Steven 
Member since Apr 28, 2010


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Messina

Jim - The secularist’s ability to generate and agree with a set of operational definitions in support of a “philosophy” and argument(s) only demonstrates the ability of people to live in a delusion. Ask anyone in a mental institution whether they are sane, and regardless of “who” they think they are (Neapolitan Bonaparte for example); they will always argue strongly in an effort to convenience themselves and others that they are correct (and thus not mad as a hatter). This is a demonstration of the reasonable mind, which is built into humans, presumably to assist in survival. The reasonable mind will not allow one to be, let’s say wrong about reality. This is a human condition that cannot be denied. A human will always argue their philosophy or what they think they believe and who they think they are. The test is to support one's position with history and facts. So, the only thing left is to divine truth as inspired by inquiry by real scholars (regardless of the subject). The Judeo-Christian and Muslim religions developed over the centuries beginning and based on the Septuagint around 4169 B.C. when Abram entered Canaan during the early Kingdoms of Egypt. This long history of scholarly effort is documented and supported, however fraught with argument and differences of opinion, it has passed through the threshing floor of historical review to arrive in our current understanding about God and the human condition here on the cutting edge of time and history.
The first 250 colleges and universities built in the United States were 99% Christian and Christian churches and Jewish synagogues (and beginning last century, Islamic mosques) have been built on every corner of our cities and towns since our founding. The Christian experience in America supports our understanding of our incredible human adventure since the time Abram and God first spoke. However well documented and reviewed by scholars throughout the timeline of human civilization, God is not what we believe, but what I and many believe in. To say you can develop a modern secularist philosophy and simply erase this human struggle and understanding to then decide the fate of the United States, regardless of the founding of the USA under the unalienable rights given by our “creator” (the supernatural entity stated in our Constitution) which include the right of the religious to live, vote, work, politic, govern, speak, write and worship whenever or wherever we want, is quite frankly ridiculous.

Posted by Steven on 09/02/2010 at 12:19 PM

Re: “Guest Commentary

I disagree with Eric Jantz on this topic. The development and implementation of our environmental laws and regulations have been very successful in protecting human health and the environment, reducing an in many cases eliminating the pollution. Federal, State and local agencies and private corporations throughout the United States have taken their responsibilities and accountability seriously; because as Mr. Jantz has pointed out, there are multi-layered Acts designed to protect the environment, human health, threatened and endangered species, etc. Even the environmentalist groups across the country have worked tirelessly to direct and influence environmental laws and regulations from the congressional level to the local levels of government. What then is the wisdom of giving judges the power to reverse environmental agency decisions? It is frankly the wisdom of tyranny and aristocratic rule in place of the democracy of a republic.

Posted by Steven on 09/02/2010 at 10:03 AM

Re: “D.O.A.

Mexico needs a real revolution, fought by Mexicans and patriots that truly want change in Mexico. Everything else is just chatter by people that have various ideologies and agendas. Where are the real Mexican patriots?

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Steven on 08/26/2010 at 11:20 AM

Re: “Messina

It is difficult to understand how members of the Center for Inquiry of Southern Arizona (CFI-SAZ) can justify ending the influence that religion has on public policy in America. They say their mission is "to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry and humanist values." So, how can they demonstrate science, reason, freedom of inquiry and humanist values when they attempt to separate the fact that religious people founded this country; our Constitution supports keeping government from interferring with religious freedoms; and our cultural/social creed is "IN GOD WE TRUST?" Obviously, these questions represent only a few of the dichotomies involved in this topic.
Understanding that America was originated to get away from religious persecution, I believe that it is possible these "secularists" are misguided to say the least. Nevertheless, they have the right to believe not in God, but only themselves; and code words like "reason" and "science." This is their religion, however pitiful. Obviously, I am playing along here with the topic as the secularists would have me react, because the truth of the matter is that they dislike God and they will not have God tell them what to do. So, their issue is with God and not the faithful. However, they will continue on their path to try to remove the rights of the American Citizen with the argument that public affairs cannot tolerate religious views or anything religious for that matter. Strange. Perhaps they should move to a country where religion does not interfere with their intolerance. Let’s see, what country doesn’t believe in God in one name or another?

Posted by Steven on 08/26/2010 at 10:11 AM

Re: “Downing

"governments exist to make and enforce rules that keep the strong and the smart and the rich from taking everything away from the weak and the poor and the dumb, including their health, their clean air and water, and their shrimp fisheries. Because that is what the powerful do if nobody stops them." (SIC)

Upon first reading, this statement seems purely ignorant, however it is also perhaps sly propoganda for the igornant reader as well. In partnership with government, industry has invested in highly sucessful environmental stewardship for the benefit our our country, cleaning our waterways and air, providing safe drinking water, protecting wildlife and providing clean workplaces for workers and clean environments for our neighborhoods and recreation. Is the environmental work done? No. Are things getting better? Very much so.
The author of this article is either out of touch with reality or simply wishes to ignore the truth. Is the oil spill bad? Yes. Is BP at fault? As an environmental permit writer for industry including mining and demilitarization, you may rely on the fact that both BP and the government carry equal blame for not providing for fail-safe operations and contingency planning. However, BP and other oil companies do not want to operate in deep water because it is expensive and because it is dangerous. The blame for the spill also lies with environmentalists that ceaselessly impose unrealistic and unsafe requirements on industry via the US Congress. So i ask you, are the environmentalists exempt from taking blame for this oil spill? Maybe yes and maybe no. Remember, there are alot of cooks in the kitchen when big oil designs and permits new operations. Perhaps a forensic approach in tracing the "players" involved in this project and the persons responsibile for design, permitting and operations is warranted to learn the truth beyond the general and political assumptions made in articles such as this one in the Tucson Weekly. Does anyone (especially journalists) have an interest in discovering facts to get to the truth anymore, or is everything just political?

Posted by Steven on 06/24/2010 at 11:04 AM

Re: “Danehy

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), formerly known as Sigma Delta Chi, is one of the oldest organizations representing journalists in the United States. It was established in 1909 at DePauw University. Its stated mission is to promote and defend the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press; encourage high standards and ethical behavior in the practice of journalism; and promote and support diversity in journalism.

By definition, Tom Danehy is not a journalist. Tom Danehy is a propagandist, which by definition is “The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.”



Posted by Steven on 04/29/2010 at 8:01 AM

Re: “Jon Stewart: "Turns Out Arizona is the Meth Lab of Democracy"

We know John Stewart would protect his own house from criminal invasion and we know he would help his own family if they were under attack. We also know that he would complain loudly if he was personally billed for the services of others. In fact, John would squeal louder than everyone else would, because complaining about injustice is what John thinks he is doing in exchange for money and power.
Understanding that, we also know that his position is a pack of lies intended for monetary gain and fame. Being a leftist funny man is what he has condemned himself to do every day of his pitiful life, and because it is a little late for John to find gainful employment doing something productive.
If John Stewart was really concerned about justice, he would focus on how Americans should be helping Mexicans to realize justice and opportunity in Mexico, or how we should be working together to stop the drug dealing and killing.
One of the key problems is the Mexican government and the rich elite in Mexico. They rule over the Mexican people with an iron hand. Mexicans have no social justice, no proper tax base, no economic growth or opportunity because of arcane policies and laws that favor a Federal oligarchy. Why do you think Mexicans come to the USA?
John Stewart is a troubled mind that gains the approval of other troubled minds. Unfortunately, lies and stupidity go hand and hand with evil. Its time we stand up for ourselves and our country. And, its time we stand up for our Mexican brothers and sisters and tell the truth about their plight. As for John Stewart, he is doing the best he can given his obvious limitations.

Posted by Steven on 04/28/2010 at 10:04 AM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation