johnhildreth

Watch this, it's under 10 minutes and if you haven't seen it, don't know what happened, YOU SHOULD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyvVQYf6XWk

Reprinted from the 5/26/08 Barbara Garson article in the Los Angeles Times:

Give my stimulus check to the rich Bush has favored the wealthy throughout his administration; why stop now? By Barbara Garson
May 26, 2008 Dear President Bush and Laura,

My husband and I have an economic disagreement that has turned personal. We think you can help us. We filed a joint tax return and are expecting a $1,200 check under your plan to jump-start the economy. Here's the problem: My husband wants to spend the money; I want to send it back.

Like you, we believe that the government should not fiddle with the economy. We know that you only yielded under pressure to this so-called stimulus. My husband says you've managed to make it the most free-market stimulus possible. Rather than…

I don't journal publicly very often, but I feel compelled to share this one. The UK press ran an interesting headline today. Read it here.

Reading this article was an affirmation of what I, most Americans, and the world at large have felt for a long time now. Yet, we haven't succeeded in articulating these feelings. It comes down to this:

Phrases like 'War on Terror' and 'Age of Terror' are demoralizing, and do more to spread fear and division than they do to strengthen our communities. You can choose whether or not to consider the time you are living in as the 'Age of Terror.' And, you can choose whether or not to live in fear. This choice dramatically affects your worldview, and as a result, the strength and courage -- or lack of -- you feel regarding your values and place in the world.

A fearful nation is not…

" . . . I'm tired of red and blue mattering more than red, white and blue . . . I want to be hopeful about the future again, want my country to be looked at with respect again."

- Leonard Pitts

Following is the full text of the Virginia Marriage Amendment (aka the Marshall-Newman Amendment). This is being sold as a ban on gay marriage, but is much more than that. Virginia already has a law defining marriage between one man and one woman. The text of the amendment we are voting on in November may criminalize any cohabitating relationship outside of heterosexual marriage. Further, legal precedent in this area may also be invoked to nullify marriages officiated in non-religious ceremonies, or even marriages in which no children have been conceived.

Is this a stretch? Sure, but why the redundant law? Why the ambiguous language? If this is really aimed at same-sex unions, why not clean up the language so there is no doubt?

This amendment gives the state nearly absolute authority to make determinations on what consitutes a legitimate marriage (or other union) and what does not. However the biggest red flag, in my estimation, is that this amendment writes discrimination into the state constitution.…

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

- Sinclair Lewis, 1930

Regarding this business of angry rhetoric and violent riots in response to cartoon caricatures of muslim religious icons . . .

Anger is being misdirected. Wrath is not due the publisher of a Danish newspaper, nor those of any European papers, nor neighborhoods populated with Christian believers; rather, it is due those who have successfully worked to transform the perception of Muslim life into one of violence, intolerance and vengeance. This is how the rest of the world is coming to view Islam. Further, many Islamic leaders have unwittingly re-inforced this perception.

It is because of those who practice violence and terror in the name of Islam that the cartoon exists in the first place. Seeking to halt those who cultivate terror will reveal an end to this madness. Muslims turning to anger and violence as a means of addressing their world only empower the radical element -- it is how…