The Bible: A Wonderful Work of Fiction

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

I suppose this is the inevitable outcome of subordinating scriptural truth to cherished tradition. When the words of men matter more than the Word of God, such a conclusion comes as no surprise.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

The linked article is a slanted, dishonest screed. It's instructional, though, about how much of the world views Christian history and teaching. Galileo was not branded a heretic for shunning a belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible. It's a complete crock. Galileo was a devout follower of Christ who never wavered in his beliefs. He was castigated because he challenged the absolute authority of the Catholic Church. That, and he was a pretty combative guy, to boot.

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

It's hilarious how the definition of "tolerance" has been degraded. It used to entail the allowance of diverging viewpoints. Now, apparently, it means the embracing of all views as equally valid. All views, that is, except that which insists on biblical inerrancy.

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

I would think the similarity of Genesis to the creation accounts of other cultures bolsters its historical credibility, not vice versa. I've never understood the concept of picking and choosing which passages to believe, and which to reject. How does one make that distinction?

Here are a couple of passage-examples now considered untrue by these "scholars and theologians:"

Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Exodus xx,1-17
The Ten Commandments

Matthew v,7
The Sermon on the Mount

Luke i
The Virgin Birth

John xx,28
Proof of bodily resurrection

If these aren't true, why not be forthright and just state your actual position: the Bible is bunk, from cover to cover!


UPDATE!


It seems I made a boo-boo, folks. Perhaps I should work on my reading comprehension. A word of advice: don't blog angry. I usually try to be careful about getting my facts straight.

Turns out, all the scripture examples I gave at the end of the post--except for the first one--fell under the TRUE column, not the UNTRUE one. So, the situation isn't quite as bad as it might be. But I stand by the rest of this post, and I think my points are valid.

Rejecting scripture in favor of Man's pontifications is a dangerous, foolish thing. The description of Galileo's run-in with the Catholic Church still is just as wrong.

Much appreciation goes to TOTAL 1087 for catching my error.

Being Inoffensive

British officials are worried that the English flag might offend some Muslims:

Prison officials in Britain are concerned that tie pins worn by officers featuring the St. George's Cross – the symbol on England's flag – could offend Muslims who might associate it with the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries.

The red cross is an insensitive reminder of the Crusades, said Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding.

Doyle thinks England needs to find a new flag and patron saint "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."

"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.

What an idiot. Who cares what they think? Are we supposed to coddle them in their ignorance? I have no sympathy for someone who is too lazy and/or stupid to study up on Islam's clash with Western civilization. A lot of Muslims and Arabs also believe that Islam should dominate the entire planet. Does that mean we should bare our throats and let them grind their heels in our necks, while we cower in the dirt?

Everything offends somebody, somewhere. At what point do we finally break down and say: "You're offended? Guess what? That's too bad. You have no right to be offended. Your people were waging unprovoked war against ours for over 460 years, before our people finally counterattacked. If that offends you, you know what you can do with your bruised sensibilities. I'm so fed up with this pc drivel about Islam and Muslims. This is the most bloodthirsty, demonic, violent religion on the face of the earth. Its adherents are owed an apology by nobody.

Poverty and Crime

Earlier this evening, I spent about five minutes watching The O'Reilly Factor. I never noticed before, but the show has emetic properties. Is it just me, or does O'Reilly move further left, incrementally, every week or so? Tonight, he made a point of hammering home the ridiculous notion that poverty causes crime, with all the subtlety of a bull on skates in a china shop. This absurd conclusion needs cauterizing immediately, before what passes as intellectual discourse in this country hemmorhages to death.

His "thought process" went something like this: Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, given their numbers. Most blacks are poor. Ergo, poverty cultivates crime like hippies breed lice. This is a familiar, shoddy mentality utilized by self-styled black "leaders" in their explanations of the high rate of black incarcerations. Disproportionate numbers of blacks languish in prison or jail, therefore, honkeys hate homeys. Besides the explicit assumption in this viewpoint that white=racist (a racist proposition, in and of itself), it is assumed that the mere presence of large numbers of blacks in prison is proof of whitey's racist tendencies. No further evidence required; pass the bong, please.

The facts--always unwelcome intruders in the politically correct realm--remain. During the Great Depression--a time of staggering poverty shared by all subcultures, skin colors, and political stripes--petty crime rates stayed low, relatively speaking. People chose gainful employment of almost any type over pillage and rapine, even at abysmal wages. Presently, most people who fall under the "poor" heading in the United States are not criminals. If poverty breeds crime, shouldn't the opposite be true? Here's another twist of the knife: If poverty elicits criminal behavior, shouldn't wealth instill virtue--or at the very least, legal adherence? Logical consistency demands that the answer is "Yes." But that's not the reality of the situation. Look at the number of movie stars, pro sports figures, musicians, corporate executives, and other celebrities who never balk at the odd illegal foray. It's far from a rare occurence. Examples include Wynonna Rider, Robert Downey, Jr., Mike "I'm Hungry" Tyson, O.J. Simpson, and an accompanying host of scoundrels.

So if poverty doesn't breed crime, you ask, then what does?

I'm glad you popped that question. I think crime stems from viewpoints, mentalities, cultural problems, worldviews--call them what you will. It also emanates from humankind's fallen nature. Sticking with our example above, take black folks. What do you think is more likely--that poverty causes crime, or that the absence of a father--usually the disciplinarian and restraining force within the family--is a common fact of life in the black community? The problem is less extreme but no less real among whites. I think this one factor alone is a horrific strike against a person. Add to this the flames of racial tension, stoked by the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the liberal elite, and you've got yourself a conflagration of misery.

These are cultural problems, not outcomes of one's skin color.

When I said "worldviews, viewpoints, mentalities," etc., I meant our beliefs. Is God real, or just a cardboard cut-out figure in the sky? Does he have expectations for us? Are whites evil racists, or not? Was Jesus' example one we should follow, or shun? Is supporting oneself a government obligation, or an individual responsibility? How one answers these and other questions goes a long way in determining one's future criminal-mindedness.

As for a sinful nature, it is one of the few things we all have in common. This is why crime will never be eradicated fully. If the blight of poverty were scoured from the earth, tomorrow, and every human being plopped down in the lap of luxury, crime still would rear its ugly visage. The reason for this is as heartbreaking as it is simple: When choosing between right and wrong is an option, there always will be those who choose wrong. So even the best circumstances cannot ensure goodness, though they do help.

The notion that poverty opens the door to a criminal life requires a rejection of the biblical characterization of poverty and human nature, in my view. I think I'll stick with scripture over the pontifications of fallible men--particularly when the views-in-question are so easily disproven.

Swearin' About the Swearin'-in

It's official. John Roberts was sworn in as the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Rushing in and providing confusion where only clarity once reigned, President Bush said: "All Americans can be confident that the 17th chief justice of the United States will be prudent in exercising judicial power, firm in defending judicial independence and above all a faithful guardian of the Constitution."

A "faithful guardian of the Constitution?" Please. How can he play that role, when he's already made it clear that he'll be a faithful guardian of Roe v. Wade?

Asked how his Catholic beliefs would influence decisions, he replied, "My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role."

Whew! That's a relief. I was worried that we had a gen-u-ine theocrat on our hands. Now I can simmer down and bask in the rays of enlightened secularism.

Positively Presidential

**I wrote this post yesterday, before I learned about Bush's new SCOTUS nominee, so it's a little dated. Now I have to go and learn about her, so I can find out how much of this is prophetic, and how much is pure bilge. Enjoy!


With John Roberts' position as Chief Justice secured, when asked how he'd go about the process of selecting his new nominee for the Supreme Court, President George Bush waxed eloquent:

"Wal, I believe the only way to be correct--politically speaking--is to be politically correct. Ahm a firm believer in pc values. Jest look at my reaction to the Terri Schiavo case. That's really all ya need to know. And diversity plays a large part in political correctness. As we all know, this is a catch-word for every kind of superficial distinction imaginable. I think it's important, though, to understand that diversity does not--under any circumstances--mean variety in modes of thought, ideas, or perspectives. Many good folks get downright discomblobupated on this point.

"Now, having said all that, I think our next Supreme Court Justice should be a woman. But not jest any woman. Unh-uh. She needs to be a compassionate conservative, like me. Heh heh. She needs to feel the pain of tsunami victims and Hurricane Kakillya looters all across Nawleuhns. It's best if she's a black woman. Who spent at least five years on welfare. Whose son was killed in a driveby shooting. Who received at least one abortion. Who has at least two silver teeth that are visible when she smiles. Now that's diverse. Furthermore, I strongly believe she should have a little Messycin ancestralness. Preferably of illegal immigrant--Oops! Sorry, I meant undocumented--status. See there? Ya almost caught me being politically incorrect. I apologize. I reckon I've been watching too much Fox News, lately. They're awful nice to the House of Saud, ya know.

"Anyhoo, back to diversity. It would be prudent--like my ol' daddy used to say--if she were also a lesbian. Not jest any lesbian, neither. I want a big, old hulking brute, the likes of which would make Bull Connor's thugs piddle in their knickers. And she better have a tattoo, dadgummit. A big ol' tattoo of Karl Marx, etched across her bulging bicep. That'll do the trick. Oh, and she'd best be a practitioner of the Religion of Peace. Even communists love those guys. One more thing: I want a cripple in that office. I want her to have to crutch her way up the steps to work every day, like Tiny Tim in a Darth Vader robe. If she needs a wheelchair, we'll put in a ramp at taxpayer suspense. An eyepatch would also carry a lot of charm. Remember Long John Silver? That's what I'm talking 'bout.

As far as ideology goes, I want her to give great respect to Charmin bathroom tissue. That stuff jest don't chafe like the Constitution. I learned that from experience. And what a court said five years ago is far more important than what the Constitution says. Who cares about the outmoded views of some dead white slaver, anyway? YaknowwhatImean? I want her to be sensitive to euthanasia--that's a continent by the way--and accept the dictates of the UN and international law. I also want her to love Jesus, like I do. Don't worry, there ain't no conflict between Him and Allah. He's a big believer in diversity, too. Christianity's important, y'all. Jest as long as you keep it locked up tighter'n a nun's habit, in a little box in the back of a deep closet, at home. But on the bench, she needs to be a stern advocate of godlessness. I mean I expect the kind of secularism that would make Lenin click his heels and sing the Revolution's anthem out of pure joy.

"One last prerekasnit: Her pronuncilation of the word must be "nook-yuh-luhr." I won't except no stubstistustions. Ain't nobuddy one-upping my elocrouton."

Patriotism Quotes

A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.--George William Curtis

Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.--Sydney J. Harris

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.--Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Decisions, Decisions

Mr. Bush now has the unenviable task of choosing another nominee for the Supreme Joke that is SCOTUS.

Perhaps he'll cave in to pc pressure and choose a mannish, spinster leftist lunatic for the position.

Oh, wait. That role's already been filled. Sorry.

Feminism in Action

Iraq's first female mobile bomb detonates.

See? Women can do anything that men do.

More Good News About Adult Stem-Cells

In an apparent major breakthrough, scientists in Korea report using umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal-cord injury patient.

The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cythotherapy, centered on a woman who had been a paraplegic 19 years due to an accident.

After an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells, stunning results were recorded:

"The patient could move her hips and feel her hip skin on day 15 after transplantation. On day 25 after transplantation her feet responded to stimulation."

The report said motor activity was noticed on day 7, and the woman was able to maintain an upright position on day 13. Fifteen days after surgery, she began to elevate both lower legs about one centimeter.

The study's abstract says not only did the patient regain feeling, but 41 days after stem cell transplantation, testing "also showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the injured cite" and below it.

The scientists conclude the transplantation "could be a good treatment method" for paraplegic patients.

I love reading stories like this. Sometimes we get bogged down in all the societal decay, so it's nice hearing about positive medical advances. Isn't it great when someone's quality-of-life is improved, using methods that don't require the harvesting and destruction of embryos? Not that such an act has ever yielded positive results, in the first place, but it's a pleasant departure from the norm.

Thomas Jefferson on the Judiciary

The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. (1820)

...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. When all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. (1821)

The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.

...judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune; but it saves the Republic...

To Follow, or Not to Follow?

We had a conversation a few days ago that touched on the concept of following legal precedent in SCOTUS cases. The case-in-point was Roe v. Wade. I thought I'd supplement that with a few more thoughts.

Adhering to legal precedent is a great idea, if the past court decisions-in-question are constitutionally sound. If not, then the concept simply creates a mechanism for the self-perpetuation of unconstitutionality. This seems so obvious to me, I'm not sure that I understand from whence disagreement comes.

If SCOTUS makes an unconstitutional ruling, it is null and void from its inception. How is the practice of abiding by such rulings honorable?

I've heard a counter-argument that goes something like this: "Well, you can't have courts regularly overturning decisions, simply because they don't like the verdicts." But of course, this in no way addresses the issue. It's not about a difference of opinion. It's not about what makes us feel all warm and snuggly inside, and what doesn't. I submit that disagreeing with someone's opinion is a far cry from finding a decision in violation of our founding document.

If SCOTUS can act with impunity in its decision-making process, only to be followed in lock-step by future court findings, this carves out a troubled path that leads straight into the hell of totalitarianism.

That's not a precedent I want to follow.

Racist Gringos

Apparently, abiding by the laws of this country is racism:

A 3-year-old policy by Greyhound Lines Inc. warning employees that they could be arrested or fired for selling bus tickets to anyone they know or believe is an undocumented immigrant is discriminatory and invites racial profiling, several local and national Latino advocacy groups say.

Here's the quote that busts the pinata:

"The whole policy screams out discrimination," said John Trasviña, senior vice president for law and policy at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. "It puts a lot of pressure on employees to go overboard and exclude undocumented immigrants when there is no legal reason to do so."

Huh? Have you eaten one-too-many tequila worms? The legal reason is that illegal immigration is--according to my dictionary's definition of the term--well, illegal, dummy!

The company transports 22 million passengers a year. It has denied tickets only a few times.

The policy was revised in 2002 after Golden State Transportation was indicted on charges of conspiring with smugglers to illegally transport thousands of undocumented immigrants to destinations throughout the country, including Arizona. The company was fined $3 million in 2004. The company was operated by a subsidiary of Greyhound.

The company says undocumented immigrants are recognizable by certain characteristics: large groups of people traveling together, led by a "guide, and guides holding tickets without giving them to passengers."

I believe many of these pro-Mexican and pro-immigrant organizations are actively engaging in subversion of the law and attempting a sea-change in the culture, an incremental drift toward something other than the American ideal. Think I'm delusional? Then ask yourself these questions: Why aren't such organizations spending their considerable bankrolls and time fighting illegal immigration and lauding and encouraging legal immigration. Why are they making concentrated efforts at working against assimilation, through methods such as bilingual education and constant accusations of racism?

It is this slow transformation in the culture over decades that I fear far more than any terrorist group, like Al Killya. This coupled with an abysmal "education" system mass produces a populace full of those who have no loyalty to the American concept--no idea what it means, and no desire to learn it.

Where do we go from there, I wonder?

This Groan's on Me

How many Marxists does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. The lightbulb contains the seeds of its own revolution.

Today's Axiom

A penny saved is a government oversight.

Differences Among the Elect

A friend from blogdom sent me this article, and though I don't agree with most of it, it is an interesting read and one deserving of commentary. A quick disclaimer: This post is a critique of the article-in-question, and its author's assertions. It is not a criticism of anyone who frequents my blog. So please don't take my comments as a personal attack, since that's not how I intend them.

The Far Left and Far Right are essentially anti-establishment mentalities

I agree, as long as the term "Far Right" is limited to anarchists.

The Far Left, the intelligentsia asserted that the United States deserved these murderous attacks. After all, we are an unrighteous nation: we arrogantly and triumphalistically meddle in other nation's affairs; we employ military might with selfish motives; we rape the environment; we violate human rights by imposing the death penalty; we discriminate against homosexuals, women, and minorities; we exploit workers by keeping wages low; we bring religious views into the public square; we dismantle legal protection for "women's right to choose"; we act unilaterally in world affairs by spurning the opinions of other nations; we disseminate our materialistic decadence by means of large, multinational corporations; and on and on. To hear the Far Left tell it, at 9-11 we got our comeuppance from "freedom fighters" weary of America's exploitation of the rest of the world. Indeed, among the Far Left, there seems to be an insufficiently suppressed glee at America's tragedy.

Remarkably, the response on the Far Right was somewhat similar. Among some Christians, there was zealous, undisciplined talk of 9-11's being "God's judgment on America." For what? Well, let them count the ways: our "idolatry" in insufficiently opposing Islam and Orthodox Judaism; our butchering of unborn children; our relaxation of sexual standards culminating in the legalization of homosexual "marriage" in some quarters; our unjust laws of taxation; our laxity toward pornography, profanity, and violence in Hollywood on network and cable TV; our "free trade" legislation by which we allow cheap imports to subvert jobs of hard-working Americans; our socialistic government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; and so forth. The toppling of the World Trade Center and the incision of the Pentagon were patent acts of God's judgment against a rebellious and apostate nation, according to the denizens of the Far Right.

I don't see the views of the Left and Right as synonymous, as this author does. For one, the Left's agenda entails destroying everything this nation stands for and sowing its foundation with salt. Most of its hysteria is directed toward that end, and there is little or no merit in its condemnations. This cannot be said of most Right-wingers.

As for the Right's elucidation on why 9/11 happened, I think it is the height of arrogance to make many of these connections. No one knows the mind of God in totality, and suggesting that He is behind these atrocities is offering speculation dressed as fact. But I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that there is at least a biblical basis--however tenuous--for these claims. Time and time again, scripture reveals that nations engaged in God's will were protected by His hedge of safety, and nations that laughed Him to scorn suffered the consequences of their mockery. Israel is the best example, but it is by no means the only one. And whereas the Left's assertions that we rape the environment and infringe upon a woman's right to murder her unborn child are baseless and morally putrid, concerns over homosexual marriage and its public acceptance, unrestricted abortion, and confiscatory taxes are legitimate areas of outrage.

The Founders were profound, experienced men (all influenced by the Bible and Christianity). . .They believed in the sin and corruption of the human heart and therefore resisted the consolidation of political power, creating checks and balances. They believed that God made men to be free, and thus held that government's rationale is to secure individual liberty. They believed that the government should be represented by a wide body of the populace, and consequently they established a form of democracy. . .In forming a national legislature, they gave equal weight to both population representation (House of Representatives) and states' representation (Senate). . .They were unflagging advocates of religious liberty.

This is a very accurate description of the Founders' efforts and intentions. But it's my thesis that all of these aspects of America which make her great are in grave danger of being annihilated. It is the efforts of those in government and other power bases to subvert every one of these cherished ideals that leads to criticism from Right-wingers, such as myself. Unfortunately, the piece doesn't address this facet of the situation, which I find strange.

In expressing a patriotic spirit, Christians are at the least acknowledging the basic soundness of our system of government.

True, as long as one is clear on his definition of patriotism. Patriotism is a love of one's country and people, and the ideals for which they stand. But it is not defined as slavish devotion to wrongheadedness, constitutional degradation, administrative expediency, or a political party.

Peter exhorts his readers that they pray for their civil magistrates, who should act in such a way that Christians can live quietly and peaceably (1 Tim. 2:2).

This is the most accurate statement in the article. All of us should pray for our leaders in positions of power--whether we like them or not, whether we agree with them or not. Though I've done so in the past, this is one of my great failings. I haven't spent nearly enough time on my knees, asking God to help our leaders and inspire them to do what is right. It's a valid point, and a good reminder for correcting my mistake.

Christians have been virtually unmolested in their efforts to evangelize unbelievers, build churches, and train their children in the Faith.

This, on the other hand, is patent nonsense. It may be true in relation to Communist China or Soviet Russia, but in terms of contemporary American life, it's willful blindness. Entire volumes have been written demonstrating the falsehood of this claim. Persecution, by David Limbaugh, is only one of numerous books entailing the encroaching tide against Christianity in this country, carried out or aided and abetted by the government. And the problem worsens, as we speak. Citing specifics in this area is a topic for another time.

libertarians can complain that it is not possible for a president to be elected until he has made his religious views plain, so important has religion (notably Christianity) become in the public realm.

Of course, this bears no relation to actual religious devotion or sincerity. Bill Clinton exemplifies this. Yes, he talked about God and attended church. He also was a rabid womanizer and committed adultery repeatedly and unrepentantly. Phony religious zeal has zero importance or relevance, to me. I'm interested in reality, not a facade.

Some of the leading books of the New York Times list are either explicitly Christian (The Purpose-Driven Life) or ardently conservative (Bill O'Reilly, etc.).

This is somewhat embarrassing. If the author can't get his facts straight in so small a matter, why should we accept his larger points and statistics? I might call Bill O'Reilly a lot of things (some of them in a whisper, in polite company), but an "ardent conservative" isn't among them. I wonder if the author watches Bill's show, or has read his books and columns. I have.

If God were willing to spare Sodom over simply a few faithful folks, an adversarial view by Christians toward the United States, with its widespread and burgeoning Christian testimony, is surely counterproductive.

Apples and oranges, I think. God spared these cities because Abraham--a man who was not a citizen of either city--begged him to do so. And how long did they last after Lot and his family left? There's little substance in this assumption.

Our nation suffers from deep spiritual problems, but those problems are just one portion of a rather diverse moral picture. Any responsible Christian evaluation must take into account all of these factors, not just some of them.

I agree, but apparently my acknowledgment of these problems makes me an anti-patriot, unless I recant and speak of them only in the most saccharine terms imaginable.

A family, a church, and a nation may be less than perfect--far less than perfect--and still deserve our respect and loyalty. Patriotism is allegiance to a country, its ideals, and its citizens.

And Christians here have not surrendered their allegiance to Jesus Christ when they maintain patriotism toward the United States.

True. But I want to reiterate my words in a slightly different way. It may be argued convincingly that someone who points out serious, abiding problems in his nation's governing bodies and rejects them is more of a patriot than someone who goes along with the government's smoke and mirrors, uncritically accepting every violation of all that we hold dear as a country and a people. Questioning the patriotism of someone in legitimate, genuine distress over the country's direction is a refuge of the intellectually lazy or obtuse.

The Devil Went Down to Nawleuhns

The Devil went down to Nawleuhns
She was looking for a photo-op.
She had big plans for '08,
And she needed a
Sad backdrop.

When she came upon a looter selling stereos that were hot
She jumped up on a cypress stump and said
"Boy, let me tell you what.

I bet you didn't know it,
But I'm running for president
And all the little people
think I'm Heaven-sent.
I know Tha Man has got you down,
But give the Devil her due,
I'll bet a motorboat against your vote,
'Cause I think I'm better than you."

The punk said "My name's Tyrone,
And it might be a sin,
But I don't care, I needs wellfare,
So, for me its win/win."

Tyrone git yo butt in gear an' sell them stolen goods
'Cause hell's broke loose in Nawleuhns
An' it's overrun with hoods.
An' if you win you'll simplify your crime-spree with a boat,
But if you lose, the Devil gets your vote.

The Devil grinned like a slit-eyed snake
An said "I'll start this show."
Then she reached inside her pantsuit and
Pulled out The Communist Manifesto.
When the boy rolled his eyes,
She spat out an evil hiss,
Then a band of demons joined in,
And it sounded something like this

(eerie music)

Here come the Guardsmen, run boys run.
Devil's in the house of the rising sun.
Chicken's in the squad car picking his nose.
Sean Penn's bailing, down he goes.

The Devil bowed her head
because she knew that she'd been beat
And she laid that nice new motorboat
On the ground at Tyrone's feet.
Tyrone said "Devil just come on back
If ya ever wanna try again.
I done told ya oncet
You mean ol' bat,
Either way for me's win/win."


With apologies to Charlie Daniels and my readers. I just couldn't resist.

The Emotional Atheist

“I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”
– Isaac Asimov, Free Inquiry 2(2):9, 1982.

Asimov was a great short story author and novelist; but apparently not a brilliant philosopher. If I was going to make a deduction of such earth-shattering importance, I believe I'd base it on more than the whims of emotion. Put simply, if there is no God, one has nothing to worry about. But if there is--as I believe--I sure wouldn't want to stand in front of Him, some day, and admit: "Well, disbelieving in Your existence was so emotionally satisfying."

I don't think that'll cut it.

Hitting the Nail on the Head

From Vox's column, today:

They have redefined conservatism to be the actions of one known as a conservative, so the individual is no longer defined by his ideology, the ideology is defined by the individual.

The whole article's worth a look.

Bill, you should read it as a form of penance, if for no other reason.

John Roberts: The Man for the Job?

Here's a quote from an AP article in my local newspaper, from a few days ago:

"The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways," Roberts said at one point. Hours later, he said he agreed with a 38-yr.-old high court ruling in a case involving contraceptives for married couples, a decision often cited as the underpinning for abortion rights.

He said that if confronted w/ an abortion case--as seems likely in the high court's upcoming term--he would give full weight to the precedent of the landmark ruling that established a woman's right to end her pregnancy.

"The legal principle of "stare decisis" requires that, he said--but he also said that the same principle allows past rulings to be overturned.

The final paragraph above essentially contradicts the one just before it. "Stare decisis" is the legal principle of following precedent in court rulings. Yes, it does facilitate overturning bad precedent, but how will this happen under Roberts' watch, when he's made it clear that he will follow precedent? His commentary is pure gobbledygook.

This, coupled with his pro homo--er, I mean, pro bono--work for a homosexual lobbying group in his lawyering days is a red flag, for me.

This nomination process for SCOTUS Chief Justice says even more about George Bush than it does Roberts. The President could've chosen almost anyone for this appointment--a stout constitutional constructionist who plans following the Founders' intentions, for example. But I suppose we'll have to settle for a man who won't rock the boat, and who will not defend the pro-baby position.

That's one reason why I'm no longer a Republican. I became tired of "settling for" things.

For Lord Of the Rings Fans

I received this in an email. It gave me a pretty good chuckle:


Things to Do When Seeing The Lord of the Rings:


Block the entrance to the theater while screaming, "YOU.....SHALL....NOT..... PASS!"

Finish off every one of Elrond's lines with "Mis..ter Ander-sonnn."

Talk like Gollum all through the movie. At the end, bite off someone's finger and fall down the stairs.

Dress up as old ladies and reenact "The Battle of Helms Deep," Monty Python style.

In TTT when the Ents decide to march to war, stand up and shout, "RUN FOREST, RUN!"

Every time someone kills an Orc, yell: "That's what I'm Tolkien about!"

Release a jar of daddy-long-legs into the theater during the Shelob scene.

When Shelob comes on, exclaim, "Man! Charlotte's really let herself go!"

Bless You, Thomas Sowell

Now here's a man who makes sense:

"Immigration has joined the long list of subjects on which it is taboo to talk sense in plain English. At the heart of much confusion about immigration is the notion that we 'need' immigrants—legal or illegal—to do work that Americans won't do. What we 'need' depends on what it costs and what we are willing to pay. If I were a billionaire, I might 'need' my own private jet. But I can remember a time when my family didn't even 'need' electricity. Leaving prices out of the picture is probably the source of more fallacies in economics than any other single misconception. At current wages for low-level jobs and current levels of welfare, there are indeed many jobs that Americans will not take. The fact that immigrants—and especially illegal immigrants—will take those jobs is the very reason the wage levels will not rise enough to attract Americans. This is not rocket science. It is elementary supply and demand. Yet we continue to hear about the 'need' for immigrants to do jobs that Americans will not do—even though these are all jobs that Americans have done for generations before mass illegal immigration became a way of life." —Thomas Sowell

For all those wearing "Aztlan Forever" t-shirts, I'm sorry for the pain this must have caused you. Carry on, muchachos.

Sean Penn: Strike Two

Sean Penn's doing wonders in cultivating his whole self-enraptured-cretin image.

From The Federalist Patriot:

Penn attended a 10,000-man rally, where worshippers chanted "Death to America." To our relief, he notes, "the call is related to American foreign policy and does not intend to target the death of the American people." (Well, then—let's bring the troops home.)

Apparently, Penn was bitten by a mosquito carrying the West Hollywood Virus, in Nawleuhns. Of course, if their problem is with America's foreign policy, why aren't they chanting, "Death to America's foreign policy!"?

I suppose he'd also have us believe that September 11 was just a little chastisement for being naughty, or maybe a love-tap. Please. Isn't it funny how celebrity somehow makes one an expert in matters one previously knew nothing about? I wish Penn and the other demigods of celluloid would shut up.

Or go live in Iran. Yes, that's even better.

Giving Himself a Pass

Mayor Nagin of Nawleuhns sloughs off any responsibility for not adequately transporting people out of the hurricane's crosshairs:

In an interview with Tim Russert, Nagin gave the explanatory equivalent of a shrug, when he said:

"I think I did everything possible known to any mayor in the country as it relates to saving lives."

What a crock.

"Sure, there was lots of buses out there," Nagin said. "But guess what? You can't find drivers that would stay behind with a Category 5 hurricane, you know, pending down on New Orleans. We barely got enough drivers to move people on Sunday, or Saturday and Sunday, to move them to the Superdome. We barely had enough drivers for that. So sure, we had the assets, but the drivers just weren't available."

In a city this size, you couldn't find enough people to drive buses? I seriously doubt that's true. In fact, I doubt you even tried.

The planning was always in getting people to higher ground, getting them to safety, said Nagin.

Mr. Mayor, you didn't even pull that off. Since city disaster plans called for the busing of people before the tragedy struck, why is it that mass busing didn't begin until after the storm's devastation? I'm sure we'll get a coherent, comprehensive answer to that one real soon, won't we, Mayor? About the same time we find out what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.

Russert also quoted previous statements from Nagin about alleged racism delaying response, as Nagin had said, "[t]he more I think about it, definitely race played into this. If it's race, fine, let's call a spade a spade, a diamond a diamond. We can never let this happen again. Even if you hate black people and you are in a leadership position, this did not help anybody."

And what evidence does he offer in support of his absurd conclusion? Absolutely nothing. Racism is inherent in the system, so supplying proof of its existence is unneccesary. Oh, how this must simplify life for those who view the world through racial lenses.

I have some questions for the race-baiters: Is it racism for you to bring hatred for black people into the situation as an explanation for inadequate emergency measures taken? Is it racism for you to suggest that white people--including the president--have no concern for the fates of black people? And all this without the slightest shred of proof to bolster your theory?

The only involvement of race in this equation is the race to be the first to blame Bush for the methods used in handling the storm's aftermath. The entire linked article above is an exercise in political sleight-of-hand and plausible deniability. This guy even gives politicians a bad name; and as we all know, that takes herculean effort.

Everybody Needs a Scapegoat

Michael Brown, director of FEMA (Federal Emergency Mismanagement Agency) resigned, today. I don't agree with his organization turning away people who went to help storm victims in New Orleans. But isn't it obvious that this is just the government's way of deflecting criticism and putting up a facade of "getting things done?" As most of us already know, it's not the federal government's job to be the country's wet-nurse.

September 11

Another anniversary of this horrific atrocity has come. It's hard to believe that four years have passed since that day. Time sure flies. Looking at it one way, it seems like yesterday. And yet so much has happened in the interval, it seems like a long time ago, as well. It's really odd how the passage of days and years plays little tricks on your mind.

I hope those who lost family and friends somehow find peace during these dark hours.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.--Matthew 5:4

"Now Thank We All Our God"

Have you sung this hymn in church before? I must admit I never have.

But the story behind it is compelling.

Martin Rinckart (1586-1649) was a Lutheran minister in Eilenburg, Saxony, during the Thirty Years War. Refugees flooded the town as the Swedish army lay seize to its walls. Plague and famine became familiar bed fellows for the citizens. In the seize, over eight hundred homes were obliterated. People died in droves. In fact, over eight thousand perished. Dozens of funerals were performed, each day, putting a terrific physical and psychological strain on local pastors. As pestilence gnawed away at the population, so, too, did the clergy succumb.

All except Martin Rinckart. In the years 1636 and 1637, he was the only remaining pastor. During this time, he performed as many as fifty funerals a day--over four thousand funerals in total. In 1637, his wife became one of the victims, and he presided over her interment, as well.

The occupying general imposed a confiscatory tax on the remaining townfolk, one which they couldn't possibly muster. Rinckart left the relative safety of the city's walls and pled with the general for leniency. The Swedish commander ignored his plea, so Rinckart spoke to some of his followers who had accompanied him, saying: "Come, my children, we can find no mercy with men, let us take refuge with God." They began singing "When in the Hour of Utmost Need."

When the general witnessed this, his heart softened, and he lowered the tax to one-fifteenth of his original demand.

Soon after, in the midst of unremitting tragedy and grief, Martin Rinckart wrote the lyrics to the song "Now Thank We All Our God." It since has crossed denominational lines, and is sung at Thanksgiving, primarily. It was sung at the opening of the Cathedral of Cologne in 1880, at the cornerstone-laying of the Reichstag in Berlin in 1884, at the end of the Boer War in South Africa in 1902, and at other victory celebrations and national events.


Now thank we all our God, with heart and hands and voices,
Who wondrous things has done, in Whom this world rejoices;
Who from our mothers arms has blessed us on our way
With countless gifts of love, and still is ours today.

O may this bounteous God through all our life be near us,
With ever joyful hearts and blessed peace to cheer us;
And keep us in His grace, and guide us when perplexed;
And free us from all ills, in this world and the next!

All praise and thanks to God the Father now be given;
The Son and Him Who reigns with Them in highest Heaven;
The one eternal God, Whom earth and Heaven adore;
For thus it was, is now, and shall be evermore.

Jihad Against the Machine

The Nation of Islam in Los Angeles is calling on the Crips and Bloods street gangs to stop fighting each other – and to unite in a jihad against the LAPD.

That's the essence of a flyer obtained by KFI News and circulated in South Los Angeles, calling on members of two violent street gangs to start a "holy war" against the police department.

It's about time this subversive fifth-column was shut down and lanced like the pustulant boil that it is. I know the LAPD isn't the epitome of virtue and sterling character, but calls for the random murder of police officers goes way over the line. Chalk this up as more fruit borne by the "Religion of Peace."

A Letter

I found this letter to the editor on WorldNetDaily. I think it perfectly characterizes the situation in Louisiana:

I am a retired New Orleans police captain. I now live in another state,
and I hurt for the citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding parishes.
However, the situation that now exists in New Orleans was predictable. We are
now reaping the benefits of a welfare state.

For more years than most can remember, we have been told by those
holding office that they will take care of us. We have provided food, clothing
and shelter to the extent that the recipients became entirely dependent on
government resources to live. They have reached the point that no longer do they
have the knowledge to take care of themselves. They will sit there and drown or
go hungry, and curse the fact that the government has not gotten them out of
this mess.

When it is all said and done, there is but one person who is
responsible for me, and that is me. The responsibility falls to me to take care
of my family, not the government. Society, not government, has an obligation to
provide care and sustenance to those who, because of age or physical impairment
cannot take care of themselves, but able-bodied people who stand around and
complain that no one is doing anything for them deserve whatever the fates cast
in their direction. Life is hard, and you either get tougher or you get washed
away – it is as simple as that.

Politicians will never, ever take care of you – they only want one
thing from you, and that is to stay in power as long as they can. In a situation
like Katrina, they will stand in front of the cameras and microphones and
denigrate everyone above them in government to take the eye off of their
pathetic efforts.

This is a situation that they have created, and now the good citizens
of the area will have to step in and clean up the mess that has been created by
the politicians. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen – there are too
many good people who live in that area for it not to happen. I love the people
of New Orleans and the surrounding parishes, but I despise the politicians –
there are a few good ones there, but most of them are not worth the powder it
would take to send them to the moon.

I just hope that when the area is rebuilt, they stay away from the
massive welfare system they had before – absolutely no good comes from welfare.
It depletes available resources, making it ever more difficult for what passes
as government to respond to the true needs of the community: roads, bridges,
levees, and police and fire protection, sanitation and drinking water.


Robert E. Johnson

Blossoms in the Ruins

The largely untold story of Hurricane Katrina's aftermath is that of Americans pulling together--with no prospect of material gain--and helping their fellow citizens. In the coming weeks, I think we'll hear more uplifting anecdotes of despair transformed into hope. The media's fixation on sensationalizing destruction and death aside, charity's face is shining on the Gulf coast.

For example, the Southern Baptist Convention sent over 1,000 volunteers into New Orleans to help give medical aid and hand out food and water, as needed.

From my own state of Tennessee, the sherriff of Knox County sent helicopters to help in search-and-rescue missions, as well as transportation of water to victims of the storm and the nanny-state mentality. My wife's uncle was called up with the rest of his National Guard contingent, and he's now in the thick of things, helping with relief work and the restoration of order. Shelters have opened for evacuees, and the local university hospital has prepared itself for an influx of patients with specific medical problems--such as the need for kidney dialysis--from Louisiana and other states hit by the hurricane. Clayton Homes has 2,000 single-wide trailers ready for delivery into the coastal area, for use as temporary shelters.

All of this doesn't even include aid sent by individuals, or charitable efforts in other states, all around the country. According to a figure I saw on Fox News, a couple of nights ago, donations to the Red Cross already have exceeded their intake of funds after September 11, 2001.

The point of all this is that the people of Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and Louisiana are getting the help they need. Some deserve it; some do not. But they're getting it, all the same. I think when all is said and done, we'll find that the most significant impact on the victims of this horrific disaster came from the charitable sacrifices of ordinary citizens, not the local, state, or federal governments. If the U.S. is to learn a lesson from this situation, it should be that relying on oneself or one's fellow Americans makes far more sense than leaning on the everlasting beauracracy.

Guardian of the Year

From The Federalist Patriot:

Each year the Florida State Guardianship Association chooses a "Distinguished Guardian of the Year" in recognition of commitment and extraordinary care. Patriot readers will no doubt be shocked -- SHOCKED -- to learn that Michael Schiavo has been selected as this year's recipient. While the association admitted its choice was "controversial," they stressed that "he stuck by [Terri's side]. He didn't walk away." True, he was still there when she finally died at his request, but how does that qualify him for the award? "He was an ordinary guardian who carried out his duties in extraordinary ways," former association president Joan Nelson Hook said. On the contrary, according to Florida Statute 744 for incapacitated wards, his "guardianship" was not law-abiding -- he did not complete the required guardianship training, he limited Terri to a single hospice room for more than five years, did not provide appropriate therapy and did not submit to an annual review of his guardianship report and plan. While Judge Greer would not hear any of these charges, we still believe Schiavo is obviously disqualified for this particular award.

That, my friends, is a classic case of adding insult to injury. Turns my stomach.

Textbook Snafu

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh's show earlier today, as I occasionally do. I switched on just in time to hear him reading verbatim from the emergency management plans of the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans. What struck me as I listened was not that the state and city had no specific plans for a disaster of this magnitude; rather, it was the lack of implementation of those plans. As he read, it became quite clear that the local and state governments considered themselves next in the line of responsibility for the citizenry's welfare--just after the individual citizens, themselves. Strategies for the transportation of those unable to help themselves via city buses were in place. I can't remember all of the specifics, but failure came not from lack of preparation. It came from a lack of will to carry out measures already in place. What a shame and tragedy. Many dead people lie in silent testimony to city, county, and state government inefficiency.

Leaky Vessel

Sean Penn's rescue efforts go awry in New Awleuhns:

Penn had planned to rescue children waylaid by Katrina's flood waters, but apparently forgot to plug a hole in the bottom of the vessel, which began taking water within seconds of its launch.

The actor, known for his political activism, was seen wearing what appeared to be a white flak jacket and frantically bailing water out of the sinking vessel with a red plastic cup.

With the boat loaded with members of Penn's entourage, including a personal photographer, one bystander taunted the actor: "How are you going to get any people in that thing?"

Let's all say it together: Photo-op!

The "Grieving Mother's" Family

From The Federalist Patriot:

The family of Casey Sheehan, an American soldier killed in Iraq in April, 2004, has broken their silence and spoken out against Sheehan's much-publicized mother, Cindy Sheehan, who has undertaken a vocal anti-war protest against President Bush outside Mr. Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch.

The family's statement reads: "The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect." The statement was signed "sincerely" by "Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."

How much air-time has this report received? All I've heard is what a great American Cindy Sheehan is, and how she has a right to freedom of distortion, and how she's a grieving mother, blah, blah, blah.

A Maelstrom of Thoughts

On the Gulf coast, I have compassion and sorrow for the plight of the indigent, the mentally incompetent, the physically disabled, and infants--many of whom had no means of escaping the storm's onslaught. May God watch over, heal, and protect you all.

***

I find that I have less sympathy for those too stupid, too arrogant, or too reliant upon government aid to take appropriate actions for protecting themselves and their families.

***

Does expecting and demanding aid from others for your predicament make sense, when you had the ability and the time to arm yourself against the storm, yet did nothing?

***

If newscasters announced that a storm was headed my way--three days in advance--and suggested that the aftermath would be a "nightmare scenario" (as Brian Wilson on Fox News claimed), I would leave the area temporarily. If I had to pitch a tent by the roadside, I would do so. Whatever it takes to protect one's family, one does.

***

Shooting at helicopters and other rescue vehicles probably is not a prudent choice, if one seeks rescue.

***

It is neither the president's constitutional duty--nor his right--to send $10 billion of taxpayer money as a safety-net for those who gave no thought to their own safety, and made no provision for it--whether disaster strikes New Awleuhns, or New Delhi.

***

Seeing the president--along with Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush-- at a press conference made me want to stand up, pull out my lighter, and chant: "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony."

***

Caring about someone's dire situation, and acting in ways that produce positive effects are not synonymous. Good intentions do not equal good results. Remember the recent tsunami?

***

Earth goddess worshipers: The U. S. is not the only country in the world that uses oil. Did we forget about the one billion-plus people who live in China? Ergo, the U.S. is not evil incarnate. I know the truth hurts when swallowed, but you'll get over it. I promise.

***

If you have a dark complexion, and you feel the need to pillage jewelry stores and banks, brandish guns at rescuers and innocent civilians, and rove about in gangs--understand that this is called living the stereotype.

***

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."-- James Madison (speech in the Virginia constitutional convention, 2 December 1829)

Remember this, the next time you see police joining looters or a government official on tv demanding wads of cash for the Gulf.

***

I strongly support Christian charity. Giving to those in need has a long history in this country, and in Western civilization. But charity cannot be forced. Where there is compulsion, there is no charity.

***

I'll pray for the people of Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi. I hope you will, too.

One of the Worst

Here are some interesting and disturbing facts about major hurricanes in American history, which I found on AOL News.


The Strongest:


Florida Keys, 1935, Category 5
Camille, 1969, Category 5
Andrew, 1992, Category 5


The Costliest:


Andrew, 1992, 26.5 billion
Charlie, 2004, 15 billion
Ivan, 2004, 14.2 billion


The Deadliest:


Galveston, Texas, 1900, 8,000-12,000 killed
Lake Okeechobee, Florida, 1928, 2,500-3,000 killed
Florida Keys, 1935, 408 killed


I could be wrong, but from what I've seen on the news and internet, Katrina probably will live in infamy as one of the worst.

Occam's Razor

William of Occam (Ockham), (1285-1347): Most of us have at least heard his name, even if we have no idea why he's remembered by history. Simply put, he is the formulator of "Occam's Razor," a concept which states that when given two or more possible explanations for something, the simpler possibility with the fewest assumptions involved is correct. Speaking in general terms, I believe he was accurate in constructing this principle.

Scientists and philosophers devoted to the naturalistic paradigm frequently have used this very idea as a whip for flogging notions of a Supreme Being out of their field-of-vision. On a personal level, I've engaged in discussions at Vox's blog, in which this offensive measure has been utilized against my viewpoint.

But how many people are familiar with William of Occam's personal beliefs? How many know that he was a Franciscan monk, and a Christian? How many have read about his theological writings, or his significant influence on Martin Luther? I dare say the answer is few to none. In this era of excising God's influence from history books, and expunging His presence from a nation once built upon Christian ideals, it should come as no surprise that the heartfelt worldviews of many who thought great thoughts in the infancy of science are locked away in dusty tomes, forgotten, neglected.

Some consider his choice of religion irrelevant. I am not numbered among them. For as those of us who have come into close contact with Christians (or are Christians) know, the teachings of Christ do not just affect how we think--but how we act. Understanding this is an integral prerequisite for a comprehensive outlook on the formation of modern science. Clearly, then, the concept of Occam's Razor is not anti-Christian in its essence; otherwise, how did a Christian come to be its originator?

Occam did not see his theory as incompatible with a Christian outlook, and nor should we. He did not intend for it to be used as an anti-God assault vehicle. When the next Darwinist hits you with Occam's Razor, while sitting back and basking in his own brilliance, use this to set him straight.

America's Epitaph?

"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn

Anything for a Story

I've often heard it said that there's a fine line between stupidity and courage. I'm not sure I agree, but I'll grant adherents to that adage that our national media coverage of Hurricane Kakillya is an exercise in one of the two. Amid all the winds of change a-blowin' down in New Awleuhns and other Southern coastal cities, we see daily footage of reporters standing by washed-out roadsides in hip-waders, in hotel parking lots where roofing debris may whip by and crush them any second, or bent nearly double in the driving rain. The slitted eyes, the death grip on the microphone, the weathered slicker buttoned up to their throats--now that takes dedication, or perhaps an adrenaline junkie. Or maybe just good old-fashioned skull-rattling idiocy. When it's raining cats and dogs--nay, Saint Bernards and tigers--you will not find me scaling the tallest tree for a better glimpse of the oncoming tornady that our beloved hurricane du jour just belched forth. Nor will you find me prancing amongst the downed power-lines as they whip back and forth, crackling at me like angry adders. You won't see me holding onto a road sign for dear life, flapping in the wind like a flag unfurled.

What's next? Hanging ten on an onrushing tsunami, for that once-in-a-lifetime chance at getting the perfect shot of a wave crest? Are we incapable of reporting on these devastating wonders of nature from the relatively safe confines of a building or news vehicle? Or is it the possibility of a toetagged reporter that draws our eyes, when Ross' effete whining on a rerun of Friends just doesn't quite do it for us? I suppose ratings are everything, these days, even at the jeopardizing of the newshound's safety.

For those of you sloshing through the gumbo in Louisiana, I wish you the best. I don't understand you, but I hope for your safety. But please remember that you're expected back at the asylum, thirty minutes after Katrina's tantrum abates.

Poor Ol' Shep

It seems that a person trapped by Hurricane Katrina pulled the F-word and disarmed Shepard Smith:

Smith, who was reporting via telephone from the Royal Sonesta Hotel on Bourbon Street in the French Quarter of New Orleans, noted that people were still drinking and gambling at video-game machines as the hurricane was approaching.

When he asked one man what he was doing there at the hotel, the man responded, "None of your f---ing business."

When queried later, Smith assured everyone that he was recovering nicely, though his delicate sensibilities still rung a bit.

A Serious Threat

I found this important announcement floating in cyberspace:

This morning - from a cave somewhere in Pakistan - Taliban Minister of Migration, Mohammed Omar, warned the United States that if military action against Iraq continues, Taliban authorities will cut off America's supply of convenience store managers. If this action does not yield sufficient results, cab drivers will be next.

It's getting ugly.

Founding Quotes of Note XXXI

"Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, thatits very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care,may sometimes open a source of serious evils."-- Benjamin Franklin, dead white-devil slaver

"Kids" In Uniform

"As we approach the 2,000 mark of coffins coming home that we're not allowed to see, it doesn't even look like a war. It looks like a lot of kids being blown to smithereens by an invisible enemy." --Maureen Dowd, speaking of young soldiers in the military

This really disgusts me. People in their twenties are young, perhaps naive, maybe even inexperienced--but kids? I don't think so. People in this age-group get married, have homes and children and jobs, and go off to fight and perhaps die for causes with which they relate. Ms. Dowd diminishes their sacrifices by labeling them as mere children. I think it takes quite a bit of courage, loyalty, and a sense of duty to ship out overseas, into an unknown situation and away from one's family and familiar surroundings.

I suppose what bothers me most about Ms. Dowd's comment is that I'm sure she would not see a twenty-year-old's decision in favor of an abortion as an alternative chosen by a "kid." Oh no. Standing up for one's right to slaughter the unborn takes a real man or a real woman.

If these good folks are "kids," then I have no idea what the word "adult" means. Apparently, neither does Maureen Dowd.

Crying In the Womb

A new study has revealed that unborn babies cry within the womb. Ultrasound videos taken of infants within the womb revealed 28-week-old babies crying in response to a noise stimulus.

Scientists played a 90-decibel noise to the unborn child, roughly the equivalent of a tummy rumbling, and recorded the effect the noise had via ultrasound. “It was strikingly like an infant crying,” said New Zealand pediatrician Ed Mitchell, who contributed to the US study, according to New Zealand's The Age. “Even the bottom lip quivers.”

And this at a time when news reports inundate our televisions, assuring us that babies do not feel pain in the womb. Uh-huh. They clearly feel something, though, don't they? Who knew that a little blob of non-human jelly could emote like a real person? How bizarre.

I'm Back. . .

. . .let the standing ovation commence.

A Brief Interlude

I'll be offline wednesday, thursday, and most of friday. It's possible that I'll be back to regular posting friday night, but no later than saturday. I'm going with my wife to visit her father for his birthday celebration, on the western end of the state. In the meantime, be good to each other, and keep firing away, here, if you like. I'll respond in the comments section, when I return.

Liberated from Reality

In a news conference in Damascus, the leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad today boasted all Palestinian groups remain united in the goal of annihilating the Jewish state of Israel.

With Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia looking on, Ramazan Abdullah, secretary general of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, said the Palestinian Authority and all Palestinian movements have reached agreement on a joint strategy after Israel's evacuation of the Gaza Strip.

"This war would continue till full liberation of Palestine, restoration of the denied rights of the whole Palestinian nation and briefly speaking uprooting of the usurper Israeli regime," he said, according to a translation by the official Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency.

"[The] Gaza Strip that is being evacuated after thirty-eight years of occupation is only some 1.5 percent of the historic motherland of the Palestinians, and therefore its evacuation cannot mean the end of the liberation campaign," he said.

By "liberation campaign," what he means is liberating innocent Jewish civilians from the scourge of life through the use of bomb vests and sundry other implements of liberation.

What amazes me is not that these people want to destroy Israel. What does amaze me is that they're not even subtle about it; yet the outside world continues its moral equivalency argument, its chants of "end the cycle of violence," and its assumptions that the "Palestinians" have genuine grievances.

Open Season

I received this through an email, and I thought it was a hoot. Unfortunately, I don't know the author's name, or I would give credit where credit is due.

The Pentagon announced today the formation of a new 500-man elite fighting unit called the U.S. REDNECK SPECIAL FORCES (USRSF).

These North & South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Tennessee boys will be dropped into Iraq and have been given only the following facts about Terrorists:

1. The season opened today.

2. There is no limit.

3. They taste just like chicken.

4. They don't like beer, pickups, country music or Jesus.

5. They are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the death of Dale Earnhardt.

This mess in Iraq should be over IN A WEEK!

"We're At War, Blockhead!!"

Don't you get sick of hearing that? "We're at War." Perhaps it should be printed in all capitals. For example, I might say: "Bush just signed the biggest spending increase into law since the invention of the credit card." Response: "WE'RE AT WAR!" "Bush washed his hands of the whole Schiavo situation, letting her husband have her killed with the government's consent." Response: "WE'RE AT WAR!" "We're losing our precious soldiers over in Iraq, largely for the benefit of people who neither appreciate it, nor were willing to fight for their own freedom." Response: "WE'RE AT WAR!" "Bush just dubbed Islam a 'religion of peace,' while a raghead in a bloody night-gown stood by with an AK-47, winking at the camera." Response: "WE'RE AT WAR!" "Bush calls for further Israeli Jew evictions--giving yet more territory to the 'Palestinians'--while the Arabs-in-question have made it clear that only the complete decimation of Israel will appease them." Response: "WE'RE AT WAR!" "Our liberty is being eroded by the Law of the Sea Treaty, national ID cards are on the table, and who knows what will happen next?" Response: "WE'RE AT WAR!" "Bush was just caught making a secret pact with Mephistopheles." Response: "WE'RE AT WAR!" Doesn't it get tiresome? Certain people chant this silly mantra, no matter what Bush or his administration does. At what point does such an evasive response no longer hold water? Is it limitless in its legitimacy as an excuse?

On numerous occasions, Mr. Bush or his supporters has said something to this effect: "We have to fight them in Iraq, so we don't have to fight them, here." Am I the only one who thinks that's throwing logic overboard in concrete boots? Do Mr. Bush and his slavish followers believe that every terrorist who wants to do Americans harm is in Iraq? Is Iraq a whirlpool that catches Islamic killers and never lets them go? Hardly. Our borders are wide open, with illegal aliens pouring into the country ever single day; yet we're supposed to believe that the president is concerned about our welfare and safety. A terrorist with an IQ slightly above that of a boiled potato won't have much trouble determining where the opportunities lie. I'm not sure what Mr. Bush's real reason for keeping our soldiers in Iraq is, but I can tell you with certainty what it isn't. It isn't to protect American citizens from Muslim terrorist attacks. If he truly had an inkling of interest in that, he'd shut down the borders tomorrow, and take the situation in hand. It's really heart-breaking: we have a man in the oval office who cares more about the feelings of Vicente Fox and certain activist groups like La Raza (a racist organization, if there ever was one), than he does about the lives of his own people.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Muslim terrorists already are inside our borders, plotting their next attack. In fact, I think it's likely in the extreme that another major terrorist assault on our people will occur within the next two or three years, if not sooner. I believe it will take large-scale murder and destruction--again--to get our "leaders" finally to confront the border situation. And call me cynical, but I won't be shocked if they still don't address it properly.

Our rights are diluted and flushed away, our soldiers are dying, and we face each day in grave danger, but we're at war, after all. So if you ever see George Bush hanging out at the local strip-joint with a handful of one-dollar bills, Bill Clinton at his side, don't you worry none. Don't even worry about his using the Constitution for rolling papers.

Just remember: "WE'RE AT WAR!"

Israeli Extremists

I was just watching Fox News a few minutes ago, when what to my wondering eyes should appear, but a load of malarkey, under a thin veneer.

The newsman in question--whose name escapes me--was reporting directly from Gaza. As he spoke of the demolition gangs roving about and destroying Jewish houses, he dubbed those who resisted "extremists." That actually was the word he used.

So let me get this straight: If you evict me from my home, confiscate my property and give it to someone else, and demolish my house, I am an extremist if I offer the slightest resistance? Only in a totalitarian society does that make any sense. Such a view has no place in the halls of Israel's government, or in the United States.

Adding insult to injury, the entire reasoning for these actions is futile. If evicting Jewish settlers from Gaza buys any peace at all--which is doubtful--it will be only a temporary lull in the Arab plans for annihilating Israel. Worse, Gaza will be used as a launching point for continued terrorist attacks.

I'm pro-Israel, but not pro-Sharon, necessarily. I wish I could say the same for Fox News.

Viva La Mexico

You may not realize this, but that coke you just snorted probably came from our friends in Mexico, courtesy of our lackadaisical federal gummint! Kinda makes me wanna have a traditional south-of-the-border party, with Vicente Fox and George Bush playing the roles of pinatas.

Yet another entry in the long list of reasons why we should lock down the border and take control of this madness, before it's too late.

Nattering Nabob of the Left

Bless her heart, but Cindy Sheehan has got Problems (notice the capital P.) First, let me just say that I sympathize with her anger and grief, and I feel compassion for her loss. I think losing a child prematurely--even if they are an adult--is perhaps the worst thing I can imagine happening to an individual. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. I preface my remarks with this not because I'm all touchy feely, but because I want it understood up front that I'm not a flint-eyed stoneheart.

That said, I believe she's floating around out there in the ozone layer. For example, here are some of her highly cogent remarks of late: "We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We're waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!" And "We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now." She made these remarks at a "We Hate Bush" rally at San Francisco University, and according to the Drudge Report, it only gets worse from there. (WARNING: the linked article may offend some folks with its foul language). I'm no Bush fan, as most of you already know; and like any good lie, some of her statements harbor kernels of truth.

I see the situation this way: Ms. Sheehan is using the media as a tool to get her message across to the public and to have her voice heard. The left-wing media is benefiting in exploiting her pain, as well, using her as a hammer to bash Bush over the head. It's obvious that they're eating this up like sharks in a feeding frenzy. If there's one thing the lefties never pass up, it's an opportunity to make Bush and his administration look evil or stupid.

There's a facet of this story that I haven't seen addressed, though: Ms. Sheehan's son's personal philosophy. I confess ignorance, regarding his viewpoint. Was he a disgruntled, reluctant participant in our overseas military ventures; or was he patriotic, seeing them as necessary evils? I think this is an important question, regardless of one's view on the Iraq War. If the latter is true, then his mother is besmirching her son and dishonoring his memory and accomplishments, whether she admits this--or understands this--or not. Best-case scenario, the former is true. But even then, Ms. Sheehan is making herself a willing accomplice to the promotion of the American leftist agenda--an agenda which distinguishes between lies and truth only when it is beneficial to the Cause, and which champions pacifism only as long as a Republican is leading the charge.

Self Defense Is a Great Offense

Raise your hand if you think forced eviction of Jews from their homes in Gaza will bring peace to Israel.

Abdul, put your hand down. Your vote doesn't count.

I see four possibilities for peace and tranquility in Israel:

1. All Jews must capitulate to Arab demands and voluntarily leave Israel forever.

2. All Jews must throw down their weapons and allow the Arabs to drive them into the sea.

3. All Jews must commit suicide, en masse.

Any one of these three options will make the Arabs happy--especially the second or third.

A fourth option exists. The Israeli government and citizens must come to terms with the bleak and ugly fact that a large segment in their own country will never rest or be content until it has annihilated them from the face of the earth. This sad reality stems from combining the nature of Islam, itself, with the demonic indoctrination drilled into the "Palestinians'" heads from birth to adulthood. There is no reasoning with those who see you as a blight on the Middle East and a plague upon humanity. There is no peace with those who are taught that you are subhuman and inherently evil. There is no lucid discussion with people who believe that you use the blood of non-Jews in religious ceremonies. The choice is clear--confront the situation with eyes wide open and flush political correctness, or die. The world already hates you, Israel. It will loathe you, no matter what path you take. So choose the right road, for survival's sake.

As for influential, moderate "Palestinians," they lie buried six feet under the middle ground they once trod.

Awwwww, You Like Me, You Reeeely Do!!

Howdy, all. I see that I've been missed. It's a great feeling, to be sure. I know each of you probably shed a few tears (especially Bane), worried your fingernails right down to the quick, and organized candlelight vigils in my name. Though I never left my hometown of Bumpkin Holler, Tennessee, the search parties, reward signs, and plaintive comments touched my heart.

For you who stuck by my side, periodically checking out the blog for updates and leaving concerned well-wishes, I thank you all. Having friends--whether they be flesh and blood or tiny little voices living inside this great big box on my desk--is a beautiful thing. I'm a firm believer that one never can have too many.

For those who struck my name from their blogrolls, laughed at my discomfiture, and erased me from their memory banks. . .well. . .you're just a big bunch of faithless meanies. I may forgive you, in time; but don't be surprised if that unmarked Christmas present you receive through the mail is ticking.

I've been on an involuntary internet blackout for the past two months, or so. I was correct in my assumption that the modem was deader than Lenin. Yes, indeedy. Replacing it cost the lovely figure of seventy bucks--and being the humble and quite indigent fellow that I am--it took more time than I would have liked to come up with the extry money. At first, I figured I'd kick my blogging regularity down a notch, with posts coming once or twice a week. I hoped to use the pc at my wifey's place of employment, a modest-sized, local hotel. Alas, that didn't work out, what with all the Russian foreign exchange students mucking about the place. I believe this is a tiny part of their larger, insidious plan of conquest: one computer terminal at a time. As for utilizing the resources of the public liburial, I wasn't too keen on the idea. The place is a madhouse, and for some strange reason, I'm not overly fond of fighting the dope-smoking hippies and porn freaks for a chance to check my email. Ah, well. As they said during the Reign of Terror: C'est la vie.

With 20/20 hindsight, I wish I hadn't allowed two months to go by without updating everyone on my whereabouts. I hope y'all won't hold it agin me. If it ever happens again, just assume I'm dead. Put on the sack-cloth and ashes, mourn for twenty days, and move on. But if the good Lord's willin' an' the creek don't rise, I plan on being here for the long haul. I'm glad to see I'm not alone.

God bless each of you.

A Nation of Morons

I found these examples of idiotic product labeling in Catherine Crier's book, The Case Against Lawyers:

The label on a handheld massager reads: "Do not use while sleeping or unconscious."

A label on a public toilet says: "Recycled flush-water unsafe for drinking." Golly, do I feel sheepish after reading that one.

A warning on a laser-printer cartridge: "Do not eat toner."

Bicycle shin-guards warn us: "Pads do not protect parts of the body that they do not cover."

A household iron says: "Do not iron clothing while wearing them."

And a baby stroller's warning sticker pleads: "Remove child before folding."

Just think, our society is so litigious--and some of its members are so irredeemably stupid--that such boneheaded messages are necessary.

Sad, isn't it?

Howdy All

I realize it's been several days since I last posted. Sorry about that. I'm pretty sure that the modem is damaged in my pc, since I'm having no computer problems outside of connecting to the internet. I haven't had the time or the funds, lately, to correct this situation. But I will, eventually--hopefully soon. Anyway, I just wanted to update everyone on what's going on. I hope all is well with my readers and commenters. Thanks for sticking with me.

HAL 9000

Folks, I'm sorry I haven't been updating the blog with my usual frequency. I'm having difficulties with the evil computer, so expect updates, here, on a once -or- twice- weekly basis, instead of daily. This is a temporary situation, so I appreciate all of you who hang with me, until it's over. This, too, shall pass, and all that. I apologize to all my loyal readers and commenters who are wondering what the heck happened to me. Fortunately, I wasn't abducted by aliens, or sucked into a black hole. I hope most of you consider that a positive development.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll be back to posting my rants and gripes with all the usual train-wreck subtleties and sandpaper delicacies pretty soon.

I've posted two new entries, below, which I'd been saving. Hope y'all enjoy 'em.

God bless each and every one of you. Take care of yourselves, until I return.

Violence Has a Purpose

"People...love to say that 'Violence never solved anything.' But what solved Hitler? Was it a team of social workers? Was it putting daisies into the gun barrels of Nazi Panzer divisions? Was it a commission that tried to understand what made Hitler so angry? No. What solved Hitler was violence." --Michael Medved

This is what drives me nuts about pacifism. It's a desire for peace taken to its most deranged extreme. Pacifism means submission to death. . .or worse. That's it, in a nutshell. History's pages are rife with examples of violence solving problems and ridding people of evils. Betimes, violence begets violence, I'm aware, and the Law of Unintended Consequences always is in effect. But situations occur in which violence is the only solution allowed by the opposing party. Some people understand and respect nothing but brute force.

Violence stemmed the tide of the Hunnish invasion; it ended Moorish usurper rule in Spain; it halted the Jihad at Poitiers, and grievously injured the Ottoman Empire's imperialist goals at Lepanto; it prevented the annihilation of Israel in several wars, and the engulfment of Kuwait and South Korea. I could go on and on.

Pacifism assumes a basic, inherent goodness within the hearts of ones supposed foes. As history and the local nightly news tells us, this is a specious assumption, a flight from reality. Covering one's eyes does not bring salvation from the pouncing lion. There are times when fire must be fought with fire, claw with claw, fang with fang. Circumstances arise in which we have no other choice.

If someone breaches my home's locked doors at night, with intent to harm, pacifism would see to it that I stand by and do nothing, while my family is assaulted and possibly killed. I can assure you, that ain't gonna happen.

Ever wonder why we don't hear the lamentations of pacifists from deep within war-torn territories? It's because they're cut-off early on, buried somewhere in a mass grave with all the other "peace-at-any-price" dreamers.

I remember a scene from the film Mars Attacks!; it's a silly movie, but one segment stands out in my mind as a great explanation of where pacifism takes people. In this scene, a ship lands in the desert and is surrounded by anxious humans, waiting in breathless anticipation for someone--or something--to emerge. A ramp extends, and little, harmless-looking Martians appear. An on-site hippie is overcome with emotion, at which point he releases a dove into the air. As it soars overhead, a Martian shoots it out of the sky, and everyone watches as it lands in a sizzling, featherless heap. The aliens then proceed to exterminate everyone in the vicinity--man, woman, and child. It never even occurs to most of these people that the immense alien buildup is a preliminary to an all-out assault on the human race. I'm not expecting extraterrestrial conquerors any time soon. We have enough problems and enough invaders to worry about, right here on the ground.

Don't be that dove.

No Kidding

I saw this in The Federalist Patriot. It's a real headline:

"Report: Muslim World Largely Anti-American" --Associated Press

Gee, really? Talkin' 'bout a statement of the obvious. That's kinda like saying, "Report: Bill Clinton Like Crazed Rabbit on Viagra."

File this under the "DUH" heading.

Quotes from the Ivory Tower

"I think it has clearly done some temporary damage. It's thrown us off our game for a little bit. I think this will end up being a blip." --Michael Isikoff, author of the "Operation: Flush Your Credibility" scandal at Newsweek.

"CBS News has a culture, has a history that those of us who work here, it's very real -- that we see it as a sort of magical mystical kingdom of journalistic knights."--Sir Dan Rather

Let's see, arrogance, disdain for the truth, flippancy, delusions of grandeur, a severance from reality: What more could you ask for in a "journalist?"

Like a Broken Clock. . .

“It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus’ life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam’s fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.”–- G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution," American Atheist, p. 30, September 20, 1979.

During rare phases of the moon, under aberrant planetary conjunctions, or eccentric alignments of the stars--even atheists sometimes get it right.

The Evolution of Diversity

From Answers in Genesis: We received a letter from a person who’d been named the editor for a geologic society. He was asked to provide articles of substance for their newsletter. In his first issue he included articles that questioned established evolutionary geologic principles. In less than two weeks, members of the society demanded his resignation and the return of all the materials that he had, even when these actions were in violation of the society’s constitution.

These so-called "scientists" really get on my nerves. I recommend that they have t-shirts made, with this logo: "Keeping the Evolutionary Paradigm Alive, One Lie at a Time." Just march in lock-step toward the precipice with a smile. Submit to groupthink. But if you decide to think outside the box, or follow facts wherever they lead, you can take a hike.

Founding Quotes of Note XXX

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." --Thomas Jefferson

I'd get a kick out of hanging a sign with these words in the nearest welfare office.

A Poem

After that last post, I thought I'd offer something somewhat more uplifting. Here's a poem I wrote a couple of years ago. I hope y'all enjoy it:


Mary's Pledge


Hush, now, my darling, rest in sleep,
until the morning gleams.
Lay your head on my gladdened breast.
Find solace in your dreams.
Our Maker's plans and hopes for us
lie bundled in your form--
the quenching of our spirits' thirst,
the calming of life's storm.
Please know that I will keep the charge
God gave me in my youth--
to help you grow in righteousness
and watch you live His truth.
So all this heart I give to you,
my balm to soothe your strife,
milk for your sustenance,
my every breath, my life.
I rub your little head, so soft
and rock you with my songs.
No matter how our roads diverge,
with you my soul belongs.
Let me now wipe your tear-streaked eyes.
Oh, may my love suffice!
For someday you shall dry mine, too,
at home, in Paradise.

Bombs-for-Tots

Reed this and weep.

“Shahids” (Martyrs for Allah)

Preaching before an audience that included Abbas, Sheikh Yusuf Jumma Salmah said in a recent Friday sermon on PA TV that the ideal Palestinian woman is like “Al Khansah,” the heroine of Islamic tradition who celebrated her four sons’ death in battle by thanking God for the honor…This portrayal of the ideal Palestinian woman as one who willingly sacrifices her sons as Shahids, therefore, continues to represent official PA ideology— especially since this sermon was delivered in the presence of Abbas…

Interview with the mother of two killed terrorists:

Host: “They (the Israelis) accuse the Palestinian mother of hating her sons and of encouraging them to die.”

Mother: “No. We do not encourage our sons to die. We encourage them to ‘shahada’ (death for Allah), for the homeland, for Allah. We don’t say to the mothers of the Shahids, ‘We come to comfort you,’ rather, ‘We come to bless you on your son’s wedding, on your son’s shahada. Congratulations to you on the shahada.’ For us the mourning is a joyous wedding. We give out drinks, we give out sweets. Praise to Allah, our mourning is a joyous wedding.” (Palestinian Authority TV, November 17, 2004)

A Letter from a Shahid to his Mother/ By Abdul Badi Iraq:

My Dear Mother

…I wrapped my body with determination, with hopes and with bombs

I asked (reaching) toward Allah and the fighting homeland

The explosive belt makes me fly, strengthens me to make haste

I calm it (the explosive), we should stay steadfast, we have not yet reached

I launched myself, I launched myself, like lava burning old legends and vanity

I launched my body, all my pains and oppression towards the packs of beasts

I launched, oh mother, freed the chains and the shackles.

And you found me rising and rising like a candle that was lit with precious olive oil

And you saw me sending a loving kiss above the mosques and the churches, the houses and the roads

Flocks of pigeons flew above the porches

And Al-Aqsa smiled and gave me a sign that will not sleep

Dawn is close, oh mother, and it shall rise from guns, from shining spears

It will be lit from a bloody wound…

The wedding is the wedding of the land

Sound a cry of joy, oh mother, I am the groom…”

(The official Palestinian daily Al Hayat Al Jadida, Feb. 27, 2003)

This has got to be the sickest, worst distortion of all that is holy that I've ever seen. A religion and an ideology such as this must have found its putrid origin in the bowels of hell, right from the Devil's darkest imaginings. It's like embracing darkness as light; and seeing light, and denouncing it as darkness.

Bill Press: Genius of the Left

Leftist theologian Bill Press says: "If Jesus cured people of leprosy, dropsy and palsy, is there any doubt that He would embrace today's efforts to find a cure for Parkinson's or heart disease using embryonic stem-cell research? I think not."

Someone needs to do some brain-cell research on this guy. Even setting aside religious beliefs, there's not a whit of logic in his statement. Let's reword this for its true meaning: "If Jesus cured people of leprosy, dropsy and palsy, is there any doubt that He would embrace today's efforts to find a cure for Parkinson's or heart disease using the tiny bodies of ex utero babies? I think not."

See? Taken for what it is, this utterance is asinine in the extreme. First-off, Bill, Jesus didn't use the discarded corpuses of partly-formed human beings to heal people. Nor did He condone it. He used the miraculous and awesome power of God. We have no reason to believe that he approves such research. Second, medical research (which you have placed on a pedestal) has shown that the positive effects of embryonic stem-cell research are dubious, at best. That's putting a nice spin on it. Adult stem-cell research has met with far more success. Third, if God will allow the curing and eradication of these horrific diseases, don't you think He might provide a way of going about this without mining human embryos? Since you find the great superiority of adult stem-cell research unworthy of even the merest mention in your article, I must conclude that not only are you illogical and unChristian in your thought process, but also dishonest.

His reasoning, in a nutshell: Jesus cured people. Embryonic stem-cell research cures people. Ergo, Jesus would've danced a jig over its prospects. Ignoring the lies implicit in this, that's a leap of logic that would cause Darwin to fall flat on his face in the evolutionary soup.