Forbidden love

Posted on by

What do you do when your heart is bursting with romantic love for someone, who you would gladly take for a romantic partner, but you and/or  he or she is already taken and it is highly unlikely you can ever have him/her exclusively to yourself? What if that person was already a parent, meaning his/her children would be involved? What if that person had a very different lifestyle from yours? What if that person lived hundreds or thousands of kilometers away from you and it was unlikely you would move to live with him/her or he/she would move to live with you?

But what if that person also have many wonderful things in common with you that attracted you to him/her in the first place? What if that person made you feel better than the partner you are currently with? Would you risk committing adultery with him/her? If you KNEW that in the absence of any barriers, you WOULD marry this man/woman, would you engage in sex with him/her? Or even if marriage was not to be, what would happen?

Difficult issues, all of them. The older I get, the less judgemental I am about such things. At this stage in my life, the issue of polyamory looks better all the time.

Some idiots will beleive ANYTHING!

Posted on by

I just saw a comment on another person’s blog that knocked me out in its inanity.

http://forthesakeofscience.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/i-get-mail-too/

Read that whole blog entry, and then this stupid comment:

Von, on February 23, 2010 at 2:04 pm Said: 

Michael Hawkins get a life. How old are you? Before you start calling someone stupid and a quack perhaps you better look at how the pharmaceutical industry has “Brain Washed” you. The FDA uses society as guinea pigs to push their drugs. The drugs are killing our society. Yet they continue to push them. One could call the pharmaceutical industry drug pushers. The only thing that makes the DRUGS legal is the FDA continues to approve them (until people die then they take them off the shelves and approve another one. Until that one kills. It’s a vicious circle) what’s sad is that the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t care about how many people they kill each year. They’re only it for the money. If society were healthier and didn’t have to take drugs then you’d be out of a job.

Of course the drug companies are trying to make a profit off their products. And that is exactly what makes that comment so absurd.

I answered him as follows:

Dale Husband, on February 27, 2010 at 2:19 am Said:

Von, why should we beleive YOU? It’s kind of absurd for the big drug companies to kill their own customers and thus reduce their own business. Think longer and harder before you subscribe to some loony conspiracy theory.

Bogus American history

Posted on by

Check out this nonsense; the parts in red are from the original blog entry and the rest of the words in blue are my responses:

http://farkash.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/faith-of-the-founders/

While much has been written in recent years to try to dismiss the fact that America was founded upon the biblical principles of Judeo-Christianity, all the revisionism in the world cannot change the facts. Anyone who examines the original writings, personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements of the individuals who were instrumental in the founding of America will find an abundance of quotations showing the profound extent to which their thinking and lives were influenced by a Christian worldview.

While Christianity was and still is the dominant religion in the United States, the actual Constitution of the federal republic was made to be SECULAR, not promoting religion in any form. Early attempts to establish American theocracies in colonial times were failures and the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent that from happening again.

Clearly, there was a predominant Christian consensus in colonial America that shaped the Founders’ thinking and their writing of the founding documents and laws, resulting in the republic we have today. The Declaration of Independence identified the source of all authority and rights as “Their Creator” and then accentuated that individual human rights were God-given, not man-made. Thus, there would be no king or established religion to stand in the way of human liberty or dignity – uniquely Judeo-Christian ideals.

The concept of the “divine right of kings” was also considered a Judeo-Christian concept, yet it is opposed to the above stated ideal. And there is no mention whatsoever of Jesus, the Bible, or the Ten Commandments in the U S Constitution.

Even a brief study of the Founders’ last will and testaments provides convincing declarations of the strong religious beliefs among so many of them. Add to that their personal writings concerning their faith in Christ, plus their leadership roles in establishing and guiding numerous Bible societies, plus their service in active ministries, and the evidence is overwhelming.

What some of the Founding Fathers did in their private lives should have no bearing on their duties as public officials.

Here is a small sample of the convictions of some of the Founders:

Principally and first of all, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it: and my body I recommend to the earth…nothing doubting but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mercy and power of God. | JOHN HANCOCK, signer of the Declaration of Independence

It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. | Attributed to PATRICK HENRY – Governor of Virginia

Either Patrick Henry was delusional or he was quote mined here. In any case, the claim is false, as noted earlier.

Only TWO quotes. Why not at least a dozen?

Judgement Day

Posted on by

Imagine if the Founders of religions found themselves before God on Judgement Day and the following conversation resulted:

Founder: I stand before you, ready to receive my reward for faithful service to you!

God: Depart from me, accursed one, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the Devil and his angels.

Founder: WHAT?! How can this be? What about the revelations you sent me to establish your faith on Earth?!

God: You are an IDIOT! I never sent you ANY revelations, nor did I send any to any other human! NO ONE that is a mere human can communicate my Word to others! That was a lie of Satan. It was Satan who sent you those phony revelations, and being the egomaniac you were, you passed them on to your followers. The result was incredible  suffering on Earth, which you must now answer for!

Founder: But how was I supposed to know the revelations were of Satan?

God: By using the mind I gave you. You failed to do so. So did most of your followers. They will be condemned too.

Founder: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

I know, it seems incredibly unlikely. But no more unlikely than assuming that there is indeed one true religion founded by divine revelation while all the others that also claim divine revelation as their source are false. So what if there IS no true religion anywhere? Does that mean there is no God? Not necessarily. There may be such a God and even such a Judgement Day for all humans to give an account of themselves before Him. But we will never know our fate until that day.

No more responses to the State of the Union Addresses, please!

Posted on by

Every time the President of the United States gives his State of the Union Address, a representative of the other dominant political party gives a response to it that is broadcast immediatly afterwards. If the President is a Democrat, the one responding will be a Republican, and vice versa.

I beleive this tradition must be brought to an end. While the President is required by the federal Constitution to give such an address, there is NO requirement that any member of an opposing party give any rebuttal that is given equal standing before the media or the American people. For this reason, this practice should be abolished. It perpetrates the two-party system that I consider to be the root of America’s excessive conservatism. Also, it encourages disrespect for the office of the Presidency.

Seriously, if the Democrats get to respond to a Republican President, and vice versa, why not allow responses from the Libertarians or the Greens as well? Why should only one opposing party have such an unfair advantage?

Thank you, Ed Darrel!

Posted on by

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/astounding-manipulation-of-data-from-the-climate-denialists/

Ever since “Climategate” happened, the global warming denialists have had a field day crowing about how the man-made global warming hypothesis has been disproven due to the manipulation of data by a few scientists of one insititution regarding one field of study. Well, it wasn’t, because if that was the case, the denialists themselves would have to clean up their own damned house too, lest they be condemned for being no better!

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/damning-evidence-of-fraud-by-nils-axel-morner/

We need to make the data regarding climate change more accurate and reject those concepts which are unsupported by the facts. And that’s a hell of a lot more important than winning some political or economic battle!

Slandering skeptics in general

Posted on by

Take a look at this nonsense that was published on NaturalNews.com. I’m going to copy the libelous  words of the writer in red and then my direct responses in blue:

http://www.naturalnews.com/028012_skeptics_medicine.html

What ‘skeptics’ really believe about vaccines, medicine, consciousness and the universe

Sunday, January 24, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews) In the world of medicine, “skeptics” claim to be the sole protectors of intellectual truth. Everyone who disagrees with them is just a quack, they insist. Briefly stated, “skeptics” are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy. They are opponents of nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, chiropractic care, massage therapy, energy medicine, homeopathy, prayer and therapeutic touch.
But there’s much more that you need to know about “skeptics.” As you’ll see below, they themselves admit they have no consciousness and that there is no such thing as a soul, a spirit or a higher power. There is no life after death. In fact, there’s not much life in life when you’re a skeptic. Continue reading →

The U S Supreme Court has murdered democracy in America!

Posted on by

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100121/ts_nm/us_usa_court_politics

By James Vicini  – Thu Jan 21, 2:42 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, a landmark decision denounced by President Barack Obama for giving special interests more power.

“The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” Obama said after the 5-4 ruling that divided the nation’s high court along conservative and liberal lines.

Continue reading →

Humanitarian work by the U S Military

Posted on by

There are reports that the United States military is heavily involved in the relief efforts in Haiti. They are indeed true.

The U.S. Military in Haiti: A Compassionate Invasion

First U.S. military aid reaches quake-stricken Haiti

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/13/haiti.us.coast.guard/?hpt=Sbin

Since the United States is sending over 10,000 Military troops –

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-haiti-pentagon16-2010jan16,0,4508316.story

The US Navy hospital ship the USS Comfort – http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=57558

The US Air Force and the US Marines who are operating the airports – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703657604575004913901168380.html?mod=rss_Today

US Troops providing security to Haiti –

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iOOVGZLZ_-6JjoTEyleoMzpW7qJw

And right-wingers boast about how important this is and thus how we must support the troops, no matter what. But they overlook three important issues that the leftists should remind them of:

  1. The only reason the American troops would be there at all is because they were ORDERED to go by the Obama Administration, the very people right-wingers have been bashing for a year!
  2. The soldiers and sailors taking part have no choice in the matter, just as they have no choice in going to Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else to wage war. And charity that is the result of coercion is nothing to boast about. If I were forced by the city of Arlington, Texas under threat of going to jail to pick up litter off the city streets for several weeks, should I be praised for it?   Of course not! That’s why groups like the American Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders should get far more credit for what they do than the U S military.
  3. The military, regardless of what party rules the USA, is far more likely to take away our freedoms than to defend them. That’s because the military is itself an authoritarian system, not even remotely democratic. How can you fight for freedom if you are yourself not free, even if you “volunteer” for service, and thus get virtually enslaved over the next several years?  It’s a false claim and I won’t let it slide anymore. It is the PEOPLE themselves who defend our freedoms, by voting, running for office, going to court, and staying informed about the issues. We need to WATCH the military, not blindly support everything it does.

Will Venomfangx keep his word THIS time?

Posted on by

First, see this earlier entry:

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/venomfangx-the-biggest-liar-on-youtube/

That was then. This is now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2KdvvajOKY

This was uploaded by dprjones today. See it and read the lengthy commentary he gave on it.

Shawn, I’ll be watching. This should be the VERY LAST TIME I expect to see you on YouTube! Goodbye!

Why some people commit suicide

Posted on by

There are many cases I’ve heard of in which a young person, raised in a good family, suddenly commits suicide. Usually, the parents and friends of the victim do not forsee the event and cannot explain it afterwards. But I think I have an explanation.

The person may still be a teenager raised in an extremely religious family who decides not to follow his or her parents’ faith. Once he decides to leave it, he realizes that he may lose his parents’ love and that is a burden no child should have to endure. This is especially bad if the child is raised in a close knit community where the religious extremism is strongly enforced by nearly everyone in it. The attempts to keep the child’s deconversion a secret while going through the motions of religious life must be a constant source of stress on the child.

Issues like homosexuality, racism, and other forms of prejudice may also be factors, but I naturally think religious bigotry is the most serious one of all.

Taylor Swift

Posted on by

In our twisted culture, most men and even some women seem to be obsessed with big breasts and big butts. Yet there is one young woman who comes across as absolutely stunning in her beauty and talent, yet she has neither oversized breasts or a big butt. In fact, she is quite thin, lacking curves at all. But that matters not when you see her as a whole.

http://www.taylorswift.com/photos

To all those plastic surgeons and others who give the impression that enlarging breasts can make a real difference in women’s lives, I’d like to give them a big F U! I’ve known some real unattractive women who were large chested. What matters is what is in the heart and the mind. But not the breasts or other body parts. Grow up, shallow minded pervs!

An open letter to President Obama

Posted on by

Dear President Barack Obama,

You have failed us, on both the overseas war situation and on domestic issues like health care reform and the failing economy. And no, you do NOT deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. You should have refused it and nominated someone else.

When I voted for you, I expected you to live up to your stated promise to make changes in Washington, changes I could beleive in. Instead, you have broken many of your own promises and flipped-flopped on several issues important to me. You have also made too many concessions to the Republican opposition, the very people who were put out of power last year. That makes you look weak and unprincipled. You have also lied to us several times.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/compromise/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/half-true/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/barely-true/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/full-flop/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/half-flip/

So much for the hope you once offered us! Do not expect me to support you in 2012. We need a more progressive and honest person than you in the White House!

Dale Husband, the Honorable Skeptic

Banks can go to hell!

Posted on by

When you are up to your eyeballs in debt, you’d think that the banks that get you in debt in the first place would allow you to actually work off the debt you have accumulated over several months or years to keep you as a loyal customer AND allow you to acquire some skills that can help you get other jobs later. But NO, instead they harass you with lame phone calls and the callers have the stupidity to say things like, “You have a debt of $______ that can be paid over the phone today,” or some other such nonsense. Hey, banks! How is anyone supposed to pay off a debt if he is not allowed to WORK, and therefore cannot make money?!

PETA dishonors itself again.

Posted on by

PETA has been using female models appearing as angels as part of its latest campaign to promote animal adoption. One picture in patricular really misses the mark:

There is absolutely NOTHING I find commendable about this. PETA may love animals, but objectifying women and disrespecting religion has its own PR problems.

To see more of PETA’s pictorial stunts, look here:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glance/979225/outrage-over-petas-nude-church-shoot

And PETA is totally hypocritical. To see why, look here:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

I want PETA shut down! I beleive in animal rights to a moderate degree, but I’m not a perverted extremist about it!

Climategate, what it really means.

Posted on by

Earlier this month, someone, appearantly from Russia, hacked into the e-mail server of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and stole hundreds, perhaps thousands of e-mails dating back as far as 1996, and made a file out of them on his own server in Russia. The hacker then passed those emails to global warming denialists, who then made them public. Hacking into private computer files and stealing the items within them is a crime, and thus the e-mails obtained would not be admissible in any American court of law, for that would be rewarding illegal behavior (Not even the police or the FBI could legally do such a thing without a warrant or a subpoena, let alone any private citizens.). Then denialists picked through the e-mails and cherry-picked a few out of context passages to try to “prove” that the entire man-made global warming hypothesis (MMGWH) was a fraud.

Continue reading →

How (I think) the corporate dominated media shaped last year’s Presidental election

Posted on by

At the risk of sounding like a crackpot conspiracy theorist , here is how I think the mainstream media manipulated the election process to make a candidate as much to their liking as possible:

OK, Democrats, the best possible candidates for you are Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. Ignore all the others, ESPECIALLY Dennis Kucinich. He is too extreme!

Republicans, we want John McCain to be the next President. The others are too weak and we especially don’t want RON PAUL in charge!

Great! The Democrats are fighting, fighting FIGHTING over Obama and Clinton! YAY! Let’s play that up for all it’s worth, to make the Republicans look stronger.

Finally, Obama has won the Democratic nomination. And McCain has won on the Republican side. Maybe we can get a WOMAN on the Republican ticket to attract some of the Hilary supporters and ensure McCain’s victory. Here’s Sarah Palin! Obama has picked a white guy to be HIS running mate. Ho hum….

Damn! Obama WON. No matter, once he takes office, we can whip up the opposition to him as much as possible to give him a hard time. Then he will NEVER threaten our interests.

An excellent proof that global warming today is man-made

Posted on by

One of the expected proofs of the man-made global warming hypothesis is that, because  carbon dioxide (CO2) is lower in the atmosphere, the increased amounts of it will result in the lowest level of the atmosphere warming and the higher levels cooling. If most of the recent warming was due to the Sun, we would expect all levels of the atmosphere to warm equally. 

Continue reading →

Damning evidence of fraud by Nils Axel-Morner

Posted on by

Nils Axel-Morner is a global warming denialist who has claimed that sea-level rises predicted by supporters of global warming are not happening and even that sea levels were higher in the historical past.

First, check out this blog entry from Tim Lambert:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/the_australians_war_on_science_42.php

Continue reading →

The Two Central Dogmas of the Climate Change Debate

Posted on by

The two sides of the climate change or global warming debate are:

  1. Man-made Global warming theory (MMGWT) Proponents (MPs)
  2. MMGWT Denialists (MDs)

Each side is backed up by a “central dogma”. The central dogma is a claim that if debunked discredits the entire movement.

The central dogma of MPs is “that there are greenhouse gases that act to retain heat, which in turn can change climate over time”.

The central dogma of MDs is “that man cannot change climate, no matter what he does”.

Ironically, the MPs’ “central dogma” is NOT a dogma at all, since it can be tested via experiment on actual samples of gases said to be “greenhouse”, which can be peer reviewed and is reproducible by others.

By contrast, the MDs’ central dogma really is a dogma, since there is no way to debunk it. No matter what records you present to show an increase of greenhouse gases like CO2 since the 1950s, no matter what temperature records over the past century or so you present, no matter what records of solar activity you present, MDs will always come up with excuses for rejecting the case of the MPs, including arguing that the records must have been faked. So the position of the MDs is unscientific because it is non-falsifiable.

Well, you cannot fake experimental data. If the “central dogma” of the MPs were indeed false, it would have been debunked many decades ago. Instead, it is so well supported that this “central dogma” is considered as much a fact as anything else in science could be.

So MDs avoid the MPs’ “central dogma” and instead constantly argue around it. They confuse uncertainty about global warming models and projections with reasons to deny them completely. They also note the many natural causes of climate change as if that alone supports their central dogma. Both of these are logical fallacies called  non-sequiturs. They harp about the few remaining scientists who are MDs as if their credentials alone make them credible. But they don’t, because even scientists with PhDs and tenures at universities can be profoundly wrong, especially if they have ideological or financial reasons to corrupt their science.

MPs do not have to attack the central dogma of MDs because, as I showed above, it is unscientific. They just have to point out that it really is a dogma, nothing more.