More Tea Party Extremism

Yesterday the US senate failed to ratify a UN treaty on disability rights for people of all nations.  Even China and Russia, as well as the rest of the civilized world voted for it.   But the home school lobby whom Randi Rhodes regards as “cultish” got to people like Santorum and prevented the treaty’s ratification, even though John Mc Cain even voted for it.  Bob Dole was wheeled out on to the congress chamber to plead for the bill’s passage, but these 38 republican senators still turned it down.  Dole is now 89.  Apparently it is believed it will set up some sort of “death panel” in this country to decide whether or not to euthanize disabeled people, and it will interfere with home schooling and deny families the right to determine the future of their own disabeled child.   Randi says these fears are groundless in that the bill does not affect domestic law and that the American Disabilities Act passed under Bush 41 already makes the US measure up to the terms of this treaty.  But that doesn’t matter to people like Santorum or the tea party because- - this home school lobby has this xenophobia that they are imparting to their kids, and they don’t want anyone to interfere with that.  As you know there was a nuclear missile treaty with Russia that the Republicans refused to ratify a year and a half ago or so.  It doesn’t matter that a treaty was worked out by Bush 43 because now they don’t trust him either, after the statement he made on immigration a couple days ago.  They are starting now not to even trust John Boehner, either.  But the tea party holds out this threat of “primarying” you, if you don’t play ball with them.  Randi thinks this whole set up is sick, of course, and is wondering whether there isn’t some kind of way we could take away their power.  Fox News is of course, the mouth piece of the far right.  Their whole structure is so “incestuous” with people with a clear political bias posing as “objective news analysts” that it’s a bad joke, and a rather sickening one.

I'll give you the answer to two of those questions on the last posting.  Infinity CANNOT be proven to be equal- - even to itself, because the very term of "Infinity" denotes that the value cannot be defined, digitally.  In the question about "Can I buy a Vowel" the correct syntax there is indeed the word "Can" rather than "May".  The question is not "permission" by someone.  The issue is Can you litterally Buy a Vowel.  Not if the Vowel you request is not in the puzzle.  In that case you literally CAN'T - - buy a vowel.  Let me cover the one about whether we "earn" our Salvation or "God does it aside from human works".  I used the term in the example - - that I was sent to hell because I "Fell short" in failing to "exercise the proper humility thinking I could do it myself".  But turn this question around.  Suppose I screwed around with the moral issues in my life without a Care because I knew in advance I had a divine insurance policy.  Would they have gotten on my case for THIS?  You bet your sweet petuti they would.  Christians have no problem talking about the exercise of Faith- - till one of the members of their congragation has the audacity to actually take them up on the offer.  Think about it.  Many of the ideas perishoners get about God to begin with- - - the "error" is tracable straight back to LIES that they were told when they were witnessed to.  (Selah)  There are times in my life where I have been presented with a Choice.  I can follow the Golden Rule, or I can violate it and claim my pastor told me to.  For instance I hate the phrase "Jesus loves you and wants wonderful things for your life".  I don't like hearing this from others- - and I won't subject others to hearing it from me.  How many of you out there think that if you are Sinless this gives you a ticket to Heaven when you die.  I said - completely Sinless.  You'd be wrong.  You are "Saved" NOT by being free of sin.  You are SAVED exclusively by being CHOSEN to be saved.  This is the principle laid down in Calvin's Institutes.  You see, if Christ died for the sins of the Whole World- - then we are all saved.  I don't see how you can parse that sentense any other way.  I'll give you one more answer from that roster of questions.  IF you STATE something - - involving a Noun Clause- - - usually it's a case of "I believed that - - " or else "I didn't know that- - - "  or "He said you were - - "  In this case you and I know the rules of grammer.  The tenses must normally match in such cases.  That is- - everything pointed to in the Noun clause- - is contingent on that moment- - In the Past- - and need not necessarily be true NOW.  The only time we change tenses- - or switch horses in mid stream so to speak- - - it's like endorsing a check.  If you sign a check- - you're "owning it" and insuring its payment.  In like manner if you switch to the Present tense mid stream like "Joe told me that you are going to the store today" I am saying "I believe that.  I'm accepting that statement as the way things are".  Interestingly heresay is not admissable in court.  Or stated another way - - - as long as the statement hangs exclusively upon an appendage of that other statement- - - it's like YES they MADE a statement like this.  I HEARD them MAKE the statement.  But the content of the statement itself is not admissable as Evidence.  Capish?

Some people seem to enjoy function as "spoilers".  That is - - there is no positive outcome from the actions they undertake but they seem to get their jollies screwing other people's lives up.  There is that episode of House last night where they want to cut off this young woman's arm, who has cancer or something.  But she wants to delay the opperation till after she wins a championship sailing contest she's worked for for years.  But the hospital insists the opperation is so important that they want to contrive to do it somehow even if no permission slip is signed.  Other people meddle in disputes where they have no stake in the outcome - - but they want to throw in their two cents anyhow.  These people could be called - - - people who get a lot of other people to dislike them, and then they see themselves as a martyr or something.  People around here steal sugar and cream in massive ammounts, so that all of us are deprived of even having these condements on the table but have to ask for them, and at times we don't get them.  I've wondered what the different between me and a mass murder on death row is.  The answer is they probably get better medical care than I do, and they most likely eat better, as well as having a fan club of sychophants that I lack.  On the soap opera Will agreed to not spill the beans about his paternity of Gabriel’s baby, but I don’t know if that including in Uncle Eric.  Priest or no priest, I would not tell such a close family member something I’ve pledged to friends who are depending on me not to divulge.  It seems as this point that Will just wants to make trouble.  He doesn’t really love Gabriel, but he’s possessive enough to take time out from his gay life style, to be jealous over the happiness of two other people.  Marlena said nothing about seeing Brady and Christine in bed together.  

David Cruise talked about this whole subway pushing incident in New York City.  They want to blame the guy with the camera for not coming to the rescue even though other people were closer.  So I don’t get it.  I guess perhaps he got money for the forty photographs he snapped with his digital camera that got people’s ire up.  Of course- - - if there is one thing that ticks me off more than anything else it's what I call a "lack of emotional engagement".  Those Talosians on that pilot startrek episode were unnearving because they saw Captain Pike and Spock and the crew as just "specimines" like some sort of lab experiment.  I suppose Masters and Johnson are the ultimate sick perverts because apparently there is data in their books about sexuality and orgasmic potential in small children.  How in the name of God do you justify research experiments like that?  My Dad used to love these "mind game" movies where someone was being driven insane.  I suppose experiments have been done to see how quickly a child will have a nervous breakdown is he's exposed to adverse enough conditioning.  It would be a similar sort of personality who would, for instance do a documentary on a horrible accident- or even a battlefield scene of blood and death- - and not lift one finger to help because of that famous "non intervention doctrine" the Star Trek people adhere to.  Grover Norquest was alive and well in Star Trek episodes before he ever manifested in real life.  Of course Pastor Halliday got his rocks off in getting a rise out of me by cunningly timed biting and cutting insults- - but then continues in this almost monotone trance like voice like HAL the computer in 2001 thinking how "above it all" he is.  I have to wonder what kind of a man prefers getting his rocks off that way.  I'll tell you "a soft answer does NOT turn away wrath".  It surpresses it.  Because if the individual causing the taunting is in a position of more power and authority than you, and being from Texas, may be packing a gun anyhow- - - you have no Choice- - at least in This lifetime.  There is a scene in Key Largo where Humphrey Bogart was taunted into using his gun, and Bogart refused.  But he found out later the bullets had been removed from the gun anyhow by the criminals.  So in the criminal's mind if he fired back, killing Bogart, he'd be justified anyhow.