Is There A "God Particle"?

They had it on the news last night that scientists have indeed discovered a "God particle" that pervades the Universe and is somehow a "universal link to all of us". If this is true or anything remotely like it - could we then infer that scientists have at last quantified God? If this is true than that means my prized theology is wrong. Just to review that I believed that God was both transcendent and iminent, but he was not Omnipresent. That is to say, I did NOT believe that God could be "found" in this Universe. God does not look to "find" us and we cannot "find" him. Whatever God is aware of, he is aware of all the time and is not surprised or swayed by anything new. "My" god is unchanging and to get theological, he is 'Immutable". Whether God is omnipotent or all powerful is a matter of parsing words. I will say there is one thing "My" God cannot do is to change either his mind or his prior edicts concerning our Universe. "My" God is omnicient, which is "all knowing". But he is not omnipresent. People like Wayne Dyre have always stated that God was omnipresent - -that he somehow pervades the Universe. So one under Wayne Dyre reasoning could somehow "search his own soul" and find that "spark of divinity" within us all. But now you don't even need to search your own soul, you can let scientists do it in a laboritory and he will find it for you. I have always stated that I am big on Atomic physics, but pretty darn ignorant of subatomic particle physics. They say they have isolated the graviton. I'm not sure how Einstein would feel about that but Captain Kirk and Sephrin Cockrin would be delighted. If gravity is a thing we can somehow "strain out" of matter, like putting a water filter on your tap, then inferencially, all sorts of things would now be Possible that previously even Einstein would regard as impossible. We are told by one source that this graviton is a circle or hoop shape whereas everything else is strings that are "anchored" to something. Of course to even with subatomic particles you have to have your deductive and inferencial skills honed to a tee. Some of the TNG stuff would say that "space" itself is even different on this micro level scale. I mean the kind of space that matter normally occupies. Often we hear things stated as fact that turn out to be phantom illusions. Cold hydrogen fusion or "instant energy" is one of these. Another is this notion of a positron, which if it existed would be a component of anti matter (another Startrek idiom) we won't venture into the impossibility of now. We are told and that Mike guy who used to be here agrees with me that "the nature of space is defined by the matter that it's around" and leave it at that. This positron they tell us can be produced, at least temporarily by the "splitting" of a proton and the oppositely charged particles fly off in opposite directions - - in a matter that makes me wonder if it's only some illusion to begin with. I'll trust that it isn't. Bruce was saying something I had assumed but hadn't heard explicitly before that photon particle energy of light increases directly proportional to the number of light waves per second. So blue light would have twice as many as red. But that the photon itself has a fixed "mass" or whatever- - - so when it's split what happens to this mass? And Einstein teaches says that it would have no mass at all if it weren't moving- - so might we infer that said electron and positron is moving twice as fast after a parent proton split and as such each "child" is thus restored to the mass value of its progenitor? It's a valid inference, I'd say. But it raises the question- - and that is just what kind of "Space" does the God particle occupy. We are told in the micro dimensions we are dealing with, even the nature of space as we know it is altered, but I can't begin to guess how. Is it ordenary space we can all relate to I'm referring to, obviously and not "outer space". Or all the God particles somehow mystically connected with each other in a way that affects all of us, if we only knew about it? And what even gives this "God" particle the quality that enables it to be called something so pretentious? Sometimes we hear a story and years and years pass and we never hear of it again. Is this one of those cases? Or are we somehow entering upon some new scientific threhhold of awareness?

You may remember that discussion I had with Dr. Levy in the car on the way back from the bank where I felt the necessity to clarify my take on this whole "Objectivist" thing. I have stated that I am a Determinist Deist. Right off some people who regard themselves as True deists may say I don't qualify as one because I deny one of their sacred tennants, which is Self Determination, which some may say "is the whole point of being a Deist to begin with". Well, it's not MY whole point in being one. My beliefs about God stem more from science rather than reading some Philosophical writing by a 18th century deist. In terms of being an objectivist, I am that. But I also stated that there are certain things I believe in that can't be proved. For instance I believe that Time exists in an objective sense. I do not believe, as Einstein seems to, that Time is but an illusion created and determined by physical processes alone. I also believe in Morality. I believe in karma and the laws of karma. Three of my own "dimensions" relate to karmic law. These may be metaphorical- - but the Bible itself relates countless instances of karma catching up to people. So I'm kind of into the whole "paying back the Universe" scene. I also believe in Math and numbers, which they were just talking about on a game show. Of course we know scientific laws are real but are the laws themselves a "Thing"? And I believe also in a God which by my own description of him cannot be scientifically proved. If Wayne Dyre has other ideas perhaps I should listen to his lectures more often. I pure empericist, as I told Dr. Levy would not believe in these things. But all an Objivist need believe is that the Object of his beliefs DO in fact have an Object existance apart from himself, and therefore not dependent on the Believer for said existance. I this matter I part company with countless Christian evangelists. Allow me now to point out an Inconsistency I laid on you a couple weeks ago. I did a quotation of Belief or Faith being the opposite of Certainty. This is wrong, of course. I have criticized Fred Price for saying just this thing and then I go on and say it myself. I thought the quotation was cute and had a point to it so I used it. Obviously Faith is the opposite of Doubt and Certainty is the opposite of Uncertainty. The two words are different. But at the same time one certainly Believes and has Faith in things he is Certain about. To Fred Price - - Belief and Certainty (of "proved fact") are not compatable. In Fred's world - - Belief is to one degree or another a slave to the Subjective, and somehow not as real as the Objective or proven, at least in my world. But Fred Price is a man of religion and not science, and therefore a scientists might use Fred Price's own words to discredit religion as a whole and to extol Science. In terms of Logic I said that "Most of the time - - Logic was the prudent course". I did not say ALL the time. Because when Logic butts up against certain Moral issues, morality trumps Logic every time. It's like putting brass nuggets on one side of the scale and a brick on the other" like Charlton Heston did with Emperor Seti. So I guess if you're going to build an Android, it's best to install an Ethics program in along with it so that certain "problems" don't come up.

In terms of other political news - - just keep reading through the next two blogs, which were also written today December 14th at points earlier in the day. Actually much of this day I've had various hassles to deal with I hope work out satisfactorily, but right now I can't be sure.

The Circular Firing Squad

"All the Trickle down theory produces in the course of time is a bunch of peons"

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me that it's raining"

-Judge Judy

"Do you remember the story about the dog with the bone in its mouth that saw its reflection in the pond, and so charged at his own reflection?"

You know that someone asked Lyndon Johnson why he had so political enemies that were in his administration and his response was classic. He said, “You see, I’d rather have all my Enemies inside the tent pissing out, then outside the tent pissing in”. It’s too bad people like Bill Halliday never learned that lesson. It's an old adage that you never want to make an enemy out of a powerful person. I don't even think its kosher to make an enemy out of a formerly neutral if not positive person for no reason at all other than pride. In his time I imagine he’s offended the gay community, whom “liberal churches” used to court. He has alienated the Hollywood community by saying “there is a conspiracy in all these modern films to mock Christianity and Christians”, and he certainly offended fans of Gulf War I by comparing St. Peter to Saddam Hussein. He alienated people with AIDS by his highly warped sermon on John 5 and of course he has an ongoing war with the rest of the denomination, which makes me wonder if he’s still around. Even when I were there were roomers circulating that the denomination was going to “de certify” our Church.

Mitt Romney has unleashed an arsenal by referring to Gingrich as someone who would bring "Zaniness to the White House. Zaniness is fine for a political campaign and you see hosts on the radio, but- - - ". Romney said we need "sobriety". That's the second time I've heard that particular word about Gingrich's lacking. Mitt Romney also said that if Newt holds himself to standards he sets for others that he should give back all the money he got from Freddy Mack as a lobbyist or whatever. He said that in Saturday's debate. But Newt Gingrich is the guy who made a fatal mistake in my opinion the other day when he said that “All Mitt Romney has done is to bankrupt corporation after corporation and ship US jobs overseas”. Hey- - - that’s OUR line. Newt saying that is kind of a betrayal of the fellowship of crooks he hangs out with. I have wondered if Rush Limbaugh ever did a program attacking Jack Abramoff for attacking his fellow political crooks on Sixty Minutes that night. We know that Rush attacked Herman Cain on a racial issue on one occasion. Rush has even attacked slightly moderate people such as John Boehner and Newt Gingrich even when they didn’t toe the line. And after Rush reprimanded them they got in line. Now Mitt Romney is striking back by saying in his adds that he plans to offer steady, firm leadership, “By a man with the right temperament to lead a nation” alluding to Newt’s ongoing foot in mouth disease. Of course Newt has pretty much blown the Hispanic vote by his “English only” statements, and alienated the Islamic community in any number of ways. If I were an Islamic myself I might ask “Oh? And since when was not the Arab community in the US culturally conservative?” Every one of that persuasion I’ve met has been a very traditional, law abiding American. Back to Romney again- - he said that the Iraq War was a failure, because he wasn’t President when it ended. I wonder how veterans returning feel about that statement? Now we hear that people in Iowa may be re-thinking the whole Newt Gingrich hysteria. It’s just a roomer at this point but just maybe they may come full circle and end up back where they started giving Michelle Bachman a victory on primary day, just maybe.

I was listening to the radio the other day and got in the middle of a story relating how a bunch of prisoners were herded in mass into a secluded place and either forced to kneel or assume other more uncomfortable positions and not allowed to move, for six or seven hours at a time, and were denied food, water, or even a restroom break. And they weren’t allowed to make any phone calls at all but held incommunicado for days. No, this wasn’t in some foreign country such as Syria, but it is what the LAPD subjected the people they arrested in the Occupy movement to. It turns out that that one man’s story we related as to his mistreatment, was a writer for “Family Guy”. That little factoid might be ruled irrelivent by a trial judge but as a juror sitting on a police abuse case, that little detail might be considered of some relivence to me, even though it shouldn’t be. It kind of flies in the face of Mayor Viragosa saying how proud of the LAPD he was for the peaceful resolution of the whole Occupy controversy. If one were into starting roomers one might think that President Obama is choosing this opportunity to “trangulate” an issue by giving thumbs up to all these arrests just to keep the protests out of the news, since as I have indicated, all these protests ill serve the “main stream” message he has tried so hard to portray. In his mind alienating those on the left is the least of his worried because- - after all, where are they going to go? But now we hear that President Obama indeed took proactive measures to keep the “Preventitive Detention” passages IN that Arms bill. That is the Congress wanted the laungage removed and stick in an amendment to invalidate most of it. But the President stepped in and said “I want that portion of the bill removed” so that the parts about turning the United States into a militarized zone, remained in full force. Someone has said that if the President signs this bill, he will be in violation of the Constitution, and will indeed have committed an impeachable offence. If was this Black caller who said this, and I fully agree. It’s just like throwing the Constitution into the waste basket. Which kind of makes me wonder which way the President has his head screwed on these days. It’s still not late for people like me to vote for Ron Paul in the primary- - and I just might if I see more of this behavior from him.

It’s funny how certain conservatives have such a loathing for anything that might be called “liberal” or “compassionate” that they will attack things you wouldn’t imagine they would. Rush Limbaugh used to have that “bless the beasts and children” song up and mock it. Rush has a legendary dislike of children. Early on he mocked some kid flying solo in a balloon as a “balloon for Peace” or something. Now Rush Limbaugh is attacking some charity fund or something for disadvantaged children. He’s now attacking the character of any children or disadvantaged who would take advantage of this program. Was it Limbaugh or was it Gingrich who said "All these children are are a bunch of waifs and serfs and - - - " (somehow not worth redeeming) Judy a few weeks back spoke in disparaging terms “Oh all the liberals just want equality for everybody and then we’ll all be happy and everything will be fine” in sarcastic tones. I’m still scratching my head to figure out how President Obama’s Kansas speech last week could possibly be constrewed as a “Marxist manifesto”. But now a caller comes on the air and challenges Thom Hartman head on, on this whole subject. But the thing is, when you’re in a battle of whits- - some people are unarmed! Thom Hartman was engaging in one of his frequent pastimes of citing the benefits to society as a whole, the way a sociologist would do, in comparing nations and individual states, where the disparity between high and low income was relatively small, verses what sort of societal problems are encountered in high income disparity states where there is a great gulf between rich and poor. Various states such as Mississippi and Louisiana have a high income disparity what with their grand Southern Mansions and also ramshackle shacks where the poor don’t have running water. In such states, and certain countries, and I imagine places like South Africa head the list- - where income disparity is high, you have the highest suicide and murder rates, and the highest rapes and marital instability, as well as mental illness, drug addiction, and other evils. For such states and nations the crime rate and particularly the violence rate is quite high. Whereas in places like Holland and Norway and Denmark, and states such as Wisconsin and Utah and Vermont- - these states have relatively low income disparity and their societies are much more stable. Anyhow the caller on his high horse was saying “Well Thom, you just don’t know all the ramifications and costs of putting into existence the things you say. Let me tell you you think it would be a panacea but it wouldn’t be. Everything has its price, and we just have no research on the matter anyhow”. Well of course, that’s not true. Because in the late forties, fifties, sixties, and early seventies in this country we had precisely that. We had higher worker wages, and also higher tax rates for the rich and we had more stable economies and not bubble economies we have when the Republicans assume power. The upside to instituting more equality is amazing. Nobody said it was a “Panacia”. But if you want lower rates on all those society ills, we actually know what to do, and what has been proven to work in the past. I know the industrious are praised in the abstract, but when it actually comes down to getting their invention marketed, who will help them? I know what Adam Smith said about “The invisible hand” and all and in many cases - - free market forces can be an amazingly equitable and fair system of distribution of scarce resources. But you know and I know that even Adam Smith said we need the equivalent of yard markers and referees and goal posts, to keep the game honest. We don’t have these now. All the guard rails have been removed. And the President has been hesitant as least, to try and get back the economic safeguards we had prior to 1998.

"These Are Times That Try Men's Souls"

Tuesday evening EST the House passed the Payroll tax cut extension bill. Peraonally in the final analysis I would have voted against this bill. Let’s just say that Michelle Bachman has a point. We don’t want to undermine Social Security for future retirees. But the price of awarding this sought after plum prize to the President was that pipeline from Canada to Texas where their pollution is exported to the United States in what I regard as tainted oil. This is the 21^st Century and we don’t need oil that bad. Personally I am still expecting the price of crude oil to drop dramatically soon since I just don’t see world wide demand supporting this high a price, and especially since so many alternative energy sources are coming online. Also there are numerous safety concerns about this pipeline. But other provisions of this bill just passed tonight are pretty bad. It vastly restricts unemployment coverage and mandates that unemployed people be tested for drugs since we all know they hang around the house smoking crack. There was talk of mandating unemployment recipients have a high school diploma. There is also some provision about their paying for their own work training. So in the end you have one minor incentive to pass the thing and a whole slew of reasons to oppose it. Just as I opposed last years Christmas tree, as well as Christmas gift tax cut bill.

I continue to be amazed that Gingrich is now the darling of the media, main stream and tea party alike, as the ideal republican nominee. It’s strange that Christians as well as Dr. Levy will vilify President Jimmy Carter no end when he had one of the most honist administrations we’ve had in the last forty years, as well as having impacable marital credentials, as well as being a truly honest, unassuming man. Of course it’s guys like him that forced Christian pastors to come up with the term of “false humility” to deal with modest people they didn’t like. Even Dr. Levy takes off on Jimmy Carter. At the same time Pete Richards, who first “called” the Gingrich surge, says that Newt feels “comfortable” among Calvary Church pastors and the feelings are mutual. Of course Calvary Chapel welcomed one pastor to preach as guest who had questionable sexual contacts with various young females whom he was counseling. But hey- - he is a good speaker. You know if the networks or more likely Cable are in for a good Christian sitcom of a satirical nature I know one family that fills the bill. Four out of the five nuclear family members have major character flaws. One daughter had a baby boy while she was still a teenager. The mother was an alcoholic and was basically driven out of the church. Whereas the brother was employed by an animal lab who does experiments on and dissects animals. And we mustn’t forget the grandmother, whom we call Sister Irene, who was a dingbat in her own right. The one daughter lacking any major character flaws, is definitely one of the quieter ones, when it comes to religious ponthication. I continue to cringe every time someone brings up the idea of term limits for Congressmen. That’s like going from the frying pan into the fire and would insure that the few good politicians get eliminated, such as Bernie Sanders and Barbra Boxer. If that happened the lobbyists would truly have the run of the place, unfettered by anybody with any actual experience in handling them. Newt got voted out of office and it didn’t stop him. Others suggest that we pay our legislators too much. But this job costs money and as the Bible teaches “A worker is entitled to his pay”. But I don’t see why they can’t just pass a law saying that a congressman shall receive NO money from any lobbyist. Dennis Prager’s position on campaign contributions is not to restrict it but to have full disclosure. That view seems acceptable to me. However I think the caviat is that some dummy organization is not set up just to disguise who is a contributor to it, or for that matter some dummy corporation set up. I don’t believe corporations should be allowed to participate in politics. Labor unions are a different story. I have no problem with the ACLU or the Sierra or NORML or other advocacy organizations contributing to a campaign because we all know who they are and what they stand for. But for instance a dummy organization set up by the Koch brothers we have no idea what their real agenda might be, but you know it’s gotta be bad. It’s funny how Neil of KFI can talk about “Big Boundaries” when it comes to sinning, and yet he sees no problem with anything connected with war- - - and as far as I know has never said word one about all of the Wall Street corruption that’s occurred in the last ten years. Or is he going to tell me that the Bible is silent on the subject of money and honesty in business dealings?

The military’s role in the United States has been growing. In 2002 President Bush established NorthCom, a military command inside the United States based in Colorado with additional bases in Alaska, Florida, Texas, Virginia and the DC area. On October 1, 2008, the 3rd Infantry Division (United States)’s 1st Brigade Combat Team was assigned to U.S. Northern Command, marking the first time an active unit had been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command. In 2008, the Pentagon announced plans to deploy 20,000 troops inside the United States, set to be trained by 2011. The change in law in the new Defense Authorization comes at a time of rapidly creeping domestic military expansion. e of the gravest grievances described in the Declaration of Independence was the misuse of standing armies against the colonialists. Numerous state constitutions declared standing armies a threat to liberty and the U.S. Constitution showed antipathy to militarism. Now, the Congress and President Obama are prepared to turn the military against Americans and allow indefinite military detention without any finding of guilt. eese is right: see this, this, this and this.) d former high-level military officers say that the new bill authorizing indefinite detention of Americans will hand the terrorists a big win … and is a big step towards tyranny at home. Ron Paul says that it will establish martial law in America (and no, Obama will not veto it … he’s the one who asked for it). I told you Obama would not veto this bill last week.

Some people would make certain somewhat disparaging “observations” about my writings saying that I place too high a premium on Logic to the detriment of human emotions. Some might even liken me to that kid on Star Trek who responds “I am functioning within normal parameters”. Some like Bill Halliday might even say that I am emotionally damaged (based on NO evidence what so ever) Others may speak of this character flaw in me in terms of “not having the Love of God. They’d never come out and say I had a character problem because they know better. So they will speak in terms of something that I DON’T HAVE, with the implication is that it’s something they DO have, and are therefore superior. But the thing is Character is not something that you “Have”, it’s something you ARE. It’s a part of your intrinsic nature apart from any possessions. These people have trouble grasping this. We need to get right down to the core of the matter- - where the nitty meets the gritty, so to speak. They will claim that they have a thing called “Forgiveness” or “Salvation”. I say, “OK, that’s something you Have - - but what ARE you? What are YOU?” I never mentioned the Father’s profession in that example of mine. Well, what was Jehovah’s profession before he became universal God? Mr Hickey told us in philosophy class in 1972 that Monotheism was invented by the Zoroastrians of the Pursian empire, and before that Jehovah was just a local tribal god. The Mormons teach, or used to, that after you die you can go off and found your own planet with a harem of women, and in the future all your descendants will come to venerate you for all generations. That’s almost as good as being a god. So I guess what I’d ask all these devout Christians is “If you weren’t busy being Religious all the time what would you Be?” To get back to my initial issue, you could say I am drawn to Logic because Logic is prudent in most cases, and prudence is one of my seven cardinal virtues. A virtue is a character trait. It’s not something you “have”; it’s something you Are. What IS Newt Gingrich. Maybe the Deep Space Nine people would call him a political shape shifter. What is it about his inherent arrogance and propensity to Lie without flunching that attracts devout Christians? I believe a man’s character can also be determined by what he is repulsed by and what he is Attracted TO. Even Chuck Smith teaches this. Personally were I to be in one of these political debates I might get a little testy at all the idiocy around me. I’d be compelled to be constantly calling everybody else’s answers sheer lies. I might even repermand the audience for being such sheep like idiots. How I would like to see the world Thomas Jefferson envisioned of an educated electorate. We used to value education. An uneducated vote in my opinion is far less significant than an educated vote. But the “bread and circuses” mindset of audiences today might make this task difficult. They may not like being talked down to. But we are reaching the tipping point in America that if we don’t do something, and soon, the tea party with their economic madness and mindless bigotry will take over and the world as we know it will be plunged into Hell, and life won’t be worth living.

Newt Gingrich and His Standing with "God"

This is going to be a touchy issue for a lot of readers if they are religiously inclined. You have heard that Newt said when it came his turn to talk about his 'character" that he said "Well, I've made mistakes and I have had to go to God for forgiveness". So does this "God" forgive everybody else with such ease? How about a child molester spending his 23rd year in prison for a crime committed in his youth and he is now middle aged? When does he get the OK sign from God? Never? That's what I thought. How about you and various relatives who hold old grudges against you and every holiday season you are reminded by them of your real or imagined shortcomings? Don't you think a little "forgiveness" would go nice here? Suppose you have some boss or superior with some real or imagined grudge against you and he does everything he can to block any promotion you might otherwise get, possibly even to the detriment of the business? So when does that situation get resolved and how come all the petetioning on your part to God won't change the heart of your boss? There are political vendettas where key pieces of legislation get held up, seemingly with assenine subbornness? So it's always not a neat and clean matter of going to a priest and obtaining forgiveness. But now let's talk about the whole thing about sin. David told God that he had sinned "Against God alone" in his murder of Uriah and taking his wife to wed. Well, I wonder how the now dead Uriah would feel about it if he were still alive? What about the institution of marriage? I have always had a problem with people who say "I didn't sin against YOU- - my only sin is a sin against God, and as for you, you can go to Hell as far as I care". How "Christian" is THAT? The thing is I don't even like the term of a sin "against God". For people like myself and Ron Hubbard, sin is sin and it exists apart from the object that may be affected. You can call it "abberation" or "error" or "sin", to me it's all the same thing. People do it and then they spot it once, but later on are back doing the same thing again. Just this morning Tuesday December 13th I corrected certain logical errors a couple of postings back on the subject of Kurtoosis. I saw my error and I fixed it as soon as I saw it, so future readers would not be misled on an already complicated subject. In other words I did a George Romney style revision. I mean does everything we publish in life have to have the permanence as a carving on Mt. Rushmore? I mean you will remember how Ted Kennedy did numerous "revisions" on his deposition concerning Chapiquittic. Newt used to be a Calvinist, and they believe every bit of merit we have before God is by grace alone. There is none of this "proving yourself worthy to be accepted by other Christians' that people have thrown in my face, personally, so many times. And if you believe this you also believe that the Lord is sovreign, and nothing is never "out of God's control" or escapes His notice. So the very idea that America has "departed from the will or plan of God" is an utterly non Calvinistic one. At no time can it ever be claimed by a Calvinist that somehow if God doesn't come through it's because we ourselves somehow Prevented God from doing what he WANTED to do for us, because of our own shortcomings so that God looked at us and said "well, I just can't forgive that fault"! In my own view of God, events never "get away from God" and God never has to "think anything over" before he acts. So this whole crap about "patience" is really silly.

So now let's just take another look at Newt and see if we want a man in the White House who has made as many "mistakes" as he has made. We know Newt lied about his involvement with Freddy Mac. But he's STILL lying and I'll tell you how. We know that Freddy Mac is not the thing that Caused the whole real estate bubble and crash of the economy. One might think it would be in Newt's OWN interest to come out and Say that Freddy Mac was NOT the problem. This reduce his own culpibility as well. But he won't say this in any debate. Why? I'll tell you. Because he is "towing the Party Line". The "Party Line" is that Freddy and Fanny CAUSED the whole real estate deboccle. And for Newt to depart from this would be to betray his tea party constituancy. Hence Newt defends a lie where telling the Truth would be in his own interest. Newt though will pride himself on "telling the Truth" concerning Israel and Palistine. Well, at least if he's going to SAY this shouldn't actually BE the Truth? The Saudi Arabian tribes weren't even a nation back in 1920 or whenever. Certainly this was the case in the 1800's. Israel was not yet a nation. But the people of Palestine inhabitted the land. Some were Sephardic Jews and others were Islamic or perhaps even Christian. They were not Saudis. The Saudi Arabs were in the Bible descended from Ketura, the third wife of father Abrahan. They are Dedan in the Bible. Now we come to the Ottoman Empire, which Newt says was run by Arabs and so since the Palistinians were in the Ottoman empire they had to be Arab. Of course the Ottoman empire was run by Turks. I researched this decades ago and the Turks are not even a semetic people. So they certainly not Arabic, who are semetic peoples. So the whole thing of Newt is one big LIE. Now as to the matter of his wife. He divorces his first wife as she was recovering from Cancer surgery. According to Hartman he divorced his second wife when she developed muscular dystrophy, though I couldn't find this in the Wickipedia. People say this is all "ancient history". Well Newt was judging Clinton's morals while all the while was engaged in an ongoing affair with staffer Colista. They did not marry till 2000 or something. Could not the Republican party at large claim that Newt was "tresspassing on their good name" because the Republicans lost house members in the 1998 election and blew their chances for impeachment conviction. And could not the Republicans also rightfully say "Please don't be responsable by your own careless actions of re electing yet another Democrat for a second term"? Newt did not convert to being Catholic till 2008 so this is very late in the day. Romney has every right to question Newt's constancy of Faith. Hasn't Newt sinned against children everywhere when he suggests there should be more orphanages. This is almost a Dickensian statement. Newt wants English as the only language when Jefferson and Franklin and a lot of them were as fluent in French as they were in English and who knows but that the whole Constitution might have been written in French. When he points to a Meet the Press tape and says "anybody who plays that tape is a liar", what are we to think. Isn't falsely accusing others a sin? I sure think so. Actually perhaps the word is transgress. In other words we tresspass on the rights of others. So what's Newt's real take on the whole Global Warming issue? Is it really some foreign plot to keep US oil production down and sabotage the American economy, or is it a genuine concern about the welfare of Planet Earth? Newt unlike me believed once that people should be forced to buy from these greedy health insurance policies in what ammounts to government enforced Capitalism at the point of a gun. Well now Newt says it took him a while to "figure out that this was wrong". Perhaps we ought to pick a President who is a bit quicker at "figuring things out". And anybody who accuses people who thinks some of our laws on business are inequitable of being "Communists" as Rush Limbaugh also does or calls the President of the United States a Marxist and a recent speech a Marxist manifesto- - I have to question their judgement on everything. If Newt is a historian he knows the writings of Karl Marx had virtually nothing to do with the sentaments President Obama expressed in Kansas last week, which was basically an appeal for Americans to just remember their history. It would seem that no Republican wants to study American History if it involves anything that's happened since the Spanish American War. These are things we should all keep in mind when we evaluate potential candidates for President next year.

Michelle Bachman Big Winner n ABC Debate

Michelle Bachman was the clear winner of tonight’s debate. She had the most articulate position in favor of NOT extending the payroll tax cut. This was in a bill I never would have voted for because I felt it set a bad precedent. Even Thom Hartman was sounding the alarm over this. However that being said, both Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are right in saying we should keep it going a little while longer to stimulate the economy. President Obama has the republicans pretty much over a barrel on this one and now congress has to pass it for political expediency. Newt delivered the strongest salvo on the whole jobs question with that really dramatic slash and burn tax policy that would decimate federal revenues. It wouldn’t help business for reasons we’ve talked extensively before. Romney never “explained” why he wants to keep the capital gains tax for incomes over 200,000 - - that is- other than having a moment of lucid sanity. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney got into an extended cat fight over various health care issues. Perry, Bachman, and Paul were willing to attack Wall Street as culpable for the business collapse and for taking Trillions of dollars. Newt didn’t weigh in and if he had would have probably sided with Wall Street. On the question of faith and family and background- - the other five gave quite satisfactory answers but when it came to Newt’s turn he really dropped the ball and had pretty much no response at all. Romney got a chance to talk about “compassion” and working with the disadvantaged, and also working with his Church. I think Michelle Bachman saying she was a child of divorce is a nice "human" touch that a lot of people will be able to relate to with their own child hoods. You know perhaps we need a woman president in these troubled times. It is said that "Men are etherial and abstract in their reasoning. Women are much more in touch with people because they have to be. They are more down to earth. I don't mind telling you that in any Christian church situation and I was offered the choice of a man or woman counselor for my problems knowing nothing else about them, I would pick the woman every time. But the major theme of the night was conservative consistency and Michelle Bachman invented a new slogan of “Newt-Romney” that I’m thinking just could catch on. She pilleried both Newt and Mitt on the health care and mandentory insurance. Santaurum generally backed up everything that Bachman said only he added the caviat of “Yes I fight- - but I fight and win”. Clearly there was talk about taking the Constitutional oath and Ron Paul suggests they actually read it. Bachman (?) cited historical documents saying how a man conducts his family life is the most important measure of the honor of a man. Ron Paul, like me, believes integrity is not something you should talk about but something you should live, and for others to see in you. Bachman raised the issue of the lower 47% not paying their fair share of Federal Income Taxes, meaning no tax at all. Of our side is going to complain about the rates the rich pay, the least we can do is be consistent insist that the poor make their fair share of the "sacrifice" too. Others wanted corporate taxes slashed even more drastically than Newt does. Michelle Bachman is sticking with her waive all taxes policy to “repatriate foreign funds”. Some wanted a 100% investment tax cretit which is only fair and something Thom Hartman implied we already had. To me it’s reasonable to take your income for the previous year and invest it back into the business and in this way not having to pay taxes on it. On the matter of the Palistinians being a not real people- - Romney and Santaurum pretty much came out against Newt and Romney said what I would have said. The negotiations are between Israel and the Palistinians and we should give Israel the freedom to either bring up or not bring up the issues they want. Newt wouldn’t know Truth if it bit him on the ass. I had to laugh at that one. Just in case Newt didn’t know the Ottoman Empire was a Turkish empire and nobody is saying that the Turks are Arabec. Also it’s the Palistinins who were a people in the land and not Israel, who to a large extent are not even Semetic. Some of the intigionous people were Safardic news and others were Islamic. But they weren’t Saudis. The stuff in immigration was so totally confused I couldn’t make heads or tails of it. Gringrich has a “wait 25 years and we’ll think about Amnesty” plan, and also reiterated his desire to make English the official language of America.

I’ll write about the Christmas party earlier this afternoon tomorrow. All I’ll say is that the dinner was the usual for around here- - mediocre to poor, and the quality of the food has dropped dramatically over the years at these parties. Were I to have left money at the table to pay for the thing, were I to leave one of George Wallace's classic six dollar bills, I'd be over paying, even if that included the tip. I did manage to secure a second piece of pie from the cart I passed as on my way out of the room. I asked first. Pies were still the one thing that wasn't ordenary, and I threaded my way back to the table and sat down to eat it. I left the party at a couple minutes to five, which is record early. There were sexy women hanging out on the patio but they didn't like smokers so I went downstairs. I watched KNXT news and CBS news. I left here about 22 minutes to eight and went to the liquor store and spent my last five dollar bill on a can of Folgiers and am brewing coffee now. - - I went back early Sunday morning and tweaked this entire posting here and there.

I think a lot of us are disgusted by the mad rush of the Media to recessitate the Newt Gingrich campaign, like on ABC last night when they said "Well, Newt didn't screw up bad in the debate tonight so I guess he won". And then there was that disgusting ass kissing display that Chris Matthews engaged in concerning Gingrich Friday night. Thanks to a Rick Santaurum add we know that it was Newt’s 2^nd mistress and third future wife that converted him to Catholicism. I didn’t know that. Just how does that work. “Divorce your wife and marry me and become a good Catholic”. I thought the Catholic church screened new marriages. The whole “Rocky” analogy with Newt that Chris Matthews is trying to lay on us is absurd. Matthews is now calling it a crime to tell the unvarnished truth. And Romney can’t even talk about his own marriage and family and faith without Matthews labeling it an attack add. This is upside-down world. Romney says he has kicked off all of his campaigns introducing himself and telling us about his family. Congressmen don’t like Newt. Only nine house members have come our for Newt but over fifty have come out for Romney. They say he is a real bear to work for and he throws a hissy fit about having to ride in the back of the plane. They say when he was house speaker for four years “It was one crisis after another and usually self inflicted”. Of course Newt was blamed for shutting down the Government in 1995 and now his piers are saying “Whatever you do, don’t elect yet another democrat by your screw-ups. Meanwhile Mitt Romney is counting on the fact that Newt often has these melt downs and is not quite the Mr. Cool that Matthews would portray him as.

Here is an utterly absurd story about Rush Limbaugh citing the New York Times for saying that the Chi Com government is “acting like democrats” because they are now reasserting their heavy handedness and China is not quite the libertarian paradise with no rights or pensions for workers that Michelle Bachman fancies it. By the way, Michelle Bachman never referred to them as "Chi Coms". Besides, why should Rush be upset if Chinese exports are suddenly more expensive and also that their workers now have more money to spend in US goods. Why would a favorable swing in the balance of payments upset Rush? Hmm? Of course what this means is that workers will have more rights. Rush Limbaugh came out and said that anybody who supported the historic union movement in this country or favored groups such as the AFL CIO - - there is every justification to call such people communist. I guess Judy is really “getting off” on these highly absurd Rush Limbaugh radio segments.

REPORTING FROM RAMALLAH, WEST BANK –- Palestinians reacted angrily Saturday to comments by Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich that the Palestinians were "an invented" people. In the comments, aired Friday on the Jewish Channel cable network, Gingrich said, "I think we have had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs." He also put Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the militant Islamic group Hamas in the same boat, saying they "both represent an enormous desire to destroy Israel." Gingrich also described the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as "delusional." Describing Gingrich as ignorant of the region’s history, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad suggested that Gingrich should review history, "because all he seems to know about history is the Ottoman period." Gingrich’s statements are a "denial of history, which is not acceptable," he said. Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi said Gingrich has "lost touch with reality." His statements show "ignorance and bigotry," and were "a cheap way to win pro-Israel vote," she said. Dimitri Diliani, a leading member of Abbas’ Fatah party, described Gingrich’s remarks as "reflective of the ignorant, provocative and racist nature of Mr. Gingrich."He warned that statements like these "jeopardize peace and stability in the region."

ANALYZE THIS: After this I had a dream that a very few of us were “graduated” out of this facility into another, which was some giant “house” or something in a more upscale residential neighborhood. But I didn’t like the vibes there at all and felt uncomfortable. I felt like everybody was watching me all the time. You would go into a room that felt “occupied” like you were coming into a situation where “stuff was going on that they didn’t want you involved in” and you couldn’t even sit and read without feeling ill at ease. I’d try and watch “Days of our Lives” and I’d think people were leering at me. Even going to the bathroom seemed like something you did by appointment, like brushing your teeth. At some point I began complaining about how I felt and alienated more people. There was a guy who reminded me of J W by looks in this dream, but he evolved into a major jerk. I saw Richard Powers there and he was one of the few, is only, person I knew there. First we chit chatted and then I said “You know, I’m beginning to developed a real nostalgia for the old facility” and he just responded “I know”.. But then I dreamed a segment later on where I was starting to get to know these new ones a little better. They said something about having a police beauro there where they investigated crimes.

Montell Williams and Pick Three

Montell Williams on the Dr. Oz program today suggested that there were three myths about men - - lies about men that women routinely believe as gospel truth. The first is the adage “Once a cheater – always a cheater”. Montell states that certain men take a certain amount of Time to find their Soul Mate and to “get it right” but once they “get it right” – why would they want to jeopardize a perfect relationship with the right woman? Well, I can think of one big one. Men crave variety. It’s built into our genes and in the past was an evolutionary necessity of nature and genetics. I mean when you look at certain men such as Tom Leykis, Rush Limbaugh, or Newt Gingrich, one is very inclined to want to use the Dr. Phil adage of “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior”. Many women I am convinced, keep encountering unfaithful men because it’s in their karma and they are being cosmically punished for something. The whole thing with people like Newt is maybe they haven’t cheated with their current wife- - yet. But although you may not know the exact timing of it, you know they’ll be out cheating again before you know it. So the point goes to the women on this one. The next one is that men fear domineering women. I could have told you this one is bogus. The whole “hard to get” thing has always been a lure for me and I can only assume that other men, as many women pursuing men, view it the same way. A man does not just want to be stimulated sexually. Hopefully when he finds his soul mate he’s in love with the whole person and not just a physical body, Gene Scott’s remarks not withstanding. They want “the other” in their lives. If they wanted a prostitute they would go out and get that but they don’t want that and they are looking for something else. In the realm of “the best way to get to a man’s heart is through his stomach” I am inclined to side with Montell on this one. They may love Mary Jo’s cooking and be seen eating dinner at her house every evening but in the evening they go out for “other kinds of satisfaction” with Betty Sue. But I will agree with the three things that men basically want in a woman. They want loyalty, they want ego support, and they also want sexual attraction. If you haven’t found all three of these in a woman, then I suggest you keep looking. (Selah)

Someone may ask what the greatest lie told about me is. Well it’s a lie that has become quite popular, to the point of obsession, I believe, that “Under no circumstances should you be an enabeler”. Well Jesus said to feed the hungry and to house the homeless and to minister to those sick or in prison. And he didn’t say you had to make them fill out a half a dozen government forms to do it. Compassion is a practice Jesus said to bestow on all, whether they were worthy or not. The Lord will in time reveal their lack of worthiness if it’s there, and the Lord will deal with them personally. Neil Savedra said that if you visit an alcoholic in jail you are “enabeling him’ and if you aren’t careful he may “manipulate you”. People think that by being stand-offish with me they are somehow- - - well what they will say is that it isn’t them but the Lord who is “testing” me to make sure I’m really “worthy” because God being a person of limited knowledge doesn’t know that already. Am I perfect? No. Sometimes people say “You’d be an OK guy except for this one Thing” and the thing seems to be different with every complainer. But for instance I have led a sexually exemplary life the last ten years but I don’t feel any closer to God, but farther away from him than ever. Of course I have had my problems with substance abuse with alcohol and tobacco and occasionally, pills. But aside from these issues of the flesh I have led a double life as a Christian in other ways. I used to write these weirdo letters via snail mail to the media. Also I liked to listen to secular music on rock stations. Now this is less of an issue because there has been just crap on these past fifteen years and I get my music now from either CD’s, Yahoo, I heart radio, CBS radio or LAST.FM or You Tube. The fact is that “being an enabeler” is not a bad thing. Indeed I knew I’d never make it as a Christian on my own unless I got Help from somewhere and there is a long list of unanswered prayers to God that if he only responded to would have made me a better Christian. Many people, though, are emotionally committed to their lies, and to change is more than they can face.

There is that new Earth like planet in the news now where it is 71 degrees in temperature in a star system I never heard of. (Almost all planets mentioned by astronomers now seem to be from star systems I never heard of) People wonder what’s doing with Mal Evans and all those people from various extra terriestrial realms. Well I haven’t heard a peep out of them lately. Perhaps it’s just that if you see a prospect of the “Real Thing” so to speak, then all the mental extrapolations, hunches, and impressions go out the window, at least for the time being. But I haven’t written that stuff off. I know it really gets under Christian’s craw out there that their might be other worlds out there besides earth because it assaults a cherished tenant of their Theology. Of course it’s a theology found nowhere in the Bible any more than the earth centric view of the Universe is taught in the Bible. People become so attached to their own mental fantasies they can’t face the real world as it exists in the twenty first century. (Selah)

We’ve gotten questions from our readers concerning certain logical errors I may have made. You’ve heard the classic Star Wars expression, “These aren’t the Droids you are looking for”. But what if your computer tells you, “These ARE the variables I am looking for” but they aren’t. I have a program involving wages and the figuring of Overtime pay. One thing about computers as opposed to humans and that is if there you are following instructions at time the correct procedure is to do Nothing and move on. But the computer does not know NOT to “Do nothing”. It will see a situation, an equation. And it will look for variables in to complete the equation so it can finish its task. The only thing is they are the wrong variables. They are variables from a previous problem. But computers don’t have bad logic. The people that program them do, and I fixed the problem. It’s just like the saying “Guns don’t kill people, People do”. I have a date adding and subtraction program that occasionally puts out really strange answers. But I chalked it up to “There is nothing wrong with the program - - it’s just a logical defect in the English language”. Commander Data would look at the figures and say they were quite valid. Some of you take issue with my Kurtosis example of the four circle quarters. This is the one where the graph takes on the shape of a double decker Jell-O mold. You would argue that if one averages out the circles into a straight line you would have a giant triangle. And in this big triangle you could position four 45 degree triangles triangles, three at the points and one at the center. Now here the 45 slant lines would be the shorter lines and the right (horizontal) lines would be the longer lines. If you slice every triangle vertically now and have eight and the lines of the triangles would be flip flopped. Now the long lines would be the 45 degree lines and the right angle lines would be the short line. You would now have six triangles within standard deviation. And therefore leaving off the last two would make standard deviation. Of course doing the math this is now a 3 to 1 ratio and no longer 2 to 1. But since the line was only half way up the triangle you would say to me “The kurtosis is not two under your formula, but four, which is two squared”. Nice try. The thing is, even forgetting the ratio error, if you got rid of the innie and outie circles you would be changing the distribution of the data so it was no longer the chart. So you would have to exercise some Geddy Lee "tree justice" and slice in to the outie circle - in other words, the SD line would move tword the center. Hypothetically, if you swapped out every Innie line for every Outie circle line, so that the figure now looked like the top of a Frostie Freeze ice cream cone - with a point, the kurtosis would rise, and you've got two choices HOW it would rise. Either you do the whole "tree equity" thing and slice into the outie circle and keep the diameter of said arcs equal, or else you make the "innie" or top circles bigger and the outie's smaller, which would enable you to keep the SD line right between the circles, but in either case the SD line would have to move away from the apex to accomodate more data from the area that needed borrowing from. If one eye balls kurtosis readings in Wolfram, one sees that the "essential" nature of kurtosis is the SD data entry figure ratios, and not the other stuff. Capish? Too bad. Anyhow the proper procedure is to carve a little into the center triangles to get the necessary two thirds sample and no more. This should work out to 1.414 as a ratio between bottom to point and point to apex of the chart. Someone else thinks I mislabeled the shading thing under the data line as being the “mean” when in reality it’s the median. Point goes to questioner on this point. I made an error. The answer (about the dividing of shading) is in fact median. My error came when I envisioned a “flat liner” data graph where every reading had an equal number of people on it. So it would be a “flat liner” data graph with a kurtosis of one under my system and the square root of three under wolframalpha.com. In reality you wouldn’t have squat doing this to the chart because once again “It would no longer be the chart. The correct answer is median. Just think of the shading under the line as individual faces of all the people taking the survey and this will clarify it for you. And finally some take exception to portraying “Eternity” as a vertical time line, but rather it should be s horizontal line where you expend NO time, but still have all the time you will ever need, forever. I thought about this but as I explained once, you can’t do this on a four dimensional space-time frame. You need to add the fifth dimensional element. And you know, don’t you (at least Star Trek says so) that each space-time frame has its own molecular “signature”. But you still have another big problem. You’ve heard the adage “Nature has a commonality throughout the Universe because it’s the same God who designed it”. Well, this one is a big Ditto for the fifth dimension, too. If there is a fifth dimension it was designed by the same God who designed every other dimensional time line. Since none of the others could be called “Heaven” this one couldn’t either. Billy Graham, and lets pray for his good health, is known for saying “With God - - space is different. There could be a freight train going right through this arena right now and we would never know it”. Of course Rev. Graham assumes the existance of "Heaven". Yet in the Bible there is no record of anyone ever having died and gone to Heaven and come back to tell about it. So if the Bible alias "God" doesn't even believe humans for sure go to heaven, don't object if we scientists are entire agnostic on the whole subject of the afterlife. Some say they are "called" by a God whom no objectivist can measure. For something to register with humans one normally thinks of some material gateway to the brain so that said stimulus enters our thought process. I myself have spoken of contact by the dead by some means of something within man no scientists has measured. That’s a nice theory. What Rev Graham is alluding to is the discontinuity of space. I might not even raise this issue except this discontinuity of space phenomon, or “there are two objects that appear to occupy the same space but each one is utterly unaware of the presence of the other”. Sketch likes to use this. I have postulated such a thing of not just a space-time signature, to go with the previous fifth dimensional example, but in this case it would be kind of an “event horizon” signature. Each one of us sees a minutely different “event horizon”, which takes on the shape of a hallowed out slightly convex cone to accommodate a theorized curvature of space [distances] caused by the expanding Universe over time. The idea is that this is “our space” but space outside our light event horizon would be “someone else’s space” that we are destined never to see. But somehow if space were folded so we came in physical proximity with it- - it would not interact with our world but you would need some sort of “Portal” to reach it, like in the “Dune” movie. Such a theory is highly theoretical, but it does provide an interesting mental exercise. Others say that the very nature of space is altered merely by the position of the physical objects and not just gravitationally but in sort of a Chinese feng chue positional proportional sense, much as how Astrology is theorized to work. (Selah)

Lots of Political Wrangling

Many people are tiring of these Christmas tree bills passed by Congress with everything in them. They say in the nineteenth century this was never the case. Each bill passed by Congress performed a specific purpose. Thom Hartman says that this is the way it should be now, and I am inclined to disagree with him. Tied in with this sort of complaint is the absence of a line item Veto power for the Chief Executive of the United States to exercise, because the Constitution does not make any provision for it and any logical reading of the Constitution would say that it de facto prohobits it. The President is restricted to a thumbs up or thumbs down, and there is no third option. President Clinton strongly advocated for a line item veto just as virtually every governor in the United States has. This is the ability to blue pencil any passage of the bill that the President finds displeasing, and to sign the rest of it into law. George Bush tried to accomplish this with these "signing statements", which seemed to me of dubious legality. Were the line item veto allowed it would definitely cut expenditures of government. In terms of the other thing about these "Omnibus" or Christmas tree bills, Hartman argues that both Republican and Democrat should be in favor of limiting bills to one thing. Because there are provisions inserted by Democrats that Republicans don't like and insertions made by Republicans that Democrats don't like. Now we come to the bill which hopefully will extend unemployment coverage and also extend the payroll tax cuts of regular workers. John Boehner says he will go for this bill provided that drug testing is required for the unemployed. It would seem that the governor of Florida is pushing for drug testing, because he is involved with a drug testing company. I remember when I first heard about the guy and what a crook he was and thinking "that is one guy that will never be elected". The idea that unemployed people sit around using drugs must be an appealing one to right wingers who vilify the lower classes on the slightest pretext. Of course even if a corporation should drug test people, they would at least wait till they got hired because it would vastly reduce the number. The other provision is that the whole Canadian oil pipe line to Texas get built. There are numerous safety concerns. It bothers me that the ravages of strip mining in Alberta should gain followers and supporters here and that we should profit from their tainted energy. The President has indicated his favorible disposition to this pipeline. Then we have the Mc Cain - Levin amendment to the defense appropiations bill. Believe it or not this amendment with its provision for assasenating Americans is still a part of the bill, which is on its road to final passage, and the President has already indicated he will sign it. This is because the President has already evidenced an inflination to target American citizens for assasenation and complete denial of their legal rights. Of course the "clean little secret" is that Texas now has more wind power generation than a nuclear reactor would provide. Alternative energy is becoming a commercial reality whether people like Dr. Levy like it or not. "Drill baby drill" will become an anachronism subject to mockery and ridicule in the coming years, if it isn't already, since the US only had 4% of the world's oil reserves. You know were I to say "Let's see whether my positions or years look better in a couple of years or so" Dr. Levy may express offence that "I'm saying I'm smarter than he is". But in reality people who pull this kind of "stuff" are weak people who have no grounds for their position. He can read all my writings on the election and I can read all the written stuff he has done - - which would probably fit on a match book cover. And we'll let economic experts decide who has the better plan.

They say that Donald Trump is throwing a party and Newt Gingrich is the only one who's coming. Just like Gloria Swanson throws a Newyears Eve Party and William Holden is the only one who shows up. Of course it's going to be some kind of a Donald and Newt love fest. It will be the first Gingrich info-mertial of the campaign. As to the debate this Saturday on ABC, it will be the first one my mother says she will have seen. So it's all the more unfortunate that John Huntsman, the one candidate she might perceive as Sane, will not be there. Of course the air will be decidedly less fowl without Herman Cain in the room. So they will be down to six. But I was thinking that if you want to get me to consider voting Republican than put up a sane candidate. It seems that Obama's Health Care bill will require a three percent tax for millionaires staring in 2013. So I would see this is a trading chip. I'd say to John Boehner, "What are you willing to give me for this concession? If you aren't ready to horse trade then I'll just hold on to it and wait for someone who will". Of course not only is the provision to allow dependent children up to age 26 - - already a reality, but also the provision about pre existing conditions is already the law. My guess is the more people find out about this - - the more mind changing about Obama for the better will be going on. But overall this should be one of the most important debates the republicans hold. Not only because it's one of the few that is broadcast over free television, but also because it is the closest to the Iowa primary, and interest is now spiked.

Many would say about my last posting that some clarification is in order. "OK let me get this straight. You said those in the realm of Infinity were dead and since God perceives mankind this way (that's what all the fundamentalist preachers say) then in essence "God is Dead". Is that what you are saying?" And I would respond "Pretty much". And they would go on, "But then I have another problem because months earlier you said that Time and Infinity themselves were artifacts or creations of God. Is that right?" And I would say "That's right". They add, "Then what you are saying is that this state of being Dead in the afterlife is an artificially created situation by God Himself, and would not otherwise exist. Is that right?" That's right. And I could coment on the lyric "When we've been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, we've no less days to sing his praise then when we first begun". Well there is a problem with this song. Because "time may be a little short". You see in the state of Infinity, it will take forever to accomplish nothing. And in the time it takes to hickup, you will already have exceeded your alotment of life, which is the length of Infinity". Well this is just another thing to chew on when you are trying to decide which religion you really want to join.

Newt Gingrich is a walking political train wreck. First of all the problem with Newt Gingrich is that he's everything the Tea Party founders claim that they are against, like being a Washington insider to the n'th degree. Newt has nearly as many flip flops on issues as has Romney. He did an ad with Nancy Palosi saying he supported taking action on Global Warming. He has endorsed mandentory health care for all Americans, something I personally am against and always have been. He lied about this then had to admit it in a debate. There is that whole Tiffany charge account scandal for the jewelry last spring, which he also wouldn't give a direct answer to. But we mustn't forget that Newt Gingrich was fired by his own party as speaker of the House in 1998 for "being brought up on dozens of ethics charges". There was this criticism on Meet the Press about being against "Right wing political engineering" on the medicare issue, then said 'Anybody who uses that tape is a liar". He outright lied about his involvement with Freddy Mac and the nature of it. There are the questionable circumstances surrounding the divorce of both of his wives. He met his first wife as a sixteen year old math student and she was eight years older than him. Of course he wants to make English the official language, which will cost him all of the Latino vote right off. He lied when he said unemployment was cut under Clinton because "Clinton implemented my tax policies". No he sure didn't. He is a member of countless lobby group and earning God knows how many millions. He's involved with both the health insurance and the drug industries. And of course above all this he says he wants to take America back to its "Traditional spiritual values" because we are a "Christian nation". He said in a speech Judy sent me that "Education is a dangerous thing if we don't teach religious values along with it". And now he's in trouble because of his advocacy of repealing century old child labor laws - - and is generally hostile to labor unions. Also a dozen years ago he advocated that children be taken from single mothers and placed in orphanages because he was inspired by the movie "Boy's Town". But I will say this. His debating style is like mine would perhaps be. I guess you could say that he's an arrogant some of a bitch and what he needs is another arrogant some of a bitch to stand up to him. He comes out swinging proactively and does not flinch at the hard questions. He has a rich vocabulary and a wealth of historical examples to back up his positions. He is often often able to rightly correct certain details that other candidates get wrong. I think Obama will have his hands full in debating him. People may perceive the President as weak and tentative and helpless without a teleprompter, and unable to think quickly on his feet. Nobody would accuse Newt Gingrich of that. So he'll get through the primaries OK. But I'm convinced that at some point reality will sink in as to what sort of an ethically shallow man he is - - and would if elected be a discredit to his Country.