Another interesting contrast

A legal battle is being waged between Planned Parenthood (PP) and several states trying to gain access to their youngest patients records. PP is arguing for client privacy and protecting abortion "rights", while the states are concerned that children have been molested and that it has been covered up or ignored. Health professionals are required by law to report if they have suspicions that such a crime has occurred.

Recently, an Indiana judge has ruled against PP and stated they must show these records. This is as it should be; child abuse and sexual molestation are serious matters.

From the NY Times (You have to register):

CHICAGO, May 31 - Planned Parenthood of Indiana has to show state investigators the medical records of some of its youngest patients, a judge ruled on Tuesday. The judge rejected the organization's contention that disclosing such records could have a chilling effect on patients across the state.

Since March, Attorney General Steve Carter has been seeking the records of more than 80 patients younger than 14, saying his Medicaid fraud unit is trying to determine whether children have been neglected because molesting incidents were not reported to the authorities as required. Under Indiana law, anyone under 14 who is sexually active is considered a victim of sexual abuse, and health providers are required to report such cases to the state authorities.
[...]

Many, throughout the spectrum of beliefs on abortion, should be able to agree that medical professionals should not protect those committing these crimes. It is the same as being outraged by a health care worker ignoring clear signs of child abuse; even worse, if that individual is doing so merely to protect their job or profit margin.

What is missing in all of this though, is outrage from the MSM. It is interesting to compare how the media attacked the Catholic Church for hiding information about priests accused of molesting children and yet, hardly a peep of indignation about PP doing nearly the same thing. Will we have specials about PP aiding the commission of such acts? Will the pundits rail against the abortion provider as they did against the Catholic Church? I would recommend that no one hold their breath waiting.

Yet, clearly, the same criticisms about institutional cya, callous disregard for the victims, placing the institution above the law, as well as others, also apply to this matter. Unfortunately, for the MSM, abortion rights have become an establishment more precious in their worldview, than the Catholic Church, or any religious faith, for that matter. That such a morally flawed act could be raised to a level above that of venerable and centuries old religious faiths, so much so, that violations of law can be swept away with hardly any criticism, is a sad indication of the MSM's moral bankruptcy and extreme bias.

Perhaps, if the priests had only molested girls and paid for the abortions they could have avoided the MSM onslaught. Unfortunately, the Church would still have the fatal flaw of being a religious faith and worse yet, pro-life. You see, religious faith is acceptable only as long as it allows abortion. Better yet, if one self identifies with that pathetically vacuous term "spiritual but not religious", while actually being a proud participant in the abortion holocaust.


Other pro-life posts:

Knee Jerk Arguments
Interesting contrast
Fundamental Issues
Abortion - no consequences?
Stem cell research

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Stem cell research

The House voted last Wednesday on two bills concerning stem cell research. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act passed with a 238-to-194 vote. The bill overrides the Bush Administration's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush has stated he will veto such a bill, and the vote fell short of the 290 needed to override such a veto. I strongly agree with the President, based on prolife arguments, as they apply to this matter as well. Another bill passed the House with a much larger margin, with a vote of 431-1. This bill provides federal funding for adult and umbilical cord research, sources for stem cells that do not have the serious moral implications of destroying a human embryo to satisfy our own lust for health and well-being, regardless of the expense to others.

In listening to the various arguments, I have constantly heard the refrain that these embryos would just be thrown out anyway so they should be put to some good use. That argument presents a false dilemma. The fact of the matter is that these embryos can be adopted and carried to term. This should be encouraged. To those who say that they may not survive, the fact of the matter is that they have a far better chance surviving that than being destroyed for experimentation. We also would be affirming life rather than destroying it for our own convenience.

The real problem is in vitro fertilization (IVF), which creates the extra embryos. This process needs to be reformed to seriously minimize the creation of embryos that will not be used, which are then placed in a state of limbo. The temptation then becomes to treat these unique individuals as merely property to be used at our convenience, regardless of the moral implications. It seems that people who place so much importance on creating life, especially in the case of those who are profiting from the IVF procedure despite this moral problem that is inherent to the current procedures, are either uniformed or being selfish and shortsighted. If they really do understand the moral difficulties that will be created, why will they not consider adoption instead? Are some people so in love with their own genetics or profit margin that they refuse to choose or advocate a morally superior option?

Why should we be held hostage to the unnecessary dilemma of unused embryos? As we have seen, the embryos can be adopted and carried to term. Some will say that the number of “excess” embryos is far too large for these adoptions to matter. Of course, they don’t consider encouraging or supporting such adoptions, or even reforming the IVF process. Instead, they just want to define them as destined to be thrown away. Fortunately, many parents have not so casually discarded their frozen embryos. In fact, the number available for research is greatly exaggerated. But whatever the numbers may be, they would still not overcome the moral issues of devaluing and destroying human life for experimentation.

As this issue was debated on the House floor, it was especially galling to hear Orwellian twists of language from various representatives. Here is a mind twister from Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California:

"I'm 100% pro-life. This is an issue of life to me," said Cunningham, choking back tears as he spoke on the House floor. "I don't want another 6-year-old to die" (of juvenile diabetes).

Well I am 100% against experimenting on Jews but if it will save a 6-year-old let's have at it. Will it be more persuasive if I choke back tears while saying that? Sorry, Mr. Cunningham but you just ruined your 100% pro-life rating. You have now given power to the pro-choice/abortion justifications for destroying the pre-born. In their eyes, it is about how they can benefit and what is convenient, rather than, this is a human life worthy of protection. For them, selfish pragmatism precedes the sanctity of human life issue and with your vote, you have acquiesced to their horribly distorted priorities. You and others, have decided that instead of leading on this important issue, you will follow the MSM propaganda and your constituents who have been misled by it.

It is bad enough that many are misinformed or lacking backbone on this issue, but the narcissism that exists within those actively pushing for destructive experiments on embryos is even more disturbing considering what we were told in regards to Terri Schindler. The story used to be that we are not supposed to be scared of death. Christians were especially criticized with mocking disdain for advocating that Terri be allowed to live rather than killed by torture. But now we are told that by preventing embryonic research we condemn some to die. So, what happened to not fearing death? Apparently, death is still ok for others; those who some deem as physically insulting or temporarily too weak or unable to fight back themselves against those who have the power and selfish desire to legalize the killing.

Indeed, some, and hopefully it is a very small minority, seem to be rather gleeful in advocating death for others. Sure, they say it’s about reproductive rights, dilation & extraction, mercy killing or life saving research in the case of embryonic stem cells. But these euphemisms or to be blunt, weasel words, do not change the fact that what is being so cheerfully pursued is death for anyone but them. Don’t buy for a minute their claims of thinking only of how society benefits. Besides already denying, that Terri Schindler be kept alive in anticipation of such discoveries, it is also certain that their vaunted selflessness will evaporate if they should need one of these cures. Of course, this ignores the fact that such successful cures with regard to embryonic stem cell research have been the equivalent of vaporware. But that is of little importance in their self-centered zeal to grasp at health and extend their life or avoid responsibility for their sexual activity. The sad result is that the master they serve is not merely their god complex but rather death itself. One has to wonder what it is that clings so desperately to life while joyfully requiring that others be devalued and destroyed in service to these lusts. I can only think of the terms fool, madman or devil. I am not sure which of these is worse.

Related posts:
Knee Jerk Arguments
Interesting contrast
Fundamental Issues
Abortion - no consequences?

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Memorial Day

My apologies for being late with this.

My heartfelt thanks to all who have served or continue to serve. You have my deepest respect for your sacrifice and service. May God bless you and watch over you and your loved ones.

Michelle Malkin has a wonderful collection of links and tributes for this Memorial Day weekend. It is truly a must-read.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Hillary and the blogosphere in 2008

Well, we now have a poll that says Hillary has a majority that say they will vote for her as President. At least that is how it is being reported.

Poll majority say they'd be likely to vote for Clinton

For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.

But the headline and lead-in to the story are not an entirely accurate picture of the poll numbers. A few paragraphs later we read:

Clinton commands as much strong support — but more strong opposition — as George W. Bush did in a Newsweek poll in November 1998, two years before the 2000 election. She is in slightly stronger position than then-vice president Al Gore, the eventual 2000 Democratic nominee, was in 1998.

[…]

In the poll, 29% were "very likely" to vote for Clinton for president if she runs in 2008; 24% were "somewhat likely." Seven percent were "not very likely" and 39% were "not at all likely" to vote for her.

Along with this rather tepid support and strong opposition, there is no mention of another candidate. This important omission skews the poll into more of a matter of name recognition than an accurate picture of support during a bitterly fought election. It also appears that this poll did not consist of likely voters. By now, we should not be surprised that headlines try to say much more than the story actually allows for.

The poll and breathtaking headline, however, do provide an opportunity to discuss how the media has changed since her husband ran for the Presidency. We now have the blogosphere, which can lay claim to some successes in exposing the MSM bias and an important supporting role in defeating John Kerry. Rand Simberg believes that the blogosphere can stop Hillary in '08 (H/T NRO The Corner). As much as I would like to believe that is true, I just don't think we can be anywhere near certain about it and definitely should not count on this as the inevitable outcome. Instead, we should focus on making sure that we do not underestimate our enemy or misunderstand the battlefield where this contest will occur. The only thing that is clear is that she will inflame passions on all sides, more so than any other politician in recent memory.

A few elements will possibly be in play for 2008. Will enough “Oprahfied” women vote for her just because she is a woman? Will some who never voted before, vote now just to get a female in as President? But then there are those who despite their political views have enough respect for themselves that they may not vote for her or (hopefully) against her because of her apparent sellout to such a character as her husband. Then there is also how men react to Hillary. Could all of these factors, cancel each other out in the end?

The biggest issue, in my opinion, is abortion. Even though she has tried tacking to the right on the controversy, I am sure her core believers know where she really stands and many are passionate about maintaining the ability to legally kill the pre-born. But will abortion rights still be in play with regards to the Presidency? If the Supreme Court changes enough by then, to throw it back to the states, it may defuse the issue for many when it comes to Presidential races.

So, my warning is that we not get over-confident. If the blogosphere were to do that, it would only emulate the fallen MSM and lead us to the similar mistakes. Much is uncertain and many things can and will happen by 2008. We will still need a positive agenda. We will need a candidate who can articulate the policies clearly and persuasively. The GOP also needs to realize that illegal immigration is its Achilles heel and Hillary is smart enough to know that and attempt to use it to her advantage. For those who reference the blogosphere's role in Kerry losing, I have to point out that Kerry was a horrible candidate. His missteps concerning Vietnam, the foolish sound bite gift of "I voted for it before I voted against it", and his inability to really inspire people were easy to exploit. Do we really think the MSM and friends of Hillary are going to make it so easy for us again in her bid for the Presidency? Remember, no matter how good a plan, the enemy still gets a vote.

Related posts:

Are Chicago Women Really This Stupid?
John Kerry - too stupid to be President

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

George Voinovich - Let's start a support group

Poor little Georgie, after hearing Voinovich choking back tears on the Senate floor over the John Bolton nomination I think it is clear he needs a caring group of people to help him in his time of need. I recommend that we create a care package. He obviously needs the following items:

Of course, diapers, the more absorbent the better, to avoid adding to his embarrassing performance on the Senate floor.

A pacifier with a clip to make sure he doesn't lose it when it falls out of his blubbering mouth.

Tissues, so he can blow his nose after crying.

A periodic doctor's exam so we can know when his have actually dropped.

A schedule of meetings to be stapled to his forehead so he will actually show up before sputtering his crybaby nonsense.

Baby powder to ease the discomfort after changing his soiled diapers.

Feel free to add to the list. The poor little baby needs our support.

You may want to listen to him yourself by way of this mp3 file from Radioblogger.

H/T Michelle Malkin

Previous posts:

GOP Senators - wusses!
GOP Senators - Still wusses!!
McCain for President - NOT!
About that Senate compromise

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

About that Senate compromise

So the Constitutional option to stop the filibuster of judicial nominations has been avoided, for now. My first reaction was outrage and I was prepared to just rant against the RINOs and MSM boot licker once again. However, I decided to take my time to think about it and look at a range of views. I am not as positive as others but I will keep my mind open to some degree.

There actually is some good:

3 justices will be voted on, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor

Democrats agree to only filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances"

The filibuster is maintained should the Republicans have the need in the future

Republicans avoid, for now, the MSM spinning the Constitutional option as a horrible event in the history of our country

Perhaps a precedent has been set, that conservative justices are not to extreme to allow a full Senate vote

Frist says the Constitutional option is still on the table as well as all the candidates

But now the bad:

It appears 2 nominations will be thrown under the truck, Myers and Saad

Moderates are puffed up with the power they think they possess

Seeing McCain in full peacock mode as well stated by Ace

Having to trust Democraps on what "extraordinary circumstances" will mean

Rumors that an under the table oral agreement exists to toss out 2 other candidates, Kavanaugh and Haynes

Do any of us really believe the Senate Republicans have the stones to ever use the filibuster themselves?

No commitment from Democraps to not filibuster Supreme Court nominations

Seven Republicans have committed themselves to betray the administration on this issue for the remainder of this session of Congress

Possibly the worst part of this compromise is having to trust the Democraps to not expand "extraordinary circumstances" into so encompassing a term as to mean everything and therefore nothing. A common sense view of the term would be if the individual nominated had some serious indiscretion in the past or marked deficiency in qualifications. But there is reason to worry that it will have nothing to do with the candidate's qualifications. Already a Supreme Court nomination is being defined as extraordinary circumstances by some. From the Washington Times:

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said her group was "heartened that the crisis has been averted and the right to filibuster preserved for upcoming Supreme Court nominations. We are confident that a Supreme Court nominee who won't even state a position on Roe v. Wade is the kind of 'extraordinary circumstance' this deal envisions."

So, we can expect another showdown. It would be foolish to not prepare for that. Of course, it may come even sooner as there are indications that Bill Frist is not going to back down and that every candidate and even the Constitutional option are still on the table. Good for him. Hopefully there are more Senators with the courage to stand up for qualified candidates that deserve a vote on the Senate floor. It would be good to force the Democraps to show what they really mean.

As it is we are getting spin from all sides. Republicans are trying to make the best of this not so great deal. While Democraps are attacking the Bush administration and religious conservatives. The most irritating for me was hearing little Dick Durbin of Illinois bloviating about "...the most treasured and cherished traditions of the United States Senate will be preserved, will not be attacked and will not be destroyed." Yeah ok little Dick, it was a tradition of the Senate that a filibuster was not used on Judicial nominations. Orwell's book was meant as a warning you twat, not as something to use as an instruction book on manipulating language.

As for the Republicans that participated in this farce, I hope the administration and GOP will work against them in their re-election bids. I would suggest that if you have the means, contribute to just about any Republican challenger that they may face. Here is the list so we don't forget.

Mike DeWine of Ohio

Susan Collins of Maine

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina

Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island

John McCain of Arizona

John W. Warner of Virginia

Olympia J. Snowe of Maine

McCain has shown that he loves the MSM and could care less about conservatives or people of religious faith. That he could just stand there and let some Senator go on and attack the religious right, should not be forgotten. It would suit me fine if he left the GOP. He serves the MSM party as it is anyway.

Again From the Washington Times article:

Moments earlier as the deal was about to be announced, several Republicans offered the lectern to Mr. Byrd, who demurred, waiting instead for "his turn."

"Your turn is whenever you want it to be," said Mr. McCain, a chief architect of the deal who had to leave the press conference before it ended to make an early screening of a movie about himself.

Aside from the narcissistic McCain leaving to screen a movie of himself, isn't it special how he is being all lovely dovey with Senator Byrd, former Klu Klux Klan member and who recently had the gall to refer to the Constitutional option as a Nazi tactic?

But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. ...Hitler's dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it.

[...]

That is what the nuclear option seeks to do to rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

McCain seems to have forgotten the adage that you will be known by the friends you keep. Some have suggested he is getting back at the administration for North Carolina. I don't know if that is true but if he can forgive his Vietcong tormentors, certainly he can get over a political fight. If not, it shows his priorities are horribly twisted.

Other bloggers weigh in:

The Anchoress and her initial reaction

It’s gonna be a long cold day before the GNP sees a dime of my money. A long. Cold. Day.

Though she is willing to consider other views.

Ace of Spades considering other analyses.

Michelle Malkin with a round up of links.

Professor Bainbridge is postive and has responded to his critics:
Filibuster Deal
More on The Filibuster Deal
More on the Filibuster: Responding to My Critics
Adler on the Deal

Hugh Hewitt has this to say:

It is impossible to say whether this is a "terrible" deal, a "bad" deal, or a very, very marginally "ok" deal, but it surely is not a good deal. Not one dime more for the NRSC from me unless and until the Supreme Court nominee gets confirmed, and no other filibusters develop. I won't spend money on a caucus supporting organization when the caucus can't deliver a majority. Mark Kennedy and other Senate candidates with spines, but not for the NRSC.

Previous posts about GOP Senators and their spineless character:

GOP Senators - wusses!
GOP Senators - Still wusses!!
McCain for President - NOT!

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

One of those quizzes - Star Wars this time

Unfortunately he got killed.



H/T Emily's Craziness

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Star Wars III - Revenge of The Sith

Star Wars III - Revenge of The Sith

Well I saw it Thursday night. Let me start my review by pointing out the difficulty Lucas was faced with. We all knew the ending. The emotional impact of that is gone except as a sigh of final relief. We have come full circle and it could have been worse. I guess my overall reaction is like that of the Anakin, Obi-wan Jedi buddy team. No matter what danger or collapse of well-laid plans is swirling about them, they shrug it off with a whimsical joke as if to say - eh, whatever.

To overcome this lack of surprise in the final ending Lucas would need to draw us in with the how and that takes great writing and acting. A good example would be the Lord of The Rings. Many of us knew the outcome and every step along the way but great acting and directing and of course dialogue easily overcame that. Unfortunately, we know Lucas falls short in writing dialogue and for some reason good actors become wooden stand-ins to CG effects under his direction. In some cases I have seen smiley emoticons deliver more dramatic expression. I really do not understand how some critics can be comparing this to Shakespeare. It most certainly could have been, but much that could have been explored is left out or only barely implied.

Now, of course there is praise that is well deserved. Lucas has a great visual imagination. The first visions of the capital of Naboo or Coruscant were indeed sights to behold. He has made good use of technology. But as others have commented before, he is so interested in the technology that the movies tend to lack soul. While he produces epic space battles and indeed they are wonderful to see, the overall heart of the movie is lacking.

So the good, a space battle that very much surpasses that of Starship Troopers. Palpatine being played extremely well, stealing the show in my opinion. The environment of Obi-wan and Anakin's last battle was impressive as was Anakin's physical destruction and of course there is the music, the themes we all remember and love arising once again. The bad that I especially noticed would be silly philosophy, which I had covered here, before seeing the film but now I notice a contradiction in the movie regarding that. Due to my martial arts training, I also am very particular about fight scenes, especially those involving swords or in this case lightsabers.

First the philosophy, as I noted previously Obi-wan said "only a Sith deals in absolutes". As silly as that was, it now flies in the face of Darth Sidius preaching relative morality and his new apprentice repeating the same. So which is it - absolutes are bad or relative morality is bad? I suppose a Sith will do or say anything is the way out. Eh - whatever.

Now for the lightsaber fight. The best in the Star Wars movies were Luke and Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back and also Return of The Jedi and of course the fight with Darth Maul in Phantom Menace, especially when Obi-wan reacts to Qui-Gon Jinn being killed. In contrast we now have Lucas making lightsaber fights resemble a rave with neon lights or a video game with all the jumping around. Its not that the actors portraying Obi-wan or Anakin/Darth Vader were not good or the techniques bad. It’s that you can hardly see them for all the neon lights twirling and flashing around.

I think Lucas would do well to take some lessons from recent Chinese movies. If he would like an example of stoic characters that can still display emotion, he should view Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. He could also learn from Ken Watanabe in The Last Samurai and again the Lord of The Rings saga. For a fight between former friends, he could learn a great deal from the final battle in House of Flying Daggers. A fight for love and hate between former allies that surpasses what Lucas has been able to achieve here. All of these films also have superior sword fights and most likely because they do not have the overabundance and/or reliance on CG effects.

Considering the scope of the film there is enough so that some will hate the film and others will love it. Much like the opening to A Tale of Two Cities, “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times”. But for me it is simply - eh, whatever.

Previous post:

George Lucas - highschool philosopher

Other views:

From Professor Bainbridge: Betraying Story Continuity to Score Political Points
---

From a coworker who read an early draft of my review:

Well-written review, you’re right about the sub-par dialog from otherwise good character actors. I think these current installments of the 'star wars saga' suck compared to the original trilogy b/c of the lack of good direction from a Spielberg; or the Oscar caliber acting of an Alec Guinness.

feel free to use this phrase in your review when you tweak it later:

Trifecta of Suckness

---

From Libertas: Star Wars Episode III: Review + Extended Commentary

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Moving to a new neighborhood - Issue #7

Special issue explanation here



With that book about Bill Clinton coming out, I thought it was a good time to move another editorial from my old website to my blog.

October 7, 2004
Are Chicago Women Really This Stupid?

An inflammatory question to be sure but I think I have good reason to ask. Recently, I finally saw the Oprah show that featured Bill Clinton. I had heard that it was nearly a love fest for the ex-president but I had to see for myself. Unfortunately what I heard was true. My initial reaction was to wonder how can these women be that stupid.

It is unfortunate that the audience would be so one-sided as I know some women that live in Chicago. I would not be surprised if they walked up to the ex-president and punched him. But unfortunately that would not do for the image Oprah and Clinton wanted to produce. Such is the nature of these shows and of course there would be no shortage of adoring women to fill the audience for Clinton’s appearance in a city like Chicago.

Why should I react this way to their loving devotion to every word that fell from his lips? One item that concerns me is that Clinton says it was easy to fight them (Starr and the Republicans) because they were destroying individual’s lives in an effort to get him out of office. As he says this type of thing the women in the audience lovingly nod in approval and gaze upon his visage with looks of adoration.

The problem is the utter hypocrisy of that statement when uttered by someone like Bill Clinton. Did anyone in the audience not remember his first reaction to the Monica story breaking? He sent out one of his surrogates to try and peddle a story to the media portraying Monica as someone who was stalking the President. Imagine that, the most powerful man in the country, very nearly the world, saying that you are stalking him! Fortunately he did not succeed at this but it is telling that his first method of lying about the matter would involve completely destroying her with such a slanderous charge.

I know for those that looked at him as saving women from those evil Republicans, it must be hard to try and remember such things. But if supporting the causes of liberal women is all it takes to get a pass on sexual harassment and slander to protect your backside; then I suggest the “old school” Neanderthals still out there in the business world at least start to put up a good pro-choice, pro-whatever liberal woman cause act, so as to gain brownie points against their own commission of assaults against women that Bill Clinton got away with. Anyone remember NOW doing much to support Monica or any of the other women?

It goes far beyond an affair with a subordinate and lying under oath. I know Oprah is not going to ask anything very difficult of the ex-president. Maybe she had to agree to a limit on the probing just to have the interview. But I am sure a good portion of those women felt they had the whole story now. Who can blame them? I have to admit that Bill Clinton is extraordinarily gifted in pressing the flesh so to speak. The man has quite an ability to schmooze people. It takes quite a concerted effort to keep in one’s mind his actual behavior while he is working his magic on you and the audience.

But what happened to, I am woman hear me roar? It seems it has now become I am woman let me get on my knees in your office because you support my particular political cause and/or you lavish me with attention that makes me giddy like a school girl. Never mind that another woman is accusing you of rape and another of sexual molestation. Never mind one of those women is being harassed and threatened because she came forward. Never mind that you lied in a civil case concerning sexual harassment. Apparently other women suffering at the hands of this creep are unimportant because all a woman really wants is attention lavished on her and on her desire to kill her unborn child.

There was a time in this country when the ability to vote was limited to a much smaller group of people than it is now. Women and those that did not own property were prevented from participating in the political system. I suspect that some may have thought that women were too flighty and not rational enough to participate in politics. It is certainly a good thing for women that the Oprah show and Bill Clinton were not around when woman’s suffrage came up, or women would still not be allowed to vote and in the case of that Chicago audience, rightly so.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

McCain for President - NOT!

From kissing the MSM's bare ass every time they want a Republican to be critical of the party or campaign finance reform, I have enough reasons not to support McCain in his eventual bid for the Presidency. Someone that is so beholden to the title of "maverick" from the MSM is not someone I can agree with on very much or even trust.

Now, according to the MSM, we have this as covered by Hugh Hewitt:

To summarize: MSM mouthpieces for the Democrats are peddling the idea that John McCain is trying to persuade five other GOP senators to join five Democratic senators in (1) voting for cloture, (2) voting against five of George Bush's appellate court nominees in order to please Democrats, and (3) leaving open the Democrats'ability to filibuster the president's Supreme Court nominees.

That's not a "deal." That's Senate GOP suicide. And McCain/Hagel presidential ambition suicide. Majority Leader Frist must know that this would be disastrous to the GOP prospects in 2006, and I doubt if even McCain is trying to push this Harry Reid face-saving "deal."

By the way, last time I mentioned what I thought of a worthless GOP US Senator I received a visit from usdoj.gov. I had some coworkers and friends a bit worried that I might have black SUVs at my place soon but I wasn't worried. It's not like I mentioned what I thought of Hillary, McCain, Voinovich, Specter and also terrorism, Osama, bombs, assassinations, Iraq and blowing things up in that post. Thanks for the addition to my hit stats but come on usdoj.gov guys, leave a comment next time.

The Anchoress is also covering this and her commentary, as always, is top-notch.

Related posts:

GOP Senators - wusses!
GOP Senators - Still wusses!!

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Terri Schindler again or far worse?

If this is true it is possibly even more disturbing. As covered by BlogsforTerri:

...a man with severe brain damage whose wife wants to remove his feeding tube. Scott Thomas is apparently aware, responsive and able to communicate. Reminiscent of several similar cases, Scott received his injury last November while alone at home with the person who now wants him to die.

[...]

Scott Thomas' wife and mother are in a legal battle for guardianship. His wife Eliza wants to move him to hospice and have his feeding tube withdrawn. Scott's mother, Pamela Patton, claims that Scott has indicated to herself and to nursing staff that Eliza tried to kill him by hitting him on the head and that he doesn't even want to see her. According to Scott's mother, Eliza has ordered medical personnel to not give Mrs. Patton or other family members any information about Scott's medical condition.

If the story holds, it is clear that the culture of death is continuing its hideous march. I would not have expected such things to follow on Terri's tragedy so quickly. It is almost as if the difference between good and evil is being sharpened as we move ever closer to a culmination in mankind's experience that many religions and myths speak of. Many prayers will be required as the final days approach.

Related posts:

Terri Schiavo Schindler – Lessons Learned
Terri Schindler and the media
Terri Schindler and the polls
Low expectations for the MSM
Just Following Orders

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Abortion - no consequences?

A new research study says that an abortion increases the odds of the next baby being born prematurely and increasing the risk of the child dying or suffering disabilities.

Having an abortion almost doubles a woman's risk of giving birth dangerously early in a later pregnancy, according to research that will provoke fresh debate over the most controversial of all medical procedures.

A French study of 2,837 births - the first to investigate the link between terminations and extremely premature births - found that mothers who had previously had an abortion were 1.7 times more likely to give birth to a baby at less than 28 weeks' gestation. Many babies born this early die soon after birth, and a large number who survive suffer serious disability.

Of course, prolife groups will use this as the article mentions. If the study is proven conclusive, women should definitely be informed.

But I do have advice for my fellow prolife advocates. If you only have this as your argument, you will fail. Medical science may eventually overcome the increased risk or like breast cancer, additional studies may confuse the matter. Where will your ability to dissuade others be then? One need not rely completely on potential health risks to the mother. After all, abortion kills the preborn regardless of what it does to the mother. That will not change, that is its main purpose, the desired consequence when stripped of the misleading euphemisms. Make sure you do not lose focus on this or forget how to present the rational and sound reasons for being against abortion.

It would do well if many prolife advocates would also learn how to present the arguments in ways that do not rely solely on religion. While I do not have a problem with a religious motivation, such an argument is really only effective to those who accept the words of Christ to begin with. Certainly, the Holy Spirit may lead one to that approach on occasion but an assumption that it is the only way to argue will result in more failure than success. It hands the other side the ability to say being prolife is only forcing one's religious faith on other people. It also gives those who would otherwise be prolife in some way, reason to pause, as they understandably do not want to be seen as forcing religion on others.

Remember the words of Christ as he sent out the disciples:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves (Matt. 10:16)

This matter is far to important for us not to do our best at offering sound reasons, alternatives and appropriate methods within our society and political structure, to produce positive change and as a result, save many innocent lives.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

John Kerry - too stupid to be President

I know that the common wisdom in some circles is that Kerry was to "nuanced" to be President. To some, us rubes or supposedly dim-witted sneaky theocrats in the red states were not able to understand his agile (snort, chuckle, guffaw) mind. The reason I bring this up despite the elections being long past is that apparently Kerry may try running again. I'm also reading a book that reminded me of a criticism that I never made in a public forum at the time. I didn't have this blog then and I am pretty sure I didn't even mention it in the forum wars that occurred around the time of the elections.

The book I am currently reading is The Roots of American Order by Russell Kirk and is an excellent study of our heritage and should be required reading in our schools. I am at the chapter discussing the Middle Ages, specifically the development of English Parliament and how the King lost control of the purse i.e. control of financing his endeavors.

How in the world does this apply to Kerry, much less indicate his stupidity? I'm sure the reader, regardless of political affiliation, will not have forgotten Kerry's "I voted for it, before I voted against it" statement. It helps to say it in a booming yet oddly sleep-inducing manner. For all the MSM and Kerry staff and supporters trying to defend him from the attacks that followed, nothing really helped him recover from that gift of a sound bite.

I remember thinking at the time and being surprised that no one on his side thought of the following reply. He could have said that he was merely doing the very thing that the Constitution allowed for stopping the Executive branch in the use of its power. Mainly, the control of the purse was specifically left in the hands of the legislature. You can see how Kerry, if he really was so intelligent, could easily have turned this into a discussion of our Constitution and his desire to uphold it and the traditions and customs of English law that we inherited. Not a minor point, considering the reasonable criticism against the Democrats that they care not for what the Constitution actually says but rather what they and their judges can make it say, especially when this overrides the people and their representatives. He would also have the added benefit that this would also be a nod to his buddies across the ocean. Well, he would really like to kiss the French and German bureaucratic asses but at least it's in the same hemisphere and that would show some "nuance".

Instead, we have one of the explanations being about wanting to tax the rich. Smooth move exlax, the Democrats are rightly criticized for class warfare and there you go, proving the point. It seems to me that if he is at least intelligent enough to understand what he is saying; then he must really believe these things. If that is the case, is it any wonder he lost?

Granted, some, more sober-minded on the other end of the political spectrum, look at Kerry as a horrible candidate. It's unfortunate that Joe Lieberman was sidelined in the primaries. I know some think that America would never vote for a Jewish president. While I am not the type to decide the matter based on this, the democrats could have made an important point. It would be wrong to reject a candidate simply because he was of x religious faith. At the very least, that principle could have been made clear to many and possibly reduced religious bigotry. Instead, it seems such bias against religion was actually acquiesced to by the Democrat primary voters. Also consider the recent examples regarding President Bush's nominations for government positions.

From Hugh Hewitt (emphasis added):

This fundamental and irreconcilable chasm --Democrats do not believe that any nominee who can be suspected of believing in the personhood of the unborn or of other "deeply held beliefs," to quote Senator Schumer, is qualified to sit on the federal bench-- cannot be bridged, and given its importance, should not be avoided. Senators Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy, Boxer, Clinton and Reid have in essence imposed a prohibited "religious test" on nominees for office. (See Article VI, Section III). Senator Specter is worried about the traditions of the Senate. I think he ought to be worried about the Constitution.

Hopefully, the Democrats will get over their nasty view of religious faith and will find a better candidate next time who actually has ideas that appeal to more than the fringe element within the party. Simply using the term nuance to describe your candidate will not hide the candidate's glaring stupidity, as we have seen. But then Hillary seems to be the anointed one for the next go around. That's just to bad; she is clearly not the moderate she is now pretending to be. But it sure will be entertaining.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Google - taking lessons from cBS

21st Century Paladin has graphics comparing a liberal ad that Google accepted and a conservative ad they rejected. The bias is obvious and undeniable. With this in mind, we should be concerned that Google is trying to patent technology to rank the quality of news sources. Can they really be trusted to do this in an objective manner? Apparently they want to replace the fallen cBS as a biased shill for liberal ideology rather than be the best search engine and information provider.

The one positive thing to take away from this? At least some of us bloggers will continue to have a target rich environment.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Our cultural elites - Too funny :-)

If you haven't heard, "political" socialite Arriana Huffington has started a blog to counter the "right wing" bloggers. I really could care less about her little tirades against SUVs when she flys chartered jets or has more cars than I could ever afford. But I'm not going to pass by some excellent commentary and hilarious spoofs at her expense ;-)

From John Podhoretz at NRO the Corner:

THE H-BOMB GETS BLOWED UP REAL GOOD

Arianna gets punked. Very funny.

The latest from Libertas:

Huffington Post IV

Money quote:

The Huffington Post is supposed to act as counterweight to Powerline and Michelle Malkin. Is this the kind of nonsense that’s going to get the job done? After three days, I’m still waiting for even a hint of substance. The whole site brings home the truth of the post-election diagnosis that liberal America is a victim of its own near complete paucity of ideas.

And finally the Huffington Is Full of Crap blog

Have fun at the cultural elites expense.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

George Lucas - highschool philosopher

And that may be giving him to much credit. I haven't seen the "last" Star Wars movie, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith yet but I have been checking out the reviews. I found this one, No Star Wars for Oil about the politics quite interesting but one exchange in particular stood out.

The ultimate reference comes in the climactic duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan Kenobi on the planet of Mustafar, which seems to have long ago failed in its struggle against global warming. "If you're not with me, you're my enemy," Anakin shouts to Obi-Wan, who responds: "Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes." Yes, and so, it would seem, do neo-cons.

"Only a Sith lord deals in absolute." How trite and stupid all at the same time.

Besides the politics, is the writer, whoever that may be, really trying to imply that there are no absolutes? Whenever someone says there are no absolutes, I ask them if they believe that absolutely. This tends to result in a blank stare as they slowly realize their seemingly clever statement barely rises to the level of a dime store bumper sticker slogan for all its meaningless banality. To put it in terms of logic, to deny absolutes you have to make an absolute statement. Such a statement is an inherent contradiction and therefore meaningless.

Unfortunately, this will not stop some from endlessly discussing the philosophical depth of the Star War series. This would be the perfect occasion for a rolling eyes smiley. But hey, I'll still go see it for the action and special effects.

H/T Libertas

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

How long till the long knives are brought out?

I feel a bit sorry for this guy. He is going to be labeled a creationist and accused of trying to impose a theocracy on the country. I placed the money quote in bold.

Be sure to also check out the article by Prof. James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist, U. of Chicago, that he references. I bet you will not see these things in the mainstream media.

An Open Letter to the Kansas State Board of Education

By: Dr. Philip S. Skell
Dr. Philip S. Skell
May 12, 2005
An open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education from Professor Philip S. Skell, Member, National Academy of Sciences, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus Penn State University.

May 12, 2005

Dr. Steve E. Abrams, Chair
Kansas State Board of Education
C/o Kansas State Department of Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka KS 66612-1182
Fax: (785) 296-7933

Dear Dr. Abrams:

I have been following the controversy over the adoption of new science standards in your state with interest. I am writing--as a member of the National Academy of Sciences--to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory.

All too often, the issue of how to teach evolutionary theory has been dominated by voices at the extremes. On one extreme, many religious activists have advocated for Bible-based ideas about creation to be taught and for evolution to be eliminated from the science curriculum entirely. On the other hand, many committed Darwinian biologists present students with an idealized version of the theory that glosses over real problems and prevents students from learning about genuine scientific criticisms of it.

Both these extremes are mistaken. Evolution is an important theory and students need to know about it. But scientific journals now d0cument many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well.

Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. I have found that some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view of biological origins.

Darwinian evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life. Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science that do not address questions of biological history (largely based on stones, the fossil evidence). Modern biology is engaged in the examination of tissues from living organisms with new methods and instruments. None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution---it provided no support.

As an aside, one might ask what Darwin would have written today if he was aware of the present state of knowledge of cell biology, rather than that of the mid 19th century when it was generally believed the cell was an enclosed blob of gelatin? As an exemplar, I draw your attention to what Prof. James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist, U. of Chicago, wrote.

For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.

In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals.

Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the scientific method. Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive. Encouraging students to carefully examine the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism, therefore, will help prepare students not only to understand current scientific arguments, but also to do good scientific research.

I commend you for your efforts to ensure that students are more fully informed about current debates over neo-Darwinism in the scientific community.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Philip S. Skell
Member, National Academy of Sciences
Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus
Penn State University

H/T
ID the future
Evolution News & Views

Related info:
Evolution only in public schools?
More evolution only tripe
New York Times - this is reporting?

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Is Google homophobic?

No sooner had I published my previous post Gay gene? then Google placed a particular ad on my blog. I was a bit surprised and grabbed a screen shot as you can see below.


Is Google homophobic? 

Ok, take it easy. I'm just having a little fun. ;-P

But just to be clear - that is not a photoshopped image. I did a screen grab and cropped it is all. Tsk tsk Google - for shame.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Gay gene?

If you haven't heard by now, there is another study that will be used to promote the idea that homosexuality must be wholly determined by biology rather than mostly by learning or conditioning and choosing.

Gay Men Respond Differently to Pheromones

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The sexual area of a gay man's brain works a lot like that of a woman when exposed to a particular stimulus, researchers say.

In an experiment, men and heterosexual women sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone. The homosexual men's brains responded differently from those of heterosexual males, and in a similar way to the women's brains.

"It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.[...]

Already, some are saying this proves being gay is unavoidable and therefore must not only be tolerated but also accepted and indeed, encouraged in our youth.

I heard about this on the radio today and I emailed a few thoughts that I had based on the discussions that occurred.

Correlation is not causation

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Was the brain affected by a choice in behaviour or vice versa?

A genetice component does not automatically mean a 100% genetic determination in behaviour. That would be a very strict determinist philosophy.

The negative affects of making certain choices do not stop some from robbery, fraud, assault etc. Why should that argument have any force in this situation? That was in response to the oft made claim that, being gay subjects one to so much societal ostracism that no one would choose to be subjected to that. A very weak arugment as I pointed out with the examples.

The MSM has inaccurately hyped such studies before. This is more than likely the same thing.

Having an urge or desire to do something should not be enough to justify anything. Society would be frightening if that was all it took to prove something was morally correct or beneficial to the individual or civilization at large.

Tolerance and compassion do not require acceptance or the encouraging of actions.

Unfortunately, some are very much beholden to the entirely biologically determined storyline. I suspect this is because it is much more difficult to argue that this lifestyle should be not just be tolerated but encouraged and accepted as normal if it is mostly about nurture and making choices. Rather, the sledgehammer of biology and the immediate charge of homophobia are necessary to force society to accept this. Sadly, such tactics seem to encourage real homophobia and shameful hatred and violence, a vicious circle indeed.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Bill Maher - being a petulant ass

The following was posted in a forum I frequent and includes my reply, with some edits. It is unfortunate that Bill Maher descends into a less than rational attack on religion. He clearly does not understand anything other than a NY Times caricature of relgious faith. That's too bad, as he has some worthwhile things to say.

By: Bill Maher

The poster and essay reprinted here are from my forthcoming book, When
You Ride Alone, You Ride With Bin Laden, and a little explanation is
in order.

The American government has been telling American citizens for over a year now that we're in a war, a war we can win so easily that the homefront is asked to do little more than remain gluttonous and consumptatory.

In earlier wars the government wasn't afraid to ask its citizens-often through the medium of the wartime propaganda poster-to sacrifice: to curb travel, plant a victory garden, save tin, not let loose lips sink ships, etc. Our pandering government of today wouldn't dare create posters informing Americans of what they actually could do to help, so I decided I would.

My title is inspired by a World War II-era government poster that reads "When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Hitler." It exhorts Americans to conserve oil by carpooling, which is as relevant today as it was in 1943.

Not all the actions we can take today are. This is a very different kind of war, but there's lots of things we can do, and lots we can rethink. Taking a long, hard look at traditions-including religion-is one of them.

He starts off with some promise, criticizing political correctness and our inability to sacrafice for worthy causes. Unfortunately, he quickly veers off to a less than rational screed against religious faith and Christiainity in particular.

Having always defined political correctness as the elevation of sensitivity over truth, and being an optimist, I guessed that after 9-11, Americans would judge all matters "PC" to be an indulgence herewith unaffordable. Boy, was I wrong. Which is bad, because political correctness is much more dangerous now than it was before 9-11. What were once the kind of lies we told to spare anyone's "feelings" from ever getting bruised are now revealed as blind spots in our rationale, inhibiting our ability to fully grasp our predicament.

And there's nothing more politically correct than pretending religion is always a good thing. Saying someone is religious is heard in most of America as a compliment, a reassuring affirmation that someone will be moral, ethical, and, after a few glasses of wine, a freak in the bedroom.

He would have had a point here but apparently he cannot resist his negative Pavlovian response to religion. That's unfortunate because being PC is definitely a problem.

People say "I'm a Christian" the way certain politicians say "I have integrity," like we're all supposed to be impressed and back off and kneel down to that almighty testament to naïveté and hypocrisy. When people brag that they have religious faith, I hear "stupidity." Faith is saying, "I will ignore my God-given gifts for discerning reality and instead throw my lot in with blind belief in something that was forced into my head before I could even think." Isn't that how we get adults in this world who fight wars based on which contrived fairy tale they were brought up on? Which desert mirage they were programmed to see-the magic apple and the talking bush, or the flying horse and circling the black rock?

He destroys the good point that saying “I’m Christian” must be backed up with proper action in one’s life, by immediately slamming religious faith, in general, as stupidity. If this is his version of reasoned discourse, he shouldn't be surprised when people reject his version of "rationalism".

But hey, "You have to respect peoples' religion!" Why? I don't. I don't respect thinking that is dangerous, prejudicial, childish, and could get me killed. And to pretend, as we are apparently supposed to, that the terrorism we face today is not about religion is like saying AIDS in America has no relation to homosexuality. It'll get you applause on Oprah, but it's not true.

Also an applause line but complete bullshit is "This is not a clash of civilizations." Of course it is, as every major war is. The Civil War was a clash of civilizations, and we didn't even leave the country.

He has some good points here but unfortunately, he is losing them in an unnecessary and inaccurate slam on religion in general throughout this rant of his.

To hear people the week after 9-11 constantly talking up the need for more faith and the importuning of our God was, to me, the very definition of being "part of the problem." Of course, we in the West like to pat ourselves on the back and say we're more tolerant, and we are-but tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance. It just means "We think you're crazy and going to hell, but we won't kill you for it-we'll tolerate you. But you don't know who the Man in the Sky is, and we do."

I would agree that tolerance does not mean we must accept something.

Our own president said during the 2000 campaign that he didn't believe one could get into heaven if not a Christian. He had to backpedal on it because non-Christians vote, but millions of Christians who aren't running for anything would endorse that view wholeheartedly.

And why wouldn't they, since they treat the Bible like it's some kind of . . . bible, and in it there are the words: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: and no man cometh unto the Father but by me." Not a lot of wiggle room there. Put that next to "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet," and it's pretty much "Pick a side." One lane open on the highway to heaven.

He is kind of missing the relevant point that only extremists in any religion are going to say we must therefore kill the infidels. I guess he missed Pope John Paul II and his outreach to other religions.

Of course, when you shut off your brain from rational analysis, any book is dangerous. Taking literally ancient parables from thousands of years ago is much more dangerous than playing with a loaded gun. Ancient scrawls, written by different authors in different centuries with different agendas-yeah, let's get mad-literal about that.

This is just the same old blah blah blah about religion being antithetical to rational thought. I am not impressed. Even in the fundamental Baptist circles I grew up in, there was recognition that the Bible contains allegory, poetry, parables etc. Perhaps Maher should take the time to review the relevant literature that has arisen with Christendom over the centuries. Even he might be impressed with the breadth and scholarly depth that exists.

The literalness problem is compounded in religion by the circular logic of not being allowed to question anything, or else you're lacking faith. Christianity and Islam both have strict bans on any sort of questioning of the religion itself-or, as the Wizard once put it, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" In the Bible, it's "Don't eat from the Tree of Knowledge," but the meaning is the same: "The stuff we're telling you is going to seem crazy, but just buy it."

Circular logic most certainly applies to the ideology of evolution. Be careful if you are a scientist and point out the flaws in evolution by materialism only. You are not supposed to question that.

I have questioned my beliefs often and know many who do the same. Sorry, but many of us have maintained a belief in salvation by Christ's sacrifice because of rational inquiry. But apparently, that doesn’t stop the typical criticism, which is based on an assumption that you are correct anyway. Again, I am not impressed.

Imagine being able to sell any other product like that-by insisting the customer swallow every word you spoke about it as gospel or else he'd burn in hell. Where you, as the customer, having been brainwashed from birth about the superiority of the product, upon reaching thinking age, forfeit the benefits of the product if you doubt it in any way, and the claims of the product cannot be tested until after you're dead.

Christianity, properly taught, welcomes testing of the doctrines and results thereof. Any preacher, who says otherwise, has quickly lost me as a member of that church. Questions that really seek answers rather than opportunities to merely display one's preening skepticism are not a problem either.

Maybe that's why religion is a magic word that allows priesthoods to do anything they want to people. The Taliban kept their women in beekeeper suits. The Catholics got away with fucking kids!

Yeah, because f'ing kids is an official tenet of Catholic doctrine and a good number of lay people and church officials are trying to show how the Bible supports it.

Maher is being a petulant ass. He has some good and necessary points but they get lost in this unfortunate knee-jerk caterwauling against religion in general and specifically against Christianity.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

A Minuteman's experience

For those who are using the slanderous charge of racism against Latinos, I have placed in bold the most relevant term that you are missing or willfully ignoring.

Much has been said about the American citizens who spent time at our southern border observing and reporting illegal aliens. The typical knee jerk response spanned the political spectrum and included President Bush and Condaleeza Rice referring to the Minutemen as vigilantes. While I respect and admire both her and the President, they were wrong and it was irresponsible for them to characterize decent Americans in that fashion. Would this administration also declare neighborhood watch programs to be merely vigilante gangs?

An article in the Houston Chronicle WITHIN BOUNDS is the experience of one of the Minutemen.

A common misconception about illegal aliens is that they are all peasants looking for work to support their families. Not so. Most of the 335 apprehensions resulting from reports by the Minutemen were of drug smugglers, men in their late teens to early 20s dressed in black and wearing cut-out black stocking caps.

If only it were about jobs. But for those Americans living on the border it can be quite dangerous.

I spoke with Belinda, a single mother who allowed us to use her home and yard for observation. Every day about 5:30 p.m., as she came home from work with her young daughter, she was confronted by a group of smugglers making a drop to a car parked in her driveway.

Out of fear for her safety, Belinda began carrying a handgun and routinely cleared her own home before bringing her daughter in for the evening. She thanked us profusely for helping her to reclaim her yard, and every night she fed us a hot meal.

Those who live near the border experience a lack of security that should concern all of us. If only the naysayers cared as much for American children as they claim to do for those of illegal aliens.

It's no way to live. This courageous woman (Carol - a local orgainzer), who brought us food and coffee for protecting her neighborhood, packs a revolver because a mother and daughter were recently assaulted by an illegal alien while they waited for a school bus in her neighborhood in Hereford. Another family related to me that illegal aliens regularly try to get on the school bus in Naco.

The abuse of American citizens that occurs daily near the border with Mexico and the destructive effect of drug smuggling on individuals, families and society should outrage all Americans. Those who extol the virtues of an open border should have to live there. In fact, some do, the small percentage of drug dealers, drug users and their protectors (lawyers, politicians and businessmen), who profit from it all.

I imagine some would say that is about what many experience in inner city ghettos. As if that is a reasonable response. If they support greater enforcement of the law against gangs in American cities than they have no room to complain against doing the same on our borders with regard to illegal aliens. Now for those who are against law enforcement in either case, get back to me when you are thinking rationally.

Perhaps Vincent Fox, for all his and his American cheerleaders complaining about the Minutemen, would be happy if we applied the same laws and enforcement methods to illegal aliens as would be applied in his country. After all, what's good for the goose...

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Freedom of speech - with correct ID

Unless you happen to be an illegal alien. Then some law enforcement officials won't care and will in fact assist you in breaking the law. Michelle Malkin has a SPECIAL REPORT: INSIDE AN ILLEGAL ALIEN RALLY and shows the ridiculous mentality of some in the open border crowd.

On Saturday afternoon, I drove to Rockville, Md., for a large "gathering to condemn the REAL ID Act." (The act will tighten driver's license standards to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining the IDs, close asylum loopholes, and provide funding to fix a huge gap in a border fence between California and Mexico.) Casa de Maryland, a government-funded open-borders group, organized the protest on the public school athletic field at Richard Montgomery High School.

Notice the ambivalence of an officer she interviewed at the protest.

Asked if the Department of Homeland Security had been notified of the illegal alien rally, Lt. Hack emphatically said no. "We're here to help them."

Even if they're here illegally? I asked. "We don't want to initimidate anyone," said Lt. Hack.

Shouldn't you report people to DHS if you know they are here illegally? I asked. "That's not my responsibility," he said.

Now compare this to how they treated Michael Graham, a radio talk show host. It's maddening that her clarity and common sense are not shared by many of our politicians, business leaders and law enforcement personnel who encourage or facilitate illegal entry into this country. During a time of war no less.

The cops didn't mind intimidating Michael Graham, however. The WMAL-AM talk show host, who came provocatively dressed in an INS t-shirt, was denied entrance onto the taxpayer-subsidized, public high school field by organizers who said the protest was "invitation only." When he presented ID showing his affilation with WMAL/ABC News, organizers of the illegal alien driver's license rally told Graham he didn't have proper ID.

Yeah, that's right. They told him he didn't have proper ID.

Five cops surrounded Graham as he went back to his car. I asked Lt. Hack whether Graham would be allowed into the event. He said while Graham had a right to be there, the cops "wouldn't and couldn't guarantee his safety." Lt. Hack referred dismissively to Graham as a "nut" and a "troublemaker," at one point doubting that Graham was who he said he was. If only the cops had as much skepticism about the identities of all the "undocumented workers" at the rally as they did for a law-abiding citizen.

She has much more with links and information about the MS-13 gang of illegal immigrants that is raising concerns due to their extreme violence. Take the time to read it all. You will be better informed and probably quite appalled at the bipartisan foolishness that exists on this matter. Be sure to also check out her Immigration Blog.

Things like this remind me of what Khrushchev, said -"Communism will dance on the grave of the capitalist and we will sell you the rope you use to hang yourself". Regarding illegal immigration, apparently some businesses will also sell the music to dance to. Politicians will show up for the event to get a photo op. Most frustrating is that some law enforcement will help them because they don't want to intimidate anyone. Well, they will if you're a citizen and have the proper id. Welcome to Bizarro World.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

In the interest of balanced coverage

How hard would it be for any major media outlet to read through this every time they report on something bad that happens in Iraq? Perhaps they would not be losing viewers to Fox News, talk radio and the blogosphere if they would only balance their coverage. Its not like they can say the following isnt news. Afterall, they have thoroughly ignored this positive information and only piled on every time something goes wrong.

From Frontpage Magazine:

Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under
rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2004 for the re-established Fulbright program?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.

Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operation squadrons, 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 bell jet rangers?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?

Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq?
They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consist of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a recent televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW! WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?

OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!

Because a Bush- hating media and Democratic Party would rather see the world blow up than lose their power.

Instead of shouting these accomplishments from every rooftop, they would rather show photos of what a few perverted malcontent soldiers have done in prisons in many cases never disclosing the circumstances surrounding the events.

Instead of showing our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning
incidents and people throwing snowballs at presidential motorcades.

The lack of reporting the positive in Iraq serves only one purpose; it undermines the world's perception of the United States and our soldiers.

IT'S A SHAME THAT SOME AMERICANS WHO WOULD RATHER SEE TERRORISM SUCCEED THAN HAVE A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.

This is verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.

Gotta wonder why there isn't much reporting about Afghanistan. Well, come on now, we know the reason don't we?

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

New York Times - this is reporting?

The controversy over evolution in the public schools is up again with this "report" Kansas Begins Hearings on Diluting Teaching of Evolution by the New York Times.

I have criticized several local papers over their editorials on this contoversy here and here. So now I look at what the New York Times reports and I see much of the same. I will give them some credit though. They are much more subtle and achieve their purpose by way of subtle omission and association rather than overtly as demonstrated in my earlier critiques. Unfortunately, it is clear that their purpose was not to thoroughly report but rather to reinforce many people's misconceptions. Either that, or they are just not very good at the job of reporting.

intelligent design, which asserts that life is so intricately complex that an architect must be behind it. Critics argue that intelligent design has no basis in science and is another iteration of creationism.

Notice that Intelligent Design is portrayed as just an assertion and of course the oft repeated claim that it is merely creationism in disguise.

While they do give some interesting background to the current matter, they fail to provide much information to the reader regarding Intelligent Design. In fact, they merely go with the typical liberal meme and associate Intelligent Design or criticism of Evolution by materialism alone as being closeted Creationists. The implication, as always, is that religious ideologues are trying to sneak that dangerous Christian Bible into our public schools.

While the proposed new standards for Kansas do not specifically mention intelligent design, critics contend that the proposed changes will open the door not just for those teachings, but to creationism, which generally holds to the Genesis account of creation.

Their closing to this "report" is typical in that it gives the opposition to Intelligent Design the final word with no rebuttal from the other side. But it is also revealing in other way, along the lines of a Freudian slip.

"These people are going to obfuscate about these definitions," complained Jack Krebs, vice president of the pro-evolution Kansas Citizens for Science, whose members, wearing "I support strong science education" buttons, filled many of the 180 auditorium seats not taken by journalists from as far away as France. "They have created a straw man. They are trying to make science stand for atheism, so they can fight atheism."

That last sentence would more accurately read, "They have created a straw man. They are trying to make Intelligent Design stand for religion, so they can fight religion". Perhaps the editorialist *oops* I mean reporter and editors should get some counseling.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Moving to a new neighborhood - Issue #6

Explanation here.

March 25, 2004
OnStar and The Nanny State

As children we often look to and depend on our parents and other adults for our well being. This is all well and good. In the best families and social groups that help will be there reliably, helping the child grow into a healthy self-reliant adult who can then repeat this process with their own and other children. We see this as good and necessary, and provide laws protecting children from bad and neglectful parents. The problem is that some adults have remained childlike in their ability to be self-sufficient, and worse yet distort the idea of rights to include every want and desire they can imagine as being a need.

This brings me to an OnStar ad I heard on the radio recently. The woman calls and asks about the engine check light being on in her vehicle. The OnStar representative asks her how long it has been on and she replies that she just started the car. OnStar tells her if the light is steady she can drive to her destination but should take it to a service station soon. The light is steady and she already has an appointment for service. Cut to the end of the commercial.

Now some people may be impressed at the service that OnStar provided to their customer. On the other hand, my question is why didn’t the driver just open the glove box and look in the owner’s manual? We do still require one to be an adult or nearly so in order to be a licensed driver don’t we? Apparently, responsible adulthood is just too much effort nowadays; a condition that can be alleviated by innovative companies, for a price. Certainly, if one wants to pay for pampering that is their decision. The problem is that such a desire is being ingrained in our youth and the costs eventually forced on the rest of us. While we don’t mind paying for our own pampering or someone else paying for their own, we naturally and rightly draw the line at paying for someone else’s luxury; even more so when they try to declare as a right the enjoyment of these luxuries. In effect they are demanding to be treated as a dependent child in an adult sized body with the real adults in society paying the bill.

The problem was clearly illustrated some time ago by a grown man practically asking then candidate Bill Clinton to assume the role of the nations parent. Never mind that such childish reliance on government should indicate some sort of arrested development. I am pretty sure this was an adult and not just an extremely tall preteen with inexplicable facial hair growth. Looking back, I do wonder if the man asking that question regrets looking to someone of Bill Clinton’s character in such a manner.

The depth of the problem seems to know no bounds as the expansion of rights now includes the right not to be offended, with the matter of offense being nearly entirely dependent on the completely subjective, emotional viewpoint of the supposedly offended complainant. This creates a condition where one cannot possibly know, for example, if they have broken harassment laws, or “destroyed” the supposed wall between religion and government until high priced lawyers have dragged them through several expensive court cases. I think we can agree that most of us cannot afford expensive lawyers in addition to the risk of ultimately losing the case in court. So all we can do is acquiesce to those who are easily offended, leach off of others, or place the health of their self-esteem in how they feel rather then in what they do. Unfortunately, such people will only continue to define more and more things as rights, with everyone else not presently on their side of the current lawsuit being forced to pay for their childish wants and desires.

I rarely give financial advice but maybe one should invest in Onstar as soon as that is possible; since, no doubt, it will eventually become a government-subsidized business with a guaranteed market share. After all, how can anyone be against increasing safety for everyone? I think the more accurate statement would be – “Its for the children”.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

One of those quizzes

I found this quiz over at Emily's Craziness

Which Random Image are you?
Name:
Age:
Favorite Color
You are:
This fun quiz by Reaper - Taken 372963 Times.

I wonder what my friends and family would say? heh

Or Scratch, my feisty cat, what must be going through his furry little mind?

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Firefly!

Whoo hooo! The trailer for the movie Serenity is out. You need apple quicktime though.

I am so going to see this movie.

Related post, Something from my DVD collection

H/T Demure Thoughts

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Loose lips - kill people

But who cares if more American or Iraqi troops or Iraqi civiilans are killed as long as you can ridicule Bush and whatever "neocon" you have in your sights? Michelle Malkin covers a mistake made in releasing redacted documents in the Sgrena investigation:

Several bloggers following the Sgrena investigation are linking today to a leaked version of the U.S. military's report on the incident, which appears to inadvertently reveal critical classified information. The link points to an Italian newspaper that gives instruction on how to copy and paste "hidden" text in the PDF version of the report. The genie is out of the bottle. But please be aware of the anti-war, anti-American agenda of those who are gloating over the leak.

As a Slashdot poster notes, a comparison of the redacted and exposed versions of the report suggests that much of what was redacted contains operational details, such as:

* An itemization of IEDs and VBIEDs deployment techniques which have been most effective,

* An analysis of the tactical strengths and weaknesses of specific checkpoints along "Route Irish",

* Combat readiness assesment of the units and soldiers involved,

* A detailed description of how the checkpoint is laid out,

* Exact grid locations of various assets.

* Details of how checkpoint searches are set up and executed

* Details of how checkpoints are expected to deal with approaching vehicles, including threat assesment methods.

* A statistical analysis of "normal" traffic approaching the checkpoint.

It names the soldiers involved and details the specific actions taken by those soldiers. It names the soldier who killed Calipari.

It briefly describes U.S. Embassy procedures for transporting VIPs along Route Irish and in general.

It details movement of U.S. and Italian Embassy personnel.

It describes possible future procedures and configurations for checkpoints.

In other words it has a lot of information of potential use to an insurgent mission planner and a lot that is nobody's business...

Note the gloating she links to and especially the comments at some of those sites.

If what the slashdot poster says is true, it is pathetic that some would care more for being able to amuse themselves rather than preventing more Coalition soldiers or innocent Iraqis being killed. I have seen this sneering contempt before on other issues. People who would place amusement on such a high level and disregard any respect for life or the safety of others can hardly be considered human. They barely rise to the level of a sneering jackal scavenging over dead carcasses.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions