Storm in US over chocolate Jesus
March 31, 2007
A New York gallery has angered a US Catholic group with its decision to exhibit a milk chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ. The six-foot (1.8m) sculpture, entitled “My Sweet Lord”, depicts Jesus Christ naked on the cross.
Catholic League head Bill Donohue called it “one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever”.
The sculpture, by artist Cosimo Cavallaro, will be displayed from Monday at Manhattan’s Lab Gallery.
I think the best part is the people who are causing an uproar about this probably bashed the Muslim community for getting in an uproar about the Mohammad cartoons.
I f someone can explain the next point to me, I’d be very glad:
The Catholic League, which describes itself as the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organisation, also criticised the timing of the exhibition.
“The fact that they chose Holy Week shows this is calculated, and the timing is deliberate,” Mr Donohue said.
He called for a boycott of the gallery and the hotel which houses it.
Why does there need to be a Catholic civil rights organization? More importantly why does there need to be more than one! I have a feeling they focus less on “Catholic civil rights” and more on preventing the religion from looking bad or from people “offending” it in anyway. The day a group with those goals can be called a civil rights organization is the day logic dies.
‘Overwhelming response’
The gallery’s creative director, Matt Semler, said the gallery was considering its options in the wake of angry e-mails and telephone calls.
“We’re obviously surprised by the overwhelming response and offence people have taken,” he said. “We are certainly in the process of trying to figure out what we’re going to do next.”
Mr Semler said the timing of the exhibition was coincidental.
Mr Cavallaro, the Canadian-born artist, is known for using food ingredients in his art, on one occasion painting a hotel room in mozzarella cheese.
He used 200 pounds (90 kg) of chocolate to make the sculpture which, unusually, depicts Jesus without a loincloth.
It sounds like an impressive piece of art, and something that would be breathtaking to see. Molding something that large out of chocolate is an awesome feat.
That is, unless you are catholic… then your civil rights have been violated.
Source: BBC News
UN secretary general takes cover at Baghdad press conference
March 24, 2007
Peace is just days away!
A word from Ron Paul
March 22, 2007
On the Federal Reserve:
On Iraq:
If you are getting this impression from my blog….
March 22, 2007
Then I’m getting it right!
A former White House official accused of improperly editing reports on global warming defended his editorial changes Monday as reflecting views expressed in a 2001 report by the National Academy of Sciences.House Democrats said the 181 changes made in three climate reports reflected a consistent attempt to emphasize uncertainties surrounding the science of climate change and undercut the broad conclusions that manmade emissions are warming the earth.Philip Cooney, former chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, acknowledged at a House hearing that some of the changes he made were “to align these communications with the administration’s stated policy” on climate change.
The extent of Cooney’s editing of government climate reports first surfaced in 2005. Shortly thereafter, Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist, left the White House to work at Exxon Mobil Corp.
So the government is so deeply into the pockets of big business that they will go to any length to silence scientists trying to warn us about Global Warming.
Doesn’t surprise me one bit.
Waxman’s committee also heard from James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the country’s leading climate scientists, who said the White House repeatedly tried to control what government scientists say to the public and media about climate change.
“Interference with communications of science to the public has been greater during the current administration than at any time in my career,” said Hansen, who was one of the first to raise the problem of climate change in the 1980s.
Hansen’s battles with NASA and White House public affairs officials are not new and resulted in an easing of NASA’s policies toward scientists talking to the media about their work.
But that was not always the case.
Hansen said that in 2005 he was told by a 24-year-old NASA public affairs official he could take no part in an interview with National Public Radio on orders from senior NASA public affairs officials. Instead, three other NASA officials were offered for the interview.
The young press officer, George Deutsch, now 26, sat next to Hansen at the witness table Monday and told the committee he had simply been “relaying” the views of higher-ups at NASA that Hansen was not to participate in the interview.
Republican Rep. Darrell Issa suggested that Hansen was not being muzzled at all, and there is nothing wrong with government scientists being subject to some limits in what they say.
A Republican Representative says that censoring scientists is ok because they work for the government? How do you put limits on a person who’s job is to uncover facts?
Source: Huffington Post
The entire idea of government controlled research has seen much better days, this event will hopefully be a huge step toward taking the scientists away from the government.
OUR ENEMIES WILL TALK THEMSELVES TO DEATH AND WE WILL BURY THEM WITH THEIR OWN CONFUSION!
March 20, 2007
This could be an interesting look at the future of political campaigning, certainly the blogosphere has it’s share in the picture but now with fan made political ads the politicians will be saving more money and the people might have more of a say… at least in the case where Ned Lamont upset Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Primary the Internet played a key role in spreading the word and giving Lamont the victory.
With things like the above video popping u, it seems that the change is no where near over.
Ron Paul in ‘08!
March 15, 2007
DINOSAURS. They may not exist, but they’re just launched their own online encyclopaedia. Conservapedia claims to be ‘a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American.’ Rather than having anything as mundane as posting rules, Conservapedia has Commandments. The first Commandment is ‘ Everything you post must be true and verifiable.’ Strange that, I always thought it was ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ But Conservapedia is ‘the encyclopedia you can trust’ – apart from knowing how to spell ‘encyclopaedia’, obviously – so I must be mistaken. Oooh, hang on, Commandment Five says that American spelling of words must be used. And as everyone knows, both Jesus and his dad were born in the USA.
Coming back to Conservapedia’s First Commandment, it will be interesting to see exactly how any reference to the Bible will be verified as fact. Obviously, as a new site, many subjects have yet to appear, or are in need of expansion. This is the full article on Iraq, for example:
A Middle-Eastern country, currently occupied by U.S. Troops.
We feel sure that all God-fearing INQUIRER readers will step up to the plate and fill in a few of these gaps for them. If you don’t, the turrists will have won.
Somehow, “we all expected it” just doesn’t make this sit well in my mind. The Conservatives have declared that, if they find it offensive they will counter it with something that their children can look at and gather unbiased, truth.
Let’s take a look at some of Conservapedia’s unbiased and honest encyclopedia , as we compare it to Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia on abortion, we’ll review the first paragraph of each article:
“An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced by chemical, surgical or other means. Commonly, “abortion” refers to an induced procedure at any point during pregnancy; medically, it is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks’ gestation, which is considered nonviable.”
And from Conservapedia:
“Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy. The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity. Today abortion is a billion-dollar industry in the United States and Western Europe except for Ireland, Malta, Poland and Portugal, where it is generally illegal.”
As you can see, Conservapedia offers a much “safer” view on conservative principals. You notice, right away, that the first thing that Conservapedia does is go head right to Opinion, not facts.
Hippocrates says! Conservapedia points out, where the Wikipedia article states complete truth as to what Abortion is.
We have entered a brand new era! Wikiignorence!
Source: The inquirer
