Uncommonsense

So THAT'S how it works....

2009-10-15T05:44:00.000-07:00

Found this little blurb on Bloomberg.com. What struck me was how a government's policies can drive away business, and how government ownership of major industries play a part. Government A, which owns the utility company says it's tripling rates to cover a budget that has nothing to do with providing electricity. Company B that's wanting to build a facility there shakes the dust off its corporate raiment, and hits the road.

Any lessons to be learned?

Government run businesses(like healthcare) can mess things up.

Or, as I would say, "What are ya, nuts?"

Who'da thought I'd be gettin this kind of reaction?

2009-08-18T15:01:00.000-07:00

Y'know...with all that's been going on since the election, I've just had this 'thing' roiling around in me that needed to come out, and so here is the result. The reaction to Ol' Bob here and his new lyrics for a song nearly as old as I am has been universally positive, so thanks to all that have commented and encouraged me in the effort. I'm not done though. I plan to make it to Washington DC on September 12, guitar in hand, and hopefully in better voice than brother Bob. Let our voices be heard. Let us not let each other, or our progeny, down.

Thanks.

Its written on their faces...

2009-03-27T20:13:00.000-07:00

"Bank execs vow to work with Obama on recovery plan", says the AP.

I've seen happier guys on their way to the gas chamber.

I can imagine that Ken Lewis, far right, is trying to calculate how many days it will take to pay all that fed money back so he can go back from being a mere serf to CEO, if he can

Don't laugh, kiddies. We may be next.

The People of No and why we're that way...

2009-03-08T18:36:00.000-07:00

That's why they've switched to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming'

2008-12-18T06:55:00.000-08:00

So, I'm not a scientist, but can we just rely on our common sense to see the snowdrifts for the flakes, to coin a phrase? Its snowing in Vegas fer' cryin' out loud! Speaking of seeing things, I'm sure everyone's noticed by now that 'global warming' is no longer the term in vogue. It has since morphed into 'climate change'. Why? Well when all your climate models predicting all these dire circumstances from CO2 overload don't jive, you change the terminology to allow your climate theory to still be valid. Kind of like shaving the corners off that square peg before attempting to force into that round hole. As my old boss used to say, "If it don't fit, force it. If it still don't fit, get a bigger hammer. And if it breaks, it needed fixin' anyway."

So, no matter if it snows in Vegas and Malibu or if we get record cold temperatures nationally or globally, its still due to our carbon footprint, somehow.

Excessive Carbon Dioxide = White Christmas. Okey dokey.

No matter if the climate data actually shows our record high temperatures during the Depression rather than 1999, its all about climate 'change'. I suppose we can load up all this snow and ice here and pile it up at the North Pole, as Al Gore says its all melting in 5 years.

Argh.

The Bush Legacy in 2 pictures ( and a few words)

2008-12-09T09:52:00.000-08:00

From this:

to this:

In the midst of Mumbai, Big 3 bailouts, a governor nabbed by the Feds, and all the rest, a big thank you to Charles Krauthammer for reminding us about Iraq. With a strategic and defense agreement in hand, Mr. Bush has replaced a cruel, regionally destabilizing dictatorship willing to play patty-cake with any (well, maybe not Iran) anti-American entity, to a potentially major ally in a critical part of the world. Now, it ain't over till' its over, but no one else has attacked this country since 9/11. The government in Iraq is still somewhat wobbly, but taking steps. Its defense and police forces are standing strong. Iran and its Iraqi client the Sadrists, have been marginalized by a ballot box (backed by our outstanding military). They're good enough, they're smart enough, and doggone it, the kids in that picture like our folks in uniform, and by extention, us. Who would have expected any of this two years ago? Who could have imagined it 7 years ago?

As with any strategic undertaking that requires military action, the process is fraught with peril and is often painted with the blood and sacrifice of many of our men and women, and innocents as well. Consequently, bad intelligence, bad strategy, and bad people can tip the balance toward failure. We've come dangerously close due to all three factors, but here we are, on the cusp of success. As much as we can rightfully blame Mr. Bush for all the bad things that have happened in the prosecution of this war, we must place credit where it is due. I hope Mr. Obama realizes what kind of gift he's getting from Mr. Bush. Its way more than the keys to the Whitehouse, although the disapproval ratings for what Mr. Bush had to do pretty much handed them to the Agent of Change. Its the heavy lifting Mr. Bush did to leave his successor with a huge, tough, gristled hunk of meat taken off the President Elect's plate.

You want proof? You shoulda' asked Tavie

2008-11-25T15:36:00.000-08:00

From time to time, I've gotten into discussions with atheists and agnostics alike about Christianity, and typically they demand proof about what they often call the 'Sky-daddy' that we follow. Oh, there's tons of evidence...cosmological, historical, archeological, and my personal fave, Bible prophecy that's currently batting a 1000. All that is great for taking my faith out into the marketplace of ideas and making my case for Jesus, but the ultimate proof of the Christian faith is in the lives of those who believe.

I can find no better example than in the life of Tavie. She was one of the senior members of our church. She passed away this past weekend at age 71. For all the time that Tavie was with us, she was a tireless servant for the Lord in everything she did for our church. If there was anything that needed doing, from bringing me a cup of coffee just they way I liked it as I was running the A/V for our children's church, to getting down and dirty with a major renovation of our fellowship hall, Tavie was there. She truly had a servant's heart. It will probably take 4 or 5 other people to cover all the things she did at the church. She had that much impact there.

As my agnostic and atheist acquaintences might ask, "For what?" What, indeed. Other than a little mention in an obituary and the appreciation from those who knew her, what was in it for Tavie? What drove her to be all the things she was to our church and everyone in it? Fame? Fortune? Power? Status? She certainly didn't attain any of those things while she was here. When you look at our world today, Tavie was going about it all wrong. Putting others first is a one-way ticket to Loserville in this day and age. No, people like Tavie aren't driven by those things at all. The only rational explanation for this failed effort to achieve any worldly success was her love for the Lord. It was He that set the world-changing example of washing feet as how we should act if we believe, and she followed that example everyday.

Oh, I suppose some would say she was misguided, or delusional. Maybe she was burdened with some guilt complex that drove her to deny self for others. Tell that to her husband John, who accepted Jesus just some three years ago. Tell that to the rest of her family. Tell it to those people that came by the church with no clothes to wear or food to eat and found Tavie there with her hand outstretched, day after day. Tell it to her Pastor, and while you're at it, just try telling that to me. No, the best proof we have that Christianity is real in the person of Jesus, is Tavie.

A right to protest, just not a right to gay marriage

2008-11-16T04:19:00.000-08:00

How in the world did an Obama victory not squash Proposition 8 in California? Well, maybe the country where we're required to accept whoever got the most votes as our President is the same one that requires that we accept a change to California's Constitution.

The notion of gay marriage as a 'civil right' just doesn't hold water. A marriage license is like a drivers license, you don't automatically get one just because you're a citizen.

Driving is a privilege afforded to you if you jump through the right hoops to qualify. The state has the right to keep public highways and streets safe for the general populace, hence not issueing licenses to people that can't pass the test, or not qualified due to age or physical condition. You can't have kindergartners and blind people driving. Its just 'common' sense.

Likewise, a marriage license is issued to those that meet the qualifications. Age, for one. Can't have a middle age guy marrying a 10 year-old or Sam Aardvark marrying his sister, now can we? Its not open to everyone as a civil right. Its open to those who qualify for it as a privilege.

Now, some would argue that since marriage as a spiritual union originated from some religious beliefs before governments existed, it shouldn't be licensed by the state with its unique legal status. Everyone should have access to a state authorized civil union, but marriage should restricted to whatever religious entity associated with it. If we take that line of reasoning, then anything else originating in the form of a moral/religious stricture that has since been adopted by the state shouldn't have the force of law either. Should exclude laws against murder or theft in our justice system simply because it was originally part of a religiously based set of rules? Should this 'separation of church and state' idea be taken to this logical end? Of course not.

No matter the origin, laws against murder and robbery are good laws to have. Keeps society safe. Just as the state has recognized the necessity and efficacy of having a society that doesn't murder or steal, so it recognizes the benefits to society concerning marriage that legally married couples and their children in a nuclear family provides. The benefit to society is unique. Therefore, the state provides the legal framework for that uniquely beneficial structure to exist and thrive. Marriage between a man and a woman is a good thing for our society. Why then, mess it up by turning it into something else?

Even with all that, we still have people protesting Prop 8. Its all about an wanting an equal level of acceptance by way of marriage, isn't it? In effect, they're wanting the same consideration for what their relationship brings to society as the traditional man/woman/progeny relationship does. The state, and the people voting in it, have the right to refuse granting that privilege.

The Perfect Storm...hold on to your pocketbook!

2008-11-13T17:57:00.000-08:00

We get an announcement from Treasury Secretary Paulson that says he's scrapping the bad debt buyout and going strictly with buying up preferred equity in 'financials'.

Who knows how many firms of what stripe will be included? He dunno.
Awesome.

Trying to figure out the actual market value and so forth will take too long, he says.
Peachy.

He knew the TARP program as he'd laid out wasn't workable as it was being signed into law.
Well, duh!

So, is the guy flying by the seat of his pants? I'm thinking so, with potentially trillions in his back pocket.

I'm comforted...but are those clouds building in the distance?

He's buying time to see what type of fecal matter has the best adhesive qualities on a solid vertical surface upon horizontal impact.

Great plan...did you feel the wind pick up?

Combine that with car companies and a whole host of others clamoring for their bailout.

Storm's a comin'...I can feeeelllll it.

Add in a Democratically controlled government that is way better at bigger government, more spending, more taxes, and more unintended consequences...

hey, this boat ain't big enough for this.

As a proponent of government only big enough to handle the jobs its supposed to do, this is looking more and more like a perfect storm, with the taxpayers ill equipped to withstand the onslaught.

I think former Treasury Secretary O'Neill had it right on Cavuto's show about making Uncle Sam the guarantor of last resort, the back-up for whatever bad debt actually collapses. In terms of what has worked best, I think back to the Chrylser 'bail out' as it was called back in the Lee Iacocca "K" car days. The government never actually spent a dime, they just co-signed the note. A car company under good leadership worked its way out of it, all the better for the experience. Taxpayers off the hook. Good.

We're at a point of no return in this storm, folks. Either we're going to head for:

A solution that eliminates amorphodite entities like Fannie and Freddie.

A solution that removes the onerous tax and regulatory environment that strangles business.

A solution that replaces all that with required transactional tranparency, regulation that seeks to keep all the players in-bounds and on-sides, and serious, serious punishment for those that cover-up what they're up to and repeatedly go over the line. Hang 'em if you have to.

Or: More of the same re-arranging of deck chairs...

Be Careful What You Wish For...

2008-11-09T03:20:00.000-08:00

The more I ponder the elections, the more it feels like 1976. That's just far back enough for many to forget, and for many more too far back to have even been born. The country had been through Vietnam, Watergate, and was yearning for a change to something new. As a young man in the same demographic as those now putting in Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress, I remember that I was tired of politics as usual. I was tired of the corruption and a bad war in which the government lied to us about. We needed a fresh start, and Jimmy Carter was it. Hey, he was new, an outsider not connected to Vietnam or Watergate or a Nixon pardon. Looking back, its easy to see the mistake I made in voting for him. In his inauguration speech he said,

"We have learned that more is not necessarily better, that even our great nation has its recognized limits, and that we can neither answer all questions nor solve all problems."

I should have know then what we were in for. Yeah, more is not necessarily better, but our nation has its 'recognized limits'? And, we can only do so much, so don't even try. What I got was a guy wearing sweaters on TV to lead us out of an energy crisis. What I got was a guy that the Iranians toyed with because they could. What I got was 12% inflation and home mortgage rates in the high teens. In short, a disaster in policies foreign and domestic. Not every thing Carter did was bad. True to his Christian roots, there was a lot of good along the humantarian front. Its never all or none when assessing a president's effectiveness considering the complexity of the office. However, he was ineffective enough, and he lasted only one term. Seeing what's happened with Mr. Carter, and the things he's done and said since then makes me wonder...

"What was I thinking?"

Maybe we had to experience the wrong kind of president to understand what to look for in the right kind, the 'can't appreciate the light until you've experienced pitch black' type of thing. I don't know. What I do know is this election looks alot like the same thing. Change and Hope was the mantra and enough people embraced it to bring Mr. Obama to office, just like Carter.

Now we've got big big problems in this country. Its not the Civil War, and its not the Great Depression. There's no comparison there, in spite of what the media (oh yeah, no understanding, much less sense of history) might put out or parrot from the coming administration. Its bad enough though. At this juncture, we now owe more in debt (if you include the estimated cost of Social Security and Medicare going forward) than we're worth as a country. Its not about bailing out or rescuing banks or Wall Street, or the Big 3. Who's going to bail out the United States?
We're also engaged in a 21st century struggle between Good and Evil that rivals Fascism and Communism of the 20th Century. As a society that embraces Relativism and Moral Equivalency, we're ill equipped to fight it. Unlike our past struggles, Islamism isn't something that's going to die out with victory in war or economic collapse of a socialistic empire. We don't have the Thatchers or Churchills of times past to stand firm. We can only hope others with that unwavering sense of right and wrong to come along side us in a meaningful way.

So, where does that leave us and President Elect Obama? He got what he wished for. A majority of voters, just like me in 1976, got what they wished for. From what I can see, he's not Jimmy Carter in many respects. He's certainly not a Christian if he actually embraces the kind of theology 'reverend' Wright has expoused some 20 years. I think him more pragmatic and calculating than Carter in that the street is littered with victims he's thrown under the bus when they no longer provided him cover or a political advantage. Being brilliant intellectually, eloquent in controlled settings, and politically astute in getting elected to the office are all attributes that will serve him well.

But...

We have yet to see the measure of this man in a real crisis where things will have to be done and not just talked about. My concern is that there is no 'there' there and we're dealing with a pure pragmatist not concerned with core values, or when those values are revealed, we'll be suffering from buyer's remorse. Pure Pragmatism deals only with expediency and creating advantage for oneself. Core values that run counter to what this country was built on are dangerous to our freedoms, our prosperity, and our progeny.

Pray.

Alot.

We Be Squaredancin'!

2007-09-26T08:39:00.001-07:00

Star in Your Own JibJab! It's Free!JibJab has done it again!

In case you forgot...

2007-09-11T12:16:00.001-07:00

In a place where only 1/2 of us vote and we have the politicians in place to prove it, in a place where Lindsey, Paris, Brittany, and Brad are more important than our Sovereignty, our Security, our History, and our Posterity, in a place where freedom is conflated with license, in a place where basic rights are confused with special privileges, in a place where our best volunteer for war while we go to the mall, in a place where spiritual fulfillment is pursued in all directions as God Himself is ignored, we have this day to remember. It can all be gone, all of it...good and bad...in an instant. For nearly 3,000 people and their families, all of it disappeared in a violent combination of jet fuel and buildings' collapse.

The next time there's an election, the next time there's an opportunity to make your voice heard about our Sovereignty, Security, our Posterity, or any other burning issues of the day, the next time you're watching an insipid 'entertainment news' program, the next time our military takes on another foe bent on our annihilation, the next time you go to the mall, the next time there's a chance to let others know where God stands in your life, remember this day.

Caption Contest: "Norman Hsu...who knew?"

2007-09-11T11:21:00.000-07:00

AP reports that Hillary Clinton is giving back ALL the money related to Norman Hsu's fundraising activities rather than the paltry $23,000 she donated to charity earlier. Trying to get ahead of the FBI on all those straw donors.

Ya' gotta love the picture...what's your caption?

Are you scared yet?

2007-09-06T09:41:00.000-07:00

If you never paid attention to national politics before, maybe now's the time...this from William Katz via PowerLine on what could be:

January 20, 2009. It is the U.S. Capitol, outdoors. Chief Justice John Roberts rises from his seat and takes his place. The president-elect then stands and faces the chief justice. The presidential spouse places a Bible between them.

CHIEF JUSTICE: Please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, Hillary Rodham Clinton...

HILLARY: I, Hillary Rodham, and, when I need it, Clinton...

CHIEF JUSTICE: do solemnly swear...

HILLARY: do vaguely commit...

CHIEF JUSTICE: that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States...

HILLARY: that I will be President of the United States, and execute whom I please...

CHIEF JUSTICE: and will, to the best of my ability...

HILLARY: and will, with my charm and cash...

CHIEF JUSTICE: preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...

HILLARY: get Scalia's butt off the Supreme Court, followed by yours, pal...

CHIEF JUSTICE: so help me God.

HILLARY: So help me me.

CHIEF JUSTICE: Congratulations.

HILLARY: Now take off the black dress and sit down.

Cannons fire their salute. The Marine band plays "Hail to the Chief." Bill Clinton cabs to the White House to check the fridge.

Vote early, and often...

Anything for a headline

2007-08-20T11:25:00.000-07:00

This according to the Associated Press

"Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R4H0Q00&show_article=1&catnum=-1

Sounds impressive, eh? I mean, if we can build life from scratch, who needs God?

Hold the phone. Lets look at this just a little bit closer...

"It's going to be a big deal and everybody's going to know about it," said Mark Bedau, chief operating officer of ProtoLife of Venice, Italy, one of those in the race.

Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life:
—A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply.
—A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes.
—A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy.

Hmm, is that all that's holding us back? Essentially all you need is, uh, everything...and a way to make it work. How stinkin' hard can that be?

Jack Szostak at Harvard Medical School is optomistic. His idea is that once the container is made, if scientists add nucleotides in the right proportions, then Darwinian evolution could simply take over.

"We aren't smart enough to design things, we just let evolution do the hard work and then we figure out what happened," Szostak said.

What? Not smart enough at Harvard to design things?

What HAS happened to our institutions of higher learning?

Sheesh...

Letting Darwinian evolution just design something? Figure out what happened later?

Is this science or the Red Green show?

I. can't. wait.

A Glutton For Punishment: Part V

2007-08-17T12:19:00.000-07:00

So, what else have I found in my travels?

Non-belief in God is genetically determined, no kidding!

As to the non-belief gene, here's a quote from a blog:"I may contest that the chance of god is a small percentage; however, that is not my predisposition. It's not incorporated within me. Belief isn't something one can choose to do." Now when pressed a little, my atheist counterpart allowed that it might be a combination of nature and nurture.

Even so, she repeated her earlier declaration this way: "You simply cannot choose to believe in something." There were other posters on that blog that agreed.

Wow. I was stunned, baffled, flabbergasted, taken aback, dumb-founded, flummoxed!

I don't think she actually thought through the implications of that statement. It would stand to reason that the converse should be true, that one simply can't choose NOT to believe.

Its not up to us..."well if I was born that way, I'm not responsible for what I do or don't believe."

Zero accountability! Y'know, they may be on to something...

Speaking of genetics, there was one other thing I found interesting in that post:

"Yet I wonder what's the obsession with calling something "god"? "

If we can point to something genetic, inborn if you will, I think that'd be it.

Atheists are trying to come up with some type of iconic representation of their non-belief.

I saw a red "A" which I think Professor Dawkins came up with. I think the obvious reference to Nathanial Hawthorne's tome would confuse the issue. I'm sure they'll come up with something. After all, there's the Cross and the Star of David. Why not something representing um....well, what do you have really? I'm thinking a blank slate. There's nothing on there to begin with, and you can put anything on it you want...

Please be Patient, Y'all. He's got something to say...

2007-08-13T11:23:00.001-07:00

No comment needed

Agenda driven science exposed...again

2007-08-12T04:56:00.000-07:00

Check this out:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/09/did-media-or-nasa-withhold-climate-history-data-changes-public

Throw that in with the previous posts on the hominid neighbors that were supposed to be ancestors and descendants, you can see the human aspects of science:

Smart guys producing scientific data with pre-conceived notions of what it should look like.
Other smart guys with their pre-conceived notions about the other smart guys' pre-conceived notions producing scientific data, proving them wrong.
The first smart guys starting the cycle all over again.

To quote again Dr. Anton: "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."

Well, Dr. Anton, it seems that with scientists behaving like they do...y'know...like ordinary people + lab coats, the truth kind of winds its way along a crooked path.

And, maybe that's the way it has to be. What I'd like is a more even-handed approach to how the data is publicized. Dr. Hansen thru NASA has been trumpeting about global warming for some time now. Seems like a fundamental shift in what the data actually shows would be worth an equally publicized news story to that effect.

Still waiting...

Well, there goes the neighborhood...

2007-08-09T08:32:00.000-07:00

Looks like this is getting some widespread attention:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

So, what we have is two species of hominids not behaving well. For one, they're supposed to have evolved from one to the other, in classic evolutionary linear fashion. Instead, it looks like they were neighbors. That is to say they co-existed at approximately the same place, at the same time. On the face of it, it does fly in the face of heretofore accepted anthropology concerning the evolution of man as we are now.

So, now what?

There'll be more questions, more research, other evidence reviewed and presented, but in the meantime, we get this:

"Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory."

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."

Well, duh.

I would expect science to continue to do what it does and religion to do what it does. What' s telling here is that Dr. Anton is proactively defending current theory from...whom? Is she worried about other scientists that would challenge the conventional wisdom and her research.? Nooooooooooooo. She goes after religion first, with a warning: it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory. I'm thinking she and Meave Leakey have done a pretty good job of showing the flaws all by themselves. Is this going to be the same thing as science thinking we evolved from Neanderthals, then come to find out we didn't? We'll see...

Where I think science has gone haywire on all of this, is shifting its position of, "We can't include God in, we have no evidence indicating that", to "We have to pre-emptively, completely include God out, and don't ever mention that so-called creative entity again".

If they'd only worry about the how, what, where, and the when and stop insisting there's no 'Who', they could spend a whole lot more time figuring out the stuff science figures out.

A Glutton For Punishment: Part IV

2007-08-07T13:54:00.000-07:00

So what else have I learned about Atheists?

They're an oppressed minority.
Its high time they came out of their atheist closets.

A common theme I'm seeing in atheist websites here is this concern that western countries like the US are mimicking the Taliban in creating an oppressive, all encompassing theocracy. Between fundamentalist politicians setting the ten commandments out in the public square and crackpot pseudo-scientific-warmed over creationism nutjobs wanting Intelligent Design taught in schools, they're feeling the noose of religious intolerance slowly tightening around them. The total takeover by religious fundamentalists of every aspect of American life is just around the corner! Can public stonings be very far behind? They shudder at the prospect.

sigh...

Now, taking a page out of the 'oppressed minorities that have no ethnic or racial component to designate them as such' playbook, they have this compunction to 'come out' as it were and tell people they're atheists, and darn proud of it.

double sigh...

Praying to a Milk Jug?

2007-08-06T08:14:00.001-07:00

One could probably write a tome about how bad this analogy is, but I'll just go with this: unlike the immutable word of God, milk will go bad in a few days, and you'll have to throw it out.

As the risk of a very bad pun on a very good hymn, "Great Is Thy Faithfulness", the second line says, "there is no shadow of turning with Thee"

A Glutton For Punishment: Part III

2007-07-29T14:13:00.000-07:00

Still at it. I have to admit, I've had to do a little homework relative to the claims atheists often make to at least better understand their arguments.

So what else have I learned from atheists?

We're all innately good. We're born that way.

When it comes to morality, black can in fact be white

Its pointless to study the Bible. Its obviously full of bad stuff.

I got into an extended discussion with an atheist over morality. The argument was that God, or more to their point, religion (not mutually inclusive, btw) is not required in order to be moral. Moreover, to follow the Hitchens line of reasoning, we're born with innate goodness. Hey, if you're innately good, then it stands to reason you will be moral, irrespective of what you believe or not believe. Children only require friendly reminders from time to time to stay on the moral track and follow the 'golden rule'. How many of you with actual (not virtual) children have had this kind of interchange:

"Now Johnny, you haven't forgotten about the golden rule when it comes to sharing toys with your little brother have you?"

"Ooops, I'm sorry, dad. Just slipped my mind for a second. Here unnamed little brother, you can have my toy. I sure as heck want to treat you as well as I'd like to be treated. Wow, dad! It feels so much better now that I'm totally back in line with my innate goodness... thanks!

"Anytime son. Better get cleaned up for dinner. Mom's making pot-roast!"

Now most likely, my atheist or anti-theist friends won't find a whole lot of humor in that. Please refer to Part II as to why.

What I found particularly interesting in a couple of exchanges were these statements about adultery and morality. For the sake of clarity (heh), I'm 'me' and my atheist counterpart is 'him"

him: "There are really only three possible crimes... Theft (fraud, which is indirect theft), force and the threat of force and that's it."

me: So only those things that are criminal offenses are immoral? Here, at least, adultery is not a crime, but would that be considered immoral, or does that not count? Maybe you could clarify.

him: "Now, is adultery immoral in general. That is a difficult question to answer... "

Now that wasn't all of the answer, obviously. There was a lot of science related our propensity to spread our 'seed' and how that competes with marital fidelity from a philosophical standpoint. In other words, it was a non-answer.

Wait! It gets better...

me: Let me make sure I've got this right. You're telling me that when it comes to morality, cheating on a spouse "...is a difficult question to answer..."?

him: "No, I never said it was OK for a spouse to cheat. "

I'm guessing 'OK' is equivalent to 'moral' at this point. Further down in the SAME post:

him: "Now I certainly was not condoning adultery..."

Further down in the SAME post:

him: "Now in certain circumstances, I would even call adultery a moral act."

At this point, my atheist counterpart was trying to explain that certain circumstances would allow adultery without it being considered an immoral act. I think guys have pretty well been trying to explain that very same thing to their wives for centuries:

" Hey honey...I know you've been SO tired lately, it would have been immoral for me to expect you to satisfy my sexual urges, so I visited a prostitute instead. It was the only right thing to do!"

When I called him on that obvious contradiction, he responds:

him: "Now there is no contradiction in me saying I do not condone adultery but then adding a caveat...Again you are totally misunderstanding me... By me describing why people behave in a certain way, is not the same as condoning it."

I pointed out again that he in fact said that, "... in certain circumstances, I would even call adultery a moral act." Seems to me that calling something moral, under whatever circumstances IS the same as condoning it.

Well, that never really got resolved. I did suggest that he hadn't made a serious study of the Bible. I did get the 'standard list of Bible quotations related to stoning people' he pulled off the internet, sans context. I suppose it would have been more civilized if they'd gotten lethal injections instead?

And this:

him: I have read it, but no I'm not an expert on the Bible... Does one have to be an expert to know that there is some pretty horrible stuff in it, rather a lot actually, of course not... No more than one has to be an expert to know that Mien Kampf is full of horrible stuff too...

Well, I never said the guy HAD to be an expert, just study it. I don't think I'd want to stick my intellectual neck out on the content of "Mein Kampf" unless I'd had an opportunity to read and understand said content, but that's just my opinion, and I might be wrong.

A Glutton For Punishment: Part II

2007-07-26T09:47:00.000-07:00

Well, it sure has been a busy time for me lately. Some of these atheists are pretty prolific writers. Its hard to keep up. With all that, here's some other things I've picked up on...

They use flying pigs, the Tooth Fairy, milk jugs, and pretty much anything else as the functional equivalent of God. That is to say, that believing in God makes no more sense than said flying pigs, or fairies. Literally, there is no difference for them.

Humor: There just doesn't seem to be a lot of joking around allowed with these guys. Its like, "If I laugh at this Christianist's jokes, it'll be tacit approval of his beliefs!".

One method of discrediting an opposing position is to equating it with something unrelated that doesn't deserve serious discussion. Hence, the "God is no more real than flying pigs" argument. In this wide, wonderful world of ours, there may be some group out there that believe in and worship flying pigs, but they ain't in Google anywhere. No flying pig Bible, either. No claim by a flying pig that he created the universe. No flying pig commandments. No flying pig cable programming. Where's the equivalency?

One area of many where there is no equivalency are the twelve disciples. You'd think after a couple of years on the road with Jesus, day in and day out, they would know Him better than anyone, right? Out of those 12, ten were martyred, and one exiled for life, because they wouldn't renounce their beliefs. Now you'd think that if your life was on the line, and you KNEW that this whole Jesus thing was actually a sham, you'd give it up and say, "OK, ya' got me. The water into wine, loaves and fishes, raising from the dead, healing the sick, controlling the elements, Son of God, and especially the Resurrection...all smoke and mirrors, just don't kill me". You'd think that after Jesus was crucified, that would've been the end of the road trip. Peter would have been on the Roman equivalent of 60 Minutes saying, "Jesus? Oh, that was a long time ago. I'd rather not talk about it. I've been able to put that aaalll behind me, and move on with my life. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got fish to catch." Point is, they didn't. People will die for what they believe. Got enough Jihadists out there to prove that. What they won't do, is suffer and die for something they KNOW is not true.

A Glutton For Punishment: Part I

2007-07-13T10:51:00.000-07:00

Somehow or another, I've taken to surfing atheist websites. I guess its like driving by a car wreck or a burning building, I just can't help but look. Now, I've been able to understand someone believing something different than I do, especially if 'they wuz raised that way', but I for the life of me couldn't understand how a person can believe in...well, nothing, in terms of how we got here, why we're here, all that stuff. I was thinking I could understand the whole 'god is bunk' thing by cruising the seemingly endless number of atheist blogs out there. Here's the first thing I've found in the short time I've been surfing:

Atheists are generally mad about stuff.

It seems that atheists are generally pretty mad, mostly at theists. They're especially mad at the Christian variety. If we narrow it down to fundamentalist Christians, well...the reaction borders on apoplexy. Let me say that it doesn't seem to take much to get them riled up. Christopher Hitchens seems nice enough until he starts talking about religion, then the gloves come off. I guess if I was told I was wrong all the time and that I was going to Hell, I'd probably be a little miffed at theistic folks too. Evidently some atheists are aware of the perception that they're mad all the time. One atheist blogger in particular exhorted his fellow atheists to be more calm and rational as a way to prove they could be nice, without God. Peculiar too is alot of these atheists were evidently involved in churches to varying degress and somehow the wheels came off on the Faith Wagon. It stands to reason that when a relationship breaks up, especially one with God, there's gonna be hard feelings for a while. It shows...

Party of Choice for Terrorists

2006-10-23T07:45:00.000-07:00

Well, they're Islamic Fascists after all, but terrorism is their political tactic of choice. Anyway, in analyzing the huge increase in violence and the casualty count for our troops in Iraq, the message is clear. The enemy understands enough about our political situation in America, and our history ( can you say Tet Offensive?) to pull out all the stops in October. Using carnage and flag-draped coffins to push the electorate to a Democrat controlled House and Senate will effectively shackle Bush's policy as it pertains to Iraq, even to the point of setting up timetables for withdrawal. They're telling you and me who they want in control. So, who you votin' for?

Here's the whole Reuters scandal in living color!

2006-08-14T10:01:00.000-07:00

Hat tip to Brother Ed:

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

Exactly...any questions?

2006-08-14T09:36:00.000-07:00

I think Lamont is getting the hang of it... Brilliant!

2006-08-13T14:54:00.000-07:00

Looking at the transcript from Foxnews Sunday, here's (part of) what I got:

WALLACE: You say that the NSA warrantless wiretaps are illegal. You've called for President Bush to be censured because he allegedly broke the law. You also have been very critical of the Patriot Act. Now that we've had word of the terror plots — and we know as we've been discussing today that Britain already has a lot of laws, legal tools that we don't — would you really take away some of the weapons we have now to fight terror?

LAMONT: No, it's not a question of taking away any laws. It's a question of having a president of the United States who follows the law.

Typical flak, but lets continue:

WALLACE: You've also been critical of the Patriot Act. Are there some elements of that that you wish had not been passed?

LAMONT: Look, when it comes to the Patriot Act, again, I think it ought to be tightly drawn to respect our civil liberties but also give the American intelligence community all the tools they need to fight the War on Terror. And I think it's a careful balance we have to have there.

Didn't address any of the elements Wallace asked about, but invokes giving our intel guys all the tools they need. As long as its Libs doing the giving.

Brilliant!

Add in some Mom and Apple Pie. But lets continue...

WALLACE: Is there any specific measure in the Patriot Act that's in there now that you would like to see taken out?

LAMONT: Well, certainly, there's been an awful lot of talk about going after librarians...

That's it? BTW, all you terrorist guys, take the 1000's of tracphones you got and go to the libraries...they won't follow you there.

Brilliant!

WALLACE: Last week you were asked the following, and let's put it up on the screen, what would you do right now if you were in the Senate about Iraq? Your answer, "I would have supported, you know, the Kerry-Feingold amendment which calls for pulling out all U.S. troops out of Iraq by next July."

Lamont goes on for some time describing how bad things are there as the impetus for getting out and ends with this:

LAMONT: So let's negotiate a phased withdrawal. Chris, we'll be there. We'll be there for humanitarian support. We'll be there for reconstruction. But now's the time to get the very American face off of this perceived occupation.

WALLACE: But the prime minister, al-Maliki, was here just recently and said we need U.S. troops to continue to be there. What if you're wrong, Mr. Lamont, Senator Lamont? What if you're wrong? You vote for this, to get them out, and there's a blood bath?

Oh yeah...Chris Wallace is dealing with the 'pretend' Senator Lamont in this instance.

LAMONT: We'll be there for support. We've got our troops in Kuwait. We have our maritime presence. We'll make sure that Iran and others don't come in to create any mischief.

"We'll make sure that Iran and others don't come in to create any mischief." Now this is the most telling of all. Somehow, Mr. Lamont in his role as U.S. Senator will keep Iran and Syria out of Iraq by well, dropping back.

Brilliant!

Besides that, I thought he wanted Iraq to stand up on its own. Why be there at all if our presence actually messing things up? Can't have it three or four ways, can you?

WALLACE: So under all circumstances, all troops out by next July.

LAMONT: I don't know about all circumstances whatever.

Well Mr. Lamont, I think I'd make up my mind about when, so the Islamic Fascists (who use terror as a tactic) can mark their calendars.

The interview goes on to the idea that the war in Iraq caused the most recent situation with Hezbollah. I would agree with Mr. Lamont, but not as to cause and effect. Iran is getting closed in on by world opinion and diplomacy, and client organizations like Hezbollah prove well suited to keep the rest of the world focused away from them and their nuke program.

I love it when I engage the Left ( bad language alert)

2006-08-04T13:22:00.000-07:00

This little exchange over at a liberal blog I hang around. It related to the prosecution of policy in Iraq, and the exchange between Hillary and Rummy during hearings yesterday.

I said:

It does beg the question: "Well Ms. Clinton, given the 20/20 hindsight you enjoy, why should I believe that you could have done better with the same info the current administration had to work with?"

The response I got back:

'Ran, the answer to your question is simple: A fucking lemur could have done a better job blindfolded than Bush. So shut the fuck up already, MmmmmmmmmmmmmmK?

Lovely

I can't be making this up, can I???

2006-08-03T13:48:00.000-07:00

This article, from Fox News talks about a nine year-old girl being abused horribly by the egg donor and her 'roommate'. If there was any argument against the post-modernist, situationally ethical, moral relativist junk being touted as mainstream culture and society ( and by definition, acceptable), this would go near the top of the list. Pay close attention to the end of the article related to the boyfriend involved. You'll get the gist...

Headlines...

2006-07-26T12:37:00.000-07:00

One of the lefty blogs I visit posted this headline with the commensurate condemnation of corporate greed and ill gotten gains of oil companies.

AP
ConocoPhillips 2Q Profit ClimbsWednesday
July 26, 2:43 pm ET
By Kristen Hays, AP Business Writer

ConocoPhillips Reports $5.1 Billion Profit for 2Q, Shares Rise 3 Percent

So there's your headline. But what does is really mean? Lets look closer...

"ConocoPhillips closed its $33.9 billion acquisition of Burlington Resources in the first quarter, expanding its gas reserves and boosting its North American natural gas production."

So, last year they spent 34 billion dollars. Even at the current income levels, it would take nearly 2 years to pay off that acquisition.

"ConocoPhillips' chairman and chief executive officer Jim Mulva said Burlington Resources' assets contributed $385 million to the exploration and production segment's $3.3 billion in net income..."

At the rate the acquisition is contributing to the bottom line, it would take over 7 years to break even on what it cost them.

"Mulva said changes in tax laws in Canada and Texas added $363 million to the company's second-quarter profit."

Those dang Canadians! You'd think they'd have a better handle on taxing greedy companies than this. Tsk...

"The company produced slightly more than 1 million barrels of crude oil per day in the second quarter, up from 932,000 barrels a day a year earlier. Its natural gas output totaled 5.5 billion cubic feet a day, up from 3.2 billion cubic feet a day a year earlier."

Ohhh, and they actually worked harder this year than last, to make more money. Well, that just tears it for me!

All about greed and oil? You bet it is. That's why 20% of my retirement money is in that sector. Please don't consider that advice or a recommendation, BTW.

You want to pay less for gas? Slow down. Drive less. That's what i do. If everyone did, the demand, and price, would go down.

Didja' hear that?

2006-07-24T11:54:00.000-07:00

All those other Arab countries coming to Hezbollah's rescue? Its 1967 all over again, right? Oh wait, things have changed since then. When the USA and Israel actually get fed up and start taking out countries like Afghanistan, decimating terrorists organizations like Al Qaida and Hezbollah, everybody else in the region (keeping in mind Iran is actually Persian and not Arab) shuts up and sits down. There's hope yet...

Lincoln and Coolidge Said it!

2006-07-04T09:15:00.000-07:00

This from Abraham Lincoln's speech of July 10, 1858, responding to Steven Douglas's speech of the 9th. Douglas had this take on what the Founding Fathers had meant:

"I am free to say to you," Douglas said, "that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such manner as they should determine."

His also was perhaps the first call for tolerance of diversity, that is to say, half slave and half free.

Mr. Lincoln answered:

Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it?

And this from Calvin Coolidge on the 150th anniversary of 1776

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

Happy Independence Day

Ironically, this from the NYT as well.

2006-07-04T04:59:00.000-07:00

KATHARINE GRAHAM, the publisher of The Washington Post who died in 2001, backed her editors through tense battles during the Watergate era. But in a 1986 speech, she warned that the media sometimes made “tragic” mistakes.
Her example was the disclosure, after the bombing of the American embassy in Beirut in 1983, that American intelligence was reading coded radio traffic between terrorist plotters in Syria and their overseers in Iran. The communications stopped, and five months later they struck again, destroying the Marine barracks in Beirut and killing 241 Americans.

“This kind of result, albeit unintentional, points up the necessity for full cooperation wherever possible between the media and the authorities,” Ms. Graham said.

Cooperation?

The British already knew, didn't they?

2006-07-03T09:01:00.000-07:00

Well, it wasn't my Photoshop job as I snagged it from Powerline, so don't consider me that clever. But, it makes a great point on the eve of Independence Day.

And lets teach 'em here at home, too!

2006-05-23T09:28:00.000-07:00

The article was posted from Investor's Business Daily's website
Here for your perusal.

Some of the things California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it's OK for kids in PUBLIC SCHOOL in California to do:

Reciting aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful . . . ."

Memorizing the Muslim profession of faith: "Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger."

Chanting "Praise be to Allah" in response to teacher prompts.

Professing as "true" the Muslim belief that "The Holy Quran is God's word."

Giving up candy and TV to demonstrate Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.

Designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially "becoming a Muslim" for two full weeks.

Now, when it comes taking "In God We Trust" off everything, or getting rid of the Pledge of Allegiance, no problem.

Getting liberal judges to recognize the 14th Amendment? No way.

Teach your children well...

2006-05-22T06:31:00.000-07:00

Nope, it ain't Crosby, Stills, and Nash I'm talking about. Its an article by Nina Shea in the Washington Post. After 9/11, the Saudis were supposed to tone down the 'anti-everyone else' in their Wahhabi school system. No such luck. Here's the breakdown of what they're teaching currently. Remember: The Saudis are our friends.

FIRST GRADE

" Every religion other than Islam is false."
"Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________."

FOURTH GRADE

"True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly."

FIFTH GRADE

"Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives."
"It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam."
"A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion."

SIXTH GRADE

"Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power."

EIGHTH GRADE

"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."

"God told His Prophet, Muhammad, about the Jews, who learned from parts of God's book [the Torah and the Gospels] that God alone is worthy of worship. Despite this, they espouse falsehood through idol-worship, soothsaying, and sorcery. In doing so, they obey the devil. They prefer the people of falsehood to the people of the truth out of envy and hostility. This earns them condemnation and is a warning to us not to do as they did."

"They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied [with them]."

"Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God."

"Activity: The student writes a composition on the danger of imitating the infidels."

NINTH GRADE

"The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills."

"It is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment]."

"Muslims will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him."

TENTH GRADET

The 10th-grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Muslims (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a "free Muslim male." Blood money is retribution paid to the victim or the victim's heirs for murder or injury:

"Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is 'of the book' or not 'of the book' (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.).

"Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel."

ELEVENTH GRADE

"The greeting 'Peace be upon you' is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others."

"If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Muslims and infidels, one should offer a greeting intended for the Muslims."

"Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect."

TWELFTH GRADE

"Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God."

Nina Shea is director of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House.

Its not like I actually have an answer to Immigration...but

2006-03-27T18:59:00.000-08:00

What to do, what to do?

1. Seal the border. For those of you who say it can't be done, I say you can bring it down to a trickle. A trickle is easier to deal with than a flood.

2. Make it hurt in the right places. Companies want labor at the lowest cost. If hiring illegal aliens cost too much in fines or imprisonment or both, companies will go to the next cheapest alternative. I'll let them figure what that alternative needs to be.

3. Make it hurt in other places. Require all illegal aliens to do what the rest of us do when we break laws that actually don't kill or maim someone. Fine them. Use the IRS to something good for once, and garner their wages, $10,000 each. Hey, if companies think illegal labor is so vital, let them pay the fine for their employees. Give them a drop-dead date to register and comply. People that want to stay will work out a payment plan. That will help offset the burden on our social and educational systems they've created. Those that want to cheat will be deported, and fined.

4. While we're at it, tax the money going back to Mexico. Consider it the price of working here, until you get legal.

We just need to reason with these people, right?

2006-03-14T20:11:00.000-08:00

Mohammed Taheri-azar's most recent quote:

"The U.S. government is responsible for the deaths of and the torture of countless followers of Allah, my brothers and sisters. My attack on Americans at UNC-CH on March 3rd was in retaliation for similar attacks orchestrated by the U.S. government on my fellow followers of Allah in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic territories. I did not act out of hatred for Americans, but out of love for Allah instead."

But I don't want the Gov't to sell public lands...

2006-03-14T09:32:00.000-08:00

Recently, I got into a debate about the Feds selling about 300,000 acres of forested land to private entities. Part of the gov't's rationale was that the parcels weren't contiguous, so it made enconomic sense to get rid of it. Oh, selling it was such a bad idea. Those private developers were going take those chunks and rape and pillage at will.

Well, how about just giving it away instead? This from Dr. Ronald Utt, the 'privatization czar' under Reagan, that has a pretty good handle on how government wastes money. This scheme here is an especially insidious type of 'earmark' that cheats the taxpayer by giving away land, rather than selling it.

According to Utt:

"Despite near consistent opposition to land sale proposals that would benefit the broad public, Congress sometimes votes to give valuable parcels away to politically influential developers or to communities in their state or district that, in turn, sell or transfer the land to for-profit developers. Although federal spending remains unaffected by these transfers, the government loses valuable assets and the opportunity to raise more revenues for programs, tax relief and/or deficit reduction."

Tsk.

Thoughts at large, or small

2006-03-13T08:38:00.000-08:00

This probably should be filed under "moral equivalency".

We get from news reports over the last few days that a peace activist, Tom Fox was not only executed by terrorists in Iraq, it appears that he was tortured before he died. Obstensibly, Mr. Fox was part of a Christian organization trying to help the Iraqi people. From what I could gather, the organization was against the US invasion of Iraq, etc. The Fox News article alluded to numerous foreigners being kidnapped, and so many of them being killed. The article also mentioned other killings and kidnappings within Iraq.

With all the hullaballoo over Gitmo and Abu Grahib, where is the morally equivalent outrage?

"We're America. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard", is the usual answer.

Well, how about holding everone to a higher standard, like NOT TORTURING PEOPLE TRYING TO HELP OTHERS, GIVING THEM TWO SHOTS IN THE HEAD AND CHEST, AND DUMPING THEM BY THE RAILROAD TRACKS LIKE DISEASED CATTLE?

Well, at least some of the story got corrected...

2006-03-03T20:40:00.000-08:00

But, Heaven forbid they use Dr. Maxwell's terminology of topping. It had to be 'overrunning'

WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.

The AP is at it again

2006-03-02T06:03:00.000-08:00

This latest video on Pre-Katrina meetings that included the President is another smear job.

The way they present it, Bush was told the levees would likely fail and disaster would surely follow. Then they put up footage of Bush saying that no one had anticipated the breach of the levees. Makes it sound like he's an idiot/liar/corrupt/clueless...sigh.

The expert they highlighted was Dr. Max Mayfield. Dr. Mayfield is a hurricane expert, not a structural engineer. When alluded dangers concerning the levees, it was from a 'topping' standpoint.

Topping? Yeah, as in water going over the top of the levees because they weren't high enough to hold back Lake Pontchartrain.

Well, as the reportage came in with the hurricane, they felt like N.O. had dodged a bullet in that the levees weren't topped. They were in fact 'high enough' to hold back the water.

Then, they broke. No one had anticipated that. Just like Bush had said.

Even IF the breach had been discussed on the 28th, what could anyone have done to stop it? Guess he could have invaded Louisiana with a gaggle of engineers and tried to shore up the levees AS THE HURRICANE WAS COMING ASHORE.

Brilliant! But a little late in the game for that.

I can only assume the AP thinks we're all idiots with wholesale short-term memory loss issues, and won't pay attention to the facts.

Arrggh...

You know you're in trouble when...

2006-02-21T17:39:00.000-08:00

...Jimmy Carter and George Bush agree on Dubai Ports World handling the most vulnerable of our homeland security defenses.

A great point...now why hadn't I thought of it?

2006-02-20T04:35:00.000-08:00

This from a post in Captain's Quarters....

Despite having a deathgrip on the black vote for four decades, the party has almost no leaders of African descent and have fielded almost no such candidates in national elections. Carol Mosely-Braun is the only black woman ever elected to the Senate; the Democrats, in their monopoly of that demographic, could never bother to find and support another? How many blacks have won mainstream Democratic support in races for governor or senator?

Up to now, it has been enough for the Democratic party to use the African-American community as a vote bank, and they have exploited it as such while giving few of them high-profile positions of power. It has been one of the least-rewarded dynamics of loyalty for any constituency in politics. In contrast, the Republicans have offered real leadership positions to those who support the GOP despite the embarrassingly small penetration the GOP gets in the African-American community. Newsweek should ask why Democrats apparently felt that blacks could not represent them in leadership instead.

More wading in the Liberal cesspool...

2006-02-11T07:08:00.000-08:00

Part of an exchange I had with a liberal blog:

My initial point was concerning liberals continuing to say they support the troops but not the war...

Supporting the troops but not the war they're fighting...let's try an analogous situation between a ditch digger and a liberal:

Liberal: "Hey there, ditch digger. Just wanted to let you know that I support you, but not that ditch that you're digging."

Ditch Digger: "But its what I do. It's what I chose to do. I'm proud of the ditch I'm digging. It looks like I'm making some progress here."

Lib: "But its the wrong kind of ditch. Your boss is a bad man and shouldn't have made you dig a ditch there."

DD: "Well, I still have this ditch here to dig. I joined up to do it, and promised to finish digging it. How in the world can you say you support me as a ditch digger and be against the ditch I'm digging at the same time?

Lib: "Well, I understand your frustration, but you don't understand. I support you as a ditch digger, and I know that the ditch has to finished now that you've started it, but I'm against the ditch just the same. I still support you.

DD: "But I'm still confused. You say you understand the necessity of finishing the ditch, but you're against it anyway? How about cheering me on to finish the ditch as quickly as possible and maybe helping my family out at home until I get finished here digging the ditch? That would feel more like you're supporting me than saying bad things about the ditch I'm digging, right as I'm in the middle of digging it, doncha' think?"

Lib: "What, and give up my right to criticize the ditch and the head ditch digger? What kind of ditch digger are you? Look, I'm doing the best I can to support you. I say that I do, all the time. What more do you want?

What more, indeed...

The response?

"nice try, guitanguran. but ditch diggers aren't threatened with court martial, loss of lifetime benefits and even jail if they refuse to dig a ditch which they consider to be immoral.

and not too many ditches kill over 100,000 iraqi civilians either.

metaphor much, do ya?"

My response:

As I alluded to in my analogy ( as opposed to a simple metaphor), my ditch digger joined up voluntarily, knowing what restrictions he had as a ditch digger. He wasn't forced to join. In my business, I'm restricted as to things that I can say in public and in private, by my company and the Feds. I knew that going in. I was required to stay at least two years with the company as a condition of my hiring. My choice was to abide by all that, or refuse to take the job.

100,000 civilians? Now you know there is no credible documentation of any number even remotely close to that figure.

Lastly, you offer nothing in specific rebuttal to my position that you can't support the troops and oppose what they're doing at the same time. You zip off on a tangential argument that has nothing to do with the point I raised...nice try yourself...:-)

OK. Let me explain about "budget cuts"...

2006-02-07T06:36:00.000-08:00

There's been some bloviating going on about the President's budget concerning "budget cuts" on some domestic programs. Democrats are accusing Bush of taking money from seniors, children, and probably my dog to pay for guns and to give big businesses tax breaks. Arrggh...

When our guys in Washington announce a budget cut for any program, its not a cut.

Huh? Wuzzat? That's right, its not a cut after all.

Back in 1974, Congress set forth a baseline regarding any budget calculations. All budget calculations run off this baseline. Well, any government program will have a built in increase in its budget from year to year, based on the 1974 baseline. They don't have to pass a bill to increase the budget on a given program. It gets bigger all on its own. When they say they're cutting the program, they're simply reducing the amount that program is growing.

Did you hear that? The programs aren't staying the same, or getting smaller. They're simply growing at a slower pace. When Republicans announce they're cutting programs, it sounds like we're spending less money this year than last. Wrong. When Democrats accuse Republicans (or vice versa) of cutting programs, its sounds like gramma is out on the street. Wrong again.

Tsk...

Just an observation

2006-02-05T20:45:00.000-08:00

So, when we have an artistic type putting an image of Christ in urine, we uh don't set fire to buildings. Certainly, we have no one from the Baptist General Convention encouraging their folks to burn down museums. If someone makes a political statement through a cartoon about Mohammed, embassies burn. Imams encourage their folks to riot, wreak havoc, and commit acts of violence. I think most Christians go right on being believers about the things they believe in, irrespective of any artist. Makes me wonder whyIslamic leaders and followers of Islam feel so compelled to burn buildings...

Life or Death, Part II

2006-01-24T11:53:00.000-08:00

As you may know there was the 33rd Anniversary Walk for Life held in Washington DC and elsewhere as a response to the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v. Wade. A pictoral essay showing what happened in San Francisco can be seen HERE. Two things I found notable concerning the City by the Bay. Look at the huge numbers of Pro-Life, and look at the 'other side' as well. The pictures truly speak for themselves. Speaking of which... Here's a solution to the abortion issue I hadn' t thought of...

Life or Death...which side are we on?

2006-01-19T08:09:00.000-08:00

I have written on this subject before, but recent events have brought this issue much closer to where I live. I've always been a fan of Michelle Malkin, and her story here about a little girl named Haliegh is a great example of how quickly we write off people ahead of God's schedule in doing a work in their lives.

Another would be my 84 year-old mom. Her home caught on fire a couple of weeks ago. She wasn't breathing when the firefighters pulled her out. Her Carbon monoxide levels were at about 50% when they wheeled her into the emergency room. After about ten days in ICU, the doctors were not optimistic about her chances of recovery. They actually requested that we have a "DNR" order on file in case her heart or breathing stopped, as they could get no cognitive response from her. At the risk of starting a tent meeting here on this blog, my wife and I always had peace about my mom's situation, up or down, through the Lord Jesus. We weren't going write her life off with a signature on a piece of paper. It was on the same day that we went down to the hospital. Mom had lost the hearing aids and the glasses in the fire. I got down by her ear and essentially yelled at her to wake up and show these people that the lights were on, and somebody was at home. She did. Doctors are amazed, she's in rehab, and we're thankful.

No Comment...(mostly)

2006-01-12T12:49:00.000-08:00

As an 'infidel', I continue to be curious about Islamic rituals and how they may compare to the things we do. I'm not sure if we have any that compare. Certainly, I would hope any ritual wouldn't be quite as dangerous as this appears to be... Items in bold are of particular interest to me, but as I said, no comment.

Saudi Government Says 345 Killed in Hajj Stampede
Thursday, January 12, 2006

MINA, Saudi Arabia — Thousands of Muslim pilgrims rushing to complete a symbolic stoning ritual during the hajj tripped over luggage Thursday, causing a crush in which at least 345 people were killed, the Interior Ministry said.

The stampede occurred as tens of thousands of pilgrims headed toward al-Jamarat, a series of three pillars representing the devil that the faithful pelt with stones to purge themselves of sin.

A ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Mansour al-Turki, said the stampede happened as pilgrims were rushing to complete the last of three days of the stoning ritual before sunset. Some of the pilgrims began to trip over dropped luggage, causing a large pileup, al-Turki said.

Ambulances and police cars streamed into the area, and security forces tried to move pilgrims away from part of the site, though thousands continued with the ritual.

Saudi authorities replaced the small round pillars with short walls to allow more people to throw their stones without jostling for position. They also recently widened the bridge, built extra ramps and increased the time pilgrims can carry out the rite — which on the second and final days traditionally takes place from midday until sunset.

Shiite Muslim clerics have issued religious edicts allowing pilgrims to start the ritual in the morning, and many Shiites from Iraq, Iran, Bahrain, Lebanon and Pakistan took advantage to go early in the day.

"This is much better. We are now done with the stoning before the crowd gets larger," an Iranian pilgrim, Azghar Meshadi, said hours before the stampede.

But Saudi Arabia's Sunni Muslim clerics, who follow the fundamentalist Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, encouraged pilgrims to stick to the midday rule.

The stoning ritual is one of the last events of the hajj pilgrimage to Islam's holiest sites, which able-bodied Muslims with the financial means are required by their faith to do at least once.

Many pilgrims had already finished the stoning ritual Thursday and had gone back to Mecca to carry out a farewell circuit around the Kaaba, the black stone cube that Muslims face when they do their daily prayers.

One of the NSA 'leakers'?

2006-01-05T13:58:00.000-08:00

Found this interview with Russell Tice, a former NSA/DIA guy that was fired in May of '05 thru Michelle Malkin, and "Democracy Now", with Amy Goodman doing the interview. If you haven't watched it on cable, Democracy Now thinks CNN is part of a GOP/corporate conspiracy. This is not the transcript in its entirety, but I lifted out some interesting comments. I'm not sure what to make of Mr. Tice. I'm not sure he does either...

He basically agrees that the NSA is supposed to be doing the things its doing and as Bush said, that it was a 'good thing to know if Al-Qaeda is dialing your number'. He was never asked to spy on Americans and doesn't know anyone that did. He got fired and doesn't indicate why.

Transcript(my edits) here...

AMY GOODMAN:… can you just describe for us what is the National Security Agency? How does it monitor these communications?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, the National Security Agency is an agency that deals with monitoring communications for the defense of the country.

AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, you have worked for the National Security Agency. Can you talk about your response to the revelations that the Times…the revelation of the wiretapping of American citizens?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, as far as an intelligence officer, especially a SIGINT (Signals Intelligence, rw) officer at N.S.A., we're taught from very early on in our careers that you just do not do this…Ultimately, so do the leaders of N.S.A., and apparently the leaders of N.S.A. have decided that they were just going to go against the tenets of something that’s a gospel to a SIGINT officer.

AMY GOODMAN: We talk to Russell Tice, former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency, formerly with the Defense Intelligence Agency, worked with the N.S.A. up until May 2005. Russell Tice, what happened then? What happened in May 2005?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, basically I was given my walking papers and told I was no longer a federal employee. So –

AMY GOODMAN: What would you say to those who say you are speaking out now simply because you are disgruntled?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, I guess that’s a valid argument. You know, I was fired.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the Justice Department launching an investigation into the leak, who leaked the fact that President Bush was spying on American citizens?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, I think this is an attempt to make sure that no intelligence officer ever considers doing this.

AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think of the news that the National Security Agency spying on American citizens without a court order and foreign nationals is now sharing this information with other agencies like, well, the other agency you worked for, the Defense Intelligence Agency?

RUSSELL TICE: …So it’s not unusual for the intelligence community to share information. But when we’re talking about information on the American public, which is a violation of the FISA law, then I think it's even something more to be concerned about.

AMY GOODMAN: Were you ever asked to engage in this?

RUSSELL TICE: No, no...

AMY GOODMAN: What about the telecoms, the telecommunications corporations working with the Bush administration to open up a back door to eavesdropping, to wiretapping?

RUSSELL TICE: If that was done and, you know, I use a big “if” here…

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Russell Tice, former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency, worked at the N.S.A. up until May of 2005. What is data mining?

RUSSELL TICE: Data mining is a means by which you -- you have information, and you go searching for all associated elements of that information in whatever sort of data banks or databases that you put together with information. So if you have a phone number and you want to associate it with, say, a terrorist or something, and you want to associate it with, you know, ‘Who is this terrorist talking to?’ you start doing data on what sort of information or what sort of numbers does that person call or the frequency of time, that sort of thing. And you start basically putting together a bubble chart of, you know, where everybody is.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you expect you are being monitored, surveilled, wiretapped right now?

RUSSELL TICE: Yes, I do.

AMY GOODMAN: President Bush. Russell Tice, you’re with the National Security Agency, or you were until May 2005. If al-Qaeda's calling, the U.S. government wants to know. Your response?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, that's probably a good thing to know.

AMY GOODMAN: Did you support the President, Russell Tice? Did you vote for President Bush?

RUSSELL TICE: I am a Republican. I voted for President Bush both in the last election and the first election where he was up for …it’s not like, you know -- I think you’re going to find a lot of folks that are in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community are apt to be on the conservative side of the fence.

AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, did you know anyone within the N.S.A. who refused to spy on Americans, who refused to follow orders?

RUSSELL TICE: No. No, I do not. As far as -- of course, I'm not witting of anyone that was told they will spy on an American...

Its the Constitution, after all

2005-12-27T05:28:00.000-08:00

Ok, did alot of reading relative to the NSA's program of intercepting communications without warrants on behalf of the President. This is simple.

The NSA obviously intercepts a lot of communications 'data', some of which makes it across the water to the US, or from here to there. That falls under Article II of the Constitution. The Executive Branch has the right ( and the requirement) to conduct this kind of 'warrantless' survellience against foreign entities, be they countries or terrorist organizations, outside and inside our borders.

They may know who is sending or receiving the information (Al Qaeda operatives, etc.), but may not know initially who's on the other end, sending or receiving.

If the initially unknown person winds up being a US person (citizen or resident alien), THEN we need to deal with the Fourth Amendment. If they're not a US person, all bets are off.

Unless and until the liberal element in this country understands that this is a war and not criminal activity that we're dealing with, they're going to continue with this unmitigated drivel.

Sleep in heavenly peace...

2005-12-22T13:29:00.000-08:00

Well, there's your trouble, Mr. Osteen.

2005-12-22T06:40:00.000-08:00

Was noodling around the net after my first post. Found this info from a Christianity Today review of Osteen's book (see below). Looks like Mrs. Osteen was just following her hubby's idea that, by golly, these airline people need to get with the program and show her the favor that God has given Joel to parking spaces, faster seating in restaurants, and bending airline baggage rules. I'm of the persuasion that Providence is the hand of God in the glove of Circumstance. Hence, I may well get the parking space by the entrance. By the same token, I should neither demand, expect, or be ungrateful for getting it, or pitch a fit if I don't. Tsk...

One of the finest chapters shows how Christians should aim for excellence and integrity. The book undercuts the emphasis on integrity, however, by suggesting trivial examples of God's favor to the faithful: faster seating in restaurants, a last-second opening of an excellent parking space, being upgraded to first class without seeking it, and enjoying a personal exemption from an airline's baggage policy.
Osteen tells of not wanting to check an expensive television camera on a flight to India. The counter clerk insists that the airline's policy strictly forbids him from it carrying on, and Osteen asks if he can talk to someone else. A pilot walks up and offers to stow the camera behind the cockpit.
"The woman behind the counter glared at me and shook her head, clearly aggravated," Osteen writes. "I just smiled and said, 'Sorry, ma'am; it's the favor of God.'" Or was it simply that an observant pilot intervened to prevent an unnecessary conflict (which some planning on Osteen's part could have prevented) from escalating?

Victoria's not too secret, secret.

2005-12-21T10:30:00.000-08:00

According to various news reports, it seems the wife of famed Houston evangelist Joel Osteen, Victoria Osteen, got sideways with a stewardess on a Continental Airlines flight. Seems that Mrs. Osteen refused to follow the stewardess' instructions prior to take-off and the Osteen family, on its way to a ski vacation in Vail, was asked to leave the plane. Something about a 'spill' on the tray table on Mrs. Osteen's seat in First Class. Interestingly, part of the article included a statement from the FBI. Evidently, they were called as a result of what all happened on the plane. The plane remained grounded for about an hour or so while the Osteen's luggage was retrieved for a later flight to Vail. Not a whole lot of other details, as everyone seems to have kissed and made up, and are now shutting up, but what in the world is going on here?

You have to be pretty out-of-control to be asked to leave a plane. What, did she rush the cockpit?
The FBI was involved?
All those other poor folks had to sit for over an hour while the airline de-planed the luggage?

Something ain't right here, and it doesn't speak well for Mr. Osteen. House is worth 2.2MM, just recently stopped taking his $220,000 (how much?) annual salary only because his book sales have topped 3 million units, and if you look at his website, he's a 'health and wealth, name it and claim it' industry unto himself, replete with a hip "J" logo (oh, the irony!). Tsk...

Ya gotta love Chris Muir

2005-12-16T04:38:00.000-08:00

In case you weren't aware, Senator Joe Biden, part of the 'if its Bush, its got to be bad' crowd was in Iraq for some photo ops, replete with purple finger. Talk about shameless political opportunism...guess he'll have this as part of his 2008 presidential run, and hope folks have forgotten his opposition to the war by then...

Take your Pick

2005-12-15T09:12:00.000-08:00

By all accounts, all is going well in Iraq on the elections. Now, you can have the Iraqi perspective here...purple finger, Middle Eastern woman with the right to vote, hand raised in V for Victory salute, or...

You can take the Liberal view of Janeane Garofalo...no purple finger, arm raised in a 'Heil Hitler' salute (hey Janeane, the Nazi salute is the right hand, OK?), reflecting her perception that conservatives that support the war in Iraq are all Nazis. Take your pick.

Hey all you Secularists and assorted Christmas haters: we give up!

2005-12-08T11:03:00.000-08:00

The AP has been reporting that several "mega" churches are closing the doors on Sunday, December 25th. Why, you might ask? Because its Christmas, of course! Here's the part that gets me the most. Read the following statement from the spokeswoman for WCCC. Do you find it odd that a church has a "spokeswoman"? How big is the PR department for this place? Where the heck is the pastor? Getting his travel plans together to be out of town for Christmas perhaps?

Cally Parkinson, a spokeswoman for Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., said church leaders decided that organizing services on a Christmas Sunday would not be the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources. The last time Christmas fell on a Sunday was 1994, and only a small number of people showed up to pray, she said.

"If our target and our mission is to reach the unchurched, basically the people who don't go to church, how likely is it that they'll be going to church on Christmas morning?" she said.

Hey Cally, its a dead cinch that no one will come on Christmas if the doors are closed. Maybe, just maybe, there might be someone out there that DOESN'T have any family to spend Christmas with, and a church with open doors might be a place of comfort to them. It beats going to a bar. You can bet they'll be going full blast for all those folks. Sheesh...Christmas has left the building!

They're right: Iraq is becoming another Vietnam...

2005-12-07T10:21:00.000-08:00

So, what does that mean? The Wall Street Journal published an article recently describing the perspective of Communist North Vietnam leaders during that war. From a military standpoint (see Tet Offensive) the war was going disasterously for them. To their estimation, it took a full two years to recover from that setback. Where they were making real progress was here on the home front. They even mentioned Ramsey Clark, current Saddam advocate, as part of all that. It was a matter of waiting for public opinion here at home to force the USA out of the war, which it did.

We're getting the same thing now from Howard Dean (we can't win), John Kerry (our soldiers are terrorizing women and children in Iraq in the dead of night), Nancy Pelosi (we need out in six months), John Murtha (the army is broken down), Ramsey Clark (defending Saddam), and on down the line. You combine all of those folks with a media that supports the "I hate George Bush, therefore I must hate the war" line of thinking, and we're fighting on two fronts...there, and here at home. Might as well get Jane Fonda posing with an IED....(sigh)

If not global, there's definitely a regional war that needs fighting

2005-11-25T06:41:00.000-08:00

Great article from Michael Ledeen here that tries to address the bigger picture of the war on terror. I would hope that there are some things in the works that ordinary citizens like myself and Mr. Ledeen aren't privy to, that are working toward that end.

Finally, a little backbone...

2005-11-17T20:38:00.000-08:00

Politics is somewhat of a sport after all. Lets see how this latest game played out:

Democrats continually beating the "Bush lied, people died" drum in advance of the mid-term elections, with the help of the major (in no way mainstream anymore) media.

The Administration and other GOPers calling out the Democrats on their previous Clinton era comments on Saddam, WMDs, imminent threats, and so on, their vote to approve military action against him, and exposing the hyprocrisy, with the help of conservative media such as talk radio and the blogosphere.

Democrats bring up a war hero, Murtha, to act as the mouthpiece to hide behind. He's been wanting to pull out of Iraq for some 18 months now, so at least he's consistent. How can you beat up a genuine war hero saying he wants an 'immediate' withdrawal from Iraq? War hero or no, you certainly can beat up the idea, not the man.

Republicans call the bluff and request a vote...'Cut and run, or stay 'til we're done'. Dems tried their best to vote down the vote, and failed. Final numbers 403 to 3 to vote down an immediate pullout. Nothing was heard on the voice vote, but 3 Democrats recorded their support for immediate pullout. Six Dems voted 'present'.

In the aftermath, Dems are now saying there's a world of difference between a withdrawal and immediate pullout. GOPers made it too black-and-white a question. Go look at what representative Murtha said. He said 'immediate'. You guys might want to be careful about which mouthpiece you hide behind next time.

Score? Well, considering the endless posturing of our elected officials on both sides, I'll grudgingly give points to conservatives for backbone. The real winners? Our military. They finally got a vote of confidence to stay the course.

Ooops, sorry!

2005-11-16T13:40:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post just published a story about Bob Woodward and the Valerie Plame blame game. These are excerpts, but I just wanted to paste in some parts of the article. They speak for themselves...OK maybe a little highlighting on my part.

Bob Woodward apologized today to The Washington Post's executive editor for failing to tell him for more than two years that a senior Bush administration official had told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame, even as an investigation of those leaks mushroomed into a national scandal.

"I hunkered down. I'm in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed."

Woodward said the unnamed official told him about Plame "in an offhand, casual manner . . . almost gossip" and that "I didn't attach any great significance to it."

Woodward said he had passed along a tip about Plame to Post reporter Walter Pincus, who was writing about Wilson in June 2003, but Pincus has said he does not recall any such conversation.

Woodward said he could not discuss why he decided to notify Downie about his role in the Plame matter last month. He said Downie had told him that there was "a breakdown in communications, but not a breakdown in trust." Downie said he has told Woodward he must be more communicative about sensitive matters in the future.

In past interviews, Woodward has repeatedly minimized the Fitzgerald probe, telling National Public Radio, for example, that when "all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great." Downie said Woodward had violated the paper's guidelines in some instances by expressing his "personal views."

(sigh)

And then, when you call them on it...

2005-11-13T20:17:00.000-08:00

This is part of an exchange between Chris Wallace and Senator Jay Rockefeller on Fox News Sunday...

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

Now in all fairness, this isn't the totality of his response. Essentially, he argued that he wasn't getting the same level of intelligence that Bush was.

Soooo, how does that explain that he, not Bush, was the one saying the threat was imminent?

WALLACE…and yet you, not the President, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

WALLACE: You're not?

You have to love this. ' I'm a senator, and I vote, but I'm not responsible for the votes I cast, especially if it goes against the lie I'm telling you now...'

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect....

OK, so he at least acknowledges that he voted for military action against Saddam, but wants Chris Wallace to get serious about it. I guess there's something more serious than voting to authorize troops in harm's way, or just flat-out disavowing what you yourself said about Saddam as an imminent threat leading up to the war.

Holy moly...

More liars and no one to call them on it

2005-11-11T08:30:00.000-08:00

MICHAEL SCHEUER, the first head of the CIA's bin Laden unit in the Clinton Administration made this comment during an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Snowball”(Hardball, it aint…) on 9 November

MATTHEWS: Michael, just to think outside the box, would we be better off with Saddam Hussein still running tyrannically that country of Iraq, right next door to Jordan? Would Jordan be more secure in that environment?

SCHEUER: No doubt about it, sir.

MATTHEWS: No doubt?

SCHEUER: There'd be many more dead--many fewer dead Americans, and we would have many more resources available annihilate al Qaeda, which is what we have to do. Without a doubt, in the war against al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was one of our best allies.

Now, it wouldn’t be quite as insane a comment except that Mr. Scheuer actually outlined a number of instances where Saddam was ca-hooting with Al Qaeda and Al Zarqawi back in 2002.

Hehehe...just something I found.

2005-11-10T14:04:00.000-08:00

COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington. And they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them each a cow.

CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart Guys, it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.

COMMANDMENTS
Want to know the real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse? You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile working environment.

Lies and the liars who tell them..

2005-11-10T10:35:00.000-08:00

Norman Podhoretz puts the whole 'Bush lied, people died' argument to rest here. Mr. Podhoretz pretty much pulls it all together in one place.

As has been talked up elsewhere, most notably by Bill Bennett, are the most recent revelations about the CIA and secret prisons in Europe. So, where is the outrage about the media revealing classified information? Why aren't we going after the CIA 'leakers'? Maybe its because the liberal media and certain CIA operatives are anti-administration. I guess that doesn't count

We need to stop criminalizing politics and politicizing criminality.

French Riots, Immigration, Mark Steyn, and Teddy Roosevelt

2005-11-08T03:43:00.000-08:00

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Steyn has some analysis of what's happening in France that is not only a history lesson, but spot on. Had the French imposed the Teddy Roosevelt model (see below) of assimilation into their society, they wouldn't be having these problems now. Its no wonder now why France couldn't support an invasion of Iraq. But, here's the real problem. It wouldn't have mattered. What matters is showing weakness to these Islamic thugs. If there's no strong, head busting, "you're outta here!" reaction to this kind of behavior, they'll do this again, and worse. It won't be for the sake of freedom that they continue to torch, pillage, and murder. It will be for control of France. We need to also turn attention to our own situation here. If we continue to allow huge numbers of people to come into this country that refuse to assimilate fully to an "American" way of life, including language and culture, the blessings we enjoy as Americans will go up in flames as well.

Teddy Roosevelt was right...

Another Teddy Roosevelt quote:

2005-11-07T20:47:00.000-08:00

Hat tip to my B-I-L, Pastor Ed

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Just in time for Halloween

2005-10-27T11:11:00.000-07:00

Michelle Malkin, amongst others, posted these pictures from USA Today. You might notice a little difference between the two:

Halloween Condi

Whoo, pretty scary, eh?

Then, there's "unpossessed" Condi here

Oh man, the lights went off! I actually sent an email to USA Today. They blamed it on a 'new guy' that went a little too far lightening up the picture. Hmmm, wonder why nothing else got 'lighter' than the whites of her eyes? Halloween joke? Maybe, but how about doing Hillary while we're at it? Balance...

And for fun, Donald Rumsfeld

So which was it?

2005-10-17T13:22:00.000-07:00

As you can see, ABC news wasn't quite so clear the first time. If you didn't catch it over the weekend, a Nazi group was going to march in Toledo, Ohio. With all the hubbub, the local police canceled the march. They didn't take one step. On the other hand, protesters definitely did take certain steps. Breaking windows, looting, burning, vandalizing...sigh.

Some more of what's out there...Beer and Jesus

2005-10-08T05:03:00.000-07:00

Well, here was a post from that same site that I was getting the 'kudos' from. I don't think its much of a stretch to say that there's a correlation between ultra liberal, " bush planned 9/11" genre of blogs, and Godlessness. My take is in Italics

the top ten reasons why beer is better than jesus:

number ten: no one will kill you for not drinking beer;

I would guess that this reference goes back some 500 years to the Spanish Inquisition. Considering we've operated under the First Amendment for the last 200 years, I've not read of non-Christians being burned, lately.

Ironically, you can even in the year 2005 be killed for being an infidel by refusing to convert to Islam. So, in that regard, I would submit that beer is better than beheading someone.

number nine: beer doesn't tell you how to have sex;

Now here, I would heartily disagree. After all, how many instances are there of people having sex in situations they ordinarily never would have, without beer? What made you do it with that coyote ugly gal you met at the bar, your best friend's wife, your wife's best friend, underage teenagers at a party, and on and on...beer.

number eight: beer has never caused a major war;

Ok, so again we're going back a thousand years. In the twenty odd years I played in bars and nightclubs, I never once saw fights break out with Bibles flying back and forth with people yelling, "Immersion! No, sprinkling!". On the other hand...you get the picture

number seven: they don't force beer on minors who can't think for themselves;

Oh really? How many minors have been pressured into underage drinking by older folks (see sex reference above) or by their peers?

number six: when you have a beer, you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away;

Of course not! Why be generous to strangers with YOUR beer? You keep giving it away, and eventually you'll run out. Now Jesus, on the other hand...

number five: nobody's ever been burned at the stake, hanged, or tortured over his brand of beer;

For the third time....how many hundreds of years ago?

number four: you don't have to wait 2000+ years for a second beer;

Assuming the 'non-believer' perspective behind this top ten list, its a good thing we're still waiting. You folks wouldn't like how it would turn out when He does come back.

number three: there are laws saying beer labels can't lie to you;

Yeah? I don't guess that all the advertising that equates beer with drop dead gorgeous super-models being around ordinary looking guys is 'dead-on' truth in advertising.

number two: you can prove you have a beer;

Depends on how many you've had. At some point, you may have difficulty proving that you exist.

and the number one reason why beer is better than jesus:

if you've devoted your life to beer, there are groups to help you stop.

Considering all the destructive behavior associated with alchohol and alchoholism, you're right.

I'm not sure we need groups to stop people from feeding, clothing, and housing the poor, healing the sick, and even helping alchoholics quit drinking.

Sheesh, this was too easy....

Well, at least Al Qaeda understands its not about oil

2005-10-07T06:50:00.000-07:00

This from the WaPo...

Now, I'm always hammering the left for quoting articles with 'unnamed sources', so I'll be circumspect here. However, considering the Post's left-of-center posture, I'm thinking I'm on pretty solid ground.

So, what do we have here?

"The United States has obtained a letter from Osama bin Laden's deputy to the leader of Iraq's insurgency that outlines a long-term strategic vision for a global jihad, with the next phase of the war to be taken into Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, according to U.S. officials."

That's nice...he's sharing a vision. So why is OBL's number 2 sharing with Zarqawi?

"The letter of instructions and requests outlines a four-stage plan, according to officials: First, expel American forces from Iraq. Second, establish a caliphate over as much of Iraq as possible. Third, extend the jihad to neighboring countries, with specific reference to Egypt and the Levant -- a term that describes Syria and Lebanon. And finally, war against Israel."

There's your answer: Iraq is the first step...but wait, there's more.

"I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."
(emphasis mine).

So, I guess we can call Iraq "Jihadist Central", eh? Huhwuzzat? Bush just told us Iraq was the central part of the war on terror. He must have put those bad, bad Al Qaeda guys up to saying the same thing with some of those billions of dollars earmarked for Halliburton.

Boy, that Karl Rove is some kind of genius. Who would of thought of bribing those guys to back up W?

Or, maybe going to Iraq was the uh, ummm, right thing to do?

Now, here's the best part...

"In one indication of tensions between the al Qaeda leadership and its Iraqi division, U.S. officials said, Zawahiri writes about the need to maintain popular support. He is critical of Shiite Muslims and says a clash between the Sunni-dominated movement and the Shiite sect is inevitable, officials said, but he rebukes the leader of Iraq's insurgency for its brutal tactics -- noting that hostages can just as effectively be killed with bullets rather than by beheading, officials said."

Yeah, bullets are better. Not near as inflammatory in imagery. I mean, innocent people are just as dead, but without all those negative connotations. Yeah, lets 'ix-nay' the 'eheading-bay' from now on.

Boy, if this document is real..

So, what started all the hubbub?

2005-09-27T20:30:00.000-07:00

Some of the reactions you see below concern the anti-war protest over the weekend.

Democracy Now!, a group that considers CNN part of the corporate media conspiracy that supports the evil aims of the current government(now that's leaning left, buddy!) advised that the anti war protest brought in somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 participants. They had no basis in fact for coming up with that number, or more precisely, that wildly exaggerated estimation. I called the bloggerators at 'Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo' that linked to D.N. out on that number, and the discussion got pretty lively, and in some cases, pretty tasteless. Considering I was outnumbered, I did the best that I could.

This is what you get from 'progressive' blog sites...

2005-09-27T14:10:00.000-07:00

Been commenting over at some other blogs with 'other' perspectives than mine. This doesn't happen all the time, but often enough. Here's the latest...

Uhm, let's start over, right wing troll. You're stuck on stupid. That's right. You're stuck on stupid. You're spewing million gillion billions of words to justify some stupid political idology of some sort or another. Well I got news for you. Reality don't give a shit what your ideological bullshit is. Anybody who calls themselves "liberal" or "conservative" rather than simply *AMERICAN* is literally STUCK ON STUPID. I'm not going to addres syour bullshit because that's just what it is -- bullshit. All I gotta say is this: When you're interested in figuring out what's right for America and Americans rather than in scoring ideological bullshit points, I'll be happy to address any concerns you have. But right now, you're stuck on stupid, and you wouldn't listen to me anyhow so why waste my breath? - Badtux the American Penguin

Oh and this one too...

Why do any of you want to deal with this piece of filth? Why respond? You can't win an argument with a schizophrenic. You can't change the mind of a True Believer -- and I don't want to. I just want to know how to flatten them into the ground.

Update: I just now figured out that Badtux follows an offshoot of Existentialism referred to as "Excrement(It really exists! Check out Wikpedia.) Existentialism", hence the multiple references to that material, bless his heart.

"It don't mean a thang without that transcendental swing"

2005-09-25T19:11:00.000-07:00

I came across this article from http://www.lashawnbarber.com/ this evening. The link to the article is set below. Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve, advises that our level of human accomplishment for the last 1200 years or so can be tied pretty much to our relationship with God. Interesting reading. When one looks back at all the great things written in ages past, it begs the question, "what have we done lately?" That might explain why things have pretty much gone to heck in a handbag since WW I, the rise of Communism, and pretty much every breakdown in civilization one could think of. To do a 180 on Rick Warren, its what we get when we have purposeless lives, eh?

So much for Hillary playing both ends against the middle

2005-09-19T10:26:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of Michelle Malkin's post, here's the latest. In a New York Post article here We have Sheehan going after Hillary, who's going after Bush for not putting enough Military in Iraq. Poetic justice for all involved...

Crocodile Tears

2005-09-14T19:34:00.000-07:00

Remember when we got this story and this video? This guy, Mr. Broussard was crying his eyes out in front of Tim Russert and a national TV audience. The gov'mint had abandoned New Orleans. He was crying over a woman that died at a nursing home. The son (not Mr. Broussard, BTW) kept hearing from her mom day after day after day asking if she would be rescued. Well, come to find out she died at the nursing home on August 29th, when storm came in. How in the heck was the mom calling day after day if she had already passed away? Now, the nursing home owners are facing charges that they did not act to evacuate the nursing home. Oddly enough, the owners made it out. Why not the residents? What does Mr. Broussard have to tell Tim Russert about now? Is he crying over that? Forget about the other part of the interview where he said FEMA turned away the Red Cross (It was the locals, actually). If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that this was part of it, but you don't have to have marching orders from the DNC to take your own shots at Bush. Too bad they don't take shots at the real problems like border control and out of control spending. Cry me a river Mr. Broussard...

UPDATE: Per Cookie Jill's request, here is the link to the most comprehensive breakdown of the Brossard breakdown, with tip of the hat to Wuzzadem.

UPDATE: NBC has now issued a correction:

"New details and interviews with the son whose mother died in the flood show that the tragedy unfolded from Saturday through Monday, Aug. 29 — not Monday through Friday, Sept. 2 as recounted by Broussard. The owners of the nursing home were indicted Tuesday for the deaths of more than 30 residents, which officials say occurred on Aug. 29."

How in the world can this guy have provided so much detail, and ALL of it wrong?

Help! Somebody? Anybody?

2005-08-31T12:31:00.000-07:00

I'm not saying there isn't any help coming from the international community, I just haven't heard of any other country stepping up to help us like we help everyone else. If I do, I'll be sure to put up a list. Waiting...

Ah, here we go. Lots of telegrams and expressions of sympathy. The Swiss people are asking where they can donate. That's one. Jihadists expressing glee...to be expected. Debate in Vienna on whether they should donate to such a rich country. Environmental groups blaming the United States for the global warming that created the conditions for the hurricane. Netherlands, and rightfully so, wondering why we haven't got things done like they have. Anybody else want to actually help? Still waiting...

There's your trouble...

2005-08-22T07:06:00.000-07:00

Anybody notice that with all the records being reviewed concerning Judge Roberts and his tenure in government, how much there is? No wonder we can't balance the budget or save trees...:-)

Freudian Slip at NPR?

2005-08-18T05:44:00.000-07:00

One has to laugh. On the way to work, the newscaster at NPR advised that Judge Roberts had cleared another hurdle in the "confrontation" process with the rating he received from his peers.

Is this how the previous administration dealt with the Able Danger Project?

2005-08-14T17:25:00.000-07:00

OK, the monkey thing might have been a cheap shot, but you do appreciate the comic irony, don't you? On a more serious note, we've got Sandy Berger stuffing documents into his socks right as the 9/11 Commission is having hearings? For his sake, I hope it was mere coincidence. We've got lawyers in the Pentagon (Clinton adminstration lawyers) that said a terror suspect, a non-citizen with a US visa, gets the same protection as a US citizen? Finally, we've got 9/11 Commission members (including Clinton administration official, Gorelick, that signed off on keeping the walls up in the first place) denying ever getting, or seeing, or being notified, or... wait! 'Yeah, we got the info on Able Danger, but...'

Gee...thanks guys, for all the hard work...and forthrightness.

This reiterates the basic problem with our intelligence capabilities concerning terror, but it also reiterates how few politicians in this country (red or blue, take your pick) have enough courage to put out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Just a little honesty, please...

2005-08-06T06:04:00.000-07:00

I've made a point of cruising other aspects of the blogosphere to see what's going on.

Looking at Crooks and Liars' blog, I found a reference to Senator Rick Santorum's interview on Brian Lehrer's radio show. Senator Santorum recently published a book, "It takes a family" as a counterpoint to the Hillary/liberal viewpoint on how to raise children. Crooks and liars trumpets the fact that Rick Santorum 'lost it' during the interview. Thirty minutes later, I come to the conclusion that Rick Santorum actually maintained his cool throughout. Most of the comments to Crooks and Liars on that particular item, left and right, said the same thing. During a segment discussing gay marraige, Brian Lehrer throws this bomb out.

LEHRER: It came out this month that your communications director, Robert Traynham, is gay. How long did you know that?

SANTORUM: Uh, I’ve known it for a while.

LEHRER: And if he has a boyfriend, is that the moral equivalent as, in a famous quote of yours, of bigamy, adultery, or incest or even bestiality?

SANTORUM: Well, I didn’t – number one, my famous quote did not draw moral equivalence. And in fact if you read the quote in its proper context without words inserted by a reporter, uh, who put words in my mouth that I did not say, nor did I mean –

What? You gotta be kidding. Rather than deal with issues of the day, make it personal why don't you? If anything, the fact that Mr. Santorum discounts his comm director's sexual 'orientation' as a qualifier for the job speaks volumns to his open-mindedness. Can't say the same about liberals, generally.

LEHRER: By the way, do you have lively debates with your press secretary over this? Does he try to convince you, do you try to convince him to go get cured?

SANTORUM: Uh, no, I – look, his personal life is his personal life. I don’t have lively debates with any of my staff about their personal lives. It’s their personal life, and I have lively debates about issues of, that, of public policy. And I have people on my staff that agree with me on everything and – well, not everything, but most everything – and I have those who don’t. And uh, you know, that makes for a healthy debate in the office.

So, we have a liberal talk show host trying to bait the Senator with a 'gotcha', which he didn't take, by the way. Yet a liberal blog paints Santorum as some raving loonatic.

Look, if we're going to disagree and debate, at least keep it honest. Sheesh...

Hello! Are you awake yet?

2005-08-05T20:16:00.000-07:00

Make no mistake. It could happen here. Perhaps we could look to Luke 11:21 "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace"

It is just hardball Politics, after all...

2005-07-24T05:29:00.000-07:00

This from Howard Fineman of Newsweek on a Q&A concerning Karl Rove, here.

"Torrance, CA: Why is it that so little attention has been given as to why on earth the CIA would have sent someone like Joe Wilson in the first place?

Howard Fineman: Very good question. My theory is that the CIA didnt like the idea of going into Iraq and wanted to send someone who would help make the case against going in. CIA and State were at odds with DOD and the Veep's office on Iraq from the git go. I wrote about it on the Web in 2003 and think I'm right. "

So, maybe that's why we're getting all we're getting. What kind of help were folks at the CIA looking for? Its no secret (excuse the pun) that the CIA and the State Department have been anti-administration. Alot of the shake-ups and personnel changes have been a result of this feud, the lousy job the CIA did in the first place concerning pre 9/11 intelligence, and State's UN (show that anti-USA) oriented foreign policy. Hitting back at an effective Republican strategist like Rove seems in order for the opposition. Shoot, if they didn't I wouldn't have much respect for them to hit back. Kind of reminds me of "The Untouchables" and that Sean Connery line about the Chicago Way...

"You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?"

Finally!

2005-07-22T04:10:00.000-07:00

Reports coming in this morning that London police (with guns) chased down a suspect from yesterday's bombing attempts and shot him dead. One down...you Limeys keep it up.

UPDATE: Evidently the guy was a Brazilian that didn't understand English and is not apparently connected to the terrorists in any way. Now the British Police are saying "sorry". Wrong move. The language thing is no excuse. At least some British civil rights groups are saying not to rush to judgement on the police action, considering the environment London is operating under. On the other hand, Muslim spokesmen are whining about how their young Muslim men are 'feeling', that they're afraid. Good. Maybe they'll finally figure out that if they don't want Islam hijacked by extremist thugs and ultimately have Islam outlawed as a religion in the West, they better get cracking.

Like my new hot tub?

2005-07-21T20:24:00.000-07:00

Ya' gotta love CNN...

2005-07-20T20:14:00.000-07:00

(CNN) -- Nearly 25,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq since the start of the Iraq war, according to a group that tracks such statistics from media reports.

The Iraq Body Count -- a London-based group comprised of academics, human rights and anti-war activists -- said on Tuesday that 24,865 civilians had died between March 20, 2003 and March 19, 2005.

The group said 42,500 injuries were recorded as well.

Academics....human rights activists...anti-war activists. Now there's some folks with no axe to grind. Surely all those media reports are accurate, right? Besides that...anti-war activists? Can't that be considered some type of oxymoron? I mean, anybody out there a "pro-war" activist? Anybody? Just raise your hand...anybody...oh Saddam, put your hand down...we know you're a pro.

When are we going to wake up out there? Islamic extremists are out to kill anybody thats not an Islamic extremist, a supporter, or in the case of too many other Muslims, enablers. I'm not sure the last two groups are neccesarily safe, either.

Can it be any more blatant? Watch this video...

2005-07-16T05:18:00.000-07:00

Some five years ago, the mainstream media had made the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Check this video out from ABC News . Somehow it was OK for the media to connect the dots back in 2000, but if its George Bush's administration, all of a sudden the connection is non existent, and he 'lied'. BTW, if you don't have Realplayer, you'll need it.

Hat tip to Powerline on posting this one

How many wake-up calls do we need?

2005-07-11T05:40:00.000-07:00

The most recent attack in London bears out one of the big problems facing us in the war on terror. No one else seems to know there is one, and if they do, they don't want to fight in it. By and large, the war in Iraq has been unpopular in England. Tony Blair has taken a considerable amount of flack and lost some political mojo in his unwavering support of our position before and during the current action in Iraq. At home, Brits have allowed their country to become a crossroads and sanctuary for Islamic Extremists to operate and grow unfettered in their midst. It will be interesting to see how they ultimately react and if they'll clean up the mess they made for the sake of 'tolerance'. Lets hope this doesn't become another Spain.

Bright Eyes? So where's the light coming from?

2005-05-21T05:45:00.000-07:00

As a way to take the pulse of what's going on out there in popular culture, I will periodically swing by Ifilm.com. For those of you not familiar, Ifilm maintains a burgeoning collection of film clips, commercials, movie trailers, and the like for the public's edification and enjoyment. A cautionary note: there is some vulgar material on this site. I give Ifilm.com credit for flagging those clips as "mature". This morning, I watched a clip of the Tonite Show. There was a singer/songwriter, Conor Oberst, otherwise known as Bright Eyes. It was just him and his guitar, singing "When the President talks to God". Two things I picked up on during the performance was that Mr. Oberst certainly doesn't like President Bush, or the idea that he prays to God. Conversely, it would appear that Mr. Oberst doesn't buy into talking to God. Evidently, its a waste of time and a sham, especially if you're the President. Mr. Oberst has every right to sing that song on national television (even if it at the end of the show, way past the time I normally would be snoring out). What was the audience's reaction? It sounded like Mr. Oberst had a small contingent from his fanclub in the audience that cheered him on between verses, and of course, the applause light surely came on as the show ended, pushing the applause needle somewhere past 'medium'. Lastly, Jay Leno came over to Mr. Oberst clapping and congratulating him on a good job. I know I felt uplifted by the lyrics (not). Perhaps I should talk to God about Mr. Oberst. I know Mr. Oberst could use a little interaction with Him.
-

In whose hands?

2005-04-03T05:34:00.000-07:00

As a non-Catholic, I hesitate to comment too directly on Pope John Paul II. One could certainly jump on the 'What about all those pedophile priests he didn't deal with?' bandwagon, but that's not my issue here. I find it interesting that two Catholics, John Paul II and Terri Schiavo, wound up with two different paths out of this life. The juxtaposition is striking. On the one hand, we have Ms. Schiavo. She ultimately fell victim to the culture of Death that is ever growing in terms of groups whose lives are deemed unworthy of living. We started with fetuses and we're continually pushing the envelope to include anyone we feel uncomfortable being around because of their age, medical condition, state of mind, or maybe even their looks. On the other hand, John Paul II made a conscious decision to forego any further treatments to prolong his life. At least he got to participate in the final decision

Better deal than 4 out of 5 Dentists!

2005-04-01T18:59:00.000-08:00

From 'best of the web' at the Wall Street Journal, an article here telling us that 5 out of 5 scientists think our solar system is unique. You know, stuff like having a planet with water that is in a circular orbit as it spins on its axis positioned in such a way that it supports life. You know, unique, like one-of-a-kind, special...waitaminnit....maybe ummmm, created that way for a particular reason or purpose. OK, that part might be a stretch for the logical minded, but perhaps we can suspend secular reasoning for just a moment to reflect...maybe, just maybe God did it. Ooops, I said it again. Hope I didn't offend the secular minded amongst you...:-)

A passion for pulling the plug, or tube, or trigger.

2005-03-26T04:55:00.000-08:00

Peggy Noonan gives us her take on the Schiavo situation. Along with the politics surrounding this and other events, she's 'dead on' on a most basic issue: you either believe you are a creation of God, or the end result of a myriad combination of circumstances. That perspective defines for us how people are looking at Ms. Schiavo. Now, I'm not for any branch or individual overstepping the Constitution, but whether one believes...or not, we all answer to a Higher Power. Disbelief won't negate our requirement to answer to that Higher Power. It simply puts the answering off until we are individually or collectively called into account. If you don't think that you're knee will bow or your tongue confess...the Constitution gives you that right to think so. It just doesn't change the facts. It does, however, change what your idea of Right and Wrong and Life and Death are. That's why people are going way beyond simply allowing someone to starve to death and taking a more direct route with with guns (which is my argument for making it a law to require and/or to provide all citizens with firearms to protect themselves from people that think life is worthless). As I saw on a bumper sticker the other day, "If you don't believe in God, you'd better be right". Some would consider my position dogmatic. It most certainly is. Hey, its my blog, afterall... :-)

Its not like its a matter of Life or Death, is it?

2005-03-23T18:43:00.000-08:00

I'm not the first to make this observation, but recent events really are highlighting this 'culture of death' phenomenon our country is experiencing as the Easter holiday is upon us. The first thing that comes to mind is Terri Schiavo. We have a person that is not on life support, whose ability to function beyond a 'persistent vegetative state' is still subject to debate amongst medical experts, and it seems that our judicial system is Hell-bent on killing her. This in spite of Congress and the President of the United States doing their collective best to give her another chance at Life. We have a young man, Jeff Weise, up in Minnesota that killed 10 people, including his grandparents, and even himself. It was found out later he was deep into 'neo-nazism'. Jessica Lunsford, a mere 9 years old, is murdered by a convicted sex-offender. Here locally a bar fight that in the past would have resulted in some fist fight in the parking lot, winds up with a 'drive by' type of shooting with four people dead. A high school football player simply attending a party is gunned down by another teenager, all because he was asked to leave.

The common thread? In all these cases, Life has lost its value to the people that are taking it. If we are to believe the polls concerning Terry Schiavo (which I don't), Life has lost its value to most of the rest of us as passive bystanders. Its no longer important whether anyone lives. There is no such thing as Eternity, only a blank space where we used to exist. The thing taking its place is Death. Literally, Life and Death have become equivalent in value to many people, and in some cases Death is actually preferable, the first choice. How ironic it is that the Holiday that celebrates Life in the form of the Resurrection falls on the heels of all this death, death, and more death.

Assuming a belief in a God of any kind, our mere existence is in and of itself a miraculous occurance. The culture we're living in now doesn't acknowledge God or the miraculous nature of our existence as the result of His own existence. How short a step it is to Oblivion when our lives are assumed to end there.

Do you see what I see?

2005-02-28T20:27:00.000-08:00

Lets take some inventory, shall we?

Afghanistan: free of Taliban rule and having democratic elections. Check.

Iraq: free of Saddam and on its way to a democratically elected government. Check.

Palestinians: Almost acting like a nation with elections. Check.

Libya: renouncing terrorism, paying back victims of said terrorism,
and dismantling its terrorist system. Check.

Egypt: Hosni Mubarek calling for more 'open' elections

Lebannon: Its citizens in revolt ( and peaceful, BTW) against their Syrian oppressors, the Syrian backed government resigning. Check.

Syria: now coughing up some major Baathists hiding from Iraqi justice: Check

Awwww, maybe its just my imagination that Freedom and Liberty are compatible with Middle Eastern cultures. That people, no matter where they are or where they came from all want that same kind of freedom. Maybe all the usual suspects are figuring out that they need to start running the opposite direction now, merely to get in front of this march to Freedom, or risk being left behind in its dust, or worse, trampled beneath it. Maybe standing on principle and not backing down from a fight with Evil in whatever form it takes, get results. Maybe going it alone or with less allies than you'd like when you know the cause is right is actually the right thing to do. Maybe it is just my imagination after all...

He said it, not me.

2005-02-24T19:00:00.000-08:00

Picked this up on Powerline. Its a quote from Winston Churchill, from his experience in fighting in the Sudan.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

2005-02-21T10:24:00.000-08:00

Protestors in Lebannon, wanting their country back...

Signposts in the Middle East

2005-02-21T10:07:00.000-08:00

Just picked up a report from Fox News here concerning Syria pulling troops out of Lebannon. A little slow, since they agreed to that in 1989, and we really don't know what they mean when they say they're pulling troops out What was really interesting is a quotation from one of the participants in a protest related to the assasination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri.

"It is my civic duty as a Lebanese to take part in this uprising," said Youssef Mukhtar, a 47-year-old engineer. "Enough bloodshed and disasters. It is the 21st century, and people should be able to govern themselves. The situation has become unbearable and we have to regain our country."

21st century, indeed. I wonder why, after all these years of occupying their neighbor, the 'occupying nation' (that's NOT the United States) is NOW announcing a pullout of troops? I wonder why, after all these years, we have Lebanese citizens clamoring for self-government? Could it be, that after seeing countries like Afghanistan and Iraq moving toward democracy and 'governing themselves', these folks would want the same thing for their country? Could it be that Mr. Bush's policies, ever how imperfectly carried out, actually are having the desired effects? I'm thinking so.

An open letter to Democrats...

2005-02-13T18:14:00.000-08:00

It seems almost daily one finds example after example of Democrats shooting themselves in the foot over foreign and domestic policy, and for what? Do you guys hate Bush that bad that you can't see the real opportunity before you as a party? My late father, rest his soul, was a yellow-dog Democrat. For those of you to young to remember, it means if Mother Teresa was a Republican, he would have voted for a yellow dog running on the Democratic Ticket. He always considered Democrats as the party for the Little Guy, the Workin' Man, the Disadvantaged, the Downtrodden, the Forgotten. Democrats were the ones to stand up to Big Government and Big Business, and hold them accountable to regular folks. It wasn't Liberalism in his day, it was Progressivism. The biggest problem you guys have is you've forgotten all that. We need people that won't allow Big Government and Big Business to run roughshod over the common man with no accountability. We need folks to act in our behalf. Where'd you go? All the way to TooFarForYourOwnGood, Texas...that's where. You want to stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves? Well, how about unborn children, the least able to fight for their rights? Are you too busy advocating a woman's right to choose, after she's already chosen? And that makes sense to you? Want a cause to champion? How about all those 20 and 30 somethings that WILL NOT have Social Security having a say in their future retirement and their families well being? Want to advocate for civil rights? How about the BILLIONS of people across this planet still in the grip of Totalitarianism, torture, religious fanaticism , genocide, and the like? Want to show the electorate that you have as much claim to 'Christian values' as Bush? How about not looking down your pseudointellectual noses at the "unwashed" in this country and actually try caring about them, and then doing the appropriate, 'Christian', thing? That enough to keep you busy? It would be so easy to out-bush Bush, I could do it from my couch, for crying out loud. Maybe if you'd take a break from hating the guy so much and get your 'stuff' all in one bucket, you might do yourselves, and this country, some good. I don't get all I want from the Republican side. I'm ready to strangle the whole lot concerning our borders, culture, and government spending. We do at least need a loyal opposition in this country to keep us all honest, the 'other side', if you will. The problem is that you have no side, no agenda, no ideas, no vision, no nothing...except for your hatred of a very imperfect man that's got all of that stuff. Heaven help you. I know I can't.