so if the majority decides to kill all blacks, it is right?

This is a little lengthy, but I found it interesting.


Kerry supporters seek therapy in South Florida

Boca Raton trauma specialist has treated 15 patients

Published Tuesday, November 9, 2004
bySean Salai


More than a dozen traumatized John Kerry supporters have sought and received therapy from a licensed Florida psychologist since their candidate lost to President Bush, the Boca Raton News learned Monday.

Boca Raton trauma specialist Douglas Schooler said he has treated 15 clients and friends with “intense hypnotherapy” since the Democratic nominee conceded last Wednesday.

“I had one friend tell me he’s never been so depressed and angry in his life,” Schooler said. “I observed patients threatening to leave the country or staring listlessly into space. They were emotionally paralyzed, shocked and devastated.”

Schooler’s disclosure comes after the weekend discovery of a Kerry volunteer’s corpse at Ground Zero in New York City. Georgia resident Andrew Veal, 25, reportedly killed himself with a shotgun blast to the head due to Kerry’s loss and a girlfriend problem.

Some mental health professionals in South Florida said Monday they have already developed a new category for the Kerry-related stress reactions. Because Palm Beach County voted heavily for Kerry, the therapists said, many residents hurt themselves by so anxiously expecting the Massachusetts senator to win – especially those who maintained unrealistic recount hopes after their candidate’s concession.

“We’re calling it ‘post-election selection trauma’ and we’re working to develop a counseling program for it,” said Rob Gordon, the Boca-based executive director of the American Health Association. “It’s like post-traumatic stress syndrome, but it’s a short-term shock rather than a childhood trauma.”

Gordon, the first American Red Cross psychotherapist sent to Ground Zero after the 9/11 terror attacks, said therapists’ main concern is to prevent the recurrence of Kerry-related suicides like the one in New York City.

“There are definitely people depressed by John Kerry’s loss, and this can easily lead to suicides like the one we saw up in New York this weekend,” Gordon said. “Luckily, it can be treated if people seek help. We’re urging people to call us immediately if they feel depressed or know anyone who is seriously stressed out.”

Also in Boca, at least one counseling center and an emotional support group were preparing for an influx of Kerry supporters at their first post-election meetings today.

“We’ll let the Kerry voters talk about it and let off some steam, and by listening to other people’s stories, we’ll help them refocus and surrender to the things in their life which they can’t possibly change,” said a spokeswoman for Emotions Anonymous, a recovery group meeting tonight at Glades Presbyterian Church.

“We’re referring people with election-related stress to the Democratic National Committee,” said Karen Jacobs of the Center for Group Counseling. “We’ll do what we can for anyone who shows up for our support group programs this week, but we haven’t implemented a specific program for Kerry-related trauma.”

Schooler, practicing in Boca since 1984, said he treated his 15 patients last week with hypnosis-based rapid response trauma therapy. This week, he is charging a sliding fee to non-clients who feel they need the one-time “election therapy” session. South Floridians can contact him at 561-395-3033.

“A lot of Kerry voters don’t know what to do with their anger, because there was no recount, so they’ve kept it bottled up,” said Schooler, who also is a certified sex therapist. “I help them transform the anger into more positive emotions.”

Asked to describe symptoms of the post-election trauma, Schooler said, “They include feelings of extreme anger, despair, hopelessness, powerlessness, a failure to function behaviorally, a sense of disillusionment, of not wanting to vote anymore – that sort of thing. We’re talking about a deep, unhealthy personal suffering that can best be remedied by intensive short-term therapy.”

Interesting take. So slavery was ok, then it wasn't? Absolutely NO absolutes? Not sure that the majority would agree that there is no such thing as right and wrong. How ironic.


Want to answer the question about how the arguements are different between Interracial marriage and gay marriage?

So if the minority decides killing blacks is OK, but the majority votes to ban it, it is not alright?

That is incorrect. The Majority decides what is going to be DONE and who is going to do it in a democracy, not literally what is right and wrong. It is possible for them to make a mistake (ie. the election of Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter). In this country they should not have the right to decide what is right and wrong. Judges are arbiters of the law, not morality. These are supposed to be two seperate things in this country by way of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

The point being made is that just because most of the people want something, it does not automatically imply a moral correctness. Morality is not a matter to be determined by the greater or lesser number of people. In fact, its not even something to be determined by the government at all. The government and laws are present to ensure a relative amount of order.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

As I have said before on a different thread, it is my firm belief that Bush will continue his extreme right wing agenda in his second term. He pushed it when a) he did not recieve the majority of the popular vote and b) had a second term election still upcoming. Imagine what he will do with neither of these factors to worry about.

The reason people are so upset is not just because he is so radical, but because he is supported by so many radicals. In the most recent (November) issue of National Geographic there is an article on Charles Darwin. In this article they state that a 2001 telephone survey was conducted (as it was in '82, '93, '97, '99) which found that: "no less than 45 percent of respopnding U.S. adults agreed that 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'" 45 percent of adults in the U.S. don't believe in Evolution!! If someone doesn't know any better on this matter, it is easy to see how they could be persuaded on other matters (gay marriage, abortion). If they have such a closed-minded view of life, then those of us who believe in fossils, natural selection, genetic adaptations and the dinosaurs have no choice but to be appalled; and extremely fearful of what the next four years will bring.

My concern precisely. He was able to advance his agenda under the dubious results of the 2000 election. I do think that 9/11 had more to do with that then anything else. However, now that the majority has endorsed his illogical agenda, he will feel free to push even harder. I actually doubt that its HIS agenda so much as his backers, but for simplicity's sake I will refer to the agenda as his, considering he is the most public mouthpiece for it.

Remember, many people hear "theory of Evolution" and discount it due to the fact that it's "just a theory". Many people lack a basic understanding of the scientific method and when someone calls something a theory that means that there is a huge amount of evidence in support of it. They associate it with a story that fits the available facts, not the results of intense study and experimentation. As a result, they feel more comfortable with the concept of stuff just sprining into existence via supernatural means. It seems just as plausable as the theory of Evolution because they really don't understand what Evolution really means. Remember, religon, regardless of flavor, tells people that they are special and somehow different from every form of life on this planet. It's comforting and a boost to the self-esteem. I'll even agree that humans are different from every other form of life on Earth. However, we have certain common characteristics that mark us as animals. We're really good animals, biologically speaking, but we are just animals.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

I think this thread has somewhat been hijacked a number of times, but this needs to be addressed. I think it's very condecending to assume that everyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution lacks the understanding to make a rational decision based on available data. I, for one, believe that microevolution happens and that is all that the available scientific evidence has been able to support. Not once can anyone point to a seemless fossil record of one major shift from one group of animals evolving into a completely different group, i.e. fish to amphibians, reptiles to birds, or even one group of mammals into another; like marsupials to primates or whatever. There is always an elusive "missing link." The sheer diversity of life on the planet defies logic that they all decended from one single celled organism no matter how much time has elapsed. Furthermore, why would some primates evolve into humans, while other primates are stuck at the same level of evolution for thousands or millions of years: or perhaps a clearer illustration would be to look at all of the "lesser" life forms and why haven't they progressed. Why do we still have insects that we can see in the fossil records right next to the dinosaurs. Why haven't they evolved into something else by now.

That being said, I've started another thread that discusses the idea of majority rule and morality as it relates to the theory of evolution. This seems pretty far from President Bush and whether or not the rhetoric of him trashing the country in the next four years is called for.

I respectfully disagree. When the question is asked why people are upset about the prospect of another four years under a religious ("god wants me to be president"), extremely conservative executive this is exactly why. When we have parts of several states (like GA) attempting to ban or significantly modify the teaching of evolution in classrooms because of religion, and you have a president who tacitly support this activity there is every reason to feel "oppressed."

Why did some mammals evolve into dolphins and not whales? The theory of Evolution is certainly more credible, simply because it HAS evidence. It's not a scientific law yet anyway, but there is more evidence supporting it then any other thoery present. Not all life decended from one single celled organisms. The original batch of organisms were likely identical, but exposed to different environmental effects, resulting in different mutations, resulting in different forms of life. Using Occham's Razor allows us to see that this is the more probable explanation for life on Earth, especially considering the evidence involved. There is no actual evidence to support conflicting viewpoints. "Intelligent Design" is simply re-worked creationism, which is dependent on the Bible for its support, which is not exactly the most reliable text for factual presentations.

How can it not be called for? By way of the First Amendment, we have the right to complain about him endlessly, even after he is out of office. We disagree with his goals and agenda, and are using our rights to voice those disagreements. Just because he is the President does not mean he is immune.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

The real problem with Intelligent Design is not so much that it is based on Creationism, rather, the problem is simply that it is the opposite of logic. Essentially, it is a principle that says "we don't know some things, therefore we should just forget about trying to learn those things and wrap everything up in a nice little bow called 'higher power'".

It's nothing more than an "I don't know. I give up." mentality.

And this is a problem because the people that support this mentality are making headway in getting it implemented in our educational system.

And our government, courts, bedrooms...

Truly depressing. I had heard a debate on "Intelligent Design" on NPR's Talk Of The Nation, many moons ago, but didn't follow up on it. I appreciate the clarification on it. Now it sounds even worse.

I used to think they were just desperate people clutching at straws. Now, I am afraid that they are the riptide of the future.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

The Fact of the matter is evolution is just as unprovable as anything else. Sure, you can make those leaps of faith in evolution and try your best to connect the dots in your head, but in the end you're making the same leap of faith as people that believe in creationism (that's the definition of a theory).

There is a way for you to find out if you're right though - just find some way to end your life. For most people though, they either have faith in god and this precludes them from killing themselves or they don't and they're to scared to end their existence or more correctly don't have enough faith in their belief to find out.

In any event my previous points are off topic. I think if you don't like the way the country is headed you can always take a pilgrimage to your homeland - France, Sweden, Germany, Russia or take your pick. There you can enjoy their perfect unemployment rate, their immense influence in the world, and their inability to take a position on anything important (other than non-participation). There you can recharge your pesimistic batteries and come back with more resolve to turn this country into the New Sweden. On top of that you can do it knowing George Bush will not stop fighting for your security in the world - even if you don't like him.

Yes, but the scientific method leaves in a device for correction, and gladly replaces old data with new. You cannot say the same about most religions. Specifically not with creationists. They're right, so they say, end of story.

Ah yes, the "love it or leave it" argument. I'm amazed people still think this way.

This is beside my point: Intelligent Design is a philosophy of giving up. Evolution is a philosophy of research and investigation.

Intelligent Design says: We don't know, so we're just going to say it's all beyond our comprehension.

Evolution says: Why is this like this?


Which has a place in our education system? If you think the former mentality has a place in education, you must not understand the purpose of education.

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena"

This is what a theory is. It is not a "leap of faith". It has documented evidence to support it, while remaining capable of incorporating new data that alter the predictions it makes.

Why is it you automatically assume that we hate America? If we did not have an emotional attachment to our country, like, say, patriotism, why would we be so concerned about the way we see it developing?

How is George Bush fighting for my security? All his policies have done is turn Iraq from a third world country into the largest terrorist recruitement center and training ground ever. We are not one iota safer as a result of Iraq, in fact we are in greater danger then ever before. His actions provide weight to the arguments of terrorists, "See? We told you America was imperialistic and evil!" I do not wish the country that I LOVE to be perceived or act in this way, so I try to change it.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

I was of course disappointed to see Kerry lose, but consoled myself in the fact that the election looked legit and Bush won by a clear margin, albeit by the smallest of any sitting President except for Wilson. I think many Kerry voters reacted with fear, confusion, and doubt about America. And you'll see these reactions more often because there were more voters out there than ever before. I think concern is justified, particularly for the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, the next Supreme Court appointment, Fallujah, and the upcoming transfer of power in Iraq.

I'm not suggesting that those who supported Kerry shouldn't have the right to be concerned for their viewpoints or be able to voice their opinions. Obviously, it sucks to be in the minority. I remember when the Republicans were in the minority and I wasn't happy then either. However, I don't think it's justified to go into panic mode and continually gripe about how bad the next 4 years are going to be and that there will be immense damage to the country and constitution. It just doesn't make any sense either politically or historically that those things will happen. Sure, those in the minority won't get their way for a while, but it won't be a political steamroller.

I think part of the growing acrimony in this counrty is due to this "you're in the minority, take your medicine" mindset purpetrated by many conservatives nowdays. It is inappropriate to compare other two term presidents like Clinton, for instance, since Clinton was a Moderate politically and did not enjoy a partisian majority in the Congress. The fact that we have never had such a conservative in the white house with an agreeable congress means that there are no precidents, which is exactly why so many people are terrified about the damage he will do.

Right, like your side was cool and collected when conservatives claimed that Clinton's BJ not only disillusioned every child on earth, but was the deathknell for "values" in America. Histrionics are fun, and I don't see why my bitching at your shitty, shitty, shitty, fucking awful leader even matters to you. You guys could go nuts all you wanted in the '90's, it didn't need justification or my blessing. I ignored the Religious Right's bitching, you can ignore ours.

But isn't this what evolutionists say? They don't say "we don't know" they say "we can't prove evolution, but we are sure that's the way things came to be and all other viewpoints are wrong". Just because they revise their current theory, doesn't make them right. This is really funny, as one of the critisicms often leveled at Christians is how often the bible is revised, how it can be interpreted differently, etc. Apparently revision is only accepted for evolutionists. Do I think schools should be teaching intelligent design? Not really, but if a community believes that their children should be presented the theory, that is up to them. Is it really hurting anyone? Both views are being taught, it's not like evolution is being banned.

And more on the thread's topic, Bush being reelected has already given a great boon to the economy. The demand for violins has skyrocketed to accomodate all the sad songs liberals have been singing.

There are plenty of huge holes in the theory of evolution, and just because people continue to hold onto the theory and continue to try to find that essential fossil to prove their THEORY into law doesn't make it more true. It gives them a nifty hobby which I guess is better than smoking pot and playing XBox, but it's no more valid or important than someone going to church. Sure you can keep telling yourself it's more noble because "I haven't given up on trying to find solid evidence of my beliefs", but in the end your just trying to make your THEORY better than someone else's beliefs which at the current time they're not. Don't get me wrong - I'm not argueing for creationism and if you go read my post I never did, I'm just saying in the end both THEORIES are just that THEORY.

Oh, and I didn't say take it or leave it, but you kinda have to since you're in the minority - unless you move to France, Germany .... (ah the beauty of democracy). Don't fret though, maybe the country will become enlightened in the next four years and you'll have the President you want, and when that time comes people of faith won't be nearly as depressed as people that hinge their whole existence on whether or not abortion is legal or if we should drill for oil in Alaska. You see people of faith have their eye on a different prize, and maybe that's why they bother you so much.

But, keep displaying your superior intellect to me - I don't mind

Ah, exactly the kind of reasoned discourse that is needed to "heal the rift" in this divided country.

If you remember, when Clinton was elected to his first term, he did have a Dem House and Senate. In those first 2 yrs. he began trying to push his leftist agenda and in 2 yrs. he lost both the House AND Senate. So far, Pres. Bush has always enjoyed expanding majorities during his time in office. Sure, there was the tied Senate at the beginning, but that quickly changed. There's no, "take your medicine," simply policy that is responsive to those who are electing the leaders.

Again, that is not my point.

It is not a question of which one is right or even if either of them is right. It is an issue of underlying philosophy towards education. Intelligent Design says: "You don't know? Well that's ok - the answer is a higher intelligence did it, so of course you don't know". Evolution says: "Let's see if we can figure this out."

ID masks failure behind "the unknowable". Evolution uses failure to advance study.

Thanks for the post. I note you failed to say anything of import, though. Religion has claimed to have found the ultimate truth, science has not. And don't get me started on who has killed countless people in the name of their "theory."

I take it you figure it is pointless to try and change the thing you love, and it's better to accept it how it is, failure though it may be.

Last I checked. no one here professed to having a superior anything. Have some sort of inferiority complex?

To address the evolution/creation issue I'll paraphrase someone I doubt you've heard of. "I got a one word question for you: dinosaurs."

You are failing to grasp what a scientific theory is. It is not just a convenient story made up to fit the facts, which is how you are describing it. A theory, via the scientific method has been tested and tested until reasonable sure of its ability to predict an outcome, which leaves a margin of error and the ability to encompass new data as it modifies those predictions. The simple fact of there being ACTUAL EVIDENCE in favor of evolution, regardless of the fact that it does not state every single point in the chain, makes it instantly more logically credible then Creationism. Creationism is a matter of faith, the theory of Evolution is one of science. If data comes to light that is sufficient and plentiful enough to completely discard it, then that's what science will do. Creationism cannot be discarded because of new evidence, because there is no such evidence. It's not a scientific theory at all. Intelligent Design is in the same boat.

I somehow doubt that those are the actual issues that upset people so much. The greater concern, the thing I do hinge my existence on, is FREEDOM. Put simply, they are trying to take it away because it does not jibe well with the Bible. The other issues are symptamatic. I, for one, am never going to have an abortion, most notably because its impossible for me to have one. That does not, however, preclude me from being concerned when others attempt to restrict other people from doing so. Freedoms are easier to hold on to then they are to recover. Therefore, it makes more logical sense to guard those freedoms fiercly. The concern about ANWR is actually an expression of a larger concern about the environment. Admittedly, the science behind much of environmentalism is suspect, but I can understand wanting to preserve the natural beauty of ANWR rather than fill it with Oil drilling facilities. These are legitimate, far ranging concerns about the quality of my life and the life of any children I might someday have. While some might worry only about heaven, it seems more sensible to try and make THIS world a free, more satisfying place to live in, regardless of whether or not there is an afterlife.

Yes, people who want to mix their religous rules with my government scare me. The two things are mutually exclusive and should remain so.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Not sure this is the thread for this, but I thought I'd respond to this specific comment. The idea that government and religion are completely mutually exclusive is a fairly recent concept in American History, beginning in the 1950's and 60's. Why do you think there are Bible verses inscribed in stone all over Washington DC? Why did the Supreme Court quote the Bible in rulings for the early part of our country's history? Why did the founding fathers so liberally use scripture as justification for doing things the way they did?

Again, probably a subject for a separate thread, but just something to think about. (and yes, I'm aware of Jefferson's letter where the whole subject of a wall of separation of church and state originated.)

The most succint answer I can give you in this thread is because all of those people needed to hinge their ideas on an authority the people at the time would listen to. In the case of the earliest people you wonder about, their projects were in direct contradiction to other traditional authorities.

Should we conclude that they believed in what they were quoting or merely machiavellian in their habits?

I don't see anything today that would detract from the notion that those in power will use whatever beliefs those under them will listen to in order to maintain their priviledged positions--regardless of their personal beliefs.

I wonder if hell trash the WhiteHouse like clinton ?

That were the years when the seperation was weakend. "one nation under god was added 1954, one year later "In God We Trust" was made mandatory on coins.

http://www.creationtheory.org/Morali...nistCode.shtml

bush is already showing signs of inclusiveness on social issues. the 22% says: grrrrrrr.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ines-frontpage

And people wonder why we are afraid....He is totally beholden to those people now, along with some less than stellar business interests. He MUST advance their agenda if he wants his party to maintain it's majority. Although I really would like to see them try to split off and form their own party, with the resulting loss of power and voice, but that will never happen. The GOP likes being in charge and will do what it takes to stay there.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Que Serra. If advancing their agenda maintains the majority, then so be it. That's what democracy is all about. Your basically admitting that there are more of them than you. I still don't think it will be to such a degree as to be destructive to the country. If it is, they won't retain the majority.

I never thought for a moment that there were less Christian Conservatives then liberals/libertarians/anyone else. The numbers in this case speak pretty clearly on where the population lays. However, the focus of the disagreement is with the sensibility of their agenda. This agenda is contrary to the principles the nation was founded on, and pretty heavily anti-liberty.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Why in the world is Bush "beholden" to his religious supporters? He's in office now...they can't remove him. They can EXPECT him to perform for them, but because its already Bush's second term, he's in a GREAT position. He doesn't need to worry about reelection, and can just go about his business. Seems pretty obvious to me.

yeah, i don't think he is going to come through with far-right results. all bush has mentioned about his agenda is privatizing SS and reforming the tax code. even if he gets some gay marriage action in congress, he claims to support civil unions...not exactly righteous anger.
the article i posted showed that people are concerned that he won't come through and threatened to abandon the next candidate. well, it took them long enough...how many politicians have claimed to be anti-abortion just to get votes? four years later, the same crowd falls for the same rhetoric.
also his appointments aren't going to bring civilization to it's knees. not all republicans share the views of evangelicals. specter has mentioned this publicly, and despite the softening of his stance, it is a valid point.

Actually privatizing the Social Security system and reforming the tax code in the way that he had pushed would be pretty far right-wing. And don't forget the "separate but equal" status of civil unions will not pacify most of those who seek actual marriage.
Regarding Arlen Spector, I am interested to see how this plays out. I have the feeling that the Republican machine that Mr. Spector is threatening by behaving in a more moderate or concilliatory way, will have something to say if he interferes too much with what they feel is their "mandate".

As for not being beholden to the religious right, he's already jumped right back on the same-sex marriage ban amendment train. As for a centrist Bush? I've read numerous articles in the media since the election musing that with the election past and being prohibited from seeking another term, Bush can do as he wishes, but as most of you know, it's not like that in politics. Just because he doesn't need votes any more, he's still beholden to those who put him there. And if he didn't repay them, they could make it more difficult for him to get his agendas passed. The social and religious conservatives are an extremely powerful force right now--as evidenced by the outcome of the election itself--and they will have sway over their representatives who can make it hard or easy for Bush in his second term.

Personally, given the erosion of civil liberties under Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, et. al., I am very concerned about the coming four years. Already I read an article about not just the conservatives' anti-abortion crusade but now their anti-contraception mission. If they want to promote abstinence, I don't think anyone's going to call that a poor approach. But it's the abstinence-only slant that I have a problem with.

This country is founded on certain freedoms, not on certain restrictions. People may choose to live as conservatively as they like, but don't legislate your narrow morality on the rest of the country. A 4 million vote margin out of 114 million votes does not grant the Right a mandate for that kind of oppression.