The 2008 elections are on there way and the candidates are beginning to campaign. When the candidates speak, it's important that they know what to and what not to do with their hands. Some candidates point with their index finger. Bill Clinton for example made the letter A in sign language then turned so the thumb was on top and would wave his hand on the left side, then the right side and settled in the center with the thumb point. Hitler had his entire right arm extended. That one's pretty much off limits to American candidates...same with the mustache.
So, here's the contest: Either pick a hand guesture that will be most popular regardless of candidate or if you're feeling really ambitious you can pick what candidate is prone to do which guesture.
Mine...Barak Obama will have the thumb and index signal. When he pounds on his podium he'll do so with his pointer and thumb extended over a fist. He wont point it directly at anything. It will often look like he's measuring something or in honor of Seinfeld, squishing someone's head.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tickets to the gun show anyone?
I know this is a little morbid that I would get a kick out of it, but rarely do I get episodes like the following.
I pulled up to the house where I lead a middle school youth group (WyldLife) tonight. I was fine tuning the talk I was to give and looked up for a moment of thought. Right then, a car that had just passed by jammed his brakes. As the tires half rolled and half skid, I saw a creature come out from under the right front tire. I know... it's sad.
So, the guy sits in his car for a second. Puts the car in reverse, backs up to where he had hit his brakes as if he could rewind time. He sits a little longer. Then he finally gets out of his car. He looks around to see if anyone saw what happened. He was probably hoping he could just get in his car and drive away. Then he spots me. He looks at me. I just shrug. By this time, the cat had run from under the car with an interesting sideways limp, like it just had it's ass skid accross by a car. The guys starts to go to where the cat is, then decides it's not worth his time. He starts to walk to the house on the other side of the street, then stops and turns back to his car. Then the cat ran across the road again toward the house he had started to walk to. Then he looked at me. I shrug. He stands there for a few seconds trying to figure out what to do. He looks at me. I shrug. Then he gets in his car and leaves.
During the whole thing, I just had a fun feeling that this whole thing was like a show for my enjoyment only. I know there's nothing fun about a cat getting run over...as my mom puts it, "Oh no, somebody's baby!"
Thanks God, thanks for that little bit of morbid joy.
I pulled up to the house where I lead a middle school youth group (WyldLife) tonight. I was fine tuning the talk I was to give and looked up for a moment of thought. Right then, a car that had just passed by jammed his brakes. As the tires half rolled and half skid, I saw a creature come out from under the right front tire. I know... it's sad.
So, the guy sits in his car for a second. Puts the car in reverse, backs up to where he had hit his brakes as if he could rewind time. He sits a little longer. Then he finally gets out of his car. He looks around to see if anyone saw what happened. He was probably hoping he could just get in his car and drive away. Then he spots me. He looks at me. I just shrug. By this time, the cat had run from under the car with an interesting sideways limp, like it just had it's ass skid accross by a car. The guys starts to go to where the cat is, then decides it's not worth his time. He starts to walk to the house on the other side of the street, then stops and turns back to his car. Then the cat ran across the road again toward the house he had started to walk to. Then he looked at me. I shrug. He stands there for a few seconds trying to figure out what to do. He looks at me. I shrug. Then he gets in his car and leaves.
During the whole thing, I just had a fun feeling that this whole thing was like a show for my enjoyment only. I know there's nothing fun about a cat getting run over...as my mom puts it, "Oh no, somebody's baby!"
Thanks God, thanks for that little bit of morbid joy.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
When the wind blows, it spooks the horses!
The subject line is the comment I made to my roommate yesterday. I went on to explain that 'the horses' are me. For some reason, when the wind blows I get all wierded out, don't want to leave the house, and I get anxious. And it's not because there are any trees that might fall on my house. I've been this way for as long as I can remember. Just thought I'd let you all know that fun little Rob fact (all 1 of you who read my blog). Thanks for your time, and good night!
Thursday, March 22, 2007
F#@k the kids!
The title here is just to get your attention. Post number two in a single day...wow, this is a record for me.
It's really exciting to see what's going on with kids today. On March 18th the NY Times reported about a student whose case has made it to the Supreme Court. The student was forced by a school administrator to take down a sign that that read BONG HITS FOR JESUS . The students case is an example of a violation of free speech. Another case is that of a California girl who, with the help of a SF law firm and the California ACLU, is filing a case against her school district because she has been held to dress code violations such as wearing knee high socks of Whinnie the Pooh and once being sent home for wearing a drug prevention shirt! My guess it was a DARE shirt and since it has the color red on it, was considered gang paraphernalia. Another example is of Zach Hunter who, as far as I know, was somewhat the inspiration behind the making of the recent documentary "Amazing Grace".
ADULTS!! Take notice of how effective kids can be...don't be lazy! Good job kids, good job!
It's really exciting to see what's going on with kids today. On March 18th the NY Times reported about a student whose case has made it to the Supreme Court. The student was forced by a school administrator to take down a sign that that read BONG HITS FOR JESUS . The students case is an example of a violation of free speech. Another case is that of a California girl who, with the help of a SF law firm and the California ACLU, is filing a case against her school district because she has been held to dress code violations such as wearing knee high socks of Whinnie the Pooh and once being sent home for wearing a drug prevention shirt! My guess it was a DARE shirt and since it has the color red on it, was considered gang paraphernalia. Another example is of Zach Hunter who, as far as I know, was somewhat the inspiration behind the making of the recent documentary "Amazing Grace".
ADULTS!! Take notice of how effective kids can be...don't be lazy! Good job kids, good job!
Congress v. the People
In yesterday's post, I put link to make it easier for anyone who stumbles onto my blog to write a quick letter to their representatives in Congress voicing their opinion. Sometimes it feels like that's about all I can do, so it's a little comforting to write a little email and send it on its way. Rousseau write a lot about 'collective consciousness' (as do many western philosphers) an idea we base our representative democracy on...republic. We elect leaders who in theory vote the conscience of their constituency. I'm not sure if congresspeople have ever really voted based on what their district wants, but they sure don't seem to now. The more I pay attention to Congress i realize that our elected officials take the role of protectors...that meaning, they know what the people think they want, but it's up to the representative to choose what is actually best. Why? Because they are smarter or better educated? I don't know if it really matters. What matters is that our representatives need to represent the consciousness of the people.
Reading an article in the NY Times today, this becomes clear that there's a good chance we may not have full representation of our beliefs from our Congressmen. The article by Jeff Zeleny is about the struggle between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of creating a deadline for funding, essentially for withdrawl, of our troops in Iraq. In the article it discusses two representatives specifically who have changed their vote from supporting withdrawl to now not supporting it. Dan Boren (D-OK) and Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH). Both originally followed their party line but after trips to Iraq to witness, first hand, the absolute mess it is, they changed their mind. So maybe they see something that we don't. Maybe they had some experience that softened them and that sympathy caused them to decide that we need to stay and help these poor people. Does that mean that we're wrong here in the states? Is it wrong that we sit in our comfortable living rooms and have the ability to detach ourselves from the reality of what's going on in Iraq? And if so, is our being wrong an excuse for the representatives of our will to vote different than what we feel?
I'm going to say no, it's not fine for them to choose their own vote just because they've seen something first hand that we haven't had the chance to. Some of us are morally opposed to war and violence under any circumstances...is our voice then obsolete? Some people may not understand the whole concept of how pulling our troops out of Iraq may effect the stability there. Does their opinion not count? I don't know what official polls say about the American public's stance on Iraq, but as Dennis Kucinich is quoted in today's article, "we used the war to help us [Democrats] win control of Congress." This tells me that the American people want our troops home and want to stop spending money on something that we think is futile.
Things are already in utter chaos. There is already immense instability in Iraq. There are already signs of genocidal tendencies on the part of religious sects. Things are falling apart regardless of our presence there. If we are to continue in Iraq, we would need political support from the majority of countries in the region and worldwide. Until we pull our troops out and let things fall apart, we wont be able to achieve the political solution that needs to take place for stability in Iraq because everyone is pissed off at us. If that's what the public thinks, then that's how our Congress needs to vote. It's our consciousness, not there's. And, if they do think that our minds need changing, then come to our towns and our districts and present your case, instead of to an empty chamber on C-Span.
Reading an article in the NY Times today, this becomes clear that there's a good chance we may not have full representation of our beliefs from our Congressmen. The article by Jeff Zeleny is about the struggle between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of creating a deadline for funding, essentially for withdrawl, of our troops in Iraq. In the article it discusses two representatives specifically who have changed their vote from supporting withdrawl to now not supporting it. Dan Boren (D-OK) and Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH). Both originally followed their party line but after trips to Iraq to witness, first hand, the absolute mess it is, they changed their mind. So maybe they see something that we don't. Maybe they had some experience that softened them and that sympathy caused them to decide that we need to stay and help these poor people. Does that mean that we're wrong here in the states? Is it wrong that we sit in our comfortable living rooms and have the ability to detach ourselves from the reality of what's going on in Iraq? And if so, is our being wrong an excuse for the representatives of our will to vote different than what we feel?
I'm going to say no, it's not fine for them to choose their own vote just because they've seen something first hand that we haven't had the chance to. Some of us are morally opposed to war and violence under any circumstances...is our voice then obsolete? Some people may not understand the whole concept of how pulling our troops out of Iraq may effect the stability there. Does their opinion not count? I don't know what official polls say about the American public's stance on Iraq, but as Dennis Kucinich is quoted in today's article, "we used the war to help us [Democrats] win control of Congress." This tells me that the American people want our troops home and want to stop spending money on something that we think is futile.
Things are already in utter chaos. There is already immense instability in Iraq. There are already signs of genocidal tendencies on the part of religious sects. Things are falling apart regardless of our presence there. If we are to continue in Iraq, we would need political support from the majority of countries in the region and worldwide. Until we pull our troops out and let things fall apart, we wont be able to achieve the political solution that needs to take place for stability in Iraq because everyone is pissed off at us. If that's what the public thinks, then that's how our Congress needs to vote. It's our consciousness, not there's. And, if they do think that our minds need changing, then come to our towns and our districts and present your case, instead of to an empty chamber on C-Span.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
DAMN YOU BLOGGER!!
I spent the last half hour typing out a new post in which I discussed the impersonal replies from my Congressional representatives to letters I had written to them at the beginning of last month. Somehow in the process of posting it, an error occurred and my post was gone forever. Here was my concluding point in fewer words... go to the text of Senate Joint Resolution 3 of the 110th Congress read it over. If you agree that it should be revised for more immediate action and also reworded to specify the use of remaining troops in Iraq after the withdrawl mandated by Congress, write a letter to your Senators and let them know your opinion. You'll probably just be as frustrated as I was when it took one of them 38 days to get back to me but it might make you feel a little better.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Sometimes I really hate church!!!
Today at my church, we had a guest speaker. He was a man from the higher up part of Covenant denomination who has been involved with helping our congregation coordinate a property renovation project. The campaign is called Generation to Generation (G2G) and is going to update the facilities we currently have as well as build new ones and improve our property overall. It has been stressed throughout the whole process of introducing the project to the congregation that the project itself is meant to expand our ministry and that part of the funds that we raise for the project will go towards a church plant. A church plant in the Watsonville area sounds like a really great idea as does the concept of being responsible with what the church has been given, along the lines of property and buildings.
First of all, I have to admit that when a sermon (or speech in this case) on giving to the church happens, I turn cynical and shut down. I say this so no one will think I'm trying to hide any bias I have. I think it comes mainly from the fact that I don't support the church as an official institution. I like supporting my community of believers but once the concept of that as an institution arises I am immediately resentful.
Our Guest Speaker
He dives right in to the fact that he's going to be talking about giving. Good...at least he's not trying to hide it. His point was that God calls us to give. He was using an example of the lady who dropped in two coins after all the rich people had dropped a lot of money into the offering plate. He presented the notion of equal sacrifice, not to be confused with equal giving. I like that...it's fair. I believe he is right here. God calls us to sacrifice ourselves and some have more, so they should give of themselves what is due to God's Kingdom.
In much detail he explained exactly how God is putting it on our hearts to give. He had a lot of backing from scripture, but I couldn't help but think that anyone who is asking for money in a church would pull those scriptures out of context to support their claim. Then he says, "Some of you need to grow in the grace of giving" in reference to people who may not want to give to this project. If I'm not mistaken he even pointed his finger. He then proceeded to say something along the lines of 'after you write that $30 check, you have communicated with God...'. What I heard here and other times in his speech was that giving money is the best way to communicate with God. There were a number of times that I couldn't help but cringe or even laugh at some of the things he said.
I was waiting for him to bring Satan, the Devil, the dark force of sin into the lecture. Sure enough, it came is the form of "the adversary"...that, in this coming week 'the adversary' would be working in our lives to keep us from giving 'over and above'. He would break our car, ruin some relationship, or various other things so we don't help grow the Kingdom. I personally do believe in a spiritual struggle between God and the Devil in whatever form they exist in that struggle. To be fair, he did say that he wasn't saying this to scare anyone, only to point out how real the threat is and not to be discouraged. But now, anything that happens in the next week is going to be blamed on the adversary. The reason I have an issue with this, is that people now have a tool to take the blame off of themselves. This is a free ticket to take personal responsibility in one's problems off of themself and blame it on a dark force...then to feel better, give money to prove their resistence to that dark force. Also, when something bad happens this week they'll say it's the devils work. Then they'll instantly remember what our speaker said and be coerced by this well crafted logic sequence into giving money to this G2G campaign...not out of desire to give to God or desire for this campaign to be successful, but because they think that what they experienced is truly the work of the devil and that this guy was right.
Last week at church, it was announced that this guy was going to come speak to us. I was under the impression that he was going to be talking about how part of our money from the church plant proposal in Pajaro/Watsonville and how awesome that is. It was barely mentioned. I was excited that he was going to talk about this because I like the idea that we are going to do something with our money that helps a less fortunate community. My roommate put it well when he said that $25 will go a lot farther in Pajaro than it would in Scotts Valley. Our help there is much needed and is truly something to celebrate. Instead of speaking at length about this or other church plants, he explained that it is our duty as part of "the face of the Covenant" to give money to grow this demonination.
In conclusion, I saw a number of new faces in the crowd today and was thouroughly embarrassed that visitors would be welcomed to our community on a Sunday like this. Hopefully these new people have actually been going to our church for a while and I just haven't noticed them. Though this would speak poorly of my welcoming newcomers, it would make me feel better knowing that their first impression of our church was something other than this impersonal speech on stewardship.
For the record, I am in support of our church doing this remodel and expansion thing. It's great that we want to make our facilities better serve the community as a long term goal and it's great to see that in raising the money for this we are essentially raising money that will directly benefit our community. There are some aspects that I think are unnecessary, like the outdoor theater, but the congregation approved it so it must be part of the collective conscience. With that said, I need to say that I am very unimpressed with this recent portion of the fund raising aspect of the project. To have such a impersonal approach to such a personal subject was not a good idea. If he was going to talk about the benefit in regards to planting a church and getting people excited about that idea, that would have been great. I don't know what I expect out of writing this, I just needed to voice my opinion, and probably what is the opinion of any new people who were at the church today as well as other people who think the same as me but wouldn't take the time to write it out like this. There's a lot more that I could add, but I wouldn't be able to make a very good case unless I could hear the audio...maybe my roommate Mike will do a better job when the audio of the speech is posted on the church website.
First of all, I have to admit that when a sermon (or speech in this case) on giving to the church happens, I turn cynical and shut down. I say this so no one will think I'm trying to hide any bias I have. I think it comes mainly from the fact that I don't support the church as an official institution. I like supporting my community of believers but once the concept of that as an institution arises I am immediately resentful.
Our Guest Speaker
He dives right in to the fact that he's going to be talking about giving. Good...at least he's not trying to hide it. His point was that God calls us to give. He was using an example of the lady who dropped in two coins after all the rich people had dropped a lot of money into the offering plate. He presented the notion of equal sacrifice, not to be confused with equal giving. I like that...it's fair. I believe he is right here. God calls us to sacrifice ourselves and some have more, so they should give of themselves what is due to God's Kingdom.
In much detail he explained exactly how God is putting it on our hearts to give. He had a lot of backing from scripture, but I couldn't help but think that anyone who is asking for money in a church would pull those scriptures out of context to support their claim. Then he says, "Some of you need to grow in the grace of giving" in reference to people who may not want to give to this project. If I'm not mistaken he even pointed his finger. He then proceeded to say something along the lines of 'after you write that $30 check, you have communicated with God...'. What I heard here and other times in his speech was that giving money is the best way to communicate with God. There were a number of times that I couldn't help but cringe or even laugh at some of the things he said.
I was waiting for him to bring Satan, the Devil, the dark force of sin into the lecture. Sure enough, it came is the form of "the adversary"...that, in this coming week 'the adversary' would be working in our lives to keep us from giving 'over and above'. He would break our car, ruin some relationship, or various other things so we don't help grow the Kingdom. I personally do believe in a spiritual struggle between God and the Devil in whatever form they exist in that struggle. To be fair, he did say that he wasn't saying this to scare anyone, only to point out how real the threat is and not to be discouraged. But now, anything that happens in the next week is going to be blamed on the adversary. The reason I have an issue with this, is that people now have a tool to take the blame off of themselves. This is a free ticket to take personal responsibility in one's problems off of themself and blame it on a dark force...then to feel better, give money to prove their resistence to that dark force. Also, when something bad happens this week they'll say it's the devils work. Then they'll instantly remember what our speaker said and be coerced by this well crafted logic sequence into giving money to this G2G campaign...not out of desire to give to God or desire for this campaign to be successful, but because they think that what they experienced is truly the work of the devil and that this guy was right.
Last week at church, it was announced that this guy was going to come speak to us. I was under the impression that he was going to be talking about how part of our money from the church plant proposal in Pajaro/Watsonville and how awesome that is. It was barely mentioned. I was excited that he was going to talk about this because I like the idea that we are going to do something with our money that helps a less fortunate community. My roommate put it well when he said that $25 will go a lot farther in Pajaro than it would in Scotts Valley. Our help there is much needed and is truly something to celebrate. Instead of speaking at length about this or other church plants, he explained that it is our duty as part of "the face of the Covenant" to give money to grow this demonination.
In conclusion, I saw a number of new faces in the crowd today and was thouroughly embarrassed that visitors would be welcomed to our community on a Sunday like this. Hopefully these new people have actually been going to our church for a while and I just haven't noticed them. Though this would speak poorly of my welcoming newcomers, it would make me feel better knowing that their first impression of our church was something other than this impersonal speech on stewardship.
For the record, I am in support of our church doing this remodel and expansion thing. It's great that we want to make our facilities better serve the community as a long term goal and it's great to see that in raising the money for this we are essentially raising money that will directly benefit our community. There are some aspects that I think are unnecessary, like the outdoor theater, but the congregation approved it so it must be part of the collective conscience. With that said, I need to say that I am very unimpressed with this recent portion of the fund raising aspect of the project. To have such a impersonal approach to such a personal subject was not a good idea. If he was going to talk about the benefit in regards to planting a church and getting people excited about that idea, that would have been great. I don't know what I expect out of writing this, I just needed to voice my opinion, and probably what is the opinion of any new people who were at the church today as well as other people who think the same as me but wouldn't take the time to write it out like this. There's a lot more that I could add, but I wouldn't be able to make a very good case unless I could hear the audio...maybe my roommate Mike will do a better job when the audio of the speech is posted on the church website.
Friday, March 16, 2007
God of Rob or God of Chistendom?
I know this sounds pretty damn self righteous, but here it goes...I am becoming more and more convinced that I believe in a different god than most Christians. I do call myself a Christian because my belief is that Jesus died for my sins and created a new world in which his example is the model way of life, so I feel that I shouldn't be bashful about proclaiming my faith in his work. Many Christians now days say, "I'm not a Christian, I'm a follower of Christ", or ,"I'm not religious but I am highly spiritual". Here's how I explain this... too many people confuse Christianity with Christendom, which is where that shame of being labelled as a Christian comes from. Most people will probably say that Christendom died with the Roman Empire (which brings up a whole other issue of how much of the "Roman Empire" still exists...as far as ideology goes), but I think it's safe to say that Christendom is alive and well, and continues to be as much of a threat to the Kingdom of God and teachings of Christ as it was during the time when it was controlled and constructed by tyrannical emperors and popes.
There's more to come as far as my case for what Christendom is and how it is still with us today...it'll be a short comparisson between the history of the old church with today's church. I just thought this would be a good start.
There's more to come as far as my case for what Christendom is and how it is still with us today...it'll be a short comparisson between the history of the old church with today's church. I just thought this would be a good start.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Amazing News Story!!
There was a short news brief in the NY Times today that described a 50-50 divorce to the extreme. A man in Germany measured his house, then proceeded to cut it in half with a chain saw. When he was done with that, he picked his house up with a forklift and drove away. HOLY CRAP THAT IS FUNNY!!! The man's comment was that he was "just taking his due."
Friday, March 09, 2007
If you hate masturbation then you hate hands!!
I was watching a news program that was talking about the growth of Muslims in Europe. A Scotish Muslim leader was on T.V. saying that he is sad about the Muslims of South Western Asia hating Europe. He explained that for him, Europe is his homeland and "if you hate my homeland then you hate me". STOP SAYING SHIT LIKE THIS!!! It's too easy to use language like that. It can be used by any dumb asshole. It takes no level of creativity and it doesn't get a point across. The guy could have said something like, "Europe is my homeland and I am proud of that. For people to hate Europe as a whole is saddening for me because these people who say this are my brothers in faith, and it's not my continent that is doing harm to them, but the ideology of the modern west." To me, it's a sign of a simple (or dishonest) mind in people who use rhetoric like that.
I'd imagine that members of PETA might not agree with the use of cow leather for wallets. With the same logic that this man used, a cow might say, "if you hate leather wallets then you hate me". It doesn't make a damn bit of sense. First of all, in this case, it's better for the cow that people don't like leather wallets...that's ovbvious, I know. Second, PETA would hate the leather wallet because of what it stands for. In the same way, the Muslims of South Western Asia probably just hate the "western ideology" of Europe, not necessarily everything or everyone in it.
The other part, is that any statement like this carries with it at least a little bit of hypocrisy. It's just a matter of exploring the claim and who's making it in order find the hypocrisy. This same rationale President Bush used at the beginning of the war on terror. The President laid down the doctrine 'if you're not with us, you're against us' as a basis for all policy domestic and abroad. He said at one point that any states that harbors terrorists are terrorists themselves. Here's the hypocrisy... a man named Luis Posada and another named Orlando Bosch are well known terrorists among the conflict with past few decades of conflict with Latin America. They were both involved with a bombing of a passenger plane that killed 73 people, among other attrocities in Central and South America. Orlando Bosch, by request of Jeb Bush was granted a presidential pardon by George H.W. Bush. Luis Posada, who has been officially convicted in more than one country of terrorist acts, is being held in a U.S. jail for an immegration violation. Despite the request of one country, I believe Columbia, in which he was responsible for many deaths, we continue to hold him essentially granting him asylum. As further display of hypocrisy, the U.S. House of Representatives will be deciding soon on a piece of legislation that states what the U.S. will only begin to consider relations with Cuba if they release William Morales who was involved in some of the same activities as Bosch and Posada.
Here's the point. Be better than people who use this kinds of rhetoric and logic. Do this by stating the real problem and not by using feelings of nationalism, patriotism, or loyalty of any kind to manipulate other ignorant people!!!
I'd imagine that members of PETA might not agree with the use of cow leather for wallets. With the same logic that this man used, a cow might say, "if you hate leather wallets then you hate me". It doesn't make a damn bit of sense. First of all, in this case, it's better for the cow that people don't like leather wallets...that's ovbvious, I know. Second, PETA would hate the leather wallet because of what it stands for. In the same way, the Muslims of South Western Asia probably just hate the "western ideology" of Europe, not necessarily everything or everyone in it.
The other part, is that any statement like this carries with it at least a little bit of hypocrisy. It's just a matter of exploring the claim and who's making it in order find the hypocrisy. This same rationale President Bush used at the beginning of the war on terror. The President laid down the doctrine 'if you're not with us, you're against us' as a basis for all policy domestic and abroad. He said at one point that any states that harbors terrorists are terrorists themselves. Here's the hypocrisy... a man named Luis Posada and another named Orlando Bosch are well known terrorists among the conflict with past few decades of conflict with Latin America. They were both involved with a bombing of a passenger plane that killed 73 people, among other attrocities in Central and South America. Orlando Bosch, by request of Jeb Bush was granted a presidential pardon by George H.W. Bush. Luis Posada, who has been officially convicted in more than one country of terrorist acts, is being held in a U.S. jail for an immegration violation. Despite the request of one country, I believe Columbia, in which he was responsible for many deaths, we continue to hold him essentially granting him asylum. As further display of hypocrisy, the U.S. House of Representatives will be deciding soon on a piece of legislation that states what the U.S. will only begin to consider relations with Cuba if they release William Morales who was involved in some of the same activities as Bosch and Posada.
Here's the point. Be better than people who use this kinds of rhetoric and logic. Do this by stating the real problem and not by using feelings of nationalism, patriotism, or loyalty of any kind to manipulate other ignorant people!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)