Obama Scolds Banks

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama treats the banks like the irresponsible children that they are. CEOs: You can do without a bonus for a little while. The American people aren't giving you money so you can buy a fancy car and stuff like that. They are giving you money to try to help the economy.

"There will be a time for them to make profits and there will be a time for them to get bonuses, now's not that time," -Obama

J Kuhl Signing Off

Friends of God -- Evolution

Are you kidding me?

Are you seriously kidding me?

Do people actually believe that the Earth, despite overwhelming evidence, is only 6000 years old?

If they take this for fact, they are willfully ignoring thousands of dinosaur bones. Thousands of artifacts man made in caves over 6000 years ago. They are ignoring the fact that we would not be able to see galaxies that exist over 6000 light-years away (which is every single galaxy besides our own.) They are denying the red shift. They are denying most of science by saying that.

Willful ignorance should be illegal. This is stupid.

And why are they citing the Bible but no other source? Have they proved that the Bible is true? Of course they think they have, but have they run the bible through any sort of scientific scrutiny?

The Bible is NOT a scientific book.

This scares me. The fact that these assholes can brainwash children into believing that dinosaurs are either fake, or lived with Noah, scares me. We can't have this being taught in a science class! This will do NOTHING but hurt education.

This is utterly ridiculous.

J Kuhl, Signing Out

Dear President Obama

Hope.

As a word, I am getting tired of hearing it. It is said by every pundit, in every speech, muttered by every politician, civilian, soldier, and it was on the minds of everyone, not just today, but since you started running on a platform of "hope and change."

As tiresome as the word is becoming, as the clock hit 12 PM, I was full of hope. A new era arrived and a new President and a new administration. I feel as if America is being lead by people who care about being accountable. I feel that she is being lead by men and women who are competent, who care more for country than for wealth and power and I feel that we can turn the nation around.

Yes We Can.

It was the mantra of the acceptance speech, three simple words. But it shall become the slogan of the next four, maybe eight, years. A slogan of optimism and hope.

But Mr. Obama, I must warn you. My first impression of you is that you are an honest and sincere man. I have a deep mistrust of politicians, so my apologies, but my cynicism gets the best of me. I want to trust you, I really do, but I hesitate to do so until I see you in action.

Do not make the mistakes the Bush Administration made.

Do not lie to us. Be sincere and honest. If a mistake is made, don't cover it up; man up to it, and fix it. Prove to us that you are honest and sincere. Prove to us that you are more than a man who can make brilliant and stirring speeches.

Do not fear monger. It is unnecessary and it is wrong. Fear mongering is dishonest. We are under threat from terror, but to use fear to manipulate the people is a terrible thing to do and leads down the dark road of fascism. Explain to us what the threats are but rather than scaring us, assure us.

Do not strip civil liberties for security. Freedom is first. I'd rather die to a terrorist than live in a police state.

Listen to the people, respond to the people. Give us communication and don't ignore us. Be transparent.

Do not condone acts of torture in the name of security. Torture brings us down to the level of those who terrorize us and it is our duty to maintain the moral high ground. We cannot defeat them by becoming them.

I know you are not a superhuman. I know you are not God. I know you are not the messiah come to save America. You will make mistakes. I accept that. America accepts that. But show us that you are doing what is best for the country. Show us we can trust you. Show us that the government can learn from the mistakes of past administrations. We do not expect the economy be fixed by tomorrow, nor do we expect our troops home within a year. But you must show us, within a year at the least, that you and your administration are doing your best.

I must admit, I was a bit unsure at first. Until around September, I was on the fence, unsure whether to vote for McCain or for you. It was then I decided that I was tired of the GOP and their incessant fear mongering and war hawking. So I voted for you and your administration. And I must say, since the 4rth, I have not seen much to disagree with from you and your administration. Please show me that I, and millions like me did not make a mistake on November 4rth.

I wish you all the luck in the world and I hope for the best. I believe you can do this. I have faith in you. But let that faith be rewarded.

And if there is anything I could do to help, I would.

Yes We Can.

Sincerely

Jonathan Charles Kuhl

Censoring Farenheit 451 is Silly and Ironic

I think it may be obvious now that I'm anti-censorship in every way. It is far too important to allow a free flow of ideas and information to be censoring books because they might be offensive, corruptive, contain bad ideas, promote witchcraft or whatever the reason.

In every case however, the problem with the book is not that the library allows the book on the shelf. The problem is the irresponsible parent who doesn't know how to teach a kid to be responsible. The responsibility of the library is to give access to any idea, any story. The library is NOT responsible for the welfare and education of those reading these ideas and stories, that responsibility lies in the hands of the parents.

A library must be allowed to provide access to every book that will fit on their shelf space in order that this democratic republic, the US of A, can succeed because our citizens are literate and acceptive of ideas, even ideas that are unorthodox or contrary to popular belief. Without the unfettered flow of ideas, this nation will stagnate and eventually become a dysfunctional nation full of zombies muttering mantras from approved books, a fascist state of newspeak and thoughtcrime.

It is funny that 1984 itself was challenged for being 'pro-communist' when the book painted socialism in a pretty ugly light. And it is downright hilarious that anyone wanted to censor Farenheit 451.

There are a myriad reasons why people censor books and none of them are valid. There are no valid reasons to censor anything. None. Not a one. This is the gift and the curse of the right to free speech. You have to take the good with the bad.

The popular rationals are as follows: the book violates my religious beliefs, the book promotes immoral behavior, the book contains nudity/profanity/obscenities, the book promotes dangerous political ideas, or the book might just be controversial.

The book violates my religious beliefs. If you watch the video of Barack Obama I posted a few days ago, you'll notice that he said something important about religion. "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than specific, values," Obama said. He went on to explain that if I argue that abortion is wrong, I can't simply point to the teachings of my own church, that I have to explain why it violates a principle that is true for people of all faiths and to those that do not believe.

Harry Potter and the Wizard of Oz were challenged for witchcraft. And why is witchcraft wrong? Because somewhere in Deuteronomy, God said it was wrong. They don't have a universal principle to back themselves up with, they simply have their own religious belief and it may or may not be valid to other people of other religions. Thus banning a book because of a religion-specific reason infringes on the rights of people who do not follow that religion.

The religious right do not want to argue. They want to be right. And because they are obviously unsure of their own beliefs, they'd rather see dissenting voices censored than actually argue with them. They must be unsure of their beliefs, because if they had any real convictions, they would not be afraid to hear opposing voices!

Do this experiment: Find an article on Free Republic.com and post a response arguing one of their points. Then come back the next day and try to post something again. You will get this message each time you try after your first post: "Your posting privileges have been revoked." It happened to me. I was civil, but I dissented. They do not want to argue, they want to be right.

Take for example, Earth Sciences or On the Origin of Species, two books challenged and/or banned in schools because they teach evolution, which is contrary to the fundamentalist belief of Creationism. The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies was also challenged because it allegedly condones homosexuality and we all know that in Leviticus, God says that two men sleeping with each other is an abomination.

Here is the thing though, by censoring books on evolution, you won't kill the argument of evolution. By censoring homosexuality, you won't kill the argument of homosexuality. Instead, you make yourself look weaker. You make yourself appear to be afraid of your own convictions. Censoring won't help. If you truly believe in creationism, then tell us why evolution is wrong. If you truly believe that homosexuality is a sin, tell us why, using universal principles as Obama explained, why it is wrong.

And even if you can find a universal principle to declare why certain books are bad and should be banned, then tough. Even still, you don't have the right to censor the books.

" If your library is not 'unsafe', it probably isn't doing its job." - John Berry, Iii, Library Journal, October 1999

It is the library's job to present information whether it is offensive or not. It is your job as a parent to teach your children to discern what is offense and what is not.

The book promotes immoral behavior. Shel Silverstein was challenged for promoting mischief within his poems. James and the Giant Peach was challenged for promoting "drug use" and "disobedience."

Which goes too far. These books are written to be silly. Even when I was a kid, I was wise enough to understand that these books were silly. Shel Silverstein's poems are humorous.

A lot of books portray immoral behavior and were challenged for it. The Catcher in the Rye for example. But once again, it isn't the library's role to teach children behavior, it is the role of the parents. Banning a book because some parent doesn't know how to teach morals to a child, infringes on the rights of those who understand morality and wish to read the book for other reasons.

And honestly, James and the Giant Peach? How the hell is a story about a boy who travels around in a flying peach immoral? Some people read too far into things. A children's story being challenged for ideas that a child wouldn't even recognize. When I read that book I was about 10. I didn't see anything about "drug use" or "disobedience." I saw a story about a kid who was mistreated by his guardians and then ran away in an adventure. Shel Silverstein's poems didn't teach me to break dishes to avoid drying them, they were just for laughs. And when I read the Catcher in the Rye, I didn't want to emulate the main character for freak sake.

The book contains nudity/profanity/obscenities. Here is another issue. Farenheit 451 was censored for this reason. Students at one school received a copy of the book with all the swears blacked out. Ironic. Profanity is a part of life and a part of language. I'm not saying kids should run around schools dropping the f-bomb, but language happens and they need to be taught to be responsible with it. Profanity isn't an excuse to ban a book. If a book comes with profanity in it, there is usually a reason. And if not, than it is an opportunity to teach kids to be responsible with words.

Mark Twain's books, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, are both challenged because they use the word "nigger." Gone with the Wind was also challenged for using the word "nigger." This is completely ridiculous because the challengers are not looking at the book's context. They took place in the 1800s where the word "nigger" was not considered offensive but was a part of everyday speech. It would be pretentious and wrong to not use that word in stories which take place in that age because it is how people were back then. There is no reason to expect a story that takes place in the 19th century to be politically correct to 21st century standards. The meanings of words change over time.

Context is often lost on people. Blazing Saddles, Mel Brook's movie satirizing racism was declared 'racist' by the same people who think that Stephen Colbert is a real Republican pundit. To Kill a Mockingbird was banned by three black parents because the book was racist! Duh! The book was ABOUT racism.

If a book has racism in it, such as To Kill a Mockingbird, or I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, don't ban it! Use it to teach why intolerance is wrong! That was the point of those books.

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was challenged for explicit description of Angelou's rape. I didn't like it myself. But it should not be banned. Sometimes you need something disgusting to shock people into realizing why certain behaviors are bad. Sometimes it is used as a tool to show people just how wrong things were. Blanket banning books over obscene imagery does not allow people to see how bad somethings really are.

And again, it is up to the parents, not the library, to teach students about obscenities and it is the parent's responsibility to supervise the child. If you do not like what your child is reading, then remove the book from their hands yourself. Teach them about obscenity and try to remember the context of the book.

The book promotes dangerous political ideas. 1984 was challenged for promoting communism. Really now. Because I know after I read the book, I wanted to be come a commie and be oppressed by Big Brother!

Freedom to follow a particular political idea is a part of this nation. Fear that someone may be a communist is a return to McCarthyism and a step closer to fascism. They have the right to be communists. They have the right to advocate a communist agenda. It is better that we can read about communism and why it is good and why it is bad, than to just censor it outright.

The book might just be controversial. And this is just cowardly. The book challenged was Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. The man who removed it said "if there's a possibility that something might be controversial, then why not eliminate it?"

The answer, is because that is a foolhardy coward's way out. The purpose of a library is to present information so we can make informed decisions as a democracy. Even if "that something" is controversial. It will remain controversial if censored. Rather, allow people to read it and see for themselves.

In a nation plagued by frivolous lawsuits, more and more idiotic rules are being set up for people to defend themselves. It really is atrocious that when the slightest thing goes wrong or when someone becomes "offended," someone else is sued. It is ridiculous. Appeasing these morons with censorship is not the answer.

The Constitution of the United States of America does not protect you from being offended. Get tougher skin. And rather than banning books from libraries, teach your children.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Banning books, censoring media and oppressing dissent in a public forum is unconstitutional and wrong and can lead to only fascism, newspeak and thoughtcrime.

1984 needs to be a required book in all high schools.

Source: The Forbidden Library


"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh

J Kuhl Signing Off

V for Vendetta

This is not a review of the movie, that would be two and a half years too late. It was enjoyable yes, but this is not why I wish to discuss it.

Rather, I'm interested in its message.

(May contain spoilers)

V for Vendetta was a story which took place within about 20 - 30 years in the future. It occurs in England, which has become a fascist police state, lead by one Adam Sutler (John Hurt), much like Airstrip 1 in Orwell's 1984.

In the name of security, Chancellor Sutler becomes a dictator in charge of England. His whims are laws and the citizens of England are oppressed. The USA has somehow (civil war and plague are implied) has been removed as a world power and England had just recovered from some sort of apocalyptic event involving a viral outbreak which allowed Sutler to take power.

Through all of this a strange man in a Guy Fawkes mask makes a few bold terrorist acts for the sake of freedom. He goes only by the name of V (Hugo Weaving).

The movie is rather important for several reasons.

Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot. - V

In this speech, which V declares on TV, V speaks to the Londoners who willingly gave up civil liberties for security. It is a remarkable speech, one which people need to remember, as America faces crises now and in the future. We American citizens need to remain vigilant and watchful of our government and ensure that freedoms are never forsaken for security, even in a time of crisis.

After 9-11, the Bush Administration was quick to put out the Patriot Act. They were quick to detain suspects without charges, without appointing lawyers, for an indefinite amount of time. They were quick to wiretap us and listen in on our phone lines.

This was done for the sake of security and this is not acceptable. We should not be so cowardly as to give up freedoms for security, for this is the path to tyranny.

Our story begins, as these stories often do, with a young up-and-coming politician [Sutler]. He's a deeply religious man and a member of the conservative party. He is completely single-minded convictions and has no regard for the political process. Eventually, his party launches a special project in the name of 'national security'. At first, it is believed to be a search for biological weapons and it is pursued regardless of its cost. However, the true goal of the project is power, complete and total hegemonic domination. The project, however, ends violently... but the efforts of those involved are not in vain, for a new ability to wage war is born from the blood of one of their victims. Imagine a virus - the most terrifying virus you can, and then imagine that you and you alone have the cure. But if your ultimate goal is power, how best to use such a weapon? It is at this point in our story that along comes a spider. He is a man seemingly without a conscience; for whom the ends always justify the means and it is he who suggests that their target should not be an enemy of the country but rather the country itself. Three targets are chosen to maximize the effect of the attack: a school, a tube station, and a water-treatment plant. Several hundred die within the first few weeks. Until at last the true goal comes into view. Before the St. Mary's crisis, no one would have predicted the outcome of the elections. No one. But after the election, lo and behold, a miracle. Some believed that it was the work of God himself, but it was a pharmaceutical company controlled by certain party members made them all obscenely rich. But the true genius of the plan was the fear. A year later, several extremists are tried, found guilty, and executed while a memorial is built, erected to canonize their victims. Fear became the ultimate tool of this government. And through it our politician was ultimately appointed to the newly created position of High Chancellor. The rest, as they say, is history. -William Rookwood

A main point in V for Vendetta was the use of fear. Another quote in particular is when Adam Sutler snarls on TV, "I want *everyone* to *remember*, why they *need* us!" Fear mongering brought Sutler into power. Fear and the promise of order out of chaos. Sutler created fear when he engineered a biological attack on England and then, after gaining power, released the cure, and shifted the blame to radical extremists. This is also seen in 1984, as Big Brother and the Party bomb London themselves to make the locals believe they are still at war.

Fear. As Americans, we need to be wary of fear mongering politicians. The eight years since 9-11, we have been taught to be afraid that yet another terror attack may occur. Security tightened at airports, the Patriot Act was declared, two wars in the Middle East began. We were told that the government was protecting us and bringing us security, while these things occurred. Now obviously, we did not become a fascist state. But the threat does exist. We must watch our government and ensure that while they protect us, they do not go too far and strip civil liberties.

America right now is under two threats, one from terror, another from economic collapse. I doubt that Obama will declare himself "High Chancellor" anytime soon, but we citizens should remain on guard, for as long as this nation exists, to ensure that we do not become victims of fear mongering and that we never sacrifice freedom for security.

(SPOILER) Near the end of the movie, before Parliament blows up, the soldiers guarding are overrun by thousands of Londoners wearing Guy Fawkes masks. This is a symbol to show that we have strength as a people, a strength to act. The citizens, united, can be a powerful voice and we should never forget this. Should this nation somehow fall to totalitarianism, it is up to us, the citizens to fight it.


Did you like that? USA... Ulcered Sphincter of Ass-erica, I mean what else can you say? Here was a country that had everything, absolutely everything. And now, 20 years later, is what? The world's biggest leper colony. Why? Godlessness. Let me say that again... Godlessness. It wasn't the war they started. It wasn't the plague they created. It was Judgement. No one escapes their past. No one escapes Judgement. You think he's not up there? You think he's not watching over this country? How else can you explain it? He tested us, but we came through. We did what we had to do. Islington. Enfield. I was there, I saw it all. Immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, terrorists. Disease-ridden degenerates. They had to go. Strength through unity. Unity through faith. I'm a God-fearing Englishman and I'm goddamn proud of it! -Lewis Prothero

As I already said, something had happened to America. Prothero (Roger Allam), a prominent Party man who spews propaganda, blames the downfall of the US on godlessness. Using God, he justified the "cleansing" of England which occured, in which undesirables were removed. Prothero was the Joseph Goebbels of the Party, spewing propaganda and hate for the enemy, whoever it was.

And here we have a perfect example of why the media must be unbiased and independent of government. It is too powerful of a tool for a government to control. Goebbels once said, ""If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it," which is all the more possible when the government can control and censor media.

We need to seek more unbiased sources of media and guard against all forms of censorship, even if censorship comes in a pretty package, example, for the sake of the children. Censorship, bias, propaganda, we cannot have this. What we need is an unbiased information source, giving us pertinent news, not propaganda and hate.

Last, the girl in the movie, Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) undergoes a transformation when she is captured by the secret police, in which she learns to have no fear. This brings me to the final point, if, god forbid, the worst does happen, we need to have strength to fight it or we will lose everything.

In the end, what we take from the movie is a whole host of messages. 1. Do not give in to fear. For absolutely no reason shall freedom be given up. 2. Do not fall for incessant fear mongering. No, you won't die in a terror attack (extremely low probability anyways) so there is no need to give up freedom for security. 3. We the people are strength, not the government. 4. Be wary of propaganda and biased media. 5. If the time does ever come, have the strength to fight it, even when it means death.

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. - V

J Kuhl Signing Off

Obama makes some brilliant statements about religion

Red State Update: Obama Admits He's A Muslim?

The Republican's have been taking Obama's comments on George Stephanopolous's interview out of context to prove that he's a Muslim.

Rod Blagojevich

The man, the myth, the helmet hair.


I wonder if it is bullet proof. No, I don't wish to shoot him, but it would be a great R&D for defense contractors to study Blago's hair. I mean, if it is bullet proof, then when we take him off to jail, we could have him grow hair, shave it off, make it into helmets for our troops. Then he grows it back.

Now obviously, we'd need to give the man some sort of treatment that makes him grow hair really fast, after all, the US has about a million active personnel who need helmets. Not to mention that the police force could also use helmets made out of Blago's hair.

This would be a great way to spend the man's time while he languishes in prison.

Now, if it is not bullet proof, then perhaps there is another use for such a bad hairstyle. Perhaps if one of the five Queer Eye guys quits and they need to train a new replacement, they can use Blago as a tool to learn how to sculpt and style hair on a man's head.

Add a little grease to that hair and you could sculpt whatever you want. I wonder how he'd look with Rodin's The Thinker on his head.

Probably better than he does now.

“We will meet our challenges head-on and we will do it by rejecting the politics of mediocrity and corruption. … I will govern as a reformer.” -Blaggy in 2006 (Ironic!)

J Kuhl Signing Off

Congrats Oklahoma for Ruining Your Schools

Oklahoma Passes Anti-evolution legislation

I don't understand how Creationism passes off as "science." And I don't understand why the right thinks that it should be taught in a science class. In a religious studies class? Sure. Not in a science class.

But the idea of Creationism lacks every part of a scientific theory. Please note that the words "theory" and "evidence" have scientific meanings that can be different than colloquial meanings. A theory is far more than an idea; a theory is a principle or a group of principles used to explain a phenomenon and is developed through empirical evidence. A theory must be testable or it is not a good theory.

Evidence is any observable support for a theory that is experienced through any empirical senses, limited to eyes, ears, nose, tongue and touch. Faith is not scientific evidence. Belief is not scientific evidence. The Bible is not scientific evidence.

With all of this said, then it is the challenge of Creationists to, using the scientific method, create a theory.

Now lets do this for them:

1. The world was created 6000 years ago. Wait, problem: There are fossils that are beyond 100 million years old. Geological records show that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Red Shift shows the universe to be 13.7 billion years old since the point of singularity. Well, there goes that hypothesis. Oh wait, you tell me god made the world to look old? In the face of overwhelming evidence, provide me with evidence, as defined above, that the world was created by this trickster god who wants to confuse us all.

2. There is an intelligent designer. Hmm, I don't see a name tag or a copyright restriction anywhere. So ah, where is this designer? More importantly, where is the evidence that he exists? Some people argue that the odds of it "just happening" are far too great for it to happen, that the universe is too young for that.

Let me use a House episode to explain something. One doctor wanted to run some tests to find out what disease this kid had. The problem was there were so many tests that the odds so high that it would have taken months to get the right result, and so Dr. House objects. But another doctor points out that it would only take a full month if all but the last test was false. Perhaps the first test will be the right one? Or the second?

Thus time isn't a good argument here, even with great odds. Because even though the odds suck, they'll be as bad on the first attempt as they are on the last attempt and thus it could just as easily occur first as it could in the middle or at the end.

Another point, there are billions of billions of stars in this universe and god-knows how many planets revolve around them. Until recently, our 9 planets were the only known planets, but extra-solar planets have been found around other stars. Given that, there are probably billions of billions of planets, increasing the odds of a life-giving planet quite dramatically.

Using the odds is another weak argument.

3. The world was created in 7 days. Then explain the dinosaurs. According to this model, there was but a few days between dinosaurs and homo sapiens. Homo sapiens did not appear for thousands of thousands of years after the dinosaurs. And it was certainly more than a week from the creation of light to the creation of man.

So my friends on the Christian Right, why are you trying to place this "theory" in a science class when it doesn't fit the definition of a scientific theory?

I was taught, in a religion class of all places, that Genesis was a metaphor, not a story to be taken literally. Metaphors do not belong in science classes. Only theory.

In other news, President Elect Barack Obama is not yet the president. Why are we asking for his judgement on things like Hamas and Senator Burris? Shouldn't we still be going to Bush about these things? People say the man is being silent but it seems to me that he said something a while back about there being one president at a time. Certainly, he should be considering these issues so he's ready for them on the 20th, but until then, he doesn't have any authority to do anything.

I find it amazing that protesters in the middle east have railed against Obama for doing nothing about Israel. Well golly, could be because maybe, he isn't president for another two weeks?

And I'm beginning to love the Republican attitudes. Obama hasn't even been president yet and they're already saying he's gonna be a terrible president. Why do you have to be a sore loser? Face it. Obama won. You lost. Now it would be in the best interest for you and the nation if you'd stop complaining about him, swallow your pride and hope for the best. Its what I'd've done had McCain won. (And I'd've sent him a box of heart medication to keep Palin from being president. Extra Strength Bayer). You're wasting energy, republicans, by complaining about Obama. Who knows, he might be the next FDR. He also might be Karl Marx. Only time will tell. And lets give the man at least a year after inauguration before judging him. Change, whether you believe him or not, won't be instantaneous.

And one last thing, on Hamas: I'm not a fervant supporter of Israel, I have to wonder if they truly are going at every length to avoid civilian casualties. But I am sick of all this support for the terrorist group Hamas. Hamas is deliberately placing their rockets and mortars in civilian areas to make sure that Israel produces a Palestinian body count so that Hamas can get the international support that it enjoys. All these "bias free" news programs are painting Israel as the bad guys. Hamas is purposefully firing rocket at Israel and then crying when Israel bites back.

I don't know enough about the history here to say that Israel is innocent and I doubt it but come on, give us both sides equally.

My personal opinion on the middle east is this: Find an alternative energy pronto. Use this energy to replace oil completely. Then remove all troops from every region in the Middle East, including Israel. Let them fight and may the best man win that godforsaken strip of dirt between Egypt and Turkey. Let the best man win whats left of Mesopotamia. And who cares who owns the Arabian Penninsula? Its just sand and more sand.

Why should the US involve itself. It solves a few problems. 1. No more terrorists. If we're gone, why would they hate us and attack us any more? 2. No more troops dying thousands of miles from home for a questionable cause. 3. No more dependence from nations that are potentially hostile. 4. No Americans dying in someone else's war. 5. Islamic nutjobs will no longer be a threat to the US and we can then focus our attention on Christian nutjobs in the homeland, such as Fred Phelps and the Oklahoma School Board . . .

"Madness is like gravity, all it takes is a little push" The Joker, The Dark Knight

J Kuhl Signing Off