A very well thought-out piece. Don;t like the cooler climates of the north, come to Texas where the growing season lasts a month longer and the winters will make you think it is September (from an Illinois frame of mind).Comment Posted By jazzizhep On 21.08.2009 @ 15:55
It is a shame that the "contact me" link is not fully functional. I left you a detailed email regarding a march on the president's office that occured today. I must now go to an American Lit class. Too bad, a group claimed resposibility for the "noose" left in a tree.Comment Posted By Jazzizhep On 14.11.2008 @ 14:16
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"
John Cleese as French Soldier in Monty Python and the Holy Grail
"Bond, James Bond"
No attribution necessary, is there? Plus, it would be too long. The quote is not very imaginative, but certainly iconic.Comment Posted By Jazzizhep On 17.08.2007 @ 21:09
It would be nice if you read the pages in which you have provided links. Your reference to the Church of the Subgenius and the "outrageous case of Rachel Bevilacqua" seems to imply she was persecuted for engaging in anti-Christianism. When in actuality, the case was a custody dispute brought by the father of Rachel's son. The petition was filed based on the continued and increasing unstable mental condition of the son as a result of the mother's guardianship.
The experts testified that the child reacted badly when asked to discuss his mother and that there was some change in his emotional health when he spent time with her. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ad4/Court/Decisions/2007/07-06-07/PDF/0753.1.pdf
"The obvious difference is where it all happened."
A church is private property and not subject to an open-ended interpretation of free speech. In other words, if you do not like what the church teaches, then you are perfectly free to leave and take your phallic Jesus with you.
You also suggested Mr. Shmulevich should have been kicked out. So, one can only assume you believe universities, a public institution, are not places in which free speech should be staunchly defended. Remove the fact that a Koran was used, and instead put a chemistry textbook in the toilet. Do you still think he should be expelled? If you say no -- the only logical answer -- it then means putting a book in the toilet is not an expellable offense. The difference being one action is likely to hurt the feelings of someone. Simply put, if the act committed (placing the Koran in the toilet)is not a crime in and of itself, then what he thinks becomes the crime-a sad day indeed!
You use the egregiously inappropriate example of writing anti-semitic statements on walls. What makes it so wrong is the nature of the two acts. Putting a Koran in the toilet, where it may or may not seen by a Muslim, is an extremely passive act. Writing on the walls is much more aggressive act, and one that has a greater likelihood of being observed by those it is meant to offend. By using an example practically everyone can agree is wrong, you minimize how repugnant censorship can be. If you asked "what if someone paints anti-war and Bush is Hitler messages on walls," the question becomes much more difficult to answer; not for me, but most certainly for you.Comment Posted By Jazzizhep On 31.07.2007 @ 03:54
Touretts syndorme is not limited to uncontrollable obscenity laced diatribes. That is only the most cited but least common of symptoms. Small facial ticks are the most common, but can be so severe, in the form of uncontrollable muscle contractions, it can render a person unable to function. I knew such a boy in school, and his life was a living hell. He couldn't walk, could barely talk and could not write. This man four years out of high school killed himself before drugs were available.
So Rick was quite right in distancing Mr. Harrell's chosen remarks, to someone such as Antonio from my old high school. Your remark is just as insulting to those who suffer from this disease.Comment Posted By jazzizhep On 11.08.2005 @ 00:13
I always thought of Jennings as least biased until 9/11. I remember an exchange between Jennings and George Stephanopoulos in which Jennings was clearly trying to get George to say something negative about how long the President is taking to make a public appearance (one had not yet been issued). The conversation was something along these lines.
Jennings: Shouldn't the President have come out by now.
George: The President is surrounded by people who's only job is to make sure he is safe.
Jennings: He can override them if he wishes, correct?
George: Yes, but they are trying to make sure things have calmed down and there are no further threats.
Jennings: The American public needs to see the President and have him calm their fears, and not be hidden away.
George: These are the decisions the security detail are helping him to make. When they feel it is safe, he will be brought out.
This line of questioning continued from Jennings, with George alaways referring to protocol, and the steps that have been laid out in advance for times such as these. The conversation finally ended when Jennings flat out asked George if he thought Clinton would be acting in the same manner. George replied that Clinton put great faith in the people around him who were there to protect him, and if they said he needs to wait. Clinton would have waited. George said repeatedly that he thought Bush was doing the right thing, and that it looks as though everything is going according to plan.
From that point on I have not watched a lick of Jennings, and my respect for Stephanopoulos grew immensely. I would rather be subjected to reruns of "Dukes of Hazzard" with the replcement Bo and Luke than to be made to watch Jennings. And thank God I never had to choose.Comment Posted By jazzizhep On 9.08.2005 @ 17:41
Well said Rick.
WARNING:I fully realize I will be talking out of both sides of my mouth shortly, so I don't need that pointed out to me. Deal?
If I had to tell someone under oath what religion or doctrine that resembles my own beliefs, I would need to answer, Puritan. In that Puritans, and Calvinist in general, believed God chooses those for salvation and not the other way around. And I think I am one of the un-chosen. Or in Ricks's terminology, an agnostic, although not proudly. I certainly don't believe in any god that has been put forth by any scripture, nor do I believe in any explanations scripture (of any religion) give for the creation of life. I do, however, find much that can be learned from the meaning of life from such text, principally the bible.
Those two things being clarified, I see no problem with the mention of ID as a possible explaination for the thigs I described yesterady. I say mention because it would be impossible to teach, due to a lack of material. There is none. So why mention something that has no proof, at all?
Increasingly the public school is what losing what focus they may have had with the muddling of social promotion, social relevancy the inability to teach fundamentals and a host of other issues. With the introduction of ID as a precursor to evolution can we not say "we have no idea how things occurred, but some people believe etc...", that in and of itself may give true relevancy to our own existance within the great expanse. Might it not even compel some to seek answers that science cannot give, in hopes that science may offer those answers. How are we to develop interest if we pretend we already know the answers. I don't look at ID as being opposed to evolution, but an explanation as to how evolution was started, not necessarily of life on earth, but the evolution of the universe.
One, may insist that is not the place for philosophy, but it seems the more we learn, the lines that divide disciplines become more blurred. Is there any distinction between chemistry and biology? Biology is just a sub field of chemistry. Do we use astronomy to explain the impetus of the earth and therefore life on earth? Should we tell students "if you want to learn anymore you have to wait until you can take astronomy"? Which goes back to the purpose of schools, should they be an institution where people go to learn "this happened on this day, that happened on that day, this happened this many eons ago and then this happened"? Or should schools attempt to foster an environment which pushes for the ability to think. Which is a far cry from just learning different theories and reciting from memory. I have no doubts that if we encourage this ability, the thirst for knowledge would follow.Comment Posted By jazzizhep On 3.08.2005 @ 12:02
Rick,Comment Posted By jazzizhep On 2.08.2005 @ 16:08
Somehow I think the prospects of any future possibilities of scientific advances is no reason to accept current theories. Of course I always thought it was it was astonomy and not astrology.
Your examples are exactly what I mean, especially gravity. Gravity itself is fact, you can observe the effects. The theory is how gravity is manifested, is it mass or magnetic or a combination of the two. Is that not two seperate issues? We can observe the effect of evolution, but how did that process begin?
I am asking you to go back further than just life on this planet and the primordial mixture of proteins that started it, and look at how the earth was formed, and where that matter originated. Then ask what caused the events to spew that matter into the universe. You ask what that has to do with the theory of evolution, or what is the relevence to this topic?
What is the relevence of studying evolution? Is it not to determine our origins? Do our origins stop at the first bacteria, or do we look at how those first organism come into being, and the circumstances around that event. They are connected and it would be like studying the origins of the Romans but not the Etruscans.
Until evolution is capable of producing empirical data that proves the linneage of even 30% of the earth's inhabitants that exceeds the current evidence of "the jaw bone is similar, and could produce a modern jawbone", then there is room for other theories of the origin of life beyond the birth of the earth, and they are as connected as they Romans and Etruscans. Yes, we have genetic data that states we share 95% of our genes with chimps, but that still leaves the same questions. But even that is not proof, it just supporst the most logical outcome.Comment Posted By jazzizhep On 2.08.2005 @ 15:41
Point 1: You can disprove the earth rides on an elephant.
Point 2: You can disprove (through geological data) those islands did not come into existance through the actions of a bear.
Point 3:This has been disproven.
Point 4: 100% true so I am not sure what you meant.
A rip in your socks doesn't get any smaller with time.
Point 5: Patent office concurs.
Point 6: Who cares.
BTW, it is called the "Theory of Evolution" because it has not been proven definitively. Quite possibly never will, although it is the only explaination that makes any sense. Until there becomes an explaination of the universe that people can actually fathom, or that makes any sense, I don't see how intelligent design can be labeled more off-base than the big bang: There was this huge ball of extremely dense mass that just blew up one day. Nobody knows where the mass came from, how long it had been there, or why it blew up. It was just there and bang, here we are.
Since speculating on time before the big band is more philosophy than science, there is room for other explainations. Intelligent design concedes, rightly so, that evolution is the likely cause of humans existance. I take it a step farther and say intelligent design is at least a comprehendible explaination of how the big bang occured and what existed before. I realize this is not very scientific, but neither are the explainations offered by science unless you count science fiction. Because that is all there is folks.Comment Posted By jazzizhep On 2.08.2005 @ 14:17
Pages (2) :  2