Triskelos

Obama is a charismatic Trojan Horse installation. ...

2009-11-08T01:25:05.539-06:00

Obama is a charismatic Trojan Horse installation. Those who operate him hide behind his celebrity as a shield while they consolidate power. He is being built up egregiously as a smokescreen. The Nobel Peace Prize nomination deadline was Feb.1, two weeks after he was inaugurated.
Here is an exercise in reflection on strategy employed in modern imperialism:
http://hierocryptic.blogspot.com/2009/10/false-flags-to-watch-out-for.html

Harlequin, I'm also glad that you enjoyed his poet...

2009-05-24T09:57:46.811-05:00

Harlequin, I'm also glad that you enjoyed his poetry. I haven't read as much of that as I have of his prose, but his is an inimitable source of wonder. He is also unique in his political/social musings--doesn't quite fit any box. I recommend Fidelity or any other work of his poetry. Memory of Old Jack is perhaps my favorite novel of his.

Harlequin, I wholeheartedly agreed with your discu...

2009-05-24T09:53:02.988-05:00

Harlequin, I wholeheartedly agreed with your discussion of the double-standard used to measure 'sexual deviancy.' I also believe that extramarital sex and no-fault divorce laws seem to be a much bigger immediate problem and greater root issue than gay marriage. However, I would point out that proponents of gay marriage are using the same arguments as supporters of 'open marriage' used several generations ago. Personal prerogative, right to privacy, "no one gets hurt," etc. still seek to render any opposition as inhumane and anachronistic.

I agree that perhaps he stretches some of his Romantic/ Agrarian biases a bit as he seeks to link what could be with what once was. While I respect that conservative position, the 'once was' was as never good as we might expect.

In all this, he saliently points out the need for standards of sexual behavior to be based in something beyond personal choice.
Again, I go back to my statement--they didn't get everything right back then either. Instead of discarding standards altogether (as a post-modern perspective would have us do), I would argue that the very fact that we (most of us, at least) still view certain actions as problematic (like hurting someone else in a nonconsensual action--the final canon of behavior for humanism, it seems), stems from the truth that there is an absolute standard.

If so, what is that standard for sex? Berry places it in a pre-industrial ethic of planting, harvesting, and husbanding. There is obviously a fairly wide continuum here between what I would term Christian and pagan/Classical standards, and I would say that our contemporary ethic is a mixture (Harlequin's noting of nudity and the human body is one).

The biggest gulf between Christian and pre- or post-Christian sexual ethics is the idea of love, I believe. From a Christian standpoint, the foundation of sex is to be love, the unselfish action of one to provide for the needs of another. It is telling that Paul, in Ephesians 5, commands husbands to love their wives. This doesn't seem too radical by contemporary standards. However, the little I have read in source books on the Roman culture set it in context as revolutionary. Women had few rights except usually as a daughter or wife. Marriage wasn't even the norm at this time; later emperors had to issue awards to couples who had multiple children together. It seems that even then the extra-Christian idea that sex should be pursued supremely as an activity of personal prerogative was already bearing fruit.

Again, I agree with Harlequin's assessment of the adultery/ homosexuality dichotomy that our culture has applied for perhaps as long as there has been one. I was recently reading a brief biography on Calvin and it noted how it was a16th century norm for married men throughout Europe to keep mistresses. Apparently it was pretty prudish stuff for Geneva, Switzerland, to even pass legislation limiting men to only one mistress.

This stuff isn't new. The threat of hypocrisy has always been there. However, our personal sins and biases don't offer excuses to someone else to choose their own. We are all held accountable to our actions by a higher standard.

Thankfully, that ultimate standard is transcended by a grace, I believe, that knows that we are but dust and acts within people and history to not only keep pointing us in a correct direction (through guilt, conscience, whatever you want to call it) but is also redeeming specific people to live out lives joyfully called, forgiven, and changed. This is the essence of the Christian message for sex, I believe--that just as Christ died for his church, gave unselfishly for his bride's good to his glory, then we, in whatever capacity that we are able, can model this relationship.

Is anybody surprised by any of this--conservatives...

2009-05-24T08:49:22.686-05:00

Is anybody surprised by any of this--conservatives, liberals, other? While I believe that the said document has since been discredited by the administration as an outlier or non-representative of mainstream consensus, the fact is that it was deemed necessary (assumedly by an eager new hire) by someone to develop, fund, and publish.

In one sense, there is some reason for the left's consternation about the listed groups. They are dangerous to them politically. But dangerous to the country? Perhaps to their version but without these groups there wouldn't be a nation to even discuss.

Perhaps a lot of this was to give the administration an easy way to publicly denounce or at least seem like it isn't touting the loud, angry rhetoric of much of its support base. But, let's face it: these people got the majority vote in 2008 and will hold power as long as they can. Previous to November 2008, the self-professed mission of many of Candidate Obama's most loyal supporters was treasonous at best. Can we expect them to have any respect for the views of people (pro-lifers, veterans/military personnel, gun rights' advocates, etc) that they believe are the source of the problem?

Ok, this is too amusing not to share. I have hear...

2009-03-24T09:07:00.000-05:00

Ok, this is too amusing not to share. I have heard this report on the radio but had not read anything about it until now.

The Federal Government is about to outsource jobs to China! Yes, China! Apparently, the Federal Government purchases a substantial amount of condoms from a company in Alabama who charges $.05 per condom but China only costs $.02 per condom. You would think with all of this talk of saving American jobs would mean the government would do what it could to do that right? Wrong on this one. This move puts 300 jobs in jeopardy since the company evidently relied heavily upon the Government's condom demand. I would expect this from WalMart (who actually is doing business differently now), but not the Government.

So, is this what the current administration is about? Seriously, it has been a walking contradiction from the start. But it gets better, we still have the good part of four years left before things begin to change again.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510223,00.html

This government is despiccable! I cannot believe ...

2009-03-23T16:19:00.000-05:00

This government is despiccable! I cannot believe the actions they have taken on individuals! Yes, AIG should have used better judgment but every Democrat and 3 Republicans passed a stimulus bill that allowed AIG to fulfill its CONTRACTED bonuses they owed to their employees. Now they whine and practically lynch these people for doing what the House, Senate and Obama agreed to.

But it gets so much better. Now, the House is seeking to go after executives who did not even receive bailout funds!!! That is right. Now subsidiaries of the companies who are not in financial trouble and have not contributed to our current economic condition.

Phibro, a subsidiary for Citi Group, is the government's next target on taxing bonuses. Phibro is a growing, successful and profitable company. So, is this what our government is about? They are now going to target individuals they do not feel "deserve" bonuses? This is garbage and unacceptable. I am not a fan of our current president and I am adament about opposing his policies if they are going to result in trying to pit the American people against "executives." This type of plan will destroy our country and moves way beyond the Constitution. I hope people are beginning to see the monster our country has unleashed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/23/house-prescription-aig-outrage-painful-effects-subsidiaries/

Interesting to note:"The Boston Globe, however, qu...

2009-03-17T12:58:00.000-05:00

Interesting to note:

"The Boston Globe, however, quotes several banking specialists as saying AIG was "on shaky ground," noting that the company "probably would be in bankruptcy without the federal bailout -- and thus in no position to follow through on the bonuses that were included in contracts negotiated last spring."

The Chicago Tribune reports that AIG CEO Edward Liddy says the 25 highest-paid contract employees have agreed to reduce their remaining salary this year to $1.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/03/new-roundup-aig.html

Interesting point Kade but they did replace the CE...

2009-03-17T12:41:00.000-05:00

Interesting point Kade but they did replace the CEO. Were you aware that the government replaced the CEO? The current CEO running AIG is government approved which begs the question, is the government as ignorant as they claim or have they not been paying attention from the start?

The government put no constraints on how these companies were to spend the bailout money. Why wouldn't they continue to try and fulfill the existing contractual agreements? Yes, shame on AIG for acting irresponsibly and without discretion; but shame on the government for their own irresponsible contributions. This is not just about AIG! We should demand the same attention and discretion of our governing officials, Republican and Democrat.

The newest bonuses paid to AIG employees is abomin...

2009-03-17T10:44:00.000-05:00

The newest bonuses paid to AIG employees is abominable. It represents a failure from the past and current administration to fix the key problems. Both "stimulus" packages should have included the stipultion of firing the current executives that led the company into the fiscal mess that it is in. In no way should bonuses be paid to those responsible for unethical business practices. The government should be calling on the debt owed by AIG. You can't fix the problem until you get the rats out of the barn. Here is a little analogy.

Say you have an man with a compulsive eating disorder that owns a bakery. He starts out great. He makes all the delicacys but brings food from home to eat. Gradually he begins to eat his pastries, because he makes them he deserves to eat them too! Pretty soon he eats more than he sells, and gets in a bind. Do you restock his bakery with fresh pastries that he didn't make in order for him to stay in business? No, because his behavior hasn't changed and he will just eat them too. You address the problem of him eating the profits before you can reestablish the bakery. Why would you give money to a company that has a proven track record of mismanagement and greed? I guess it proves that lobbyists are harder to get rid of than our President expected.

I was dumbfounded when I came across a link that h...

2009-03-17T08:34:00.000-05:00

I was dumbfounded when I came across a link that had a recording of Senator Grassley, Republican from Iowa, said the AIG execs should "either resign or commit suicide." Really? What are we coming to when Washington delegates decide to call for such drastic measures. The context of his statement is his comparison to the Japanese and their code of honor (at least the Samurai code of honor) and how in their shame they would take their own lives. I don't care about the context this is taken way out of proportion. Should we start calling for government officials to take their lives when they act shamefully? Give me a break. I will state it again because Washington seems to want to paint a different message: they are just as responsible as everyone else for the financial state we are in!

This may not be excusable because I have not actually read the contracts, but AIG has made contracts with these employees that they will earn bonuses based upon certain performances. These bonuses are in reflection of whatever performances they have achieved. This is another example of why the government shouldn't be involved. The situation becomes much more sticky since contracts are involved that have not been renegotiated. Could this lead to lawsuits?

The irony is too much. This is an actual quote fr...

2009-03-16T14:39:00.000-05:00

The irony is too much. This is an actual quote from Obama concerning AIG's most recent bonus distribution:

Said Obama: "All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multimillion-dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules."

"This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents," he added. "It's about our fundamental values."

Harlequin, I'm not sure if you answered my questio...

2009-03-11T12:56:00.000-05:00

Harlequin, I'm not sure if you answered my question or if I am misunderstanding your answer so let me try to ask it in other terms.

Before this, I would like to make the distinction between a plan for the stimulus and the stimulus bill itself (which I think you recognize but I want to make sure everyone understands). Republicans did not support the stimulus bill that was passed with the exception of 3 in the Senate. This stimulus bill was a Democrat stimulus that too many say they didn't even read.

I would like to also point out I agree that the spending and the stimulus idea is not a Democrat one alone. As I have stated, I don't support the Republicans on this one either. I voted for McCain because I thought he was a better alternative than Obama, not because he supported the stimulus idea. In my mind, it was the lesser of two evils. Also to note, the most recent $410 billion dollar bill was 60% Democrate pork and 40% Republican. There are none innocent in Washington. So, to try and make my point clear, this is about Washington, not just Democrat. I focus on Obama since he is the leader of the country just as many focused on Bush in the past even if it was not his fault. Also because he promised so much during his campaign and maybe I'm just highlighting the fact that he is more in line with who I believed him to be, just another politician who has a gift of speaking (although not without the aid of a teleprompter).

Even now, though, politicians on both sides, including McCain, are saying we should stop bailing out the banks and maybe we should just let them die (I saw it on Fox News just the other day, no article, sorry). There is growing concern that this large amount of spending is not going to meet anticipated goals and the risk is just too high.

Harlequin, you mentioned that if Obama's large investment pays off, it will be a significant return. What if it doesn't though? The sad part about going all in is, if you lose, you lose it all. You're out of the game. If you win, you are right, the payoff is huge. But is it the government's job to gamble like this?

My point is this: you mention the failure of capitalism has led to the government's intervention. My point is that even with failed capitalism, it is better for the government to stay out of this type of intervention. Reagan is the poster child for this idea. After the Carter administration, Reagan took much more of a limited government approach and brought our country out of a major economic downturn.

So I pose my question again, and forgive me if you answered it and I misunderstood: is the government our best solution? I just don't believe it is the case. Government officials don't run a profitable business. They should stop acting like it.

On another note, is it hard to believe for anyone else Obama has been in office for only 51 days now? It feels much more than that and he is already too tired to welcome the Prime Minister of Great Britain appropriately. I'm just saying.

Your pointing out Bush is noted. As for change fr...

2009-03-07T11:22:00.000-06:00

Your pointing out Bush is noted. As for change from Obama, it is too soon to tell. Is it a possibility? Yes. You can say that Obama is a hypocrite all day long for pushing for this stimulus, and I will continue to say you are either missing the point or you are spin doctoring. I say this because most of Washington wanted that stimulus. The disagreements come from how much and how it’s allocated. Even McCain said that if elected that he was pushing for a stimulus. This stimulus is not just some anti-free market agenda. Our economy cannot survive without cash flows moving through it. Those of us with business backgrounds were indoctrinated to believe that the closer to laissez-faire capitalism we can get the more we will all benefit. That has been true for the most part. However, I have my doubts that in a period of stagnation that it will work. We need cash flows moving through the economy to jump start it. That said, I am not supporting the stimulus as is, at least not yet, because I can’t speak intelligently enough about its contents. I am simply stating that a stimulus is needed. Many argue that the stimulus is full of government projects that could wait until our national debt is lower (as if that will ever happen), but I have to take the other stance. These projects will create jobs in addition to their stated purpose. Granted, these will be lower to lower middle class jobs. As for the middle class that is more difficult, but I think cutting the labor taxes is a good start. However, I don’t think that in and of itself cutting labor taxes and nothing else is a viable solution.

On nationalization, I will correct you. I said that nationalizing the few banks that were in jeopardy of collapsing for a temporary period of time (meaning until stability can be achieved) is acceptable. Afterwards they can go back to business as usual. In general, I support competition of businesses to drive prices lower. However, our financial institutions have proven that unless they are regulated more so than they have been in the past that they will pursue profits to their own peril.

In conclusion I will reiterate a defense for Obama. You call him a hypocrite because he wanted to control government spending, but Republicans also made that same promise. Would they have been against a stimulus? I think not. If your opposition is to the contents of the stimulus then say so with clarity, but don’t call a man a hypocrite when takes what was agreed upon by both parties as a necessary measure.

I know I keep mentioning content of the stimulus, and I am working on that. I am slowly wading through the several hundred page propsal. Hopefully it will be done soon.

I have a question of my own. Government budgets are funny things but as we all know they are determined by the previous year(s) spending. I haven’t heard anyone state how this stimulus cost compares to the last few years of spending. I am not sure myself-just a thought.

And the eight was intended for our ex-president not our legislature.

Good discussion.

Don't get me wrong Harlequin, I am not saying Obam...

2009-03-06T07:19:00.000-06:00

Don't get me wrong Harlequin, I am not saying Obama is the only one to blame for this massive spending. Frankly, all of Washington should be fired and replaced (if only that were really an option, but until people choose to vote differently or others more suited for the job run we are stuck). I have, I believe, pointed out this spending problem originated with Bush. I guess what I have failed to SPECIFICALLY mention are other government officials; however, I have mentioned the government as a whole in my "venting."

My beef with Obama is his blatant hypocrisy and how so many let him get away with it. He promised "change" and "hope we can believe in." I ask all of Triskelos, do you really think at this point he represents change, and if so, change for the positive? I don't believe the answer, "anything other than Bush" is an adequate answer because honestly, there is worst than Bush out there (i.e. Jimmy Carter). Obama promised no pork and no earmarks. And yes, I believe he could stand up and be a leader and put down all of the earmarks. That is something I can stand behind either Democrat or Republican. He promised to bring government spending under control. Uhh, what then is he doing? The change Obama is bringing could permanently alter our economic system away from free market principles and this I cannot support.

Harlequin, I specifically ask to you, do you believe government can fix this problem by nationalizing the banks? I stated my position on this as government has caused the problem and worsened it by their involvement. How would more government control then benefit the situation? They may act as if they do, but they don't have the money to do this. Not to mention, most of these government officials never ran a business or created jobs (I admit stating this blindly). The point is though, Washington is not Wall Street. They don't know how to run a business and in fact many argue if government were a business they would have closed shop a long time ago. Are we really going to trust government on this issue? If so, how will they really help? No one knows what ramifications their actions will have and since this is the case, should we invest so much money blindly? I'm not saying I am sure of an answer, but I do prefer the one that is proven. Government should cut labor taxes and butt out. This is a sure way of putting millions of dollars back into the economy overnight. But I leave the floor to Harlequin and anyone else who poses a different solution, and/or someone who has more faith in our government.

Also, if my memory serves me, the Republicans have not ruled for the past eight years. Is the number not six? Regardless, they failed in their job as well.

Apparently, Diakonou and Kade are both frustrated ...

2009-03-05T09:34:00.000-06:00

Apparently, Diakonou and Kade are both frustrated with our new president’s economic policies. I say, if wish are catch all of the culprits then you should cast your net a little wider. Obama is in a key position to speak out against these policies if he wanted to. However, Obama is the figurehead of this stimulation business. Let me issue the caveat that I am not agreeing with you, but simply stating there are not enough collective fingers in Triskelos to point out all of the congressmen and senators responsible for this spending.
Personally, I am not entirely convinced by the conservative or liberal economic principles as a whole. I think it best to choose a response that best suits the problem, which is sometimes more liberal and sometimes more conservative. That said, I am not opposed to the temporary nationalization of banks the few banks named by Greenspan. I am also for restrictions on executive compensation for only those companies involved in the bailout. I think that is only fair to the taxpayers.
What we have is a Democrat-controlled government scorned by the last eight years of absurdity. We are witnessing their compensation for their inability to push for change under Bush by cramming twelve years worth of spending into four years worth of budget. Obama is the poster child for this project and the successes and failures of his first administration will be determined by it. It’s a bold move spending every ounce of political capital that he has earned during the campaign-which is considerable. He’s gone all in, and even he doesn’t know if he has the cards. I guess he did learn something from his predecessor. If he pulls this off, the return on his political capital will be exponential. There is no telling where he could or would go from there. If he fails then the Democratic Party fails and joins its opposition in the gutter then balance will be restored to the universe.

Here is a link to a great speech by former Speaker...

2009-03-04T13:36:00.000-06:00

Here is a link to a great speech by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4021/Video-Newt-addresses-CPAC-2009.aspx

I can understand your frustration Diakonou. But I...

2009-03-03T16:13:00.000-06:00

I can understand your frustration Diakonou. But I think that you are missing the key to seeing what you are supposed to see. Didn't you receive your government issued "future spect-o-meters" in the mail after the inauguration? When you put them on you're transported to Obamatopia where all the principles of economics are reversed and excessive spending = deficit reduction. It is really quite simple. We can spend Trillions more than revenue each year and still decrease the deficit significantly. It is a rather ingenious plan. But back on planet earth, it doesn't work that way. I hope that the American people wake up to see the "Shopaholic" we put in office. "We" gave him a full checkbook, and apparently he intends on cashing every check before we can see the first bank statement.

And Obama signs another $410billion pork laden bil...

2009-03-02T09:09:00.000-06:00

And Obama signs another $410billion pork laden bill. Rob Emanuel even admitted saying,"He signed it holding his nose." This administration is no different than any other. And Obama really needs to stop this talk of inheriting the $1.7 trillion deficit if he is going to continue to add to it so agressively.

To further my point on dependency, I thought of a ...

2009-02-20T16:38:00.000-06:00

To further my point on dependency, I thought of a simple equation I have studied related to relationship management. The equation:

Power = Dependence

In a relationship, the amount of power a person has directly correlates to the amount of dependence on the other person. So the more dependent Americans become on the government, the more power the government will have.

On separate note, I thought I would report an alternative view I heard about the stimulus package. Rather, than stimulate the economy it is designed as a national defense plan, that is, when you spread the bacon around the US it is sure to keep out the Muslim extremists trying to destroy America. Not original with myself but thought it was too good to not share.

Harlequin brings up a very interesting question, "...

2009-02-20T13:48:00.000-06:00

Harlequin brings up a very interesting question, "Is there ever an instance when free market principles should be set aside?"
is one that is difficult and the answer is definitely unclear.

I want to say no, but I'm not sure if this is a realistic response. I have listened to much debate about this. Even some conservative economists say Bush HAD to do something to keep the banks stable. I don't want to say I know more than them, but I wonder what would really happen if the government didn't bail out the banks.

Would private investors really not intercede upon seeing new opportunities and invest their money? This is typically how things have worked in the past. Companies go out of business, people who can't afford houses lose them, and the government seeks to uphold the law and perform their actual job function. All the while, the US keeps going because people in a free market seek such opportunities to expand upon. I admit the world isn't exactly the same as the problems are global and the impact may very well be as devestating as feared. But are things really that different? I ask this openly without a definitive answer. People always want to think their circumstances are so vastly different than times past, yet, the saying goes "history repeats itself." Another proverb states, there is nothing new under the sun. Does this situation fall outside of this heuristic?

What it really comes down to with me is the rapidly expanding government more than it is about free market (although I still try and hold to this belief system). It just so happens these are not mutually exclusive in this case. Greenspan may make a point, but once the government assumes such control, what if it refuses to let it go? Or what if government officials continue to believe, as Obama stated at George Mason, the government is the only one who can fix the problem? (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/58ee3966-dd9d-11dd-930e-000077b07658.html).
What if short-term actually means forever? Once you start making people dependent, how easy is it to make them independent again? My fear is once this ball starts rolling, can/will it stop?

My personal opinion is that you exhaust EVERY option before you implement such drastic measures. I can't say how many times I've heard, "We need to stop thinking and start acting!" How about we do both? How about Obama stop campaigning and start presiding. How about he stop spreading fear in place of the hope he campaigned for while running.

Harlequin, this may not directly answer your question but I think it gets to the heart of why I oppose what the government is doing. Once the government starts making people dependent upon itself, freedom begins to deteriorate. Just look out CEO compensation for those who have received bailouts. Thos CEO's lost their rights to argue the point! A person in debt is a slave, per se, to the person he or she owes.

Harlequin, thanks for pointing out the agriculture...

2009-02-19T23:45:00.000-06:00

Harlequin, thanks for pointing out the agriculture aspects of the stimulus bill. It makes me wonder what the distrubtion of the money is i.e., is the majority going to the cattle farmers and very little going to the fruit and veggie farmers? I bring this up because of an article I did about a year ago that discussed the relationship between the U.S. farm policy and the obesity epidemic in the U.S. It'd be interesting to know if the short term benefit of the stimulus package on agriculture would have a long term adverse effect on health care costs.

As for the Holy Father's rebuking of the Speaker, I did see this. I think she has become the Vatican's favorite punching bag. She is the most senior U.S. official who is Catholic, as a result they hold her to high standards. Unfortunately for her (or them whichever the case may be) her beliefs are at odds with her political ideology.

As much as I am bored to tears by this topic I hav...

2009-02-19T21:57:00.000-06:00

As much as I am bored to tears by this topic I have enjoyed the fresh perspectives submitted here. Aiden, I have thoroughly enjoyed your arguments and counterarguments. We would have to draw a very fine line to distinguish where you and I differ on this topic. I did, however, want to alter the discussion a bit. You have outlined four errors of judgment that you believe that pro-lifers are guilty of committing.

These are:

1) those scriptures were not intended to be scientific
2) that the bible is not law, and furthermore it is a book to be taken on faith and not submitted as evidence.
3) that life is sacred, but only in the way that Christians define it to be so.
4) that birth control is a form of abortion

Let’s play devil’s advocate. It is obvious that you are not a not novice in this topic. That said, I want to confine the parameters of this topic for no other reason than to make it more difficult to take on.

First, we are no longer playing this game by American rules. Meaning, any discussion about legislating based on scriptures attributed to a G-d that some might not believe in is not allowed. We are operating under the assumption that everyone belongs to the Judeo/Christian faith. We are also not in a political forum. This is not a political discussion. You live in a theocracy where having an abortion is illegal under any circumstances. By the way, this hypothetical society avoids technology and science in any way if it encroaches upon matters of faith. I limited this topic in every way short of telling you what you have to believe. The only wiggle room is that you have to discuss your four points using only principles found in Christian, Judaic,or Kabbalistic scriptures and your own Reason.

1) Maybe these scriptures weren’t meant to be scientific, but does that really matter? Even if the scripture is itself more allegorical or symbolic than historical fact it can still contain truth. Consider this Psalm:

"For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for Thou art fearfully wonderful (later texts were changed to read "for I am fearfully and wonderfully made"); wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them."

Psalm 139:13-16

This is obviously full of symbolism, but doesn’t it convey the truth that G-d knew us in the womb?

2) We will leave this point out. To mention it is heresy.

3) As a continuation of the first point:

It is a given that men and women trying to have a baby will, unless there is a medical problem, will likely succeed in doing so. Even still, the creation of human life ultimately rests with the Creator. Does that not make life sacred? Can we through reason think of an instance in which G-d would create a soul, especially a human soul, without a purpose? Moreover, if the assumption that human souls inherently have a purpose, are they not all sacred if for no other reason than they are a part of a divine plan?

4) You made the point that all forms of birth control are abortions. I will just reiterate that if life begins at conception that all forms of birth control are abortion.

That said, I am sure you will prevail. I’m just curious as to how you go about it.

Diakonou,My assumption is that under no circumstan...

2009-02-19T20:14:00.000-06:00

Diakonou,
My assumption is that under no circumstances are you for the abandonment or even the temporary suspension of free market principles. So, I began to think that the most appropriate question to ask Triskelos about your post is:

Is there ever an instance when free market principles should be set aside?

Coincidentally, I found a very recent article in which the Financial Times interviewed Alan Greenspan. In this article he supports the temporary nationalization of SOME of the banks. He actually was quoted as saying, “I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do.”

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2187972/posts

I am not going to comment on the stimulus at this time. I am hoping to find time in a couple of weeks to read the extremely lengthy bill, analyze it, and post an article. I don’t think it has been scrutinized fairly by the Left or the Right. Democrats praise Obama for acting quickly even though Congress has done all of the leg work. They also spin the effort as a bipartisan accomplishment to claim that our president works across the aisle. The truth is that there is no need in the House for bipartisanship, and only little need in the Senate. Republicans, on the other hand, only point out obscure items and make generalizations about wasteful spending and pork. I only glanced at the first 15 pages of the bill, and it was full of measures to improve agriculture. That sounds useful to me, and yet I have heard nothing about it in the media. I am not shocked. There is little interesting about farming unless the crop is picked by illegal immigrants or there is a salmonella scare.

As for the three-headed monster, did anyone else see the pope confront Pelosi on abortion? I was shocked that he called her out specifically.

Well, $75 billion isn't the real number for the "M...

2009-02-19T10:36:00.000-06:00

Well, $75 billion isn't the real number for the "Mortgage Bailout". It is actually $275 billion, with a Treasury infusion of $100 billion going to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae each to buy mortgages and securities. It is still a voluntary plan for servicers to help homeowners. I'm sure that there will be additional stipulations for getting help as with the "stimulus package" just passed. And it doesn't help those who have lost jobs keep their house. So the real need is for job creation, not massive and wasteful spending.

Although a mistake, I have decided to keep "Demobr...

2009-02-19T09:54:00.000-06:00

Although a mistake, I have decided to keep "Demobratic" for the purpose of amusement. I did have to laugh as I went back over it. And for those who take offense: I don't think much more highly than the Republican party. For the record, I am conservative because of conservative principles, not because of the Republican party. I just can't come up with a funny name for them right now. Maybe I'll make a mistake later that will work.