Welcome to America, where a message of tolerance has corporations shaking in their boots.
All three major networks refused a commercial for the United Church of Christ–one that featured two bouncers refusing admission to (among others) two men who one assumes were supposed to be gay. They weren’t skipping or fondling one another, and one of them wasn’t wearing a wedding dress. And the announcer’s voice said, “No matter who you are or where are on life’s journey, you’re welcome here.”
ABC refused it because they don’t air religious ads (although dramas with nudity and profanity, that’s okay.) And CBS and NBC were skittish over the notion of advocating the notion that Jesus might accept gays (which is a hoot coming from the network that airs “Will and Grace.” Apparently it’s okay to laugh at gay men; just not accept them as people in the name of the Christian Messiah.)
This is, unfortunately, one of the results of Conservatism: Fear. Fear of rocking the boat. Fear of reprisal. Fear of gay rights. Fear of change. It’s one of the reasons Bush is successful: In a country still walking on eggshells since 9/11, he speaks fluent fear (indeed, his command of it surpasses his grasp of English.)
You just have to wonder how far this country has fallen when a simple message of tolerance and acceptance inspires fear of reprisal from those who preach intolerance and segregation. And how much further yet we can fall.
PAD
• 
TWL:
Proof that said concerns are false, please. Proof not requested, but demanded. Every environmental scientist I know says you’re full of crap on this one.
Oh dear me, I so love throwing people’s words back in their faces.
First, as others have pointed out, science cannot “prove” anything. That ain’t how the process works.
Just a quick thought for all of you: ever notice how Fox News is known as this bastion of conservative commentary, while Fox’s broadcast arm is home to some of the most thoroughly liberal shows on television (“The Simpsons,” “Trading Spouses,” “The OC”…)?
Has anyone else ever gotten the feeling that Rupert Murdoch is playing one big fat joke on all of us crazy Americans by burning both ends of the candle? How else can you explain the same group being responsible for both Bill O’Reilly and “Temptation Island?”
Simple: Rupert Murdoch is the devil.
Nice try, EClark, but one of the mainstays of the scientific method is that proving a claim false is easy. It’s proving a claim true that’s impossible. Disproving a claim merely involves finding one counterexample; “proving” one involves showing that it works every single time forever.
For example, the claim “the Earth causes all objects to accelerate away from it” is trivially disprovable, whereas the claim that it causes all objects to accelerate TOWARDS it would involve testing every object ever made.
I’d be a hëll of a lousy teacher if I got something that basic wrong on my home subject, now wouldn’t I?
TWL
“Hurm. Just realized how potentially partisan my post could sound. Let me clarify.
“My glee isn’t at the idea of millions of schoolkids embracing the concept of the Separation of Church and State (although, admittedly, I would hope they would), it’s at the idea of our youth engaging in open and (hopefully) civil conversation of the basic tenets of our nation. The thought of kids becoming a more involved and informed citizenry at such an early age is what sets my heart aflutter.”
And I agree with you completely!
Any chance of a pro-life democrat getting pushed as a presidential or vp candidate?
If you think the red state republicans will ever stand for Giulliani as the GOP nominee, I’ve got a bridge I’ve been looking to unload that might interest you.
That also explains why Fox would air it, being the youngest and the least inertia-ridden of the big 4.
Question: Did Fox actually air the commercial, or did they air a report about how other networks have refused to run it and included the commercial as part of the discussion?
Conservative or liberal, you can’t deny the chilling effect of the FCC clampdown. Here in glorious St. Louis, we got to see “Hoosiers” on Veterans Day instead of “Saving Private Ryan” for fear of the FCC.
Now this, from the Associated Press:
***********
In an apparent reversal of decades of U.S. practice, recent federal Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations bar American companies from publishing works by dissident writers in countries under sanction unless they first obtain U.S. government approval.
The restriction, condemned by critics as a violation of the First Amendment, means that books and other works banned by some totalitarian regimes cannot be published freely in the United States, a country that prides itself as the international beacon of free expression.
**********
That means everything from “Reading Lolita in Tehran” to “Dr. Zhivago” would have been ILLEGAL to read in the U.S. Anyone else scared?
I read and I want to respond, I read further and discover that Jim in Iowa has already said what I want to (except for maybe the global warming thing. In terms of percentages, I’m thinking Man has little to do with global warming since you can drive through all the environmental laws you want and a good burp from a volcano will render it all useless. What’s the number from National Geographic? We’re something under 10% of contributary causes of global warning? So reducing it to 8% isn’t going to do anything…)
Jim already covered this, but
“Sure, you “welcome” them at the same time that you tell them if they don’t force themselves to be straight they’re going to hëll.”
Umm, no. We’re all going to Hëll unless God steps in. What we’re doing has nothing to do with our destination, only our journey. So a gay man and I are as good as brothers – we’re both doomed unless Jesus intervenes and neither of us are worse or better than the other.
To suggest that conservatives “hate homosexuals” is ascribing feelings inaccurately and unjustly.
We’re all going to Hëll unless God steps in.
Which quite nicely encapsulates why I personally find organized religion of no great worth. Why people find personal solace in a philosophy that says “you’re screwed unless someone else steps in to save you” is something I’ve always found mystifying. If it works for you, great, but I’m in no hurry to sign up.
(And yes, in this case I guess I am referring to Christianity in general, since I don’t believe most other faiths have that as a core tenet. I could be wrong there, though.)
TWL
I don’t begin to dispute that liberals can be as huge jarheads as anyone. Indeed, anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention has seen me say repeatedly that liberal PC thinking has done as much damage as anything else to the concept of free speech. Furthermore, I think separation of church and state is a joke. Christmas is a Federal holiday and “In God We Trust” is everywhere from on the money to inside Federal courthouses, so who’s kidding whom? Accept that this country is going to continue to shove God in your face, keep the Ten Commandments on display and play Christmas music at school concerts, and let’s just move on.
But this go-around, considering that it’s been conservatives who have used the acceptance as gays as a scare tactic repeatedly for political gain–from gays in the military in order to hobble Clinton to gays in marriage in order to make sure conservative Bush supporters come out to vote (what, you think anti-gay initiatives just happened to appear in eleven states?)–the conservatives GOP can credit this round of fear all for themselves. Just as the GOP leaders have kept America in a constant state of fear for their very lives for the last three years. And all the “Yeah? Well so’s your mother!” responses aren’t going to change that.
PAD
But this go-around, considering that it’s been conservatives who have used the acceptance as gays as a scare tactic repeatedly for political gain–from gays in the military in order to hobble Clinton to gays in marriage in order to make sure conservative Bush supporters come out to vote (what, you think anti-gay initiatives just happened to appear in eleven states?)–the conservatives GOP can credit this round of fear all for themselves. Just as the GOP leaders have kept America in a constant state of fear for their very lives for the last three years. And all the “Yeah? Well so’s your mother!” responses aren’t going to change that.
PAD,
Did I miss it? Did any of the networks actually say that they did not run this BECAUSE of fear of conservatives who support the marriage ammendment? I suggest this is your *opinion* and that there are no actual facts to prove it. If a clearly conservative network, Fox News, chooses to run the ad, I find your opinion to lack any weight. That, of course, is my opinion.
Jim in Iowa
I would also say it’s prevented the state from becoming a tool of religious institutions as well. For the most part.
That’s the beauty of the separation of church and state that Jefferson so strongly believed in: It works both ways. When church and state become intertwined, you have inquisitions and witch hunts. When they’re kept separate, religion is free to provide comfort for those that seek it without coercion while the state is kept out of the thought police business.
Jim,
Again I’ll ask: Did Fox News air the ad as and advertisement or did they run it as part of a story about other networks’ refusal to run it?
Again I’ll ask: Did Fox News air the ad as and advertisement or did they run it as part of a story about other networks’ refusal to run it?
I read in a news report, but can’t find it right now, that they actually accepted the ad to run as a regular advertisement. Not sure if it has actually run yet or not. I don’t get cable, so I wouldn’t see it anyways.
Jim in Iowa
Here is what I found:
“The church says the ad has been accepted on a number of other networks, including ABC Family, BET Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, TBS and TNT.”
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/01/news/fortune500/jesus_ad_ban/
Jim in Iowa
“The church says the ad has been accepted on a number of other networks, including ABC Family, BET Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, TBS and TNT.”
So, ABC won’t air it on its regular network, but will on its family network?
Let’s look at tonight’s lineup and see if ABC is really scared of this ad getting conservatives up in arms:
7pm: Full House
8pm: Five People You Meet In Heaven
11pm: 700 Club
Hmmm, doesn’t look like its conservatives ABC is fearful of…..
Okay, that’s what I wanted to know. Fox News airing the ad as a paid advertisement at least shows that they don’t have any policy against religious ads. Maybe they feel comfortable in their market position not worry about things like that.
Or maybe, as I’d suspect, Rupert Murdoch would air a human sacrifice if he thought it would get ratings.
Rupert Murdoch would air human sacrifice if it would earn him money. Murdoch is the Gary Groth of TVland…he’ll use his news arm to bash conservative values into America’s head while using his entertainment arm to fund it all, exploiting anything he can. Fox is the channel that airs Simpsons, Married With Children, America’s Naughtiest Police Chases and Temptation Island. Fox glories in the decline of morals, Fox News protests the same decline. He’s making money from everyone, and he’s not even American!
Jim thank you for finaly putting down into words my problem with your religion: “we get to Heaven because of God’s grace, not my living a good life”
As long as you sign that loyality pledge, you get through the Pearly Gates, huh? I support you believing this. I do. It gives you comfort, and that’s the whole point of religion. And Peter David’s blog isn’t the place to debate it.
So I saw the ad last night while watching MASH on Hallmark. I didn’t think much, other than wondering why the Mormons were advertising as being the opening inclusive church. (Isn’t the Church of Christ the Mormons? Or am I confusing them with someone else).
The Mormons are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If the organization that made that ad refers to themselves as simply The Church of Christ, then they’re not the Mormons. I’ve seen loads of TV ads the Mormons have put on TV and they’ve always ended with, “This message was brought to you by the Mormans, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”
Ah..then I was confused…the commercial still sucked.
Re: Blaming Conservatives or Liberals:
I think both sides should look in the mirror, for both sides are equally to blame.
Jim thank you for finaly putting down into words my problem with your religion: “we get to Heaven because of God’s grace, not my living a good life”
As long as you sign that loyality pledge, you get through the Pearly Gates, huh? I support you believing this. I do. It gives you comfort, and that’s the whole point of religion. And Peter David’s blog isn’t the place to debate it.
I would not call it a loyalty pledge. I would say I have entered into a relationship with a person. As such, it is not a “game” of trying to do good, but my actions come out of a love for the person to whom I am committed. I am not faithful to my wife because I am following a printed list of rules. I am faithful to my wife because I love her and don’t want to do anything that would cause her harm or sorrow. The same is true in my relationship with God.
I am curious: Why do you see that as nailing your problem with religion? Not trying to debate your view, just curious about it.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, I believe I made the same comment about “the problem with religion” earlier in the thread.
If someone’s faith says that being saved has nothing to do with how good a person you were in life and everything to do with one particular act of … well, you don’t like “loyalty”, so let’s try “love” … then it’s a faith that frankly mystifies me, and not in good ways. It suggests that Bishop Desmond Tutu and the Zodiac killer both have equal chances to be saved so long as they make that one last Hail-Mary pass at the closing moments. I think that’s ill-advised.
I’m a pretty clear-cut atheist … but if there WERE a god, I’d like to think he/she/it would care a lot more about someone being a good and decent person who tries to make a difference in the world and a lot less about one particular administrative hoop being jumped through or not jumped through. My god, were there one, would be more results-oriented and less bureaucratic.
I can’t speak for the previous poster, but I hope that gives you a little more insight into my views, at least.
TWL
Nice try, EClark, but one of the mainstays of the scientific method is that proving a claim false is easy.
So now you’re saying you CAN prove a negative? After pointing out that science can’t prove anything?
Which is it Tim? Either it can or it can’t.
bill mulligan says:
“Funny. I’ve read about all these purges and slapdowns of Republicans not following the party line (Arlen Spector being the most dramatic recent example in a long line), but nothing of the like on the Democrat side. Perhaps you’re being a bit reflexively partisan?”
You may hear less about purges and slapdowns of Democrats who don’t follow the party line because they’ve already managed to get rid of them. You can be a pro-choice republican and still go far in the party–Guliani, Shwartzenegger, Rice, Powell, etc. Any chance of a pro-life democrat getting pushed as a presidential or vp candidate?”
its not Pres or VP yet, but would you be willing to consider senator Harry Reid?
he’s a mormom, he’s pro-life.
and he’s replacing Tom Daschle as Senate Minority leader.
I was probably somewhat unclear; apologies for that.
[Pedant mode on]
For something to be considered a legitimate scientific hypothesis, it must make testable predictions — and “testable” in this sense means that there’s a way one would knock the idea down. For example, the statement “there is intelligent life off Earth” is not a testable prediction, because the only way to disprove it is to look everywhere in the universe over alltime.
One particular unified theory of physics predicts that the proton is not entirely stable, but has a half-life somewhere in the range of 10**32 years or so. That IS a testable prediction; get a whole ton’o’protons together and look for decays over a period of time. Over time, the lack of decays would strongly suggest that your model needs revising.
So science cannot prove anything as “true”; the best we can do is say something is confirmed by all the evidence to date. With enough evidence mounting, people tend to accept a particular notion as “good enough” to be confirmed fact — hence Newtonian mechanics, natural selection, general relativity, etc., are all considered as close to unshakable as anything in science gets.
However, Jerome’s claim was that certain ideas (global warming) had been invalidated. Invalidating a hypothesis is easy — it can potentially be as easy as finding a single counterexample, and certainly a whole set of them gets the scientific community to say “er, that model there needs some significant changes.”
Therefore, if the model’s been invalidated someone must have found clear-cut evidence against it — in that sense, it’s “proving” the model is invalid. My request was therefore legitimate, and as yet unanswered.
[Pedant mode off]
If anyone feels I’ve misrepresented things (especially those who gave great explanations upthread), feel free to jump in.
In sum:
Proving a prediction (and thus a theory) true = impossible, since a counterexample could always lurk around the next bend.
Proving a prediction (and thus a theory) false = very possible, by finding a single counterexample.
My statement to Jerome = valid, though the phrasing clearly invited equally valid questions.
EClark’s understanding of the scientific process = limited.
EClark’s interest in understanding said process in comparison to trying to score debate points = well, I’ll let others judge that one.
(I’m all in favor of throwing people’s words right back at them … but when I do it, I first tend to make sure that I’m actually, y’know, correct.)
And as for “either it can or it can’t” … I realize you live in a binary world where everything is black/white, night/day, right/wrong, “with us”/”against us”, but most of us live in a world with a lot more … gee, am I allowed to use the word “nuance” nowadays?
TWL
Tim Lynch wrote…
Invalidating a hypothesis is easy — it can potentially be as easy as finding a single counterexample, and certainly a whole set of them gets the scientific community to say “er, that model there needs some significant changes.”
Well said. I’d just like to emphasize the bit about “a whole set of them” getting the attention of the scientific community.
If one study is conducted that seems to indicate that global warming is not, in fact, a threat, the scientific isn’t going to get too worked up when they look at the one thousand (I pulled that number out of my ášš, I have no idea how many actual studies have been done) studies that suggest global warming is dangerous.
A scientific statement is only going to be taken seriously if it’s been reliably replicated by other scientists around the world. Otherwise it could be a freak result of poor experimental design, or just plain old chance.
Good point, Jeff.
While evolution/creation hasn’t really come up here, your “whole set of them” comment calls a story to mind.
One thing creationists love to do is say that “lots of scientists” are backing them up in their attacks on evolutionary theory. On more than one occasion they’ve published lists saying “here are dozens of scientists who disagree with evolution.” They leave out that most of them are in fields wildly separate from biology.
Well, the biologist community decided to answer in kind, and published “The Steve List”, named in honor of the late Stephen Jay Gould. This list was all the scientists *named Steve* (or Steven, Stephen, Stefan, etc.) who support evolution, and it vastly outnumbers all of the creationist lists.
Obviously the validity of one theory over another has nothing to do with a popularity contest, but it struck me as a wildly amusing PR stunt that brought the “we’ve got dozens! Dozens, I tell you!” claim into clearer focus.
If anyone’s curious to see it, you can head over to http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5945_the_faqs_2_16_2003.asp . Enjoy.
TWL
Tim Lynch wrote…
If anyone’s curious to see it, you can head over to http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5945_the_faqs_2_16_2003.asp. Enjoy. [hotlink added by me]
I did! That’s pretty funny stuff, I’d never heard of the project before. It’s sad that they felt the need to call psychologists “borderline” scientists, but unfortunately I can’t completely disagree with the statement. Thanks for the link.
My pleasure. (And given the large number of psychologists in the maternal line of my family, I’ve personally got NO problem with the characterization given. 🙂
TWL
Adam says:
“its not Pres or VP yet, but would you be willing to consider senator Harry Reid”
Good point. I’ll be curious to see whether Reid has to modify his position during the inevitable upcoming Supreme Court fights.
Someone upthread said something about offering to sell me a bridge if I think that Red Staters will support Guliani. I say–dismiss the possibility at you peril. All he has to say is that he will appoint judges without a pro-choice litmus test and he will almost certainly be a more desireable choice than the likely Democrat candidate.
I dunno, Bill. All a primary opponent has to do is point out that Rudy lived with a gay couple during his divorce proceedings, and an awful lot of “cultural conservatives” will start having serious qualms.
All my guess, of course — but having dealt with Rudy back when he was just a rotten prosecutor instead of a rotten pseudo-dictatorial mayor, I have a lot of difficulty seeing him going too much further. (Then again, I didn’t think much of my chances of seeing my current home governed by Ahnold, so make of my gut feels what you will.)
TWL
Someone upthread said something about offering to sell me a bridge if I think that Red Staters will support Guliani. I say–dismiss the possibility at you peril. All he has to say is that he will appoint judges without a pro-choice litmus test and he will almost certainly be a more desireable choice than the likely Democrat candidate.
Please, he’ll get hammered on abortion, adultery, and living with a gay couple and never make it past the Iowa caucus.
Please, he’ll get hammered on abortion, adultery, and living with a gay couple and never make it past the Iowa caucus.
If a lot of ideologues aren’t being hypocritical.
We’ll see about that…
Proving a prediction (and thus a theory) true = impossible, since a counterexample could always lurk around the next bend.
Proving a prediction (and thus a theory) false = very possible, by finding a single counterexample.
My statement to Jerome = valid, though the phrasing clearly invited equally valid questions.
EClark’s understanding of the scientific process = limited.
EClark’s interest in understanding said process in comparison to trying to score debate points = well, I’ll let others judge that one.
I’m not a scientist, granted, so naturally, my understanding of the “scientific process” is limited. That said, in the previous thread there was no need to “attack” my use of the word “proof” when here you are in this thread using the word in a similar manner you just criticised me for.
When I attempted to clarify my use of the word, you criticized me for that as well:
Sounds like that how the process works to me. And since ‘proof” is nothing more than a collection of evidence gathered by one or more of the means listed in the above definition of “science”, and sufficient enough to convince others of a particular belief.
Yet, here you are again saying something similar.
So science cannot prove anything as “true”; the best we can do is say something is confirmed by all the evidence to date. With enough evidence mounting, people tend to accept a particular notion as “good enough” to be confirmed fact
And as for “either it can or it can’t” … I realize you live in a binary world where everything is black/white, night/day, right/wrong, “with us”/”against us”, but most of us live in a world with a lot more … gee, am I allowed to use the word “nuance” nowadays?
Hmm, how about this? You’re somewhere between “an arrogant conceited bášŧárd and a bonafied prìçk.” That “nuanced” enough for you?
Oooo, that might get me shrouded. Oh well. que sera sera.
I’m not a scientist, granted, so naturally, my understanding of the “scientific process” is limited. That said, in the previous thread there was no need to “attack” my use of the word “proof” when here you are in this thread using the word in a similar manner you just criticised me for.
Um, no.
Sorry, but there was every reason to continue to correct your mis-use of the term, PARTICULARLY when you blew off the corrections as mere semantics.
And it’s quite apparent to me that you’re not trying to understand the “nuances”, which are vital to the scientific process you are misunderstanding and make a hëll of an impact on the policy decisions that rely on the science. If you’re not sweating the “small stuff”, then you’re gonna have a disaster on your hands later down the line–being sloppy just isn’t going to cut it.
This country elected Bush in 2004. It’s hard to be rational in the face of a country devoid of rational thinking.
No, that would have been if Kerry won. (One hyperbolic ad hominem attack deserves another.) Actually, if the nation were devoid of rational thinking, that would mean that neither Bush nor Kerry voters were rational, beacuse there were a heck of a lot of both of them.
I propose a wager — $100, to be precise. If the draft is reinstated within the next 18 months, you pay to the charitable organization of my choice. If it is NOT reinstated within 18 months, I’ll pay to the organization of your choice. (Note that political parties are not charities.)
I’m in. In fact, I’ll go further. If there is a draft at any time in Bush’s entire second term, I’ll cough up, and you don’t have to pay me anything if I’m right. I ask only one escape clause: if a war breaks out with another nuclear power, maybe we might see a draft. But any draft as a result of Bush Administration policy triggers my payment.
Then the teacher can point to the establishment clause and explain why our Founder Fathers didn’t want to establish a theocracy, show them Jefferson’s letters and explain how, based on the doctrine of “original intent” that Scalia loves so much (as long as it conforms to his conservative agenda) resulted in over 200 years of legal precedent protecting our religious institutions from becoming tools of the state.
Jefferson’s “original intent” is irrelevant to the Constitution, as he was not involved in its creation. My believe is that his original intent was to defeat ratification, at least in the absence of a Bill of Rights, an initiative he fortunately couldn’t join because he was posted in Paris at the time. The term “separation of church and state” and the wall metaphor come from one of Jefferson’s letters, as you suggest. (The term was actually coined by someone else but popularized by Jefferson.) But considering that the letter was from Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican, to a New England church that was ardently Federalist, urging them to remain neutral in the upcoming election, there is just the slightest chance that Jefferson had an ulterior motive.
This is the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence, after all.
Yes, it is a sad day in the USA. While I try not to be a controversy-monger, I do maintain a website, Sites Unseen , that is a safe place for alternative Christian websites. I have found over 3,000, and if my 40,000 plus visitors over the past year and a half prove anything, its that there is a spiritual voice in this country that’s crying to be heard.
I do believe that Jesus Christ is at home with and within the marganlized and the outcasts of polite society. But I realize that I–and we–are in the minority of ChristianRightAmerica. I have absolutely no problem with political conservatism as one viable governance option among many, but as a lifelong Christian I’ve seen how it can be particularly odious when people of faith start amassing power and influence in ways that Jesus specifically warns His followers against.
And so I pray…I pray for an alternative community of Christ-worshippers–and other peoples of goodwill–to emerge, and challenge this current hegemony with nonviolent love.
An interesting aside in all of this alleged semantic-quibbling.
As some of you know, I spent a lot of time online for about … eesh, fifteen years … doing commentary on the various Trek series. During that time, there were naturally moments where I wound up commenting on particularly egregious misuses of science (especially gratuitous ones that were there only to provide a plot point and not ones that had been created back in the original series).
I was, and am, continually amazed by the number of people (and I am NOT referring to anyone here) who respond to such criticism with something along the lines of “well, sure that matters to you, you’re a scientist” as if an understanding of science is irrelevant to everyone else.
My sense has always been that if you don’t at least understand the scientific process in enough detail that your scientist characters sound plausible, you should avoid writing such characters.
Nobody says, “Well, it’s okay if Writer X doesn’t know how cops actually behave; he/she can write them anyway and be convincing.” To me, misrepresenting scientists is the same type of problem as misrepresenting any other type of profession — it’s bad characterization and bad writing.
(And I realize that’s not the same as getting a particular detail wrong. There’s a reason the former drew a lot more annoyed comments from me than the latter.)
I realize it’s a little (okay, more than a little) presumptuous of me to be posturing about writing when I’m on PAD’s site here, but I’d certainly be curious to hear his (or other writers’) thoughts on the matter if he happens to be reading this far downthread.
TWL
The United Church of Christ should change it’s name to the United Church of Apostasy.
Tim Lynch,
First, glad to see you back in the thick of things around here. You always add substance and insight to the discussions here, even if I usually disagree with you.
Second, I accept your offer. If there is a military draft instated by June 30,2006 I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. If, instead, we wake up on July 1, 2006 and the Bush Administration has not reinstated a military draft, you donate $100 to the charity of my choice.
I choose $50 to the USO and $50 to ACTOR (A Commitment To Our Roots), which helps the strugling writers and artists who helped build the comic book industry and who largely have been unable to share in the rewards for their work to be able to hold on to their homes, pay for medicine and health care and other things.
“Determination of what would constitute “a draft” can be made by a group of people here we’d both consider fair judges – I assume we could find such a group.”
I nominate Bill Mulligan and David Bjorlin to be on this “judges panel”.
” I am sufficiently convnced of Bush’s goals and the requirements it would take to achieve them that I’m willing to put up the stakes.”
And I am convinced that the military and Administration soooo don’t WANT a draft and will use other means (increasing troop pay, etc.) to increase ranks if necessary, I am willing to do the same.)
“Are you willing to defend your claims with some sort of concrete assurance?”
Yes, and it would have been nice for you to end wth that statement.
“Or are you going to rant and rave about this one without being willing to support it.”
Instead of this. It was simply a cheap shot and unnecessary.
Will address your other points shortly, and I DO mean that. So much so, that I will give you my e-mail address so we could possibly continue long after this thread is no longer a subject on this board.
It is jeromemaida@hotmail.com.
Rob S.,
REALLY tired and REALLY need to get to bed, but I just had to respond to this.
YOU SAID:
“Umm, no. We’re all going to hëll unless God steps in. What we’re doing has nothing to do with our destination…we’re both doomed unless Jesus intervenes.”
You know, I was raised catholic and am currently agnostic, but I strongly believe it is this kind of thinking and belief that, at best annoys people and turns them off to religion and at worst scares the hëll out of them and loks at al religious people as being from another planet.
This whole idea that “you can’t get into heaven through good deeds” but “only by accepting Jesus.”
Well, it strikes me as accepting a God who doesn’t care what you do for OTHERS but only for HIM. I look at that and hear that and I just feel that if Jesus/God truly accepts people into His kingdom on that basis, then he must be pretty selfish.
Me, I try to live by the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
That would seem to be a good way to enter the kingdom of a benevolent god, be he Jesus, Mohammed, or whoever else.
f I’m wrong..”Oh, well.guess I’m going to h….
UMMMMMM maybe folks you could all agree to disagree?
Jefferson’s “original intent” is irrelevant to the Constitution, as he was not involved in its creation.
Not directly, but his writings were just as influential in its formation as the Federalist papers. Without the anti-Federalists, of whom he was considered one of the leaders, we would never have had the Bill of Rights.
Oooo, that might get me shrouded.
Not sure why you’d think that. The only time Peter’s actually shrouded people is after they’ve made highly derogatory comments about his wife or his marriage (at least so far as I remember). Given that I’m not married to PAD (for which I imagine all sides are quite thankful), I can’t see why you simply sending an insult or two my way would even make the shrouding antennae tingle.
TWL
Jerome,
I accept your offer. If there is a military draft instated by June 30,2006 I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. If, instead, we wake up on July 1, 2006 and the Bush Administration has not reinstated a military draft, you donate $100 to the charity of my choice.
Accepted, and thank you. Before we finalize this, though, it would probably be useful for us both to come up with a common definition on what constitutes a draft. That means the “judges’ panel” only has to see if the circumstances meet that definition, not come up with one and impose it on us. We’ll have to work on that shortly.
I will admit that I’m somewhat surprised to see you take up this particular challenge: I’d considered it unlikely. Kudos for that.
I nominate Bill Mulligan and David Bjorlin to be on this “judges panel”.
Agreed, though I think I’d like a third person as well given that the other two both wanted to take up the bet alongside you. 🙂 I do trust their judgements in this matter, but it’d be nice to have someone else. Would Roger Tang be a satisfactory choice?
As for the e-mail address — appreciated, but given the massive (and I mean *massive*) pile of e-mail in my “to be answered” box on a routine basis, I suspect the conversation’s going to be here or nowhere.
TWL
Tim,
1.)Roger Tang is more than acceptable. We might want to include Luigi Novi as well, to balance things out.
2.) The e-mail address was to prove I’m serious and also in case one of us (or both) take a hiatus from this board for a while. We both have in the past year. Believe me, my Inbox is not exactly empty.
3.) Do the two organizations I chose meet your criteria of charities?
4.) I am more than looking forward to answering the rest of your questions/challenges/rebuttals from your post, and will attempt to do so later today.