic premise that we will be paying taxes, one way or another. Income tax was originally set up for states to pay to the federal government, and as the general population comes to realize the IRS is not part of the government, the government knows, it's only a matter of time before the sheeple start balking about dealing with the IRS, so . . . it is now imperative that the pundits get the public sold on voting in a tax! Then there will officially be an individual Federal TAX on the books! If it's voted in, it's "by the people, and of the people." Moving right along to the math portion of this proposal, we must consider. We are being told with the FAIR tax, there will be no payroll tax withheld, low income earners will receive a refund, regularly, and we will all pay a national sales tax that will more than sustain the cost of our federal government. Obviously, our government officials have come to realize America spends more than it makes, so if we pay tax on purchases rather than income, the government will have more money. How does that sound fair? American households already need two incomes just to make it, and now the idea of everything taxed? Again, how does the word fair enter into this concept? Fair implies equality, which is never the case when individuals deal with the government.
Middle class, two income households will be paying credit card interest on the national sales tax for years. I haven't read all the books about FAIR Tax and I don't listen to all the pundits' rhetoric, but if our government officials are going to continue to spend at the present rate and promise to eliminate income taxes, only the very rich will be able to afford the tax on any purchases above the bare necessities. It looks to me, that the FAIR Tax will help solidify the caste system here.
One more variable for the math portion of our problem. Consider FICA, alone, in payroll tax. From 1935 until before the turn of the 21st Century, the payroll withholding rose from 1% to over 7%. That is a 700% increase in 65 years, which is not even an expected lifespan. Can we really afford a federal sales tax that will potentially increase at that rate?
Be wary! If we are hearing about it, the odds are, it's just about a done deal. This isn't to tax the rich, this is to put all American workers on an allowance. FAIR?
Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard. a Proverb of Holy Scripture