<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">

    <channel>
    
    <title>Say Anything: Reader Blogs</title>
    <link>http://sayanythingblog.com/</link>
    <description></description>
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>ggoleft@aol.com</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights>Copyright 2008</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2008-09-05T15:50:00-08:00</dc:date>
    <admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.pmachine.com/" />




    
    <item>
      <title>Country First</title>
      <link>http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/country_first/</link>
      <author>HG</author>
      <description></description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some are thinking or have suggeseted that a McCain victory may damage the republican party, possibly irreparably. Some say it is necessary to save the republican party by ensuring our country’s demise comes at the hands of the democrats.
</p>
<p>
McCain is right about country first.&nbsp; This election, as every election, is about the foundation of our country, liberty.&nbsp; We put America first when we understand liberty is our highest political priority, not the republican party.&nbsp; Given the choices on the ballot, clearly the cause of liberty will be better served by a McCain/Palin victory in November.
</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <dc:date>2008-09-05T12:25:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>


    
    <item>
      <title>Obama’s Extrememly Unreasonable Position On Abortion</title>
      <link>http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/obamas_extrememly_unreasonable_position_on_abortion/</link>
      <author>HG</author>
      <description></description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[In 2003 Obama blocked a vote on a state bill which would have afforded constitutional rights to a child born alive in spite of a medical attempt at ending the child’s existence.<br />
<br />
In 2008, when asked when <strike>does life begin</strike> [does a baby get human rights], Obama answered that was “above my pay grade”.<br />
<br />
Given Obama’s admission that he is unqualified to judge when <strike>life begins</strike> [a baby receives human rights], how can he even begin to take a strong pro-abortion position?  Moreover, what is he doing passing judgment on the life of a child that survives an abortion?  <br />
<br />
Remember, Obama’s position on abortion and infanticide were not merely privately held opinion, but guided his decision and legislative actions while in office.]]></content:encoded>
      <dc:date>2008-08-30T22:04:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>


    
    <item>
      <title>Honest Debate</title>
      <link>http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/honest_debate/</link>
      <author>HG</author>
      <description></description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wouldn&#8217;t a debate on an issue without the usual intellectual dishonesty be a welcome discussion?&nbsp; One where we can claim what we believe and not have to deal with petty attempts to mischaracterize our positions and subsequently dismiss the point. One where liberals would come clean and explain why some of the liberties we were afforded by our Creator and secured in our Constitution are too many and should be given to the state for the sake of others who because of their conditions don&#8217;t have to give up those same rights (wealth redistribution)?&nbsp; One where government is subject to the same greed and envy the liberals ascribe to free market economics?&nbsp; One where the inspiring imaginations of world peace can be tempered by historical facts, human nature, and economic realities?
</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <dc:date>2008-06-10T19:22:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>


    
    <item>
      <title>Just Got Back From &#8220;EXPELLED&#8221;</title>
      <link>http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/just_got_back_from_expelled/</link>
      <author>HG</author>
      <description></description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just walked in the door after driving home from the local theatre where Ben Stein&#8217;s &#8220;EXPELLED&#8221; is playing.&nbsp; I haven&#8217;t taken any time to allow it to soak in, but thought I&#8217;d record my first impressions.&nbsp; I&#8217;ll just say Mr. Stein&#8217;s work is profound and excellent.&nbsp; I look forward to the debates that will undoubtedly follow over the next few months.&nbsp; You can bet that the Darwinists will come out with guns blazin&#8217; over this one.
</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <dc:date>2008-04-18T23:15:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>


    
    <item>
      <title>Liberal Government Doesn&#8217;t Trust You.</title>
      <link>http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/liberal_government_doesnt_trust_you/</link>
      <author>HG</author>
      <description></description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is a given that conservatives don&#8217;t trust government and that liberals don&#8217;t trust conservative government, but it is just as obvious that liberal government doesn&#8217;t trust its citizens.&nbsp; Liberal politicians seek at every turn to control more and more aspects of every citizen&#8217;s life.&nbsp; Take this recent story of gov&#8217;t control over the thermostat in private homes:
<br />
<a href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59639" title="Big Brother to control thermostats in homes?">Big Brother to control thermostats in homes?</a>
</p>
<p>
The very idea is repulsing and offensive.&nbsp; That liberal government doesn&#8217;t even trust citizens to responsibly and economically adjust their own thermostat is another glaring example of what happens when power beyond what is necessary for public security is centralized in government.&nbsp;  
</p>
<p>
Healthy relationships require a mutual trust.&nbsp; Conservatives find this impossible when government holds more power than intended.&nbsp; Liberals, however, put much confidence in such centralized political power.&nbsp; Remarkably, the fact that their prefered form of government doesn&#8217;t trust them to set their own thermostat, somehow merits their trust.&nbsp; 
</p>
<p>
  Why?&nbsp; Why would anyone trust a centralized power, especially one that doesn&#8217;t return that trust?&nbsp;  What kind of warped realationship is this?
</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <dc:date>2008-01-11T15:27:01-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>


    
    <item>
      <title>Distrust For Government.</title>
      <link>http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/distrust_for_government/</link>
      <author>HG</author>
      <description></description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing liberals and conservatives have in common is a distrust for government.&nbsp; Oh, it&#8217;s not a common distrust; liberals don&#8217;t trust government to conservatives while conservatives don&#8217;t trust anything more than national security to any government, liberal or conservative. 
</p>
<p>
The question arises though; why would liberals want to invest government with any more power than it already has given the fact that conservatives will inevitably control one or more branches of government at various times in the future?&nbsp; In other words if it is conservatives liberals fear, why afford future conservative administrations or legislatures more power and more money?
</p>
<p>
Both liberals and conservatives correctly acknowledge the threat of government to its citizens, but for some reason liberals think that their leaders are immune or somehow inoculated from the greed and ambition which plagues most government officials. Like any disease the risk of infection increases when its presence increases.&nbsp; Increasing the power and money government holds and controls only increases the likelihood of corruption.&nbsp; If history is any indicator, corruption is more than likely, it’s inevitable. 
</p>
<p>
Given the reality that power and money corrupts, why would anyone think that the highest authority of the land would be better trusted with more of it?
<br />
And, why wouldn&#8217;t that power and money be better trusted to us, the citizens?&nbsp; 
</p>
<p>
As free citizens, free market forces operate to limit such a centralization of money and power, and citizens must answer to the authority for any illegal use of power and money.&nbsp; Government operates free from these corrective influences.&nbsp; So tell me please, why is government the solution to any of the social problems we face?
</p>]]></content:encoded>
      <dc:date>2008-01-10T03:06:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>


    
    <item>
      <title>THE PRIVILEGED PLANET</title>
      <link>http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/the_priveleged_planet/</link>
      <author>HG</author>
      <description></description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4i1wobGZUZM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4i1wobGZUZM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tQdxRj49m5c&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tQdxRj49m5c&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fwrqsTF5QJU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fwrqsTF5QJU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PlntT0osRpE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PlntT0osRpE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NETs--fUoko&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NETs--fUoko&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vj4vXQmlyn4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vj4vXQmlyn4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>]]></content:encoded>
      <dc:date>2007-12-13T23:35:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>


    
    <item>
      <title>George Washington&#8217;s Thanksgiving  Proclamation</title>
      <link>http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/george_washingtons_thanksgiving_proclamation/</link>
      <author>HG</author>
      <description></description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor&#8212;and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me &#8220;to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.&#8221;
</p>
<p>
 Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be&#8212;That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks&#8212;for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation&#8212;for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed&#8212;for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted&#8212;for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. 
<br />
 
<br />
 
<br />
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions&#8212;to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually&#8212;to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed&#8212;to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord&#8212;To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us&#8212;and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best. 
</p>
<p>
Given under my hand at the City of New York 
<br />
the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789. 
</p>
<p>
George Washington 
<br />
 </p></blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
      <dc:date>2007-11-21T23:32:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>


    
    <item>
      <title>Interesting and Insightful Look at Atheism</title>
      <link>http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/what_atheists_cant_answer/</link>
      <author>HG</author>
      <description></description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071201620.html" title="What Atheists Can't Answer">What Atheists Can't Answer</a></b><br />
<br />
<br />
By Michael Gerson<br />
Friday, July 13, 2007; Page A17<br />
<br />
British author G.K. Chesterton argued that every act of blasphemy is a kind of tribute to God, because it is based on belief. "If anyone doubts this," he wrote, "let him sit down seriously and try to think blasphemous thoughts about Thor."<br />
<br />
By the evidence of the New York Times bestseller list, God has recently been bathed in such tributes. An irreverent trinity -- Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins -- has sold a lot of books accusing theism of fostering hatred, repressing sexuality and mutilating children (Hitchens doesn't approve of male circumcision). Every miracle is a fraud. Every mystic is a madman. And this atheism is presented as a war of liberation against centuries of spiritual tyranny.<br />
 <br />
Proving God's existence in 750 words or fewer would daunt even Thomas Aquinas. And I suspect that a certain kind of skeptic would remain skeptical even after a squadron of angels landed on his front lawn. So I merely want to pose a question: If the atheists are right, what would be the effect on human morality?<br />
<br />
If God were dethroned as the arbiter of moral truth, it would not, of course, mean that everyone joins the Crips or reports to the Playboy mansion. On evidence found in every culture, human beings can be good without God. And Hitchens is himself part of the proof. I know him to be intellectually courageous and unfailingly kind, when not ruthlessly flaying opponents for taking minor exception to his arguments. There is something innate about morality that is distinct from theological conviction. This instinct may result from evolutionary biology, early childhood socialization or the chemistry of the brain, but human nature is somehow constructed for sympathy and cooperative purpose.<br />
<br />
But there is a problem. Human nature, in other circumstances, is also clearly constructed for cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of other less desirable traits.<br />
<br />
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.<br />
<br />
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts" because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do whatever I please." C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: "When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains."<br />
<br />
Some argue that a careful determination of our long-term interests -- a fear of bad consequences -- will constrain our selfishness. But this is particularly absurd. Some people are very good at the self-centered exploitation of others. Many get away with it their whole lives. By exercising the will to power, they are maximizing one element of their human nature. In a purely material universe, what possible moral basis could exist to condemn them? Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not.<br />
<br />
The death of God has greater consequences than expanded golf time on Sunday mornings. And it is not simply religious fundamentalists who have recognized it. America's Founders embraced public neutrality on matters of religion, but they were not indifferent to the existence of religious faith. George Washington warned against the "supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." The Founders generally believed that the virtues necessary for self-government -- self-sacrifice, honesty, public spirit -- were strengthened by religious beliefs and institutions.<br />
<br />
None of this amounts to proof of God's existence. But it clarifies a point of agreement -- which reveals an even deeper division. Atheists and theists seem to agree that human beings have an innate desire for morality and purpose. For the theist, this is perfectly understandable: We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them. In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold.<br />
<br />
This form of "liberation" is like liberating a plant from the soil or a whale from the ocean. In this kind of freedom, something dies.<br />
<br />
michaelgerson@cfr.org</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
      <dc:date>2007-10-27T17:48:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>


    
    <item>
      <title>If Hillary has Her Way, We&#8217;re All Going to Pay!</title>
      <link>http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/if_hillary_has_her_way_were_all_going_to_pay/</link>
      <author>HG</author>
      <description></description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/11/clinton_vows_to_check_executive_power/" title="Oh, boy!">Oh, boy!</a>
</p>
<blockquote><p>Clinton recently floated the idea of issuing a $5,000 bond to each baby born in the United States to help pay for college and a first home, but it immediately inspired Republican ridicule and she quickly said she would not implement the proposal.
</p>
<p>
She defended that decision yesterday, saying she is focusing on proposals with more political support and she is not formally proposing anything she can&#8217;t fund without increasing the deficit: <b>&#8220;I have a million ideas. The country can&#8217;t afford them all.&#8221;</b></p></blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
      <dc:date>2007-10-11T19:47:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    
    </channel>
</rss>