See if our Paparazzi cameras caught you or your friends at any recent events around town.
Shot by Dan | Enhanced with Pixlr Express
“As the eagle was killed by the arrow winged with his own feather, so the hand of the world is wounded by its own skill.”
Helen Keller
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
17 COMMENTS
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Below is a proposal for dealing with the debt ceiling issue that threatens our economy right now because of our politcal paralysis. I thought it was a good alternative. The link to the entire article is at the bottom of the comment.
“The debt-ceiling rule is a formula for getting nothing done at inordinate cost. It would be a bad way to make fiscal policy even if the recurring threat of default succeeded in getting spending and borrowing under control. So far, it hasn’t.
At the moment, Republicans are more committed to the politics of protest and dysfunction than to cautious fiscal policy, but if that should ever change they might think about proposing a different fiscal rule — maybe even one that many Democrats could embrace.
Several variants are possible. One would cap growth in federal spending at the trend rate of growth of the economy. This would let spending rise during recessions and curb its expansion during booms, thus allowing scope for Keynesian countercyclical policy. However, this approach requires agreement on the normal level of spending, and that won’t be easy to achieve.
A more elastic rule is the so-called debt brake, as used in Switzerland. This would tie growth in spending to growth in business-cycle-adjusted tax revenues. Using this approach, structural spending (i.e., spending at full employment) can grow faster than the economy, but only if taxes are raised at the same time.
A debt brake wouldn’t directly limit the size of government, but it would restrain deficits and public debt. It would also force Washington to be more honest about the tax implications of higher spending and the spending implications of lower taxes.
Budget forecasting is an imprecise business, so second- guessing once the facts are in would still be needed, and policy would have to be adjusted on the fly. However, the first requirement of any fiscal rule is that it guides budget deliberations from the start. The second requirement is that its correction mechanism, discretionary or automatic, is moderate enough to be credible. Defaulting on public debt doesn’t qualify.
Done right, the debt-brake approach passes these tests. The debt-ceiling rule by its very design fails both, and that’s why it should be scrapped.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-15/swap-the-debt-ceiling-for-a-rule-that-makes-sense.html
“At the moment, Republicans are more committed to the politics of protest and dysfunction than to cautious fiscal policy, ”
They’re already disrupting world economic health.
Why Catholic priests are amusing. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/priest-gets-stuck-in-handcuffs-rev-tom-donovan-911-gag_n_2411344.html
For those of you wondering what, in my view, God expects of his disciples read the attached story. Believers or non-believers I think it’s what humans expect of their fellow humans.
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/Samaritans_Purse_Today/post/gods_comforting_hands/?&utm_source=SPFacebook&utm_medium=referral
As a young child I saw a movie on Helen Keller. for me, it remains the best example of a committment made by one person (Anne Sullivan) to another, which enabled both persons to achieve beyond anyones’ wildest expectations.
I agree, Ron May. Thanks for the link.
Just think, if we could get rid of the pesky EPA, the U.S. could also look like this:
http://www.wunderground.com/news/before-after-photos-beijing-air-pollution-20130116
And think of how much money all those U.S. companies could make.
Mr. May, or is it Dr. May? I have seen someone call you Dr. May on here before, so no disrespect coming from this end of the thread.
I find this story narrow and disgusting in many ways.
*Saying the homes and lives of the inhabitants were destroyed so that this god could proselytize himself to the victims by way of these volunteers is weird, and irrational to say the least. What if the victims were already Christian? This type of reasoning infuriates me to no end. I hear some people around hear, they may have children with mental health issues, or handicapped, and they will say, “God wouldn’t put no more on ME than what I can handle”. Pardon me, but can I get a WTF? So a god made this child irreparably unstable and unable to ever lead our definition of a normal life to challenge you? Disgusting, sir.
*Comparing a natural disaster and cleaning up tons of moldy debris to washing someone’s feet. How is that comparable? Years of recovery compared to 20 minutes of fungus washing…?
*The author also is making an absurd assertion here. He is saying that if it wasn’t for their faith in this god, they wouldn’t be there volunteering…? Really? I find that extremely hard to believe. I don’t believe the Christians, their faith, the promise of a reward, or personal recognition had anything to do with their altruistic behavior in this matter. Theist or non-theist, we all volunteer and pull each other through the hard times.
*If these volunteers were out for recognition from anyone, supernatural or not, they are in a sad way indeed!
*If your god is doing these natural disasters to show people his presence, shouldn’t he make more of a presence in China or somewhere like that? China is roughly 4% Christian… so why does he continue to torture poor children in Africa and continue to let children be raped and hide these crimes by Boy Scout leaders and Church leaders who lead by fear in his name… all this to build faith in the victims? OK, the word is out about him here. Let it go! Move on to another continent so others can be punished for their supposed innate moral transgressions. Right? Absolutely not! Reality is knocking here… we don’t need the ideal of a deity to treat each other with love and respect. Morality is evolved through societies. If morality wasn’t evolved then we would still stone people to death for carrying sticks on a Saturday.
*Lastly, if a god(s) are real, it is apparent that no one knows what the hell he wants, needs, or knows how to follow his slight-of-hand dictations. So why does everyone seem to know what he wants but say different things? Multiple gods? Maybe. Gods not real? More plausible in my opinion. People using the idea of god and eternal punishment to achieve their own personal goals? I do think we are onto something here.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus 341-240 B.C.E.
“What does that mean exactly? Well, I’m hoping to dissect it piece by piece and let you “believers” try to come up with some kind of rebuttal. Unfortunately this will not be easy, as this quote takes care of about 99% of “faith” based arguments.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
For the first part of the quote he is saying:
Would God prevent evil if he could, but not able to? Then he is not an all powerful being, or God.
The next part of the quote is more of what Christians believe God is without even realizing it:
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
When translated down:
Is he able to stop evil, but doesn’t want to? Then he is evil.
This is a great one for Christians who say he can stop it, and he would if he could:
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Which, when I say it, sounds like this:
Is he able to stop evil and would if he could? Then where the hell does evil come from?
Final piece, my favorite, is:
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Translates to:
Can he not stop evil and doesn’t care? Then why call him God?
Can anyone prove Epicurus wrong? No matter what God you choose, either evil or not powerful, it’s not something I would ever pray to or give my entire life to.” -kneedeepincode.com
It’s Dr. May Justin, but I’ve been called a lot worse from time to time. I think you missed my point,but that’s okay.
well done, Ron May.
Justin True, it was likely me that you saw refer to poster “Ron May” as Dr. May. I usually, for consistency, try to refer to people by their blog “handles”, but if I’m speaking less formally, I may call them by name if their name is not confidential, i.e. Sandi instead of Sandi Saunders, Dr. May insteasd of Ron May, Dan instead of Dan Casey, etc. I
specifically don’t do that if I know his/her real name, but it is confidential for whatever reason.
One good reason, told to me by “Other John”, is that when posting under your real name, all your random blog comments will overshadow your professional articles. All my stuff is mixed together. His isn’t. Not that either of us won’t own our comments, BTW.
Well, Dr. May… May I ask what your point was? You gonna just leave a honky hanging?
Ron: If you are interested in a book about Christ and Christianity like nothing you have even seen, send me your email.
Justin,
I actually prefer to be called Ron. My point was that link that I posted exemplified, in my view, how our God called those of us who claim to be Christian to respond to the needs of our fellow humans on this earth. Further, my life experience has taught me that even non believers, Muslims, Jews, etc., respond to their fellow humans in times of need in a similar fashion.
I’ve been misunderstood on many occasions.
…returned a little bit ago from Country Cookin’. Enjoyed several good plates of veggies, salad, and free iced tea. Wednesdays are “seniors” night, and we get free iced tea! Anyhow, the crowd was good, kinda rather typical in size and nature. I’d say they have their niche, and are doing reasonably well, as restaurants go.
It’s always something. If its not Y2k it’s the Mayans, if not the Mayans it’s a giant asteroid. It’s enough to drive a fellow to drink. I’ll have a Sierra Nevada.
Some time back, I commented that the Colorado theater shooting had echos of the VT tragedy. A number of bloggers poo pooed the concept.
http://tinyurl.com/apphgpt
Widow of Colorado theater shooting victim sues psychiatrist
By Carma Hassan and Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN
updated 10:08 AM EST, Wed January 16, 2013
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
√ A civil lawsuit accuses psychiatrist who treated shooting suspect of negligence
√ Dr. Lynne Fenton should have alerted police about James Holmes, suit says
√ A University of Colorado spokeswoman says the lawsuit “is not well-founded legally”
SNIP
**
Hear any echos now? Family sues school and a individual at the school. School PR reject any liability.
Now how did that work out at VT?