Ogre's Politics & Views
November 07, 2005
muslims continue attacking
It's spreading. As I'm sure most of my good readers are aware, muslims have been attacking France for days. Now Denmark is also under attack by muslims.
As these attacks are more successful, you will see them continue. Based on immigration numbers, England seems highly likely to be the next target of the mulsim holy war against the world.
In America, we have a considerable muslim population. However, simply due to the Ocean, there are not hordes of muslims welcomed in as has happened in France, Denmark, and other European countries.
If we do not control our borders, we will certainly be next. The muslims leaders and people are seeing how successful these riots and attacks can be in individual countries. It is only a matter of time before they decide to start sending troops into America to continue their attack.
We CAN protect our borders if anyone in Washington wanted to. I really don't care who is offended at this point. Live in slavery and "peace," or offend someone and be free. You choose.
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to kit.jarrell at gmail dot com.
Blogs already on board:
Posted by: Ogre at
02:05 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If you click on that funny brown box at the top of Ogre's page, my last two posts were about this - including Denmark. I also have excerpts from emails I received from an American in Paris, and some captured Saturday morning cartoons that ANYONE who thinks this is just a matter of poverty and racism REALLY needs to look at.
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at November 07, 2005 04:11 PM (1i2x7)
2
Fox is reporting that there is some rioting in Germany and some other country, missed the name. Nothing in print yet, probably be more info by the am.
Posted by: William Teach at November 07, 2005 07:25 PM (VDmQ/)
3
Ah, very nice, Peter. And sick cartoons. It's shcoking that those are real, but I know they are. Those children are taught to kill and accept death from a VERY young age.
And yes, Teach, it is spreading all over Europe so far.
Posted by: Ogre at November 08, 2005 06:51 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Strong Words from Chirac
Oh my. He's really getting serious, isn't he? He's determined to promote
respect for all, justice and equal opportunities.
Hey Jacques, maybe you didn't notice, but your country is at war! Over 3,000 vehicles have been torched! I think his main problem is that he cannot find anyone to surrender to...
Indeed, a similar scenario is certainly possible here in the United States, because we have pretty much the same border policies -- completely, totally open borders where anyone can enter any time they want. These policies of completely unrestrained immigration lead directly to these problems.
As a few news outlets are finally admitting, this is now muslims vs France. The longer this goes on, the more emboldened the muslims will become. I would not be surprised to see this situation escalate even more before it calms down. Look for al-queerda to increase activities there soon.
Of course, the big difference if this were to happen in many suburban and rural areas of America is that there would be more dead -- dead terrorists, that is. I know a number of people that would be sitting on rooftops with rifles, waiting for the mob to come attack them.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:04 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
No Freedom of Arms, either.
As a follow-up to the lack of freedom of speech in CA, it's little-known news that San Francisco, one of the biggest haters of freedom and capitalism in the world, is voting Tuesday to attempt to ban all firearms.
Washington and Chicago have similar bans. How'd that work out? In addition,
Current gun owners would have to surrender their arms by April if the measure passes.
Hello? Did San Francisco secede from the union and I didn't get the memo? I don't see how a law like this could exist for a minute with the second amendment around.
Oh wait. You'd need someone to challenge the law, and I doubt there's even one dope-smoking, maggot-infested, long-hair peacenik in San Francisco that owns a firearm. And then, if one could be found, you'd have to get past the 9th circuit court that honestly believes you have no right to even
teach your children.
Can we just mine the San Andres fault and toss California out to sea?
Posted by: Ogre at
11:02 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That's too bad, really. I think San Francisco is a beautiful city. Now I can never go back because I really have no desire to be mugged by someone who just ignores the ban.
I remember reading somewhere that London has 7x as much gun crime as New York City. While it is difficult to get a permit to have a gun in NYC, it is impossible in London. Thus only criminals dare have guns.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at November 07, 2005 12:44 PM (K+h36)
2
Which of course proves that anti-gun nuts are just asking someone to commit a violent crime against them with a firearm since they can't 'legally' protect themselves. . . Why I would not give mine up, least not without a fight!
Posted by: oddybobo at November 07, 2005 01:46 PM (6Gm0j)
3
The numbers and research have shown again and again and again that disarming people does not reduce crime and never has.
What I find most ironic about the "only criminals will have guns" line is that these laws not only allow current criminals to have guns, but also create more criminals of people like me who just ignore those laws.
Posted by: Ogre at November 07, 2005 02:00 PM (/k+l4)
4
"Washington and Chicago have similar bans. How'd that work out?"
It sucks. Thanks for asking.
Posted by: Windypundit at November 07, 2005 09:02 PM (2W2GT)
5
Come on, Windypundit, read the writing on the wall: GET OUT NOW.
Posted by: Ogre at November 08, 2005 06:59 AM (/k+l4)
6
I have long hair, am a hippy, and own a gun. Boy you sound dumb. What is with the "maggot-infested" reference anyways? I know thats Limbaugh speak, but maggots? Why?
Posted by: Key at March 06, 2006 03:31 AM (S595D)
7
And do you live in San Francisco?
Posted by: Ogre at March 06, 2006 11:03 AM (CyQ4M)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Not Free Speech
You have the right to freedom of speech in America. However, keep in mind, I am not obligated to listen to you, and I am especially not obligated to provide you with a printing press, soapbox, megaphone, radio station, or anything else so that you may express that right.
Keep that in mind as the considerations run amuck with the news about the
college pornographer at UCSD.
This is NOT about freedom of speech or freedom of expression. It's about MY money in the form of tax dollars, being used by a moron to film himself having sex. That's all it's about.
Congress should remove funding from UCSD because the school refuses to do anything about this, saying it's a student matter. No, it's not a student matter when they're using MY damn money. The moron shouldn't be stopped -- but he should be forced to stop using my money to produce his pr0n.
Get government the heck out of education -- they do NO good, only harm.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:05 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Freedom and Property
On my way into work today, I heard an ad for someone running for election to the Charlotte City Council this year:
We have to guard against uncontrolled growth
There's the difference between conservatives and socialists.
The person who said that honestly believes that you and I have no right to ownership of property. This person serious thinks that it is HIS job to decide what you or I may or may not build on land that we have paid for. He honestly believes that he, with the power of government, owns all the land and all rights to land.
That's wrong. That's anti-freedom. That is the very definition of communism and socialism -- the government owns everything and the government will determine what happens, where, and when. That is in direct opposition to conservative values and the ideas of the founders of this country.
And strangely enough, the person who placed that ad calls himself a Republican. The candidate is Pat Mumford, a current city council member who represents Wachovia bank on the council (not the people).
He will very likely be re-elected and the socialist climate will continue in Charlotte. I wish there was a viable political party for those who love freedom.
Posted by: Ogre at
07:07 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
November 05, 2005
Pirate Day
Today is Pirate Day at the Carolina Renaissance Festival. Come on out, if you're anywhere nearby. That's where I'll be all day today (and Sunday), in my full pirate gear -- just look for the person dressed as a pirate, and that will be me. 
Teach, I expect to see you there!
Posted by: Ogre at
12:11 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Heck YES!!! ^o^
Count me in for tomorrow.
My cousin Vince and his friend Jason are going.
I've never been to one tho...
THEREFORE "me" EQU "Noob"
--Neji
Posted by: Neji at November 05, 2005 04:41 PM (IleHf)
2
You didn't happen to try to run down a cruise ship did you??? I thought that story had Ogre written all over it... I just couldn't figure out how to pin it on you.
Posted by: Bou at November 05, 2005 09:44 PM (5JHEt)
3
Don't worry about pinning it on Ogre, Eeeviiilll Glennnnnnnnnn will do that for you. BTW - Is that Ogre in the pic? Funny, looks human (almost) to me. HA HA!
Posted by: Smoke Eater at November 05, 2005 10:11 PM (K7uqT)
4
Dang, that looks like a good time!
Posted by: FrauBudgie at November 06, 2005 09:37 AM (+M6+7)
5
Those 'human' masks just get better every year!
Um...Ogre...Right after you left, there was this incidence of piracy on the high seas, a pirate ship trying to capture a Princess Cruise ship...you WERE in South Carolina, weren't you?
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at November 06, 2005 05:58 PM (uXQ+I)
6
Neij, where were ya? I looked all over both days for someone in goggles, but I didn't see you. I was the one who looked like a pirate...
As for the cruise ship, I can neither confirm nor deny anything. However, if anyone knows where I can get some rocket-propelled grenades, I'm current looking because I've recently run out...
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2005 09:21 PM (7PCNv)
7
LMAO!, as a matter of fact, I DID wear my goggles to the event. Didn't see you tho. I was wearing a black shirt and jeans.
I was there today Sunday with my cousin (The "Slacker") and his friend.
--Neji
PS. Tortuga Twins ROCK!!!
Posted by: Neji at November 06, 2005 09:49 PM (IleHf)
8
Geez, there weren't even that many pirates there!
Tortuga's are cool, but my favorite is Dexter Tripp.
Posted by: Ogre at November 07, 2005 06:36 AM (7PCNv)
9
Mahn, If I lived out there I would have gone. I love Renn Faires. One of the guys that was in my Re-enacting group used to joust at the Carolina faire years ago.
Posted by: Contagion at November 07, 2005 09:06 AM (Q5WxB)
10
I was talking to one of the jousters after the day ended. Man, what a cool job that would be -- even if it really is a lot of work.
Posted by: Ogre at November 07, 2005 10:02 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Real Man
Sometimes people ask what it takes to be a real man. Wayne Goldsberry shows us all how it's done:
For 40 exhausting minutes, Wayne Goldsberry battled a buck with his bare hands in his daughter's bedroom.
Goldsberry finally subdued the five-point whitetail deer that crashed through a bedroom window at his daughter's home Friday. When it was over, blood splattered the walls and the deer lay dead on the bedroom floor, its neck broken.
Now that's a real man. And he wasn't forced into it -- after the battle started, he apparently left the bedroom to tell his wife to call the police, then RE-ENTERED the room to continue the fight.
If it had been me, I probably wouldn't have thought about it and grabbed the shotgun. But that would be a HUGE mistake on my part -- when Mr. Goldsberry was asked what happened to the deer, he replied, "He's in the freezer."
mmMMMmm...venison...
Posted by: Ogre at
07:16 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
November 04, 2005
Happy Birthday RomeoCat!
Hooray! Today is RomeoCat's Birthday! I was going to get her a cake that looked something like this one because she claims that she's somewhere north of that over the hill point (and not the fake one at 30, either). However, if you look at her picture, you can clearly see that... what? Who says that's not her? Shut up, I'm the one writing this post.
Anyway, as you can clearly
see, she's likely closer to 24 than anything else, so I thought this cake would be much more appropriate and to her liking.
Oh, and she's asking for help in deciding
which color to use, so head on over, send your birthday wishes, and let her know what color to use!
Posted by: Ogre at
12:06 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Happy Birthday Dear R'Cat!! My friend...have a great day!! And night.
Posted by: Raven at November 04, 2005 06:28 PM (D1BL0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
People Who Despise America
As if there weren't enough Europeans, French, and muslims to hate America, there's pile of elected officials that hate America, too. Someone tell me when the armed revolution for freedom and independence starts -- I'm there.
First up, the
Oakland City Council. They are taking land from one business to give to another in the name of "development." Dan Vanderpriem, Oakland city developer says it's fine because they offered a lot of money.
It's cut and dry -- one person owns a business and Sears wants that business. Sears is even going to put the SAME type of business in it's place. But Sears apparently gave more money to the city council than this individual.
No, you have no property rights in Connecticut, nor in Oakland, CA. I ought to stop paying property taxes since I apparently don't own the damn land I bought.
Next up, Donald P. Lay, Stephen Reinhardt, and Sidney Thomas, Circuit Judges on the
worthless 9th Federal Circuit Court. If you haven't heard about them, they honestly believe that if the government-run monopolistic school system wants to teach your 6-year old about anal s*x, that you, as the parent, have ZERO right to stop them.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:06 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"If California schools want to show hardcore pr0n to your 1st-grader, they are now permitted to AND YOU CANNOT STOP THEM. If they want to have a celebration of "gay day" with live depictions of homosexual sex in the 3rd grade classroom, they can, and you cannot stop them."
Ogre my dear, I have a .45 that begs to differ. You mess with my kid, and there are no lengths to which I wouldn't go to protect my child! But, I also would be more on top of this little survey, I would have asked for a copy beforehand. It is called parenting.
Posted by: oddybobo at November 04, 2005 11:59 AM (6Gm0j)
2
I'm sorry, Oddy, those same judges would then attempt to put you in jail and take you child away from you so they could determine exactly what and how that child should learn. Seriously, that's how these idiots think.
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 12:55 PM (/k+l4)
3
ummm... yea if I lived in Kalifornia I would be yanking my kid from any school that even started teaching stuff like that. Circuit court judges or not, I'd like to see them stop me. If that meant I leave work everyday and pull my kid from the school and then return them after that class is over... It will happen.
Posted by: Contagion at November 04, 2005 03:07 PM (Q5WxB)
4
Why, oh why does MT have to be under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit?
I just watched this segment on FNC, and some of the questions on that questionnaire directed towards 5 & 6 years old had me enraged.
My daughter is 7 and doesn't know what the word "sex" means. That's the way I LIKE it.
Posted by: Craig's Spousal Unit at November 04, 2005 04:16 PM (3cNcv)
5
Sorry, Craig's Spousal Unit and Contagion, according to this court, you literally do not have that right. Not at all.
And Contagion, I don't know how California is, but if you try that in North Carolina, they arrest you. Yes, the arrest you if your child is not in a registered school. Seriously.
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 06:19 PM (7PCNv)
6
I'm so joinging a commune and homeschoolin my kid!
Posted by: oddybobo at November 04, 2005 09:21 PM (yFpR7)
7
It's the only way to go, Oddy.
Posted by: Ogre at November 05, 2005 07:04 AM (7PCNv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Washington Court Creates Law
It seems that the judges in Washington State are jealous of all the federal judges who create laws (instead of interpreting them), so they've decided to create brand-new laws for their state.
In
this case, they have completely invented a whole new class of person -- the de facto parent. And yes, this new type has all sorts of rights and entitlements, or there wouldn't be much point in creating it, would there?
Keep trying to convince me that homosexuals just want "equal rights." This is yet another example that proves they actively seek special rights just for themselves.
Posted by: Ogre at
09:07 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Interesting Reactions
Wednesday, I posted in response to the weekly Christian Views Symposium, answering the question "Should the Bible be taught in Public Schools?"
A couple others responded (THANKS for the posting, the links, and the thoughts), and while the answers were what I expected, they came from places I guess I didn't really expect. As a refresher, my answer (in brief) was "Let people decide for themselves, not the federal government."
Owlish Mutterings, a blog I really enjoy and respect, went with a no answer, but also mentioned a fear of "tyranny of a majority." Whenever I see that phrase, I immediately wonder if a tyranny of the minority is any better.
Andy, writing at the Charlotte Capitalist, another blog I really like to read (but man, those ads still take forever to load on my system),
also says no, because he thinks the ideas in the Bible are dangerous.
Logically, then, to enforce the "no Bible in schools," you must have a central, powerful, federal government to enforce that. I know neither Owlish or Andy support a huge federal government. So what's left?
How do you say that no bibles are allowed in any school in the entire country without having a federal bureaucracy to enforce it? Why should such a decision be made for everyone else by some? Why shouldn't people be able to govern themselves in this issue and others? And why does it matter to you if people somewhere else want the Bible in schools that they pay for?
Just wondering.
Posted by: Ogre at
07:01 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm going to disagree on your assessment that in order to enforce "no bible in schools", you have to have a central, powerful, federal government to enforce it theory.
First I believe that bibles should not be in the school, why? Because when I was in HS my class was forced to read the bible as part of our education. There were non-christians in my public school and no matter how anyone wants to justify it, you are still promoting one religion. When one of them refused, he received a failing grade. I don't think that is right, it is an individuals choice as to which religion they follow.
So, how does the government enforce it? It doesn't. That is what civil suits are for. I don't expect the feds nor state to patrol each school/teacher. However I expect the parents to do it. If the local public school is teaching from the bible, koran, or any other religious book, then the parent should first contact the school to complain. If they don't cease, then they need a lawyer. Your money theory comes into action here. After the school looses so much money on lawsuits I don't think they will continue to allow it to be taught.
Posted by: Contagion at November 04, 2005 08:38 AM (Q5WxB)
2
I'm trying to see how you cannot have a federal government enforcement -- if it's up to the courts, that's government. And nearly any case can end up being filed and, and heard by, a federal court, which will then lead to the supreme court, which means the federal government gets to make the rules.
And unfortunately, as long as the schools are a monopoly run by the government, they will NEVER run out of money. They honestly don't care about the "loss" of money due to a lawsuit, because they'll just get more -- from the local people, the state, and the feds. That's exactly what happened when the local district lost the segregation cases recently -- they just demanded more money from the state and county to pay for the "losses."
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 09:03 AM (/k+l4)
3
Good slant on big government. You should read what they are doing in Indiana at www.neoconrush.blogspot.com read the atricle about monkeys on trial. Keep writing - save the species.
Elliot
Posted by: Elliot``` at November 04, 2005 10:10 AM (u47+G)
4
Thanks for stopping by, Elliot...that link led to another link that seemed just rather silly...?
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 10:37 AM (/k+l4)
5
Excellent questions, Ogre. I'm suspicious of anyone fighting to ban the study of religious writings of any kind in schools, that sounds to me like they're trying to enforce education in a different religion - atheism (Oh yes it is..).
I think it's impossible to teach religion in a completely unbiased way, yet the various spiritual beliefs practiced around the world are such an important part of human history, culture and philosophy that any exposure to any one of them is better than none - ideally, schools would teach religion as a broad subject, comparing and contrasting beliefs.
It's not the job of schools to convert children - let's face it, they do a pretty poor job of that! But it is their job to educate.
As far as litigation... enough with the lawsuits already! Take your kid to a church-run school if you want to overdo the religious aspect, or allow parents to select a school that *decides and publishes* its own religious education policy.
There's far too much time and effort wasted in litigation - and every decision embodied in law restricts flexibility and options, and feeds somebody else's lawsuit.
Posted by: GeekBrit at November 04, 2005 10:51 AM (p950D)
6
I just cannot understand why we can't let people govern themselves. Get government COMPLETELY out of education, of course, and none of this would even be an issue!
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 10:58 AM (/k+l4)
7
When you say federal gov enforcement I'm picturing the FBI/US Marshals/some other agency patroling the schools to make sure there is not a bible in the class room. What I'm saying is that IF they make the law saying no religion (of any type) should be taught in a public school. Let it go at that. If, IF the courts worked properly the first time a case was brought up in a local court, it wouldn't have to go any higher. It's plain cut and dry yes/no. Did you or did you not teach from a religious book/writings. Yes = Fine, No = No fine. Keeping it at the local level. Yes, maybe the first time this happens it might get to the Supreme Court, but if, IF the courts actually enforce the law not create a new law then it wouldn't go back.
Your assessment of schools and funding is flawed. Many of our local school districts here in Illinois are in financial trouble over segregation lawsuits, and have been for years. The last couple of tax raises has been voted down because they have mismanaged what money they had AND the lawsuits were regarding things they knew about and should have changed.
Geekbrit: The lack of teaching religion in a school is not promoting atheism. Atheism is a belief there is no god/higher being. They are not confirming nor denying a god. If they said, "we wont teach from the bible because there is no god." That would be promoting atheism. If I go to a school that doesn't teach latin, it doesn't mean they are saying latin doesn't exist.
Now, the flipside of this arguement is that if they want to keep the bible in school, to keep it fair they need to give ALL other religious writings equal time. IE each year have a religion class with a week dedicated to every different religion that is active.
Posted by: Contagion at November 04, 2005 11:16 AM (Q5WxB)
8
The local vs. federal is good in theory, but that's not how our system of government works. If you don't like a result of a judge, you can take it to a higher judge. The only way to prevent that would be to make the law local -- which is what I want.
If the local school district says no Bibles in school, that's fine, there's no federal law that's oversight. But if a different local school district says it's OK, then the same standards should apply.
Do you think you school districts will go bankrupt? Do you honestly think that they will stop existing? I'd LOVE it if they did, but there is absolutely no way the state or federal government will let that happen. No matter what financial trouble they're in, they WILL be bailed out -- with your money or mine (federal).
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 11:27 AM (/k+l4)
9
Hey Ogre:
Thanks for the link. On one level, this is a political issue. I agree with you, no public schools. Parents should make the decision about how to educate their children. I don't recommend teaching the Bible to anyone including my children. If others choose to do so, that is their call. (Au contraire, GeekBrit).
But the issue goes much deeper than politics. The issue is metaphysical and epistemological. What is the nature of reality? I say existence exists and that is it. Pretty simple. The religious say, "No, there is a God, who is super natural, above reality, who creates existence." That is a contradiction.
Also epistemologically, belief in God is just that. Belief. Faith. Taking the leap. Any attempts to discuss God in scientific terms do not make sense because then you would have to prove God exists and that he is part of existence. Just saying that the universe exists and something must have created it (Intelligent Design Theory - uhhh, Hypothesis) is just an assertion with no science to back it up.
Thus, the real question is, "Do you wish your children to learn how to objectively understand reality, how to think, and how to gain knowledge or do you wish them to learn how to just believe what someone else tells them."
That is the question. The political question is important, but not as significant.
All the best...
Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at November 04, 2005 12:33 PM (8vJzx)
10
Certainly there's a much deeper philosophical issue at work here -- but even on that one, I defer to the individual -- if you want to teach you child that we're all living on a dandelion weed being carried around by an elephant, more power to ya!
And as you mention, if we get government out of the damn education business, we could all just decide for ourselves. What a concept!
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 12:59 PM (/k+l4)
11
Ok Ogre:
I am not going to let you off the hook that easy. Yes, we are in agreement that parents should decide how to educate their children in a free education market, that is no public schools.
So, let's pretend that we are in that situation. And let's focus upon that word "decide". "Decide" implies looking at the reality (facts) of the situation and based upon what your senses perceive and your mind forms into concepts and then links them logically you make a decision -- as with anything -- writing a computer program, buying a house, etc.
But the whole notion of God, and that The Bible is in complete opposition to the process of deciding. It is going on faith or the unknown. And you nail it perfectly with another alternative "teach your child that we're all living on a dandelion".
I know you don't advocate people doing that (I think). Think of the consequences of that or any other assertion. It is all subjective hippy like "whatever you feel man." In the end, is that the underlying view of Christians -- subjective reality, knowledge, morality, and thus politics...and art?
Tell me it ain't so Ogre.
All the best...Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at November 04, 2005 09:36 PM (8vJzx)
12
Ok, several thoughts.
(1) There's a huge difference between studying The Bible and studying the history of religion.
(2) Not allowing Bible study is hardly the same thing as advocating atheism.
(3) Even though religions have some element of faith, I don't understand what is meant by "complete opposition to the process of deciding." Very few decisions are made purely rationally.
Is our current public school system perfect? Not by a long shot. Do I think we need a new, huge federal bureaucracy to make sure no one is teaching the Bible in schools? No. Would I have a problem with a student run, voluntary afterschool Bible study group? No.
I'm trying to figure out whether I'm more bothered by the idea of teaching Intelligent Design as a routine part of biology class, or an elective Bible study class. I'm not sure.
Posted by: owlish at November 05, 2005 01:39 AM (rzugH)
13
Interesting perspective, Andy. The way I'm reading that last comment of yours, however, implies that you (or someone else) gets to decide what is a "valid" decision.
Now I'm not one to support that there is no truth. I know there are things that are true and things that are not. But at the same time, I won't use the government to force my views on someone else.
Try to keep government and personal opinion separate here. If someone thinks we live on a dandelion, I might use my powers of persuasion to convince them otherwise. If I fail, however, I'm not going to get government involved and force them to admit that we're not. To me, that's freedom. I'll tell them they're wrong, but that's as far as it goes.
Owlish, thanks for stopping by for some more fun! I thought we were in agreement about not having a giant federal government overseeing education. But what is the alternative? If no school in the country is allowed to teach the Bible, HOW can that happen with federal oversight?
I'm not talking about armed federal goons at every school, but the only way it could apply to ALL schools is to have a federal law...and that needs judges and other people to support it.
Posted by: Ogre at November 05, 2005 07:13 AM (7PCNv)
14
Hey guys:
Not sure where you guys keep coming from with "having a big federal bureaucracy to keep the Bible out of schools". Doesn't make sense how you are coming to that conclusion.
With respect to deciding what a valid decision is, is like saying who decides the truth. The truth is what it is. Existence exists. Things are what they are and act in accordance to their nature.
Teaching Intelligent Design has nothing to do with discussing existence in a rational manner. Intelligent Design simply says, "All this stuff is here. Something or somebody must have created it. But we are going to ignore all the truth that has been discovered thus far about the origins and history of the universe. We are just going to say God did it -- with no evidence, proof, or facts. And we are then going to make it as equal as evidence, proof, or facts."
So take the political discussion out this. The question is "Why should the Bible and Intelligent Design be taught in schools". And you have given no reason as to why it should or what objective value it brings to students. I say they brings none because there is nothing objective about them.
Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at November 05, 2005 09:48 AM (8vJzx)
15
Andy, you're providing your personal judgement and forcing that upon others. Regardless of your objectiveness, you're still telling others what they can and cannot do.
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2005 09:15 PM (7PCNv)
16
Ogre:
"Regardless of your objectiveness, you're still telling others what they can and cannot do."
What are you talking about, Ogre? I am expressing my opinion. When you say socialism is bad, for example, are you telling others what they can and cannot do? No.
Another example -- should homosexuality be taught to first graders? Now, I don't think so. But if you say "No", Ogre, are you telling others what they can and cannot do?
Please explain this bizarre statement of yours.
Also -- you still have not explained why the Bible should be taught in schools. You have yet to make a case.
Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at November 10, 2005 07:29 AM (Vn6rV)
17
Here was your opinion, Andy: "Teaching Intelligent Design has nothing to do with discussing existence in a rational manner."
By taking that opinion and then applying that to a school to decide what will be taught in the school, that's putting your opinion on others, isn't it?
As for teaching the Bible in schools, I never tried to make a case for it -- I simply said that if the people of one school district want it, it should be no business of anyone else's to stop them from doing it.
Posted by: Ogre at November 10, 2005 09:07 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
UNC Volunteers Your Cash
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also well-known as the Berkley of the East, has revealed that slavery existed in the United States in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Apparently no one knew about that before today.
"This university was built by slaves and free blacks," said Chancellor James Moeser. "We need to be candid about that, acknowledge their contributions."
Again, good thing they revealed this, as until they made this announcement and spent millions of taxpayer dollars building exhibits, displays, monuments, and statues to admit it, apparently no one had any idea that slavery existed. Or maybe some people knew there was slavery, but they just assumed the slaves didn't actually DO anything.
Far down in the news story, we find out the real purpose for this:
Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree. But he believes those found to have had links to slavery should pay reparations.
There you have it. The University, since someone did something 200 years ago, wants to take MORE money from you, the taxpayer, and give it to someone else who had nothing to do with anything. Isn't that nice of them?
Once again, it is NOT charity; it is NOT good, nice, or honorable, to TAKE money from one person and GIVE it to another. Explain to me again why in the hell education can only exist with government running it? Oh yeah, because people who were accountable wouldn't consider such moronic ideas.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:09 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I've said this before, if reparations are to be paid to slaves in exisitence 200 years ago then my family deserves reparations from the Japanese who enslaved Korea for 50 years. My aunt, uncle and countless others were alive at the time.
So, Japan! Pay up or else I'll sick UNC on you.
I refuse to pay reparations to someone to whom I did nothing to. In fact, I'll go a step further. If there is a person among us living today who was a slave 200 years ago then I will pay reparations. If not - NEXT!
Posted by: oddybobo at November 04, 2005 09:06 AM (6Gm0j)
2
Oddy, you just don't understand. This is not about facts, it's about feeling. And cash. Lots of cash. So facts are completely unimportant to people like this.
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 10:00 AM (/k+l4)
3
And don't forget . . .
In 200 years, they will be asking for reparations for THIS cash grab. And those like it.
Too bad we can't stop the atrocities as they happen, isn't it?
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at November 04, 2005 09:08 PM (ZINSp)
4
I am continuously amazed at what people will do for money in this country -- because keep in mind that is ALL this is about.
Thanks for stopping by!
Posted by: Ogre at November 05, 2005 07:03 AM (7PCNv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 03, 2005
I Hate Internet Explorer
I really do.
I have a really cool new layout for this blog that I've been working on for months. There's all sorts of new features and a layout that I think is really awesome. After months of work, the layout is perfect. I'm still working out a bug with tracking cookies, but the layout's great.
Then I looked in the non-compliant, old, out-of-date, POS that is Internet Explorer. It tossed my sections all over the damn page. It moved things out of alignment. It placed some layers on top of other layers instead of next to them. IE really stinks.
I'm torn right now because I know so many people use IE. I'm thinking of just putting a switch in the page that will redirect you to this layout if you have IE, but if you have a browser that actually works right, you can get the new layout.
Of course, then those who don't have an option won't get to see the new coolness.
Maybe I'll just battle IE for a week or two and see if I can get it to behave.
Posted by: Ogre at
07:02 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I totally understand you as I have just gone through the same damn problem. I was using Firefox and thought everything was great, then my old-fashioned father looked at my blog with IE and said it was all messed up. I was shocked.
I got a new template with floating alignment and it seems to work fine now. Good luck with the template!
Posted by: Chad at November 03, 2005 09:12 PM (CKXil)
2
I hate IE too. I'm afraid to switch browsers, My computer is old and cranky, it doesn't like change.
Posted by: Barbara at November 04, 2005 12:19 AM (MGlN4)
3
Right on!
Firefox all the way.
Unless you can just compile your own browser ^.~
Microsoft idiots--I mean "programmers" should do better...
--Neji
PS. copyfile.bat!!!
Posted by: "Trouble Inc." at November 04, 2005 12:39 AM (OuAD4)
4
You're an OGRE dammit...you should be able to battle code for three days at least.
Posted by: kender at November 04, 2005 01:33 AM (Krfgx)
5
Come on Barbara, you can do it! Go for it! (Firefox is a lot faster, too...)
Chad, the floats ARE the problem. Of course, I can't do it a simple way -- there are 5 main floats with 4 floats inside parts of the 5 main ones. IE cannot handle it. I think if you use too many div tags in IE, it just self-destructs.
I could write my own browser, Trouble, but that would defeat the purpose of this whole thing, wouldn't it? Hey, come read my site -- but download my browser first.
And Kender, you have no idea how long I've been battling this code. The new layout is really cool -- but while most template are a couple hundred lines, the new one is closer to a couple thousand. Now if I can just get IE to understand it...
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 05:43 AM (7PCNv)
6
I'd download the Ogre Browser.
Posted by: Trench at November 04, 2005 07:53 AM (VEZiY)
7
I have Firefox on my home puter, but my work puter has to have IE... I can't install outside software on it.
Now, to be honest. I don't really see that big of a difference in firefox/IE in performance. Where I see a difference is in the number of sites that do NOT support firefox.
Posted by: Contagion at November 04, 2005 08:44 AM (Q5WxB)
8
Yay, Trench!
And the reason you give, Contagion, is one of the reasons I really have to get this to work.
I've done some testing with various setups, and I do see a performance difference. With some sites and navigations, it's negligible, but with other sites, I see a huge difference in load times and response times.
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 08:59 AM (/k+l4)
9
I say just put the switch in and make those who refuse to use a standards-complient browser view the old layout.
Firefox has been acting funny on my Mac at work, mostly highlighting some links with a cream colored box and not translating them correctly, but I still use it. (IE isn't even really an option any more on the Mac, the latest is 5.x)
Opera is alright, but Firefox is the best ,IMO.
I did hear a rumor that IE 7 is going to be a completely new browser, and will be much more standards compliant. I'll believe it when I see it though, and won't be switching back regardless.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at November 04, 2005 10:13 AM (K+h36)
10
I'm leaning that way, Echo, but the new layout is really neat, and I'd love for everyone to see it...
And yes, word is that IE7 will be compliant...of course it's likely to be very buggy, and it won't be released any time soon.
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 10:45 AM (/k+l4)
11
What? MS compliant to standards??? Be still my heart.
Posted by: vw bug at November 05, 2005 10:03 AM (2+gaO)
12
It's just a rumor, VW!
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2005 09:16 PM (7PCNv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
New Advertiser
If you take a peek over there at the top of the left column, you'll see a square with a screen capture of a blog. Click on it. No, go ahead, I'll wait...
Hum...
Hum...
That link will take you to
Peter Porcupine, who "STAND[S] FIRM FOR TRUE CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHY, AND AGAINST RAPSCALLIONS OF ALL POLITICAL STRIPES."
Now how can you argue with that? He's a regular commenter here and posts pretty regularly over at his blog. Head on over and have a read!
And if you're interested in getting top billing here for your blog, you'll have to join
Blog Explosion and then you, too, can rent Ogre's Blog!
Posted by: Ogre at
02:07 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Thank you for the nice welcome!
If you tke a peek at the upper left hand corner of my page, I think you'll enjoy how I was able to 'marry' the Alliance and BE!
Take THAT, Evil Glenn, for stealing from Ogre!
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at November 03, 2005 05:29 PM (uXQ+I)
Posted by: Ogre at November 03, 2005 05:32 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Free Speech Sometimes
By now I'm sure everyone is well aware of the crap recent vote in the Congress regarding blogs. The result? You do not have freedom of speech on blogs, sorry. Why? Because the Democrats don't like being disagreed with, primarily.
Powerline
responds:
I thought the idea that the FEC would try to shut down political discussion on the web was ridiculous. It appears that we have to take the threat to our First Amendment rights more seriously.
Captain Ed
says:
The First Amendment specifically protected the free exercise of political speech, and yet under the BCRA the First Amendment now offers more protection to nude dancing and pornography than it does to political candidates who want to communicate with prospective constituents.
I'm not sure exactly why the bill was submitted under special rules that required a super-majority. If the bill had been introduced under normal procedures, the bill would have passed and freedom of speech would have won. Republicans, the primary supporters of the bill, should re-submit the bill exactly as it is, but under normal rules.
Now that you've heard how some bloggers feel about free speech, let's go to the self-anointed paragon of all civil rights, especially free speech, the ACLU for comment:
Well now. What is the ACLU doing while not attempting to protect free speech? They're too busy
fighting the Patriot Act and demanding that people
be allowed to trespass.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:09 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I really like the blogs. A very good way to hear what is going on about anything you want to know especially the things that the MSM doesn't want you to know.
I can see where Gov't (both sides of the aisle) would have a problem with that.
Blog on good people.
Posted by: Tomslick at November 03, 2005 01:37 PM (xNjHI)
2
I've joined up with the Patterico Pledge -- they can attempt to regulate me all they want, but I'm not stopping blogging.
I'd love to see them try and shut down blogs. That would be a fun fight.
Posted by: Ogre at November 03, 2005 02:25 PM (/k+l4)
3
Oh, and feel free to stop by here if they do -- I'll be selling anonymous space, access, and blogs for those who want them.
Posted by: Ogre at November 03, 2005 02:26 PM (/k+l4)
4
They don't have the time, money and resources to monitor blogs. And besides, I have decided, let them monitor what I write. I don't CARE.
LOL Shut down my site? I'll just start another one...and another...they couldn't keep up with me. LOL
Posted by: Raven at November 03, 2005 06:37 PM (D1BL0)
5
I'm not familiar with this Bill. Link please.
Posted by: Contagion at November 03, 2005 07:33 PM (e8b4J)
6
Raven, they might not have the money now, but if the FEC decides to regulate them, they'll just GET the money to regulate us. It's government -- they have an endless supply of money.
Contagion:
The roll call vote is here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll559.xml
The bill is HR 1606. I can't link to it on Thomas because of the way Thomas looks up things, but you can go to Thomas.loc.gov and search for HR 1606.
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 05:35 AM (7PCNv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Byron Dorgan: A Translation
Once again, a committed socialist Democrat has opened his mouth. And I know some of my good readers might fall asleep trying to read the drivel writings that those on the left are capable of writing. So, as a service to you, we have once again provided a translation.
The original writings appeared in the editorial pages of
Communism USA Today, titled, "Oil's gain is consumers' pain."
Of course, a more accurate title would have been: "I'm jealous, gimme, gimmie, gimmie!"
Posted by: Ogre at
10:03 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It does reflect badly on a supposedly American voting district when they elect someone like that, doesn't it?
They seem, collectively, to forget that if it weren't for capitalists, it would be much easier to count the number of employed persons in the U.S. than the number of those UNemployed, there would simply be too many tens of millions of homeless people, and there would be no tax money to support them.
I can hear the announcer now, "This nation-ending double whammy has been brought to you by... Your victorious Democratic party, who have finally succeeded in stamping out capitalism."
Posted by: Seth at November 03, 2005 04:07 PM (Mwp8z)
2
I'm just amazed at how well Ayn Rand predicted all this so many years ago. As much as people don't want to admit it, there are people in our own government that honestly HATE capitalism and are actively working to destroy it. That scares the crap out of me.
Posted by: Ogre at November 03, 2005 04:15 PM (/k+l4)
3
ROTF Ogre says:
Bite me, you communist bastard who hates profits.
BITE ME!! I love it.
What is up with these people who insist it a crime to make profit? It's what capitalism is all about. I know there are many who hate that concept though, and you're right...they'll do anything to destroy it. Then American will become....France. Ick.
Posted by: Raven at November 03, 2005 06:01 PM (D1BL0)
4
The end goal of Socialism is Communism, Capitalism is the anti-communism, and they want to be in charge and tell us what we want and can have or do.
The Left Sucks
Posted by: Michael at November 03, 2005 06:05 PM (3QfYL)
5
Ogre, I'm sending your qualifications as a translator to the RNC, damn, they could use your help in shutting up the DNC.
Posted by: GM Roper at November 03, 2005 09:18 PM (0CqNu)
6
"I propose levying a 50% excise tax on windfall profits (defined as revenue from oil prices over $40 a barrel)"
Great idea. If I ran an oil company I would say "Go ahead and pass that tax, and when our accountants tell us that we have hit our maximum allowable profit for the quarter we will shut down and send everybody home".
The profits exxonmobil made were under 10%. Most people running a business will tel you that 10% profit is too small to make it. Exxon survived on small profits early on, as did mobil, and everyt other big business out there. Profits are NOT evil. Democrats are.
Great post Ogre.
Posted by: kender at November 03, 2005 11:18 PM (Krfgx)
7
Thanks, all, for the kind words! Yes, this fellow really is a socialst/communist. He really does want to shut down anything capitalist. Why more don't see that, I'm not sure. I think it's because so many people are willing to accept this sort of thing (class envy?)
And you're right Kender, their overall profit margin was somewhere near 6% -- and this was a good year! There are many years in the recent past where they made 2-3% profit! It's called a cyclical industry.
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 05:28 AM (7PCNv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Democrats Push Higher Gas Prices
Subtitle: Democrat Project Delay: Day #2
Democrats are complaining again about capitalism. They really don't like freedom, people, honestly. They moan and cry about Exxon's $9 billion profit, demanding that the oil companies pay even MORE in taxes.
Sen Byron Dorgan (Committed Socialist - ND) wants to add a 50% tax to oil company profits. Of course, that's on top of the 35% corporate tax they already pay. Why? Because he wants more money to spend, obviously.
For those who complain about those who profit from oil sales, I have some numbers for you. If you truly want to stop or slow down those who are making money off your expenditures on gasoline, you're looking in the wrong direction.
From 1977 to 2004, the total profits combined of every single oil company in the United States was $643 billion. Over the exact same time period, governments have "profited" $1.34 TRILLION, more than twice the amount made by oil companies*.
So who is making "too much" money off your gasoline purchases? Government, that's who.
*
Figures from The Tax Foundation
Posted by: Ogre at
08:04 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
When isn't the government making too much money off me? Sheesh, I feel like such a john, giving cash to the government whore but I can't seem to get enough so I keep paying more!
Posted by: oddybobo at November 03, 2005 10:07 AM (6Gm0j)
2
When aren't they? I wish I could say when the government shuts down, but I know they actually spend MORE when they're shut down because when they start up, then spend all they were going to spend and more.
Now shut up and hand over more money now.
Posted by: Ogre at November 03, 2005 10:14 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Lottery Not Dirty Enough
Everything about the "new" North Carolina lottery that passed under very suspicious circumstances last year stinks. The ongoing process shows one of the big reasons I've always opposed it -- it is absolutely filthy is an overflowing cesspool of corruption.
Now the NC Attorney General has called for
an investigation into 3
mob members over their "possible" illegal involvement in the lottery and lobbying for the lottery. This, just one day after the lottery commissioner from Mecklenburg was revealed as a liar and a cheat, so he was forced to resign.
The company that stands to gain the most from the lottery (MUCH more than the state, and an infinite amount more than the education system), Scientific Games, has been spending money bribing official after official to get this lottery in place. One of their employees wrote the lottery law while working for the Speaker of the House. They bribed Kevin Geddings, the official that was forced to resign $24,000, including $9,000 after he was named to the commission.
Gambling is crappy. A state-sponsored monopoly on gambling is even worse. But for those who support the lottery, don't worry -- the law has passed and the state DA is more interested in running for governor, so there will be no actual results from this "investigation." The lottery will go on, no matter what laws have to be broken to get it in place.
Posted by: Ogre at
07:05 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
November 02, 2005
Denver Drugs, Part II
Well isn't that interesting. In Denver, marijuana is almost legal.
Tuesday the people of Denver voted to make possession of the controlled substance legal (in small amounts). In fact, what they did was remove a city law that made simply having an ounce of mary jane no longer illegal. You still cannot, apparently, smoke it, or sell it.
Of course, the anti-drug kingpins in the higher levels of the organized crime ring known as the Denver City Police mob, quickly reacted, saying that they would simply use the state law against possessing the naturally occurring plant to arrest and prosecute people.
I'm wondering WHY there were two sets of laws? Why was there a need for the city to pass a law against something that was already illegal at the state level? Can you say, "Too much damn government?" I knew you could.
Another interesting question to ask will be, "How many other state laws are city policemen enforcing?" If the primary purpose of city policemen is to enforce city laws and ordnances, why are they suddenly going to enforce state laws? Is this another "big-city" mayor who refuses to support federal immigration laws because it's not his job?
And yes, I'm aware that the federal government, with their bottomless pocketbooks, will continue to enforce the law as well, since they can use it as another reason to spend more of MY money.
Why? Why should it be illegal to simply hold a plant in your hand? How does that affect anyone else in Colorado, or anyone else in the U.S.?
Posted by: Ogre at
01:06 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I dunno. I'm not very conspiratorial, but it seems hard to not notice how much more powerful the drug war makes the gov...
Posted by: David N. Scott at November 02, 2005 04:02 PM (9fz/1)
2
Follow the money, David. Follow the money.
Posted by: Ogre at November 02, 2005 05:53 PM (7PCNv)
3
"I'm wondering WHY there were two sets of laws? Why was there a need for the city to pass a law against something that was already illegal at the state level? Can you say, "Too much damn government?" I knew you could."
This I can answer for a fact. Most cities and municipalities have laws that mirror state law. Why? Money. When someone gets arrested and is written under the municipality's law any fines go to said municipality. The next time you get a speeding ticket look carefully at what law it is being cited. If you lived in Illinois I could tell you exactly were to look and what to look for.
After working for three departments and affiliated with another five, it's the same in all.
Posted by: Contagion at November 03, 2005 08:48 AM (Q5WxB)
4
It's absolutely disgusting how much of the time "follow the money" works with government. I don't think there's any aspect of government left that doesn't exist primarily to generate or spend revenue. Original purposes like keeping order are just completely gone.
Posted by: Ogre at November 03, 2005 10:00 AM (/k+l4)
Posted by: greg at November 07, 2005 09:57 PM (DhTcj)
Posted by: Ogre at November 08, 2005 07:00 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Bible in Schools
Hello again, good reader. Welcome to this week's Christian Views Symposium, brought to you by Cross Blogging.
Each week Lennie posts a question for everyone on the entire planet to answer. Usually, not quite that many actually do answer the question. However, everyone is certainly welcome to answer! You can answer in the comments at his blog, or just post your answer on your own blog.
He encourages answers from all readers, not just Christians, so feel free to weigh in each week -- I do.
This week's question:
1. Should the Bible be taught in Public Schools? If so, how?
2. Should prayer be returned to Public Schools?
Posted by: Ogre at
11:15 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
<< Page 133 >>
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.1953 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.185 seconds, 110 records returned.
Page size 84 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
