My friends and I went to see The Lake House after church yesterday. The theater was packed, about 90% women and the tiny minority of men whose reason for coming was to carry the drinks and snacks into the theater for their wives. Definitely a chick flick.
But this movie took the story into territory that chick flicks normally don't go. This one played with time. And playing with time presents a challenge to storytellers that can never quite be resolved.
Whether or not the viewer cares about the lack of total resolution is the mark of a good storyteller (or a good movie). The movies, Timecop and Back to the Future had an identical ending (the hero returns to a better "present" time), but I never noticed the glaring question in Back to the Future until after I saw Timecop and that same glaring question jumped out at me: What happened to the hero who lived and remembered all the events in the new, better "present"?
Back to the Future is the better movie, because I didn't care about the details.
Which brings me back to The Lake House.
As soon as the end credits came up, an older woman in the row behind us said, "That's the dumbest movie I've ever seen."
I replied, "No, it's not."
There were five women in our group, and we were split 3 - 2 in favor of it, and I had just as much fun after the movie debating it as I did watching it.
You know how it's going to end, just by watching the commercials for it on TV. What you don't know is how they'll manage to get there. Still, one friend (who didn't like it--this is the same friend who loves Frequency--go figure) said, "But they didn't tell you at the end what happened!"
I replied, "They lived happily ever after. That's all that matters!"
Here's my recommendation:
If you're the type of person who watches movies by letting them just happen, without trying really hard to figure things out, and you like chick flicks, by all means go see this movie. I loved it.
If you're not much for the whole "rifts in the space-time continuum" concept, or if you're disappointed when you can figure things out before the end, go see something else.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Happy Father's Day
My dad liked ducks. He liked them for their waddle, and he liked them for their quack.
Last year, when my friends and I were at the zoo's hippopotamus exhibit, I took several pictures of the bellies of the ducks swimming on the surface, because I knew my dad would love them. I planned to send the pictures to him. But that was the same day he died.
I realize last year was my first Father's Day without him, but things were still such a blur, that I hardly noticed. This year is the first Father's Day I'm aware of being without him, and I expecteded to treat the day as the same as any other, but I couldn't.
On Thursday or Friday I was walking over to Quizno's to grab some lunch, and I started thinking about my dad. I miss him. What I miss about him the most is being able to talk things through with him to help me figure out what I should do--whether my ideas are good ones or foolish ones. I need that right now, and I haven't found anyone yet who can fill that void.
But that's not my favorite quality of his. What I loved best about him was his delight in life (especially about ducks). But I don't miss that very much, because I carry that with me. It's probably the best gift he gave me, besides life itself and the knowledge of his love for me.
My dad was a good man, faithful to my mom, devoted to the Lord, and ready to help anyone who needed it. He spent twenty years in the Navy, most of that on submarines, and ended his worklife as a substance-abuse-rehab counselor. In retirement, he was active with Point Man Ministries (website plays music) helping Korean War veterans, and then he worked with The Gideons.
His quiet peace is something I hope to achieve someday, but that day may not come until I meet him again. Until then, I hold his memory close in my heart.
May you have a happy Father's Day, either as dads with your children, or with your dad, or with the memory of the best of who your father was.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Episcopal Church Condemns the Bible
Hans Zeiger, of VirtueOnline, published an article Thursday (HT: WorldNetDaily) on a resolution passed by the Episcopal Church.
The 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church today passed a resolution essentially condemning the Bible as an "anti-Jewish" document. Not only does the resolution aim to address perceptions of anti-Jewish prejudice in the Bible and Episcopal liturgy, but it suggests that such prejudice is actually "expressed in...Christian Scriptures and liturgical texts."
Both houses of the Episcopal Church Convention passed the resolution, including a 68 percent approval in the House of Deputies on Thursday.
I'm not an Episcopalian. I've never considered becoming an Episcopalian, and this seals the deal for good.
The mainline denominations have been shrinking as they've moved more and more into theologically liberal territory. When there's no difference between the church and the world, then the people of the world have no reason to want to become part of the church.
Condemning the Bible as "anti-Jewish" is counter-productive, and it's flat-out wrong. The Bible is the story of God's love for the world, expressed through His special relationship with the Jewish people. In both the Old and the New Testaments, He makes His love for the Jewish people clear.
The Rev. Ruth A Meyers of the Diocese of Chicago, Secretary of the Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy and Music, explained to the House of Deputies why her committee had expanded the wording in the language to include not only prejudice in "liturgical texts," but also in "Christian scriptures."
"We did have a question about whether Scripture itself uses anti-Jewish prejudice," Meyers said. Referring specifically to the Gospel account of the crucifixion, she added, "That scriptural text...has in fact stirred anti-Jewish prejudice and resulted in significant violence toward Jewish people."
To blame the Bible because in the past people have used the crucifixion story as an excuse for their anti-Semitism, is foolhardy at best. At worst, it displays a willful ignorance of Scripture, coupled with an arrogance at presuming to know best what should and shouldn't be accepted as canon.
The crucifixion story places the blame on Jews and Gentiles alike. The Jews asked for the death of Jesus, and the Romans provided it without any legal reason to do so.
But more than blaming everyone, the Gospels clearly state that nobody took Jesus' life from Him. He gave it freely.
The doubts about what has traditionally been accepted as Christian doctrine have been growing in the more liberal denominations. By passing this resolution, the Episcopal church has placed itself squarely outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.
Let the worshiper beware.
The 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church today passed a resolution essentially condemning the Bible as an "anti-Jewish" document. Not only does the resolution aim to address perceptions of anti-Jewish prejudice in the Bible and Episcopal liturgy, but it suggests that such prejudice is actually "expressed in...Christian Scriptures and liturgical texts."
Both houses of the Episcopal Church Convention passed the resolution, including a 68 percent approval in the House of Deputies on Thursday.
I'm not an Episcopalian. I've never considered becoming an Episcopalian, and this seals the deal for good.
The mainline denominations have been shrinking as they've moved more and more into theologically liberal territory. When there's no difference between the church and the world, then the people of the world have no reason to want to become part of the church.
Condemning the Bible as "anti-Jewish" is counter-productive, and it's flat-out wrong. The Bible is the story of God's love for the world, expressed through His special relationship with the Jewish people. In both the Old and the New Testaments, He makes His love for the Jewish people clear.
The Rev. Ruth A Meyers of the Diocese of Chicago, Secretary of the Committee on Prayer Book, Liturgy and Music, explained to the House of Deputies why her committee had expanded the wording in the language to include not only prejudice in "liturgical texts," but also in "Christian scriptures."
"We did have a question about whether Scripture itself uses anti-Jewish prejudice," Meyers said. Referring specifically to the Gospel account of the crucifixion, she added, "That scriptural text...has in fact stirred anti-Jewish prejudice and resulted in significant violence toward Jewish people."
To blame the Bible because in the past people have used the crucifixion story as an excuse for their anti-Semitism, is foolhardy at best. At worst, it displays a willful ignorance of Scripture, coupled with an arrogance at presuming to know best what should and shouldn't be accepted as canon.
The crucifixion story places the blame on Jews and Gentiles alike. The Jews asked for the death of Jesus, and the Romans provided it without any legal reason to do so.
But more than blaming everyone, the Gospels clearly state that nobody took Jesus' life from Him. He gave it freely.
The doubts about what has traditionally been accepted as Christian doctrine have been growing in the more liberal denominations. By passing this resolution, the Episcopal church has placed itself squarely outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.
Let the worshiper beware.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Florida's Snakes in the Grass
It's another short lunch hour, and that means another animal story.
Lee Dye at ABC News reported Wednesday on Florida's problems with Burmese Pythons, a non-native species.
Although elusive by nature, these giant snakes have been seen doing battle with alligators, climbing trees fast enough to catch nesting chicks and swallowing animals as large as wood storks.
And they can be particularly hazardous on the highways. Any motorist could lose control when suddenly confronted by a reptile that can grow to 20 feet long and weigh up to 200 pounds.
Wildlife ecologist Frank Mazzotti of the University of Florida in Gainesville estimates there could be thousands of them in Florida, and he's leading an effort to bring the population under control.
"Burmese pythons are right in the heart of Everglades National Park," Mazzotti says. And they are wreaking havoc on the system, eating everything from gray squirrels to bobcats and threatening efforts to restore native species to the park.
Unfortunately, it's an ideal home for pythons. They are "habitat generalists," meaning they like to live between wet and dry areas, and they like to climb trees, and they are good swimmers, and there's lots of animals for them to eat. That's also just the kind of environment that appeals to alligators. "
So here they are, hanging out in the same places, doing the same things," Mazzotti says. "And on more than one occasion, several of which were witnessed by the public, they have gotten in fights."
Last fall one python tried to swallow an alligator. The alligator ended up swallowing the python, but the snake was too big to go down all at once. So for a couple of days the alligator wandered around with the tip of the python hanging out of its mouth until the rest could be digested.
Now, that's appetizing!
I've never been to Florida. And this article makes me a little glad I've never been to Florida. But someday I might want to see Walt Disney World (so I can say that Disneyland is way better), so I hope Mazzotti and his colleagues are successful in at least keeping the pythons out of Orlando.
Lee Dye at ABC News reported Wednesday on Florida's problems with Burmese Pythons, a non-native species.
Although elusive by nature, these giant snakes have been seen doing battle with alligators, climbing trees fast enough to catch nesting chicks and swallowing animals as large as wood storks.
And they can be particularly hazardous on the highways. Any motorist could lose control when suddenly confronted by a reptile that can grow to 20 feet long and weigh up to 200 pounds.
Wildlife ecologist Frank Mazzotti of the University of Florida in Gainesville estimates there could be thousands of them in Florida, and he's leading an effort to bring the population under control.
"Burmese pythons are right in the heart of Everglades National Park," Mazzotti says. And they are wreaking havoc on the system, eating everything from gray squirrels to bobcats and threatening efforts to restore native species to the park.
Unfortunately, it's an ideal home for pythons. They are "habitat generalists," meaning they like to live between wet and dry areas, and they like to climb trees, and they are good swimmers, and there's lots of animals for them to eat. That's also just the kind of environment that appeals to alligators. "
So here they are, hanging out in the same places, doing the same things," Mazzotti says. "And on more than one occasion, several of which were witnessed by the public, they have gotten in fights."
Last fall one python tried to swallow an alligator. The alligator ended up swallowing the python, but the snake was too big to go down all at once. So for a couple of days the alligator wandered around with the tip of the python hanging out of its mouth until the rest could be digested.
Now, that's appetizing!
I've never been to Florida. And this article makes me a little glad I've never been to Florida. But someday I might want to see Walt Disney World (so I can say that Disneyland is way better), so I hope Mazzotti and his colleagues are successful in at least keeping the pythons out of Orlando.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Mark Steyn on War
As always, Mark Steyn's column in Sunday's Chicago Sun-Times is right on the money.
Here are four news stories from the last week:
Baghdad: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi found himself on the receiving end of 500 pounds of U.S. ordnance.
London: Scotland Yard arrested a cell of East End Muslims allegedly plotting a sarin attack in Britain.
Toronto: The Mounties busted a cell of Ontario Muslims planning a bombing three times more powerful than Oklahoma City.
Mogadishu: An al-Qaida affiliate, the "Joint Islamic Courts," took control of the Somali capital, displacing "U.S.-backed warlords."
The world divides into those who think the above are all part of the same story and those who figure they're strictly local items of no wider significance deriving from various regional factors[.]
That "same story" is a war. A global war. Not a war on terror, but a war on Islamofascist jihadists who would plunge the world into the Dark Ages, or into the Dark Pit from which they sprang.
Five years after 9/11, some strategists say we can't win this thing "militarily," which is true in the sense that you can't send the Third Infantry Division to Brampton, Ontario. But nor is it something we can win through "law enforcement" -- by letting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the FBI and MI5 and every gendarmerie on the planet deal with every little plot on the map as a self-contained criminal investigation. We need to throttle the ideology and roll up the networks.
What's nutty is that, half a decade on from Sept. 11, the Saudis are still allowed to bankroll schools and mosques and think tanks and fast-track imam chaplaincy programs in prisons and armed forces around the world. Oil isn't the principal Saudi export, ideology is; petroleum merely bankrolls it. (all emphasis added)
I don't understand how the Bush Administration can continually fail to understand the Saudi role in this war. President Bush and his advisors seem to wear Saudi-selective blinders.
In Britain, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and elsewhere, second- and third-generation Muslims recognize the vapidity of the modern multicultural state for what it is -- a nullity, a national non-identity -- and so, for their own identity, they look elsewhere. To carry on letting Islamism fill it is to invite the re-primitivization of the world.
President Bush needs a new National Security Advisor. The right man for the job is Mark Steyn.
Here are four news stories from the last week:
Baghdad: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi found himself on the receiving end of 500 pounds of U.S. ordnance.
London: Scotland Yard arrested a cell of East End Muslims allegedly plotting a sarin attack in Britain.
Toronto: The Mounties busted a cell of Ontario Muslims planning a bombing three times more powerful than Oklahoma City.
Mogadishu: An al-Qaida affiliate, the "Joint Islamic Courts," took control of the Somali capital, displacing "U.S.-backed warlords."
The world divides into those who think the above are all part of the same story and those who figure they're strictly local items of no wider significance deriving from various regional factors[.]
That "same story" is a war. A global war. Not a war on terror, but a war on Islamofascist jihadists who would plunge the world into the Dark Ages, or into the Dark Pit from which they sprang.
Five years after 9/11, some strategists say we can't win this thing "militarily," which is true in the sense that you can't send the Third Infantry Division to Brampton, Ontario. But nor is it something we can win through "law enforcement" -- by letting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the FBI and MI5 and every gendarmerie on the planet deal with every little plot on the map as a self-contained criminal investigation. We need to throttle the ideology and roll up the networks.
What's nutty is that, half a decade on from Sept. 11, the Saudis are still allowed to bankroll schools and mosques and think tanks and fast-track imam chaplaincy programs in prisons and armed forces around the world. Oil isn't the principal Saudi export, ideology is; petroleum merely bankrolls it. (all emphasis added)
I don't understand how the Bush Administration can continually fail to understand the Saudi role in this war. President Bush and his advisors seem to wear Saudi-selective blinders.
In Britain, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and elsewhere, second- and third-generation Muslims recognize the vapidity of the modern multicultural state for what it is -- a nullity, a national non-identity -- and so, for their own identity, they look elsewhere. To carry on letting Islamism fill it is to invite the re-primitivization of the world.
President Bush needs a new National Security Advisor. The right man for the job is Mark Steyn.
Crows Ravaging Japan's Internet
In the olden days of the computer world, it was bugs in the system. Now it's crows.
The Times of London reported today that Japan is being besieged by nesting jungle crows.
Their destructive and unpredictable behaviour during the annual May to June mating season is always highly problematic for the Japanese capital. But this year the aggressive ink-black birds have created a new headache by developing a seemingly insatiable taste for fibre-optic internet cable.
In the past six weeks, hundreds of homes and offices have reportedly been left without high-speed internet service after the crows discovered that broadband cable can be pecked into usable strips more easily than power cables or telephone copper wire ever could. Crows have discovered that the broadband cables, which are strung from telegraph poles across Tokyo, are the perfect consistency for building nests.
The destruction of the fibre-optic cable highlights the abject failure of a “war on crows” declared five years ago by Tokyo’s Metropolitan Governor, Shintaro Ishihara. Fifteen years ago Tokyo had a crow population of around 7,000; today it is estimated at around 33,000.
Let's hope that our internet providers are better at protecting their optic fibers than Japan's are.
The Times of London reported today that Japan is being besieged by nesting jungle crows.
Their destructive and unpredictable behaviour during the annual May to June mating season is always highly problematic for the Japanese capital. But this year the aggressive ink-black birds have created a new headache by developing a seemingly insatiable taste for fibre-optic internet cable.
In the past six weeks, hundreds of homes and offices have reportedly been left without high-speed internet service after the crows discovered that broadband cable can be pecked into usable strips more easily than power cables or telephone copper wire ever could. Crows have discovered that the broadband cables, which are strung from telegraph poles across Tokyo, are the perfect consistency for building nests.
The destruction of the fibre-optic cable highlights the abject failure of a “war on crows” declared five years ago by Tokyo’s Metropolitan Governor, Shintaro Ishihara. Fifteen years ago Tokyo had a crow population of around 7,000; today it is estimated at around 33,000.
Let's hope that our internet providers are better at protecting their optic fibers than Japan's are.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Quote of the Day
This is from an interview of Ann Coulter conducted by John Hawkins of RightWingNews via email:
John Hawkins: Why do you think the President and Senate are so hellbent on pushing an immigration bill that has their base up in arms and is obviously bad for America?
Ann Coulter: I honestly don't know, but I have a nagging suspicion that it has something to do with Ricky Martin.
John Hawkins: Why do you think the President and Senate are so hellbent on pushing an immigration bill that has their base up in arms and is obviously bad for America?
Ann Coulter: I honestly don't know, but I have a nagging suspicion that it has something to do with Ricky Martin.
Mourning or Celebrating Zarqawi
I hate it when work gets so busy, I don't have time to blog at lunchtime.
Yesterday's OpinionJournal published a column by Mohammed Fadhil, one of the bloggers at Iraq the Model (HT: The Hedgehog Blog). He rightly drew a dividing line between Arabs who mourn the death of Zarqawi and those who celebrate.
Hamas's reaction to the death of Zarqawi caused the contempt of so many Iraqis. The printed and watched Iraqi media lashed out vigorously on Hamas, politicians and ordinary people on the streets are just equally angered by some Arabic official and media reactions which spoke of the criminal as if he were a hero.
It is totally unimaginable why someone would describe the head chopping, children murdering terrorist as a hero. It's disgusting and infuriating beyond words.
To say I was angry is the least I can say to describe how I felt reading the comments from Arabs (in Arabic) on a BBC forum. There was no surprise that all Iraqi commentators were pleased that we got rid of that vicious terrorists but on the other hand there was probably 90% of non-Iraqi Arab commentators who mourned him as a martyr.
The terrorists and their apologists love to claim that people like Zarqawi do what they do because of American attacks on Arabs. It's a solidarity issue. "You attack my Arab brothers, and I'll make you sorry you did."
But most of Zarqawi's attacks were against Arabs--Iraqis.
What happened to Arabs defending other Arabs? Since when did the Iraqi people stop mattering? Why would Hamas mourn the man who has probably killed more Arabs lately than anyone else?
There's no making sense of it. The jihadis are indiscriminate killers, and the people in the Middle East must choose sides. They can choose sanity and life, or they can choose the insanity of a death culture. According to Mohammed, the Iraqis have chosen life:
[S]o if you are sane, come celebrate the moment with us, but if not, get prepared to mourn more demons.
May it be so.
Yesterday's OpinionJournal published a column by Mohammed Fadhil, one of the bloggers at Iraq the Model (HT: The Hedgehog Blog). He rightly drew a dividing line between Arabs who mourn the death of Zarqawi and those who celebrate.
Hamas's reaction to the death of Zarqawi caused the contempt of so many Iraqis. The printed and watched Iraqi media lashed out vigorously on Hamas, politicians and ordinary people on the streets are just equally angered by some Arabic official and media reactions which spoke of the criminal as if he were a hero.
It is totally unimaginable why someone would describe the head chopping, children murdering terrorist as a hero. It's disgusting and infuriating beyond words.
To say I was angry is the least I can say to describe how I felt reading the comments from Arabs (in Arabic) on a BBC forum. There was no surprise that all Iraqi commentators were pleased that we got rid of that vicious terrorists but on the other hand there was probably 90% of non-Iraqi Arab commentators who mourned him as a martyr.
The terrorists and their apologists love to claim that people like Zarqawi do what they do because of American attacks on Arabs. It's a solidarity issue. "You attack my Arab brothers, and I'll make you sorry you did."
But most of Zarqawi's attacks were against Arabs--Iraqis.
What happened to Arabs defending other Arabs? Since when did the Iraqi people stop mattering? Why would Hamas mourn the man who has probably killed more Arabs lately than anyone else?
There's no making sense of it. The jihadis are indiscriminate killers, and the people in the Middle East must choose sides. They can choose sanity and life, or they can choose the insanity of a death culture. According to Mohammed, the Iraqis have chosen life:
[S]o if you are sane, come celebrate the moment with us, but if not, get prepared to mourn more demons.
May it be so.
Happy Flag Day
This is the flag that flies from the Star of India, a tall ship that's part of the San Diego Maritime Museum along the Embarcadero.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Lead Me (Not?) Into Temptation
Events around me lately have been conspiring to lead me into temptation, and I'm not sure whether I should fight it.
It started when I went to Texas to visit my mom and my sister. My mom said that she'd love to get a full-size pickup and a fifth-wheel, and she and I could drive all around the country. My heart tugged a little, and then I decided her comment was of the devil, tempting me to give up all my responsibilities and just go have fun. I declined her invitation.
And then Saturday, my daughter decided that she's too directionless right now, and she wants to go to a Christian program in Texas (not near my mom) that she's been thinking about for a few years. The program lasts a year and helps college-age kids develop their character and faith, and it helps them find direction and purpose and ministry. The program starts mid-August.
Oy! Suddenly my at-home responsibilties look like they're diminishing. Quickly.
Then on Sunday, I watched the movie Bounce with a friend who has Netflix. (Spoiler warning!) At the end of the movie, after Ben Affleck does the right thing and because of that he loses his job and because of that he loses his nice beach house (end spoiler), it got me thinking again about being jobless and touring the country with my mom in her fifth-wheel. I mean, it wouldn't have to be forever. I could just do it for a year.
Last night another friend called, and while we talked, I mentioned my mom's idea. After her initial reaction ("Are you sure you and your mom wouldn't kill each other after being together that long?"), she assured me this is just what I need. I could treat it like a sabbatical--take a year off to clear my head, get caught up on my sleep, and re-evaluate what I'm supposed to do with the rest of my life. As she talked, I remembered how completely relaxed, how peaceful I felt on my trip to Texas, and the idea of holding onto that feeling for longer than just over a week was enticing.
Then today my daughter told me that she decided to start her Texas program in January rather than August, so she'd have more time to work and save up some money. And that would give me more time to think about my mom's proposal and work and save up some money.
So now I'm getting practical. I'd have to pack all my stuff in storage, except for the essentials--my laptop, my camera, my DVDs, and that skinny little dog who may or may not be Abby.
Maybe my mom's idea wasn't demonic after all.
It started when I went to Texas to visit my mom and my sister. My mom said that she'd love to get a full-size pickup and a fifth-wheel, and she and I could drive all around the country. My heart tugged a little, and then I decided her comment was of the devil, tempting me to give up all my responsibilities and just go have fun. I declined her invitation.
And then Saturday, my daughter decided that she's too directionless right now, and she wants to go to a Christian program in Texas (not near my mom) that she's been thinking about for a few years. The program lasts a year and helps college-age kids develop their character and faith, and it helps them find direction and purpose and ministry. The program starts mid-August.
Oy! Suddenly my at-home responsibilties look like they're diminishing. Quickly.
Then on Sunday, I watched the movie Bounce with a friend who has Netflix. (Spoiler warning!) At the end of the movie, after Ben Affleck does the right thing and because of that he loses his job and because of that he loses his nice beach house (end spoiler), it got me thinking again about being jobless and touring the country with my mom in her fifth-wheel. I mean, it wouldn't have to be forever. I could just do it for a year.
Last night another friend called, and while we talked, I mentioned my mom's idea. After her initial reaction ("Are you sure you and your mom wouldn't kill each other after being together that long?"), she assured me this is just what I need. I could treat it like a sabbatical--take a year off to clear my head, get caught up on my sleep, and re-evaluate what I'm supposed to do with the rest of my life. As she talked, I remembered how completely relaxed, how peaceful I felt on my trip to Texas, and the idea of holding onto that feeling for longer than just over a week was enticing.
Then today my daughter told me that she decided to start her Texas program in January rather than August, so she'd have more time to work and save up some money. And that would give me more time to think about my mom's proposal and work and save up some money.
So now I'm getting practical. I'd have to pack all my stuff in storage, except for the essentials--my laptop, my camera, my DVDs, and that skinny little dog who may or may not be Abby.
Maybe my mom's idea wasn't demonic after all.
Health Research
Hugh Hewitt found some really old news that was new news to me (and apparently to Hugh, too, who called it, "The. Best. News. Ever."). The BBC reported back in July of 2003 that research indicated pizza may prevent several types of cancer.
Researchers claim eating pizza regularly reduced the risk of developing oesophageal cancer by 59%.
The risk of developing colon cancer also fell by 26% and mouth cancer by 34%, they claimed.
The secret could be lycopene, an antioxidant chemical in tomatoes, which is thought to offer some protection against cancer, and which gives the fruit its traditional red colour.
The researchers speculate that pizza's protective ingredient may be the lycopene in tomatoes. But I'd be willing to venture that it could also be the olive oil. Or maybe even the combination of tomatoes with olive oil.
Of course, this research was done in Italy by Italian researchers studying Italian pizza-eaters eating Italian pizza. Their pizza is likely not the same as New York pizza or Chicago pizza or Pizza Hut or any of the other Americanized pizza.
I used to work with an Italian guy. It was either his parents or his grandparents who were born in Italy, and he said that to them, pizza was a way of stretching leftovers. You took the little bits of what you had in the fridge or the cupboard, smeared tomato paste on the pizza dough, added olive oil, and then topped it with the leftovers--usually not cheese. That was Italian pizza.
So it may be true that Italian pizza helps prevent cancer, but the news may not be quite as good for us Americans.
But then again, you never know...
Researchers claim eating pizza regularly reduced the risk of developing oesophageal cancer by 59%.
The risk of developing colon cancer also fell by 26% and mouth cancer by 34%, they claimed.
The secret could be lycopene, an antioxidant chemical in tomatoes, which is thought to offer some protection against cancer, and which gives the fruit its traditional red colour.
The researchers speculate that pizza's protective ingredient may be the lycopene in tomatoes. But I'd be willing to venture that it could also be the olive oil. Or maybe even the combination of tomatoes with olive oil.
Of course, this research was done in Italy by Italian researchers studying Italian pizza-eaters eating Italian pizza. Their pizza is likely not the same as New York pizza or Chicago pizza or Pizza Hut or any of the other Americanized pizza.
I used to work with an Italian guy. It was either his parents or his grandparents who were born in Italy, and he said that to them, pizza was a way of stretching leftovers. You took the little bits of what you had in the fridge or the cupboard, smeared tomato paste on the pizza dough, added olive oil, and then topped it with the leftovers--usually not cheese. That was Italian pizza.
So it may be true that Italian pizza helps prevent cancer, but the news may not be quite as good for us Americans.
But then again, you never know...
Ann Coulter: Lightning Rod
Some people avoid controversy. Some people, especially politicians, find polite (though not necessarily sincere) ways of criticizing the postions of their opponents.
Not Ann Coulter. She invites controversy by choosing words that are sure to inflame, and even enrage, her opponents. One of my favorite Ann Coulterisms was during the 2004 Democratic Convention, when she said you could tell who were the few conservative women there: They were "the pretty ones." Later, when the camera panned the crowd on the convention floor, I saw no pretty women. I wouldn't have noticed if it weren't for Coulter's comment.
Her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, continues that approach, and her opponents have reacted as planned.
Apoplexy. Convulsions. Explosions. Like fireworks, the people who are attacking Ann Coulter are fun to watch from a distance.
WorldNetDaily reported yesterday that Advertising Age columnist Simon Dumenco has called for Coulter to kill herself.
In a column taking on several media entities and individuals who bug him, Ad Age's "media guy" asks: "Would it kill you, 'Godless' author Ann Coulter, to do us all a favor and kill yourself? (Oh, well, yeah, I guess it would kill you." (sic)
"After her recent rabidly hateful, foaming-at-the-mouth, sub-human 'Today' show appearance – in which she reiterated her assertion that 9-11 widows are 'enjoying their husband's (sic) deaths' – even her former supporters began to fantasize about how much nicer the world would be if it were Coulterless," wrote Dumenco.
Last night on Hannity and Colmes, Alan Colmes seemed to be in relentless-attack mode with her (though I found her responses to him annoying, because she didn't come close to answering most of his questions).
Malott's Blog documents another attack, this one from the New York Times. Really, the list of her attackers is endless.
Here's what most of the uproar is about:
"These broads [The Jersey Girls] are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter writes in "Godless."
Even some Republicans have said she went too far with this statement. Others agree with her, and I am one of them.
Four women from New Jersey, including Kristen Breitweiser, capitalized on their status as 9/11 widows to make political statements supporting John Kerry and attacking President Bush. They were willingly made into media darlings by the anti-Bush MSM, who couldn't seem to find any pro-Bush widows to put on the air to balance Breitweiser and company's political spin, despite there being about (a guess) 2,000 widows to choose from.
I would never claim that the Jersey Girls enjoyed watching their husbands die in the collapse of the Twin Towers or enjoyed hearing the news of their deaths (and I believe I heard Coulter say as much, too). But I agree with Ann Coulter that they've enjoyed the fame their widowhood has provided them.
The visceral reaction of the Coulter-haters has only confirmed her premise that the Church of Liberalism uses as spokesmen only those people whose personal tragedies make them untouchable ("Her husband died! You can't attack what she said!"). I think I'm going to have to buy the book.
Not Ann Coulter. She invites controversy by choosing words that are sure to inflame, and even enrage, her opponents. One of my favorite Ann Coulterisms was during the 2004 Democratic Convention, when she said you could tell who were the few conservative women there: They were "the pretty ones." Later, when the camera panned the crowd on the convention floor, I saw no pretty women. I wouldn't have noticed if it weren't for Coulter's comment.
Her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, continues that approach, and her opponents have reacted as planned.
Apoplexy. Convulsions. Explosions. Like fireworks, the people who are attacking Ann Coulter are fun to watch from a distance.
WorldNetDaily reported yesterday that Advertising Age columnist Simon Dumenco has called for Coulter to kill herself.
In a column taking on several media entities and individuals who bug him, Ad Age's "media guy" asks: "Would it kill you, 'Godless' author Ann Coulter, to do us all a favor and kill yourself? (Oh, well, yeah, I guess it would kill you." (sic)
"After her recent rabidly hateful, foaming-at-the-mouth, sub-human 'Today' show appearance – in which she reiterated her assertion that 9-11 widows are 'enjoying their husband's (sic) deaths' – even her former supporters began to fantasize about how much nicer the world would be if it were Coulterless," wrote Dumenco.
Last night on Hannity and Colmes, Alan Colmes seemed to be in relentless-attack mode with her (though I found her responses to him annoying, because she didn't come close to answering most of his questions).
Malott's Blog documents another attack, this one from the New York Times. Really, the list of her attackers is endless.
Here's what most of the uproar is about:
"These broads [The Jersey Girls] are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter writes in "Godless."
Even some Republicans have said she went too far with this statement. Others agree with her, and I am one of them.
Four women from New Jersey, including Kristen Breitweiser, capitalized on their status as 9/11 widows to make political statements supporting John Kerry and attacking President Bush. They were willingly made into media darlings by the anti-Bush MSM, who couldn't seem to find any pro-Bush widows to put on the air to balance Breitweiser and company's political spin, despite there being about (a guess) 2,000 widows to choose from.
I would never claim that the Jersey Girls enjoyed watching their husbands die in the collapse of the Twin Towers or enjoyed hearing the news of their deaths (and I believe I heard Coulter say as much, too). But I agree with Ann Coulter that they've enjoyed the fame their widowhood has provided them.
The visceral reaction of the Coulter-haters has only confirmed her premise that the Church of Liberalism uses as spokesmen only those people whose personal tragedies make them untouchable ("Her husband died! You can't attack what she said!"). I think I'm going to have to buy the book.
Rove Won't Be Charged
MSNBC reported today that prosecutors will not be charging Karl Rove with a crime.
Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won’t be charged with any crimes in the investigation into leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday.
Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of one of President Bush’s closest advisers. Rove testified five times before a grand jury.
Fitzgerald has been investigating whether senior administration officials intentionally leaked the identity of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame in retribution because her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, sharply criticized the administration’s pursuit of war in Iraq.
Naturally, the Democrats are despondent.
“Good news for the White House, not so good news for America,” [Howard]Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, said Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show.
So, according to Howard Dean, the political enemies of the White House constitute "America." The Democrats are America, and Republicans aren't.
I'm surprised this news didn't plunge our economy--nay, our entire society--into a tailspin. After all, Karl Rove is the personification of evil in our world today, and the world will not be right again until Rove is behind bars for the rest of his life paying for his numerous, nefarious crimes. At least, that's how "America" sees it.
My advice to anyone with hard-core left-winger friends is to be available to console them. Let them cry. Let them talk it through. They'll need somebody to listen, to understand.
Have pity. The Left is in mourning today.
Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won’t be charged with any crimes in the investigation into leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday.
Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of one of President Bush’s closest advisers. Rove testified five times before a grand jury.
Fitzgerald has been investigating whether senior administration officials intentionally leaked the identity of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame in retribution because her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, sharply criticized the administration’s pursuit of war in Iraq.
Naturally, the Democrats are despondent.
“Good news for the White House, not so good news for America,” [Howard]Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, said Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show.
So, according to Howard Dean, the political enemies of the White House constitute "America." The Democrats are America, and Republicans aren't.
I'm surprised this news didn't plunge our economy--nay, our entire society--into a tailspin. After all, Karl Rove is the personification of evil in our world today, and the world will not be right again until Rove is behind bars for the rest of his life paying for his numerous, nefarious crimes. At least, that's how "America" sees it.
My advice to anyone with hard-core left-winger friends is to be available to console them. Let them cry. Let them talk it through. They'll need somebody to listen, to understand.
Have pity. The Left is in mourning today.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Sweet, Sweet Justice
The Tribune, out of San Luis Obispo (that would be the Nancy Pelosi / Barbara Boxer mindset section of California), reported today that the presence of our National Guard troops along the southern border has slowed down illegal border crossings.
SAN LUIS RIO COLORADO, Mexico - The arrival of U.S. National Guard troops in Arizona has scared off illegal Mexican migrants along the border, significantly reducing crossings, according to U.S. and Mexican officials.
U.S. authorities said Monday that detentions along the U.S.-Mexico border decreased by 21 percent, to 26,994, in the first 10 days of June, compared with 34,077 for the same period a year ago.
Along the Arizona border, once the busiest crossing spot, detentions have dropped 23 percent, according to the U.S. Border Patrol.
Although the illegal wannabes are afraid, the troops' activities are limited.
The soldiers aren't allowed to detain migrants and have been limited to projects like extending border fences and repairing roads, but the military's presence is keeping would-be crossers away from the area, migrant rights activists said.
The slowdown in illegal crossings is good news, but it's not the best part (emphasis added):
Francisco Loureiro, who runs a migrant shelter in Nogales, Mexico, across the border from Arizona, said migrants are afraid of the U.S. troops after hearing reports of abuse in Iraq.
"Some migrants have told me they heard about the troops on television and, because the U.S. Army doesn't have a very good reputation, they prefer not to cross," Loureiro said. Others have been discouraged by smugglers' fees that have nearly doubled to more than $3,000.
So, the left-leaning mainstream media, which appears to support illegal immigration (presumably so the illegals will--illegally--vote for Democrats), has put the skids on illegal immigration. Their anti-military propaganda is having an effect in places the MSM never anticipated.
Ain't it sweet!
SAN LUIS RIO COLORADO, Mexico - The arrival of U.S. National Guard troops in Arizona has scared off illegal Mexican migrants along the border, significantly reducing crossings, according to U.S. and Mexican officials.
U.S. authorities said Monday that detentions along the U.S.-Mexico border decreased by 21 percent, to 26,994, in the first 10 days of June, compared with 34,077 for the same period a year ago.
Along the Arizona border, once the busiest crossing spot, detentions have dropped 23 percent, according to the U.S. Border Patrol.
Although the illegal wannabes are afraid, the troops' activities are limited.
The soldiers aren't allowed to detain migrants and have been limited to projects like extending border fences and repairing roads, but the military's presence is keeping would-be crossers away from the area, migrant rights activists said.
The slowdown in illegal crossings is good news, but it's not the best part (emphasis added):
Francisco Loureiro, who runs a migrant shelter in Nogales, Mexico, across the border from Arizona, said migrants are afraid of the U.S. troops after hearing reports of abuse in Iraq.
"Some migrants have told me they heard about the troops on television and, because the U.S. Army doesn't have a very good reputation, they prefer not to cross," Loureiro said. Others have been discouraged by smugglers' fees that have nearly doubled to more than $3,000.
So, the left-leaning mainstream media, which appears to support illegal immigration (presumably so the illegals will--illegally--vote for Democrats), has put the skids on illegal immigration. Their anti-military propaganda is having an effect in places the MSM never anticipated.
Ain't it sweet!
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Bake Me A Cake
This is what happens when you let your daughter and her friends have free rein with the kitchen.
When they opened the oven at the appointed time and saw what they had wrought, I asked if they made it from a box. They said yes.
When I asked if they noticed that the box said to use two round cake pans, not one, my daughter said, "Oh my gosh! We used two boxes!"
We Have A New Dog
This was my little dog, Abby. Wasn't she cute? She's gone now. At nine years old, she had multiple health problems, the worst of which was an enlarged heart as a result of congestive heart failure that made her lungs fill with fluid and made her cough a lot. We kept her on medication that kept the coughing at bay.
At the same time, she was going blind. You can see that in the picture, where her hair mostly covered her eyes. But we were able to improve her blindness by trimming the hair hanging from the front of her head.
She also had skin allergies that made us need to feed her special low-allergenic dog food and use medicated shampoo on her.
Then last year, I noticed her nose had something wrong with it. When I asked the vet about it, he said she might have lupus. I said, "That's all she needs, another problem!"
But for all her health problems, Abby was a sweetie pie. Most dogs (like my mom's dog, Scooter) think they're the alpha dog wherever they go, which causes problems with the other alpha dogs. But Abby just figured she was the omega dog, even in her own house. When Scooter came to visit, he ruled the house, and Abby went with the flow. It wasn't that Abby was timid, just that she wasn't very forceful.
At only eleven pounds, Abby was the perfect size for being a lapdog, but she didn't like curling up on laps. She was the kind of dog who liked to curl up next to you. Or on the floor at your feet.
And she didn't bark much, even at cats (which she liked to chase silently). This was an excellent quality for a dog in a neighborhood with dense-pack houses. But she did bark when she wanted us to give her grapes. She barked a lot for grapes.
But like I said, Abby is gone now. I took her to the groomer's for her summer hairdo, and when I went to pick her up, they gave me this strange-looking dog instead. They assured me it's the same Abby, but I don't know. She's so skinny. When she curls up in her dogbed, there's way too much space left around her. When I pick her up, there's nothing to her.
I'll have to watch her for a while and see if she's really my Abby.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Murtha Seeks House Leadership
Fox News reported today that Congressman John Murtha will run for House Majority Leader if the Democrats take back the House.
Rep. John Murtha, a 16-term Democrat known for his close ties to the military and his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq, said Friday he will run for House majority leader if Democrats win control in November.
Democrats need to gain 15 seats to recapture the majority they lost to the Republicans in 1994. If that happens, Pelosi, D-Calif., is expected to become the speaker and Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the current Democratic whip, is in line to become the majority leader, the House's No. 2 post.
Hoyer is not pleased.
"This is a distraction at a time when our focus should be on incumbents and winning back the House," said Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif, a Hoyer ally. "This takes away from our ability to focus on those efforts."
This is a great gift to the GOP. Serious people who understand the stakes in Iraq and around the world in our war on Islamofascism need to pay attention. And the Republicans should use it on the campaign trail. "If the Democrats win, Murtha could be in charge of the House." That should get Republicans elected.
Run, Murtha, run!
Rep. John Murtha, a 16-term Democrat known for his close ties to the military and his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq, said Friday he will run for House majority leader if Democrats win control in November.
Democrats need to gain 15 seats to recapture the majority they lost to the Republicans in 1994. If that happens, Pelosi, D-Calif., is expected to become the speaker and Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the current Democratic whip, is in line to become the majority leader, the House's No. 2 post.
Hoyer is not pleased.
"This is a distraction at a time when our focus should be on incumbents and winning back the House," said Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif, a Hoyer ally. "This takes away from our ability to focus on those efforts."
This is a great gift to the GOP. Serious people who understand the stakes in Iraq and around the world in our war on Islamofascism need to pay attention. And the Republicans should use it on the campaign trail. "If the Democrats win, Murtha could be in charge of the House." That should get Republicans elected.
Run, Murtha, run!
Music and Emotions
CBS-13 in Davis, California, reported yesterday on a coming study of music and emotion.
UC Davis neuropsychology professor Petr Janata just received a $1 million dollar grant to study how people experience emotions and have spiritual experiences when they're engaged with music.
Over the next three years he'll study several religious groups and compare them to hard-core rock music fans. Believe it or not, there are similarities.
“It all combines to produce these transcendent or deeply emotional or what those people would characterize as spiritual experiences," said Janata.
This isn't really new. Back in the mid-1980s, when I used to listen to NPR, they interviewed a professor who had studied emotion in classical music (minor keys evoke sadness, e.g.). They had him on the air because they always got overwhelming response whenever they played Ray Lynch's "Celestial Soda Pop" as their between-stories music. He said that song evokes joy.
I hope Professor Janata studies the differences between men's and women's emotional responses to music, because I have a theory. I believe women listen to music with their emotions much more than men do, who listen more with their minds.
When I was married, my husband liked to listen to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, but I couldn't listen to the title song. There's something about the swirling music that would grab hold of my emotions and drag me down a vortex into depression. I would have to leave the room and turn on some happy music. My husband never understood the emotional effect music had on me. The music he liked was because he appreciated the skill of the musicians.
Maybe you can't generalize from the two of us, but most of my women friends agreed with me. We preferred the oldies station, while the men in our lives preferred harder rock.
Just a theory. I'm hoping Professor Janata will be able to clear all this up once and for all.
UC Davis neuropsychology professor Petr Janata just received a $1 million dollar grant to study how people experience emotions and have spiritual experiences when they're engaged with music.
Over the next three years he'll study several religious groups and compare them to hard-core rock music fans. Believe it or not, there are similarities.
“It all combines to produce these transcendent or deeply emotional or what those people would characterize as spiritual experiences," said Janata.
This isn't really new. Back in the mid-1980s, when I used to listen to NPR, they interviewed a professor who had studied emotion in classical music (minor keys evoke sadness, e.g.). They had him on the air because they always got overwhelming response whenever they played Ray Lynch's "Celestial Soda Pop" as their between-stories music. He said that song evokes joy.
I hope Professor Janata studies the differences between men's and women's emotional responses to music, because I have a theory. I believe women listen to music with their emotions much more than men do, who listen more with their minds.
When I was married, my husband liked to listen to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, but I couldn't listen to the title song. There's something about the swirling music that would grab hold of my emotions and drag me down a vortex into depression. I would have to leave the room and turn on some happy music. My husband never understood the emotional effect music had on me. The music he liked was because he appreciated the skill of the musicians.
Maybe you can't generalize from the two of us, but most of my women friends agreed with me. We preferred the oldies station, while the men in our lives preferred harder rock.
Just a theory. I'm hoping Professor Janata will be able to clear all this up once and for all.
Global Warming is Causing Evolution
Today's Independent (UK) carried an article on Global Warming that was a bit confusing. It seems to be alarmist and reassuring at the same time, but I can't imagine the media ever being reassuring about global warming, so I must have misunderstood something.
Some species of animals are changing genetically in order to adapt to rapid climate change within just a few generations, scientists believe.
Smaller animals in particular that can breed quickly, such as squirrels, some birds and insects, are showing signs of evolving new patterns of behaviour to increase their chances of survival. Scientists say that many of the genetic adaptations are to cope with changes in the length of the seasons rather than the absolute increases in summer temperatures.
Don't squirrels and birds breed once a year? How is that quick? Insects (ugh!), of course, are fast-breeding pestilence.
And what makes behavior (excuse me, "behaviour") changes equivalent to "genetic adaptations"? They may be bird-brains, but they are capable of learning.
"Studies show that over the past several decades, rapid climate change has led to heritable, genetic changes in animal populations," said Christina Holzapfel, from the University of Oregon in Eugene.
Examples included Canadian red squirrels reproducing earlier in the year, German blackcap birds migrating and arriving earlier at their nesting grounds, and northern American mosquitoes living in water-filled leaves of carnivorous plants which can adjust their life cycles to shorter more "southern" day lengths.
According to Holzapfel, doing things earlier in the year is a "heritable, genetic change." It's behavior! Hello! Doesn't she remember her undergraduate education, where she would have learned that Skinner taught pigeons to peck on the lever for food? Was that a heritable, genetic change?
On vacation many years ago, we stopped at a Denny's for lunch. Lots of other people had stopped there too, so all the parking spots along the sidewalk were taken. I noticed a sparrow on a car's bumper eating the bugs that had been caught on the car's front grill. When it finished with that car, it flew over to the next car and started on the bugs in that grill. After lunch, the sparrow was still availing itself of its personal buffet.
Was that a genetic adaptation to an industrialized society, or was it opportunistic behavior on the part of a particularly resourceful (or lazy) sparrow?
William Bradshaw, professor of biology at Oregon, said that global warming is going at a faster rate at more northerly latitudes which is causing longer growing seasons, and less cold stress caused by extreme winter weather.
Didn't he read the reports that said the earth has been cooling slightly since 1998? Oh, he's a biologist. He may not read climate reports.
"However, it is clear that unless the long-term magnitude of rapid change is widely acknowledged and effective steps are taken to mitigate its effects, natural communities that we are familiar with will cease to exist," [Holzapfel] says. (Note: See how she uses "effects" correctly.)
There's that favorite alarmist wording, "cease to exist." It was inevitable that it would be in the article somewhere.
The article ends with this aside:
* Global warming could be returning the world to the way it was four million years ago when sea levels were 80 feet higher than they are today, according to another study in Science.
If global warming is bringing the world back to the condition it was in before mankind got here and messed it up, why are the scientists so alarmed? They should be encouraging it.
I'm confused!
Some species of animals are changing genetically in order to adapt to rapid climate change within just a few generations, scientists believe.
Smaller animals in particular that can breed quickly, such as squirrels, some birds and insects, are showing signs of evolving new patterns of behaviour to increase their chances of survival. Scientists say that many of the genetic adaptations are to cope with changes in the length of the seasons rather than the absolute increases in summer temperatures.
Don't squirrels and birds breed once a year? How is that quick? Insects (ugh!), of course, are fast-breeding pestilence.
And what makes behavior (excuse me, "behaviour") changes equivalent to "genetic adaptations"? They may be bird-brains, but they are capable of learning.
"Studies show that over the past several decades, rapid climate change has led to heritable, genetic changes in animal populations," said Christina Holzapfel, from the University of Oregon in Eugene.
Examples included Canadian red squirrels reproducing earlier in the year, German blackcap birds migrating and arriving earlier at their nesting grounds, and northern American mosquitoes living in water-filled leaves of carnivorous plants which can adjust their life cycles to shorter more "southern" day lengths.
According to Holzapfel, doing things earlier in the year is a "heritable, genetic change." It's behavior! Hello! Doesn't she remember her undergraduate education, where she would have learned that Skinner taught pigeons to peck on the lever for food? Was that a heritable, genetic change?
On vacation many years ago, we stopped at a Denny's for lunch. Lots of other people had stopped there too, so all the parking spots along the sidewalk were taken. I noticed a sparrow on a car's bumper eating the bugs that had been caught on the car's front grill. When it finished with that car, it flew over to the next car and started on the bugs in that grill. After lunch, the sparrow was still availing itself of its personal buffet.
Was that a genetic adaptation to an industrialized society, or was it opportunistic behavior on the part of a particularly resourceful (or lazy) sparrow?
William Bradshaw, professor of biology at Oregon, said that global warming is going at a faster rate at more northerly latitudes which is causing longer growing seasons, and less cold stress caused by extreme winter weather.
Didn't he read the reports that said the earth has been cooling slightly since 1998? Oh, he's a biologist. He may not read climate reports.
"However, it is clear that unless the long-term magnitude of rapid change is widely acknowledged and effective steps are taken to mitigate its effects, natural communities that we are familiar with will cease to exist," [Holzapfel] says. (Note: See how she uses "effects" correctly.)
There's that favorite alarmist wording, "cease to exist." It was inevitable that it would be in the article somewhere.
The article ends with this aside:
* Global warming could be returning the world to the way it was four million years ago when sea levels were 80 feet higher than they are today, according to another study in Science.
If global warming is bringing the world back to the condition it was in before mankind got here and messed it up, why are the scientists so alarmed? They should be encouraging it.
I'm confused!
Barry Manilow as a Repellant
Time for a little catching up after Blogger was down for the best part of two days.
Australia's Sunday Times reported Monday that the Rockdale Council in Sydney is trying a new approach to deal with a problem in their community. Here's how they describe it:
FED up with hoons gathering in local car parks, a council has resolved to drown out the "doof doof" and revving by piping daggy music over a loudspeaker.
This is another case of two countries being separated by a common language. "Hoons" would be... ruffians, I suppose. And Barry Manilow is the epitome of "daggy" music. OK.
Councillor Bill Saravinovski said that from about 10pm every Saturday and Sunday, up to 100 "hoons" gathered in the carpark to rev their engines and compare their hotted-up cars.
"There are restaurants nearby and people can't park in the car park because they're intimidated by these hoons," Mr Saravinovski said.
The hoons can expect to hear Manilow classics such as Copacabana, Mandy, I Write The Songs, Can't Smile Without You and Looks Like We Made It.
"We're hoping it works. These people don't show any respect for the law."
The council also planned to lay speed humps and wheel stops in the carpark to deter hoons from doing burnouts.
I love foreign languages!
But I have to say that even I, in my non-hoonness, would make a quick getaway from Barry Manilow music. Here's hoping it works out for them.
Australia's Sunday Times reported Monday that the Rockdale Council in Sydney is trying a new approach to deal with a problem in their community. Here's how they describe it:
FED up with hoons gathering in local car parks, a council has resolved to drown out the "doof doof" and revving by piping daggy music over a loudspeaker.
This is another case of two countries being separated by a common language. "Hoons" would be... ruffians, I suppose. And Barry Manilow is the epitome of "daggy" music. OK.
Councillor Bill Saravinovski said that from about 10pm every Saturday and Sunday, up to 100 "hoons" gathered in the carpark to rev their engines and compare their hotted-up cars.
"There are restaurants nearby and people can't park in the car park because they're intimidated by these hoons," Mr Saravinovski said.
The hoons can expect to hear Manilow classics such as Copacabana, Mandy, I Write The Songs, Can't Smile Without You and Looks Like We Made It.
"We're hoping it works. These people don't show any respect for the law."
The council also planned to lay speed humps and wheel stops in the carpark to deter hoons from doing burnouts.
I love foreign languages!
But I have to say that even I, in my non-hoonness, would make a quick getaway from Barry Manilow music. Here's hoping it works out for them.
Zarqawi Is Still Dead
Today's Fox News has the latest on the killing of Zarqawi.
"Zarqawi was alive when U.S. forces arrived on the site," Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said in a satellite interview from Iraq. "The Iraqi police arrived first, they found him in the rubble, put him on a gurney of some type."
Caldwell, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said Zarqawi tried to roll off the gurney to escape once he became aware of the fact that he was being taken into custody by coalition troops Wednesday night after two 500-pound precision guided bombs blew up his safehouse near Baqouba.
U.S. forces immediately made a visual identification of Zarqawi but were unable to interrogate him because he died of his injuries "shortly after" being pulled from the rubble, Caldwell said.
Even if our troops could have questioned him, I can't imagine Zarqawi telling them anything. He hated everyone too much.
Update:
In my haste this morning, I forgot to give credit for the picture. I got it from Michelle Malkin's website, and it looks like she got it from Fox News, but I didn't see it on the Fox News site, so I'm not sure who put it together. But it's great PhotoShopping.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Zarqawi Is Dead
Smithereens!
WorldNetDaily's article today has before and after pictures, and I have to say he looks so much better dead. So peaceful. May he burn in hell.
Iraqi officials said Zarqawi was killed in a precision strike about five miles north of Baquba.
"We have eliminated Zarqawi," Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki told a news conference in Baghdad.
Maliki said the airstrike – two 500-pound bombs dropped by F-16s – was based on intelligence reports provided to Iraqi security forces by area residents.
Efforts to find Zarqawi were stepped up after the terrorist leader appeared in a videotape in late April, according to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.
The tape helped "pinpoint" Zarqawi's location, he said, without further explanation.
Here is the text of President Bush's statement.
Omar at Iraq the Model is thrilled. He adds this about the intelligence the military received:
In the first official confirmation, PM al-Maliki said that Jordan has provided intelligence that was used in the raid on Zaraqwi's hiding place but he also stressed that tips from locals were the primary lead to Zarqawi's exact location and these were the information according to which the missiles were guided.
Al-Maliki said that among the 7 killed with Zarqawi were two women who were responsible for collecting intelligence for the al-Qaeda HQ cell.
Naturally, to the MSM, this is bad news. Even though, for at least the past two years, they've been criticizing President Bush because Zarqawi was still alive and leading "the insurgency," now that he's dead, they're downplaying its significance as much as possible.
I listened to Laura Ingraham this morning on my way to work, and she played a clip from a press conference with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. One of the reporters wanted to know if Rumsfeld had been concerned about "collateral damage" if they went through with the air strike on Zarqawi's safe house. Rumsfeld said simply, "No."
Of course not! The other people killed with Zarqawi were the people who provided him safe haven and a base from which to carry out his attacks--attacks aimed not just at Americans but at innocent Iraqi civilians as well. These people were with him in life, and now they're with him in death. But to the MSM, these other deaths are on America's (read: Bush's) head.
To add insult to MSM injury, CNN interviewed Michael Berg, the father of Nick Berg, the reporter personally beheaded by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Keep in mind that CNN has had Michael Berg on before, so they know where he stands on the war in Iraq and as a member of International ANSWER. Here's what Berg had to say about Zarqawi's death:
Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that.
As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.
Berg may be sorry when any human being dies, but he apparently has no ability to be grateful for the human beings who won't die in the future now that Zarqawi is dead.
Reuters has a similar report on Michael Berg today, and they have the headline "Father of beheaded man blames Bush, not Zarqawi." Typical of the Left: Bush is responsible for the actions of the killers, but the killers aren't responsible for their own actions. No matter what happens, it's Bush's fault. I'm sick of it.
Zarqawi is dead. Hallelujah!
*
Update:
In more bad news for the Left, oil prices dropped after news came out about Zarqawi's death. Today's Yahoo News has the report.
WorldNetDaily's article today has before and after pictures, and I have to say he looks so much better dead. So peaceful. May he burn in hell.
Iraqi officials said Zarqawi was killed in a precision strike about five miles north of Baquba.
"We have eliminated Zarqawi," Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki told a news conference in Baghdad.
Maliki said the airstrike – two 500-pound bombs dropped by F-16s – was based on intelligence reports provided to Iraqi security forces by area residents.
Efforts to find Zarqawi were stepped up after the terrorist leader appeared in a videotape in late April, according to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.
The tape helped "pinpoint" Zarqawi's location, he said, without further explanation.
Here is the text of President Bush's statement.
Omar at Iraq the Model is thrilled. He adds this about the intelligence the military received:
In the first official confirmation, PM al-Maliki said that Jordan has provided intelligence that was used in the raid on Zaraqwi's hiding place but he also stressed that tips from locals were the primary lead to Zarqawi's exact location and these were the information according to which the missiles were guided.
Al-Maliki said that among the 7 killed with Zarqawi were two women who were responsible for collecting intelligence for the al-Qaeda HQ cell.
Naturally, to the MSM, this is bad news. Even though, for at least the past two years, they've been criticizing President Bush because Zarqawi was still alive and leading "the insurgency," now that he's dead, they're downplaying its significance as much as possible.
I listened to Laura Ingraham this morning on my way to work, and she played a clip from a press conference with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. One of the reporters wanted to know if Rumsfeld had been concerned about "collateral damage" if they went through with the air strike on Zarqawi's safe house. Rumsfeld said simply, "No."
Of course not! The other people killed with Zarqawi were the people who provided him safe haven and a base from which to carry out his attacks--attacks aimed not just at Americans but at innocent Iraqi civilians as well. These people were with him in life, and now they're with him in death. But to the MSM, these other deaths are on America's (read: Bush's) head.
To add insult to MSM injury, CNN interviewed Michael Berg, the father of Nick Berg, the reporter personally beheaded by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. Keep in mind that CNN has had Michael Berg on before, so they know where he stands on the war in Iraq and as a member of International ANSWER. Here's what Berg had to say about Zarqawi's death:
Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that.
As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.
Berg may be sorry when any human being dies, but he apparently has no ability to be grateful for the human beings who won't die in the future now that Zarqawi is dead.
Reuters has a similar report on Michael Berg today, and they have the headline "Father of beheaded man blames Bush, not Zarqawi." Typical of the Left: Bush is responsible for the actions of the killers, but the killers aren't responsible for their own actions. No matter what happens, it's Bush's fault. I'm sick of it.
Zarqawi is dead. Hallelujah!
*
Update:
In more bad news for the Left, oil prices dropped after news came out about Zarqawi's death. Today's Yahoo News has the report.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
UN Number Two Man Criticizes America
United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown delivered a speech yesterday (HT: Hugh Hewitt) attacking the US, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News.
More broadly, Americans complain about the UN’s bureaucracy, weak decision-making, the lack of accountable modern management structures and the political divisions of the General Assembly here in New York. And my response is, “guilty on all counts”.
But why?
In significant part because the US has not stuck with its project -- its professed wish to have a strong, effective United Nations -- in a systematic way. Secretary Albright and others here today have played extraordinary leadership roles in US-UN relations, for which I salute them. But in the eyes of the rest of the world, US commitment tends to ebb much more than it flows. And in recent years, the enormously divisive issue of Iraq and the big stick of financial withholding have come to define an unhappy marriage.
As someone who deals with Washington almost daily, I know this is unfair to the very real effort all three Secretaries of State I have worked with –- Secretary Albright, Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice -– put into UN issues. And today, on a very wide number of areas, from Lebanon and Afghanistan to Syria, Iran and the Palestinian issue, the US is constructively engaged with the UN. But that is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. That is what I mean by “stealth” diplomacy: the UN’s role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world.
Yes, count on the UN to blame America first for its own problems of bureaucracy, weak decision-making, lack of accountability, and political divisions. If the US would only keep their commitments flowing, the UN would... what? Declare they're in a "happy marriage" with the US? Would that fix the political divisions? Would that improve accountability? Hardly.
According to Malloch Brown, the UN is doing important work in a wide number of areas, but Middle America just isn't being informed about the good the UN does. In fact, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are disparaging the UN to Middle America. If it weren't for them, America would be on the UN's side.
Mm-hmm.
Later, he backed down, saying he wasn't attacking Americans, just America's foreign policy. He really likes Fox News. Really.
I'm not convinced. I guess I've been indoctrinated against the UN by Rush Limbaugh, who I never listen to. That must be it. My desire for the removal of the UN from American soil has nothing to do with corruption, rapes of women and children by UN "peace-keepers" and "humanitarian" troops who are supposed to be protecting them, or the constant America-bashing.
Malloch Brown is right about one thing. This is an unhappy marriage, and in this instance, I'm in favor of a divorce.
More broadly, Americans complain about the UN’s bureaucracy, weak decision-making, the lack of accountable modern management structures and the political divisions of the General Assembly here in New York. And my response is, “guilty on all counts”.
But why?
In significant part because the US has not stuck with its project -- its professed wish to have a strong, effective United Nations -- in a systematic way. Secretary Albright and others here today have played extraordinary leadership roles in US-UN relations, for which I salute them. But in the eyes of the rest of the world, US commitment tends to ebb much more than it flows. And in recent years, the enormously divisive issue of Iraq and the big stick of financial withholding have come to define an unhappy marriage.
As someone who deals with Washington almost daily, I know this is unfair to the very real effort all three Secretaries of State I have worked with –- Secretary Albright, Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice -– put into UN issues. And today, on a very wide number of areas, from Lebanon and Afghanistan to Syria, Iran and the Palestinian issue, the US is constructively engaged with the UN. But that is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. That is what I mean by “stealth” diplomacy: the UN’s role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world.
Yes, count on the UN to blame America first for its own problems of bureaucracy, weak decision-making, lack of accountability, and political divisions. If the US would only keep their commitments flowing, the UN would... what? Declare they're in a "happy marriage" with the US? Would that fix the political divisions? Would that improve accountability? Hardly.
According to Malloch Brown, the UN is doing important work in a wide number of areas, but Middle America just isn't being informed about the good the UN does. In fact, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are disparaging the UN to Middle America. If it weren't for them, America would be on the UN's side.
Mm-hmm.
Later, he backed down, saying he wasn't attacking Americans, just America's foreign policy. He really likes Fox News. Really.
I'm not convinced. I guess I've been indoctrinated against the UN by Rush Limbaugh, who I never listen to. That must be it. My desire for the removal of the UN from American soil has nothing to do with corruption, rapes of women and children by UN "peace-keepers" and "humanitarian" troops who are supposed to be protecting them, or the constant America-bashing.
Malloch Brown is right about one thing. This is an unhappy marriage, and in this instance, I'm in favor of a divorce.
Two-Tone Lobster
Photo Credit: Kirk Tulk
This is pretty cool. CBC News reported yesterday that Kirk Tulk caught this lobster off the Newfoundland coast.
Tulk said he has been told that the unusual colouring may be due to a protein deficiency in the lobster's body.
Tulk is donating the lobster to the marine interpretation centre in Terra Nova National Park, which includes observation tanks that can be viewed by the public.
Top Ten Grammar Mistakes
This is a public service for people who are grammatically challenged (or who rely on spell-check to catch errors that it can't catch, because it's the wrong word spelled correctly).
ZDNet yesterday provided the top ten grammatical errors that make their user look stupid.
So here we are in the era of Word's red-underline "wrong spelling, dumb ass" feature and Outlook's Always Check Spelling Before Sending option, and still the mistakes proliferate. Catching typos is easy (although not everyone does it). It's the other stuff — correctly spelled but incorrectly wielded — that sneaks through and makes us look stupid. Here's a quick review of some of the big ones.
The list of words is from the article, but the definitions are mine (the article used right and wrong words in sentences, which made it lengthy).
#1: Loose for lose
"Loose" is not tight/not attached. "Lose" is to misplace something.
#2: It's for its (or god forbid, its')
"It's" is a contraction of "it is." "Its" is the possessive: belonging to it.
#3: They're for their for there
"They're" is a contraction of "they are." "Their" is possessive: belonging to them. "There" is the location that is not here.
#4: i.e. for e.g.
"i.e." means, "in other words." "e.g." means, "for example."
#5: Effect for affect
As a noun, "effect" is the result, and "affect" is an expression of emotion.
As a verb, "effect" means, "to bring about," and "affect" means "to have an influence on something."
#6: You're for your
"You're" is a contraction for "you are." "Your" is the possessive: belonging to you.
#7: Different than for different from
"Different than" is wrong. Use "different from."
#8 Lay for lie
(I'm going to pretend there's no double entendre on this one.)
"Lay" deals with an object (Lay the book on the table). "Lie" doesn't (I'm going to lie down).
#9: Then for than
"Then" is another time besides now. "Than" is used for comparisons (His grammar is better than hers).
#10: Could of, would of for could have, would have
"Could of" and "would of" are wrong. Use "could have" or "would have."
Finally, they left out my particular favorite, so I'll throw that in as a bonus.
#11: Insure for ensure
"Insure" is preparation in case it's needed ( insure against something happening). "Ensure" is making certain (ensure that something happens).
Go and sin no more...
ZDNet yesterday provided the top ten grammatical errors that make their user look stupid.
So here we are in the era of Word's red-underline "wrong spelling, dumb ass" feature and Outlook's Always Check Spelling Before Sending option, and still the mistakes proliferate. Catching typos is easy (although not everyone does it). It's the other stuff — correctly spelled but incorrectly wielded — that sneaks through and makes us look stupid. Here's a quick review of some of the big ones.
The list of words is from the article, but the definitions are mine (the article used right and wrong words in sentences, which made it lengthy).
#1: Loose for lose
"Loose" is not tight/not attached. "Lose" is to misplace something.
#2: It's for its (or god forbid, its')
"It's" is a contraction of "it is." "Its" is the possessive: belonging to it.
#3: They're for their for there
"They're" is a contraction of "they are." "Their" is possessive: belonging to them. "There" is the location that is not here.
#4: i.e. for e.g.
"i.e." means, "in other words." "e.g." means, "for example."
#5: Effect for affect
As a noun, "effect" is the result, and "affect" is an expression of emotion.
As a verb, "effect" means, "to bring about," and "affect" means "to have an influence on something."
#6: You're for your
"You're" is a contraction for "you are." "Your" is the possessive: belonging to you.
#7: Different than for different from
"Different than" is wrong. Use "different from."
#8 Lay for lie
(I'm going to pretend there's no double entendre on this one.)
"Lay" deals with an object (Lay the book on the table). "Lie" doesn't (I'm going to lie down).
#9: Then for than
"Then" is another time besides now. "Than" is used for comparisons (His grammar is better than hers).
#10: Could of, would of for could have, would have
"Could of" and "would of" are wrong. Use "could have" or "would have."
Finally, they left out my particular favorite, so I'll throw that in as a bonus.
#11: Insure for ensure
"Insure" is preparation in case it's needed ( insure against something happening). "Ensure" is making certain (ensure that something happens).
Go and sin no more...
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Marriage Protection
Yesterday Bryan Alexander at Right Thinking discussed Dennis Byrne's post on the Marriage Amendment. They were both brilliant.
How better to stop the rhetoric--the declarations of bigotry--than to flip the amendment on its ear? Byrne recommends a Sexual Orientation Protection Amendment:
"Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sexual orientation."
Then let the debate begin. It could really be fun watching liberal senators chase their tails as they try to figure out whether to pander to their base or to the voters.
Bryan Alexander adds:
[I]t does remind me of a similar turning of the table orchestrated by House Republicans last November after Democratic Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Republicans quickly wrote a resolution of their own calling for immediate withdrawal. A vote was held, and the resolution was defeated 403-3.
It's beautiful watching the opposition get a taste of their own medicine, a veritable hoisting by their own petard.
And after I read Bryan's and Byrne's posts, I was consumed by a curiosity that has plagued me occasionally since I first heard the word back in Junior High: What exactly is a "petard?" Dictionary.com provided the answer in a great cosmic convergence.
2 entries found for petard.
pe·tard ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-tärd)n.
1. A small bell-shaped bomb used to breach a gate or wall.
2. A loud firecracker.
[French pétard, from Old French, from peter, to break wind, from pet, a breaking of wind, from Latin pditum, from neuter past participle of pdere, to break wind. See pezd- in Indo-European Roots.]
Word History: The French used pétard, “a loud discharge of intestinal gas,” for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. “To be hoist by one's own petard,” a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare's Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means “to blow oneself up with one's own bomb, be undone by one's own devices.” The French noun pet, “fart,” developed regularly from the Latin noun pditum, from the Indo-European root *pezd-, “fart.”
So there you have it. The arguments of traditional-marriage opponents on the Left are nothing more than the explosive breaking of wind, and their disingenuous accusations of bigotry have fouled the air.
Let's give them their own amendment so they can try to pass it. Let them clear the air around this once and for all.
How better to stop the rhetoric--the declarations of bigotry--than to flip the amendment on its ear? Byrne recommends a Sexual Orientation Protection Amendment:
"Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sexual orientation."
Then let the debate begin. It could really be fun watching liberal senators chase their tails as they try to figure out whether to pander to their base or to the voters.
Bryan Alexander adds:
[I]t does remind me of a similar turning of the table orchestrated by House Republicans last November after Democratic Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Republicans quickly wrote a resolution of their own calling for immediate withdrawal. A vote was held, and the resolution was defeated 403-3.
It's beautiful watching the opposition get a taste of their own medicine, a veritable hoisting by their own petard.
And after I read Bryan's and Byrne's posts, I was consumed by a curiosity that has plagued me occasionally since I first heard the word back in Junior High: What exactly is a "petard?" Dictionary.com provided the answer in a great cosmic convergence.
2 entries found for petard.
pe·tard ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-tärd)n.
1. A small bell-shaped bomb used to breach a gate or wall.
2. A loud firecracker.
[French pétard, from Old French, from peter, to break wind, from pet, a breaking of wind, from Latin pditum, from neuter past participle of pdere, to break wind. See pezd- in Indo-European Roots.]
Word History: The French used pétard, “a loud discharge of intestinal gas,” for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. “To be hoist by one's own petard,” a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare's Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means “to blow oneself up with one's own bomb, be undone by one's own devices.” The French noun pet, “fart,” developed regularly from the Latin noun pditum, from the Indo-European root *pezd-, “fart.”
So there you have it. The arguments of traditional-marriage opponents on the Left are nothing more than the explosive breaking of wind, and their disingenuous accusations of bigotry have fouled the air.
Let's give them their own amendment so they can try to pass it. Let them clear the air around this once and for all.
Bernard Lewis on Islam and the West
Hugh Hewitt has a long post today, with a couple long excerpts from an interview of Bernard Lewis. It covers the "clash of civilizations," giving great historical insight, as well as a look at Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Here's a sample of the historical perspective of the Islamic Jihadists:
And just as the Muslim world was ruled by a succession of caliphs, so the world of the infidels and more particularly the Christian world, which was the main rival, was ruled by a succession of powers, first the Byzantine emperors, then the Holy Roman emperors, then the Western European empires, and — I'm quoting Osama bin Laden: "In this final phase, the world of the infidels was divided between two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United Sates."
We think of the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as a Western victory in the Cold War, and some of us credit President Reagan more particularly with that victory. For Osama bin Laden and his followers, this was a Muslim victory in the jihad. And if one looks at what actually happened, this is not an implausible interpretation. It was, after all, the Taliban in Afghanistan that drove the Red Army to defeat and collapse. And, as he put it, "We have now dealt successfully with the more deadly, the more dangerous of the two infidel powers. Dealing with the soft, pampered, and degenerate Americans will be easy."
Bin Laden may turn out to be right, if the leftist, anti-war, politically correct, multicultural lobbyists have their way.
Be sure to read Hugh's whole post. Then be sure to read the whole interview with Bernard Lewis. It's chilling, sobering. And it's vital to helping serious people re-steel their resolve to fight this war against Islamic Jihadism to total, absolute victory.
And just as the Muslim world was ruled by a succession of caliphs, so the world of the infidels and more particularly the Christian world, which was the main rival, was ruled by a succession of powers, first the Byzantine emperors, then the Holy Roman emperors, then the Western European empires, and — I'm quoting Osama bin Laden: "In this final phase, the world of the infidels was divided between two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United Sates."
We think of the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as a Western victory in the Cold War, and some of us credit President Reagan more particularly with that victory. For Osama bin Laden and his followers, this was a Muslim victory in the jihad. And if one looks at what actually happened, this is not an implausible interpretation. It was, after all, the Taliban in Afghanistan that drove the Red Army to defeat and collapse. And, as he put it, "We have now dealt successfully with the more deadly, the more dangerous of the two infidel powers. Dealing with the soft, pampered, and degenerate Americans will be easy."
Bin Laden may turn out to be right, if the leftist, anti-war, politically correct, multicultural lobbyists have their way.
Be sure to read Hugh's whole post. Then be sure to read the whole interview with Bernard Lewis. It's chilling, sobering. And it's vital to helping serious people re-steel their resolve to fight this war against Islamic Jihadism to total, absolute victory.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Culture of Corruption
It's Election Eve here in California, and the battle for Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham's empty seat is in the news. The Democrats have made hay over Republican Cunningham's bribery admission and conviction, proclaiming it as evidence of the Republicans' "culture of corruption."
But when a Democrat is caught with the cold cash of bribery in his freezer, the media, the Democratic leadership, and even Republican leadership all come to his defense. Or at least the defense of his congressional office from search and seizure.
The latest news, from today's Washington Post, reveals a web of firms owned by his children and other family members where the money, as much as $400,000 from one individual, was allegedly funneled as part of the bribery scheme.
As court records, sworn affidavits, plea agreements and search warrants attest, it was quite a deal, one of several involving at least seven business entities, nearly a dozen family members and hundreds of thousands of dollars sloshing through bank accounts, all for Jefferson's personal benefit.
But has Congress and the media jumped up to vilify Jefferson the way it did Cunningham? Hardly.
There's been a lot of opinion written about Jefferson. Robert F. Turner, in the May 28 OpinionJournal, wrote about Congress's misplaced principles.
One might expect that others in Congress would be grateful that a scoundrel in their midst has apparently been caught red-handed. But there is obviously a more fundamental issue here, as House Speaker Dennis Hastert quickly joined forces with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, not to commend the FBI for its outstanding work, but to vehemently denounce its actions on the theory that members of Congress are above the law.
Specifically, they accused the FBI of violating the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the "Speech or Debate" clause of the Constitution. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner has scheduled hearings for Tuesday on this "profoundly disturbing constitutional question."
It's disgusting. It says that Congress members--both the Republicans and the Democrats--expect to need protecting when it comes to be their turn to indulge in a little bribe-taking.
Bob Barr wrote, on May 28, for the Washington Times that Congress is focusing on the wrong thing by worrying about separation of powers with the Justice Department's taking of Jefferson's documents.
Already, the fact that Congress has lept to Mr. Jefferson's defense has provided breathingroom for the embattled congressman. The picture is madeeven (sic) murkier by the statement President Bush issued later in the week that appears to signal weakness in the administration's position. Historically and legally, the Department of Justice is on solid ground, but if they fail to hold that ground, they'll have only themselves to blame when this and future cases unravel.
He's right. The next congressional criminal will simply hide the evidence in his or her office to keep it out of the courts.
Mark Steyn in the May 28 Chicago Sun-Times, like Barr and Turner, is one of the few even looking at the issue with any common sense.
Last week, something very unusual happened: There was a story out of Washington that didn't reflect badly on the Republican Party's competence or self-discipline. It was about a Democrat! Fellow from Louisiana called William Jefferson. Corruption investigation. Don't worry, if you're too distracted by "American Idol," it's not hard to follow, you just need to know one little visual image: According to an FBI affidavit, this Democrat congressman was caught on video taking a hundred-grand bribe from a government informer and then storing it in his freezer. That's what the scandal's supposed to be: Democrat Icecapades of 2006. All the GOP had to do was keep out of the way and let Jefferson and his Dem defenders skate across the thin ice like Tonya Harding with her lumpy tights full of used twenties. It was a perfect story: No Republicans need be harmed in the making of this scandal.
So what does Hastert do? He and the House Republican leadership intervene in the case on behalf of the Democrat: They're strenuously objecting to the FBI having the appalling lese majeste to go to court, obtain a warrant and search Jefferson's office.
What's wrong with these people?!? Are they out of their minds? Jefferson was caught red-handed, and they're defending him.
At this point, Duke Cunningham doesn't look so bad. He accepted bribes, but when he was caught, he admitted his guilt. His final public speech (that I remember) contained these words: "In my life, I have known great joy and great sorrow. Now I know great shame."
Criminal that he is, Cunningham is the better man, because the rest of them know absolutely no shame.
But when a Democrat is caught with the cold cash of bribery in his freezer, the media, the Democratic leadership, and even Republican leadership all come to his defense. Or at least the defense of his congressional office from search and seizure.
The latest news, from today's Washington Post, reveals a web of firms owned by his children and other family members where the money, as much as $400,000 from one individual, was allegedly funneled as part of the bribery scheme.
As court records, sworn affidavits, plea agreements and search warrants attest, it was quite a deal, one of several involving at least seven business entities, nearly a dozen family members and hundreds of thousands of dollars sloshing through bank accounts, all for Jefferson's personal benefit.
But has Congress and the media jumped up to vilify Jefferson the way it did Cunningham? Hardly.
There's been a lot of opinion written about Jefferson. Robert F. Turner, in the May 28 OpinionJournal, wrote about Congress's misplaced principles.
One might expect that others in Congress would be grateful that a scoundrel in their midst has apparently been caught red-handed. But there is obviously a more fundamental issue here, as House Speaker Dennis Hastert quickly joined forces with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, not to commend the FBI for its outstanding work, but to vehemently denounce its actions on the theory that members of Congress are above the law.
Specifically, they accused the FBI of violating the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the "Speech or Debate" clause of the Constitution. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner has scheduled hearings for Tuesday on this "profoundly disturbing constitutional question."
It's disgusting. It says that Congress members--both the Republicans and the Democrats--expect to need protecting when it comes to be their turn to indulge in a little bribe-taking.
Bob Barr wrote, on May 28, for the Washington Times that Congress is focusing on the wrong thing by worrying about separation of powers with the Justice Department's taking of Jefferson's documents.
Already, the fact that Congress has lept to Mr. Jefferson's defense has provided breathingroom for the embattled congressman. The picture is madeeven (sic) murkier by the statement President Bush issued later in the week that appears to signal weakness in the administration's position. Historically and legally, the Department of Justice is on solid ground, but if they fail to hold that ground, they'll have only themselves to blame when this and future cases unravel.
He's right. The next congressional criminal will simply hide the evidence in his or her office to keep it out of the courts.
Mark Steyn in the May 28 Chicago Sun-Times, like Barr and Turner, is one of the few even looking at the issue with any common sense.
Last week, something very unusual happened: There was a story out of Washington that didn't reflect badly on the Republican Party's competence or self-discipline. It was about a Democrat! Fellow from Louisiana called William Jefferson. Corruption investigation. Don't worry, if you're too distracted by "American Idol," it's not hard to follow, you just need to know one little visual image: According to an FBI affidavit, this Democrat congressman was caught on video taking a hundred-grand bribe from a government informer and then storing it in his freezer. That's what the scandal's supposed to be: Democrat Icecapades of 2006. All the GOP had to do was keep out of the way and let Jefferson and his Dem defenders skate across the thin ice like Tonya Harding with her lumpy tights full of used twenties. It was a perfect story: No Republicans need be harmed in the making of this scandal.
So what does Hastert do? He and the House Republican leadership intervene in the case on behalf of the Democrat: They're strenuously objecting to the FBI having the appalling lese majeste to go to court, obtain a warrant and search Jefferson's office.
What's wrong with these people?!? Are they out of their minds? Jefferson was caught red-handed, and they're defending him.
At this point, Duke Cunningham doesn't look so bad. He accepted bribes, but when he was caught, he admitted his guilt. His final public speech (that I remember) contained these words: "In my life, I have known great joy and great sorrow. Now I know great shame."
Criminal that he is, Cunningham is the better man, because the rest of them know absolutely no shame.
Brokeback Wins "Best Kiss" at MTV Awards
Gross!
Reuters reported yesterday about the MTV Awards, which includes such unconventional categories as "Best Kiss" and "Best Fight" (Mr. & Mrs. Smith), along with the typical "Best Movie" (Wedding Crashers).
I saw a lot of movies last year, and Brokeback Mountain was definitely not one of them. In my opinion, Pride and Prejudice was the most romantic movie, but it didn't have the best kiss. It did, however, have the best almost-kiss. That would be the one in the scene with the marriage proposal in the rain.
No, the best kiss of the year belongs to Just Like Heaven.
The MTV crowd doesn't have a clue.
Reuters reported yesterday about the MTV Awards, which includes such unconventional categories as "Best Kiss" and "Best Fight" (Mr. & Mrs. Smith), along with the typical "Best Movie" (Wedding Crashers).
I saw a lot of movies last year, and Brokeback Mountain was definitely not one of them. In my opinion, Pride and Prejudice was the most romantic movie, but it didn't have the best kiss. It did, however, have the best almost-kiss. That would be the one in the scene with the marriage proposal in the rain.
No, the best kiss of the year belongs to Just Like Heaven.
The MTV crowd doesn't have a clue.
Zimbabwe Is Back In The News
So soon?
Friday I worked from home, because I had one of those ever-popular dentist appointments in the middle of the day. And since I was home on a workday (which almost never happens), I decided to stop at the print shop of the Zimbabwean who left a comment on my latest Zimbabwe post. What a treat!
He wasn't there when I first arrived, so I talked to his wife, and she's the one who first told me the news that Zimbabwe will be issuing new $Z100,000 notes. Her family is still stuck there, because they're black and no other countries will take them (His family is white, and they were all able to get out--to Australia, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US). Where the wife's sister lives, they're down to only four hours of electricity a day, and now the water is being cut off for part of the day. Each day seems to bring more and more hardship while it brings less and less stability, buying power, and subsistence.
When the husband arrived, we continued the conversation, and he expressed his frustration with the lack of news of his home country. And I agree. Almost every article I've seen about Zimbabwe has been in the London Telegraph, which is understandable for them since Zimbabwe was once a British colony (this couple's accent sounds British to my ears). But I hate the lack of coverage in the US press.
I'm reminded of the movie Hotel Rwanda, when the main character is asking the Canadian representative of the UN why the world is ignoring the massacres. The UN man replies to the effect that "the world doesn't care about you because you're black." Is that what's happening in Zimbabwe too? It would certainly seem that way, especially since most of the whites have fled the country.
My heartbreak over the people of Zimbabwe is greater than for other poor countries. To have known nothing but scratching out a living every day of a person's life (as in Haiti or the shantytowns of Mexico) is bad enough. But to have known a life very similar to that of America and then to have that taken from you so that you're left in Haiti-like conditions is even worse. I can't imagine.
Meanwhile, Breitbart reported yesterday that one of Zimbabwe's newspapers (probably government-run or -dictated) is claiming that the US is trying to force the removal of President Robert Mugabe. We should be so lucky.
"In one of its recent strategic advisory documents to the US government, Havard University's John F. Kennedy School of government implores donors to withhold assistance to Zimbabwe until "recovery" is possible with new leadership." it said.
"No donor should provide assistance to the government at present ... since recovery is impossible with the current leadership," the weekly said quoting what it claimed was an extract from the document.
"It is clear the US have a problem with the liberation ethos as well as its symbol President Robert Mugabe and are thus intent on reversing all that together with the gains of independence," [Mugabe's spokesman George Charamba] said.
Somehow, I don't think independence is what the US has a problem with.
At the print shop, I asked the husband, whose love of Zimbabwe is obvious: If Mugabe and his thugs were to be removed from power and replaced with someone who had Zimbabwe's best interest in mind, would you go back?
He said no. They've been here for three years and built up a business that's managing to keep a roof over their heads. In America, their teenage daughters have the chance to be whatever they want to be. If they want to be a doctor, they can try for medical school. But in Zimbabwe, all the private schools and universities are closed down, so if one of their daughters wanted to be a doctor, all she could do would be to dream of it for the rest of her life with no way of making it happen. The people with the ability to help rebuild what Robert Mugabe has destroyed are gone and not likely to return.
Zimbabwe will probably be like Haiti for a very, very long time.
Friday I worked from home, because I had one of those ever-popular dentist appointments in the middle of the day. And since I was home on a workday (which almost never happens), I decided to stop at the print shop of the Zimbabwean who left a comment on my latest Zimbabwe post. What a treat!
He wasn't there when I first arrived, so I talked to his wife, and she's the one who first told me the news that Zimbabwe will be issuing new $Z100,000 notes. Her family is still stuck there, because they're black and no other countries will take them (His family is white, and they were all able to get out--to Australia, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US). Where the wife's sister lives, they're down to only four hours of electricity a day, and now the water is being cut off for part of the day. Each day seems to bring more and more hardship while it brings less and less stability, buying power, and subsistence.
When the husband arrived, we continued the conversation, and he expressed his frustration with the lack of news of his home country. And I agree. Almost every article I've seen about Zimbabwe has been in the London Telegraph, which is understandable for them since Zimbabwe was once a British colony (this couple's accent sounds British to my ears). But I hate the lack of coverage in the US press.
I'm reminded of the movie Hotel Rwanda, when the main character is asking the Canadian representative of the UN why the world is ignoring the massacres. The UN man replies to the effect that "the world doesn't care about you because you're black." Is that what's happening in Zimbabwe too? It would certainly seem that way, especially since most of the whites have fled the country.
My heartbreak over the people of Zimbabwe is greater than for other poor countries. To have known nothing but scratching out a living every day of a person's life (as in Haiti or the shantytowns of Mexico) is bad enough. But to have known a life very similar to that of America and then to have that taken from you so that you're left in Haiti-like conditions is even worse. I can't imagine.
Meanwhile, Breitbart reported yesterday that one of Zimbabwe's newspapers (probably government-run or -dictated) is claiming that the US is trying to force the removal of President Robert Mugabe. We should be so lucky.
"In one of its recent strategic advisory documents to the US government, Havard University's John F. Kennedy School of government implores donors to withhold assistance to Zimbabwe until "recovery" is possible with new leadership." it said.
"No donor should provide assistance to the government at present ... since recovery is impossible with the current leadership," the weekly said quoting what it claimed was an extract from the document.
"It is clear the US have a problem with the liberation ethos as well as its symbol President Robert Mugabe and are thus intent on reversing all that together with the gains of independence," [Mugabe's spokesman George Charamba] said.
Somehow, I don't think independence is what the US has a problem with.
At the print shop, I asked the husband, whose love of Zimbabwe is obvious: If Mugabe and his thugs were to be removed from power and replaced with someone who had Zimbabwe's best interest in mind, would you go back?
He said no. They've been here for three years and built up a business that's managing to keep a roof over their heads. In America, their teenage daughters have the chance to be whatever they want to be. If they want to be a doctor, they can try for medical school. But in Zimbabwe, all the private schools and universities are closed down, so if one of their daughters wanted to be a doctor, all she could do would be to dream of it for the rest of her life with no way of making it happen. The people with the ability to help rebuild what Robert Mugabe has destroyed are gone and not likely to return.
Zimbabwe will probably be like Haiti for a very, very long time.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
GodBlogCon '06 Coming in August
Yes, the long-awaited (by me) GodBlogCon '06 is scheduled for August 3 - 5, 2006 at Biola University in La Mirada, California (HT: Charlie at AnotherThink). Many of the workshops and speakers are still TBD.
I had such a great time in October (see here, here, here, here, here, and here). I met Charlie there, as well as La Shawn Barber, Lores Rizkalla, and so many others. And, we talked to each other with actual vocal cords.
For me, the joy of GodBlogCon wasn't the workshops, though I loved them. It was being surrounded by people who shared not only my faith in Jesus, but who shared my love of language and the passion for expressing opinions through this medium in the hope of having an impact in someone else's life.
GodBlogCon isn't just for current bloggers. It's also for people who think maybe they might want to imagine possibly starting a blog. I plan to be there, and I hope you'll be there too.
I had such a great time in October (see here, here, here, here, here, and here). I met Charlie there, as well as La Shawn Barber, Lores Rizkalla, and so many others. And, we talked to each other with actual vocal cords.
For me, the joy of GodBlogCon wasn't the workshops, though I loved them. It was being surrounded by people who shared not only my faith in Jesus, but who shared my love of language and the passion for expressing opinions through this medium in the hope of having an impact in someone else's life.
GodBlogCon isn't just for current bloggers. It's also for people who think maybe they might want to imagine possibly starting a blog. I plan to be there, and I hope you'll be there too.
Buy Dunkin' Donuts
Michelle Malkin has this today on Dunkin' Donuts.
Beginning today, all 5,000 of Dunkin' Donuts franchisees will be required to participate in a government database program to verify that workers are here legally. The company was responding to customer concerns about illegal employees.
If you want to support businesses that verify the work status of their new-hires, then you'll want to support Dunkin' Donuts.
Buy early. Buy often.
Beginning today, all 5,000 of Dunkin' Donuts franchisees will be required to participate in a government database program to verify that workers are here legally. The company was responding to customer concerns about illegal employees.
If you want to support businesses that verify the work status of their new-hires, then you'll want to support Dunkin' Donuts.
Buy early. Buy often.
Global Warming Protesters
This isn't about people who are protesting the warming of the globe. WorldNetDaily reported yesterday that activists are protesting the "cover-up."
Protesters, including survivors of Hurricane Katrina, launched a 37-hour vigil outside the headquarters of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration today, calling for the agency's head to resign for "covering up" an alleged scientific link between severe storms and global warming.
They're calling for the resignation of the National Hurricane Center's director, Max Mayfield.
[The protest] is organized by a newly formed non-profit group called the U.S. Climate Emergency Council, which argues that of the six most powerful hurricanes ever to hit the U.S. in the past 150 years, three occurred within 52 days last year.
"Yet, despite a flurry of peer-reviewed scientific studies linking planetary warming to storms like Katrina, leaders at NOAA and the NHC continue to claim that the recent hurricane devastation is part of a 'natural cycle,'" the group says.
"These actions at NOAA and the NHC are part of an obvious political campaign orchestrated by the White House to avoid the serious cuts in fossil fuel use scientists say are needed to fight global warming. But by ignoring the science and denying the warming on behalf of Exxon Mobil and other major oil corporations, the Bush administration is putting millions more Americans this year and for years to come at great risk for experiencing the kind of suffering and loss seen throughout the Gulf Coast in 2005."
It's all Bush's fault, because he's in the pocket of Big Oil. Sounds familiar.
But I'm impressed this group thought of a new word to use when they came up with a name. The climate challenges they see, for once, aren't a Crisis--usually the favorite word of hysterics. This time, the climate is an Emergency.
And how are the protesters addressing the emergency?
The protest in Silver Spring, Md., near Washington, will continue through tomorrow at midnight, with picketing during the day and a candlelight vigil at night.
They'll be putting out lots of hot air during the day, and then they'll be warming the atmosphere with their candles at night. A little counterproductive, isn't it?
Protesters, including survivors of Hurricane Katrina, launched a 37-hour vigil outside the headquarters of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration today, calling for the agency's head to resign for "covering up" an alleged scientific link between severe storms and global warming.
They're calling for the resignation of the National Hurricane Center's director, Max Mayfield.
[The protest] is organized by a newly formed non-profit group called the U.S. Climate Emergency Council, which argues that of the six most powerful hurricanes ever to hit the U.S. in the past 150 years, three occurred within 52 days last year.
"Yet, despite a flurry of peer-reviewed scientific studies linking planetary warming to storms like Katrina, leaders at NOAA and the NHC continue to claim that the recent hurricane devastation is part of a 'natural cycle,'" the group says.
"These actions at NOAA and the NHC are part of an obvious political campaign orchestrated by the White House to avoid the serious cuts in fossil fuel use scientists say are needed to fight global warming. But by ignoring the science and denying the warming on behalf of Exxon Mobil and other major oil corporations, the Bush administration is putting millions more Americans this year and for years to come at great risk for experiencing the kind of suffering and loss seen throughout the Gulf Coast in 2005."
It's all Bush's fault, because he's in the pocket of Big Oil. Sounds familiar.
But I'm impressed this group thought of a new word to use when they came up with a name. The climate challenges they see, for once, aren't a Crisis--usually the favorite word of hysterics. This time, the climate is an Emergency.
And how are the protesters addressing the emergency?
The protest in Silver Spring, Md., near Washington, will continue through tomorrow at midnight, with picketing during the day and a candlelight vigil at night.
They'll be putting out lots of hot air during the day, and then they'll be warming the atmosphere with their candles at night. A little counterproductive, isn't it?
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Planting a Seed
We'll see if it sprouts...
I'm planning to attend my non-denominational denomination's National Missionary Convention this November in Indianapolis (Nov. 16 - 20).
If any of you fellow bloggers or blog readers are (or can be) within spittin' distance, or a stone's throw, or thereabouts, of the Indianapolis Convention Center probably that Saturday, I'd love to get together with you. We can talk about God, politics, culture, blogging, or (one of my favorites) weird animal news.
If you're interested, please send an email to: skyepuppy-at-cox-dot-net (no hyphens), and let me know whether you'd prefer lunchtime, dinnertime, or afternoon snacktime (pie?). We can firm up the details when November gets closer.
I'd love to be able to put faces and the sound of your laughter to the names and words I see most days.
I'm planning to attend my non-denominational denomination's National Missionary Convention this November in Indianapolis (Nov. 16 - 20).
If any of you fellow bloggers or blog readers are (or can be) within spittin' distance, or a stone's throw, or thereabouts, of the Indianapolis Convention Center probably that Saturday, I'd love to get together with you. We can talk about God, politics, culture, blogging, or (one of my favorites) weird animal news.
If you're interested, please send an email to: skyepuppy-at-cox-dot-net (no hyphens), and let me know whether you'd prefer lunchtime, dinnertime, or afternoon snacktime (pie?). We can firm up the details when November gets closer.
I'd love to be able to put faces and the sound of your laughter to the names and words I see most days.
Tyranny of the Christian Right
The Left is insular. The Left is instructive. The Left is very afraid. Of Christians.
Michelle Goldberg's column in yesterday's AlterNet (a Left-leaning publication) addresses the threat evangelical Christians pose to the fabric of life as we know it in America.
But before I address her concerns about Christians, I have to expose the fallacy of her simile:
Thus for those who value secular society, apprehending the threat of Christian nationalism is tricky. It's like being a lobster in a pot, with the water heating up so slowly that you don't notice the moment at which it starts to kill you.
It's a frog in a pot with the water heating up slowly. You throw a lobster into a pot of boiling water, which kills it immediately. If you can't even get your similes and metaphors right, how are we going to respect the actual points that you make?
The subtitle to Goldberg's column (I used her title as the title to this post) is, "The largest and most powerful mass movement in the nation -- evangelical Christianity -- has set out to destroy secular society." I hadn't realized that's what I had set out to do. Not that I am a "mass movement" all by myself, but I am an evangelical Christian.
This is a really long article, and it's followed by about a million comments, mostly from liberals in complete agreement with her about the dire threat to society, so I won't try to highlight all of her scintillating points--just a few of the shiny ones.
The phrase ["Christian worldview"] is based on the conviction that true Christianity must govern every aspect of public and private life, and that all -- government, science, history and culture -- must be understood according to the dictates of scripture. There are biblically correct positions on every issue, from gay marriage to income tax rates, and only those with the right worldview can discern them. This is Christianity as a total ideology -- I call it Christian nationalism.
She's kinda-sorta right, but still wrong. Christian faith must govern every aspect of an individual Christian's life, public and private, and that includes expressing one's voice as a citizen of the country to try to influence the direction our society takes. And this is nothing less than what secular people do. We just disagree on what that direction should be.
As Christian nationalism becomes more militant, secularists and religious minorities will mobilize in opposition, ratcheting up the hostility. Thus we're likely to see a shrinking middle ground, with both camps increasingly viewing each other across a chasm of mutual incomprehension and contempt.
It's the Christians who are becoming militant. Secularists are only reacting when they get hostile. Uh-huh. She's right about the incomprehension and contempt, though. I think we might be there already. Her column indicates that the Left has reached it.
In the coming years, we will probably see the curtailment of the civil rights that gay people, women and religious minorities have won in the last few decades.
I'm really glad she didn't include racial minorities in the list of who she thinks Christians want to curtail. That would be beyond contempt. But women? What makes her think Christians want to take away women's civil rights? Are we out to stop women from voting? Or is she only thinking of women's "civil right" to have an abortion?
I understand her inclusion of gay people in this list, since the Left seems to believe that civil rights for gays includes the right to be approved of and the right to be hired by churches that hold strong religious beliefs against the practice of homosexuality. But does she think Christians want to stop Muslims or Wiccans or Buddhists from voting or getting jobs? Just what rights have Christians tried to curtail?
Here's how Goldberg concludes:
Writing just after 9/11, Salman Rushdie eviscerated those on the left who rationalized the terrorist attacks as a regrettable explosion of understandable third world rage: "The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings," he wrote. "Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multiparty political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex."
Christian nationalists have no problem with beardlessness, but except for that, Rushdie could have been describing them.
It makes no sense to fight religious authoritarianism abroad while letting it take over at home. The grinding, brutal war between modern and medieval values has spread chaos, fear, and misery across our poor planet. Far worse than the conflicts we're experiencing today, however, would be a world torn between competing fundamentalisms. Our side, America's side, must be the side of freedom and Enlightenment, of liberation from stale constricting dogmas. It must be the side that elevates reason above the commands of holy books and human solidarity above religious supremacism. Otherwise, God help us all.
According to Michelle Goldberg, evangelical Christians are against all of the following things: "freedom of speech, a multiparty political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, evolution theory, sex."
What planet does she live on? What hallucinogens does she consume? What synapses in her brain are misfiring?
Freedom of speech. Christians would like an equal right as everyone else to speak our minds in the public square.
Multiparty political system. Who says we don't want that? We want our side to win. They want their side to win. What's the big deal?
Universal adult suffrage. What??? Christians want some adults not to be able to vote? Does she want felons to vote? Does she want illegal aliens to vote? I don't get this one.
Accountable government. We want it to be accountable. We just don't think that the first response to a disagreement with government policy should be to throw Karl Rove in prison.
Jews. Ask Dennis Prager (a religious Jew). Evangelical Christians in America are the Jews' best friend.
Homosexuals. Christians are not against homosexuals. Homosexuals are people, and Christians actually like people. What the Christians I know object to is having homosexuality shoved in our faces and then being called bigots when we disagree with the practice. Gays say they want to keep us out of their bedrooms. Fine. Let them keep their bedrooms out of our faces.
Women's rights. I assume she means abortion rights. She's right. Evangelical Christians tend to be against that.
Pluralism. I'm not sure what she means by this one. Christians like America and its ideals. We like the melting pot. I am the melting pot (eight nationalities). If she means we want immigrants to assimilate rather than balkanize, that's more of a conservative rather than a Christian viewpoint.
Secularism. She's sorta right on this, too. Christians don't want our country to become a completely secular society, like France is. We want God to still be allowed to live here.
Short skirts. Oh, please.
Dancing. That used to be the Southern Baptists, I think. I don't know if they still frown on dancing or not. But nobody is out to remove dancing from America.
Evolution theory. There is no unified Evangelical Christian view of evolution. Many Christians believe varying combinations of creation/evolution. Some are creation-only. Some are evolution-only. Some are creation-via-evolution. Some don't care a whole lot about beginnings, just about endings (heaven/hell).
Sex. We like sex. We just prefer it to be married sex.
Lefties, get a grip. We're not a threat. We have the right to participate in the political process and to be part of the public arena. If you can't stand that fact, go to France.
Either way, God help us all.
Michelle Goldberg's column in yesterday's AlterNet (a Left-leaning publication) addresses the threat evangelical Christians pose to the fabric of life as we know it in America.
But before I address her concerns about Christians, I have to expose the fallacy of her simile:
Thus for those who value secular society, apprehending the threat of Christian nationalism is tricky. It's like being a lobster in a pot, with the water heating up so slowly that you don't notice the moment at which it starts to kill you.
It's a frog in a pot with the water heating up slowly. You throw a lobster into a pot of boiling water, which kills it immediately. If you can't even get your similes and metaphors right, how are we going to respect the actual points that you make?
The subtitle to Goldberg's column (I used her title as the title to this post) is, "The largest and most powerful mass movement in the nation -- evangelical Christianity -- has set out to destroy secular society." I hadn't realized that's what I had set out to do. Not that I am a "mass movement" all by myself, but I am an evangelical Christian.
This is a really long article, and it's followed by about a million comments, mostly from liberals in complete agreement with her about the dire threat to society, so I won't try to highlight all of her scintillating points--just a few of the shiny ones.
The phrase ["Christian worldview"] is based on the conviction that true Christianity must govern every aspect of public and private life, and that all -- government, science, history and culture -- must be understood according to the dictates of scripture. There are biblically correct positions on every issue, from gay marriage to income tax rates, and only those with the right worldview can discern them. This is Christianity as a total ideology -- I call it Christian nationalism.
She's kinda-sorta right, but still wrong. Christian faith must govern every aspect of an individual Christian's life, public and private, and that includes expressing one's voice as a citizen of the country to try to influence the direction our society takes. And this is nothing less than what secular people do. We just disagree on what that direction should be.
As Christian nationalism becomes more militant, secularists and religious minorities will mobilize in opposition, ratcheting up the hostility. Thus we're likely to see a shrinking middle ground, with both camps increasingly viewing each other across a chasm of mutual incomprehension and contempt.
It's the Christians who are becoming militant. Secularists are only reacting when they get hostile. Uh-huh. She's right about the incomprehension and contempt, though. I think we might be there already. Her column indicates that the Left has reached it.
In the coming years, we will probably see the curtailment of the civil rights that gay people, women and religious minorities have won in the last few decades.
I'm really glad she didn't include racial minorities in the list of who she thinks Christians want to curtail. That would be beyond contempt. But women? What makes her think Christians want to take away women's civil rights? Are we out to stop women from voting? Or is she only thinking of women's "civil right" to have an abortion?
I understand her inclusion of gay people in this list, since the Left seems to believe that civil rights for gays includes the right to be approved of and the right to be hired by churches that hold strong religious beliefs against the practice of homosexuality. But does she think Christians want to stop Muslims or Wiccans or Buddhists from voting or getting jobs? Just what rights have Christians tried to curtail?
Here's how Goldberg concludes:
Writing just after 9/11, Salman Rushdie eviscerated those on the left who rationalized the terrorist attacks as a regrettable explosion of understandable third world rage: "The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings," he wrote. "Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multiparty political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex."
Christian nationalists have no problem with beardlessness, but except for that, Rushdie could have been describing them.
It makes no sense to fight religious authoritarianism abroad while letting it take over at home. The grinding, brutal war between modern and medieval values has spread chaos, fear, and misery across our poor planet. Far worse than the conflicts we're experiencing today, however, would be a world torn between competing fundamentalisms. Our side, America's side, must be the side of freedom and Enlightenment, of liberation from stale constricting dogmas. It must be the side that elevates reason above the commands of holy books and human solidarity above religious supremacism. Otherwise, God help us all.
According to Michelle Goldberg, evangelical Christians are against all of the following things: "freedom of speech, a multiparty political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, evolution theory, sex."
What planet does she live on? What hallucinogens does she consume? What synapses in her brain are misfiring?
Freedom of speech. Christians would like an equal right as everyone else to speak our minds in the public square.
Multiparty political system. Who says we don't want that? We want our side to win. They want their side to win. What's the big deal?
Universal adult suffrage. What??? Christians want some adults not to be able to vote? Does she want felons to vote? Does she want illegal aliens to vote? I don't get this one.
Accountable government. We want it to be accountable. We just don't think that the first response to a disagreement with government policy should be to throw Karl Rove in prison.
Jews. Ask Dennis Prager (a religious Jew). Evangelical Christians in America are the Jews' best friend.
Homosexuals. Christians are not against homosexuals. Homosexuals are people, and Christians actually like people. What the Christians I know object to is having homosexuality shoved in our faces and then being called bigots when we disagree with the practice. Gays say they want to keep us out of their bedrooms. Fine. Let them keep their bedrooms out of our faces.
Women's rights. I assume she means abortion rights. She's right. Evangelical Christians tend to be against that.
Pluralism. I'm not sure what she means by this one. Christians like America and its ideals. We like the melting pot. I am the melting pot (eight nationalities). If she means we want immigrants to assimilate rather than balkanize, that's more of a conservative rather than a Christian viewpoint.
Secularism. She's sorta right on this, too. Christians don't want our country to become a completely secular society, like France is. We want God to still be allowed to live here.
Short skirts. Oh, please.
Dancing. That used to be the Southern Baptists, I think. I don't know if they still frown on dancing or not. But nobody is out to remove dancing from America.
Evolution theory. There is no unified Evangelical Christian view of evolution. Many Christians believe varying combinations of creation/evolution. Some are creation-only. Some are evolution-only. Some are creation-via-evolution. Some don't care a whole lot about beginnings, just about endings (heaven/hell).
Sex. We like sex. We just prefer it to be married sex.
Lefties, get a grip. We're not a threat. We have the right to participate in the political process and to be part of the public arena. If you can't stand that fact, go to France.
Either way, God help us all.
Global Heating in Alaska
There are lots of important things to blog about--even more important than the President's looming divorce--but I couldn't resist the Global Warming story.
Joseph Farah, founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily, has a great column today criticizing USA Today's reporting of the dire effects of global warming on Alaska. The crux of the criticism is that USA Today said, quoting "forest ecologist," Glenn Juday:
"Since the 1970s, climate change has doubled the growing season in some places and raised the state temperatures 6 degrees in the winter and 3.5 on average annually since 1950, says Juday, a professor at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks." (emphasis added)
Farah's response:
Now, back in the old days of my newspaper career, we had editors who actually looked at incredible claims made in stories, questioned them and struck out some of the more preposterous and bizarre assertions.
I guess this practice has been abandoned by Gannett and USA Today. Either that or the newspaper publisher has begun hiring arithmetically challenged reporters and editors as part of its diversity policies.
Think about this: If it were true that average winter temperatures in Alaska have increased 6 degrees Fahrenheit annually since 1950, it would mean average winter temperatures in Alaska are now 336 degrees higher than they were in 1950. Average summer temperatures, according to this statement would be 196 degrees higher, if we are to believe the nonsensical claim of a 3.5 degrees annual rise.
And if the average increase is 3.5 degrees, then that means the summer temperature only went up by about 1 degree annually, making the summers only 56 degrees warmer than in 1950. And that means Alaska's winters are a lot hotter than the summers. But nobody seems to be migrating to that tropical Alaska paradise.
OK, let's assume the forest ecologist didn't really say (or mean to say "annually"). That's a six degree increase in winter temperatures and a 3.5 degree average increase. Is this a steady trend? Or is it the result of normal weather fluctuation? I decided to go to that exacting research tool: Google, with search criteria of "average temperature alaska 1950." It was enlightening, and I think our forest ecologist ought to limit his comments to forests and leave the climate to others.
"Average temperature at the earth surface, 1950-99" - a chart showing roughly an average increase of less than one degree Celsius (13.9 in 1950 to about 14.5 in 1999/2000).
An article saying "boy, was it hot in Alaska in 2004," with a chart (yellow background) showing departures from the mean temperature from 1950 - 2004. It shows that the '50s had warm and cold departures, the '60s through the '80s were mostly colder than the mean, and since 1990, the temperatures have been warmer than the mean temperature.
A website apparently supported by extremist environmental groups that gives this statistic about Alaska: "Annual average temperatures have warmed up to 1.8?F (1?C) per decade over the last three decades, and winter warming has been as high as 3?F (2?C) per decade." They also list pick-and-choose statistics that appear to support the warming idea.
The Earth Policy Institute's website gives the Alaska temperature increase as five degrees F.
It's all interesting. Alaska's temperatures have gone up 1 - 5 degrees. But if you look at the yellow chart in the "boy was it hot in 2004" link, you'll notice that Canada has been getting colder since 2000, at the same time Alaska has been getting warmer. But the environmentalists are pretending that Canada doesn't exist and that Alaska is the thermometer/barometer of all global warming.
The environmentalists have put on their own set of blinders, so they can look at isolated cases to support their pet theories. When Alaska's polar bears start sipping piña coladas, maybe I'll finally believe Global Warming is here.
Joseph Farah, founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily, has a great column today criticizing USA Today's reporting of the dire effects of global warming on Alaska. The crux of the criticism is that USA Today said, quoting "forest ecologist," Glenn Juday:
"Since the 1970s, climate change has doubled the growing season in some places and raised the state temperatures 6 degrees in the winter and 3.5 on average annually since 1950, says Juday, a professor at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks." (emphasis added)
Farah's response:
Now, back in the old days of my newspaper career, we had editors who actually looked at incredible claims made in stories, questioned them and struck out some of the more preposterous and bizarre assertions.
I guess this practice has been abandoned by Gannett and USA Today. Either that or the newspaper publisher has begun hiring arithmetically challenged reporters and editors as part of its diversity policies.
Think about this: If it were true that average winter temperatures in Alaska have increased 6 degrees Fahrenheit annually since 1950, it would mean average winter temperatures in Alaska are now 336 degrees higher than they were in 1950. Average summer temperatures, according to this statement would be 196 degrees higher, if we are to believe the nonsensical claim of a 3.5 degrees annual rise.
And if the average increase is 3.5 degrees, then that means the summer temperature only went up by about 1 degree annually, making the summers only 56 degrees warmer than in 1950. And that means Alaska's winters are a lot hotter than the summers. But nobody seems to be migrating to that tropical Alaska paradise.
OK, let's assume the forest ecologist didn't really say (or mean to say "annually"). That's a six degree increase in winter temperatures and a 3.5 degree average increase. Is this a steady trend? Or is it the result of normal weather fluctuation? I decided to go to that exacting research tool: Google, with search criteria of "average temperature alaska 1950." It was enlightening, and I think our forest ecologist ought to limit his comments to forests and leave the climate to others.
"Average temperature at the earth surface, 1950-99" - a chart showing roughly an average increase of less than one degree Celsius (13.9 in 1950 to about 14.5 in 1999/2000).
An article saying "boy, was it hot in Alaska in 2004," with a chart (yellow background) showing departures from the mean temperature from 1950 - 2004. It shows that the '50s had warm and cold departures, the '60s through the '80s were mostly colder than the mean, and since 1990, the temperatures have been warmer than the mean temperature.
A website apparently supported by extremist environmental groups that gives this statistic about Alaska: "Annual average temperatures have warmed up to 1.8?F (1?C) per decade over the last three decades, and winter warming has been as high as 3?F (2?C) per decade." They also list pick-and-choose statistics that appear to support the warming idea.
The Earth Policy Institute's website gives the Alaska temperature increase as five degrees F.
It's all interesting. Alaska's temperatures have gone up 1 - 5 degrees. But if you look at the yellow chart in the "boy was it hot in 2004" link, you'll notice that Canada has been getting colder since 2000, at the same time Alaska has been getting warmer. But the environmentalists are pretending that Canada doesn't exist and that Alaska is the thermometer/barometer of all global warming.
The environmentalists have put on their own set of blinders, so they can look at isolated cases to support their pet theories. When Alaska's polar bears start sipping piña coladas, maybe I'll finally believe Global Warming is here.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Silence in the Blogosphere
This is really important. But I haven't read a word (or even a letter) about it on any of my regular blogs.
The Weekly World News (or was it the Globe?) reported this week as the cover picture (I saw it when my mom, my sister, and I were at Wal-Mart in the checkout line) that President and Mrs. Bush's marriage is ON THE ROCKS!!!
They had proof. There was a picture of President Bush tight-lipped, and there was another, obviously different-occasion, picture of an angry Laura Bush. At least I think she was angry. But it might have been one of those pictures that gets taken at exactly the wrong time when you're saying something like, "puerile," and your face is distorted and it makes you look like a raving loon.
Anyway, nobody's talking about it, except the Weekly World News (or the Globe), and I want to know why. I think it's a cover-up.
The Weekly World News (or was it the Globe?) reported this week as the cover picture (I saw it when my mom, my sister, and I were at Wal-Mart in the checkout line) that President and Mrs. Bush's marriage is ON THE ROCKS!!!
They had proof. There was a picture of President Bush tight-lipped, and there was another, obviously different-occasion, picture of an angry Laura Bush. At least I think she was angry. But it might have been one of those pictures that gets taken at exactly the wrong time when you're saying something like, "puerile," and your face is distorted and it makes you look like a raving loon.
Anyway, nobody's talking about it, except the Weekly World News (or the Globe), and I want to know why. I think it's a cover-up.
Hypocrisy's Poster Child
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a man who is on the record (here on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer) accusing Republicans of a "culture of corruption" has accepted free tickets to boxing matches in Nevada from a government agency seeking Reid's support on legislation in the Senate. The tickets are valued at $1400. The story is reported in today's Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.
Reid defended the gifts, saying they would never influence his position on the bill and was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry.
Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments. But they specifically warn against taking such gifts -- particularly on multiple occasions -- when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions.
But Reid isn't the only senator to attend Las Vegas boxing matches.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but already had recused himself from Reid's federal boxing legislation because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights.
McCain and Ensign (both Republicans) gave Reid acceptable examples of how to handle gifts from groups with an interest in legislation, but Reid insists that he did nothing wrong.
Laura Ingraham's opening statement in her book, Shut Up and Sing, about the various elites in America, is: "They think you're stupid." By this definition, Harry Reid proves himself to be an elite. He thinks we're stupid enough to believe that by attending a championship fight, he is "simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry."
In an interview Thursday in his Capitol office, Reid broadly defended his decisions to accept the tickets and to take several actions benefiting disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients and partners as they donated to him.
"I'm not Goodie two shoes. I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong," Reid said.
Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staffer who went to work lobbying with Abramoff.
One of the tribes, the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan, donated $9,000 to Reid at the fundraiser and the next morning met briefly with Reid and Ayoob at Reid's office to discuss federal programs. Reid and the tribal chairman posed for a picture.
A few months after the fundraiser, Reid did sponsor a spending bill that targeted $100,000 to another Abramoff tribe, the Chitimacha of Louisiana, to pay for a soil erosion study Ayoob was lobbying for. Reid said he sponsored the provision because Louisiana lawmakers sent him a letter requesting it.
Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, has pleaded guilty in a widespread corruption investigation of members of Congress. Reid used that conviction earlier this year to accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption inside Congress.
The Associated Press recently reported that Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff's partners. Reid has refused to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs.
Senate ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance that any official meetings or actions they took were in any way connected with political donations.
Reid has a whole lot of nerve accepting gifts from tribal clients of Jack Abramoff and accepting gifts from agencies concerned about legislation, all at the same time he was accusing Republicans of having ties to Abramoff and declaring that Republicans are the ones with a culture of corruption.
I looked up "hypocrite" in the dictionary, and it shows a picture of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
Update:
This is one of the benefits of drinking tea. While I was stirring my afternoon cup of tea, I realized that I had conferred majority status upon Senator Reid. Silly me! My error has been corrected.
Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.
Reid defended the gifts, saying they would never influence his position on the bill and was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry.
Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments. But they specifically warn against taking such gifts -- particularly on multiple occasions -- when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions.
But Reid isn't the only senator to attend Las Vegas boxing matches.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but already had recused himself from Reid's federal boxing legislation because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights.
McCain and Ensign (both Republicans) gave Reid acceptable examples of how to handle gifts from groups with an interest in legislation, but Reid insists that he did nothing wrong.
Laura Ingraham's opening statement in her book, Shut Up and Sing, about the various elites in America, is: "They think you're stupid." By this definition, Harry Reid proves himself to be an elite. He thinks we're stupid enough to believe that by attending a championship fight, he is "simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry."
In an interview Thursday in his Capitol office, Reid broadly defended his decisions to accept the tickets and to take several actions benefiting disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients and partners as they donated to him.
"I'm not Goodie two shoes. I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong," Reid said.
Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staffer who went to work lobbying with Abramoff.
One of the tribes, the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan, donated $9,000 to Reid at the fundraiser and the next morning met briefly with Reid and Ayoob at Reid's office to discuss federal programs. Reid and the tribal chairman posed for a picture.
A few months after the fundraiser, Reid did sponsor a spending bill that targeted $100,000 to another Abramoff tribe, the Chitimacha of Louisiana, to pay for a soil erosion study Ayoob was lobbying for. Reid said he sponsored the provision because Louisiana lawmakers sent him a letter requesting it.
Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, has pleaded guilty in a widespread corruption investigation of members of Congress. Reid used that conviction earlier this year to accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption inside Congress.
The Associated Press recently reported that Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff's partners. Reid has refused to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs.
Senate ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance that any official meetings or actions they took were in any way connected with political donations.
Reid has a whole lot of nerve accepting gifts from tribal clients of Jack Abramoff and accepting gifts from agencies concerned about legislation, all at the same time he was accusing Republicans of having ties to Abramoff and declaring that Republicans are the ones with a culture of corruption.
I looked up "hypocrite" in the dictionary, and it shows a picture of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
Update:
This is one of the benefits of drinking tea. While I was stirring my afternoon cup of tea, I realized that I had conferred majority status upon Senator Reid. Silly me! My error has been corrected.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Memorial Day
It's Memorial Day, a day to remember those who sacrificed their lives fighting America's cause for freedom around the world.
Hedgehog Blog has the stories of two more Medal of Honor winners (here and here). The website that lists all the Medal of Honor winners is here.
Breitbart reported today that historians are trying to collect the stories of as many Purple Heart recipients as possible, to include them in the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor, expected to be opened in New York this November.
The Hall of Honor is being built at a woodsy historic site north of New York City where George Washington's army camped toward the end of the Revolutionary War. It was here in 1782 that Washington created the Badge of Military Merit, which he decreed would be "the figure of a heart in purple cloth."
The original badge was awarded for exceptional performance, not battle wounds. Surviving records show three sergeants received the medal, though Clark said more soldiers might have been honored.
The badge fell into disuse after the war, but was reintroduced as the Purple Heart in 1932. Thousands of World War I veterans received Purple Hearts retroactively _ as did a few very old Civil War veterans. In 1942, Purple Hearts were restricted to those "wounded in action against any enemy."
My grandfather received a Purple Heart, probably during World War I, but I don't know the details. My dad's sister is the last one who might know the story.
Finally, be sure to check your favorite Milblogs for special Memorial Day posts. If you don't have a favorite, try one of these:
Michael Yon, especially his post called "Gates of Fire" or the one on the return of Deuce Four stateside.
Black Five
Mudville Gazette
Citizen Smash
Argghhh!
American Citizen Soldier
And now it's time for me to watch (again) We Were Soldiers.
Happy Memorial Day. May we always remember their sacrifice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)