If a Butterfly Lands on the Temple Mount...

Not that what I predicted was all that hard to predict, but still it is satisfying in some way to find that I was correct. The protests have begun as well as the naysayers. This is a most holy place. There are Jews today who will not go on the mount for fear of standing on the spot where the holy of holies once was. To prove the Jewish claim is to destroy the Palestinian (Muslim) claims to the site.

Consider everything that happens in this region of the world as important. Consider everything that happens on the mount to be critical.

"On Thursday, archaeologist Gaby Barkai from Bar Ilan University told local television that "a massive seven metre-long (23 feet) wall" had been found, and urged the government to ask the Muslim religious authorities to stop laying pipes.

Bahat said he would visit the site, but accused nameless archaeologists with a nationalist agenda of "waging a politically inspired campaign, systematically for several years, to strengthen Israeli control over the esplanade". "

Doubts over 'second temple remains' in Jerusalem

The Sky is not, in Fact, Blue...

I had some other things in mind to write about until I saw this. Get ready for it to be disputed. If it is ever shown that the Jews have a historical right to the holy land the Muslim world will erupt.

Possible remains of second temple found in Jerusalem: TV

The Deepest Cut of All is Spikey

Looks like the Patriot Act has struck again! Oh, wait, this is Iran, silly me. In American one can still get their hair cut however they want, and dress however they want, and say whatever they want. Come to think of it, that's why they want to bomb us off the face of the earth. Now I get it, our hair is too wild, so we must die. I don't know why I didn't see it before.

Iran closes barbers offering 'un-Islamic' cuts

Fred and Dino...a Second Look?

I don't know if it is coincidence that right after I read the below article I stumbled across the below video. I was looking for a totally different subject on Google Videos when this showed up in the search.

The video is long, perhaps old, but still interesting. Just as I have always felt (yes, felt) that faster than light speed is possible, I have always felt that the Earth's timeline is not quite what it is made out to be. Now, this video doesn't agree with that. The video says that it is indeed very old, it doesn't take a creationist point of view. Rather, it states that mankind was around much longer ago that we have previously thought.

That's where the article comes in. Prior to this recent find, the things in the video would be seen as foolish. Certainly there are those who feel that way still, but in light of the recent find there is a slightly higher air of plausibility.

"The most startling implication of the find, the scientists agree, is that our human progenitors diverged from today's great apes -- including gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees -- several million years earlier than widely accepted research based on molecular genetics had previously asserted."

Also, the above quote speaks of molecular genetics, which I was under the impression was very accurate. Seems that has its limits too.

Fossil find pushes human-ape split back millions of years

Have it Their Way!

The below video is in Spanish with subtitles. It is about the recently deported Mexican woman who had been hiding out in a church for a year. In the video she says that the United States broke the law first by letting people into the country without documentation and letting them pay taxes.

Of course there are a couple of things wrong with this. First, we did not let them come, they had to sneak into the country. Second, they don't exactly pay the same taxes that a citizen does. Sales tax doesn't count.

My Kingdom for a Choice!

According to the article linked below, "J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University, has promoted a theory that his critics think is inaccurate, insulting and potentially damaging to transgender women."

There are several points to be made, the greatest of which is that the so called neutrality of science is a myth. A scientist is subject to great political pressure to write what is expedient, not what is true.

I think there is great complexity in issues of gender. I have often thought it was odd that those with same gender attraction or a desire to act like the opposite gender would have such a strong desire to have their condition be biological. In fact, someone reading the word I just used, "condition" might in fact become upset at my use of this word. However, that is a word used for biological issues and is a proper one in any case. If it is biological, then it is a defect in the system, a genetic problem, that can eventually be researched and cured.

Does that put you in a tizzy? It shouldn't, because that's what we do with biological issues, we research them, and we fix them. "But I'm not broken!" shouts the lesbian reading this. Here's what it comes down to...it is a choice. No matter how you slice it, it is a choice. On the one hand, if it isn't biological, then the choice factor is obvious. On the other hand, if it is biological, and you will not accept a cure, or the need for a cure, then again, the choice to remain that way, or to deny researchers the right to investigate a cure, makes it still a choice.

I've said it before, I respect that more. If you tell me, "I'm this way because I want to be this way, and I enjoy it" then what do I have to say? It's not for me and not much more. If you try to tell me it is a biologically caused condition over which you have no power, then several things come into play. The aforementioned fix it, of course, because it is a disability. We are about survival of the species and any mutation that alters the biological paring of male with female for reproduction does the species a harm, speaking in a strictly Darwinian sense. Then, we open a giant can of worms over what behavior is or is not biological. For example, who is to say certain other sexual desires are just biological? At what point to we, as a society, say it isn't allowed, even if they were born that way? The obvious answer most people give is when both parties have the ability to consent to the behavior. Consider this, person A is attracted to person B, who society says should not be the object of that attraction, but then science finds out that person B, is biologically predisposed to be likewise attracted to person A. What then? Everyone in this scenario has biology that matches their desire and the desire to reciprocate.

No, it would be far better for those with same gender attraction if that attraction were a choice. It is a choice I am opposed to for religious reasons, it is a choice that isn't for me, but it is a choice that I can look at and say, hey, they made that choice and that's what they want. If there are consequences for that choice, then they will have to deal with that at some point, but they have the right to make the choice.

J. Michael Bailey - Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege - New York Times

A Born Again Universe

One of the things that interests me about this article is the paragraph, "Even as the theories attempting to solve this mystery grow increasingly complex, scientists are haunted by the possibility that some of the most critical links in their chain of reasoning is wrong."

What does it mean if they are wrong and the universe is actually in a state of renewal and rebirth? To die, and be born again is such a familiar concept that is shouldn't surprise scientists that even the universe itself echoes this idea.

That resurrection is a universal truth, is a pretty pleasing idea.

How was the universe born? - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

The Twilight Zone...Nope.

The whole idea that nothing was faster than the speed of light, and that in a black hole time actually works differently is very counter intuitive. As a result, I've given it much thought. I concluded that it was an incorrect assumption and that time is fixed and always forward moving. The two relate because faster than light travel was supposed to wreak havoc with time. This article seems to hint that my thought processes were correct.

I'm not going to go over it all here. There is just too much. Be that as it may, I thought this article was interesting.

'We have broken speed of light' - Telegraph

What's in a Name? EVERYTHING!

"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him? It is our problem."

I am stunned that the above is from a Roman Catholic Bishop. It is as if he has never read the bible at all. First, Allah is NOT the same god as the God of the Christians. For those of you about to say, "yes he is, yes he is", consider this...Allah does not have a Son. Jesus, the foundation of Christianity, is only a prophet to Allah, but he is a Son, to the Christian God. Remove that relationship and you remove the deity of Christ, remove the deity of Christ and you remove the atonement and resurrection of Christ.

Secondly, God's name is so important that he commanded us not to use it in vain. This Bishop said, "What does God care what we call him?" and I can't believe he is so ignorant to make such a statement. God cares very much what we call him, so much so that I won't even make a joke about it while writing this.

One need only have a tepid understanding of the Lord's prayer to comprehend the importance of the name of God when Christ uttered, "hallowed be thy name". To call God the name of another god is folly, and more than that, is a violation of his commandments.

Then there are those of you who are saying the Jews don't believe in Christ. That is, actually, not true. They believe in Christ, or in their language Messiah, they just don't believe that Jesus was THAT messiah. To the Jew the Messiah will save, to the Christian, Jesus will save; the god Allah, has no son, has no messiah, only a prophet and nothing more.

I don't know if this Bishop is a coward or an idiot, but his sort of thinking worries me more than any bomb.

Bishop: Call God 'Allah' to ease relations - Europe - MSNBC.com

Confirmed, Plausible or BUSTED?

This news is huge. I don't know if it will get the play outside of talk radio and the blogs that it deserves. 1998 was the magic year for warming nuts and now that date is out the window. However, there's more to it than just the wrong date because the new date is now 1934! The global warming myth is busted!

TheStar.com - sciencetech - Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder

Also take a moment to read this article about 1922 observations on warming. Remember, I never said it wasn't getting warmer, I just said it was the sun and not mankind.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063

Modern road to White House 'verges on insane,' says Gingrich - CNN.com

Here's the problem with Newt, he's too smart. He can see an issue from all sides, and is able to get to the root of it. Most people are out there either love/hate and even if a candidate from "the other side" says something good, they can't admit that. Newt isn't like that. This is why I don't think he will be elected president if he decides to run, even though he would get at least my vote.

This article, again, is Newt at his best.

Modern road to White House 'verges on insane,' says Gingrich - CNN.com

Study blames Europe for bison mass killings - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

"North Americans have always taken the heat for killing off millions of American bison during the early 1800s. A new study, however, pins the blame on Europeans."

Well, isn't that a fine how-do-you-do? Still, bison is on the rise due to ranching. It's a fact, if you want to get a species off of the endangered species list, eat it. Someone will sell it to you, and they will keep plenty of them around to protect their livelihood.

Study blames Europe for bison mass killings - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

The Crooked Path to Upright Man

Turns out the path from ape to man isn't such an easy one to map out.

The last paragraph of this article is classic. After reading all about how wrong they've been we must be reminded,

"All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said."

In other words, no matter what we discover, don't worry about the theory of evolution, we'll just keep it intact.

Fossils paint messy picture of human origins - Science - MSNBC.com

The Hallmark of a Weak Argument

"Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." So reads the story linked below. There's so much wrong with it. Take the term "contrarian Scientists"; it seeks to strip them of credibility, or of a point of view.

I once knew a woman who had a tragedy in her life. She said, "unless you have had this exact thing happen to you then you have no idea what it's like." Boom! She closes the door on everything said to her and robs anyone and everyone from helping her because they just can't know.

So it is with those scientists who are loosing the global warming debate and want to hold on to their false doctrine of man caused global warming. They can't support their ideas so they have to attack now, not the science, but the scientists.

This is a hallmark tactic of liberals, and of weak arguments everywhere.

Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine - Newsweek Technology - MSNBC.com

A Sister's Grief, or Society's Weakness?

I suppose I understand why people like to blame others for their problems or foibles. However it seems there are somethings that even those most prone to do this would look at and blame the doer of the deed and not others.

From the link below:

"Spielman's sister, Paige Gerlach, screamed: "I hate the government. You people put him (in Iraq) and now, this happened.""

She somehow thinks his actions are the fault of the government. How can that be? What reasonable person can learn of how this man acted as a lookout for evil acts and not blame him for his actions but instead make it as if he were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

While it has been said that war is hell, the truth is, it isn't hell, nor even a close facsimile thereof. Men have no right to act like demons, there or anywhere else. No matter where we find ourselves, ought we not to act like good men and strong?

Soldier gets 110 years for rape, murder - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

The World According to Romney

This video is certainly worth a watch. The host of this radio show is 100% right on the mark. I listen to what Romney says and I totally think he is distancing himself.

When he first announced, I visited his web site. In the about us section there wasn't mention of his church service, especially his mission. Going on a mission is a big deal, a right of passage for Latter-day Saints and for him not to mention it speaks volumes.

Then he makes a huge mistake by telling the host he can't understand the church policy he is reading because he's not a lawyer and that it doesn't mean what he thinks it means. This dropped my jaw. I don't have to know anything about the LDS church to know that their policies of morality are not based on jurisprudence and do not require a law degree to interpret. For him to suggest such a thing is outrageous.

I'm telling you now, he is NOT my man and I can't see anyway he will become such. If the race comes down to him and Hillary, he will get my vote, but under no circumstances will I vote for him in the primary. Here's why, the man I saw in this video clip does not portray himself as a forthright man. Rather, he appears to be someone trying to juggle truths, so that at any given moment one truth seems to the listener to be more or less of a truth than the other. I pronounce SHAME upon him!

I AM the House!

Palpatine (D), Naboo

This sort of thing seems more than unethical to me. It seems like a manipulation of the vote. Like the work of a really under-skilled Sith lord. I agree with the comments in this video and worry about the state of our government. This sort of thing is contrary to the ideal of America and the form of government we have chosen. To use procedure to cover an unfavorable vote, is sickening.

READ MORE HERE.

He Said, She Said, and Neither Listened

I'm not a Romney fan, not yet anyway. At this point in the game I'm not committed to anyone because this point in the game is way too early. This post isn't about Romney though, it's about a woman who talked to him about health care. I see her attitude as being the greatest problem this country faces.

I give her credit for honesty, most people won't come right out and say what we all know to be true and that is, people vote for the candidate who will give them the most. She wants to know what he will do for her.

Maybe I'm unique, I hope not, but when I vote it's about what that person can do for the country, or the state, or the city. It doesn't matter what level of government it is, that's my concern.

I feel this way because I don't believe that it is government's job to do everything for me. In the video she mentions health care as her concern. That's a legitimate concern, but she reveals that she has health care. She's just complaining that she still has to pay $30-$50 for her prescription co-pay. I'll let you make your own judgment as to whether or not that's too much.

Me first, give me more, what can you do for me?! I hate to think of America as being as selfish as this woman. "But" you say, "she's just trying to take care of her kids and her husband works two jobs." Obviously she also has a job, that's three incomes! If people are willing to work as hard as these people seem to be, then opportunity is out there to funnel that hard work into something more profitable for them. It's an odd thing that people seem to think they have to stay put. Romney tells her what he did "in the state next door" for his citizens as it relates to health care. It sounded better than what she had. If that's her concern in her state, and her elected officials won't do anything about it, then move to a place where they did.


It seemed obvious she didn't really want to listen or consider what Romney had to say. She just really wanted to complain.

Lastly, Romney's performance highlighted something I simply hate about politics. He went into a small, mom and pop diner, and gave a speech. How condescending. Sit down, talk to people, find out what they are concerned about. There's a time for making speeches to be sure, but not in an intimate setting like that. Politicians don't talk to people anymore, they talk at them, and for certain they don't listen to people, they listen to polls. I think this video highlights what is wrong with the political system in our country today on both the citizen and the politician side of the equation.