Tuesday, February 03, 2009
The International Court of Justice
The Obama administration is afraid to bring Bush and his cronies to Justice because he needs the Republican support for his programs, so we will probably get neither. The international court of Justice is the only place where both sides can be heard and judged correctly. That is the reason America will not recognize an international court too many of our actions would be judged Criminal
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Meet the Press 2-1-2009
Meet the press had a round table discussion with all pro-Banking people; there was Steve Forbes, Mark Zandi, and Erin Burnett. No one representing the middle class working person or even small businesses which are generally called “Main Street”, YES Erin there is a Main Street the world does not begin and end with Wall Street. Workers are asked to cut their pay to a quarter of what it once was, but Bankers can get a hundred Million dollars for making the bank one million or in a lot of cases losing the bank money. If the workers have to cut their standard of living so should the bankers. Building low income housing for people with bad mortgages would be a good start. If the Tax payer is going the pay for the loans anyway why do we need a middle man if the Government loans the money to small businesses they will start hiring again and we can get started rebuilding America all of it not just Wall Street
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Obama's Stimulus Plan
Obama wanted to be Bipartisan so he watered down his Stimulus Plan with Republican so called “Tax Cuts” that at one time had limited success, but now that we have a Global economy Corporate cut tax cuts would go to China and India or in their pockets as Bonuses. The Republicans are just interested in getting a campaign issue on the Democrats, by making sure the Stimulus Plan does not work. So why don’t the Democrats fix the Stimulus Plan by putting things in that will put people back to work and have the added bonuses of fixing things like the electrical network, roads, bridges, Mass transit and Health care with some tax breaks for small businesses that will spend the money here in the USA
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Sen Gillibrand
Sen. Chuck Schurmer says that Gillibrand’s views will change as she gets out into the real world just as his did, but the fact that she thinks Gun-control has something to do with hunting means she is starting a lot further back than he was when he started.
Caroline Kennedy wanted to go into the senate because someone has to pick up the Healthcare torch from her Uncle Ted and she didn’t see anyone else really into it as her uncle is, but she is more like her mother than her father, Jackie was a good person, but not a public one.
Caroline Kennedy wanted to go into the senate because someone has to pick up the Healthcare torch from her Uncle Ted and she didn’t see anyone else really into it as her uncle is, but she is more like her mother than her father, Jackie was a good person, but not a public one.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
The Labor Agenda
The Labor Agenda
Published: December 28, 2008
There is no doubt that President-elect Barack Obama has chosen a labor secretary who could be a transformative force in a long-neglected arena. The question is whether he will let her.Hilda Solis, a United States representative from Southern California, is the daughter of immigrant parents with union jobs. She has been an unfailing advocate of workers’ rights during eight years in Congress and before that, in California politics.
Ms. Solis has been a leader on traditional workplace issues, like a higher minimum wage and an enhanced right to form unions. She also has helped to expand the labor agenda by sponsoring legislation to create jobs in green technology, and in her support for community health workers and immigration reform.
Her record in Congress dovetails with the mission of the Labor Department, to protect and further the rights and opportunities of working people. It also dovetails with many of the promises Mr. Obama made during the campaign, both in its specifics and in its focus on the needs of America’s working families.
The main issue is whether the Obama administration will assert a forceful labor agenda in the face of certain protests from business that now — during a recession — is not the time to move forward.
The first and biggest test of Mr. Obama’s commitment to labor, and to Ms. Solis, will be his decision on whether or not to push the Employee Free Choice Act in 2009. Corporate America is determined to derail the bill, which would make it easier than it has been for workers to form unions by requiring that employers recognize a union if a majority of employees at a workplace sign cards indicating they wish to organize.
Ms. Solis voted for the bill when it passed the House in 2007. Senate Republicans prevented the bill from coming to a vote that same year. Mr. Obama voted in favor of bringing the bill to the Senate floor and supported it during the campaign.
The measure is vital legislation and should not be postponed. Even modest increases in the share of the unionized labor force push wages upward, because nonunion workplaces must keep up with unionized ones that collectively bargain for increases. By giving employees a bigger say in compensation issues, unions also help to establish corporate norms, the absence of which has contributed to unjustifiable disparities between executive pay and rank-and-file pay.
The argument against unions — that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands — is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad, so the recession by itself is not an excuse to avoid pushing the bill next year. The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no evidence that it would.
There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important. Without a united front, workers will have even less bargaining power in the recession than they had during the growth years of this decade, when they largely failed to get raises even as productivity and profits soared. If pay continues to lag, it will only prolong the downturn by inhibiting spending.
Another question clouding the labor agenda is whether Mr. Obama will give equal weight to worker concerns — from reforming health care to raising the minimum wage — while the financial crisis is still playing out. Most members of his economic team are veterans of the Clinton administration who tilt toward Wall Street. In the Clinton era, financial issues routinely trumped labor concerns. If Mr. Obama’s campaign promises are to be kept, that mindset cannot prevail again. Mr. Obama’s creation of a task force on middle-class issues, to be led by Vice President-elect Joseph Biden and including Ms. Solis and other high-ranking officials, is an encouraging sign that labor issues will not be given short shrift.
There are many nonlegislative issues on the agenda for Ms. Solis. Safety standards must be updated: in the last eight years, the Labor Department has issued only one new safety rule of its own accord; it issued a few others only after being compelled by Congress or the courts. Overtime rules that were weakened in 2004 need to be restored. To enforce labor standards, the Labor Department will need more staff and more money, both of which have been cut deeply by President Bush.
Only the president can give the new labor secretary the clout she will need to do well at a job that has been done so badly for so long, at such great cost to the quality of
Published: December 28, 2008
There is no doubt that President-elect Barack Obama has chosen a labor secretary who could be a transformative force in a long-neglected arena. The question is whether he will let her.Hilda Solis, a United States representative from Southern California, is the daughter of immigrant parents with union jobs. She has been an unfailing advocate of workers’ rights during eight years in Congress and before that, in California politics.
Ms. Solis has been a leader on traditional workplace issues, like a higher minimum wage and an enhanced right to form unions. She also has helped to expand the labor agenda by sponsoring legislation to create jobs in green technology, and in her support for community health workers and immigration reform.
Her record in Congress dovetails with the mission of the Labor Department, to protect and further the rights and opportunities of working people. It also dovetails with many of the promises Mr. Obama made during the campaign, both in its specifics and in its focus on the needs of America’s working families.
The main issue is whether the Obama administration will assert a forceful labor agenda in the face of certain protests from business that now — during a recession — is not the time to move forward.
The first and biggest test of Mr. Obama’s commitment to labor, and to Ms. Solis, will be his decision on whether or not to push the Employee Free Choice Act in 2009. Corporate America is determined to derail the bill, which would make it easier than it has been for workers to form unions by requiring that employers recognize a union if a majority of employees at a workplace sign cards indicating they wish to organize.
Ms. Solis voted for the bill when it passed the House in 2007. Senate Republicans prevented the bill from coming to a vote that same year. Mr. Obama voted in favor of bringing the bill to the Senate floor and supported it during the campaign.
The measure is vital legislation and should not be postponed. Even modest increases in the share of the unionized labor force push wages upward, because nonunion workplaces must keep up with unionized ones that collectively bargain for increases. By giving employees a bigger say in compensation issues, unions also help to establish corporate norms, the absence of which has contributed to unjustifiable disparities between executive pay and rank-and-file pay.
The argument against unions — that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands — is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad, so the recession by itself is not an excuse to avoid pushing the bill next year. The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no evidence that it would.
There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important. Without a united front, workers will have even less bargaining power in the recession than they had during the growth years of this decade, when they largely failed to get raises even as productivity and profits soared. If pay continues to lag, it will only prolong the downturn by inhibiting spending.
Another question clouding the labor agenda is whether Mr. Obama will give equal weight to worker concerns — from reforming health care to raising the minimum wage — while the financial crisis is still playing out. Most members of his economic team are veterans of the Clinton administration who tilt toward Wall Street. In the Clinton era, financial issues routinely trumped labor concerns. If Mr. Obama’s campaign promises are to be kept, that mindset cannot prevail again. Mr. Obama’s creation of a task force on middle-class issues, to be led by Vice President-elect Joseph Biden and including Ms. Solis and other high-ranking officials, is an encouraging sign that labor issues will not be given short shrift.
There are many nonlegislative issues on the agenda for Ms. Solis. Safety standards must be updated: in the last eight years, the Labor Department has issued only one new safety rule of its own accord; it issued a few others only after being compelled by Congress or the courts. Overtime rules that were weakened in 2004 need to be restored. To enforce labor standards, the Labor Department will need more staff and more money, both of which have been cut deeply by President Bush.
Only the president can give the new labor secretary the clout she will need to do well at a job that has been done so badly for so long, at such great cost to the quality of
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
They met in Brooklyn
They met in Brooklyn
In 1929 Jeanette Wilkes Greenwood came to New York from her native Scotland at the time she was just 20 years of age. She came with her two cousins Isabella Nolan who was 18 years of age nicknamed Isa and Margaret Nolan who was 21 years of age nicknamed Maggie. They were sponsored by their Aunt Elizabeth Wilkes (Richards) who they called Aunt Lizzie. She gave them each fifty dollars so they didn’t have to go though Elis Island. They all got jobs as Maids living with rich families in Brooklyn. Jeanette’s friend Betty who also just came from Scotland herself arranged a blind date for Jeanette at Brooklyn’s Coney Island. Jeanette brought herself a new dress with the first wages she earned in America. Once she met this guy who’s name was Hugh Wallace Boyle (he called himself Wallace Boyle) She fell in love a first or maybe second site with the guy. So when her cousin got home sick and went back to Scotland, Jeanette stayed and after dating just a short while marred Wallace in June of 1931. They went on to have three children Wallace Jr, Jeanette Wilkes and finally me, Richard. My mother said if she hadn’t met my father she would have gone back to Scotland with her cousins. So if it wasn’t for that date I would have been born in Scotland and had a very different life.
In 1929 Jeanette Wilkes Greenwood came to New York from her native Scotland at the time she was just 20 years of age. She came with her two cousins Isabella Nolan who was 18 years of age nicknamed Isa and Margaret Nolan who was 21 years of age nicknamed Maggie. They were sponsored by their Aunt Elizabeth Wilkes (Richards) who they called Aunt Lizzie. She gave them each fifty dollars so they didn’t have to go though Elis Island. They all got jobs as Maids living with rich families in Brooklyn. Jeanette’s friend Betty who also just came from Scotland herself arranged a blind date for Jeanette at Brooklyn’s Coney Island. Jeanette brought herself a new dress with the first wages she earned in America. Once she met this guy who’s name was Hugh Wallace Boyle (he called himself Wallace Boyle) She fell in love a first or maybe second site with the guy. So when her cousin got home sick and went back to Scotland, Jeanette stayed and after dating just a short while marred Wallace in June of 1931. They went on to have three children Wallace Jr, Jeanette Wilkes and finally me, Richard. My mother said if she hadn’t met my father she would have gone back to Scotland with her cousins. So if it wasn’t for that date I would have been born in Scotland and had a very different life.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
If Jesus was Just a Man
The message that Jesus and others tried to get across is the same even if he was a man and not a god or a son of god. The existences of god can not the proven or disproved that is up to each person to decide for themselves. Jesus did more than be born then died his message is in what he said in between. The Bible is full of errors both accidental and on purpose, the Bible as we know it comes the 15th century with the coming of the printing press. You can read about this subject in the many books by authors a lot more learned than myself. The thing is what would you change about yourself if there was no God and Jesus was just a very good man. What I hear from a lot of so called Christians is “Jesus is the way to Salvation” which Jesus (if he is a god) would hear as “Me, Me, and Me” The central Message sent down from Generations that came before us is to look after each other no matter how poor or rich or what race or ethic group they may come from. (Do on the others as you would like them to do on to you)
Ancient Mythic Origins of the Christmas Story
Ancient Mythic Origins of the Christmas Story
Valerie Tarico interviews Dr. Tony Nugent, scholar of world religions. Dr. Nugent is a symbologist, an expert in ancient symbols. He taught at Seattle University for fifteen years in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies and is an ordained Presbyterian minister.
Most Americans know how Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25: The Emperor Constantine chose the date because it was winter solstice in the Julian Calendar, the birthday of dying and rising gods like Mithra and Sol. Some people also know that our delightful mélange of Christmas festivities originated in ancient Norse, Sumerian, Roman and Druid traditions - or, in the case of Rudolph, on Madison Avenue.
But where does the Christmas story itself come from: Jesus in the manger, the angels and wise men?
The familiar Christmas story, including the virgin conception and birth of Jesus, is found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Scholars have pointed out that these stories are somewhat disconnected from other parts of these Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. In fact, by the time he is a young boy in the temple, Jesus's parents seem to have forgotten the virgin birth. They act surprised by his odd behavior. There is never any other mention in the New Testament of these incredible events! These stories seem to be an afterthought, written later than the rest of the gospels that contain them.
To make matters more interesting, the stories themselves have inconsistencies and ambiguities - contradictory genealogies, for example. Our Christmas story (singular) is actually a composite.
Or consider the idea that Mary is a virgin. The Greek writer of Matthew quotes Isaiah as saying: "a parthenos shall conceive and bear a child." The Hebrew word in Isaiah is "almah," which means simply "young woman." But the Greek word parthenos can mean either a virgin or a young woman, and it got translated as "virgin." Modern Bible translations have corrected this, but it is a central part of the Christmas story.
That's a lot of added complications. If the rest of the New Testament doesn't refer to these stories or need them, then how did we end up with them? Where do they come from?
One part of the answer comes from Hellenistic culture. (It is no accident all New Testament books written in Greek.) In this tradition, when a man did something extraordinary there was the assumption that he did this because he was different, either divine or semi-divine. They would make up a story about how he came to be divine. Almost all Greek heroes were said to be born of a human woman and a god--even Alexander the Great, Augustus and Pythagoras.
The father typically was Zeus or Apollo. The god would come and sleep with the woman, pretending to be the husband or as a bolt of lightning, or some such. Greek mythology also shows up in the book of Genesis: the gods lusting after the women and coming down and mating with them.
Why were they added to the Christian story?
Jewish Christians - the first Christians didn't believe in the virgin birth. They believed that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Part of their Christology was "adoptionism"--they thought Jesus was adopted as the unique son of God at some time later in life. There were disagreements about when - Mark suggests the baptism, Paul suggests the resurrection.
Over time, gentile Christianity replaced Jewish Christianity. There were Jewish-Roman Wars. The Jewish Christians were marginalized and oppressed. The Gentile branch became dominant. Eventually we get the gospel of John which pushes the sonship of Jesus back to the beginning of time. This writer is at the other end of the spectrum from the Jewish Christians.
But Matthew and Luke think that the Sonship of Jesus began at birth. And they want to tell a story that reinforces this point. Matthew and Luke are the source of the Christmas story as most of us learned it.
Why didn't the writers do a better job of cleaning the contradictions? They did, some. This is called the "orthodox corruption of scripture." (Bart Ehrman article , book) . But it appears that these birth stories were added toward the end, so scripture got frozen before they could get integrated.
I was raised that the bible was the literally perfect, "inerrant" word of God, essentially dictated by God to the writers. What you are saying about the Christmas story sure calls into question this point of view.
Which Bible?! There are thousands of manuscript variations.
Most biblical stories are probably fiction, not non-fiction. They are mythology in the deepest sense of the word. But we need to get beyond issue of whether biblical reports happened in the historical, physical sense to understand what they mean spiritually and mythically.
Ok. Back to Christmas. Of all the images from the Christmas story, the one that people fall in love with most is angels. The Christmas story is full of angels, beings of light. Is this because of the solstice tradition?
Actually it comes from the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish scriptures that were eventually adopted into the Christian Bible as the Old Testament. It also comes from the Jewish literature written between the Old and New Testaments that didn't get into the biblical canon. Some of these are even quoted in the New Testament, for example Enoch, from the 2nd Century BC. It's all about angels.
What are angels in these stories? Who are they?
The Bible calls them the sons of God, the Divine Council. The word used for God in parts of the Hebrew Bible, Elohim, is plural implying a family of deities. Angels are the lesser gods of the deposed pantheon of ancient Israel. They are under the rulership of Yahweh. Together with Yahweh they are part of Elohim, a plural word that we translate "God" in the book of Genesis. Elohim/God says "Let us make humans in our image." Christians understand this to refer to the trinity, but that is a later interpretation. These angels came from the ancient pantheons of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Many of these gods come from stars. There is a strong astral dimension. "Heavenly Hosts" are stars.
The Luke story focuses on one angel specifically: Gabriel. Is he the archangel?
Gabriel is the Angel of the Lord. He is one of two angels who are named in the Jewish canon and the Christian canon outside of the apocrypha: Gabriel and Michael. They are the angels of mercy and judgment. Gabriel means "Strong One of El." He is first named in Daniel.
If you go into an Eastern Orthodox church you have two icons on the north and south. Michael is on the North to fight with Satan who lives there. Gabriel is on the south. He is more like what the angels originally were, which is messengers of the gods. That is what angel means. The idea that God has a special messenger is exactly what we read about in the Middle Eastern mythologies. Each of the earlier gods has his own special messenger. Enki, who becomes Yaweh, has Isimud. The goddess Inana has Ninshubur. Each high god will have an envoy or assistant, who is a lesser god. The angel of the lord is the same thing. The distinction between angels and gods came later.
Is he a star person? Or one of those semi-divine descendents of gods and women?
He is one of the gods who would come down to earth.
Why do you say that?
The offspring of the gods mating with women are called Gaborim--from the same root as Gabriel. In the second century, Gabriel appears in the Epistula Apostolorum. It talks about Jesus and these secret teachings that he gave to his apostles after the resurrection. One of the secrets is that he is actually Gabriel. After Gabriel took on flesh and united with Mary, then he becomes Jesus. The idea that Christ was an angel was extremely popular in the early church. Later we find this really strict separation between humans and angels; between gods and angels. (more)
We have time for just one more favorite Christmas story: The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi.
The Magi are astrologers. They are Zoroastrian priests. Just to the east of the Roman Empire was the Persian Empire, which was Zoroastrian. They see this star at its rising (the better translations don't say in the East). The astrologers paid a lot of attention to this. It is likely that what this refers to was a heliacal rising, which is the first time that a star appears over the horizon during the course of a year. They thought this was a sign of the Jewish messiah. Scholars speculate that they would have been living in Babylon, where there were lots of Jewish merchants. The Jews had been there from the time of the Jewish exile from Babylonia. We have cuneiform records from them.
Are you assuming that this story is historical?
Think of it as a frog and pond. The pond is real, the frog is not. They are fictional stories in a real setting. They don't always get the details of the setting right, but they are fictional characters in real places. The Magi follow their star from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. The author has in mind a real star that would be in front of you in this situation. It would have to be a star in the far southern sky. Remember what I said about the Heavenly Host being stars? The star in Matthew and the angel in Luke are two variants of the same mythology.
My former fundamentalist head is spinning. Is there anything else you'd like to say in closing?
We need to be able to appreciate these stories as myths, rather than literal histories. When you understand where they come from, then you can understand their spiritual significance for the writers and for us.
Valerie Tarico interviews Dr. Tony Nugent, scholar of world religions. Dr. Nugent is a symbologist, an expert in ancient symbols. He taught at Seattle University for fifteen years in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies and is an ordained Presbyterian minister.
Most Americans know how Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25: The Emperor Constantine chose the date because it was winter solstice in the Julian Calendar, the birthday of dying and rising gods like Mithra and Sol. Some people also know that our delightful mélange of Christmas festivities originated in ancient Norse, Sumerian, Roman and Druid traditions - or, in the case of Rudolph, on Madison Avenue.
But where does the Christmas story itself come from: Jesus in the manger, the angels and wise men?
The familiar Christmas story, including the virgin conception and birth of Jesus, is found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Scholars have pointed out that these stories are somewhat disconnected from other parts of these Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. In fact, by the time he is a young boy in the temple, Jesus's parents seem to have forgotten the virgin birth. They act surprised by his odd behavior. There is never any other mention in the New Testament of these incredible events! These stories seem to be an afterthought, written later than the rest of the gospels that contain them.
To make matters more interesting, the stories themselves have inconsistencies and ambiguities - contradictory genealogies, for example. Our Christmas story (singular) is actually a composite.
Or consider the idea that Mary is a virgin. The Greek writer of Matthew quotes Isaiah as saying: "a parthenos shall conceive and bear a child." The Hebrew word in Isaiah is "almah," which means simply "young woman." But the Greek word parthenos can mean either a virgin or a young woman, and it got translated as "virgin." Modern Bible translations have corrected this, but it is a central part of the Christmas story.
That's a lot of added complications. If the rest of the New Testament doesn't refer to these stories or need them, then how did we end up with them? Where do they come from?
One part of the answer comes from Hellenistic culture. (It is no accident all New Testament books written in Greek.) In this tradition, when a man did something extraordinary there was the assumption that he did this because he was different, either divine or semi-divine. They would make up a story about how he came to be divine. Almost all Greek heroes were said to be born of a human woman and a god--even Alexander the Great, Augustus and Pythagoras.
The father typically was Zeus or Apollo. The god would come and sleep with the woman, pretending to be the husband or as a bolt of lightning, or some such. Greek mythology also shows up in the book of Genesis: the gods lusting after the women and coming down and mating with them.
Why were they added to the Christian story?
Jewish Christians - the first Christians didn't believe in the virgin birth. They believed that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Part of their Christology was "adoptionism"--they thought Jesus was adopted as the unique son of God at some time later in life. There were disagreements about when - Mark suggests the baptism, Paul suggests the resurrection.
Over time, gentile Christianity replaced Jewish Christianity. There were Jewish-Roman Wars. The Jewish Christians were marginalized and oppressed. The Gentile branch became dominant. Eventually we get the gospel of John which pushes the sonship of Jesus back to the beginning of time. This writer is at the other end of the spectrum from the Jewish Christians.
But Matthew and Luke think that the Sonship of Jesus began at birth. And they want to tell a story that reinforces this point. Matthew and Luke are the source of the Christmas story as most of us learned it.
Why didn't the writers do a better job of cleaning the contradictions? They did, some. This is called the "orthodox corruption of scripture." (Bart Ehrman article , book) . But it appears that these birth stories were added toward the end, so scripture got frozen before they could get integrated.
I was raised that the bible was the literally perfect, "inerrant" word of God, essentially dictated by God to the writers. What you are saying about the Christmas story sure calls into question this point of view.
Which Bible?! There are thousands of manuscript variations.
Most biblical stories are probably fiction, not non-fiction. They are mythology in the deepest sense of the word. But we need to get beyond issue of whether biblical reports happened in the historical, physical sense to understand what they mean spiritually and mythically.
Ok. Back to Christmas. Of all the images from the Christmas story, the one that people fall in love with most is angels. The Christmas story is full of angels, beings of light. Is this because of the solstice tradition?
Actually it comes from the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish scriptures that were eventually adopted into the Christian Bible as the Old Testament. It also comes from the Jewish literature written between the Old and New Testaments that didn't get into the biblical canon. Some of these are even quoted in the New Testament, for example Enoch, from the 2nd Century BC. It's all about angels.
What are angels in these stories? Who are they?
The Bible calls them the sons of God, the Divine Council. The word used for God in parts of the Hebrew Bible, Elohim, is plural implying a family of deities. Angels are the lesser gods of the deposed pantheon of ancient Israel. They are under the rulership of Yahweh. Together with Yahweh they are part of Elohim, a plural word that we translate "God" in the book of Genesis. Elohim/God says "Let us make humans in our image." Christians understand this to refer to the trinity, but that is a later interpretation. These angels came from the ancient pantheons of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Many of these gods come from stars. There is a strong astral dimension. "Heavenly Hosts" are stars.
The Luke story focuses on one angel specifically: Gabriel. Is he the archangel?
Gabriel is the Angel of the Lord. He is one of two angels who are named in the Jewish canon and the Christian canon outside of the apocrypha: Gabriel and Michael. They are the angels of mercy and judgment. Gabriel means "Strong One of El." He is first named in Daniel.
If you go into an Eastern Orthodox church you have two icons on the north and south. Michael is on the North to fight with Satan who lives there. Gabriel is on the south. He is more like what the angels originally were, which is messengers of the gods. That is what angel means. The idea that God has a special messenger is exactly what we read about in the Middle Eastern mythologies. Each of the earlier gods has his own special messenger. Enki, who becomes Yaweh, has Isimud. The goddess Inana has Ninshubur. Each high god will have an envoy or assistant, who is a lesser god. The angel of the lord is the same thing. The distinction between angels and gods came later.
Is he a star person? Or one of those semi-divine descendents of gods and women?
He is one of the gods who would come down to earth.
Why do you say that?
The offspring of the gods mating with women are called Gaborim--from the same root as Gabriel. In the second century, Gabriel appears in the Epistula Apostolorum. It talks about Jesus and these secret teachings that he gave to his apostles after the resurrection. One of the secrets is that he is actually Gabriel. After Gabriel took on flesh and united with Mary, then he becomes Jesus. The idea that Christ was an angel was extremely popular in the early church. Later we find this really strict separation between humans and angels; between gods and angels. (more)
We have time for just one more favorite Christmas story: The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi.
The Magi are astrologers. They are Zoroastrian priests. Just to the east of the Roman Empire was the Persian Empire, which was Zoroastrian. They see this star at its rising (the better translations don't say in the East). The astrologers paid a lot of attention to this. It is likely that what this refers to was a heliacal rising, which is the first time that a star appears over the horizon during the course of a year. They thought this was a sign of the Jewish messiah. Scholars speculate that they would have been living in Babylon, where there were lots of Jewish merchants. The Jews had been there from the time of the Jewish exile from Babylonia. We have cuneiform records from them.
Are you assuming that this story is historical?
Think of it as a frog and pond. The pond is real, the frog is not. They are fictional stories in a real setting. They don't always get the details of the setting right, but they are fictional characters in real places. The Magi follow their star from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. The author has in mind a real star that would be in front of you in this situation. It would have to be a star in the far southern sky. Remember what I said about the Heavenly Host being stars? The star in Matthew and the angel in Luke are two variants of the same mythology.
My former fundamentalist head is spinning. Is there anything else you'd like to say in closing?
We need to be able to appreciate these stories as myths, rather than literal histories. When you understand where they come from, then you can understand their spiritual significance for the writers and for us.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
John McCain a Hero?
In contrast to Ayers, whose acts were at worst tactically misguided, John McCain did engage in terrorist acts, war crimes that in all likelihood killed hundreds if not thousands of poor people in Vietnam. He committed these atrocities in the most cowardly fashion, dropping bombs from a plane thousands of feet above the ground, using the most advanced military technology to slaughter people in an impoverished peasant country. To those who would offer some banality about McCain just being a soldier or serving his country, such defenses are neither true nor legally relevant. McCain volunteered enthusiastically to commit these atrocities, and even if he hadn't the Nuremberg principles had decades before put to rest the excuse that one was just following orders. Indeed, as Robert Richter has reported, General Telford Taylor, American prosecutor at Nuremberg, even offered to help prosecute McCain and other captured pilots for war crimes.
Mr. Ayers would be quite justified in being disappointed with Barack Obama for his cowardice in this whole affair. In keeping with his characteristic unprincipled opportunism, Obama repeatedly called a friend who had helped him in the past "despicable" while characterizing McCain as a "hero" for the infinitely more monstrous crimes he committed. If his old friend, or just acquaintance if that's what he really is, had any sense of decency, Ayers would not be in this position of having to defend himself now.
It's also hard not to see a connection between all of this and the Iraq War. The media and McCain campaign attack Ayers and hold up McCain as a hero in order to further try to rehabilitate the Vietnam War and the American government's murder of several million people in Southeast Asia while also discrediting and ridiculing anti-war opposition. It is greatly to his credit that Ayers defends the anti-war movement in such strong terms in this piece. That Obama went along with trashing Ayers and glorifying McCain is a dark sign about his real position on the Iraq War, a subject on which he has already flip-flopped and proven totally insincere and uncommitted to the anti-war position that won him such enthusiasm among millions of American young people.
There was an unrepentant terrorist in this presidential campaign. Indeed, one who has built an entire career, and a lucrative one at that, solely on the basis of boasting about his terrorist acts. His name is John McCain, and it is time the media stopped treating him as a hero.
— DA, Cambridge, MA
Mr. Ayers would be quite justified in being disappointed with Barack Obama for his cowardice in this whole affair. In keeping with his characteristic unprincipled opportunism, Obama repeatedly called a friend who had helped him in the past "despicable" while characterizing McCain as a "hero" for the infinitely more monstrous crimes he committed. If his old friend, or just acquaintance if that's what he really is, had any sense of decency, Ayers would not be in this position of having to defend himself now.
It's also hard not to see a connection between all of this and the Iraq War. The media and McCain campaign attack Ayers and hold up McCain as a hero in order to further try to rehabilitate the Vietnam War and the American government's murder of several million people in Southeast Asia while also discrediting and ridiculing anti-war opposition. It is greatly to his credit that Ayers defends the anti-war movement in such strong terms in this piece. That Obama went along with trashing Ayers and glorifying McCain is a dark sign about his real position on the Iraq War, a subject on which he has already flip-flopped and proven totally insincere and uncommitted to the anti-war position that won him such enthusiasm among millions of American young people.
There was an unrepentant terrorist in this presidential campaign. Indeed, one who has built an entire career, and a lucrative one at that, solely on the basis of boasting about his terrorist acts. His name is John McCain, and it is time the media stopped treating him as a hero.
— DA, Cambridge, MA
The Real Bill Ayers
The Real Bill Ayers
IN the recently concluded presidential race, I was unwillingly thrust upon the stage and asked to play a role in a profoundly dishonest drama. I refused, and here’s why.
Unable to challenge the content of Barack Obama’s campaign, his opponents invented a narrative about a young politician who emerged from nowhere, a man of charm, intelligence and skill, but with an exotic background and a strange name. The refrain was a question: “What do we really know about this man?”
Secondary characters in the narrative included an African-American preacher with a fiery style, a Palestinian scholar and an “unrepentant domestic terrorist.” Linking the candidate with these supposedly shadowy characters, and ferreting out every imagined secret tie and dark affiliation, became big news.
I was cast in the “unrepentant terrorist” role; I felt at times like the enemy projected onto a large screen in the “Two Minutes Hate” scene from George Orwell’s “1984,” when the faithful gathered in a frenzy of fear and loathing.
With the mainstream news media and the blogosphere caught in the pre-election excitement, I saw no viable path to a rational discussion. Rather than step clumsily into the sound-bite culture, I turned away whenever the microphones were thrust into my face. I sat it out.
Now that the election is over, I want to say as plainly as I can that the character invented to serve this drama wasn’t me, not even close. Here are the facts:
I never killed or injured anyone. I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations. I became a full-time antiwar organizer for Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation.
The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated. We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war.
Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war. So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.
I cannot imagine engaging in actions of that kind today. And for the past 40 years, I’ve been teaching and writing about the unique value and potential of every human life, and the need to realize that potential through education.
I have regrets, of course — including mistakes of excess and failures of imagination, posturing and posing, inflated and heated rhetoric, blind sectarianism and a lot else. No one can reach my age with their eyes even partly open and not have hundreds of regrets. The responsibility for the risks we posed to others in some of our most extreme actions in those underground years never leaves my thoughts for long.
The antiwar movement in all its commitment, all its sacrifice and determination, could not stop the violence unleashed against Vietnam. And therein lies cause for real regret.
We — the broad “we” — wrote letters, marched, talked to young men at induction centers, surrounded the Pentagon and lay down in front of troop trains. Yet we were inadequate to end the killing of three million Vietnamese and almost 60,000 Americans during a 10-year war.
The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it.
President-elect Obama and I sat on a board together; we lived in the same diverse and yet close-knit community; we sometimes passed in the bookstore. We didn’t pal around, and I had nothing to do with his positions. I knew him as well as thousands of others did, and like millions of others, I wish I knew him better.
Demonization, guilt by association, and the politics of fear did not triumph, not this time. Let’s hope they never will again. And let’s hope we might now assert that in our wildly diverse society, talking and listening to the widest range of people is not a sin, but a virtue.
William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is the author of “Fugitive Days” and a co-author of the forthcoming “Race Course.”
IN the recently concluded presidential race, I was unwillingly thrust upon the stage and asked to play a role in a profoundly dishonest drama. I refused, and here’s why.
Unable to challenge the content of Barack Obama’s campaign, his opponents invented a narrative about a young politician who emerged from nowhere, a man of charm, intelligence and skill, but with an exotic background and a strange name. The refrain was a question: “What do we really know about this man?”
Secondary characters in the narrative included an African-American preacher with a fiery style, a Palestinian scholar and an “unrepentant domestic terrorist.” Linking the candidate with these supposedly shadowy characters, and ferreting out every imagined secret tie and dark affiliation, became big news.
I was cast in the “unrepentant terrorist” role; I felt at times like the enemy projected onto a large screen in the “Two Minutes Hate” scene from George Orwell’s “1984,” when the faithful gathered in a frenzy of fear and loathing.
With the mainstream news media and the blogosphere caught in the pre-election excitement, I saw no viable path to a rational discussion. Rather than step clumsily into the sound-bite culture, I turned away whenever the microphones were thrust into my face. I sat it out.
Now that the election is over, I want to say as plainly as I can that the character invented to serve this drama wasn’t me, not even close. Here are the facts:
I never killed or injured anyone. I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations. I became a full-time antiwar organizer for Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation.
The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated. We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war.
Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war. So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.
I cannot imagine engaging in actions of that kind today. And for the past 40 years, I’ve been teaching and writing about the unique value and potential of every human life, and the need to realize that potential through education.
I have regrets, of course — including mistakes of excess and failures of imagination, posturing and posing, inflated and heated rhetoric, blind sectarianism and a lot else. No one can reach my age with their eyes even partly open and not have hundreds of regrets. The responsibility for the risks we posed to others in some of our most extreme actions in those underground years never leaves my thoughts for long.
The antiwar movement in all its commitment, all its sacrifice and determination, could not stop the violence unleashed against Vietnam. And therein lies cause for real regret.
We — the broad “we” — wrote letters, marched, talked to young men at induction centers, surrounded the Pentagon and lay down in front of troop trains. Yet we were inadequate to end the killing of three million Vietnamese and almost 60,000 Americans during a 10-year war.
The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it.
President-elect Obama and I sat on a board together; we lived in the same diverse and yet close-knit community; we sometimes passed in the bookstore. We didn’t pal around, and I had nothing to do with his positions. I knew him as well as thousands of others did, and like millions of others, I wish I knew him better.
Demonization, guilt by association, and the politics of fear did not triumph, not this time. Let’s hope they never will again. And let’s hope we might now assert that in our wildly diverse society, talking and listening to the widest range of people is not a sin, but a virtue.
William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is the author of “Fugitive Days” and a co-author of the forthcoming “Race Course.”
Monday, November 24, 2008
Capitalism and Communism failed what next?
Capitalism and Communism failed what next?
Barack Obama right now as of this writing is trying to save capitalism from itself even before he has the power to do so. The only way he can do it is to add Socialist programs into the mix which is blasphemy to those who hold the “Free Market” as a religion the same as those in China who held Communism as a religion hold Capitalist programs as blasphemy. The only hope for both America and China has is that he finds the right mix and can get it through the hard heads who don’t like “Change”. Barack Obama is perhaps the Smartest President ever elected, but he must change minds set in stone a very hard task that even God is still trying to do.
Barack Obama right now as of this writing is trying to save capitalism from itself even before he has the power to do so. The only way he can do it is to add Socialist programs into the mix which is blasphemy to those who hold the “Free Market” as a religion the same as those in China who held Communism as a religion hold Capitalist programs as blasphemy. The only hope for both America and China has is that he finds the right mix and can get it through the hard heads who don’t like “Change”. Barack Obama is perhaps the Smartest President ever elected, but he must change minds set in stone a very hard task that even God is still trying to do.
Friday, November 07, 2008
President Elect Barack H Obama After the Election
Barack Obama or cool hand Barack as someone called him for he always kept his temper when all through the campaign his opponents throw everything they could find at him he rarely turned fire instead he just kept on explaining what he would do if they elected him President of the United States of America. He showed great decision making by first selected a great Campaign staff then Joe Biden for his running mate. He doesn’t seem to me to be progressive enough, but hopefully those in Congress that are can push through some more progressive programs in Health Care and Education. Barack Obama is a strong signal as to how far we have come and he again hopefully take us another step forward, but there will be still a long road ahead for future generations to travel.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Vice-President elect Joseph Biden After the Election
Joe’s weakness is that his mouth works at a faster speed than his mind. He often says the wrong name like Obama when he means McCain, but I can related to that I often call my own kids by the wrong name and Joe once said Television instead of Radio when talking about FDR’s fire side chats. The media ignored Joe during the campaign except when the other side took issue with something he said which only came as Election Day drew near and they were looking for anything to save themselves. They did use his voice in an Ad when he said the new President would be tested within the first six months. They used it as if he meant only Obama, but he meant any new President as the history of former Presidents would confirm. Joe Biden was a very good choice for Vice-President for he been in Washington for 35 years and knows how to get Obama’s programs through Congress
Governor Sarah Palin After the Election
Governor Sarah Palin After the Election
I was astonished when John McCain picked an unknown Governor of Alaska to be his running mate for Vice-President. After hearing her speak at the Republican Convention I thought what the hell is McCain thinking, she has got to be the worst choice in US History. She did appeal to the Republican Right wing base which he had anyway, to some women at first, but the more even they heard her the more she turned them off. Sarah Palin’s lack of knowledge especially for a Governor of a State is astonishing. Sarah’s Father was a Science Teacher, but neither his wife or his daughter believe in Science maybe she say more about the state of our country that someone like can be elected Governor much less Vice-President.
I was astonished when John McCain picked an unknown Governor of Alaska to be his running mate for Vice-President. After hearing her speak at the Republican Convention I thought what the hell is McCain thinking, she has got to be the worst choice in US History. She did appeal to the Republican Right wing base which he had anyway, to some women at first, but the more even they heard her the more she turned them off. Sarah Palin’s lack of knowledge especially for a Governor of a State is astonishing. Sarah’s Father was a Science Teacher, but neither his wife or his daughter believe in Science maybe she say more about the state of our country that someone like can be elected Governor much less Vice-President.
Sen. John McCain After the Election
I Think John was a fine Senator before he got the desire to run for President then he lost his way. John is a Republican, but he did have some good ideas as Senator and was not always on the “Right Side” of an issue, he was for Campaign financing, against the war in Iraq, against torture and in short was a Social Progressive while being a Fiscal Conservative. Once John decided to run for President he was all for the war and wanted nothing less than victory and he had no other ideas and he started talking about his POW story over and over again or just trying to run down his opponent. Just the want of power changed him for the worst so maybe loosing this election might have been the best thing for him. Maybe the old John McCain will come back to Washington.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Regulate the Airlines and on line ticket Services.
Regulate the Airlines and on line ticket Services.
In the year 2007 we booked a trip to Portugal from Cheap Tickets.com on Delta Airlines for September of 2008 unfortunately I became sick just before the trip and had to cancel the trip. In early August of 2008 we called Cheap Tickets to Cancel and they said that they could only give us credit which we had to use on the same Airline by December 31, 2008. We called a second time because we didn’t think that was right and they told us that they could not cancel the tickets that we had to call Delta Airlines. So we called Delta Airlines and they said that we had to bring a Doctor’s note to a Delta Ticket office they said the nearest one to us was at Islip Airport. So in September we got in our car and drove to Islip Airport where we were told that Delta Airlines is no longer there and we had to go to JFK Airport. We then took the LIRR from Patchogue to the Airtrain to the Delta terminal at JFK. Where after standing on a long line an Delta Agent told us that they would give us a full refund, but that Delta Airlines is only in control of the Tickets ten days before the flight and that Cheap Tickets could have and should have done it before the ten days. He said the on line ticket services are always dumping it on the Airlines by telling their customers to call the Airlines for refunds when they should do it. It seems to me that there is a need for Government regulation of both the Airlines and the On Line Ticket Services because they can not do it themselves.
Adele and Richard Boyle Medford LI NY
In the year 2007 we booked a trip to Portugal from Cheap Tickets.com on Delta Airlines for September of 2008 unfortunately I became sick just before the trip and had to cancel the trip. In early August of 2008 we called Cheap Tickets to Cancel and they said that they could only give us credit which we had to use on the same Airline by December 31, 2008. We called a second time because we didn’t think that was right and they told us that they could not cancel the tickets that we had to call Delta Airlines. So we called Delta Airlines and they said that we had to bring a Doctor’s note to a Delta Ticket office they said the nearest one to us was at Islip Airport. So in September we got in our car and drove to Islip Airport where we were told that Delta Airlines is no longer there and we had to go to JFK Airport. We then took the LIRR from Patchogue to the Airtrain to the Delta terminal at JFK. Where after standing on a long line an Delta Agent told us that they would give us a full refund, but that Delta Airlines is only in control of the Tickets ten days before the flight and that Cheap Tickets could have and should have done it before the ten days. He said the on line ticket services are always dumping it on the Airlines by telling their customers to call the Airlines for refunds when they should do it. It seems to me that there is a need for Government regulation of both the Airlines and the On Line Ticket Services because they can not do it themselves.
Adele and Richard Boyle Medford LI NY
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Invest in America.
Invest in America.
Where should the hard earn tax money of the Working Class (or if you prefer Middle Class)? Some say just give it back to the tax payer as a Stimulus package, which did not work back in May, so even if we do like getting money in the mail it is a bad idea. Some say to use it to buy more war machinery to kill people that don’t think or look like us, another bad idea. A better idea is to invest it in rebuilding the Electrical Grid of our nation then we can have Mass transit running on electric power, Training people on how to install solar panels with people getting tax breaks for installing them like Germany has been doing for years. Installing more windmills and hydroelectric power all bring high paying jobs that can’t be shipped overseas. Building Electric cars that will replace Gas driven car completely. Improve our education system by studying what makes other countries education systems better than ours for our children are our future we should give them a New Deal.
Where should the hard earn tax money of the Working Class (or if you prefer Middle Class)? Some say just give it back to the tax payer as a Stimulus package, which did not work back in May, so even if we do like getting money in the mail it is a bad idea. Some say to use it to buy more war machinery to kill people that don’t think or look like us, another bad idea. A better idea is to invest it in rebuilding the Electrical Grid of our nation then we can have Mass transit running on electric power, Training people on how to install solar panels with people getting tax breaks for installing them like Germany has been doing for years. Installing more windmills and hydroelectric power all bring high paying jobs that can’t be shipped overseas. Building Electric cars that will replace Gas driven car completely. Improve our education system by studying what makes other countries education systems better than ours for our children are our future we should give them a New Deal.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
The Second Presidential Debate
McCain says Obama has never done anything, but everything that is wrong with America is his fault. McCain didn’t bring up Bill Ayers because he knew Obama would be ready for him for a so called war hero he is a real coward. McCain’s answer to the economic upheaval was to claim a mortgage plan that was already in the 700 Dollar Bail out plan and Obama talked about two weeks ago. McCain’s Health care plan is just to give each Taxpayer a 5000 dollar Tax break which would pay for about two months of health care coverage and pay for it by taxing any health care coverage you get from your employer. McCain wants to fight on to “Victory” in Iraq and Afghanistan no matter how long that takes. He also wants to take on Iran as if the American people didn’t have enough of War. McCain’s only mention of education was to say that Obama spent too much on an education bill. McCain agrees with Obama on energy both would spend more on solar, wind, hydroelectric, clean coal, and drill baby drill, but McCain is for giving more to big oil companies while Obama would get America off of oil hopefully in ten years. Obama gets more into detail on what he would do after the bail out in both policing Wall Street and insuring Main Street. Obama’s Health Care Plan is to insure all children and give small business up to 50,000 dollars to pay for health insurance there by helping both employee and employer. Obama’s health care is still not enough, but better than McCain’s no plan. Obama plan for Iraq was said to be surrender not Victory, but is now accepted by both the Bush and Iraqi Governments once again Obama realizes that results not empty words is what is needed. I think Obama won the first two debates and should be elected our next President.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Question; What is free about the Free Market?
A Question to all you well educated people out there especially in the Free Market. What is free about the Free Market? Manufactures and Farmers limit production to drive up prices, fix prices to maximize profits and keeping any one company from becoming a Monopoly there by bring down the government Sherman Antitrust Act on them. Plus the many rules put on both Banks and the Stock Market to keep people from losing too much of their money there by damaging the economy. So with all this in mind should the government have more control over the Financial Systems to protect the working and middle classes?
Friday, October 03, 2008
Looking forward without looking backwards?
In the Vice-President debate Gov. Palin said “we that the McCain-Palin Administration would look forward to the future and not backwards to the past”. Now how can you going forward without knowing where you came from when you go to the food store it is because you know it had good food in the past, but you are buying for the future. When you are hiring someone you want to hire you look into their past to know how they will perform in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)