Since the days of Alexander the Great, binge drinking has been a very popular past time - leading to him apparently killing a friend and burning down Persepolis while drunk.

Those are some Great shoes to fill.

Yet, governments, schools and the media have repeatedly tried to teach us of binge drinking's dangers. 

Dartmouth University has taken the lead, instigating a new nationwide policy to curb heavy drinking by their students.

Pour me another glass.

Binge drinking is defined as "the consumption of five or more drinks in a row by men — or four or more drinks in a row by women — at least once in the previous 2 weeks. Heavy binge drinking includes three or more such episodes in 2 weeks."

Seems I don't know anyone who isn't a heavy binge drinker.

Do you think this definition should be changed or should we change people's attitudes? Or should you follow HPD's no fools guide to drinking a lot but not dying?  . . read more

[Cheney has] purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests... [He] has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States...

The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed U.S. invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the U.S. In all of this, Vice President Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States [and] by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. . . read more

Yet bubbling beneath the surface of public affairs is a global civil society, diverse and growing, reaching for the stars. It challenges the empire builders, it promotes human rights, it exposes the banditry of today's political thugs, red in tooth and claw. We live in an age of paradox. Two Chinese generals describe it as a time of "unrestricted warfare", but it is also a time of transformation, a quickening quest for Earth consciousness, perhaps the dawn of a Second Enlightenment. Whose side are you on? . . read more

The United States lies to start a war in Iraq, tortures prisoners to death, has actually USED nuclear weapons against another country, and Korea's communications satellite is the problem?

Israel defies the United Nations 65 times, breaks the cease fire with Gaza on Nov 4th, commits war crimes there, and Iran's power station is the problem?

Mr. Obama, kindly shut the fuck up. I didn't think it would be possible, but you are a greater embarrassment to the nation than your predecessor.

The Security Council will not go along with your wishes to pound on North Korea as a distraction from the fall of America. All you will succeed in doing is reinforcing the impression that the United States Government is simply thrashing about the floor in its death throes, striking out at anything that happens to be in reach.

Dick Cheney - the former U.S Vice-President - has warned Barack Obama against withdrawing from Afghanistan, saying it would create quite a mess. 

He said in an interview with "Fox News" that "I'm not sure that's wise at all."

Hard to take him too seriously.

This is a man who has advocated torture (which wasn't used to catch Osama) so we know he likes to play it a bit rough. 

I suppose maybe we should keep 'em in and consider Dick's idea - the withdrawal method has been out of vogue for decades.

Do you think the U.S should get out of Afghanistan now that Osama is dead? Is his death part of the equation? Tell us and remember...Disqus! . . read more

Despite what the majority of the western media tells its readers and viewers, there is more to the Afghani resistance than the Taliban. In fact, according to a recent report in the US News and World Report, U.S. forces are facing an increasingly complex enemy here composed of Taliban fighters and powerful warlords who were once on the payroll of the CIA. As a military official stated in the aforementioned article "You could almost describe the insurgency as having two branches. It's the Taliban in the south and a 'rainbow coalition' in the east." Add to this the various armed drug traders and their backers and you have a mix at least as volatile as that in Iraq during its worst periods over the last five years...

This is not the "good" war. It is just as wrong as the U.S. adventure in Iraq. Likewise, it can not be won, no matter what the politicians and the generals say. The government put in Kabul by Washington is comparable to a new branch head of a multinational corporation. Its power is dependent on the whim of corporate headquarters and will never garner the support of those not on its payroll. [More]

The US is meant to be a Libertarian's wet dream, yet the Federal Government tells you which substances you can't consume and prevents certain groups from exercising rights which are enjoyed by the majority.

Gay marriage is still illegal and idiotic drug wars are being fought to stop adults from doing what they want.

Obama though in a landmark announcement seems to be turning the tide on this paradox by pulling his support from the idea that marriage can only be between men and women.

So, after repealing"Don't Ask, Don't Tell", Obama is definitely shaping up as the most gay friendly President in history.   . . read more

The Australian government was dealt a severe blow yesterday when the High Court ruled that their planned Malaysia refugee deal swap was illegal. 

Pacific Solution? Malaysia Solution? Final Solution maybe?

There is always a risk in using the word "solution" when planning a mass exodus of people, mainly that it will be paralleled to the Final Solution, and then that they usually don't work. 

It's time that Australia ditched the language, ditched the policy and tried to find a solution that hits at the most endemic challenges.  . . read more

The intrinsic value of religion should not be assumed.  It tends to repress and "straightjacket" sexuality, with its weapon of "sinfulness" warring against what is natural and human and varied.  It alienates the individual from himself or herself and from people who think and act differently than the believer.  It is about being "holy" not whole.   Thus the passing of anti-gay measures, like California's Proposition 8, that deny loving and committed same sex couples the right to marry.

Religion should not be viewed as sacrosanct.  It ignores so much that is human.  Itleads people to look to heaven rather than to earth for meaning.  To look outward rather than inward for power.  To look upward rather than around them for causes of conflicts and solutions.  It is about dumbing down its god to fit the assumed infallible "Good Book," which is used by evangelists and doctrinaires to claim authority and thus gain power over people. 

Religion is too often about folding one's hands rather than using them-and one's feet.  And about closing one's eyes and looking the other way in the face of injustice.  And not only looking the other way:  in the words of liberation theologians, it is about religious leaders who are "chaplains to the oppressors"--rather than to the oppressed.  It is about the sanctioning of, or muted protest or indifference to, a so-called "war on terrorism," launched by a "God"-mouthing president on the pretext of "protecting America's security."  A war of terrorism that has brought death and injury and destruction and civil war and want and uprootedness to millions of innocent Iraqi citizens and tens of thousands of young American soldiers and their families-- and has created mounting economic insecurity and fear in homes throughout the United States and the world.       

When it comes to risking,  religion's moral judgment is more likely to be guided by public opinion rather than lead it.  It is about religious leaders remaining silent rather than calling for the prosecution of former President Bush and Vice President Cheney and members of the Bush administration for committing war crimes in our name:  the unjustified invasion and occupation of non-threatening Iraq, the illegal apprehension, detainment and torture of human beings branded "terrorists," US drone airstrikes that have  indiscriminately killed and  wounded untold numbers of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and providing weaponry for and supporting Israel's inhuman aggression against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.  War crimes that will continue to fuel anti-Americanism and violence world-wide if  they remain unprosecuted.    American might does not make right; it makes enemies-- and merely postpones the moral judgment of truth and justice.

Religion often doesn't get it.  It is about being sheep rather than problem solvers.  About people being made for the "Sabbath" rather than the "Sabbath" being made for people.  That is, when put on the line, its institutional bottom line is more likely to be profits than prophets.  It does not bite the faith-based initiatives' governmental hand that feeds it.  It does not rock the boat for fear its own ship won't come in, and that members will jump ship and board other denominational vessels offering safe and certain harbors.

Religion should lead people to become more human not more "holy."  Beyond our theologies and political ideologies is the human need to love and to be loved. 

Therein is our common ground: our humanness.   Religion-and politics-should be judged by the extent to which it teaches people to love themselves and to make room for and to value and love other persons for themselves.

The Golden Rule is a basic teaching of most religions, inspired by the widely held belief that "God is love."  Surely, any god worthy of worshiping must be big enough to love all people equally, and to inspire them to do onto and love all other persons as they themselves would want to be honored and loved.  Not that one needs to believe in a god to be legitimate and authentic and worthy and honored and loved.  Our humanness makes all of us entitled.  And our humanity enables us to transcend religious, political, racial and ethnic differences and make room for and live with each other.

Rev. William E. Alberts, Ph.D. is a hospital chaplain, and a diplomate in the College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy.  Both a Unitarian Universalist and a United Methodist minister, he has written research reports, essays and articles on racism, war, politics and religion.  He can be reached at william.alberts@bmc.org.