Sparky Speaks Out About Politics and Religion

When I was a kid, I watched Carl Sagan and watched him struggle with the nature of the very beginning of existence. He would say that we can track the universe all of the way back to the seconds that followed creation, but we cannot say How creation began.

I always laughed to myself and said, "Well, the big bang theory does have validity. The Word of God would be the only sound in the vast emptiness of space. So, God Spoke and it was... in the huge bang of God's voice."

In my many days of listening to the Science channel as I do my work, I am often struck with a similar Big Bang theory being bantied about in today's scientific community.

They cannot tell us exactly how life began on earth. They can tell us how it grew, developed and evolved, but they cannot tell us how it actually began.

Over the last couple of years, the scientific community has climbed upon the bandwagon to tell us that life appeared on earth, after it had hitched a ride on a comet that flew millions of miles through space and crashed into the Earth.

So, rather than to say that we don't know how God breathed life into the micro-organisms of earth, we must say that life hitched a ride to Earth.

Every time I hear this argument, I am struck with the overwhelming feeling to yell at my television.

Why can't we just say, we do not know...

By attributing life to a comet that crashed into earth, we are pushing the responsibility of explaining life to the aliens. Now that we know life came from space, we no longer have a responsibility to ourselves to try to determine how life begins.

Since life began on a planet far from earth... the argument goes... the origin of life on earth is no longer important.

So, we have successfully passed the buck for an currently unanswerable question to E.T. Let E.T. explain it... so that we don't have to do so ourselves.

Hey E.T., why don't you phone home and ask your scientists how life began so that our scientists don't have to look so stupid when they try to pass the buck to a comet.



Submitted by:
Richard "Sparky" Bryan
Tell Me What You Think.
Leave a comment.

---

When did Americans stop taking responsibility for their own
actions?

In fact, I was having this conversation just this evening with
a gentleman who was alive to see the turn in attitudes. I put
it to you this way because my feelings were that it began in
the 1960's, but I could not know for myself since I was born
in the mid-sixties.

My friend is at least a couple of decades my senior, so he was
there seeing it for himself as it happened. My friend agreed
that the slide began in the late 1960's with the growth of the
drug culture.

But he was quick to emphasize that although the sixties began
the slide, the real sharp slope did not arrive until the 1990's.
Along about 1993, the slide began to sharpen. It was not until
early 1998 that the slope became a steep cliff.

It happened with the utterance of only eight words, "I did
not have sexual relations with that woman." ...Followed by
the explanation of the original lie, his actions "did not
constitute sexual relations as I understood that term."

Who uttered these famous words? Of course, we all know it was
Bill Clinton, the former President of the United States.


CLINTON'S LEGACY

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/12/98
/review_of_98/themes/208715.stm

Bill Clinton will always be known as a man with a strong sexual
drive and a desire to hide that fact from the people. He will
also be known as the second U.S. President in history to be
impeached.

Actually, the American public sooned tired of the Republican
tirade against Clinton's sexual indiscretions.

I theorize that the reason people tired of this matter so
quickly is because each person took a good hard look at Hillary
and understood the reasons for Bill's philandering ways.


BILL CLINTON'S REAL LEGACY

Bill will be known for several things by different people. No
one will ever forget the sexual exploits of the man, but that
will not be his real legacy.

His real legacy will always be that he refused to take
responsibility for his own actions.

There are far too many actions, denials and misdirections to
catalogue here. Although I could pass on a few, the only purpose
it would really serve is to bore you to tears. So, I will just
move on.


THE RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY

Do you remember the great "Right-Wing Conspiracy?"

Sure you do. And so does everyone else. Hillary was the first
to suggest that they were responsible for Bill Clinton's woes.

But, the "Right-Wing Conspiracy" did not lie to the American
public. Bill did.

The "Right-Wing Conspiracy" did not try to play off their
dishonesties as a misunderstood word in the English language.
Nope. Bill was the one who did that.

Did the "Right-Wing Conspiracy" smoke pot? Certainly not. It
was Bill who smoked the pot, although it must be noted that he
"did not inhale." So, why did he even bother putting the joint
between his lips if he did not intend to inhale? Odd.


THE AFTERMATH OF BILL

"I did not do that."

"I did not say that."

"That is not what I meant to suggest with my words."

"The Right-Wing Conspiracy did it."

"The Right-Wing Conspiracy is responsible."

"I want you to know that I am innocent." --- Martha Stewart

"I simply returned a call from my stockbroker," Stewart wrote.

"Based in large part on prior discussions with my broker about
price, I authorized a sale of my remaining shares in a biotech
company called ImClone." --- The Innocent Martha Stewart


THE DENIAL IS PERVASIVE IN OUR CULTURE

Martha has become a focal point for the new American culture
of denial and misdirection.

We, the people, imitate the actions of our leaders and other
personalities. If those we respect have taught us not to take
responsibility for our own actions, who are we to question
their leadership? Let us do as they do. After all, if they
are doing it, then there must not be anything wrong with it.


THE SCRUBBING BUBBLES

Like the scrubbing bubbles swirling down the toilet in the
commercial, the American population is swirling down the
toilet of denial.

"We do the work so you don't have to..."
--- The Scrubbing Bubbles

The only way we can prevent America from going the full
length of the flush is to put our feet down and begin to begin
to take responsibility for our own actions again, one person at
a time.

You must step to the plate and take responsiblity for your own
actions. If you do wrong, say so. Don't make excuses.

Then, by example, you must show others the right way to behave.

Right behavior is infectious, just as wrong behavior is
infectious.

One action at a time, I implore the people who read this article
to infect others with the desire to act properly and to take
responsiblity for their own actions.

It is up to you whether you follow my guidance. I am doing my
own part at my end, and I hope others will jump on the band
wagon and do the same.


JOKES ABOUT THE PLAYERS

Martha Stewart
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blmarthastewartjokes.htm

Bill Clinton
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blclintonquotes.htm
http://humorvault.tripod.com/clinton/clinton_13.html

Hillary Clinton
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blhillaryquotes.htm



Submitted by:
Richard "Sparky" Bryan
Tell Me What You Think.
Send Me an Email at:
sparky_speaks *at* thecia.info

---

An old man approached the White House
from the park across Pennsylvania Avenue
where he'd been sitting on a park bench.
He spoke to the US Marine standing guard
and said, "I'd like to go in and meet with
President Clinton."

The Marine looked at the man and said,
"Sir, Mr. Clinton is no longer president
and no longer resides here."

The old man said, "Okay" and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached
the White House and said to the same Marine,
"I would like to go in and meet with President
Clinton."

The Marine again told the man, "Sir, Mr. Clinton
is no longer president and no longer resides here."

The man thanked him and again, just walked
away. The third day, the same man approached
the White House and spoke to the very same
US Marine, saying "I would like to go in and
meet with President Clinton."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this
point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this
is the third day in a row you've been here
asking to speak to Mr. Clinton. I've told you
already that Clinton is no longer president
and no longer resides here. Don't you
understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said,
"Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."

THE MARINE SNAPPED TO ATTENTION,
SALUTED AND SAID, "SEE YOU TOMORROW,
SIR!"



--------------------------------------------------------
Forwarded by:
--
Bill Platt - Owner
http://thePhantomWriters.com
Do you write your own articles? We can distribute your
free-reprint articles to 6000+ publishers and webmasters.

---

A Funny Thing has Happened on the Way to the 2004 Elections

BEFORE IOWA

Prior to Iowa, Howard Dean was the front-runner in the Democratic
race for the White House. During the final weeks leading up to
the Iowa Caucuses, Dean was considered the shoe-in for the
nomination, and as such, Dean had implored all of his opponents
to cede from the race.

In fact, many pundits were asking why the other candidates even
bothered hanging in the race with Dean so far ahead in the polls.

The funny thing about the pre-Iowa race and the Dean lead was
that not a single vote had been cast, yet everyone was so very
confident that Dean would take the nomination, that they felt
the other candidates should pull of the race.


BEFORE SUPER-TUESDAY

It is funny how this race has taken such a startling turn in
events.

Seventeen states into the competition, Dean has shot 0 for 17.
In the aftermath of Wisconsin, the former front-runner Howard
Dean has thrown in the towel.

Clark pulled out of the race last week.

Now Kerry and the pundits are encouraging the remaining
candidates to withdraw from the race. After all, it would
seem that Kerry has the nomination wrapped up.


LET'S EXAMINE THE FACTS

In order to secure the Democratic nomination, one must secure
2162 of the 4322 available delegates.

At this point in the race, there really is no clear-cut winner
in the Democratic race for the Presidency. Kerry holds fewer
than 23% of the delegates required to secure the nomination.

Here is the number of delegates each candidate has earned as
of 2-18-04:

Kerry - 494.5
Edwards - 171
Dean - 112.5
Clark - 44
Sharpton - 12
Kucinich - 0

While it is true that John Kerry has earned two-and-a-half
times more delegates than John Edwards, it cannot and should
not be assumed that Kerry has a lock.

After all, Kerry only beat Edwards by two percentage points in
Wisconsin.


SHORT MEMORY SPANS?

Don't you remember the proclamation in 1946, "Dewey Wins!"?

What about 1976 when the Wisconsin news proclaimed, "Morris
Udall Wins"? As we know now, Jimmy Carter won Wisconsin in
1976 and then won the Presidency later that year.

In 1992, Bill Clinton was dubbed the "Comeback Kid" because
in the early days of the race, his race was given little
chance for success. We all know how that turned out.


HERE IS THE CROCK

John Kerry has won fewer than 23% of the required delegates
to win the Democratic nomination, but the pundits and Kerry
want the other candidates to step aside so that the real
winner can soak up the spotlight.

Many in the press seem to want the underdog candidates to quit
the race before the people have spoken. Why is that?

Is it because the press fears the voice of the people? Perhaps.


DO THE RIGHT THING

America has always held the promise of government by the people
for the people. It is this promise that has helped to make the
United States the greatest nation on the planet.

This is why I implore the Democratic candidates to remain in
the race until the people have had the opportunity to cast
their votes.

Let the people of the Democratic Party speak as to whom they
wish to be the next President of the United States.

Then let the people of the United States choose between George
W. Bush and the Democratic nominee.

I have faith that in the end Bush will prevail, but I find
this race for the Democratic nomination to be disturbing in
that the pundits seem to wish to take the voice away from the
American people.

This is a message for John Edwards. John, don't quit the
race until ALL of the votes have been counted. You owe it
to the Democrats to let their voices be heard. Although
you will never see the White House from inside the Oval
Office, you do stand a good chance of pulling out the
Democratic nomination. Keep up the good fight, John.



Submitted by:
Richard "Sparky" Bryan
Tell Me What You Think.
Send Me an Email at:
sparky_speaks *at* thecia.info

---

Don't Be a Boob About the Boob

Dictionary.com defines a Boob as either:

n 1: an ignorant or foolish person
n 2: slang for a woman's breast


PARTIAL NUDITY IN THE NEWS

The furor over the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show astonishes
me. Granted, it was a ground breaking moment in network
television programming. It was the first time in the history
of a mega broadcasting event that a half-covered nipple was
seen on the telly.

I don't know, but suspect it was not the first breast to be
shown on network television. After all, CBS airs the Victoria
Secrets Show every year, and surely some partial breasts
appear in that program. But it could be argued that parents
know that flesh will be seen in that program, so they know
to keep their kids away from the set.

Then there is NYPD Blue. I have never actually watched an
episode of this long-running television series, but I did
note at the beginning of an episode a warning that the program
may air *partial nudity.* Since I have never actually watched
the program, I don't know what they were indicating with their
warning.


MUCH ADO ABOUT A BOOB

We are not talking about the Dan Quayle *potatoe* moment here.
Instead, we are talking about an image that every person has
either seen or will see at some point in their lives.

A woman's breast is really a commonplace type of thing. In fact,
over half of the people in the world naturally have at least two
of them.

People who had a commercial interest in the Super Bowl have
been jumping on the bandwagon to protest this breast:

* CBS, MTV and the NFL are all denying pre-knowledge of this
publicity stunt, and offering their apologies for the
incident.
* AOL is threatening to seek a refund for their ad placements
in this year's Super Bowl.
* Pepsi is threatening not to sponsor next year's Super Bowl.
* The Grammy's are threatening to exclude Janet Jackson and
Justin Timberlake from their awards show, unless they
publicly apologize for their actions.
* News pundits everywhere are putting their snickers on the
incident while showing a censored version of the breast
incident again and again --- as if they know everyone wants
to see it again.

Even the federal government is jumping on the bandwagon:

* The FCC has launched an investigation into the now infamous
breast incident.

And Presidential candidates are getting their sound bytes in:

* Howard Dean is pointing out that it is *much ado about
nothing.*

How about that? Howard Dean and I agree on something. I guess
there really is a first time for everything.


THE DANGER OF THE NIPPLE

Terri Carlin of Knoxville, Tennesse has filed a lawsuit on
account of the nipple that harmed her.

According to the Associated Press story about the proposed
class action lawsuit, "As a direct and proximate result of the
broadcast of the acts, (Carlin) and millions of others saw the
acts and were caused to suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment
and serious injury," the lawsuit says.

Terri Carlin has joined Dan Quayle in the annals of notorious
boobs (an ignorant or foolish person).

Since when can a person suffer *serious injury* from a two
second glimpse of a boob? Now, a car wreck can cause *serious
injury*. A bomb can cause *serious injury*. A baseball bat can
even cause *serious injury*. But, how does one propose that a
boob can cause *serious injury*?

Does Terri also suffer *serious injury* when she disrobes for
a shower? This is another example of a ridiculous and frivolous
lawsuit.


WHAT ABOUT THE HARM TO OUR CHILDREN?

Let me tell you something. The harm to our children is not the
boob that was glimpsed on national television. Instead, the harm
to our children is in the reactions of all of the silly parents
who are yelping about the sighting of a nipple at the Super Bowl.

Parents in the United States are scared to death that if their
children are exposed to nude images, then the tender psyche
of their children will be damaged in some manner. Yet, these
same children are expected to grow up and have normal and
healthy sex lives.

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?

The following joke astutely shows the fallacy behind the "harm
argument":

One day there were two boys playing by a stream when they
stumbled upon a naked woman frolicking in the water. After
a few moments one of the boys turned and ran away.

The first boy couldn't understand why he ran away so he took
off after his friend. Finally, he caught up to him and asked,
"It was interesting man, why did you run away?"

The other boy replied, "My Mom told me if I ever saw a naked
lady I would turn to stone, and I felt something turning to
stone, so I ran."


THE REAL HARM IS IN THE PARENTS' REACTIONS TO NUDE IMAGES

Parents want their children to be sheltered from sexual images.
They want to protect their children from the "dangers" of sexual
images.

Some parents will go to great lengths and tell great tales to
keep the minds of their children pure and wholesome.

But, what happens in the mind of a young adult, when the dictates
of their parents shift from repressive puritanism to openess
towards relationships and marriage?

Parents look forward to grandchildren, but they train their
children to grow up with an unhealthy attitude towards the
human body and the human sex drive.


I WILL RAISE MY OWN CHILDREN DIFFERNTLY THAN MY PARENTS RAISED ME

When you consider the American puritanism towards sex, is it
any wonder that dysfunction and divorce are so rampant in the
American populace?

My wife knows how I feel on this issue and is agreeable to my
point of view. Our older boy had to endure my wife's early fears
about human sexuality, but she is pretty well come around. Well,
nearly come around.

My wife is finally past my oldest boys' tendency to play with
himself. We don't get mad at him for it or tell him not to do
it. We do not try to embarrass or intimidate him from his
natural exploration of his own body.

Very much to my mother-in-law's dismay, our four year old knows
what a female breast is and has seen two of them many of times.
He also knows what the male equipment is, and he knows that girls
don't have the same equipment.

Our youngest is still learning how to talk.

My wife and I have agreed that when the time comes, we will
not try to put our head in the sand or to try to put the heads
of our children in the sand. Instead, we will talk openly about
human sexuality with our children, and we will talk about the
importance of choice and abstinence.

I will not pass my own dysfunctions on to my children. And you
should not either. The time has come to stop being a boob about
the boob.



Submitted by:
Richard "Sparky" Bryan
Tell Me What You Think.
Send Me an Email at:
sparky_speaks *at* thecia.info

---