Say Hello to Mayor Garsetti. The race was neck and neck till past midnight when Garsetti pulled way ahead and won by eight points. Only about three hundred thousand citizens of Los Angeles even bothered to vote. This isn't good considering they say there were in fact 1.8 million elligable voters. There were also complaints from that Josephina lady on KTLK that Los Angeles ballots, where I have never voted, are exceedingly tricky with some punch thing not matching up with numbers people without reading glasses can't even read, and so it would seem a high probability of those 300,000 people voted for someone other than who they thought they did.
In news of the tornado, Alex Jones says that
the Air Force controls the weather and they did it, “because I’ve seen them do
it once before”. What would be the
point? Oklahoma’s Senators are Inhoff
and Coburn, who are both far right, politically. Every single county in Oklahoma went for Mitt
Romney. Pat Robertson was asked about
it and just said “Well I guess there are
certain places in the country that are risky to take up residence in”. I guess it’s really not fair to put anyone,
even Robertson in a position where they have to “be a spokesman for God”. It is my contention in the spirit of Marcion the theologian (whom I agree with only when it suits my purpose) that we needn't "trouble ourselves" as to WHY this or that event took place. We needn't bother, at least for any theological reason, because in the immortal words of Charlton Heston "What the gods can digest will not spoil in the belly of a slave". What this means is that - - and I have stated this many times, I don't believe we OWE as it were "The God who created the world" anything, any more than the unborn child of an unwed mother "OWES" the father who donated his seed for the occasion, and then skipped town. Capish? Or to put it in terms Marcion would identify with "We answer to a Higher Authority" than that. (Selah)
Randy Rhodes says that in the dissenting decision in the Citizen's United Supreme Court Ruling, that "The very sort of things we've seen lately in the news were predicted". I read Justice Stephens' dissenting decision, and contrary to what Randi says, there are tons of legal references and precedents listed. However the key thing is not only has the prohibition been settled law for a long time, but also the concept of Free Speech itself was more narrowly understood in the days of James Madison and the Founding Fathers. The idea was raised that corporations are NOT citizens and "cant vote' and therefore should not be granted the rights of voters. There was also talk of how Corporations were often at the behest of governments. They were in those days "Created for a specific purpose or charter". Also the argument was raised that I raised in my last posting that our covenant is with People as in "We the People" and the whole legal set of rights (which they have some) are different from those of People, and that if the People at large are not served, than this ruling shouldn't be made.
Just
listening to Randy Rhodes I am filled anew with disgust for this
President. He is useless to the
progressive cause. He chasses after the
same “big money” and puts people in from Monsanto and other big corporations in
key cabinet posts, as if this will somehow please the right wingers. He should know by now that virtually nothing
he does will please them, and the idea that he is still trying desperately to
please them at this late date is highly disconcerting. If he were any kind of a leader he’d take the
offencive on the income tax front and go after these 401C4 groups in a major
way like no president has done since perhaps Truman. If he were shrewed in the political skills as
he should be- - he’d be putting people like Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers on
trial. [material deleted here] and Obama goes along with it to keep everyone
happy. But as Randy Rhodes said
“Democrats will never tap into the sort of money the Republicans have. And if you remember the brutal but basic
lesson from the War Games movie “The only way to win the game is – Not To
Play”. Period. Stop apologizing for doing nothing wrong. With all the stuff this President could be a
real moral crusader about he picks silly stuff like going after the Associated
Press because they were threatening to “scoop him” by a few hours on a story. Members of the AP specifically asked people
if there were National Security concerns and they told him “Not any more”. But then they run with the story and get
fingered. And now we are hearing stuff
like “The Associated Press placed lives in danger”. We have this piddeling thing in Arizona with
the immigration enforcement. These local
police had and have good reason to believe they were only following the
law. Is this President so dumb not to
know that setting all else aside, it’s just bad P R during a campaign. What the hell is wrong with a few cops in
Arizona taking it upon themselves to enforce the law? And then of course we have the Affordable
Care act. Well he won in the court on
that one, and maybe he’ll win on the gay issue.
What victory is it to establish that the residents of the largest state
in the Union- - do not have the right by Majority Vote of the people- - to pass
a law? He won’t go after corruption
either in congress or in Wall Street or in the tax regulations. All he’ll do is this penny ante stuff which
makes him look stupid. He won’t take on
Rush Limbaugh, who is arguably the man that really sets the policy for the
Republican Party. He’ll let Rush
Limbaugh beat him like a drum month after month and so nothing, which to many
makes it seem that he’s afraid a lot of Rush says against him may be true. That’s the pragmatic conclusion to come
to. We know it isn’t true- - but this
President is “tone deaf” when it comes to appearance, and projecting an aire of
leadership and being in charge. As I
said in the last posting, I’m glad this President isn’t up for election anymore
because I don’t think I could bring
myself to vote for him.
Sometimes even I go "gee, I never even thought of that before". For instance after the Jewish War of 70 AD, "where did all those temple priests go". We are prompted to believe that some hand just swooped down and transported them to some far away place, perhaps where all of the lepricons went. You had this entrenched Moneyed Establishment. Can you just picture for instance- - Grover Norquist and Sheldon Addelson just "going away" one fine day? Think about it. People with money have resources the rest of us do not. People with a vested interest like the tobacco companies aren't just going to slink off one fine day with their tail between their legs. They will adapt and change to the extent they need to to survive. Clearly the rest of the Diaspera- - - had no appetite for Temple Sacrifice with Priests and all. We are to assume all of this "altar" stuff just vanished overnight and the Jewish people never gave it another thought. It's an oddity but Jesus as portrayed in the gospels was more in sympathy with these temple Priests - - even the money changers- - than he was with the Pharicees, which is a newer group founded by the Macabees as more "spiritually devoted" and wanted to "Purge the society of its Helenistic or Greek elements which had pervaded that society. In other words the pharicees were the stricter of the two sects. I have heard only a minority of the population of Palestine actually did the whole Jerusalem pilgrimage bit. Even in the Gospel of John there is general talk of "are you going to the festival?" as if "No" were an accepted option. I would suggest that these Priests were so into the blood and atonement for sin thing - - - (even in the old testament God is often quoted as being personally "fed up" with all their feasts) - - - they needed another "Sacrifice". My guess is that originally they worshipped the Slain Christ and not a Risen Christ. And you orthodox people know that "Yeshua" didn't meet death by crucifixion anyhow but by stoning, under the traditional Jewish law. Jesus said of Mary Magdolane "She is annointing me for the day of my death". Later in the same Gospel Jesus is quoted as saying to the Father "And now I am no longer in the world". Later in the same Gospel (after sucking on the vine laced with gall probably) Jesus said "It is finished". This prompts the question of "Well if IT is really finished- then there is no need for any resurrection. The same Gospel said he was annointed with spices That Same Day, as mandated by Jewish burial customs. (Easter morning therefore needn't have occurred) This only came later when cross polinization with Gnosticism brought in the whole Born Again and Rebirth elements. It's interesting (and often passed over) to note the references to "The Temple" in Christian writings or that said "original Christians" hung out at the temple, where one would suppose they were at least tolerated to at least a degree. To this day Catholics feature a crucified Jesus on their crosses. Tertulian )turn of the third century) was what I call the first theological "physicist" to coin a term. That is he believed that the Soul and karma and sin were in fact physical things- - and being physical they could be purged by some sort of "blood" of one kind or another. However Jimmy Swaggart may be right. Jesus didn't drink wine but grape juice. He was a Nazarite so he couldn't drink wine, or touch a dead body, or eat any meat but fish, and of course not cut their hair or beards, had a distaste in general for the slaughter of animals, and believed that the sexes would evolve and lose their gender differences after a while. And by the way there is no reference at any time to Jesus eating any roasted lamb at this Last Supper. In prophecy remember that the Messiah was said of "He was considered cut off from the land of the living in his own time" and NO prophecy in the Bible I know refers to any period of forty days where he was seen by a few select people and then floated on up to Heaven in a cloud. Repeat. This KEY aspect of Jesus life is NEVER prophecied in the Bible.
I
had Randy Rhodes on at noon and at two.
I went to the courtyard for afternoon coffee and there were few people
out there. I had to almost chase her
down as she was leaving for a second cup.
In terms of the soap opera let’s just say that though it’s established
that the prisoner that EJ arranged the release of, was the one who tried to
kill Raphael intending to kill Nick, Samantha first blames Kate for having him
killed as some sort of “jilted lover”.
Then Samantha is convinced that Nick arranged for that thug to kill
Raphael. Gabriel had her baby with Sonny
delivering it flawlessly. How did he do
that? Hope saved Nick’s bacon
discharging her firearm just in the “nick” of time, instantly killing the
prisoner. Will had been shot wrestling
for the gun and was shot by the prisoner, who then began taunting Nick with
tormenting words. And EJ is still in
these secretive meetings with Justin, looking to bring down his father. This prompts the question as to whether his wife to be will be happy living in the middle of a replay of the Godfather movies when gangland wars break out.
No comments:
Post a Comment