Shepherd

Latest news on shepherd

Thought for the Week

Matthew 25:31-46 31?When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ?Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.? 37Then the righteous will answer him, ?Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?? 40And the king will answer them, ?Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.? 41Then he will say to those at his left hand, ?You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.? 44Then they also will answer, ?Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?? 45Then he will answer them, ?Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.? 46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.?NRSV Although, it seems strange to end the Christian year, the Year of Matthew, not with the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus. Rather with the Reign of Christ and this passage. However, it is really true that when we have said all that we have said about Jesus from Birth to death and resurrection, where does the action of the community (and individual Christians alike) most meet the test of what we are called to be: when we react to hunger, thirst, loneliness, poverty, illness and isolation. For surely the separation of the followers of Jesus and the inheritors of the Kingdom of God are going to be measured by this passage. JimClick Here for Sunday Readings

Fox News' Napolitano advanced Communist smear against MN Sec. of State Ritchie

During the November 19 edition of Fox News' Studio B, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge, baselessly claimed that Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (D) is a "former member of the Communist Party." Discussing the members appointed to the Minnesota State Canvassing Board, which oversees the recount in the Minnesota Senate race, Napolitano stated: "The fifth member of the committee by statute, is the secretary of state, who is a Democrat and a former communist -- former member of the Communist Party." Napolitano provided no evidence to support his claim that Ritchie is "a former communist" or a "former member of the Communist Party." Napolitano was taking further a smear advanced by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which, as Media Matters for America noted, put out a "background document" suggesting a link between Ritchie and the Communist Party. In that document, the NRSC reprinted an assertion in the Minneapolis Star Tribune that "The Communist Party USA wrote encouragingly of [Ritchie's] candidacy." The Star Tribune article making the original claim that the "Communist Party USA wrote encouragingly of his candidacy" did not provide any evidence for this claim. According to a search of the Communist Party USA's website, in a June 24, 2006, report, CPUSA political action committee chair Joelle Fishman wrote: "In Minnesota the DFL [Democratic-Farmer-Labor, the state's version of the Democratic Party] candidate for Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, of the League of Rural Voters could play a valuable national role." Moreover, Napolitano falsely claimed that "the governor appoints a committee of four people" to serve on the canvassing board. In fact, Ritchie named the board members on November 12. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) has stated that he approves of the composition of the canvassing board, but did not pick the board. Additionally, The Associated Press reported on November 13 that "Fritz Knaak, [Republican Sen. Norm] Coleman's lead lawyer, said he was comfortable with the board's makeup." The AP quoted Knaak as saying, "The people of this state should feel good about who's on the panel." From the November 19 edition of Fox News' Studio B with Shepherd Smith: SMITH: The Republican incumbent, Norm Coleman, holds the slightest of leads -- 215 votes over the Democratic challenger, Al Franken. And election workers are now beginning the laborious task of hand counting -- like that's more accurate than the machines -- all 2.9 million ballots cast. Hand counting -- you go, Minnesota. But what's a recount without a lawsuit? Al Franken, who's on Capitol Hill today, filed one to determine what to do about some rejected absentee ballots. Our senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, is here. What's going on? NAPOLITANO: Well, the governor appoints a committee of four people: two Republican judges, two Democratic judges. The fifth member of the committee, by statute, is the secretary of state, who is a Democrat and a former communist -- former member of the Communist Party. Five people will rule on all contested issues. They don't physically do the counting. They hear arguments from one side or another about whether a ballot should be counted. There are many, many permutations here, because some counties use the old-fashioned mechanical vote, some use electronic, and some use paper ballots. I just finished reading the rules, and there's all kinds of ways. For example, if a voter circles the name on a paper ballot instead of filling out the block, does that count? Yes. Every benefit is given for every conceivable way to find a vote to count.

3 month sublet dec 1st-march 1st pg+e,cable,internet included (mission district) $675 3bd

hi, i'm female 30's dyke, looking for someone late 20's-late 30's to sublet a room in my 3 bedroom flat who is, responsible, respectfull of others and is a " DOG PERSON". i have a dog (shepherd mix) and the other roommate moving in on december 1st has a medium sized very sweet husky. the room is from dec 1st til march 1st. sorry no more pets, 2 dogs is the limit. about the house: it's an old flat with lots of character and flaws, i love it, but if you're looking for modern, new...this aint it. it's a top floor flat. the bedroom is on the smaller side, has new carpet, 2 new windows, a closet, gets good light and is located in the back of the flat away from street noise and is cable ready. there is only one bathroom, with both shower and tub, a big living room with a dining table, couch and tv, the kitchen is big and gets lots of sun and there is a small back porch off the kitchen with a table/chairs and a gas grill. i play drums for fun and i walk dogs for a living and occasionally board dogs at the house. sorry, no cats, i'm allergic. it's cool to have friends over to hang out....., dinner, watch a movie..., but i DON'T want a party house. non smoker preferred. i eat meat, drink responsibly, OCCASIONAL 420. i like: BBQ, cooking, baking, bike riding, movies, playstation, music(80's and metal mostly), UFC. dirty little secret: i watch days of our lives everyday. the rent is the same for both the rooms, $675, which includes all bills: pg+e, cable tv, and comcast cable internet + wireless and there is a $675 deposit. the flat is located in the heart of the mission. 2 blocks from bart, laundry accross the street, tons of great cafes, restaurants and bars. walking distance to dolores park. I will be making appointments to meet people/show the place on SATURDAY NOV 22ND from 10am-4pm. please e-mail me if you are interested and LET ME KNOW WHAT TIME YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME BY. thanks, tina

Hasselbeck, Shepherd still advance skewed View on California's Prop 8

During the November 10 edition of ABC's The View, co-hosts Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Sherri Shepherd again promoted the falsehood that without the passage of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, members of the clergy could be jailed for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. Hasselbeck again referred to a Swedish priest who she falsely claimed was jailed "for not wanting to perform a marriage ceremony." And after being confronted with language from the California Supreme Court majority decision stating that clergy members will not be required to perform same-sex marriages, Shepherd suggested that that there is an "other side" to the issue. In fact, neither Proposition 8 -- which sought to overturn the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling that affirmed the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry -- nor the Supreme Court decision itself had anything to do with members of the clergy. As Media Matters for America documented, on November 6, Shepherd said: "I don't want to know that my pastor -- because, you know, the church is preaching against homosexuality, and I don't want to know that my pastor could be jailed." In fact, as co-host Whoopi Goldberg noted on November 10 while citing information from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the California Supreme Court majority opinion made clear that its decision did not have any impact on clergy, stating that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs." Nevertheless, referencing advertisements suggesting that ministers could be jailed, Shepherd said, "[Y]ou know, GLAAD said. ... I would like to hear the other side." But no "other side" exists on the question of whether members of the clergy could be jailed for failing to perform same-sex marriages. The claim that absent passage of Proposition 8, members of the clergy could have been jailed in such circumstances is simply false. From the November 10 edition of The View: SHEPHERD: Right. Well, I feel at a disadvantage here because, you know, we're getting from GLAAD what they say. I think the other side has -- would probably disagree. I don't know. So, if somebody else has -- GOLDBERG: Well, as I am saying to you, I checked the laws on two out of three of these. SHEPHERD: Well, you know, I saw, you know, the ads going, you know, "The minister will be jailed"; "No, they won't." You know, so, it's like, again -- HASSELBECK: I think, too -- SHEPHERD: I hear you. I just said, you know, GLAAD said -- HASSELBECK: You want the other side. SHEPHERD: I would like to hear the other side. Further, during the program, Hasselbeck repeatedly falsely claimed that Prop 8 won 62 percent of the vote; in fact, Prop 8 garnered 52.3 percent of the vote, according to the California Secretary of State's office. From the November 10 edition of ABC's The View: GOLDBERG: As you said, we did have a really, really spirited discussion about Prop 8. And Barbara and I both got phone calls from Ellen [DeGeneres]. BARBARA WALTERS (co-host): We should tell them what Proposition 8 is. GOLDBERG: Yes, I was gonna to let you. WALTERS: Oh, thanks. OFF-CAMERA: Go ahead. WALTERS: Well, Proposition 8 was put on the agenda in California, which banned same-sex marriage, which had been allowed. And Ellen called Whoopi and then called me because she was listening to our discussion, and there were some things about it that she liked or didn't like. And we were talking about the fact that there were some people who felt that churches could lose their tax exempt if they didn't perform same-sex marriages, and we were raising other que-- and would that mean that same-sex marriage would have to be taught in school and so on? And what Ellen's fear was, was that her marriage to Portia [de Rossi] and other marriages would be declared invalid. So we called Jerry Brown -- remember Jerry Brown? -- who is the attorney general of California, who said, "The language of Proposition 8 is silent on retroactivity, and California law generally provides the laws apply only prospectively." And he said, as the attorney general, "I will defend in court the marriages contracted before that Proposition 8 was signed." So Ellen and other people who were married before this -- right, Whoopi? -- is protected. HASSELBECK: So it's not retroactive. WALTERS: Well, you know, somebody could protest that, but that's the way it is for now. GOLDBERG: But GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, were also watching our Hot Topics that day, and they have sent us what they call fact and fiction. And a coup-- we were able to check out two things before we got on, but the third thing, which is this one, I was not able to get another source on. But GLAAD says that the fiction is, "Teaching kids about same-sex marriage will happen here in California unless we pass Prop 8." GLAAD is saying the fact is, "Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced against a parent's will to be taught anything health and family issues at school." That is the law in California. The second thing: The fiction that we were all believing was that churches could lose tax-exemption status. The fact is, the court decision that said same-sex marriage is legal says, "No religion will be required to change its religious policies with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs." HASSELBECK: As is stated in the -- GOLDBERG: As is stated in the law. It is law. Fact -- fiction: "If Prop 8 isn't passed, people can be sued over personal beliefs." The fact of the matter is in California -- California's law already prohibits discrimination against anyone based on race, sex, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. So those are the -- HASSELBECK: What is classified as discrim-- like, when we talk -- 'cause we talked about the case -- was it in Sweden? -- when the priest was originally put in prison for not wanting to perform a marriage ceremony. GOLDBERG: I can't speak to Swedish law. I can only speak to the law that exists right now in California. And that -- HASSELBECK: Are they exempt from that? The churches are exempt? GOLDBERG: They are. They -- California law prohibits discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. So you cannot be sued over your personal beliefs. WALTERS: But you know, what we were talking about was that you had said that you had mixed feelings about this. And, in truth, a great many people do. I mean, it's against whatever their ethical beliefs are, whatever their feeling is that matrimony is between a man or a woman. This was something you were expressing. SHEPHERD: Right. Well, I feel at a disadvantage here because, you know, we're getting from GLAAD what they say. I think the other side has -- would probably disagree. I don't know. So, if somebody else has -- GOLDBERG: Well, as I am saying to you, I checked the laws on two out of three of these. SHEPHERD: Well, you know, I saw, you know, the ads going, you know, "The minister will be jailed"; "No, they won't." You know, so, it's like, again -- HASSELBECK: I think, too -- SHEPHERD: I hear you. I just said, you know, GLAAD said -- HASSELBECK: You want the other side. SHEPHERD: I would like to hear the other side. HASSELBECK: It's important that the 62 percent of the popular vote was -- came out and said they didn't want the word "marriage" redefined, they wanted to protect the institution of marriage as it has been defined. And I think what happened -- this is a reaction to the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. They said, "No, you know what? This is about what the people want, and you tried to overreach." And so I thought the people came out and said in terms of how our system should work, how it should work for them is best when it represents what they want. And I'm happy about that because it think that's -- GOLDBERG: It's -- it is unfortunate that people used not-honest things to go about it, because if the fear -- if people put fear into people and made them believe things that weren't true, that's not how you want somebody to vote. You want them to vote the truth, and you want them to vote their heart. Now, maybe they would have voted the same way. But I'm saying to you that the law facts are, as they exist -- the only thing that I cannot say factually, 'cause I haven't read it myself, and we were not able to get it up quick enough -- that doesn't sound right -- get it to our attention fast enough, was that teaching kids about same-sex marriage. That's the one I have not been able to verify beyond that. [...] HASSELBECK: And it does change -- it does trickle down to what your kids are taught. I think that's what people vote on. Sixty-two percent of those people wanted to preserve it so that when their kids are taught something, they know what it is.

Absurd View: Hasselbeck, Shepherd suggest clergy could have been jailed without Prop 8

During the November 7 edition of ABC's The View, while discussing the passage of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage and effectively overturning the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling that affirmed the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry, co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck asserted that a "priest" in Sweden was "put in jail for not wanting to perform a marriage to a gay couple, so then they put him in jail because the law stated that you could not discriminate based on sexual preference." Later in the discussion, co-host Sherri Shepherd said: "I don't want to know that my pastor -- because, you know, the church is preaching against homosexuality, and I don't want to know that my pastor could be jailed." However, contrary to Hasselbeck and Shepherd's suggestion that as a result of the California Supreme Court's ruling -- or without the passage of Proposition 8 -- members of the clergy "could be jailed" for refusing to perform gay marriages, neither the decision by the California Supreme Court, nor Proposition 8 had anything to do with members of the clergy. The California Supreme Court's ruling applied only to state officials. The ruling directed "state officials [] [to] take all necessary and appropriate steps so that local officials may begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples" [emphasis added]. The court itself noted the irrelevance of its decision to clergy, saying in the majority opinion that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs." Additionally, contrary to Hasselbeck's assertion that a Swedish priest was jailed "for not wanting to perform a marriage to a gay couple," Swedish Pastor Ake Green reportedly was convicted in 2004 under Sweden's hate crimes law for making incendiary statements about gays and lesbians, including calling them "a deep cancer tumor on all of society." In November 2005, his conviction was overturned by Sweden's highest court, which reportedly said his sermon "was protected by freedom of speech and religion." From the November 7 edition of ABC's The View: WHOOPI GOLDBERG (co-host): I don't know if you all are aware of this, but a record number of minority voters turned out for the election, and apparently it helped socially conservative victories on issues like gay marriage. In California, they've -- there is now a ban on gay marriage, and they're trying to revoke the rights that were initially given to folks who are gay married couples who are trying to take the rights away -- BARBARA WALTERS (co-host): By the state Supreme Court. GOLDBERG: By the state Supreme Court -- said yes, that was OK, it was fine. WALTERS: The state Supreme Court voted that gay marriage was legal. Our friend Ellen DeGeneres, for example, got married, and it was extremely important to her and her partner, of course, and now Proposition 8 proclaims that -- puts a ban on gay marriage. And one of the reasons we were talking about it earlier was that some church groups opposed it because they said if a church group said, "We will not do a gay marriage, OK?" They could be sued and they could lose their tax-exempt status if they -- if their religion or whatever it is precludes their doing -- having gay marriage. And that also it would mean that gay marriage could be taught in schools, if they wanted to. GOLDBERG: I don't understand that. WALTERS: Which don't you understand? GOLDBERG: How would it be taught in schools? I mean, marriage isn't taught in schools, so why would gay marriage be taught in schools? WALTERS: Well, in the same way sex education is taught in some -- or discussed. I don't know that it -- this is -- I'm telling you their fears, not my fear -- that it could be, that if somebody brought it up, it's something that could be discussed or something that could be in the curriculum. Who knows? But the bigger issue seems to have been the churches. Certain churches. HASSELBECK: It was said with precedent, I think, in Sweden there was a church, a priest who was then jailed, and I think since then released. But he was put in jail for not wanting to perform a marriage to a gay couple, so then they put him in jail because the law stated that you could not discriminate based on sexual preference, I believe. But this is -- I guess 5 million people voted and wanted to protect the definition of marriage as it had been stated, and I think that people felt a victory in California because it was -- it came from the people, that these people came out and voted. It wasn't set by judges, so I think that's where they were coming from. SHEPHERD: This is also -- this is also -- you know, you said that they -- this is also the second time this has been up for a vote. The first time, the people said, "No, we don't want gay marriage." WALTERS: And then it went to the court. SHEPHERD: Then they overturned it and the people voted against, so this is the second time. WALTERS: You know, I didn't know that a proposition, that is an amendment to the state constitution, superseded the state Supreme Court. GOLDBERG: Neither did I. WALTERS: You know, I thought the Supreme Court was the final word, but evidently, the finally word is the amendment. HASSELBECK: But their argument there I guess was -- are you to legislate from the bench. It kind of goes back to that argument, and that the actual amendment should come -- if they're going to do anything to the constitution, it should come from the people, as it is for the people. GOLDBERG: Well, the people should also be given all the information, and not frightened into things. Now, I think if kids who are the product of a gay couple are asked about it in school, they should be able to explain it, and that's shouldn't be afraid -- that shouldn't be something that frightens people. I always say, look, if you think gay marriage is wrong, don't marry a gay person. You know what I mean? But wait, wait -- because pretty much -- and I've been around a lot of gay people most of my life, and gay people do not -- and there are always boneheads everywhere, let's get that -- there are straight boneheads, and gay boneheads, and boneheads everywhere. But I believe most gay people who want to go get married do not want to go someplace that doesn't want them to -- they don't -- WALTERS: They won't go to the church. GOLDBERG: -- they wouldn't go to the churches. That's why we do it in the backyards -- not we, like I'm gay -- but I have been at so many gay marriages -- you know you always talk about being the bridesmaid? I'm the bride's thing, whatever. You know? HASSELBECK: It's interesting that the actual majority of the votes -- I mean, I guess it was at the urban minority communities voted overwhelmingly for this proposition. GOLDBERG: Yes. They were told in the churches that people would be teaching it in the schools if they allowed it. I'm just telling you what, what -- SHEPHERD: But also -- excuse me, also not only that, but you know, I don't want to know that my pastor -- because, you know, the church is preaching against homosexuality, and I don't want to know that my pastor could be jailed, sent to jail because he's preaching something that's -- WALTERS: But you know, that is so -- [crosstalk] WALTERS: Supposedly, if a preacher -- under -- if the ban did not pass, and a preacher preached against homosexuality, which you say happens in churches that you've been to, he could be, quote, jailed, because he is preaching -- SHEPHERD: I don't know what the quote is around jailed. Jailed is jailed. WALTERS: Well, because he could be jailed. But I mean, I think that's really rather farfetched that they're going to come -- SHEPHERD: No, it's not farfetched at all. WALTERS: Well, that's why the ban -- SHEPHERD: Somebody was jailed. WALTERS: You would have voted for the ban? SHEPHERD: It's something that I struggle with because, you know, I have my friends who are gay, my uncle Tommy, uncle Jimmy, as Jeffrey likes to call them. And it's something that I struggle with because I don't want rights taken away from people, you know, being able to care for their partners and, you know, rights that they have. And then also, too, I am a Christian and I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. So it is a struggle that I have. WALTERS: But you see, my point is, and again -- you know, I'm sort of saying a little bit of what Whoopi said -- the idea that a preacher who preached against homosexuality, that the law enforcement, that the -- I don't know, the local sheriff would come in and say, "You're against the law, we're going to jail you." Now, is it possible? Yes. GOLDBERG: Anything is possible. HASSELBECK: We're a litigious society. I mean, I think there are lawsuits that get brought up all the time, and I don't think anyone would hesitate to bring a lawsuit -- GOLDBERG: Yeah, I do, I do. Because this was so important to folks because it's not just about being gay, and it's not just about partnership. If the state and the country were to allow gay partners the same rights as married people have, this wouldn't be an issue. But the issue -- but the issue is -- HASSELBECK: But would you want -- if that were the case, would you then be OK with it not being called marriage? GOLDBERG: I would -- I'm not gay, so I don't know, but I can only speak for what I see. As we said a couple of days ago, if I -- if Sherry and I were married, and we have built our life together, and I die, you, my cousin, could come in and say, "I'm taking everything that you guys [inaudible]." That's the law, because -- [crosstalk] HASSELBECK: But you do have rights as a -- difference state to state is the problem. GOLDBERG: Civil unions do not allow me to die and you to automatically get my stuff. WALTERS: It could also affect children. GOLDBERG: It can affect -- also, if we've adopted children, they can come, you can come, and grab that child. If we can find, if the states can say this is what civil union is, it is everything but the word, people I think would be more happy. WALTERS: Another proposition -- another proposition that I believe, and I could be wrong, I have to check the information, but one of the states prohibited gay people from adopting children. We talked about that. GOLDBERG: Which drives me crazy, yeah. WALTERS: Was it Nebraska? I don't want to say it, I don't think so. Somebody look it up and -- somebody look it up and whisper in my ear. Where is it? Not Oregon. No. GOLDBERG: No, Florida has always had that law. WALTERS: We'll find out and tell you. But the idea that there are children who could be adopted who might not be adopted, I mean, that -- I mean, the gay marriage, I can see, really -- GOLDBERG: We'll find out in the commercial break.