It would figure that I would have A/C problems at the most inconvienient time.  All during the summer weekend where I have a wedding to go to, a concert to go to, and a college buddy over.  It's not completely broke, but it's no longer keeping up with the heat - even at night.  It'll be a long weekend.  It's only the outside unit that's not working anymore, but knowing my luck it'll be expensive and take way too long to fix.  Luckily (???) my college buddy has just come back from Iraq, so he's probably used to temperatures over 85 degrees.

Update: It didn't cost too much, and it was fixed before the wedding.  Funny thing happened though, I got locked out that morning trying to clear the area around the A/C, one of those self-locking doors.  I tried to wake my friend up, but he obviously can sleep through anything after his tour.  I found a kitchen window that was unlocked and crawled inside...

Luke 10:25 through Luke 10:37

"Who is my neighbor?"

Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"
He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"
He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

So the priest, someone who is respected and is supposed to be a godly person, is not a neighbor to this man.  The Levite, who was a member of a respected Jewish tribe often given additional rights and responsibilities in the Jewish religion, is likewise not a neighbor to this man.  The Samaritan, who was a member of a group that schismed from Judiasm with a mutual dislike between the two religious and ethnic groups, was a neighbor to this man.  The moral is, of course, that according to Jesus - actions speak louder than words, position, ethnicity and religion.

This calls us all to look at ourselves and wonder which group of people would we be shocked to have pass by on the other side of the street, and which group of people would we be shocked to have help us as we lie half-dead.  What if the roles were reversed, if you were the one walking down the road, who would you help and who would you walk past?

• Would it be based on their religions: Muslims, Jews, Athiests, Catholics, right-wing Christians, left-wing Christians, etc?


• or their ethnicity: Arabs, blacks, hispanics, whites, Asians, etc?


• or their sexual preference: homosexual, heterosexual, transgendered, intersexed (hermaphrodite), or any combination thereof?


• or their political leanings: liberal, conservative, libertarian, facist, moderate, etc?

How can we claim to have the faith in God necessary for salvation if we would ignore a human who's in need of help?  How can we claim to be Christians if we fail to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us?"

From Crooks and Liars, Santorum debunked by Colmes over WMD's.

Even Fox News isn't allowing this blatant pandering to justify the original reason for the Iraq war (out of around 4-5 total reasons).

Colmes: It's Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group, uhh, let me go to the Duelfer Report-says Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle who reported this for Fox News-quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded.

And the official went on to say that they are-these are not the WMD's this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had-and not the WMD's for which this country went to war. So the chest beating that the  Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department.

I never thought a "Fox liberal" like Colmes (meaning a moderate) would be able to make a valid point on Fox News.  So, how do weapons that were 12 years old and degraded to the point that they couldn't be used when we went to war justify anything? 

More information from Defiance_01 and the liberal Daily Kos blog.

From the washington post,

Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three.

...

"The claims of this administration and its commitment to interior enforcement of immigration laws are laughable," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an advocacy group that favors tougher workplace enforcement, among other measures. "The administration only discovered immigration enforcement over the past few months, five years into its existence, and only then because they realized that a pro-enforcement pose was necessary to get their amnesty plan approved."

...

While most of the government's get-tough rhetoric has focused on people illegally crossing the border, others noted, about 40 percent of the nearly 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States entered the country legally on visas and simply stayed. That means they probably can be caught only at work.

So, now that claim to want to fix the immigration problem - when they need an excuse to get the extreme right-wing bigots out to vote against the latest group of "inferior people" who tend to support Democrats (the last couple of election year cycles focused on homosexuals).  Instead of stopping the decline in enforcement for their first 4 years, they let it fall to nothing.  Now, they're all about getting "real" immigration reform.  (Just like they were all supportive of giving helping out after Katrina - well after Katrina - until the public lost it's attention).  Notice the last part of my quote - everytime they say we need fences to keep illegal immagrants out, keep reminding yourself that nearly half of them are not crossing the border illegally.

Sorry to break it to you, all the administration wants is to give their corporate buddies (like "Kenny-boy") a legal way to pay their employees next to nothing in order to make more profit.  Just like we abused slaves, indentured servants, U.S. citizens immigrating to the west (a.k.a. Grapes of Wrath).  Now it's illegal immigrants, union-busting techniques (like WalMart) and outsourcing to China and other places where worker abuse occurs (also WalMart).  These current batch of Republicans aren't even conservative - they're corporatists pure and simple.  That's why the Iraq war resulted in a 600% increase in no-bid (without "free market" competition) contracts to the Vice President's former company, Halliburton.  That's why they put 2 corporate lawyers into the Supreme Court.  That's why they let the pharmasudical companies write the medicare reform bill.  That's why they want to privatize social security (and apparantly FIMA), and so on and so forth. 

Where's the fiscal conservatism (larger deficit than all other presidents COMBINED)?  Where's the states rights (gay marriage)?  Where's the free market forces (no-bid contracts)?  Where's the small government (larger and more incompatent)?  Where's the Libertarian ideals (the government should be trusted to only spy on the right people)?  Where's the rule of law (signing statements on torture bans)?  I'll tell you where, they've all switched to the Democrats.  Clinton balanced the budget - created a surplus, left gay marriage up to the states, had a FIMA that worked, complied with laws on wiretapping, didn't have 700+ signing statements... but he misrepresented an adultorous personal relationship and we all know that that's what the founders meant by "high crimes and misdomeners".  (Not outing undercover CIA agents, not presenting false and misleading intelligence to go to war, not letting a gay prostitute pretent to be a White House correspondant, not staying on vacation while letting a city flood, not copying Nixon's wiretapping philosophy, not illegally spying on anti-war groups)

But despite all this, go ahead and vote Republican - because as Karl Rove says, it's a choice between "staying the course in Iraq" and "cutting and running".  There is absolutely no middle ground, no other options, nor a Democrat Plan for Iraq (3/29/2006).  Because when Democrat Rep. Murtha says that he wants our troops to move out of the target zone and redeploy so they are no longer targets, but can still send in air strikes like the one that got Al-zarqui, he really means that we should surrender and let the terrorists win.

I've spent the weekend painting the two bedrooms in our house.  It wasn't as difficult as I thought, but I'm still worn out.  We used "Arabian Sands" for the walls, but kept the trim and ceilings white.  I don't have any actual pictures yet, but here's a screenshot of our plan that's pretty close to what our bedroom looks like, (from Behr.com)

I'm back briefly... I seemed to have some problem with my JavaScript, so I removed it all.  I don't think I had anything of use there anyway.  Below is a letter I heard from a progressive radio show about the blatant pandering (yet again) of our leaders with the Gay-Marriage Ban Amendment (which couldn't even get a majority of votes).  I don't personally believe in gay marriage, which is why I didn't marry a gay man.  I could care less if my neighbor does it though, I still don't see how it will affect my marriage at all.  With that said, my conservative political side comes out and asks why the "conservatives" in our government want to both legislate what we do in our personal lives, and why they want to federalize this issue and take away states' rights.  I also heard that this same type of crowd was around sometime around the 1910s-1920s; only that time the government proposed a constitutional amendment to ban inter-racial marriages, which were already illegal.  Luckily, that Amendment didn't pass, and that those damn "activist judges" overturned those laws... I probably wouldn't have been allowed to marry my wife, I'm white and she's Hispanic.  I think that if you want to "preserve the sacred institute of marriage", we need to take marriage out of the government and put it back in the church where it belongs before the government screws it up further. 

So, as promised, here's a letter by one of the listeners to the Stephanie Miller Show showing how easy it is to focus on all the Old Testament laws and forget how Jesus just wanted us to love God and love each other.  Not to rejoice in the persecution of people based on things they can't change, whether it's sexual orientation or race.

Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly rejects it... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

A Concerned American