spiralstairs

some pics from mc:

]My Webpage[/url]

]My Webpage[/url]

seems one of the latest republican talking points on the 24/7 news networks is comparing the "culture of life" that George Bush and many republicans support (i.e. abortion rights) to the "culture of life" that the late pope supported.

wow. just wow. amazing the lows politicans will sink to in order to boost there approval ratings. nevermind the Pope was against the war in Iraq and the death penalty.

all politicians do it (regardless of party affiliation) but the republicans have really been on a roll lately exploiting the misery of others, by this I mean Tom "Holy crap this guy is house majority leader?!?" DeLay's ridiculous involvement of Congress in the Terry Schiavo tradgedy.

You can see the White House press briefing here on why Bush is going to attend the funeral.

or you can read the transcript here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...050404-2.html#1

Q Scott, you mentioned the culture of life. When Pope John Paul II wrote about the culture of life in 1995, he described it also in terms of the death penalty, not just abortion and euthanasia. He said that in these modern times, cases where the death penalty was warranted are rare, if not nonexistent. Now, knowing that the President fully supports the death penalty, used the death penalty, does he see it as a contradiction to use that phrase, "culture of life," and still support the death penalty, which the Pope expressed his opposition to?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Elaine, I think the President's views are well known. I don't think now is the time to talk about where they may have differed on one or two areas. This is a time to honor a great moral leader, someone who, as the President said, was a hero for the ages.

 

Q Well, wait. Don't you honor a great moral leader and a great teacher, somebody who did engage in debate, whose whole life was about this kind of discussion and wrestling with difficult moral problems, by answering that question: Does the President see it as a contradiction that he adopts only part of what Pope John Paul said was the culture of life?

 

MR. McCLELLAN: No, let's separate out -- I mean, because I spoke about this issue last week, and why the President's view is the way it is. And that's because we're talking about the difference between innocent life and someone who is guilty of horrific crimes.

 

Q But, Scott --

 

Q Scott, if I could --

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, Wendell, and then Les. We'll get to Arizona Minutemen in a minute. (Laughter.)

 

Q I didn't ask that.

 

Q It is the Pope's phrase, "a culture of life," which the President adopted, endorsing only part of.

 

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, the President's views go back a long ways. This is not something that was new to the President over the last decade. The President has long believed in promoting a culture of life in America. And that is something he has talked often about, and he will continue to talk about. And he has stood on the side of defending life when it comes to legislative efforts.

 

But one of the things that I think -- and I think that the Holy Father was a great moral leader in this respect -- and one of the things the President talks about is that building a culture of life in America is about more than laws, it's about changing hearts. And that's what the President has tried to do, as well.

To get back to the politics of this, a secret memo was uncovered recently that shows why the Republicans in congress tried so hard to challenge the decision to leave the feeding tube out. The following are some of the reasons why:

"This is an important moral issue and the Pro-Life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue."

"This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

Here is a link to the memo

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/talkingpoints.htm

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=202

Glad to see politicians are still turning a family's tradegy into an opportunity to gain political ground.

dang, i can't log in now. just stays on the "Authenticate" thingy for a bit then says "Cant log in" or whatever.

kinda lame but im still stoked about the warrior changes.

Anyone hear about this? Kinda sucks, in my opinion. I was so psyched when I saw NFL 2k5 being sold for 20 bucks that I bought a copy even though I don't care for console games anymore. Turned out it was a really great game. A much more fun football game than Madden, I think.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsbusin...tory?id=1945691

Electronic Arts, the leading maker of sports video games, signed an exclusive five-year contract with the National Football League and the NFL Players Association, deals that will give the company sole possession of the licensed football video game business.

 

The partnership, which will commence with the publishing of Electronic Arts' Madden game next August, eliminates the competitive battle EA endured this year with ESPN's NFL 2K5 game, a joint venture between Sega and Take-Two Interactive. Without the use of team and player names, generic games have struggled for survival in the current environment.

 

Before this year, EA's Madden franchise -- which the company has sold more than 40 million copies of since its debut in 1989 -- previously dominated the football game marketplace. Bit players, including Midway, 989 Sports and Microsoft, dropped out of the licensed football game business this year.

 

But the Madden 2005 game was seriously challenged by NFL 2K5, thanks to good reviews and a pricing war. NFL 2K5 was available in stores in July for $19.95. For three months, the Madden game was priced at $49.95, until the company finally relented on Nov. 8 and lowered it by $20.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3087387

How come Tom DeLay and congress aren't up in arms about this?

The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, nearly 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open, his mother said, and smacked his lips.

 

• • • • •

"I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive."

 

Wanda Hudson ,

mother of Sun Hudson

 

• • • • •

 

Then at 2 p.m. Tuesday, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his birth Sept. 25. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

 

"I talked to him, I told him that I loved him. Inside of me, my son is still alive," Wanda Hudson told reporters afterward. "This hospital was considered a miracle hospital. When it came to my son, they gave up in six months. ... They made a terrible mistake."

 

Sun's death marks the first time a U.S. judge has allowed a hospital to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now.

here is a link to the educational CD-rom I was talking about. if you like douglas adams, you will love this. almost 400 megabyte download, but its worth it. very entertaining stuff.

Last Chance To See

who knows? maybe this absolutely inane bill will catch on like wild-fire and before ya know it they'll amend the constitution to make this bill constitutional.

it has happened before in utah, cept with marijuana

it is interesting that this is such a huge story on the 24/7 news networks. feeding tubes are removed from individuals such as this woman all the time.

i think this is a non-issue, really, at least for our federal government. a lot of the people in congress are turning this into a political issue, however (Tom Delay for example).

this should have nothing to do with the federal government. as the constitution says in article X, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

thanks for posting that zeabos. ive been waiting so long for these movies to come out.

i agree with dweez, check out dirk gently series too. he also made an educational CD-Rom on endangered animals which is also very entertaining. there is a place to download it for free, if only i could remember where.

The senate passed a tougher bankruptcy bill recently and it is a huge issue that affects every single American yet it has recieved almost zero attention in the mainstream news (the news, instead, was populated by speculation about Michael Jackson's pajama-party court appearance).

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/bankruptcy.ap/

There is the story.

Now my opinion. This bill is a blatant example of interest groups running our government. Lenders have been pushing this bill for 8 years and now under Republican leadership it has been passed through and praised by Bush.

It is a bill paid for and by the credit card company industry. No longer can Americans rely on the safety net that bankruptcy provides (except if your wealthy...but we'll get to that point). The credit card companies say this is needed to curb abuse of the bankruptcy system. However, statistics show that 50% of people who file for bankruptcy do so because of medical emergencies. The other half filed are overwhelmingly because of divorce or job loss.

But the thing is, this bill solves nothing. It only reforms Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies - individual avenues of bankruptcies- and Chapter 11 is left out for some reason...oh! thats right! Chapter 11 covers bankruptcy for businesses! So the Republicans who wrote up this bill think that the individuals are the ones abusing the system, not the businesses.

This bill also has many loopholes for the wealthy. Chuck Schumer of New York proposed this amendment to fix these loopholes:

03-Mar

On the Amendment S.Amdt. 42

Schumer Amdt. No. 42; To limit the exemption for asset protection trusts.

REJECTED

Here is what this means (not in my words, too technical for me, but read the bill, this is all in there):

"What does that mean? Here's the translation: Sen. Schumer (D) wanted to limit the free ride given in this Republican-sponsored legislation to people who are rich enough to put their assets in a "protected trust".

Laws inspired by the Enron debacle may hold the officers of a corporation personally liable for the deceptive financial practices, and ensuing disasters, of their corporation. However -- luckily for prospective corporate criminals -- there are in the United States a handful of states, such as Utah, where you may stash your assets in a "protected trust" and render them untouchable by bankruptcy laws -- and you don't have to be a resident of those states to take advantage of those laws.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, while purporting to strenghen bancruptcy laws against abuse, specifically provides exemptions for those asset protection trusts.  Schumer's Amendment 42 was an attempt to close that loophole.

It was rejected.  Not only rejected, but every Republican voted against it. The Republicans were joined by Democrats Nelson, Johnson, and Carper."

Some big things have been happening lately:

1.) Spanish Muslims issue Bin Ladin Fatwa (bout time! hopefully this is a new trend): http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0B6...4EB39DB7E45.htm

2.) The majority of the European Union parliament declared Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization (though some countries such as Spain, Britain and France were reluctant, not wanting to create more tension in the middle east but I say its about time the Europeans start recognizing the bad guys).

3.) The first Afghan blog! (http://afghanwarrior.blogspot.com/2005/03/afghanistans-first-blog.html)

"My name is Waheed. I am a 20 year old male from Afghanistan and I have been working with the US Army in Kabul, Afghanistan as an interpreter for the last 2 years....

During the Taliban we didn’t have internet system in Afghanistan but now there are about 25 net cafes in Kabul, and also some in Herat, Kandahar and Balkh provinces. People are really interested to use the internet but its too expensive for people to use it - only rich people can afford it."

Waheed also reports that 4,000 women are taking vocational training.

4.) An Egyptian opposition leader has been released from prison! http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=650

I'm surprised Soul didn't beat me to this story, hehe:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/10/news/inter...dex.htm?cnn=yes

"Norway's prime minister says company should alter brochures that show only men assembling furniture."

any other thoughts on this? this is a huge issue yet nobody feels like discussing it.

whoa guys! i came back to look at my thread and it had a bunch of replies. i thought "yay! intelligent and thought-provoking dialogue!" but no.

can we get back to the topic? kirin and norguard posted some good stuff but nobody bothered to comment.

so yeah, after some thought i figured this decision is a good compromise. you have to draw the line somewhere, no matter how arbitrary the age of 18 is. i am personally against the death penalty (as im sure many americans are) while some people think once you commit a violent crime you should be hung in town square (which, to be truthful, would be a more economically sound solution).

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table." -GWB

Source

i agree ak, its a tough topic. but the more ive thinking about it the more im convinced our government should not be executing american citizens.

some stats from Amnesty International on capital punishment:

"International human rights agreements prohibit the execution of anyone under 18 years old at the time of the offense. Nevertheless five countries since 1990 are known to have executed prisoners who were under 18: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, U.S., and Yemen. The majority of known executions of juvenile offenders has been in the U.S. (six since 1990).â€â€Amnesty International."

oober is right here. the majority of the civilized world does not execute minors.

so the supreme court ruled that executing juveniles is unconstitutional.

Writing for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy found the punishment was unconstitutionally cruel under the Eighth Amendment:

"When a juvenile commits a heinous crime, the State can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/scotus.d...alty/index.html

"Amendment VIII":

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

See, I have a problem with this. Isn't executing a human being, no matter what age, cruel and unusual punishment? Say a person of 17 commits a homicide a day before his 18th birthday and gets caught. With this court decision, the person will be exempt from execution. A day later and it would've been possible for the dealth penalty to be enforced. It just seems rather arbitrary. I say the 8th amendment makes it uncostitutional to kill any individual. period. anyone else agree or am i just crazy here?

What makes you say it is the teachers? I would say it's more likely what they wrote is stuff they heard from their parents.

i was reading about this the other day. apparently some guy was taping all his conversations with Bush before he became president without Bush's knowledge.

Good to hear Bush doesn't want to join conversatives who "kick gays". Errr. Right.

There doesn't seem to be much to these tapes though, just some talk about Bush's drug use (marijuana, cocaine) and the previous comment about gays.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/21/...apes/index.html

i just see it as a sign of the times. government keeps getting more entrenched in our personal/religious lives. they are now creating a "new" type of marriage (only for straight ppl of course) to curb divorce rates and the program is being headed by the governor of a state. i just dont see a place for this kinda thing in our government. your right, 1st amendement doesnt back what im saying up. it was late and i was delirious.

http://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/1272708.html

http://www.arkansas.gov/governor/programs/...t_marriage.html

This kind of irks me.

and i will quote the 1st amendment here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

so basically, you get this special marriage license and it makes it harder to get a divorce. does this sound a bit silly to anyone else?

this is why i really dislike the Bush administration. They are one of the most secretive ever. Worse than Nixon's I think.

i agree with everything from your first post.

it is so obviously awful that a discussion isnt really necessary. i would like to hear an opposing view point on it though.

thats pretty much all i've got to say bout it.

-noah

Weren't you lvl 60 human mage? I thought you cant play both sides on a PvP server?

i'm probably gonna roll a priest tonight on Illidan then. i'll whisper you guys in game.