I still feel compelled to comment although I have not taken the time to review the material covered in the debate. What I find incomprehensible is that the creationists have such a dim and limited view of the divine. They assume God is only capable of writing literal truths and is incapable of using metaphor to describe a complex and nuanced reality. They hold this view in spite of the fact that in the bible itself, Jesus uses parable and metaphor all the time to explain things to his disciples! So my critique of creationists is not that they are poor scientists, which is a given, but that their view and practice of Christianity is highly defective.
Great idea! The idiots who are writing that Obama is a Nazi or ruining the country never lived in a real fascist environment like my family did, and are blind to the fact that thanks to him, we are no longer the only industrialized nation without national health care (imperfect as it is). To all the sad sack pessimists who get off dissing our country and our President, I will repeat what was said to me back in the sixties when we were trying to get our troops out of Viet Nam, "This is America. Love it or Leave It!"
1. The article by Barajas does not address the "right" to follow a Presidential Proclamation, but rather the "choice" not to follow it.
2. Separation of powers addresses the separation of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, and does not apply to whether a state or county governmental agency must comply. That issue is covered by the scope of Federal vs. state and local authority. While a different conversation, it does not apply to the article, because as stated before, Barajas is not refering to the right to fly or not fly at half mast, but rather the choice.
3. The statement about the Separation of Powers Doctrine being rendered ineffective due to a "severe lack of ignorance" is incorrect. RJ Fletcher's comments prove there is no lack of ignorance at all.
This is not a news story, but an editorial opinion based on the unstated assumptioni that a newspaper should make bottom line the priority instead of getting information to its readers. It used to be the other way around, and the alternative newspapers would roundly criticize a newspaper if it put profit over informing the public. So this is a big turnaround, not for the Star, but for the alternative press. The author criticizes the Star for trying to expose a cover up, even if it is not a wise business decision. Sounds like real journalism to me.
Hmmmmm? I know some Republicans who are smart, so I know it is not a pre-requuisite that one must be incapable of rational thought to be a party member. However, it does seem that it does help if one wants to rise in the ranks. That they felt compelled to open their mouths at all on the topic when they were not voting for Obama means they are actually clueless enough to believe that their words will carry some weight. In fact those words carry as much weight as the air between their ears.
She's a celeb. At one time the word came from one who is celebrated, which implied that one did something worth celebrating. Long before I was born, and I am 64, the word lost the connection to doing something worth celebrating, and just came to mean someone who is famous. By definition, she is successful as long as she is known, whether it is for something worthy, or for nothing at all. As one person put it, there is no such thing as bad publicity. She created a way to get it. It was reported and we read it, and now I am commenting on it. Funny how that works.
Recent Comments
1. The article by Barajas does not address the "right" to follow a Presidential Proclamation, but rather the "choice" not to follow it.
2. Separation of powers addresses the separation of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, and does not apply to whether a state or county governmental agency must comply. That issue is covered by the scope of Federal vs. state and local authority. While a different conversation, it does not apply to the article, because as stated before, Barajas is not refering to the right to fly or not fly at half mast, but rather the choice.
3. The statement about the Separation of Powers Doctrine being rendered ineffective due to a "severe lack of ignorance" is incorrect. RJ Fletcher's comments prove there is no lack of ignorance at all.