Bell's Hell or Hell's Bells?

There has been an extremely interesting discussion going on across the country as of late; its about the existence of hell. 

Although primarily a discussion about the Christian concept of Hell, it think it is an extremely important discussion, one that wouldn't have begun without an Evangelical preacher named Robert Bell. A  growing controversial figure, he's become famous for his "hip" look as a preacher wearing more than tight clothing, even, jeans! (HOW DARE HE!) His cool look and young attitude has gained him a very youthful crowd, and one willing to listen to his preaching. 

Earlier this year, Mr. Bell wrote a new best-seller book titled "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived." In it, he challenges modern Evangelical (and Christian) beliefs in Hell (some have called him a heretic). The idea of the book came from his church of 7,000 goers, where the preacher stresses discussion among the people about the faith instead of religious dogma. Since then, he's gained even more attention when TIME Magazine put him on the front of their cover with the question: Does Hell Exist?  Meanwhile, the Magazine has listed him in their annual TIME 100 most influential people in the world. 

The questions that the pastor raises are important ones; ones that began during an art exhibit in his church. The pastor writes about it in his book:

An artist in the show had included a quotation from Mohandas Gandhi. Hardly a controversial touch, one would have thought. But one would have been wrong.
A visitor to the exhibit had stuck a note next to the Gandhi quotation: "Reality check: He's in hell." Bell was struck.
Really? he recalls thinking.
Gandhi's in hell?He is?We have confirmation of this?Somebody knows this?Without a doubt?And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?

The experiences poses important questions: Is Gandhi in Hell? How do we know? What is it based on? Does Hell even exist? 

Traditional religious teachings from the three Abrahamic religions strongly believe and warn of some form of hell (though there are variations from the Christian Hell). Other religions don't include hell, but an endless cycle of reincarnation until you reach Nirvana, or simply no end of life at all. 

I would highly recommend you read the TIME magazine coverage of the discussion here. I've come to think that the idea of hell is inseparable from any belief system and I'm not the only one. 

Regardless of how this place of punishment is described, there is one thing in common: it is used as an enforcement tool. Religion without a place for punishment isn't much of a religion because there is no way to enforce consistency in belief and also no form justice system. 

What happens to the mass murders? Straight to heaven? Probably not. To the adherents of the faith? (depending on the belief) Sure, they have a ticket to some kind of heaven. Without Hell, there is no incentive through fear of burning for all eternity, to not have sex before marriage, fight yourself from being gay, not masturbate, drink or eat pork (depending on the faith). Yet nothing is black and white; the gray area comes with the Gandhi question and its a question that needs to be answered. 

Gandhi spent his entire life working for justice, freedom, and improving the lives of so many, but because of his own divine beliefs, he's not in heaven. In fact, he's being punished for his beliefs on earth. This is where the Pastor is so shocked. Gandhi? Well then, what of Aung San Sui Kyi?  The peace driven Dalai Lama? Malcolm X? The freedom activists in the Middle East?  and the endless list of non-Christians who've made the world a better place and helped their fellow humans in good deeds?

This doesn't just apply to the Christian idea of Hell. What of Judaism? Islam (although I think Islam's idea of heaven is far more accepting of more people from personal knowledge). But if you think that is the extent of our exploration, you'd be wrong. We have to take a step deeper, and one I have been thinking about for sometime. Gandhi is burning in hell because, although he did great deeds for his fellow man, he (supposedly) believed in the wrong god. If you  have the personal belief that perhaps Gandhi is actually in Heaven (despite thousands of years of religious doctrine that Hell exists for those that don't accept Jesus as their Savior, or Allah as the only God, or Vishnu as the Destroyer of the World) the remains question: Why is a belief in any of the divine beings mandatory for our acts to be judged well and rewarded? 

Isn't the act itself moral? Or is it such when someone believes in the higher being? Is an act only moral when it has the blessing by a holy book? When an atheist helps his neighbor, why isn't that considered a good act? The fact is, the act IS good, especially considering that many a holy books advocate for very immoral behavior.

If there is a God, there must be a heaven, and also a hell. Religion and faith can never be separated from the idea of hell because without some form of punishment, what is my incentive to believe in any of the Gods? I can do whatever I want without having to worry about being punished since we are all going to Heaven someday. 

It is a tough relationship, and one that really needs to be discussed further. Robert Bell's stance has forced the discussion to us all, but his position is dangerous for religion. He doesn't explicitly say that hell doesn't exist, but he does say that our idea of what happens after earth is just speculation (some choose to talk about that speculation further). If his speculation leads to less of a stress of hell, religion's enforcer is lost and overtime, its adherents. What do you think? Must hell exist for religion to stay solvent? Can it exist without it? Are acts considered moral by a God? or are they moral per se?

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

member of the Hells Angels motorcycle club pleaded not guilty Monday to gun and drug charges.

Michael Ryan Fitzpatrick, 33, was booked into Spokane County Jail after his arraignment before U.S. Magistrate Cynthia Imbrogno in U.S. District Court in Spokane.

Fitzpatrick is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, conspiracy to manufacture 100 or more marijuana plants, conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, distribution of cocaine and three counts of distribution of marijuana.

He faces up to 40 years in prison if convicted.

Fitzpatrick was arrested on a marijuana charge March 4, and Spokane County prosecutors never formally charged him. Now he’s at the Spokane County jail without bail on the federal indictments. A bail hearing is set Thursday.

Global Review: Secrets and Changes

Wikileaks:

This week, Wikileaks has released what it calls "The Gitmo Files." These documents have an in-detail account of everything about prisoners include health reports, treatment and overall conditions of the infamous prison. 

So far as I can see, the only media outlet that has caught up on it so far is a Wikileaks former-partner: The NYTimes. Their direct relationship seems to have ended after a feud between the two organizations, but the NYTimes was able to get the documents through an "anonymous source." Since putting up its paywall, I viewed by 20 free articles, in the first ten days of the month and have since been banned or asked to pay. 

The documents also detail the governments guide for rating the threat level of detainees, in what they call the "Threat Matrix."

When I have the time, I'll delve deeper into the documents but some important highlights include:

• military analysts sometimes ignored serious flaws in the evidence, 
• releasing some wrongly judged a minimal threat and 
• holding others who were no threat.

The Times has also posted a Note for the Reader that I think everyone should read. Also posted (and more importantly) is a public government letter from the Pentagon about the release of the information, that you should also read before following the topic further. You can read it here. 

With time constraints and limited media look-in so far, I'll post on it as soon as I can with my own looks into the files. If you are a loyal reader, then you should know that I'm an avid supporter of what Wikileaks does and have defended them many times in the past, see here and here. Let's hope these documents reveal important things!

Obama and Syria:

U.S. officials have confirmed to Haaretz, that it is considering possible sanctions against Syria  as a response to its crackdown on democracy protests. This following the administrations intentional ignorance of the crackdown of protests in the small capital of Bahrain.

The administrations influence on Syria is limited, however such a move is obviously based on Syria's alliance to Iran (and its ties to Hamas and Hezbollah). There have been several reports that show Iranian fighters and officers aiding Syria in its crackdown.

I think that something must be done to stop the crackdown and help promote democracy in a nation where a minority (the Alawites, a branch of Shia Islam) rule over the majority (87% of the population is Sunni Muslim).

The move by the U.S. comes days after President Saleh of Yemen agreed to step out of office in a deal to end his country's civil strife, due to regional meetings with Gulf nations (most likely pressured by the United States).

Although I support any move to help protesters establish a democracy in the region, I also think (as I've said before many times) that the U.S. needs a more even handed approach with the goal of promoting democracy as a central tenet of its foreign policy (using different means in different countries).

There is much to be said about the geopolitics of the region, and one that deserves more than half a post! I'll be on it in no-time!

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Science and Religion

In my earlier post, I talked about my journey to figure what world view I could believe. I detailed my criteria in my previous post: "My Journey: With or Without God."

From the feedback I got, there was no problem with my criteria, but something I mentioned much earlier on: the incompatibility of the Science worldview and the Religious worldview.

Today, many more liberal or progressive believers of faith try to bend the two views together, arguing that they compliment one another (while most others take either or as the only true story). The story of the divine beings (the thousands of them) are our first effort to explain the world around us (and the universe). For this, these divine stories should be given due credit and I would never take that away from them because they take on human curiosity and seek to explain what we see around us. 

The reason why I say they are incompatible is because of the trend that has been going on since the beginning of man. As the earliest world view, belief in the divine has been used to explain everything: 

1. Cavemen used it to explain nature by talking about different natural Gods. 
2. This was also reflected in Roman and Greek Gods for explaining everything from the season changes to lighting. 
3. The divine Gods (from the Greeks to today's religion) explained why the Sun rose every day. 
4. Stories of the Gods explained love, the flaws of man, different kinds of hell (Hades, Hell, or Jhannam)
5. Most importantly, they detailed the creation of our universe
• God created the universe in 6 days, rested the 7th. 
• Egyptian God ejaculated and his sperm created the earth and all humans (no joke). 
6. They also spent no time explaining things like how humans came about
• Made of clay, breath of life
• A God is ripped to shreds and his lifeless body parts turn into man. 

Even now, we still haven't touched on the thousands of differing beliefs about how the world came about, as well as humanity. There is, however, one consistency: Religion's retreat over time. 

When people explained lightning as the anger of Zeus, scientists struck that down and explained that they were naturally occurring. When people explained the mountain's and God's direct hand, science explained that they were a result of plate tectonics. When worried about crops and praying to different Gods, scientists explained different weather cycles and the seasons.

This gradual retreat by religion hasn't stopped either, even though believers constantly bend their beliefs to get around science. Where once, the Gods raised the mountains, now, the Gods just set in motion the process for raising mountains. Where once, God made man of clay, now God set the "spark" that led to evolution.  Where once the earth was the center of the universe since man was God's "greatest" creation, now, humans are one of the most irrelevant pieces in our universe. The end of our species wouldn't even be noticed by any part of the universe. 

The divine stories were written to be understood literally, however, we can always say that that is just because of the influence of man, and that the god (whichever one) knew we would discover the true reality of our world (like a child story, where the child eventually learns the truth). This again, is another example of a retreat. Where once these stories were literal, now they are metaphorical. 

The idea of intelligent design is also a biased one. Most intelligent design believers believe in one God ruling the universe. What kind of intelligent design will Hindu's, Daoists, and Buddhists, who belief in (literally) thousands of gods hold? What makes the beliefs of the monotheistic religions any more intelligent in design than the polytheists or pagans? 

If the beliefs were so compatible, then religious beliefs wouldn't constantly be bending to new science discoveries (and it doesn't in many areas where science is dismissed). To many, the earthquake in Japan is not the result of a converging (or reverse) dip/slip at the tectonic plate boundary at Japan's sub-duction zone deep underground (which caused the tsunami), it is God's punishment of a nation with the highest concentration of atheists. 

I'll be the first to admit  that humans don't know everything, and science leaves more answers than questions. "Science" back in the day, had very little rules and very little oversight on reliability. In fact, early on, observations of the universe were made to try proving the beliefs of one set of religion over another. 

Today's standards are much different and much higher which is why so much "science" thousands of years ago is dismissed today. As time goes on, we can imagine that our standards will continue to increase and although science may not be able to explain such complex processes like love, anger, sexual attraction, and most other things in our minds, this is not a reason to dismiss it because there is always the prospect of discovery. 

This is why the two views are incompatible and why I believe you can't have both. I think that those who think they are compatible don't understand the extent of what belief each entails (the divine and science belief). 

Please feel free to comment with your thoughts!

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

man arrested for murdering and leaving a victim in the trunk of a burning car may have ties to the Hells Angels motorcycle gang.

The man arrested for murdering and leaving a victim in the trunk of a burning car may have ties to the Hells Angels motorcycle gang.
Taylor Wolf worked with and even lived at home of Ricky Jenks.  Police said Jenks is known as 'The Enforcer' and was arrested in March after the Hells Angels club house was raided.  Now investigators are trying to figure out how involved Wolf was with the Hells Angels.
 
Investigators arrested Wolf at a Spokane Valley apartment.  Investigators said the Knotty Pines Apartment unit belongs to Ricky Jenks.  They believe Wolf and Jenks likely met while working at Fessco Fleet and Marine.  Their former employer, Marc Fessler said both of them worked at the shop at the same time.
People at the Knotty Pines apartments said Wolf was helpful.  Jenks' girlfriend said Wolf house sat their apartment.
"He was always working on cars.  He'd rake the neighbor's yard.  He seemed like a good kid," said neighbor Kristopher Gattman.
 
Jenks was arrested when federal agents raided the Hells Angels club house.  Investigators are not calling the Wolf-Jenks connection significant at this point. 
 
"We've heard rumors about that.  But that's something we haven't been able to confirm either," said Spokane County Sgt. Bill Beeman.
People who know Wolf said he has been seen at the Hells Angels club house.  But it does not mean he is a member.  People who know Wolf said he was not acting like himself the week of the murder.

former head of the Manitoba Hell's Angels has been convicted of six drug related charges.

A judge found Ernie Dew guilty of trafficking cocaine and possessing drug money in connection to three deals in 2005.

This was his second trial as he was awarded a new one on appeal.

Dew was arrested with a dozen other bikers and their associates as part of a year-long police sting.

Justice officials paid a career criminal, Dew's friend, $500,000 to make the drug deals with the bikers while wearing a recording device. Police also videotapped several of the meetings between Dew and the undercover agent.

No date for sentencing has been set, as Dew's lawyer is still set to bring arguments forward his client was illegally entrapped by the sting.

Hells Angels member Wayne Tweeddale has had his prison sentence increased by a year in the court of appeal.

Tweeddale was sentenced to a three-year jail term after pleading guilty to 10 charges when he appeared before Judge John Clapham in the Wanganui District Court in October 2010.

He was convicted of several offences, including assaults, wounding, possession of weapons, burglary and threatening to kill.

The crown appealed the conviction, and Tweeddale had his sentence increased to four years on March 30.

The charges stemmed from an incident on October 3, 2010, which turned violent when Tweeddale pulled a knife and a gun.

when Tweeddale went to an isolated rural property north of Wanganui with the intention of sorting out a dispute over a piece of land.

A confrontation turned violent and Tweeddale pulled a knife and a gun, and threatened to kill a woman.

JAMES BROWN AND BOBBY BYRD PERFORMING SEX MACHINE LIVE 1971

PHOTO OF THE WEEK

IN THIS PHOTO, AFRIKA BAMBAATAA EXPLAINS HOW THAT ALBUM WAS PRESSED  FROM A CASSETTE TAPE AND HE WAS NEVER COMPENSATED.
PHOTO CREDIT JOE CONZO
https://www.facebook.com/jconzo

Exclusive: Kool G. Rap Talks About The KRS-One Beef

STRETCH talking about Style

My Journey: With or Without God

Since my junior year in high school almost 3 years ago I have been on a journey. It is one that many take; one of great emotional strain and and greater length. I haven't really articulated it to anyone until now, but the journey isn't uncommon. The personal journey will establish my worldview for the remainder of my life. Everyone must go through it, if they are to understand everything around them, or else be stuck in ignorant bliss. 

There are two worldviews that humans hold: the Divine View and the Scientific View (as I'll call them). Despite the insistence of some of the former and a fewer of the latter, the two are largely incompatible; I can not reasonably have both. As of this post, I am a Muslim-by-birth and I've grown to pray and live without violation  of the faith (for the most part). 

I draw a distinction between a Muslim-by-Conversion and a Muslim-by-Birth because the latter never chose. I was raised to do things (as we all are, Christians with going to Church, etc) and have done so believing what those around me believe, and what my parents taught me. Despite your anticipated rejection, you do the same: all your practices were learned such as your speech, walk, dress, faith and more.

I can't accept being a believer-by-birth because far too often I'm stuck when I ask myself  "Why am I not a Buddhist? Or Jew?" The only answer I conjure up is: "I was raised as a Muslim." But what if I was born into another family in another country with different circumstances? Wouldn't I be just as convinced in my faith in Buddha as I am now of God? Can I really hold the beliefs of anyone  else as wrong since they oppose my own religious convictions? Or are we all fools doing what others have taught us to do? This is where the journey begins. Where it leads will be interesting, but I have several criteria that are both reasonable and necessary as I take a deeper plunge: 

1. I must learn more about my religion's specific beliefs before deciding which worldview I should take. 
1. What is the Muslim belief of the creation of the Universe? How is it different from other faiths, etc.  
2. No worldview I choose can contradict the most basic scientific understandings of the universe.
1. For example: A rejection of the idea of plate tectonics also denies the science behind our ability to detect and track earthquakes (something no one disputes). If you accept one, you must accept the other.
3. My choice can never be effected by what is most convenient.
1. If I find the truth to be a belief in the divine, then so be it;
2. If not, I will believe in the alternate regardless of how hard it will make my personal life.
3. The Truth should never be rejected out of one's circumstances.
4. I can not start the journey as a Muslim (or a person of any faith). It must be as objective as possible. In other words, I can not start with the belief in Islam (the conclusion) and reason my way to it (the logic). Basic thought processes tell us it must be the opposite: Follow the truth, and then make your conclusion. If the Divine View is the truth, the facts/logic will naturally lead me to it to reach my conclusion; if not, I will be left with the only other view. 

The criteria are based on things that must exist before I make a decision in order to be true to myself and not regret my decision later on.

From this journey there are several possible outcomes: 1. I choose science as my worldview exclusively and reject all faith (the basis of rejection of one faith, will be the basis of rejection for all other faiths) 2. I choose the Divine View as the reasonable conclusion and then decide which faith makes the most sense. 2a. I become a Muslim-by-conversion. 

 My current Divine View of the world is held because I was raised to believe it was truth, not because I chose to; this is the basis of the trip I'm taking. I, nor anyone else from any other faith, should not accept a belief in ANY political, religious, or social ideology without taking a thorough look at it first. There comes a point in everyone's life where the self-reflection can do a lot of good.

There are countless examples of this. Take defectors from the infamous Waco ranch in Texas during 1993. Although raised to believe different things like Korensh was the messiah, or in his interpretation of the Bible defectors reflected on their beliefs and lifestyles and chose another path, others reflected and chose to stay with him. For another example, think of early white supporters of the black civil rights movement. Although raised with a specific belief of societal, political, and religious superiority (every religion claims divine superiority) these men and women questioned how they were raised and fought against it. Self-reflection is key.

I hope you will join me and I hope I can provide assistance  to others who are also on the journey (from any faith). Feel free to provide your advice and input in the comments. Is there anything wrong with my criteria? Should I add anything? Take anything out?


You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

The Hells Angels biker gang is suspected of the brutal beating of a man after a Lauryn Hill concert

The Hells Angels biker gang is suspected of the brutal beating of a man after a Lauryn Hill concert Tuesday night at the Warfield Theatre, San Francisco police said Wednesday.

The victim and the group of about 10 bikers had been attending the Lauryn Hill concert at The Warfield when they got into an altercation in the lobby of the music venue, San Francisco Police Department  Sgt. Michael Andraychak said.

Two men, ages 35 and 39, were leaving the concert venue when they were approached by a group of about 10 men who were wearing Hells Angels jackets and had apparently also been at the concert, police Sgt. Mike Andraychak said.

One of the suspects asked the 35-year-old victim if he was a member of the Mongols, a rival motorcycle gang, police said.

“They heard somebody yelling from behind, ‘Aren’t you from the Mongols?’” Andraychak said.

The Hells Angels and Mongols are rival motorcycle clubs. Andraychak said neither victim is believed to be associated with any motorcycle gang.

The victims ran away and were chased by the suspects, who caught up with them and stabbed the 35-year-old man several times, police said.

Andraychak said the beating that followed “appears to be a case of mistaken identity.”

After one biker punched the man with a closed fist, several others joined in on the beating, Andraychak said. The victim’s injuries were serious but not life threatening, police said.

The suspects fled the scene on their motorcycles and had not been found as of Wednesday afternoon, Andraychak said.

They are described as white men in their 30s or 40s, at least one of whom had a full Hells Angels logo on his jacket, Andraychak said. Others had partial patches, signifying that they are "prospects or pledges" to the gang but are not yet full members, he said.

The two motorcycle gangs have a history of run-ins in San Francisco and throughout California, Andraychak said.

In 2008, Mark "Papa" Guardado, 46, was fatally shot outside a bar in The City's Mission District.

Guardado was the leader of the San Francisco chapter of the Hells Angels and his alleged shooter, Christopher Ablett, was a reputed member of the Mongols.

Federal murder and racketeering charges were filed against Ablett. The case is still pending in federal court.

Amazing Talk

I'm a big fan of the website of the TED events, but this talk really had a strong impact. Funny, sad, inspiring and informative. It is a must watch.     20 mins of your day.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

France's Niqab Ban

Today France's law banning the concealment of one's face in any public space is being put into effect. Inspired by French fear of fronts to their "way of life," and a strong political effort by President Sarkozy to regain support on his popular stance, anyone intentionally concealing their face with just their eyes showing will be subject to the equivalent of a 200 dollar fine, and/or be forced to attend French "Citizenship" classes (aimed to teach them how to be better citizens).

Italy has a similar law, however, France's is unique from similar anti-Muslim laws in different European nations because it bans the Niqab in all public places, from the sidewalk to the mall. Much is being said about it, as groups of protesters in France (some wearing their Niqab) demand it's nullification because they believe it is an affront to their religious beliefs. 

Even so, French police have voiced how difficult it will be to enforce saying

"The law will be infinitely difficult to apply, and it will be infinitely rarely applied, unfortunately," Emmanuel Roux of the police union SCPN said on France-Inter radio.

He said police have been instructed not to use force to remove the veils, and that if a woman refuses to remove it, the police officer is meant to call the prosecutor for further legal action. Only in very extreme cases, he said, would a woman be jailed for refusal to remove a veil.

Allow me to break through the noise with some common sense:

Although a ban of the Niqab, France is famous for it's extreme interpretation of secularism. For example, state teachers are not allowed to wear a cross pin on their clothing, and Jewish men aren't allowed to wear the yammukah. 

The latest ban comes from a law that never uses the words: women, Niqab, or Islam but has politically been its purpose. President Sarkozy began pushing for the law for nearly two years, saying that it was a sign of repression that would not be welcome in France.

The President and others have also continued by describing the Niqab as an attack to French way of life, despite the fact that no more than 2000 women wear it out of France's 5 million Muslims. 

With such a small amount of women that choose to wear it, it hardly seems like an attack on anyone's way of life.

Quite possibly the worst argument, but most used on to destroy the rights of others, is that of safety: The Niqab poses a direct threat to public safety. Opponents argue that terrorists can use the Niqab to hide bombs, and convicts use it to mask their faces while they steal or kill, but how many instances have their been? Terrorists: Never. They more often choose backpacks. Robbery: Once. Clearly not a threat to society or anyone's safety. 

The ban represents an odd ideology in Western philosophy of freedom: That everyone should have the freedom to not wear what they want. This makes sense given that societies over time have become less conservative, and in their effort to break with tradition, younger generations endorsed more nudity: First with short sleeved shirts, then tighter shirts for men and women, then women's choice to wear jeans or anything they wanted, or nothing at all. It all seemed like the freedom in a country was measured by the level of nudity. 

Rarely is a women's (or man's) desire to cover herself seen as a form of empowerment. Choosing to wear more clothing seems counter-revolutionary. As societies keep pushing the lines of nudity, led my massive industries where "sex sells," covering oneself can easily become a sign of individuality and rebellion. It seems here that France believes that nudity equals freedom, but clothing is a sign of repression. 

I understand that the debate is deeper than that, as even Muslims disagree about the purpose of the Niqab, but it shouldn't matter if they do. Everyone should have the right to wear whatever clothing they want as an expression of their cultural or religious beliefs. THAT is the sign of truly free societies. In a sex-crazed world, the ability of any woman to demand respect based on her thoughts and not her looks should be applauded. Some may disagree with the extremity to which the Niqab does this, but different women have different means and interpretations of how to reach this goal. 

A creative protest by Non-muslim French women. It is meant to show that France will tolerate women freedom to show off legs, but not their choice to cover their faces. How would France react to these? Free enough to show their legs, but not to show their face?

We may not like what they wear, but they should always have the right to wear it. The Niqab is not a sign of repression as any Muslim women will tell you. Muslim women wearing it are not subconsciously oppressed into thinking that they should wear it (if they were the number of women who wear them in France wouldn't be so minute). As an LA Times article on the subject points out, of the veiled French women surveyed 28 out of 30 said that they were the first in their family to wear the Niqab.

Yes, there are women out of those 2000 in France that were probably forced to wear it, but how does a ban help in any way but restrict more women to their homes? For those forced to wear it, there should be more options of outreach to get government help aimed at getting them out of a possibly abusive house and more. A ban for all is useless and just part of the larger (misconstrued) ideology of what freedom is all about.

As the dynamics of a free society have changed (meeting the demands of earlier generations for less restrictions on enforcing dress code policies for women), so should the measure of freedom --As I like to say: 

Freedom should never be measured by how much thigh a woman can show, but by how much thigh she refuses to show for your lingering eyes.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Government Shutdown

 ***UPDATE***  Government Shutdown averted, however, as I point out, this article still applies.

 I didn't want to comment on all that is going on in the budget debate, until I saw the results since I consider a lot of the back-and-forth to be very childish. With the deadline for a budget due today, my post could very quickly become outdated, however, there are a few things that won't change as a result of either a government shutdown or a last minute budget agreement: The debate has been focused on all the wrong things. 

Everyone in government is raising the fiscal responsibility flag, while accusing the other of not "being serious about cutting funding." We've seen in by the White House, House Republicans and Senate Democrats. Despite the need for a more fiscally responsible government, the argument is just an illusion. The reason we are in this last mind bind today is because our elected representatives didn't reach an agreement a year ago; now they are rushing to meet the deadline. 

With such small time, we can't expect to meet the deadline and also do much needed major reform to Medicare and Social Security (two of the largest social programs); it just isn't plausible. What we are left with is a budget battle over the small programs that will have an effect on the deficit. To be more blunt, we aren't going to achieve fiscal responsibility through this budget regardless of which version is passed. The only rational thing to do is pass a budget similar to years past, and live to fight another day on the larger fiscal issues (and more politically threatening).

Our leaders haven't made the decision yet. Some representatives have included massive amendments that radically change programs like Medicare, that they expect to be passed in a few days despite how polarizing they are. The bill came from Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan. I certainly give him credit for taking the leading and proposing a bill to end the stalemate, however, the bill is clearly just a show. Don't get me wrong, the bill includes major  cuts mostly by a complete reformation of Medicare. The proposal cuts out most of the government involvement and instead replaces it with a voucher system where people get money from the government to go buy private insurance. The Rep. knows that a voucher system is extremely controversial and that Medicare reforms needs similar time that healthcare reform had, a year's worth of debate. Yet here we are, introduced a few days ago, and where is the outcry of reform being "shoved down our throats?" 

The proposal with Medicare reform won't pass, and it just aims to fill the void since the President hasn't taken the initiative to introduce a WH supported bill. There are other discussions going on, most notably between Senator Harry Reid, Speaker of the House, John Beohner, and President Obama. All three have mentioned that all major issues have been resolved, except one. The sticking issue? a social one: Planned Parenthood. 

Before delving deeper into the debate, let's get rid of some misunderstanding of the program:

The division over this program is an ideological battle and is the reason why there hasn't been an agreement. Neither side is going to convince the other side to change their beliefs and agree to fund or de-fund Planned Parenthood. Republicans argue that Planned Parenthood should be defunded because enough small measure cuts will lead to larger deficit reduction. As I look into it more, the argument is just a cover for the conservatives' real intention: undermining institutions that support abortion. Conservative distaste of NPR and PBS is also the reason why they want to cut all funding for public media, not fiscal responsibility. 

I make the claim because Planned Parenthood's budget, is completely and utterly tiny. If a conservative wants to cut federal spending, they should go to the bigger programs, programs that can't be dealt with over the next few hours and instead should be debated over a year's time.Here is the debate in a short video, listen specifically to David Gergen, an adviser who worked for Democratic and Republican Presidents.

 As Anderson pointed out, the ideologically dividing issue of abortion was brought up by Republicans to either try slip it in to a difficult budget, or to intentionally place an issue that Dems would never vote for. I'm not just trying to take a hit at Republicans because I believe that there should be a party that watches for overspending, however, they are doing so in all the wrong ways.

I won't bother discussing the political ramifications for either party because that is all irrelevant. The fact remains that the basis of the debate is along ideological lines, lines that haven't changed for decades since the modern conservative movement. We won't solve them today, or in a week, or even a year. Pass a bill (without this controversial parts), that will do some basic cutting here and there. After it is passed, we can get down to the "meat and potatoes" of government overspending: entitlements.

The reason we haven't reached an agreement is because both sides expect the other side to cave in and adopt their measures. Let's put off the controversial amendments and deal with them when the deadline isn't as imminent. It is against the law for federal funds to fund abortions, so conservatives can rest at ease, but if they are still anxious about Planned Parenthood, we will address it Monday morning, but not tonight.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

MC VERSE OF THE MONTH

If I ruled the schools, from pole to pole
the entire judicial system would fold
I would get rid of the books cause they bogus
and in school, Knowledge of Self would be the focus
Kids would flock to the schools like locusts
Cause school now relates to them, and you would notice
violence in society would be a minimal
Cause the education yeah, would now be metaphysical
Not livin by laws, but livin by principal
If you disobey, the UNIVERSE gets with you
We would study giving so no one would steal
And we would read each other's magnetic fields
Petty crimes times petty crimes
equals prison for lifetimes
The universe divided by two
equals me and you
Me and you, go into the universe once
or as one united front
But listen up, when I was growin up in hip-hoppin
we had a thing called Jailhouse Boxin
That's why I'm STILL here rockin
cause my competition never pulled a Glock in, yeah
~KRS1
Squash ALl Beef

MIGHTY ZULU KINGS ON UK CHAMPS TV SERIES

Change in Goldstone Report

 Recently Judge Richard Goldstone of South Africa has retracted an important part of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, otherwise called the Goldstone Report. 

For those that aren't aware, in April of 2009, after the Israeli IDF invaded the Palestinian Gaza Strip which killed around 1,400 people, the United Nations wanted to investigate the conflict for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. The team was led and the report written by a famous South African Judge, Richard Goldstone. 

When released, the highly anticipated report accused both the Israel Defense Force and the Palestinian Militants (mostly Hamas) of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. It recommended that both sides investigate their conduct; if they failed to do so, they would bring up the allegations to the International Criminal Court. Both sides initially denounced the report, however Hamas began to embrace it along with much of the Arab world. The Report also found major support in all those who opposed Israel's Operation Cast Lead (including myself). The Final Report to the UN  found that Israel conducted major internal investigations and Hamas none at all. 

The UN supported the report and especially the allegations that Israel "intentionally targeted Palestinian civilians"  during the battle. As of a few days ago, Richard Goldstone seems to show doubt about the allegations. 

In the Washington Post, the judge has now reconsidered the most pointed of accusations saying that Israel did not in fact, intentionally target civilians. Stating in the piece that their incorrect conclusion was a direct result of the Israeli government's refusal to participate in the fact finding mission.

Although I never condone such horrible killings of more than a thousand people and have talked about the Wiser Palestinian Fight, the change is a vital one. More often than not, I find myself standing directly against Israeli policy, be it their internal racist laws or their oppressive policies toward the Palestinians (under the guise of security), however, I can not push aside reason to blindly accuse them of intentionally killing civilians.

The deaths are surely tragic and Israeli policy surely negligent in killing so many. For that, the report doesn't retract its claims, however, Israel moves from a murderous nation intentionally killing civilians to a bumbling fool who kills A LOT of people in order to kill a few others here and there (militants). It is certainly no reason for celebration on Israel's side, and the report can still stand on its own (though they are pushing that the UN retract its support for it), however, we can not continue to attack it for purposefully killing the civilians.  With this in mind, I still stand against it's Operation Cast Lead because it led to the deaths of thousands of people, mostly civilians with little added benefit to the state or security. The call to war is becoming too redundant in the region and it leads to too many innocent lives lost. Israel nor Palestine gain more than they lose from these battles.

I'm glad the truth has come out, and let's pray for a Palestinian state this September.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!