adcount=1;
"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Name:
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.


Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.

Saturday, April 30, 2005

Global warming games


From Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'

Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.

A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.

A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.

[...]

Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."

He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."

[...]

Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."

Keep this in mind the next time someone says xxx scientific group says global warming is fact. I would also apply this to scientists in general. What I mean is that we have to realize that simply because someone wears a lab coat or has some letters like PhD after their name; this does not make them immune from the same temptations and flaws as the rest of mankind. They can still be tempted to ideology over fact, to assumptions and faulty reasoning. While I am not an extreme skeptic and find that position philosophically worthless, we would do well to maintain a position somewhere above blind faith in those who are supposed to be experts.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

How to talk to left-wing nut jobs


I've found a very good electronic course that will help train us for such encounters. There is also a sidebar version with less options to make sure you can have as much continuing education as possible. Give it a try.

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Moving to a new neighborhood - Issue #5


Explanation here

My previous post Cockroaches are disgusting, reminded me of another unpleasant individual I wrote about almost a year ago on my old website.

May 11, 2004
The Limits of Our Language

It certainly is encouraging to see people who disagree with the war in Iraq and want the current administration to lose the election, actually speak out with conservatives against the same editorial cartoon. In it Ted Rall portrayed Pat Tillman as a dunce eager to kill Arabs. The Tillman editorial cartoon was so appalling in its depiction of an American hero that even voices from the left who do not support this administration’s foreign policy have criticized him. I suppose we should be fortunate that his artwork is so lacking in quality or else some on the left would resist criticizing the “art” even though it conveys such a horrible message. Stooping so low seems to be the only real talent Rall has as recent events have given him another opportunity to display the blackness of his heart.

We now have the abuse of prisoners in Iraq ranging from humiliation on the level of a homoerotic frat house initiation to physical beatings and much worse, including rape and murder. One problem, among many, in telling this story is the culture of victimhood. Victims are elevated to expert status and automatically control discussions and definitions. Is it not possible that they have an emotional drive to make things worse then they are or were? Humiliation and temporary physical discomfort are not torture in the normal sense of the term. Of course the cut-off point should be debated and limits enforced and we are doing this. We are also investigating to determine the extent of what happened and who was responsible so they can be punished. I don’t recall Sadaam or CNN in Iraq acting this way.

Rall’s response to all of this is to compare our troops to the SS in Nazi Germany. He is clever enough to include a few tepid qualifiers. The U.S. military does not have gas chambers he writes. If only he had stopped there; but then he has to add that this is the only thing keeping American troops from achieving moral parity with the Nazis. Those words of his are revealing to say the least. You can almost hear him sputtering under his breath - they don’t have gas chambers - just yet. He does admit that most soldiers don’t condone torture. However, this statement is surrounded and overwhelmed by pathological hatred for the military and the President. So much so that a sense of proportion and understanding of history is lost.

History shows us that the SS rounded up Jews, gypsies and other undesirables to physically torture, commit medical experiments on and then kill. If they were lucky they were allowed to live a bit longer. But only so they could dig their own graves. Genocide and cruelty were the norm of the day and such actions were rewarded. Contrast this to the investigation started by the military command structure and the offer to compensate the victims. The few involved are outnumbered by the thousands who are helping to rebuild Iraq after freeing the people from a dictator who was more like the SS then Rall seems able to comprehend. He is either flirting with becoming a holocaust denier or he is merely braying for attention as only a spoiled, maladjusted, childish and mentally deficient jackass can.

It is almost as if he is trying to be the Axis Sally of the War On Terror. His expected denials of treason, while hard to believe, will undoubtedly save him from being prosecuted for such, even by this administration he so hates and vilifies. But is he not aware or care that the enemy will use such screeds against us and that his bile will prolong the war and endanger more lives? The term useful idiot comes to mind. The only other alternative is that he lives in a completely different reality and is clinically insane.

To aid us in understanding this mental disorder it will be helpful to name it. I propose that this pathology be called moveonophelia. Fortunately several famous individuals seem to be afflicted with this disease. They could use their fame, such as it is, to suckle up to the teats of the media hogs in Congress for largess to research and treat their affliction. Imagine the moving testimony of Bill Clinton, much less so the wooden Al Gore, even less the ranting of Michael Moore or other “professional” hate America types.

It was interesting that the latest screed by this moveonophile was followed by an ad for a book he has written. Apparently book sales trump common decency to the point of providing comfort and encouragement to the enemy with the attendant result being more death and suffering the world over. The terms traitor, useful idiot or insane do not seem adequate. The truth is our language is incapable of sinking to the depths necessary to accurately describe such a person.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Cockroaches are disgusting


This site is truly hideous. That someone would take the time to express such vile contempt for those who serve our country is a sign of such idiocy as to be beyond proper description.

A few selections from this filth:

"Forsake The Troops" believes that as it stands currently, the compensation, benefit, and retirement packages that our active duty and retired military personnel get is outrageous, obscene, unearned, and above all.....undeserved.

[...]

These scumbags, who couldn't hack it in the civilian work force, made the choice to leech off of the American taxpayer...

Sheer stupidity speaks for itself:

If the USA had kept its paws out of both World Wars, and Vietnam, just to name a few mindless wars, families wouldn't have been broken up, and things would have been a lot better.

The front page is even worse:

Two entertaining photos for your amusement..an injured US soldier being carried away like the candy-ass punk he is, and a dead US scumbag (aka member of the US military) who will now probably cost the taxpayers money for many years to come.

Maybe a little light shined on the cockroaches will make them scurry away into the darkness where they belong. Then again, such rotting bile can only come from a deranged narcissist.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

A soldier's words - Part II


Rightwingsparkle has the part two of her interview with 2Slick, a former Army Black Hawk Pilot who was deployed to Iraq. Part one is here

Let's just say he doesn't hold back ;-)

RWS - Do you see any other way we could have fought this war?

2Slick - I'm certain there were many ways we could have done it. I'm sure there were many ways we could have fought World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. John Kerry and his fellow critics have an unbelievable gift of hindsight- they could have brought down Saddam and installed a perfectly functional Iraqi government without any loss of life. I won't pretend to be that good. I guess I'm just not qualified to be a Democratic Presidential Candidate...

It doesn't matter that there might have been other ways to have gone about it- our forces do the best they can with what they have. Hindsight will ALWAYS yield better solutions.

Sounds to me like he would be the type of senator that the GOP has in such short supply nowadays.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Science or ideology?


From Peter Wood, The Marriage Debate Goes Multicultural - Anthropologists jump in — and distort the history of their field - here at National Review Online.

Last year the executive board of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) joined the controversy over gay marriage by issuing a statement that declared

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.

I am not an anthropologist but Peter Wood is and he has some things to say about this:

Ideologically, I suppose this is what one has come to expect from the AAA: a reflexive affirmation of leftist pieties. But still, it is surprising to see a professional organization propound such a breathless lie. As an AAA member for some 25 years, I am embarrassed.

[...]

In any case, what the anthropological record really shows is that a society's decisions about marriage are among its most consequential. Political regimes and economic systems are, deep down, the results of particular ways of organizing families. Until Scandinavia and the Low Countries, Canada, and Massachusetts began their experiments with gay marriage, humanity appears to have steered away from this particular option. Possibly gay marriage will be a step forward for humanity; but it is a step into the dark. Civilization as we have known it, even on the western coast of Sumatra, has depended until now on exclusive heterosexual marriage.

"a step into the dark"

Unfortunately to some, there is no darkness, there is no light, there is no right or wrong. All is relative. Someday, they may discover that is not true. But what price will they have paid by then and what will be left of a society that has followed them?
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Moving to a new neighborhood - Issue #4


Explanation here

Topic: Abortion

May 5, 1999
Fundamental Issues

I feel it will be helpful to start with my basic premises as I deal with some of the fundamental issues regarding the abortion controversy.

When two rights conflict with each other the most fundamental and important right should prevail.

The right to life is the most basic and important right that we have.

It is a scientific fact that this is a unique individual human life. It is not just cells or a parasite. This means that we are not simply talking about some "thing" we can treat as property. This is an issue concerning a human life. Based on this undeniable fact the right to life applies and must be weighed in against all other considerations.

Abortion is the most extreme, permanent and devastatingly violent solution, for the unborn child, to a clearly temporary situation - i.e. the location and dependence of that unborn child. Dependence also continues into early childhood and this "being dependent" argument would easily justify infanticide.

When we are faced with a choice we must always choose the lesser of two evils. Does it really need to be mentioned that carrying a beautiful, new life to term regardless of the circumstances or difficulties is clearly less evil than the selfish act of abortion?

For myself the issue can be decided at this point. The pro-life view is the most reasonable and moral position one can take. I realize, however, there are a number of objections and I will examine a few of these now.

The main argument for legalized abortion has to do with a woman's control over her body. Certainly this right is very important but is it enough to override the fundamental right to life? When one thinks about it, this right to control ones body is not absolute. No one would agree that a woman has the right to beat someone to death simply because they are only using their fists and they should have control over their own body no matter what. In this case a persons right to life outweighs a woman's right in regard to her own body. The example illustrates that this right is not absolute and is completely dependent on what it is that one is doing with their body. The important question really is - should a woman's control over her body extend to "this"? In this case we are talking about abortion. As science has shown this is a unique human individual's life. This situation is the same as our example and the right to life is still the more fundamental and important right and must therefore prevail.

Some might say it is better to allow abortion then to have so many unwanted children in the world. But how does not living such a life benefit the child? Whatever answer is given it will never be experienced by this unique child who now no longer exists and never will. There is also no value whatsoever to not existing - it is just nothing - life has value in and of itself no matter the supposed lack of quality and besides that, always has the chance for redemption. This thinking is selfish because we are the only ones who would experience any so-called "benefit" i.e. we don't have to see someone "suffer". If taken to its logical conclusions this justification could lead to any other defenseless group of people lacking "quality" in their lives being "removed" so we don't have to see them.

As for the argument that unwanted children are more prone to become criminals - better to abort them before that happens - are we not innocent until it is proven we have committed the crime? I guess not, as long as you are in the womb according to this argument. Additionally, an aborted child will never be a doctor, a loving father or mother a great humanitarian etc. Those unwanted children who have become criminals - while sad - certainly are not sentenced to death that easily and they still have the possibility of changing their lives. Allowing abortion because of the mere possibility of becoming a criminal would seem to mean its permissible to use the death penalty for a lot more than just murder if taken to its logical and frightening conclusions. Abortion for this reason just takes us off the hook for showing love and concern to these unwanted children - but that would be more time consuming and difficult and not always successful and, quite frankly, just not as convenient for us.

What about the argument that this is a private act? But that really is not true, no person is an oasis unto themselves. The unborn child will in fact affect society if the pregnancy is not terminated. The absence of that person is therefore also a loss to society. Furthermore, we as a society must accept an arbitrary definition of what is human and allowed to have moral value to allow this so called "private" act. This affects all of us in ways that will some day be frighteningly apparent should we become part of some helpless group that society decides it is convenient to dismiss as lacking humanity and moral value. But then it will be to late.

Finally, while I have addressed some of the arguments against being pro-life on their own terms and they clearly do not stand, I once again return to my original premise and scientific fact. This is a unique human life and the right to life is clearly more fundamental and important than any of the rights or arguments that have just been examined. But maybe I have unfairly stacked the cards in my favor. I admit the definition of life in my premise is the strength of my argument. What if we could define life in such a way that abortion is permissible? There are people who are attempting to do just that. But this means they have already determined that abortion is permissible. Their attempts at redefining human life do not prove that abortion should be permissible but rather only provide evidence of the lengths they will go to in removing such obstacles. We want the power of abortion, so lets just ignore the irritating facts and redefine being human. Didn't we have enough of such actions with the Nazi's or slave owners? Shouldn't we be more concerned with the truth of the matter rather than with artificial definitions that makes things more convenient for us? The strength of the pro-life position is not because of some clever definition of life. Rather the facts force us to acknowledge that this is a unique individual human life, whose helplessness in the womb can either motivate us to compassion, nurturing and protection or be used as an excuse and opportunity to exercise our deadly power.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Someone is going to a pay for this ;-P


I have to pick 5 or more of the following occupations. I then have to pass it on to 3 people, because Marc with a "C" tagged me so here we go.

If I could be a scientist...If I could be a farmer...If I could be a musician...If I could be a doctor...If I could be a painter...If I could be a gardener...If I could be a missionary...If I could be a chef...If I could be an architect...If I could be a linguist...If I could be a psychologist...If I could be a librarian...If I could be an athlete...If I could be a lawyer...If I could be an inn-keeper...If I could be a professor...If I could be a writer...If I could be a llama-rider...If I could be a bonnie pirate...If I could be an astronaut...If I could be a world famous blogger...If I could be a justice on any one court in the world...If I could be married to any current famous political figure...

And my answers:
1. If I could be a lawer...I would fight for tort reform and punch Felos.
2. If I could be an astronaut...I would go to mars and settle the face on Mars/Cydonia issue once and for all.
4. If I could be a bonnie pirate...I would have the hottest female pirate as first mate.
5. If I could be a world famous blogger...I would have the hottest female blogger...hmmm I'm noticing a trend.

Please forgive me but I tag Donna, Rightwingsparkle and Jen because I saw her comment on Marc with a C's blog. See its all his fault :-P
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Saturday, April 23, 2005

BBC competing with cBS


I remember one debate with a coworker in which he complained that our mainstream media was biased - to the right. He leans socialist so I guess from his perspective that sort of rings true. He also complained about ad revenue creating that bias. He is very intelligent so I would think he knows correlation isn't causation but whatever. As it was, I managed to stifle my laughter but failed when he offered the BBC as an example of being more objective.

I hope the reader has had enough time to compose themselves after that howler. Now we have another example of BBC "objectivity"

The BBC was last night plunged into a damaging general election row after it admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them into a campaign meeting addressed by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.
[...]
The Telegraph has established that none of Tony Blair's meetings was infiltrated or disrupted in similar fashion.

Dan Rather and Mary Mapes can probably find gainful employment.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Bolton nomination - more idiocy


From the New York Times:

E-Mail Exchanges Reveal More Bolton Battles

An excerpt and what I consider most relevant in bold

None of the dozens of messages reviewed by The New York Times were from Mr. Bolton. But the correspondence, spanning a period from February to September 2002, included e-mail sent to Mr. Bolton by his principal assistant, Frederick Fleitz, as well as extensive exchanges between Mr. Fleitz and Christian P. Westermann, the State Department's top expert on biological weapons who clashed sharply with Mr. Bolton over Cuba.

So more of the same, except for that little detail of the emails not even being from Bolton. Basically, you have the opposition complaining that he is not nice enough to be at the UN. Hmm, seems to me that an organization that has the Oil for Food scandal, multiple scandals for rape by its "peacekeepers" and a bureaucracy that cannot stand up to genocide or reform itself needs someone who can be a bit rough.

Then again some of these accusations are not even holding water:

EMBITTERED MS. TOWNSEL

1982 OR 1983

Profession Bainbridge makes the point very well Snarlin' Arlen and John Bolton

The Philadelphia Daily Times wants Arlen Specter to vote against John Bolton:

They've got to be kidding. In 2004, Arlen Specter was selected as the "meanest senator" in Washingtonian Magazine's poll of Congressional staffers, which was Specter's fourth appearance on that hall of shame. If he ends up voting no on Bolton, Specter damn well better come up with a better reason than Bolton's purported meanness.

This is absolutely ridiculous. What one of these imperial Senators has always been a lovable huggable boss? Other than with buxom interns that is. Does Hillary or Bill Clinton's treatment of subordinates disqualify them from government service or the White House? Anyone remember the travel office staff that got fired and one of them smeared just so Hillary could get her buddies a plum job? What about John Kerry and the manner in which he carries himself before the (in his view) lowly masses?

Has insanity gripped the Democrats and the castrated Republicans agreeing with them?

Finally, there is now a website ConfirmBolton.com. Check it out for up to the minute news and analysis.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Great minds think alike - lol


Ok its only over a movie. Van Helsing to be precise.

From Professor Bainbridge Bachelor Night:

Tonight's flick was Van Helsing. Trite, but fun. Its principal redeeming virtues seem to be Kate Beckinsale (would it be inconsistent with my dignity to observe: "hubba, hubba"?)...

What more can one ask for? Gypsy, long hair and that outfit? "hubba, hubba" indeed.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Friday, April 22, 2005

More evolution only tripe


Well its Friday. Unfortunately I ran across something that has me irritated so I'm going to repeat some things from a recent post. This article Creation story worth telling; but not in our biology books from another local paper reaches the same conclusion as the one I criticized recently in my post Evolution only in public schools?

Much of my earlier criticism still holds but there is an additional twist, or more accurately, error. Whether or not it is just sloppy thinking or intentional misleading, I will leave up to you.

From the article:

While the Rev. Alan Harre may preach a sermon on a Sunday morning that recognizes the glory of God’s creation, he knows his biology students study the evolutionary process every day.

“In so many ways, the Darwinian hypothesis has been very fruitful,” said Harre, the president of Valparaiso University.

That’s why Valpo students study both, in ways faithful to their disciplines.

“It’s not the responsibility of scientists to teach philosophy and theology, and it’s not the role of philosophers and theologians to teach science,” says Harre, a minister of the Lutheran faith.

The pastor does not realize or doesn't care that evolution as taught in schools very much carries with it a philosophy on origins. With the serious matter of this particular philosophy being taught as fact. But he helps the author reach the desired conclusion so it is not surprising that he is quoted. Why not also quote scientists, pastors, philosophers or theologians who would offer a different view? Perhaps I am expecting to much from our local media.

If a Christian university can make such distinctions, it’s even more critical for a public school to do the same.

And here is the problem. The public school is not going to make the same distinction. This is very conveniently passed over in the article. Or, are we to believe that a public school is now going to also have classes in religion so that students can "study both". You know, make the same distinction, "do the same" as VU?

I seriously doubt something like that will be allowed.

The article unsurprisingly concludes:

After all, one kid’s book of Genesis may be another’s book of Veda.

Holding up Pan Ku’s egg side-by-side with Darwin may make a few Chinese people happy. But neither it — nor any other faith-based story of creation — belongs in American biology books today.

This muddled conclusion (it's only about the books now?) is derived from the same errors as the other article only with its additional little twist and my conclusion about all of that still holds.

What is so wrong with children being exposed to and discussing other views on the origin of the universe and life? A good argument can be made for also teaching Intelligent Design in a science class. But if it is to painful for the naysayers to have that in a biology class then perhaps an introduction to philosophy is in order where such things as the Cosmological, Teleological and Intelligent design and other arguments can be presented. After all, they are already being instilled with a particular philosophy on origins in science class anyway. To keep denying children exposure to the larger world of thought is to force feed a faith in materialism that goes beyond science while falsely claming to only be teaching scientific fact. Our children deserve much better.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Thursday, April 21, 2005

GOP Senators - Still wusses!!


As I said in an earlier post - I can think of a better term derived from the feline etymology but I would prefer not to offend some of my readers. It seems that GOP Senators are more about being liked and "bipartisanship" (i.e. do what MSM and liberals want) than about standing up and supporting the President or doing what is best for our country...

So now it looks like the nuclear option is a bust. Professor Bainbridge predicts it will not happen

As the showdown over Democrat filibustering of Bush's judges looms, my guess is that the Republicans will not exercise the nuclear option. The Senate GOP is historically spineless - my guess is that as many as 7 may vote no.

The The Unalienable Right has a roundup of others.

Lileks has a lot to say about the senate in general and it is well worth reading it all.

I’m starting to suspect that the entire Senate should be abolished. Purge the lot of ‘em. Their drivel may be no less meretricious than their House counterparts, but it’s usually slathered with sanctimony about the Noble Nature of their particular chamber, how they’re the saucer into which passions are poured to cool. (By “cool,” they often mean “frozen to the consistency of a glacier layer laid down when the Bourbons were still a going concern.”) Such airs! They’re the only branch of government that regularly advertises its special nature and higher purpose – it’s like having a special branch of the Kiwanis made up entirely of bankers who announce, before each meeting, that they’re better than the realtors and insurance salesmen. And why? Because there are fewer of them. Well, there are fewer experts in quantum physics than there are Special Forces soldiers, but I know who I’d want to drop at night into a warzone.[...]

Really, what is the point of having Republicans in the Senate? They don't have the cajones to do anything other than blah blah blah we are so honorific in our institution. Wonder how that bloviating will sound when they are voted out? I don't really feel all that motivated or intellectually interested in helping re-elect any GOP senator that is acting like a [meow].
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

About that new pope


Lileks, as usual, says it in a way no one else can.

I have no stake in the matter of who’s the Pope – or do I? Choose a cardinal who issues a homily titled “On the Need to Gas Grandpa When He Starts Crapping Himself” – I’m sure it would sound better in Latin – and this might have an impact on the society where I hope to find myself in 30 years. The selection of Ratzinger was initially heartening, simply because he made the right people apoplectic. I’m still astonished that some can see a conservative elevated to the papacy and think: a man of tradition? As Pope? How could this be? As if there this was some golden moment that would usher in the age of married priests who shuttle between blessing third-trimester abortions and giving last rites to someone who’s about to have the chemical pillow put over his face. At the risk of sounding sacreligious: it’s the Catholic Church, for Christ’s sake! You’re not going to get someone who wants to strip off all the Baroque ornamentation of St. Peter’s and replace them with IKEA wine racks, okay?

Read the whole thing!

H/T Demure Thoughts
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

A soldier's words


Rightwingsparkle has the first installment of an interview with 2Slick a former Army Black Hawk Pilot who was deployed to Iraq. He also has a blog that I am going to check out frequently.

A great interview and I am looking forward to the second installment.

Be sure to check it out. I thought this question and answer were quite revealing:
What were the reporters on the ground like?

Usually friendly. Sometimes overbearing. Sometimes apologetic ("I know it sucks that we only cover the bad news, but we need paychecks, ya know?"). They pretty much dissappeared after the end of "major combat operations."

Nice to hear, but unfortunately, I seriously doubt the editors are apologetic about only covering the bad news.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

High school horror


Marc with "C" had this at his blog some days ago. It is horrifying and should have raised quite a few alarms in the national media by now. We constantly hope that there are adults that will be good examples for children. At school it would seem we could be certain the teachers and administrators would be that for our children. Yet here we have adults attempt to cover up a violent sexual assault. With examples like that is it any wonder that other students just watched?

A story on WKMG's (Central Florida) website tells of a disabled girl in a Columbus, Ohio high school who was punched in the face by four boys and then forced to do acts which I will not describe here. All this happened while a video camera was filming and a few dozen students watched the attack. When the girl was discovered by school officials with a bloody mouth, the principal, Regina Crenshaw, called the girl's father and requested that the father not call 911 to avoid media attention. The father did call the police, and the principal was fired.[...]

Fortunately Michell Malkin is covering this now and she has links to others in the blogosphere that are discussing the issue as well. Hopefully the word will continue to spread and finally get the attention of the MSM.

It is unfortunate but seems obviously true, that if those committing the assault and those trying to cover it up were officials in the Catholic church, we would have had wall to wall reports and commentary from the usual suspects by now.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

GOP Senators - wusses!


I can think of a better term derived from the feline etymology but I would prefer not to offend some of my readers. It seems that GOP Senators are more about being liked and "bipartisanship" (i.e. do what MSM and liberals want) than about standing up and supporting the President or doing what is best for our country. Michelle Malkin has a thorough post with a number of links regarding the latest cowardice over the John Bolton nomination. I especially like the text of the ad to be used against Voinovich. My humble addition is in bold.

Wife: Honey, were you watching C-SPAN today? Did you hear how disloyal Senator [meow] Voinovich was to Republicans and President Bush? Voinovich [meow] stood with the Democrats and refused to vote for John Bolton, the man President Bush has chosen to fight for the United States at the UN

Husband: No, I was streaming it on the Internet at the office, but from what I could tell, Senator [meow] Voinovich played hookey from the hearings?

Wife: Yeah that’s right. He’s missed most of the Bolton confirmation hearings, but then shows up at the last minute and stabs the President and Republicans right in the back.

Husband: That’s ridiculous – the United Nations needs reform, we need someone who will stand up for the United States and fight the UN’s corruption and anti-Americanism.

Wife: Shame on Senator [meow] Voinovich. After the Democrats smeared Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State and Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General, how could Voinovich side with the Democrats in smearing John Bolton?

Husband: It seems like Senator [meow] Voinovich has become a traitor to the Republican Party.

Wife: Enough’s enough. I’m logging on to Move America Forward dot com to register my protest with Senator Voinovich’s office.

Husband: What was that site? Move America Forward dot com ?

Wife: Yep, Move America Forward dot com

Apologies to my cat - Scratch. He knows I am a dog lover anyway.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Ouch - that had to hurt


From Professor Bainbridge Andrew Sullivan is an Ass

It's always about sex with Andrew, isn't it?

Read the whole thing for a good dissection of Sullivan's hissy fit over the selection of Ratzinger as the new pope. I quit being a regular reader of Sullivan some time ago. I really did not care for his flip to Kerry and his attempt to justify it. IMO it was mostly over his problem with President Bush supporting traditional marriage.

H/T Ace of Spades HQ. As always he adds his own unique and entertaining commentary.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Monday, April 18, 2005

Evolution only in public schools?


The Northwest Indiana Times (nwitimes.com) has an online editorial Schools should stick to teaching about evolution, not creationism

The problem is that it muddles over very important distinctions in the debate over evolution being taught in schools vs. other views.

Evolution, as in life adapting to its environment is scientific certainty. But the ideology of evolution that sneaks into schools is not. That is, evolution or material causes alone are all that are responsible for the existence of the universe and all life. This is not scientific fact but a rather large statement of faith just as much as that of any Christian, Muslim or Jewish believer. But the article makes no such distinctions.

Ignoring the many philosophical arguments that support a non-material cause for origins compounds this fallacy of omission. These arguments are still very strong today and held by many scientists. In fact, only creationism and creation science are mentioned along with an allusion to religious beliefs. These code words are used as a hasty generalization in the service of a typical ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. This is par for the course and not surprising. While it is possible the paper is faithfully reporting what the board only considered; is it to much to ask that the reporting also expand on and provide more information and context to this subject?

Unfortunately, the fallacies add up and lead to the conclusion that only evolution should be taught in public schools. While the adaptation of biology to environment is appropriate for a science class, schools in fact, do a disservice to children and their families when they ignore the philosophical beliefs that accompany evolution in the way it is normally taught. Some educators may do this intentionally and in so doing step into the inappropriate role of indoctrination under the guise of teaching. This will only continue the controversy and give more parents reasons to looks elsewhere as they seek an education for their children rather than state sanctioned propaganda.

What is so wrong with children being exposed to and discussing other views on the origin of the universe and life? A good argument can be made for also teaching Intelligent Design in a science class. But if it is to painful for the naysayers to have that in a biology class then perhaps an introduction to philosophy is in order where such things as the Cosmological, Teleological and Intelligent design and other arguments can be presented. After all, they are already being instilled with a particular philosophy on origins in science class anyway. To keep denying children exposure to the larger world of thought is to force feed a faith in materialism that goes beyond science while falsely claming to only be teaching scientific fact. Our children deserve much better.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Interesting contrast


Many who know me have heard me say many times that I will not move to Illinois. For about 8 years I commuted from Indiana to Illinois for work. Besides the ridiculous view on guns in Illinois I now have another reason not to move there.

Michelle Malkin has the story:

Pro-abortion forces in Illinois make it a criminal offense get a bill through the House that would prohibit an ultrasound from being administered without a doctor's order, the Illinois Leader reports. Bryan Preston notes:

Why would Planned Parenthood, an industry leader that aborts children and makes millions doing it, care a bit about the safety of children in the womb? Simple. It's hard to see an ultrasound and remain pro-choice. Once you see that your potentially aborted wad of tissues has fingers, toes, eyes and a nose and all the rest it becomes a person in your mind, and that makes you less likely to become one of Margaret Sanger's company's customers.

Meanwhile, in Indiana, House legisalators overwhelmingly approved a bill that would require abortion providers to tell a woman she can see an ultrasound or hear the fetus's heartbeat, if there is one, before an abortion is carried out.

Correction, 4:50 pm: The Illinois bill passed the House but has not yet become law. The title of this entry has been changed accordingly. (Thanks to Luke Blanshard.)

I found the following comment from the story quite interesting:

Mulligan, who is a strong abortion advocate, said that an ultrasound should not be done for political reasons to make anyone change their minds about any particular purpose.

But potentially preventing an ultrasound so that they will not change their mind is ok? To bad the reporter didn't ask that question. Furthermore, what is the matter with making sure that a person is fully informed about a medical procedure? Its not our fault that being informed tends to mean a woman will reject having an abortion. Protecting the fetus or protecting someones profit margin is the question I want someone to ask.

How anyone can keep a straight face when abortion advocates are talking about protecting the fetus is beyond me. If they were serious I think they would actually push for extreme limits on abortion. After all, sucking a child out of the womb is obviously more dangerous to that child then an ultrasound.

It should be noted that Mulligan has voted against a ban on partial birth abortion. So ultrasounds without doctors approval could now be a criminal offense but infanticide by forcing a partial breach delivery, piercing that babies skull with scissors and then sucking the brain out is perfectly legal in this politician's warped world view.

The mind reels at such inconsistency and the heart breaks at what it serves to accomplish.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Just Following Orders


First, there was Terri Schindler and sadly, she may not be the last. But she is the first to have her ordeal so widely publicized. To some this is the crime rather than the courts ordering her “to be made dead” as Ralph Nader so plainly stated. Many feel that the courts have decided the outcome and therefore we should just but out. Or it’s a personal family matter and none of the government’s business. Unfortunately they ignore that the government and thereby society were already involved in decreeing that she was to be killed. Such views besides being uninformed or intentionally apathetic ignore the central moral issues at stake. Should we kill an innocent person based on hearsay and/or because they are so disabled, they cannot fight back? Will we go the direction of the Netherlands where doctors kill newborns they assume will not have a particular level of “quality” in their lives? Or the most recent report of the possibility of non-voluntary mass euthanasia in England?

For some, it seems that the opinions of judges and doctors are the only thing that matters; that these elite professions can be trusted to decide weighty moral issues. So, we have doctors who excuse themselves by appealing to the law as defined or ignored by some justices. Remove a feeding tube morally wrong, killing newborns wrong? Not important with this attitude. The only thing that matters is if an attorney, who advocates killing “undesirables” or “non-producers” and a judge that can be snowballed by fancy lawyering or who may even be biased towards such a view anyway has given one the appearance of legal cover. Even better, if you can get the local police to support you while they are protecting their sandbox of perceived authority. Morality is at best a very distant concern, if one at all or it is confused with and dragged down to the level of merely being legal.

But should we equate being legal to also being morally right? By what authority do judges decide this moral code and should they be placed in such a position with no checks on their power? Consider that some of our justices are tempted to proclaim absolute superiority over legislatures or the plain reading of the U.S. Constitution, which defines and yes limits their powers. They may even refer to the laws of other countries. If one has no disagreement with that, I am willing to bet they would if abortion were severely restricted by the courts or they decided to cut hands off for stealing or hanged homosexuals based on the laws in other countries. What would such people think if they also knew that the Supreme court at one time declared that outlawing slavery was unconstitutional (Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857) or that separate but equal was actually somehow equal (Plessy v. Ferguson 1886)? Would that finally be enough to awaken them to the fact that the courts are not god-like in their power over us, nor should be?

...per-suading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is some-thing else...its [Texas] hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best. (Justice Scalia dissent Lawerence v. Texas)

But many simply ignore these issues and assume what these elite institutions say must also be morally right. Doctors remove a feeding tube without question because the courts said so. What will they excuse in the future? People ignore important moral issues because the courts or some in the medical profession take a particular position that is then trumpeted by the mainstream media. This deference to “experts” on moral issues that will affect all of us forgets the lessons of the past. When some at Nuremberg responded with “just following orders”, their excuse was rightly rejected. But the holocaust they participated in and tried to excuse did not spring forth from Hilters’ mind alone, or only from those in military power. The culture of Germany as embodied by its elite professions had provided a fertile ground for such acts to flower into all the grotesque images that finally shamed all who had turned a blind eye.

"Near at hand, we have been accorded, for those that have eyes to see, an object lesson in what the quest for 'quality of life' without reference to 'sanctity of life' can involve… the great Nazi holocaust, whose TV presentation has lately been harrowing viewers throughout the Western world. In this televised version, an essential consideration has been left out - namely, that the origins of the holocaust lay, not in Nazi terrorism and anti-Semitism, but in pre-Nazi Weimar Germany's acceptance of euthanasia and mercy-killing as humane and estimable.... It took no more than three decades to transform a war crime into an act of compassion, thereby enabling the victors in the war against Nazi-ism to adopt the very practices for which the Nazis had been solemnly condemned at Nuremberg.”(“The Humane Holocaust,” by Malcolm Muggeridge, The Human Life Review, Winter, 1980)

We rightly dismiss that excuse - just following orders. The evil allowed was to great a sin to be covered by such an attempt to pass off the guilt. To allow one's morality to be so completely determined by another requires a level of subservience that many criticize people of religious faith for having. Yet, we take a step closer to allowing such to occur when we again defer all moral determinations to the "experts", as if such people are incapable of mistakes or the malice and weaknesses that plague the rest of humanity.

Some might say this is too harsh, that we are not killing millions against their will and no civilized person wants to repeat the horrors that Hitler unleashed. Yet, even now, our society, because of judges, allows more than 1,000,000 of the preborn to be killed legally each year by abortion. The justifications for that are now being used to justify killing throughout the continuum of human life. Should we wait until we are even closer to emulating the sins of the past before we criticize the attitudes that exist today and that were necessary then for such to occur? How many 100s more should be added to the killing fields before it is permissible to warn of what lies ahead?

We should speak now before it is to late for those who will be the victims otherwise. History has already shown us that such complete trust in those who have power can bring forth horrible atrocities. It matters not that what the polls say or that the media is not in an uproar over something. What matters is what is really being done, what is being proposed and what are the ramifications to such things. We have a responsibility to ensure that the society we leave for future generations does not make this brutality of history more likely to occur again.

But if we continue with the attitude that what is legal is therefore moral or continue to defer to “experts” no matter where they want to lead us, we have no reason to expect that society can avoid reliving its monstrous past. The elites, once again, will try to have their excuse; hopefully the moral strength will still exist to reject it evermore. But what will the rest of society have to say? What rationalizations can possibly assuage the guilt once such horrors have been repeated? The guilt and responsibility for that cannot be passed off to other institutions. We are no longer morally innocent of where such deference can lead. No, we will not be able to excuse our lack of interest, or our preference to look away or be able to rationalize the temptation to hand all moral judgments to others without question. The shame society will feel when looking back once again on similar horrors will not be relieved, nor the victims spared, simply because the uniforms have changed.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Saturday, April 16, 2005


Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Friday, April 15, 2005

Low expectations for the MSM


The Anchoress is on a roll with blogging today. Her post regarding George Felos' ex and Terri Schindler leads me to a prediction of sorts.

Wait. What? George Felos’ ex is going to WHAT?
Filed under: Terri Schiavo

Maybe I need a tonic, or something…am I reading this press release correctly?

Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation has harsh words for the former Mrs. Felos’ attempts to capitalize on Terri

In a press release issued through PR Web, titled “Lawyer Who Presented CT Scan & Medical Evidence in Court Analyzes Autopsy Results in Terri Schiavo Case” Ms. d’Angelis (former wife of Attorney to Michael Schiavo, George Soros) claims she will be available to interpret the anticipated Medical Examiner’s report on the late Terri Schiavo.

Quoted from her release: “Upon the release of the autopsy report, she can analyze the results and weigh in on the important matters of how–by reason, not emotion–the “persistent vegetative state” diagnosis of Terri Schiavo was arrived at, and why.”

The Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation would like to take this opportunity to point out that not only was Ms. d’Angelis co-counsel to George Felos during the guardianship proceedings on behalf of Michael Schiavo, she is not qualified to interpret or analyze a Medical Examiner’s report. She is only licensed as an attorney and as a massage therapist.

[…]

Statement of Pamela Hennessy, Media Coordinator for the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation: “The former Mrs. Felos is not a doctor, a surgeon, a pathologist or even an orderly. She is a massage therapist. Certainly, she can lend absolutely no analysis or insight into the results of the Medical Examiner’s report. Rather, she can only recant what her former husband suggests as the truth to Terri’s condition. Medical analysis is best left to medical practitioners and not lawyers.”

Is there anything about this case, from start-to-finish that isn’t utterly strange and outside-the-norm?

My prediction is that the MSM will treat her as an "expert" despite the obvious lack of qualifications. Their behaviour in this matter leads one only to low expectations. I am willing to bet her interpretation will also show up in an online forum where I argued long and hard for Terri. I will not be surprised if she is treated as Dr. Cranford was in one interview. It was not unexpected that he would attack his critics, however, the producers seemed to miss the ratings opportunity of having someone there who might disagree. Heaven forbid they actually consider the concept of balanced coverage.

Besides her lack of qualification is the substantial matter of how the autopsy deals only with a strawman argument. The issue was not so much the structural damage of Terri's brain but rather her ability to function. The autopsy can't reveal that and as I understand it there is no x number of brain cells damaged threshold that determines one cannot function. What we needed was an MRI/PET scan. But of course she would need to be alive for that. How convenient - for some.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Darn - I missed the "wilding"


If you missed it, that title is delivered with an extreme level of sarcasm, including my eyes nearly rolling out of my head. What prompted such a reaction? Only a few excerpts from Mapes' book treatment.

The Anchoress has them here but just one to peak your interest:

“Conservative bloggers are part of the story. They have vilified me, mounted a “wilding” attack against me…we were, it seemed the first victims of a new kind of digital McCarthyism, which uses the same techniques as the old McCarthyism–rumors, slurs, false charges and ugly attacks–but now employs the Internet, talk radio and cable TV echo chamber to ricochet information around the world…meanwhile, the mainstream media…were happy to stoke the firewood on a competitor’s funeral pyre, repeating the conservative blogs, mischaracterizing events and not doing any real reporting of their own. Honestly, it hurt. It all hurt terribly….”

Unfortunately I did not have a blog at the time all the cBS problems and Rathergate occurred so I missed out on being included in this illustrious "wolf pack". I did participate in discussions in an online forum so maybe that counts. I can only hope :-)

Besides the excerpts The Anchoress has written a good summation of what we have before us.

There is more, and some of it is downright explosive, but I’m not printing it here; your Anchoress doesn’t want that much heat. Suffice to say, Mapes is channeling Al Pacino in both Dog Day Afternoon and Scarface. She says, “say hello to my little friend, insider knowledge,” and then fires her Gatling gun at everyone from Julie Chen to Les Moonves to Dick Thornburgh. It is easy to imagine her pummeling her hands in the air screeching, “Attica! Attica! Attica!”

It’s stuff that makes you say, “OUCH, that’s gonna leave a mark!”

I read this and I can’t decide if I want to vomit, weep or laugh until my guts spew forth.

My little addition is that Mapes sounds like her head is spinning all exorcist like, as she vomits out her bile at anyone within range. Such rage can't be healthy but the silliness in trying to claim victim status is well, hard not to laugh at. I don't want to put money in Mapes pocket but it will be difficult to resist buying her little tome. I haven't read a good rip roaring comedy in a long time.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Something from my DVD collection


While I am home recovering from this cold, I've been watching Firefly - The Complete Series (2002). A sci-fi tv series that was unfortunately treated badly by the suits at Fox. From not showing the series premiere (until the end), to showing the episodes out of order, putting it on hiatus for American Idol and trying to gain an audience in the very difficult Friday night programming slot they just never gave it a chance.

You can get the entire short-lived series on DVD.

I highly recommend it if you like science fiction.

I also just noticed there is a book available Finding Serenity. I think I will have to save up the pennies for that :-)

*UPDATE*
Surfing around while watching the DVDs and I see now that they have a movie adaptation with all the main characters! Awesome! It looks like a mid to late 2005 release.

It is called Serenity, info here

Check for more info and updates at Serenitymovie.net
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Now that's a church


Picked up a cold so current editorials I am working on will have to wait but I couldn't pass this up.

From Jonah Golberg at NRO The Corner.

This is the finest Lego Church I've ever seen. Do the whole slide show.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Moving to a new neighborhood - Issue #3


A good point is raised by Dirty Harry concerning reviews of Sincity as compared to those for The Passion when reviewers talk of extreme violence. The comparison is quite interesting.

H/T The Anchoress a daily read and one I highly recommend.

This reminded me of an editorial that I wrote once I had seen The Passion in the theater and hence the opportunity for another issue of Moving to a new neighborhood.

April 15, 2004
Mel Gibson Failed

Failed to impress the New York Times that is. Their review of his movie, ''The Passion of The Christ'', begins and ends with Homer Simpson. An odd choice considering that this is a very dramatic portrayal of something as important to Christians as the life and death of Jesus Christ. Is this how they normally write about serious religious movies? One has to wonder how the review would have been written if the film had been about Buddha, the Dalai Lama or Mohammed.

Unfortunately, offending Christians or denigrating them is a noble sport in some circles these days. Better yet if one can throw in some twenty-dollar words, pop psychology and pop cultural references. This makes sure the reader understands how primitive and beneath the reviewer those Christians really are.

It can’t be that religious imagery is now verboten in movies or other media. I am willing to bet that there are various films and works of art that the reviewer or his fellow travelers would praise even though they contain religious images. One has to wonder if the same disdain has been shown for artwork that contained a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine or a painting of the Virgin Mary adorned with feces. Is it really difficult to hear them praise such works as edgy and bold and pushing the boundaries and that these are important statements that expand our cultural landscape?

The faux outrage at the brutality of the scourging scenes in the film is brutally disingenuous. Consider the general amount of violence in movies, music and other art forms that often receive praise from the cultural elites. Having seen the film I cannot understand how showing a realistic scourging scene is bad while showing the real horrors of combat in Private Ryan is good.

I could continue to point out more problems with this particular review but I think enough is shown by the following quote:

"On its own, apart from whatever beliefs a viewer might bring to it, "The Passion of the Christ" never provides a clear sense of what all of this bloodshed was for, an inconclusiveness that is Mr. Gibson's most serious artistic failure. The Gospels, at least in some interpretations, suggest that the story ends in forgiveness. But such an ending seems beyond Mr. Gibson's imaginative capacities. Perhaps he suspects that his public prefers terror, fury and gore. Maybe Homer Simpson was right after all." - New York Times, Feb. 25, 2004

This conclusion makes me wonder if the reviewer actually watched the entire movie. Perhaps he was just to busy looking for words in a thesaurus so as to more creatively denigrate the film as well as the faithful. The fact is that the movie begins with this passage from the 53rd chapter of the book of Isaiah:

"But He was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed."

Christ’s ministry and purpose are spoken of in flashbacks and the movie ends with Christ’s resurrection. How much clearer must one be in this context to avoid the chastisement of "artistic failure"?

Fortunately, Mr. Gibson was primarily motivated by his faith rather than by trying to please the New York Times, otherwise he probably would have had to superimpose a jar of urine over the crucifixion scenes. Oh the praise that would have then issued forth from the prestigious "paper of record". But then why would anyone care to impress those that, until recently, knowingly employed someone like Jayson Blair?

The very nature of these reviews tempts one to speculate about motives and bias in an effort to understand what is behind such drivel masquerading as critical thought. There is a time and place for that. But I would rather be inspired by the act of making this movie. It is clearly a labor of love and devotion concerning the central event in the history of mankind. For me, this movie should be an opportunity to examine and improve my walk with God. I hope it will have the same affect on you.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Stupid MSM


I was watching WGN Chicago news this morning and they were talking about some controversial artists. One of the pics was a 37 cent stamp with George Bush on it and a handgun pointed at his head. Irritating thing is that the reporterette called it a revolver. It was clearly a semi-auto and NOT a revolver. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at such a lack of knowledge in their organization considering Chicago's idiotic view on firearms.

It is frustrating though. I quit watching ABC news altogether after they gave an Al Jezeera correspondent the opportunity to comment on a Bush win during our Presidential election.

At least this latest irritation didn't happen on Monday. I hate Mondays as it is.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Monday, April 11, 2005

Michelle Malkin more fair to flipper than MSM!!


Conservative columnist and bane to "Chrissy" Matthews shows more fairness to John "flipper" Kerry than the mainstream media by merely holding to a higher standard of excellence. In this case by actually researching a story and verifying details rather than following the mainstream media lead.

DID SENATORS BLOW A CIA AGENT'S COVER? NO.

Mentioned this question briefly in the Boltonblogging post below. There's plenty to criticize John Kerry for, but this isn't one of them. The Associated Press now asserts that both Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Richard Lugar "may have blown" a CIA agent's cover during the Bolton hearings. (Lugar mentioned the name in his opening statement; Kerry dropped the name during questioning.)

Well, did they or didn't they blow it? Don't just rely on AP. Arms Control Wonk , the blog of Research Fellow Jeffrey Lewis at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, provides four previous media citations of the agent's name--all which make public reference to the agent, Fulton Armstrong, and the specific intelligence controversy at issue--dating back to September 2002.

So, how come the AP reporter wrote this?
Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., both mentioned a name, Fulton Armstrong, that had not previously come up in public accounts of the intelligence flap.

And how will all of these newspapers that picked up the AP story square the reporter's assertion with those previous media citations?

It would have been easy to pile on when all the usual suspects are. Yet, she goes for accuracy rather than assume the worst of a political opponent. Is it any wonder her star is rising?
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Sunday, April 10, 2005

Moving to a new neighborhood - Issue #2


Explanation here

Topic: Abortion

May 14, 1999
Knee Jerk Arguments

I have decided to look at several arguments here separate from the more important issues I deal with in other articles. I consider these arguments to be rather unsubstantial but I hear them or they are implied quite often. It seems they are part of some sort of knee-jerk or automatic response instead of a well thought out argument.

Let's start with how can someone be against abortion when the Supreme Court says it is legal? Well first of all, we are dealing with an issue of morality, since when are the Supreme Court's rulings the arbitrator of what is moral or not? One must remember that the Supreme Court at one time ruled that outlawing slavery was unconstitutional. Certainly we do not agree that therefore slavery is a morally correct choice to make. Let us abandon right here and now the notion that if something is legal that means it is morally correct. As for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade, I will examine that in a future article.

Some might argue that my reasons for being pro-life are because I am a man and I only want to control women and therefore I cannot be objective. Well now, certainly a women's desire to control her own body is a strong motivating factor and using the same logic one could say that women cannot possibly be objective. Now these ad-hominem attacks haven't accomplished much except to shut out the entire human race from discussing this extremely important issue.

Others may say you shouldn't force your religious views on someone, that our country is based on this principle. But just because the "mainstream" media chooses to focus only on those who state their pro-life views in mostly religious terms and convictions does not mean there are no other reasons or arguments for the pro-life view. Furthermore, I do not feel that having a religious basis for a belief automatically invalidates and limits that belief to only the personal. I do recognize, however, that presenting the pro-life arguments solely in this manner may be a mistake. After all, if someone does not hold the same religious convictions why would they listen? I therefore present the secular and non-religious support for my convictions to avoid what may be a stumbling block for many. Believe it or not though, there is diversity within the pro-life movement. There are pro-life atheists, feminists, gays and libertarians to name a few. People with Master's Degrees are even pro-life. I suppose however it is easier to paint all of us with one broad stroke as religious and uneducated instead of facing the facts or the rational arguments that we offer.

In discussions I have also been told that you shouldn't force your morals on someone else. This is entirely incorrect. Is that not the affect of laws? Certainly we are making a moral statement when we as a majority make laws against stealing, murder, assault etc. I also think that perhaps this is actually just a confusing way of restating the religious objection and that has already been addressed.

I hope the reader can now begin to think more deeply about this issue. We can not allow ourselves to make important decisions based on the dangerous act of repeating glib and pithy little unexamined arguments. Such behavior will only create a mindset that will accept anything as long as it sounds pleasing or because it has been repeated enough times. The truth should be more important to us than that.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Oh that rascally mainstream media


As posted by Stanley Kurtz on NRO The Corner:

POLL SUPPRESSION
Well, from what people have written in, it looks as though CNN and USA Today did suppress the results of their own gay marriage poll. Nobody’s been able to find a report on this poll from either CNN or USA Today. Poll expert Gerry Daly is not sure whether the poll can be treated as definitive or not. But he does suspect that a similar poll would have been touted by the media if the results had shown a strong uptick in favor of gay marriage, instead of a shift against it.

Apparently, when a poll shows a significant shift in public opinion, media outlets can either treat it as a big story, or dismiss it as a fluke. That leaves plenty of room for bias. But I suspect this case is even worse than Daly thinks. I doubt the folks at CNN or USA Today bothered to rationalize suppression of their own poll with Daly’s statistical argument. My guess is that they simply saw the results and knew that a story would have helped the side they were rooting against. Either way, this looks to me like an egregious case of media bias.


This reminded me of some comments by Alexis de Tocqueville in the book Democracy in America. I can't find the exact passage just now but I did find these quotes from Tocqueville online which help to make my point.

In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them. (Tocqueville)


Now if you can control what people think the majority opinion is:

In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own. (Tocqueville)


That was written some time ago and yet rings so true today. A combination of apathy, mental laziness and desire not to offend or be an outcast causes many people to default to what they believe is the "majority" opinion.

It is no wonder that some bray so loudly against Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, bloggers and others that do not tow the standard media line and/or actively fight against it.

While it is good that we now have competition and there is no longer a mainstream media lock on news, it would be even better if more people would actively seek out the information. This will take a bit more energy than just sitting on the couch and watching whatever news show comes on after a favorite sitcom or drama. One may even have to deal with the stress of researching various viewpoints and making a decision.

Such actions, however, become very difficult for those who believe everything is just an opinion or that all things are subjective. I am sure we have all heard something along the lines of "opinions are like assholes, everybody has one" or even said it ourselves. But it is simply wrong that all things are just opinions. If I wanted to play that game, I could just respond to such a statement with "Well, that is just your opinion". What could they say back to that? Put another way, one cannot say there are no absolute truths. For that statement to be true it would have to be absolutely true. But, it is denying the very thing that it must be. Clearly there are absolute truths and not just opinions.

The trick is finding these truths and this takes effort. We have access to more information than every before. Maybe that is part of the problem. There is just so much to sift through. So many choices to make. I believe studies have even shown that stress increases as more choices become available. But I am certain that the difficulties are worth it. There will be rewards to those who seek the truth.

And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. And of which of you that is a father shall his son ask a loaf, and he give him a stone? or a fish, and he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he give him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Luke 11:9-13)


Now if only I can convince everyone that it is an absolute truth that real sports cars should not have automatic transmissions as an option; the world would then be a perfect place. ;-) A small joke just so people can know that I do believe there will still be some things that just come down to personal preferences. (However, I may fight for this one. lol)

In all seriousness to this subject though, I would like leave you with this encouragement:

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue and if there be any praise, think on these things. (Philippians 4:8)
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Moving to a new neighborhood - Issue # 1


As I stated in a previous post, every now and then I will move an editorial from the personal website I have had since April 4, 1998 to this blog. Since this is the first issue of "Moving to a new neighborhood" I thought I should start with the first editorial I ever posted online. Unfortunately this one is still relevant.

May 1, 1999
Jerry Springer and the Fall of Rome

Every now and then while I am chatting with my online friends, I am up late enough to fall into the time slot of the Jerry Springer Show. At first I was too lazy to change the channel and figured no big deal I won't be watching the show anyway, just some background noise, what harm could it do? But as I found out it is very difficult not to watch such a spectacle. I was fully aware of the "circus" that this show proudly proclaims to be and yet I was shocked at what I was seeing. Why would people subject themselves to such public ridicule, verbal and potential physical violence? Is one's 15 minutes of fame worth all of that? Then we have those in the audience. They cheer and hoot and holler hoping to see some sort of altercation. The more outlandish the better.

Apparently our culture, or at least what I hope is a small subset; considers fleeting, superficial fame; exposure, titillation, excitement and entertainment more important than any virtue whatsoever. I also can't help but notice the complete lack of shame that many of them express. At least our current President is savvy enough to fake that (though not very well).

When I actually watched this show I couldn't help but think of the Roman coliseums. Certainly no one is being physically killed for our entertainment (not yet at least) but they are clearly killing each other in a moral, spiritual, emotional and psychological sense. The vindictiveness displayed and the desire of the audience to cheer it up and get the action really going; the hope that we will be entertained by real people yelling, swearing and hitting and throwing chairs at each other; makes one wonder if we really are more civilized than those Romans. To be entertained by real people showing such hatred is appalling. How can a society stand if this becomes the way of the majority? Certainly we will have defeated ourselves by our own corruption.

Then there are those of us who watch so that we can sit back and think - I am glad I'm not like them. I felt that way myself when I would glance over at the show every now and then. At least I am not enjoying this and it reminds me of the type of person I don't want to be. But I was wrong to think that way. My attitude was similar to that of the Pharisee in the following: "And he spake this parable unto certain of them which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:9-14) We see that the publican left with the blessing of forgiveness and not the Pharisee. But of course if we watch this show, for whatever reason, it certainly is not for receiving a proper blessing of any kind. Certainly we would be far better off following this advice: "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue and if there be any praise, think on these things." (Ephesians 4:8)

So now I absolutely refuse to watch this show. I do not want to expose my mind and spirit to such a spectacle. I do not want to be part of an audience that would feel at home in the spilled blood of the coliseum so long as we were entertained. I do not want to be the Pharisee looking down on others so that I can easily ignore my own faults. It is so easy to just change the channel, to put in a video or to turn it off. Now wouldn't it be wonderful if so many people felt this way that such a show would never have a chance of being financially successful? I fear however, that such hope is unrealistic and that it is already too late. Rome destroyed itself from within. I pray that we have not gone to far and that we can change before we bring the same collapse upon ourselves.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Feel safe flying?


Debbie Schlussel at Frontpagemag.com has a frightening story of what political correctness in the U.S. Air Force and an unexplicable delay in TSA backgrounds checks for employees resulted in.

A small excerpt:

Between 1999 and the 9/11 attacks, Ahmed—then an airman stationed at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida—made statements in support of Osama bin Laden, said he was not against the 9/11 attacks, that the U.S. deserved to be attacked, that he wouldn’t fight if the U.S. took action in Iraq, and that U.S. aircraft over Iraq should crash.

...Ahmed was given an expedited honorable discharge, in order to effect Ahmed’s “removal from the U.S. military as quickly as possible,” according to his indictment. Rather than do the right thing and court-martial him, the Air Force made his life easier

In December 2001, Ahmed became a baggage screener at Metro Airport, when it was handled by a private contractor. That’s bad enough.


When are some people going to get serious about security and get rid of this political correctness that is endangering lives?
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Monday, April 04, 2005

This speaks to me


In A personal resolve to try to be more balanced The Anchoress writes of lessons learned from the life of JPII and gives us all something to think about. Her site is a daily visit for me.

A small excerpt:

I think it is very easy - incredibly easy - for those of us who have been raised in an era wherein everything is reduced to the political, and wherein the scorched earth mentality of the last 12 years (or perhaps longer, but I have only been really paying attention for that long) has been burned into our consciousness and our reflexes by incessant media exposure, to stop thinking of those who reason differently as fellow created creatures, and to see them more as merely, "the bad guys." And that is to our detriment, both as a society and in our personal lives.


Read the whole thing and drop by often as I do.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

A couple of ideas


As I stated in my first post, I started online with a personal website some years ago and would post editorials there. I have a link in my profile.

Since I'm going to do my writing on this blog now I thought I would take the time every now and then to move one of those editorials here. Some will not be very relevant to todays topics while the subject of others may still be very much with us.

This feature will be called Moving to a new neighborhood - Issue #x and I will post from time to time until all are here in this blog. I suppose I may also move my photos but haven't really decided on that just yet.

Additionally, as I look through my computer I have found what being picky about my own work and being a procrastinator have left me with. I have found a few editorials that never got finished or posted or the barest ideas that were never fleshed out properly. Every now and then I will post these. This feature will be called Cleaning out the attic - Issue #x

Hopefully writing to a blog and better time management on my part will prevent the attic from getting cluttered like that again.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

A few questions are in order


How would anyone in the Bush administration be treated if they had destroyed documents that were part of the 9/11 investigation?

BERGER'S BURGLARY

Sandy Berger, the top Clinton national- security official and erstwhile close adviser to Sen. John Kerry, has finally confessed what he spent nearly a year heatedly denying: that he intentionally smuggled classified documents from the National Archives — and deliberately destroyed them.


Would the press remain silent if they got a slap on the wrist?

In pleading guilty to a misdemeanor count Friday — for which he'll get a slap-on-the-wrist $10,000 fine and lose his security clearance for three years (but probably not his law license) — Berger admits to secreting the documents in his suit jacket.

Then, once he got them home, he cut them to pieces with a pair of scissors.


Would the usual suspects in the mainstream media have any kind words or remain silent if anyone that supports Bush had reacted in this manner?

"For all those who know and love him, it's easy to see how this would happen," one former White House colleague told The Washington Post at the time.

As for Bill Clinton himself, he couldn't stop chuckling over the whole thing.

"That's Sandy for you," he said at a Denver book signing last summer. "We were all laughing about it on the way over here."


I'm just curious.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

One of my favorite authors


Orson Scott Card has a new book in stores that is a sequel to Ender's Shadow, Shadow of the Hegemon, Shadow Puppets.

You can also tease yourself with the first 3 chapters online while you wait for it to be shipped.

Shadow of The Giant

Im checking my budget now!
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Sunday, April 03, 2005

Has the NY Times learned anything?


Surviving the Jason Blair debacle would seem to have taught the editors at the esteemed paper a few things. Recent events indicate otherwise.

I am not Catholic but there is much to respect in the life of Pope John Paul II. His death is a great loss and appropriately brings sadness to the hearts of many. The way the NY Times covered his death is quite illuminating especially when contrasted with an article about Senator Robert (Sheets) Byrd.

Power Line has the report:

Pope John Paul II died this afternoon. The New York Times reports on his papacy in an article that inadvertently tells us more than the Times really wanted us to know. The Times had its criticisms of John Paul's papacy ready to go, but apparently went looking for something good to say about the Pope at the last minute:


Notice how Power Line shows they had no quotes from supporters at the ready but only that of critics. They certainly had time to find such information. Just like the news report I criticized in an earlier post had time to find out that Terri Schindler never had an MRI.

Yet look at the Power Line report of their profile of Senator Robert (Sheets) Byrd:

The New York Times features a predictably fawning profile of former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle and current West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd: "A master of Senate's ways is still parrying in his twilight." By contrast with its coverage of the Pope's death, the Times had no problem finding quotes from supporters of Senator Byrd before press time.


With the bias so obvious I have to wonder if the terms "legacy media" or "dead tree media" are really accurate enough. It seems to me that if they continue on this path that they will soon end up only as dead media.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Terri Schindler and the polls


On one internet forum I remember being called an out of step radical because of polls and I am sure the ABC poll results concerning Terri's situation were foremost in this critic's "thinking". At the time I was aware of how skewed the poll question was. It was so bad that a Democrat pollster actually commented on it! I also pointed out that making decisions about right and wrong should not be determined by popularity. But now a real poll by Zogby has been done and it shows what many were saying all along. The irrepressible (just ask Chris Matthews) Michelle Malkin has a good round up of commentary.

And people wonder why the legacy media is crumbling?

And yes, I am going to post the Zogby poll result in that forum :-)
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Terri Schindler and the media


I know many are dismayed at how the legacy media spread so much misinformation. A moment that I will not forget occurred on a morning news show. They had a neurologist talking about higher brain functions and how an MRI shows that someone in a persistent vegetative state does not have any. Knowning that was accurate, I waited, wondering if the reporterette would say Terri did not have an MRI. I could not have been more wrong. She actually stated that Terri did have an MRI and ended the report!

It seems almost surreal now, as if it could only have been a dream. How could they be that wrong, that unable to research basic information? Could I possibly have heard incorrectly?

Of course, I sent them an email informing them of their error. I have not received a reply.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Saturday, April 02, 2005


Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

My apologies to the first person to comment on my blog. This add-on removed your comment :-(
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Terri Schiavo Schindler – Lessons Learned


Some who are reading this may still be grieving over the very public torture and killing of Terri Schindler. For some, the desire of her “husband” that she be killed is none of our business as it was given the cloak of legality by the courts. One wonders if the courts one-time approval of slavery changes that to a noble and morally correct matter. The Jews and others defined as undesirable under Hitler were also not protected by law. Does that mean their suffering under Nazi Germany should not have been fought against by good and decent individuals who still had moral values and the courage to act?

Let us be honest, we do not know what Terri’s wishes were on this matter. The media response to this fact is to inform us that we should put our wishes in writing, to create a Living Will. The unmistakable tone of their reports is that if you want to die under such circumstances you had better put it in writing or else you will be subjected to well meaning but misguided family members keeping you alive against your wishes.

But there are more important lessons to learn and different actions to take. We know there was great controversy over Terri’s actual condition and prospects for recovery and ability to function. As mentioned we did not really know her wishes. What could be more tragic than assuming she wanted to die when in fact that was not the case? One wonders if Judge Greer ever considers the possibility and if he has a conscience capable of reacting properly.

This obsessive fetish over Living Wills as a means to define death ignores these central controversies to Terri Schindler’s life and death. We must consider what we should do now that a frightening precedent has been set. The state no longer assumes in favor of life but in favor of death. Hearsay evidence is enough and the latest tests and therapies available will be ignored. Murderers, those that rape and kill children, terrorists and the list goes on, benefit from much more protection of due process and higher standards of evidence. But no longer for you and I, should we be disabled and have difficulty communicating. Even if that condition may have been aggravated by an intentional denial of therapy and mental stimulation for a decade.

In this context a recent study by the Royal Hospital for Neurodisability, London is quite disturbing. It was found that as many as 43% of those considered to be in a persistent vegetative state were misdiagnosed. The study outlined standards for reducing the errors and it should be noted that such standards, once developed, were denied to Terri. The current gold standard for determining one’s higher brain activities are MRI and PET scans but she was denied these tests as well. The subjects of the study also received communication therapy. Terri may have received some therapy in the first few years – the amount and quality is disputed – but what is not disputed is that not long after receiving money to care for her; therapy, treatment and many opportunities for mental stimulation were denied.

The lesson to take away is that we now need to document that we want to live not just how we want to die. Without this it will be too easily assumed by some that death is all one could possibly desire. Not only that but we must specify that the proper tests and exams are performed; qualified professionals with relevant and up to date expertise are involved and that therapies and treatments are actually applied. If we do not, we may find that someone will apply his or her own personal quality of life threshold to us. In Terri’s case, a deceitful media lulled many in the country to give in to such an arrogant act with hardly more thought (for some less) than whether they should watch in real time or Tivo for later, this season of The Bachelor or America’s Pop Idol.

Along with declaring that you actually want to live, some other observations from this tragedy are in order. It would be a good idea to have witnesses sign this legal document. Judging from the vitriol directed against Christians, you had better make sure they are atheists who have never even once attended Sunday school. After all, one can never be sure when such an exposure could become a full-blown infection of faith in God.

You should be careful that attending physicians are not proud supporters of hastening death for anyone they deem not worthy. Seeing their name associated with “right to die” and physician-assisted suicide movements should be a warning. For reference, merely Google Dr. Cranford and see what he thinks of Alzheimer patients who can’t feed themselves or what he said of Robert Wendland who could pick up and hand someone specific colored blocks when requested.

You should also make sure that any lawyer claiming to represent your wishes is not a proud spokesman for killing as well. For a good example of what to avoid see attorney Felos’ book “Litigation as Spiritual Practice”. He justifies his hurrying you on to death by believing he can read your mind. Indeed he describes an almost religious experience. Apparently religion in the service of killing is the only way that religious expression is tolerable to some.

For those who still feel they would rather die than live under such circumstances, let me offer some things to think about. What is motivating you to feel this way? Is it really about not burdening your family? But what makes you think that they would view such service to a loved one as so loathsome a task to avoid it by allowing you to die or actively killing you? Let’s all make certain that personal vanity masquerading as concern for our loves ones is not what is motivating us to give up on life before we really should.

Before committing your wishes to a Living Will you should consider that a durable power of attorney for health care might be adequate. In fact it may be superior. Many problems with Living Wills have been revealed in the March/April 2004 issue of the bioethics journal the Hastings Center Report. ElderLaw News May 28, 2004 has a good summary:

Co-author Carl Schneider, a University of Michigan Law School and Medical School professor comments, "Living wills don't fail for lack of effort, education, intelligence, or good will. They fail because of basic traits of human psychology."

For instance, studies show that people have great trouble predicting their own preferences about even simple, everyday things, like what snacks they will want or what groceries they will buy next week. "If they have trouble predicting what is familiar," asks Schneider, "why should we expect them to succeed when they are predicting what they will want in circumstances they have never experienced and can't foretell?"

Reading that article and also the entire report (both available online) is fascinating and informative. It becomes alarming when we consider that such a flawed instrument is being pushed by the media as the way to make important life and death decisions.

Once you have documented your wishes make sure they are updated periodically. You probably do not want someone having durable power of attorney and control of your life and death that you recently told your friends you were thinking of divorcing. One final thing, and it bothers me that I have to mention it; but you may want to consider changing the organ donation option on your driver’s license. Vanity and arrogance alone are encouraging some to hasten death and force people to die; it would be foolish to give them another rationalization.

The sad fact of the matter is that I now no longer trust our medical establishment, courts or media to defend life. Intentionally dishonest euphemisms in service to the cause of death and the participation of these elements of society leave me no other choice. Terri’s experience was unsettling enough but I have good reason to believe that additional and more worrisome stories exist and will be made known in the near future. At least to those who decide to remain vigilant and maintain their basic human dignity rather than mimic the negative interpretation of “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”. Such chosen apathy, when the stakes are this high, runs the risk of lowering oneself to a level not much higher than that of a statue of monkeys covering their eyes, ears and mouth.

It is now painfully clear that we are truly in a fight against the culture of death. And those in favor of death will never cease their assault. Our vanity and desire to avoid controversy are being used against us. We are not only encouraged to give up on life to soon but to also devalue and dehumanize others. All the easier to force the undesirables to leave this world rather than insult and burden us with their broken presence. I pray that God has mercy on us if we give in to such a hideously selfish ideology.
Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions










Creative Commons License


As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.




Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile


Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya


Recent Comments: