Faith-Based Control Alive and Well

Though some of Utah's alcohol regs have changed recently, entrepreneurs still need permission from Religious leaders to hold licenses to serve alcohol within 200' of Church property.

Why can people WITH faith discriminate against those without it and not the other way around?

Why don't Religious leaders have to ask Atheists or Agnostics for permission to put up buildings like Churches near bars, residential neighborhoods, schools or shopping centers?

I think faith based indoctrination is far MORE dangerous than is the potential for political brain-washing of our children through live and/or televised speeches by our political leadership.

On Fascism

Let's face it. The word 'Fascism' has become a buzz word widely accepted as terminology representing the view that a new Hitler/Dictator is on the way. Fascism is everyone's enemy and both sides use it against the other. Ironically, though, Fascism is the the enemy of both conservatism and liberalism as 'one party rules all' is the very definition of the term.

Most telling to me: It seems the conservatives these days are those who seem to insist on a one party system. It is they screaming 'sour grapes', 'wanting their country back' and telling the rest of us that you're only a 'great American' if you are one of them.

The point is moot. We will never have a one party system. We will never have a dictator. What we will have are a lot of screaming hypocrites coming at us from both sides.

On Libs vs. 'Cons

I'm tired of loosely flung terminology like, 'Anti-American, or Great-American'. These terms seem to fling from the right by my estimation and it smells like simple sour grapes.

Neither side should be questioning the other's patriotism. It parallels McCarthyism. Hannity and Limbaugh are VERY guilty of the practice.

They are not capable of holding office anywhere. Please don't lend credence to their day-in and day-out drivel.

They've turned American governance into a reality show.

It just ain't right. "

Med School Not What it Used to Be

Why would ANYONE go to Med School in this environment?

Our government is preparing to make good on a half-century-old promise to go social on the med profession.

A few reasons not to go to med school:

Doctors can never refuse care to you even if they can rest assured you will not pay them for their service.

They are NEVER allowed to make mistakes.

It takes a fortune to set up a practice that might land you in jail because after you perform some sort of simple surgery your foolish patient didn't take his antibiotics and change his bandage rendering said patient gangrenous and in need of amputation and a kidney-damaging bombardment of meds.

What if being a Chef held the same expectations as being an MD? You could never refuse someone service for unwillingness to pay meaning you have to feed everyone who walks in ... and feed them well lest you be held accountable for a substandard meal. If your customer isn't offered first priority over your other slave-driving customers somehow you are not doing your job. Wait, that sounds a lot like what people expect when going to a restaurant credit card in hand. Why do people expect to walk,crawl or be wheeled in to a medical facility for free?

Face it folks, on Med Care, entitlement is driving this without consideration for the insane amount of schooling, insuring and accountability that goes into being that guy or gal YOU insist make your life more comfortable if not downright save it from YOU.

Open Forum

All my HJ friends and enemies.

Let's talk about the HJ's interest in who they think post under multiple monikers.

Who cares?

Do You Feel Safer?

So I keep hearing/seeing the question, "Do you feel safer."

"Safer?"

Why a comparative analysis? Safer than I did before 9/11? On 9/11? Since? Since Obama took Office? Now that Bush is gone?Why is it on Obama to make me feel "safer" than I did 102 days ago? Were we less than safe then?

Frankly I've never really feared any foreign invasion and still do not. Maybe for a second on 9/11 but even then I don't think I felt less than safe. After watching Red Dawn as a teenager I probably welcomed an invasion somewhere deep down inside. No, when it comes to safe, I'd bet most would agree that domestic threats are more taxing on the ole confidence quotient. Hell they just arrested two kids for plotting a blood bath at my old High School (Covina High).

"Do you feel safer" is a rhetorical ploy to target Obama for any future attack and to make the assertion that YOU are NOT SAFE now that he's in charge. It's another 'failure' for which Limbaugh hopes and prays/preys.

Enhanced Interrogation Like Swine Flu

Viruses want us dead and they will stop at nothing to make it so. They will even stoop so low as to adapt to our methods for fighting them off.

Question: Why doesn’t the USA generally fear torture and it’s effectiveness against America abroad?

Answer: Because we know our enemies will do it and we have trained our soldiers to deal with it. We also keep information distribution down to a need-to-know basis.

Enhanced Interrogation by the CIA might have yielded some results during our struggle with Terror. If so, I submit techniques employed brought truths to fruition only because our enemies did not believe we’d do it. They were ill prepared. Now they will adapt and be prepared.

How long before we move on to cutting off toes or scorching genitals because our enemies have learned to tolerate this less than torturous thing called water boarding? If it isn't "torture" how hard can it be to adapt to?

When did the best we can do become brutality leading to fear of the innocuous water board? Our enemies are willing to cut your head off slowly in front of someone else to make them talk. How can waterboarding compare to that? It's like taking a thumb tack to a gun fight. It's like answering a nuclear bomb with severe name calling.

If torture is our best bet for gathering intel, we clearly have a problem. I'd rather rest assured I live in the smartest country on Earth with the greatest and most creative surveillance and information gathering techniques.

I hope we can do better!

If torture was effective, we’ve spent our last chance for it to be so. I hope the information gleaned from it was worth the effort.

Open Forum

There have been a couple topics of discussion deleted from the HJ site recently.

One, the Peterson USU BJ in the steam room thang,

Two, the funeral respecting a family's sacrifice in Iraq.

My take is that neither dialogue should have been deleted though the dialogue got "out of hand". There is a balance of argument there. No one should go there while grieving yet if they do they should be prepared to take the good with the bad. I can see how the Alleman family could stand tall with clenched fists whilst the rest of us beat up on Desertique who believes funerals are appropriate venues for protest. That said, the only problem I really have with her comments is the venue she chose for expressing this view. I didn't catch the entire dialogue but I do remember going through it just before deletion and thinking there was an extreme view pushing her over the edge.

Let's talk right here.

Sex, Roles and Performance Enhancement at the Academy

Why offer Academy awards to best actor and actress? Why not best black act and best white act? Best straight act and best gay act? Why even supporting role designations? Ledger’s supporting roll was far more moving than most leads and might have rivaled any top performance.

On the other hand, he may have used performance enhancers. Would using deadly, illicit drugs to "get into a role" parallel Bonds' bringing himself to his world class peak at the ripe ole age of 40?

Exclusive GLBTA too Inclusive

Let's talk about the acronym GLBTA for a second. I say the movement needs to drop it if they insist homosexuality is a born trait and no one should deny the way things were meant to be.

If that insistence holds Nature's endorsement, then why  do Trannies do it? How can they justify the "Nature got it wrong" approach to maiming their own bodies?

When denying this as a moral issue, the GLBTA holds a platform that dictates, "We have no choice." Couldn't a homosexual become a Catholic Priest or even Cardinal and simply abstain? Couldn't someone born Bi stay true to their Church's moral standard by dating only the opposite gender? They may crave others of the same gender much like your average hetero married for 7 years or more ogles hotties of the opposite gender. It doesn't matter where you get your appetite as long as you eat at home.

They say one word should fit all with "Marriage" but if that word is to be used to define the gender make up of a relationship we have a civil rights issue on our hands; yet, we MUST remember to define male homosexuals as Gay and females Lesbian.

So why the Alliance? Strength in numbers? Maybe a more appropriate acronym would read ALSD: Alliance for Lives Sexually Defined.