We Win, They LoseThe Wit and Wisdom of Three Guys Named Brent, Mark and Mike
Friday, October 31, 2003
Justice Ginsburg miffed by not being recognized...
Scroll to the bottom of this article for a funny item about lawyers mixing up Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor. She should consider herself lucky -- I would have referred to her simply as "Your Idiocy." (She should also consider herself lucky that most even recognize her as a woman, but that's a topic for a different day.)
Update: More on this at the bottom of this article.
What's this? A problem that diversity can't solve?
You wouldn't think it possible, but here is a study which shows that there is one problem that "diversity" cannot solve -- and that is diversity. You see, these teens have problems apparently related to their racial diversity. This will likely make the diversity pimps very uncomfortable -- soon, you will likely see a response along the lines of "it's the white genes that did it -- if the kid was all minority, he'd be fine."
Update: Another study shows that fans of Oprah Winfrey are also more likely to be stressed. What this shows, I have no idea.
Slavery in Sudan? I thought America was the only place that happened...
These people should be shot.
David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh's younger brother, has written a book about liberals' war against Christianity. In future additions he will have to add Denver County Circuit Judge John W. Coughlin to the list of liberal anti-Christian war mongers.
According to the Coughlin's bio on the Court website "Judge Coughlin's judicial philosophy is to respect everyone who comes into his court, including lawyers, parties, jurors and witnesses." Christian parents, however, apparently are not entitled to such respect. Worldnetdaily reports that Coughlin, in a recent child custody decision, ordered a mother, Cheryl Clark, to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic." Not only is Cheryl prohibited from raising her child in the manner she sees fit, but she has to share custody with a woman who has no legal or blood relation to the child. Granted, Clark had been in a homosexual relationship with this woman. However, the last time I checked, third-parties have limited or no rights with respect to visitation or custody of children, at least not where the parent is not unfit. Judge Coughlin's decision really should shock the conscience. If things continue down this road, it is not unforeseeable that the state might someday declare parents unfit to raise their children because they are Christian and because they teach their children that sexual relations should be limited to the marriage relationship (marriage being defined as the union of one man and one woman). Unbelievable.
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Appetite and Ambition
Jonah Goldberg is right on in his assessment of modern day liberalism. Today's liberals stand for only one thing--power. They will do and say whatever they think it takes to obtain power. For instance, Goldberg points out that
"They [liberals] see each setback in Iraq as a political opportunity to question whether we should be there at all."
As a result "Not only do they send a message of weakening American resolve at precisely the wrong moment, not only do they abandon their historical principles, but they underscore their most enduring political handicap — the impression that Democrats are unserious on foreign policy. They are left with no principle to stand on, no plan of their own to promulgate, and no credibility to trade with."
Thus, according to Goldberge liberals "have ritualistically shorn themselves of everything but animus and appetite." Animus and appetite. There is no more succint way of describing modern day liberalism.
Continuing this thought, in pursuing their unsatiable appetite for power, not only have liberals abandoned their principles, but they also have abandoned their key constituencies, as is highlighted in another NRO piece here. And we are all the worse off for it.
Is Intellectual Diversity an Endangered Species on America’s College Campuses?
That is the title of a hearing held yesterday by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In my experience, the answer to that question is yes. Just a couple of examples from yesterday's hearing:
Professor Robert Johnson, testified about nearly being denied tenure simply because of his supposedly "conservative" views:
"[A] specialist in women’s history, denigrated my teaching and scholarship on the grounds that I taught courses dealing with “political history, focused on figures in power.” Such an “old-fashioned approach to our field,” this professor mused, attracted only “a certain type of student, almost always a young white male,” whose interest in such “narrow” topics implied limited intellectual abilities. The former department chairman, who has since been reassigned, termed this document the “reasoned consideration” of a senior colleague. [T]hat my colleague was willing to commit to paper her comment that a professor teaching about “figures in power” constituted grounds for condemnation testifies to just how certain she and others have become of support for these views among the professorate. In the academy as reflected by Brooklyn College, someone like me, whose first two books studied left-wing congressional dissenters and who wore a Hillary Clinton button during the 2000 Senate campaign, was deemed holding views too “conservative” to be tolerated."
Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education also testifed, about some truly amazing campus codes. For example:
- "Hampshire College in Massachusetts bans “psychological intimidation, and harassment of any person or pet.” Pet?
- Bard College states in its code “It is impermissible to engage in conduct that deliberately causes embarrassment, discomfort, or injury to other individuals or to the community as a whole.” Discomfort? Come on.
- Transylvania University in Kentucky bans “oral, and written actions that are intellectually… inappropriate” if they touch upon a broad list of protected classes. I think Transylvania University is "intellectually inappropriate."
- Florida State University’s “General Statement of Philosophy on Student Conduct and Discipline” states, “Since behavior which is not in keeping with standards acceptable to the University community is often symptomatic of attitudes, misconceptions, and emotional crises, the treatment of these attitudes, misconceptions, and emotional crises through re-education and rehabilitative activities is an essential element of the disciplinary process.” Re-education? This would be funny if it weren't true.
Finally, UVA student Anthony Dick, a registered Democrat, testified about life at the University of Virginia:
"At UVA, “diversity” is the focus of an amazing amount of attention. All too often, though, it is discussed only in terms of the superficial characteristics of students and faculty. Differences in race, ethnicity, and gender are praised and sought after with great fervor, but significantly less attention is given to the intellectual diversity of the University community. This problem is exacerbated by the efforts of some who seek to shape the University into a vehicle for social change as opposed to an impartial guardian of the liberal arts. To these people, vibrant intellectual diversity is not so much a boon to the development of the mind as it is an obstacle to the achievement of political ends."
Mr. Dick, you know all you need to know -- now get your piece of paper and get the heck out of there!
These examples would be almost unbelievable, if they were not so common, and indicative of the state of affairs at virtually every campus in America. They are especially enlightening coming from those who can't clear their throats without yapping about such now-meaningless terms such as "diversity" and "tolerance." So, I guess these examples are funny, they're just not "ha-ha" funny.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Should we follow the Constitution, or try to make "that all important good impression?"
This article infuriates me -- how in the world have we reached the point where a justice of the United States Supreme Court has no compunction about listening to "world opinion," rather than following the written words of the Constitution?
"I suspect," O'Connor said, "that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."
Doing so, she added, "may not only enrich our own country's decisions, I think it may create that all important good impression."
"Create that all important good impression"???!!! UNBELIEVABLE. This idiot (and Justice O'Connor isn't the only one) should be impeached, as should any judge who subordinates our fundamental law to any foreign tribunal.
Here is a piece about a proposal to restore vast herds of buffalo, elk, etc. to the Great Plains. Sounds like some environmentalist dream (and it is), but it would be kind of neat to see. I'll bet the main problem would be what the environmentalists would do with it once it came about ... surely, they'd try to run it like their own little fiefdom, complete with keeping humans out, so as not to mess up "nature." (I wonder though ... would it really be "nature" if it was made by man? Interesting question for the environmentalist nutjobs.) Anyway, I would like to read more about the proposal to see how crazy (or wonderful?) it is.
One of my favorite blogs...
Stuart Buck links to a very interesting and timely article about so-called vegetative persons.
I've always loved this story, even though I don't particularly care for Kurt Vonnegut. During the Clinton administration, every time I saw Janet Reno I thought of Diana Moon Glampers -- can't you just see Janet holding that double-barreled 10-gauge shotgun to enforce her version of equality?
Monday, October 27, 2003
Watch what you say, it could kill you...
The Weekly Standard carries this eye-opening story on the case of Terri Schiavo.
Great article on Scalia's "mocking," and the role of courts
Over at National Review, Peter Lawler has a great article on the recent story that Justice Scalia "mocked" the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas. I linked to the story last week.
Lawler's article notes that the passage that Scalia mocked was the same one that I had taken issue with this summer. ("Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibility, they might have been more specific.")
It boils down to this -- the written words of the Constitution were written precisely so the fundamental law of our country would not be made up as we went along. If a change needs to be made, it is up to the People, not the courts, to make it.
As stated by Justice Cooley over 100 years ago:
"A cardinal rule in dealing with written instruments is that they are to receive an unvarying interpretation, and that their practical construction is to be uniform. A constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have so changed as perhaps to make a different rule in the case seem desirable. A principal share of the benefit expected from written constitutions would be lost if the rules they established were so flexible as to bend to circumstances or be modified by public opinion."
Thus, he continued:
"[A] court or legislature which should allow a change in public sentiment to influence it in giving to a written constitution a construction not warranted by the intention of its founders, would be justly chargeable with reckless disregard of official oath and public duty, and if its course could become a precedent, these instruments would be of little avail."
Hmmmm.... Sounds to me like he is "mocking" Justice Kennedy.
At Fox News, Wendy McElroy has a good essay on this subject. I have also been thinking about the rape-shield laws, which in many states prohibit any mention of the sexual history of the woman accuser. I don't know a perfect solution, but these types of laws seem to me to be going too far. I once defended a college kid from accusations like this, and they ruined him. But even the accuser's friends admitted that the girl had been drinking with him, flirting with him, walked home with him, and went to his bedroom.
Not only that, but even the accuser admitted these things, plus the fact that she got nearly naked in his bed, that she was kissing him and engaging in very heavy petting and foreplay, and was extremely drunk, fading in and out of consciousness, and didn't remember everything. So she accuses the guy of rape and he was thrown out of school. I don't know what the "truth" was, but to see such a flimsy accusation ruin a kid's life was eye-opening to say the least. I mean, the sheer irresponsibility of the accuser should have counted for something. But the tribunal assumed that everything she said was 100% true, and that he was only trying to take advantage of her. I was not allowed to undertake any serious questioning or cross-examination of her -- it was very disturbing.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
The Washington Post reports that same-sex marriage may become a key issue in the upcoming election. Of course, the report portrays it as merely a partisan ploy to get conservative votes. Sadly, it may be just that, even though conservative Republicans may want it to be a key issue. Here in Ohio, legislation aimed at protecting traditional marriage (DOMA) is languishing because Republican leaders don't want it to be an issue here. It is pathetic. Right and wrong have no business being dealt with as issues that have "play with voters."
Bias at NPR? Nooooo..........
Mickey Kaus has a good article about the bias at NPR.
Anti-War Democrats Finally Have Reason to Celebrate War in Iraq...
The women in Iraq are undergoing abortions -- "one unintended consequence of Baghdad's new atmosphere of freedom." I am sure this will bring a smile to the faces of Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer.
And in news that should make Teddy Kennedy smile, many more Iraqi women have taken to the streets as prostitutes:
"Under Saddam, women found working as prostitutes were liable to be executed - although well-connected pimps regularly provided girls for the corrupt Ba'ath Party ruling class.
One "madam" explained: "Most of my girls are from the countryside. They are not well educated so the money is good for them and it is quite safe because the Iraqi police now protect us."
I am sure the Democrats will stop their endless carping about the war, now that their kind of "freedom" has finally come to Iraq.
Saturday, October 25, 2003
Funny ... I thought the Democrats wanted to count every vote in Florida...
Congressional Quarterly has an amusing little story about a Florida straw poll.
NY Times Article
The New York Times has an article about the partial-birth abortion ban.
"Critics of the procedure described it in terms so gruesome and detailed that many lawmakers who otherwise support abortion rights already felt compelled to vote against it when the issue repeatedly came before Congress during the Clinton administration."
-- The so-called "critics" who describe the procedure "in terms so gruesome and detailed" are doing nothing other than stating the facts as to what this is. If that is "gruesome" it is not because the "critics" have made it so.
"They ran away with this debate in the public domain by constantly describing this procedure," said Kate Michelman, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, one of three advocacy groups that intend to challenge the measure in court. She added, "Politicians got nervous."
-- Did you catch that? The mere description of this procedure turns people against it. That is because people inherently recognize that there is something wrong with stabbing a baby in the head and suctioning its brains out.
As Justice Scalia stated, "The method of killing a human child–one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child–proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion."
Friday, October 24, 2003
Culture of Life?
Senator Kyl discusses the partial birth abortion ban here, and he makes one of the clearest statements I have heard about what is at stake in this debate.
"Sometimes I fear that our country's social discourse has irreparably deteriorated to a point where basic moral values are now shrouded in partisanship and politics. If we cannot come to terms with the clear, undisputable horror of inserting scissors into the skull of an otherwise viable and nearly fully developed child to end her life, without worrying about ramifications to some special-interest agenda, then our great nation is in serious trouble."
Amen, Senator. Amen.
Culture of Death II
Bill Press, in a new rant about the Schiavo case, has provided further evidence of this "culture of death" Mark makes reference to below. Rather than celebrate the saving of a human life, Mr. Press instead laments the events of recent days. What's more, he takes a shot at the Florida legislature claiming that it was only politics at play. Only a liberal Democrat would view the Florida legislature's actions in saving Ms. Schiavo's life as political pandering. Of course, Mr. Press should know something about pandering, as his political comrades constantly pander to abortionists and other liberal interest groups. They have become so adept at saying and doing whatever their puppet masters tell them to, that it is inconceivable to them that a government official would actually do something based on correct principles (e.g. saving human life). To liberals, politic efforts to promote pro-life measures is really pandering to the Christian right, not about actually trying to save life. Not only are Mr. Press' arguments weak, his claim that the legislature acted in contravenion of the wishes of the Ms. Schiavo's "family" is also patently false. It was her parents and siblings who have been leading the charge to save her life. I guess they don't count as family. Family, according to Mr. Press, is a husband who cheats on you and steals your money and fails to provide proper care. How does someone so devoid of moral rightness and of the ability to reason become a nationally known figure, having his views aired in various media? Oh, I know, it's because he knows what God wants. Just ask him, Mr. Press that is.
Check out this mockery of objective reporting. In the very short piece, there are at least six hints as to who the bad guys are:
1. The audience was made up, not only of conservatives (hiss!), but "conservative activists" (double-hiss!!)
2. Scalia's dissent was "bitter" (have you ever seen it described as anything else?)
3. "Scalia is a hero of conservatives who favor a strict adherence to the actual text of the Constitution." (Read -- only those conservative gun-toting, abortion-stopping, gay-bashing Nazis believe that the written words of the Constitution are any limit on the power of our government)
4. ISI is tied to those radical "Judeo-Christian moral standards" (Read -- ISI is composed entirely of bigots and homophobes)
5. "ISI draws much of its funding from conservative foundations, including three controlled by or associated with billionaire philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife, a vehement critic of former President Clinton." (obviously, this group is intimately connected to numerous Clinton-hating, Boy Scout-loving, vast-right-wing-conspiracy-promoting neanderthals)
6. The audience actually recited the Pledge of Allegiance prior to its meeting (and probably celebrated the death of Matthew Shepherd afterward)
If this is what passes for "objective" journalism at ABC News and the Associated Press, it's no wonder FoxNews is kicking their butts.
Thursday, October 23, 2003
Sad, infuriating, tragic.... and inexcusable.
This is the saddest story you will read for some time. "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:6.
Culture of Death
If you think thirty years of abortion on demand has not had an effect on our culture, think again. In the name of abortion, people today are willing to argue in support of positions that would have been unthinkable even a few years ago.
For example, C. Rauch Wise, a respected South Carolina attorney, was recently on The O'Reilly Factor to argue that the Supreme Court screwed up when it declined to examine his client's case. Wise's client, Regina McKnight was sentenced to twelve years in prison when she killed her unborn baby by smoking crack. A portion of the interview went like this:
O'REILLY: [L]ook, I want to know how you would punish the woman. If you think 12 years, serving nine is too much, what would you give her?
WISE: I wouldn't punish her at all because I -- if you go in the state of Florida, that's not a crime. State versus Ashley. A case that was decided out of Florida, the woman...
O'REILLY: You wouldn't punish her at all? You wouldn't punish any woman who does -- who refuses to give up drugs or alcohol during a pregnancy and the baby dies? You think they should skate?
WISE: I would not punish them at all because a crime hadn't been committed. There's no...
O'REILLY: The baby's dead.
WISE: Correct, but no crime has been committed, and, until you punish someone (sic), you've got to commit a crime.
Can you believe that? "Yeah, the baby is dead, but no crime has been committed." This guy would not punish her at all. I cannot fathom how anyone could hold such a position. Argue that the sentence is too harsh, that there are mitigating factors, sure -- but to say with a straight face that you would not punish her at all? That is unbelievable.
There is something seriously wrong when you can kill a baby and have your attorney argue that "no crime has been committed." I lay this directly at the feet of Justice Blackmun and his cohorts who in 30 short years have hijacked our very souls. Thirty years ago, Mr. Wise's comments would have made him a pariah in decent society. Today, it goes unnoticed, and a "professor" like Peter Singer holds an endowed chair at Princeton. Don't tell me that abortion has not harmed this nation.
This nails it...
Michael Ramirez has a timely editorial cartoon.
James Piereson has an excellent essay by that name at the Weekly Standard.
Senator Santorum lays a beat-down on Senator Boxer (and her dignity)
During yesterday's partial-birth abortion ban debate, Rick Santorum, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, made a quite humorous response to Senator Boxer's assertion that "There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion. It is a made-up term to inflame passion." Boxer later asserted that "There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion in the medical literature; you either have a birth or you have an abortion." She then went on to state that the Senate was "banning a procedure that ... is necessary sometimes to save the life and health of a woman."
"[T]he Senator from California has suggested that this is not a medical term. Well, I had my staff run and look it up in Webster's Medical Dictionary. In Webster's, the term 'partial-birth abortion' is in fact defined:
Abortion in the second or third trimester in which the death of the fetus is induced after it is passed part way through the birth canal.
As to this idea that it is not a term used, it is in the dictionary. It is interesting the Senator from California would say that this is not a medical term, that this doesn't exist. Yet she has repeated many times that this thing that doesn't exist is a great threat to women. If we abolish something that doesn't exist, somehow or another this is a horrible thing we are doing to women. That doesn't necessarily make sense to me. Then she goes on and says this thing that doesn't exist - she claims it doesn't exist - is medically necessary at times. I have a hard time grappling with this argument in the alternative. First you argue it doesn't exist, and then it does exist and it is medically necessary.... She makes the argument that it doesn't exist, and then she argues that it is necessary. I don't know how you can have it both ways. It either does exist and it is necessary or it doesn't exist and it is not necessary."
Santorum also responded to another assertion of Boxer's:
"The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, said this abortion procedure needs to remain legal out of respect for women and 'because it gives the fetus dignity.'
Anyone who looks at this procedure and suggests that pulling a child feet first through the birth canal at 20 weeks of gestation, who otherwise would have been born alive, and have a pair of scissors thrust in the base of their skull and have their brains suctioned out is an act of dignity I think has to rethink what the word 'dignity' means."
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
After reading this article (linked in my partial-birth abortion post last night) in which Senator Lautenberg is quoted as stating that President Bush "will become the first U.S. President to criminalize safe medical procedures," a friend of mine emailed to ask:
"Since when is having the brains sucked out of the back of your head safe? I guess [they are basing this assertion] on the fact that Ms. Boxer and some other Democrats seem to have survived the procedure."
Good one, David!
So when would a "women's studies" degree ever be legitimate?
From the Daily Illini, my old campus newspaper:
"Kate Goldstein, senior in LAS, switched to the women's studies program this year, but she said she hadn't officially become a women's studies major. She said she was "a little" concerned about the degree not being legitimate when she would be graduating in May."
I've got bad news for you, Kate... a "women's studies" degree will never be legitimate! Good luck getting a job!
Oh the arrogance, and selfishness . . .
Gene Robinson is one for the ages. He is the "gay" Epsicopal bishop whose nomination threatens to split the United States Episcopal church. Read this article. He blames conservative Episcopalians for the potential split, not his failure to adhere to longheld church teachings and doctrine. His words in the article linked above evidence an astonishing pride and self-centeredness that is the heart of what is wrong with society today.
As a follow-up to Mark's post, it appears that not one of the Democratic presidential candidates favors a ban on partial-birth abortion. Of course, most claim that if there were an exception for the "health" of the mother, then they would support legislation limiting such a procedure. While this arguably sounds reasonable, what people do not realize is that this so-called "health" exception ends up swallowing the rule. According to abortion advocates, a woman's health is compromised by the very existence of the unborn child. What these advocates cannot understand is that while pregnancy does in fact create health risks for the mother, abortion ENDS the life of the unborn child. Wouldn't it be refreshing if the so-called pro-choicers would actually discuss the choice that they are in favor of--that of killing an innocent unborn baby? At least the uninformed public would have a clearer picture of where people stand. Pro-choice=take the life of an unborn child if mother doesn't want it. Pro-life=protect the life of an unborn child, even if the mother doesn't want it. Any questions.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Glenn Beck has an interesting item here.
"shacking up" hurts kids, research shows.....
"While an unmarried mom and dad living together might look like the married couple down the block, unions lacking formal long-term commitments have been found more likely to create problems for kids."
"Stupid Veggie Burgers..." (You gotta read this!)
This is hilarious! Check out this quote:
"They can keep the stupid veggie burgers,'' he said. "A bunch of people from Virginia can't just come to town and wave around a few veggie burgers and think they own the place.''
Now read the whole article to see what this man is responding to, one of PETA's silliest requests in recent memory (and that is saying something).
Partial-Birth Abortion banned, finally.
The Senate has approved a ban on partial-birth abortions. George W. Bush will sign it, and then the fun begins. As usual, the abortion on demand crowd will resort to their bread and butter -- federal court. "We will take this fight from the Capitol to the courtroom to safeguard the lives and health of women," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation. This illustrates an important point about abortion -- when elected representatives vote, it loses. The only wins abortion gets are from the courts, which is why it is so important that George W. Bush get his nominees approved.
It is hard for me to fathom the lengths to which some will go to support abortion, up to and including the procedure banned by this bill. Whatever your feelings on abortion, can't we all agree that a baby dangling between the legs of its mother should not be stabbed in the head with scissors and have its brains sucked out? What kind of people are we if we cannot stop this unfeeling act?
Chris Weinkopf wrote an excellent piece a few years back which illustrates how devoid of logic and humanity the left is on this issue.
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Some people find liberals dislike of Bush as amusing if not somewhat comical. I fail to see the humor in the vitriol continually directed at President Bush. I am sure you have noticed the anger directed at conservatives. Do you remember when George Clooney joked about Charleton Heston having Alzheimers, excusing his remarks because Charleton Heston supported the 2nd Amendment? Or Alec Baldwin wishing that Henry Hyde be killed? If you ask me, it is a little frightening that the left feels so passionately about their agenda that common decency and respect are thrown out the window. Those who supposedly champion diversity and tolerance are the most intolerant and nondiverse group of people in this country. Just look at how a group of conservative students has been treated at Roger Williams University. It is shameful.
President Bush coming to my neighborhood
Cool -- President Bush will visit my neighborhood (which is a strong Republican town) next month.
Saturday, October 18, 2003
Fred Barnes agrees (perhaps!) with my last post....
and writes of the realignment of American politics here.
Democrats Still Unknown, Unsupported
This article notes that 44% of those surveyed would not vote for any Democrat over George W. Bush and the Democrat most viewed as honest and trustworthy is the one acting least like a Democrat, Joe Lieberman. Perhaps R.W. Bradford was right -- Bill Clinton will be the Last Democrat elected President.
Brains or Beauty?
It seems that good-looking professors get higher evaluations than not-so-good-looking professors. Go figure. (Thanks to Ken Masugi)
Rush Limbaugh back soon?
Rush is still scheduled to deliver a speech on November 21.
Kid Slaves in Africa
This is a sad little article. I wonder why stuff like this is not front page news worldwide?
Friday, October 17, 2003
It is a rare event when the New York Times publishes an opinion piece I agree with -- but it happened today. Columnist Bob Herbert, who is black, writes an excellent piece on the "Ghettopoly" game that is causing such a stir. He asks a very pertinent question: "How can you march against a game and not march against the real-life slaughter on the streets and in the homes of inner cities across America?"
Out of touch
Helen Thomas, has once again proven her "objectivity" by taking yet another swipe at President Bush. While her headline reads "No wonder Bush doesn't connect with the rest of the country" her "insightful" commentary proves that she and her liberal comrades are the ones who are out of touch. I myself do not "read the newspaper," if what she means is reading the New York Times, Washington Post, or Los Angeles Times. Most newspapers do not in fact report the news, as is amply pointed out here.
Ms. Thomas mentions a news story which ran in the Washington Post about a 4 year old little girl who was shot, accidentally I presume, by her brother. According to Ms. Thomas, had the President had the decency to read this "news" he would have realized the need for gun control. See that's the problem with Bush. He doesn't read the "news." You see, if he did, he would immediately resign because he would learn that he is a liar who only serves the interests of big business, which business, by the way is doing horribly. He would also learn that American troops are trapped in a quagmire and that America is likely to soon fall to the superior forces confronting us in Iraq. Bush would also learn from the "news" that he and other "right wingers" are conspiring to destroy our civil liberties and to force all Americans to do the bidding of Christian conservatives. Yes, it's too bad that President Bush doesn't read the newspapers. He's really missing out.
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Does a pardon mean automatic reinstatement for a disbarred lawyer?
That question may be addressed by the Supreme Court soon, should it grant cert. in a case involving one of the numerous last-minute pardons of President Clinton. Tony Mauro has an interesting article discussing this issue here.
Most people don't realize it yet, but last night's loss was the best thing that could have happened to the Cubs. It goes like this: any team can win a World Series, but it takes a special team to not win one in nearly a century. Had the Cubs won, they would have been just like everybody else -- winners. As things stand, they are still the lovable losers, and the "curse of the billygoat" is known nationwide. The loss allowed Chicago to remain unique.
One other thing -- leave the poor fan alone, for crying out loud. The reason they lost is not because some guy touched a foul ball in the stands -- it is because the team did not suck it up. "Ground ball to Gonzalez, should be two -- nice hands, skillet!" Not only that, Dusty Baker stinks. (thanks to Bill Plaschke for writing what I've felt for a long time)
Where have all the good speeches gone?
John McWhorter makes a great point -- politicians today speak in sound-bites, rather than eloquent speeches. I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just pointing it out.
Ann Coulter on top of her game....
Ann Coulter writes a dead-on defense of Rush. My blogging partner, Brent, made many of the same points in a conversation we had last week. I remember Brent specifically saying something quite similar to Ann's following point: "In liberals' worldview, any conservative who is not Jesus Christ is ipso facto a 'hypocrite' for not publicly embracing dissolute behavior the way liberals do."
Ann also takes a (too-easy) shot at Teddy Kennedy, which is hilarious:
"While slamming Rush, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz recently told Wolf Blitzer, 'Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted, whereas people who illegally buy cocaine and heroin are prosecuted.' What would the point be? Just say no to back surgery? I haven't checked with any Harvard Law professors, but I'm pretty sure that, generally, adulterous drunks who drive off bridges and kill girls are prosecuted. Ah, but Teddy Kennedy supports adultery and public drunkenness – so at least you can't call him a hypocrite! That must provide great consolation to Mary Jo Kopechne's parents."
Speaking of Senator Windbag, he has once again been running his mouth without his brain engaged, saying "Our men and women in uniform fought bravely and brilliantly, but the president's war has been revealed as mindless, needless, senseless, and reckless."
Have another one, Senator -- the truth is that YOU have been revealed as mindless, needless, senseless and reckless. Just stay away from Bill Clinton's "bridge to the twenty-first century" -- you might drive off it, and kill another campaign worker.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Religion and Politics
Here is an article that supposedly debunks certain "myths" about the role religion plays in politics. Great topic for discussion.
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Here is an interesting article about proposed Federal legislation seeking to diversify ideology on university and college campuses. Maybe this might help the champions of tolerance actually begin tolerating opposing viewpoints. We'll see.
Rush Limbaugh's Addiction
Rush Limbaugh announced on Friday that news reports that he was addicted to pain killers were in fact true. His statement showed a lot of character. Rather than hide behind the law or language, he admitted his addiction to millions. It couldn't have been easy. What is more, rather than claim victimhood, he acknowledged his mistake. Furthermore, he made it clear that he didn't want anyone to consider him as a role model. Instead he applauded as heroes, those individuals who manage to deal with pain and adversity without resorting to drugs. That is why people listen to Rush Limbaugh. He teaches correct principles. Is he human. Yes. He made a mistake. He wasn't strong enough to withstand addiction, but that in no way minimizes the principles he discusses every day on his program. Our prayers are with him and his family as he works to break the addiction.
Most Americans believe in God . . .
but Republicans appear to hold more traditional beliefs in Him. A recent opinion poll on religous beliefs showed some interesting differences between Republicans and Democrats. For instance, it was reported that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they believe in God (by eight percentage points), in heaven (by 10 points), in hell (by 15 points), and considerably more likely to believe in the devil (by 17 points). On the other hand, Democrats were found to be more likely than Republicans to say they believe in reincarnation (by 14 percentage points), in astrology (by 14 points), in ghosts (by eight points) and UFOs (by five points). Interesting differences. Very interesting.
Marriage Protection Week
Here is an article on Marriage Protection Week. The author comments that it is sad that we even need to have such a week, but she is happy that we have a President who champions traditional marriage.
Monday, October 13, 2003
Welfare Spending Shows Huge Shift
This story reminds me of the bums at the University of Illinois. Most would ask you for money "to get something to eat." However, when you actually took them up on their request, and offered to purchase them something to eat, they wouldn't take it -- they wanted the cash.
And I thought Mark Steyn was funny.....
Wait 'til this idiot gets on the air.
Mark Steyn is hilarious.
This just in -- Mark Steyn is one of the funniest columnists around. Reminds me of the late great Michael Kelly. Steyn's latest is chock-full of zingers, deriding the remnants of what was once upon a time a great party (or so I am told). The laughs come fast and furious, but I think the funniest line is this one:
"[Arnold Schwarzenegger] probably won't make Jews wear yellow stars and gays wear pink triangles because the fabric costs for Hollywood and San Francisco alone would double the deficit."
This might be the funniest article I've read since Jonah Goldberg's awesome "Debate Fantasy."
Prophets of the new age
It appears that conservative Episcopalians are positioning themselves to take over the Episcopal church in America. Their actions are in response to the election of an openly and active homosexual as a bishop. Those who favored Gene Robinson's appointment as Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire apparently gave little consideration to the strongly held views and opinions of Anglican congregations and leaders in the worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal church is a part, on such matters. One conservative religion professor stated that "We'd rather American bishops teach the Scriptures rather than be prophets of the new age." The funny thing is, I have not read any reports where liberal Episcopalians have claimed to have received any revelation or instruction from God as to a change in His moral instructions to His followers. Instead, they simply cast aside scriptural teaching and doctrine and say "Times have changed."
It should come as no surprise that conservatives base their opposition to Gene Robinson's appointment in scripture and doctrine. It should be clear that conservatives stand on more solid ground in defending their position. I have always found it odd that the issue of homosexuality would even be open to debate within religous circles. In the secular world, you would expect there to be arguments. In fact, the most common arguments against what could be called an anti-homosexuality (to be distinguished from an anti-homosexual) position within the secular realm are that religion should not be forced upon nonbelievers or have effect upon "the state". I am mystified, however, when people attempt to claim devotion to God's word, while rejecting clear teachings on such matters. Clearly, only "prophets of a new age" could make such arguments. Unfortunately, the new age morality of these "prophets" is merely a new rationalization of an old immorality. Alas, Christ taught that before His second coming, many false prophets would arise. I think we have seen some in recent days.
Sunday, October 12, 2003
When people vote on core values, Democrats lose.
Noemie Emery has a good article on this point in the Weekly Standard.
Meanwhile, Dennis Miller has penned a hilarious article on the election of Arnold. My favorite line: "One of my few disappointments during the evening was that California’s flimsy power grid didn’t blow out in the middle of Cruz’s concession speech."
Saturday, October 11, 2003
Marriage Protection Week (Oct. 12-18)
President Bush has designated next week as Marriage Protection Week. The stated purpose of this week is to help America focus on protecting the sanctity of marriage. The President defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and he cited research showing that other family arrangements do not provide the same benefits that traditional marriage does. Of course, all of this sent liberal groups into their normal hysterics. One group stated that President Bush "is adopting the politics of division and prejudice" and engaging in "hateful and harmful" tactics. Another group claims that the President "has endorsed an organized agenda of bigotry, discrimination, exclusion and intolerance."
Do you notice that liberal groups always criticize and demean conservatives and conservative viewpoints rather than address or debate the issues in a calm rational manner? They seem to think that if they shout loud and long enough maybe then they will get their way. They characterize conservatives and conservative viewpoints in a negative manner. I know many, many people who favor traditional moral values and marriage, and the terms hateful, harmful, divisive, intolerant, bigots, etc. in no way describe such people. However, truth and common decency has never stopped the left before, why should it now. What then are we to do? All we can do is stand up for correct and good principles and try to be as kind, loving and patient as possible with those who oppose our efforts. We should , as one great man has said, disagree, without being disagreable. We cannot, however, fail to disagree when disagreement is necessary, even if those with whom we disagree will not themselves refrain from being disagreeable. I hope we all focus this week on the preservation of the bedrock of our civilization and society--the sacred union of a man and a woman and the family.
Nature doesn't care if you love it or not...
Last week, I linked to this story about a self-proclaimed bear expert killed by a couple of "harmless" black bears. Also last week, the Roy half of "Siegfried and Roy" was mauled when one of their tigers grabbed his jugular with its teeth. Several people promptly said that the tiger was "protecting" Roy, a point refuted here. These stories reminded me of this story, about the "tree-sitter" that fell out of her tree last year. What is my point? Just that nature doesn't care how much you profess to love it -- it treats you just like everybody else.
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Texas Case Raises Questions About Fetal Rights
Interesting article about a tricky legal issue -- namely, whether a set of parents has a cause of action for the allegedly negligent death of their viable unborn child.
Let Our Voices Be Heard
That is the title of a talk given by one of the Twelve Apostles, Elder M. Russell Ballard this past weekend. It discusses today's media and the family, and is excellent reading and advice, whatever your faith.
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Crack-Moms of the World, Unite!
Earlier this week, I noted the case involving Regina McKnight, the South Carolina crack-mom who killed her unborn baby by (what else?) smoking crack. This outfit supported her appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, where fortunately, they lost. In its starkest terms, the group supports the right of a mother to kill her unborn child by smoking crack -- but listen to their sales picth:
"NAPW has a vision of a world where women enjoy full personhood and where neither pregnancy nor drug use serve as an excuse to dehumanize and punish select groups of people. Our mission is to secure the human and civil rights, health, and welfare of pregnant and parenting women while protecting children from punitive and misguided state policies. We advocate on behalf of all women, especially those who are most marginalized: women of color, low-income women, and women who use drugs."
Sounds like a caring, concerned group, right? One could almost be fooled into thinking that the group actually does stand as "advocates for pregnant women." However, it is clear that the group is about one thing and one thing only -- abortion, any time, any where, for any reason. Period.
If this is not true, why not a vision where unborn women enjoy "full personhood" and are not "dehumanized"? How about not punishing the unborn, a select group of people? Why not "protect children from punitive and misguided state policies," as well as their crack-smoking mothers? Finally, why not "advocate on behalf of all women" -- including the unborn? This group should call itself National Advocates for Homicidally Irresponsible Pregnant Women.
NRO covers the media aspects. Donald Lambro writes that Gray's fade bodes well for the GOP next year. Hugh Hewitt agrees, and notes that the Dem's heads remain planted firmly in the sand.
Rush may be right . . . yet again. Many articles have been written about Rush Limbaugh's opinion that Donavan McNabb is the most overrated player in the NFL. Some (many) disagreed with his basic opinion that Donovan McNabb is overrated. Many, many others called Rush a racist for suggesting that one reason McNabb is hyped so much is because the media wants black quarterbacks to succeed. Clearly, Rush is not a racist. Nor would a rational person construe his comments as remotely racist. Rush was not suggesting that black quarterbacks are inferior to white quarterbacks. Instead, he claimed that the media is overly concerned with the performance of black quarterbacks, that the media injects a racial component into its reporting, and thus, unduly lauds some players for their achievements when such accolades may be unwarranted. Many (mostly liberals) could not handle Rush's observation. However, research suggests that the media may in fact hype black quarterbacks, just as Rush said it did. Sadly, while great inroads have been made toward achieving a more color-blind society, we still have a long road ahead of us.
Give us your tired, your poor, your allegedly abused illegal immigrants..... The "Ninth Jerkit Court of Schlemeals" (as Mike Savage would call it) has ruled that under the Violence Against Women Act, an illegal immigrant cannot be deported because she alleged abuse by her husband in Mexico.
Interestingly, the abuse did not even take place in this country. In fact, the only interaction in this country was when the allegedly abusive husband telephoned his wife (in Los Angeles) from Mexico, crying and begging forgiveness. She fell for it, and returned to Mexico where the abuse began again.
Addressing this, the court stated that "Although Hernandez was not battered in the United States, the interaction that took place in the United States presents a well-recognized stage within the cycle of violence, one which is both psychologically and practically crucial to maintaining the batterer's control. We conclude that an abuser's behavior during the 'contrite' phase of domestic violence may, and in circumstances such as those present here does, constitute 'extreme cruelty.' "
Does this mean that any woman, from any country, who manages to smuggle herself across the border must be allowed to remain if she alleges abuse? Isn't that a bit crazy?
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
On the recall . . . Fox News just reported that it appears that Arnold has in fact been elected as governor of the great State of California by an overwhelming margin. Now, the state Democratic leaders are engaged in vigorous debate about whether they will take the new governor on "with brass knuckles" or try to get along to fix the mess that the state is in. Is it just me, or does this strike anyone else as absolutely ridiculous? That is precisely why California is in shambles. Democrats are so focused on political power and moving forward a liberal socialist agenda regardless of the consequences, that they have to debate about whether or not to fix the problems staring them in the face. Hopefully, this post will remind me to comment more tomorrow on the whole recall debacle and the purpose of political parties.
Marriage Amendment, yes. Over at "Southern Appeal," Steve has a good post on this topic. (Under "A brief respite and a few parting words.")
Not yet eaten by bears, but..... This family that owns land in the middle of a national park may have bigger problems -- the government.
Life tenure for bitter morons? Several Democrats still can't get over the fact that they no longer have a stranglehold on power in Washington, D.C. One, John Conyers says that he stays on as a representative in hopes that "next year we can defeat this president and get rid of John Ashcroft." What a bunch of babies -- hard to believe they get re-elected year after year after year after year....
Rehnquist's Court and the Living Constitution Law professor Eric R. Claeys has written an interesting essay by that name.
Apparently, these Bears missed a memo... The co-author of "Among Grizzlies: Living With Wild Bears in Alaska," who spent a dozen summers living among Alaska's brown bears and once called them harmless, has been killed and eaten by two of the "harmless" bears. Apparently, the man would name and even touch the bears, and was once filmed crawling on the ground singing as he approached several bears. Silly old bears! Don't they know that they are harmless? Perhaps the bears grew tired of wondering what an idiot tastes like.
In somewhat related news, a golden bear from California announced that she had been groped by Arnold Schwarzenegger 21 years ago. Shortly thereafter, Gray Davis said he would sign a bill allowing all bears -- whether black, golden or otherwise -- to obtain drivers licenses.
The sissies in Congress need to Act: This article addresses a very relevant topic -- the usurpation of legislative authority and functions by the courts. (I have commented on this in the context of the sodomy case here.) So why won't Congress step up and push the courts back into their proper role in our constitutional system? It's a legitimate question.
Recall Today! Who do you vote for in this mess? I would hope that people would vote for the best man for the job, Tom McClintock. Sadly, it looks as though Schwarzenegger will win. It is funny, though, that we have reached this day, and I am certain that Governor Davis never expected to be facing removal. In that sense, the recall is one of the best things that has happened in politics for some time.
Monday, October 06, 2003
Makes you proud to be a Mormon: "Several speakers during the two-day conference noted that the LDS Church will continue to stand firm on moral positions, despite societal pressure to the contrary." Hey, somebody's gotta do it!
Crack-mom denied: Today the Supreme Court turned down a petition by a woman whose drug habit caused her baby to be stillborn. I have commented previously on this case. It is kind of sad that we must count it as a victory that the self-appointed Masters of the Universe are not yet willing to declare homicide by crack-smoking a constitutional right.
Re. Mel Gibson's Passion movie. The way Mel Gibson has been and is being treated over his movie depicting the last twelve hours of Christ's life is one of today's real travesties. According to the linked story, many around Hollywood now consider Gibson to be "crazy" and "out on a limb." Those who place no faith in God cannot understand that someone might rationally believe in a higher power. Regardless of whether a major distributor picks up the Passion, it will likely be an extremely successful movie. Most Christians do believe that the account of Christ's life is not just a story, but is historical fact. We should be grateful that Mel Gibson chose not to listen to the revisionists in dramatizing the most important events in human history. Newsweek: Mel Gibson's Film Can't Get a Distributor
Arnold Schwarzenegger should change his party affiliation -- surely, if he were a liberal Democrat (which he is, in all but name) perhaps those attacking him for "groping" women would become his biggest supporters. Is there any distinction between these allegations and those leveled at Bill Clinton while still president? Anyone remember Kathleen Willey? Paula Jones? Juanita Broadrick?
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Even though they don't look much alike, I can't help but think of Warren Beatty when I see General Wesley Clark. I'm not sure why, but his campaign reminds me of a couple years ago, when for a short time Warren Beatty was being taken seriously as a possible candidate. Neither of these guys had or has any chance of actually being president, but no one would tell them. Sad, really, to allow people to make such fools of themselves.
Friday, October 03, 2003