http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/the-reluctant-mormon/?nl=opinion&em
June 9, 2011, 8:30 pm
The Reluctant Mormon
By TIMOTHY EGAN
----------------------------
My take
Shame on bigotry; TIMOTHY EGAN and some of this article’s commentators should be ashamed of themselves, for exploiting the bigotry trail that suits too many anti-Mormon Americans. If the article was about a Catholic would Egan be bringing out the inquisition. Even if the truth is mentioned, the tone and the implication is what is bias.
While a few Mormon leaders had multiple wives and lived with duty and honesty to each, the secular leaders of this country had and still have concubines or Mistresses—using euphemism for dishonesty and wife cheating and abusing the mistresses. For, such activity is only on the man’s side; but that seems OK to the Mormon haters, and it is never mentioned. Could it be coincidential? I do not believe so.
Why don’t these writers use the same tone for the adultery among the Kennedys and other people of influence? What Egan and other anti-Mormon writers do is exploiting the Mormon issue as if it was unique; but ink is cheap, and another article needs to be published. So, why not at the Mormons’ expense. If people today cold have multiple spouses—for they do have multiple spouses; but it is in an abusive method—“extra-marital affairs”; women would have more self-respect; and honesty would be required.
Nevertheless, today adultery is treated as a normal phase of life. Are any laws passed or enforced on the issue of adultery? I have not heard of it. But when the Mormons had multiple wives by agreement with consideration and respect to all parties, it was outlawed; and it is still treated with disdain. Where is logic? Where is the respect and liberty of the people? Where is the constitutional guaranty of “…happiness for all”? as it is mentioned when we pledge to the flag? A secret-girlfriend (or concubine), is no more than a sex slave. But no one touched nor touches the issue, because it is common among people of diversified religions and secular people. But, Adultery is kind of rare among Mormons. So, who are the abusers?
Yes, Mormons do believe in pre-existence; but is in the bile. Now, which parts of the bible are not convenient to professional preachers? Anyone who deeply studies the bible will see that Mormons do not believe on anything that is not on the bible. Did not Jesus state that those who follow him would be like Him? Some of these ministers better start reading the bible in search of what is there, rather than reading it in search of how they can please their congregation to guaranty another pay check.
A moment
"I think, therefore I am"
Friday, June 10, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Drug Control? These Intellectuals are Crazy
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/151197/major_international_leaders_plead_for_the_us_and_the_world_to_get_smart_and_stop_the_war_on_drugs/
by
Molly OTolly
Major International Leaders Plead for the US and the World to Get Smart and Stop the War on Drugs
June 4, 2011
-------------------
My Take
Drug Control? These Intellectuals are Crazy
Of course these Intellectuals are not discovering anything new. They are just looking at the history of the USA and seeing that last century’s US decision to end prohibition and start regulation both saved lives and increased taxes for the US Treasure.
To repeat the same about drugs other than alcohol would be another great way to overcome drug crime and paralyze drug cartels. That is logic.
However there is the capitalism logic of the so called police and lawyers and lawmakers who make a living from the drug crime. If drugs are legalized and thus controlled, most cops making around $100,000 would have to work for a living. Many trial lawyers and prosecutors would be in the unemployment lines; or actually on the crime business as direct participants.
A few years ago while serving on a Grand-Jury, most of the activity was about drugs. Can you see judges without a job? The Jail business as third party enforcers, would be without much of the revenue from those contracts, and from the dirty money of about $5 per phone minute that the inmates pay for phone calls.
The Intellectuals proposing regulation over criminalization are not looking at the economic downturn of the US in an already super fragile economy. They forgot that in the capitalist system it is not what is right that counts; but, rather what brings in the money is what counts—unless the public standup to the crooked lawmakers of course.
Regulation over criminalization would also hamper the US government abuse in the controlling of money-flow. There would not be another good reason to control money transactions to $10,000. The population of the world would be free--that is against the core of the capitalist system.
The tight control of the money supply and knowing where the money is, is what keeps capitalist in power. Once there is cash freedom, there will be the end of capitalism as we know it.
Can we imagine the lives save by no accidental overdoses, because cocaine and other mood affecting drugs would be quality controlled. The user would know precisely the limits; deaths from over-doses would be greatly decreased. Because over-doses normally occur when a different drug supplier sells a drug that is more pure-thus more potent than what the user normally takes.
Drugs are as evil as alcohol and tobacco are evil, therefore they should be controlled for the public’s safety.
The big question remains: Would Bill Clinton rephrase his statement from “I didn’t inhale” to “I didn’t overdose?” Better yet, would Hillary Clinton say: “I used it with moderation?”
by
Molly OTolly
Major International Leaders Plead for the US and the World to Get Smart and Stop the War on Drugs
June 4, 2011
-------------------
My Take
Drug Control? These Intellectuals are Crazy
Of course these Intellectuals are not discovering anything new. They are just looking at the history of the USA and seeing that last century’s US decision to end prohibition and start regulation both saved lives and increased taxes for the US Treasure.
To repeat the same about drugs other than alcohol would be another great way to overcome drug crime and paralyze drug cartels. That is logic.
However there is the capitalism logic of the so called police and lawyers and lawmakers who make a living from the drug crime. If drugs are legalized and thus controlled, most cops making around $100,000 would have to work for a living. Many trial lawyers and prosecutors would be in the unemployment lines; or actually on the crime business as direct participants.
A few years ago while serving on a Grand-Jury, most of the activity was about drugs. Can you see judges without a job? The Jail business as third party enforcers, would be without much of the revenue from those contracts, and from the dirty money of about $5 per phone minute that the inmates pay for phone calls.
The Intellectuals proposing regulation over criminalization are not looking at the economic downturn of the US in an already super fragile economy. They forgot that in the capitalist system it is not what is right that counts; but, rather what brings in the money is what counts—unless the public standup to the crooked lawmakers of course.
Regulation over criminalization would also hamper the US government abuse in the controlling of money-flow. There would not be another good reason to control money transactions to $10,000. The population of the world would be free--that is against the core of the capitalist system.
The tight control of the money supply and knowing where the money is, is what keeps capitalist in power. Once there is cash freedom, there will be the end of capitalism as we know it.
Can we imagine the lives save by no accidental overdoses, because cocaine and other mood affecting drugs would be quality controlled. The user would know precisely the limits; deaths from over-doses would be greatly decreased. Because over-doses normally occur when a different drug supplier sells a drug that is more pure-thus more potent than what the user normally takes.
Drugs are as evil as alcohol and tobacco are evil, therefore they should be controlled for the public’s safety.
The big question remains: Would Bill Clinton rephrase his statement from “I didn’t inhale” to “I didn’t overdose?” Better yet, would Hillary Clinton say: “I used it with moderation?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)