American sitcoms have completely stayed away from Palestinians. Touchy subject matter? Taboo? Maybe, the over representation of Jewish writers have something to do with, as collectively, as they want to stay away from material that they might be too emotional about.
Well, the Palestinians were finally recognized yesterday on Family Guy.
Thank you once again Seth MacFarlane.
In the following clip, Peter Griffin is making a comparison about how useless the ham radio is that he bought from his buddy Quagmire. "Well this thing is worthless, like my Palestinian alarm clock":
If you didn't laugh, you don't belong in the West.
On a serious note, the Palestinians have behaved much better of late. So much so, no matter what their ultimate intentions are, they have swung world opinion towards them. I'm not talking the world opinion of the Far Left Moonbats or Far Right Hitlerites who already for different reasons supported the Palestinians. I'm talking about those in the center. And the demography that matter, the secular centrists (of which I am a member).
Certainly, the wall and the Gaza ass kicking has helped deter the Palestinians from major terrorist activity lately, but the reality is that since terrorism hasn't been happening, stalling tactics by Israel to make a Palestinian state happen are starting to be noticed even by the most rational of thinkers.
Up until now, the Palestinians have not deserved a state, nor have they shown desire for one that included even Israel living side by side them. And there is a good chunk of Palestinians that won't ever accept a Jewish majority state ever, including Hamas......at least on paper.
But now without violence, Israel has no choice but to do their best to let the Palestinians have a state and see what happens, at least if they want to be seen as a country that has Western ethics going for them.
A Palestinian state is problematic because of the settlements. And a real solution is going to need extreme compromising from both sides. I do know that settlements need to cease until something is agreed upon, as their growth at this time are making Israel the bad guy, and up until very recently, the Palestinians and surrounding Arab countries have been the bad guy without any doubt.
November 16, 2009
November 7, 2009
Dualies
One of the biggest angles used by Joooo paranoid anti-semitic circus freaks is the concept of "dualies," or dual citizenship where Jews are supposedly more loyal to Israel than they are to mainly to their own country (mainly used in regards to American Jews).
Here is the thing, nobody born in any country signs on the dotted line that their number one concern is to be their country of origin or their current country.
The idea of being loyal to your country ahead of all else is ridiculous. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but it doesn't happen very often with anyone.
Lets look at me for instance. I'm a Canadian, atheist, ethnic Jew, married, no kids, a dog, a cat (that really shouldn't be on this list), and I work as a consultant.
My point is that loyalties change depending on the situation. As human beings, we have evolved an innate need to survive, and usually the survival instinct isn't about the greater good, but our own selfish need to survive as individuals.
My biggest concern is myself, followed by my wife, my dog, and my extended family. My country only concerns me when it does something to affect my main concerns. I'm loyal to those who employ me, but I can be bought too (though nobody is beating the door down).
As for ethnicity, because most of my family are Jews, Israel becomes a concern for me as well. Keeping in mind that Israel exists for me as a place of final refuge if anti-semitism gets out of hand either personally or even with others who share my ethnicity anywhere on this planet. But what Canada does affects me on a day to day basis much more than what Israel does (which hardly affects me at all, except maybe emotionally).
More important to me, than my country, is the idea of separation of church and state, the treatment of atheists, and educating the world that evolution is fact, and creation has no place in science class.
Why is this so important? As humans, I think most of us evolved the idea that when we know we are right, we want others to know and understand what we are right about....this is also true when it comes to those who think they are right as well but might be wrong, and those who are wrong (creationists).
I guess the idea of loyalty really comes into play when the situation is tense. For instance, lets say that a gun man enters my home and takes a gun out and says either you take a bullet in your head, or your wife does? What would I do? This is complicated. My inclination is that I live (might have to do with me being pretty much sure there is no after life, and this is my only shot having a life), but the story would probably come out that I had a choice. Could I go on knowing that people know that I let my wife have her brains blown out so I could live? This too is evolution based. We have evolved a sense of guilt. This sense usually stops us from being the shooter, but it also leads to how we behave under pressure.
What about if I was given top secret info from the Mounties that Israel was going to be bombed by Iran tomorrow, but I was also told that Canada for whatever reason, doesn't want to warn Israel, so I can't say anything. I would in fact warn them, as I would warn the USA, Great Britain, etc. (I wouldn't warn a Muslim majority country though....just being honest).
I guess I'm loyal to Westerners not dying ahead of my country.
Note: If I was told the Israel for whatever reason was to bomb a Western country, I would warn the Western country as well.
This brings me to the Fort Hood shooting. This is sort of where the idea of dualies, and loyalties gets really muddy. This is where loyalties lie with those who follow cults that go against The Golden Rule. Islam is such a cult in my eyes.
There is not another religious ideology that allows or makes excuses for the blowing up or shooting of innocent people.
A convert or die attitude while spreading Islam around the world seems to be the Muslim thingy. Sure, not many have died.....so far, but one thing is clear, Islam is not compatible with the West (which for the most part, respects The Golden Rule).
Can we trust as Westerners trust Islam firsters? I'm having a hard time with it the more I know. It is very important that the West does not bend to Muslims anymore. And profiling when they have positions that could bring harm to others, shouldn't be out of the question either.
Sure, this was just one incident. But who would fly planes into buildings full of civilians, or praise their God while going on a shooting spree? I can't think of anyone, but Muslims.
As for the anti-semites who fail to see the distinction between Jews and Muslims, here is an interesting tidbit found regarding Hasan:
You don't see Canadian or American Jews saying their nationality is Israeli or Jewish.
Muslims have a concept that there is such a thing as Muslim land or Arab land, and Israel is invading it, or stole it. Meanwhile, they have no problem "invading" Dearborn or just living on Western lands. Many Muslims have a problem with Westerners living in Muslim majority countries period. It is very hypocritical, but any culture that can accept suicide bombings of innocents isn't right in the head to begin with.
Here is the thing, nobody born in any country signs on the dotted line that their number one concern is to be their country of origin or their current country.
The idea of being loyal to your country ahead of all else is ridiculous. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but it doesn't happen very often with anyone.
Lets look at me for instance. I'm a Canadian, atheist, ethnic Jew, married, no kids, a dog, a cat (that really shouldn't be on this list), and I work as a consultant.
My point is that loyalties change depending on the situation. As human beings, we have evolved an innate need to survive, and usually the survival instinct isn't about the greater good, but our own selfish need to survive as individuals.
My biggest concern is myself, followed by my wife, my dog, and my extended family. My country only concerns me when it does something to affect my main concerns. I'm loyal to those who employ me, but I can be bought too (though nobody is beating the door down).
As for ethnicity, because most of my family are Jews, Israel becomes a concern for me as well. Keeping in mind that Israel exists for me as a place of final refuge if anti-semitism gets out of hand either personally or even with others who share my ethnicity anywhere on this planet. But what Canada does affects me on a day to day basis much more than what Israel does (which hardly affects me at all, except maybe emotionally).
More important to me, than my country, is the idea of separation of church and state, the treatment of atheists, and educating the world that evolution is fact, and creation has no place in science class.
Why is this so important? As humans, I think most of us evolved the idea that when we know we are right, we want others to know and understand what we are right about....this is also true when it comes to those who think they are right as well but might be wrong, and those who are wrong (creationists).
I guess the idea of loyalty really comes into play when the situation is tense. For instance, lets say that a gun man enters my home and takes a gun out and says either you take a bullet in your head, or your wife does? What would I do? This is complicated. My inclination is that I live (might have to do with me being pretty much sure there is no after life, and this is my only shot having a life), but the story would probably come out that I had a choice. Could I go on knowing that people know that I let my wife have her brains blown out so I could live? This too is evolution based. We have evolved a sense of guilt. This sense usually stops us from being the shooter, but it also leads to how we behave under pressure.
What about if I was given top secret info from the Mounties that Israel was going to be bombed by Iran tomorrow, but I was also told that Canada for whatever reason, doesn't want to warn Israel, so I can't say anything. I would in fact warn them, as I would warn the USA, Great Britain, etc. (I wouldn't warn a Muslim majority country though....just being honest).
I guess I'm loyal to Westerners not dying ahead of my country.
Note: If I was told the Israel for whatever reason was to bomb a Western country, I would warn the Western country as well.
This brings me to the Fort Hood shooting. This is sort of where the idea of dualies, and loyalties gets really muddy. This is where loyalties lie with those who follow cults that go against The Golden Rule. Islam is such a cult in my eyes.
There is not another religious ideology that allows or makes excuses for the blowing up or shooting of innocent people.
A convert or die attitude while spreading Islam around the world seems to be the Muslim thingy. Sure, not many have died.....so far, but one thing is clear, Islam is not compatible with the West (which for the most part, respects The Golden Rule).
Can we trust as Westerners trust Islam firsters? I'm having a hard time with it the more I know. It is very important that the West does not bend to Muslims anymore. And profiling when they have positions that could bring harm to others, shouldn't be out of the question either.
Sure, this was just one incident. But who would fly planes into buildings full of civilians, or praise their God while going on a shooting spree? I can't think of anyone, but Muslims.
As for the anti-semites who fail to see the distinction between Jews and Muslims, here is an interesting tidbit found regarding Hasan:
“I got the impression that he was a committed soldier,” Khan said. He spoke often with Hasan about Hasan’s desire for a wife.
On a form filled out by those seeking spouses through a program at the mosque, Hasan listed his birthplace as Arlington, Va., but his nationality as Palestinian, Khan said.
“I don’t know why he listed Palestinian,” Khan said, “He was not born in Palestine.”
You don't see Canadian or American Jews saying their nationality is Israeli or Jewish.
Muslims have a concept that there is such a thing as Muslim land or Arab land, and Israel is invading it, or stole it. Meanwhile, they have no problem "invading" Dearborn or just living on Western lands. Many Muslims have a problem with Westerners living in Muslim majority countries period. It is very hypocritical, but any culture that can accept suicide bombings of innocents isn't right in the head to begin with.
October 22, 2009
Evolution - The 'Best' Counter Arguments
Some yutz named left comments on my blog a month or two ago. He emailed me today, stating his newest comment was too long, and wasn't accepted. Same old mine quoting idiocy that bloggers like me see over and over again, by desperate creationists, who go to great lengths embarrassing themselves.
Instead of refuting each mine quote, I did a quick search and found this great vidoe. It cover most his crapola:
Here is the email:
Hi friend,
I could not post a comment on your blog because its length would not be accommodated,
so I do it here.
Moses - a fictional character? I'll have to provide you proof that it's otherwise,
just as I've collected proof against the evolutionary theory you so proudly flaunt.
I lost which thread I last wrote you so I'll take the opportunity here to show you what I've come up with to refute your arguments, since then.
Since you disregard the large gaps in the fossil record, you may be interested in some published quotes from recognized evolutionary biologists on the subject:
"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)
"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)
"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)
"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)
"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)
"It is interesting that all the cases of gradual evolution that we know about from the fossil record seem to involve smooth changes without the appearance of novel structures and functions." (Wills, C., Genetic Variability, 1989, p. 94-96.)
"We seem to have no choice but to invoke the rapid divergence of populations too small to leave legible fossil records." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 99.)
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)
"As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)
"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163.)
"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)
"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.' . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71.)
"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.)
"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163.)
"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40.)
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140.)
- wishing you well, my friend.
--
By default, always take the high road.
*************************************************************
My response:
Thanks, but I have no use for someone who is willfully ignorant. I read the first three paragraphs, and when you mine quote scientists, that is enough. I've seen all your crapola before from others. It is useless. You evolution deniers are jokes. Mine quoting from 1980, 1971. Sheesh. Do you have any self respect?
There has not one scientific study that has refuted evolution. Not one. All finds fit into the evolution jigsaw puzzle. Not one find that goes against evolution. You are embarrassing Jews with your nonsensical crap. Seriously. The overwhelming majority of Jews accept evolution. You have big psychological problems (severe brainwashing perhaps) which has taken away your reasoning powers when it comes to this topic.
Please stop embarrassing Jews by denying evolution on the internet. You make us look bad. If you want to believe in fairy tales, fine. If you want to believe that evolution is bull, fine. But use a non Jewish name when you do it on the internet.
You really need to read Dawkins new book with an open mind.
Sincerely,
The Atheist Jew
If your religion can't accept evolution as fact, it is ridiculous from the getgo.
**********************************************
His response (so much for taking the high road hee hee):
Keep eating your bacon, nameless, it seems
to be working - making you mindless.
**************************************
My response:
It is you who has been brainwashed. Not me. Every single mine quote you made has been tackled by those who understand evolution. Some refuted, and some explained. The scientists who you mine quote, all accept evolution as fact. You are an embarrassment to Jews. But luckily and not surprisingly, you are not in the majority. A complete reality denier in order to make your version of fairy tales correct. You are sad, but it due to severe brainwashing. Snap out of it.
Instead of refuting each mine quote, I did a quick search and found this great vidoe. It cover most his crapola:
Here is the email:
Hi friend,
I could not post a comment on your blog because its length would not be accommodated,
so I do it here.
Moses - a fictional character? I'll have to provide you proof that it's otherwise,
just as I've collected proof against the evolutionary theory you so proudly flaunt.
I lost which thread I last wrote you so I'll take the opportunity here to show you what I've come up with to refute your arguments, since then.
Since you disregard the large gaps in the fossil record, you may be interested in some published quotes from recognized evolutionary biologists on the subject:
"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)
"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)
"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)
"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)
"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)
"It is interesting that all the cases of gradual evolution that we know about from the fossil record seem to involve smooth changes without the appearance of novel structures and functions." (Wills, C., Genetic Variability, 1989, p. 94-96.)
"We seem to have no choice but to invoke the rapid divergence of populations too small to leave legible fossil records." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 99.)
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)
"As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)
"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163.)
"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)
"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.' . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71.)
"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.)
"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163.)
"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40.)
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140.)
- wishing you well, my friend.
--
By default, always take the high road.
*************************************************************
My response:
Thanks, but I have no use for someone who is willfully ignorant. I read the first three paragraphs, and when you mine quote scientists, that is enough. I've seen all your crapola before from others. It is useless. You evolution deniers are jokes. Mine quoting from 1980, 1971. Sheesh. Do you have any self respect?
There has not one scientific study that has refuted evolution. Not one. All finds fit into the evolution jigsaw puzzle. Not one find that goes against evolution. You are embarrassing Jews with your nonsensical crap. Seriously. The overwhelming majority of Jews accept evolution. You have big psychological problems (severe brainwashing perhaps) which has taken away your reasoning powers when it comes to this topic.
Please stop embarrassing Jews by denying evolution on the internet. You make us look bad. If you want to believe in fairy tales, fine. If you want to believe that evolution is bull, fine. But use a non Jewish name when you do it on the internet.
You really need to read Dawkins new book with an open mind.
Sincerely,
The Atheist Jew
If your religion can't accept evolution as fact, it is ridiculous from the getgo.
**********************************************
His response (so much for taking the high road hee hee):
Keep eating your bacon, nameless, it seems
to be working - making you mindless.
**************************************
My response:
It is you who has been brainwashed. Not me. Every single mine quote you made has been tackled by those who understand evolution. Some refuted, and some explained. The scientists who you mine quote, all accept evolution as fact. You are an embarrassment to Jews. But luckily and not surprisingly, you are not in the majority. A complete reality denier in order to make your version of fairy tales correct. You are sad, but it due to severe brainwashing. Snap out of it.
October 7, 2009
Roman Polanski's Story Could Have Been An Old Testament Saga
OK, I had a tough time writing this at times. But my smiles overcame me.
Is it just me or has it dawned on anyone else that Roman Polanski's life to date would have made a great story in the Old Testament?
I'm no expert on the Old Testament, but I know enough of the themes of many of the stories that I see that if Polanski was born 3000 years earlier, he would either be a hero, tragic character, or villain, depending on the writer's interpretation of what Polanski did in context to what God desired him to do.
I checked a brief biography of Polanski's life on Wikipedia. His parents were agnostics, his mother born brought up Catholic (having a Catholic mother and a Jewish father), and his father was born a Jew.
Right there, God could have took a hissy fit and punish Polanski's dad for marrying a non Jew, and he could have put a pox on the family for that. In fact, that pox and hissy fit could have originated with Polanski's father, a Jew, who committed "the sin" of intermarriage. Again, it depends on what the bible writer wants to write and how he writes it.
Since most of you know the rest of the story. Let me state in with a biblical slant.
I've decided to place God's original wrath on Polanski's mother's father.
God was pissed that this Russian Jew would marry a Catholic and then raise his children Catholic. This pissed him off big time, but he waited to unleash his wrath.
One of the children Bula, was poison to God. Not only was she the product of a mixed marriage, and a doubter, she had to take it a step further, and seek out and seduce another Jew like her mother did. This made God froth at the mouth.
This intermarriage stuff was getting out of hand. God had to create the settings for the Holocaust to teach the Jews a lesson. And it was Bula's fault for putting him over the edge.
God wanted to punish Jews for marrying non Jews and non Jews for marrying Jews. Hitler was the perfect guy for the job, because Hitler didn't give a hoot about Jewish laws that state a Jew is a Jew by either religion or if the mother is a Jew. Hitler was down with what God wanted. He considered anyone who even had one Jewish grandparent to be a Jew.
The Polanski's were taken to concentration camps. God thought for a second, which Polanski should die. One needs to die, or what is the point? Bula, was the best choice. She would probably marry another Jew if she survived the camps. And women are only important to God if they are ethnic Jews. So Bula was killed, her husband allowed to live and reflect on his choice, and Roman was allowed to escape. God wasn't through with Roman yet.
Polanski was brought up Catholic from there. He was in fact, not an ethic Jew anyway, nor a religious one, God wanted to show the world what a mess the product of a mixed marriage can become.
The first thing God did was to inflict Polanski with the idea that 13 year old girls are hot, no matter how old you are. And God gave Polanski extra free will to act on his urges. Even though God gave everyone the same extra free will and the same desires during biblical times, this is now and that was then.
God saw that Polanski was unsure of his existence, and God wanted no part of Polanski believing in him even considering his existence. God just wanted to prove to the rest of the world he exists.
So God punished him some more, by sending a band of heathens who were worshiping false prophets to do his work. Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate was brutally murdered, in a way that made God smile.
So now, Polanski was faithless. But what else could God do to show the world that intermarriage is a grave sin? He did bless Roman with the urge to have sex with very young girls. So he tempted Roman with one, and Roman, who knew better, couldn't prevent the God given urge he had to booze up a 13 year and then rape her anally. God figured it would be cool to ad some Sodom and Gomorrah into Roman's story.
Even though back in biblical times, Roman wouldn't have received even a question when it came to raping a thirteen year old girl, God knew the times had changed enough and the general population developed ethics that contradicted those in the bible, and Roman had to flee.
For thirty years (why not 40?), he has been in exile. And the world now knoweth that intermarriage for Jews is a big no no.
The story continues.
Is it just me or has it dawned on anyone else that Roman Polanski's life to date would have made a great story in the Old Testament?
I'm no expert on the Old Testament, but I know enough of the themes of many of the stories that I see that if Polanski was born 3000 years earlier, he would either be a hero, tragic character, or villain, depending on the writer's interpretation of what Polanski did in context to what God desired him to do.
I checked a brief biography of Polanski's life on Wikipedia. His parents were agnostics, his mother born brought up Catholic (having a Catholic mother and a Jewish father), and his father was born a Jew.
Right there, God could have took a hissy fit and punish Polanski's dad for marrying a non Jew, and he could have put a pox on the family for that. In fact, that pox and hissy fit could have originated with Polanski's father, a Jew, who committed "the sin" of intermarriage. Again, it depends on what the bible writer wants to write and how he writes it.
Since most of you know the rest of the story. Let me state in with a biblical slant.
I've decided to place God's original wrath on Polanski's mother's father.
God was pissed that this Russian Jew would marry a Catholic and then raise his children Catholic. This pissed him off big time, but he waited to unleash his wrath.
One of the children Bula, was poison to God. Not only was she the product of a mixed marriage, and a doubter, she had to take it a step further, and seek out and seduce another Jew like her mother did. This made God froth at the mouth.
This intermarriage stuff was getting out of hand. God had to create the settings for the Holocaust to teach the Jews a lesson. And it was Bula's fault for putting him over the edge.
God wanted to punish Jews for marrying non Jews and non Jews for marrying Jews. Hitler was the perfect guy for the job, because Hitler didn't give a hoot about Jewish laws that state a Jew is a Jew by either religion or if the mother is a Jew. Hitler was down with what God wanted. He considered anyone who even had one Jewish grandparent to be a Jew.
The Polanski's were taken to concentration camps. God thought for a second, which Polanski should die. One needs to die, or what is the point? Bula, was the best choice. She would probably marry another Jew if she survived the camps. And women are only important to God if they are ethnic Jews. So Bula was killed, her husband allowed to live and reflect on his choice, and Roman was allowed to escape. God wasn't through with Roman yet.
Polanski was brought up Catholic from there. He was in fact, not an ethic Jew anyway, nor a religious one, God wanted to show the world what a mess the product of a mixed marriage can become.
The first thing God did was to inflict Polanski with the idea that 13 year old girls are hot, no matter how old you are. And God gave Polanski extra free will to act on his urges. Even though God gave everyone the same extra free will and the same desires during biblical times, this is now and that was then.
God saw that Polanski was unsure of his existence, and God wanted no part of Polanski believing in him even considering his existence. God just wanted to prove to the rest of the world he exists.
So God punished him some more, by sending a band of heathens who were worshiping false prophets to do his work. Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate was brutally murdered, in a way that made God smile.
So now, Polanski was faithless. But what else could God do to show the world that intermarriage is a grave sin? He did bless Roman with the urge to have sex with very young girls. So he tempted Roman with one, and Roman, who knew better, couldn't prevent the God given urge he had to booze up a 13 year and then rape her anally. God figured it would be cool to ad some Sodom and Gomorrah into Roman's story.
Even though back in biblical times, Roman wouldn't have received even a question when it came to raping a thirteen year old girl, God knew the times had changed enough and the general population developed ethics that contradicted those in the bible, and Roman had to flee.
For thirty years (why not 40?), he has been in exile. And the world now knoweth that intermarriage for Jews is a big no no.
The story continues.
October 3, 2009
Is Fox News Trying To Lose Or Confuse Viewers
I've admitted here before that I watch Fox News. I'm gravitated to mostly because it is like watching a train wreck. I'm fascinated by the constant whining and spinning of the marginalized Religious Right disguising themselves as journalists and a political party. The cute on air blondes don't hurt their cause with me either.
So I put it on this morning, and two featured stories today made me ask myself "is this Fox or CNN?"
First they had a medical expert who said that half the newborns in the USA today will live to at least 104. Interesting fact, but also took it a step further and said that America has dropped to 40 something from 11th in the past decade when it comes to countries and life expectancy. And you know what he blamed it on? NOT HAVING NATIONAL HEALTH CARE. Wow, on Fox. Even the talking heads couldn't dispute what he was talking about.
Some more advice from the health guy, he said Americans need to go out and "walk."
Then, to top it off, they had their science expert discussing the recent find of Ardi.
One of the talking heads asked if this was the missing link. And the science guy gave a real answer, that this find is too young because it is only 4 million years old and that humans and chimps diverged around 6 million years ago. Although the real real answer (I can say real real if Whoopi can say rape rape) is that it is in fact a missing link. There are many, but scientists have also found many links that are no longer missing, so that they know pretty much what the missing links would look like.
But the guy on Fox this morning amazed me, before the find was discussed he called this exciting news and even blurted out "wake the kids." This was the same guy, I think, who not so long ago did a one sided interview with that Discovery Institute imbecile who reminds me a little of David Schwimmer (Casey Luskin), who was going on and on about how science books have it wrong when it comes to evolution.
I just saw the Luskin video again, and the guy who interviewed the Fox science expert was not the same dough head who interviewed Luskin.
Any way, what are the people who take Fox News seriously (evolution deniers and/or teabaggers) gonna think after watching this mornings broadcast?
So I put it on this morning, and two featured stories today made me ask myself "is this Fox or CNN?"
First they had a medical expert who said that half the newborns in the USA today will live to at least 104. Interesting fact, but also took it a step further and said that America has dropped to 40 something from 11th in the past decade when it comes to countries and life expectancy. And you know what he blamed it on? NOT HAVING NATIONAL HEALTH CARE. Wow, on Fox. Even the talking heads couldn't dispute what he was talking about.
Some more advice from the health guy, he said Americans need to go out and "walk."
Then, to top it off, they had their science expert discussing the recent find of Ardi.
One of the talking heads asked if this was the missing link. And the science guy gave a real answer, that this find is too young because it is only 4 million years old and that humans and chimps diverged around 6 million years ago. Although the real real answer (I can say real real if Whoopi can say rape rape) is that it is in fact a missing link. There are many, but scientists have also found many links that are no longer missing, so that they know pretty much what the missing links would look like.
But the guy on Fox this morning amazed me, before the find was discussed he called this exciting news and even blurted out "wake the kids." This was the same guy, I think, who not so long ago did a one sided interview with that Discovery Institute imbecile who reminds me a little of David Schwimmer (Casey Luskin), who was going on and on about how science books have it wrong when it comes to evolution.
I just saw the Luskin video again, and the guy who interviewed the Fox science expert was not the same dough head who interviewed Luskin.
Any way, what are the people who take Fox News seriously (evolution deniers and/or teabaggers) gonna think after watching this mornings broadcast?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)