There are days the internet is not my friend, and yesterday was one of them. I was busy during my lunch hour, so I decided to post after work, but all the links to articles I wanted to comment on didn't come up right. I'd get Internet Explorer, and the world would spin for a while, load the banner ad, and then down at the bottom it would say "Done" but the text part of the page stayed white. It did this for AOL News, WorldNetDaily, The Scotsman (UK), but apparently only on the articles I was interested in. Other articles loaded just fine. So I just went to bed.
But that was yesterday. Today life is so much better.
AOLNews reported the weekend's box office receipts, along with a bit of detectable media bias. The encouraging part of this was that the four top-grossing films were family-friendly films. These were:
1. "Hoodwinked," Weinstein Co., $16.6 million.
2. "Glory Road," Disney, $16.5 million.
3. "Last Holiday," Paramount, $15.7 million.
4. "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," Disney, $12.2 million
Number five was the horror flim, Hostel, with $11.7 million.
"Hoodwinked" received mixed critical reviews but its opening day was a financial triumph for a movie that was made for a relatively paltry $15 to $20 million. Weinstein Co. hoped to expand its showings this week to as many as 3,000 screens.
The "mixed critical reviews" is common for family (kid) films. Many critics only appreciate "daring" or "bold" films that "push the envelope." Films like Brokeback Mountain. But for a film that families enjoy, the critics say, "ptooey!" which is what I say to their reviews.
Another PG-rated film, "Glory Road," was in second place and made some $3 million dollars more in its opening than expected.
Why is it that the people who estimate the "expected" box office take never seem to realize how badly Americans want to see a movie they can wholeheartedly enjoy or that will not offend their faith? The Passion of the Christ was horribly underestimated. So was Narnia.
[Hoodwinked] was held back to January so it wouldn't have to face the big Christmas-season guns such as "King Kong" or "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," which was fourth for the weekend and has now grossed more than $260 million. (emphasis added)
In terms of lasting power, Narnia is a winner. It opened a week before King Kong, and is beating out King Kong weekly now.
But the really agenda-driven statistic from this article is this one (obviously written before the Golden Globes were announced):
"Brokeback Mountain," director Ang Lee's story of two rugged Western family men concealing their homosexual affair, had the highest per-location average of any movie in the top 10, at $10,330 per location. It was ranked No. 9 in ticket sales over the long weekend.
In spite of - or perhaps because of - the controversy over its gay theme, "Brokeback Mountain" has done well in every market where it has played.
"This film has everything going for it: the critical acclaim, the word of mouth and, of course, the seven Golden Globe nominations never hurt," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations. "It's become the must-see movie of the season."
So with all the other movies, they looked at total box office take, or at accumulated gross sales. But with Brokeback Mountain, they had to look at per-location average in order to find some good financial numbers to report. Because they needed to find some good numbers to support their statement that Brokeback is "the must-see movie of the season."
But, if you look at the top-ten list, it's obvious that "Fun With Dick and Jane" is more of a must-see than Brokeback. And Narnia, with $260 million gross (so far) is actually the must-see movie of the season.
They don't get it. They won't get it. And they really hope that we won't get it either.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Monday, January 16, 2006
Zogby Poll on Impeaching Bush
I just got back from an overnight trip to the mountains--wonderfully relaxing! And then I saw this article in today's WorldNetDaily about a new Zogby poll. I'm still relaxed, but I must dispute the results of the poll. Here's the conclusion based on the poll results:
A new Zogby poll indicates a majority of Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval.
That sounds suspicious to me, since I believe a majority of Americans want the President to fight the GWOT and keep us safe. I found the reason for the apparent discrepancy between the Americans' desire for safety and the results of the poll in the way the question was worded:
"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
Those agreeing were 52 percent, disagreeing were 43 percent, and 6 percent didn't know or didn't answer. Well, duh!
When they say, "...wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge," most normal people think about wiretaps that are set to monitor all calls coming from or going to a particular American citizen's phone. Of course people would think that's wrong, illegal, and impeachable.
What I want to know is how people would respond if the question were asked this way:
"If a security agency learned that an al-Qaeda member was placing a call to someone in the US, and the President authorized the agency to listen in without first getting approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
This is a no-brainer. Well over 50 percent would say a resounding No!
This is agenda polling at its worst. They oversimplify and distort the facts of a situation, ask questions based on the distortion, and then report the results as though they accurately reflected the views of the respondents on the real situation. It stinks, and Zogby should be ashamed.
A new Zogby poll indicates a majority of Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval.
That sounds suspicious to me, since I believe a majority of Americans want the President to fight the GWOT and keep us safe. I found the reason for the apparent discrepancy between the Americans' desire for safety and the results of the poll in the way the question was worded:
"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
Those agreeing were 52 percent, disagreeing were 43 percent, and 6 percent didn't know or didn't answer. Well, duh!
When they say, "...wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge," most normal people think about wiretaps that are set to monitor all calls coming from or going to a particular American citizen's phone. Of course people would think that's wrong, illegal, and impeachable.
What I want to know is how people would respond if the question were asked this way:
"If a security agency learned that an al-Qaeda member was placing a call to someone in the US, and the President authorized the agency to listen in without first getting approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
This is a no-brainer. Well over 50 percent would say a resounding No!
This is agenda polling at its worst. They oversimplify and distort the facts of a situation, ask questions based on the distortion, and then report the results as though they accurately reflected the views of the respondents on the real situation. It stinks, and Zogby should be ashamed.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Middle Easterners Purchase Disposable Cell Phones in Bulk
This morning I read this article from yesterday's ABCNews and couldn't believe how they reported it. Here are the basics:
Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.
In one New Year's Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said.
In an earlier incident, at a Wal-mart store in Midland, Texas, on December 18, six individuals [of Middle-Eastern origin] attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.
Possible purchasers of disposable cellular phones could also include political extremists, terrorist supporters, sympathizers or others simply shaken by the recent revelations of the spy agency's widespread monitoring of calls, including calls to and from the United States to foreign countries. (emphasis added)
If we ever needed evidence of the mainstream media's complicity in damaging the war effort, this it. Maybe they're just stupid as a stump and don't realize the consequences of what they write, but if they are they don't deserve to be providing "news" to our nation. And if they're not stupid, then they're doing it on purpose and don't deserve to be providing "news" to our nation.
Here's a rough timeline that proves the point:
Early December 2005, the New York Times reports that the NSA is monitoring the phones of terrorists, including the phone calls made to or from the US by those terrorists' phones.
On December 17, 2005, President Bush admitted the NSA was indeed monitoring terrorist phones. (Note the anti-Bush wording in the CNN article's opening paragraph: "...President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday...")
On December 18, 2005, six Middle Eastern-looking men in Midland, TX, attempted to purchase 60 disposable cell phones, but ran away without the phones when the police showed up.
In the ABCNews article about the disposable phone purchases, most of the speculation about the purchasers' purpose was about using the phones to blow things up, the way the Madrid train bombs were set off. It's as if they're intentionally being dense about this. But it couldn't be more obvious:
1) The New York Times tells the terrorists that the NSA knows their phone numbers and are listening.
2) The terrorists figure out how to get around our surveillance.
What other choice tidbits of classified information about the GWOT is the MSM sitting on while they wait for just the right moment to use it to damage the Bush administration? God forbid we find out the answer.
Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.
In one New Year's Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said.
In an earlier incident, at a Wal-mart store in Midland, Texas, on December 18, six individuals [of Middle-Eastern origin] attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.
Possible purchasers of disposable cellular phones could also include political extremists, terrorist supporters, sympathizers or others simply shaken by the recent revelations of the spy agency's widespread monitoring of calls, including calls to and from the United States to foreign countries. (emphasis added)
If we ever needed evidence of the mainstream media's complicity in damaging the war effort, this it. Maybe they're just stupid as a stump and don't realize the consequences of what they write, but if they are they don't deserve to be providing "news" to our nation. And if they're not stupid, then they're doing it on purpose and don't deserve to be providing "news" to our nation.
Here's a rough timeline that proves the point:
Early December 2005, the New York Times reports that the NSA is monitoring the phones of terrorists, including the phone calls made to or from the US by those terrorists' phones.
On December 17, 2005, President Bush admitted the NSA was indeed monitoring terrorist phones. (Note the anti-Bush wording in the CNN article's opening paragraph: "...President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday...")
On December 18, 2005, six Middle Eastern-looking men in Midland, TX, attempted to purchase 60 disposable cell phones, but ran away without the phones when the police showed up.
In the ABCNews article about the disposable phone purchases, most of the speculation about the purchasers' purpose was about using the phones to blow things up, the way the Madrid train bombs were set off. It's as if they're intentionally being dense about this. But it couldn't be more obvious:
1) The New York Times tells the terrorists that the NSA knows their phone numbers and are listening.
2) The terrorists figure out how to get around our surveillance.
What other choice tidbits of classified information about the GWOT is the MSM sitting on while they wait for just the right moment to use it to damage the Bush administration? God forbid we find out the answer.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Alito Nomination Hearings
I haven't posted anything about the Alito hearings yet. I've been having too much fun listening to Hugh Hewitt and Laura Ingraham cover the hearings on the radio.
Hugh has been well-amused by the Democrats' attempts to find something to pin on Alito. Laura has gone as far as making fun of some of the Democrat Senators. Both of them played the same wonderfully satisfying audio of Senator Specter smacking down Senator Kennedy. This was when Kennedy attempted to force Specter to call an executive session of the Judiciary Committee for the purpose of voting on a subpoena to get the records of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP).
It's the misinformation about CAP that I want to address today. AP writer, Jesse J. Holland, wrote today about the Alito hearings and how they've progressed. In the middle of his article (this is a news article, not an editorial), he has this paragraph (emphasis added):
The federal judge's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which discouraged the admission of women and minorities at the Ivy League school, has been a divisive issue at Alito's confirmation hearings, which entered a fourth day Thursday.
The highlighted portion of Holland's description of CAP's purpose is false. It has the same distortion that the Senate Democrats are trying to get across. Laura Ingraham was the editor of CAP's newsletter at the time, and she corrected the error on her show this morning. In fact, she was corroborated by her then-boss at CAP, Judge Andrew Napolitano, who was a guest on her show. Neither of them remember ever seeing Samuel Alito's name during their time with CAP, so any connection he had was not as an active member.
The purpose of CAP was two-fold. First, they wanted to get the ROTC back on campus, after an anti-miltary group of students burned down the ROTC building and the Princeton administration refused to rebuild it or provide an alternate location for the ROTC. The second purpose was to ensure that Princeton's academic standards were not lowered in the pursuit of women and minorities. That's it.
Meanwhile, even assuming for argument's sake that the Democrats' spin is correct and CAP wanted to prevent women and minorities from admission, what the Dems are doing is accusing Alito of guilt by association. He received their newsletter, therefore he must have agreed with everything they said.
Here's how Fox News explained Alito's connection to CAP:
Alito, who graduated in 1972, repeatedly told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he could not remember ever signing up with CAP, and said the only reason he would have joined was because of his participation in ROTC. Princeton, like many American universities at the time, had grown hostile toward the military's presence on campus amid turmoil stemming from the Vietnam War. The university's ROTC offices were firebombed during Alito's senior year, and he was forced to finish training at another school.
But the Democrats won't let go of the subject, unless it's to hound him about Roe v. Wade. They really don't have anything else they can use to challenge Alito. So the hearings will finish up with more Democrat posturing, pontificating, and pandering to their loony-left base. And Hugh and Laura will get a little more mileage out of the hearings for their radio shows.
Then Alito will be confirmed. What a great country we live in!
Hugh has been well-amused by the Democrats' attempts to find something to pin on Alito. Laura has gone as far as making fun of some of the Democrat Senators. Both of them played the same wonderfully satisfying audio of Senator Specter smacking down Senator Kennedy. This was when Kennedy attempted to force Specter to call an executive session of the Judiciary Committee for the purpose of voting on a subpoena to get the records of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP).
It's the misinformation about CAP that I want to address today. AP writer, Jesse J. Holland, wrote today about the Alito hearings and how they've progressed. In the middle of his article (this is a news article, not an editorial), he has this paragraph (emphasis added):
The federal judge's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which discouraged the admission of women and minorities at the Ivy League school, has been a divisive issue at Alito's confirmation hearings, which entered a fourth day Thursday.
The highlighted portion of Holland's description of CAP's purpose is false. It has the same distortion that the Senate Democrats are trying to get across. Laura Ingraham was the editor of CAP's newsletter at the time, and she corrected the error on her show this morning. In fact, she was corroborated by her then-boss at CAP, Judge Andrew Napolitano, who was a guest on her show. Neither of them remember ever seeing Samuel Alito's name during their time with CAP, so any connection he had was not as an active member.
The purpose of CAP was two-fold. First, they wanted to get the ROTC back on campus, after an anti-miltary group of students burned down the ROTC building and the Princeton administration refused to rebuild it or provide an alternate location for the ROTC. The second purpose was to ensure that Princeton's academic standards were not lowered in the pursuit of women and minorities. That's it.
Meanwhile, even assuming for argument's sake that the Democrats' spin is correct and CAP wanted to prevent women and minorities from admission, what the Dems are doing is accusing Alito of guilt by association. He received their newsletter, therefore he must have agreed with everything they said.
Here's how Fox News explained Alito's connection to CAP:
Alito, who graduated in 1972, repeatedly told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he could not remember ever signing up with CAP, and said the only reason he would have joined was because of his participation in ROTC. Princeton, like many American universities at the time, had grown hostile toward the military's presence on campus amid turmoil stemming from the Vietnam War. The university's ROTC offices were firebombed during Alito's senior year, and he was forced to finish training at another school.
But the Democrats won't let go of the subject, unless it's to hound him about Roe v. Wade. They really don't have anything else they can use to challenge Alito. So the hearings will finish up with more Democrat posturing, pontificating, and pandering to their loony-left base. And Hugh and Laura will get a little more mileage out of the hearings for their radio shows.
Then Alito will be confirmed. What a great country we live in!
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
News From The Left
Just a few short items on what's going on over on the Left side of things.
First, Michelle Malkin's column in today's WorldNetDaily is on Senator Hillary Clinton's attempted transformation into a centrist war hawk for the 2008 Presidential election (which she denies she's running for). She's jumping on the body armor bandwagon in the hope of appealing to voters who support the troops and the war.
Unfortunately (but typically), her call for lots more body armor for our troops runs against what the military wants or needs.
Hillary bashed President Bush and Vice President Cheney for callously letting troops die and said she was "just bewildered as to how this president and this vice president continue to isolate themselves from different points of view."
You want different points of view? Listen to soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade, who must don some 40 pounds of protection and gear while fighting in the desert heat. Capt. Jamey Turner, 35, of Baton Rouge, La., a commander in the 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment bluntly reminded the Associated Press: "You've got to sacrifice some protection for mobility. If you cover your entire body in ceramic plates, you're just not going to be able to move."
Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Mo., said: "I'd go out with less body armor if I could."
Yep, Hillary is in tune with our military.
*
Next, Dr. Ted Baehr, of the Christian Film & Television Commission, discusses the Left's deranged criticisms of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe in today's WorldNetDaily.
The criticism has been unremitting from the liberal elite. The books have been derided for their positive depiction of Christian spirituality and Western virtues. In the Dec. 4 issue of The Los Angeles Times Book Review, Laura Miller calls Lewis' insertion of Christian metaphors in his "Narnia" books "a terrible betrayal." In her Dec. 7 review of the movie, Carina Chocano of the Los Angeles Times made snide comments about the movie and the book's Christian metaphors, calling it "a medieval vision of Christianity for another dark age."
Philip Pullman, an author whose "Golden Compass" fantasy trilogy explicitly seeks to encourage children into faith of materialist atheism and rejection of traditional morality, has called the books, "so anti-life, so cruel, so unjust. The view that the "Narnia" books have for the material world is one of almost undisguised contempt."
Be sure to read the whole column, if you're a Narnia (book or movie) fan.
*
Finally, Heather Mac Donald has an eye-opening look at the legal clinics that are extensions of university law schools. This is in today's OpinionJournal. She exposes the liberal-agenda, social activism of these professor-run clinics that do little or nothing to provide real-world legal experience to law students.
Today's clinical landscape is a perfect place to evaluate what happens when lawyers decide that they are chosen to save society. The law school clinics don't just take clients with obvious legal issues, such as criminal defendants or tenants facing eviction. They take social problems--unruly students in school, for example--and turn them into legal ones. Florence Roisman, a housing rights activist at the Indiana University School of Law, has inspired clinicians nationwide with her supremely self-confident call to arms: "If it offends your sense of justice, there's a cause of action." (emphasis added)
This article is both excellent and worrisome at the same time. Not only are the law schools turning out liberal-activist lawyers, at some point down the road many of these lawyers will become our nation's judges.
First, Michelle Malkin's column in today's WorldNetDaily is on Senator Hillary Clinton's attempted transformation into a centrist war hawk for the 2008 Presidential election (which she denies she's running for). She's jumping on the body armor bandwagon in the hope of appealing to voters who support the troops and the war.
Unfortunately (but typically), her call for lots more body armor for our troops runs against what the military wants or needs.
Hillary bashed President Bush and Vice President Cheney for callously letting troops die and said she was "just bewildered as to how this president and this vice president continue to isolate themselves from different points of view."
You want different points of view? Listen to soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade, who must don some 40 pounds of protection and gear while fighting in the desert heat. Capt. Jamey Turner, 35, of Baton Rouge, La., a commander in the 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment bluntly reminded the Associated Press: "You've got to sacrifice some protection for mobility. If you cover your entire body in ceramic plates, you're just not going to be able to move."
Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Mo., said: "I'd go out with less body armor if I could."
Yep, Hillary is in tune with our military.
*
Next, Dr. Ted Baehr, of the Christian Film & Television Commission, discusses the Left's deranged criticisms of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe in today's WorldNetDaily.
The criticism has been unremitting from the liberal elite. The books have been derided for their positive depiction of Christian spirituality and Western virtues. In the Dec. 4 issue of The Los Angeles Times Book Review, Laura Miller calls Lewis' insertion of Christian metaphors in his "Narnia" books "a terrible betrayal." In her Dec. 7 review of the movie, Carina Chocano of the Los Angeles Times made snide comments about the movie and the book's Christian metaphors, calling it "a medieval vision of Christianity for another dark age."
Philip Pullman, an author whose "Golden Compass" fantasy trilogy explicitly seeks to encourage children into faith of materialist atheism and rejection of traditional morality, has called the books, "so anti-life, so cruel, so unjust. The view that the "Narnia" books have for the material world is one of almost undisguised contempt."
Be sure to read the whole column, if you're a Narnia (book or movie) fan.
*
Finally, Heather Mac Donald has an eye-opening look at the legal clinics that are extensions of university law schools. This is in today's OpinionJournal. She exposes the liberal-agenda, social activism of these professor-run clinics that do little or nothing to provide real-world legal experience to law students.
Today's clinical landscape is a perfect place to evaluate what happens when lawyers decide that they are chosen to save society. The law school clinics don't just take clients with obvious legal issues, such as criminal defendants or tenants facing eviction. They take social problems--unruly students in school, for example--and turn them into legal ones. Florence Roisman, a housing rights activist at the Indiana University School of Law, has inspired clinicians nationwide with her supremely self-confident call to arms: "If it offends your sense of justice, there's a cause of action." (emphasis added)
This article is both excellent and worrisome at the same time. Not only are the law schools turning out liberal-activist lawyers, at some point down the road many of these lawyers will become our nation's judges.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
New York Times
I got a letter today from the New York Times. They want me to subscribe--at half price--but they didn't get my middle initial right. They sent it to Skye T. Puppy, not Skye J. Puppy.
This idea came from a Focus on the Family magazine letter to the editor. A woman had written that whenever she orders something or subscribes to a publication, she uses a different middle initial, so she can see who is selling her name to other companies. She said she used "X" for Focus on the Family, and in 15 years, she had never received mail from any other company with an "X" as the middle initial. So she was coming clean with them and admitting that "X" wasn't true. She finally realized she could trust them with her real initial.
So I tried the same thing. "T" is for the travel magazine I subscribed to. "H" was the health products I ordered about the same time. I got a lot of Skye H. Puppy for a while, but that one hasn't come lately. The travel magazine is still going strong selling my name, though, and now they think I fit the profile of the New York Times.
The letter the Times sent said, "In addition to producing Pulitzer Prize-winning world and national news coverage...." This made me think of Walter Duranty and his discredited Pulitzer for his reporting on Stalin's Soviet Union in the 1930s. The NY Times still lists Duranty's Pulitzer in their list of awards, but they include this statement.
Another selling point they thought might make me cough up the subscription price was this beauty: "With TimesSelect, you'll get access to content that isn't accessible anywhere else online, including the Times Archive, interactive features with Times columnists like Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman...." You can't go much further left than Paul Krugman.
Reading the Times would only give me Lefty Propaganda Apoplexy Syndrome (LPAS) in addition to fattening the coffers of a newspaper whose goals are at cross-purposes to mine.
No, I don't think I'll be subscribing, as "T" or "H" or "J" or any other initial.
This idea came from a Focus on the Family magazine letter to the editor. A woman had written that whenever she orders something or subscribes to a publication, she uses a different middle initial, so she can see who is selling her name to other companies. She said she used "X" for Focus on the Family, and in 15 years, she had never received mail from any other company with an "X" as the middle initial. So she was coming clean with them and admitting that "X" wasn't true. She finally realized she could trust them with her real initial.
So I tried the same thing. "T" is for the travel magazine I subscribed to. "H" was the health products I ordered about the same time. I got a lot of Skye H. Puppy for a while, but that one hasn't come lately. The travel magazine is still going strong selling my name, though, and now they think I fit the profile of the New York Times.
The letter the Times sent said, "In addition to producing Pulitzer Prize-winning world and national news coverage...." This made me think of Walter Duranty and his discredited Pulitzer for his reporting on Stalin's Soviet Union in the 1930s. The NY Times still lists Duranty's Pulitzer in their list of awards, but they include this statement.
Another selling point they thought might make me cough up the subscription price was this beauty: "With TimesSelect, you'll get access to content that isn't accessible anywhere else online, including the Times Archive, interactive features with Times columnists like Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman...." You can't go much further left than Paul Krugman.
Reading the Times would only give me Lefty Propaganda Apoplexy Syndrome (LPAS) in addition to fattening the coffers of a newspaper whose goals are at cross-purposes to mine.
No, I don't think I'll be subscribing, as "T" or "H" or "J" or any other initial.
Alito Confirmation Hearings
You've gotta love the Senate. And you've gotta love it best when it's holding confirmation hearings. The posturing and playing to the camera by the Senators can be better entertainment than much of what Hollywood turns out. Especially when the nominees are up to the challenge.
Which Judge Samuel Alito is.
This article in today's WorldNetDaily is a case in point. It deals with Sen. Arlen Specter's questioning of Alito today.
Responding to a question by Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Alito said he agrees "with the underlying thought that when a precedent is reaffirmed, that strengthens the precedent."
But in a reference to terminology Specter used during the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts last year, Alito said he doesn't believe in the idea of "super-duper precedents."
"It sort of reminds me of the size of laundry detergent in the supermarket," Alito said.
Specter was contending that decisions such as the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion should be enshrined in law, because they have been reaffirmed so many times in subsequent cases.
Once upon a time, most of these Senators were able to get a law degree and even pass the bar, but it looks as though they've forgotten a whole lot of what they learned. "Super-duper precedent?" Oh, please!
Hugh Hewitt said on his radio show yesterday of Senator Joe Biden, that Biden proves the theory of relativity. The more Biden talks the longer it takes for time to pass.
And over at Hugh's blog, his post about Senator Joe Biden has this report of Hugh's joy over Biden:
I just sent Joe flowers. Really. How could I not do so? He makes my job so easy, so full of smiles. I just left Duane, my producer the message, that he needs to grab the entire Joe audio, and to prepare... outakes of all of Joe's many ahs, aaaahs, uhmms etc, but also a montage of his "puzzles," "puzzleds," and "puzzlings."
The message [to Sen. Biden] read "Thank you, thank you, thank you for being you."
Slow Joe Biden: A testament to the proposition that, truly, anyone can be a United States Senator.
Update:
Chris Malott has this inspirational post on the confirmation hearings. A must-read, if you're a Republican.
Which Judge Samuel Alito is.
This article in today's WorldNetDaily is a case in point. It deals with Sen. Arlen Specter's questioning of Alito today.
Responding to a question by Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Alito said he agrees "with the underlying thought that when a precedent is reaffirmed, that strengthens the precedent."
But in a reference to terminology Specter used during the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts last year, Alito said he doesn't believe in the idea of "super-duper precedents."
"It sort of reminds me of the size of laundry detergent in the supermarket," Alito said.
Specter was contending that decisions such as the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion should be enshrined in law, because they have been reaffirmed so many times in subsequent cases.
Once upon a time, most of these Senators were able to get a law degree and even pass the bar, but it looks as though they've forgotten a whole lot of what they learned. "Super-duper precedent?" Oh, please!
Hugh Hewitt said on his radio show yesterday of Senator Joe Biden, that Biden proves the theory of relativity. The more Biden talks the longer it takes for time to pass.
And over at Hugh's blog, his post about Senator Joe Biden has this report of Hugh's joy over Biden:
I just sent Joe flowers. Really. How could I not do so? He makes my job so easy, so full of smiles. I just left Duane, my producer the message, that he needs to grab the entire Joe audio, and to prepare... outakes of all of Joe's many ahs, aaaahs, uhmms etc, but also a montage of his "puzzles," "puzzleds," and "puzzlings."
The message [to Sen. Biden] read "Thank you, thank you, thank you for being you."
Slow Joe Biden: A testament to the proposition that, truly, anyone can be a United States Senator.
Update:
Chris Malott has this inspirational post on the confirmation hearings. A must-read, if you're a Republican.
Bibles Banned on One Airline's Flights to Saudi Arabia
I found this article in today's WorldNetDaily, and the headine was, "Airline bans Bibles to avoid offending Muslims," with a subhead of, "Carrier to Saudi Arabia also precluding crucifixes, teddy bears." It looks pretty alarming, but then WorldNetDaily is a bit further to the Right than I am.
The article opens this way (emphasis added):
A British airline banned its staff from taking Bibles and wearing crucifixes or St. Christopher medals on flights to Saudi Arabia to avoid offending the country's Muslims.
British Midland International also has told female flight attendants they must walk two paces behind male colleagues and cover themselves from head to foot in a headscarf and robe known as an abaya, the Mirror newspaper of London reported.
It looks as though the female flight attendants have to wear the abaya all through the flight, but that may not be the case. The article isn't very clear on that point.
The airline's staff handbook says: "Prior to disembarking the aircraft all female crew will be required to put on their company issued abaya. It will be issued with the headscarf which must be worn."
If the abaya is required only when the flight attendants get off the plane, then I don't really see a problem with that. It becomes a matter of safety for the airline's employees, especially in light of Muslim men in some parts of the world who believe they have the right to rape uncovered women. If I were to set foot on Saudi soil, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'd be covered up to the rafters.
The concern that I have is the airline's policy of not offering its employees any reasonable options.
The employees' union wants staff members to be able to opt out of the flights, but the airline says the only option is to transfer from overseas staff to domestic flights, which could mean a loss of about $30,000 a year in wages.
About 40 staff members have filed complaints since the route began in September.
Some of the male members who are homosexual have called in sick, because they are afraid of traveling to Saudi Arabia, where homosexual activity is punishable by flogging, jail or death.
Not much of a choice, really. Fly to Saudi Arabia when we tell you to, or take a hefty cut in pay. And the gay men risk their very lives. If a male flight attendant appears gay to one of the Saudis on the flight, how can he be sure he won't be arrested when the plane lands? The airline doesn't seem to care about this.
When safety is the issue, it pays to be careful, but British Midland International appears to have distorted view of what's important, and they're being rigid about it. If I ever need to fly on a British airline, it won't be British Midland.
The article opens this way (emphasis added):
A British airline banned its staff from taking Bibles and wearing crucifixes or St. Christopher medals on flights to Saudi Arabia to avoid offending the country's Muslims.
British Midland International also has told female flight attendants they must walk two paces behind male colleagues and cover themselves from head to foot in a headscarf and robe known as an abaya, the Mirror newspaper of London reported.
It looks as though the female flight attendants have to wear the abaya all through the flight, but that may not be the case. The article isn't very clear on that point.
The airline's staff handbook says: "Prior to disembarking the aircraft all female crew will be required to put on their company issued abaya. It will be issued with the headscarf which must be worn."
If the abaya is required only when the flight attendants get off the plane, then I don't really see a problem with that. It becomes a matter of safety for the airline's employees, especially in light of Muslim men in some parts of the world who believe they have the right to rape uncovered women. If I were to set foot on Saudi soil, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'd be covered up to the rafters.
The concern that I have is the airline's policy of not offering its employees any reasonable options.
The employees' union wants staff members to be able to opt out of the flights, but the airline says the only option is to transfer from overseas staff to domestic flights, which could mean a loss of about $30,000 a year in wages.
About 40 staff members have filed complaints since the route began in September.
Some of the male members who are homosexual have called in sick, because they are afraid of traveling to Saudi Arabia, where homosexual activity is punishable by flogging, jail or death.
Not much of a choice, really. Fly to Saudi Arabia when we tell you to, or take a hefty cut in pay. And the gay men risk their very lives. If a male flight attendant appears gay to one of the Saudis on the flight, how can he be sure he won't be arrested when the plane lands? The airline doesn't seem to care about this.
When safety is the issue, it pays to be careful, but British Midland International appears to have distorted view of what's important, and they're being rigid about it. If I ever need to fly on a British airline, it won't be British Midland.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Big Freeze In Asia
The Scotsman has an article today about the unusually low temperatures in much of Asia. In Japan 63 people have died and over 1,000 people have been injured due to heavy snowfalls in the past month. In Bangladesh, 20 people have died of exposure. New Delhi's temperature was the lowest in 70 years. And in China's Xinjiang province, cattle left in the fields were dying from the cold.
The article didn't mention global warming, which surprised me. Nearly every time there are unusually high or unusually low temperatures, the scientists blame it on global warming. And I'm still mystified about how global warming brings about freezing weather.
My friend, the astrophysics major, and her two left-leaning friends tried to explain it to me, using the scenario from the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but I wasn't convinced. Later, I saw an article in The Guardian about how global warming is slowing down the Gulf Stream, and this article gave a convincing explanation of what drives the Gulf Stream and how global warming can slow down and someday even stop the Gulf Stream.
Here is how The Guardian article described the Gulf Stream currents:
The current is essentially a huge oceanic conveyor belt that transports heat from equatorial regions towards the Arctic circle. Warm surface water coming up from the tropics gives off heat as it moves north until eventually, it cools so much in northern waters that it sinks and circulates back to the south. There it warms again, rises and heads back north. The constant sinking in the north and rising in the south drives the conveyor.
Global warming weakens the circulation because increased meltwater from Greenland and the Arctic icesheets along with greater river run-off from Russia pour into the northern Atlantic and make it less saline which in turn makes it harder for the cooler water to sink, in effect slowing down the engine that drives the current.
Good enough. Until you look at a map of the ocean currents. After the description from the Guardian article, I expected the Canary Current (the one that heads southward from the north end of the Gulf Stream) to be cold, but it's warm. How does it stay warm if Greenland and the Arctic circle are feeding it cold water? Or is the warm water that affects Great Britain actually the arrow heading northeast from the top of the Gulf Stream? Is that the warm water that is in danger of turning cold from too much melting of Greenland's ice? It doesn't sound like it, from the way the article talks about a south-to-north-to-south circuit of surface water.
So if we melt too much of Greenland and the whole Gulf Stream conveyor belt comes to a screeching halt, then would the Northern Hemisphere get colder and colder, farther and farther south? And would the tropics get hotter and hotter without the circulating cold water to come back down (which it doesn't seem to do in the Atlantic anyway, judging by the currents map)? And what happens when all the southward-migrating cold water meets the northward-migrating warm water? Do we get lots of tornadoes and hurricanes?
And what about Asia? The North Pacific currents seem to fit the conveyor-belt model better than the North Atlantic, but nobody's talking about that one slowing down. And even if it has slowed down, that slowdown wouldn't explain this year's low temperatures.
India and Bangladesh and Japan and China don't have the same kind of circulation effect as Great Britain. While Britain is at the north end of the Gulf Stream, China and Japan are in the solid warm water section of their current. And India and Bangladesh are in an area of warm water as well.
How could Asia's cold weather possibly be explained by global warming's effects? It has to be able to be explained by it, because global warming is global. And if Asia is just experiencing year-to-year weather fluctuations (which is my personal theory), then why do the global warming enthusiasts, like my friend's friends at the party last year, insist that last year's horrible hurricane season was explained by global warming and not as just a year-to-year weather fluctuation?
Scientists like to explain that a theory (like the Theory of Evolution) is not just some wild idea that someone has come up with. It's a model of how things work that scientific observation of all the different facts and factors has confirmed over time, until the theory becomes as good as fact. The global warming theory has been accepted as fact by a large portion of the scientific community, but for myself, there are still too many questions unanswered and too many phenomena unexplained for me to accept it as fact just yet.
In the meantime, it looks like Asia may need our help.
The article didn't mention global warming, which surprised me. Nearly every time there are unusually high or unusually low temperatures, the scientists blame it on global warming. And I'm still mystified about how global warming brings about freezing weather.
My friend, the astrophysics major, and her two left-leaning friends tried to explain it to me, using the scenario from the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but I wasn't convinced. Later, I saw an article in The Guardian about how global warming is slowing down the Gulf Stream, and this article gave a convincing explanation of what drives the Gulf Stream and how global warming can slow down and someday even stop the Gulf Stream.
Here is how The Guardian article described the Gulf Stream currents:
The current is essentially a huge oceanic conveyor belt that transports heat from equatorial regions towards the Arctic circle. Warm surface water coming up from the tropics gives off heat as it moves north until eventually, it cools so much in northern waters that it sinks and circulates back to the south. There it warms again, rises and heads back north. The constant sinking in the north and rising in the south drives the conveyor.
Global warming weakens the circulation because increased meltwater from Greenland and the Arctic icesheets along with greater river run-off from Russia pour into the northern Atlantic and make it less saline which in turn makes it harder for the cooler water to sink, in effect slowing down the engine that drives the current.
Good enough. Until you look at a map of the ocean currents. After the description from the Guardian article, I expected the Canary Current (the one that heads southward from the north end of the Gulf Stream) to be cold, but it's warm. How does it stay warm if Greenland and the Arctic circle are feeding it cold water? Or is the warm water that affects Great Britain actually the arrow heading northeast from the top of the Gulf Stream? Is that the warm water that is in danger of turning cold from too much melting of Greenland's ice? It doesn't sound like it, from the way the article talks about a south-to-north-to-south circuit of surface water.
So if we melt too much of Greenland and the whole Gulf Stream conveyor belt comes to a screeching halt, then would the Northern Hemisphere get colder and colder, farther and farther south? And would the tropics get hotter and hotter without the circulating cold water to come back down (which it doesn't seem to do in the Atlantic anyway, judging by the currents map)? And what happens when all the southward-migrating cold water meets the northward-migrating warm water? Do we get lots of tornadoes and hurricanes?
And what about Asia? The North Pacific currents seem to fit the conveyor-belt model better than the North Atlantic, but nobody's talking about that one slowing down. And even if it has slowed down, that slowdown wouldn't explain this year's low temperatures.
India and Bangladesh and Japan and China don't have the same kind of circulation effect as Great Britain. While Britain is at the north end of the Gulf Stream, China and Japan are in the solid warm water section of their current. And India and Bangladesh are in an area of warm water as well.
How could Asia's cold weather possibly be explained by global warming's effects? It has to be able to be explained by it, because global warming is global. And if Asia is just experiencing year-to-year weather fluctuations (which is my personal theory), then why do the global warming enthusiasts, like my friend's friends at the party last year, insist that last year's horrible hurricane season was explained by global warming and not as just a year-to-year weather fluctuation?
Scientists like to explain that a theory (like the Theory of Evolution) is not just some wild idea that someone has come up with. It's a model of how things work that scientific observation of all the different facts and factors has confirmed over time, until the theory becomes as good as fact. The global warming theory has been accepted as fact by a large portion of the scientific community, but for myself, there are still too many questions unanswered and too many phenomena unexplained for me to accept it as fact just yet.
In the meantime, it looks like Asia may need our help.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Gun Control
Jon Dougherty has a column in today's WorldNetDaily about Canada blaming the US for Canada's gun violence problem. The latest news I saw, about a week or two ago (I'm operating from memory on this), was that several youths with guns shot and killed someone in Canada. The Canadian officials' response was to blame the US for the crime, when the killers were all Canadians who, I believe, had not crossed into the US, and the guns were all obtained in Canada.
Makes sense, in a Canadian-government sort of way.
When Western governments are mislead (sic) by a handful of silly socialists into believing that fewer guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens leads to enhanced public safety, they have all paid the price – in blood.
For instance, as I wrote in an October 2003 column, British authorities saw a 35-percent increase in gun violence in 2002 alone – not so ironically, that's just six years' removed from a nationwide ban on personal ownership of most firearms. So bad is the violence now that police say it has "spread like a cancer" across the whole of the country.
And in March 2000, WND reported that, since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent – armed robberies by as much as 45 percent.
Dougherty's reference to Great Britain is a concern.
The company I work for has corporate offices in England, and theoretically I could transfer to the UK office. If I did, I could write (and sell) all kinds of travel articles and photos of the cool places to see in the UK and the nations nearby. It sounds like a dream job.
But England has banned the ownership of guns, the crime rate has jumped, and the people who are prosecuted most heavily in home-invasion crimes are the gun-using homeowners who have the nerve--illegally--to defend themselves. So how would I defend myself (can't count on the police to be Bobby-on-the-spot) if someone broke into my flat? I'm not sure exactly how much deadly force is allowed.
My idea is to get a crossbow with a trigger pull and some nice metal bolts. I know a guy who built a crossbow out of a car's leaf spring when he was a teenager, but I think that would be too much power for a home-defense situation. Still, I don't know if I'd be thrown in the slammer for using one.
Would a sword be allowed? Knives? What do people in England do to defend themselves against criminals? I hope they're not expected to just roll over and play dead and let the bad guys have their way with the homeowners and their property.
I don't know. Maybe I just don't have the proper UK non-self-defense mindset. I think I need to do a little more research on the ramifications of gun control in the life of the UK regular people before I sign up for a transfer.
Makes sense, in a Canadian-government sort of way.
When Western governments are mislead (sic) by a handful of silly socialists into believing that fewer guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens leads to enhanced public safety, they have all paid the price – in blood.
For instance, as I wrote in an October 2003 column, British authorities saw a 35-percent increase in gun violence in 2002 alone – not so ironically, that's just six years' removed from a nationwide ban on personal ownership of most firearms. So bad is the violence now that police say it has "spread like a cancer" across the whole of the country.
And in March 2000, WND reported that, since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent – armed robberies by as much as 45 percent.
Dougherty's reference to Great Britain is a concern.
The company I work for has corporate offices in England, and theoretically I could transfer to the UK office. If I did, I could write (and sell) all kinds of travel articles and photos of the cool places to see in the UK and the nations nearby. It sounds like a dream job.
But England has banned the ownership of guns, the crime rate has jumped, and the people who are prosecuted most heavily in home-invasion crimes are the gun-using homeowners who have the nerve--illegally--to defend themselves. So how would I defend myself (can't count on the police to be Bobby-on-the-spot) if someone broke into my flat? I'm not sure exactly how much deadly force is allowed.
My idea is to get a crossbow with a trigger pull and some nice metal bolts. I know a guy who built a crossbow out of a car's leaf spring when he was a teenager, but I think that would be too much power for a home-defense situation. Still, I don't know if I'd be thrown in the slammer for using one.
Would a sword be allowed? Knives? What do people in England do to defend themselves against criminals? I hope they're not expected to just roll over and play dead and let the bad guys have their way with the homeowners and their property.
I don't know. Maybe I just don't have the proper UK non-self-defense mindset. I think I need to do a little more research on the ramifications of gun control in the life of the UK regular people before I sign up for a transfer.
Correction
I have to make a correction.
As someone who is critical of the Standard Operating Procedures of the Mainstream Media, it's my duty to behave the way I expect them to behave. And part of that is giving my corrections the same emphasis I gave the misinformation when I first posted it. So here it is:
On December 17, 2005, in my post entitled, "Movie Choices," I said the following:
One little note: Brokeback Mountain is already gone from the local theater. It only lasted a week. The talking lion and the giant gorilla shoved the gay cowboy movie aside. Good.
I based this conclusion on the fact that somewhere on the internet, possibly IMDB, reported December 9, 2005 as the day this movie opened, and on December 16, my local theater multiplex (which had shown previews and had movie posters for it in the lobby) was not showing it. I didn't expect movies not to actually open when they open.
This week Brokeback Mountain is, indeed, opening at the local multiplex. I hope it bombs. The celebration of adultery (straight or gay), which leaves families wounded and in tatters, is the wrong message to be sending.
As someone who is critical of the Standard Operating Procedures of the Mainstream Media, it's my duty to behave the way I expect them to behave. And part of that is giving my corrections the same emphasis I gave the misinformation when I first posted it. So here it is:
On December 17, 2005, in my post entitled, "Movie Choices," I said the following:
One little note: Brokeback Mountain is already gone from the local theater. It only lasted a week. The talking lion and the giant gorilla shoved the gay cowboy movie aside. Good.
I based this conclusion on the fact that somewhere on the internet, possibly IMDB, reported December 9, 2005 as the day this movie opened, and on December 16, my local theater multiplex (which had shown previews and had movie posters for it in the lobby) was not showing it. I didn't expect movies not to actually open when they open.
This week Brokeback Mountain is, indeed, opening at the local multiplex. I hope it bombs. The celebration of adultery (straight or gay), which leaves families wounded and in tatters, is the wrong message to be sending.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Mark Steyn on the Death of the West
Mark Steyn has an excellent column, originally published in the January issue of The New Criterion, and reprinted in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion page yesterday. This column has been quoted by Hugh Hewitt on his radio show and his blog (where he is soliciting links to other blogs that post on the column). Laura Ingraham didn't have time to quote it, but she's going to try to get Steyn on her show to discuss it. And many others are quoting it.
Steyn's column is entitled, "It's the Demography, Stupid." Basically, Western European countries have a half-life of about fifty years.
And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is. "Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?
Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.
These numbers, and Steyn's reference to "red-state Americans" reminds me of what Rabbi Daniel Lapin discussed back in September. There are two Americas: the Secular, and the Religious. Secular America is losing population, while Religious America is gaining.
Looking at the world demographics, that split carries over. Secular nations are losing population, and religious nations are gaining.
So the world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western." Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)--or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.
Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.
Steyn's analysis is depressing because it rings true. We can fight Islamofascism with our military, with homeland security, with individual vigilance. And we must. But in the long run, how will we fight if there is no other nation left to fight with us, or to be fought for? The picture Mark Steyn paints is that of a demographic tsunami in slow motion. You can resist the flood, but eventually it sweeps away most things in its path.
People can build barriers to prevent flooding, but Europe has shown no hint of being willing to withstand the population flood. And although America's people want immigration to be checked and controlled, our leaders--especially in the Senate--don't seem any more serious about it than Europe is. I suppose that's because much of our leadership lives in Secular America.
If a population "at odds with the modern world" is the fastest-breeding group on the planet--if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions--how safe a bet is the survival of the "modern world"?
Not good.
Steyn's column is entitled, "It's the Demography, Stupid." Basically, Western European countries have a half-life of about fifty years.
And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is. "Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?
Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.
These numbers, and Steyn's reference to "red-state Americans" reminds me of what Rabbi Daniel Lapin discussed back in September. There are two Americas: the Secular, and the Religious. Secular America is losing population, while Religious America is gaining.
Looking at the world demographics, that split carries over. Secular nations are losing population, and religious nations are gaining.
So the world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western." Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)--or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.
Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.
Steyn's analysis is depressing because it rings true. We can fight Islamofascism with our military, with homeland security, with individual vigilance. And we must. But in the long run, how will we fight if there is no other nation left to fight with us, or to be fought for? The picture Mark Steyn paints is that of a demographic tsunami in slow motion. You can resist the flood, but eventually it sweeps away most things in its path.
People can build barriers to prevent flooding, but Europe has shown no hint of being willing to withstand the population flood. And although America's people want immigration to be checked and controlled, our leaders--especially in the Senate--don't seem any more serious about it than Europe is. I suppose that's because much of our leadership lives in Secular America.
If a population "at odds with the modern world" is the fastest-breeding group on the planet--if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions--how safe a bet is the survival of the "modern world"?
Not good.
Five Questions
Time for a change of pace.
Here are five questions, the kinds of things I tell people once in a while when the subject comes up. I'll answer them, and if you'd like to, you can post your answers in the comments section.
1. What advice did your parents give you, during your youth, that you actually followed?
My mom told me once, when I was in high school, never to drink beer if I'm eating ice cream. She was firm but didn't offer any details, and I didn't ask for any. I simply figured she must know what she was talking about, and I've never done that. About 10 - 15 years later, I reminded her of her advice, and she had no idea why she would have said such a thing.
2. What's the best parenting advice anyone ever gave you?
When my kids were heading into the teen years, someone at work mentioned that he and his wife had a response to door-slamming that worked for them. When a kid slams a door, you pull the pins out of the hinges and take their bedroom door away for 24 hours. No yelling. No frustration.
Each of my kids slammed the door twice after the rule went into effect, and then that was the end of the problem. It was a thing of beauty!
3. What movie have you watched the greatest number of times?
For a long time, that was either Apollo 13 or October Sky, followed closely by Braveheart. But now the winner is We Were Soldiers. I love chick flicks, but I come back over and over to the true(ish) stories that celebrate the best of who we are.
4. What is the best vacation you've ever taken?
Before we had kids, my husband and I took a four-month bicycle trip through much of western Europe: England, France, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Belgium, and Scotland. If you're on a bicycle, Scotland and France are by far the best (lots of side roads that don't have much traffic). Switzerland doesn't have many side roads, so you're stuck on the major highways with all the cars. Oh, beware the sheep in Scotland if you're on a bike--they panic when they see you because they didn't hear you coming. Hundreds of pounds of blindly charging ovine power can do a lot of damage if they hit you.
5. What is your favorite Bible verse?
It varies, but there's something that keeps me coming back to Habakkuk 1:5 "Look at the nations and watch--and be utterly amazed! For I am going to do something in your days that you would not believe, even if you were told."
Post your answers. I'd love to see them!
Here are five questions, the kinds of things I tell people once in a while when the subject comes up. I'll answer them, and if you'd like to, you can post your answers in the comments section.
1. What advice did your parents give you, during your youth, that you actually followed?
My mom told me once, when I was in high school, never to drink beer if I'm eating ice cream. She was firm but didn't offer any details, and I didn't ask for any. I simply figured she must know what she was talking about, and I've never done that. About 10 - 15 years later, I reminded her of her advice, and she had no idea why she would have said such a thing.
2. What's the best parenting advice anyone ever gave you?
When my kids were heading into the teen years, someone at work mentioned that he and his wife had a response to door-slamming that worked for them. When a kid slams a door, you pull the pins out of the hinges and take their bedroom door away for 24 hours. No yelling. No frustration.
Each of my kids slammed the door twice after the rule went into effect, and then that was the end of the problem. It was a thing of beauty!
3. What movie have you watched the greatest number of times?
For a long time, that was either Apollo 13 or October Sky, followed closely by Braveheart. But now the winner is We Were Soldiers. I love chick flicks, but I come back over and over to the true(ish) stories that celebrate the best of who we are.
4. What is the best vacation you've ever taken?
Before we had kids, my husband and I took a four-month bicycle trip through much of western Europe: England, France, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Belgium, and Scotland. If you're on a bicycle, Scotland and France are by far the best (lots of side roads that don't have much traffic). Switzerland doesn't have many side roads, so you're stuck on the major highways with all the cars. Oh, beware the sheep in Scotland if you're on a bike--they panic when they see you because they didn't hear you coming. Hundreds of pounds of blindly charging ovine power can do a lot of damage if they hit you.
5. What is your favorite Bible verse?
It varies, but there's something that keeps me coming back to Habakkuk 1:5 "Look at the nations and watch--and be utterly amazed! For I am going to do something in your days that you would not believe, even if you were told."
Post your answers. I'd love to see them!
Resolutions--Not Mine
I've been catching up on my holiday reading, and Charlie over at AnotherThink posted a great list of his New Year's resolutions.
One of my favorites is this one:
I resolve never again to launch a bowling ball over the roof with a trebuchet. And Harry, if you're reading this, again I'm very, very sorry about the Lexus.
I had to look up trebuchet: "A medieval catapult for hurling heavy stones."
I don't understand (and I'm not sure I really want to) the whole UPC Barcode thing, either.
Be sure to read them all. They're quick, and you just might find the one that you need to make while the year is still young.
One of my favorites is this one:
I resolve never again to launch a bowling ball over the roof with a trebuchet. And Harry, if you're reading this, again I'm very, very sorry about the Lexus.
I had to look up trebuchet: "A medieval catapult for hurling heavy stones."
I don't understand (and I'm not sure I really want to) the whole UPC Barcode thing, either.
Be sure to read them all. They're quick, and you just might find the one that you need to make while the year is still young.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Nuclear Iran
Thomas Sowell began his column for the January 2, 2006, Town Hall this way:
When you are boating on the Niagara River, there are signs marking the point at which you must go ashore or else you will be sucked over the falls. With Iran moving toward the development of nuclear weapons, we are getting dangerously close to that fatal point of no return on the world stage.
Yet there are few signs of alarm in our public discourse, whether among politicians, the media, or the intelligentsia. There is much more discussion of whether government anti-terrorism agents should be able to look at the records of books borrowed from public libraries.
Mark Steyn had some similar criticisms back in mid-December. While the president of Iran calls for the destruction if Israel (and, presumably, the rest of the West once Israel is gone), our diplomats spout diplomatic diplomacy with no fangs behind it. Not even any teeth. Just useless gums.
Thomas Sowell continues:
We could deter the nuclear power of the Soviet Union with our own nuclear power. But you cannot deter suicidal terrorists. You can only kill them or stop them from getting what they need to kill you.
We are killing them in Iraq, though our media seem wholly uninterested in that part of the story, just as they seem uninterested in the fact that the fate of Western civilization may be at stake just across the border in Iran.
Of course they would like us to prevent Iran from going nuclear -- if it can be done nicely by diplomacy, with the approval of the U.N., and in ways that do not offend "world opinion."
It is as if we were on the Niagara River and wanted to go ashore before it was too late, but did not want to turn on the motors for fear of disturbing the neighbors with excessive noise.
But at that point, the choice is between being serious or being suicidal.
The Republicans (most of them, anyway) have decided to be serious when it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq. The Democrats have chosen the other option about the entire Global War On Terror. But when it comes to Iran, even the Bush administration looks as though it's sliding on past the warning signs and heading for the falls.
Chris Malott at Malott's Blog has a great post about what he calls "Lethal Peace," an excellent term. He concludes this way:
Even with all our weapons and soldiers, we are only as powerful and effective as our political system allows us to be. Its sad that the radical base of a party that controls neither the White House nor either body of Congress can team with the liberal media to effectively emasculate our defense and foreign policy. I suggest that it may be a very "lethal peace" that they procure.
Do you think maybe if a nuclear bomb was detonated on American soil the Democrats might approve of the NSA wiretaps? It would definitely be harder for them to convince the country that we are not at war.
When you are boating on the Niagara River, there are signs marking the point at which you must go ashore or else you will be sucked over the falls. With Iran moving toward the development of nuclear weapons, we are getting dangerously close to that fatal point of no return on the world stage.
Yet there are few signs of alarm in our public discourse, whether among politicians, the media, or the intelligentsia. There is much more discussion of whether government anti-terrorism agents should be able to look at the records of books borrowed from public libraries.
Mark Steyn had some similar criticisms back in mid-December. While the president of Iran calls for the destruction if Israel (and, presumably, the rest of the West once Israel is gone), our diplomats spout diplomatic diplomacy with no fangs behind it. Not even any teeth. Just useless gums.
Thomas Sowell continues:
We could deter the nuclear power of the Soviet Union with our own nuclear power. But you cannot deter suicidal terrorists. You can only kill them or stop them from getting what they need to kill you.
We are killing them in Iraq, though our media seem wholly uninterested in that part of the story, just as they seem uninterested in the fact that the fate of Western civilization may be at stake just across the border in Iran.
Of course they would like us to prevent Iran from going nuclear -- if it can be done nicely by diplomacy, with the approval of the U.N., and in ways that do not offend "world opinion."
It is as if we were on the Niagara River and wanted to go ashore before it was too late, but did not want to turn on the motors for fear of disturbing the neighbors with excessive noise.
But at that point, the choice is between being serious or being suicidal.
The Republicans (most of them, anyway) have decided to be serious when it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq. The Democrats have chosen the other option about the entire Global War On Terror. But when it comes to Iran, even the Bush administration looks as though it's sliding on past the warning signs and heading for the falls.
Chris Malott at Malott's Blog has a great post about what he calls "Lethal Peace," an excellent term. He concludes this way:
Even with all our weapons and soldiers, we are only as powerful and effective as our political system allows us to be. Its sad that the radical base of a party that controls neither the White House nor either body of Congress can team with the liberal media to effectively emasculate our defense and foreign policy. I suggest that it may be a very "lethal peace" that they procure.
Do you think maybe if a nuclear bomb was detonated on American soil the Democrats might approve of the NSA wiretaps? It would definitely be harder for them to convince the country that we are not at war.
Blogiversary
It's the one-year anniversary of my blog, and it's all Hugh Hewitt's fault. He had been encouraging his guests and some of the callers to his show to start blogs, and frankly he wanted everyone with something to say to start a blog.
Since I've never been one to be short of opinions, Hugh seemed to be talking to me. My first post was January 4, 2005.
I went to see Hugh at a book signing for Blog, and his advice to me then and in an email about that same time was to keep my posts short, so people would be willing to read them. I ignored his advice. "Short" is darn-near impossible for me.
Also at the book signing Hugh's producer, "Generalissimo" Duane, encouraged me to keep blogging and eventually I'd find my voice. I took his advice, and I found my voice.
And somewhere along the line, my self-perception changed. Early in the year I won a prize (a small devotional book) at my church's Women's Fellowship Breakfast for Most Unusual Hobby ("I blog." "What's a blog?" "Well... it's a website where you post your thoughts about different things...kinda"). And now I just say, "I'm a blogger," without explanation and without having to think about it.
In October, I went to GodBlogCon05, and there were two main questions that came up for me, and I'll take the time to answer them here.
Why SkyePuppy?
It's all AOL's fault. Back in the olden days, I used AOL for internet access, and I kept it as Plan B for when my high-speed internet went down (which DSL did often until I switched to cable internet). After months of no downtime, I decided to cancel AOL. Meanwhile at work, we used AOL Instant Messenger within our group. One morning AIM wouldn't let me log on, because my last paid AOL month had ended, and AOL was holding my screen name for ransom. They wouldn't let me use it unless I re-signed up for AOL.
I refused. But then I had to come up with a new screen name in a hurry, for work. So I went to my family ancestry. The male line on my dad's side goes back to the clan MacDonald of Sleat, which hails from the Isle of Skye in Scotland. Plus, I had just bought a dog, my little Yorkie, Abby. "Skye Puppy." When it came time to figure out a blog name, I kept SkyePuppy, because I liked it, even though it doesn't sound serious enough to be tackling the serious issues of the day.
NOTE: Please do not IM the screen name, "SkyePuppy," because that name was already taken by somebody else, so I added some numbers to the name for work purposes.
Why do I try to remain anonymous?
This came up as a general question during one of the GodBlogCon sessions. Some of the bloggers (mostly male) said that if you don't say who you are, you imperil any credibility. It's like anonymous hate-mail that people get--if you don't have the courage to say who you are and why you should be taken seriously, then people will ignore you.
A valid point. But. I'm a divorced woman with a lovely teenaged (just turned 19) daughter living with me. I will not risk my own safety and especially that of my daughter to some nutcase who gets angry over what I said on my blog and tracks me down. Call me paranoid. I probably am.
This is also why I haven't emailed anyone who has posted comments and included an email address. I haven't figured out how to make my email server use SkyePuppy as the "From" name when I send emails. It puts my real name in there. Sigh!
***
Thank you to all my dozens of faithful readers. Some of you read the political posts and ignore the personal. Others of you read the personal posts and ignore the political. I can understand both. What I can't understand is how anybody could ignore the weird animal science posts, because I absolutely can't resist them.
God bless you all.
Since I've never been one to be short of opinions, Hugh seemed to be talking to me. My first post was January 4, 2005.
I went to see Hugh at a book signing for Blog, and his advice to me then and in an email about that same time was to keep my posts short, so people would be willing to read them. I ignored his advice. "Short" is darn-near impossible for me.
Also at the book signing Hugh's producer, "Generalissimo" Duane, encouraged me to keep blogging and eventually I'd find my voice. I took his advice, and I found my voice.
And somewhere along the line, my self-perception changed. Early in the year I won a prize (a small devotional book) at my church's Women's Fellowship Breakfast for Most Unusual Hobby ("I blog." "What's a blog?" "Well... it's a website where you post your thoughts about different things...kinda"). And now I just say, "I'm a blogger," without explanation and without having to think about it.
In October, I went to GodBlogCon05, and there were two main questions that came up for me, and I'll take the time to answer them here.
Why SkyePuppy?
It's all AOL's fault. Back in the olden days, I used AOL for internet access, and I kept it as Plan B for when my high-speed internet went down (which DSL did often until I switched to cable internet). After months of no downtime, I decided to cancel AOL. Meanwhile at work, we used AOL Instant Messenger within our group. One morning AIM wouldn't let me log on, because my last paid AOL month had ended, and AOL was holding my screen name for ransom. They wouldn't let me use it unless I re-signed up for AOL.
I refused. But then I had to come up with a new screen name in a hurry, for work. So I went to my family ancestry. The male line on my dad's side goes back to the clan MacDonald of Sleat, which hails from the Isle of Skye in Scotland. Plus, I had just bought a dog, my little Yorkie, Abby. "Skye Puppy." When it came time to figure out a blog name, I kept SkyePuppy, because I liked it, even though it doesn't sound serious enough to be tackling the serious issues of the day.
NOTE: Please do not IM the screen name, "SkyePuppy," because that name was already taken by somebody else, so I added some numbers to the name for work purposes.
Why do I try to remain anonymous?
This came up as a general question during one of the GodBlogCon sessions. Some of the bloggers (mostly male) said that if you don't say who you are, you imperil any credibility. It's like anonymous hate-mail that people get--if you don't have the courage to say who you are and why you should be taken seriously, then people will ignore you.
A valid point. But. I'm a divorced woman with a lovely teenaged (just turned 19) daughter living with me. I will not risk my own safety and especially that of my daughter to some nutcase who gets angry over what I said on my blog and tracks me down. Call me paranoid. I probably am.
This is also why I haven't emailed anyone who has posted comments and included an email address. I haven't figured out how to make my email server use SkyePuppy as the "From" name when I send emails. It puts my real name in there. Sigh!
***
Thank you to all my dozens of faithful readers. Some of you read the political posts and ignore the personal. Others of you read the personal posts and ignore the political. I can understand both. What I can't understand is how anybody could ignore the weird animal science posts, because I absolutely can't resist them.
God bless you all.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Arnold vs. Austria
Mark Steyn doesn't actually take on anyone in his December 29, 2005, Jerusalem Post column. Instead he joyfully reports the latest fallout from the Tookie Williams execution (which I have previously avoided discussing).
On December 21, the Guardian reported on the "Tookie Backlash" in Austria, where the death penalty is forbidden. It seems that Arnold Schwarzenegger's hometown of Graz took a dim view of Arnold's having allowed the Tookie Williams execution to proceed. So dim, in fact, that they threatened to change the name of the Arnold Schwarzenegger Stadium to the Tookie Williams Stadium, and some of the city leaders were working on getting Arnold's Austrian citizenship revoked.
Arnold not only gave them his permission to remove his name from the stadium, he went a step further. Steyn writes:
Writing to the mayor of his old town, Schwarzenegger noted that in the course of his gubernatorial term he'd have to make decisions on other death-row inmates, too - the next one comes up in January. So, wrote the governor, "in order to spare the responsible politicians of the city of Graz further concern, I withdraw from them as of this day the right to use my name in association with the Liebenauer Stadium... I expect the lettering to be removed by the end of 2005" - and, given that most European municipal workers are on vacation till the second week of January, that means the mayor may have had to sub-contract the job to any obliging Albanian Muslim refugees he could round up.
"The use of my name to advertise or promote the city of Graz in any way is no longer allowed," continued Arnold. "Graz will not have any problems in the future with my decisions as governor of California, because officially nothing connects us any more."
And just for good measure he returned the "Ring of Honor" he was given in 1999 for the "pride and recognition" he brought Graz.
The mayor of Graz obviously saw the tourist trade about to dry up before his eyes, so he asked Arnold to reconsider, but it was too late. The ring was already in the mail.
So, as CNN reported on December 26, the name on the stadium was changed under the cover of darkness. Not to the Tookie Williams Stadium, but to its original name, "Stadium Graz Liebenau."
Steyn again (emphasis added):
Schwarzenegger is no conservative, and has been a disappointing governor. But his letter is magnificent, and the pleasure it affords was only heightened by the hilarious Guardian headline to its report on the "controversy": "Schwarzenegger Faces 'Tookie' Backlash In Austria."
No, he doesn't. With one typewritten sheet, he's ended the whole damn backlash, and usefully offered a good basic template for US-EU relations that recognizes the basic differences between the two: Americans have responsibilities, Europeans have attitudes. Indeed, the EU has attitudes in inverse proportion to its ability to act on them. It's able to strut and preen on the world stage secure in the knowledge that nobody expects it to do anything about anything.
On December 21, the Guardian reported on the "Tookie Backlash" in Austria, where the death penalty is forbidden. It seems that Arnold Schwarzenegger's hometown of Graz took a dim view of Arnold's having allowed the Tookie Williams execution to proceed. So dim, in fact, that they threatened to change the name of the Arnold Schwarzenegger Stadium to the Tookie Williams Stadium, and some of the city leaders were working on getting Arnold's Austrian citizenship revoked.
Arnold not only gave them his permission to remove his name from the stadium, he went a step further. Steyn writes:
Writing to the mayor of his old town, Schwarzenegger noted that in the course of his gubernatorial term he'd have to make decisions on other death-row inmates, too - the next one comes up in January. So, wrote the governor, "in order to spare the responsible politicians of the city of Graz further concern, I withdraw from them as of this day the right to use my name in association with the Liebenauer Stadium... I expect the lettering to be removed by the end of 2005" - and, given that most European municipal workers are on vacation till the second week of January, that means the mayor may have had to sub-contract the job to any obliging Albanian Muslim refugees he could round up.
"The use of my name to advertise or promote the city of Graz in any way is no longer allowed," continued Arnold. "Graz will not have any problems in the future with my decisions as governor of California, because officially nothing connects us any more."
And just for good measure he returned the "Ring of Honor" he was given in 1999 for the "pride and recognition" he brought Graz.
The mayor of Graz obviously saw the tourist trade about to dry up before his eyes, so he asked Arnold to reconsider, but it was too late. The ring was already in the mail.
So, as CNN reported on December 26, the name on the stadium was changed under the cover of darkness. Not to the Tookie Williams Stadium, but to its original name, "Stadium Graz Liebenau."
Steyn again (emphasis added):
Schwarzenegger is no conservative, and has been a disappointing governor. But his letter is magnificent, and the pleasure it affords was only heightened by the hilarious Guardian headline to its report on the "controversy": "Schwarzenegger Faces 'Tookie' Backlash In Austria."
No, he doesn't. With one typewritten sheet, he's ended the whole damn backlash, and usefully offered a good basic template for US-EU relations that recognizes the basic differences between the two: Americans have responsibilities, Europeans have attitudes. Indeed, the EU has attitudes in inverse proportion to its ability to act on them. It's able to strut and preen on the world stage secure in the knowledge that nobody expects it to do anything about anything.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Geisha Dissension
Five of us went after church to see Memoirs of a Geisha. When it was over, four of us loved it, and the fifth (my most frequent movie buddy) didn't like it but didn't hate it either.
I had looked through the reviews on IMDB before deciding whether or not to see the movie. They were mixed. People who just finished reading the book were the most disappointed. As were people who could tell the difference between Japanese and Chinese actresses or the proper kimono to be worn at a given occasion. Since I haven't read the book, and I'm not intimately familiar with Japanese culture, I didn't see a problem.
As we went in to our theater, I felt sorry for the men who came with wives or girlfriends. After all, Hugh Hewitt's resident movie reviewer, Emmett of the Unblinking Eye, had given a public service announcement on Hugh's radio show Thursday. He warned men, if at all possible, to encourage their wives to see the Geisha movie with their girlfriends. This is the ultimate chick flick. Men should see King Kong.
Memoirs of a Geisha is a lushly beautiful film that follows a young girl, Chiyo, from poverty to servitude to the world of the elite Geisha. It is filled with struggle, backstabbing, intrigue, and the dream of love.
From our perspective--and the reason my friend didn't like it--it is depressing to think that a woman's highest aspiration was to be no more than a wealthy man's mistress. But set in the context of a culture that prizes beauty, Chiyo's fight for love captured my attention and held it for the whole movie. I recommend it. To women.
I had looked through the reviews on IMDB before deciding whether or not to see the movie. They were mixed. People who just finished reading the book were the most disappointed. As were people who could tell the difference between Japanese and Chinese actresses or the proper kimono to be worn at a given occasion. Since I haven't read the book, and I'm not intimately familiar with Japanese culture, I didn't see a problem.
As we went in to our theater, I felt sorry for the men who came with wives or girlfriends. After all, Hugh Hewitt's resident movie reviewer, Emmett of the Unblinking Eye, had given a public service announcement on Hugh's radio show Thursday. He warned men, if at all possible, to encourage their wives to see the Geisha movie with their girlfriends. This is the ultimate chick flick. Men should see King Kong.
Memoirs of a Geisha is a lushly beautiful film that follows a young girl, Chiyo, from poverty to servitude to the world of the elite Geisha. It is filled with struggle, backstabbing, intrigue, and the dream of love.
From our perspective--and the reason my friend didn't like it--it is depressing to think that a woman's highest aspiration was to be no more than a wealthy man's mistress. But set in the context of a culture that prizes beauty, Chiyo's fight for love captured my attention and held it for the whole movie. I recommend it. To women.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
End of Year Recap
It's that time of year again, when everyone from the Mainstream Media down to individuals look back over the past year and look forward to the coming year. Bread Baker, Bill, calls this time between Christmas and New Year's the "Eye of the Hurricane."
Joe's Dartblog has a post with lots of links to year-in-review stories, so I won't bother to rehash all of those here (HT: Hugh Hewitt). Michelle Malkin has a couple options for the Story of the Year. Plus, she links to the Little Green Footballs post on getting the nominees narrowed down to only 20 for the Idiotarian of the Year Award (the Fiskie).
On a personal level, 2005 was the year my dad passed away and I had to learn to live without him. And I had to learn to see my mom on her own, without him.
It was the year I started blogging (January 4). The year my minivan blew its engine after nine years and 248,000 miles of faithful service and I found another one just like it with only 64,000 miles. The year I worked more overtime (unpaid) than I've probably worked in my entire career put together. The year I sold my first travel article with photos (unpaid, except for publication credits).
2005 has been a year of transition, both personally and in the larger arena. We have changes on the Supreme Court, a new Pope, and a new government (almost) in Iraq. 2006 will show us how these changes play out.
I don't mind putting this year behind me. And I haven't really given much thought to 2006--I'm too busy hanging out with my mom, who came here from Montana for the holidays.
Posting will be light for the next several days. Have a Happy New Year!
Joe's Dartblog has a post with lots of links to year-in-review stories, so I won't bother to rehash all of those here (HT: Hugh Hewitt). Michelle Malkin has a couple options for the Story of the Year. Plus, she links to the Little Green Footballs post on getting the nominees narrowed down to only 20 for the Idiotarian of the Year Award (the Fiskie).
On a personal level, 2005 was the year my dad passed away and I had to learn to live without him. And I had to learn to see my mom on her own, without him.
It was the year I started blogging (January 4). The year my minivan blew its engine after nine years and 248,000 miles of faithful service and I found another one just like it with only 64,000 miles. The year I worked more overtime (unpaid) than I've probably worked in my entire career put together. The year I sold my first travel article with photos (unpaid, except for publication credits).
2005 has been a year of transition, both personally and in the larger arena. We have changes on the Supreme Court, a new Pope, and a new government (almost) in Iraq. 2006 will show us how these changes play out.
I don't mind putting this year behind me. And I haven't really given much thought to 2006--I'm too busy hanging out with my mom, who came here from Montana for the holidays.
Posting will be light for the next several days. Have a Happy New Year!
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Western Muslims' Rape Spree
This article, by Sharon Lapkin, is from yesterday's Front Page Magazine (HT: WorldNetDaily). In it she looks at the recent (within the last 5 - 8 years) surge in rapes commited by Muslims living in Western countries.
In Australia, Norway, Sweden and other Western nations, there is a distinct race-based crime in motion being ignored by the diversity police: Islamic men are raping Western women for ethnic reasons. We know this because the rapists have openly declared their sectarian motivations.
In Australia's New South Wales Supreme Court in December 2005, a visiting Pakistani rapist testified that his victims had no right to say no, because they were not wearing a headscarf.
And earlier this year Australians were outraged when Lebanese Sheik Faiz Mohammed gave a lecture in Sydney where he informed his audience that rape victims had no one to blame but themselves. Women, he said, who wore skimpy clothing, invited men to rape them.
According to Lapkin, in France's banlieus (the suburbs that produced November's riots), Muslim women who wear Western clothes and have Western habits are being raped. In Indonesia, Chinese women are the ones being raped. In Pakistan, it's the Christians. In Sudan, where blacks are being slaughtered, the Christian women are gang-raped before being mutilated and killed.
This phenomenon of Islamic sexual violence against women should be treated as the urgent, violent, repressive epidemic it is. Instead, journalists, academics, and politicians ignore it, rationalize it, or ostracize those who dare discuss it.
Heaven forbid that we should offend racist Muslim rapists by appearing racist.
The glaring omission in this article is the mention of the US. It's not there. Is this because, as in Australia, the origins and racist statements of the rapists aren't reported? Or is it because this phenomenon has yet to hit our shores?
I did a google search on "detroit muslim rape" because of the high Muslim population in the Detroit area. I looked through ten pages of results, but there wasn't any indication of increased rape in that area. The closest issue I found was a January 2002 commentary about Arab gas-station owners assaulting their black customers.
And that leads me to the question: What's different between America, the symbol of The West, and Europe? Why is there a problem with Muslim-perpetrated rape against Westerners in Europe and Australia, but there isn't a similar problem here?
It's tempting to think that we're superior in some way--we treat people better, we handle immigration oh so much better than the Europeans, we assimilate rather than isolate new people. But I'm not sure that's enough of the explanation.
Distance may play a significant role.
In general, the poorest of the poor in any given place can't afford to go anywhere. They're stuck where they live, with no hope of improving their lot in life. Those who have a little money can afford to go someplace nearby in the hope of finding work that will support their family. Those who have plenty of money can afford to go wherever they want to go.
So it is the middle class and the moneyed class that can afford to come to America and establish a life here. And it is the ones who want what we offer--freedom from oppression, the opportunity to prosper--who settle here and not somewhere else. Maybe among Muslim immigrants, we attract the moderates, the educated, the self-reliant.
And maybe, because of the shorter distance, Europe gets the less-educated poor who are content to remain isolated from a society that is content to leave them isolated.
I don't know. I'm only speculating. I'm simply trying to understand if we're at risk for the problems the Europeans are experiencing. Is the push toward tolerant, hyphenated-American multiculturalism also pushing us toward the kind of isolation that breeds violence? Or will distance save us from the worst?
It's hard to say. Distance hasn't saved Australia.
In Australia, Norway, Sweden and other Western nations, there is a distinct race-based crime in motion being ignored by the diversity police: Islamic men are raping Western women for ethnic reasons. We know this because the rapists have openly declared their sectarian motivations.
In Australia's New South Wales Supreme Court in December 2005, a visiting Pakistani rapist testified that his victims had no right to say no, because they were not wearing a headscarf.
And earlier this year Australians were outraged when Lebanese Sheik Faiz Mohammed gave a lecture in Sydney where he informed his audience that rape victims had no one to blame but themselves. Women, he said, who wore skimpy clothing, invited men to rape them.
According to Lapkin, in France's banlieus (the suburbs that produced November's riots), Muslim women who wear Western clothes and have Western habits are being raped. In Indonesia, Chinese women are the ones being raped. In Pakistan, it's the Christians. In Sudan, where blacks are being slaughtered, the Christian women are gang-raped before being mutilated and killed.
This phenomenon of Islamic sexual violence against women should be treated as the urgent, violent, repressive epidemic it is. Instead, journalists, academics, and politicians ignore it, rationalize it, or ostracize those who dare discuss it.
Heaven forbid that we should offend racist Muslim rapists by appearing racist.
The glaring omission in this article is the mention of the US. It's not there. Is this because, as in Australia, the origins and racist statements of the rapists aren't reported? Or is it because this phenomenon has yet to hit our shores?
I did a google search on "detroit muslim rape" because of the high Muslim population in the Detroit area. I looked through ten pages of results, but there wasn't any indication of increased rape in that area. The closest issue I found was a January 2002 commentary about Arab gas-station owners assaulting their black customers.
And that leads me to the question: What's different between America, the symbol of The West, and Europe? Why is there a problem with Muslim-perpetrated rape against Westerners in Europe and Australia, but there isn't a similar problem here?
It's tempting to think that we're superior in some way--we treat people better, we handle immigration oh so much better than the Europeans, we assimilate rather than isolate new people. But I'm not sure that's enough of the explanation.
Distance may play a significant role.
In general, the poorest of the poor in any given place can't afford to go anywhere. They're stuck where they live, with no hope of improving their lot in life. Those who have a little money can afford to go someplace nearby in the hope of finding work that will support their family. Those who have plenty of money can afford to go wherever they want to go.
So it is the middle class and the moneyed class that can afford to come to America and establish a life here. And it is the ones who want what we offer--freedom from oppression, the opportunity to prosper--who settle here and not somewhere else. Maybe among Muslim immigrants, we attract the moderates, the educated, the self-reliant.
And maybe, because of the shorter distance, Europe gets the less-educated poor who are content to remain isolated from a society that is content to leave them isolated.
I don't know. I'm only speculating. I'm simply trying to understand if we're at risk for the problems the Europeans are experiencing. Is the push toward tolerant, hyphenated-American multiculturalism also pushing us toward the kind of isolation that breeds violence? Or will distance save us from the worst?
It's hard to say. Distance hasn't saved Australia.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Iraq Election Protests
It was both disappointing and frustrating to read the news last week about the protests in Iraq claiming election fraud. Disappointing because the Iraqis' excitement over voting offered hope that the results would be accepted. Frustrating because it's hard to know if the accusations of fraud were warranted or not. And the protests continue (HT: WorldNetDaily).
But then I remembered the various elections over the past half-dozen years here in the US, where results that were close prompted cries of misconduct and demands for recounts in attempts to overturn reported results. Looks like we've given Iraq a concrete example of "democratic elections," and they're following it well.
My gut tells me that the MSM is reporting the Iraqi protests with glee. They must love the accusations of fraud, the chanting against what they see as Bush's puppet government, the sense that this could erupt in civil war in Iraq and give the Left/MSM the upper hand in their fight against Bush.
But the MSM is not Iraqi (and neither am I), so they (and I) can't be counted on to interpret these post-election events correctly. That's why I've been turning again and again to Iraq The Model to interpret the protests for me.
This is from Mohammed's post on Monday:
It’s become clear from the active shuttle-like movement of the rival parties and mediators that the intensity of the political crisis began to subside compared to how things looked like a week ago.
In spite of the violence that disturbed Baghdad this morning, the rival parties resumed their meetings and talks with some politicians playing the role of mediators; the most prominent of whom is President Talabani and even in the two main competing camps we’re hearing moderate voices emerge to propose solutions like the Virtue Party from the UIA and al-Mutlaq from Maram.
And from today's post by Omar:
The past and current meetings are all in preparation for an expected summit in Sulaymaniya where the leaders of the four major lists (Allawi, Adnan al-Dulaimi, al-Hakeem and Barzani as well as president Talabani) are expected to discuss and work out a solution of the dispute over election results and the shape of the new government.
I think the Kurdish politicians will ask for something in return for the great efforts they’re doing and when an agreement is reached among the UIA and Maram, I expect the Kurdish alliance to come up with new demands.
Anyway, if they really help the country pass the crisis, they will have earned a nice reward.
From Mohammed and Omar I get the sense that things are fine in Iraq. The protests have, for the most part, been peaceful. All parties are talking and seem dedicated to working out a solution that will be satisfactory (not necessarily ideal) to them all.
Iraq still wants to be Iraq. The people want a government of their own and of their own making. And they are using lawful means to achieve it. We can't ask for more. All we can do is wait.
But then I remembered the various elections over the past half-dozen years here in the US, where results that were close prompted cries of misconduct and demands for recounts in attempts to overturn reported results. Looks like we've given Iraq a concrete example of "democratic elections," and they're following it well.
My gut tells me that the MSM is reporting the Iraqi protests with glee. They must love the accusations of fraud, the chanting against what they see as Bush's puppet government, the sense that this could erupt in civil war in Iraq and give the Left/MSM the upper hand in their fight against Bush.
But the MSM is not Iraqi (and neither am I), so they (and I) can't be counted on to interpret these post-election events correctly. That's why I've been turning again and again to Iraq The Model to interpret the protests for me.
This is from Mohammed's post on Monday:
It’s become clear from the active shuttle-like movement of the rival parties and mediators that the intensity of the political crisis began to subside compared to how things looked like a week ago.
In spite of the violence that disturbed Baghdad this morning, the rival parties resumed their meetings and talks with some politicians playing the role of mediators; the most prominent of whom is President Talabani and even in the two main competing camps we’re hearing moderate voices emerge to propose solutions like the Virtue Party from the UIA and al-Mutlaq from Maram.
And from today's post by Omar:
The past and current meetings are all in preparation for an expected summit in Sulaymaniya where the leaders of the four major lists (Allawi, Adnan al-Dulaimi, al-Hakeem and Barzani as well as president Talabani) are expected to discuss and work out a solution of the dispute over election results and the shape of the new government.
I think the Kurdish politicians will ask for something in return for the great efforts they’re doing and when an agreement is reached among the UIA and Maram, I expect the Kurdish alliance to come up with new demands.
Anyway, if they really help the country pass the crisis, they will have earned a nice reward.
From Mohammed and Omar I get the sense that things are fine in Iraq. The protests have, for the most part, been peaceful. All parties are talking and seem dedicated to working out a solution that will be satisfactory (not necessarily ideal) to them all.
Iraq still wants to be Iraq. The people want a government of their own and of their own making. And they are using lawful means to achieve it. We can't ask for more. All we can do is wait.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Merry Christmas
In the town of Drammen, west of Oslo, Norway, a living Nativity scene went awry, according to Friday's Aftenposten (HT: WorldNetDaily).
It all started when the urban mission group Kirkens Bymisjon tried to set up a special, living Nativity scene at the main town square in Drammen. The exhibit included a cow from a nearby farm, but just before the rather large animal was about to be tied up inside the stall, she spotted a chance to simply take off.
What ensued was a near comical chase through the town streets, up towards Drammen's venerable Bragernes Church, with the head of Bymisjon chasing after the cow. Morten Eriksson of the Søndre Buskerud Police District said his colleagues quickly responded to calls for help, but not even the police patrol managed to catch the runaway cow.
They finally solved the problem by calling the farmer who owned the cow, and he rounded her up about a kilometer away and got her back to the Nativity scene.
May you have the peace that comes from knowing the Child of the Nativity and the Savior that He became.
Merry Christmas.
It all started when the urban mission group Kirkens Bymisjon tried to set up a special, living Nativity scene at the main town square in Drammen. The exhibit included a cow from a nearby farm, but just before the rather large animal was about to be tied up inside the stall, she spotted a chance to simply take off.
What ensued was a near comical chase through the town streets, up towards Drammen's venerable Bragernes Church, with the head of Bymisjon chasing after the cow. Morten Eriksson of the Søndre Buskerud Police District said his colleagues quickly responded to calls for help, but not even the police patrol managed to catch the runaway cow.
They finally solved the problem by calling the farmer who owned the cow, and he rounded her up about a kilometer away and got her back to the Nativity scene.
May you have the peace that comes from knowing the Child of the Nativity and the Savior that He became.
Merry Christmas.
Distorted Iraq Numbers
I keep a list of stories that catch my eye but that I don't have time to get to right away. This one has been in my list for way too long. It's from Mudville Gazette back on Veteran's Day.
Greyhawk's post is about the Big Lie that the MSM likes to repeat. He quotes the London Telegraph:
Two and a half years after the fall of Saddam Hussein the Iraq war is proving no exception. While much was made of the US death toll recently reaching 2,000, little has been said of the 15,000 who have returned home mutilated.
And then Greyhawk refutes the two lies: 1) that there have been 15,000 mutilated soldiers, and 2) that they have been ignored.
Over half of the 15,000 wounded in Iraq (8,227 to be exact) returned to duty within 72 hours. That hardly qualifies as "mutilated." Or "returned home."
Greyhawk states:
Since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2,791 soldiers have been wounded in action seriously enough to require evac to Army medical facilities. (Note: this figure does not include other branches of service.)
These would be the "returned home" figures.
The military casualty reports for amputees include this figure: "Total of 280 service member amputees treated in Army hospitals." This count is for all branches of the military treated at Army hospitals.
As for the implication that we have forgotten the wounded, Greyhawk includes a link to the Valor It project at SoldiersAngels, which is helping to get modified computers for the amputees who can't use a normal keyboard anymore. Our soldiers are not forgotten. Feel free to contribute.
The local papers here in Southern California have just reported that Camp Pendleton's 1st Marine Expeditionary Force will be deployed in two 7-month stretches soon, replacing Camp Lejeune's 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in the al-Anbar province. Al-Anbar is one of the provinces where most of the hostile action is happening.
As our military forces head over to Iraq, and as other forces return home, they all deserve accuracy in the reporting of what they do. They deserve not to have casualty counts distorted and used as attacks against their mission in Iraq.
The next time people quote casualty figures to you as justification for pulling out of Iraq, ask them for their sources, and if it's the MSM, ask them for the details. Don't expect the MSM to get it right. On Iraq, they rarely do.
Greyhawk's post is about the Big Lie that the MSM likes to repeat. He quotes the London Telegraph:
Two and a half years after the fall of Saddam Hussein the Iraq war is proving no exception. While much was made of the US death toll recently reaching 2,000, little has been said of the 15,000 who have returned home mutilated.
And then Greyhawk refutes the two lies: 1) that there have been 15,000 mutilated soldiers, and 2) that they have been ignored.
Over half of the 15,000 wounded in Iraq (8,227 to be exact) returned to duty within 72 hours. That hardly qualifies as "mutilated." Or "returned home."
Greyhawk states:
Since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2,791 soldiers have been wounded in action seriously enough to require evac to Army medical facilities. (Note: this figure does not include other branches of service.)
These would be the "returned home" figures.
The military casualty reports for amputees include this figure: "Total of 280 service member amputees treated in Army hospitals." This count is for all branches of the military treated at Army hospitals.
As for the implication that we have forgotten the wounded, Greyhawk includes a link to the Valor It project at SoldiersAngels, which is helping to get modified computers for the amputees who can't use a normal keyboard anymore. Our soldiers are not forgotten. Feel free to contribute.
The local papers here in Southern California have just reported that Camp Pendleton's 1st Marine Expeditionary Force will be deployed in two 7-month stretches soon, replacing Camp Lejeune's 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in the al-Anbar province. Al-Anbar is one of the provinces where most of the hostile action is happening.
As our military forces head over to Iraq, and as other forces return home, they all deserve accuracy in the reporting of what they do. They deserve not to have casualty counts distorted and used as attacks against their mission in Iraq.
The next time people quote casualty figures to you as justification for pulling out of Iraq, ask them for their sources, and if it's the MSM, ask them for the details. Don't expect the MSM to get it right. On Iraq, they rarely do.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Pride and Prejudice
Saturday, I took my daughter to see Pride and Prejudice. It was a much better choice for us than King Kong, both because of the movie length (2 hours v. 3 hours) and because of the chick flick v. guy movie thing. I took my mom to see it yesterday.
It turns out I have never seen any version of this movie before. And I've never read the book. No, wait. To be more accurate, I can't remember having read the book. But when my daughter read it last year for her high school English class's British Author assignment, my copy of the book was marked up with underlines and circles around all the Regency-period terminology. So I must have read it during my romance-writer days, when I was thinking about writing a Regency romance. But I didn't remember the story.
So for me, the movie was brand new.
(Possible spoilers ahead, if you don't know the story)
The scenery was beautiful. It wasn't breathtaking in a Lord of the Rings/Narnia way. It had soft tree-edged meadows graced in mist, and hillsides curtained by rain. It was all that the English countryside of Jane Austen's time should be.
And the characters who filled the screen were all that Jane Austen's contemporaries should be. The men revealed their personalities from within their gentlemanly reserve--the delighted Mr. Bingley, the aloof Mr. Darcy, and the loving Mr. Bennet.
The ladies as well suited their time. Jane's quiet shyness when she was around Mr. Bingley, and the way she later said she was "quite over him" while the truth shone in her eyes, rang true. Elizabeth's outspokenness and strength of will were within the bounds of all that was proper for a young lady of good breeding.
Before I saw the movie, my office-mate told me that when she watched other versions, she found the romance between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy unbelievable, because he was rude for most of the movie and then all of a sudden she loved him. What was there to love? So I watched for that, and I didn't find it.
Instead, Mr. Darcy appeared at the first ball with his mouth set in the hard line of polite ill-mood. Over the course of the film, the line of his mouth softened. He spoke to Elizabeth. He watched her. He struggled within himself in a way that was subtle, barely perceptible to the viewer.
And Elizabeth began their acquaintance with tart questions and rather stinging comments that provoked him. Her eyes, too, revealed the change of her feelings. She cast questioning glances at him after a time, and shook them off. Her expression showed that she began to believe in his good character, until she was diasbused of that notion by Mr. Wickham. And on the rainy evening when Mr. Darcy dared to say how he felt, she let him know her disapproval of his past actions, while her eyes betrayed not dislike, not disgust, but the hurt she felt. In the end, when she told her father she loved Mr. Darcy, I believed her completely, because I saw it coming.
(End spoiler warning)
Pride and Prejudice is a beautifully made, wonderfully acted film. The Academy Awards never seem to reward subtlety--especially not for a romance--but they should. Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen both should be nominated (I'm not sure they should win), because their performances helped make this film into a true glimpse at a time in England's history when propriety was everything and love had to work at finding its way.
It turns out I have never seen any version of this movie before. And I've never read the book. No, wait. To be more accurate, I can't remember having read the book. But when my daughter read it last year for her high school English class's British Author assignment, my copy of the book was marked up with underlines and circles around all the Regency-period terminology. So I must have read it during my romance-writer days, when I was thinking about writing a Regency romance. But I didn't remember the story.
So for me, the movie was brand new.
(Possible spoilers ahead, if you don't know the story)
The scenery was beautiful. It wasn't breathtaking in a Lord of the Rings/Narnia way. It had soft tree-edged meadows graced in mist, and hillsides curtained by rain. It was all that the English countryside of Jane Austen's time should be.
And the characters who filled the screen were all that Jane Austen's contemporaries should be. The men revealed their personalities from within their gentlemanly reserve--the delighted Mr. Bingley, the aloof Mr. Darcy, and the loving Mr. Bennet.
The ladies as well suited their time. Jane's quiet shyness when she was around Mr. Bingley, and the way she later said she was "quite over him" while the truth shone in her eyes, rang true. Elizabeth's outspokenness and strength of will were within the bounds of all that was proper for a young lady of good breeding.
Before I saw the movie, my office-mate told me that when she watched other versions, she found the romance between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy unbelievable, because he was rude for most of the movie and then all of a sudden she loved him. What was there to love? So I watched for that, and I didn't find it.
Instead, Mr. Darcy appeared at the first ball with his mouth set in the hard line of polite ill-mood. Over the course of the film, the line of his mouth softened. He spoke to Elizabeth. He watched her. He struggled within himself in a way that was subtle, barely perceptible to the viewer.
And Elizabeth began their acquaintance with tart questions and rather stinging comments that provoked him. Her eyes, too, revealed the change of her feelings. She cast questioning glances at him after a time, and shook them off. Her expression showed that she began to believe in his good character, until she was diasbused of that notion by Mr. Wickham. And on the rainy evening when Mr. Darcy dared to say how he felt, she let him know her disapproval of his past actions, while her eyes betrayed not dislike, not disgust, but the hurt she felt. In the end, when she told her father she loved Mr. Darcy, I believed her completely, because I saw it coming.
(End spoiler warning)
Pride and Prejudice is a beautifully made, wonderfully acted film. The Academy Awards never seem to reward subtlety--especially not for a romance--but they should. Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen both should be nominated (I'm not sure they should win), because their performances helped make this film into a true glimpse at a time in England's history when propriety was everything and love had to work at finding its way.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Just In Time For Christmas
On my drive to work this morning, I passed a FedEx truck with enough dirt on the back that someone had written on it with a finger. It said, "I work for Santa." I'll bet he does. And UPS and the Postal Service and all the rest of them do too.
Then when I logged on at work, this Anchorage Daily News article popped up in AOL News. Some neighbors in Anchorage, AK, built a 16-foot snowman. Even for Anchorage, that made the news. The article's writer, Debra McKinney seems to have had a fabulous time investigating and reporting the story.
A lot of people in California don't understand basic snowman physics. Snowman body parts get heavy, and if you make the bottom too big, then you'll never be able to lift the middle on top of it. Outside of mutants, like the one in Anchorage, snowmen usually don't exceed about five or six feet in height.
The article is well worth a full reading. It covers the construction phase, with great quotes from the two main neighbor-builders, and continues with the snowman's post-construction adventures.
"It just turned into a monster," said [one] neighbor, Darrell Estes.
Monstrous fun.
Then when I logged on at work, this Anchorage Daily News article popped up in AOL News. Some neighbors in Anchorage, AK, built a 16-foot snowman. Even for Anchorage, that made the news. The article's writer, Debra McKinney seems to have had a fabulous time investigating and reporting the story.
A lot of people in California don't understand basic snowman physics. Snowman body parts get heavy, and if you make the bottom too big, then you'll never be able to lift the middle on top of it. Outside of mutants, like the one in Anchorage, snowmen usually don't exceed about five or six feet in height.
The article is well worth a full reading. It covers the construction phase, with great quotes from the two main neighbor-builders, and continues with the snowman's post-construction adventures.
"It just turned into a monster," said [one] neighbor, Darrell Estes.
Monstrous fun.
Monday, December 19, 2005
A Christmas Carol
The radio news guy said this morning that on this date in 1843, "A Christmas Carol" was first published. That's 162 glorious years of Bob Cratchit, Tiny Tim, and the cantankerous but reformable Ebenezer Scrooge.
I did an IMDB search on "Christmas Carol" and got 46 matches, from the classic 1938 movie to more recent gems like the Muppets' Christmas Carol. Naturally, there are oodles of TV versions.
Bugs Bunny, the Flintstones, and even the Jetsons have performed this story, but my favorite version of all--TV or movie--is Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol. I have it on DVD.
The songs (yes, Mr. Magoo is in a musical) are wonderful. The early scene with Bob Cratchit asking Mr. Scrooge for one more piece of coal ends with the two of them singing at the same time. Mr. Scrooge is singing, "...coins when they mingle make such a lovely sound...," and Bob Cratchit is singing, "Please, Mr. Scrooge, it's cold, it's cold, it's cold." Perfect.
But my favorite song from this show is sung by little Ebenezer in Christmas Past. He's all alone in the schoolroom, and he sings,
A hand for each hand was planned for the world,
So why don't my fingers reach?
Millions of grains of sand in the world,
Why such a lonely beach?
Where is a voice to answer mine back?
Where are two shoes that click to my clack?
I'm all alone in the world.
I cry every time. Always have. Always will.
If Charles Dickens had not written another word besides this short story, he would still deserve endless thanks and admiration. "A Christmas Carol" is a treasure that shines bright year after year.
I did an IMDB search on "Christmas Carol" and got 46 matches, from the classic 1938 movie to more recent gems like the Muppets' Christmas Carol. Naturally, there are oodles of TV versions.
Bugs Bunny, the Flintstones, and even the Jetsons have performed this story, but my favorite version of all--TV or movie--is Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol. I have it on DVD.
The songs (yes, Mr. Magoo is in a musical) are wonderful. The early scene with Bob Cratchit asking Mr. Scrooge for one more piece of coal ends with the two of them singing at the same time. Mr. Scrooge is singing, "...coins when they mingle make such a lovely sound...," and Bob Cratchit is singing, "Please, Mr. Scrooge, it's cold, it's cold, it's cold." Perfect.
But my favorite song from this show is sung by little Ebenezer in Christmas Past. He's all alone in the schoolroom, and he sings,
A hand for each hand was planned for the world,
So why don't my fingers reach?
Millions of grains of sand in the world,
Why such a lonely beach?
Where is a voice to answer mine back?
Where are two shoes that click to my clack?
I'm all alone in the world.
I cry every time. Always have. Always will.
If Charles Dickens had not written another word besides this short story, he would still deserve endless thanks and admiration. "A Christmas Carol" is a treasure that shines bright year after year.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Movie Choices
My daughter and I might be going to the movies this afternoon, if she doesn't have to work, but I'm not sure what I want to see. Yesterday on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, Emmett of the Unblinking Eye, Hugh's resident movie reviewer, said, "King Kong is what a movie is supposed to be." But I still don't care if I see it.
I've seen the Fay Wray version from 1933 and also the Jessica Lange version (on TV, not in the theater), and it wasn't enough of a thrill to make me want to plunk down seven bucks plus drink and Raisinettes to see it all over again. For three hours. Even after what Emmett says.
Is King Kong a guy movie?
I'll let my daughter decide, if we go, but my druthers are Pride and Prejudice, which still has one showing left at the local theater, or Narnia again.
One little note: Brokeback Mountain is already gone from the local theater. It only lasted a week. The talking lion and the giant gorilla shoved the gay cowboy movie aside. Good.
I've seen the Fay Wray version from 1933 and also the Jessica Lange version (on TV, not in the theater), and it wasn't enough of a thrill to make me want to plunk down seven bucks plus drink and Raisinettes to see it all over again. For three hours. Even after what Emmett says.
Is King Kong a guy movie?
I'll let my daughter decide, if we go, but my druthers are Pride and Prejudice, which still has one showing left at the local theater, or Narnia again.
One little note: Brokeback Mountain is already gone from the local theater. It only lasted a week. The talking lion and the giant gorilla shoved the gay cowboy movie aside. Good.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Environmentalists Criticize Christmas
Reuters had a story out of Australia yesterday about an environmental group complaining that Christmas gifts could harm the environment.
The Australian Conservation Foundation released a report titled, “The Hidden Cost of Christmas,” which "calculated the environmental impact of spending on books, clothes, alcohol, electrical appliances and candy during the festive season."
This is disturbing, since I already asked for a new toaster (the one we have mangles bagels), and DVDs, books and candy are always winners with me. So my Christmas list is sure to destroy a small land mass, if the following is any indication:
Every dollar Australians spend on new clothes as gifts consumes four gallons of water and requires 37 sq. feet of land in the manufacturing process, it said.
Last Christmas, Australians spent $1.1 billion on clothes, which required more than 1.2 million acres of land to produce, it said.
How many acres is the entire country of Australia? And do they take the reusability of land into account when the clothing is made of wool or cotton?
Then the report got even closer to home:
Even a small box of chocolates will consume 44 pounds of natural materials and 207 gallons of water.
Chocolate is one of the four basic food groups (the others being salty snacks, ice cream, and everything else), so they're really making me mad. "Forty-four pounds of natural materials." Would they prefer that I use unnatural materials?
Their solution to the Christmas gift dilemma?
“We can all tread more lightly on the earth this Christmas by eating, drinking and giving gifts in moderation, and by giving gifts with a low environmental cost, such as vouchers for services, tickets to entertainment, memberships to gyms, museums or sports clubs, and donations to charities,” said [foundation executive director Don] Henry.
And do they forget that the people at the movie theaters and the gyms, museums, or sports clubs also happen to wear clothes and use small appliances and sell food--even candy?
It's bad enough that Christmas is beset by people who want to turn it into an inclusive, generic, meaningless "holiday." Now we have the environmentalists after Christmas as well.
I say, "Bah, humbug!" to the environmentalists. Let them live their lives in sour-tempered moderation.
But as for me, I plan to celebrate Christmas and enjoy it--candy, small appliances and all. The earth will survive as it has every other year.
God bless us every one!
The Australian Conservation Foundation released a report titled, “The Hidden Cost of Christmas,” which "calculated the environmental impact of spending on books, clothes, alcohol, electrical appliances and candy during the festive season."
This is disturbing, since I already asked for a new toaster (the one we have mangles bagels), and DVDs, books and candy are always winners with me. So my Christmas list is sure to destroy a small land mass, if the following is any indication:
Every dollar Australians spend on new clothes as gifts consumes four gallons of water and requires 37 sq. feet of land in the manufacturing process, it said.
Last Christmas, Australians spent $1.1 billion on clothes, which required more than 1.2 million acres of land to produce, it said.
How many acres is the entire country of Australia? And do they take the reusability of land into account when the clothing is made of wool or cotton?
Then the report got even closer to home:
Even a small box of chocolates will consume 44 pounds of natural materials and 207 gallons of water.
Chocolate is one of the four basic food groups (the others being salty snacks, ice cream, and everything else), so they're really making me mad. "Forty-four pounds of natural materials." Would they prefer that I use unnatural materials?
Their solution to the Christmas gift dilemma?
“We can all tread more lightly on the earth this Christmas by eating, drinking and giving gifts in moderation, and by giving gifts with a low environmental cost, such as vouchers for services, tickets to entertainment, memberships to gyms, museums or sports clubs, and donations to charities,” said [foundation executive director Don] Henry.
And do they forget that the people at the movie theaters and the gyms, museums, or sports clubs also happen to wear clothes and use small appliances and sell food--even candy?
It's bad enough that Christmas is beset by people who want to turn it into an inclusive, generic, meaningless "holiday." Now we have the environmentalists after Christmas as well.
I say, "Bah, humbug!" to the environmentalists. Let them live their lives in sour-tempered moderation.
But as for me, I plan to celebrate Christmas and enjoy it--candy, small appliances and all. The earth will survive as it has every other year.
God bless us every one!
Iraq's Election
The results are in: Iraq wins! The details will follow later.
Fox News reported today that the polling hours were extended by an hour, due to the long lines of voters.
And to the surprise of coalition forces, violence in Iraq was much lighter than expected and the smattering of attacks didn't appear to discourage Iraqis, some of whom turned out wrapped in their country's flag on a bright, sunny day and afterward displayed a purple ink-stained index finger — a mark to guard against multiple voting.
An imam in Ramadi was heard over a mosque loudspeaker saying: "God will bless you with a great life if you go out and vote. This is your last chance to vote."
There is something stirring in watching the emergence of a new free nation, in watching a once-oppressed people declare by their voting that the nation is their own. Take a look at the photos and the photo essay on the right side of the Fox News article. Those pictures capture the joy, pride, and vigilance of the Iraqis and their military.
"The Iraqi people are showing the world that all people — of all backgrounds — want to be able to choose their own leaders and live in freedom. And we're encouraged by what appears to be a large turnout throughout Iraq," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
The reasons for voting varied among the different groups.
"This is the day to get our revenge on Saddam," said Kurdish voter Chiman Saleh, a Kirkuk housewife who said two of her brothers were killed by the ousted regime.
"I came here and voted in order to prove that Sunnis are not a minority in this country," said lawyer Yahya Abdul-Jalil in Ramadi. "We lost a lot during the last elections, but this time we will take our normal and key role in leading this country."
Teacher Khalid Fawaz in Fallujah said he also participated "so that the Sunnis are no longer marginalized."
Given the resentments, especially between the Sunnis and the Shiities, there's still a rocky road for Iraq to walk in the coming year(s), as they look at the election results and form a government.
President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, highlighted a key looming fight — possible amendments to the constitution — as he voted in the northern city of Sulaimaniyah.
"I hope that the Iraqi people will stay united. We hope that the people will vote to keep the constitution that was approved by the Iraqi people," he said.
Whatever comes in Iraq, whatever the Iraqis decide to do, we can be proud that we gave the people of that nation the chance to choose a new life of freedom for themselves.
Update:
IraqTheModel has eyewitness election coverage, with pictures. Take the time to read it.
Fox News reported today that the polling hours were extended by an hour, due to the long lines of voters.
And to the surprise of coalition forces, violence in Iraq was much lighter than expected and the smattering of attacks didn't appear to discourage Iraqis, some of whom turned out wrapped in their country's flag on a bright, sunny day and afterward displayed a purple ink-stained index finger — a mark to guard against multiple voting.
An imam in Ramadi was heard over a mosque loudspeaker saying: "God will bless you with a great life if you go out and vote. This is your last chance to vote."
There is something stirring in watching the emergence of a new free nation, in watching a once-oppressed people declare by their voting that the nation is their own. Take a look at the photos and the photo essay on the right side of the Fox News article. Those pictures capture the joy, pride, and vigilance of the Iraqis and their military.
"The Iraqi people are showing the world that all people — of all backgrounds — want to be able to choose their own leaders and live in freedom. And we're encouraged by what appears to be a large turnout throughout Iraq," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
The reasons for voting varied among the different groups.
"This is the day to get our revenge on Saddam," said Kurdish voter Chiman Saleh, a Kirkuk housewife who said two of her brothers were killed by the ousted regime.
"I came here and voted in order to prove that Sunnis are not a minority in this country," said lawyer Yahya Abdul-Jalil in Ramadi. "We lost a lot during the last elections, but this time we will take our normal and key role in leading this country."
Teacher Khalid Fawaz in Fallujah said he also participated "so that the Sunnis are no longer marginalized."
Given the resentments, especially between the Sunnis and the Shiities, there's still a rocky road for Iraq to walk in the coming year(s), as they look at the election results and form a government.
President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, highlighted a key looming fight — possible amendments to the constitution — as he voted in the northern city of Sulaimaniyah.
"I hope that the Iraqi people will stay united. We hope that the people will vote to keep the constitution that was approved by the Iraqi people," he said.
Whatever comes in Iraq, whatever the Iraqis decide to do, we can be proud that we gave the people of that nation the chance to choose a new life of freedom for themselves.
Update:
IraqTheModel has eyewitness election coverage, with pictures. Take the time to read it.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Mark Steyn on Iran
Mark Steyn wields a mean hammer. He has kegs full of nails, and he manages to hit each one squarely on the head. His column Sunday in the Chicago Sun-Times is a perfect example.
On the surface, his column appears to be about Iran's new president and his call for the elimination of Israel (the Jewish nation--not the land itself) from the face of the earth, or as a Plan B, the elimination of Israel from the Middle East in favor of a new location around Germany and Austria.
But the Iranian president's apocalyptic comments serve only as context for Steyn's real targets: diplomats.
It's the perfect solution to the "Middle East peace process": out of sight, out of mind. And given that Ahmadinejad's out of his mind, we're already halfway there.
So let's see: We have a Holocaust denier who wants to relocate an entire nation to another continent, and he happens to be head of the world's newest nuclear state.
So how does the United States react? Well, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the comments of Ahmadinejad "further underscore our concerns about the regime."
"Diplomatic" language is one of the last holdovers of the pre-democratic age. It belongs to a time when international relations were conducted exclusively between a handful of eminent representatives of European dynasties.
Diplomacy is for decent, civilized nations. It's for countries that actually want to come to an agreement that's based on what's good for the world. It doesn't work when one of the nations seeks the anihilation of another. It doesn't work when one nation uses it merely to buy time until it has the strength or weapons that allow it to boldly break diplomatic agreements, with deadly results.
We assume, as Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax and other civilized men did 70 years ago, that these chaps may be a little excitable, but come on, old boy, they can't possibly mean it, can they? Wrong. They mean it but they can't quite do it yet. Like Hitler, when they can do it, they will -- or at the very least the weedy diplo-speak tells them they can force the world into big concessions on the fear that they can.
If a genocidal fantasist is acceptable in polite society, we'll soon find ourselves dealing with a genocidal realist.
On the surface, his column appears to be about Iran's new president and his call for the elimination of Israel (the Jewish nation--not the land itself) from the face of the earth, or as a Plan B, the elimination of Israel from the Middle East in favor of a new location around Germany and Austria.
But the Iranian president's apocalyptic comments serve only as context for Steyn's real targets: diplomats.
It's the perfect solution to the "Middle East peace process": out of sight, out of mind. And given that Ahmadinejad's out of his mind, we're already halfway there.
So let's see: We have a Holocaust denier who wants to relocate an entire nation to another continent, and he happens to be head of the world's newest nuclear state.
So how does the United States react? Well, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the comments of Ahmadinejad "further underscore our concerns about the regime."
"Diplomatic" language is one of the last holdovers of the pre-democratic age. It belongs to a time when international relations were conducted exclusively between a handful of eminent representatives of European dynasties.
Diplomacy is for decent, civilized nations. It's for countries that actually want to come to an agreement that's based on what's good for the world. It doesn't work when one of the nations seeks the anihilation of another. It doesn't work when one nation uses it merely to buy time until it has the strength or weapons that allow it to boldly break diplomatic agreements, with deadly results.
We assume, as Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax and other civilized men did 70 years ago, that these chaps may be a little excitable, but come on, old boy, they can't possibly mean it, can they? Wrong. They mean it but they can't quite do it yet. Like Hitler, when they can do it, they will -- or at the very least the weedy diplo-speak tells them they can force the world into big concessions on the fear that they can.
If a genocidal fantasist is acceptable in polite society, we'll soon find ourselves dealing with a genocidal realist.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Vacation
I'm taking today and tomorrow off from work as much-needed sanity days. Saturday a friend and I went down to San Diego with our cameras and visited a couple places I haven't seen since I was little.
With the help of Sally Ann, my friend's GPS system, we found Cabrillo National Monument at Pt. Loma and spent most of the day there. The monument has a tidepool area, a visitor center with views overlooking San Diego Bay and the city itself, and the original lighthouse, which hasn't been used for a long time. It was built too high on the hill, and when the fog would come in, the light wasn't strong enough to be visible.
After Cabrillo, we headed over to Presidio Park, where my brother, sister, and I used to roll down the hill whenever our family went there (though my rolling took the shape of a 'J' and I had to re-orient myself over and over). My friend and I didn't do any rolling this time.
Presidio Park is a monument to Father Serra, who founded the mission system in California, and the cross in my picture above is from there. As far as I know, the ACLU hasn't gone after this cross yet to have it removed.
Dinner was at Anthony's, on the Embarcadero, and we got a table by the window overlooking the cruise ship dock. Two cruise ships were in port, and we could see a crowd on deck wearing orange life vests for the emergency drill. In time the crowd disappeared, and after dark the ships left port. We tried out the nighttime setting on my camera and got bouncy images of the cruise ship lights, one of which I like as an off-beat kind of picture.
It was a glorious day, with photogenic skies. I took pictures with travel articles in mind, and my friend took pictures with scrapbooking in mind. We're both thrilled with our results.
But the best part of the day was spending time with a friend. No itinerary. No demands. No stress. There have been too few days like this, and I needed it.
Chronicles of Narnia Review
Whoever says "The Chronicles of Narnia" has nothing to do with Christianity knows nothing about Christianity.
The movie is a beautifully filmed look at betrayal, forgiveness, and redemption. There were times during the movie when I found myself seeing bloodless images of The Passion of the Christ superimposed over Narnia. The message was hard to miss.
The movie opens during the London Blitz of World War II, moves to the countryside, to a wardrobe, and into Narnia. In this land there is only oppression and despair. It is always winter and never Christmas. Until Lucy and her siblings come, bringing with them the glimmer of hope.
The children chosen to play Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy looked and behaved as though they had been plucked from 1940 for the film, revealing no hints of today's attitudes--Peter's first-born arrogance, Susan's peacemaking, Edmund's selfish petulance, and Lucy's innocent "I told you so." The movie stands well on their performances.
And Tilda Swinton, the White Witch, had the same kind of pale, cold beauty as the devil in the Passion or the Borg queen in Star Trek: First Contact. Her character's iciness, however, didn't leave much room for a wide range of emotions.
As for Aslan, the lion they found to play him was spectacular.
Given the Academy's propensity for hard-edged films, I hold no hope for this movie taking Best Picture. But the cinematography and the special effects deserve Oscars. Narnia's endless winter under the White Witch's rule and the thawed-out mountain landscapes seemed to belong to an enchanted land. The creatures, too, fit seamlessly in Narnia--centaurs and fauns. And the wolves.
Ultimately, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe is a story of good and evil, of human failings and divine love. It is a film everyone can enjoy, except for young children. And people who can't abide the triumph of good over evil.
The movie is a beautifully filmed look at betrayal, forgiveness, and redemption. There were times during the movie when I found myself seeing bloodless images of The Passion of the Christ superimposed over Narnia. The message was hard to miss.
The movie opens during the London Blitz of World War II, moves to the countryside, to a wardrobe, and into Narnia. In this land there is only oppression and despair. It is always winter and never Christmas. Until Lucy and her siblings come, bringing with them the glimmer of hope.
The children chosen to play Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy looked and behaved as though they had been plucked from 1940 for the film, revealing no hints of today's attitudes--Peter's first-born arrogance, Susan's peacemaking, Edmund's selfish petulance, and Lucy's innocent "I told you so." The movie stands well on their performances.
And Tilda Swinton, the White Witch, had the same kind of pale, cold beauty as the devil in the Passion or the Borg queen in Star Trek: First Contact. Her character's iciness, however, didn't leave much room for a wide range of emotions.
As for Aslan, the lion they found to play him was spectacular.
Given the Academy's propensity for hard-edged films, I hold no hope for this movie taking Best Picture. But the cinematography and the special effects deserve Oscars. Narnia's endless winter under the White Witch's rule and the thawed-out mountain landscapes seemed to belong to an enchanted land. The creatures, too, fit seamlessly in Narnia--centaurs and fauns. And the wolves.
Ultimately, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe is a story of good and evil, of human failings and divine love. It is a film everyone can enjoy, except for young children. And people who can't abide the triumph of good over evil.
Friday, December 09, 2005
UK Dispute Over Religious Jewelry
LifeSiteNews reported yesterday about a 16-year-old girl who was suspended from school for wearing a cross necklace and refusing to remove it.
I used to work at a place, and my boss was Jewish. She had married a non-Jewish man and they had a daughter, but just before she came to work there, her marriage ended in divorce. As she recovered from the divorce, she turned to her faith, returned to the synagogue, and eventually met a faithful Jewish man. They were later married in a beautiful ceremony that I was privileged to attend.
At this same company, another one of the managers was Catholic. He went to mass every week and sent his daughters to the main Catholic high school in his area. One day, while I was doing my Bible study homework at my desk at lunchtime, this manager stopped and asked what I was reading. When he saw the open Bible, he said, "Oh!" as though I were handling toxic material, and he backed away and left without another word.
Although by official reckoning, I should have more in common with the Catholic man, since he and I both claim Christ as our Savior. But I felt more in tune with my boss, because she and I had hearts for God, even though we disagreed about who Jesus is.
This article about the girl who was suspended for wearing her cross to school reminds me of my old boss and the manager.
The UK is officially Christian, with Anglicanism as the official religion. And yet the Christian girl's staunchest supporter appears to be a Sikh minister. Sikhs are permitted to wear a kara (a religious steel bracelet) to school because their religion requires the wearing of it. But Deputy head teacher Howard Jones of Sinfin Community School in Derby spent three hours trying to convince the girl to remove her cross before he suspended her.
Jones explained that the Sikh religious articles are permitted because Sikh faith requires them. "We are very comfortable with our policy and believe we are being even-handed and fair. Christianity does not require followers to wear a specific symbol."
However, the Minister of Divinity of Sikh Dharma who contacted LifeSiteNews.com explained that the action of the school against Morris was the "height of wrongful discrimination" since "I hold her commitment to wear her crucifix sacred in the same way that I choose to uphold my commitment to wear my kara each day." Minister Khala continued, "Ultimately, these kinds of outward reminders are symbols of our constant striving to remember God in all that we do. I ardently pray that this school may learn to appreciate and give encouragement to students who have learned the value of commitment in their lives."
This Sikh minister is a man of faith who, as a non-Judeo-Christian, understands more about faithful Christians than does an officially Anglican teacher. It is his heart for God that I admire, as well as his willingness to speak out on behalf of someone of another faith.
I used to work at a place, and my boss was Jewish. She had married a non-Jewish man and they had a daughter, but just before she came to work there, her marriage ended in divorce. As she recovered from the divorce, she turned to her faith, returned to the synagogue, and eventually met a faithful Jewish man. They were later married in a beautiful ceremony that I was privileged to attend.
At this same company, another one of the managers was Catholic. He went to mass every week and sent his daughters to the main Catholic high school in his area. One day, while I was doing my Bible study homework at my desk at lunchtime, this manager stopped and asked what I was reading. When he saw the open Bible, he said, "Oh!" as though I were handling toxic material, and he backed away and left without another word.
Although by official reckoning, I should have more in common with the Catholic man, since he and I both claim Christ as our Savior. But I felt more in tune with my boss, because she and I had hearts for God, even though we disagreed about who Jesus is.
This article about the girl who was suspended for wearing her cross to school reminds me of my old boss and the manager.
The UK is officially Christian, with Anglicanism as the official religion. And yet the Christian girl's staunchest supporter appears to be a Sikh minister. Sikhs are permitted to wear a kara (a religious steel bracelet) to school because their religion requires the wearing of it. But Deputy head teacher Howard Jones of Sinfin Community School in Derby spent three hours trying to convince the girl to remove her cross before he suspended her.
Jones explained that the Sikh religious articles are permitted because Sikh faith requires them. "We are very comfortable with our policy and believe we are being even-handed and fair. Christianity does not require followers to wear a specific symbol."
However, the Minister of Divinity of Sikh Dharma who contacted LifeSiteNews.com explained that the action of the school against Morris was the "height of wrongful discrimination" since "I hold her commitment to wear her crucifix sacred in the same way that I choose to uphold my commitment to wear my kara each day." Minister Khala continued, "Ultimately, these kinds of outward reminders are symbols of our constant striving to remember God in all that we do. I ardently pray that this school may learn to appreciate and give encouragement to students who have learned the value of commitment in their lives."
This Sikh minister is a man of faith who, as a non-Judeo-Christian, understands more about faithful Christians than does an officially Anglican teacher. It is his heart for God that I admire, as well as his willingness to speak out on behalf of someone of another faith.
Our Military In Iraq
I listened to Laura Ingraham today on my way to work. The guest she had on while I was driving was Sgt. Josh Hauser (not sure if I'm spelling his last name right) of the Marines, currently in Iraq at a base between Fallujah and Ramadi.
I keep leftover fast-food napkins in my car, and whenever Laura has one of our deployed military on her show, I inevitably have to reach for a napkin to dab away some tears of pride so I can see to drive. Today I used up the last napkin.
Sgt. Hauser talked about his job as a correspondent (his work appears at www.usmc.mil among other places). This is his first tour in Iraq, and he said he has interviewed Marines on their first, second, and third tours. The ones who are back have spoken of how much Iraq has changed for the better since their first time there. When asked about the critics who say the Iraqis don't want us there, he replied that just having an Iraqi kid run up and give him a hug puts that notion to rest.
It turns out that Sgt. Hauser's hometown is the same as Congressman Murtha, who has called for the troops to be quickly withdrawn from Iraq. In response to Murtha's recent statements, Sgt. Hauser said that pulling out now would be like a farmer who plants seeds and then salts the field.
At the end of her talk with Sgt. Hauser, Laura asked him if he wanted to say anything to his family at home. He said the expected "I love you" and said he realized he wouldn't be home at Christmas. Then he said, "This year Santa Claus is wearing desert camouflage, and he's bringing freedom to Iraq."
God bless our troops, at home and on the front in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I keep leftover fast-food napkins in my car, and whenever Laura has one of our deployed military on her show, I inevitably have to reach for a napkin to dab away some tears of pride so I can see to drive. Today I used up the last napkin.
Sgt. Hauser talked about his job as a correspondent (his work appears at www.usmc.mil among other places). This is his first tour in Iraq, and he said he has interviewed Marines on their first, second, and third tours. The ones who are back have spoken of how much Iraq has changed for the better since their first time there. When asked about the critics who say the Iraqis don't want us there, he replied that just having an Iraqi kid run up and give him a hug puts that notion to rest.
It turns out that Sgt. Hauser's hometown is the same as Congressman Murtha, who has called for the troops to be quickly withdrawn from Iraq. In response to Murtha's recent statements, Sgt. Hauser said that pulling out now would be like a farmer who plants seeds and then salts the field.
At the end of her talk with Sgt. Hauser, Laura asked him if he wanted to say anything to his family at home. He said the expected "I love you" and said he realized he wouldn't be home at Christmas. Then he said, "This year Santa Claus is wearing desert camouflage, and he's bringing freedom to Iraq."
God bless our troops, at home and on the front in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Early Review of Narnia
My daughter (almost 19) went with her friends last night to the midnight show of "The Chronicles of Narnia." Since she used to work at the theater, she called them to find out how sold out the show was.
The biggest theater, which has 440 seats, was sold out except for about 25 seats. The next-biggest theater was about half-sold at 6:30pm.
Her review:
"It was SO GOOD!!! The only thing that could have made it a better experience was that there was this person behind us with this awful, disgusting smell."
Hugh Hewitt, on his radio show yesterday, went out on a limb with a prediction about this movie. He mentioned a newspaper guy (I didn't catch the name) who expected "Narnia" to take the top box office this weekend and "King Kong" to take it next weekend when it opens.
Hugh disagrees. He predicts that "Narnia" will beat "King Kong" next weekend. Stay tuned...
The biggest theater, which has 440 seats, was sold out except for about 25 seats. The next-biggest theater was about half-sold at 6:30pm.
Her review:
"It was SO GOOD!!! The only thing that could have made it a better experience was that there was this person behind us with this awful, disgusting smell."
Hugh Hewitt, on his radio show yesterday, went out on a limb with a prediction about this movie. He mentioned a newspaper guy (I didn't catch the name) who expected "Narnia" to take the top box office this weekend and "King Kong" to take it next weekend when it opens.
Hugh disagrees. He predicts that "Narnia" will beat "King Kong" next weekend. Stay tuned...
Thursday, December 08, 2005
UN Erases Israel From The Map
Israel National News reported today on a commemoration ceremony held at the UN.
The United Nations held a "Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" last week. A large map of “Palestine,” with Israel literally wiped off the map, featured prominently in the festivities.
During the festivities, a map labeled a "map of Palestine” was displayed prominently between UN and PLO flags. The map, with “Palestine” written in Arabic atop it, does not include Israel, a member of the UN for 56 years. The map does not even demarcate the partition lines of November 29, 1947, marking a Jewish state alongside an Arab state. The partition was dictated by the UN General Assembly itself.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan attended, along with the Security Council and General Assembly Presidents. By their presence and lack of comment about the map with Israel missing, these UN leaders condoned this map.
At the start of the ceremony, the dignitaries present asked attendees to observe a moment of silence. “I invite everyone present to rise and observe a minute of silence in memory of all those who have given their lives for the cause of the Palestinian people,” the master of ceremonies said, “and the return of peace between Israel and Palestine.“
Anne Bayefsky, who reported on the event for the Eye on the UN organization, said that the ceremony's wording was aimed at giving honor to the worst of Palestinian terrorists. "It was a moment ... crafted to include the commemoration of suicide-bombers,” she wrote.
I'm apalled but not realy surprised. Has the UN celebrated a "Day of Solidarity with the Israeli People?" Have they stood for a moment of silence for the innocent Isrealis who have died at the hands of the many suicide bombers? Have they ever condemned nations, like Iran, who call for the destruction of Israel?
Until the UN begins to stand up for all of its member nations evenly, and until the UN begins applying pressure to the nations that harm their own and neighboring people, then the UN doesn't deserve to be hosted on American soil. The US needs to kick the whole lot of them out of our country.
Let the UN show their solidarity for the Palestinians by moving the UN Headquarters to Gaza.
The United Nations held a "Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" last week. A large map of “Palestine,” with Israel literally wiped off the map, featured prominently in the festivities.
During the festivities, a map labeled a "map of Palestine” was displayed prominently between UN and PLO flags. The map, with “Palestine” written in Arabic atop it, does not include Israel, a member of the UN for 56 years. The map does not even demarcate the partition lines of November 29, 1947, marking a Jewish state alongside an Arab state. The partition was dictated by the UN General Assembly itself.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan attended, along with the Security Council and General Assembly Presidents. By their presence and lack of comment about the map with Israel missing, these UN leaders condoned this map.
At the start of the ceremony, the dignitaries present asked attendees to observe a moment of silence. “I invite everyone present to rise and observe a minute of silence in memory of all those who have given their lives for the cause of the Palestinian people,” the master of ceremonies said, “and the return of peace between Israel and Palestine.“
Anne Bayefsky, who reported on the event for the Eye on the UN organization, said that the ceremony's wording was aimed at giving honor to the worst of Palestinian terrorists. "It was a moment ... crafted to include the commemoration of suicide-bombers,” she wrote.
I'm apalled but not realy surprised. Has the UN celebrated a "Day of Solidarity with the Israeli People?" Have they stood for a moment of silence for the innocent Isrealis who have died at the hands of the many suicide bombers? Have they ever condemned nations, like Iran, who call for the destruction of Israel?
Until the UN begins to stand up for all of its member nations evenly, and until the UN begins applying pressure to the nations that harm their own and neighboring people, then the UN doesn't deserve to be hosted on American soil. The US needs to kick the whole lot of them out of our country.
Let the UN show their solidarity for the Palestinians by moving the UN Headquarters to Gaza.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)