Pictures of Dead Arab Children
I've seen two news stories that have shown men carrying dead children from a bombed building in Lebanon. As it turns out, these unfortunate children are being posed over and over again. See the pictures, read the story, and notice the timeline:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/milking-it.html
Warning: It contains pictures of two dead children.
Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for linking to the eureferendum site.
Monday, July 31, 2006
The Politically Illiterate
I have this theory that "The Left" is not this country's problem. The honest ones define themselves beautifully and reveal a thinking and nature that is very far removed from 80 % of the American people.
Our problem is the poorly educated, lazy, distracted... the culture of hedonism's politically illiterate. They are the ones that the Left misleads, and with whom the Democrats have constructed a Party.
I work with some very intelligent people who are totally clueless beyond their own little world and the pleasures they seek. Their daily narcotic, whether it is their job, their family, their favorite entertainment... consumes their attention and leaves them vulnerable to the "moderate" notion that a little bit of ying and a little bit of yang is the only core belief that rings true.
I think we need to shoot them...
I have this theory that "The Left" is not this country's problem. The honest ones define themselves beautifully and reveal a thinking and nature that is very far removed from 80 % of the American people.
Our problem is the poorly educated, lazy, distracted... the culture of hedonism's politically illiterate. They are the ones that the Left misleads, and with whom the Democrats have constructed a Party.
I work with some very intelligent people who are totally clueless beyond their own little world and the pleasures they seek. Their daily narcotic, whether it is their job, their family, their favorite entertainment... consumes their attention and leaves them vulnerable to the "moderate" notion that a little bit of ying and a little bit of yang is the only core belief that rings true.
I think we need to shoot them...
Saturday, July 29, 2006
The 21st Century Jesus
Speaking for Jesus politically is difficult because it is darn near impossible to get an interview with the Savior to get His opinion on the hot topics of the day... though certain tele-evangelists claim to have personally bridged that little divide... and other common folk, by the humble and sacrificial lives they lead, seem like they just might be privy to a sacred one-on-one. I fall into neither of these categories, but since I have an opinion about most everything... I will foolishly speak for the Almighty, and suggest how He might live as a Jewish American... if he came back as a man to dwell among us for a while.
Jesus knows that the physical universe (as opposed to what we'll call the real world) has a life span, and he knows exactly when this temporary world will die. He knows the Earth was created perfectly adequate to it's purpose. So I can't see him as an environmentalist, although since He welcomes praise for the beauty and magnificence of the Earth, He would never litter or erect a billboard.
Jesus wouldn't be in favor of hiring a homosexual as a teacher or a scoutmaster because He would want to protect His little ones from the influence of evil... and, he would want to protect the homosexual, that He loves, from the damning effects of that influence. And he wouldn't hire a promiscuous heterosexual for the exact same reason.
He would take a weekend and drive to Virginia and have a long talk with Pat Robertson, and then give him a big hug.
He would favor lower taxes because it would mean He would have more money to do good things and help the poor. He would pray for, and witness to... the lazy, as He allowed them to flounder and fail. But there would be no poor widow or disabled person in His neighborhood that would go without His help.
Jesus wouldn't talk on a cell phone while driving.
He would see the open border with Mexico as an invitation for law-breaking and so He would support the building of a fence. When an illegal crossed His path He would help him in any legal way that He could, and terms like wet-back and towel-head would not lounge in His vocabulary.
Based on what I have read in the Old and New Testaments, Jesus would hate war but support the use of power to accomplish good. He would pray for the soldiers, for a righteous outcome, and for peace.
He would spend an entire morning talking with Joni Eareckson-Tada, and then they would spend the afternoon together playing tennis.
He would be color-blind. When He filled out a form that asked for His race, He would leave that part blank... because it would annoy Him.
Jesus would hate abortion and put His money where His mouth was, supporting un-wed mothers and facilitating adoption.
He would support the death penalty, but aggressively work to save the souls of those on death row through prison ministry.
Jesus would of course support Israel and daily pray for her... and for a change in her neighbors' hearts.
Jesus would have one TV, but it would almost never be on, except in the fall when Notre Dame played football. (Maybe.)
Jesus would live humbly and He would be frugal. He would have one home and drive one vehicle, a big pick-up with a very scratched-up bed. His surplus income would be distributed between His church and charitable organizations... and He would stick a little in His retirement savings. He would rarely travel more than fifty miles from His home.
He would be single. When a pretty girl walked by, he would turn his head and think of Notre Dame football.
When He needed to relax He would go to a lake and fish, and He would be very, very good at it.
I think I know which church He would attend, but regardless... He would concentrate on those things that unite us rather than the topics which divide. He would love Church parties. He would cherish and cater to the old folk in His Church... as an example to the young.
There would always be plenty of food at His Church's picnics.
He would look a lot like Jim Caviezel and He would be the best neighbor EVER.
He would be ultra-liberal with His love, and ultra-conservative in His adherence to the truth.
You might see Him one day getting out of His truck at Home Depot. He would notice you staring at Him and He would stroll over with a big smile. He would put His hands on your shoulders and whisper, "Now I want you to stop worrying... You're mine, and I'm not letting go."
Speaking for Jesus politically is difficult because it is darn near impossible to get an interview with the Savior to get His opinion on the hot topics of the day... though certain tele-evangelists claim to have personally bridged that little divide... and other common folk, by the humble and sacrificial lives they lead, seem like they just might be privy to a sacred one-on-one. I fall into neither of these categories, but since I have an opinion about most everything... I will foolishly speak for the Almighty, and suggest how He might live as a Jewish American... if he came back as a man to dwell among us for a while.
Jesus knows that the physical universe (as opposed to what we'll call the real world) has a life span, and he knows exactly when this temporary world will die. He knows the Earth was created perfectly adequate to it's purpose. So I can't see him as an environmentalist, although since He welcomes praise for the beauty and magnificence of the Earth, He would never litter or erect a billboard.
Jesus wouldn't be in favor of hiring a homosexual as a teacher or a scoutmaster because He would want to protect His little ones from the influence of evil... and, he would want to protect the homosexual, that He loves, from the damning effects of that influence. And he wouldn't hire a promiscuous heterosexual for the exact same reason.
He would take a weekend and drive to Virginia and have a long talk with Pat Robertson, and then give him a big hug.
He would favor lower taxes because it would mean He would have more money to do good things and help the poor. He would pray for, and witness to... the lazy, as He allowed them to flounder and fail. But there would be no poor widow or disabled person in His neighborhood that would go without His help.
Jesus wouldn't talk on a cell phone while driving.
He would see the open border with Mexico as an invitation for law-breaking and so He would support the building of a fence. When an illegal crossed His path He would help him in any legal way that He could, and terms like wet-back and towel-head would not lounge in His vocabulary.
Based on what I have read in the Old and New Testaments, Jesus would hate war but support the use of power to accomplish good. He would pray for the soldiers, for a righteous outcome, and for peace.
He would spend an entire morning talking with Joni Eareckson-Tada, and then they would spend the afternoon together playing tennis.
He would be color-blind. When He filled out a form that asked for His race, He would leave that part blank... because it would annoy Him.
Jesus would hate abortion and put His money where His mouth was, supporting un-wed mothers and facilitating adoption.
He would support the death penalty, but aggressively work to save the souls of those on death row through prison ministry.
Jesus would of course support Israel and daily pray for her... and for a change in her neighbors' hearts.
Jesus would have one TV, but it would almost never be on, except in the fall when Notre Dame played football. (Maybe.)
Jesus would live humbly and He would be frugal. He would have one home and drive one vehicle, a big pick-up with a very scratched-up bed. His surplus income would be distributed between His church and charitable organizations... and He would stick a little in His retirement savings. He would rarely travel more than fifty miles from His home.
He would be single. When a pretty girl walked by, he would turn his head and think of Notre Dame football.
When He needed to relax He would go to a lake and fish, and He would be very, very good at it.
I think I know which church He would attend, but regardless... He would concentrate on those things that unite us rather than the topics which divide. He would love Church parties. He would cherish and cater to the old folk in His Church... as an example to the young.
There would always be plenty of food at His Church's picnics.
He would look a lot like Jim Caviezel and He would be the best neighbor EVER.
He would be ultra-liberal with His love, and ultra-conservative in His adherence to the truth.
You might see Him one day getting out of His truck at Home Depot. He would notice you staring at Him and He would stroll over with a big smile. He would put His hands on your shoulders and whisper, "Now I want you to stop worrying... You're mine, and I'm not letting go."
My Response to Ahmed
I love AICS's Logic Lifeline, and while there this morning, responded to a comment. I decided to post my response here since it sums up what I (and perhaps many in the West) feel is the real problem that Arabs face in the region.
Ahmed,
Before I would be interested in hearing your opinion, I'd have to know whether or not you believe Israel has the right to exist. That seems to be the basis for every opinion and every point of view.
In the eyes of the Western World, the Palestinians have distinguished themselves in such a way that makes us believe that if they were allowed to march into Israel and kill every Jew... they would have a party for a couple weeks, but then return to being as miserable and wretched as they are today.
Israel is not the Palestinians' or the Arabs' problem any more than the investment bankers on Wall Street are the problem that New York's ghetto dwellers face.
Israel has made the desert bloom in many ways, and her accomplishments shame her neighbors and make them envious.
I don't know why some cultures lag behind the modern world, but hating and bombing is no way to catch up.
I agree with AICS. A cease-fire only perpetuates the problem. And restricting Israel to a "proportional" response condemns her to a perpetual siege.
There are many Arabs in the region that actually love their children more than they hate Israel, and want to build something for their future. Hopefully one day their ideals will triumph over their real obstacle, the haters of radical Islam.
I love AICS's Logic Lifeline, and while there this morning, responded to a comment. I decided to post my response here since it sums up what I (and perhaps many in the West) feel is the real problem that Arabs face in the region.
Ahmed,
Before I would be interested in hearing your opinion, I'd have to know whether or not you believe Israel has the right to exist. That seems to be the basis for every opinion and every point of view.
In the eyes of the Western World, the Palestinians have distinguished themselves in such a way that makes us believe that if they were allowed to march into Israel and kill every Jew... they would have a party for a couple weeks, but then return to being as miserable and wretched as they are today.
Israel is not the Palestinians' or the Arabs' problem any more than the investment bankers on Wall Street are the problem that New York's ghetto dwellers face.
Israel has made the desert bloom in many ways, and her accomplishments shame her neighbors and make them envious.
I don't know why some cultures lag behind the modern world, but hating and bombing is no way to catch up.
I agree with AICS. A cease-fire only perpetuates the problem. And restricting Israel to a "proportional" response condemns her to a perpetual siege.
There are many Arabs in the region that actually love their children more than they hate Israel, and want to build something for their future. Hopefully one day their ideals will triumph over their real obstacle, the haters of radical Islam.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Hey Neighbor!
CRAWFORD, Texas (July 27) - War protester Cindy Sheehan has purchased a 5-acre plot in Crawford with some of the insurance money she received after her son was killed in Iraq.
"We decided to buy property in Crawford to use until George's resignation or impeachment, which we all hope is soon for the sake of the world," Sheehan said in a newsletter set to be sent to supporters Thursday. "I can't think of a better way to use Casey's insurance money than for peace, and I am sure that Casey approves."
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/cindy-sheehan-buys-property-in-crawford/20060727133509990008?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Well now this must be a dream come true for George and Laura. If I was George I would instruct the Secret Service to put one of those "For Sale By Owner" signs in the yard... just as a joke.
CRAWFORD, Texas (July 27) - War protester Cindy Sheehan has purchased a 5-acre plot in Crawford with some of the insurance money she received after her son was killed in Iraq.
"We decided to buy property in Crawford to use until George's resignation or impeachment, which we all hope is soon for the sake of the world," Sheehan said in a newsletter set to be sent to supporters Thursday. "I can't think of a better way to use Casey's insurance money than for peace, and I am sure that Casey approves."
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/cindy-sheehan-buys-property-in-crawford/20060727133509990008?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Well now this must be a dream come true for George and Laura. If I was George I would instruct the Secret Service to put one of those "For Sale By Owner" signs in the yard... just as a joke.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Our Ground Troops in Korea
Vice President Dick Cheney, observing the 53rd anniversary of the Korean War armistice, said Thursday that U.S. troops will remain on the peninsula until stability and peace spread to the North.
Because the war ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty, the two Koreas are still technically at war. South Korea's 650,000 troops face the communist North's 1.1-million-strong military, the world's fifth largest, across a heavily armed border. About 29,500 American troops are also stationed in South Korea as a deterrent against North Korea.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/27/163855.shtml?s=ic
Does this make anyone nervous besides me? It gets worse.
From a 2001 Stars and Stripes article:
Pyongyang's (pronounced Pyongyang) military machine is "bigger, better, closer, deadlier," Gen. Thomas A. Schwartz said in testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Schwartz heads the United Nations and ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Commands and U.S. Forces Korea.
Schwartz said 70 percent of the North's army — "approximately 700,000 troops, over 8,000 artillery systems and 2,000 tanks" — are based within 90 miles of the DMZ and are being reinforced. Most are positioned in more than 4,000 underground facilities from which they "can attack with minimal preparations or warning," he said.
http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/J2/J2-0001-NorthKoreaDeadlier.html
Let me take a wild guess and say that since 2001 North Korea has spent more money on its military than South Korea.
With widespread starvation and political prisoners in gulags the size of cities, ...what have they got to lose? ...And all that prosperity south of the DMZ? ...Kim Jong Il, whose emotional maturity rivals that of Brittany Spears, could roll 200 miles into South Korea before the "Combined Forces" got their boots tied. Then you've got a nut with nuclear weapons, along with several thousand male and female American Troops as hostages.
Little Pompadour Man (or is that a bouffant?) knows we aren't going to nuke him... that simply wouldn't be sporting, and goodness knows we must think of our reputation in the world community... and by the time all the politicians stopped wringing their hands and figuring out how they were going to effectively cover their rear ends politically ...and acted, the American hostages would be spread throughout North Korea making nukes a very unappealing option.
I figure in a year's time the "Little Tyrant Who Could" would have all sorts of cash and food, more land and concessions, ...as the hostages slowly dribbled back across the new DMZ, except of course for the females he would keep for the romper room.
If I was the President I would dramatically increase the Naval presence in the area and get our ground troops out. Today.
Vice President Dick Cheney, observing the 53rd anniversary of the Korean War armistice, said Thursday that U.S. troops will remain on the peninsula until stability and peace spread to the North.
Because the war ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty, the two Koreas are still technically at war. South Korea's 650,000 troops face the communist North's 1.1-million-strong military, the world's fifth largest, across a heavily armed border. About 29,500 American troops are also stationed in South Korea as a deterrent against North Korea.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/27/163855.shtml?s=ic
Does this make anyone nervous besides me? It gets worse.
From a 2001 Stars and Stripes article:
Pyongyang's (pronounced Pyongyang) military machine is "bigger, better, closer, deadlier," Gen. Thomas A. Schwartz said in testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Schwartz heads the United Nations and ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Commands and U.S. Forces Korea.
Schwartz said 70 percent of the North's army — "approximately 700,000 troops, over 8,000 artillery systems and 2,000 tanks" — are based within 90 miles of the DMZ and are being reinforced. Most are positioned in more than 4,000 underground facilities from which they "can attack with minimal preparations or warning," he said.
http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/J2/J2-0001-NorthKoreaDeadlier.html
Let me take a wild guess and say that since 2001 North Korea has spent more money on its military than South Korea.
With widespread starvation and political prisoners in gulags the size of cities, ...what have they got to lose? ...And all that prosperity south of the DMZ? ...Kim Jong Il, whose emotional maturity rivals that of Brittany Spears, could roll 200 miles into South Korea before the "Combined Forces" got their boots tied. Then you've got a nut with nuclear weapons, along with several thousand male and female American Troops as hostages.
Little Pompadour Man (or is that a bouffant?) knows we aren't going to nuke him... that simply wouldn't be sporting, and goodness knows we must think of our reputation in the world community... and by the time all the politicians stopped wringing their hands and figuring out how they were going to effectively cover their rear ends politically ...and acted, the American hostages would be spread throughout North Korea making nukes a very unappealing option.
I figure in a year's time the "Little Tyrant Who Could" would have all sorts of cash and food, more land and concessions, ...as the hostages slowly dribbled back across the new DMZ, except of course for the females he would keep for the romper room.
If I was the President I would dramatically increase the Naval presence in the area and get our ground troops out. Today.
Gardening Tip #4
Preparing Onions for Storage
This time of year my patio takes on a different look with onions and garlic drying for storage. Shown above are the "Texas Granos" that were the first to be harvested. When the green tops of my onions and garlic plants fall over and start to lose their green color, I pull them.
The garlic simply dries in the sun for one or two weeks and then I braid the tops and hang them in the garage or kitchen.
I let the onions dry in the sun for a couple days and then trim the roots and the tops and place them up close to the house out of the direct afternoon sun and allow them to dry for a couple weeks. Then I place them in mesh bags and hang them where they will get plenty of ventilation. If I do it right, I won't have to buy onions until late next spring.
Shown below are yellow sweet spanish onions that I pulled two days ago along with some garlic. I have cleverly placed a human foot (size 9 1/2) in the picture for scale. I'm disappointed in the size (of the onions), but some plants and some years are better than others.
Not shown are white spanish which are still in the garden reaching soft-ball size and still growing.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Back to the Cartoons
Evidently there is a Michigan State Professor that sent a letter to the protesting Muslim Association at MSU to protest their protest of the Danish Cartoons.
Maybe I'm the only one who didn't hear about it and maybe Janice has already covered it, but here is the letter he wrote:
Dear Moslem Association:
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey!), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.
This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceeded with your infantile "protests." If you do not like the values of the West — see the 1st Amendment — you are free to leave.
I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman, Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Wichman told the Detroit News the letter had been intended for one particular person, not the entirety of the Muslim Students' Association; he had believed the e-mail address he used was that one student's inbox. However, students who lead the association said the e-mail address was part of the group's official Web site.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp
The student's association president went straight to the university authorities the day after receiving the e-mail, and instead of leaving it as an internal university issue, brought senior representatives of CAIR to meetings with university administrators. The MSA president and Dawud Walid, who is executive director of CAIR's Michigan branch, claimed they made the e-mail public because the university had not given them the satisfaction (i.e. draconian punishments) they required.
Dawud Walid said: "They should send out an official statement to the public distancing themselves from these types of statements and confirm for us that they did, in fact, do a formal investigation and that there is going to be some kind of disciplinary action against Dr. Wichman."
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002013.html
Once again, the Muslims of CAIR need to realize that they moved beyond the middle ages when they came to America. Islam is just one of many religions practiced in America, and Professor Wichman is entitled to speak his mind. And as the good professor said, if they don't like it they are free to leave.
I'll help them pack.
Evidently there is a Michigan State Professor that sent a letter to the protesting Muslim Association at MSU to protest their protest of the Danish Cartoons.
Maybe I'm the only one who didn't hear about it and maybe Janice has already covered it, but here is the letter he wrote:
Dear Moslem Association:
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey!), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.
This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceeded with your infantile "protests." If you do not like the values of the West — see the 1st Amendment — you are free to leave.
I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman, Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Wichman told the Detroit News the letter had been intended for one particular person, not the entirety of the Muslim Students' Association; he had believed the e-mail address he used was that one student's inbox. However, students who lead the association said the e-mail address was part of the group's official Web site.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp
The student's association president went straight to the university authorities the day after receiving the e-mail, and instead of leaving it as an internal university issue, brought senior representatives of CAIR to meetings with university administrators. The MSA president and Dawud Walid, who is executive director of CAIR's Michigan branch, claimed they made the e-mail public because the university had not given them the satisfaction (i.e. draconian punishments) they required.
Dawud Walid said: "They should send out an official statement to the public distancing themselves from these types of statements and confirm for us that they did, in fact, do a formal investigation and that there is going to be some kind of disciplinary action against Dr. Wichman."
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002013.html
Once again, the Muslims of CAIR need to realize that they moved beyond the middle ages when they came to America. Islam is just one of many religions practiced in America, and Professor Wichman is entitled to speak his mind. And as the good professor said, if they don't like it they are free to leave.
I'll help them pack.
Monday, July 24, 2006
A Year's Blather
It's been a year this week that Mr Malott, shown above (artist's conception), has been recording his thoughts and burdening the blogosphere with his heartfelt notions of politics, religion, and the nuances of being a rapidly aging and crotchety bachelor. Has it been a waste of everyone's time? To be sure. But regardless of the futility, the stark and transparent craving for attention, the lack of continuity in logic, the endless self-promotion, the unmitigated narcissism, and the overuse of ridiculously obvious and bad puns, we wouldn't change a thing.
The entire staff of Malott's Blog wishes Mr Malott and ourselves a very Happy Birthday.
Plumbing Problems
BOSTON - The lesbian couple whose landmark lawsuit helped Massachusetts become the only state in America where same-sex couples can marry legally have split up, a spokeswoman said Friday.
I think I could change the one on the left. But I think the blond might hurt me.
The women “are amicably living apart,” Mary Breslauer, a spokeswoman for the couple said. “As always their number one priority is raising their daughter, (what?) , and like the other plaintiff couples in this case, they made an enormous contribution toward equal marriage. But they are no longer in the public eye, and request that their privacy be respected.”
I respect their privacy just like they did when they splashed their indiscretions all over the newspapers and the courts.
Julie and Hillary Goodridge married on May 17, 2004, the first day same-sex couples were allowed to wed, in a festive ceremony attended by dozens of journalists.
Their daughter, Annie, (what?) accompanied the women down the aisle serving as ring bearer and flower girl while guests hummed “Here Come the Brides.”
When I was in college I dated a girl that confessed to me that she had been a lesbian in high school. She was selfish, loud, obnoxious, mean, nasty, and very beautiful, so I only dated her two months. I'm not sure it's a good thing when a former lesbian is attracted to you, but I was intrigued and went with it. Ever since I've had this feeling that I could somehow help these women... that I could be like a horse-whisperer for sexually confused females... coaxing them back to what nature intended... A Pied Piper for heterosexuality... blending tenderness with testosterone...
Unexplored ambitions. I've got a million of them.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Making it Official
GEORGETOWN, Ky. (July 22) -- The request seemed simple enough to the Rev. Hershael W. York, then the president of the Kentucky Baptist Convention. He asked Georgetown College, a small Baptist liberal arts institution here, to consider hiring for its religion department someone who would teach a literal interpretation of the Bible.
But to William H. Crouch Jr., the president of Georgetown, it was among the last straws...
Dr. Crouch and his trustees decided it was time to end the college’s 63-year affiliation with the religious denomination. “From my point of view, it was about academic freedom,’’ Dr. Crouch said. “I sat for 25 years and watched my denomination become much more narrow and, in terms of education, much more interested in indoctrination.’’
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/feeling-strains-baptist-colleges-cut/20060722172309990006?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Fine. I think it is Dr. Crouch who is too "narrow" in his thinking to allow a literalist in his religion department, which suggests strongly just who, in fact, is interested in indoctrination.
Georgetown College no doubt broke with the Baptists, and with faith for that matter, years ago. This latest chapter simply makes it official.
GEORGETOWN, Ky. (July 22) -- The request seemed simple enough to the Rev. Hershael W. York, then the president of the Kentucky Baptist Convention. He asked Georgetown College, a small Baptist liberal arts institution here, to consider hiring for its religion department someone who would teach a literal interpretation of the Bible.
But to William H. Crouch Jr., the president of Georgetown, it was among the last straws...
Dr. Crouch and his trustees decided it was time to end the college’s 63-year affiliation with the religious denomination. “From my point of view, it was about academic freedom,’’ Dr. Crouch said. “I sat for 25 years and watched my denomination become much more narrow and, in terms of education, much more interested in indoctrination.’’
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/feeling-strains-baptist-colleges-cut/20060722172309990006?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Fine. I think it is Dr. Crouch who is too "narrow" in his thinking to allow a literalist in his religion department, which suggests strongly just who, in fact, is interested in indoctrination.
Georgetown College no doubt broke with the Baptists, and with faith for that matter, years ago. This latest chapter simply makes it official.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Stem Cell Hysteria
Joseph Loconte, writing for The National review Online, quotes the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (UOJCA):
“We recognize that those who oppose this research and this legislation do so upon the basis of deeply and sincerely held moral beliefs,” writes the UOJCA. “We appreciate the President's position on this matter which allows this research to proceed when privately funded and his principled reservations against allowing taxpayer funds to support it.” The organization goes on to “respectfully disagree” with the president's position.
Notice what is missing: No conspiracy theories about a theocratic takeover. No chatter about the eclipse of Enlightenment reason. No specter of religious extremism haunting the political landscape. No contest between scientific progress and medieval superstition.
Here are religious conservatives — orthodox Jews — who have learned to engage an emotional debate over bioethics with grace and sobriety. They take seriously the moral and religious objections of their political adversaries. Though siding with political and religious liberals in this debate, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations shames them with their fairness and intellectual honesty.
By contrast, a press conference held by Democratic leaders the morning of the presidential veto was a stunning exercise in sophomoric sloganeering — even for politicians. Whatever one thinks of research on human embryos, the idea of using taxpayer money to fund it is a massive step into a brave new world. Yet, despite all the overwrought moralizing, there was not even an innuendo of an ethical dilemma. It’s as if none could be contemplated. When asked why they thought President Bush followed through on his promised veto, every Democratic spokesperson feigned ignorance or cited the president’s “extremist” or “radical” base. Senator Charles Schumer, stammering for an answer, simply called the president’s reasoning “confounding.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDhmMmY3YTJlM2IyYzJjMmVlMjg5NWE3NjhhY2NkMDk=
I just asked a fellow hospital employee if Bush's veto meant that there would be no research whatsoever done on embryonic stem cells in this country. She said that was her understanding.
Ah the efficient effectiveness of the Left and its misinformation and demagoguery.
I'm not in a wheelchair... I'm facing no horrific diseases, so I'm not judgmental about people's feelings and beliefs on this issue. I think I'm as sensitive to the feelings of parents with a sick child as I am to my religious friends who don't want their tax dollars funding something that they consider immoral. But with a little more truth and a little less political grandstanding, I believe it is possible for us all to approach this subject with civility and mutual respect.
Joseph Loconte, writing for The National review Online, quotes the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (UOJCA):
“We recognize that those who oppose this research and this legislation do so upon the basis of deeply and sincerely held moral beliefs,” writes the UOJCA. “We appreciate the President's position on this matter which allows this research to proceed when privately funded and his principled reservations against allowing taxpayer funds to support it.” The organization goes on to “respectfully disagree” with the president's position.
Notice what is missing: No conspiracy theories about a theocratic takeover. No chatter about the eclipse of Enlightenment reason. No specter of religious extremism haunting the political landscape. No contest between scientific progress and medieval superstition.
Here are religious conservatives — orthodox Jews — who have learned to engage an emotional debate over bioethics with grace and sobriety. They take seriously the moral and religious objections of their political adversaries. Though siding with political and religious liberals in this debate, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations shames them with their fairness and intellectual honesty.
By contrast, a press conference held by Democratic leaders the morning of the presidential veto was a stunning exercise in sophomoric sloganeering — even for politicians. Whatever one thinks of research on human embryos, the idea of using taxpayer money to fund it is a massive step into a brave new world. Yet, despite all the overwrought moralizing, there was not even an innuendo of an ethical dilemma. It’s as if none could be contemplated. When asked why they thought President Bush followed through on his promised veto, every Democratic spokesperson feigned ignorance or cited the president’s “extremist” or “radical” base. Senator Charles Schumer, stammering for an answer, simply called the president’s reasoning “confounding.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDhmMmY3YTJlM2IyYzJjMmVlMjg5NWE3NjhhY2NkMDk=
I just asked a fellow hospital employee if Bush's veto meant that there would be no research whatsoever done on embryonic stem cells in this country. She said that was her understanding.
Ah the efficient effectiveness of the Left and its misinformation and demagoguery.
I'm not in a wheelchair... I'm facing no horrific diseases, so I'm not judgmental about people's feelings and beliefs on this issue. I think I'm as sensitive to the feelings of parents with a sick child as I am to my religious friends who don't want their tax dollars funding something that they consider immoral. But with a little more truth and a little less political grandstanding, I believe it is possible for us all to approach this subject with civility and mutual respect.
Don't Thank Jesus in Honolulu Courts
Junior Stowers, 47, raised his hands and cried out "Thank you Jesus!" after the jury reached the June 29th verdict that he was "not guilty" of hitting his 15 year old son with a broomstick back in January. According to court records Stowers' son denied his previous accusations and confessed that his brother had hit him with a car door. His brother verified this in court, freeing Stowers from misdemeanor charges of physical abuse, carrying a sentence of a year in jail.
Yet, to the utter shock of family members and Iakopo Sale, Stowers' pastor at the Assembly of God Church, who were watching in the gallery, Stowers was accused of contempt of court for thanking Jesus for his deliverance, and was kept in custody.
Following Stowers' "outburst," Judge Patrick W. Border of the 1st Circuit Court in Honolulu said, "There will (be) no more of that," and declared him in contempt of court. Although Stowers requested to approach the bench and apologize, Judge Border refused his plea and ordered him to remain in the courtroom, and then in the cellblock. He was released after 6 hours, with an order to attend a hearing on July 7th.
Both MSNBC and ABC carried the Associated Press version of this story, but the AP didn't think to mention the circumstances around the bogus charges till half-way through, leaving doubt till then whether or not this religious person was actually a sadistic pig that had perhaps gotten away with something... a well worn television and movie cliche.
You would have thought that the judge might have been a little lenient with Mr Stowers after having his character unfairly besmirched as it was, but evidently saying Jesus in court just can't be tolerated... no way, no how.
Stowers' lawyer, deputy public defender Susan Arnett, said that a defendant is held in contempt after repeatedly ignoring warnings issued by the judge; but Stowers had not caused any trouble in the courtroom before he expressed his thanks to God. A conviction for contempt of court is a petty misdemeanor and carries a jail sentence of up to 30 days in Hawaii. "Contemptuous behavior has to be much higher than [what Stowers did]," Arnett said.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06071709.html
I personally have contempt for Judge Border (clearly an idiot) and hope that the voters or those that might rule on his behavior will get rid of him. He sounds like a man with a big problem, and has no business being on the bench and making judgments.
Junior Stowers, 47, raised his hands and cried out "Thank you Jesus!" after the jury reached the June 29th verdict that he was "not guilty" of hitting his 15 year old son with a broomstick back in January. According to court records Stowers' son denied his previous accusations and confessed that his brother had hit him with a car door. His brother verified this in court, freeing Stowers from misdemeanor charges of physical abuse, carrying a sentence of a year in jail.
Yet, to the utter shock of family members and Iakopo Sale, Stowers' pastor at the Assembly of God Church, who were watching in the gallery, Stowers was accused of contempt of court for thanking Jesus for his deliverance, and was kept in custody.
Following Stowers' "outburst," Judge Patrick W. Border of the 1st Circuit Court in Honolulu said, "There will (be) no more of that," and declared him in contempt of court. Although Stowers requested to approach the bench and apologize, Judge Border refused his plea and ordered him to remain in the courtroom, and then in the cellblock. He was released after 6 hours, with an order to attend a hearing on July 7th.
Both MSNBC and ABC carried the Associated Press version of this story, but the AP didn't think to mention the circumstances around the bogus charges till half-way through, leaving doubt till then whether or not this religious person was actually a sadistic pig that had perhaps gotten away with something... a well worn television and movie cliche.
You would have thought that the judge might have been a little lenient with Mr Stowers after having his character unfairly besmirched as it was, but evidently saying Jesus in court just can't be tolerated... no way, no how.
Stowers' lawyer, deputy public defender Susan Arnett, said that a defendant is held in contempt after repeatedly ignoring warnings issued by the judge; but Stowers had not caused any trouble in the courtroom before he expressed his thanks to God. A conviction for contempt of court is a petty misdemeanor and carries a jail sentence of up to 30 days in Hawaii. "Contemptuous behavior has to be much higher than [what Stowers did]," Arnett said.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06071709.html
I personally have contempt for Judge Border (clearly an idiot) and hope that the voters or those that might rule on his behavior will get rid of him. He sounds like a man with a big problem, and has no business being on the bench and making judgments.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
The Church and Politics
The 4,000 members of Fairfield Christian are part of the growing evangelical Christian movement in middle America. In a March survey, a quarter of Ohio residents said they were evangelicals -- believing that a strict adherence to the Bible and personal commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ will bring salvation.
The fastest-growing faith group in America, evangelical Christians have had a growing impact on the nation's political landscape, in part because adherents believe conservative Christian values should have a place in politics -- and they support politicians who agree with them.
In that March survey, more than 82 percent of the Ohio evangelicals who attend church at least once a week said they approve of bringing more religion into politics.
"Christians stepped back too far. I prayed in school but my kids can't pray in school," said volunteer Lisa Sexton, 42, a Bible school volunteer. "I should have spoken up earlier."
Political analyst John Green said evangelical growth has had a major political impact in Ohio, a key swing state that narrowly decided President George W. Bush's election victory in 2004.
"Evangelical Protestants have become much more Republican in recent times, although 40 or 50 years ago more of them were Democrats," said Green, director of the University of Akron's Bliss Institute of Applied Politics.
This isn't too hard to figure. The Democrat Party is financed and run by those who champion same-sex-marriage, abortion on demand, the separation of church and public life, condoms... but no creationism in schools, and a myriad of other stands that reads like a play-book for Satan. The Republican Party is financed and run by people like those at Fairfield Christian Church. Duh? Yes... duh.
The pastor of the church, Russell Johnson, ...is being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service for possible violations of a law that prohibits churches and charities from participating in political campaigns. He denies breaking any law.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/megachurches-build-a-republican-base/20060716105009990016
As I've said before, only African-American churches, liberal dying churches, and unions can delve into politics with impunity.
I hate polls, but I love to look at them. The accompanying AOL poll read this way:
Do you consider yourself religious?
Yes 74%
No 26%
Do you think churches should participate in politics?
No 56%
Yes 44%
It is a tribute to the Left and the mainstream media that a majority of those polled think that Evangelical Christians are scarier than the views of the Left.
The 4,000 members of Fairfield Christian are part of the growing evangelical Christian movement in middle America. In a March survey, a quarter of Ohio residents said they were evangelicals -- believing that a strict adherence to the Bible and personal commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ will bring salvation.
The fastest-growing faith group in America, evangelical Christians have had a growing impact on the nation's political landscape, in part because adherents believe conservative Christian values should have a place in politics -- and they support politicians who agree with them.
In that March survey, more than 82 percent of the Ohio evangelicals who attend church at least once a week said they approve of bringing more religion into politics.
"Christians stepped back too far. I prayed in school but my kids can't pray in school," said volunteer Lisa Sexton, 42, a Bible school volunteer. "I should have spoken up earlier."
Political analyst John Green said evangelical growth has had a major political impact in Ohio, a key swing state that narrowly decided President George W. Bush's election victory in 2004.
"Evangelical Protestants have become much more Republican in recent times, although 40 or 50 years ago more of them were Democrats," said Green, director of the University of Akron's Bliss Institute of Applied Politics.
This isn't too hard to figure. The Democrat Party is financed and run by those who champion same-sex-marriage, abortion on demand, the separation of church and public life, condoms... but no creationism in schools, and a myriad of other stands that reads like a play-book for Satan. The Republican Party is financed and run by people like those at Fairfield Christian Church. Duh? Yes... duh.
The pastor of the church, Russell Johnson, ...is being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service for possible violations of a law that prohibits churches and charities from participating in political campaigns. He denies breaking any law.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/megachurches-build-a-republican-base/20060716105009990016
As I've said before, only African-American churches, liberal dying churches, and unions can delve into politics with impunity.
I hate polls, but I love to look at them. The accompanying AOL poll read this way:
Do you consider yourself religious?
Yes 74%
No 26%
Do you think churches should participate in politics?
No 56%
Yes 44%
It is a tribute to the Left and the mainstream media that a majority of those polled think that Evangelical Christians are scarier than the views of the Left.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
My Sister has Shingles
Whenever I hear that someone has shingles I always get this image of asphalt roofing around the person's middle. I assume that's not actually the case. But then why the name?
Shingles [Latin cingulus, a girdle] The colloquial name of the dermatomal rash caused by herpes zoster. (from Taber's)
Well, we all know what herpes is. But before you assume that my sister's deportment has fallen to unspeakable depths... shingles is when the chicken pox (herpes zoster) you had as a child returns and attacks your nerve endings.
So my sister is still a saint... albeit a suffering one.
Get well, Sis.
(I wonder if she wanted this information published?)
Whenever I hear that someone has shingles I always get this image of asphalt roofing around the person's middle. I assume that's not actually the case. But then why the name?
Shingles [Latin cingulus, a girdle] The colloquial name of the dermatomal rash caused by herpes zoster. (from Taber's)
Well, we all know what herpes is. But before you assume that my sister's deportment has fallen to unspeakable depths... shingles is when the chicken pox (herpes zoster) you had as a child returns and attacks your nerve endings.
So my sister is still a saint... albeit a suffering one.
Get well, Sis.
(I wonder if she wanted this information published?)
Global Warming: It's Now Official
It's now official. Global Warming is here and it's for real. I heard an announcer for ESPN radio tell his audience this yesterday.
So at least now we know for sure.
In the past heat waves were just a pain, but now they take on an ominous aura with the Left's stories of man-produced climate change.
It's all the same story, really. Global warming. Gas prices. The war on terror. The story is that the world is going to hell in a Republican hand-basket.
When you don't have any ideas, you go with what you got.
It's now official. Global Warming is here and it's for real. I heard an announcer for ESPN radio tell his audience this yesterday.
So at least now we know for sure.
In the past heat waves were just a pain, but now they take on an ominous aura with the Left's stories of man-produced climate change.
It's all the same story, really. Global warming. Gas prices. The war on terror. The story is that the world is going to hell in a Republican hand-basket.
When you don't have any ideas, you go with what you got.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Not Your Grandfather's War, Israel
Bill Kristol writes for Front Page Mag:
Why is this Arab-Israeli war different from all other Arab-Israeli wars? Because it's not an Arab-Israeli war. Most of Israel's traditional Arab enemies have checked out of the current conflict. The governments of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are, to say the least, indifferent to the fate of Hamas and Hezbollah. The Palestine Liberation Organization (Fatah) isn't a player.
The prime mover behind the terrorist groups who have started this war is a non-Arab state, Iran, which wasn't involved in any of Israel's previous wars. What's happening in the Middle East, then, isn't just another chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What's happening is an Islamist-Israeli war. You might even say this is part of the Islamist war on the West--but is India part of the West? Better to say that what's under attack is liberal democratic civilization, whose leading representative right now happens to be the United States.
So the Iranians are Persian and the people of Syria are Arab. Mix in the Shiite and Sunni differences and you have this very different kind of threat to Israel as Iran seeks to become the leader of the World of Islam.
For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.
The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.
As Israel fights this current battle in the war for the survival of Western Civilization... alone, the Left in this country and the Jew-haters of Europe line up against her. Weakness and appeasement rule Europe and will be running for office this fall in the United States. We should pray that the American people have the wisdom to defeat it... lest we be ultimately defeated.
Bill Kristol writes for Front Page Mag:
Why is this Arab-Israeli war different from all other Arab-Israeli wars? Because it's not an Arab-Israeli war. Most of Israel's traditional Arab enemies have checked out of the current conflict. The governments of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are, to say the least, indifferent to the fate of Hamas and Hezbollah. The Palestine Liberation Organization (Fatah) isn't a player.
The prime mover behind the terrorist groups who have started this war is a non-Arab state, Iran, which wasn't involved in any of Israel's previous wars. What's happening in the Middle East, then, isn't just another chapter in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What's happening is an Islamist-Israeli war. You might even say this is part of the Islamist war on the West--but is India part of the West? Better to say that what's under attack is liberal democratic civilization, whose leading representative right now happens to be the United States.
So the Iranians are Persian and the people of Syria are Arab. Mix in the Shiite and Sunni differences and you have this very different kind of threat to Israel as Iran seeks to become the leader of the World of Islam.
For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.
The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.
As Israel fights this current battle in the war for the survival of Western Civilization... alone, the Left in this country and the Jew-haters of Europe line up against her. Weakness and appeasement rule Europe and will be running for office this fall in the United States. We should pray that the American people have the wisdom to defeat it... lest we be ultimately defeated.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Jumping the Shark: and Points in Time
I love "All I Can Stands" and his Logic Lifeline which taught me a new figure of speech today. AICS links to an American Spectator piece that explains it in terms of the Wilson-Plame lawsuit against Rove, Libby, and Cheney:
In TV-land the moment is infamous.
One of the stars of the longtime hit TV series Happy Days, Arthur "The Fonz" Fonzerelli, played by Henry Winkler, is made to do something by the show's writers that was clearly designed to save the fading series from sinking ratings.
The something? The Fonz, on water skis, was forced to literally jump a shark. The episode not only failed to save the once popular series that also starred future director Ron Howard, "jumping the shark" became a Hollywood metaphor for the point at which a once believable premise became a caricature.
With the filing of a lawsuit against Vice President Cheney, White House political aide Karl Rove and ex-Vice Presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have finally jumped the shark. With the revelation by columnist Robert Novak that it was neither Rove nor Libby, much less Cheney, who was his primary source for his column mentioning -- in passing no less -- that Wilson's now-famous assignment to Niger was arranged by his CIA-wife, Wilson's entire claim to fame takes a torpedo amidships. The New York Post now reports that Novak's main source was the anti-Iraq War Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a charge that Armitage has thus far not refuted.
http://www.theamericanspectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10091
I love it. However it leaves me with a burden that I will carry for awhile. I've been pacing and thinking of examples of just when certain individuals and groups went off the deep end and became a caricature.
When did Jesse Jackson jump the shark?
And the civil rights movement?
Was there one sentinel event when Howard Dean moved from the realm of politics to cartoon?
When did the ACLU jump the shark?
The American Spectator, Rush Limbaugh, FOX News, all those wonderful conservative bloggers out there (like AICS), and others in this new "age of information" shine a cold and revealing light on fashionable lunacy, defining it as such. Just a few years ago the celebrated elites could tread on the truth with impunity and spew the most outrageous bilge without being called on it. But the once sacrosanct is now fair game for inspection... And if you jump the shark (I love it) you are going to be called on it. And that, my friends, must drive the formerly protected classes to distraction.
I love "All I Can Stands" and his Logic Lifeline which taught me a new figure of speech today. AICS links to an American Spectator piece that explains it in terms of the Wilson-Plame lawsuit against Rove, Libby, and Cheney:
In TV-land the moment is infamous.
One of the stars of the longtime hit TV series Happy Days, Arthur "The Fonz" Fonzerelli, played by Henry Winkler, is made to do something by the show's writers that was clearly designed to save the fading series from sinking ratings.
The something? The Fonz, on water skis, was forced to literally jump a shark. The episode not only failed to save the once popular series that also starred future director Ron Howard, "jumping the shark" became a Hollywood metaphor for the point at which a once believable premise became a caricature.
With the filing of a lawsuit against Vice President Cheney, White House political aide Karl Rove and ex-Vice Presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have finally jumped the shark. With the revelation by columnist Robert Novak that it was neither Rove nor Libby, much less Cheney, who was his primary source for his column mentioning -- in passing no less -- that Wilson's now-famous assignment to Niger was arranged by his CIA-wife, Wilson's entire claim to fame takes a torpedo amidships. The New York Post now reports that Novak's main source was the anti-Iraq War Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a charge that Armitage has thus far not refuted.
http://www.theamericanspectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10091
I love it. However it leaves me with a burden that I will carry for awhile. I've been pacing and thinking of examples of just when certain individuals and groups went off the deep end and became a caricature.
When did Jesse Jackson jump the shark?
And the civil rights movement?
Was there one sentinel event when Howard Dean moved from the realm of politics to cartoon?
When did the ACLU jump the shark?
The American Spectator, Rush Limbaugh, FOX News, all those wonderful conservative bloggers out there (like AICS), and others in this new "age of information" shine a cold and revealing light on fashionable lunacy, defining it as such. Just a few years ago the celebrated elites could tread on the truth with impunity and spew the most outrageous bilge without being called on it. But the once sacrosanct is now fair game for inspection... And if you jump the shark (I love it) you are going to be called on it. And that, my friends, must drive the formerly protected classes to distraction.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Skyepuppy on Iraqis and the Israelis
Skyepuppy has a great post that deals with changing attitudes in Iraq concerning Israel and the terrorists they face. She writes:
They (Iraqis) have been the victims of Islamist extremists in Iraq for two to three years now, so they know what it's like. The average Iraqi citizen has more in common these days with the average Israeli than they do with the average Palestinian.
Read the entire post here: http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2006/07/iraq-model-on-reactions-to-gaza.html
Skyepuppy has a great post that deals with changing attitudes in Iraq concerning Israel and the terrorists they face. She writes:
They (Iraqis) have been the victims of Islamist extremists in Iraq for two to three years now, so they know what it's like. The average Iraqi citizen has more in common these days with the average Israeli than they do with the average Palestinian.
Read the entire post here: http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2006/07/iraq-model-on-reactions-to-gaza.html
Friday, July 14, 2006
Jacques Chirac on Middle East "Fairness"
Chirac says:
"One may well ask if there isn't today a kind of wish to destroy Lebanon -- its infrastructure, its roads, its communications, its energy, its airport. And for what?
"I find honestly -- as all Europeans do -- that the current reactions are totally disproportionate," he said in a live television interview on France's national Bastille Day.
I suppose the "disproportionate" response is due to the fact that Israel has better weapons and better trained soldiers. Chirac thinks that Israel should only respond to the bombing that originates in Lebanon with force no greater than that which the terrorists are able to muster. Anything else just wouldn't be fair to the terrorists.
I'm not sure that the French leader is being hypocritical, because it is quite possible that if the French were being bombed by a lesser power, Jacques Chirac might very well respond only in like manner. That is why France is in the shape it's in.
But to the Israelis it just doesn't make sense to sacrifice its citizens to "fairness" when they have the power to bomb the living crap out of those who mean them harm. Go figure.
The recommendation that the Israelis should act proportionately condemns Israel to a perpetual state of siege by its neighbors. And while that may be good for France, the world economy, and the status quo, it is ridiculous to expect the Israelis to live that way... Because that is no way to live.
Chirac says:
"One may well ask if there isn't today a kind of wish to destroy Lebanon -- its infrastructure, its roads, its communications, its energy, its airport. And for what?
"I find honestly -- as all Europeans do -- that the current reactions are totally disproportionate," he said in a live television interview on France's national Bastille Day.
I suppose the "disproportionate" response is due to the fact that Israel has better weapons and better trained soldiers. Chirac thinks that Israel should only respond to the bombing that originates in Lebanon with force no greater than that which the terrorists are able to muster. Anything else just wouldn't be fair to the terrorists.
I'm not sure that the French leader is being hypocritical, because it is quite possible that if the French were being bombed by a lesser power, Jacques Chirac might very well respond only in like manner. That is why France is in the shape it's in.
But to the Israelis it just doesn't make sense to sacrifice its citizens to "fairness" when they have the power to bomb the living crap out of those who mean them harm. Go figure.
The recommendation that the Israelis should act proportionately condemns Israel to a perpetual state of siege by its neighbors. And while that may be good for France, the world economy, and the status quo, it is ridiculous to expect the Israelis to live that way... Because that is no way to live.
Pennsylvania Town Legislates Against Illegals
HAZLETON, Pa. (July 14) - The City Council approved a law Thursday night designed to make this small city in northeastern Pennsylvania among the most hostile places in the U.S. for illegal immigrants to live or work.
The 4-to-1 vote came after nearly two hours of passionate debate. Opponents argued it was divisive and possibly illegal, but supporters said illegal immigrants' growing numbers have damaged the quality of life here.
"We must draw the line, and we are doing it tonight," Mayor Lou Barletta told a packed council chambers.
Barletta proposed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act last month as a response to what he said were Hazleton's problems with violent crime, crowded schools, hospital costs and the demand for services.
The ordinance would deny licenses to businesses that employ illegal immigrants, fine landlords $1,000 for each illegal immigrant discovered renting their properties, and require city documents to be in English only.
"The illegal citizens, I would recommend they leave," Barletta said after the meeting.
Council Vice President Jack Mundie voted for the ordinance.
"We're against illegal immigrants that are coming here and that are draining the resources of our city," he said.
The number of Hispanic residents in Hazleton, a former coal-mining town about 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia, has increased dramatically in the past six years.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/city-passes-harsh-law-against-illegal/20060713215209990003?ncid=NWS00010000000001
I predict that Mayor Barletta will have his job for about as long as he wants it.
The AOL poll that accompanied the story revealed that only 15% of readers were against the town's new law.
HAZLETON, Pa. (July 14) - The City Council approved a law Thursday night designed to make this small city in northeastern Pennsylvania among the most hostile places in the U.S. for illegal immigrants to live or work.
The 4-to-1 vote came after nearly two hours of passionate debate. Opponents argued it was divisive and possibly illegal, but supporters said illegal immigrants' growing numbers have damaged the quality of life here.
"We must draw the line, and we are doing it tonight," Mayor Lou Barletta told a packed council chambers.
Barletta proposed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act last month as a response to what he said were Hazleton's problems with violent crime, crowded schools, hospital costs and the demand for services.
The ordinance would deny licenses to businesses that employ illegal immigrants, fine landlords $1,000 for each illegal immigrant discovered renting their properties, and require city documents to be in English only.
"The illegal citizens, I would recommend they leave," Barletta said after the meeting.
Council Vice President Jack Mundie voted for the ordinance.
"We're against illegal immigrants that are coming here and that are draining the resources of our city," he said.
The number of Hispanic residents in Hazleton, a former coal-mining town about 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia, has increased dramatically in the past six years.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/city-passes-harsh-law-against-illegal/20060713215209990003?ncid=NWS00010000000001
I predict that Mayor Barletta will have his job for about as long as he wants it.
The AOL poll that accompanied the story revealed that only 15% of readers were against the town's new law.
I'm Ready to Pay
Let me first say that I see no equivalence between western civilization and the moral wilderness of radical Islam. I see no equivalence between people who raise and nurture families, and those who strap bombs to teenagers. The former are human beings and the latter are animals.
They are not animals because of their race or religion. They have become animals because of their hate and murderous activity.
Israel has been at war for many years now... a war that is the elephant in Israel's living room that they so deftly ignore. But elephants make a mess. They're noisy, they're dangerous, they break things, and they poop all over everything. I, for one, wonder why Israel has put up with it for as long as they have.
Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria are the main provocateurs in Israel's war and are behind the murder of American soldiers in Iraq. They want war. They insist on war. I think we should give it to them and I'm ready to pay.
There is no hope for reasoning and talks of peace. There are no breakthroughs or epiphanies on the horizon that will suddenly change the evil hearts and minds of these animals. I believe all we can do is make an example of these groups and countries, and we should do it with economy in terms of monetary cost and American lives.
I don't like it. In fact I dread it. Innocent people will suffer. But this is a war that we didn't start, and this is an evil that will keep coming at us until we kill it, so I'm ready to be done with it and I'm ready to pay.
If gas costs 10 dollars per gallon but my family lives its future in security then I'm ready to pay. If the economy suffers and I lose my job, but my great nephew and great nieces can raise their children in a free America, then I'm ready to pay.
Like Israel, our choices are limited by the dictates of those who want war. Either we continue to treat the symptoms or we kill the disease. I choose to kill the disease and I'm ready to pay.
Let me first say that I see no equivalence between western civilization and the moral wilderness of radical Islam. I see no equivalence between people who raise and nurture families, and those who strap bombs to teenagers. The former are human beings and the latter are animals.
They are not animals because of their race or religion. They have become animals because of their hate and murderous activity.
Israel has been at war for many years now... a war that is the elephant in Israel's living room that they so deftly ignore. But elephants make a mess. They're noisy, they're dangerous, they break things, and they poop all over everything. I, for one, wonder why Israel has put up with it for as long as they have.
Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria are the main provocateurs in Israel's war and are behind the murder of American soldiers in Iraq. They want war. They insist on war. I think we should give it to them and I'm ready to pay.
There is no hope for reasoning and talks of peace. There are no breakthroughs or epiphanies on the horizon that will suddenly change the evil hearts and minds of these animals. I believe all we can do is make an example of these groups and countries, and we should do it with economy in terms of monetary cost and American lives.
I don't like it. In fact I dread it. Innocent people will suffer. But this is a war that we didn't start, and this is an evil that will keep coming at us until we kill it, so I'm ready to be done with it and I'm ready to pay.
If gas costs 10 dollars per gallon but my family lives its future in security then I'm ready to pay. If the economy suffers and I lose my job, but my great nephew and great nieces can raise their children in a free America, then I'm ready to pay.
Like Israel, our choices are limited by the dictates of those who want war. Either we continue to treat the symptoms or we kill the disease. I choose to kill the disease and I'm ready to pay.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Heck's Campaign Advice for Rudy
Yesterday on the Peter Heck Show, Mr Heck addressed the problem Rudy Giuliani will have with conservative and Evangelical voters as he runs for the presidential nomination in 2008. Mayor Giuliani is on record as being pro-choice, pro gun-control, pro gay-rights... all of which is a very tough sell to those who hold the opposite opinions on these issues. Heck suggested that Giuliani must pledge to nominate strict constructionists, lately called conservatives, to the Supreme Court.
Heck feels that with the former mayor's gravitas on security issues and crime, this social liberal might garner conservative votes if he can reassure concerning judicial nominations.
I agree with Mr Heck, but I would advise Giuliani to take a step further that might insure him the nomination. I believe Giuliani can be openly liberal on social issues and secure the conservative and Evangelical vote if he becomes an evangelist for judicial restraint. Instead of skirting these divisive social issues, he should be aggressively pro-active in explaining and embracing the concept that the people should decide for themselves what laws should govern the land.
Rudy should say:
"Its my belief that the current Supreme Court has made it its policy to usurp the constitutional authority of the state and federal legislatures. If elected I promise I will nominate to the Court judges like Rehnquist, Scalia, and Roberts who interpret the constitution, not establish their personal preferences as law. I will nominate strict constructionists to the Supreme Court because the people, through their elected representatives, should decide the laws of the land... not unelected judges."
He should be up-front and honest about his personal views, but should add that it's not the place of the President or the Judicial Branch to legislate social issues. And, he should name at least 10 lower court judges from which he will choose his nominations for the high court.
If Giuliani can effectively educate the public on the issue of judicial restraint, he will appeal to pro-choice women, independents, and Evangelicals... and he will do much to mute the hysterics that will no doubt come from the Left.
I've often said that you don't need to be pro-life to know that Roe was a power grab by the Supreme Court. You don't have to be a conservative to see the advantage of nominating a strict constructionist to the court. Giuliani knows that striking down Roe wouldn't outlaw abortion and if he can make the public understand this much-under-reported truth, he will broaden his appeal among many groups.
Now... if he adds to this a very tough stance on illegal immigration... that is in line with the wishes of most Americans... I believe this guy could march straight into the White House.
Yesterday on the Peter Heck Show, Mr Heck addressed the problem Rudy Giuliani will have with conservative and Evangelical voters as he runs for the presidential nomination in 2008. Mayor Giuliani is on record as being pro-choice, pro gun-control, pro gay-rights... all of which is a very tough sell to those who hold the opposite opinions on these issues. Heck suggested that Giuliani must pledge to nominate strict constructionists, lately called conservatives, to the Supreme Court.
Heck feels that with the former mayor's gravitas on security issues and crime, this social liberal might garner conservative votes if he can reassure concerning judicial nominations.
I agree with Mr Heck, but I would advise Giuliani to take a step further that might insure him the nomination. I believe Giuliani can be openly liberal on social issues and secure the conservative and Evangelical vote if he becomes an evangelist for judicial restraint. Instead of skirting these divisive social issues, he should be aggressively pro-active in explaining and embracing the concept that the people should decide for themselves what laws should govern the land.
Rudy should say:
"Its my belief that the current Supreme Court has made it its policy to usurp the constitutional authority of the state and federal legislatures. If elected I promise I will nominate to the Court judges like Rehnquist, Scalia, and Roberts who interpret the constitution, not establish their personal preferences as law. I will nominate strict constructionists to the Supreme Court because the people, through their elected representatives, should decide the laws of the land... not unelected judges."
He should be up-front and honest about his personal views, but should add that it's not the place of the President or the Judicial Branch to legislate social issues. And, he should name at least 10 lower court judges from which he will choose his nominations for the high court.
If Giuliani can effectively educate the public on the issue of judicial restraint, he will appeal to pro-choice women, independents, and Evangelicals... and he will do much to mute the hysterics that will no doubt come from the Left.
I've often said that you don't need to be pro-life to know that Roe was a power grab by the Supreme Court. You don't have to be a conservative to see the advantage of nominating a strict constructionist to the court. Giuliani knows that striking down Roe wouldn't outlaw abortion and if he can make the public understand this much-under-reported truth, he will broaden his appeal among many groups.
Now... if he adds to this a very tough stance on illegal immigration... that is in line with the wishes of most Americans... I believe this guy could march straight into the White House.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
One Jewish Girl's Opinion
As things heat up in and around Israel, lindasog heats up a little herself:
Enough already with putting IDF (Israeli Defense Force) soldiers at risk to reduce enemy casualties. Israel can solve this problem without putting her soldiers at risk, just bomb the sh__ out of one city after the other, destroying them completely, until they surrender once and for all.
Arabs do not understand restraint, they do not understand compassion, they do not understand peace. They do not value life, they value death, destruction and chaos. The only thing they understand is merciless, relentless and continuous war until the enemy is so decimated that they cannot stand up long enough to fight.
http://www.lindasog.com/archives/2006/07/lebanon_declares_war.html
Sounds about right.
As things heat up in and around Israel, lindasog heats up a little herself:
Enough already with putting IDF (Israeli Defense Force) soldiers at risk to reduce enemy casualties. Israel can solve this problem without putting her soldiers at risk, just bomb the sh__ out of one city after the other, destroying them completely, until they surrender once and for all.
Arabs do not understand restraint, they do not understand compassion, they do not understand peace. They do not value life, they value death, destruction and chaos. The only thing they understand is merciless, relentless and continuous war until the enemy is so decimated that they cannot stand up long enough to fight.
http://www.lindasog.com/archives/2006/07/lebanon_declares_war.html
Sounds about right.
The Big Rivalry
OK... so yesterday I saw this story on the AOL Welcome Page that reported on the bad blood between Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. It must be true because I just heard Olbermann say on his show, "Mental health is not O'Reilly's strong suit."
I'm not that familiar with Olbermann, but from what I've been able to gather, he is sort of like Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's "Daily Show"... a non-news newsperson who makes a show of the news... who is in no way married to the truth... more interested in entertainment than issues... very much a mouthpiece for the Democrats and the Left.
You get the picture... At least you get my impression...
I'm sure Lefties, stupid people, and the ignorant (a homogenous grouping) think this guy is great.
And the numbers, please....
CABLE NEWS RACE
MON., JULY 10, 2006VIEWERS
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,264,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,801,000
CNN LARRY KING 1,382,000
FNC GRETA 1,340,000FNC
SHEP SMITH 1,252,000
FNC HUME 1,197,000
CNN COOPER 1,132,000
CNN DOBBS 823,000
CNN PAULA ZAHN 679,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 360,000
CNNHN GRACE 354,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 349,000
Well call me slow, but it dosn't look like there is much of a rivalry. Olberman's audience is a mere 15% of O'Reilly's... a poor showing when you consider that many cable and satellite packages offer MSNBC but not FOX. This is like the "rivalry" between Rush Limbaugh and Air America... Non-existent.
But the people that produce the AOL Welcome Page are mouthpieces for the Left, and I'm sure in their dreams Olbermann has kicked open wide the door of broadcast liberalism.
(OK, it's not much of a post, but I do love charts.)
OK... so yesterday I saw this story on the AOL Welcome Page that reported on the bad blood between Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. It must be true because I just heard Olbermann say on his show, "Mental health is not O'Reilly's strong suit."
I'm not that familiar with Olbermann, but from what I've been able to gather, he is sort of like Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's "Daily Show"... a non-news newsperson who makes a show of the news... who is in no way married to the truth... more interested in entertainment than issues... very much a mouthpiece for the Democrats and the Left.
You get the picture... At least you get my impression...
I'm sure Lefties, stupid people, and the ignorant (a homogenous grouping) think this guy is great.
And the numbers, please....
CABLE NEWS RACE
MON., JULY 10, 2006VIEWERS
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,264,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,801,000
CNN LARRY KING 1,382,000
FNC GRETA 1,340,000FNC
SHEP SMITH 1,252,000
FNC HUME 1,197,000
CNN COOPER 1,132,000
CNN DOBBS 823,000
CNN PAULA ZAHN 679,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 360,000
CNNHN GRACE 354,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 349,000
Well call me slow, but it dosn't look like there is much of a rivalry. Olberman's audience is a mere 15% of O'Reilly's... a poor showing when you consider that many cable and satellite packages offer MSNBC but not FOX. This is like the "rivalry" between Rush Limbaugh and Air America... Non-existent.
But the people that produce the AOL Welcome Page are mouthpieces for the Left, and I'm sure in their dreams Olbermann has kicked open wide the door of broadcast liberalism.
(OK, it's not much of a post, but I do love charts.)
Peter Heck all over
Madeline Albright
While my title most assuredly conjures up some disgusting imagery, I've been wanting to link to Mr Heck's post from last Friday ever since I first read it... because, it's superb. It actually feels good to read it. It's also infuriating. Don't miss it!
You'll find it here:
http://peterheck.com/betasite/fullBlog.php?entry=224
Madeline Albright
While my title most assuredly conjures up some disgusting imagery, I've been wanting to link to Mr Heck's post from last Friday ever since I first read it... because, it's superb. It actually feels good to read it. It's also infuriating. Don't miss it!
You'll find it here:
http://peterheck.com/betasite/fullBlog.php?entry=224
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Quran Murdered in Tennessee
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. The F-B-I will look into an online video that shows two men shooting a Quran with a military rifle and then leaving the bullet-riddled holy book at a Chattanooga mosque. F-B-I agent Tim Burke said the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations asked the Justice Department to investigate the incident. He said no one from the Chattanooga Muslim community had complained.
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. The F-B-I will look into an online video that shows two men shooting a Quran with a military rifle and then leaving the bullet-riddled holy book at a Chattanooga mosque. F-B-I agent Tim Burke said the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations asked the Justice Department to investigate the incident. He said no one from the Chattanooga Muslim community had complained.
You've got to be kidding. Maybe CAIR hasn't heard about free speech, but I would have thought that the FBI would have.
Justice Department spokesman Eric Holland said the request would be reviewed carefully.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Islamic group, said the video may have been recorded in Chattanooga a year ago.
That's the same Ibrahim Hooper that once said, "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.
The video shows the man purchasing a Quran at a bookstore, going to a wooded area and shooting the book, then throwing it on the ground outside the door of the Chattanooga Islamic center. http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=5133866&nav=3HvE
It's so hard to keep these things straight. So you can burn the American Flag, but if you fill a Quran full of lead you're going to be investigated by the FBI? What exactly would be the charge? One count of being rude and offensive?
I think that the FBI should have explained to the CAIR people that they're in America now and in this country we have the God-given freedom to buy books and shoot them. Instead the Bureau panders to CAIR's outrage, empowers them, and sets a very bad precedent. What a bunch of pathetic PC idiots.
Malott for United States Senator
We at Malott's Blog have grown tired of Senator Richard Lugar's wussie attitude towards illegal immigration. Senator Lugar (Old Lugie, as we say in Greentown) went so far as to vote for an amendment that requires our government to consult with the Mexican government before building a wall along our southern border. In other words, Dick doesn't care that 80% of Americans want a wall, but he does care what Mexico thinks about it. That's nice, Dick.
He voted for a Ted Kennedy amendment that would have raised the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25, and voted with "his brother RINOs" against the Santorum amendment that would have provided assistance for pro-democracy programs and activities inside and outside Iran, to make clear that the United States supported the ability of the people of Iran to exercise self-determination.
He has sometimes voted for pro-family legislation, but he is never out front leading the way.
This fall the Indiana U.S. Senate race will have only Lugar and a Libertarian on the ballot, since no Democrat filed for the May, 2006 primary. Malott's Blog was considering backing the Libertarian... until we learned that he had all the appeal of a beached carp.
Malott? Why Not!
We at Malott's Blog have grown tired of Senator Richard Lugar's wussie attitude towards illegal immigration. Senator Lugar (Old Lugie, as we say in Greentown) went so far as to vote for an amendment that requires our government to consult with the Mexican government before building a wall along our southern border. In other words, Dick doesn't care that 80% of Americans want a wall, but he does care what Mexico thinks about it. That's nice, Dick.
He voted for a Ted Kennedy amendment that would have raised the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25, and voted with "his brother RINOs" against the Santorum amendment that would have provided assistance for pro-democracy programs and activities inside and outside Iran, to make clear that the United States supported the ability of the people of Iran to exercise self-determination.
He has sometimes voted for pro-family legislation, but he is never out front leading the way.
This fall the Indiana U.S. Senate race will have only Lugar and a Libertarian on the ballot, since no Democrat filed for the May, 2006 primary. Malott's Blog was considering backing the Libertarian... until we learned that he had all the appeal of a beached carp.
Therefore, the entire staff at Malott's Blog has convinced Mr Malott (shown above) to run for the United States Senate as a "write-in" candidate.
Malott, who is known for his "Bachelor Tips", "Gardening Tips", posting almost anything on his blog page, and vulgar self-promotion in general, promises to show up for work every day at 7 A.M. and vote as a strict conservative. He promises not to be influenced by the people at those Washington D.C. parties... because he doesn't like parties, preferring to be in bed by 9 P.M.
Malott promises to spit on the floor whenever he passes Ted Kennedy. Malott promises to spit on the floor whenever he passes Charles Schumer. Malott promises to spit on John Kerry.
Does Malott have Presidential ambitions? Well, for now he's staying tight-lipped (shown above) about that.
The entire staff at Malott's Blog encourages the Indiana electorate to send a real Hoosier to Washington by writing in "Malott" (use black ink or a No.2 pencil) this November. You might want to go early and use a laundry marker to write our voting instructions on the wall of the voting booth. We're pretty sure that's legal.
As Mr Malott's official campaign site, Malott's Blog will keep you up-to-date as our candidate charges into the fray!
Shown below is our first campaign picture and slogan. We at Malott's Blog like it because it rhymes.
Malott? Why Not!
Have You Got Change for an Amero?
Skyepuppy asks if a story she found on WorldNetDaily is fact or a conspiracy theory.
http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2006/07/conspiracy-theory.html
Are secret meetings being held between the corporate and political elites of the U.S., Mexico and Canada to push North America into a European Union-style merger?
Does the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America include a common currency that would scrap the dollar in favor of what some are calling the "amero"?
The Supreme Court is already bleeding our autonomy by allowing international influence into its rulings. Big business along with their employees in Congress have re-defined the word border to mean nothing because, in the short-term, it fills their coffers with cash. If this story turns to reality is anyone going to be surprised?
Skyepuppy asks if a story she found on WorldNetDaily is fact or a conspiracy theory.
http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2006/07/conspiracy-theory.html
Are secret meetings being held between the corporate and political elites of the U.S., Mexico and Canada to push North America into a European Union-style merger?
Does the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America include a common currency that would scrap the dollar in favor of what some are calling the "amero"?
The Supreme Court is already bleeding our autonomy by allowing international influence into its rulings. Big business along with their employees in Congress have re-defined the word border to mean nothing because, in the short-term, it fills their coffers with cash. If this story turns to reality is anyone going to be surprised?
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Killing Baby Girls
Skyepuppy has an interesting post that addresses the infanticide that is taking place in countries where baby boys are valued more than baby girls... more valued to the point that female babies are being aborted at an alarming rate. You'll find it here:
http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2006/07/india-is-aborting-its-girls.html
The sin of killing unborn (or born) baby girls will lead to a multitude of societal problems, because a deficit of female adults is yet another stake in the heart of marriage and the family.
And adding to what the Pupster has already said... Perhaps in a culture where women are devalued there is already an inclination for women to enter, or be sold into, prostitution. Women, young and old, will more easily become cynical about something as arduous as marriage and turn to a mercenary expression of what God meant to be a union and a blessing.
Liberals, who champion abortion, fancy themselves rather than God to be the caretakers of this world and love to tinker with His creation... believing they know better. But nothing is more predictable or constant than the calamity which ensues every time we turn from His ways.
Skyepuppy has an interesting post that addresses the infanticide that is taking place in countries where baby boys are valued more than baby girls... more valued to the point that female babies are being aborted at an alarming rate. You'll find it here:
http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2006/07/india-is-aborting-its-girls.html
The sin of killing unborn (or born) baby girls will lead to a multitude of societal problems, because a deficit of female adults is yet another stake in the heart of marriage and the family.
And adding to what the Pupster has already said... Perhaps in a culture where women are devalued there is already an inclination for women to enter, or be sold into, prostitution. Women, young and old, will more easily become cynical about something as arduous as marriage and turn to a mercenary expression of what God meant to be a union and a blessing.
Liberals, who champion abortion, fancy themselves rather than God to be the caretakers of this world and love to tinker with His creation... believing they know better. But nothing is more predictable or constant than the calamity which ensues every time we turn from His ways.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Kenneth Lay... Rest in Peace
I was visiting www.democraticunderground.com to witness the latest hysteria of the suffering Dems (they always seem to be suffering from one thing or another), which included the latest hate directed at Joe Lieberman... and a discussion of Ken Lay's death which included this:
Will George Bush be giving the eulogy?
After all, Enron financed his theft of the White House.
It's really good news for conservatives that the Democrats refuse to move on with their lives. I suppose they will be talking about the stolen election of 2000 for the rest of my life. The independent recounts that showed President Bush to be the winner in Florida just never really registered with these people for some reason.
Anyway, I don't know if Kenneth Lay was evil, but celebrating his death certainly is... at the very least it's tasteless. Let's hope that the sins of those at Democratic Underground are also forgiven and forgotten... just as those of the rest of us lesser souls are.
I was visiting www.democraticunderground.com to witness the latest hysteria of the suffering Dems (they always seem to be suffering from one thing or another), which included the latest hate directed at Joe Lieberman... and a discussion of Ken Lay's death which included this:
Will George Bush be giving the eulogy?
After all, Enron financed his theft of the White House.
It's really good news for conservatives that the Democrats refuse to move on with their lives. I suppose they will be talking about the stolen election of 2000 for the rest of my life. The independent recounts that showed President Bush to be the winner in Florida just never really registered with these people for some reason.
Anyway, I don't know if Kenneth Lay was evil, but celebrating his death certainly is... at the very least it's tasteless. Let's hope that the sins of those at Democratic Underground are also forgiven and forgotten... just as those of the rest of us lesser souls are.
Remembering Terri
SkyePuppy rules, as always. I was there reading a story about the man who recovered consciousness after being in a vegetative state (no, not Arkansas) for twenty years.
http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2006/07/man-recovers-from-permanent-vegetative.html
In a new medical study sure to remind the world of the debate surrounding the forced dehydration death of Terri Schiavo, researchers found the injured brain of a man in a "vegetative state" for 19 years rewired itself, permitting him to renew communication with his loved ones.
I saw this story on TV some time last week, and the most striking part of the experience was the assured enthusiasm with which the reporter explained to her audience that this was a completely different situation than the Terri Schiavo case. Completely different. Completely. Different. Different in a very complete sort of way. A most complete difference, and completely, amen.
The man's doctor probably told the reporter this, or possibly the reporter looked until she found a doctor who would tell her this.
I would wager my left leg that this man's doctor told his family that he would never recover, and that the only difference between the man and Schiavo was that he didn't have an estranged spouse that wanted him dead.
When I started working with doctors, what impressed me most was how smart they were, and how utterly clueless they were about the human body and its healing. It's 2006, and the medical community has much more to learn about healing than it has learned thus far. They work hard and try sincerely, but they are still operating in the Bronze Age of medicine. This man's story is an illustration of modern medicine's ignorance.
The right to die is an interesting concept. But Terri's inconvenient life was not slipping away. She was not dying. She was dehydrated and starved to death. And all the assuring in the world will not convince me that what doctor's learned from this man's recovery will not lead to better methods of treatment... methods that might have one day brought Terri a clearer relationship with her world.
SkyePuppy rules, as always. I was there reading a story about the man who recovered consciousness after being in a vegetative state (no, not Arkansas) for twenty years.
http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2006/07/man-recovers-from-permanent-vegetative.html
In a new medical study sure to remind the world of the debate surrounding the forced dehydration death of Terri Schiavo, researchers found the injured brain of a man in a "vegetative state" for 19 years rewired itself, permitting him to renew communication with his loved ones.
I saw this story on TV some time last week, and the most striking part of the experience was the assured enthusiasm with which the reporter explained to her audience that this was a completely different situation than the Terri Schiavo case. Completely different. Completely. Different. Different in a very complete sort of way. A most complete difference, and completely, amen.
The man's doctor probably told the reporter this, or possibly the reporter looked until she found a doctor who would tell her this.
I would wager my left leg that this man's doctor told his family that he would never recover, and that the only difference between the man and Schiavo was that he didn't have an estranged spouse that wanted him dead.
When I started working with doctors, what impressed me most was how smart they were, and how utterly clueless they were about the human body and its healing. It's 2006, and the medical community has much more to learn about healing than it has learned thus far. They work hard and try sincerely, but they are still operating in the Bronze Age of medicine. This man's story is an illustration of modern medicine's ignorance.
The right to die is an interesting concept. But Terri's inconvenient life was not slipping away. She was not dying. She was dehydrated and starved to death. And all the assuring in the world will not convince me that what doctor's learned from this man's recovery will not lead to better methods of treatment... methods that might have one day brought Terri a clearer relationship with her world.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Cohabitation with Islam
Robert Spencer reports in Front Page Mag about the writings of the wives of the terrorists recently arrested in Cananda. Here are some of the wives' unedited posts on the internet:
"Know what you will face one day. Let them call you a terrorist, let them make you look like a savage, but know that THIS [the American military] is the filth of the earth, the uncivilised destroyer of humanity."
"[And] if [my husband] ever refuses a clear opportunity to leave for jihad, then i want the choice of divorce."
"All muslim politicians are corrupt. There's no one out there willing to rule the country by the laws of Allah, rather they fight to rule the country by the laws of democracy."
"Are you accepting a system that separates religion and state? Are you gonna give your pledge of allegiance to a party that puts secular laws above the laws of Allah? Are you gonna worship that which they worship? Are you going to throw away the most important thing that makes you a muslim?"
Spencer then writes:
One primary lesson that authorities should draw from these Internet postings is that Islamic terror is not a problem that can be solved by social engineering. It cannot be assuaged by gestures of good will, negotiations or concessions. There is in Western countries today a large and growing population of Muslims, among whom are many who have no intention of assimilating or adopting Western values and perspectives, and who regard the West with as much or more disdain and contempt as these women show in their Internet postings. The jihad ideology as such must be confronted and combated, or it will continue to spread, and breed terrorists and subversives.
But for authorities to understand this and take positive steps to deal with it, they would first have to admit that Islam has anything to do with terrorism at all - something they have taken great pride in denying. And that denial only ensures that there will be many more jihad cells in Canada and Western countries, with the wives of the plotters cheering from the sidelines.
Most Western leaders would seemingly rather allow Western Culture to dissolve into history than utter the politically-incorrect thought that Islam and the West might be an incompatible marriage. Idealistically clinging to multi-culturalism and liberal immigration principles is becoming a very expensive and myopic policy. But we are so adept in this country at ignoring problems, regardless of their size, that I wonder what (if any) number of negative experiences would cause us to remove our blinders and see that we cannot live peacefully alongside a colony of jihadists and their supporters.
Liberals exhibit such a healthy fear of global warming... saying that the dangerous possibilities are just too horrible and serious not to address. I wish they would take notice that things are heating up very rapidly on another front, constituting a much more palpable threat than the shrinking of glaciers.
Robert Spencer reports in Front Page Mag about the writings of the wives of the terrorists recently arrested in Cananda. Here are some of the wives' unedited posts on the internet:
"Know what you will face one day. Let them call you a terrorist, let them make you look like a savage, but know that THIS [the American military] is the filth of the earth, the uncivilised destroyer of humanity."
"[And] if [my husband] ever refuses a clear opportunity to leave for jihad, then i want the choice of divorce."
"All muslim politicians are corrupt. There's no one out there willing to rule the country by the laws of Allah, rather they fight to rule the country by the laws of democracy."
"Are you accepting a system that separates religion and state? Are you gonna give your pledge of allegiance to a party that puts secular laws above the laws of Allah? Are you gonna worship that which they worship? Are you going to throw away the most important thing that makes you a muslim?"
Spencer then writes:
One primary lesson that authorities should draw from these Internet postings is that Islamic terror is not a problem that can be solved by social engineering. It cannot be assuaged by gestures of good will, negotiations or concessions. There is in Western countries today a large and growing population of Muslims, among whom are many who have no intention of assimilating or adopting Western values and perspectives, and who regard the West with as much or more disdain and contempt as these women show in their Internet postings. The jihad ideology as such must be confronted and combated, or it will continue to spread, and breed terrorists and subversives.
But for authorities to understand this and take positive steps to deal with it, they would first have to admit that Islam has anything to do with terrorism at all - something they have taken great pride in denying. And that denial only ensures that there will be many more jihad cells in Canada and Western countries, with the wives of the plotters cheering from the sidelines.
Most Western leaders would seemingly rather allow Western Culture to dissolve into history than utter the politically-incorrect thought that Islam and the West might be an incompatible marriage. Idealistically clinging to multi-culturalism and liberal immigration principles is becoming a very expensive and myopic policy. But we are so adept in this country at ignoring problems, regardless of their size, that I wonder what (if any) number of negative experiences would cause us to remove our blinders and see that we cannot live peacefully alongside a colony of jihadists and their supporters.
Liberals exhibit such a healthy fear of global warming... saying that the dangerous possibilities are just too horrible and serious not to address. I wish they would take notice that things are heating up very rapidly on another front, constituting a much more palpable threat than the shrinking of glaciers.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Court Makes the Constitution a Suicide Pact
Joseph Klein writes in Front Page Mag:
Wittingly or unwittingly, the Supreme Court has started our nation down the slippery slope of treating our own Constitution as a suicide pact. It is providing a global enemy determined to destroy our freedoms the very tools such freedoms create to use against us and to prevent us from defeating their evil designs.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23204
What is the source of this inherent mind-set of the Left that consistently labors against innocence, and supports and encourages all that threatens our country? Is it some academic miasma, some masochistic intellectual pretension that maniacally endeavors to treat American interests with enmity?
Whatever its source, it is the duty of all of us on the Right to explain that black is sometimes simply... black. And, that this enemy-from-within, which embraces seemingly any cultural pathology and obsessively searches for some fashionable nuance in the simplest matters of national security, must never be allowed to lead.
Joseph Klein writes in Front Page Mag:
Wittingly or unwittingly, the Supreme Court has started our nation down the slippery slope of treating our own Constitution as a suicide pact. It is providing a global enemy determined to destroy our freedoms the very tools such freedoms create to use against us and to prevent us from defeating their evil designs.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23204
What is the source of this inherent mind-set of the Left that consistently labors against innocence, and supports and encourages all that threatens our country? Is it some academic miasma, some masochistic intellectual pretension that maniacally endeavors to treat American interests with enmity?
Whatever its source, it is the duty of all of us on the Right to explain that black is sometimes simply... black. And, that this enemy-from-within, which embraces seemingly any cultural pathology and obsessively searches for some fashionable nuance in the simplest matters of national security, must never be allowed to lead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
