SAG and WGA members have repeatedly said that you, as fans, shouldn’t protest streaming services and new releases because fans continuing to show interest in new releases both gets them paid and puts pressure on the AMPTP to sit down and make a deal so idk where y’all got “don’t create or interact with fan content of any kind in any way”, the closest to this that I’ve seen is the cosplay rule*, which is for INFLUENCERS who are under the SAG influencer agreement or may want to be in the future, not fans with hobbies (in fact, in the Variety article that specifies the cosplay rule, they specifically say if you’re not in SAG or a future union influencer to “go right ahead”)

*I could not find the cosplay rule anywhere on the SAG-AFTRA strike official website but it appears to be an expansion on this point in the FAQ for Influencers section:

The cosplay addition to this rule seems to stem from this Variety article as well as screenshots of an email exchange between a twitter user and the strike’s official email address

I highly recommend you get your information regarding the strike and what counts as crossing the picket line directly from the SAG-AFTRA strike website as well as directly from the WGA strike website (I suggest reading the FAQs a couple times) or by submitting any questions you may have to the strike’s official email or phone number— [email protected] or 877-8-STRIKE (877-878-7453)— as opposed to listening to strangers online as there is a lot of misinformation going around right now

The Coven System

There is something fascinating about the Coven System as a story mechanic. Specifically, this post will talk about how they are introduced in Covention. There's some nuance here.

Let me explain.

SPOILERS AHEAD

First up, let's establish some themes. The owl house is about freedom of expression. This should be pretty obvious. This episode goes out of its way to explicitly state this pretty early on, so you have that in the back of your mind.

"I get it Eda. Covens bad, individualism good. But I'm still figuring this world out. So, I'm going to go in there and make up my own mind."

There's a pervading attitude in specifically media analysis of "I'm going to throw a collection of big words at you to show how I am right" and the people that say this could be right, but they don't dwell on why. Knowing what something is called doesn't really do anything in something like this and reducing things to "Good" and "Bad" without explaining what that means is unhelpful.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with Eda here, the coven system is bad. And I'm not against big words (Half of my personality is an obnoxiously obscure vocabulary). But good and bad have no inherent, quantifiable definition. You have to define the parameters you are using. That's what this episode as a whole does. It explains, and it demonstrates.

Enough waffle. What are the covens?

Put simply, they are boxes to exist in. You align yourself with one idea and have to embody that idea for the rest of your life. It's restrictive, but that's not the selling point. The selling point is:

"Acceptance? Comradery? A sense of belonging? Covens sound incredible." "Watch closely, Luz."

The coven system works on social rules. You want acceptance? You need to conform. And even the existence of the Tiniest Cat Coven backs this up. The Boiling isles don't care how you conform, they just care that you can be easily defined. Hence why they add labels to everything, including those outside of the covens. Eda is a "wild witch". Lus is "the human".

The sigil system is a pretty decent metaphor for this, in order to be accepted, you have to lose some of your magic, some of what makes you you.

But there is one exception to this rule. The Emperor's coven. The best of the best can keep all of their magic. If you are good enough, you can keep some of your identity. But in exchange, you must wear a mask, disguise your face. It's conditional acceptance, and it's not acceptance of you, its acceptance of your abilities. Even Lilith is introduced wearing a mask.

Now, one thing that struck me during this episode was how it makes a concerted effort to show how similar the Emperor's coven and the wild witches are. That way their differences are shown more dramatically. These begin superficial. Both can cast all kinds of magic, both have a Clawthorn as their leader, both back a child in what could probably be a life-or-death event. But then the similarities become more underlying. Both are impulsive and cheat their way to victory.

I said impulsive there, and I meant it. But you might be confused. Lilith doesn't strike most people as impulsive. But that is an act, a mask, you might say. She makes a concerted effort to be the holier than thou character, but it literally only takes a handful of rhymes to get her to act how Eda wants her to act. And remember the beginning of the episode? How does Luz convince Eda to let her go to the covention? With flowery language. There are some parallels here that are starting to get obnoxious.

So, what point am I getting at here? What are the differences between the wild witches and the Emperor's coven? The coven would lead you to believe that they are the only place where you can be accepted. But the wild witches provide that for each other, and they don't have to earn it. The answer, when you look closer, is freedom. In the Emperor's Coven, you are not free to be yourself, you give up your individuality, and your autonomy, which in my opinion, are not the kinds of things you want to relinquish.

Ok, I need to talk about this scene, because it's really cool. The key word here is acceptance. The reason Luz starts to break down Amity's walls is because she is kind. She doesn't call Amity to change her ways in some big monologue, she is just nice to her, and accepting. And that acceptance comes from a place Amity wasn't expecting it to. Amity has been raised to think that acceptance came from skill, that if you were good enough, people would be kind to you. That's why she's so hell bent on joining the Emperor's Coven. And yet here is Luz, after Amity had cheated, showing her dignity and respect.

Luz doesn't begin antagonistic towards the Covens, but the rivalry begins here. Luz is the opposite of the emperor, and by extension, the antithesis of the covens themselves.

Previous - Next

#public_review

#part One

My dear friends my dear readers,

I am happy to be here with you tonight after an absence, I find that I long to write in glorious Arabic, and I am drawn to the nostalgia for the high-ranking language of the Arabic language.

Times have passed by dragging them on the reality of the world today, time did not speed up as it does today, and the “rapids” of news did not speed up as it speeds up today, the world is changing rapidly around us, and people are accustomed or almost, until they are no longer stopped by nothing but the greatness of the news, as for its young ones, I became accustomed as if it was an evening talk.

I am writing to you today while I am in a different position and with a new responsibility that requires effort, time, arrangement and more accuracy, so I took some time, due to its tightness and urgency, to arrange my office and its shelves, and reorganize what I have to do with my new reality at the head of the “National Security Institution” The strategic “for a great old great new line is the line of the noble gentlemen, Ahl al-Bayt.

Our ancestors in the past were not absent from the reality of life and the world of this world in presence, attention, care and presence, that is hidden or less, hidden or apparent, announced or facilitated according to time and space and the necessities of the total existence of an honorable race that is destined to be the safety of the people of the earth, even if it is absent. The value of his existence for many of the people of the earth.

Since our grandfather Adam we have been on this earth and our existence continued throughout the period of our grandfather Idris, Noah, Abraham, Ismail, Jacob, Isaac, Yusuf, Yunus, Hod, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, the seal of the prophets, Muhammad, his guardians and the guardians of his lineage, peace be upon them.

We have been here since our grandfather Adam, peace be upon him, descended to this earth, and we will remain until God authorizes us to return to the motherland after the world is filled with justice and equity, as the oppressors “Satan and his evil descendants” filled it with injustice and aggression.

We were here, entrusting the one who is going to the next with the reins of the honorable existence on this earth until he comes who is the first and the last in the order of the immortal ones.

We were here, and we will remain here until God permits us to return to our homes. The land is ours, glory is ours, and woe to those who give us refuge.

This is the compass of existence for us, the people of the house of prophecy and the message, the houses of honor and the king.

Today, and close to the days of God, the world witnesses events that were transmitted by our ancestors, Kabra, from Kaber, they told us and they told all people, including what reached these generations healthy and unharmed from the forms of distortion, fraud and deception, and some of them were obtained by the hand of treachery, so I changed what I changed to People lose sight of the road and lose their compass.

Our mission on earth is to establish the pillars of the House of Glory so that God will be worshiped knowingly and people may live in safety, knowledge, security and prosperity, and coexist with nations and other creatures in harmony and peace. Satan wants to mislead people far astray, and his party wants to avoid the path of God and They abandon the teachings of Heaven, people fight and kill each other, diseases and injuries spread, and people live in distress, distress and anxiety, fighting over the small and despicable thing.

This is the battle of life that the world and the inhabitants of the earth live in today.

So, let's get out of this language of abstraction to the language of today's reality, and let us speak the language of analyzes and use the propane of strategies so that our language is in the language of our people, so that the Arab and the non-Arab alike can understand you.

#The reality of the Arab region

#sham_events

Do any of you remember “Donald Trump” today, surely many people today no longer remember him?

“Donald Trump” is the pre-current US president who acquiesced to the “Sheldon” project and thought that “the deal of the century would grant him a second presidential term, and when he felt that he would lose that in favor of the American Calvary Movement candidate, he mixed the papers of the region in a strange way outside the established decisions to make the days of his successor black.” in judgment.

Let me speed up the details so that we can go through what is hardly mentioned in the "media today except for a little bit."

#Salt_hospital events

Do you remember what happened then??? a

I think that many have forgotten, except for those sitting in the corridors of the "Jordanian Intelligence".

The answer received by "the Jordanian monarch" at the time, along with the Jordanian strategic depth in Salt Hospital, was a "rude response" from "Netanyahu" to not authorizing his plane to pass over the airspace of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Yes , it was a " rude response " that embarrassed even the " Emiratis " who were appalled that a " special force " belonging to the Gladio operating under the command of " Netanyahu " would commit this heinous act .

In order to do so, it will be planned to strike members of the royal family against each other and prepare the ground for the assassination of Prince Hamzah and accusing His Majesty King Abdullah of this until the Hashemite family’s contract is broken and Jordan disintegrates in the face of the weak social and economic situation in which it is living due to “brazen planning” since the time of the nineties, after the assassination of “Isaac Rabin” at the hands of “Gladio” himself, and then work is done to establish a republican regime under popular pressure that will be a puppet in the hands of “Netanyahu” and his team, and had it not been for the grace of God and the intervention of the Jordanian strategic depth in harmony with the general strategic depth in the region and the world, the world today would be witnessing the birth of A new Gladio regime under the name of the "Republic of Besan" is ruled by "Fertoot", similar to the famous banana states.

What can be said today regarding Jordan has been said, and the last word that must be said as clearly as possible is that the security of Jordan is all of Jordan, the people of Jordan, all the people of Jordan, and the security of the Hashemite royal family, the entire Hashemite royal family, and that His Majesty King Abdullah and the order of government In Jordan, the security of all the nobles of the world will not be allowed to be threatened at all, and this saying applies to every royal family of honorable origin in Arab, Islamic and even global geography and does not stop at the borders of Jordan only.

I hope that "Netanyahu" and his team are well aware of this, I hope so.

And I hope again that the Arab peoples will realize the following:

Through the “gladio agents” who are everywhere in the joints of administrative, political, economic, educational, media, governmental and other life, political action in every country and system is underestimated, and sabotage is done from within in order to strike peoples with their systems and plunge them into wars of attrition. absurd interior, until it is exhausted well in stages, then the stage of total overthrow comes with multi-use revolutions, even if one system falls after another until the whole world falls prey to the absolute demonic control of the systems and then the peoples are lost to be completely enslaved.

Of course, not all the policies of the Arab regimes are bad, and not all of them are good. As a result of the complexities of daily management and the intended mistakes of domestic agents, the efforts of states are underestimated and the moral existence of the state and the regimes as a whole is undermined.

Let us remember the recent past then,

When the Ottoman Empire fell, the citizens of the state dispersed and states appeared by virtue of "Sais-Pico", then the monarchies began to disappear in the Arab and Islamic world and the world in general, then "Gregory" took control of Europe and most of the governments of its regimes, in turn, in favor of emerging republican regimes, most of whose leaders are from lineages Overwhelmed, it looks at the ruling as a gain and not a debtor, so competition and then hatred increases among the parties to the competition greedy for power, so the poor of yesterday overcome the strong of today, who are supported by the forces of the “Gladio” and plunder what they are able to achieve, then the nation becomes dwarfed and its existence weakens whenever the ruler is overpowered by the people. They do not know their origin and they do not have a covenant of satiation, and here personal interests prevail over the higher interest of the nation, and the likes of “Netanyahu” and Netanyahu’s godfathers, who, of course, have nothing to do with their personal interests, do not represent a religion, a belief or a principle.

And when Gregory overthrew the Shah’s regime in Iran, another “problem” appeared for the region, which many think was an “opportunity.” Gregory wanted it to be a “religious problem with the taste of Shiism” so that people would be alienated from religion and from the love of the people of the Prophet’s house May God’s prayers and peace be upon him and his family, just as he took advantage of “the persecution of the Jews of the world” and their longing for a state that would gather them from the diaspora and protect them within the land of their ancestors, according to the “interpretations” of some rabbis of the prophecies of “Prophet Daniel” as explained by “Maimonides” in his books about the day of the end of time, in order to These people hit these people under religious names, in the midst of everyone forgetting that religions came and emerged through the prophets who were truly sent from God, and that politicians seeking interests did not establish them even if they were wrapped in black turbans or even black pants.

Neither those in the new “Iran” represent the Muhammadan religion in the same way as a Shiite, nor do those in “Israel” represent the Mosaic religion or the teachings of the tribes.

Simply put, "Netanyahu" is a politician even if he is a Jew by religion, and "Khamenei" is a politician even if he is a Shiite Muslim.

It is simpler than this..is that when he comes “who is to send” the final tribe of the Prophet, with whom the nations will gather, then people from all the heavenly religions follow him with their doctrines on the truth that he brought, and this is what the “Satan” and his followers do not want and cannot stand… That's why I said at the beginning #we were here and we will stay here the earth is ours the home is ours the mountain the plain the river is ours

#Our_We_The_Sons_of_Adam_And_Noah_Ibrahim_Muhammad_Khatem_of_Prophets.

#us_not_to_the_devil_nor_the charlatan_of_Samaria

#us_we_the_people_of_the_old_house

point, full stop

Therefore, all the peoples of the region and the world should be well aware of what is being woven and not fall into the traps of demons and their snares.

The first part is over

My respect and appreciation to all

#Princess_Shams_Aslan_Noor Al-Huda

#Princess_Shams_aslan_noralhoda

#National_Security_Advisor to the nobles_Ahl_al-Bayt

_______

This article was published on facebook in arabic on the page official of the princess Shams aslan Noralhoda. ( 30/05/2021)

Is it any wonder Sean Moon loves the Trumps?

Donald Trump Jr., Sub-Master of the Universe

 Matt Bai 5 hours ago 

  Yahoo News photo Illustration; photos: AP, Getty

The most emblematic novel of the 1980s, Tom Wolfe’s “The Bonfire of the Vanities,” was published 30 years ago this October. It’s often been called a satire, but if you grew up in or around New York during that time, as I did, the fractured metropolis of Wolfe’s imagining wasn’t far-fetched. It was basically the 5 o’clock news with the names changed.

If you didn’t read the novel or see the disappointing film with Tom Hanks (and, I admit, it’s been quite a while since I read it, too), here’s the basic recap. Sherman McCoy is a Wall Street bond trader, a “Master of the Universe” as it existed in the Reagan years, who, along with his mistress, gets lost in the Bronx one night and ends up running over an African-American kid before speeding away.

What follows is a classic conflagration involving hardened city cops, breathless tabloid reporters and cynical civil rights leaders, among others. The Master of the Universe escapes jail but is ultimately laid low and stripped of his net worth, while the cold engine of capitalism revs on.

In its essence, “Bonfire” owed much to the greatest of New York novels, “The Great Gatsby”; like F. Scott Fitzgerald writing in the 1920s, Wolfe depicted “careless people” living in a cocoon of social presumption, inured to consequence and indifferent to the catastrophes left in their wake. Both novelists employed the traffic accident as a useful metaphor for recklessness, and both explored the connection, in their own times, between fraudulence and wealth.

And in Wolfe’s time, no one embodied that connection better or more brazenly than Donald Trump.

During the years in which Wolfe was serializing “Bonfire” in Rolling Stone, culminating in its publication in 1987, Trump was building a casino empire in Atlantic City, financed largely by junk bonds and mountainous debt. He bought a USFL football team and pasted his name on a fleet of commercial jets.

He bluffed and borrowed his way to celebrity. By the end of the decade, not only was Trump the master of the universe he surveyed from the window of his Fifth Avenue tower, but he had designs on the worlds of entertainment and politics, too. He combined elements of both Gatsby and McCoy — self-invented and self-involved, heedless and highly leveraged.

As the ’80s gave way to the ’90s and then to a new millennium, though — as the city’s worst neighborhoods yielded to gentrification, and as its political machines yielded to Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg — New York became more corporate, its aristocracy more entrenched.

If Wolfe’s ’80s belonged to the brash titans of finance and speculation, then the less colorful period after belonged largely to the sheltered kids who played with their family fortunes.

It was in this New York that Donald Jr. and Eric and Ivanka Trump came of age like young royals out of “Frozen.” (Fitting that their dad built the city a skating rink.) It was here that young Jared Kushner — whose own Master of the Universe father went to a federal lockup for, among other things, trying to seduce his own brother-in-law with a hooker to keep him from testifying about campaign finance violations — busied himself buying up properties as if he were playing Monopoly.

They didn’t get schooled in the family-owned tenements in Jersey or the outer boroughs. It was Penn and Georgetown and Harvard for them, all expenses paid, all things possible.

Say what you will about President Trump, and I’ve said plenty; you can’t say he ever lacked for what New Yorkers call chutzpah. He had the brass ornaments to risk his modest inheritance, to plow through bankruptcies, to court public humiliation in pursuit of far-flung enterprises. I actually admire that.

He had the temerity to run for president, which is more than a lot of more able, more qualified politicians will ever be able to say. If our most capable political leaders had half of Trump’s adventurism, he’d probably still be living on Fifth Avenue.

But the kids, near as I can tell, never risked a thing or placed a bet. They appear never to have learned anything their dads couldn’t teach them in the warm safety of a penthouse. Their birthrights became the whole of their identities.

Any one of them could have struck out for points west or south, where the postindustrial economy was flowering, where there were new markets to be conquered and untold sums to be amassed. Even the young Kennedys, however aimless and entitled, wandered off to Maryland and Illinois and California, seeking some meaning beyond the name.

Not the Trumps. Not young Kushner. They went right from adolescence to the highest echelon of family businesses, dabbling in pageants and shoes and niche media. They were Sub-Masters of the Universe, eons removed from the Big Bang.

Of course Ivanka had zero self-consciousness about taking her father’s chair when he stepped out during a meeting of the most powerful world leaders on the planet. She’d already run his business and filled in on his reality TV shows. If she isn’t already considering a plan to succeed him as president, I’d be very surprised.

And of course Kushner had no hesitation about jetting off to the Middle East to broker peace among the Arabs and Israelis, when he’s barely qualified to serve as a delegate to the model U.N. Who ever told Jared he wasn’t the smartest guy in the room?

It does not seem to occur to the Trump children — ever — that they have now strayed dangerously beyond the boundaries of their cozy Manhattan kingdom, that what they’re dabbling in now is the impossibly complex business of our national and economic security, not to mention the arcane machinery of politics and law enforcement.

I wasn’t right about a lot of things during last year’s campaign, but I was dead right when I warned that Trump would run the government the way he had run his business — as a family enterprise, the plaything of his children. To me, this is the single greatest threat his presidency poses.

They strike me as careless people. They know as much about consequence as I do about handbags.

Which leads me, finally, to the topic of the day in Washington: this business of Donald Jr. and the Russians. Any experienced adviser to a nominee would have flinched at an email promising opposition research from a foreign government, and at the very least would have diverted it to someone outside the campaign (or reported it to the authorities).

But read the emails Junior exchanged with an emissary about the Russian government offering to help sink his father’s opponent, and you get the idea that he’d watched a bunch of “House of Cards” episodes and figured he knew how all of this worked. He was winging it, as Sub-Masters of the Universe do.

Then, when the news of that meeting started to break in the New York Times, he lied about it, saying the meeting was just about policy. When more details emerged, he revised the lie, saying he was told this Russian lawyer might have some useful information but had no idea who she was.

Then, when that also proved untrue, he said maybe he did know exactly who she was, but he figured that whatever she had come halfway across the world to tell him was publicly available information, anyway.

This is what he learned from watching his more dynamic father — that you can lie with impunity. That the rules don’t apply. That the system can always be gamed.

Except that none of this has anything to do with how business gets conducted in the cosseted confines of Trump Tower. It’s no longer about politics or public opinion.

There is only one man whose view on any of this ultimately matters now, and that man’s name is Robert Mueller.

Like Sherman McCoy, the young Trumps find themselves hurled into a pitiless world of lawmen and voracious media, all of whom somehow elude their mastery. Before this bonfire burns out, I’m betting the special counsel is going to know about all the meetings and all the emails, and a lot of very expensive lawyers are going to have a lot of hours to bill.

That’s always the moral of the story: Carelessness comes with a cost.

Comments (1968)

Terry David “Butch” Silvercloud

Visual Artist, Photographer, Physicist (Particle, Sub/Atomic Physics/Relativity)

I'm a photographer and take lots of photos.  I'm an artist 24/7.  This is my naked life in photos.  I don't have inhibitions... they inhibit you.  You are welcome to download and share nude photos of me... go nuts.  I'm a Visual Artist and attention is welcome.  TELL EVERYONE... come here direct at http://BUTCHNAKED.COM  You must sign in if you wish to see me naked. I'm not like anyone you know.

....... The DAILY GRIND.....  what's up today.

Made another Bed Bug video, today.

https://youtu.be/jH8hwChwx6U

Today is Tuesday, 7 November, 2017.  Cool/cold and cloudy.  I went to bed early, last night and was up at 9am, today.  My hips and lower back have  been more achy, lately, and I suspect the sit ups are taking a toll.  No pain, no gain.  I have severe arthritis and take pain medication every day... 4X T3's and one Diclofenac each day.

I'm one of those people who has zero desire to be alive.  I would be happy to have never  been born, ever.  I despise this world and the ignorant, greedy, barbaric infestation of humans destroying the planet.  I work at pushing myself to stay alive and not, simply, kill myself, now, and get this horror show over with.  I consider this life to be a living hell, a cruel joke of some kind.  The humans are disgusting ignorant and greedy animals.  I tend to keep to myself and try to be nice to people and hope nobody will hurt me.  Fortunately, I'm a big strong guy and I'd happily kill you if you tried to strike me down.  Seriously, if you are that violent, you deserve to be dead and I have no  qualms with capital punishment.

WILLING VICTIMS.  YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. I'm a scientist and follow the scientific method.  If the hypothesis, or theory, can't be tested with the same results, I'm open to all ideas that work with what we know, for sure.  I follow the laws of physics.  The world of physics has so many unanswered questions that, even knowing what I do, life is tricky.  I do know enough to know how the fundamental elements of the universe are working together, and how infintisimally small our planet is in the grand scheme of things.  Your life is so short, in the scheme of things, you barely exist, at all.  Time is related to physical size.  You are very, very, very, very, very small.  What seems like a short time, to you, is a second.  But, to an atom, a second is a very long time.

An atom is, on average, about 150 pico metres in diameter.  That is trillionths of a metre.  For an atom, a better time value is a nano second.  To an atom, a nano second is a more reasonable unit for the clock to use.  Now, here's the thing.  You think light speed is fast, fast, fast.  And it is.  But, in ONE NANO SECOND, light travels just under one foot.  Yup... around 29 centimetres.

Do the math... it's easy.  Light speed is about 299,000 Kms.  Do  the math, it's easy.  Light travels about 29cm in a nano second.  You learned some physics today.   And, by the way... 60MPH is 88 feet per second.  Think about the splat when you are speeding.  One day, I'll tell you why nothing can ever move in an absolute circle and why nothing can ever really go backwards.  Its all about relative motion.  Everything, everywhere, is in motion and the Earth never, ever, returns to where it was, in space.  Why time travel is not possible, and why space travel, at light speed, requires some very advanced math.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPjohZCMwmI

The basic ignorance and fears of most humans make them willing victims.  They will follow anyone who tells them what they want to hear.  And, for the rest, they will have been brain washed into a social order of beliefs and, wanting to belong, being ignorant of facts, the child becomes the brainwashed adult.  Now, being all grown up, and all, they find no need to check any facts since they are not aware of them, anyway.  You don't know what you don't know.

People like to 'belong'... to be an accepted part of the 'group'.  If the group has some kind of status, then some kind of superiority complex will overtake the participants who will think, of themselves, as superior to their outsiders and they they are "the ones in the know".  Go agaisnt the group, and you find out, quickly, who your real friends are.  People like order and calm and rules of order.  They like benevolent, but strong leaders.   People like to be lead... most of them.  I don't share that attribute.  I like being the boss... the boss boss, as it were.  Do what I tell you, when I tell you, how I tell you, and we'll all be happy and prosperous.

The main poison on the planet is RELIGION.   There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING more evil than religions.  Nothing.  The most vile and evil religion on the planet is Islam.  It is based upon the teachings, supposedly, of Mohammad.  He never wrote anything down, so the entire book is fabricated hearsay.  It threatens you with eternal torture if you don't do what you are told to do.  It is the only book of religion which threatens you with punishment.  Many believe the Christian Bibles threaten punishment, but they don't.  There is no Hell in either the Old nor New Testaments except for English translations which improperly translate the words for an ancient city and the words for 'grave' or 'burial place'.  The Jewish religion has no heaven nor hell because it does not exist in the Old Testament... the Jewish Bible.

The Religion of Mormanism is based upon a plagiarized and altered version of the Old andNew Testaments with some made up additions.  You may prove, ABSOLUTELY, BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF ANY KIND OF DOUBT,  that the Book of Mormon is FAKE because the second book of Nephi quotes, word for word, Isahia 14-12 from the Old Testament King James Version of the Bible.  The problem for the Mormons is that the King James wording didn't happen until more than 1,600 years AFTER the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been written.  And, to stick a flaming sword into the heart of Mormons, that plagiarized, improper translation was, itself, a mistranslation of the original Aramaic.  It is those same improper translations that brought us the word "Devil".  There never was, and never will be a 'Devil' in the Old, nor New Testaments.  That word was a mistranslation for the Greek word (the Roman Catholic translator, Jerome, didn't know what DIABOLOS meant, nor what the Aramaic word "Shatan" meant.  They mean the SAME thing... "opponent, or somebody who is in disagreement with you, or in extreme cases "enemy".

The word DIABOLOS, in ancient Grek comes from "DIAS" and "BOLOS" which mean...  "coming out of/as a result of the hit/the hurt.  DIAS means "as a result of/coming out of" and BOLOS means "the hit/the hurt".

We get most of our ideas about Hell from Islam.  The Qu'ran is page after page about Hell and tortures.  Roman Catholism discovered Islam in the 12th century and adopted many of the afterlife ideas and people were soon being burned alive for their "sins".

There were no Jewish artists who painted people or animals until the 18th century... ever noticed that?  It was because of the same issue Muslims have about imagery.  The second commandment says you can not make images of people or animals.  It was intended to prevent idol worship, but Muslims and Jews took it to mean no art depicting humans nor animals.  All that medieval art was from Christian artists.  Pissaro broke the Jewish anti-art thing... he was an impressionist.

What kind of moron, brain dead, bonehead, idiot would believe in a "God" that rules them forever?   What kind of asshole reasoning is that?  How stupid can one be?  By what right would any creator have the right to create thinking, feeling beings for the right to torture them.  Anyone who has such beliefs is extraordinarily STUPID, or just plain BRAIN DEAD.

I SAID IT, I MEAN IT.  IF YOU FOLLOW A RELIGION, YOU CAN NOT ASSOCIATE WITH ME.  THAT'S THAT.  GO AWAY, STAY AWAY FROM ME... AS IN FOREVER.  YOU ARE A DANGER TO YOURSELF AND EVERYONE AROUND YOU... GO AWAY.

====================== ***** This is my photo stream.  I don't do social media... this is as close as it comes.  Yup... I'm the naked artist, Butch Naked.  If you are looking for me naked you MUST sign in…

http://ButchNaked.com

hosted at...

(https://www.flickr.com/photos/david_silvercloud)

"Let's go eat some steaks"  Hank Hill (King of the Hill)

Expert: So what is objective, impartial journalism? The standard view was offered in 2001 by the BBC’s then political editor, Andrew Marr: When I joined the BBC, my Organs of Opinion were formally removed.1 And by Nick Robinson describing his role as ITN political editor during the Iraq war: It was my job to report what those in power were doing or thinking… That is all someone in my sort of job can do.’2 ‘Just the facts, Ma’am’, as Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi wryly describes this take on journalism. It is why, if you ask a BBC or ITN journalist to choose between describing the Iraq war as ‘a mistake’ or ‘a crime’, they will refuse to answer on the grounds that they are required to be ‘objective’ and ‘impartial’. But actually there are at least five good reasons for rejecting this argument as fundamentally bogus and toxic. First, it turns out that most journalists are only nervous of expressing personal opinions when criticising the powerful. Andrew Marr can’t call the Iraq war a ‘crime’, but he can say that the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 meant that Tony Blair ‘stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result’.3  Nick Robinson can report that ‘hundreds of [British] servicemen are risking their lives to bring peace and security to the streets of Iraq’.4 The ‘Wham, bam, thank you, Ma’am’ version of ‘impartiality’, perhaps. Journalists are allowed to lose their ‘objectivity’ this way, but not that way – not the way that offends the powerful. Australian media analyst Sharon Beder offers a further example of the same double standards: Balance means ensuring that statements by those challenging the establishment are balanced with statements by those whom they are criticising, though not necessarily the other way round.5 The second problem with the no-opinion argument is that it is not possible to hide opinions by merely ‘sticking to the facts’. The facts we highlight and ignore, the tone and language we use to stress or downplay those facts, inevitably reflect personal opinion. The third problem is indicated by the title of historian Howard Zinn’s autobiography: You Can’t Be Neutral On A Moving Train. Even if we believe it is possible to suppress our personal opinion in reporting facts, we will still be taking sides. Zinn explained: As I told my students at the start of my courses, “You can’t be neutral on a moving train.” The world is already moving in certain directions – many of them are horrifying. Children are going hungry, people are dying in wars. To be neutral in such a situation is to collaborate with what is going on.6 Matt Taibbi gives a striking example: Try as hard as you want, a point of view will come forward in your story. Open any newspaper from the Thirties or Forties, check the sports page; the guy who wrote up the box score, did he have a political point of view? He probably didn’t think so. But viewed with 70 or 80 years of hindsight, covering a baseball game where blacks weren’t allowed to play without mentioning the fact, that’s apology and advocacy. Any journalist with half a brain knows that the biases of our time are always buried in our coverage… A fourth, closely-related problem is that not taking sides – for example, against torture, or against big countries exploiting small countries, or against selling arms to tyrants, or against stopping rather than exacerbating climate change – is monstrous. A doctor treating a patient is biased in seeking to identify and solve a health problem. No one would argue that the doctor should stand neutrally between sickness and health. Is it not self-evident that we should all be biased against suffering? Finally, why does the journalistic responsibility to suppress personal opinion trump the responsibility to resist crimes of state for which we are accountable as democratic citizens? If the British government was massacring British citizens, would journalists refuse to speak out? Why does the professional media contract outweigh the social contract? Journalists might respond that ‘opinion-free’ journalism is vital for a healthy democracy. But without dissent challenging open criminality, democracy quickly decays into tyranny. This is the case, for example, if we remain ‘impartial’ as our governments bomb, invade and kill 100,000s of people in foreign countries. A journalist who refuses even to describe the Iraq war as a crime is riding a cultural train that normalises the unthinkable. In the real world, journalistic ‘impartiality’ on Iraq helped facilitate Britain and the United States’ subsequent crimes in Libya, Syria and Yemen. This is the ugly absurdity of the innocent-looking idea that journalists’ ‘organs of opinion’ can and should be removed. So if we reject this flawed and immoral version of objectivity behind which so many corporate journalists hide, what then is objective journalism? Are we arguing for open bias, for a prejudice free-for-all disconnected from any attempt at fairness? Not at all. Equalising Self and Other Objective, impartial journalism is rooted in the understanding that ‘my’ happiness and suffering do not matter more than ‘your’ happiness and suffering; and that it is irrational, cruel and unfair to pretend otherwise. Objective journalism rejects reporting and analysis that prioritises ‘my’ interests – ‘my’ bank account, financial security, company, nation, class – over ‘your’ interests. Objective journalism does not take ‘our’ side at ‘their’ expense. It does not count ‘our’ dead and ignore ‘their’ dead. It does not refuse to stand in judgment on ‘our’ leaders while fiercely condemning ‘their’ leaders. It does not hold ‘them’ to higher moral standards than ‘us’. It does not accept that ‘our’ nation is ‘exceptional’, that ‘we’ have a ‘manifest destiny’ to dominate ‘them’, that ‘we’ are in some way ‘chosen’. A central claim of Buddhist and other mystical traditions is that we really can ‘equalise self and other’ in this way. Many intellectuals, including leftists, dismiss all such analysis as irrelevant piffle. But at a time when the Vikings were ravaging Europe, the ninth century Buddhist sage Shantideva asked: Since I and other beings both, In wanting happiness, are equal and alike, What difference is there to distinguish us, That I should strive to have my bliss alone?7 If this is an astonishingly reasonable thought, it is surpassed by an even more remarkable declaration: The intention, ocean of great good That seeks to place all beings in the state of bliss, And every action for the benefit of all: Such is my delight and all my joy.8 After four billion years of evolution ostensibly ‘red in tooth and claw’, Shantideva was here asserting that caring for others is a source of delight and bliss that far exceeds mere pleasure from personal gain. The claim, of course, is greeted with scepticism by a society that promotes unrestrained greed for maximised profit. But if we set aside our groupthink and take another look, it is actually a matter of common experience. The Indian spiritual teacher, Osho, commented: Have you never had a feeling of contentment after having smiled at a stranger in the street? Didn’t a breeze of peace follow it? There is no limit to the wave of tranquil joy you will feel when you lift a fallen man, when you support a fallen person, when you present a sick man with flowers – but not when you do it [out of duty] because he is your father or because she is your mother. No, the person may not be anyone in particular to you, but simply to give a gift is itself a great reward, a great pleasure. The existence of this reward has been confirmed by some very interesting and credible science (see here). Objective journalism is thus rooted in two claims: 1) that human beings are able to view the happiness and suffering of others as being of equal importance to their own. 2) that, perhaps counter-intuitively for a society like ours, individuals and societies dramatically enhance their well-being when they ‘equalise self and other’ in this way. In other words, this is not a sentimental pipe dream – human beings can be fair and just, and they do experience benefits from being so. The value of objective journalism, and indeed objective living, in this sense is clear enough. We know from research (see here) and our own experience that people who think only of themselves are as miserable as they are biased. In his collection of spontaneous talks, ‘Ta Hui – The Great Zen Master’, Osho gave a powerful example of objectivity, in the sense intended here, from his own childhood: It happened that in my village, between my house and a temple, there was a piece of land. For some technical reason, my father was able to win the case if he took it to court – only on technical reasons. The land was not ours, the land belonged to the temple. But the technical reason was this: the map of the temple did not show that the land was in their territory. It was some fault of the municipal committee’s clerical staff; they had put the land onto my father’s property. Naturally in court there was no question; the temple had no right to say that it was their land. Everybody knew it was their land, my father knew it was their land. But the land was precious, it was just on the main street, and every technical and legal support was on my father’s side. He brought the case to the court. I told him, “Listen” – I must have been not more than eleven years old – “I will go to the court to support the temple. I don’t have anything to do with the temple, I have never even gone inside the temple, whatever it is, but you know perfectly well that the land is not yours.” He said, “What kind of son are you? You will witness against your own father?” I said, “It is not a question of father and son; in the court it is a question of what is true. And not only will your son be there; your father I have also convinced.” He said, “What!” I had a very deep friendship with my grandfather, so we had consulted. I had told him, “You have to support me because I am only eleven years old. The court may not accept my witnessing because I am not an adult, so you have to support me. You know perfectly well that the land is not ours.” He said, “I am with you.” So I told my father, “Just listen, from both sides, from your father and from your son… you simply withdraw the case; otherwise you will be in such a trouble, you will lose the case. It is only technically that you are able to claim. But we are not going to support a technical mistake on the part of the municipal clerk.” He said, “You don’t understand a simple thing, that a family means… you have to support your family.” I said, “No, I will support the family only if the family is right. I will support whoever is right.” He talked to my grandfather who said, “I have already promised your son that I will be going with him.” My father said, “That means I will have to withdraw the case and lose that valuable piece of land!” He said, “What can be done about it? Your son is going to create trouble for you, and seeing the situation, that he will not in any way be persuaded, I have agreed with him – just to make his position stronger so that you can withdraw; it is better to withdraw than to get defeated.” My father said, “But this is a strange family! I am working for you all. I am working for you, I am working for my son – I am not working for myself. If we can have a beautiful shop on that land you will have a better, more comfortable old age; he will have a better education in a better university. And you are against me.” My grandfather said, “I am not against anybody, but he has taken my promise, and I cannot go against my word – at least as far as he is concerned – because he is dangerous, he may put me in some trouble. So I cannot deceive him; I will say whatever he is saying. And he is saying the truth – and you know it.” So my father had to withdraw the case – reluctantly… but he had to withdraw the case. I asked my grandfather to bring some sweets so we can distribute them in the neighborhood. My father has come to his senses, it has to be celebrated. He said, “That seems to be the right thing to do.” When my father saw that I was distributing sweets, he asked, “What are you doing? – for what? What has happened?” I said, “You have come back to your senses. Truth is victorious.” And I gave him a sweet also. He laughed. He said, “I can understand your standpoint, and my own father is with you, so I thought it is better that I should also be with you. It is better to withdraw without any problem. But I have learned a lesson.” He said to me, “I cannot depend on my family. If there is any trouble they are not going to support me just because they belong to me as father, as son, as brother. They are going to support whatever is true.” And since that time no other situation ever arose, because he never did anything in which we had to disagree. He remained truthful and sincere. Many times in his life he told me, “It was so good of you; otherwise I was going to take that land, and I would have committed a crime knowingly. You prevented me, and not only from that crime, you prevented me from then onwards. Whenever there was a similar situation, I always decided in favor of truth, whatever the loss. But now I can see: truth is the only treasure. You can lose your whole life, but don’t lose your truth.”9 Objective journalism insists that ‘I will support the family only if the family is right. I will support whoever is right.’ If the facts show that the Iraq war was an unprovoked war of aggression, then objective journalism will describe it as such. Unfortunately, of course, most corporate journalism says: I will support my family, my party, my newspaper, my corporation, my advertisers, my arms industry, my military, my country, my class, whether or not they are right. I will support whatever benefits me. I will highlight facts and voices in a tone that benefits the powerful interests that reward me. I will ignore facts and voices that might harm my career. Osho’s father perceived his son’s challenge as an attack: ‘you are against me’. But, in fact, Osho was not against his father, nor was he for the temple – he was for the truth. In 2012, Media Lens compared media reaction to the massacre of 16 Afghan civilians by a US soldier, with a massacre of 108 people in Houla, Syria, for which Western media found Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad personally responsible. We asked what evidence would be required before journalists found Obama personally responsible for such a massacre. Obviously, the involvement of US forces would need to be confirmed beyond doubt. These forces would need to have been acting under orders. Presumably, Obama would need to have signed these orders, or been aware of them and agreed to them on some level. But Syrian forces were instantly declared responsible, with Assad held personally responsible, even before the killers had been identified. We were inviting readers to consider if ostensibly free, independent journalists treat foreign governments, especially Official Enemies of state, the same way they treat their own government and its leading allies. We were not against Obama any more than we were for Assad – we were for the truth. Ironically, our attempts to challenge biased reporting in this way are regularly denounced as examples of ugly bias – we are described as ‘pro-Assad’, ‘pro-Gaddafi’, ‘pro-Putin’ ‘genocide deniers’, ‘apologists for tyranny’, and so on, often by people waging a kind of propaganda war against anyone challenging power. More recently, we commented on the muted coverage of an Islamic State massacre of 38 people in an Afghan hospital: If Islamic State’s attack had been on a French hospital, shooting doctors and patients, it would have been one of 2017’s defining traumas. Again, this comment was no more ‘pro-Afghan’ than it was ‘anti-French’ – it pointed to a deep and dangerous bias in the way corporate media respond to suffering in the world. Why do we care so much about this bias? Because, as Osho’s anecdote suggests, all is not as it seems. It turns out that there are hidden costs to mendacity, just as there are hidden benefits to truth. After decades spent honing its talent for suppressing profit-hostile fact and opinion, the corporate media system has become incapable of reporting truth even in the face of imminent disaster. The cost, in this age of catastrophic climate change, is becoming very clear. * Marr, The Independent, January 13, 2001. * Robinson, ‘”Remember the last time you shouted like that?” I asked the spin doctor, The Times, July 16, 2004. * Marr, BBC 1, News At Ten, April 9, 2003. * ITN, September 8, 2003. * Sharon Beder, ‘Global Spin’, Green Books, 1997, p.203. * The Zinn Reader, Seven Stories Press, Howard Zinn, 1997, p.17. * Shantideva, ‘The Way of the Bodhisattva’, Shambhala, 1997, p.123. * Ibid, p. 49. * Osho, ‘Ta Hui – The Great Zen Master’, 1987, free e-book. http://clubof.info/