MIAMI – A college student committed suicide by taking a drug overdose in front of a live webcam as some computer users egged him on, others tried to talk him out of it, and another messaged OMG in horror when it became clear it was no joke.

Some watchers contacted the Web site to notify police, but by the time officers entered Abraham Biggs’ home — a scene also captured on the Internet — it was too late.

Biggs, a 19-year-old Broward College student who suffered from what his family said was bipolar disorder, or manic depression, lay dead on his bed in his father’s Pembroke Pines house Wednesday afternoon, the camera still running 12 hours after Biggs announced his intentions online around 3 a.m.

It was unclear how many people watched it unfold.

Read Full Article

By John Parsons
www.hebrew4christians.com

Go to your local bookstore these days and you might be surprised to see a spate of flashy new books advocating atheism. “The God Delusion” (Dawkins), “God is not great” (Hitchens), “The Atheist Universe” (Mills), etc., etc., are all highly marketed, big-buck productions (and even New York Times bestsellers).

These sorts of books can be destructive to sensitive souls that are uncertain of their faith, especially impressionable young people who are still sifting through their beliefs while in college or public high school. Tragically, I just read an article that links a son’s suicide to Dawkins’ book (see link in Comments, below). What makes this so heartrending is that authors like Dawkins, Hitchens, and others are really just half-rate philosophers — modern day sophists who get a “buzz” out of feeling self-important and “intellectual.” May the memory of Jesse Kilgore, the victim of Dawkins’ propaganda, be vindicated by God’s truth.

We live in an age of garbage… an entirely decadent social world bereft of hope and conscience. And like a cancerous growth it’s just getting worse and worse. Just tonight I read a Wall Street Journal article (“Atheists Reach Out,” see link below) that mentioned that the American Humanist Society is aggressively campaigning its faith by plastering ads on buses in Washington DC (no less) with catchy slogans such as, “Reasons Greetings” and “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”  Oy gevalt!

Not so fast, you agitators and propagandists!  I thought such romantic ideals about human nature were long put to rest, especially after two World Wars, the horror of the Jewish Holocaust, the systematic barbarity of the former Soviet Union (under the failed messianism of Marxism), the ruthless thuggery of Communist China, the “ethnic cleansing” and wars of various people groups, and by all the innumerable other treacheries routinely practiced on mankind since the beginning of time…  Are you forgetting that we now live in the postmodern world?  If you regard theists as being “medieval,” I can’t help but wonder if your’re still not enamored with the utopianism that marked the early rise of science and technology in the Western world (i.e., the “modern world”)…  What’s evident to me is that your wild-eyed optimistm is indicative of your own “god delusion.”

The secularist, the humanist, the so-called “free thinker” and so on, seem downright offended at expressions like, “God exists,” “one nation under God,” or by other common phrases used by some who genuinely hold hope that this world is merely a corridor to the next.  But why, pray tell, should such “god talk” offend them, especially since — according to their view of the matter — the use of such language is - at most - merely an emotive appeal or a (pathetic) expression of personal hope? Perhaps these humanists hypocritically “let the cat out of the bag” by prescriptively insisting that language — and especially language about first principles and ultimate reality — has real meaning, reference, and “traction” — though certainly not the sort of meaning which they (emotionally) prefer. If so, then their case is feeble enough, since such “reasoning” is a two-edged sword. If the “free thinker” objects to the use of traditional religious language, it is fair game to likewise object to their use of nontraditional forms of language regarding metaphysics. (This is similar to the Freudian objection that some have made regarding religious sentiment. “You believe in God because you were deprived of your father’s love,” they say. But the tables can easily be turned here: “And you don’t believe in God because you hated your father and resented his authority in your life.” Tu quoque doesn’t settle anything.)

The prevailing crusade of these anti-faith missionaries (at least in the libertine United States) is that “church and state” must be “separated.” However this is a psychologically impossible proposition, based on the myth that human beings can separate “fact and value.” Paradigms about natural law ultimately are grounded in value, but value is not something empirical or observable; it is what is brought to experience in its understanding. Before a scientist ever looks into a microscope, for example, there is a previous committment that he or she believes in the value of the scientific methodology — something inherently beyond the pale of science altogether…. All sorts of faith committments are assumed in the ways of science, but none of them find their grounding within the enterprise itself.  Hey Mr. Atheist — do yourself a favor and go read some Immanuel Kant (or at least some good love poetry)!

It’s almost comical (were it not so tragic) that the American Humanist Society is running such proselytizing advertisments in these darkened, postmodern days. If ever before, our world needs real hope and salvation. It’s almost comical for a number of reasons, but primarily because the humanist/atheist cannot possibly define “goodness” without plundering the common use of spiritual and religious reality. (If the theist has the “problem of evil,” the atheist/humanist has the “problem of goodness”).  My (unsolicited) advice to such humanists is simply to shut up and accept the closed-loop that your system implies. On your own terms you cannot argue for any objective sense of moral structure or transcendent justice, and therefore you must resort to fallacious appeals and ad hominem abusive attacks. This is both intellectual lazy and dishonest. Moreover — again on your own terms — what could you possibly say to those who impugn your arbitrary imperative (“be good for goodness sake”)? What if another “free thinker” took the Nietzschean view that they would rather be excused from such an obligation? Indeed, what if the idea of “good” for some secularist is to torture to death those who do not accept their godless theory and ideology? Didn’t Adolf Hitler (Y’SH) live as such an “ubermensch”? Wasn’t Stalin a “true believer”?

In such discussions it is often helpful to return to the Heideggerian question of “why is there something, rather than nothing,” since this approach lays bare the set of presuppositions at work. But note that any attempt to seriously answer this question launches you into the world of speculative metaphysics (certainly not “hard science”), and therefore the arguments that address the question of rationality must be made within that domain.  Ultimately, however, reason itself is a function of the will and a servant to our passional nature.  Distill the idea of “rationality” and you will find that it refers to a sense of “fitness,” “coherence,” and other aesthetic terms. Why does modus ponens work (if p then q; p, therefore q)? Because of a sense of order, symmetry, “proportion,” fitness, etc.

Atheism is just as much a faith commitment as is any form of theism. Ask a card-carrying “humanist” the Heideggerian question and — with a straight face — he or she will pontificate that “absolutely nothing” caused the Big Bang (or he/she has a modicum of humility, will appeal to some form of epistemological agnosticism). If he’s clever, he might then talk about “myth” or “language games” (conveniently forgetting that such theories equally apply to atheism itself). But should someone else claim that everything exists because of a transcendent, spiritual, and personal Cause (i.e., the “Will of God”), then he or she is hypocritically vilified as “medieval” or simply “ridiculous.” The ad hominem seems to be the preferred form of reasoning for today’s “free thinkers.” (Tragically, in the craven spirit of accomodationalism, this “faith commitment” is canonized in today’s indoctrination centers (i.e., public schools).

Please, if you want to intelligently discuss why people believe in God, then at least make the effort to examine the reasons passed down through the legacy of our shared human history. Don’t patronize us with sophistical nonsense that you have somehow “unlocked the magic door” and now are in possession of the truth about “God, the universe, and everything.” Your so-called truth — self-stultifying as it is — is merely that nothing of real value, meaning, or worth truly exists. And that, my friends, is nothing less than a living hell.  I’ll pass.

One final note. Full-blown atheism is breathtaking in its arrogance, claiming omniscient knowledge that there is no God. In other words, of the entire cosmic set of all objects/events/states in the universe, not one refers to the word “God” (at least as traditionally understood in the major theistic religions). The word “God,” then, is “empty of reference” or a meaningless “code word” for emotional states, wishes, etc. Now quite apart from the ludicrous idea that anyone can entertain a coherent idea of “everything in the universe,” this declaration is claimed to be an empirical truth, that is, an objective description about the nature of ultimate reality (rather than an irrational dogma). Ironically enough, the only way to be an atheist is to exercise the very attributes of the God you choose to deny.

Perhaps some of the confusion surrounding all this lies in the mistaken equation of faith in God with morality. Lori Lipman Brown, who lobbies Congress on behalf of the Secular Coalition for America, says nonbelievers are “just as ethical and moral as anyone else.” This may (or may not) be a true statement, but regardless, the question about the nature of ultimate reality concerns statements of faith, not reports about the deportment of those who make such professions one way or another…

– John Parsons

===============

Atheists Reach Out — Just Don’t Call It Proselytizing

Nonbelievers Think the Time Is Right to Better Organize Their Nonreligion and Swell the Membership; ‘Reason’s Greetings’

By STEPHANIE SIMON

Late next month, atheists, humanists, freethinkers, secularists — in short, nonbelievers of every description — will gather in dozens of cities to mark the holiday they call HumanLight.

Whether by singing from a Humanist Hymnal, decorating a winter wreath or lighting candles dedicated to personal heroes, they’ll celebrate what has been an exhilarating ride for the faithless — a surge in recognition that has many convinced they’re on the brink of making a mark on mainstream America.

During the past three years, membership has grown in local and national associations of nonbelievers. Books attacking faith as a delusion shot up best-seller lists. For the first time, the faithless even raised enough funds to hire a congressional lobbyist.

Building on that momentum, nonbelievers have begun a very public campaign to win broad acceptance. On billboards and bus ads, radio commercials and the Internet, atheists are coming forward to declare, quite simply: We’re here. And we’re just like you.

Read Full Article

There are over 42 million American adults, 20 percent of whom hold high school diplomas, who cannot read, as well as the 50 million who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level. Nearly a third of the nation’s population is illiterate or barely literate. And their numbers are growing by an estimated 2 million a year. But even those who are supposedly literate retreat in huge numbers into this image-based existence. A third of high school graduates, along with 42 percent of college graduates, never read a book after they finish school. Eighty percent of the families in the United States last year did not buy a book.

 Read Full Article

=====

Hedges was part of The New York Times team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism. He received the 2002 Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism.

=========

by Dick Morris

The results of the G-20 economic summit amount to nothing less than the seamless integration of the United States into the European economy.

In one month of legislation and one diplomatic meeting, the United States has unilaterally abdicated all the gains for the concept of free markets won by the Reagan administration and surrendered, in total, to the Western European model of socialism, stagnation, and excessive government regulation.

Sovereignty is out the window. Without a vote, we are suddenly members of the European Union. Given the dismal record of those nations at creating jobs and sustaining growth, merging with the Europeans is like a partnership with death.

At the G-20 meeting, Bush agreed to subject the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other regulatory agencies to the supervision of a global entity that would critique its regulatory standards and demand changes if it felt they were necessary. Bush agreed to create a College of Supervisors.

According to The Washington Post, it would “examine the books of major financial institutions that operate across national borders so regulators could begin to have a more complete picture of banks’ operations.”

Their scrutiny would extend to hedge funds and to various “exotic” financial instruments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a European-dominated operation, would conduct “regular vigorous reviews” of American financial institutions and practices.

The European-dominated College of Supervisors would also weigh in on issues like executive compensation and investment practices.

There is nothing wrong with the substance of this regulation.

Experience is showing it is needed. But it is very wrong to delegate these powers to unelected, international institutions with no political accountability.

Read Full Article

===========

Obama Benefits from Bush Centralization of Power

As the financial sector continues its tailspin despite efforts to bail out Wall Street, among the few gainers in recent stock trading have been those companies looking for a new “shot in the arm” with government funding from the next administration.

With its strident rhetoric toward reestablishing the so called “pro-choice” agenda, the incoming administration has threatened a whole host of policies that would not only reduce restrictions on abortion, but would actually force people who wish to avoid participating in the procedure to support it.

As a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies I am very disturbed by the continued efforts of those on the left to establish absolute rights to abortion. However, even more distressing is the notion that taxpayers should be forced to subsidize life-ending procedures such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

In addition to the news that those who will benefit from federally-funded stem cell research have seen an uptick in their financial position as a result of the election, comes news from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that many health care facilities under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church may be shut down as a result of the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” for refusal to perform abortions.

Not only does this Act seem to have growing support in Congress, the President-elect and his Administration have indicated support for this legislation. Since many people cast their votes in a way that they believed would help to improve and increase availability of health care, this is an ironic twist.

Of course, the government takeover of health care began a long time ago, but we should be wary of how far that takeover will go if more private providers are forced out of the marketplace. If enacted, The Freedom of Choice Act and the potential for increased federal funding of embryonic stem cell research will go to show that the incoming Congress and Administration are far more dedicated to a government takeover than they are to affordable and available health care. Moreover, these approaches show no real concern at all for the free choices of taxpayers and health care providers who wish to be free from giving assistance to immoral activities.

These facts should also serve to remind social conservatives that they are better to leave the legislative remedies for important social issues at the level where they constitutionally belong, namely at the discretion of state and local officials. The centralization of power that seemed so attractive to many conservatives just a few years ago no longer seems pleasant at all in light of a more liberal-minded majority in both Houses of Congress and the White House.

This should be a good lesson for future conservative majorities, namely that the centralization of power never results in anything more than the most temporary of “gains” for those who are committed to traditional moral principles, and the power one administration consolidates for itself must inevitably be handed over to the next administration, which will use that increased power for its own agenda.

Dr. Ron Paul
Project Freedom

=======

Obama: High Priest Of The Religious Left

By Harmony Grant

Pundits rejoice that the reign of the “religious right” is over. The Bush administration is accused of using government to push religious dogmas-something Obama will never do, of course. Those who demand “church/state separation” especially exult, but a majority of Americans also celebrate Obama’s victory.
 
Yet Obama will enforce his own “religion” from the White House. Beliefs will still be pushed, metaphysical claims endorsed. Obama did not run on a platform of limited government, individual rights, and maximum individual freedom. No, his entire campaign exalts the idea of a progressive, multiracial nation sewn together by a government which will not tolerate hate or bias.
 
Whose hate or bias, you ask? Thanks for asking. That’s the problem. One man’s backwoods bias is another’s abomination. And if you haven’t read the Federalist Papers, I can assure you that the realm of beliefs is supposed to be a hands-off zone for lawmakers in DC.
 
If Barack Obama had run on a platform of restricted government and maximum individual freedom-an agenda created by none other than our Founding Fathers-then this truly would be a time of change. But it isn’t. His “progressive” agenda is just as faith-based, and far more dangerous…

By Val Willingham
CNN Medical Producer
    
(CNN) — Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.
Experts say if many physicians stop practicing, it could be devastating to the health care industry.

 The survey, released this week by the Physicians’ Foundation, which promotes better doctor-patient relationships, sought to find the reasons for an identified exodus among family doctors and internists, widely known as the backbone of the health industry.

A U.S. shortage of 35,000 to 40,000 primary care physicians by 2025 was predicted at last week’s American Medical Association annual meeting.

In the survey, the foundation sent questionnaires to more than 270,000 primary care doctors and more than 50,000 specialists nationwide.

Of the 12,000 respondents, 49 percent said they’d consider leaving medicine. Many said they are overwhelmed with their practices, not because they have too many patients, but because there’s too much red tape generated from insurance companies and government agencies.

And if that many physicians stopped practicing, that could be devastating to the health care industry.

Read Article

The indictment criticizes Cheney’s investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and “at least misdemeanor assaults” on detainees by working through the prison companies.

Gonzales is accused of using his position while in office to stop an investigation into abuses at the federal detention centers.

Another indictment charges state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. with profiting from his public office by accepting honoraria from prison management companies.

Full Article

An acclaimed new cartoon film has stirred Israel’s conscience about its responsibility for the notorious 1982 massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Ben Lynfield reports from Jerusalem

Until a matter of months ago, very few Israelis realised that their army fired flares to light up Beirut’s Sabra and Shatila refugee camps while Lebanese Christian militiamen committed the notorious massacre of Palestinian civilians there in 1982.

But Ari Folman, who as a 19-year-old soldier fired some of the flares, makes their descent through the sky over Beirut’s beachfront one of the recurring images of Waltz With Bashir, his “animated documentary” that premiers in Britain this week.

In Israel, the film has rekindled discussion about the divisive invasion of Lebanon that was initially billed by Ariel Sharon, who was defence minister at the time, as a limited push to halt PLO rocket attacks, and the extent of Israeli responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacre where the estimated number of victims ranged from 700 to more than 3,000. Folman has said he had no idea the massacre was being committed when he shot the flares.

Trailer:

Read More

ANNE USHER/Cox News Service

WASHINGTON - At least one in four U.S. veterans of the 1991 Gulf War suffers from a multi-symptom illness caused by exposure to toxic chemicals during the conflict, a congressionally mandated report being released Monday found.For much of the past 17 years, government officials have maintained that these veterans — more than 175,000 out of about 697,000 deployed — are merely suffering the effects of wartime stress, even as more have come forward recently with severe ailments.

“The extensive body of scientific research now available consistently indicates that ’Gulf War illness’ is real, that it is the result of neurotoxic exposures during Gulf War deployment, and that few veterans have recovered or substantially improved with time,” said the report, being released Monday by a panel of scientists and veterans. A copy was obtained by Cox Newspapers.

Read More