Tonight, something happened that upset me for the first time in a really long time.  I'll have to explain it first, and then I'll mention more about it.  I'm quoting from memory, but the things I actually put in quotes are things I distinctly remember.

I had to go to church Saturday night, because my wife and I will be busy tomorrow during the normal time.  Service went well until after the homily (sermon).  The readings for today were from Ez 34:11-12, 15-17, 1 Cor 15:20-26, 28 and Matthew 25:31-46 (full text).  The focus of the homily was on the Gospel reading.  It was about the end times when Jesus will separate everyone as a shepherd separates sheep from goats.  The sheep are the ones who treated Jesus with love through treating the least of his people (poor, widows, and the hungry) with love.  The goats are the ones who treated Jesus with love through failing to love the least of his people. 

The homily was fantastic; he reminded us that if we have friends that we love, but we show or tell them that we hate their children, we have just ended that friendship.  This was likened to how we treat human beings of all types, all races, all colors, and all religions -- of course God will be upset if we treat his children badly.  He mentioned that we need to be unified in love with all countries - America, France, Spain, Germany... and with people of all colors - black, white, yellow, red, green and rainbow.  We are all children of God, and we need to treat each other as such. 

But then, he said this... "You can think whatever you want, but this is what my opinion on the war in Iraq is."   Now both me and my wife were wondering how he would tie the war in Iraq with this wonderful homily about loving all children of God...but he didn't.  Instead, he said that we have to "stay the course in Iraq", and that anyone "who favors surrendering there is a coward."  Then he spouted out yet another (old) Republican talking point, and said that "we have to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."  He followed that up by saying that "those beasts over there are killing each other, killing themselves, and killing us."  He then concluded by saying that we need to pray for our president, who "stays awake at night, worrying about our troops and the safety of our country."

Now I think you can probably guess several reasons that I was upset, but I really don't even mind Church leaders mixing politics and religion.  What got me so upset, is that he went a complete 180 from his homily on the Gospel reading.  I don't even mind that he used the same illogical talking points that I usually hear from Bill O'Reilly and Limbaugh.  He made such a big deal about making sure we treated all God's children with love, then he called some of those children of God cowards and beasts.  Now, the terrorists have performed horrible acts of violence upon innocent people, and should be stopped and punished...but they are still children of God, no matter that they believe in the wrong God, and no matter what evil influence they are under.  But I was most offended because he (like so many Republicans) indiscriminately lumped everyone together as beasts.  For every terrorist that has come into Iraq, there are thousands of innocent Iraqis.  I was very tempted to point out to the priest his blatant hypocrisy in calling Gods children beasts, especially after that homily, instead of saying that they behave beastly.

Alright... now I've vented... I feel much better now.  I'll think I'll go and feed the dog.

Here's a political joke I heard on the internet somewhere...

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas rancher (whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle), the doctor and the old man struck up a conversation about George W. Bush being in the White House.

The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle'."
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just want to help the dumb bastard get down!"

Looks like even though they want to make voters think they want to outlaw abortions, Republicans actually have the vested interested in keeping it legal. 

Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), "who helped guide the GOP to an expanded majority in the House three years ago," said a Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade "could hurt his party's political prospects and cause a 'sea change' in suburban voting habits," reports the Boston Globe.

Davis, who chaired the NRCC through 2002, admitted that "Republicans have a political cushion with voters as long as Roe is intact."

Democrats on the other hand have no interest in keeping all abortions legal.  That is why on abortion restrictions, Democrats so far have only fought against legislature that doesn't have provisions for a the health and life of the woman.  Republicans have made sure that on every proposed bill, there is no provision to save the life of the woman.  That way, when if fails, they can say that all Democrats are pro-abortion, when they are really just for giving the woman the chance to make that difficult choice for themselves. 

Since Republicans have tremendous influence over the 24hour news shows, they are often able to sucessfully reduce the broad range of intelligent and tolerant stances into their stance and the "other one" (which noone actually has).  For example:  You are either "pro-life" or you want to have as many abortions as possible.  You are either for "staying the course in Iraq" or for "Cutting and running".  You are either for the (current) president, or you are un-american.  You are either for the war in Iraq, or you are against the troops.

If there was actually a biased liberal media, the Democrats would be framing the issues the other way.  It would be you are either against focing women to sacrifice their life or health for an unborn baby, or you are against women.  You are either for providing a series of benchmarks and estimated dates for withrawl from Iraq, or you are for leaving the troops in Iraq forever.  You either support the right to dissent even the president (like Republicans did to Clinton), or you don't believe in the constitution.  You are either for providing troops armor, goals, plans, veterans benifits, etc. or you are for sacrificing America's sons and daughters to profit Haliburton and oil companies.

Boy, I'm glad I left the Republican party after casting only one presidential election vote for them.

This just in... The Vatican has rejected the "Intelligent Design" view proposed by fundamentalists.

...The Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," [Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture] said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

The Catholic Church has come a long way from prosecuting the heretic that claimed that the sun didn't revolve around the earth.  Though they've had problems in the past, I think the Catholic Church is one of the strongest religions in terms of intelligent theology.  If you're ever wondering about a religious issue, check their Catechism (kinda a theological encyclopedia).  Notably, see: Science and Faith, and Science as a service of man, and the creation account.

Well, that was easy....

Even though civil rights took an expected hit here in Texas, but elsewhere....

• in Dover (home of the "Intelligent Design" controversy), "Intelligent designers on the Dover school board were swept out en masse by the city's voters. Eight sane Dems swept out eight crazy fundamentalists." 

Now I've looked at this Inteligent Design issue quite a bit and I have had mixed feelings.  I personally don't believe in evolution from one species to another species, and prefer to believe that we were created as we are - with the built in genetic ability to "evolve" within our genetic pool (not outside it).  However, all the "Intelligent Design" proponents have proposed so far is that the "missing evidence" of evolution prove their theory.  That isn't how the scientific method that we all learned in school works.  But that's not the real reason that I don't support ID.  The proponents of ID are using "textbooks" with a huge religious leaning - talks of worldwide floods without any proof, and other Biblical stories are thrown in.  That's what Sunday School (protestants) and Religious Education (Catholic) classes are for.  If they really want religion taught (probably badly by non-religious teachers) in our classrooms, most people would support adding it to a philosophy class along with other religious beliefs (like in college).

• In Maine, "an anti-gay ballot initiative actually failed. That's something you don't see every day. An anti-gay marriage amendment in Texas passed easily (even though it may hilariously invalidate every marriage)." 
  
• "In both New Jersey and Virginia Democrats gained seats in the state legislatures...California is a disaster of epic proportions for Arnold." (All four of California's Terminator-inspired proposals failed, despite him spending $60 million (in tax-payer's money?) for this...)
  
• "[Republicans] soundly defeated reform efforts in Ohio and they held on to the NYC mayorship."
  [Quotes from Daily Kos]

Most importantly, almost every Republican that Bush campained for (and even one Democrat that supported Bush last year) have lost by staggering numbers.

I had an interesting dream last night... at least that's what I remember... and about all I can remember.  It's strange waking up with the feeling you had an interesting dream but not being able to remember any of it.  After thinking about it for most of the day, I think it had something to do with music and computers.

On a completely different note, I just got to a section in "The Truth" that used a metaphore from a "hip pop-culture reference..." the Karate Kid.  By some coincidence, I happened to see that movie this past weekend (not much coincidence, my wife loves the movie).  It's a sobering book, that lives up to its name.  It takes on more serious topics than Lies and the humor sometimes seems less funny since the subject matter is usually more depressing.  But, as always, his books are full of actually accurate information, unlike the target of his books.

And on yet another completely different note... Here's what's going on in politics today...(besides almost the entire Republican party being indited/convicted/or investigated)

WHO WOULD JESUS STARVE?
In order to offset the gross overspending on the Iraq war, and the huge (but justified) cost of hurricane recovery, Congress had to do something.   And guess what that was...  removing the tax cut for the rich -- just kidding, the Republicans won't dare to ask the rich to pay for anything. They are cutting massive funding ($50 billion) to about every social program for lower class and middle class people.  Meanwhile, they are extending $70 billion or more in tax breaks for the extremely wealthy (top 0.2% of taxpayers already got an average of $103,000 in tax cuts each from the previous tax cut).  These cuts include:

• Food stamps, including removing free-lunch programs for an estimated 30,000 kids
  
• Student loans
  
• Housing Assistance
  
• Health care
  
• Nursing homes

WHO WOULD JESUS TORTURE?

Los Angeles Times

Speaking from the Senate floor, McCain said, "If necessary - and I sincerely hope it is not - I and the co-sponsors of this amendment will seek to add it to every piece of important legislation voted on in the Senate until the will of a substantial bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress prevails. Let no one doubt our determination."

The no-torture wording, which proponents say is supported by majorities in both houses of Congress, was included last month in the Senate's version of a defense spending bill. The measure's final form is being negotiated with the House, and the White House is pushing for either a rewording or deletion of the torture ban.... The Bush administration has sought to exempt the CIA from the ban.

WHO WOULD JESUS PERCECUTE?

With the proposition that is to be voted on tomorrow to add a redundant admendment to the Texas Constitiution to make anything "identical or similar to marriage" even more illegal (as if the Defence of Marriage Act wasn't enough....) here's something to amuse you.
Twelve reasons why same-sex marriage will ruin society

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
   
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children. 
   
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children. 
   
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's  55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
   
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
   
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
   
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
   
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
   
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
   
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
    
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
    
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

UPDATE: Just in case anyone doubted the outcome, the Texas anti-gay rights admendment was passed 75% to 25%... Surprise, surprise, surprise...