Blogging gaining respect and might be at it again..

This article from PCWorld.com still uses the qualifier "so-called bloggers", but maybe it's just reflecting what the perception was way back in January, when bloggers notched another victory for new-media power vs. MSM, after CBS canned 4 people for Rathergate/Memogate.

At any rate, it's nice to read some positive press about the growth in popularity of blogging, even though this line sounds a little too enthusiatic: "In less than a half hour--and for free--you, too, can create your own online media empire and affect the world." (underscore added) A little like those lottery and casino adds that try to entice you with their promises of almost-guaranteed riches..."it could happen to you!

The article's got some really helpful info for people who are wondering what all the buzz is about. I found at least one good lead on another source for interesting reading, perhaps even as a resource: this blog by and for mothers is a great example of the connectedness of blogging for people not so politically and news oriented, but with something interesting to write, and very-well, at that.

Finally, this is the breaking of yet another big story-to-be by the blogosphere, I'm sure. At least in the realm of the media, and politics, although not necessarily a government scandal on the scale of Memogate. It's about the possible misuse of public funds to benefit Al Franken's Air America (the lead-zeppelin liberal radio network) , at the expense of children and Alzheimer's sufferers. [ I know Al Franken doesn't own Air America..it's not his, but he is the big name there.]

It'll be very interesting (to quote Arte Johnson) to watch this one develop, since it involves talk radio, which is closely linked with the blogosphere....

Brad

Lutherans hope to address sexuality issues w/o tension? GOOD LUCK!

This article on pioneerplanet.com (free subscription req'd) explains that the ELCA's mid-August Churchwide Assembly "will consider adopting a blessing ceremony for same-gender couples, and ordaining gay and lesbian pastors", and it discusses the tensions that accompany the debates around these issues.
Bishop Mark Hanson hopes: "We can live with some ambiguity around these kinds of questions and not take the tensions they create as signs of a divided church". I sincerely wish them luck, but it's awfully hard to reconcile the competeing values represented in "the simmering cultural controversy over human sexuality", as Pioneer Press' Steve Scott writes.

The article offers that "..since his years as bishop of the St. Paul Area Synod, Hanson has questioned why sexuality should be a church-defining, church-dividing issue." Well, that's easily explained: it's because one side of this controversy keeps bringing it up!
According to Bishop Hanson, however: "There are two vocal positions, but...there is a continuum of positions in this church...I expect the continuum...to be reflected in Orlando, and not the two vocal ends.'' (emphasis added)

Well, we know what one of those positions wants, as stated before: a blessing ceremony for same-gender couples and ordination of gay and lesbian pastors. No big deal, eh?

What does the other position call for? Tying gays to a post at the edge of town and stoning them to death? Dragging gays behind a pickup to their death? Arson, abuse, and assaults on gays and their property? Open persecution of homosexuals? Any persecution? Criminal prosecution? Discrimination in hiring, housing, health care, education? Suspension of civil rights and civic participation? Excommunication from the Church? Disfellowshipping of gay members? Rude treatment even? Of course not!
What then?

How about, just.. oh, I dunno, ..maybe.. no ordination of practicing homosexuals as pastors, and no blessing ceremony for relationships that The Bible condemns. That's all.

Because, and remember that we're talking about the religious community (not secular society or our government) of the ELCA here- a supposedly Christian church, supposedly founded in and guided by God's Word, as the Bible proclaims:

God's condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear-He opposes it in every age.
In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)
In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)
In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)
In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 1:7-8)

That list is from a respectful, lovingly reasonable article by John MacArthur on Crosswalk.com.

The Bishop says he's "hoping the 'diverse middle' of the church can call the left and the right to an acceptable stand" and that the first resolution on this issue up for a vote next month urges the ELCA to "concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements.'' Well, what is the position of "the right" on this matter? I would argue that it's the same position that the Church has always had. And always should. We didn't write "the rules", and we're not authorized to rewrite them. And we can't ignore them, either.

As Bishop Hanson soberly recalls, "Tension was a reality as that small band of followers of Jesus began to grow, and with growth came diversity, and with diversity came questions of who is welcome among us and on what terms.'' I would contend that the latter question is the true source of the tension. We're all sinners, of course, but within the Church we're called to repent, and to renounce our sin-- not wear it like a badge of honor.

Again, nobody's suggesting mistreatment of gays by the Church or it's followers, or even just the cold shoulder treatment- to say nothing of harm of any kind! (It's embarassing that I even feel compelled to have to state such an obvious point, but it seems that if you don't, activists tend to assign dark, unspoken motives to you.) In fact, those who keep pushing an agenda of "affirmation, acceptance, and full participation" of behaviors and lifestyles that are in direct defiance of God's clear message are the ones that risk dividing the Church by demanding acceptance of the unacceptable.

As Billy Joel put it, "We didn't start the fire".

Brad

Get ready for the fireworks!

Oh my, but this is precious:

A twelve-year-old girl was
arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were
removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear
compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing
center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained
until released to her mother some three hours later — all for
eating a single french fry in a D.C. Metrorail station. The child
was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal.
The district court described the policies that led to her
arrest as ‘‘foolish,’’ and indeed the policies were changed after
those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for
adults who make young girls cry. (TOTH to Hugh Hewitt)

And the court affirmed.

Precious, because the Left may try to use this case to paint Judge John Roberts (who wrote the 3-0 opinion in the Hedgepeth case for the DC Court of Appeals) as a mean-spirited, heartless, intrusive, misogynist threat to American citizen's rights and civil liberties. Especially so, of course to: women and children, minorities, the poor and underclass, "workers", and the environment. "Round up the usual suspects", as it were...

But, as is often the case, the facts in the matter (I hope you tried the above link; you DO want to have an informed opinion on the matter, don't you? It's not a hard read, luckily.) stand in stark contrast to the knee-jerk emotion prompted by the first-glance. The facts make it clear that the DC court made the right decision in affirming the "foolish arrest" of Ansche Hedgepeth.
(A quick aside: The case also demonstrates the problems all-too common with "zero-tolerance" rules, e.g.: a butter knife left in a car in a school parking lot violates a "zero-tolerance" weapons ban.)

The Hedgepeth case, on the other hand, may not be complicated and intricate enough for Lefties Schumer, Kennedy, Leahy, Feinstein, and Durbin to contort and exploit.

The Rust v. Sullivan case, however, will probably get plenty of review and distortion. Most assuredly this particular line from a brief (of which, Roberts was one of eight authors) for the case:

"We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled."


Them's fightin' words, to pro-aborts!
As Colonel Blacker said: "Put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry!"

Brad

Cogratulations NASA and Discovery crew!!

As we breath a sigh of relief for a fine lift-off this morning, we pray for continued success on this mission, and Godspeed for their safe return in 12 days.

Brad

Sir Winston's wisdom

Ahhh, Churchill. What a man. What a man-for-the-time, he was!
Every now and then, God sends us a person to fill a need, to fulfill a destiny. The right person at the right time, with just the particular talents and temperament, vision and initiative, and the character and courage that are demanded for by the challenge at hand.

He saved a continent. With a little help from Uncle Sam, he saved a continent.

And his wisdom in the face of evil, counsels us with timeless insight today:

"What would happen if all these neutral nations...were with one spontaneous impulse to do their duty...and were to stand together...against aggression and wrong? At present their plight is lamentable; and it will become much worse. They bow humbly and in fear to...threats of violence. ... Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear...the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar, ever more loudly, ever more widely... There is no chance of a speedy end except through united action." (courtesy of The Federalist Patriot Brief)


With increasing attacks on the innocent, across a widening battlefield of peaceful nations, our Islamofascist enemies are not going to slink off into the darkness from which they crawled. They must be vanquished! We face not an enemy of nations, but of ideology. And it's proponents are in our midst.

Though judicious use of force is required to protect the innocent, here and abroad, we mustn't tolerate irresolution masquerading as restraint.

And the sooner the weak and cowardly world leaders get about the task, the sooner it'll be finished, the fewer lives will be lost, and Islam can regain the respect it's lost at the hands of the fanatics.

Brad

Sorry for the absence...

The Following was sent to me via E-mail, and credited to Andy Rooney. While (I doubt this was said by that man on national television (or anywhere else), it certainly sums up some very important points:

I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like the United Negro College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment Television, and Miss Black America. Try to have things like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud Magazine, White Entertainment Television, or Miss White America; and see what happens...Jesse Jackson will be knocking down your door.

Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game.

I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, that is why there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts! ARE YOU LISTENING MARTHA BURKE?

I have the right "NOT" to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.

When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of Probability.

I believe that if you are selling me a milkshake, a pack of cigarettes, a newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As a matter of fact, if you want to be an American citizen, you should have to speak English!

My father and grandfather didn't die in vain so you can leave the countries you were born in to come over and disrespect ours. I think the police should have every right to shoot your sorry ass if you threaten them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the word "freeze" or "stop" in English, see the above lines.

I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you are qualified for any special loan programs, government sponsored bank loans or tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop, trinket store, or any other business.

We did not go to the aid of certain foreign countries and risk our lives in wars to defend their freedoms, so that decades later they could come over here and tell us our constitution is a living document; and open to their interpretations.

I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.

I know pro wrestling is fake, but so are movies and television. That doesn't stop you from watching them.

I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If it ticks you off, go and invent the next operating system that's better, and put your name on the building.

It doesn't take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does take a parent to stand up to the kid; and smack their little behinds when necessary, and say "NO!"

I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please don't pretend they are a political statement.And, please, stay home until that new lip ring heals. I don't want to look at your ugly infected mouth as you serve me French fries!I am sick of

"Political Correctness." I know a lot of black people, and not a single one of them was born in Africa;so how can they be "African-Americans"? Besides, Africa is a continent. I don't go around saying I am a European-American because my great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was from Europe. I am proud to be from America and nowhere else.

And if you don't like my point of view, tough...

Adam

Pavarotti quote

"One of very nicest things about life is the way we must regularly stop whatever it is we are doing, and devote our attention to eating." Pavarotti

Early hopeful hint for Roberts?

NPR's (no conservative ally, usually) political editor, Ken Rudin, wrote this about Judge John Roberts today in a Q&A piece on npr.org :

"He is known to have a brilliant legal mind with impeccable credentials and unquestioned integrity."

And,David Boies, who argued before the court on behalf of Al Gore during the disputed 2000 presidential election, called Roberts "a brilliant lawyer, a brilliant judge," and a "decent man."

BUT, if this doesn't demonstrate how partisan certain groups are, regardless of ANY decision by President Bush- even if they favor those groups, then not much else will:

"Just after learning that President Bush planned to nominate federal appellate judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court, NARAL Pro-Choice America sent an electronic action alert yesterday to its 800,000-person network, encouraging members to call their senators and talk to friends about their opposition." [from WAPO]

They didn't even have to know WHO Bush would nominate! They had their "Defeat ____________ for Supreme Court" memos and bumper stickers all primed for distribution; just needed to fill in the blank, is all. Isn't that convenient?


BRAD

A comment on Ruth Bader Ginsburg's bio

In doing research for a better understanding of judicial confirmation precedents (for the upcoming likely donnybrook over Judge John Roberts' confirmation), I ran across an interesting tidbit about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. At least, the presumptuous allusion in the biography is interesting (courtesy of Jewish Virtual Library.org) :

"After earning her B.A. degree in government, in 1954, she married Martin D. Ginsburg, who had graduated Cornell the year before. He was called for military service the same year and they lived at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for two years. It was during this period that Ruth Ginsburg experienced sex discrimination.
She applied for a job with the local social security office while she was pregnant. She was appointed to a position and when she told them that she was pregnant, they demoted her three levels in pay. Another woman, who was appointed and never told them of her pregnancy, received no demotion in the pay scale." (emphasis added)

That's not sex discrimination. It's not gender bias. It's not disability discrimination, either.
Her reduced pay was a consequence, however shortsighted or provincial, of her predictable upcoming absence or even potential resignation. This was the mid 1950's fercryin'outloud! When motherhood was still esteemed and honored. When our society rightly understood the vital contribution, to all of posterity, that full-time mothering made to the fabric of our culture. Motherhood didn't begin being denigrated by feminists until several years later.

Given the "enlightened" perspective with which liberals like to label their living/breathing and diverse and always evolving interpretation of the Constitution as an expression of our nation's values at any given moment in time, their rejection of the social norms of that era seems rather ungracious and intolerant, does it not?

Brad

Dems: "Well, how do we demonize Roberts?"

That's the challenge they'll be trying to tackle with DC appeals court Judge John Roberts as the president's nominee for the Supreme Court.

This make's them look at least a little bit disingenuous when they start tearing into him (if they do) : Judge Roberts was confirmed by the Senate for the Washington D.C. Circuit Court by unanimous consent by Democrats and Republicans alike as a qualified nominee.

From MSNBC: Democrats will demand “straight answers” from Roberts on the abortion issue, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will holding hearings on the nomination, said Wednesday.
“If he wants to be on the Supreme Court, he has to be more forthcoming .... to convince the American people that a man who could serve on the court for 20 to 30 years really is in the mainstream of American thinking,” he said.

Oh, really. It seems that they weren't so insistent for answers from Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she refused to answer about anything that might actually come before her on the court.

(Whitepaper link courtesy of The Federalist Society. TOTH to Hugh Hewitt)

Where's the consistency?

Brad

You might be a Catholic if...

While playing Pictionary, your item to draw is: saint bernard and you try in vain get your teammates to guess what-in-the-world your drawing of a man praying at a kneeler, and a crown on a head mean, and you wonder-even if you could get them to guess that it's a saint-
how-in-the-world you could get them to zero in on St. Bernard!

That actually happened to my neice, Lisa, and gave us all a good chuckle. And some insight unto her world-view...

Brad

Yet another pointless critique of GWOT

It gets a bit tiresome to continually be confronted with these pointless, often self-conflicting reports of how we're more at risk because we're actually doing something about terrorism.
This Reuters article on MSNBC says "an influential British think tank" has released a report that says that Great Britain "played pillion" (for us non-Brits that's akin to riding behind someone on the seat of a bike) to the U.S. lately in gathering intelligence and responding to Islamic terrorism, and it "has proved costly in terms of British and U.S. military lives, Iraqi lives, military expenditure and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign".

Luckily, their Defense Secretary had this to say about the report: “One of the lessons of history is that if you run away from this it doesn’t actually get better,” Reid told the British Broadcasting Corp.
“Every child in the playground knows the idea that 'if you just avoid the bully, the bully will not come for you' is refuted by every piece of historical experience,” he added.

We had better keep that thought in mind as we go forward to meet the inevitable battle that lie ahead, both abroad and on our own soil. And this is part of the reason we fight:

From OpinionJournal.com, by Arthur Chrenkoff:
This is the perspective of 20-yr. old specialist Christopher Bean with the 101st Airborne, after a year in Baghdad: "In Iraq, we're not fighting for ourselves," said Bean, from his home base in Fort Campbell, Ky. "We're over there fighting so the Iraqis can have their own Fourth of July."
One of the things that struck Bean most about his time in Iraq was the people themselves. Most of the Iraqis he met were proud to have the Americans there, he said, and watching them go through their daily lives made him appreciate the historic significance of our Independence Day.
Being there really opens your eyes to what our forefathers went through to get the freedom we have today," he said.

Nation building is never quick and never easy; hard work and heartache are today, and the results often years if not decades ahead. But the Iraqi people, with the assistance of the coalition, have commenced their journey, and despite all the hardships, every day is another step forward.

Brad

Properly assigning blame for: xxxxxxxx

Please forgive me for so-rapidly referencing Lileks again (two posts in a week!), but his 07/12 Screedblog excerpt of an important book called "Life at the Bottom", by Theodore Dalrymple touches on something that's been sticking in my craw for a few years now. His entire post is short enough to repost here in it's entirety (to be redundant) :



Noted before on the Bleat: “Life at the Bottom,” by Theodore Dalrymple. He wrote an essay about the effects of post-war architecture , and the role it played in facilitating the passivity and sense of aggrieved & sullen victimhood he sees in the British underclass. (I believe it's about more than just architecture, though; but also about the doctor's experience caring for the underclass of British society. Brad)

He makes a rather obvious point – for some of us, anyway – that the buildings helped foster the underclass. The inhuman scale of the projects, the destruction of neighborhoods that had arisen to meet the needs of people, and the substitution of ideology for experience.

This stood out: "This sense of community, now destroyed, allowed people to withstand genuine hardship – hardship that wasn’t self-inflicted, like so much of today’s. I remember a patient who described with great warmth the street on which he had lived as a child – “until,” he added, “Adolph Hitler moved us on.” What an admirable depth of character, uncomplaining in the face of misfortune, those few words convey! Nowadays the victim of such a bombing would be more likely to blame the government for having declared war on the Nazis in the first place." (As the Left laments: "We've created more terrorists and made ourselves less-safe by invading Iraq", along with the accusations that we earned the wrath of Islamofascists by "meddling" in other countries and "forcing" our culture on them. Brad)
Date he wrote the essay: 1995. It’s been a long time coming.


The heartbreaking aspect of inaccurately assigning responsibility for personal burdens, for instance, especially the routine hurdles and detours of daily life, is that the self-creation of victimhood may discourage people from recognizing and correcting what might be the true cause of the miseries they experience.

Regarding one's personal lot in life, a sincere look in the mirror not only hastens the progress toward resolving many pathologies, but helps develop a sense of empowerment because it focuses on causes that are within one's power to actually do something about.
It's a bit daunting for the average fellow to tackle the conspiracy of the "international banking syndicate" that he blames for creating a system of economic control that keeps him destitute and powerless. It's liberating, on the other hand, for this fellow to break the bondage of his own self-destructive personal habits and behaviors that squander his time and money.


In the bigger picture, however (and I mean the really big picture: the battle of Good vs. Evil that has raged through the ages amongst men and nations), the inaccurate assigning of responsibility for the struggles that free nations engage in to promote liberty and respond to threats to peace and stability can undermine and cripple the success of those efforts, to the peril of millions.

In a column about the increasingly politically correct response by the West to terrorist attacks, Tony Blankley wrote on July 13: "The first lesson of war is to know thy enemy. While we should never put people in that category who don't fit, it is suicidal to refuse to acknowledge the accurate nature of the enemy."

And UK Prime Minister Tony Blair put it today: "The greatest danger is that we fail to face up to the nature of the threat that we're dealing with," he said. "And what we are confronting here is an evil ideology. ... It is a battle of ideas, of hearts and of minds, both within Islam and outside it."

Well, isn't this coincidental: while searching for a link to Blankley's piece, I ran across this column by Cal Thomas, in the Jewish World Review, which details the foolishness, even danger, of the problem I'm writing about. Of course, he says it much better, and in greater detail (I had planned to write at greater length about this, but this post will be too long for some people already!), so I recommend it to you. As least I can feel a little validated, and who can't use that, eh?

Brad

A must-see Scrappleface!

This (scroll to July 12 item) has got to be the funniest Scrappleface I've seen yet!
THANK YOU, Scott Ott!!!
Priceless. Especially the quotes by Bush.



July 15, 2005

Bush Fires Rove, Names Novak to White House Post
by Scott Ott
(2005-07-15) -- President George Bush today fired longtime friend and political wizard Karl Rove, the embattled White House deputy chief of staff at the center of the most devastating scandal to engulf a presidency in the history of the republic.

In the same news conference, the president announced that he would replace Mr. Rove with columnist Robert Novak, who broke the story that Valerie Plame was a famous covert CIA 'operative'.
"Bob Novak knows what's going on in Washington better than his predecessor did," said Mr. Bush. "He's the one who told Karl that Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife was a spy. People talk to Novak. He's a regular Oprah Winfrey."

Mr. Bush also said he "admires the resilience of the scrappy columnist."
"This Plame thing has got one reporter in jail, another turning state's evidence and Karl Rove spilling his guts three times before the grand jury," said Mr. Bush, "but not Bob Novak. He's a Chevy truck -- like a rock. He's the one who lit the fire. He's not talking, but he's still walking. I'm going to have him spray some of that Teflon on the White House."
In related news, an unnamed source close to the prosecutor's office said the Bush administration coverup of the Rove scandal continues.

"The president's team is quite clever," said the anonymous source. "They're trying to bury us in information by giving us all that we've requested -- documents, testimony...everything. The fact that the White House is not being secretive with the grand jury or the prosecutor is the main evidence of criminal activity."

just another Lileks moment

Always worth passing-on a bit of insightful and poignant thought from Lileks :

Today my daughter ran to me with open arms when I picked her up from school, and my dog barked when we both came home. Today was an ordinary day in the middle of an ordinary summer, and I have every reason to expect tomorrow will be the same. You don’t think that’s what happiness will be - you imagine the awards banquent, the press notices, the flattering faces in a Manhattan claque - but that’s the shape it takes.

You can even chose an ordinary noisy moment – child leaping through the sprinkler while you stand over the grill making burgers, listening to some stranger on the radio name you the 10th best guest on the Hewitt show and shouting SHUSH as Jasper runs for the gate because he’s heard your wife’s car pull up. That’s as good as it gets. You didn’t know how happy you were? Maybe you weren’t paying attention. So pay it.

I love Lileks.

Brad

Why Abstinence-Only is the best message to teens

In Sheryl McCarthy's July 7 column in Newsday on Abstinence-only sex-ed being a failure, she quotes Dr. Scott Spear, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and chair of the national medical committee of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, "As scientists we're saying we don't want politics to trump what's healthy and safe for young people."
It isn't politics that is leading the agenda for abstinence. It's morality and traditional community standards combined with the wisdom of the obvious. The abstinence approach is 100 percent effective, every time it's used. Can condoms, patches, sponges, sprays, diaphrams, and pills match that effectiveness? Of course not.
Now, I'm not going to suggest that a chairman or committee under the auspices of Planned Parenthood would actually want young women to experience unwanted pregnancies that might be resolved with an abortion in a Planned Parenthood clinic, as that would be an unfounded and devisive accusation. And I don't really believe that most of the non-abstinence crowd sincerely wants that, anyway. Not most of them, at least.

So, what drives the non-abstinence crowd's desire to undermine the campaign toward an open and frank dialogue with young people about the numerous benefits of the "abstinence before marriage, fidelity within" philosophy? Do they feel hypocritical because they weren't able to uphold that value system successfully, as many of us weren't? That's no reason to abandon the standard.
We don't stop telling our kids not to snack on junk food too much just because we do it. We don't stop warning them about the health risks of smoking just because so many adults smoke. We warn against excessive alcohol consumption, even though so many adults like to get loose on booze occasionally. We admonish our young drivers about speeding, even though most of us drive 8-10 mph over the limit most of the time. You get the point.
Our own failure to flawlessly live up to some worthwhile principle or behavior doesn't nullify the value of it.
One might argue that we don't totally prohibit junk food for our kids, but promote a balance; nutritious foods and exercise to counter the occassional Ding Dong. Shall we try that approach with our young people regarding sexual experimentation?
We sure don't approve of minors smoking, "just as long as it's done in moderation and especially if they smoke filtered cigarettes", do we now?
How about providing 3.2 beer and a "safe" place for our kids to get hammered. Doesn't it beat having them sneaking around to drink and risking accidents, both automotively and gestationally? How many pampering and spineless (not to mention stupid) parents abdicate their responsibility in that manner?
Do we give our kids a radar detector for their car, racing tires and high performance brakes, and say "now, be careful Johnny. I don't want you to speed, at least not until you're a more experienced driver and can handle a car better. But, if you are going to speed, be sure to put on the seat belt and practice safe speeding". At least we're fairly consistent about seat belts!

I find this statement by Sheryl McCarthy especially derilect: "Frankly, I'm less worried about the fact that a 17-year-old girl has sex with her boyfriend than I am about whether she has thought the decision through carefully, (oh yeah, most teenagers are real thoughtful when it comes to hormones!) has chosen a caring partner, (why does that matter- it's just sex...) and is using a dependable form of birth control."
Perhaps the government-funded programs that promote abstinence are necessary if only for the reason that the rest of the world (pop culture of TV, movies, magazines, music, fashion, peers, advertising, past Democratic presidents) is preaching the consequence-free sex message and the only alternative message is with the public purse.

Lord knows, kids sure don't listen to their parents, do they?

Brad

Max Blumenthal's deceitful blogging

An intentionally misleading comment by Max Blumenthal in a piece from HuffingtonPost has spawned a new carnival game: Find the Denunciation. It's a guessing game with a twist: the questions are all trick questions! ( I found the story on Yahoo!News) Let's look in on a carnival barker on the midway now:


Carnie: Step right up, folks! Try your luck at Find the Denunciation! C'mon, folks! Three tries for a buck!
Hey there, sir- take a shot at winning a prize for the little lady! Step right up! Three tries for a buck!

Ahh, we have contestant! Here you go, sir- see if you can spot the "Muslim community's fiercest denunciations of the (London) attacks":

“Some people will try to instigate anger against
Muslims and try to blame us for what happened,” Mohamed Sawalha,
who gave the sermon at Friday prayers at London’s Finsbury Park mosque,
told hundreds of worshippers. "These acts were aimed at destroying the
work of Muslims and Muslim groups in Britain. We want to integrate with the (British) community, and not to live like foreigners.”

Man: Ummm, let's see... Is it "these acts were aimed at destroying the work of Muslims"?

Carnie: No sir! That is not the denunciation! You have two more tries, sir; take another shot!

Faith leaders who met British Home Secretary Charles Clarke on Friday called for a calm response to Thursday’s attacks...

Man: Umm-Oh, oh! I see it! Is it the Muslim leader's call for a calm response by Great Britain ?

Carnie: Oh, I'm sorry sir- that's not it either. One more chance to win your gal a giant stuffed gorrilla! Now look carefully, sir. Take your time...see if you can Find the Denunciation! Here you go:

The Islamic Human Rights Commission warned London Muslims to stay at
home because of fears of retaliation. “The whole world now will point at me and say I am an Arab and Muslim terrorist,” said Zakaria Koubissi,
a 29-year-old manager of a Lebanese restaurant. “We expect to be harassed. It is a natural reaction.”

Man: Ummmm, let me think... No, that's not it...

Despite the appeal for solidarity from moderate Muslims, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain,
a radical Muslim group dedicated to building an Islamic caliphate worldwide,
said it would continue to speak out against the West. “Speaking the truth about the colonization of the Muslim world and the killing, murder and rape of our Ummah (nation) by Western governments is (one) of the highest obligations,” the group said in a leaflet distributed among worshippers.

Man: Oooh, that might be it! Oh, wait a minute, it's supposed to be denunciation of the attacks...let's see...

“This was the last Western country that had great respect for Arabs and Muslims,” said Ehab Maged, a 30-year-old Egyptian travel agent. “Now no one knows what will happen.”
But Laith al-Taei, an Iraqi who owns a coffee shop near Edgware Road’s underground station disagreed. “You kill a snake by chopping its head off, not by hitting the tail,” he said. “The head of terrorism is not (al-Qaida chief) Osama bin Laden, but it is America and Britain’s policies against Arabs and Muslims. Change them: Terrorism will end.”


Man: Umm...it's..ah.. Well, it could be...um...it's.... Oh- I give up! I can't spot any denuncation. At least not any fierce denunciation. I give up.

Carnie: Well, how about you, little lady? Would you like to use your man's last chance for a prize?

Wife: Sure! Why not- he already paid. Now, let me look at that MSNBC news article that Blumenthal linked to... Ah hah! I got it! This is Max Blumenthal, right? The leftist lad who writes for The Nation and other liberal outlets, right?

Carnie (with sheepish smirk): That's right, madam...

Wife: I've got it! Blumenthal's claim about the "fiercest denunciations of the attacks" is a trick! It's either a fierce justification of the attacks, or it's a fierce denunciation of America and Britain, right?!

Carnie: We have a winner here! Go ahead, young lady, and pick a prize; any doll on the top row! Very perceptive, ma'am. Who's next? Step right up!

(Husband slaps his forehead, says to wife: "Of course! Great job, honey. I shoulda thought: Max Blumenthal is such a liberal Blame-America-First jackass that I should've guessed he'd be incapable of reading the story accurately. In fact, he got it exactly backwards! My bad!" And they wander down the midway to see the latest freak show, Howard Dean: half-man/half-wild donkey.)

Brad

Today's carnage in London

Here's a page with the Islamofascist's claim for responsibility for the bombings.

This salutation belies the evil in their souls: "In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him."

And, as always, a linkage to whom they truly hate: "...revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government..."

With a promise of more to come, to no surprise: "We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused." Excused from what? By whom?

Brad

Another step toward socialism

(This is a two-pronged post: liberal conceit; and the meaning of words)


The Kelo v. City of New London decision by our Supreme Court (after linking, it's R-69) last week takes an audacious (and frighteningly large) step in what seems like a relentless march toward government control of every aspect of our lives. (Except, of course, in a mother's choice over the life or death of her child before it escapes her uterus.) But I digress.

The "takings clause" in the Constitution's Fifth Amendment states "..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

When the court decided that it could award ownership of a parcel of land to a developer that it decided had a "better plan" for it's use (greater public benefit, presumably), it cited the 1954 case of Berman v. Parker, a landmark case involving redevelopment of a slum in Washington, D.C. The city's action took an unblighted department store in the area from it's private owner, as part of it's area-wide plan for a "better balanced, more attractive community". According to them. Do results matter? May we at least learn from them?

I wonder how the area is doing now? I tried to find info on locating the neighborhood in question, but failed. I'm willing to bet money that it's an area that has returned to slum.
Footnotes in the majority opinion that Justice Stevens wrote state that public use could "encompass the purpose of developing that area to create conditions that would prevent a reversion to blight in the future."(pg 14) I wonder if it has reverted to blight...
What I'm getting at is this: the liberal mindset that IT knows better than we do. The misguided and foolhardy ignorance about human nature and how the real world functions.
These passages from the footnotes reveal the naivete: "It was important to redesign the whole area so as to eliminate the conditions that cause slums." "In this way it was hoped that the cycle of decay of the area could be controlled and the birth of future slums prevented".(pg 14) That is, they believe the underlying cause of slums is real estate. Brick and mortar. Streets and buildings. Not people.

Courtesy of The American Heritage Dictionary: SOCIALISM: 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

In the long-running judicial version of the telephone game, Expansive View has resulted in the mutation of common terms and ideas into whatever the current bench wants them to mean.
Justice Stevens puts it this way: "while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed 'use by the public' as the proper definition of public use, [my, what a quaint and parochial view!] that narrow view steadily eroded over time". (emphasis added) [pg 8]
See? The Telephone Game. Except, the words don't change, just their meaning.
As part of the justification for this trend, Stevens cites "the diverse and always evolving needs of society" as acceptable grounds for embracing "the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose' ". [pgs 8 and 9] Who says it's more natural?!

"...diverse and always evolving..." Sounds an awful lot like "living, breathing document", eh?

As Rush Limbaugh says: "Words mean things".

Justices' Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer also seem to have difficulty with the word "promote". They're not alone, though. [ I've said for years that there seems to be a kind of constitutional dyslexia that has plagued liberals for decades, confusing "provide" with "promote". As in: "provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare". They would rather we use more diplomacy against our enemies and engage in dialogue, thinking it will promote peace as a defense. Conversely, they want the government to provide welfare for more people. And not just the general welfare, but individual.] But I digress.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function," contends the majority opinion (pg 2, para C). However, the actions by the City of New London extend beyond promotion. They took the property in question, and then decided who to award it to. That's not promoting. It's stealing. And not even for public use!

I tell ya: this crowd will never change. We've been fighting their efforts to twist words, and redefine meanings since biblical times. Next thing ya know, they'll be asking what the meaning of the word "is" is.....

Brad

07-11-05 addendum: John Fund has a good column on this in Opinion Journal online, regarding historic abuse of Takings Clause to target "minority communities". Disappointing, however is MLK III's quote: "...eminent domain should only be used for true public projects, not to take from one private owner to give to another wealthier private owner." It doesn't matter if A is wealthier than B, or visa versa.

Happy INDEPENDENCE Day!

I was reminded yesterday of this great quote by Thomas Paine, from the first in his series of "The Crisis" essays, and I find it's timeless wisdom encouraging and inspiring, especially when so many "summer soldiers and sunshine patriots" lose resolve (if they ever possesed it, even) in the war on terror:

"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated."

And as we celebrate our freedoms this day, and commemorate the sacrifices that others have made on our behalf, let us remember: "Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." This is a common army motto that you'll find on the homepage of The Mudville Gazzette, a first-rate milblog that is being run by the courageous wife of it's originator, while he heals from wounds he recently recieved while serving in Iraq. My prayers go out to Chuck and his loving wife.
I urge ya'll to pray for them as well.
I can't think of a better way to celbrate our liberty, than to lift those who protect it, up to the Lord in prayer.

Brad

Sandra Day O'Connor retiring

Alleluia!!

Now, as a conservative, this doesn't make me itch to have Roe V. Wade overturned. I don't believe it will be. It's such a devisive issue with an entire generation of women and young gals knowing it as "the law of the land". (Quite the misnomer, eh? Since no law which legalized abortion was actually ever legislated. Judicial fiat.) However...

To be continuied...

Brad