nothing

Off to WordPress

2006-04-01T19:58:00.000-08:00

This is the last post I will be making on Blogger for the foreseeable future. I am going to make all new posts over at WordPress. Look for new stuff over at demolition65.wordpress.com

I just got tired of posting everything twice, and I am finding the assets over at WordPress outweigh the advantages of sticking around here.

Jill Carroll and Piling on

2006-04-01T19:51:00.000-08:00

Just a quick note on the release of Jill Carroll, and the subsequent outrage Right bloggers engaged in when a video surfaced of her praising her captors and criticizing the Bush Administration.

When I first heard about this video, my first thought was "Stockholm Syndrome", and my second was, "Hello. She's a hostage. Could she have been threatened in some way to do this?". Anyway, I never wrote anything on it, as I felt that it might have been a bit too soon to comment. Besides, the poor woman has just returned from one of what the APA calls the five most stressful situations any human can hope to walk away from. Why get on her now?

Seems that I was correct to do so.

Then RickTheWise over at RightWingNuthouse put a very elegant spin on all of this. Iwould urge you to go read it right away.

Facing to the Dexter

2006-04-01T12:08:00.000-08:00

From dictionary.com:

DEXTER:
1. Of or located on the right side.
2. Heraldry. Situated on or being the side of a shield on the wearer's right and the observer's left.
3. Obsolete. Auspicious; favorable.

Also:
SINISTER:
1. Suggesting or threatening evil: a sinister smile.
2. Presaging trouble; ominous: sinister storm clouds.
3. Attended by or causing disaster or inauspicious circumstances.
4. On the left side; left.
5. Heraldry. Situated on or being the side of a shield on the wearer's left and the observer's right.

I muse upon this in part because I am visiting my in-laws tomorrow. My father-in-law, like my own father, was born left-handed. Sinister comes from the Italian sinistra meaning pretty much what is says above: both "from the left" and "evil."

This has a practical if somewhat archaic application to my father and father-in-law in that, though both are left-handed, both write right-handed. This comes about from the ancient belief that left-handed people were sinister; evil; wrong. And so, you made them learn to write with their right hand. You forced this training under the guise that it is a world of right-handers, and that using the right hand trained your brain correctly.

This last hare-brained notion isn't so far out of whack, in that beginning neuroscience teaches that the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, and the converse if true for the left side brain/right side body.

Side note: The notion that "left handed people are in their right minds" has some actual truth to it.

Now, I have always regarded the treatment of my father and father-in-law in terms of handedness to be little better than barbaric. And I still hold to that.

But after wandering around a bit today in the lower nether-regions of the political left. . .places such as here , here,here, here, here and here I begin to wonder if the Italians weren't correct in the first place.

It is getting harder and harder to escape the notion that the Loon Left is in fact truth in advertising. It is sinister.

"Suggesting or threatening evil."

The Left is not what it says it is

2006-03-30T11:45:00.000-08:00

There are so many sacred cows to the MoonBat left.

-We represent tolerance and freedom of speech.

-We represent fully equal rights

-The Other people (the Wingnuts they like to call us) are for suppression of freedoms

-The Other people are essentially fascists, and if left to their own devices, would brutally suppress all opposition.

-The Other people hold to senseless faith points.

And yet, if one looks hard at each of these cows, one finds that they can be turned on their heads.

-We represent tolerance and freedom of speech. Tolerance. Like here? What about here, where Pharyngula host PZ Myers refers to Ben Domenech as a scumbag? Or perhaps when liberal blogger icon Kos refers to Bill Bennett as a "moralizing buffoon"?

Here are his exact words:

You know, I can't be nice to these people. I don't care how "nice" they might be. When I did CNN's Reliable Sources this past Sunday, I met Bill Bennett in the Green Room (and they say Michael Moore is fat?). He said nice things about this site, said it was the only liberal site he read, and seemed pleasent enough. He and Bill Press chatted it up amiably in the Green Room before they did battle on camera. But regardless, I can't get past the fact that the moralizing buffoon (Hi Bill) is helping destroy my beloved country.

I try not to be rude. But I can't cross the line into "friendly" with that crowd. Of course, I am "friendly" with Mike Krempasky. So maybe I'm just full of shit.

Well, at least you're being honest, Kos, in admitting that you can't live up to your tolerant stanards. And since you mention it, if the shoe fits, you might as well wear it.

You are full of sh!t.

We could go on for DAYS, but in the end, can we find committed liberals that live up to their standards of decency? No way. The difference between them and the "wingnuts?" Us 'Nuts at least admit that we don't always make it. 'Bats claim they are tolerant, beark that standard CONSTANTLY, then make no excuses. They both live the standard and totally disregard it at every waking moment. For them, the standard of decency doesn't even have the benefit of being a goal to strive for. It's reduced to a cliche.

Oh, and as for the freedom of speech bit: If I were to get up on a soapbox in downtown Frisco and proclaim active homosexuality as morally disordered, I will have elected officials from the 'Bat side calling for the suppression of my First Amendment rights. This gets even worse if I am a landlord and don't wish to allow sexual activity in my property by unmarried people. Laws passed by the "tolerant Left."

____________________________________________________________________________________

-We represent fully equal rights. So long as those rights don't infringe on the rights of women, gays or minorities. Once those come into conflict, the above groups win out. Especially if the aggrieved party is unborn, white, religious or old.

To paraphrase Orwell: "All rights are equal. But some rights are more equal than others."

____________________________________________________________________________________

-The Other people (the Wingnuts they like to call us) are for suppression of freedoms

-The Other people are essentially fascists, and if left to their own devices, would brutally suppress all opposition.

Without question these are my favorites. Do you really think that if Bush were the second coming of Hitler, that he would allow the presence of these ignorant nattering magpies to continue blathering as they do? Lincoln, universally admired by 'Nuts and 'Bats alike, suspended habeas corpus in the United States, not only at places like Gitmo. And the threat we face from radical Islamofascism is much greater than that presented by the South. If Bush and his fellow 'Nuts were really as intolerant as the 'Bats say, they would all be in prison.

And do you really think we would be having these immigration issues if Bush and the right were real fascists?

No, the real fascists here are from the Left. Imagine what will happen to free speech if the Clintonistas and their fellow Moonbats get Blight House back.

We will see a wave of repression against conservatives and evangelicals as has not been seen in an English speaking country since the time of

Call me doomcrier? So be it.

____________________________________________________________________________________

-The Other people hold to senseless faith points.
Now, this one requires its own post which I intend to write with spring break (FINALLY) upon us.

It is the only one of the Left's accusations that holds any water on the face of it. But even then when one digs just a bit, it too collapses from its own lack of internal consistency.

Where does the left get its definitions of sensible and senseless? Of right and wrong? Truth and falsehood? Essentially from two sources; one's own impulses of the moment, and from empirical data (at least amongst the atheistic of the moonbats). The problems with the first are myriad, and also deserving of its own post. Suffice to say for now that if the world is full of 6 billion relativists all determining their own sense of right at the moment, you end up having 6 billion different notions of truth, and from there you rapidly proceed to anarchy and the disintegration of human society.

The second is explored here. Again, suffice it to say that there are ways to the truth that extend beyond empirical data points. To enslave oneself to empiricism as the lone means of obtaining objective truth seriously hampers one in fully examining -in the words of Douglas Adams- Life, the Universe and Everything. It is a barren world that the MRT lives in.

A perpetual state of bemused wonder is brought about anytime one contemplates the Left and its matter-of-fact hypocrisy.

Then they wield the hypocrisy wand at the Right. . .but at least the Right struggles to be good.

From the "Individual is Now God" Files. . .

2006-03-28T14:26:00.000-08:00

. . .we have former Washington governor Booth Gardner, a man noted for his remarkably cranky exterior when he was the Evergreen State's governor in the '90s, has now been diagnosted with Parkinson's and become a vociferous advocate for legalized suicide.

He says he wants "to be in the position where — on a Sunday afternoon, in the summertime; this is the ideal — I'm with my kids and grandkids and I say to them, 'Come here, I've got to talk to you.'

"And they come and I say: 'Friday's my day. That's when I want to leave. Let's spend the rest of the week hanging by each other.'

"That's dignity."

"I have the right to make the last decision."

Yes indeed. We from the MRT Central Command reserve all rights normally attributed to God for ourselves. When others start life, and when they (espcially I) may end them.

I wonder how Booth would feel if he have a brand new car with a poor electrical system to his son, and his son decided that instead of working with it and using it as valid transport, he simply decided to drive it into the nearest tree and be done with it, how he would feel?

Am I oversimplifying? Maybe. Is his position logical? In a materialist culture that in the end is one of the most pessimistic worldviews ever conceived by man, well, yes. But is it life giving? Is it optimistic? Is it LOGICAL?

Emphatically, no.

Those "Tolerant" San Franciscans

2006-03-27T20:31:00.000-08:00

Seems an evangelical teen group marched in SF, and was met not only by counter-protestors, but was censured by a local Assemblyman who claimed they are hate freaks who need to be driven out of the city with cattle prods.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who told counterprotesters at City Hall on Friday that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

Yep. More of that old-time, tolerant Liberalism down in gay Frisco.

Full article here.

WordPress

2006-03-26T12:43:00.000-08:00

Am currently playing with my blog over at WordPress.com.

Check out demolition65.wordpress.com to examine my new digs.

For the time being, I am going to do dual posts at both sites, as their are pluses and minuses to both sites.

Pluses to WordPress: ALLOWS ME TO CATEGORIZE MY MATERIAL, a feature I have been wanting to use for some time.

-Does not force you to dive into the code to add to blogrolls and so on.

-Does not have blogger's current reputation for servers problems.

-Has a nice line-up of templates

Pluses to Blogger:

-CAN do the code editing. Right now WordPress won't allow for nifty things like site counters and ClustrMaps on the toolbar

-Much more freedom in toolbar and layout options.

So, I'll work with both for the time being.

Michael Schiavo

2006-03-25T22:31:00.000-08:00

Is a fricking monster. (SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE)

LINK

Michael Admits Book on Terri Schiavo to "Settle Score" With Her Family
Email this article
Printer friendly page

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
March 23, 2006

New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- In a startling revelation, Terri Schaivo's ex-husband Michael admitted in an interview that his new book “Terri: The Truth” was written to "settle some scores" with Terri's family rather than honor the memory of the woman at the center of a national euthanasia battle.

Schiavo made the admission in an interview with NBC News scheduled to be broadcast on "Dateline" on March 26.

Host Matter Lauer told Schiavo, "I guess you could've written a book to honor Terri. After reading it, it's not really the book you wrote."

"This is a book that in some ways settles some scores, doesn't it?" Lauer asked him.

Michael Schiavo eagerly replied, "Oh yes it does."

Though Schiavo wrote the book with goals of retribution in mind, he said he thought "many times" of writing a book to honor the memory of the woman he painfully starved to death over a thirteen day period.

That Michael's book is more about scoring political points that honoring Terri Schiavo's life comes as no surprise to some observers.

The book was written for Michael by military history author Michael Hirsh, who offered Michael his services after becoming angry that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed into law a measure approved by the Florida legislature allowing him to stop Terri's euthanasia death.

Responding to allegations that he may have physically abused Terri, leading to her collapse, Michael told NBC News, "They're wrong. I heard the thud. Ran to Terri. Called after that little gasp, I mean, it was within a minute I was on the phone with 911. They can think whatever."

Terri's initial collapse was blamed on a potassium imbalance, but an autopsy concluded that was not the case. A bone scan performed after Terri's collapse found evidence of possible trauma and friends later revealed the couple go into a heated argument on the day Terri collapsed.

Matt Lauer asked Michael why he didn't divorce Terri and decided to marry his longtime girlfriend Jodi Centonze, with whom he had an affair and two children while married to Terri.

Schiavo responded, "Why do I have to divorce Terri? Terri wasn't like a football -- an inanimate object you pass back and forth. She was my wife. You mean because your wife gets sick, do you give her back?"

Terri's parents repeatedly ask Michael to divorce Terri so they could take care of their daughter. He refused because he would have lost the remainder of a $1.5 million medical malpractice judgment the Schiavo estate received.

Michael also told NBC News about his decision to prevent Terri's brother Michael from seeing her just minutes before she died.

Lauer asked Michael: "You're walking into the room. Did you stop and think, “What would Terri want?” Would she want her brother or sister?"

He refused to respond to directly to the question, only saying Terri would want her family to get along.

Michael concludes his interview with what the Schindler family will likely say is a slap in the face to Terri. He tells Lauer of the woman he euthanized, "She's up there praising me right now ... and saying thank you."

She's up there praising him right now? Is she happy with how he is spending the rest of that malpractice settlement? Did Matt Lauer ever ask him how he is using the remainder of that settlement?

Can you say the word, "delusional"?

Fr. Frank Pavone has issued a blistering indictment of Mr. Schiavo in the linked letter here.

Another illustration of the inconsistency and moral bankruptcy of the Left

2006-03-24T14:01:00.000-08:00

From an older post on Pharyngula:

When moral absolutists try to apply simple-minded, black-and-white reasoning to a complex situation (and defining a human being is certainly a complex problem), you get criminal travesties like this one:
A sailor's wife was pregnant with an anencephalic child, whose probability of surviving or of ever being conscious was zero. She, reasonably, wanted an abortion.
But the Congress had decided -- that no federal funds should be used to pay for abortions except where the life of the mother was at stake. As a result, Tricare (formerly CHAMPUS) the agency that covers military families, refused to pay the $3000 the abortion would cost.
The family sued, and a federal court ordered Tricare to pay, and the abortion went forward.
Then the Justice Department (with John Ashcroft as Attorney General) sued the family to recover the $3000, out of the sailor's pay of less than $20,000 a year.
The Justice Department just won. A panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that, under a 1980 Supreme Court precedent upholding the Hyde Amendment -- a parallel provision to the one in question, but applying to Medicaid recipients rather than to military families -- the law was valid and the government didn't have to pay for the abortion. Consequently, the family has to pay the money back.

Our guardians of purity have magnified the pain of this family and willfully and vindictively punished them for the 'crime' of a biological imperfection. I call that evil, pure and simple. There should have been no question in this case that an abortion was necessary.

But then later in the article, the author of this disaster (PZ Myers) says this:

People with severe spina bifida can be intellectually and socially capable, fully human, but a young family with limited resources ought to have the privilege of making a choice about whether to shoulder the responsibility before the fetus has acquired those mental capacities. I presume we now have a government that will force families to take on that burden, but will refuse to pay any part of the price.

Well, the author seems to be contradicting himself. He IS willing to pay for abortions, so that "sub-humans" -according to his reductionist definition- might be eliminated, but to actually care for these creatures, even when "fully human" -such as in the case of spina bifida patients- is something he is NOT willing to pay for.

Well, as anyone can see, he IS being consistent; consistently evil in his application. He is reducing children to economic computations. Children that might contribute to society, OK. Children that may contribute but in the end will cost society more -spina bifida patients- have to go. And as for anencephalic patients who can never contribute, get rid of them immedietely. Because they are not human to being with, they must be eliminated.

He's down on the right side of my sidebar. A well-learned, profoundly misguided man.

So, Ben Domenech goes down. . .

2006-03-24T12:50:00.000-08:00

in a blaze of ignominy because he plagiarized PJ O'Rourke's best stuff.

Should he have resigned? You betcha. Can't hope to have any journalistic street cred if you're cribbing from others.

But I want to focus on the reactions from the blogosphere.

From Michelle Malkin:

The bottom line is: I know it when I see it. And, painfully, Domenech's detractors, are right. He should own up to it and step down. Then, the Left should cease its sick gloating and leave him and his family alone.

From RightWingNutHouse:

If we conservatives have any claims to promoting honesty and decency, there will be more calls on the right for Mr. Domenech to do the honorable thing and save himself and his employer the embarrassment of being fired by resigning immediately. Little can be gained from his continuing to blog at the Washington Post as I for one never plan on linking to anything he writes and would hope that other conservatives would join me in such a boycott.

Ben Domenech is not the kind of writer we want representing the conservative viewpoint at the Washington Post or anywhere else. With so many eloquent and able conservative writers, I’m sure the Post will have no problem finding someone else to take over a blog that should be espousing honesty and decency as the principles by which we on the right live by.

Anything short of that just won’t do.

And. . .from the left:

Daily Kos:

Howard Kurtz started the Post's walk-back on Domenech in today's edition, mentioning that the appointment of Domenech had "touched off an online furor," and then finally, in his 9th paragraph, getting around to mentioning "what appeared to be instances of plagiarism from Domenech's writing at the William & Mary student paper." Kurtz' seemed to suggest that Domenech's serial plagiarism is just a sideshow to the "on the one hand/on the other" disagreement on his political beliefs.

Expect to see Kurtz' approach adopted by the wingers. They'll argue that it was the merits of his arguments that upset progressives, and that it was unfortunate that the liberal Washington Post chose a weak candidate to represent conservative views when there were so many more deserving candidates.

"Sadly no Comment" (you have to go and see for yourself. Lots of glee, four-letter adjectives used liberally in place of coherent criticism. . .the usual.

Let us note the the vitriol . . . and conspiracy theories. . .are emanating from the Left on this. Perhaps that is no surprise. Domenech was regarded as something of a hero on the Right for infiltrating the halls of the notoriously lefty WaPo. His almost immediate fall from grace is a bit breathtaking. . .and certainly exhilirating for the MoonBats. In some ways. . .ONLY SOME. . .you can't blame them for a bit of existential crowing.

Now, I have searched for some comparison articles on Malkin to see if she treated Jayson Blair with as much dripping contempt as the MoonBats are for Domenech right now. . .and all I was able to find was more LEFTY ranting on the evils of the blogosphere. People like Brokaw claiming that bloggers are out of control. How this related to Blair's perfidy I cannot tell.

But still, with Domenech, the ranting is coming from the Left. With Blair, (based on my decidedly limited research) the ranting ALSO came from the Left.

One of these days, I will do an involved post on the entrenched hypocrisy of the Left; if they are all about openness and loving, why do we see SO MANY instances of their unadulterated hate speech all over the blogosphere?

And the Sheen Moonbat legacy continues

2006-03-22T17:46:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure when Charlie Sheen fell off the map for me. Was it the constant drugging? Or acting so stupid as to cause a woman like Denise Richards to dump him?

Naw. It's this latest deranged rant that did it for me.

Grumpy lately?

2006-03-21T12:30:00.000-08:00

I note that my last few posts have been on the grumpy/curmedgeonly side, lately. So have the Anchoress's. Is it winter?

Erly mid-life crisis?

Or, once again, has the Anchoress nailed it with this spot-on ramble. Check it out.

Bad Craziness

2006-03-20T17:46:00.000-08:00

Y'know, it's bad enough digging out of the morass of foolishness surrounding my life lately. . .and it got even sillier when the choral director's daughter did infact get the role of Dorothy. . .that really smells.

But then I go over to Mark Shea's Catholic and Enjoying It blog, and today he churned out about 8 different links that just totally discouraged me.

I'm not gonna reproduce them here. Go on over and take a look for yourself. Marked "March 20th, 2006." If you're anything like me, you'll find the links easily enough. If you aren't and don't agree with Mark on the horrors these various tidbits foretell. . .well, bad cess to you.

I swear, between Oz, berserk parents at my school, Shea's and Suicide of the West's alarming posts, I'd have more than enough reason to feed myself headfirst into the nearest meat grinder if it weren't for the following:

-My health
-The reality and health of my seven children
-And the reality and health of my lovely wife.

And thank God for them!!!!

Wallflower

2006-03-18T14:49:00.000-08:00

6 X 6 – from wall to wall
Shutters on the window. . no light at all
Damp on the floor, you got damp in your bed
They’re trying to get you crazy-get you out of your head
They feed you scraps, they feed you lies
To lower your defenses, no compromise
Nothing you can do, the day can be long
Your mind is working overtime, your body’s not too strong

Hold on, Hold on
They put you in a box, so you can’t be heard
Let your spirit stay unbroken, let you not be deterred

Hold on, you have gambled with your own life
And you face the night alone
While the builders of the cages
Sleep with bullets, bars and stone
They do not see your road to freedom
That you build with flesh and bone

They take you out – the light burns your eyes
To the talking room – it’s no surprise
Loaded with questions from clean white coats
Their eyes are as hidden as their Hippocratic Oath
They tell you-how to behave, behave as their guest
You want to resist them, you do your best
They take you to your limits they take you beyond
For all that they are doing there is no way to respond

Hold on, Hold on
They put you in a box, so you can’t be heard
Let your spirit stay unbroken, let you not be deterred

Hold on, you have gambled with your own life
And you face the night alone
While the builders of the cages
Sleep with bullets, bars and stone
They do not see your road to freedom
That you build with flesh and bone

Though you may disappear, you’re not forgotten here
And I will say to you, I will do what I can do

Though you may disappear, you’re not forgotten here
And I will say to you, I will do what I can do
And I will do what I can do
And I will do what I can do

Copyright 1982, Cliofine, Limited.

Taken from the lyrics sheets attached to the 1982 album Security by Peter Gabriel.

Dedicated to all those who suffer from the stings, arrows and aggravations slung by human insects.

Discouraged,, seeking prayers

2006-03-17T16:07:00.000-08:00

There are times working with adults is a chore beyond measure. I was reminded of that little fact once again, today.

Please pray for me, as I am struggling tremendously just now with bitterness and anger at some remarkably unjust and unethical treatment at the hands of some adults in my life.

Want to know why I got out of school administration and back into teaching? When you teach, kids are acting like kids, in other words, your target population is acting appropriate to its level of development.

Adults, on the other hand, when you deal with them as an adminstrator, are acting like kids. I have no problem managing kids that act their age. I have ENORMOUS impatience with adults that do not act their age.

Taskbar seems to be fixed

2006-03-17T07:33:00.000-08:00

But blogger is still acting stupid. I sometimes can't login, posts are still sometimes getting rejected. Then there are reports of large bloggers (see Michelle Malkin or the Anchoress for details)that have had posts LOST, or in one case, even a URL outright stolen.

HEY BLOGGER BOYS!!! GET IT TOGETHER, HMMMMM?

Biscuits is an idiot

2006-03-16T20:23:00.000-08:00

The long-forgotten and little lamented Bisquik hammered me in his little alliterative nothing today. . .claiming that I once upon a time demanded there be no sympathy for homosexuals, because I once dared to say on this blog that Mathew Shepard, the gay man murdered over drugs in Laramie, Wyo. a few years ago was just that, murdered over drugs instead of his homosexuality, as reported on 20/20, if memory serves.

So, apparently, the one time I can agree with the MSM on anything, Mr. Bisquik decides that I am the one who is intolerant.

Not on your life, baby. Just sick that a poor man's death in Wyoming is turned into a national day of martyrdom and beaten breasts by the GLBT, faithful atheist league. It was pathetic then, and it's still pathetic now.

And you're still wrong, Mr. Biscuits.

HELP!!!

2006-03-16T20:21:00.000-08:00

My sidebar for some reason has transported itself to the end of my posts. And I did NOTHING to cause this. Blogger was acting like a wino earlier today, refusing to allow me to post my Oz entry. . .but I never got into settings at the time.

So, I just left for awhile, and voila: I can post on Oz, and my sidebar is bleeped up.

Any suggestions?

Lost in Oz

2006-03-16T18:46:00.001-08:00

Well, my daughter did NOT get Dorothy. . .and here's a little story that tells WHY.

Oz is being produced by a local community college that does community theater in the summers. I got back into acting after an 18 year hiatus at this very venue, doing Shakespeare and Arthur Miller. Had a blast doing it.

A number of us auditioned for West Side Story last summer, but when it became evident that my eldest daughter was not going to get cast, I asked out of a role that I actually had not been formally cast in, but it had been made pretty clear that the role was mine to lose. So, we didn't do it last year.

This year, that same daughter, who has fine acting chops, and a GREAT singing voice, auditioned for Dorothy, and got called back. Call backs were last night. My daughter sang like a boid, and did a fine job reading. None of the other 5 callback Dorothys were better than my kid (fine, call me biased. . .you had to be there, you'd agree with me), but at the same time Monica wasn't necessarily better than all of them. She was at least equal, in my mind, to two of the others, putting here in the top three auditioners.

The other three were not in the same tier. Those last three consisted of one girl with a fine voice, but with a face and body that simply will not serve as Dorothy. Sorry, but them's the facts.

The other two consist of an Oriental girl with the right build, but average acting skills and a rather poor voice. The final one is a strong dancer, but also has average acting chops and a poor voice.

In a rather odd message, the cast list was published over a voice mail machine, and in announcing Dorothy, the director announced that the two latter candidates, the Oriental girl and the dancer, were being called back for a third audtion. None of the others, including my daughter, were called back. And then this cryptic statement: "We reserve the right to cast whomever we choose for Dorothy." Well, duh!! why state the obvious? And you plan on drawing from these last two candidates, the weakest of the bunch? Why tell us the obvious?

But the final filip to this little tale I've not yet revealed.

The candidate for Dorothy that is not the Oriental? The dancer?

She just happens to be the daughter of the choral director for this show.

Now, does anyone really think that an Oriental is going to get cast in what is otherwise a white cast? I really, really doubt it. This poor girl is being used as a distraction from casting the choral director's daughter.

Nepotism, anyone?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Now, that said, I know the above sounds bitter. Perhaps I am, but only a touch. I am under no illusions about the fine arts. So very, very often it is not what you know, or how you do, but who you know that lands you the gigs. I knew going in that Monica was facing some very stiff competition, in that the choral director's kid was competing for the role Monica wants. (Why the choral director is allowed to have a say in casting when her own kid is auditioning is another question. . .but that's another story) And if that other girl gets it, I cannot claim to be surprised. And I warned Monica of this, that she could NAIL the audition and still lose out. That didn't stop her when it became mostly evident with that message that she didn't get the role, and she spent the better part of an hour staring at the table, the glisten of closely-held tears shining in her eyes. While the fury of my wife mounted and mounted. . .

A funny world we live in. But fortunately, my Monica is taking it well now, looking forward to goofing backstage with a friend of hers that also got cast as an extra, and it appears that ALL of our seven kids are going to be in it (I was asked if the baby, now 5, who did not try out, would be interested, and we said "Sure!!!"), so there is a real chance that we might be able to take a picture of all of us in costume. . .even if Monica didn't get the plum part.

It is surely something she can learn from, even if it is a lesson in injustice; that hard work and talent sometimes are not enough. But you pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and do it again. Keep auditioning. Keep trying. As Monica's voice coach said when she found out about this, "Honey, you keep working. Your day will come when your talent and ability will be recognized for what it is."

Parenting is such a bittersweet proposition sometimes.

Chesterton on Boomers, 85 years early

2006-03-15T07:00:00.000-08:00

OK, I admit I am not above shameless stealing from the Anchoress, who uncovered this great tidbit from Gilbert Keith who knows where. . .but since it's in the public domain, I'm gonna post it here as well.

All the same, if you haven't read the Anchoress lately, GO THERE NOW!!!!

“A generation is now growing old, which never had anything to say for itself except that it was young. It was the first progressive generation - the first generation that believed in progress and nothing else…. [They believed] simply that the new thing is always better than the old thing; that the young man is always right and the old wrong. And now that they are old men themselves, they have naturally nothing whatever to say or do. Their only business in life was to be the rising generation knocking at the door. Now that they have got into the house, and have been accorded the seat of honour by the hearth, they have completely forgotten why they wanted to come in. The aged younger generation never knew why it knocked at the door; and the truth is that it only knocked at the door because it was shut. It had nothing to say; it had no message; it had no convictions to impart to anybody…. The old generation of rebels was purely negative in its rebellion, and cannot give the new generation of rebels anything positive against which it should not rebel. It is not that the old man cannot convince young people that he is right; it is that he cannot even convince them that he is convinced. And he is not convinced; for he never had any conviction except that he was young, and that is not a conviction that strengthens with years.”
- G.K. Chesterton, Illustrated London News of July 9, 1921

Why the Novus Ordo is OK:

2006-03-13T17:52:00.000-08:00

Here, from the Catholic Cadet (via this link at the Anchoress) says all that has to be said on the Tridentine vs. Novus Ordo Masses.

And why, in the end, I prefer the Novus Ordo, as poorly as it is done at my home parish on occasion.

If I were Emperor of the Universe

2006-03-12T13:25:00.000-08:00

-Guitars would be banned from Mass
-Marty Haugen and the St. Louis Jesuits would be mute altar servers
-Bishops would SHEPHERD LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO!!!
-SSPXers and the like would catch the clue that Vatican II, for all of its subsequent confusion, is a valid council led by the Holy Spirit
-GodofBiscuits and similar, faith-based atheists would at least listen to reason, rather than resort to blind rhetoric and ad hominem arguments
-teachers would earn what they deserve
-and then they would break up and ban the National Education Association
-the ACLU would call itself what it really is, Modern liberalism Gone Wild
-Micheal Moore would be working for McDonald's
-the Democratic party would get consistent, banning both capital punishment and abortion
-the Republican party would do the same thing
-Islamofascists would be recognized for what they are by the Cluebats and MSM; renegade terrorists who deserve all the mercy ever shown by and to the Nazis
-parents would regain the ability to parent
-schools would regain the ability to discipline
-I would find a decent and inexpensive Rickenbacker 4003 on eBay
-Tabletop fusion would become available for EVERYONE, from Bill Gates down to the poorest street urchin in Bangladesh
-People could at least entertain the idea that there COULD be a God, then be open to Pascal's Wager
-People would realize that guilt is not such a bad thing, and
-That there is such a thing as sin, and that it needs to be resisted rather than embraced, and
-That everyone would read and know GK Chesterton and CS Lewis
-the seniors I teach would finally grow up
-and my daughter would get the chance to play Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz.

Bareback Oscar has clothes on, after all

2006-03-06T19:29:00.000-08:00

Did anyone outside of the Hollywood/GLBT fringe-out echo chamber pay ANY attention to the Academy Awards presentation?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Then there is the continuing evolution debate as well

2006-02-28T16:27:00.000-08:00

LINK

Here we have yet another case of the government getting its panties in a bunch over the question, "What happens next?" If they claim that evolution is not fully proven (and it isn't), that also means they have to say the same thing about quantum mechanics (also not fully proven) and Freud (who will NEVER be proven).

What is the problem with telling students that this stuff isn't fully proven? Our physics teacher does a unit on STRING THEORY, and THAT is simply an exercise in extreme mathematics. It is ENTIRELY theoretical. . .and yet is taught in a science class.

I fail to see how evolution, quantum theory and especially Freud can't also be taught that way. Heck, I ALREADY teach Freud in that way.

Here's one for ya

2006-02-28T16:20:00.000-08:00

What to make of this:

LINK

On the one hand, I believe that transgender surgeries are some of the worst offenses against God's creation that we can commit. Would I hire this person at a Catholic school? Absolutely no way. Should this person be teaching at a school that he/she previously taught at? Also, NO.

But should the person be allowed to teach at other schools within the district? Now there to my mind is an intriguing and not so easily answered question. Thoughts?

A new post, finally, but not the one promised

2006-02-25T14:23:00.000-08:00

I have walked through the valley of foolishness, brought to you by the following:

1) Dumb, and I mean STUPID choices on the part of some of my students, coupled with
2) The sudden illness of my boss, which left me carrying most of the boss's burden with respect to #1,
3) My own full time job, and then
4) A number of radio broadcasts, NONE of them in my hometown, resulting in almost 24 hours of driving over the course of two weeks, as well as almost 10 hours of actual radio work, resulting in a tired voice and a tremendous weariness with driving.

All of those things tie together in the post I originally intended to put up here. . .but it requires significant re-writing at this point. . .and because of 1-4, I am so SICK of the entire topic and everything related to it. . . .I just can't bring myself to do that re-write. Maybe I will. . .later. Much later.

Don't count on it.

In the meantime, there is the happy news from Pierre, South Dakota, as the intrepid South Dakotan legislature has effectively outlawed abortion as we know it in the home state of George McGovern. (Can you say "Dramatic Irony"?). Planned Parenthood, entrenched in their fortified clinic in Rapid City, on the defensive, providing the only "reproductive services in the entire state" (meaning they are the only ones killing innocent unborns in the state) is promising to sue the State for such an incursion upon "women's rights". Which is to be expected from them.

And the SD Legislature also knew that PP would sue. They want them to. So this little battle can be carried all the way to the Supreme Court.

Also as expected.

On the one hand, the SD Legislature is to be congratulated in showing the cojones to go after the entrenched -and now, on the run- abortion lobby. They are taking advantage of what they see is a sea change on the Supreme Court and forcing a showdown on Roe v. Wade. In some respects, at least in terms of providing for their own state interests, the Legislature is doing exactly what it needs to be; establishing law and fighting to maintain that law within the state.

But, I submit that in some ways, SD is misguided here. . .though for the life of me I don't see an alternative that could work, at least only for South Dakotans.

The reason I feel they are misguided is that in taking the battle to the courts, knowing beforehand that the battle will be taken there, the Legislature has given a de facto announcement that their legislative powers, as are all the legislative powers of the land, both State and Federal, are less than that of the Judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. They are saying that when Roe v. Wade was handed down over 30 years ago, the Court was fully justified in handing down that ruling, stripping power from the states and from Congress. They say so because now that the Court's apparent political make-up has changed, the political rulings from the court will now favor the desires of the SD Legislature. Whereas previously, the political rulings of the court went against SD desires.

Note the term "political rulings". In so many cases, that is what the Supreme Court, and to a greater degree, the federal District courts as well, have been doing more and more these past 50 years. Writing law, rather than interpreting it. State legislatures no longer dictate law for state, the courts do. Congress doesn't write law, the Federal courts do.

And we sit by and say, "Okeydokey, fine with me."

If there is any one thing we as Americans ought to be outraged about, it is -in the words of Fr. Neuhaus- the Judicial Usurpation of Politics. And in playing the game with Planned Parenthood, South Dakota is giving its blessing to the courts' continued usurpation of political authority.

Politics, and the writing of law, has no business in the courts, it never has. Its primary place is in the elected bodies, Congress and the state Assemblies or Legislatures. To a somewhat lesser degree, politics also comes into play in the Executive Branch, the Presidency and all it controls. But it ought to be totally absent in the Judiciary. And it isn't. And this bold move by South Dakota only makes the problem worse. It encourages the whiny Democratic minority that the way to go in getting one's political way is not to appeal to the people directly, not to actually go out there and WIN ELECTIONS with appealing platforms, but instead to set oneself up as a Cultural Elite who Really Knows What Is Best for the people, even if they're too stupid to realize it, and essentially go whining to Mommy and Daddy Judge to get their way. Now in this case, they may well -and I hope they do- lose, but in dropping that loss on PP and its henchcritters, we are setting ourselves up for the end of democracy as formulated by Jefferson et al.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line as I sit here is this: As a pro-life advocate, I am thrilled by the Brave Boys and Girls of Pierre. As an amateur American historian, I am gravely concerned as the confusion of the Separation of Powers as designed by the Founding Fathers is only going to get worse, and further limit the ability of the people of the United States to govern itself. Less and less will we have law written by men and women accountable to us through the ballot box, and more and more will we be subjecting ourselves to the judicial whim and fiat of men and women who wield power beyond the reach of the ballot. At the end of that road is not democracy, or even republicanism, but instead a form of class tyranny.

Why the Blog is on Temporary Hiatus

2006-02-16T18:54:00.000-08:00

1: My boss WAS in the hospital. He has since gone home, but has worked a grand total of two (2) hours in the past two weeks.

2: One of the ugliest discipline issues in the history of my school broke out just as my boss was going down, and I have been the point person in dealing with it. I am still digging out from underneath THAT.

3: I still have a full-time+ job beyond this silliness.

4: As if that wasn't enough, I had committed to doing some radio broadcasting. . .and the committment came due -again- just as all of this excreta was hitting the rotating blades. And I made a committment, so I am following through on it.

5: My boss today sends a somewhat ominous note that there is a possibility of him "making a decision about his continued role in the future very soon." Ugh. I want him back. We NEED him back. If he DOESN'T come back. . .more thunder on my tired widdle head.

I am not searching for sympathy (though PRAYERS ARE CERTAINLY WELCOME!!!). . .and I have not forgotten this very important part of my life. . .but it still has to stay on the backburner.

I'll try to keep you posted.

Forthcoming post????

2006-02-09T17:20:00.000-08:00

. . .is going to have to wait a little while longer. My boss went to the hospital on Tuesday, and the thunder usually reserved for him is now falling on my head. In addition to my normal job, I'm doing a great deal of his. As you might imagine, somethin's gotta give and in my case, that somethin' is blogging.

Post forthcoming

2006-02-06T18:29:00.000-08:00

I have spent an entire day investigating, contemplating and writing about some average stupidity that has occurred at my job.

Once the immediacy has died down, I'll publish the post I've written on it.

Idiot runs amok

2006-02-05T18:57:00.000-08:00

Link here.

Aside from the depressing and self-evident horror that this lunatic Robida has unleashed, both in the gay bar in Massachusetts and the shootout in Arkansas, we now are going to be subjected to a blizzard of gibberish from the Moonbat Left on how orthodox Christianity is responsible for this idiot's rampage.

Which is spurious nonsense, as we all know. But we also know that truth never got in the way of the MSM telling a story that makes Christianity look bad.

On Rivalries

2006-01-28T09:52:00.000-08:00

The school at which I teach has been on the lower end of the athletic totem pole for many years. We have been in the same league for just about our entire existence, and within the league there are two other private schools; a fellow Catholic school (jokingly called "The Factory" because they have been athletically dominant for generations) and a Protestant Christian school which also has been very strong in basketball. Naturally, the rivalries between these two schools and mine is rather intense; yet the intensities of the rivalry with regards to the fellow Catholic school and us and the protestant school and us are of very different characters.

Let me explain.

Last year in basketball, we finally acheived a certain amount of success in the gym. The Protestants (their mascot is the Patriot) beat us at their own home, but when they came to visit us, despite amazing woofing on the part of the parents and strutting on the part of their players, we finally beat them on our home floor. They thanked us by overturning our picnic tables and grousing on their way out.

We then proceeded to beat them -twice- in the playoffs, and the unpleasant character of the rivalry only increased.

This year has been little different. While the cheering is intense, its character is verging on hostile. The Protestants do not like us, at all.

Naturally, I am biased, but it is my belief that the animus is mostly one-sided. We would be more than happy to get along with our Protestant brethren, but the level of animosity they generate towards us makes this amity difficult to achieve.

Let us compare this intensity to that we share with the Factory.

The Factory last year pretty much crushed us on their home court. When they then visited us in the most anticipated game of the year, an unbelievably raucous crowd saw the Factory beat us in overtime.

Then we met in the playoffs, with great anticipation.

The game started with a cheer from the Factory side of the floor; "Go CATHOLICS!!!!" Remember, we are both Catholic schools.

The Factory crushed us again. It wasn't even close. And we then proceeded to cheer for them throughout the rest of the playoffs, as they finished 5th in the state. You surely did not see us overturn their picnic tables on the way out.

This year, the Factory is down while we returned 4 of our five starters from last year's playoff team. We went to their place and beat them for the first time in a tightly fought contest. We proceeded to win all of our other games (save one, where the rather rude Patriot crowd saw their team beat us in OT on our own floor. Since they won this one, they left our picnic tables alone).

And then the Factory came to our place last night.

My school's team put together four full quarters, never let up and beat the Factory easily. A very intense game on the floor, lots of cheering in the stands, but we prevailed.

But that's not why I am writing this post.

Afterward, one of our school's families hosted a get together of families from both our school. . .and the Factory.

I'd estimate about 80 people showed up. Most of our players were there, as were a good many Factory players and their families. And we had a great time. Lots of pizza, chips, beer, pop, great conversations. I spoke at length with the parents of the Factory's pre-season all-star choice, and the owner of the radio station that broadcasts Factory games. They were happy for our success and were rooting for us to go far in the state tourney. They still hope to beat us in the playoffs, but wish us well. . .just as we have with them for years. They are playing the Patriots on Tuesday. For the Factory to beat the Patriots only helps us. . .it doesn't significantly assist the Factory given the state of records in the league right now.

Yet they are out for bear on the Patriots, and wish us to beat them as well. See, they have been on the receiving end of Patriot animosity as well.

We also discussed fan behavior. While we both cheer our respective home teams, we also cheer the efforts of the opposing team, giving a good hand to starters who are done for the night, regardless of which team he belongs to.

And keep in mind all of this occurs not only while our boys are getting the upper hand over the Factory for the first time ever, but our girls team -much maligned- ALSO beat the Factory against everyone's expectations -including mine- for the first time ever last night. And yet the Factory parents and players were remarkably poised, elegant and fair in taking their loss, enjoying fellowship with us as much as we enjoyed it with them.

We would invite the Patriot parents over, but they would not accept the invite. Or perhaps they would, and burn down the house.

The Factory people are class acts, and while we do share the fraternity of common faith, it gives one hope that at least at the high school level, it is possible to have those intense rivalries while simultaneously forming and cementing friendships between the groups. Now if we could get the same relationship going with our Protestant brethren. . .

Meatheads from Massachusetts remind us why Mark Shea calls if the "Evil Party"

2006-01-26T19:03:00.000-08:00

Though one can argue that it is stupid as well.

John Kerry, the Amazing Flopster, is calling for a filibuster on the elevation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

One has to feel for the guy. Since his confusing brand of evil progessivism failed in '04, he still has to meet the expectations of the Cluebats that continue to vote for him in the Commonwealth of Taxachusetts.

And of course, Senator Ted is supporting this moonbat notion. Ted even has the gall to call this upcoming vote a "test of conscience."

Don't you just love it when degenerate, sanctimonious hypocrites such as Kennedy use the word "conscience"?

Bring it on, Evil Party. Then you can give the Stupid Party the excuse they are aching for to use the "Nuclear Option."

CNN link on this foolishness here.

The "New" Terri Schiavo

2006-01-26T13:58:00.000-08:00

Nothing for me to say that hasn't already been said here.

Go read it now, as it is Absolutely.

Right.

On.

Inquisition and Modern liberalism; mirror images of one another

2006-01-23T17:01:00.000-08:00

Why, you say?

Simple. In the Inquisition, the perpetrators quite rightly hated heresies, but went overboard and also hated the heretics.

Whereas modern liberals, not wanting to be labeled Torquemadas, simply LOVE heretics. Which would be fine, except that they then also go overboard -the other way- and start loving the heresies, thinking that you can't love one without also loving the other.

Same errors, simply mirror images of one another.

Hat tip to Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli.

Rare sports commentary

2006-01-20T09:39:00.000-08:00

A fellow named Davis who plays for the New York Knicks saw his wife being intimidated by what appeared to be an intoxicated fan. He then went into the stands to "evaluate" the situation.

Now, we might be conditioned to think that yet another idiot, spoiled athlete went in the stands to get violent and "teach the fans a lesson" as happened in Detroit a little over a year ago.

No such thing happened.

Davis went into the stands, security came in, removed Davis, his family, and the offending patron. Problem solved. Davis has since been suspended for five games.

And when I first read this, I thought; "Man, he did exactly the right thing. Exactly what I would have done."

Scoop Jackson, a writer for ESPN.com synopsized this little incident perfectly.

I don't often agree with Jackson. He tends to play the race card too often in his articles. But boy, did he nail it correctly in this one.

Go read it right now.

UPDATE:

On the other hand, it is not easy to sympathize when the alleged "victim" in this non-incident is now suing Davis for slander, among other things.

I note with head-shaking bemusement that the victim is a son of a major Democratic operative in Chicago. This fact lends credence to the idea that the Evil Party continues to advocate for the Cult of Victimhood.

snickers

2006-01-19T19:19:00.000-08:00

Much earlier in this blog, I suggested that Richard Dawkins, the notorious natural scientist might be open to the idea of the existence of God in an interview he gave some years ago.

Well, I was quite thoroughly raked over the coals by some resident MRTs. . .for daring to suggest that Dawkins had even the hint of monotheism in him.

Then I came across this little tidbit in the Times (UK):

Scientists all over the nation must hold their heads and groan whenever Richard Dawkins appears on television, as he did in The Root of All Evil? (Monday, C4). He is such a terrible advertisement, such an awful embarrassment, the Billy Graham of the senior common room. His splenetic, small-minded, viciously vindictive falsetto rant at all belief that isn’t completely rooted in the natural sciences is laughable. Dawkins is a born-again Darwinist, an atheist, so why is he devoting so much blood pressure and time to arguing with something he knows doesn’t exist? If it’s not there, Richard, why do you keep shouting at it? He looks like a scientific bag lady screaming at the traffic, and watching him argue with a fundamentalist Christian, you realise they were cut from identical cloth, separated at birth. Dawkins is, of course, the archetype of a man who protests too much, and I’d say he’s well on his way to, if not a Pauline, then at least a Muggeridgian conversion. Any day now, he’ll be back on telly quoting CS Lewis.

The author raises a point: Why is Dawkins so curmedgeonly on the topic? Remember, the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy. Dawkins is not apathetic on the subject of the existence of God.

On another note, can you IMAGINE the NYTimes running such an article? Never, not even down to Dante's Ninth Circle of Hell. I find it delicious that the UK Times can tweak the materialist/atheistic establishment, but no paper in the US to the left of the Washingon Times would ever dare challenge the regnant cultural mouthpieces.

Just a couple of odds and ends

2006-01-17T15:50:00.000-08:00

1) EXTREMELY tired today. I have GOT to start getting more than 5 hours of sleep per night.
2) ClustrMaps, that interesting map on the right bar that shows visits from other places, reveals that I get my primary hits from the following areas:

a)Two spots in Washington State. I know who those are.
b)One from what appears to be Texas. I am pretty sure I know who that is.
c)One spot from Scandinavia; apparently Norway, in the lower, more urban section (which could also be Sweden, I am sure). I have not the first clue who that might be.

Yoo-hoo!!! Any subjects (however nominal) of Harald V or Carl XVI Gustav!! Make a comment or drop me an e-mail identifying yourself(ves)! Always curious to make contact with folks from beyond the borders.

Sociological Dissonance

2006-01-16T09:59:00.000-08:00

Cognitive dissonance is a common concept in psychology. It is typically defined thus:

Leon Festinger called cognitive dissonance ". . .the distressing mental state in which people feel they 'find themselves doing things that don’t fit with what they know'".

Examples are common enough to find; a recovering alcoholic taking a drink, a husband cheating on his wife, a consciously honest student cheats on a test. In all cases, the person committing the act then suffers from anxiety stemming from the disconnect between the action taken and the previous mindset.

Dissonance is then resolved by either altering the action, or altering the thought process that predated the action. For example, the philandering spouse might rationalize that his wife was a nagging, frigid ice queen and he had to have some release. Truth is not quite so much the issue here as resolving the mental conflict.

Catholics refer to cognitive dissonance as "guilt." Perhaps some of us have heard of this concept before.

Sociological dissonance is the phenomenon where an entire culture engages in an action that is antithetical to its morals, and either radically alters its thinking to lessen the dissonance, or it manufactures alternative moral issues as a means of avoiding the guilt associated with the primary violation.

Example of primary violation: (see this link for illustration):

1: Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.
2:The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3:The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
4:The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
5:The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed."

Any reasonable culture would consider this action to be murder. Worse, infanticide. Yet through the wonders of sociological dissonance, culturally we ignore the horror of the mutilated child and instead focus on the sad story of birds who are "tortured" in the making of foie gras.

Associated Press
OLYMPIA-For bird sympathizers concerned with the practice of force feeding, a trip to a swanky French restaurant may soon become easier to swallow.
Rep. Brendan Williams (D-Olympia), has proposed a meaure that would ban the process of harvesting bloated livers -known as foie gras, or "fatty liver"- and would remove the delicacy from state restaurants.
It can be difficult to stomach the methods used to make this delicacy. A few times each day, waterfowl are force-fed high-energy food-usually corn- via long tube attached to a pressurized pump.
The process can balloon a liver to 10 times the normal size-a swelling that can often be deadly.
"Torturing an animal to make it tastier is not a proposition I support," Williams said. "There has(sic) to be some limitations on decadence when it comes to what we eat or what we do to animals.
No farms in Washington currently produce foie gras, although most French restaurants provide the indulgence on the menu.
"Banning the production immediately is proactive and won't disrupt the practices of farmers," Williams said. Restaurants would have until 2012 to remove the item from the menu.

Representative Williams (Evil Party, Olympia) I am sure at some point, has wrestled with the horror that is abortion. Yet, to stay in office in this putridly liberal state, he must bow to the wishes of the abortion lobby, so he supports the infanticide. Perhaps he soothes his dissonance by claiming that he personally is against abortion, but supports the woman's right to choose. (How similar this sounds to those German Protestants who secretly abhorred Kristallnacht and other examples of Nazi persecution of the Jews, but felt that the State did have the right, after all, to choose how it dealt with the Jews).

However, Mr. Williams apparently felt the need to go farther still, and is further reducing his dissonance by protecting the helpless waterfowl whose livers go to soothe upscale palates in uppity French restaurants. After all, as he said: "There has(sic) to be some limitations on decadence when it comes to what we eat or what we do with animals."

Indeed, Mr. Williams. While you address the minor problem of subject/verb agreement, ask yourself this: What of the decadence we as a society bless when we torture and kill our own children for the sake of decadent convenience? Perhaps once you answer this, then I might join you on your anti-foie gras campaign.

First things first, anyone? Or are birds more worthy of saving than humans?

For more on the general societal decay that leads to this insane contradiction, visit Suicide of the West.

What 20th century Pope are you?

2006-01-14T11:47:00.000-08:00

Heh.

I am Pope John Paul II. I am a force to be
reckoned with.

Which Twentieth Century Pope Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

I wonder what the others were like? "You are Benedict XV, somewhat historically removed. . ."

Secular religionists once again seek to establish their own state-based faith

2006-01-11T07:26:00.000-08:00

Link:

Once again, secular humanism attempts to stifle any dissent to its insistent belief that we came about from nothing.

What kills me about this is they are trying to quash a philosophy class. Now, not only have they reduced scienctific inquiry to its most base form (radical empiricism), but now they are trying to reduce philosophy to the same barren standard.

With the final irony, of course, being their acceptance of any number of questions and outright errors of evolution based on their own faith.

Funny how THEY can believe, and have the state sanction it, but no one else can have elements of faith.

Fame

2006-01-06T21:45:00.000-08:00

Oh my goodness.

Preamble to the gush:

I have been for parts of 30 years a drama geek. Simply love acting. Did a lot of it in middle school, some in high school, and went berserk with it in college. I even met my wife on the set of a college play.

I then stepped out of it for close to 15 years; grad school, establishing a career, marriage and young children put my little drama avocation on hold for awhile.

Then, when my kids got older, they asked what I liked to do as a kid, I mentioned acting, and they of course wanted to get into it themselves.

I returned to acting on the understanding that it would then become a family affair. I act in plays that my kids are also in. I even turned down a role offered to me in one local production when it became clear that my kids would have no part in it.

So, for the most part, I have been involved in some way or other with almost every show my kids have been in these past 4 years.

Now, as some of the links below describe, I spent the early part of this fall playing Maurice in Beauty and the Beast, with two of my children, and my wife playing violin. A great time for all, yet exhausting for me as I was ill for most of the run, and we had child care problems with our younger kids.

The same theater troupe then auditioned Fame. A movie I hate. A script I like even less. And I was tired. AND my wife was asked to play violin for it as well. They would like me to play one of the teachers, but I demurred.

"Listen," I said. "You can find a person to play the teacher a lot easier than you can find another violinist. So, I'll sit this one out, thanks."

And I did.

And the cast in general has had problems -some serious- with rehearsals. So, I looked forward to opening night tonight as an obligation; I really wasn't expecting good theater this time around.

However, a funny thing happened on the way to the theater. . .

GUSH/

So, for the first time tonight, I got to see a play my kids were in (two of the principals, no less) that I had had nothing to do with; so I got to see their performances with fresh, new eyes, so to speak.

My God, they blew me away!!!

My oldest son played a smartass Puerto Rican, always there with the smart answer, and he was hilarious. Now, I've already gushed about him here, so I'll leave off of him.

Then my older daughter played the lead, Carmen; the tortured girl who sings the title song, leaves for Los Angeles for fame and fortune, and returns a broken drug addict and eventually ODs.

And she NAILED it, especially a song in the second act where she laments LA and the damage it can do to a person as they pursue their dreams without recourse to caution and discipline. The broken heart she displayed in singing that piece. . . .

I've always smirked at parents who cried at the graduations or big games of their kids. No more. My own daughter brought tears to my eyes as she sang the utter heartbreak and misery Carmen had brought upon herself. I wept because she so thoroughly communicated the tragedy that was Carmen, but moreso because it was my daughter, and she was using her talents so completely and so well.

She is a determined young girl. She WANTS to be a good actress, and as my father told me when she was not even two years old, "Watch out for her. She is stubborn, and will fight for what she wants."

She works and fights -damned hard- at her craft. And it paid off tonight.

And forgive me if I take just a moment to beam with pride at my daughter.

Because of her, AND my son, AND their now-excellent fellow cast. . .I need to see this show again.

/GUSH

Crime of the Scene
Audition Update
Theater Teaching Parenting
Beauty Opens Tomorrow
How Rex Harrison Saved My Bacon
The Real Opening Crime of the Scene
Audition Update
Theater Teaching Parenting
Beauty Opens Tomorrow
How Rex Harrison Saved My Bacon
The Real Opening Crime of the Scene
Audition Update
Theater Teaching Parenting
Beauty Opens Tomorrow
How Rex Harrison Saved My Bacon
The Real Opening
Rex Redux

Praying for a person in need

2006-01-05T18:42:00.000-08:00

Long-time readers may recognize the name GodofBiscuits.

It seems Biscuits lost an argument with a set of train tracks while on his Vespa, resulting in an accident, broken ribs, and an extended hospital stay. He is still in the hospital as of his last post. You might send some prayers his way, as he appears to be in some very serious pain.

For those readers who do NOT know of him, the rest of his blog outside of his descriptions of the accident and hospital experience likely may be (make that WILL be) more than a little angering. Despite that, he certainly needs prayers for a quick recovery.

Robertson, SHUT UP!!!!!!

2006-01-05T18:37:00.000-08:00

SERIOUSLY!!

Pat Robertson gives Christians a bad name. He needs to be put out to pasture.

LINK

Garrison Keillor to the woodshed, please.

2006-01-01T12:54:00.000-08:00

It seems that our sometimes curmedgeonly host of A Prairie Home Companion did a piece spoofing the Pope some time ago, and it sent a loyal Catholic listener into a fit of rage. Read the exchange here, right now, before you go any further. (Quickly, too. I am unsure how long this link will be up).

Now, we can probably agree that the reader went a bit overboard in his response. Way overboard. Let's just say that if this reader had been a Titanic passenger, he would have drowned long before the ship struck the iceberg.

Keillor is correct in that people need to get used to their religions being poked fun at. We simply need to live with it. As if this reader/listener wasn't aware of Keillor's ongoing spoof in his Tales from Lake Woebegone. I mean really. The Catholic church in this fictional community is "Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility." That is a SPOOF!!!

However. . . .

Keillor says something at the end of his response that demands attention.

If the Democratic party is out of step with the Church, it's because the two are separate and independent, and because the church believes that its teachings on abortion and gays and contraception are more important than its teachings on social justice. Christ said a great deal about the poor, so one would think that's important in Christian theology, but you can make up your own mind about that. If you're outraged at a piece of comedy about the Pope and you accept with equanimity the people in your party cutting Medicaid, then you're a very interesting Christian indeed

He went down the tubes with this statement, and he ended up saying much more about the Church than he is qualified to comment upon, thereby showing that the listener -to a point- is correct. That Keillor is in fact an anti-Catholic bigot.

because the church believes that its teachings on abortion and gays and contraception are more important than its teachings on social justice.

Um. yeah, it does, and for damned good reason, Garrison. You may note, Garrison, that when issues of social justice were of paramount concern at the end of the 19th century, the Pope (Leo XIII) issued Rerum Novarum, THE seminal document on the rights of the worker, demanding fair wages, an end to child exploitation and the right of collective bargaining. All of which then came about in the industrialized West. You had better believe that this fight is still going on in developed countries, Mr. Keillor; you simply can't see it because it doesn't happen in St. Paul, New York or Denmark. None of those places need to hear the teaching. They have already learned from it.

To equate the cutting of Medicaid as on par with the teachings of Rerum Novarum, or to suggest that the Church has abrogated its responsibilities to these teachings is a bigoted smear; and normally, I would think you are above it, save for what Mark Shea has accurately labled your "reflexive Protestantism."

You also suggest that the Church places issues of abortion, gays and contraception above social justice. Take the teachings on homosexuality out of the discussion, as that is a different topic. Abortion and contraception are the same argument. And here is your error.

Do you know the difference between a conservative and an environmentalist, Mr. Keillor? A conservative wants to build a cabin in the woods. An environmentalist HAS his cabin in the woods and wants to prevent anyone else from building theirs.

You are like the environmentalist, only in a much more sinister and deadly fashion.

The Church now puts abortion on the front burner for a simple reason: They want to give people the CHANCE to complain about their Medicaid being cut, rather than killing them before they are old enough to worry about it.

It's that simple. Once the Evil Party (Democrats) safeguards the rights of those MOST HELPLESS in our society (the unborn), THEN I will join them in their fight against the Stupid Party (Republicans) in getting more Medicaid. (HT to Mark Shea for the Evil/Stupid party labels).

You are like that environmentalist, only worse: Since you already have your life, you now wish to prevent others from getting theirs.

The Church now addresses issues of life because the issue is THERE. It wasn't so in the 1890s.

Shame on you for your heartlessness.

Breaking Bread

2005-12-28T15:28:00.000-08:00

The never-ending quest for food tends to distract a person.

Sound crazy? Allow me to elucidate.

I know we are a long way from our slash and burn agriculture ancestors, and not much farther than that from our hunter/gatherer ancestors. Both cultures focussed exclusively on the acquisition and consumption of food, so that one might live another day to continue that pursuit.

Supposedly, we have advanced from those cultures. And in many ways, we have. We now neglect meals so that we might work longer hours so that we might acquire the BMW/X-Box extravaganza/5000 sq. foot home/college funds/retirement nest eggs. We still work like loons for what we desire. It is simply that our desires have changed.

Yet, there is something that got missed along the way. The joy of sharing a meal together has become tarnished, if not outright lost, in much of today's culture.

A priest whom I deeply respect sermonizes at least once a month on the importance of families having a meal together at least once a day, no matter how hectic the schedules are.

Many families nowadays say that this is impossible. We are lucku enough in the hoody household to share dinners together once a day.

Yet, even these meals can chafe after awhile. Questions harass the father (HOW will I get the money to feed all these mouths adequately) and the mother (WHAT am I going to cook TODAY???). Don't get me wrong. The meals and fellowship are fine; but those lingering questions can dampen some of the wonder of the fellowship.

Then, with the holidays, comes the company. In this case, my in-laws AND my wife's eldest brother, wife, and three younger children (all girls aged 15-24). My brother-in-law is the CEO of a very healthy, mid-sized company from the east coast. He lives very comfortably; nice new house in a tony, upper-class town in Connecticut. Not way up there, but definitely out of my league in the socioeconomic food chain.

So. The first day, my lovely wife cooks up an outstanding meal of chicken parmesan. We spend much time making sure the plates are all just so, that the food is just right (not too hot, not too cold). . .and then we find we don't have enough ROOM to seat everyone. . .so the younger boys get exiled to the kitchen. . .where they clamor for assistance througout the meal. . .keeping mostly my wife on the run.

Was it a good meal? Sure. But I couldn't help but run the occasional bill through my head (MAN it costs a lot to feed 15 people). Do I sound begrudging? Please, forgive me. These are not thoughts that I either welcome or encourage. We are simply on a modest budget, and we need to be careful. I'd do it all over again the same way given a second chance.

And my wife was never really able to RELAX and share time with her family. She was being Martha, responding to the needs of the family.

So, we collectively decided (everyone. My wife, me, the in-laws) that we would do it differently the second night. My brother-in-law at first suggested -on HIS tab- that we go to a rather upscale restaurant. My wife and I thanked him graciously but demurred, as we have two kids under 7 who would not only dislike the atmosphere, but probably hate the food as well.

We then suggested a somewhat more modest Italian place, despite the fact that my in-laws area somewhat snobbish concerning Italian food. But, that is where we went.

And I discovered for the first time the real value in breaking bread with others, free of worry. We didn't have to cook, we could order whatever we wished and didn't have to worry the bill (as my brother-in-law assured us repeatedly that once in awhile he could manage this sort of shindig with no worries.). And we had a ball. Great conversation, great food, and finally being able to catch up with these relatives that we had not seen -in some cases- in over 10 years.

In terms of "breaking bread", in that sense of it being good food with good friends, it was the best meal I have had in quite some time.

And a lesson for me that my more "mundane" meals at home need to have that same care-free attitude, and to truly cherish and enjoy the company of others.

Many, many thanks to my brother-in-law Carl and his bountiful generosity in allowing such a meal to take place.

Pictures may be forthcoming.

A Blessed Christmas to All

2005-12-24T13:37:00.000-08:00

May we all spend at least a few moments thanking God for providing us His Son.

Dover, ID, legislating from the Bench and the Tyranny of Belief

2005-12-22T14:24:00.000-08:00

So Judge Jones has allowed the 11 complaining families in Dover, NH to abrogate the caveat challenging the total validity of Evolution as taught in their biology classes. As far as Dover itself is concerned; whoop-de-doo. But, apparently the Judge went beyond the concerns of Dover and wrote a scathing ruling designed to insure that no other school district in the country can adopt any such measure in the future.

First Things calls this sort of ruling "the judicial usurpation of politics." And they are correct in doing so. But here I am going to attempt to show that Jones not only usurped local, municipal authority as well as that of state and federal legislatures, I intend to provide a framework showing that Judge Jones actually endorsed a religion in his ruling. How? Stay tuned.

Before we begin, let us define some terms.

Religion from Dictionary.com:

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Note the bold text. That is the definition that will define the term for this essay.

Darwinism (dictionary.com):

A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

The entire definition will serve admirably, thought note the bold type. It comes into play later on.

Neo-Darwinism (dictionary.com):

n : a modern Darwinian theory that explains new species in terms of genetic mutations.

Note this seems to contradict the bold line from the definition of Darwinism. Much of the essay will revolve around this seeming contradiction.

Irreducible Complexity (or irreducibly complex systems) from Darwin's Black Box:

a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

There are any number of Intelligent Design sites out there where one can get a handle on the theory as presented. Similarly, there are many sites devoted to its debunking. I am going to present my own read on Intelligent Design that is not explicitly stated in the current debate (at least, I have not seen it):

Intelligent Design (ID) holds that some type of First Cause is involved in the creation of life on earth. It may work in conjunction with Darwinism and Natural Selection, but does not claim that these mechanisms are the sole means of explanation for life on earth. It does not claim that the First Cause is the Monotheitic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

In short, ID can embrace both evolution and "creationism" in the sense of the latter as some-THING set things in motion, and evolution may well be the (or one of the) mechanisms that this some-THING put into play.

Detractors of ID, including Judge Jones, insist that such a claim violates good science; that it injects religion into the science (especially the biology) classroom. I have yet to see a genuine ID proponent on the level of Michael Behe claim that it is the Judeo-Christian god that is the designer behind it all, so I fail to see how this is an embracing of religion. If anything, it simply states that we do not know who/what is responsible, only that some-WHO or -WHAT is. In short, it refuses to admit that blind chance is responsible for life on earth. To claim simply that "we do not know what causes this. It could well be an outside agency" is a LONG way from saying: "We think that Christianity should rule the three branches of US government". But in the end, this latter claim more closely resembles the ruling of Jones than the former. Yet the former is in truth, what ID claims.

While it is the evolutionists, specifically the neo-Darwinists, that insist it all is due to blind chance.

And here is the core of the conflict. Boil it all down and it comes down to this:

ID: Something other than chance is responsible for life on earth.

Neo-Darwinist (ND):Chance and chance alone was responsible for life on earth.

Undergirding both positions are opposing philosophical assertions:

ID: God is Real.
Neo-Darwinism: There is no God.

Hence the tremendous kerfuffle. ID detractors say that IDer's dare to reintroduce God into the science classroom, where He has been safely ejected from since the Scopes trial.

Practically speaking, there is little need for such tremendous negative response. As mentioned above, ID makes no claim as to the identity of the Designer. But Neo-Darwinists refuse to allow even the hint of uncertainty to enter the debate, because to do so opens the door to what they fear the most: That a Designer DOES in fact exist, and they are quick to leap to the conclusion that this deisgner MUST be God. Now, the reasons for this basic atheism are myriad and not to be entered into here. But it is important to remember that this belief that God does NOT exist is central to the issue at hand.

And it is that very belief that leads to my conclusion that Judge Jones has in fact ruled in favor of a religion. An entirely secular one.

___________________________________________________________________

ND has always claimed that science is on their side. That they claim knowledge and certainty from naturalistic observation and through replicative experimentation. Whereas ID and its supposed predecessor creationism works solely on belief -never scientifically substantiated- that God created all, possibly even in the seven-day work week.

Yet science leaves a couple of interesting holes for the committed NDer to explain. Two examples:

1. The lack of many transitional species in the fossil record. Recall that Darwin originally stated that current biological species came about from "the natural selection of small, inherited variations". The lack of numerous transitional species that would seem to be necessary for the evolution into many current species is signficantly challenged by this reality. The solution offered are as follows:

a): We simply have not completed the fossil record (oddly enough, this one is not in fashion)
b): The changes are actually due to significant mutations in between species.

b) is the reason formally adopted by NDers to explain the problem. It allows them to maintain their grip on total secularism, while not repuduiating their saint in Darwin. But this assertion has one serious flaw in it: It is pure speculation. There are no examples of this radical mutation occuring in nature. If there were, you had better believe that this discovery would have been trumpeted to the heavens by NDers as the Final Nail in the creationish coffin.

But the evidence is not there. Random, radical mutation is a simple belief, with no support either in the fossil record or in experimentation (and one would think that experimentation would be conducted in this arena).

(The suggestion, as cleverly illustrated by Garry Trudeau in Doonesbury that antibiotic-resistant bacteria found in hospital environments is an example of this mutation is misleading. These bacteria do not exist due to extreme mutation. They exist through simple natural selection. One must remember that bacteria go through hundreds of not thousands of generations per year, allowing for much swifter response to a changing environment than complex, multi-celled creatures, beginning with plants. Bacteria have not mutated, they have evolved.)

Mutation is a belief in the ND cosmology.

The second example is the existence of irreducibly complex systems in nature. There are myriad examples; flagellum in bacteria, wing systems, the poison secretion system in the bombardier beetle. Even the existence of the cell itself is in many ways irreducibly complex. How does the cell, the basic unit of life, spontaneously develop the necessary items for existence: A membrane, nucleus, DNA package and means of sustenance? A highly complex system.

NDers attempt to dismiss this notion as unworkable. "Complex systems are really not that complex" is the essential refrain. If true, then let us see the evidence. Show how these systems evolve in the world. Or again, better still, shows us in the lab. Establish the environment where cells started out, and let's see them come about.

This, too, is not to be found. If it were, you had best believe, once again, that such a discovery would be trumpted to the heavens, as this would be the stake in the heart of ID.

But simply claiming that irreducible systems do not exist is akin to claiming that the sky is actually red, while our senses clearly tell us otherwise.

For the NDer, irreducibly complex systems do not exist. Despite their obvious existence, NDers insist that they do not. The non-existence of irreducibly complex systems is simply a matter of belief in the NDer cosmology.

In looking at the ND response to holes in the fossil record and irreducibly complex systems, NDers forsake their previous adherence to radical empirical evidence. They begin to recite cant, belief. "These concepts cannot exist, because they repudiate our belief in evolution. Because we believe evolution to be true, these concepts must not exist." But these are not empirical data points. These are bald assertions, beliefs masquerading -badly- as scientific facts.

When one boils down the ND position, one finds that they rely very heavily upon likely scientific theory liberally sprinkled with random beliefs that support holes or outright contradictions in their belief system.

Let us revisit that definition of religion: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." For NDers, the cause or principle involved is the denial of a Designer, and evolution, however flawed it may be, serves as the primary apologist for their belief. And it is taught, by government fiat, in science classes across the nation. To say that slavish devotion to evolution -sans a possible higher power- is science is no better than claiming that raw creationism is science. Both are predicated on belief, not "fact".

All I am suggesting is that science teachers -and districts- be allowed to put out there the possibility -nothing more- that a higher power is responsible for life on earth.

So long as ND relies upon the belief that holes in the fossil record will be proven true later on, or that irreducibly complex systems will eventually be proven to have evolved is no better than claiming that the Book of Revelation shows how and when the world will end.

Both are cant.

Both are belief.

Both are religion.

So, I call on Justice Jones to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools, based on the current priniciple of separation of church and state. In this case, the Church of Radical Secularism, the belief that God cannot exist.

Am I being ironic? Yes. Purposely. Evolution is a valuable means of understanding the mechanisms of life. But it does nothing to explain first causes. ND's claim to "truth", so long as they continue to blindly assert truths with no scientific basis in fact, in the end is based in as much science as creationism.

aparentslove.com

2005-12-20T10:32:00.000-08:00

I normally would not post this sort of thing, but I came across this by serendipity/Holy Spirit just today.

Visit this site. The young man has the humble job of delivering Coke products to our school, and we discovered that his wife was very recently diagnosed with cancer. His father (the woman's father-in-law) established this site to solicit donations and prayers for the woman.

I have no brief on the woman herself, and am not soliciting donations, but I do feel compelled simply to pass the site and ask you to at least pray for the woman and her family, and to pass on donations if you see fit.

Musings on the Distaff

2005-12-17T10:53:00.000-08:00

Point to ponder: We (males) cannot comprehend the reality of having a portion of our anatomy OUT THERE for all the world to see as a sexual object (or objects). Ironically, tho' our "equipment" is decidedly more "out there" than the complementary equipment of our female compatriots, there is no single feature of our various (clothed) physiques that can be considered plainly sexual in nature as are the female breasts. Sure, there are some women who will say it is the shoulders, or the butt, or the face, or the hands of the man that turns them on. Those answers may vary -radically- from woman to woman.

But talk to a man, and he will cite one of three things in addition to the woman's face (or a combination of all three): legs, butt, and breasts.

Damned few will say that they never consider the breasts in appraising the relative value of feminine pulchritude. (I base this decidedly unscientific statement on my own adolescence, coupled with conversations with various men over the course of that same adolescence, generally ending around the time I met my wife.)

So, for women, they have to contend with the reality that many men are scoping their breasts, comparing them with other women, and rating the woman's relative attractiveness and sexual worthiness based on their breasts.

And they cannot hide them (especially if one is amply endowed).

Why does he bring this up? I have pondered the issue off and on for many years: How do women deal with this? It would drive me personally insane if people were looking at some portion of my anatomy when talking to me rather than my face.

(An aside: In one of the more hilarious moments of my career, I split my pants [in the crotch] last year. . .unknowingly. A number of my students snickered at my ignorance for awhile. . .until I demanded an explanation for the repeated guffaws. . .and I was informed of my handicap. I simply sat down, crossed my legs, and continued teaching until the end of the period. At which point I changed into shorts and T-shirt that I conveniently had with me. What unnerved me was having virutally every student for the remainder of the day talk to me first looking at my crotch instead of my eyes. As a result, I got a small glimpse into the life of a girl whose breasts cannot be hidden by any amount of shirt, underwear or sweater material. Unpleasant.)

My question: Women, how do you tolerate this? It is a fundamental objectification of your self; you are not being viewed as a person by the staring male, you have become an object. I ask not out of outrage, or challenging you to be more confrontational. I am genuinely curious. Guys just don't have to put up with this sort of thing.

And on another note, fashion is exacerbating the problem by draping words (often provocative phrases) right around breast level. . .and now, even worse, on the butts of pants; thereby deliberately drawing attention to those portions of the anatomy that objectify the person.

Another aside: There was a woman I once supervised who ran the daycare center on the site of the school I was principal of. I came into her office, and she was wearing a shirt that had pictures on the front of some of the kids from the center, and I was looking intently at the shirt to see if I could identify the faces on it. The fact that these pictures were also at breast-level on this woman was the farthest thing from my mind. After about 5 seconds of this, she coldly stated: "Can I HELP you?" At which point, I recoiled with embarassment as I realized that it appeared I was scoping her chest and explained that I was merely trying to identify the kids on her shirt. At which point SHE became embarassed at misconstruing my intent and we had a good laugh over it. But even this innocent anecdote can help illustrate the larger issue: How does one cope with a part of the body that is so often considered as sexual, yet often cannot be hidden? Guys, we can't grasp it.

Women, can you help? Tell not only how you cope, but perhaps get some feelings out there on how unpleasant it may be. . .so that at least SOME of us can get a better understanding and maybe learn to objectify a little less.

UPDATED ANECDOTE:

Another aside comes to mind of a young woman I know (NOT one that I teach), now a high school senior, who actually enjoys occasionally dressing in such as a way as to accent her rather significant decolletage (cleavage), then going to a party and seeing how many guys she can get to get her a drink, a plate of goodies. . .in essence, she tries to see how many guys can she get to eat out of her hand when she uses her body in such a way. And she leaves all of them dangling, in the end, sweetly wishing them all a "good night" and she then goes home. I know she does this on purpose, as I have observed her at such functions, saying to me, "Watch this", and she'll go over to some unsuspecting guy, engage him in 2 minutes of nothing conversation, while he fum'fuhs and tries to both look her in the eye and down her cleavage at the same time.

What to make of this, the use of ones physical assets almost as an interpersonal weapon (or bribe, I suppose. . .)?

Tookie Redux

2005-12-13T16:16:00.000-08:00

It amazes me how little I enjoy agreeing with agitprop democrats on ANYTHING, when they insist on getting the reasons for their positions wrong, and then compound the error by spouting off in public about it.

Yes, I am still opposed to the execution of Tookie Williams; but I vehemently DISAGREE with the foolishness drooling from the mouths of the following:

Mike Farrell, formerly of MASH:

"I am saddened that we are continuing to demean human life by pretending that we are God and making determinations to kill other individuals for what it is claimed they have done," former "M*A*S*H" star and death penalty opponent Mike Farrell told CNN.

He was doing OK here, until he started to babble about what Tookie was "claimed to have done." Barking up the wrong tree, Mike.

Jesse Jackson:

". . .to choose revenge over redemption and to use Tookie Williams as a trophy in the flawed system.

To kill him is a way of making politicians look tough. It does not make it right. It does not make any of us safer. It does not make any of us more secure."

Horsefeathers. Political blather. Ahnold was probably responding to the appeals of the vicitms's families. While understandable, their thirst for revenge serves them no purpose. Jesse says nothing about this. Furthermore, Jesse doesn't even know the names of Tookie's victims.

They are: ALBERT OWENS
TSAI-SHAI YANG
YEN-I YANG
YE-CHEN LIN

No doubt, their families have been grieving for some time, and my heart goes out to them. But killing their tormentor is no solution to their grief.

Sister Helen Prejean, a Roman Catholic nun and prominent death penalty opponent, compared the death penalty to "gang justice."

"Gang justice is, if you kill a member of our gang, we kill you -- and don't tell me anything about how you changed your life or what you're going to do," she said. "You kill, and we kill you. And that's what the United States of America is doing with this."

Sr. Helen may be closest to the truth, but she descends into demagoguery in using the term "gang justice." Again, this is said to inflame, not to educate. The death penalty is not "gang justice." It is Old Testament justice.

God, then there's this:

Williams had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize in Literature by an array of college professors, a Swiss lawmaker and others.

What IDIOTS are nominating that man for Nobel prizes? It is INSANE!!!!

I detest the idea that I might become besmirched in agreeing with these MoonBat Lefties on capital punishment. Sorry, peoples, but I do not share the logic with any of the above.

My only prayer is that few -if any- of the rest of us do.

Links from CNN here.

Brilliant and thoughtful piece on the same subject by the Anchoress here.

The Death of Tookie Williams

2005-12-12T15:48:00.000-08:00

CNN reports here that Ahnold denied clemency to the reputed founder of the Crips. Stanley "Tookie" Williams is scheduled to be executed about 8 hours from now as this is written.

(Edited for events)

The usual mouthpieces, such as Jesse Jackson, are slamming Ahnold, saying he is more concerned with votes and looking tough than justice.

A local leader of the NAACP states that there needed to be more time to investigate whether or not Tookie actually killed four people in 1979. (If we do not know by now, and there is no exculpatory DNA evidence or another witness available, this comment then becomes known as a "red herring of the first water.")

The NAACP person is at sea. And tho' I feel that Jesse is babbling this mostly because he can't stand to not see his name in print, -and I hate to say it- I agree in principle with what Jesse is saying. Killing Tookie accomplished nothing. It taught Tookie nothing; it did nothing to assist the families of his victims (though this is popular rhetoric in support of executions) and I do not believe that it deters other criminals. Serious criminals have faulty executive brain functions. Asking them to reconsider their actions in light of a possible future execution is unrealistic. They simply do not look that far into the future.

All executions do is forward the Revenge Ethic. Eye for an Eye. Old Testament justice.

The Church has teachings out there that suggests that the State has a right to capital punishment when there is no other way to keep the person from killing again. So, that means that there is no reason for executions in the US. Because we CAN keep these people from killing again.

Please keep in mind that this position I have staked means that Hitler, Stalin, any other Nuremburg defendant, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, none of them deserve(d) execution.

Neither did Tookie.

Condolences in advance to my normally conservative brethren who are on the other side of the aisle from me on this one. . . but I cannot square capital punishment with the Pro-Life ethic.

Caligula continues to advocate for his legacy of Shame

2005-12-09T15:29:00.000-08:00

Clinton has no shame. It has been well known ever since he had the gall to closet himself with a White House intern (abuse of office? Anyone?), perform sexual improprieties, then lie to the American public about it -even to the point of impeachment- that Bill Clinton is devoid of the character trait of humility.

This further illustrates the point. In Clinton's fevered effort to rehabilitate his image from one of "Impeached Former President" to one of "World-Wide Ambassador" (Ambassador to what?, one wants to ask. Or even more frightening, Ambassador FROM What, but I digress. . .), he breaks yet another rule in criticizing his successor.

Since coming out of his wisely self-imposed media exile this last year, Clinton has been everywhere; arranging for tsunami relief, commenting on Katrina, hosting conferences on various topics. . .and assuring listeners that he is the guy to lead the world into its next phase of greatness. . .whatever that might be. And now, right on schedule, dumping on Bush Jr.

The man simply cannot stop advocating for himself. He cannot rest without knowing that he has done absolutely everything in his power to insure that his legacy is one of greatness. I suspect that the only way he will ever stop is if someone finally invents the Time Machine, and transports Governor Caligula to the 22nd Century where he will find his Ideal Epitaph: "Bill Clinton: Savior of the World."

And he would be satisfied taking a title usually reserved for Jesus Christ, then. . .FINALLY, he would go into that quiet retirement that he should have gone into back when he was abusing lobbyists and staffers as governor of Arkansas.

And of course, he does this by continuing to back the environmental recipe du jour, global warming. CNN provides the no-questions-asked backdrop supporting Billary in his rants; including the still tired line that "climate change is inevitable." For example:

"There's no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real, acclerating and caused by human activities," said Clinton, whose address was interrupted repeatedly by enthusiastic applause.

"We are uncertain about how deep and the time of arrival of the consequences, but we are quite clear they will not be good."

More of the same old moldy bald assertions that are not backed up by hard science. More on that in a bit.

CNN continues the paean with the following, unattributed paragraph.

A broad scientific consensus agrees that these gases accumulating in the atmosphere, byproducts of automobile engines, power plants and other fossil fuel-burning industries, contributed significantly to the past century's global temperature rise of 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.7 degree Celsius). Continued warming is expected to disrupt the global climate.

When you see stuff like this, it is the tip-off that we are reading material that represents the views -and in all likelihood was written by- of the CNN.com editorial staff.

As for the science, let us go through it. One. More. Time.

There IS an increase in CO2 emissions this past century. No debate there.

There is a measured increase in temperature during that same century. But there IS debate as to whether or not that rise is due to actual atmospheric averages, or simple increases in urban temperatures due to local land use, rather than actual atmospheric increases. But, for the sake of argument, let us say that this IS due to atmospheric increase. How do we know that the CO2 emissions are causing the increase?

Answer: We do not. We CAN NOT. We have not enough baseline data, and in no way can we gather that data over such a short period of time (as in centuries. This kind of predictive validity requires measurements taken on the order of millenia.).

What we ARE faced with is a very compelling correlation. But correlation does not prove causation.

So, what do the scientists say? This "A broad scientific consensus" states what? Honestly, they ought to state that they know NOTHING for certain. They have some very compelling guesses, but that is all they are. Wild. Ass. Guesses.

Does this mean we should not be concerned about CO2 emissions? Of course not.

But for the last time, STOP THE CHICKEN LITTLE SCREECHING UNTIL YOU KNOW FOR SURE!!

And we do not KNOW. Not yet. We may never know. Until then, stop screaming in absolutes. Stop saying "WE'RE DOOMED!!!" "WE KNOW CLIMATE WILL CHANGE!!!" It is a RISK, not a CERTAINTY!!

So, what do we have here? A convicted felon, who is also a disbarred attorney, a former American President, one who is one of only two ever impeached in history, the only one whom sitting Supreme Court justices refused to be seen in public with due to their objections of his abuse of the law, now badmouthing his successor, using bad science and a fawning media, all to shore up his own overweening ego. Bad science that serves only to fatten his already obese ego and whip the proles into an ignorant frenzy.

My dad keep telling me Clinton isn't stupid. I fail to understand how a SMART man can't keep his willie in his pocket when around fat young interns. But I will agree with Dad that Caligula is certainly cunning. He knows how to manipulate the media and the public.

Mel Gibson planning holocaust mini-series

2005-12-07T19:18:00.000-08:00

CNN link here.

Innocuous enough, I suppose. He is certainly free to make films on whatever subject he chooses, and this is still a worthy one.

However,

"For (Gibson) to be associated with this movie is cause for concern," Rafael Medoff, director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Melrose Park, Pennsylvnaia, told the Times. "He needs to come clean that he repudiates Holocaust denial."

Hmmm. Exactly how does one set oneself up as the arbiter of who may make Holocaust films and who may not? Furthermore, since when does the deranged beliefs of the father disqualify the son? Hutton Gibson may be unbalanced. Does this automatically mean that Mel is as well?

Can you say, "gross generalization"?

A further concern is the suggestion that Gibson's (Mel's) supposed anti-semitism disqualifies him. He is not an anti-Semite, but set that aside. Is the Holocaust reserved strictly for Jews? Even Elie Wiesel, the premier Nazi hunter and speaker for Jewish misery in the Holocaust challenged the Jewish attempt to monopolize the misery.(ARRRRGHH!!!! I cannot FIND the quote, so I will have to paraphrase!!) He said something to the effect of: "Yes, 6 million Jews died. But so did 6 million more Catholics, Gypsies, Slavs and others. Is theie suffering somehow less than ours?"

I must applaud the industry response to the IHS comment:

Quinn Taylor, ABC's senior vice president in charge of television movies, had a harsh reply for early critics.

"Shut up and wait to see the movie, and then judge,"

. Lovely response, that.

Out. Fricking. RAGEOUS!!!!!

2005-12-01T14:27:00.000-08:00

Informative post here.

So, what these fools are arguing is that holding the woman accountable discourages her from getting prenatal help?

Excuse me. How would have prenatal help "helped" here? If the woman were to have gone in at all, she would never have listened to any advice about meth use.

OR, we are making the even less valuable argument that we then may have to go after the cigarette smokers and coffee and booze drinkers?

HELLO!!! IF these uses harm the baby, then YES we need to hold the mothers accountable.

Let us dispense with the sophistical torquings. The reality is that if this conviction is upheld, women not only are going to be held accountable for what they do while pregnant, but we then inch all that closer to the reality that the fetus has legal rights. And by any means available, that has to be prevented by the MoonBat Left. (Starring in Left Field for the MoonBat Left, virtually all judicial bodies west of the Rocky Mountains).

OK, some more science.

2005-11-30T16:28:00.000-08:00

RightWingNutHouse has yet another excellent post on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Short synopsis: Antarctic ice core samples show that CO2 levels are at least 27% higher in the past hundred years than they have been at any time in the previous 650,000 years.

OK, that's a strong, enduring correlation. Again, while correlation does not prove causation, it's one helluva compelling correlation.

Now, as the Nut says, can we prove that these levels are tied to a humanogenic rise in global temps?

Not so fast. Among other things, this same core sample discovers that increases in methane produciton, thought to have been associated with domesticated livestock, in fact may have no connectiont to agriculture, but instead may be tied to natural variations in wild woodland and other boreal-area decomposition.

The Nut then goes on to an examination of possible ramifications, especially as they relate to Kyoto.

But why read this, hmmm? Go on over there and read for yourself.

Daughter

2005-11-29T19:44:00.000-08:00

I've spoken of my elder son elsewhere (too lazy to find the link).

Now, my daughter has a poster of these fellows on her wall (I just mounted it, in fact:):

Sigh. Oh well. Certainly not the worst choice ever. After all, it could be Eminem or System of a Down. :P

Supreme Court revisits abortion

2005-11-29T18:24:00.000-08:00

In this case, the right of the parent(s) to know if their daughter is about to have an abortion.

CNN Link:

Of interest in the article is the following quote from a 20 year-old college student who had an abortion earlier in her life:

"I decided it was best for me to have an abortion because I did not want to be a parent at that point in my life," she said.

Now 20 and a college senior, she is speaking out against the state statute.

"These laws are only about eroding access to abortion," she told CNN. "If you want to talk to your parents, you can do that, but if the state steps in and tells you that you have to do that to protect your reproduction, it is very disappointing."

The woman in question is summoning age-old NARAL rhetoric in claiming the state is interfering with a woman's reproductive "freedom". At the risk of appearing that I am oversimplifying the situation (while in reality I am not), I submit the following solution to the woman's reproductive "freedom" issues:

Dear, stop having intercourse. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it as well. You are a big girl now, capable of controlling your appetites, sexual and otherwise. Don't fool around until you are "ready" to have that child (whenever that might be). You are free to have sex. Be prepared to accept the consequences of that exercising that freedom. You are also free to choose not to have sex, thereby enjoying the freedom from responsibility that entails.

It really is that painfully simple.

Momentary Tizzy

2005-11-29T15:47:00.000-08:00

We interrupt the normally scheduled blog for this impromptu tizzy performed by the site's proprietor.

:Rant:

I have no real difficulty with right-brained people. I in fact tend toward the practice of coming up with ideas, getting part of the way through them, then decamping when I find the blizzard of details too tiresome to contend with.

There are exceptions: Most notably, when the idea I am embarking upon then directly impacts others. Then I must follow through, if for no other reason than for the benefit of those hurt if I do NOT follow through.

Bona fides at least partially established, on to the Rant.

There is a member of the staff(let us call her The Dreamer) I serve on that is notorious for embarking upon Big Ideas, publicly announced for all to see, and assuring all of us who have been left to pick up the pieces of her partially-completed-but-then-abandoned Right Brain disasters that THIS TIME she will follow through.

Given the fact that this staff member is also a serious benefactor of the same organization she works for (Conflict of Interest, anyone?), a tendency on the part of Leadership (usually level-headed but a bit twitchy at the idea of challenging anyone directly tied into the Revenue Stream) to indulge her mad passions at the expense of the rest of us does rear its ugly head. On occasion. On common occasion.

There is a section I and the rest of the staff are not scheduled to manage on Fridays, as the abovementioned Dreamer is in charge of a weekly, company-wide assembly designed to tie the stakeholders most intimately into the mission of our facility.

But, not THIS Friday. Due to poor planning on the part of the Dreamer, she would have to come up with a new means of managing the assembly. As is part and parcel of her job. But, she flat-out bailed, and The Leadership unilaterally decided that we will pick up the Dreamer's pieces by managing the section we normally would not have to manage.

In fact, we are not PAID for this section. The monies that might normally go towards us for managing this section go instead to the Dreamer to pay for her Right-Brain activities.

But, as the Night follows the Sun, the Dreamer has dropped the ball again, and we get to pick up the pieces.

Which, by itself, would be no big deal, except the Dreamer then compounded her sin by going straight home, TODAY (no doubt to escape the ire of her colleagues who are justifiably resentful of her dropping The Ball yet again), without fulfilling the minor duty of her watching the stakeholders during a daily community gathering. A minor, yet necessary duty. And who got to pick up THAT ball for her today? Yours truly.

I have not even begun to plumb the depths of my vocabulary in ranting about the qualities this woman, as a lead benefactor of some stakeholders at our facility, has used (or misused) in the time I have been there.

For the most part, I very much enjoy my job, the stakeholders, my colleagues (including the Dreamer herself) and everything about it.

But the bloom fades fast when colleagues who do NOT do THEIR job then force those of us around them to do it FOR them. And YES, I AM USING CAPS BECAUSE I AM TICKED!!!!!

:/Rant:

OK. Now I feel a bit better. Sorry to subject anyone to that.

First Things

2005-11-28T16:04:00.000-08:00

There are reasons that I have First Things in my link bar.

Here are a couple of them now (From the December First Things, in Fr. Richard John Neuhaus's indispensable "While We're at it" section):

(According to British historian Paul Johnson). . .fervent Darwinists are inadvertently undoing the cause of their champion. "At a revivialist meeting of Darwinians two or three years ago, I heard the chairman. . .call out, 'Yes, we do think God is an old man in the sky with a beard, and his name is Charles Darwin" I doubt if there is a historical precedent for this investment of so much intellectual and emotional capital, by so many well-educated and apparently rational people, in the work of a single scientist. . .The likelihood of Darwin's eventual debacle will be sensational and brutal is increased by the arrogance of his acolytes, by their insistence on the unchallengable truth of the theory of natural selection -which to them is not a hypothesis but a demonstrated fact, and its critics mere flat-earthers- and by their success in occupying the commanding heights in the university science departments and the scientific journals, denying a hearing to anyone who disagrees with them.

Shades of religious fervor. Example #2245682 that one CANNOT fully separate religion and state. Nature abhors a vacuum. Take out monotheism and replace it with Darwinism; all the worst features of Christianity in its full ascendancy (or degeneracy) when it fully melded church and state are now in full flower with the Religion of Darwin. (And if ever there was a more reluctant prophet, I'd like someone to point him out. I cannot believe that Darwin would hew to the ravings of his modern followers were he alive today.

Fr. Neuhaus then takes on the "scientific post-humanists", as exemplified by Ray Kurzweil, who is predicting the coming "Singularity" where technology will ". . .take over from nature in the evolution of the human species." Neuhaus quotes Robert George, who suggests that the post-humanists have a very sinister intent. . .in short, with the debate surrounding stem cell research, their interest is not in stem cell work, but in out-and-out fetal farming, wherein the fetus is grown with the express purpose of killing it to harvest its biological goods, so to speak.

As Fr. Neuhaus entitles, the little tidbit, "If It Can Be Done, It Will Be Done."

(shivers)

When will we learn?

In the meantime, subscribe to First Things NOW!!!!!!!

Yet Another Michael Moore Letter to Spoof

2005-11-27T19:58:00.000-08:00

You'd think the idiot would quit while he was already behind. . .

Sorry, George, I'm In the Majority ...from Michael Moore

Already off on the wrong foot. . .and the letter hasn't even STARTED yet.

11/19/05

Dear Mr. Bush:

I would like to extend my hand and invite you to join us, the mainstream American majority. We, the people -- that's the majority of the people -- share these majority opinions:

Meaning, of course, that they are your opinions. Of course you provide CNN poll data. . .but isn't this typical Monday Morning Quarterbacking? Something you are really very good at. (As opposed to filmmaking).

Tell me, Mr. Moore. Let us consider for just a moment that the poll data are accurate. What if the question were skewed just a bit, and asked: "Do you agree with Michael Moore's views on the war and the Bush Administration?"

I bet we'd get some REALLY different data. . .indicating that you are in fact far from the mainstream.

But that question would never be asked. Too nice to the Bush Administration, don't you know.

1. Going to war was a mistake -- a big mistake.

.

Nothing is said in the CNN data about "big" mistakes. But your pal Bill Clinton certainly had something to say about it. Stay tuned for coverage on that little tidbit. And see above comment.

2. You and your administration misled us into this war. (link)

And what about the fact that the Clinton Administration gave utter credence to Iraq's possession of WMDs and intent to produce nuclear weapons?

Oh. I keep forgetting. With you guys, it's never the message, but the messenger that determines the truth. If Caligula said the sky is blue, then it must be blue. But if Bush says it's blue, you say it's been red all along. Funny how you leave out that critical piece of information.

But then, you couldn't MMQB as effectively, could you?

And notice, it is old Gov. Caligula himself who terms this the "big" mistake? You're hurtin', Mike, when you are stealing material from Billary.

3. We want the war ended and our troops brought home. (link)

No duh. So does everyone else. ONCE THE JOB IS FINISHED, FOOL!!! Not even the TROOPS want out before that.

4. We don't trust you. (link)

. Umm, from you, this is news?

Now, I know this is a bitter pill to swallow. Iraq was going to be your great legacy. Now, it's just your legacy. It didn't have to end up this way.

. Screwed up again. Timely, genuine leadership at the time of 9-11 will be his legacy, not to mention actually bringing democracy to that jaded land, despite your terminal treason in hacking at the country's Achilles tendons every chance you get.

This week, when Republicans and conservative Democrats started jumping ship, you lashed out at them.

HELLO!! WHAT??? A vote of 403-3 to stay until the job is done, and that is jumping ship????

You thought the most damning thing you could say to them was that they were "endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party."

And you thought you were in the majority.

I mean, is that the best you can do to persuade them to stick with you -- compare them to me?

Your point there. This is akin to saying that they are all "fat and ugly."

Wait a minute. . .

You gotta come up with a better villain.

Whatever for? You spout utter gibberish, you just BEG for attention, and you make a target that is REALLY EASY to hit!!

For heaven's sakes, you had a hundred-plus million other Americans who think the same way I do -- and you could have picked on any one of them!

There's that majority thing getting in your way again.

But hey, why not cut out the name-calling and the smearing and just do the obvious thing:

Ignore you? That would actually be a wise idea.

Come join the majority! Be one of us, your fellow Americans! Is it really that hard? Is there really any other choice? George, take a walk on the wild side!

I think we've already dealt with this.

Your loyal representative from the majority,

. Loyal? You've GOT to be kidding me.

Michael Moore

The only reason I can see him writing these letters is because he likes to hear himself talk/write. That and he has hordes of adoring, unthinking fans who soak up every word he generates. . .which is depressing in a microcosmic sense. . .and so he can then bask in the further adulation given him for dispensing such "wisdom."

In short, the guy is an ego freak of the first water.

Nevertheless, the writing and posting of such sententious, disingenuous twaddle serves for some fine cannon fodder.

SUPPORTERS: Please write your own spoofs on your websites. . .or submit them to the e-mail at the bottom of the page. . .and I'll post the best of 'em here.

Surely someone can do better than me. I mean, I cranked this baby out in less than 10 mimutes.

Link to previous spoof: Spoofing rich fat,unkempt documentary filmmakers.

100 Year-Old Wisdom

2005-11-27T17:14:00.000-08:00

Back from a Thanksgiving hiatus with no computer access. So, there will eventually be the filling of various odds and ends. Not least of which is commentary on the global warming panic brought about from M. Crichton's thoroughly researched State of Fear.

BUt that is for later.

Right now I want to toss out some quotes from Mr. Gilbert Keith Chesterton from his 1905 "nightmare", The Man Who was Thursday.

Question (From Syme, a law and order type): "You wish to abolish Government?"

Answer (From Gregory, an Anarchist):(We wish) to abolish God!. We do not only want to upset a few despotisms and police regulations. . .we dig deeper and blow you higher. We wish to deny all those arbitrary distinctions of vice and virtue, honor and treachery upon which mere rebels base themselves. We hate Rights and Wrongs. We have abolished Right and Wrong."

Ooh. Where have we heard some of this stuff said recently?

Policeman (a thoroughly enlightened fellow: We say that the most dangerous criminal is the educated criminal. . .the entirely lawless modern philosopher. Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men. They accept the essential ideal of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property. They merely wish that the property become their property so that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as such; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage; else they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fullness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's."

Note with interest the last two: Bigamists and murderers. Even murderers recognize murder for what it is. . .yet the abortionists and euthanists do not. They make it a caricature, a euphemism, so that their own loathing of human life. . .even their own. . .is hidden. As for bigamy, see the current gay marriage brouhaha.

There is so much more. I may post some more as I skip through this delightful trove.

Keep in mind the man copyrighted this book in 1905.

That's 100 years ago, friends. Orwell published 1984 in 1949. Huxley published in 1932. Both essentially warn us of a society managed by the state that succeeds in re-defining reality to fit its own needs and desires. Not to take away from those awesome works, but Chesterton was nailing all the same ills in 1905. The primary difference is that Chesterton was not criticizing an all encompassing state. . .but is it not a bit chillingly ironic that he foreshadows Orwell and Huxley in the painting of their own nightmares? GK covers the same moral ground, the same twisting of fact into fiction and the converse. . .leaving us to consider the potentially devastating consequences for ourselves.

Independence

2005-11-23T09:51:00.000-08:00

I don't often talk about this. It may come as a surprise to the more entrenched MoonLeft that I am not a Republican. I am a registered Independent.

Part of the reason for this is that I am essentially a cultural conservative; on economic issues I tend to wander from the Right party line, sometimes significantly.

Another reason I am Independent results from a visceral reaction I had against a statement a priest made back in my undergraduate days. This priest, (his name escapes me. He was a little gnome of a man, less than five feet tall with a corresponding voice) was saying during the '84 elections that one had to pick a party and stay with it, come hell or high water. He was voting for Mondale in that election because he was a Democrat. End of discussion. When asked why he was a Democrat, he replied, "Because they are for the little guy." Most of this sentiment came from the Democrat's association with labor unions.

Setting aside the argument that labor unions are actually FOR the little guy or not, I had trouble squaring the idea with the Democrat's increasing promotion of the unlimited abortion license.

Consequently, I quickly came to the conclusion that the priest was just dead wrong here. Political parties, like any entrenched organization (and yes, trolls, that does sometimes mean the Church as well) can sometimes wander off in the wrong direction. . .and to back them in those times is in essence to disenfranchise yourself. So, I swore to myself I would never affiliate myself with any one party. Hence, my Independence.

Now, RightWingNuthouse has published a short essay that provides the beginning of a different read on the same subject. I urge you, supporters and trolls alike, to go read it right now. It provokes some interesting thoughts and ideas that I think we ALL need to be looking at.

The First Intelligent Quote Ever Seen Re: Global Warming

2005-11-22T14:31:00.000-08:00

From an otherwise standard, Chicken Little-style CNN article on global warming:

"There is stronger and stronger evidence that there is an anthropogenic (human) element affecting the climate," said Paal Prestrud, head of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo.

Prestud may well be right. But look at what he said: "There is stronger and stronger evidence."

OK!!WONDERFUL!!! There is a likelihood we are causing it. Excellent. But this it far different from the standard moonbat claims that we ARE causing it.

Truth in advertising. Ain't it wonderful? Kudos to Mr. Prestud for having the cojones to speak the scientific truth, as opposed to the politicized hyperbole.

Here comes the next wave

2005-11-22T07:28:00.000-08:00

Look out. New York Catholic school sued by the ACLU for firing an out-of-wedlock, pregnant pre-school teacher.

And according to the article (yes, it is from CNN, please apply salt before reading), the previous case law in New York does not bode well for St. Rose of Lima in Queens.

Which is absurd on its face. How can a Catholic institution have any hope of enforcing its teaching if it can't also reinforce that teaching through the actions of its teachers? Actions -let us remember, people- speak infinitely louder than words.

Of course, the CINOs are chiming in saying that the woman needs to be forgiven. Certainly. Which means she may start over, at another Catholic school if she so chooses, where her teaching reputation is not permanently sullied as it has been at St. Rose.

The ACLU needs to revisit its Gibbon.

What hero are you?

2005-11-20T17:25:00.000-08:00

You scored as Maximus.

After his family was murdered by the evil emperor Commodus, the great Roman general Maximus went into hiding to avoid Commodus's assassins. He became a gladiator, hoping to dominate the colosseum in order to one day get the chance of killing Commodus. Maximus is valiant, courageous, and dedicated. He wants nothing more than the chance to avenge his family, but his temper often gets the better of him.

Maximus -75%

Neo, the "One" -63%

Indiana Jones -63%

Batman, the Dark Knight -58%

Captain Jack Sparrow -54%

The Amazing Spider-Man -50%

The Terminator -50%

Lara Croft -42%

William Wallace -42%

James Bond, Agent 007 -38%

El Zorro -33%

Ha ha. I knew it all along!!

Quiz Farm has the quiz (the html tags screwed up my template. . .so the usual links are not in place. Had to enter this stuff manually).

Hat tip to CatholicPillowFight for the link.

Cindy Sheehan

2005-11-19T21:40:00.000-08:00

Not possessed of a single clue.

Not one.

And now, fellow cluebats will provide her yet MORE profit for being utterly devoid of a clue, by purchasing what will be her undoubtedly silly slip of a book.

Judicial Usurpation of the State, Anyone?

2005-11-18T07:13:00.000-08:00

Get this:

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the same judge who ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, wrote that parental rights stop at the “threshold of the school door.”

This in a decision the 9th Circuit (that same group of moonbats in Frisco that the Bush Adminstration says needs to be broken up) that denies parents the right to keep their children from intrusive questions about their thoughts on sex.

So, Judge Steve thinks that the State (undoubtedly led by his judicial wisdom) ought to do all the parenting for kids while in the schoolhouse?

Riiiiiight.

Original link here.

Gay marriage banned in 11 states

2005-11-16T19:54:00.000-08:00

Shows how much I was watching the news. I just now discovered this little bit of information.

11 states voted last week to ban gay marriage. The roll call: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah.

Now, looking at that list, I see a number of Deep South states that would pass it with little effort. Mississippi passed with an 86% yes vote. That is about as massive a vote as one can hope to get, no matter what the subject. I then see Western and Northern Tier states like Utah (Mormon stronghold, no surprise) and Montana and North Dakota (still lots of conservative ag types there) and Michigan. I find Michigan to be a curiosity, as is Ohio. If any of the states with these amendments up for a vote were to reject it, I would have expected one of those two to do so. But apparently they too passed with comfortable margins. But there was one state where I truly expected rejection.

That state was Oregon. I am a native Oregonian, and have watched that state's peculiar political climate for many years now. They are highly unpredictable; voting in environmental friendly and developer antagonistic green-space legislation, medical marijuana and euthanasia laws, and electing a mayor of Portland some years ago that like to flash sculptures (remember that picture from at least 20 years ago, "Expose yourself to Art?" . (Yes, supposedly the bearded "pervert" in this shot later became the multi-term mayor of Portland). Yet they also have voted in some of the most draconian tax rollbacks seen anywhere in the West.

But, if you had to bet, you usually bet that Oregonians will vote on the Left side of the aisle. No judgement on that, simply an observation. I expected that a gay-marriage ban would have little traction in the Beaver State. And apparently, so did the pro-gay-marriage lobby, having spent the most money in Oregon to defeat it.

Yet the Oregonians said no to gay marriage, 57-43. While this was the closest race of all 11 states, it wasn't even close. A 14 point spread is a relatively sound beating.

And so the state went 11-0 on this issue. How does the Left now respond? A wry shrug of the shoulders, and claim that the people have spoken? Or does it denounce all the states in question as being populated by vicious "hate-lovers and bigots", who don't have the sense God gave a billy goat? If there was a God in the first place?

Sadly, I am placing my money on the latter.

While the states are to be commended for passing what would appear to be common sense legislation (under natural law, trolls, not Church law. Don't work yourself up into a froth over very little), it is a curiosity -and a sad on at that- that the issue has even come up in the 21st century election process

LINK:

Update on the Loretto/Sills controversy

2005-11-16T19:35:00.000-08:00

Katelyn Sills and her family have released a number of letters and e-mails from them and from Loretto that paint the Loretto admin in a less-than-flattering light. Granted this is only the Sills family version. But is would seem upon reading this material that the administration simply wanted rid of what they felt was a troublesome parent. . .thereby committing a rather flagrant act of injustice against Katelyn Sills.

Read them for yourself. . .

The comments are almost funny. . .and fascinating how most admitted Loretto students and alumni are opposed to the Sills family. . though that is no surprise. Rebels are rarely welcomed in insulated communities.

Catholic Schools, Crazy Parents. . et al.

AIDS Prevention: Condoms v. Abstinence

2005-11-15T17:23:00.000-08:00

A never-ending source of head-shaking amusement can be found reading some of the MoonBat Left blogs. One recent lurker took me to task for being "ignorant", simply because this little blog is certainly not left-of-center, and I have had the foolish habit of decrying the problems of homosexuality here. So, to gain the banner of "enlightened", all I need to is say that the untrammeled practice of homosexuality is a good thing, and voila! You have your wits about you again.

So saith the Cluebat Left.

This is NOT to say that the Left is insensitive to the trials and tribulations of their fellow man. A recent comment I read on a rather batty Left blog recently gave me pause:

For the record, kudos to you for your extensive helping nature that you gratiouitsly wax on about above. But before your very easy to predict response of "what have you done for humanity", I will tell you. Among many things, I normally take two to three months a year, unpaid, to practice medicine in Africa, as the HIV crisis is just a little bit of a health concern in a continent that has over 50% infection rate.

You may even do things to help there too. Like push for abstinence only education, condoms as a last resort, and "social teaching", re. religious indoctrination. Well that sounds very cute, but I've seen it in action. How is the thirteen year old hooker who supports her siblings as her parents are both dead of HIV (current staistics support that assertion 9/10 times), and sells her body, in any way gaining a benifit by abstinence education or lack of condom availabiltiy? Oh, right! Silly me. She doesn't count does she?

Brenda this may be a bitter little pill to swallow, but in Africa women don't often have sexual autonomy. In fact most who get HIV, get it through unchoiced sex. Please apply your paradigms here and show us your "logic".

Set aside the gratuitous slams (not to mention the gratuitous self-backslapping) and the poor spelling. Clearly, this person (NOT a doctor) is rightfully appalled at the monstrous infection rate in Africa, and the fact that most women in that region have little to no autonomy of person that women in the West enjoy.

The author claims that out of mercy and expediency that condom usage needs to be done to save the lives of these women.

After doing a bit of research, I was forced to pause and consider for a moment that the Cluebat may actually have a point; that maybe Proportionality comes into play here, and just maybe a smaller sin is needed to prevent the larger evil. After all there are bishops in Africa (not speaking ex cathedra) that seem to insinuate that the Church needs to revisit its position on condoms in Africa, given the horrendous epidemic it suffers under.

But, then I did a little more research. And what do you know, but little old Science, that "evil" discpline that I am suppoed to be foursquare against, came to the defense of -you'll never guess it- the proponents of abstinence programs!!!

Uganda provides the clearest example that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is preventable if populations are mobilized to avoid risk. Despite limited resources, Uganda has shown a 70% decline in HIV prevalence since the early 1990s, linked to a 60% reduction in casual sex. The response in Uganda appears to be distinctively associated with communication about acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) through social networks. Despite substantial condom use and promotion of biomedical approaches, other African countries have shown neither similar behavioral responses nor HIV prevalence declines of the same scale. The Ugandan success is equivalent to a vaccine of 80% effectiveness. Its replication will require changes in global HIV/AIDS intervention policies and their evaluation.

Population Health Evaluation Unit, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.

(here is the link for the abstract.)

Oopsie. Both science (as in the discipline) and Science magazine (sponsored by the AAAS -The American Association for the Advancement of Science- one of the more rigorous scientific organizations out there) seem to be saying that abstinence programs DO work. By golly.

Science set aside, let us wander into the realm of philosophy for a moment. (of which empirical science is but a branch of, but that is another topic, another time)

Briefly, let us look at the basic expectations that the liberal mindset has placed upon sexuality since the '60s. "It's good. Everyone is going to Do It. So, to prevent pregnancy/STDs/AIDS, we need to make sure that condoms/abortion et al are easily available."

Now, while no one will disagree with the idea that sex is a Good Thing (when used as the manufacturer intended), let's look at what lurks behind Curtain #2, "Everyone is going to Do It." Implicit in that statement is the belief that we as humans are no different than monkeys. That we cannot Help Ourselves. We are helpless before the god Orgasm, and must make sure that we enjoy the fruits of that god without the attendant responsibilities. Because once again, "We Can't Help Ourselves."

Sorry. It ain't that simple. And you aren't off the old hook of Responsibility that easily.

The Ugandans seem to be providing factual evidence that another element may be at work here. That in fact, with a bit of education and intestinal fortitude, it would seem that people CAN control their urges.

And I recognize from the above quote that much of the human misery that contributes to the AIDS epidemic in Africa stems from local governments -in all likelihood steeped in corruption- being unable/unwilling to make the policy decisions necessary to change conditions so that those desperate 13 year olds might escape their plight.

But we let those governments off too easily by throwing condoms at them. We say in part: "The problem is insoluble. Here is a slight panacea."

Sorry. That won't do it either. The problem IS fixable, humans CAN control their appetites.

But liberal cluebats, -deep down- believe that humans are no better than animals. That we cannot help ourselve. That we really can't manage heroic actions to answer huge problems. They prefer to say, "Poor child. Let is comfort you in your misery."

Whereas the correct thing to do, the truly humanistic (and Christian, what a coincidence) action is to say; "Poor child. Let me help you up so that you may teach you and your children to never know this misery again."

Which worldview is truly more honoring to the human? What really strives for more in terms of human excellence -in ALL things-? American liberalism circa 2005 A.D.?

I think not.

some of the joys of age

2005-11-14T13:40:00.000-08:00

Having recently turned 40, that particular number becomes a lightning rod for reflection. (40!!!! The texts say this is when the mid-life crisis hits!!! Am I in one????)

Seriously, much of that reflection is positive, in the long commitment my wife and I renew with each other every day; with the raising of 7 remarkable children for whom I am thankful and prayerful every day; for a career that I usually enjoy. While I may not be living the axiom, "Find a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life", I am close to it. Close to it indeed.

But, 40 also provides reminders that the warranty on the Body God was kind enough to grant me to use for passage through whatever alloted years I have is essentially expired; and some of the parts are beginning to fail. The knees are somewhat creaky, the one big toe appears to be arthritic, making for something of a hitch in my get-along, especially on colder mornings or during times of weather change.

Then there is the broken tooth I just had extracted about an hour ago (the fragment was removed, not the whole tooth). Dentist says it could simply be the "wages of age" marching their way across my body.

Sigh. Oh well. At least it gives me an excuse to spend more time with the family today.

Airheads weigh in on T.O.

2005-11-13T21:14:00.000-08:00

Why is the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson saying that Terrell Owens is being treated too harshly by the Philadelphia Eagles? (Link here).

Background can be found here.

My question: How can ANYONE defend these pampered fools who make millions per year? How on God's earth can a man (black, white, striped, I don't care) who is in the highest 2% of American income, being paid for playing a damned game, be mistreated when he looks his gift horse in the mouth and claims that it is fraudulent.

Sorry sonofabitch deserves to be bucked off the back and tossed to the ground.

Both Jackson and Nader are ignorant grandstanders trying to make a name for themselves.

Sorry, guys. T.O. made his own bed. He now gets to lie in it, and then make still more millions next year with some idiot team that thinks they can tame him.

Parenting and the kids one ends up with

2005-11-13T12:55:00.000-08:00

This may be an ongoing post, as I am ruminating over a number of different sub-topics. . .I'm simply going to post what I come up with and then edit and add as I can. So, my small readership, you might want to re-visit as this post evolves.

And now I am going to lunch. So, more later.

And back from lunch. One of the ruminations stems from the consideration of two children that are friends with two of my own kids.

Ever considered whether the behavior traits we exhibit are functions of genes (inherited traits, "nature) or are learned behavior (nurture)? This is a perennial topic in the psychology class I teach, and the answers always seem appealingly easy. . .and then we come across anecdotes that blow our handy little theories right out of the water.

Often, the conclusion we come to is that a majority of our traits are learned. The odd facial expression that a person exhibited we later discover was also made in almost exactly the same fashion by the boy's father. The studious girl is found to have been mothered by a woman with a Ph.D and the same penchant for careful scholarship.

There are exceptions. There are studies out there that have determined with fair surety that there are many kids that are born with an inherited (genetic) tendency towards either shyness or boisterousness. (Twin studies. . I won't bore you with the details.) But even then, one may be born with these tendencies and later on habituate themselves into the opposite behaviors: The wallflower may turn into a good public speaker, while the born extrovert may learn to quietly meditate for hours on end. And of course, there are some behavior-pattern disorders that have a very clear genetic component (mood disorders, alcoholism).

But, for the most part, random polling (at least that I have conducted) indicates that most people believe the majority of their behaviors are learned. And in general, I would agree with them.

From this belief model comes a very heavy burden upon parents. Since much of behavior would seem to be learned, we as parents have a tremendous responibility to then teach our children as best we can to "behave" properly (whatever that looks like). And this burden is well illustrated in society. The parents of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (the Columbine terrorists) came in for a great deal of public opprobrium after that tragedy; the basic nut of the criticism was that the Harris and Klebold parents were bad parents; if they had done their duty properly, none of this would have happened.

Some of the onus was also placed upon the school itself; in allowing bullying behavior, the school helped send the terrorists "around the bend"; in short, their environment led them to anti-social actions.

That is an extreme example. But I cannot count the number of times some poor social misfit blundered about the landscape, and the question then arises: "What were the parents of that poor sap doing?" Even the parents flagellate themselves, staying up hours upon end, asking themselves what they could have done different so that poor Joey wouldn't have turned into such a whatever.

So much of learning, of what we are, comes from our parents. Freud, somewhat deranged sex-fiend that he was, is greatly admired by many current therapists, not least because of his insistence on this piece of reality.

And yet, it doesn't always parse.

Let me give you a series of examples:

Example #1: I have an uncle whom I greatly admire. He and his wife had 9 children. Interestingly, the first one suffered organic brain damage due to some serious birthing complications. . . he has needed some type of institutional care his entire life. It was evident when he was born that he would need this care. And yet, my aunt and uncle went on to have 8 more children. But I digress.

Now, save for the aforementioned disabled cousin of mine, 7 of the remaining 8 are well-adjusted, devout, "pillar-of-the-community" type citizens. But the 8th, a female cousin, is not. Was rather the rebel as a teen, and has had spotty marriage record, not very devout. . .I need not go on.

Example #2: We recently played host to a young person whose mother and step-father were out on a hunting trip. This young person comes from a family environment that is essentially agnostic, verging on white-trash, indifferent to the general welfare of their children. Yet the kid in reality is remarkably polite, devout, friendly, considerate, hard-working. . .destined, I would think, for great things.

Example #3: We have another young person who is a friend of the household. This young person is raised by devout Christians, who run a loving, tight household generally free of "redneck" strife (sorry for the generalization. . but I am trying to reach for a common understanding in few words), and who are most solicitous of the overall welfare of their child. Yet this child is generally speaking spoiled, self-centered, rather inconsiderate and possessed of a teasing streak that often verges on being outright malicious.

Now, if our behavior traits are mostly learned particularly from our parents, then we would expect the following outcomes for the previous three examples:

Example 1: The 8 cousins with no devlopmental disorders would be expected to turn out more-or-less consistently. The black sheep really ought not to exist. Yet we all know of large families with at least one kid who simply did not fit the mold in some fashion or other. For large families, the black sheep syndrome is seemingly very common.

Examples 2 & 3: You would expect that the temperaments/tendencies of the kids in question would be exactly reversed. Kid #2 ought to be the hellion and miscreant, while kid #3 ought to be more. . ."angelic".

Granted, we are talking about individuals, and we all know that such limited anecdotes are not good for making future predictions. Furthermore, there is -I am sure- a great deal of mitigating data that I have not reported (and probably do not know) that could shed some further light. . .at least on examples 2 & 3.

But they will serve as illustrations of a greater whole.

There is no mistake that parents bear a huge responsibility for the formation of the children they are blessed with. And a large portion of their future behavior will come about from the modeling that my wife and I provide. Therefore, we have a solemn and sometimes enormous burden of fulfilling that responsibility properly. And, God willing, our kids will turn into the generally good people most of my cousins have. Every parent should sometimes stagger under that awesome responsibility.

But they should not be paralyzed by it. At the end of the day, God loans us our kids, and in that loaning, suffuses them with the same free will that He has given to us and the rest of humanity.

And some of humanity may choose to use that same Free Will poorly, to the grief of their parents.

Just so long as that grief is not paralyzing.

Truth is Truth, not Opinion

2005-11-12T19:51:00.000-08:00

So often, the Freakbat Left levels the claim that I -in my hubris- seek to impose my will upon others who do not share my beliefs. . .possibly due to some basic flaw in my character that impels me to lord it over others.

Far from it.

. . .if a man is ignorant of the fact something is wrong, and acts in ignorance, he incurs no guilt, provided natural reason was not enought to show him that it was wrong. But while ignorance may excuse the man it does not excuse the act, which is wrong in itself. If I permitted the act simply because the man is ignorant, that it is wrong, then I would incur guilt, because I do know it to be wrong. It is really that painfully simple.

-Walter M. Miller, A Canticle for Leibowitz Bantam Spectra Books. Original Copyright, 1959, Walter M. Miller

Some of the more deranged of my limited readership cannot even claim ignorance, sadly. They know either by dint of previous education, or the obvious lessons of natural reason. In their obstinacy, they reject both.

Life is difficult enough

2005-11-11T14:26:00.000-08:00

. . .without Pat Robertson fouling the air with his strange ravings. First he called for the head of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Now, he is saying that the residents of Dover, PA are subject to "God's wrath" (presumably a natural disaster) for having the temerity to vote out their school board; the same one that voted in a stamp on all their science textbooks questioning the validity of evolution, and the need to be open to other theories, notably, ID.

Now, without getting into the question of ID vs. evolution (another time, please), let us focus on the senselessness of Mr. Robertson; senselessness that verges on perfidy.

I've already called into question his wisdom of advocating for the removal of Chavez's head. And here he is being just as much a demagogue.

For two reasons: 1) It undoubtedly gives ammunition to the Freakbat Left that those on the Right can be just as loony, if not moreso. Setting aside the fact that Robertson has about as much traction with rational members of the Center and Right as the Rev. Al Sharpton; Robertson is a well-known face and voice. And despite the obvious lack of common sense on the part of both "reverends" (I am coming to dislike that word), that has never prevented their opponents from using their respective screeds as evidence of the Right or Left's mental instability.

Then there is 2). Just as Sharpton has some traction with the Moonbat Fringe of the Left, so too does Robertson have traction with the Weekly World News reading faction of the Right. And the LAST THING that is needed is to give any faction, no matter how Out There, reason to believe that their most paranoid fantasies are in fact true.

In this case, the nefarious and nonsensical belief that God will wipe the sinners off the face of the Earth like he did with Sodom. Robertson has the bad taste and lack of common sense to brand Dover, PA as the modern Gomorrah.

Whatever.

None of his ravings are helped by the fact that theologically he is way out At Sea on this topic. . .yet his public persona lends credence to the idea that there are Christians all over the map who agree with his twisted reasonings. Lately, he has become the poster boy for the argument against Sola Scriptura.

Not only does the man need to shut up -now- he needs to -once again- unlimber his Crow Pie recipe and retract his words.

And for Heaven's Sake, keep quiet in the future. He is simply wrong, and makes everything look bad.

Forgiveness

2005-11-11T09:14:00.000-08:00

This is a remarkable story of forgiveness.

Read it now.

Then, consider how the Relativist Left, with its hatred of God and binding moral precepts, explains how such loving behavior could possibly take place. They cannot claim that conscience alone calls the Schrock's to forgiveness, as anyone's conscience in such a situation calls for vengeance. There is a higher moral calling that Mrs. Schrock responded to, and that higher moral authority cannot come solely from within ourselves.

It must come from Beyond.

The Left can take the opposite tack, that the Schrocks are entitled to their vengeance. But then, how can that be the loving, compassionate response that the Left always presents itself as endorsing?

They cannot have it both ways. In fact, the Left cannot have it either way.

Not only do the Schrock's show us the model for loving forgiveness, they also -albeit unwittingly- expose the fundamental philosophical conundrum the Left both is founded in and also always finds itself.

Gay Marriage

2005-11-10T07:01:00.000-08:00

I also take a ton of heat for criticizing the notion of gay marriage. Neverminding the philosophical sand that the argument of such marriage is built upon, consider the practical ramifications. The Anchoress -as usual- has her finger on the pulse here. Check it out.

How the Left interprets Elections

2005-11-09T20:02:00.000-08:00

Here we have a result from Maine, protecting a law making it a crime to discriminate against GLBTs. While this law can be problematic, and perhaps limits free speech and the use of private property, is not the end of the world.

Here we have a Texas bid to outlaw gay marriage winning comfortably.

Here we have Kansas school board challenging the regnant primacy of Evolution in the publoc schools.

Why is it when I visit sites that tend toward the Right (markshea, the Anchoress, even the supposedly radical MichelleMalkin) I find commentary, perhaps some sadness, some crowing, but a generally calm reaction.

Yet, go to the dailyKos, or just about any other left-bent site that considers these things (you folks can probably find these people on your own. ..why give them any free advertising, eh? Even if it is from this very remote corner of blogdom), and you will find vituperation, profanity, tirades. . .behavior common to a 3 year-old.

I get taken to task for being of the Right, and therefore, "ignorant" and "intolerant."

Whose speech is really intolerant? Whose speech is truly indicative of a fundamental ignorance, if we were to regress these people to the developmental age their vocabulary and invective indicates?

Catholic Schools, Crazy Parents and Second Chances

2005-11-02T21:13:00.000-08:00

The story can be found here.

It seems that in Sacramento, an all-girls Catholic high school, Loretto, hired a new drama teacher by the name of Bain this year. This woman had been observed in the past, escorting women into the Planned Parenthood so as to facilitate their reception of PP's hideous offerings, bypassing the protesters who object to PPs murderous activities, thereby also giving implicit blessing to PP and its activities.

Note, I said she had been observed. She had been observed, apparently during the summer, by a young woman who attends the Loretto school. When this young woman, Katelyn Sills (her website is here ) mentioned this to her mother, Wynette, Mrs. Sills apparently then approached the administration of the Loretto school, suggesting that Ms. Bain was not a good role model as a teacher for the school and ought to be removed. The administration refused.

Mrs. Sills then took the next logical step and approached the Bishop of Sacramento, William Weigand, and appraised him of the situation. At some point thereafter, Bishop Weigand essentially ordered Loretto to fire Ms. Bain. Which, while disagreeing with the Bishop, they did under holy obedience.

Two weeks later, the school expelled Katelyn Sills, apparently with little or no prior warning.

Now, having read all of this, my (limited) faithful readers are probably breathing fire and wanting to go down to Sacto and set fire to the Loretto administration.

And I was right there with you.

Except for this critical paragraph found in the Sacramento Bee's coverage of this little foofaraw:

The teacher, Marie Bain of Sacramento, who ceased volunteering before taking the Loretto job, was fired Oct. 14.

Now, if, IF the Bee is correct on this and not spinning the truth, this places the entire story in a much different light (see here for an example of why the MSM may not be trusted to be telling the truth here).

In this light, the Bishop may well have been premature in ordering Marie Bain's removal, and the intrepid Sills family is barking up the wrong tree.

As a principal, I once hired a woman who was engaged to be married. She was not a Catholic, yet understood and accepted our morals code for hiring. She revealed to me that she had been living with her fiancee (av ery public act of poor moral behavior), but they both agreed that if they were to pursue the position, they would have to separate the household until they were married. I added that they ought to lead fully chaste lives, but that I also wasn't about to police their behavior. And I hired her, because she was (and is) a good teacher. I also told her that if I received knowledge that they were not living chastely, I would terminate her employment immediately. There is little doubt that if parents discovered that I had hired a woman who had been living with her fiancee, I would have had parents at my door questioning my wisdom. And I would have said (as I was expecting that pressure to come about) that while she was behaving in error, she was not now, and so long as she stayed within the employee Code, I would retain her, and that would be that.

But I never did get confronted.

Here, it seems that we have a similar problem. We have a woman engaging in a public act of poor moral behavior (assisting at a Planned Parenthood), before being hired at a Catholic school. She terminates this behavior prior to her hiring, as did my own hire. Yet in this case, parental pressure forces the firing of the woman for behavior that predates her employment. (in the end, the administration acted not out of pressure, but out of Holy Obedience)

If I had refused to hire the teacher I hired despite her obvious qualifications and her desire to reform her behavior, I would have been doing both her and the school and injustice. If the Sacramento story is correct, a similar injustice has been done here. Marie Bain should not have been fired.

People must be allowed the opportunity to repent of their errors and move on in a spirit of forgiveness and charity. Marie Bain, it seems, was denied that opportunity.

Now, there remains the issue of Katelyn Sills expulsion. And here I will say that the school is in further error, in that -and I am speculating here- the girl was removed not because she was a menace, but because her mother was intolerable. And I am foursquare opposed to the removal of a child from a school because a parent is a tyrant. I might invite them to leave, but an expulsion requires the child acting in such a way as to require removal, not the parent. A similar case is occuring in Orange County where an openly gay couple has had theur child removed from the school because of their public behavior. Whether or not one agrees with homosexual behavior is beside the point. The child should not be punished for the indiscretions and idiocies of their parents.

And for one really pragmatic reason: Parents are ALWAYS acting like idiots with their children. If I had to throw one out, it then becomse way to easy to throw 50% of them out. The only way I would ever have a child leave for parental idiocy would be for their utter refusal to pay their bills to the school. Even then, I would simply refuse them the ability to register for a new year.

Even outright craziness, like having berserk parents stalk the halls can be overcome by restraining orders and a well-placed SRO; but it is a travesty of justice to expel a kid for parental foolishness.

The Nut said it right

2005-11-01T12:28:00.000-08:00

Here in terms of the attempt on the Left to usurp the American voting process. It's all there, judicial usurpation of politics, Kennedy demagoguery, poor sports. . .all of it.

Read it and do so NOW!!!!!

More on the MSM and Liberal foolishness

2005-10-31T09:07:00.000-08:00

Best encompassed by this outstanding essay from the Anchoress.

Read it all and take it in.

Odds and Ends

2005-10-28T15:54:00.000-07:00

Some loose ends to clear up 'round here.

From dictionary.com:

Extinction:

3. (Psychology). A reduction or a loss in the strength or rate of a conditioned response when the unconditioned stimulus or reinforcement is withheld.

Referent? Well, I'll let you folks speculate.

I've not commented upon the various follies surrounding the White House lately, mainly due to an inability to make informed commentary. But recently -with the whole often seeming to be greater than the sum of its parts- a number of issues have come to a head, resulting in the following comments:

What with affaire de Miers and affaire de Plame, the Bush admin does not come off looking good. The first always smacked of cronyism (not that this denigrated the woman's ability to adjudicate), and looked bad, and now the withdrawal ALSO looks bad (but a pasting in the Senate by fellow GOPs would have looked even worse). The second makes the administration look further bad in manipulating the press into settling personal vendettas.

Couple this with Bush's seeming love of increasing big government while the ghost of Reagan spins in his grave, I find myself wishing more and more that the Democrats would finally get to the point of moral coherence and come out against abortion. While their apparent self-loathing of all things American would still be an issue, it would certainly offer a breathtaking alternative to the GOP.

And Bush's GOP is appearing less and less attractive (at least on domestic issues).

Finally, there is this very depressing post on michellemalkin.com.

The next time someone says there is no liberal bias in the media, I will direct them to this travesty of journalism.

There is no other way to parse the rampant liberalism at the country's "newspaper of record." They are clearly torquing the news into something it is not, simply so they can further their own spin on "Bush and the war are evil, and no one supports him." The Times' work on this story sat the reality on its head. . .there is no other way to parse it.

And as goes the Times, so go the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, the MSM networks and so on.

In the mainstream, natioanl media, there is no objective reporting. Only liberal spin.

Remember, 89% of editors, reporters and publishers polled in the DC area voted for Kerry last time around. There is NO WAY that you will convince me that New York media is significantly different. There is NO WAY they all force themselves to remain objective.

And so, you get twisted stories like these.

The MSM is liberal. Get used to it.

Mozart on hold

2005-10-24T19:56:00.000-07:00

Thank heaven. It has been postponed (wisely) until March. In the meantime, I now get to play a funky French chef in a really cheesy dinner theater murder mystery, being put on as a fundraiser for the local chapter of the American Diabetes Association. That piece runs on December 3rd. No rest for the weary!!

GodofBiscuits is actually brilliant

2005-10-23T17:54:00.000-07:00

I take back everything I have ever said about the arguing ability of the GodofBiscuits. Just visit this site and see if you agree.

Apparently he has been hiding his real lite under a bushel all of these months. The sheer brilliance of that first post. . .well, as you can see, it simply hasn't been outdone yet.

When is a Biscuit a Cracker?

2005-10-22T16:37:00.000-07:00

From Dictionary.com:

bis·cuit
n. pl. bis·cuits

1. A small cake of shortened bread leavened with baking powder or soda.
2. Chiefly British.
A. A thin, crisp cracker.

Therefore, what is a cracker?

crack·er
3. Offensive.
b. Used as a disparaging term for a white person.

In other words, when one calls himself a biscuit (or biscuits), it is just another term for a white man who disparages himself?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Teeing off on foolish parents

2005-10-21T13:51:00.000-07:00

Lemme tell you a quick story.

My brother is also a teacher in a different corner of my home state. He is also that school's soccer coach (boys and girls). Up till this week, the girl's team was undefeated, leading the league. Now, the team suffered two losses this past week to very good teams within the league. Part of those losses can be attributed to the fact that his lead sweeper was injured, creating a huge hole in the line-up to be fixed.

Now, the moronic, Monday-morning quarterback parents who have said little in support of him during this run now send him an anonymous letter, giving my brother player-placement advice, telling him he is not coaching from the sideline (how the **** can they TELL this when they are sitting in the bleachers? Unless they expect him to march up and down the field like a nervous cat, screaming at the players?), tell him he is not using "soccer sense" (which is insane. He has played and coached for OVER 30 YEARS), and then end the letter telling him it was "not indignant".

Whatever. That last bit was taken straight from the sfgate.com article I linked on the last post. Sit there and cart out every condescending, arrogant posture in the book and then claim that they are actually trying to be KIND?

Cowardly, foolish, chair-bound pencil pushers.

YES I am mad!!!! Later on, I might comment about the idiocy that sports madness seems to create in the more mindless of our parents. . .but that is for another time.

RIght now, I'm only fit for ranting.

Freaks from Frisco sound off on Arkansas mom

2005-10-20T16:53:00.000-07:00

Know the woman who has had her 16th kid in Arkansas? Well, a "writer" for something called "sfgate.com" wrote this in objection to the poor woman.

I got ticked reading his fantastically sententious and disingenuous "article", so I zapped this off to him in response:

""the more than slightly creepy 39-year-old woman from Arkansas who just gave birth to her 16th child

" No doubt, you find natural processes creepy. But, my experiences with people from SF shows that this is not uncommon.

"And furthermore, who are you to suggest that her equally troubling husband isn't more than a little numb to the real world, and that bringing 16 hungry mewling attention-deprived kids (and she wants more! Yay!) into this exhausted world zips right by "touching" and races right past "disturbing" and lurches its way, heaving and gasping and sweating from the karmic armpits, straight into "Oh my God, what the hell is wrong with you people?"

But that would be, you know, mean."

Nope, no disingenuous trollop from YOU!! YOU are CLEARLY polite. (For the humor impaired, that is sarcasm).

"It's wrong to be this judgmental"

So saith the liberals. Tolerance for all, right? But then, you proceed right on to show your true colors. At least your hypocrisy is right there on the surface.

"Wrong to suggest that it is exactly this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony that's making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of homophobic neo-Christians . . ."

and so on.

"no, no, it is not for this space to visualize frighteningly capacious vaginal dimensions. It is not for this space to imagine this couple's soggy sexual mutations. We do not have enough wine on hand for that."

Well, a moment of good taste. Leave it to an SF sex freak to focus on what sex might look like for others, in that the topic was even brought up in the first place.

"Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who, along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring. . ."

Ah, the real meat. You're afraid of being bred out of business. Not to worry. So long as there IQ 60s and below out there following the Left Line without thought, you will have an audience for your screeds.

"Why does this sort of thoughtfulness seem so far from the norm? Why is having a stadiumful of offspring still seen as some sort of happy joyous thing?"

Of course, to the basic Relativist Tyrant, the idea of reason behind such love of family is beyond your ken, and therefore must be labeled as "thoughtless." It ain't thoughtless, it just stems from thoughts that you cannot hope to understand. Don't bother trying to get it. Leave real love to the experts.

"God does not want more children per acre than there are ants or mice or garter snakes or repressed pedophilic priests."

Ah. Moral Relativist Tyrants don't believe in God, but when they speak of Him, they know what He is thinking. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Mo.

"Every other child in the world (one billion of them) lives in abject poverty. "

And what do YOU do, Mr. Holier than Thou, to address this? Drive a car? Eat out? Watch TV and keep the lights on? How about heat? AC? Buy trucked food at the market? Give those things up, then begin preaching about how the needy need help, and YOU actually try to help them. In the meantime, I advise you to either (sic) stop sucking at the public teat that provides for you if you intend to slap at it and call it evil at the same time. Smacks of conflicting ethics.

"No, no one says that. That would be mean."

Yeah, they do. Cause basically, you are mean.

-hoody (demolition65.blogspot.com)

Yeah, that "sic" is in there because I couldn't type fast enough to capture my thoughts correctly. Oh well.

Long Island Catholic School Cancels Prom

2005-10-16T19:08:00.000-07:00

You go, Brother!!!!!

Drama rears its head again

2005-10-16T17:28:00.000-07:00

I have been asked -based upon my success playing Crazy Ol' Maurice- to now play Mozart in a benefit show. I am once again highly flattered.

There are some good points and bad points to this:

Good:

1) The only other performer is my son, Eric, who will be playing the part of Mozart's son Karl. Lots of opportunity for fun there, not to mention that fact that most of the rehearsals can take place in the comfort of my own home.
2) There will be one performance (1). Much less stress there.
3) This is a piece that is similar to Peter and the Wolf, in that it is a kids piece to play along with an orchestra. The dialog Eric and I manage serve to augment our orchestra introducing Mozart (most notably, the Magic Flute) to local kids. Great fun potential there as well.

The bad:
1) Not the strongest script ever written, AND
2) I have four weeks to memorize 40 pages of dialog!!! This is hands down the most intense line memorization load I have ever encountered. I've had more wordy roles, but I also have had at least 10 weeks to put them together. 4 weeks is insane.

Here we go again.

Is this a joke or not?

2005-10-14T18:08:00.000-07:00

I found this on the Anchoress's site.

Truly bizarre. Then I read the testimonials, and I began thinking I had stumbled into a combination Saturday Nite Live/Monty Python skit. What does anyone else think?

Princeton gets something right

2005-10-13T19:39:00.000-07:00

Though it had to come from the students. The faculty and admin are still totally bleeped up in that they continue to allow the deranged Peter Singer to run their ethics department, which is still akin to allowing the village alcoholic to run the local pub.

Three cheers for chastity at Princeton!!!!

Tain't got a Frigging Clue

2005-10-12T16:43:00.000-07:00

Just a total cluebat. Pick most any post. . .it matters not.

This fellow has targeted me on his blog in the past, and while I have made one singular appeal to him on this blog, I have attempted to refrain from direct addresses. But his latest madness deserves some special attention, as I discovered another component to his pathology today, from the following comments to a previous post:

But if if came to declaring that their relations are coeval with the one I have with my wife... (This is in quotes, as he is quoting something I had said previous)

Well, Hoody, why the hell DOESN'T it?

You're willing to be entertained, enriched, helped, supported and befriended by these gay people, so long as they don't have the bad taste to assume that their relationships are just as valid as yours?

Why DON'T you bring up the topic with your "friends"?
God of Biscuits | Homepage | 10.01.05 - 4:53 pm | #

I had been saying that my gay friends would be corrected if they were to bring up the licitness of gay marriage (vs. civil unions. Unions are another topic for another time).

My initial response:

I knew it was too good to be true.

Really amazing how you can attempt to turn such a statement into one that makes it appear as though I am. . .somehow. . .exploiting these friends.

But again, it makes sense coming from one who sex and sexuality is the be all and end all of humanity. Try broadening your horizons some.

I don't bring it up for the same reason they don't ask if we are having any more children. It has to do with good taste, charity. . .virtues I suppose I shouldn't be talking to you about, since you have exactly zero clue about them.
hoody | Homepage | 10.02.05 - 1:59 am | #

The resultant "riposte":

More like that they wouldn't be your friends any more if they knew what you really thought of their relationships, and the superiority of yours.
God of Biscuits | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 11:26 pm | #

And my final answer:

Cute. More playground idiocy.

The FACT is that they are well aware of the fact that I am a more orthodox Catholic. Despite this reality -which in your eyes is a serious handicap, but in more enlightened minds is not- they ARE friends.

And they have not been afraid to announce the fact that they are gay to me.

Beyond that, again, "I don't bring it up (nor do they) for the same reason they don't ask if we are having any more children. It has to do with good taste, charity. . ..

Yet you, in your ad hom brilliance, continue to reduce this to a playground taunt. For you, friendship with "the enemy" is (not surprisingly) impossible.

Seemingly impossible for you is also rational discourse with "the enemy."
hoody | Homepage | 10.12.05 - 7:38 pm | #

And I believe that my last response catches part of this fellow's enormous obstinacy: He cannot be civil. To be civil is in some fashion to "bless" the "backward ravings of lunatics from Eastern Washington".

The man is not civil. My friends, gay or straight, from Beauty are. And not only are they civil, they are at least partially sane, somewhat for the aforementioned reason that they can identify themselves as something other than gay. They are car salesmen, teachers, actors and actresses.

On the other hand, Mr. Biscuits is disordered; in his inability to engage in civil discourse (under any circumstances beyond minimal acceptance of condolence in extreme turmoil) and his screaming demand that he be first recognized as gay. All other roles, caregiver, partaker of parties and haircuts, employee, engineer, take second place to his shout that his is a homosexual.

The one blessing I can find in this entire nest of senile adders is that his lurking here and on teen sites such as bloghogger has slowly but surely declined, almost to the point of non-existence.

Or, perhaps I am over-analyzing. Perhaps he simply cannot wrap his head around the fact that there are people with competing viewpoints that can still be friends.

There is a precedent: Pat Buchanan, the well-known ultra-conservative blowhard is known (by the late Hunter S. Thompson) to be good friends with Rick Stearns, one of the architects of the McGovern campaign in '72, and described as one of the most "left-bent ideologues" in the '72 race. When asked why Buchanan liked Stearns, Buchanan replied: "I don't agree with Rick on anything of substance, but he's honest and I respect his integrity."

So, MrBiscuits, it IS possible, even with members of "your world." And I am not near so to the Right as Buchanan; neither are my friends from the Left out in StearnsWorld.

But, I suspect that the friendship requires -again- a certain civility.

And there seems to be a dearth of that sentiment emanating from the Frisco area.

Bitter and Sweet

2005-10-11T16:36:00.000-07:00

As in the show is over (bitter), and all the moreso in that it really was the greatest show I've ever been associated with. Full of good people (as I've mentioned before).

But there is the sweet; the wonderful memories, the community notices (this show is the closest thing to an "event" I've been around in some time), and the fact that I now get my life back. . .no more rehearsals and weekends consumed by performances.

Pix of those good people (courtesy of Jessica Fletcher):

This is my younger daughter Annie (glasses) with a couple of other members of the cast
_________________________________________________________________________________

The incomparable Sam Shick as Lumiere

The "Prince", and good friend Marty Evans

Melissa, who played the wardrobe, in a goofy moment with Maddison aka "Babbette"

The only marginally good shot of our orchestra. My lovely wife the violinist is on the far left

My elder daughter Monica (purple) with some of her friends and castmates

Matt, our "Beast" in a decidedly unbeastly moment

Korry Watkins, "Cogsworth" and I, contemplating yet another few hours in these goofy costumes

Janet Krupin, "Belle", my stage daughter, and a great talent too!!

The woman on the left is the incomparable Heather Steach, our costumer, who worked like a dog since May (for NO MONEY) to make this show work

Nick, aka "Gaston", doing his best impersonation of Spock.

One more picture of Janet and her baby sister Katie. They were performing a spontaneous concert for some of us during intermission Saturday nite. . .and what a treat. A very gifted set of sisters.

Sigh. Too bad it had to end. . .

Rex Redux

2005-10-06T17:08:00.000-07:00

We restarted the show today, once again for schoolchildren, after a badly needed three day hiatus.

It was wonderful.

Though the real reason I am writing is the blessing in discovering just how much better I am feeling now after a week of fighting this virus. Today was a literal copy of last Thursday in terms of physical demands being put on me in the show. Temperature was the same. . .everything. Yet I barely broke a sweat today, I hit all of my notes. . .easily. . .whereas last week was a tremendous, sweat-soaked, near-disastrous chore.

Another blessing is that my in-laws, both of whom as serious music snobs, saw the show and remarked upon how surprisingly good my singing and Rexing is, given my near-total greenness in terms of stage singing.

I had no idea how poorly I was feeling last week. . .until I could compare it to how good I feel this week.

Illness serves many purposes, I am sure. But for today, I thank it for reminding me how GOOD it feels to be normal and healthy.

Crime of the Scene
Audition Update
Theater Teaching Parenting
Beauty Opens Tomorrow
How Rex Harrison Saved My Bacon
The Real Opening

Trolls and Aversion/Compulsion

2005-10-04T16:05:00.000-07:00

a·ver·sion Pronunciation Key (-vûrzhn, -shn)
n.
1. A fixed, intense dislike; repugnance: formed an aversion to crowds.

com·pul·sion Pronunciation Key (km-plshn)
n.
1. The act of compelling.
2. The state of being compelled.
or
1. An irresistible impulse to act, regardless of the rationality of the motivation:

Aversion/Compulsion is popularly thought to be a diagnostic category in the APA's DSM IV, but it is not.

I offer the above dictionary.com definitions as basic building blocks to understand the two seemingly opposed concepts, and how they relate to trolls.

There can be no doubt that trolls lend a certain excitement to one's blog. No mistake that being called names tends to increase one's heart rate and blood pressure; and while these symptoms may not be healthy, they certainly aren't indications of boredom. And, if for whatever reason one finds himself suffering from the Doldrums, he can just scroll back to the most recent post from the most common (or most egregious, as the case may be) troll and voila. The Doldrums are cast away like fog before broken wind.

Therein lies the compulsion; the sick, bent desire to see what latest atrocities, idiocies and outright foolishness your own pet troll has perpetrated in the recent past.

Sometimes the compulsion goes deeper, to actually visit the homesite of your own troll and see what filth is oozing from the blogosphere over there. Still more exciting is to read references to you -always put forth in the most sarcastic, uncharitable way possible- and up go your vital signs once again.

I once equated viewing the ravings of a troll with the sick tendency we all have to both gawk at carny gross-out shows and to slow down and rubberneck at car accidents on the side of the highway. And upon reflection, that analogy just keeps fitting better and better. You look over at the accident (or the freakshow) in ghoulish fascination, taking in the carnage all the while telling yourself, "Thank God I'M not the one in that mess."

The only difference is that the people in the accident also wish they weren't there. The trolls, on the other hand, delight in living inside the carnage. And worse, they would love it if you would join them in their ruin.

From there comes the aversion, the repugnance (as opposed to hatred), the desire to get away from the scene as fast as possible. The sinking feeling you get in your belly when you look at the comments upon your post and you see that. . .yes. . .THAT troll has befouled your work once again.

The saddest part of all of this is the fact that the troll keeps coming here (or there, or there, or there, or there) thinking he is doing his job in "smiting the ignorant", when in fact he is a lost little boy, as cited here, tantrumming against those who know better, all in the hopes that if he screams loud enough, the truth he fears so badly will go away.

In the end, it matter not how many names the troll calls, how many times he smears, how many times he deliberately misunderstands and obfuscates and ad homs his way out of the corners he paints himself into: The Truth is always still there, waiting silently, patiently, lovingly, for the troll to open his eyes, re-embrace his full humanity and return Home.

Daily Kos calls for Bloody Revolution

2005-10-03T19:43:00.000-07:00

A diarist at the Daily Kos posted this idiot diatribe:

"It's become more and more apparent to me over the past five years that all the activism and non-violent protesting in the world will do precisely squat. When you're dealing with evil people who have no shame, the old rules of the game don't and, indeed, can't apply if you have any hope for success. Hundreds of thousands of people have marched, millions of letters have been written, tens of millions of votes cast, and hundreds of trillions of electrons expended pontificating on blogs...for nothing. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. Not unless it comes in the form of something akin to the French Revolution.

We need terror. We need horror. We need the streets running awash in rivers of blood of these thugs and criminals and zealots. Activism didn't prevent 60,000 deaths in Vietnam. All the activism of the Civil Rights era has gotten African Americans precisely nowhere. Segregation may not be the law of the land anymore, but it's still the de facto state of America.

When y'all want to start throwing molotovs and sniping from windows come and talk to me. Until then, I will be content to retire, be a hermit, and laugh at everyone. Even then, I may still just feel like laughing as the world falls apart around me, but at least I'll be willing to listen."

And there you have it. The mainstream Left's most popular blog advocating for violence in the streets.

"The people don't know any better, so we must use violence to teach them."

Didn't work for Robespierre, in the end it didn't work for Hitler, nor for Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot or any of the others. Yet it is a mainstream spokesfreakbat for the Left that is now calling for the blood to flow once again.

And people wonder why the Left is so often criticized for its naked hypocrisy.

First Things Blogsite!!!!

2005-10-03T07:09:00.000-07:00

Check it out here.

Tip to Dev Thakur at Against a Dictatorship of Relativism for the discovery.

Been reading FirstThings for almost 15 years now. . .and I got beat to the punch. Oh well.

The real opening, and some odds and ends

2005-10-01T09:44:00.000-07:00

We had our REAL opening last night (and thank you again REX). Played to the fullest house I have ever played in front of and frankly, we ROCKED!!!

It was wonderful folks. You shoulda been there.

I went back to work yesterday, yet had to race home at the first free moment when my 3rd son Eric, broke his arm while acting like a fool on my dining room floor. He broke it so badly it required general anesthesia to re-set it. He is now home, elevating a big blue cast and "casting" about for signatures. Life sure isn't dull around here.

I stumbled across the fact that the Governator down in Sacramento vetoed AB849,the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act". What it was designed to do was,

amend. . . Section 300 of the Family Code to define marriage as a civil contract between two persons instead of a civil contract between a man and a woman.

In other words, the bill was not meant to safeguard civil unions, but to re-define marriage. Ahnold said "no", as he should have. (And the serious MRTs are squealing as you might well imagine).

Why am I talking about this? Partially because of last night. I have been involved in theater in some form or another, off and on, for over 25 years. And in that time, Kinsey's reputed and over-estimated 10% of the normal population that is homosexual has appeared more often than 10% of the time. Heaven knows why, but the fine arts (at least music and drama) draw more than their fair share of gays and lesbians. Last night is no exception. At least one if not two of our principal (and more talented) actors are gay.

Why is he telling this? Because I want to present bona fides that any "hatred" I may have is not due to the unknown. I worked with them in college. My professor at the time was also gay. (In fact, he made a very obvious pass at me during my last show there. . .that is a story for another time) (and YES, I turned the pass down. Good grief). I am working with them now. I know whereof I speak.

And I find them to be talented, skilled, entertaining and fun. I consider them to be friends. Yeah, I know it sounds like, "But some of my best friends are. . ." Frankly, I wouldn't even be considered commenting upon their sexuality save for reflections upon some ravings by a (blessedly) former lurker. THAT fellow loved to turn all things discussed into one of sexuality. The guy was a gay first.

But my fellow actors are not. They are actors first, onstage. Then they are professionals; engineers, teachers, nurses, family people. . .whatever, offstage. Sexual orientation is not broadcast. THAT in the end is why they are friends. They are competent -fiercely so- onstage, and funny and personable offstage, without the in-you-face mentality that screams "I'M GAY AND YOU'D BETTER LOVE IT RIGHT NOW!!"

And if one of them, over a beer after a performance, were to discuss the issue, I would be more than ready to listen. They are friends, after all. Medical benefits, retirement, the right to share a household, I GET all of that. . .and I cannot say that I am opposed to those rights being available.

But if if came to declaring that their relations are coeval with the one I have with my wife, I have to object. The reasons are deep, but in the end boil down to this; my wife and I, by virtue of our opposed and complementing genders, can complete one another in a way that same-sex unions cannot. And marriage (as opposed to the nebulous civil union) must be reserved for that mysterious, complementary union.

So, among other things, the next time someone uses that over-used verb hate in relation to some action of mine, they need to read this post.

In the meantime, there is tonight, and yet another channeling of Rex.

Crime of the Scene
Audition Update
Theater Teaching Parenting
Beauty Opens Tomorrow
How Rex Harrison Saved My Bacon

How Rex Harrison saved my bacon

2005-09-29T20:03:00.000-07:00

Well, we had the opening, and I see that I am still not really recovered. We had two shows today, and I was a sweating wreck for both of them; and NOT out of nervousness. I simply do not have my energy back yet. The director pretty much ORDERED me home to bed at the end of the day. . .so it's evident not only to me that more rest is in order here.

My songs went OK as far as that goes, knowing that I have a fairly problematic upper respiratory infection. The biggest problems came about from 1) being betrayed by my voice into cracking uncontrollably on occasion, particularly on long-held notes, and more troubling is 2) having to take HUGE, GASPING BREATHS with each measure. Microphones pick these up really well. . .and there is nothing to be done about it. The audience simply has to hear me gasp.

But, there IS a partial solution.

The gentleman up pictured above is Rex Harrison, a noted screen actor from the '50s through the '80s. He is pictured with his co-star -the incomparable Audrey Hepburn- from his likely most famous film, My Fair Lady.

Anyone who has watched Mr. Harrison at work recognizes the following: He is a very good dresser; he has excellent command and diction of the English language; he physically commands every scene he is in, but not in an overpowering fashion; and he speaks his way through all of his songs that he performs in musicals, most notably the abovementioned Lady and Dr. Doolittle.

WHY he does this is beyond me. I've always suspected that he would have been a fine singer if he'd had some training, but he always insisted on sing-speaking.

And here's the thing, he does an absolutely awesome job of it. Watch him perform "Talk to the Animals" from Doolittle or "A Bachelor's Life" from Lady and you know what I am talking about. While it might not be as pleasant aurally as listening to Sinatra, he still tells a helluva story with the songs he speaks; and in some ways makes them even better in the telling.

So, when presented with those occasional notes and stanzas that present too much of a challenge for me either due their complexity, my greenness or my current infirmity, I have the comforting example of Mr. Harrison, whom I can attempt to emulate but can never truly recreate.

Thank you, Sir Rex. I shall create a new verb tomorrow night, when I tell the director that we are "Rex-Harrisoning" my song for the real opening.

See also:

Crime of the Scene
Audition Update
Theater Teaching Parenting
Beauty Opens Tomorrow

Yeah, tell me again how science is objective

2005-09-28T09:38:00.000-07:00

The UK Journal Times Online published this fantastically irresponsible story about how we Christians actually degrade society by adding to abortion, violence and so on.

Here is the key quote:

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

I already went off here on how the Left will twist science to its own agenda. They're doing it again here.

Note the bold word; "CORRELATE". This does NOT prove anything scientifically. They may have a point, they may not. There is no way that this "study" has controlled all other possible contaminating factors. For all they know, they have simply uncovered a convenient (for them) coincidence.

All they are doing is comparing demographic data, noting some negative correlations, then claiming we Christians are in essence causing the downfall of society.

But they are marketing this to ignorant dingbats throughout the West as "science."

The next time some MoonBat tells me they have science on their side, they are going to be sent to this post, here and over to bloghogger where we also find that the American Psychological Association decertified homosexuality as a mental disorder due to popular demand, NOT due to "science."

Don't let your Lefty friends deceive you. They don't use science to prove anything. They wield science in the name of their own religion.