News in Brief • Local • religion • pope • ISSUE 49•12 • Mar 18, 2013
?1191

VATICAN CITY—Less than a week after succeeding Pope Benedict XVI as the next Bishop of Rome and inheriting a deeply divided Catholic Church, Pope Francis I on Sunday signaled a bold direction for his papacy by demonstrating to followers gathered in Saint Peter’s Square how to correctly use and apply a condom. “It’s imperative that partners use a brand-new condom for each act of vaginal, anal, or oral sex and put it on as soon as erection occurs,” the supreme pontiff said to thousands of devout Catholics while gripping the base of an anatomical teaching model and gently rolling a LifeStyles-brand condom down the shaft of the silicon penis. “To reduce air pockets and minimize the risk of breakage, pinch the top of the semen reservoir with your thumb and forefinger, then withdraw the penis directly after ejaculation. And remember, always use a new condom when alternating between different sexual acts; it’s more effective, more sanitary, and improves the sexual experience for both partners.” Francis added that though he understood condom use was not ideal for maximizing sexual pleasure and personally prefers not to wear them, they are the most effective way to prevent the spread of infectious diseases besides abstaining from sex altogether.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/bold-new-pope-shows-crowd-in-saint-peters-square-h,31713/

both of the courtesy of Go Left - a great resource

https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Go-Left/259536274080316

Posted on Mar 18, 2013


Flickr/Gage Skidmore

When the Senate passed a resolution in September pledging never to accept an Iranian nuclear weapon, there was only one dissenting vote: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. “A vote for this resolution is a vote for the concept of pre-emptive war,” the libertarian-leaning Republican said.

Paul most recently made headlines with his nearly 13-hour filibuster of the confirmation of CIA Director John Brennan, an architect of the Obama administration’s drone program. He wanted assurances that the administration forswore the use of drones against U.S. citizens on American soil. His longer-term strategy to rein in the drone program is to try to have the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution repealed. Paul complains that the resolution is far too expansive and has authorized U.S. involvement in “20 countries.”

There is much in Paul’s proposed foreign policy that will appeal to progressives. The American left typically also opposes war as anything other than a very last resort, and would favor withdrawal from Afghanistan and avoidance of a Syrian quagmire. Containment of Iran as a policy is obviously preferable to bombing it. Questioning of President Obama’s rather lawless drone strikes and an aspiration to finally end the Authorization for Use of Military Force are all to the good. Still, the grounds of Paul’s foreign policy should raise alarums. His expansive notion of “radical Islam” sweeps up many movements and countries that are not playing an adversarial role against the United States and do not need to be contained. In some ways, Paul wants to replace the neoconservatives’ war on terror with a containment of terror, yet he shares many of their mistaken premises about the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims. Sometimes his dismissiveness toward other countries, as with his reduction of Libya to 100 tribes, is almost racist.

Despite his disavowal of isolationism, Paul’s policy prescriptions would often have that exact effect. Would it be better to give aid to revolutionary Egypt in hopes of thereby remaining in a position to influence Morsi’s directives, or to cut it off because the country’s electorate dared to vote for a Muslim fundamentalist? There is also a danger that Paul’s instinct to disengage without delay could have the opposite effect of the one he is seeking. He acknowledges that after getting abruptly out of Afghanistan, the U.S. might have to go back in with aerial bombardment if the Taliban regroup. Wouldn’t it be ironic if a President Rand Paul one day had to initiate drone strikes on Kandahar and Khost? Moreover, some of the grounds of his reluctance to engage with the Middle East also have a whiff of prejudice and Islamophobia

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/what_would_a_rand_paul_libertarian_foreign_policy_look_like_20130318/

,

It seems to me that on foreign policy - Rand Paul - like his father - but perhaps more like Pat Buchanan on many issues holds a progressive position - but driven by reactionary motives. Or prehaps one could say that on foreign policy he holds the right position on my issues - but for the wrong reasons. It would certainly concern me that a xenophobic motivated disengaement from the world contains some real dangers in itself.

I would find it hard to imagine that the Republican Party would be prepared to embrace such a radical departure from the neoconservative ideology that was supported by every major contender for the Republican nomination for President in the last several elections cycles. It would be hard to imagine that the party that has had as its strongest and most vitriolic criticism of not only Obama but of every Democrat for the past 50 years that they are weak on defense would now consider going farther than any prominent mainstream Democrat since George McGovern to remove America from a military posture.

.

Rand Paul is already emerging as the flavor of the month right-wing super star and currently the most talked up contender for 2016. However, it seem hard to believe that the right-wing movement could or would so fundamentally reverse itself in regards to foreign policy. Every single serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 endorsed the Neocon worldview on foreign policy and had as their senior advisor's foreign policy Neocons. Furthermore, the religious right in particular whom Rand Paul has actively courted supports a virtually apocalyptic foreign policy in the Middle East. I assume Rand Paul is not taking the full blown libertarian anti-imperialism isolationism of his father. Does anyone know how far he goes in this regard. Reading his statements does not really tell me anything.

and hosted by Rev. Welton Gaddy?

The host of State of Belief, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, leads the national nonpartisan grassroots and educational organizations, The Interfaith Alliance and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation and serves as the Pastor for Preaching and Worship at Northminster (Baptist) Church in Monroe, Louisiana. Welton is one of 20 international religious leaders on the Council of 100 Leaders, a group created by the World Economic Forum to improve dialogue and understanding between the Western and Islamic worlds

Founded in 1994, The Interfaith Alliance has grown into a national grassroots organization of 150,000+ individuals of faith and goodwill drawn from more than 75 different religious traditions or beliefs with a cyber-network of 10,000 activists and 47 local alliances in 38 states. Dedicated to promoting mutual respect, cooperation and civility, The Interfaith Alliance strives to promote religion as a positive and healing force in the life of the nation.

http://stateofbelief.com/about-the-host/

This weekend, tune in to State of Belief, Interfaith Alliance’s weekly radio show and podcast, to hear from one religious leader on why DOMA needs to go; to learn why one journalist thinks the country’s most religious state is also home to the highest teenage birth rate; and to hear discussion of the new pope and the direction the Catholic Church is headed. Also, Welton will reflect on this week’s historic election of Pope Francis.

http://stateofbelief.com/

for the archives of several great shows:

http://stateofbelief.com/category/showarchive/

Here is a simple two minute video tutorial that will explain exactly how to find out who has been looking at your Facebook profile.
I have researched this thoroughly – Do NOT – I REAPEAT DO NOT – Click on any sites that promise to do this for you!! They are all scams and hoaxes – Follow the simple instructions from this two minute YouTube Video if you really want to know the ONLY method available for find this out:

Source: CNN

The latest exercises fall under the shadow of North Korea's army declaring invalid the armistice agreement that ended the Korean War in 1953, an article in Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of North Korea's ruling Workers' Party, reported Monday.

With the declaration, Pyongyang made good on its threat to nullify the armistice.
Despite the strong language, analysts say North Korea is years away from having the technology necessary to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile and aim it accurately at a target.

And, analysts say, North Korea is unlikely to seek a direct military conflict with the United States, preferring instead to try to gain traction through threats and the buildup of its military deterrent.

In another sign of the crumbling relations, North Korea severed its hotline with Seoul, South Korea's unification ministry said Monday, according to the Yonhap news agency. The ministry said the North failed to answer two attempts to communicate by telephone at 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time.



Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/11/world/asia/south-korea-military-exercises/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

---

This is certainly a worrisome sign..anyone familiar with the realities of Korean geography and even the non-nuclear abilities North Korean undeniably does possess cannot help but worry where all of this is headed.

I was greatly intrigued by this North Korean propaganda film that was posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017104359


I was frankly shocked at how unsophisticated it was and how bombastic and stupid it was -- here is another North Korean film that is considerably more intelligently done: