Wahhabi U.

"A top U.S. diplomat recently revealed Saudi Arabia still teaches students to hate non-Muslims and the West. So why are we making it easier for Saudi students schooled in that hatred to visit the U.S.?"

"As if 9-11 never happened, President Bush has agreed to a request by Saudi King Abdullah to lower some of the barriers blocking Saudi youth from studying in America."

"The barriers were erected as a security measure after 15 visiting Saudi nationals attacked their gracious host with hijacked jets. The young terrorists, holding various visas, studied at flight schools in the U.S. Post-9-11 visa curbs have resulted in a sharp drop in the number of Saudi travelers."

"The Bush-Abdullah deal threatens to reverse that trend. The kingdom is sponsoring a program to expedite visas for Saudis to study in the U.S. by, among other things, providing funds and letters of recommendation. Its Ministry of Higher Education aims to send 21,000 nationals to the U.S. over the next four years."

Hmm.....Bush just might be smarter than I think, if the masterplan is to have the Feds trail these guys around, gathering vital info on possible future attacks on U.S. soil. Yeah, that's the ticket. That's why the Republicans tried to make massive cutbacks in Federal assistants to needy Americans, so they would have the money to hire enough new FBI agents and resources, to follow 21,000 Saudis..............

......ok, who am I kidding. This is just another example of how little the administration cares about the safety of U.S. citizens. They aren't going to follow these guys at all, and in fact, if even one of the 21,000 is a terrorist, and carries out his mission, it would work to the advantage of the government. Another attack would cause fear, and fear would cause Americans to beg the government to take away more Rights, and to make it more powerful.

Amongst one of my character flaws, is giving people more credit than they probably deserve. For instance, it would be far too easy to simply say that Bush must be stupid/insane/incompetant to allow this, just because he and the Saudi rulers are (oil) buddies. I can't help but think that in his mind, there's a rational reason for going along with this deal. He must have advisers warning him of possible consequences, yet, to even consider it must mean he thinks there's some benefit to it. Those aforementioned funds maybe?

Either way, at this point, he's proven many times, that his judgement just cannot be trusted.

Televangelist Robertson warns town of God's wrath

"Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them on Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck."

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

Yes, Robertson is a very good example of why there should be a separation of church and state. The ridiculousness of his warning shows just how much he wants to see an American Theocracy.

Too bad his kind don't understand Freedom of Religion means being free to practice any religion , or none at all, not just their version. It means no state agency can or should promote, or force upon anyone, any religion, or one over the other.

He seems to conveniently overlook the fact that no one voted God out, they just simply prefer that a science class, teach science, and not religion. They still have their churches, sunday schools, and even evangelical TV programming, to continue to allow God in.

Conversion by coersion, just doesn't seem very Christian to me.

Serotonin and Depression: A Disconnect between the Advertisements and the Scientific Literature

"In the United States, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants are advertised directly to consumers. These highly successful direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) campaigns have largely revolved around the claim that SSRIs correct a chemical imbalance caused by a lack of serotonin."

"Given the multifactorial nature of depression and anxiety, and the ambiguities inherent in psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, some have questioned whether the mass provision of SSRIs is the result of an over-medicalized society."

"The impact of the widespread promotion of the serotonin hypothesis should not be underestimated. Antidepressant advertisements are ubiquitous in American media, and there is emerging evidence that these advertisements have the potential to confound the doctor–patient relationship. A recent study by Kravitz et al. found that pseudopatients (actors who were trained to behave as patients) presenting with symptoms of adjustment disorder (a condition for which antidepressants are not usually prescribed) were frequently prescribed paroxetine (Paxil) by their physicians if they inquired specifically about Paxil; such enquiries from actual patients could be prompted by DTCA."

This has bugged me for years, since I began noticing the first direct-to-consumer ads for prescription drugs. It was obvious to me from the start that this was a campaign to induce patients, and potential patients, to bug their doctors to give them the drugs As Seen On TV. And in this case, they appear to be using bad science to do it.

I'm assuming that at some point, some deregulation allowed them to advertise directly to a public that could not buy their products directly. Without looking it up, I'd say the dereg was prompted by lobbyists from the drug industry. This was quiet obviously a scheme to make more money, as opossed to a genuine interest in peoples' well being. I'm sure they get more bang for the buck by producing TV ads, than the practice of only publishing in trade journals, and other targetted marketings to only health care proffesionals.

From the very first ad I saw, I knew the purpose was to cause people to insist their doctors provide them with the miracle drug they saw on TV, whether they need it or not. And since doctors are human, and don't want to lose patients, some will acquiesce, while still others won't hesitate.

Unfortunately this works because too many people are suckers for a good ad. They can't (or refuse to) see that they're simply being manipulated to profit the drug industry, possibly to the detriment of their own health.

Sometimes I wish I had the temperament to prey on the gullible. I could make a killing, with little or no conscience.

Good News, and Bad, for Intelligent Designers

First, the good news for ID backers:

Kansas schools can teach 'intelligent design'

"The Kansas Board of Education approved new science standards for teachers in public schools Tuesday that question Charles Darwin's teachings on evolution and hand a victory to advocates of "intelligent design."

"The board's 6-4 vote reverses a 2001 decision that affirmed Darwin's theory of natural selection. That vote came two years after most references to the theory were removed from state standards, making Kansas the butt of jokes by scientists and late-night comedians."

Now for the bad:


Pa. voters oust school board that backed intelligent design

"Voters came down hard Tuesday on school board members who ordered a statement on intelligent design read in biology class, ousting eight Republicans and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum."

"The election unfolded amid a landmark federal trial involving the Dover public schools and the question of whether intelligent design promotes the Bible's view of creation. Eight Dover families sued, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state."

As you may know, I'm against the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools because it's nothing more than an attempt to bring religious teaching in the the public classroom. If you believe in, and want your children taught about creationism, then put them in parochial schools and stop trying to foist religious views on everyone else. If you believe in religious freedom, then you must understand that state-sponsored religious teachings violate that freedom. Religious teaching belongs in the home, houses of worship, and parochial schools.
Aren't those enough options?

Why democracy is wrong

"Democracy does not deserve the semi-sacred status accorded to it. In Europe, democratically elected politicians such as Jörg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Silvio Berlusconi, Umberto Bossi, Gianfranco Fini and Pim Fortuyn are a reminder of democracy's defects: an anti-racist dictatorship is preferable to a racist democracy. Democracy is expanding globally, but not because of its moral superiority. Military intervention is now the standard origin of democratic political systems. Any universal ideology will tend to crusades and messianic conquest, and democracies feel entitled to 'bring freedom' to other countries. Below, more on the ethical problems, definitions of democracy, the issue of inequality, the defects of democratic culture, the nation as the 'demos', the claimed justifications for democracy, and alternatives to democracy."

Man, is this a big piece of crap! I couldn't even make it through the first paragraph without finding flaws is it's reasoning. Of course democracy isn't perfect, but what is? This articles' purpose, it seems to me, is bent on conditioning, or preparing, the reader for a transition from democracy, to dictatorship, and willingly accepting it.

If the author had given equal time to all other forms of government, and stayed away from impracticle examples, I might not have gotten the impression that this essay on the ills of democracy, was an attempt at persuading the reader that it's better to give up living under a system where there's at least a chance of individual liberties and rights, and long for one that dictates every aspect of your life, with no say in the matter whatsoever.

The bottom line is that democracy is, has been, and will continue to be, a work in progress, and shouldn't be given up, simply because of the arguments of those who seek to wield ultimate power, or of those who prefer to have their fuhrer tell them what they'd better do.....or else!

Vatican sides with Darwin

"A Vatican cardinal said yesterday that the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, and warned that religion risks turning into ''fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, a Frenchman who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a project to help end the ''mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has been an issue for the Roman Catholic Church, and that is part of the evolution debate in the United States.

Hey now that's what I like to see from religion; reason. The Vactican has first-hand knowledge on what happens when religion refuses to listen to scientific reality. Hopefully the proponants of Intelligent Design will take note, but I doubt it, they believe they're right.

US does not torture, Bush insists

""We do not torture," Mr Bush told reporters during a visit to Panama.

He said enemies were plotting to hurt the US and his government would pursue them, but would do so "under the law". "

Well now we're supposed to be stupid. We're supposed to continue to believe that the soldiers convicted of torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was an anomaly. We're supposed to believe that the practice of "rendition" doesn't involve our sending our prisoners to known torture states, for the specific purpose of being tortured. We're supposed to believe that our method of torture by proxy, means that "we" are not involved in what other countries do to our prisoners. We're supposed to believe that the CIAs' not-so-secret international prison system does not, has not, and would never, commit torture.

He seems unable to understand that his faith-based Presidency, no longer has the mesmeric hold on the populous that he once enjoyed.

For those that don't understand what I mean by "faith-based Presidency", it refers to the political tactic he (and the other republicans) used to sweep into office. His successful courtship of the Religious Right meant that his subjects, who are used to "believing" in their own religious ideology, came to have faith, and just believe, in the President. Faith in whatever he says, and whatever he does.

Unfortunately, he has proven time and again, that what he says, is not always the truth. Yet still, he insists that his flock, just believe.

1st Story Line Patent Published

Great, just great. Now some SOB wants to patent storylines. This is just as bad as wanting to Trademark the Smell of Strawberries. If this patent is ever given (published does not mean granted), in no time at all, every storyline imaginable will be patented, and unlike just a few years ago, the patents will be renewed and extended indefinitely, and creativity will be stifled. Every new story writer will potentially have to defend themselves in court.

I hope the Patent Office thinks real hard and long on this one.

Bush’s popularity hits new low

"Poll: Majority of Americans question the presidents' integrity"

Well here's another one of those polls that say Bush is in trouble, but remember, he's still got 3 more years. And no, nobody has yet polled me about anything, let alone about Bush.

I still question the accuracy of polls, mostly because there are two types of people; the ones who jump at the chance to be involved in a survey, any survey, and those who don't. They may share the same opinions about many things, but only one of them wants to participate. Not every one wants to fill out forms, be stopped on the street and questioned, or accept a phone call, from a pollster. So, when they say "Most Americans......", they mean only most of those few that decided to participated, instead of hanging up, or walking away. They assume that that small percentage is representative of a whole population.

Yes I know, they put a lot of time, effort, and money, into studying demographics and putting everyone into nice neat little packages, but from my own personal experience, from school to Jobs to friends and family and aquaintances, I know many people of similar economic, social, religious, and political ideologies, who have widely differing views from each other. The people of similar demographics that I know, cannot be counted on to agree on anything. So how can one be counted on to speak for many others?

Also, I've seen enough polls to know it's seldom reported what they actually ask the people. In other words, you really don't think that the people responding to this poll were asked; "Do you question the presidents' integrity?", hmm? What are the exact questions? The what, and how they ask, can and has be debated, because you can ask a question, get answers, then word it differently, and get a completely different answer, even from the same people who responded the first time, even though the new wording didn't actually change the question. It all depends on who gives the survey, who pays for it, and their motivations.

Polling results only serve the people who have an agenda to push. In my opinion, people are too easily swayed by current events, so that the pollsters, as well as the sponsors of it, know that tomorrows headlines will result in a new opinions. And that's because the general population is all too willing to be influenced by those who tell them how they are supposed think, and what they're supposed to think about.

Right now, the Bush team is working hard to find out just what needs to be tweaked, to get you all back on their side.

And oh, BTW, keep in mind that just a wee bit more than half the voting public voted for him in both elections, so almost half the people didn't want him in the first place, soooo, when this poll says that 60% disapprove of him, perhaps half of those, never trusted him from the begining.

(whew) Ok, I'm done ranting, for now.........