i saw it on friday night and loved it!
it was funny, sentimental and never dragged.
there were two theaters full of women.
2 1/2 hours of women constantly psycho-analyzing male behavior and insisting on staying w/ men who treat them like shit. Art imitating life, I suppose.
Did we see the same movie?
My girlfriend wanted to see it with me. We went last night. I didn't like this series in the beginning, but I eventually understood the appeal--and I liked the movie.
mcclellan has recently published a book that is highly critical of bush and his administration.
mcclellan's book has understandably created a furor within the current presidential administration, an administration that has valued loyalty above all else.. mcclellan was a long-time bush loyalist, he started working for bush when bush was still govenor of texas.
mcclellan helped bush to enter the white house, and then followed bush to washington mcclellan became a spokesman for bush, defending the president on such issues as the war in iraq.
Quoting people from before then, and implying that they those quotes supported the war is disingenuous.
I've twice made the point (and I'll make it again) that I'm not suggesting the quotes I pasted should validate the war. Nor am I suggesting that all present enemies of Bush "supported the war." I have made, instead, these points...
1) They believed Iraq had WMDs. If quotes post-1998 are more effective at making this point, we certainly have those too, don't we? I don't think I need to paste them, but they come from Madeline Albright, Democratic Senators Bob Graham, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller, Henry Waxman... They all indicate they believed Saddam had WMDs--post 1998.
2) They believed that Iraq had a history of providing aid and refuge for terrorists.
3) They believed that Saddam posed a great threat to the U.S. and its allies.
4) They believed that the U.S. had a responsibility to intervene in Iraq because of Saddam's persecution of his own people.
5) They wanted to spread freedom and democracy in Iraq despite the challenges posed by its existing culture or sectarian makeup.
i think i heard the word "intellectual" for the first time when i was less than ten years old.. my grandmother said to me that the presidential candidate for the democratic party (adalai stevenson) was an "intellectual".. the way she said the word...the timbre of her voice...the look of admiration on her face...led me to believe this was a good thing indeed!.
i think i may have asked her what the word meant, but, i don't recall exactly what she told me.
perhaps enough to confirm that this fellow stevenson was a "thinker" of admirable stature.. fast forward.. by the time my teen years came along there was a kind of dichotomy in society between so-called "eggheads" and common folk.
I was a deep thinker, but I was also a cooperative Idealist. Although I can recall taking a stand here and there--especially as an elder--that was only when a bit of righteous indignation entered me, and that wasn't too often. I tried my best to confine my creativity to "finding new ways to express something" the Society had already expressed. I would do this in my comments, my talks--even my public prayers.
In my early twenties I was told by two close friends (who were both elders) that I intimidated the elders on the body. This was shared with me, knowing that I probably wasn't aware of it, and indeed I wasn't. I didn't like that feeling. The feeling that others thought I was trying to be something special, something smarter, something better than they were. So this scared me into somewhat greater submission.
"Remember, Jon, "knowledge puffs up."" I was reminded of Paul's words so that I wouldn't get too big for my britches. But what sort of knowledge? Weren't we always quoting Jesus words that "everlasting life" MEANT"taking in knowledge of the only true God and the one whom He sent forth, Jesus Christ?" The fact is the people who ascend, thrive and survive in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses are those who are excellent with knowledge, if "knowledge" means parroting the words, experiences and presumptuous prophetic parallels of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. So this is what I did.
Ironically though, it was in attempting to do just that that I myself was disfellowshipped. When asked by my judicial committee why I had so dutifully come forward to confess my infidelity in my marriage, I explained that I thought--even though we'd been separated for four years--my wife had the right to know.
"Wait a minute," said the Pharisee on my committee, with (I'm not kidding) a ramrod straight finger in the air. "Even if you hadn't confessed this to your wife, you still had an obligation to confess it to the elders of your congregation!"
All I had to say was, "You're absolutely right, and, after all, that's what I've done." I'd have been perfectly safe, having shown all due repentance, having followed all the rules. But...something inside me cried out. Something that said, "I should be able to express the "knowledge" I've gained from studying both the Bible and the Society's publications without the fear that my "understanding" would be regarded as heretical. I should be able to speak freely." And so I did.
I replied, "Well, brothers, maybe you can help me then, because I haven't been convinced that I do have that obligation." Good night, and thank you for coming! Nothing I said, no scripture I quoted, no Watchtower Society publication I showed them made any difference. They were not listening, not responding--except with completely irrelevant and zombie-like comments about how, "Now is not the time to be minimizing your sin."
It didn't matter that I had definitely demonstrated repentance for what I'd done. It didn't matter that I was able to show them actual Watchtower publications that well supported my claim that only Jesus' sacrifice was to bring forgiveness of sins and nothing any man did. Nor that the Society itself had a policy of overlooking even serious sins--as long as they'd happened (according to the rule) at least three years previous, which (they said) gave evidence that Jehovah had forgiven them--without the congregation becoming involved. All that mattered is that I expressed something that sounded to at least one of them like "independent thinking."
I can only now imagine the queasiness that this produced in him, his stomach releasing a sort of Theocratic acid, causing him to react in a way that did not correspond to logic nor reason...but with zeal for the organization. And how good this must have made him feel, ferretting out such a harmful influence from among Jehovah's people.
Now I do my own thinking...without hesitation.
some may have seen this tid-bit being passed around in certain jw email circles.
a "deeply concerned" jw relative (who knows i have soured on the whole jw thing) emailed this to me in hopes that it would improve my attitude.
at first i was just going to thank them for their concern and for the "encourgaging" email, but then i decided i must respond to this.
Nice work, Bud.
mcclellan has recently published a book that is highly critical of bush and his administration.
mcclellan's book has understandably created a furor within the current presidential administration, an administration that has valued loyalty above all else.. mcclellan was a long-time bush loyalist, he started working for bush when bush was still govenor of texas.
mcclellan helped bush to enter the white house, and then followed bush to washington mcclellan became a spokesman for bush, defending the president on such issues as the war in iraq.
For the most part you cannot quote people from before the major bombing operation in Iraq by Pres. Clinton in Dec. of 1998, as even Mr. Richard Clarke has attested to. There were plenty of people before Iraq 2.0 that called out the fools errand that it has turned out to be.
My quotes are not meant to validate the war. They are meant to give pause to someone who thinks Bush was alone in believing Iraq had WMDs. (I myself heard Bill Clinton being interviewed over the telephone sometime in 2002 by Larry King. He was asked the direct question, "Do you believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?" His equally direct answer was to the effect that "We KNOW" he had them. The only question was, "Where are they now; what has he done with them?") The quotes also demonstrate that many of Bush's present enemies themselves believed specifically that Iraq was a threat to the US and its allies. That the US had a responsibility to intervene because of Saddam's "persecuting his own people." And that this idea of helping spread freedom and democracy to Iraq was not something Bush dreamed up. Clinton clearly had the same intention, and would not be deterred by comments about their "ethnic or sectarian makeup."
I hope, in reading the quotes, some can come to recognize that the absolute incredulity we commonly express about what a clown Bush is can be tempered by the realization that many of his primary opponents were thinking the same thing.
mcclellan has recently published a book that is highly critical of bush and his administration.
mcclellan's book has understandably created a furor within the current presidential administration, an administration that has valued loyalty above all else.. mcclellan was a long-time bush loyalist, he started working for bush when bush was still govenor of texas.
mcclellan helped bush to enter the white house, and then followed bush to washington mcclellan became a spokesman for bush, defending the president on such issues as the war in iraq.
During the time when I might have been accumulating information about this war, I was experiencing quite a LifeQuake: that of coming to realize the religion I'd committed my life to was a sham, coping with the consequences, and trying to re-create my life. I can't lay claim to a full possession of the facts as I'm sure some here will try to do, but I do remember one thing very clearly. I remember that, after 9/11, Bush's opponents were incensed that he was "doing nothing" about it for so long. When finally action was taken, there seemed to be a rare sense of unity in the U.S. For a couple of minutes... I don't know if there is an effective method of measuring disunity or polarization, so I'll just say, to me, it's at a level that's most troubling today.
I don't know whether the U.S. should have gone into Iraq or not. I've heard convincing arguments that we shouldn't have. But what bothers me are the exaggerations and revisions of history associated with this. The claims that the war was a ridiculous joke that no one other than George W. Bush would have considered. That it was obviously initiated for a great variety of greedy reasons. That there never were weapons of mass destruction, and that--even if there were--Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not pose a serious threat to the United States. That it was downright "Nazi" of Bush to try to "impose" an American ideology on the people of Iraq.
Maybe some of these conclusions are correct, but if they are, Mr. Bush has a lot of company...
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." (President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998)
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." (Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998)
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." (Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, Feb, 18, 1998)
"[We] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998)
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, CA), Dec. 16, 1998)
"Hussein has ...chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction." (Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999)
"Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton (Democrat, NY), Oct 10, 2002)
"Now Governor Clinton and I have spelled out what we believe is an appropriate policy toward Iraq. We believe that the elements of Democratic resistance within Iraq deserve support and encouragement from the United States of America. We believe that Saddam must be made to comply with the U.N. resolutions--all of the U.N. resolutions--including the one, 688, that prevents him from persecuting his own people... And we believe that American foreign policy ought to be based on a clear understanding of what American interests are in this new world of the Nineties and the 21st Century, and based on American values. Support for freedom, political freedom and economic freedom, and not the coddling of tyrants, which has been the hallmark of the Bush foreign policy." (Al Gore, Clinton's running mate, outlining their intended policy toward Iraq, September 29, 1992)
"The Reagan/Bush administration would overlook the fact that it was an Iraq-based group that masterminded the assassination attempt against Israel's Ambassador to the United Kingdom...was also prepared to overlook the fact that terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance. Nor did it seem to matter that the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs... There might have been a moment's pause for reflection when Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May of 1987, killing thirty-seven sailors, but the administration smoothed it over very fast." (Al Gore, in the same speech, September 29, 1992)
"These actions were directed against the Iraqi government, which was responsible for the assassination plot. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated repeatedly that he will resort to terrorism or aggression if left unchecked. Our intent was to target Iraq’s capacity to support violence against the United States and other nations, and to deter Saddam Hussein from supporting such outlaw behavior in the future." (President Clinton, after ordering a missile attack on Iraq, June 26, 1993)
"Our objectives are limited but clear: To make Saddam pay a price for the latest act of brutality, reducing his ability to threaten his neighbors and America’s interests." (President Clinton, after ordering a missile attack on Iraq, September 3, 1996)
"Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth--not on providing for the Iraqi people--but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them... I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again." (President Clinton, January 27th, 1998)
"The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home.I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life... The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership." (President Clinton, Statement by the President concerning the "Iraq Liberation Act," October 31, 1998)
I repeat: I don't know if going to war was the right thing or not, but the above, to me, demonstrates the reality of today's political landscape. Maybe it's always been this way. But you have to be willing to consider that when Bush's political opponents act UTTERLY APPALLED at his positions on Iraq, they are less genuine and more opportunistic. And if--in addition to opposing the war--you're going to demonize Bush for his positions, you've got to recognize that many of the very same ideologies were expressed by the very same people who are screaming him down today.
It's the reason why, as a normally conservative-to-Libertarian person, I have (believe it or not) felt so refreshed by Barack Obama. Although I haven't liked many of his political positions, I came to see him as someone who (perhaps) could help heal the loud, angry, partisan sniping that so polarizes us.
i was feeding my great cat dry food but now i give it both fncy fest and dry.
any brands of foods or what should i feed it so that he is healthy and lives a good long time?
maybe he can make it into the new order.. much appreciate info and any info about cats so that i can help my cat to be very happy and healthy.. thanks..
It seem as if vets recommend Science Diet quite a lot. That's what I've been feeding my Kimba since she was a baby. (She's 8 now.) Below is Kim praying before her meal...
at least one contributor posted about this.
i believe he/she related how the part on the service meeting was covered, but if you know the specific quotes that would be great.
Thank you, Blondie... Exactly what I needed. Hope you're well.
at least one contributor posted about this.
i believe he/she related how the part on the service meeting was covered, but if you know the specific quotes that would be great.
At least one contributor posted about this. I believe he/she related how the part on the service meeting was covered, but if you know the specific quotes that would be great.
the watchtower society has frequently denied that they are divinely inspired prophets.
yet they demand they be considered as if inspired prophets, not even allowing the flock to question or have doubts about any of their teachings without coming under scrutiny.. .
similarly, many of our beloved active jws--although knowing full well we don't recognize the society as any sort of divinely appointed agency--still expect us to act as if they are.
However, I honestly think Russel was sincere in trying to learn the Bible while Rutherford was a maniacal nut bag opportunist.
I'm with you here, Lieu. Others will disagree a bit--and it's true Russell did change a little toward the end--but, basically, Russell was sincere (although a bit quirky) in his endeavors. Rutherford? "Manical Nut Bag Opportunist" describes him perfectly.
