Homosexual Marriage?

People get married for myriad reasons. Why? Because they can. This however does not change the definition of marriage. Marriage has long historical roots, and just because people in western society have stretched its supposed meaning in the last sixty years, doesn’t mean that it can be stretched into complete absurdity by encompassing contractual agreements between homosexuals. Marriage in its most historical sense is about children. It is about the physical act between a man and a woman that produces children, the reliability of that joining, and an agreement on the part of the man to share responsibility for those children that come from that joining. A woman carries the child for nine months and is thus intimately connected to the child; a man does not and is not. Developing between a man and a child, the same type of connection between mother and child requires that the man stays around and interacts with the child. Without time and interaction the man does not develop a bond with the child: a bond the mother already has at birth. This bond between mother and child compels the mother to put the needs of the child above her own, married or not. Marriage is the contract that compels the man to hang around long enough to develop a similar bond. Not only is it an obvious fact, but one also now proven by research, that a child does better with a mother and a father, than in any other type of situation. A child gets certain things from a male that it cannot get from a female. The converse is unimportant, because the mother will stick around regardless. Besides validating the legitimacy of the child the primary reason for marriage is to compel the man to stick around so that the offspring will receive the benefits of him doing so. The primary function of a homosexual “marriage” is to legitimize their relationship; the primary function of a heterosexual marriage is to legitimize the relationship between the father and the child. It is the erroneous perception that marriage serves the same basic function in a homosexual joining as it does in a heterosexual joining that allows for the suggestion that homosexual should be allowed to marry, when in fact homosexuals cannot fulfill the conditions of marriage. To allow homosexual union to be called marriage, is to invalidate any legitimate meaning of the word. Other contractual agreements that allow homosexual unions to have equal legitimacy to marriage in terms of benefit to the partner can be legitimized by the state should the populace wish it to be so, but regardless of the outcome, the word marriage should never be used to describe it.

Terrorist, Gamblers, and Whores, Oh My!

I must say there are a number of things that I dislike about “W.” For one, he lets Carl Rowe call the shots way, way, way, to often. Rowe gets Bush to do things that are politically expedient, so that Bush will supposedly get re-elected. Its like Rowe is looking at his demographic map and calculating where to best spend the money to get votes. This is nothing new, the elected members of the House and the Senate have been doing this for years. The democrats have been especially good at this. Dividing minority groups up, and then saying, “look, we are spending money on you!” We’ve got so many little groups now, that most folks are a member of at least several. Where once the people of this country were called Americans, now they are sub-categorized, special-interest Americans.

This kind of reminds me of when the twelve step programs got out of control in the nineties. “Hi, my name is Bob, and I’m an Alcoholic, Drug Abusing, Caffeine and Nicotine addicted, Recovering Sex addict, Co-dependant, Overeating, Compulsive Gambler/Debtor, Adult Child of an Alcoholic, Al-anon. “HI BOB!” If politicians were listening, they would have said, “Hi Bob, do you need some funding?” The difference between Bush and sKerry, on the domestic front, is about three hundred billion dollars. Bush’s proposed budget will be around 1.3 trillion, whereas sKerry’s will be 1.6 trillion. That’s about $4,500.00 per every person (plus the 9.3 million illegal aliens), currently residing in the USA.

(Speaking of illegal aliens. If you really want the illegals to leave, just start taking their money when they try to send it home via Wells Fargo. Its simple, when they can’t produce a valid SSI card, just keep the money. We won’t have to find them and deport them, they will leave on their own. Plus we could almost pay for these proposed budgets with the money we would collect.)

So the difference between sKerry and Bush on the domestic front adds up to about $10.00 per person. That’s hardly a drop in the bucket. So if that was all this election was about, all I’d need do is flip a coin and choose between Alfred E. ”W”. Neumann and Johnny the Horse-faced botox boy. Unfortunately, the only sub-group sKerry doesn’t care much about is the “Islamic Arab extremist ‘I want to kill you,’ group.” sKerry puts them right up there with other public nuisances like whores, and gamblers.

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' the article states as the Massachusetts senator's reply.
''As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

I’ve got a news flash for the stertorous Senator sKerry, Islamic Terrorism is not going away. Hopefully the threat level may be reduced over time, but it will never be just a nuisance. Terrorism has been brewing for a long while (thousands of years), and the terrorist have finally hit on a way that can allow them, with little resources, to bring a country to its knees (see Spain).

“Terrorist, Gamblers, and Whores, Oh My!’ This pronouncement, along with his idea that we need to conduct a “sensitive war on terror,” plus a twenty year voting record in which he has voted to weaken every aspect of our national defense, but has never voted to strengthen it, tells me one thing. All this drum beating that sKerry has done recently on the campaign trail about being tough on terrorist is a bunch of malarkey. The truth is, if you are for peace at any cost, then sKerry is your man (I know you are out there, I’ve seen the signs in your yard, right next to your gas guzzling SUV). However, if you want the US to go and kick some serious terrorist butt, before terrorist can come here and ‘blow you up real good,’ then Bush is your man. If you are undecided, you need to ask your self one little question:
WWOD. You remember the WWJD acronym that was going around a few years ago? (“What Would Jesus Do?” or my personal favorite, WWJWD, “What Would John Wayne Do?”), Well here is a new acronym that that should be on every “undecided” person’s mind when they go to vote. WWOD (What would Ossama Do?) Would he vote for the guy that has carried the war to the terrorist, who says things like, “We will hunt you down and kill you no matter where you hide,” or would he vote for the man who will wage a “sensitive” war on terror, by making speeches with such tough sounding things in them as, "You will lose and we will win.” Oh yeah, I bet OBL is trembling in fear at that prospect.

~Erthona


Dog of War

Our town has been attacked by a rabid dog,
wearing a human guise.
Infected by a virus of hate, and greed,
Anything that is not it, it will destroy.

This is not a being with which one can reason.
This rabid dog does not kill
out of jealousy, or envy.
He does not want what we have,
he wants to destroy what we are.

There are those who would cower,
behind words of peace,
because they fear reprisal.
They urge us, "do nothing,"
Beware of peace spoken by fearful men,
They are already dead men.

Today a rabid dog threatens our town.
We must track him down,and kill him.
There is no middle ground. It is him or us,
and the outcome is not certain.

© Dale B. Tisdale 2001(Written September 19, 2001) (revised 2004)
http://www.geocities.com/erthona/dogofwar.html

UN (Ubiquitous Nothing)

“Then there's the question of genocide: The UN has yet to define
the Darfur situation as such, which would, by international law, require members to act.”

Just as the League of Nations before it, the UN has shown its true colors as the Dafur crisis continues to build; it is, impotent, uncaring and corrupt. Over 50,000 people have died, 1.5 million have been forcibly thrust from their homes, 6,000 to 10,000 die each month in refugee camps from malnutrition and poor health, and everyday girls as young as 11 years old are raped while gathering firewood: firewood that is essential for life. While this crisis continues to build the UN sits on its hands pondering if 50,000 deaths of African farmers by Arab-Islamic militia supported and armed by the Dafur government is a case of genocide, or maybe just bad luck.

Russia and China are more concerned that intervention, which would be required by international law if it were decide that what is happening in the Sudan is genocide, might cause the price of oil to rise. As people die, as children are kidnapped and turn into soldiers, as young girls continued to be raped and brutalized, and as people are driven from their homes, the UN ponders who to send to “look into the situation.” France is afraid (when is it not?), that military personal from the west intervening in the crisis would upset the Muslims (Arab Islamic hoards) who are doing all the raping and killing. France, we must concede, has a right to be afraid, as the latest round of burnings and violent protest about the Mohammad cartoons do attest. There is no telling what might happen if the UN said something bad about the Islamic-terrorist in Darfur, who are killing, raping, and pillaging the countryside. Certainly drawing a cartoon of Mohammad is much worse than that.

Ah yes, a “situation,” such as is now in Darfur, is exactly the type for which the UN is “supposedly” designed to deal, leads the member nations to confusion as they contemplate the possible minor repercussions to themselves. In light of the crisis U.S. President George Bush named what the Khartoum government of Darfur is doing to its people genocide.

"Yep pardner, that there looks like Geni-cide to me."

When this was reported, the President of the Khartoum government, President Omar al-Bashir objected and asked the UN to create a committee to study this question of genocide. He did this as he continued to give more money and arms to the Arab militants, so they could continue to commit “not-genocide” on the civilian population (raping little girls they do pro bono). In the meantime, al-Bashir suggested that the UN should pass a resolution sanctioning President Bush, since they cannot yet put him on trial for war crimes.

I am sure that the UN will get right on it, forming a committee that is. At least they will as soon as they can get a resolution, to vote on a resolution, to make a resolution, to think about forming a committee to study this question of sanctioning President Bush for calling something genocide before the UN has even had a chance to form a committee to study how many terrorist one can fit on the head of a camel. The same UN that the United States currently spends 3 billion dollars a year to house in their nice fancy UN building in New York. Lets see that equals out to only $10.00 for every man, woman and child in the US, so that the UN can continue to exists and do nothing.

Well ok, I guess you cannot call passing resolutions nothing: I’m sure that it makes all those young girls who have been, and continue to be raped, infected with aids, and forced to carry the child of her worst nightmare, feel much better (I'm not sure about the dead people). Although they might like it more, if we gave them the 3 billion we waste yearly on the UN. That would buy a lot of rape free firewood pardner.

~Erthona ©2004


Darfur

Brutal lies make brutal lives.
Brutalize, sodomize, cauterize, hypocritize,
Suicide, pesticide, tellnolies of genocide.

Little girls, young girls, rape them good,
Rape them like, a big man should.
Little boys, with your lies imbue,
So they can die, instead of you.
Rat-a-tat-tat, Rat-a-tat-tat,
Little girl pussy, for the fat cat.
Huff, huff, huff. Huff, huff, huff,
Going to fill her up, with his stuff.

Another little baby in the world,
If it’s a girl He’ll give her a whirl,
Run, run, run. Run, run, run.
If it’s a boy, He’ll give him a gun,
Run, run, run. Run, run, run.
Killing and raping, so much fun.
Run, run, run. Run, run, run.
Into their bellies, pump lead and cum.

Millions from their homes have run,
Whether by prick, or whether by gun.
Bang, bang, bang. Bang, bang, bang.
Getting us some more little young girl tang.
Rat-a-tat-tat, Rat-a-tat-tat,
Tiny little girl; make her fat.
Fight, fight, fight. Fight, fight, fight.
Slit some throats in the dark of night.

Brutal lives,
Tell no lies,
No thing to proselytized.
Here in lies, UN lies, media flies,
Fifty thousand dead,
Is Genocide.

© Tharmas Erthona 2004

The Adventures of Phogel Phinster

~ or ~
Life upon the North American Continent

Chapter 1 – In the Beginning

The children of the sixties were fast approaching old age and beginning to clamor for more benefits from the bloated bureaucracy of the federal government, politicians, and generally anyone who would listen, as they had once clamored for peace at any price, leading to a weakening of the military and bringing about the inevitable onslaught of the poorly educated, but highly devoted and fanatical tools, of the elite within the extreme Islamic terrorist organizations that flowered in the power vacuum left when the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of trying to keep up with the Joneses.
Into this setting, this time, this maelstrom of insanity is placed the young man who is to be the main character of our drama: a protagonist with less to recommend him for such a role than most any that have marched across the typed pages before him. A dull and lifeless clod compared to such vivacious characters as: Huck Finn’s father, Lady MacBeth, Hamlet’s Uncle, and the bad guy with the mustache in Pete’s dragon, and yes, even Helen Reddy. A sock, a can, and a fork have more to recommend them as heroes of a story than does our hollow-headed boy Phogel.
And yet, it is a shame to waste even the lowliest of God’s creatures. Should not all, regardless of how worthless, be allowed their value and use in the world? Wasn’t it for this the flower children were fighting: a rebellion against the staid, grasping hand of mid-century American Christianity by the newly minted framework of the counter-culture, stretched taut, as an aging starlets face, with the old flesh of hedonistic paganism?Phogel was born to, two mothers and mostly abandoned by them until their deaths on July 17th, 2009: at which time he was completely abandoned by them.

Their deaths occurred as the result of the horrific explosion created by the confluence of a US military AIM-9 Sidewinder missile fired in an attempt to stop a Cessna Stationair full of high explosives, flown by Arab terrorist Ali bin Sayton Al-Fungui, from ramming flight 800, on which were US foreign diplomat Emma Lockhart, and Phyllis (Wild Phily) Phinster, her personal secretary, lover and gestation chamber for their son, Phogel.
One might ask, and be right in doing so, how might two women partner in such a way, so that one of them conceives and nine months latter bares the fruit of such a sterile union; especially when one of them, Emma, could not stand the idea of any part of a man touching her lover’s body; of course Phily was somewhat less picky about who touched her body, as anyone who had ever seen Emma would ascertain. Well . . . If you really want to know, this is how it went down.
Phily, had a childhood friend who worked at one of the ranches outside of Vegas. With said friend acting as negotiator and having been given a goodly some of money, the items were quickly gathered that were necessary to further the consensual Sapphic bliss of Emma and Phily. Ten willing ranch girls who provided ten freshly filled non-lubricated condoms, one plastic turkey baster with rubber bulb purchased at the local snack and pack, and one 5 oz. tube of Joylube, food grade, personal lubricant completed the zygotic trifecta. To paraphrase D. H. Lawrence,"they basted the bastard into being.”

After it was obvious that Phily was with child, the next step was deciding upon a name for the infelicitous creature. Emma, had assumed that she would do the naming, since she had always been the brains, as well as the dominate one of the outfit, and that generally would have been a valid assumption. However, Emma had not counted on the hormonal changes that occur when a woman becomes pregnant. Her little, quite, submissive Phily all of a sudden changed from a “yes lamb,” to a “don’t fuck with me,” tigress. And nobody, not even a tough, badass, bull dike, can get over on a miserably nauseous, hugely bloated, hormone flooded pregnant woman. So Phily picked the name for “her” child, and because they knew a number of months in advance what sex the child would be through the miracle of ultrasound, Phily knew it was going to be a boy. Phily had, had a great uncle named Phogel, and had always liked the name. This among other reasons was why Emma generally made all of the decisions. Emma was also not too thrilled that the child was male; she had planned on a girl, and Emma was used to getting whatever she planned for. Between Phily finding a backbone, albeit temporarily, the gender of the fetus being male, and the name of Phogel set in stone, Emma was not having a very good year.

Of course things could have been worse. Phily had a brother who she was fond of, and had considered using his name for her child: Phister. Instead she made him guardian in case something happened to her. So . . . along with the Lesbo Lawyer Emma had selected, Phister Phinster became Phogel's nominal parent upon the death of Phogel's mothers; which as you know, happened on July 17th, 2009, when a non-existant Cessna and a non-existant missle converged with flight 800 from New York to Paris, causing its fuel tank to rupture: the first such case of a rupturing fuel tank in the entire history of commercial air travel. Go figure!

Topological Titillation and the Fabric of Space

If current scientific theories about the cosmos are anywhere near correct, then space must be stretchy, not unlike your aunt Myrtle’s girdle, which stretches in response to the Brownian movement of the various lipid molecules that compose the tightly bound, like a young Japanese girls feet, midsection of her rotund body. Referring to the possibly exotic topology of space, scientist use to speculate that we were like a microbe on Myrtle’s girdle, and thus would never be able to travel far enough to notice the curvature (i.e., the topology) of space. This did not stop optimistic scientist from speculating that the universe might have some strange topology: like a coffee cup, or a donut (I wonder why they would think of those two objects? I guess we could call it the policeman topology, or copology for short.). However, much to their disappointment, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy (WMAP) Probe’s snapshot of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has pretty much ruled out any odd topology, and for the most part confirmed that the topology of the Universe is flat, and the value of (some of which you paid for) all those hours of topology calculations and supercomputer simulations, ended up being like so many semi-completed crossword puzzles: an interesting exercise, but ultimately of little real value. In case you are wondering, a flat topology of space is generally what the average, non-topologist would imagine the shape of the universe to be: no curves, no loop-de-loops, no backdoors or trapdoors, nothing! In a word: B-o-r-I-n-g! So there was hope (among topologist) that the topology of the universe would turn out to be an even stranger place than we thought it was: like California. Of course had it turned out weird, topologist would have been up to their “3 tori,” in grant money.

Although we generally have this topology thing nailed down, we have still made no progress on the really important question; what is the fabric of space, and how do you sew a skirt from it? The problem with space is that it holds the key to gravity, and gravity holds the key to the next major advance in physics. According to Uncle Albert, gravity is what happens when you set a ‘thing of mass’ in space. This ‘thing of mass’ can be anything from a star to a toenail: the more the mass, the more the stretch, and the greater the apparent effect of gravity. To help people visualize this idea, the general metaphor that is used, is the bowling ball on a bed sheet metaphor (although a rubber bed sheet would be more accurate, but maybe to kinky or distracting for some). However, this is really not a very good metaphor to use because it has several problems. The first of which is that the reason the bowling ball weighs the sheet down is not because of its own mass effecting the bed sheet, but rather the gravity of the mass of the earth pulling down on the ball. The second problem with this metaphor is that it is a two dimensional picture of a three dimensional situation (four if you count time, but you would have to a musician to do that). This is what happens when physicists wander into the realm of poets. Einstein was a great physicist, but a lousy poet. Any decent (and here I emphasize decent, as in good at) poet realizes that one does not use just any metaphor that happens to be hanging around, this leads to very bad poetry of the type that fills overly mush books of rhyming phrases owned by little old ladies the country over (and rarely read). Mistakenly, they have this idea that because something rhymes, it must be poetry. When something rhymes it is a rhyme, not a poem: unfortunately, our educational system has taught that iambic pentameter is the equivalent of poetry for many years now (Of course this the least of our worries in our education system today. One must take care of the aneurysm before one worries about a hangnail.) So… it is very little wonder that it has not turned out a poet of sufficient virtuosity in the last one hundred years, to be able to tackle this problem of a metaphor sufficient to describe gravity.

Of course maybe the solution does not lie with poets, but rather grammarians (an even more boring area than physics or poetry). If one “looks up” the term gravity in the dictionary, one will find that it is designated as a noun. You would think that as long as General Theory of Relativity (Einstein’s theory of gravity, which governs our interaction with other astronomical bodies, to GPS systems) has been hanging around (yes, intentional) at least Webster would have gotten it right. However, I just checked the term and it is still a noun. In Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, “gravity” is an adjective: it describes a characteristic or quality of space, just as one might describe an eel as silky (sorry, I just can’t bring myself to say slippery); one describes space as gravity (yes, yes, I know this is where my brain starts hurting also). And all of this rigmarole does not even begin to approach what space is, although it must be something other than matter (just try visualizing that). Ah yes, and I almost forgot, don’t forget to mix in time: after all it is now space-time, not just space. So… what we need to do is come up with a metaphor that describes a descriptor of a quality of a thing that has no connection to anything we know, as it precesses through time. Any takers?

~Erthona ©2004

Dying by Degrees

We are dying by degrees.
Fahrenheit is slow,
Celsius, much faster,
but time gets us all,
the greedy little bastard.
Born in a hot flash,
His father is unknown,
his mother was empty space,
she chilled him to the bone.
And now he gets revenge,
on us warm bloodied creatures,
he turns us all to dust,
distorting our best features.

© Dale B. Tisdale 1998

http://www.geocities.com/erthona/degrees.html

Buy Ass? Not Me!

Unless you have been living in a cave in a remote part of the world, you have probably noticed the brouhaha brewing over the “allegedly” fake documents of George W. Bush’s National Guard service that C-BS has been using to slander the President. Although this story is a microcosmic case study of the bias that has been occurring in the media at large for years, if you are holding out hope that this will cause the rest of the media, or even C-BS to evaluate and change this bias, sorry “alleged” bias, then I have a nice little lakeside piece of land in Nairobi in which I would like to interest you.

The big three, NBC, C-BS, and ABC have for many years been the “Johns” for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. This allegiance is so inculcated into the media culture that it has become the norm. The problem as Bernie Goldberg points out in his book, “Bias,” (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261901/103-3604830-7805461) is two fold, not only does the national media not recognize that they have a bias; they react violently should someone suggest that they do. The situation is very similar to an alcoholic who refuses to admit that he drinks abnormally: “What are you talking about? Everyone I know drinks as much as I do.” So the conclusion is that his drinking is OK, rather than the more likely conclusion that he primarily hangs out with other alcoholics. After all, if you’re a big drinker, your not going to spend a lot of time at your tee-toddling, temperance minded aunt’s house. Your view of her is that she is a bit kooky and very much out of the mainstream. The reality is however; the aunt is much more in the mainstream than the alcoholic. Her views are much more closely aligned with the population at large, than are his.

Although the alcoholic is constantly being barraged by evidence that contradicts his worldview, i.e., I am a normal drinker, he has developed a defense system that will not allow him to see the truth. Should one of his drinking buddies die from drinking too much, and smashing his car into a concrete wall at 60 mph, he will talk about what a lousy driver the guy was, but see no connection between himself, and his dead friend.

This is what will happen in the media with the Dan Rather Forgery-gate story. People will feel sorry for Dan. He may even get fired. But no one in the rest of the media will draw the conclusion that this happened because Rather is biased towards the liberal side. They will conclude that his zealousness for a good story clouded his judgment. They will admonish their fellow alcoholics, oops, sorry, journalist to not do the same. In the end, everything will return to business as usual. After all, how can there possibly be a bias in the media, when the media has investigated media bias, and found none

~Erthona © 2004

Do not confuse a working writer, with one who is getting paid.

In the great palacious edificeof pseudo higher education,
breathing in the, rancid, acrid, rarefied air,
of the officious offal (who can't, so they teach),
the sophomoric acolytes eulogize, memorize, and romanticize,
those writers of genius gone.

Perceiving clearly, and looking far and long,
we see rare were those whose writing was their sustenance,
and fewer still who made more than a bare pittance.

© Dale B. Tisdale Spring 2002

UFOs, the Scientific Method, and Unexplained Phenomenon

Let me start by saying this is in no way a repudiation of my pervious post, “The Big Thud.” I may be insane, but I do not have a split personality. There are however, areas where the attitudes of scientist are a stumbling block. That attitude is, that the scientific method is the be all and end all of investigation and knowledge. It is not. It is very good; and upon it all of our technological progress of the past century is predicated. It is a very, very useful tool for what it is. Its Achilles’ heel is also what makes it so valuable. Its Achilles’ heel is the two words: repeatable and verifiable. The question comes to me, “What if there is phenomenon that is real, but cannot be repeated on a regular basis? What happens if there is real phenomenon that occurs only at occasional intervals, and is of such a strange nature that we have no way to verify it outside of our human senses?” (This topic always reminds me of the story of the man on the street corner looking for a quarter he lost. A second man asks him where he lost it. The first man replies that he lost the quarter downstairs in the basement. The second man asks, “Why are you looking for it here on the street corner?” The first man replies, “Because the light is better.”) If we stick strictly to the scientific method (better light), we discount what might otherwise be real and useful phenomenon (lost quarter). There are certain precedents for this type of hypothesis.

Beginning in the 19th century, the psychological theory of behavioralism was formulated; it was “the desire to have psychology recognized as an empirical science.” The problem with this approach was that it had no way to recognize or validate anything that was not directly apprehendable by the observer: such as emotion, values, or any process that was occurring internally in the subject. Even today, with advancements in the tools of technology, we cannot state absolutely that humans have anything going on internally (Of course with some humans, this is less defensible than with others), except electrochemical events; although only the most obstinate person would argue that we do not experience emotions or make judgments based on preconceived values. We agree that these internal processes do exist because all humans, with the exception of the rare few with genetic abnormalities, or brain damage, experience them as part of their reality. Were we to rely solely upon science to determine what is, and what is not, the vast majority of the human race would have to check into an insane asylum, because they would be experiencing phenomenon that did not exist. So, although science is very good for what it is and what it does, it cannot explain everything that comprises the totality of the human experience; nor should it be the litmus test for all phenomenon. The scientific method should always be the starting point when searching for an explanation of an unexplained occurrence, but it must not be the ending point should it fail to satisfactorily offer a solution.

Equally dishonest is a flight of fancy simply because it offers an easy or romantic explanation. We should keep in mind that UFO means Unidentified Flying Object not extraterrestrial beings in technologically advanced spacecraft. Even when science cannot identify or explain a phenomenon: we should not jump to the nearest handy conclusion (Granted, it sells books, and keeps money coming into conventions on everything from UFOs to ESP). However, there is a wide gap between: A. No scientific explanation and B. “little green men.” Should we be open to alternative methods of investigation when science hits a dead-end? Absolutely! Should we be conned by the 21st Century equivalent of snake oil? Well… it is your money, far be it from me to tell you how to waste it.

~Erthona

ALL THERE IS!

In olden days it was Fairies and such,
today it is aliens and UFO's.
Who is to say that their Fairies were not our UFO's,
or maybe, Our UFO's are not really their Fairies?
When Christians came they dismissed such things as Fairies,
as figments of the mind.
When Science came it dismissed God,
as a figment of the mind.
Now we have UFO's:
part God, part Fairy, part science.
Maybe it is all the same.
Maybe it is all different.
Or maybe Mankind just doesn't like the idea,
that we are all there is.

© Dale B. Tisdale 1996

http://www.geocities.com/erthona/all.html