Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Are we about to hand Iraq over to Tehran's mullahs? | Main | 2006 Endorsements (Part V) »

Friday, October 13, 2006

Self haters

I am about to leave Orange county for Los Angeles and before doing so, I'd like to tell you about the people I came across in San Francisco. People who hate their own government and even have no desire of working for, what they call it, their oppressive country. One thing you notice in cities like San Francisco, Bay area and other left wing cities, is the people's hatred for their own selves and the sense of self-victimization among the so-called intellectuals. You know, they feel the world hates the US and its people and it is their fault that the universe hates them.

It's just amazing to see people who were lucky enough to be born and raised in the US but hate the very country that has given them freedom to hate this or that.

Many people told me that president Bush wants to hurt Iran and when I told them no, he doesn't wish to do so and he is an honorable man, many started yelling at me or asking me if I live in this planet. I asked them would it be okay for you guys to see people of Europe under the rule of Nazis or Iraqis being tortured or killed under the rule of Saddam and all I heard in response was that Bush lied, we invaded a country that never hurt us and the most funny thing they told me was that they need to see more evidence of Nazis crimes or Saddam's crimes against their own people to be able to justify crimes of the US in other countries. To them, America is the world's biggest oppressor since the US is oppressing Cubans, Mexicans, Iraqis, Iranians and even Europeans. To them, Sept. 11th terrorist attacks could be an inside job and the US is fighting the terrorism for more oil and natural resources. They are for illegal immigration from Latin America to the US. They are for appeasing the Mullahs of Iran and little dictator of North Korea. These people don't understand what a weak US means and when I told them that a less strong US won't be able to stand against the communist China or Islamic militants, they seemed not to care. They have been raised in such a safe and free country that they can't fathom what real oppression means or does.

These people's mentality is sick. I have no doubt about it. They hate themselves to a point where they can't see others at all. It was incredible to see how they dislike every thing about themselves.

They couldn't understand when I kept telling them most of the world's hatred for the US is based on jealousy and historical animosity but they were really unable to comprehend it. It's really unfortunate that these people have closed their eyes on reality and live in their miserable land of dreams in which they have no sense of honor and understanding.

Cross-posted @ The Spirit of Man

Posted by Winston on October 13, 2006 in International Affairs, Travel | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834f1742569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Self haters:

Comments

They need to see more evidence of S.H. and his sons crimes? Is that a joke? I remember seeing a program on CNN 3 years ago that showed human shredders and several dozen fully-functional machine guns that were made out of gold that one of the sons had bought from Europe. If anyone out there thinks that this was okey-dokey, than...what can I say?

Posted by: CoryDS77 | 2006-10-13 5:01:40 PM


(That should read "...then...what can I say?".)

By the way, what was the other son's name? One was Uday, the other was...what? The two names sounded like something out of Pig Latin.

Posted by: CoryDS77 | 2006-10-13 5:04:37 PM


I fully agree with Winston on this phenomenon. What is the healing technique? Was there a cure for the decadence of Rome?

I think the problem is their lack of spirituality. Without God, men become like animals.

And we see the problem even in political institutions. Take for example the man in Congress accused of homosexuality with young employees.

What are the values carried by our society? Take a look at the idiot box (TV). Right now, the program is 'Loft's story'. What is the story? Just young males and females having sex. Just like animals when their period comes.

Of all the movies I've seen this year, how many were about nice feelings and values? At the most, 10%. The 90% left are about sex and violence.

So what do you expect? We harvest what we sow.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-10-13 5:23:44 PM


We should all congratulate the S.F. public education system for producing a generation of eunuchs and feminist psychopaths. Harsh assessment? Yes - but all too true. For what its worth, I encourage everyone to take some time to read Richard Mgrdechian's How the Left Was Won; it is a chilling look at the enemy within that is emboldening the enemy without.

Posted by: bk | 2006-10-13 5:45:40 PM


Before we can defeat any enemy we must first unite the people of the US and Canada by defeating the Left and it's insane ideas and attitudes. They do appear to have a mental disorder. Perhaps it's some sort of emotional imbalance as well since they appear so screwy and guilt ridden.

Take heart the Left has fewer children than the right generally. The backlash against the Left has finally begun in earnest. Many of us are no longer tolerating mindless political correctness and the vile judgementalism that spews from the Left.

They must be taken to task on all of their BS. When you debate a leftie they will never win an argument where one must think their point through to a logical conclusion. The Left doesn't know what conclude is because most of them are totally process oriented.

That's why they mostly choose boring mindless no bottom line gigs like working for some level of government ... lots of them teach do social work etc. They all like astrology too. Nothing is ever final and emotions are more important than brains.

That they have been working against liberty and prosperity openly for years is a shame on the rest of us for putting up with it for so long and for letting them get so far.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-10-13 6:17:13 PM


Unchecked narcissism fueled by a society of decadance.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-13 6:18:45 PM


It is indeed a sad phenomonem that has infilltrated much of the Western psyche.

Many things are to blame for this such as television, targeted advertisments, larger than life movies of violence etc.

I believe though that the major root cause is that of too much free time on our collective hands which is a sign of an over ripe society that is ready to burst open and rot.

Our forefathers spent a great deal of time in just surviving from day to day in either a long unregulated workday job or out in the fields.

As technology eased the workday burden people have had more time to pursue recreational activities and hence misuse this free time.

We now live in a 'Me' society where the main misdirected goal is to acquire a never ending supply of uneeded possesions.

Religion spirituality and reason have gone out the door right ahead of responsibility compassion and direction. In short we have become a rootless society that can't find it's way back to the garden and as such is always on the prowl for another 'fix' to assuage the pain of having lost its way.

I fear it has become terminal as pointed out in Winston's post :the unfortunate thing being that people will now buy into most anything if it appears to have some entertainment value.

Such is how low we have sunk.

Needless to say that with so much lazy thinking about, it makes it quite easy for the social reform/engineering hacks to move in with their fuzzy feel good snake oil remedies and whitewash the whole mess.

My concluding remark on this state of affairs is:

May God help us.

Posted by: in ques t | 2006-10-13 6:35:34 PM


Unfortunatly its not just SF. it seems most north american universities are also affected I would hope that a life view based on self hate can only collapse under the weight of its own ennuie.For my kids? lots of reading and writing,And a belief system.We could all do well to remember the Irish monks ,who kept the thread of civilization alive while europe sank into dark ages. This time around it will be even darker if the islamofacsists win, it seems that the liberal mindset welcomes defeat as a cleansing scourge, and thats just sick.

Posted by: nick | 2006-10-14 12:15:19 AM


Unfortunatly its not just SF. it seems most north american universities are also affected I would hope that a life view based on self hate can only collapse under the weight of its own ennuie.For my kids? lots of reading and writing,And a belief system.We could all do well to remember the Irish monks ,who kept the thread of civilization alive while europe sank into dark ages. This time around it will be even darker if the islamofacsists win, it seems that the liberal mindset welcomes defeat as a cleansing scourge, and thats just sick.

Posted by: nick | 2006-10-14 12:15:21 AM


"The liberal mindset welcomes defeat as a cleansing scourge" - Nick

That's about as apt a description of the underlying psychology of the left as I have ever read.

Posted by: EBD | 2006-10-14 12:21:30 AM


I do think that there is at least a degree to which it is the case that those who are wont to wax cynically and pessimistically, with the attendant lack of self-respect that implies, do have a tendency to dress to the left.

We shall see. My understanding is that over the millenia, those lacking such self-respect don't tend to do so well, which doesn't bode well for the left in the long run, just as it hasn't in the past.

As my great-grandfather used to say, get down off the cross Martha, we need the wood for the bridge. Of course, he was a self-respecting engineer. (Actually, I made this paragraph up.)

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-10-14 12:34:16 AM


I welcome defeat as de things at de end of de legs. 'Course, I don't spell too good. I used to think that denail was just a wood fastener in Egypt.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-10-14 12:48:37 AM


Duke The Biggot wrote:

"Before we can defeat any enemy we must first unite the people of the US and Canada by defeating the Left and it's insane ideas and attitudes."

Unite by defeat, huh? Yup, that'll work.

"They do appear to have a mental disorder. Perhaps it's some sort of emotional imbalance as well since they appear so screwy and guilt ridden."

Sort of like Duke's proposition that lynch mob street justice is.. umm.. balanced!


"Take heart the Left has fewer children than the right generally."

Ah, so we should take heart in opinion by popular opinion, rather than correct thinking?

"The backlash against the Left has finally begun in earnest. Many of us are no longer tolerating mindless political correctness and the vile judgementalism that spews from the Left."

And there are some of us who no longer tolerate the vile judgementalism of either the right or the left. Neither position is based on reality, but upon silly projections and ideas of coercion of other individuals.


"They must be taken to task on all of their BS. When you debate a leftie they will never win an argument where one must think their point through to a logical conclusion."

Neither will a "rightie." Case in point is Duke, who is fond of using silly terms like "western values" without defining them; but then proposes lynch mob street justice for expressions he sillily gets emotional about.

"The Left doesn't know what conclude is because most of them are totally process oriented."

Process oriented? What do you mean exactly, Duke?


"That they have been working against liberty and prosperity openly for years is a shame on the rest of us for putting up with it for so long and for letting them get so far."

Define "liberty," Duke. From your comments thus far, I am sure that I support ALL liberty to a degree you are unable to do so.

Do you mean "liberty" for individuals, or "liberty" for group think?

I support and fight for the inherent rights of ALL individuals. How about you, Duke?

Duke, do you fight for the right of an individual's freedom of expression?

How about freedom to property?

Or, do you have any "qualifications" for those freedoms.. and if so, can you logically support them, and support them in such a way that they do not interfere with another individual's rights to the same things, even when that expression disgusts you?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 5:46:52 AM


Was there a cure for the decadence of Rome?
Yea. take the crap to the garbage dump or crumble.

Posted by: Frico | 2006-10-14 6:11:14 AM


Take heart, the left has fewer children than the right generally.
Wonder how that happens to be. Leftist ideology goes along way to fix the problem of unwanted helpless wee ones!

Posted by: Frico | 2006-10-14 6:18:38 AM


Ian,
While I can, in principle, agree with your sentiments, would you please explain this:

"I support and fight for the inherent rights of ALL individuals. "

Please define at least some of those rights and how they differ from Duke.

Also, how did they become inherent? Is this like Natural law?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-14 6:57:45 AM


Some of those rights:

the right to life
the right to property
the right to expression
the right to association

Duke seems to have problems with at least, the right to expression, and possibly with the right to property.

he's asserted that it would be a good thing for mobs to beat up someone that happens to wear a Hezbollah flag.

how did they "become" inherent? That's an illogical question.

Inherent has nothing to do with "becoming." They are inherent.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 7:09:12 AM


Ian,
"how did they "become" inherent? That's an illogical question."

Yes. It is.

Hence it begs the question as to how one recognizes them as inherent? Would the ones you have identified as inherent also be found as inherent by most people here.

How about in other parts of the world? Say the middle east for example. Do most people there recognize them as being inherent? If not, why not?

Also, how do we know what the limitations are of those inherent rights, if any? What happens when one right conflicts with another right. Which one supercedes, if any?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-14 7:21:57 AM


Remi Houle: You beat me to it!

Immediately after reading about the self-loathing of a lot of Americans I concluded, "Yup. It's the death wish of an increasing Godlessness that's hit the nation."

One smells the sulphur. The Evil One is "the father of lies" and sews lies about the U.S. at every turn. If people are unaware of Satan's dirty tricks--and, let's face it, a large number of Americans (we'll leave Canadians out of this argument) don't believe in God, have no faith, except in materialistic things, and therefore have no concept of the reality of Evil--they cannot arm themselves against them.

And so they are vulnerable to exactly what the father of lies is doing to them: leading them to suicide. There is a death wish in these self-haters of which they seem blithely unaware. They seem incapbable of understanding that even with the problems and corruption in the U.S., it is a Nation way out in front of all other Nations in compassion, outreach, and global leadership.

I caught Bono on Larry King last night, and even he acknowledges that the U.S. is in the forefront of outreach to AIDS victims throughout the world, going so far as to say that conservatives were way ahead of those on the left when it comes to global outreach on poverty. I could barely believe what I was hearing! (Unfortunately, his answer was in response to a smarmy, smug question by Larry King suggesting that "of course" Bono wouldn't be on President George Bush's side, except for PGWB's help on the AIDS front...)

Bono, refreshingly, said that he is sick and tired of U.S. bashers.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-10-14 7:30:51 AM


"Hence it begs the question as to how one recognizes them as inherent?"

By using one's mind. Rationality supercedes mysticism.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 7:36:21 AM


"By using one's mind. Rationality supercedes mysticism."

I'll try again.

Do most people recognize these rights as inherent? If not, why not?

Do they lack a rational mind? If not, they can be educated to recognize these rights?

How do we know we have the right set of inherent rights?

How do we resolve conflicting inherent rights?


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-14 7:42:04 AM


"Do most people recognize these rights as inherent? If not, why not?"

I don't know. Reality has nothing to do with a popularity contest.


"Do they lack a rational mind? If not, they can be educated to recognize these rights?"

Those who don't possibly value mysticism above rationality. I have no clue as to who or who cannot be educated.


"How do we know we have the right set of inherent rights?"

There is only one "set," therefore there is nothing to be concerned about with the question of the "right set."

"How do we resolve conflicting inherent rights?"

Inherent rights don't conflict.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 7:46:16 AM


Ian,
If there is only one set of inherent rights, why should I believe you know it as opposed to someone else?

How do I know you have the perfectly rational mind to recognize this set?

"Inherent rights don't conflict."

I'll have to check on this. I have my doubts.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-14 7:52:55 AM


"If there is only one set of inherent rights, why should I believe you know it as opposed to someone else?"

Don't believe me. Use your own mind and rationality. It's not difficult.

"How do I know you have the perfectly rational mind to recognize this set?"

You can't know, so use your own rational mind.

""Inherent rights don't conflict."

I'll have to check on this. I have my doubts."

Do some checking then, and get back to me.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 7:56:21 AM


""How do I know you have the perfectly rational mind to recognize this set?"

By the way, even if you somehow can't figure it out, I'll still recognize your inherent rights. I won't try to own you or tell you what is good for you.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 7:57:59 AM


To consider 'inherent' rights is an honorable ideology but it is logically unfounded. The fundamental reality of this principle is an utopian concept.
Individual rights are only recognized as those deemed granted within any society governed or otherwise. Personal freedom is a cherished ideal but when rights become embedded in law it beckons disputes whenever one's rights infringes on another's; an unavoidable consequence however noble the intention.
Lawyers dreamland!

Posted by: Frico | 2006-10-14 7:59:29 AM


Been Around The Block raises the conundrum known as the US of A: they will contribute the most to fighting AIDS and saving lives, yet think nothing of destabilizing Iraq leading to the deaths of tens of thousands drectly (bombing) and indirectly (the civil war we are seeing now).

They will arm Israel and support the destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure, and then donate the most money to rebuilding said infrastructure. The mind boggles.

No one hates the US of A - or at least shouldn't. She has granted us technology like no one else, her riches and wealth are a boon to all. One, however, CAN hate her the arrogance of her leaders to use that wealth to cause pain, through foreign policy, to others who have little already.

A proper survey would find very few people hate America as a whole. People do hate American leaders and their policies.

Posted by: John Leningrad | 2006-10-14 8:02:06 AM


"To consider 'inherent' rights is an honorable ideology but it is logically unfounded."

Show the illogic of it. If inherent rights do not exist, then slavery is morally acceptable.

"The fundamental reality of this principle is an utopian concept."

Nothing "utopian" about it.

"Individual rights are only recognized as those deemed granted within any society governed or otherwise."

You confuse what is inherent, and what is "recognized."

Indeed, if only that which is recognized is the measuring stick, then any power has any moral right over any individual and there is nothing to "complain" about.

"Personal freedom is a cherished ideal but when rights become embedded in law it beckons disputes whenever one's rights infringes on another's;"

If you are referring to "positive" rights, I absolutely agree. Negative rights however, never conflict.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 8:03:12 AM


I already know my mind is only partially rational. I cannot foresee every possible outcome, circumstance, or fact. To top it off, I have these flaws called emotions and certain frailties that may impact how my mind works.

Frailties like age, energy requirements for the brain, chemical reactions to foods, drugs, etc.

So, yes, using my rational mind can be difficult.

I suspect most people have this same problem.

My (admittedly suspect) conclusion is that neither I nor they will ever be able to find that perfect list of inherent rights that never conflict.

In the mean time, I will have to resort to political compromises, judicial interpretations, and a host of other less than ideal solutions.

Until a perfect being shows up to guide us.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-14 8:06:50 AM


"the right to life
the right to property
the right to expression
the right to association"

"If you are referring to "positive" rights, I absolutely agree. Negative rights however, never conflict."

Please rephrase as negative rights.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-14 8:11:05 AM


"I already know my mind is only partially rational"

Your mind has the capability of being perfectly rational.

"I cannot foresee every possible outcome, circumstance, or fact."

Of course you cannot. But we're not discussing possible outcomes, we're discussing what we can know, right now.

"Frailties like age, energy requirements for the brain, chemical reactions to foods, drugs, etc."

You confuse your brain with your rational mind. And even if the physical parts of your brain affect your mind, and you wish to give up your being to some other being or give up your being's rights to someone else, that is your choice. Please don't, however, expect that I will make the same choice as you.

"My (admittedly suspect) conclusion is that neither I nor they will ever be able to find that perfect list of inherent rights that never conflict."

Well, I can show you how inherent rights don't conflict if you have specific questions.

"In the mean time, I will have to resort to political compromises, judicial interpretations, and a host of other less than ideal solutions."

Suit yourself. But do you expect everyone else to do the same?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 8:12:45 AM


Ian,
"Your mind has the capability of being perfectly rational."

Thanks for the words of affirmation, however, you are wrong. As you cannot know my mind, you cannot make this statement without projecting.

Or do you know my mind?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-14 8:15:39 AM


Your mind has the capability. The mind, by it's very nature, is that which thinks.

Mysticism and faith is not of the mind; but is of the emotional.

The fact you are communicating your ideas is evidence that your mind is rational and capable.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 8:20:35 AM


But even if it is not capable, and by admission you are unable to grasp basic concepts and premises - by what right then do you have to demand or assert what others should do or think?

Or what they do with their property. Or their expressions. Or their associations.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 8:22:16 AM


Emotions are part of the mind.

I know I CAN be rational, capable, and reasonable.

You said "perfectly rational". T'ain't gonna happen! See above, re: Emotions are part of the mind.

I don't know why you have mentioned faith and mysticism. I don't know if this is relevant but I'm an atheist.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-14 8:26:26 AM


"But even if it is not capable, and by admission you are unable to grasp basic concepts and premises - by what right then do you have to demand or assert what others should do or think?"

Misreading: unable to grasp... Oh, I am able. Just not perfectly.

I have not asked or demanded any such thing from others.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-14 8:29:20 AM


"Emotions are part of the mind."

ABsolutely not. The mind, at times, recognizes emotion, but they are not part of the mind. Emotions are not rational.

This can easily be proven by the fact that it is possible for a being to "choose" an emotion.

"You said "perfectly rational"."

You are unable to point to reality?

"I don't know why you have mentioned faith and mysticism. I don't know if this is relevant but I'm an atheist."

So you have faith that there is no god, never was a god, and never will be a god?

That's faith.

Can you prove there is no god? Never was a god, and never will be a god?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 8:30:53 AM


h20... I have to leave... but before we discuss epistemology, consider this:

http://ianism.com/?p=347

Discuss, as you wish.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 8:35:07 AM


Nick says "While Europe sank into the dark ages"

No such thing as the so called "dark ages" it is a complete lie....free markets, capitalism, improvements in art, music, betting sailing ships, the creation of universities for higher learning were all developed durring this time. ALL IN EUROPE. If there is any place that can be labbelled living in the dark ages it would have to be the middle and far east. In allot of aspects still to this day.

Posted by: Conservative Crusader | 2006-10-14 9:09:00 AM


Ian,
"Can you prove there is no god? Never was a god, and never will be a god?"

Can you prove to me that you aren't a god, never were a god, or never will be a god?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-10-14 9:15:09 AM


"No such thing as the so called "dark ages" it is a complete lie....free markets, capitalism"

ROTFLMAO!!

Umm...what markets were "free," exactly?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 9:29:29 AM


"Can you prove to me that you aren't a god, never were a god, or never will be a god?"

Nope, if you mean in the "supreme being" sort of 'god'.

Can't prove that at all. Never said I could. You however, by asserting "atheism," assert there is no god. Never was, never will be.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 9:31:51 AM


Ian,

Those markets controlled by the great monastic estates, such as cluny.

Posted by: Conservative Crusader | 2006-10-14 9:45:37 AM


"Those markets controlled ..."

Controlled markets are not free markets.

"...great monastic estates, such as cluny."

And you call that free markets, capitalism, etc?

Hey.. ok. You're entitled to your opinion, I guess.

But "free markets?"

Ummmm...

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 9:52:34 AM


"Lets try this for size "It is possible for a being to "choose" to bend his finger therefore the finger is not the part of the body of the "being" simply because it can be manipulated."

Ummm... whatever. When my father lay on a bed, mind dead after a stroke, his fingers still bent.

"It can easily be proven by the fact that it is possible for a being to "choose" a rationality of his thinking depending on emotional state of mind at any given moment."

It can easily be proven that emotional states have nothing to do with rationality.

Just go check out some Pentecostals on a Sunday night.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 10:00:44 AM


Everthing has a beggining....my point being capitalism began durring the dark ages on those great estates...whether they were completely free...whose to say...none of us were there....but it is safe to say....the dark ages were hardly dark.

If you have the time I would suggest checking out the new book by Rodney Stark. The victory of reason, how Christianity led to freedom, capitalism and western success.

Posted by: Conservative Crusader | 2006-10-14 10:05:04 AM


"how Christianity led to freedom, capitalism and western success."

Ummm.. ok. And I guess free thinkers like Voltaire and John Locke had nothing to do with it.

You know.. they dudes that were actually arguing against the Christian doctrines of the time.

Uh huh.

Even John Milton took shit for his treatises on divorce against the Christian principalities of the time - even Milton recognized the value of the individual.

In spite of Christian doctrine at the time.

Western values of inherent rights came about with a rebellion against Christian values of the time.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 10:15:56 AM


"Pentecostals on Sunday night???
Is that the best defence you can offer??"

Not the best, but the funniest.

"You threw memory of your own father on his deathbed and his misfortune into this discussion as well,"

You have problems with someone pointing to reality?

You disputing the fact his fingers moved, even though his mind was dead?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 10:35:24 AM


"He jumped from the tenth floor of University building to his death."

A choice some people make.

"He was in the air for two and a half seconds, terminal velocity 90 kilometers per hour. I thought to myself this guy is very sick."

Well, your thoughts about him being sick are your thoughts. The guy might have been very intelligent and able to compute the length of his life from the time he jumped until he hit the ground.

"It might also have been that there were still parts of his brain that were not quite dead and that he was trying to communicate with you the only way he could."

Unlikely, if one realizes that a brain filled with blood won't operate in any rational sense at all.

Some strokes only affect some parts of the brain - and if one studies and knows a thing or two about strokes, one realizes this. A massive stroke, where the brain is completely soaked in blood and therefore is completely "brain dead" is indeed, "brain dead."

"f it happend that you made a decision to pull a plug on him despite him moving his finger you might have a problem that I am not able to help you with."

What do you suggest the "problem" might be?

I wrote a tribute to my father shortly after he passed away:

http://about-flyfishing.com/library/weekly/aa011501a.htm

I'm also sane. i can recognize reality.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-10-14 11:08:26 AM


Ian:

There is plenty of room for criticism about the administrative practices of the church.

The tenets of Christianity remain solid.

You mention divorce ... the Bible actually allows divorce, but places the onus of responsibility on the individual.

It says, in no uncertain terms, that a person better get it right the third time.

Not exactly what the Catholic church was teaching, to be sure, but that's what I mean by administrative errors.

Much of the problem was the insistence of using Latin worldwide, meaning the priests held the final intepretive word, much like today's mullahs interpret the Qur'an in Arabic.

The Roman church changed in the early 1970's, where services in the language of the people were finally allowed.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-14 11:13:51 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.