School votes to drop "Jefferson" name

(Written on June 9th- held for further development that never came....)

Then I say federal funding should be withheld.
This is disgraceful. And unAmerican. There! Finally, an instance where one of us conservatives actually did call someone unAmerican, as opposed to the myriad times when we've been accused of that for simply disagreeing with some liberal BS. (And, I'm actually calling the action unAmerican.)

Yes, I say it's unAmerican to dishonor Thomas Jefferson by removing his name from this school. And ignorant. It shows no appreciation for historical context and reveals a severe lack of any sense of proportion.

I went to a Jefferson Elementary School, in Blaine, MN, so maybe I could be accused of having some sentimental attachment to the name. But I don't think that's it at all. (And who had any clue where I attended school, anyway, right?)

No, it's about respect. Respect for our heritage and history. It's about a proper appreciation for our Founding Father's achievments and contributions to the world, for liberty.

addendum to 6/11/05 post: Establishment Clause

In light of today's ambiguous Supreme Court rulings regarding displays of the Ten Commandments on government property, I need to expand my little list of examples of things that the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment to our Constitution is not intended to prohibit/protect. (IMHO) Here's the MSNBC version by Tom Curry.

This is my original paragraph:
Congress (This is the entity being directed here.) Not the state governors or legislatures, not city councils or county boards, not school boards or parks departments beaurocracies, not your individual schools and classrooms and playground attendants and teachers, not the president speaking during his state of the union address or an inauguration speech, nor a high school senior during a commencement address, not some kindergartner reading his bible at recess, and not some cadets saying grace at mealtime. Got that?!

Well, I thought I covered most of the entities often affected by an expansive, living & breathing, interpretation of this clause: state governors/legislatures, and
city/county/school/park boards. A pox upon me! I forgot the 3rd branch itself: judicial.
And as luck would have it, that's where the most schizophrenic decisions are likely to impact.
I mean, how many courtrooms across this great "Christian nation" are adorned with some homage to the Ten Commandments, and their origin?
If you can't make a trip to our nation's capitol to view the acknowledgements [of Divine Law's influence on our legal traditions] on the walls of The Supreme Court, then visit your local state or even county courthouse and you're likely to find something similar. The Minnesota Supreme Court main courtroom, as I recall, has a depiction of Moses recieving the tablets, and it dominates the scenery. (I sure hope I'm remembering this correctly. My research on the web was inconclusive, so far. I'll correct myself, if necessary.)

But let me get back to the two 5-4 decisions that, according to the AP analysis (I call it that, even though it's an anonymous NEWS story that was on the MSN portral this afternoon, because there are very few attributed quotes but alot of info; so somebody is giving us their perception of what transpired at the high court today) allowed an outdoor monument, but prohibited an indoor courthouse display. The ambiguity develops from the truly subjective notions of: whether it goes too far; if religious content is overemphasized; and "...the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion..." the latter is from Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion. (emphasis added)

The decisions about what constitutes "advancing", "overemphasized", and "too far" seem to be left up to the discretion of whomever is hearing any related cases in the future.

But, ya know...this entire argument and the many details and citations of precedence (always relatively recent precedence, to be sure) are missing the main point, IMHO. I return to the Establishment clause in The Constitution's 1st Amendment: NONE of this is making a law! Not one law is being passed. This seems so utterly, laughably, and painfully obvious! Only an overeducated and biased mind could miss that point, it seems.

I know, I know... all these esteemed legal minds understand something I obviously don't. Who am I to differ with this legal-eagle legion?

I will post anew on this on 06-29 or 06-30, I hope. And, if you are new to this whole topic, you may be blown away with the real history of the Ten Commandments in America.

Brad

Study: Most U.S. doctors believe in God

This kind of story continues to amaze me, in that the people who've been so educated seem to be so clueless about life in general, and about the history of their field, specifically. Most of the giants of discovery in science and medicine throughout time have been believers. Their quest for knowledge was fueled by their faith. They wanted to understand God better, by getting a better understanding of His creation.
The very concepts of "laws of nature" or "laws of physics" imply a Lawgiver. The fact that these laws are predictable, immutable, and absolute, demands that there is an order to the universe. Who ordered it?

The AP story I found on Yahoo! and linked-to above is about a study conducted by the University of Chicago, based on responses to questionnaires mailed in 2003.

"In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine."

This is encouraging, too: "Dr. J. Edward Hill, president of the American Medical Association, said religion and medicine are completely compatible..."

Here and here are interesting commentaries on the subject, courtesy of Chuck Colson's Breakpoint program from Prison Fellowship.

I really don't understand the "either/or" mentality that seems to be governing so many people in quite a few areas of life these days. And quite often, the "either/ors" are the same people that condemn Christians for being so absolutist. Where's the nuance?

Brad

Durbin "apologizes", if anything he said caused any offense...

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin may finally be coming around, a little bit, to understanding the contemptuous affect of his careless and ignorantly dangerous (because our enemies will exploit his words to support their jihad) comparison of our soldiers' handling of detainees at Gitmo, to the systematic torture and murder of millions of innocent civilians perpetrated by history's trinity of evil-Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot .
Regretably, though, his "apology" may have been as much a political consideration, as a sincere recognition of his shame, coming after the condemnation of his statements by his own party's mayor of the most populous city in his state. (Richard Daley, Chicago)
From a Chicago Sun-Times story today: "Daley on Tuesday became the most prominent Democrat to denounce Durbin, and Durbin had that to factor in when he reversed his decision not to apologize.
Asked in Chicago whether Durbin should apologize, Daley, whose son recently enlisted in the Army said, 'I think it's a disgrace to say that any man or woman in the military acts like [Nazis] or that a report is like that,' Daley said.
'You go and talk to some victims of the Holocaust and they will tell you horror stories, and there are not horror stories like that in Guantanamo Bay,' Daley said."

Now, if only we could get the critics (remember Newsweek's Qu'ran desecration tale) of the war on terror (and that's what we're really dealing with here, not just the Gitmo accusations) to fully verify stories and think about them first, before shooting their mouths off. Maybe they could show as much support for our side, as they do for our enemies.

Brad

Durbin MUST be censured

For his disgusting comparison of our soldiers to Nazis, Soviet Gulag guards, and Pol Pot's henchmen, Senator Dick Durbin should resign in shame, especially since he has dug his heels in and refuses-because of pride, obviously- to apologize and correct himself.

Since the link is lengthy, here are the observations by an FBI agent from Guantanamo:

"On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. ….. On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night.
On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor."

And here's what Durbin had to say about it:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime–Pol Pot or others–that had no concern for human beings." **WRONG, Senator! I would NOT have thought such treatment to be at the hands of Nazis, Gulag guards, or Pol Pot's killers, for it was far too humane and gentle to be attributed to those monsters!** Durbin concludes: "Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

There you have it. HIS words. HIS comparison. HIS shame and disgrace.
I agree with a caller to the Hugh Hewitt show when he said from now on, we should refer to future killings by Islamofascist terrorists as "Durbin-deaths".
I think that's fitting. Because Al Jazera will play these remarks by the #2 Democrat over, and over, and over again.

Conversely, if you have the stomach for it, here is The Jawa Report blog with evidence of what our enemies do. CAUTION: Graphic pictures included. This is not a joke.
I have to take a walk and clear my head of those images. I only wish I could stumble upon a pyramid of naked detainees (alive and well, of course) listening to loud rap music in 50 or 105 degree weather, so that I could replace those images.

Brad

Socialist sociology professor is antichrist anarchist

A socialist sociology professor at City University of New York, Timothy Shortell, hatefully comdemns religious believers (specifically Christians, of course) as "incapable of moral action" and then whines about the adverse affect his essay-his entire worldview, really- has had on his career advancement!
Here's the story in The New York Sun.
And laughably, his supporters claim he was "taken out of context". Don't ya love that phrase?
The truth is, his context is more damnable than a of couple quotes lifted out of his essay, if that's all that had been circulated.
Here's the essay: ***WARNING*** Clicking on the preceeding link will transport you back in time and space, to a mid-1960's counter-culture commune of drug experimentation known as "fifteen credibility street" inhabited by Anti-Naturals. {Watch out for Timithy Leary!}
***ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK***
For those not wishing to enter Fifteen Credibility Street, here are some of the more spiteful excerpts: (Emphasis added)

"All the ritual and the fellowship associated with religious practice is just a means of continually emphasizing group boundaries and hostility."

"... religion without fanaticism is a logical impossibility. Anyone whose mind is trapped inside such a mental prison will be susceptible to extreme forms of hatred and violence."

"All religions foment their own kind of holy war. (Those whose devotion is moderate are only cowardly fanatics.)"

"...those who are religious are incapable of moral action... They will be unable to take responsibility for their actions because they lack intellectual and emotional maturity."

"So, in the name of their faith, these moral retards are running around pointing fingers and doing real harm to others. They make a virtue of closed-mindedness and virulent ignorance. They are an ugly, violent lot."

"In the heart of every Christian, though, is a tiny voice preaching self-righteousness, paranoia and hatred. Christians claim that theirs is a faith based on love, but they'll just as soon kill you."
"Everyone who appreciates the good, the true and the beautiful has a duty to challenge this social poison at every opportunity."

Identified by one contributor to 15cSt as "our second in-command", Timothy Shortell may actually be an anarchist (antichrist, also), surrounded by a small coven of like-minded malcontents at this rather amatuerish, angry, angst-filled webzine .
I would expect that if any CUNY administrators, deans, trustees, or president Christoper Kimmich would actually look at his webzine, they'd want to distance themselves from him as far as they could. Just because it's so bad. It reeks, man; it really does.
The writing is like dropping into a 60's beatnik joint for open-mike night, with the usual cast of dour ne're-do-wells lamenting about the corruption and wickedness of the dehumanizing, emperialist machine known as the evil, capitalist Establishment, maaann! (The Anti-Naturals call it "The Spectacle") Don't you get it, maaann? Don't ya see? Drop out while ya still have yer soul, maaann! Revolt, man!

Well, they're revolting, alright. Lest you think I exagerate, here's a sample by Scott Foust:
"Everyone wants me dead. What could I have possibly done or possibly do to cause the Forces Of Capital and the Forces Of Gods to yearn for my annihilation? The S.S. System Of Commodities is nothing more than a slave ship. Unless you are one of The World's Owners, you are a slave. If you do not see The Spectacle for what it is, all of your beliefs, opinions, ideas, and moralities are Wrong.
All supernatural beliefs are nothing but a dirty con. Anyone who has any mystical beliefs is not only the enemy of The Good, The True, and The Beautiful, but my sworn enemy as well.
Some day, we'll all be in a better place, brother, some day. That may be true, but it will only happen if the stagnant bilgewater of Mysticism is flushed away like the puerile excrement that it is. I won't stand for anything less. This is why the Mystics want me dead.
The Spectacle gets stronger everyday. It is time to Stand Tall and spit in the eye that blinds us. Right Now!"

And here's a photo of some calling himself The Fighting Sensualist, with a taste of his tripe.

Alas, I think that the juvenile quality of work that Timothy Shortell produces in his webzine may be more responsible for CUNY's hesitance to promote him, than the vile content of his soul.

Brad

The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment

There seems to be an incredible amount of confusion over this very brief and clearly written statement.

If memory serves (I'll look it up afterwards), it says: "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Let's see if I got that right...... Oh! So close.. Here's the cut & paste :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
(courtesy of: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/default.aspx)

Now let's break that down, since we know the Founders labored over almost every word.
But before I begin, let us keep in mind where our Founders came from, what they were escaping, and what they were trying to prevent from happening here. They had thrown off the shackles of a centralized, unrepresentative, tyrannical monarchy. They were concerned about the government having too much power; they wanted to limit the federal government. They were not exactly concerned about the citizens having too much liberty.

Congress (This is the entity being directed here.) Not the state governors or legislatures, not city councils or county boards, not school boards or parks departments beaurocracies, not your individual schools and classrooms and playground attendants and teachers, not the president speaking during his state of the union address or an inauguration speech, nor a high school senior during a commencement address, not some kindergartner reading his bible at recess, not some cadets saying grace at mealtime, and not the president ordering that flags be flown at halfmast to honor the passing of the Pope, a man who was instumental in fighting the spread of Communism and aiding us in the Cold War! Got that?!
And what is congress to do:

shall make no law (This directs the official action of the congress in making statutory law.) It's not referring to passing resolutions to acknowledge or honor someone or something, and it's not addressing the spending of money. That increasingly primary function of congress is not affected by the prohibition on making a law...

respecting (regarding, pertaining to, concerning, in the matter of) As pertains to the proceeding action, which is ...

an establishment of (This would be the official recognition of being approved by the state, of adopting a preference for, instituting with state sponsorship, a government imprimator) With whatever benefits and priveleges that might accrue from adherence to and participation in that..

religion, (from the Oxford Dictionary: 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship.) It was primarily the second description, that particularity, that concerned our founders; the exclusivity of recognizing any particular religion in preference to others.

or prohibiting (Remember that it's a law that's not allowed by the US Congress..) that would outlaw, make illegal, disallow:

the free (Providing it doesn't harm someone else or impinge on their liberty.) Unrestrained, unharassed, unlicensed and unregulated, unthreatened, unintimidated, open and autonomous, voluntary and independent...

exercise thereof; (speech and action) Gathering together (1st Amendment freedom of assembly), worshipping in word, song, and ceremony, practice and conduct, expressing and living one's faith in words *1st Amendment freedom of speech* (proselytize, publishing, displays) and deeds (private and public).

For years now, liberals-even religious ones- have been abusing and exploiting the common misunderstanding of this component of The Bill of Rights. And doing so primarily by referring to "a wall of seperation between church and state" (from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut- not from the Constitution), and hoping that others will not be informed on the true nature and meaning of the "establishment clause" of the 1st Amendment to our Constitution.

Brad

Democratic invective

Peggy Noonan, as usual, (have I already used that flatter in citing her writing? I bet so..) has written a thoughtful and thought-provoking column (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/) this week, about the Dem's Dynamic Duo (3-D) of Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton.

I believe I've posted before about Howie the Horrible. Let's look back... Bingo! Here it is: (http://write-minded.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_write-minded_archive.html) Pardon the Ward Churchill aside, if you click the link. To avoid forcing you to do so, here's the salient mention of Dean:

Monday, February 28, 2005
Howard Dean is an angry, little man. A very little man, indeed. I'm thrilled that the leftists in the Democratic Party elected him as their chairman. He'll do wonders for the Republican Party's success in coming elections. The unprincipled rhetoric spewing forth from Dean lately- wait a minute...lately?!... this is all the man has! In a fundraising trip to Lawrence Kansas on Friday, the DNC chairman resurrected the false threat so commonly feared by the paranoid Left, saying "I'm not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant".

It got worse. Using language that many Democrats found just oh-too-polarizing and judgemental when referrring to the bloodthirsty enemies of liberty who fly planes into buildings and saw people's heads off, Dean sized up the political contest between Republicans and his Democrats this way: "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good." Somehow, Dean managed to locate a patch of feverswamp on the plains of Kansas. I guess that's not so hard to do when you bring it with you.

Now, Dean contends that Republicans "...have never made an honest living in their lives", that "they all look the same" and "they all behave the same", and are "not very friendly to different kinds of people, they are a pretty monolithic party … it's pretty much a white, Christian party." He also said that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has not been accused of any crime, ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.

As for Senator Clinton, she claims that Republicans are "intent on abusing power, destroying the United States Senate and undermining our Constitution", trying to create a "dictatorship". And she says "they have no shame...they have never been acquainted with the truth."

Well.

Isn't that statesmanlike!

As Peggy Noonan points out, "Clinton is likely the next Democratic nominee for president. Mr. Dean is the head of the Democratic Party. They are important and powerful. They may one day run the country. It is disturbing that they speak as they do."

It sure is disturbing. And I don't expect we've heard the last of the 3-D. In fact, we may be seeing so much 3-D that we'll all need a little Dramamine to get thru the next primary season.

How do such folks--supposedly well-educated and enlightened, "progressive" and well-traveled as they are-- develop such narrow and bigoted perceptions of their neighbors and fellow citizens, even constituents!? And, that they feel uninhibited enough to voice these unkind characterizations, as if many others are nodding in agreement, doesn't speak well for their respect for the other half of the country that they would govern, if America was foolish enough to give them the chance to do.

Brad

A random observation...

While walking through the parking lot of the local DMV today, I happened to catch a glimpse*-literally a 1 second glance*- of a fellow walking away from me, about 50 yards away. (For you metric readers, that would be approx. 46 meters.) I instantly recognized him by his gait. I hadn't seen the fellow for 22 years! And I only worked with him part-time, on irregular shifts, for about a year.
Granted, he did have a slightly out-of-the-ordinary walk, but nothing on the order of John Cleese at the Department of Silly Walks. (Monty Python, early 70's)
And, it's not as if I had studied his manner of walking, especially from behind! I don't even reacall noticing it at the time.
This is all to say: I find it absolutely fascinating that we're able to instantly retrieve a bit of information of such seeming insignificance from so long ago, tucked away in a dark, neglected corner of our minds at such a trifling prompt as a split-second glimpse of a fellow from 50 yards away and 22 years removed!
And yet, I have trouble remembering where I parked my car after being in the store for an hour...

His name is Tom, a really nice guy, and he harbored dreams of being a professional bowler.


*glimpse/glance: Why do we catch a glimpse of something, and take a glance at something?
Brad

New anaysis on what actually killed Jesus

This story is a hoot: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8139434/)
And what's the point?
Why, exactly, would anyone even care about the specific physiological, forensic details of how His physical body finally succumbed to the torture and crucifixion?

That's NOT the point of His passion, now is it?

Brad

A Few Suggestions

This story appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune Today:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5440988.html

To summarize, it explains Kelly Doran's announcement that he is seeking the DFL nomination for Mark Dayton's seat in the U.S. Senate in 2006. He of course makes a comment that we've heard spewed from the mouths of several afluent democrats in recent years.

"It is just plain wrong for a few people like me to get a huge tax break every year, while the politicians in Washington can't live up to their promises to fund special education, No Child Left Behind and other programs,"

If the Kerry's, Edwards', Dayton's, Ciresi's, and now Doran's of the world really don't want to have this money, and think that "tax cuts for the rich" are taking money out of the pockets of the poor, here are a few options for them:

Option A:
Accept their rebates, and then pool the several hundred thousand dollars they would have to build and operate some charitable foundation or center. (i.e. an after school center for inner city kids, a scholarship and tutoring center for single moms, a low cost health carte clinic)

Option B:
Stop sending their taxes to be done by extremely efficient accountants and CPA's who get them every possible deduction and claim in order to maximize their returns. Thus, they wouldn't get as much money back, and they would let the "oh so efficient government" spend it for them.

Either way, it ends their hypocrisy, and lets those who don't have a problem with money (unless its in the governments hands) keep it.

Adam

Will the Godless Left ever quit censoring Christians?

Sadly, the short answer is: NO. It's their nature. It's one of the defining components of Leftist ideology. We may as well ask a fish not to swim.

Here's another recent case of academic stupidity (or is it intolerant intimidation disguised as innocent ignorance?) : (http://www.aclj.org/trialnotebook/read.aspx?id=191) It would nice if we could just chalk this up to the fact that it's happening in California. Where else, eh? Or that it's just a community college, not some major league university. But that would be letting this teacher off the hook too easily. This old canard (context-wise) "...the separation of church and state has to be respected" is so often misused that it can't be an innocent misunderstanding of the "establishment clause" in our Constitution. I believe it's an intentional abuse of academic authority.
There was another case last week about yet another graduation speech that was squelched by yet another ignorant or intolerant school administrator because the student wanted to credit her faith in God as an integral part of her success and motivation to excel. Every damn spring now we can expect some idiotic school official perscuting some student for daring to mention God in a speech.
I will search further for that specific story and post it, and I will be posting soon on the First Amendment's establishment clause, with my take on the confusion...
Brad
(Amended title 06/07/05)

Goodbye, George Mikan

Thanks for the memories. (...that my dad and basketball fans of his generation cherish.)
(http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3659242#) I hope this link is active...

As basketball's first "big-man", and it's first superstar, Big George carried the game on his wide and bony shoulders, and caused the game (college and pro) to adapt to his dominance. He was a human Phar Lap (a magnificent Australian racehorse-nicknamed Big Red- during the Depression) whose peerless prowess prompted officials to change the rules to curtail his dominance, for fear of spectators becoming bored with his predictable victory.

And thank you, Ray Meyer, for mentoring Mikan at DePaul and for devoting yourself to the task of maximizing his size and determination.

As Elliot Kalb points out at FOXSports.com, Hollywood could have a sure-fire feel-good movie in chronicling the true story of George Mikan's life. I suggest Ron Howard direct it, and Frank Deford could pen a screenplay that would honor this good man while his memory is still fresh in our minds. And to his credit, The George Mikan Story could be rated G.
(http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3659368)

Brad