Breaking Bread December 28, 2005Posted by Administrator in Family.
add a comment
The never-ending quest for food tends to distract a person.
Sound crazy? Allow me to elucidate.
I know we are a long way from our slash and burn agriculture ancestors, and not much farther than that from our hunter/gatherer ancestors. Both cultures focussed exclusively on the acquisition and consumption of food, so that one might live another day to continue that pursuit.
Supposedly, we have advanced from those cultures. And in many ways, we have. We now neglect meals so that we might work longer hours so that we might acquire the BMW/X-Box extravaganza/5000 sq. foot home/college funds/retirement nest eggs. We still work like loons for what we desire. It is simply that our desires have changed.
Yet, there is something that got missed along the way. The joy of sharing a meal together has become tarnished, if not outright lost, in much of today's culture.
A priest whom I deeply respect sermonizes at least once a month on the importance of families having a meal together at least once a day, no matter how hectic the schedules are.
Many families nowadays say that this is impossible. We are lucku enough in the hoody household to share dinners together once a day.
Yet, even these meals can chafe after awhile. Questions harass the father (HOW will I get the money to feed all these mouths adequately) and the mother (WHAT am I going to cook TODAY???). Don't get me wrong. The meals and fellowship are fine; but those lingering questions can dampen some of the wonder of the fellowship.
Then, with the holidays, comes the company. In this case, my in-laws AND my wife's eldest brother, wife, and three younger children (all girls aged 15-24). My brother-in-law is the CEO of a very healthy, mid-sized company from the east coast. He lives very comfortably; nice new house in a tony, upper-class town in Connecticut. Not way up there, but definitely out of my league in the socioeconomic food chain.
So. The first day, my lovely wife cooks up an outstanding meal of chicken parmesan. We spend much time making sure the plates are all just so, that the food is just right (not too hot, not too cold). . .and then we find we don't have enough ROOM to seat everyone. . .so the younger boys get exiled to the kitchen. . .where they clamor for assistance througout the meal. . .keeping mostly my wife on the run.
Was it a good meal? Sure. But I couldn't help but run the occasional bill through my head (MAN it costs a lot to feed 15 people). Do I sound begrudging? Please, forgive me. These are not thoughts that I either welcome or encourage. We are simply on a modest budget, and we need to be careful. I'd do it all over again the same way given a second chance.
And my wife was never really able to RELAX and share time with her family. She was being Martha, responding to the needs of the family.
So, we collectively decided (everyone. My wife, me, the in-laws) that we would do it differently the second night. My brother-in-law at first suggested -on HIS tab- that we go to a rather upscale restaurant. My wife and I thanked him graciously but demurred, as we have two kids under 7 who would not only dislike the atmosphere, but probably hate the food as well.
We then suggested a somewhat more modest Italian place, despite the fact that my in-laws area somewhat snobbish concerning Italian food. But, that is where we went.
And I discovered for the first time the real value in breaking bread with others, free of worry. We didn't have to cook, we could order whatever we wished and didn't have to worry the bill (as my brother-in-law assured us repeatedly that once in awhile he could manage this sort of shindig with no worries.). And we had a ball. Great conversation, great food, and finally being able to catch up with these relatives that we had not seen -in some cases- in over 10 years.
In terms of "breaking bread", in that sense of it being good food with good friends, it was the best meal I have had in quite some time.
And a lesson for me that my more "mundane" meals at home need to have that same care-free attitude, and to truly cherish and enjoy the company of others.
Many, many thanks to my brother-in-law Carl and his bountiful generosity in allowing such a meal to take place.
Pictures may be forthcoming.
A Blessed Christmas to All December 24, 2005Posted by Administrator in Catholicism.
add a comment
Dover, ID, legislating from the Bench and the Tyranny of Belief December 22, 2005Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mechanistic Relativism, Politics.
So Judge Jones has allowed the 11 complaining families in Dover, NH to abrogate the caveat challenging the total validity of Evolution as taught in their biology classes. As far as Dover itself is concerned; whoop-de-doo. But, apparently the Judge went beyond the concerns of Dover and wrote a scathing ruling designed to insure that no other school district in the country can adopt any such measure in the future.
First Things calls this sort of ruling "the judicial usurpation of politics." And they are correct in doing so. But here I am going to attempt to show that Jones not only usurped local, municipal authority as well as that of state and federal legislatures, I intend to provide a framework showing that Judge Jones actually endorsed a religion in his ruling. How? Stay tuned.
Before we begin, let us define some terms.
Religion from Dictionary.com:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Note the bold text. That is the definition that will define the term for this essay.
A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.
The entire definition will serve admirably, thought note the bold type. It comes into play later on.
n : a modern Darwinian theory that explains new species in terms of genetic mutations.
Note this seems to contradict the bold line from the definition of Darwinism. Much of the essay will revolve around this seeming contradiction.
Irreducible Complexity (or irreducibly complex systems) from Darwin's Black Box:
a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
There are any number of Intelligent Design sites out there where one can get a handle on the theory as presented. Similarly, there are many sites devoted to its debunking. I am going to present my own read on Intelligent Design that is not explicitly stated in the current debate (at least, I have not seen it):
Intelligent Design (ID) holds that some type of First Cause is involved in the creation of life on earth. It may work in conjunction with Darwinism and Natural Selection, but does not claim that these mechanisms are the sole means of explanation for life on earth. It does not claim that the First Cause is the Monotheitic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
In short, ID can embrace both evolution and "creationism" in the sense of the latter as some-THING set things in motion, and evolution may well be the (or one of the) mechanisms that this some-THING put into play.
Detractors of ID, including Judge Jones, insist that such a claim violates good science; that it injects religion into the science (especially the biology) classroom. I have yet to see a genuine ID proponent on the level of Michael Behe claim that it is the Judeo-Christian god that is the designer behind it all, so I fail to see how this is an embracing of religion. If anything, it simply states that we do not know who/what is responsible, only that some-WHO or -WHAT is. In short, it refuses to admit that blind chance is responsible for life on earth. To claim simply that "we do not know what causes this. It could well be an outside agency" is a LONG way from saying: "We think that Christianity should rule the three branches of US government". But in the end, this latter claim more closely resembles the ruling of Jones than the former. Yet the former is in truth, what ID claims.
While it is the evolutionists, specifically the neo-Darwinists, that insist it all is due to blind chance.
And here is the core of the conflict. Boil it all down and it comes down to this:
ID: Something other than chance is responsible for life on earth.
Neo-Darwinist (ND):Chance and chance alone was responsible for life on earth.
Undergirding both positions are opposing philosophical assertions:
ID: God is Real.
Neo-Darwinism: There is no God.
Hence the tremendous kerfuffle. ID detractors say that IDer's dare to reintroduce God into the science classroom, where He has been safely ejected from since the Scopes trial.
Practically speaking, there is little need for such tremendous negative response. As mentioned above, ID makes no claim as to the identity of the Designer. But Neo-Darwinists refuse to allow even the hint of uncertainty to enter the debate, because to do so opens the door to what they fear the most: That a Designer DOES in fact exist, and they are quick to leap to the conclusion that this deisgner MUST be God. Now, the reasons for this basic atheism are myriad and not to be entered into here. But it is important to remember that this belief that God does NOT exist is central to the issue at hand.
And it is that very belief that leads to my conclusion that Judge Jones has in fact ruled in favor of a religion. An entirely secular one.
ND has always claimed that science is on their side. That they claim knowledge and certainty from naturalistic observation and through replicative experimentation. Whereas ID and its supposed predecessor creationism works solely on belief -never scientifically substantiated- that God created all, possibly even in the seven-day work week.
Yet science leaves a couple of interesting holes for the committed NDer to explain. Two examples:
1. The lack of many transitional species in the fossil record. Recall that Darwin originally stated that current biological species came about from "the natural selection of small, inherited variations". The lack of numerous transitional species that would seem to be necessary for the evolution into many current species is signficantly challenged by this reality. The solution offered are as follows:
a): We simply have not completed the fossil record (oddly enough, this one is not in fashion)
b): The changes are actually due to significant mutations in between species.
b) is the reason formally adopted by NDers to explain the problem. It allows them to maintain their grip on total secularism, while not repuduiating their saint in Darwin. But this assertion has one serious flaw in it: It is pure speculation. There are no examples of this radical mutation occuring in nature. If there were, you had better believe that this discovery would have been trumpeted to the heavens by NDers as the Final Nail in the creationish coffin.
But the evidence is not there. Random, radical mutation is a simple belief, with no support either in the fossil record or in experimentation (and one would think that experimentation would be conducted in this arena).
(The suggestion, as cleverly illustrated by Garry Trudeau in Doonesbury that antibiotic-resistant bacteria found in hospital environments is an example of this mutation is misleading. These bacteria do not exist due to extreme mutation. They exist through simple natural selection. One must remember that bacteria go through hundreds of not thousands of generations per year, allowing for much swifter response to a changing environment than complex, multi-celled creatures, beginning with plants. Bacteria have not mutated, they have evolved.)
Mutation is a belief in the ND cosmology.
The second example is the existence of irreducibly complex systems in nature. There are myriad examples; flagellum in bacteria, wing systems, the poison secretion system in the bombardier beetle. Even the existence of the cell itself is in many ways irreducibly complex. How does the cell, the basic unit of life, spontaneously develop the necessary items for existence: A membrane, nucleus, DNA package and means of sustenance? A highly complex system.
NDers attempt to dismiss this notion as unworkable. "Complex systems are really not that complex" is the essential refrain. If true, then let us see the evidence. Show how these systems evolve in the world. Or again, better still, shows us in the lab. Establish the environment where cells started out, and let's see them come about.
This, too, is not to be found. If it were, you had best believe, once again, that such a discovery would be trumpted to the heavens, as this would be the stake in the heart of ID.
But simply claiming that irreducible systems do not exist is akin to claiming that the sky is actually red, while our senses clearly tell us otherwise.
For the NDer, irreducibly complex systems do not exist. Despite their obvious existence, NDers insist that they do not. The non-existence of irreducibly complex systems is simply a matter of belief in the NDer cosmology.
In looking at the ND response to holes in the fossil record and irreducibly complex systems, NDers forsake their previous adherence to radical empirical evidence. They begin to recite cant, belief. "These concepts cannot exist, because they repudiate our belief in evolution. Because we believe evolution to be true, these concepts must not exist." But these are not empirical data points. These are bald assertions, beliefs masquerading -badly- as scientific facts.
When one boils down the ND position, one finds that they rely very heavily upon likely scientific theory liberally sprinkled with random beliefs that support holes or outright contradictions in their belief system.
Let us revisit that definition of religion: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." For NDers, the cause or principle involved is the denial of a Designer, and evolution, however flawed it may be, serves as the primary apologist for their belief. And it is taught, by government fiat, in science classes across the nation. To say that slavish devotion to evolution -sans a possible higher power- is science is no better than claiming that raw creationism is science. Both are predicated on belief, not "fact".
All I am suggesting is that science teachers -and districts- be allowed to put out there the possibility -nothing more- that a higher power is responsible for life on earth.
So long as ND relies upon the belief that holes in the fossil record will be proven true later on, or that irreducibly complex systems will eventually be proven to have evolved is no better than claiming that the Book of Revelation shows how and when the world will end.
Both are cant.
Both are belief.
Both are religion.
So, I call on Justice Jones to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools, based on the current priniciple of separation of church and state. In this case, the Church of Radical Secularism, the belief that God cannot exist.
Am I being ironic? Yes. Purposely. Evolution is a valuable means of understanding the mechanisms of life. But it does nothing to explain first causes. ND's claim to "truth", so long as they continue to blindly assert truths with no scientific basis in fact, in the end is based in as much science as creationism.
aparentslove.com December 20, 2005Posted by Administrator in Catholicism.
add a comment
I normally would not post this sort of thing, but I came across this by serendipity/Holy Spirit just today.
Visit this site. The young man has the humble job of delivering Coke products to our school, and we discovered that his wife was very recently diagnosed with cancer. His father (the woman’s father-in-law) established this site to solicit donations and prayers for the woman.
I have no brief on the woman herself, and am not soliciting donations, but I do feel compelled simply to pass the site and ask you to at least pray for the woman and her family, and to pass on donations if you see fit.
Musings on the Distaff December 17, 2005Posted by Administrator in Uncategorized.
add a comment
Point to ponder: We (males) cannot comprehend the reality of having a portion of our anatomy OUT THERE for all the world to see as a sexual object (or objects). Ironically, tho’ our “equipment” is decidedly more “out there” than the complementary equipment of our female compatriots, there is no single feature of our various (clothed) physiques that can be considered plainly sexual in nature as are the female breasts. Sure, there are some women who will say it is the shoulders, or the butt, or the face, or the hands of the man that turns them on. Those answers may vary -radically- from woman to woman.
But talk to a man, and he will cite one of three things in addition to the woman’s face (or a combination of all three): legs, butt, and breasts.
Damned few will say that they never consider the breasts in appraising the relative value of feminine pulchritude. (I base this decidedly unscientific statement on my own adolescence, coupled with conversations with various men over the course of that same adolescence, generally ending around the time I met my wife.)
So, for women, they have to contend with the reality that many men are scoping their breasts, comparing them with other women, and rating the woman’s relative attractiveness and sexual worthiness based on their breasts.
And they cannot hide them (especially if one is amply endowed).
Why does he bring this up? I have pondered the issue off and on for many years: How do women deal with this? It would drive me personally insane if people were looking at some portion of my anatomy when talking to me rather than my face.
(An aside: In one of the more hilarious moments of my career, I split my pants [in the crotch] last year. . .unknowingly. A number of my students snickered at my ignorance for awhile. . .until I demanded an explanation for the repeated guffaws. . .and I was informed of my handicap. I simply sat down, crossed my legs, and continued teaching until the end of the period. At which point I changed into shorts and T-shirt that I conveniently had with me. What unnerved me was having virutally every student for the remainder of the day talk to me first looking at my crotch instead of my eyes. As a result, I got a small glimpse into the life of a girl whose breasts cannot be hidden by any amount of shirt, underwear or sweater material. Unpleasant.)
My question: Women, how do you tolerate this? It is a fundamental objectification of your self; you are not being viewed as a person by the staring male, you have become an object. I ask not out of outrage, or challenging you to be more confrontational. I am genuinely curious. Guys just don’t have to put up with this sort of thing.
And on another note, fashion is exacerbating the problem by draping words (often provocative phrases) right around breast level. . .and now, even worse, on the butts of pants; thereby deliberately drawing attention to those portions of the anatomy that objectify the person.
Another aside: There was a woman I once supervised who ran the daycare center on the site of the school I was principal of. I came into her office, and she was wearing a shirt that had pictures on the front of some of the kids from the center, and I was looking intently at the shirt to see if I could identify the faces on it. The fact that these pictures were also at breast-level on this woman was the farthest thing from my mind. After about 5 seconds of this, she coldly stated: “Can I HELP you?” At which point, I recoiled with embarassment as I realized that it appeared I was scoping her chest and explained that I was merely trying to identify the kids on her shirt. At which point SHE became embarassed at misconstruing my intent and we had a good laugh over it. But even this innocent anecdote can help illustrate the larger issue: How does one cope with a part of the body that is so often considered as sexual, yet often cannot be hidden? Guys, we can’t grasp it.
Women, can you help? Tell not only how you cope, but perhaps get some feelings out there on how unpleasant it may be. . .so that at least SOME of us can get a better understanding and maybe learn to objectify a little less.
Another aside comes to mind of a young woman I know (NOT one that I teach), now a high school senior, who actually enjoys occasionally dressing in such as a way as to accent her rather significant decolletage (cleavage), then going to a party and seeing how many guys she can get to get her a drink, a plate of goodies. . .in essence, she tries to see how many guys can she get to eat out of her hand when she uses her body in such a way. And she leaves all of them dangling, in the end, sweetly wishing them all a “good night” and she then goes home. I know she does this on purpose, as I have observed her at such functions, saying to me, “Watch this”, and she’ll go over to some unsuspecting guy, engage him in 2 minutes of nothing conversation, while he fum’fuhs and tries to both look her in the eye and down her cleavage at the same time.
What to make of this, the use of ones physical assets almost as an interpersonal weapon (or bribe, I suppose. . .)?
Tookie Redux December 13, 2005Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Liberal Hypocrisy, Politics.
add a comment
It amazes me how little I enjoy agreeing with agitprop democrats on ANYTHING, when they insist on getting the reasons for their positions wrong, and then compound the error by spouting off in public about it.
Yes, I am still opposed to the execution of Tookie Williams; but I vehemently DISAGREE with the foolishness drooling from the mouths of the following:
Mike Farrell, formerly of MASH:
"I am saddened that we are continuing to demean human life by pretending that we are God and making determinations to kill other individuals for what it is claimed they have done," former "M*A*S*H" star and death penalty opponent Mike Farrell told CNN.
He was doing OK here, until he started to babble about what Tookie was "claimed to have done." Barking up the wrong tree, Mike.
". . .to choose revenge over redemption and to use Tookie Williams as a trophy in the flawed system.To kill him is a way of making politicians look tough. It does not make it right. It does not make any of us safer. It does not make any of us more secure."
Horsefeathers. Political blather. Ahnold was probably responding to the appeals of the vicitms's families. While understandable, their thirst for revenge serves them no purpose. Jesse says nothing about this. Furthermore, Jesse doesn't even know the names of Tookie's victims.
They are: ALBERT OWENS
No doubt, their families have been grieving for some time, and my heart goes out to them. But killing their tormentor is no solution to their grief.
Sister Helen Prejean, a Roman Catholic nun and prominent death penalty opponent, compared the death penalty to "gang justice."
"Gang justice is, if you kill a member of our gang, we kill you — and don't tell me anything about how you changed your life or what you're going to do," she said. "You kill, and we kill you. And that's what the United States of America is doing with this."
Sr. Helen may be closest to the truth, but she descends into demagoguery in using the term "gang justice." Again, this is said to inflame, not to educate. The death penalty is not "gang justice." It is Old Testament justice.
God, then there's this:
Williams had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize in Literature by an array of college professors, a Swiss lawmaker and others.
What IDIOTS are nominating that man for Nobel prizes? It is INSANE!!!!
I detest the idea that I might become besmirched in agreeing with these MoonBat Lefties on capital punishment. Sorry, peoples, but I do not share the logic with any of the above.
My only prayer is that few -if any- of the rest of us do.
Links from CNN here.
Brilliant and thoughtful piece on the same subject by the Anchoress here.
The Death of Tookie Williams December 12, 2005Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Liberal Hypocrisy, Politics.
add a comment
CNN reports here that Ahnold denied clemency to the reputed founder of the Crips. Stanley "Tookie" Williams is scheduled to be executed about 8 hours from now as this is written.
(Edited for events)
The usual mouthpieces, such as Jesse Jackson, are slamming Ahnold, saying he is more concerned with votes and looking tough than justice.
A local leader of the NAACP states that there needed to be more time to investigate whether or not Tookie actually killed four people in 1979. (If we do not know by now, and there is no exculpatory DNA evidence or another witness available, this comment then becomes known as a "red herring of the first water.")
The NAACP person is at sea. And tho' I feel that Jesse is babbling this mostly because he can't stand to not see his name in print, -and I hate to say it- I agree in principle with what Jesse is saying. Killing Tookie accomplished nothing. It taught Tookie nothing; it did nothing to assist the families of his victims (though this is popular rhetoric in support of executions) and I do not believe that it deters other criminals. Serious criminals have faulty executive brain functions. Asking them to reconsider their actions in light of a possible future execution is unrealistic. They simply do not look that far into the future.
All executions do is forward the Revenge Ethic. Eye for an Eye. Old Testament justice.
The Church has teachings out there that suggests that the State has a right to capital punishment when there is no other way to keep the person from killing again. So, that means that there is no reason for executions in the US. Because we CAN keep these people from killing again.
Please keep in mind that this position I have staked means that Hitler, Stalin, any other Nuremburg defendant, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, none of them deserve(d) execution.
Neither did Tookie.
Condolences in advance to my normally conservative brethren who are on the other side of the aisle from me on this one. . . but I cannot square capital punishment with the Pro-Life ethic.
Caligula continues to advocate for his legacy of Shame December 9, 2005Posted by Administrator in Global Warming, Liberal Hypocrisy, Politics.
1 comment so far
Clinton has no shame. It has been well known ever since he had the gall to closet himself with a White House intern (abuse of office? Anyone?), perform sexual improprieties, then lie to the American public about it -even to the point of impeachment- that Bill Clinton is devoid of the character trait of humility.
This further illustrates the point. In Clinton's fevered effort to rehabilitate his image from one of "Impeached Former President" to one of "World-Wide Ambassador" (Ambassador to what?, one wants to ask. Or even more frightening, Ambassador FROM What, but I digress. . .), he breaks yet another rule in criticizing his successor.
Since coming out of his wisely self-imposed media exile this last year, Clinton has been everywhere; arranging for tsunami relief, commenting on Katrina, hosting conferences on various topics. . .and assuring listeners that he is the guy to lead the world into its next phase of greatness. . .whatever that might be. And now, right on schedule, dumping on Bush Jr.
The man simply cannot stop advocating for himself. He cannot rest without knowing that he has done absolutely everything in his power to insure that his legacy is one of greatness. I suspect that the only way he will ever stop is if someone finally invents the Time Machine, and transports Governor Caligula to the 22nd Century where he will find his Ideal Epitaph: "Bill Clinton: Savior of the World."
And he would be satisfied taking a title usually reserved for Jesus Christ, then. . .FINALLY, he would go into that quiet retirement that he should have gone into back when he was abusing lobbyists and staffers as governor of Arkansas.
And of course, he does this by continuing to back the environmental recipe du jour, global warming. CNN provides the no-questions-asked backdrop supporting Billary in his rants; including the still tired line that "climate change is inevitable." For example:
"There's no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real, acclerating and caused by human activities," said Clinton, whose address was interrupted repeatedly by enthusiastic applause.
"We are uncertain about how deep and the time of arrival of the consequences, but we are quite clear they will not be good."
More of the same old moldy bald assertions that are not backed up by hard science. More on that in a bit.
CNN continues the paean with the following, unattributed paragraph.
A broad scientific consensus agrees that these gases accumulating in the atmosphere, byproducts of automobile engines, power plants and other fossil fuel-burning industries, contributed significantly to the past century's global temperature rise of 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.7 degree Celsius). Continued warming is expected to disrupt the global climate.
When you see stuff like this, it is the tip-off that we are reading material that represents the views -and in all likelihood was written by- of the CNN.com editorial staff.
As for the science, let us go through it. One. More. Time.
There IS an increase in CO2 emissions this past century. No debate there.
There is a measured increase in temperature during that same century. But there IS debate as to whether or not that rise is due to actual atmospheric averages, or simple increases in urban temperatures due to local land use, rather than actual atmospheric increases. But, for the sake of argument, let us say that this IS due to atmospheric increase. How do we know that the CO2 emissions are causing the increase?
Answer: We do not. We CAN NOT. We have not enough baseline data, and in no way can we gather that data over such a short period of time (as in centuries. This kind of predictive validity requires measurements taken on the order of millenia.).
What we ARE faced with is a very compelling correlation. But correlation does not prove causation.
So, what do the scientists say? This "A broad scientific consensus" states what? Honestly, they ought to state that they know NOTHING for certain. They have some very compelling guesses, but that is all they are. Wild. Ass. Guesses.
Does this mean we should not be concerned about CO2 emissions? Of course not.
But for the last time, STOP THE CHICKEN LITTLE SCREECHING UNTIL YOU KNOW FOR SURE!!
And we do not KNOW. Not yet. We may never know. Until then, stop screaming in absolutes. Stop saying "WE'RE DOOMED!!!" "WE KNOW CLIMATE WILL CHANGE!!!" It is a RISK, not a CERTAINTY!!
So, what do we have here? A convicted felon, who is also a disbarred attorney, a former American President, one who is one of only two ever impeached in history, the only one whom sitting Supreme Court justices refused to be seen in public with due to their objections of his abuse of the law, now badmouthing his successor, using bad science and a fawning media, all to shore up his own overweening ego. Bad science that serves only to fatten his already obese ego and whip the proles into an ignorant frenzy.
My dad keep telling me Clinton isn't stupid. I fail to understand how a SMART man can't keep his willie in his pocket when around fat young interns. But I will agree with Dad that Caligula is certainly cunning. He knows how to manipulate the media and the public.
Mel Gibson planning holocaust mini-series December 7, 2005Posted by Administrator in Drama, Liberal Hypocrisy.
add a comment
CNN link here.
Innocuous enough, I suppose. He is certainly free to make films on whatever subject he chooses, and this is still a worthy one.
"For (Gibson) to be associated with this movie is cause for concern," Rafael Medoff, director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Melrose Park, Pennsylvnaia, told the Times. "He needs to come clean that he repudiates Holocaust denial."
Hmmm. Exactly how does one set oneself up as the arbiter of who may make Holocaust films and who may not? Furthermore, since when does the deranged beliefs of the father disqualify the son? Hutton Gibson may be unbalanced. Does this automatically mean that Mel is as well?
Can you say, "gross generalization"?
A further concern is the suggestion that Gibson's (Mel's) supposed anti-semitism disqualifies him. He is not an anti-Semite, but set that aside. Is the Holocaust reserved strictly for Jews? Even Elie Wiesel, the premier Nazi hunter and speaker for Jewish misery in the Holocaust challenged the Jewish attempt to monopolize the misery.(ARRRRGHH!!!! I cannot FIND the quote, so I will have to paraphrase!!) He said something to the effect of: "Yes, 6 million Jews died. But so did 6 million more Catholics, Gypsies, Slavs and others. Is theie suffering somehow less than ours?"
I must applaud the industry response to the IHS comment:
Quinn Taylor, ABC's senior vice president in charge of television movies, had a harsh reply for early critics."Shut up and wait to see the movie, and then judge,"
. Lovely response, that.
Out. Fricking. RAGEOUS!!!!! December 1, 2005Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Liberal Hypocrisy, Politics.
add a comment
Informative post here.
So, what these fools are arguing is that holding the woman accountable discourages her from getting prenatal help?
Excuse me. How would have prenatal help "helped" here? If the woman were to have gone in at all, she would never have listened to any advice about meth use.
OR, we are making the even less valuable argument that we then may have to go after the cigarette smokers and coffee and booze drinkers?
HELLO!!! IF these uses harm the baby, then YES we need to hold the mothers accountable.
Let us dispense with the sophistical torquings. The reality is that if this conviction is upheld, women not only are going to be held accountable for what they do while pregnant, but we then inch all that closer to the reality that the fetus has legal rights. And by any means available, that has to be prevented by the MoonBat Left. (Starring in Left Field for the MoonBat Left, virtually all judicial bodies west of the Rocky Mountains).