Posted by at 11:13 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Everything You Know is Wrong

Here's an interesting story about one of the most famous photos of the 1970s and how it doesn't show what it has been widely reported to show.

Posted by pat at 11:12 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

International Respect For Chickens Day

The group United Poultry Concerns has declared Wednesday, May 4th to be International Respect for Chickens Day.

The group gives suggestions as to what to do on that day. One suggestion is the following:

"Have a We-Don’t-Eat-Our-Feathered-Friends Vegan Party!"

Here is a photo of the group's spokesbird:

Posted by Dodo David at 06:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

More on "I Am Rachel Corrie"

Last week I posted a bit on the play about Rachel Corrie's life being produced by the London's Royal Court Theater.

Here's more on the subject from Tom Gross for the Jewish World Review:

For those who don't recall the story, Corrie was a young American radical who burnt mock-American flags at pro-Hamas rallies in Gaza in February 2003. A short while later she died after jumping in front of an Israeli army bulldozer that was attempting to demolish a structure suspected of concealing tunnels used for smuggling weapons.

However, in many hundreds of articles on Corrie published worldwide in the last two years, most papers have been careful to omit such details. So have Rickman and Viner, leaving almost all the critics who have reviewed the play completely clueless about the background of the events with which it deals.

Gross posits at the end of the article (and I agree with him) that the play isn't so much about Corrie, but about "fomenting hatred of Israel." And sadly, it's a sellout in London, there's talk of staging it in America, and a printed version is being prepared for schools.

Anti-Semitism is alive and well.

Posted by at 01:22 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

The Tragedy of Russia's Collapse

Vladimir Putin was heard to bemoan the disintegration of the old Soviet Union. While there are plenty in academia who would join in that lament, David Brooks is more concerned with the disintegration of Russia:

As the Soviet regime disintegrated, Russian fertility rates fell through the floor, from 2.19 births per woman in 1986-87 to 1.17 in 1999. Birth rates have now recovered somewhat, but they are not even close to replacement levels. According to Eberstadt, Russia currently has about 160 deaths for every 100 births.

The more shocking reason Russia's population is declining is that people are dying younger. Russians are now much less healthy than their grandparents were in 1960. In the past three decades, Russian mortality rates have risen by 40 percent. Russian life expectancies now approximate those in Bangladesh and are below India's.

As Brooks points out, the irony is that this is all happening at the same time that Russia is experiencing strong economic growth. He foresees similar circumstances in China when the totalitarian regime begins to crumble there.

Posted by pat at 09:54 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

A Tin Ear, Forked Tongue and Memory Loss...

According to Teddy, in a press release from his office this week:

"...top officials in the Administration have endorsed interrogation methods that we've condemned in other countries, including binding prisoners in painful "stress" positions, threatening them with dogs, extended sleep deprivation, and simulated drownings¹."

1. As opposed to the real deal.

DANEgerus has more....

Posted by at 08:40 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

The AP pro-abortion?

The Associated Press has produced a story that makes the AP appear to be pro-abortion.

[For the FOXNEWS version of the story, click here.]

The AP story begins with the following statement:

The House passed a bill Wednesday that would make it illegal to dodge parental-consent laws by taking minors across state lines for abortions, the latest effort to chip away at abortion rights after Republican gains in the November elections.

The first half of the statement is straightforward reporting:

The House passed a bill Wednesday that would make it illegal to dodge parental-consent laws by taking minors across state lines for abortions . . .

The second half of the statement is commentary:

. . . the latest effort to chip away at abortion rights after Republican gains in the November elections.

The second half of the statement could have been written as such:

. . . the latest effort to strengthen parental rights after Republican gains in the November elections.

The AP's ending implies that minors have (or should have) the right to abortions.

An abortion is a medical procedure that is selective the vast majority of the time.

Minors do not have the right to selective medical procedures.

The bill passed by the House makes exemptions for cases in which abortions would not be considered selective.

The bill passed by the House strengthens parental rights, something that the AP appears not to favor.

Posted by Dodo David at 07:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

European A380 Airbus Lifts Off

The massive, European A380 went on its maiden flight. Largely funded by France, it's positioned as a 'Boeing' killer.

We have a detailed cutaway diagram of the aircraft here.

Posted by at 08:05 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Lil' Kim 101

Syracuse University English professor Greg Thomas...will soon be “teaching a course . . . analyzing Kim’s lyrics on the American judicial system” in the wake of her legal troubles.

This report comes from City Journal. And there's more:

As he told the New York Daily News in November: “It’s about her lyricism and the lyrical persona . . . new notions of sexual consciousness, sexual politics in her rhymes, how she deals with societies based on male domination in her rhymes and societies based on rigid gender categories and constructs.” (Phew!) In other words, Lil’ Kim is a hip-hop Virgil guiding students through the wonderful world of Gender/Womyn’s studies—and her Dante is not some Birkenstock-clad granola prof but rather a cool dude known as “G” to his students...

Should we care about such collapsing of the distinction between “high” and “low” art, between timeless, revered text and flippant pop culture? Does it matter that a university has put King Lear on the same plane as “Suck My D--k,” another Lil’ Kim gem?

Yes we should...especially when tuition at SU costs over $23,000 per year.

Posted by at 02:52 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Historical Revisionism At the Times

Instapundit links to an editorial at the New York Times, which contains this floater:

The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one.

Glenn does a great job refuting the notion that President Bush seized on democratic transformation after the fact. As one of his emailers notes, the war plan was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Glenn links to a couple pre-war comments from leftists sources "debunking" the notion advanced by Bush that the war would lead to democratization of the Middle East. Given that the Bush Doctrine includes a policy of actively promoting Democracy and liberty throughout the world, the notion that this is some ex-post facto rationalization is ridiculous.

And of course, it needs hardly be pointed out that the question of whether Iraq had WMD prior to the war is far from settled.

Posted by pat at 02:22 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

WHATABOUTERY

Don't Expect Tax Reform From a Gutless GOP: After witnessing Capitol Hill Republicans' pusillanimity over judges and Social Security, do they really think that collection gutless worms has it in them to change the tax code?

Lenin Is Risen, Talks to Press: "What are your plans for the nearest future?" "Use the Communist Party's assets to take over the railroad station, the telegraph, and the post office." "Why?" "Those are the key elements of a successful uprising,"

What Gender Is Your Brain?: Mine is 40% female & 60% male, which equals "a total boy brain. Logical and detailed, you tend to look at the facts. And while your emotions do sway you sometimes...You never like to get feelings too involved." Gee, swell.

The 12-year-old theater-obsessed Gavrochegirl with another refreshing post: I am fortunate because...

The Art of Seduction Without Getting Slapped: [S]o I'm trying to imagine what it would be like to ask a woman, "What secret knowledge is clasped between your pillars?"

Posted by kitty at 11:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Republicans Need Not Apply

Once again, the leftwing tilt of our universities is out of control:

On April 11, Jonathan Bean, a professor of history at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC), received the college’s “Outstanding Teacher Award.” But just two days later, Bean became the scourge of the campus, abandoned by teaching assistants and vilified as a purveyor of “racist propaganda.”

Behind Bean’s sudden fall from admired academic to campus Enemy Number One was a cabal of eight radical academics in the SIUC history department. Bean's offense was to have assigned as optional reading for his history class a 2001 Frontpagemag report titled “Remembering the Zebra Killings” by James Lubinskas. The class topic was “Civil Rights and Civil Disorder.” Bean's required readings for the class included the writings of Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Ella Baker, and Stokely Carmichael.

Hmmm...he spreads racist propaganda at the same time he requires students to read pieces from prominent black activists?

The offending Frontpagemag article which Bean made optional recounts what have come to be known as the Zebra Killings, a series of murders that took place in the San Francisco Bay area between 1972 and 1974, which left 71 people dead. The crimes shared a distinctive pattern: all the victims were white. The article, which contains facts first exposed in the 1979 book Zebra by crime writer Clark Howard, and subsequent reviews of the book in Time Magazine, reveals that five members the “Death Angels,” a sub-group of the Nation of Islam, carried out the majority of the attacks.

His "colleagues," Marxists and Communists, are conducting a vicious smear campaign that would make those who defamed Larry Summers blush.

However, Bean has his defenders, including other professors, the ACLU (I'm surprised!), photographer and former student D. Gorton (a former New York Times employee), and many of his current students:

For instance, in an April 20 letter to the Daily Egyptian, Bethany C. Peters, a SIUC senior and history major, writes:

“I would also challenge each of those professors [who have defamed Bean] to examine their own literature and see exactly what stances and images are being professed and created. If it is not acceptable for Dr. Bean to push an agenda (which he DOES not), then perhaps they also should refrain from handing out materials that include an agenda, be it racist, liberal, inappropriate in regards to religion.”

It's interesting that the American Association of University Professors, which is against the Academic Bill of Rights because it believes universities can "take care of their own," has been silent on this issue.

The Front Page Magazine article on this subject is lengthy; peruse it when you have time to see what's happening on our college campuses today.

Posted by at 10:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

An Opinion on the Saudi Elections

GM over at the blog Big Pharaoh had a few words today regarding the first municipal elections in Saudi Arabia. Since GM is Egyptian, his commentary is especially valuable, as he can understand the Saudi mindset better than the average American.

Saudi had its first municipal elections. Wow that’s awesome, that’s great news! Well, hold on a little, Islamists won every seat available! Those guys are more radical than the royal family itself. What, the royals are not radical? Nah, those guys are hardcore, they were endorsed by Saudi’s Wahabi clerics and won by a landslide.

GM continues by analyzing why the radicals, as he terms them, won. He names several factors:

-Women were denied the vote.
-Many citizens thought the elections a waste since the royal family
chose half of the council members and so didn't bother voting.
-Saudi Islamists are extremely organized and have the support of
hardcore clerics.

He then goes on to compare the Saudi experience with the Egyptian experience, making the following observation:

So the way forward is this: Mubarak should have another term in office but this time he has to allow liberals and progressives to start mobilizing and reaching out to people. Once liberals appear on Egypt’s political scene and the average Egyptian starts to believe in political participation, we will just have to hope and pray that the Egyptian people will elect enough progressives to counter the influence of Islamists and other radicals. If the Egyptian people let me down, you will find me running towards foreign embassies screaming “ASYLUM”. I hope that won’t be the case.

It's a thoughtful exercise, as are all of his writings. Please take the time to read the whole post, and be sure to peruse his past postings as well. If you're like me, you'll visit his site on a regular basis.

Posted by at 08:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More Google Bias?

I was searching talk radio rankings to see if I could find something as simple as a top ten.

I cannot (so far), but when I typed in "Talk Radio" to the Google search guess what I got as the number one link?

So Rush Limbaugh would be second, right? Nope! He is not even on first page. So I thought I would check the other search engines to see how many others show Air America as either the number one return for "Talk Radio" or even on the first page of links. This is what I found (if you click on the link it will run the search):

1. MSN: No Air

2. Yahoo: Air #1

3. AltaVista: Air #2

4. Ask Jeeves: No Air

5. Lycos: No Air

6. A9: Air #1

So what gives? Why is it that the #1 talk show host not even listed in these searches?

The better question might be why is Air America a #1 or #2 selection for 50% of the most popular search engines when it is probably the least listened to national station? If you don't believe it's a bomb...check out Byron Yorks' analysis at NRO.

Obviously this is unscientific but interesting.

Posted by Aaron at 07:25 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

Evolution: A Legoist Perspective

Fox News has a report titled Kansas to Take Up Evolution, Creationism.

Whenever the theory of evolution is debated outside of the scientific community, debaters are usually divided into two camps: the evolutionists and the creationists. However, some people don’t fit into either camp. These particular people tend to adhere to a particular theistic faith. They wish to remain true to their faith without denying the facts of nature. These particular people fall into the category of legoists.

A legoist is a person who adheres to legoism, a philosophy which says that if a god or gods exist, then he has/ they have the ability and the authority to manipulate energy and matter the way that a child manipulates Lego® building blocks.

When applying legoism to the Creation-Evolution debate, the legoist makes the following assertions.

1. One should neither endorse modern evolution theory nor reject it until one has a correct understanding about what modern evolutionary theory says.

According to the Greek philosopher Socrates, the height of wisdom is to say, "I do not know." It is better for a person to admit a lack of knowledge than to pretend to possess knowledge that she/he does not have.

Nothing prevents the legoist from working to gain scientific knowledge. Plus, nothing requires that a legoist remain a legoist once more scientific knowledge is acquired.

2. Modern evolution theory doesn’t eliminate the possibility of supernatural entities.

Miller (1999) writes,

"Does evolution really nullify all world views that depend on the spiritual? Does it demand logical agnosticism as the price of scientific consistency? And does it rigorously exclude belief in God? These are the questions that I will explore in the pages that follow. My answer, in each and every case, is a resounding “no.”"(p. 17)

Gould (1999) writes,

"Darwin did not use evolution to promote atheism or to maintain that no concept of God could ever be squared with the structure of nature. . . If many Western thinkers had once invoked a blinkered and indefensible concept of divinity to declare the impossibility of evolution, Darwin would not make the same arrogant mistake in the opposite direction, and claim that the fact of evolution implies the nonexistence of God."(p. 192)

The reason that evolution theory doesn’t eliminate the possibility of supernatural entities is because evolution theory doesn’t include ontological naturalism.

Wilkins (1997a) writes,

"A final form of naturalism is ontological naturalism. This is the opinion that all that exists is natural. Many scientists are also physicalists. They argue that if we do not need to postulate the reality of non-physical processes for science, then we can conclude that there are no such things. This argument is too quick. The claim that ‘if A then B’ explains B may be true, but there may also be a C that explains B. Moreover, many things in the physical world are cause by many things together rather than just a few. So, we might say that a physical event is caused by both God and by physical causes, without being logically inconsistent.”

The error in logic that Wilkins describes is called “affirming the consequent”.

In a rebuttal to a creationist, Fair (2000) states,

“You are making the philosophical mistake made by a number of creationists, and that is to confuse methodological naturalism (which all science depends upon) with ontological naturalism (which no science requires)."

3. In science one begins an empirical investigation by making an assumption. However, it is inappropriate to force the conclusion to conform to the assumption. If empirical data does not support the assumption, then the proper thing to do would be to discard the assumption.

4. Modern evolution theory does not depend on all mutations being random.

Mutation is a mechanism that increases genetic variation (Colby, 1996). However, the causes of mutations are not evolutionary processes (Wilkins, 1997b).

Dawkins (1996) writes,

“Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection. It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance.” (p. 80)

Dawkins (1996) also writes,

“But, as I said before, it is not critical to the theory that mutation must be random, and it most certainly provides no excuse to tar the whole theory with the brush of randomness. Mutation may be random, but selection definitely is not.” (p.82)

5. Science is an empirical inquiry into reality, but science is not the only means of inquiring into reality.

Polkinghorne (1998) writes:

”Science and theology lie at the opposite ends of a spectrum of rational human inquiry into reality. At the scientific end is the realm of the impersonal experience; at the theological end is the realm of experience of the transpersonal. In between lie the realms of human personal encounter with reality, which are the subjects of disciplines such as aesthetics and ethics. The whole spectrum of enquiry makes up the rich many-stranded texture of human knowledge, surveying the encounter with the multi-leveled reality of the one world of human experience.”(p. 128)

Gould (1999) writes,

"Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values -subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve."(p.4)

6. A theological theory about causality does not have to conflict with a scientific theory about causality.

Gould (1999) writes,

"So long as religious beliefs do not dictate specific answers to empirical questions or foreclose the acceptance of documented facts, the most theologically devout scientists should have no trouble pursuing their day jobs with equal zeal."(p. 84)

Barbour (2000) writes,

“Another way of separating theological from scientific assertions in the distinction between primary and secondary causality, which is common in Catholic and neo-orthodox thought. God as primary cause is said to work through the secondary causes of the natural world that science studies. God is omnipotent and uses natural laws to achieve particular goals. Primary causality is on a totally different level from the interactions among entities in the world.”(p.19)

Barbour, I.G. (2000). When science meets religion. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Colby, C. (1996). Introduction to evolutionary biology. TalkOrigins. < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html > (2003, Decmber 13).

Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Fair, K. (2000). Feedback for September 2000. TalkOrigins. < http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/sep00.html> (2003, November 29).

Gould, S.J. (1999). Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. NY: Ballantine.

Miller, K.R. (1999). Finding Darwin’s god. NY:Cliff Street Books.

Polkinghorne, J. (1998). Science & theology. Minneapolis: SPCK Fortress Press.

Wilkins, J. (1997a). Naturalism: Is it necessary? TalkOrigins. < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/naturalism.html > (2003, November 29).

Wilkins, J. (1997b). Evolution and chance. TalkOrigins. < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html > (2003, December 13).

Posted by Dodo David at 06:23 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Freedom and the Christian

During the year 2000, I joined my fellow Americans in watching the drama that centered on a six-year-old Cuban boy named Elían. The boy was the rope in game of tug-of-war carried on by two groups of people. One group believed that Elían belonged with his father no matter what the father’s nationality or political persuasion were. The other group believed that Elían should be kept in the USA so that he could experience the kind of freedoms that he would not have if he lived in Cuba.

During the ordeal, a question kept entering my mind.

Why did people want Elían to have freedom?

I ask the question because of something that the Apostle Paul wrote:

“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.” (Galatians 5:13)

Paul promoted freedom for a purpose, that purpose being to glorify God. Indeed, when the Pilgrims boarded the Mayflower and headed for North America, they were not seeking freedom for their own selfish pleasures. Instead, they sought freedom so that they could worship God in a way that they believed would glorify God. During the 20th Century, Christians prayed for an end to Communism because people in Communist nations were not free to worship God openly, and they were not free to openly share the Gospel. In each of these cases Christians promoted freedom so that God could be glorified.

So what about the Elían saga? Did people want the boy to have freedom so that he could glorify God? Or did they want him to have freedom so that he could seek his own pleasures? One fact about the boy’s family helps to provide an answer: they are all of the same Catholic faith. Indeed when Pope John Paul II visited Cuba, Elían was taken by his father to see the Pope. In doing so, the father openly expressed the same faith shared by the boy’s relatives in the USA. Thus I seriously doubt that religious freedom was on the minds of Elían’s relatives when they tried to keep him in the USA.

In all honesty, during the entire ordeal pertaining to little Elían, not once did I hear someone say that the boy should have freedom so that the boy could glorify God. I can only conclude that people wanted freedom for the boy for freedom’s sake alone. In short, they appeared to be making freedom their god.

This situation bothered me because a significant number of Christians were participating in this worship of freedom. I could not in good conscience join them in doing so. Yes, I enjoy the freedom that I have as a citizen of the USA. I served in the U.S. Armed Forces to help preserve that freedom. However, I do not worship freedom. I worship God. I defend freedom so that I and others can use freedom to glorify God.

So do I want Elían to have freedom? Yes, I do. I want him to have the freedom that one has when one has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32)

Such freedom is the best freedom of all.

Posted by Dodo David at 06:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tierney--If Only Social Security Had Invested in the Stock Market

John Tierney's column today shows why he's rapidly moving up my list of favorite writers. He decides to compare Social Security pensions with a friend of his from Chile, where workers' retirement funds have invested in the local stock market since the 1980s.

Here's what his options would look like if his funds had been invested like those of his friend:

(1) Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age.

(3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.

But it's a risky scheme!

Posted by pat at 11:51 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Melody Townsel: Serial Plagiarist

Melody Townsel is the analyst that accused John Bolton of harassing her some 10 plus years ago and provided the smoke screen for Democrats to prevent him from kicking ass and taking names at the UN. But something interesting has popped up (funny how facts and evidence always suck for Democrats):

Daily Kos, doing its propaganda thing, is releasing a letter from Melody Townsel where she apologizes for being a pathological liar.

That's not how the media will treat it, of course, since they all copy each other's work now anyway.

Turns out that 22 years ago she was fired from her college paper for plagiarism (on several articles)--then did the same thing at the next paper she worked at!

When I was in college, 22 years ago, I plagiarized some columns while working for my college newspaper, and I was removed from staff. Months later, while working for another college newspaper, I wrote a review for a local play that tracked closely in format to another writer's review -- and, although it was not plagiarized, it made my editors, who had become aware of my recent past, very uncomfortable, and we mutually agreed that I would no longer submit stories to them.

What I love is the first comment from the post that says:

If they succeed in discrediting Melody on the basis of her behaviour 21 years ago, then I want to know exactly what every one of THEM was doing 21 years ago.

Well, well, well. Isn't that what the Democrats are doing to Bolton? Laura Ingraham speculated that Sens. Dodd and Biden were going to bring in John Bolton's junior high school prom date to tell the panel how inconsiderate he was on the date.

Melody wants everyone to forgive her for something she did 22 years ago. That's fine; she is forgiven. But it's not like someone is accusing her of getting a DUI 22 years ago, or smoking pot in college. SHE WAS FIRED TWICE FOR CHEATING AND LYING! So to then ask that this should not shadow her credibility in her stale accusations of something that happened between her and Bolton over a decade ago is utterly ridiculous; it something only a liberal would try doing.

Posted by Aaron at 11:14 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Blindsided By Breast Cancer

Laura Ingraham found out Friday that she has breast cancer. From her site:

You know I hate Drama Kings or Queens, but I am asking for your prayers today and for the forseeable future. On Friday afternoon, I learned that I have joined the ever-growing group of American women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. As so many breast cancer patients will tell you, it all came as a total shock. I am blessed to be surrounded by people who love me--my family, a wonderful fiance (if he thinks he's going to get out of marrying me because of this little blib, he's sadly mistaken!), my friends, and my church. I am absolutely blown away by how helpful and kind everyone has been--including total strangers who have experienced the same rollercoaster of emotions. The sisterhood of breast cancer survivors is inspiring. I am truly blessed. On Tuesday I will have an operation and within a few days will know more about the future. I am hopeful for a bright future and a "normal" life (well, scratch the "normal" part). Anyway, people have gone through much worse, and I know I'll obliterate this. I am thanking you in advance for your prayers. You are my family. And remember, I'll be back sooner than you think.

She is pictured above with her brand new fiancee (total hottie), Jimmy. Tons of prayers are needed so please include her in yours today.

I remember the day I first listened to her. It was the week of the State of the Union and it was the day after the Swimmer (aka Ted Kennedy) gave his "What Democrats Are for" speech.

She began playing everything he listed and had the sound of a cash register ringing every time he listed another program. It was hilarious. I listen to her every morning, and then again on my iPaq on the way home. She also provided the best coverage of the Terri Schiavo murder. She had me in tears the day she died sitting here at my desk. She is no Rush--she's something completely different and should be listened to daily.

Posted by Aaron at 09:33 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Caving or Olive Branch?

The talk on the internet this evening is that Frist and Reid are talking about a compromise on Judicial nominees. The skinny is that the Democrats will allow TWO of the TEN appeal's court judges through.

I believe that the Democrats realize that this rule change is NOT something they can leverage in 2006. Once the rule is changed and the judges are confirmed--that's it. Roe v. Wade will not be overtuned and, therefore, all the end-of-the-world talk from Moveon.org and their pawns in congress (read: 90 percent of the Democrats) predicted will not come true.

Moreover, the PR battle is one the Democrats will lose over time. Similar to the Terri Schiavo case, the more poeple know about the circumstances, the less inclined they are to support the Democratic position.

What do you think?

Posted by Aaron at 09:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Caption Contest

Posted by Aaron at 03:07 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

WHATABOUTERY

Gay activist's now have hard-on for Micro-soft: Hilarious photo with this post! 10-FIGURE FEARS: After "a number of threats on his life," Gates has hired a cadre of bodyguards. ... The threats have escalated since Microsoft unexpectedly pulled its support for a major gay rights bill before Congress.

Beckhams' golden image 'a sham': Affairs and fights and a split? Oh, MY! My world is, like, totally shattered. (sniff sniff)

Maureen Dowd Officially Becomes A Parody Of Herself: (See, by making that crack I'm proving I can be a NYT columnist - all it takes is being petty, mean-spirited, ill-informed and call others by cute little descriptive names).

The Bandwidth Beast Red Meat and Chew Stick Fund: The Beast now wants a bright yellow slobber ball

Celebrity Environmentalists: Do I have to point out that taking a poo in the woods is not environmentally sound, or sanitary? But then this is not about environmentally sound policies.

Kelly Brook is getting married: Anytime a dude is trying to get married to a girl right away, it's not cause he's giddy in love and his heart is filled with rainbows, it's cause he knows that the girl is way out of his league and he can only keep tricking her for so long.

Females may hyperventilate while males may cringe: All I can say is WATCH THE VIDEO!

Posted by kitty at 01:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Government Subsidizing of Rich Socialists

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Billionaire George Soros needs your cash! According to Jeff Johnson at CNSNews.com,

The Open Society Institute, a private foundation controlled by liberal billionaire and political activist George Soros, received more than $30 million from U.S. government agencies between 1998 and 2003. Last year, Soros donated at least $20 million of his own money to such liberal groups as Moveon.org, in a failed attempt to block the re-election of President George W. Bush.

2003 - $8,889,802

So Soros could throw $20 million away on last year's election, but can't fund his own group, depending instead on government handouts? But that's the socialist mindset for you. Don't people like Soros believe in taking the money from the rich to give to the poor? So why is his group receiving millions of dollars when he could fund the whole thing himself? I'm sure the answer will be an interesting one.

That's your tax money and mine going toward a man with more money than some countries so he can spread his ideology around, whether we agree with it or not. Make sense? No, I didn't think so.

Oh, did I mention the aforementioned OSI also funded the defense for convicted terrorist-aide (and sweet granny lady) Lynne Stewart?

If you want to register your displeasure, contact the State Department here and/or USAID here.

Sheesh.

Posted by at 12:58 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

DO I HEAR AN AMEN?

Posted by kitty at 12:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

RECALLING CLINTON'S COMPASSION

A Painful Anniversary
The Associated Press has just reported that in commemoration of Cuba's victory in the tug-of-war over Elian's fate, on April 22, 2005, he addressed a crowd of thousands...thanking Cubans and Americans alike for fighting for his return to the island. 'I want to thank everyone who made my dream of being a free boy come true,' said Elian, whose speech prompted enthusiastic applause from the crowd.
...
It has now been five long years since Elian was "reunited" with his grandparents, father, and other relatives. How is he doing? A Castro-friendly article by Vanessa Bauza bylined Cardenas, Cuba recently reported that Elian has finished psychotherapy (read: reeducation). "[T]o help him cope with the stress of his ordeal, several plainclothes security officers are stationed in front of Elians home to keep strangers from gettingtoo close." (Read: to prevent interviews with unfriendly journalists). In a perverse consequence of that family reunification, "Castro takes a special interest in [Elian's] schooling." Indeed, Elian's father -- a waiter who somehow was elected to the Communist National Assembly -- "is often seen in the front row of government-organized rallies," (read: propaganda tools) "sometimes accompanied by Elian." As the Associated Press reported yesterday, Elian has been trotted out by Castro's PR machine to laud the Communist dictator and his tyrannical regime.

Posted by kitty at 11:34 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Krugman, Man of the People

He finds a poll that he likes:

Yet two-thirds of Americans polled by Gallup say that the economy is "only fair" or "poor." And only 33 percent of those polled believe the economy is improving, while 59 percent think it's getting worse.

How good are they at interpreting the state of the economy? Not terribly good, as Krugman admits here:

As a recent report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, over the last three years profits grew at an annual rate of 14.5 percent after inflation, the fastest growth since World War II.

Well, fastest profits growth since World War II? Break out the champagne, eh? If only our Social Security funds had been invested in the stock market must be his next point, right?

Uh, no. He goes on to claim that personal incomes have been rising tepidly.

The story is very different for the great majority of Americans, who live off their wages, not dividends or capital gains, and aren't doing well at all. Over the past three years, wage and salary income grew less than in any other postwar recovery - less than a tenth as fast as profits.

Omigosh, the economy has been in recovery for the last three years? Somebody tell Paul Krugman, who has been beating the drum night and day over that time period, telling us we were heading for the famed "double-dip" recession.

Posted by pat at 10:10 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Why Term Limits?

Paul Jacob asks the question:

How stupid do politicians think we are?

How stupid do politicians think they are?

It seems politicos in Florida are chafing at the term limits imposed upon them by the public...the people they are supposed to serve...and are putting a referendum up for vote that would weaken those term limits.

They're using all of the usual reasons: eight years just isn't enough to learn all of the ins and outs of politics, blah, blah, blah.

Jacob makes the case for term limits quite simply:

Term limits make sense because they would force reforms to break up patterns of power that are most likely to lead to corruption both subtle and blatant. Unlimited terms beget legislator miseducation. (That's what I've argued for years in my Common Sense e-letter, and in states around the country.)

The presidency has term limits in place for that very reason...being in power too long makes the chances of abuse of that power too great.

It's great to know that Florida has those term limits in place for their own legislature. More states should follow suit. And then, we as a country should follow suit with Congress. Senators who have been senators for forty years really just need to get the heck out of Dodge.

Posted by at 09:21 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Miss America...Survivor Style?

The Miss America pageant is in need of a tremendous boost. Gone are the days when goody-two-shoes young misses with fabulous smiles in modest-yet-sexy swimwear could titillate audiences in the blink of an eye.

According to the San Francisco Gate, only 9.8 million people tuned in last fall on ABC, which then jettisoned the pageant. For the first time in 50 years it's without a television station to broadcast it, and officials are scrambling for a fix.

Whether the pageant is ready to resort to "Fear Factor"-inspired gross-outs, "Survivor"-style conniving or week-to-week eliminations a la "American Idol" remains to be seen. If the fates of rival Miss USA are any indication, though, future contestants may need strong stomachs more than singing ability.

Let's see...finalists could be chosen from those who didn't vomit after eating bat guano. Or perhaps a physical challenge such as a relay race while climbing a rock wall could help narrow the field. Wait, wait, the one who waits longest to scream after being dangled over a pit of hungry crocodiles could be the next Miss America! "Here she comes..."

The problem is, Miss America may have seen its day. Women in swimsuits competing for scholarship money used to be exciting TV. (Remember how I Dream of Jeannie's Barbara Eden wasn't allowed to show her belly button while wearing her genie ensemble because it was considered too risque?)

There are so many more choices on television these days. While the quality certainly can be debated, what can't be argued with is that audiences have become used to more and more "shock value" shows. Shows like (the now-defunct) Jackass, Survivor, Fear Factor and others are known for their dangerous stunts and disgusting eating contests. Even the more mild reality shows such as the Apprentice and American Idol use some degree of humiliation in order to boost ratings. Imgaine being "fired" on television by business icon Donald Trump or being told your singing sucks by record producer Simon Cowle (in that oh-so-posh British accent of his).

Shows that don't fit the reality genre are also raising the bar (or lowering it, depending on your point of view) as far as shock value. Desperate Houswives follows the sexual (mis)adventures of "normal" women living in the suburbs. Sex and the City followed the sexual (mis)adventures of single thirty-somethings in New York City. The popular CSI series make crime detection a lot more graphic than good old Columbo with nasty morgue scenes and "follow the bullet through the body" sequences. And sitcoms rely more on sex-related humor than ever.

Can Miss America survive? Who knows? I'll personally be surprised if it is still around in five years. Of course, if it became Miss Deformed America, featuring women with either congenital or accident-induced deformities performing death-defying stunts, maybe it'll have a chance.

Welcome to the modern Roman Coliseum, otherwise known as American television...where the masses demand more and more outrageous entertainment to mollify them.

Posted by at 10:46 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Kristof Has Nothing Better To Do?

Nobody hits a homer every time up to bat, but this is a strikeout swinging at a pitch above the eyeballs.

Kristof tackles the all-important question of "Why isn't Hollywood doing more films about love between a black man and a white woman?"

My guess is because it's trite and hackneyed, but not Kristof. No! He's convinced Hollywood is "too craven to imitate life". Can you imagine that? Never mind that Hollywood did films about black/white romance in the late 1960s when there was quite a bit of controversy over the topic.

The problem seems twofold. Black/white romance isn't too edgy for Hollywood; it's not edgy enough. It's not edgy enough to sustain a picture, but at the same time it's not so common that the filmmaker can treat it as just another romance. So it requires more detail than a simple romance between people of the same color.

And second, black/white romance may be more controversial among blacks than it is among whites, especially black men dating white women. Kristof gives one fact that hints why:

As of the 2000 census, 6 percent of married black men had a white wife, and 3 percent of married black women had a white husband....

It's not hard to see that black men marry white women far more often than white men marry black women. This means that the net effect of interracial marriage has been fewer potential husbands for the vast majority of black women who would prefer to marry a black man.

Posted by pat at 10:45 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

A Special Post for Christians

Today, churches all over the USA are participating in