A conservative news and views blog.

Location: St. Louis, Missouri, United States

Thursday, March 31, 2005


It looks like WITCHES have gotten interested in my article! Boy, talk about a diverse audience!

Who`s Watching Your Mitochondria

(Click the Header)

This is a fascinating new developement (and not just a little scary). Technology is a two-edged sword, and nano-tech could be either the greatest boon to mankind, or the ruination of us all. (Hat tip to Common Sense and Wonder.)

Oh, and to you libs-just another reason not to murder those with neurological illness.

Holman Gets It

Some solid thinking from Dave Holman over at Potomac Gadfly on Federalism and the usual liberal distortions.

Crime Doesn`t Pay

Boy, is that right!

The Hydra Revisited

I`m going to throw some more red meat to you libs who`ve been writing in; more on liberalism in my American Thinker article The Hydra Lives which should set you abuzzing like angry wet hornets. Take your blood pressure medication first (see, I`m not such a bad fellow!)

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

A Lively Exchange

I thought everyone would enjoy an exchange I`ve been having with a liberal who read my Deathheads article. The thing I find odd is that I can`t imagine a conservative going to a very partisan left-wing site and pestering the author of an article like the liberals have done here. We would just read it, comment to ourselves on the idiocy of the writer, and move on. The left, on the other hand, trolls conservative sites as an act of espionage; they want to see what we are thinking in order to craft a line of attack. My correspondent Ironlion shows himself to be a thoughtful and courteous liberal, but he is unwilling to see the ugly truth behind his beliefs. I may have been a bit too terse with him in my final response; I`ve been sick and had a toothache, and my patience was a bit thin. Anyway, read and enjoy.

I just read your article on the "deathheads". Brave New World is Aldous Huxley's vision of a distopia. You claim that Huxley attempted to portray a model of the left's idea of the perfect society. I'm curious. Have you ever read or heard of Aldous Huxley's Island? Island is Aldous Huxley's vision of a REAL utopia. In this book, the people living on the island take magic mushrooms to understand life, and the islanders children don't have to live with their parents, they can leave and live with other adults if they're having problems with theirs. I suggest you read this book, along with looking at some quotes and other information on Aldous Huxley. I think you'll find that if Aldous Huxley were around to read your article, he would be utterly disgusted at the way you misrepresented his work.
Maybe you just don't understand the point he was trying to get across. Try looking at the novel and comparing it to todays society. Alpha's, Betas, Deltas etc. are mirrored by our classes. We are all cogs in a giant machine. This machine is made up of multi-national corporations that take advantage of the consumerism and materialism we all suffer from. We even have a drug called soma along with a large number of other anti-depressants that merely serve to allow us to accept our servitude and forget about our low-quality of life. Your article makes it clear that there is a distinct discontinuity between the corporate and religious right. Sadly, you and yours have been had. The current administration is a corporation's administration. They preach one thing and practice another.
I find it rather silly that you would even bring up stem-cell research. If it were not for people like you perhaps Schiavo would be able to speak and walk and we would not be having this national debate. Your article also shows the hypocricy of much of the religous right. "The SL crowd believes life is a precious gift from God, and that Man does not have the right to choose the time and place for death", you claim in your article. May I ask you, are you for or against the death penalty? If you are not, what would you guess is the position of most Christians on the right side of the political spectrum? Does that position seem contradictory to you? Because it sure does to me. It just let me make it clear: nobody likes a murderer.
There are crazy people on both sides of the spectrum, that is for sure, but the position of the left cannot be characterized as "pro-death" just as there is no such thing as "pro-abortion". The left advocates never getting pregnant in the first place. But the right's hypocracy reveals itself again in their opposition to intelligent sex educaiton. It's common sense to teach abstinence. Abstinence works 100% of the time. If you are going to have sex, why not do you're best to not get pregnant so that you don't have to have an abortion or risk raising a child in poverty or having to give it away to someone else.
You're right about the left's love of the renaissance and the principles associated with it. Do you know why that is? Humanism created democracy in Athens. Humanism is liberalism.
Oddly enough, you undermined one of your own key arguments in the Schiavo case: Michael Schiavo is in it for money or some other immoral reason. You said, "...fairly early on Robert Herring, a stem-cell advocate, offered Michael Schiavo one million dollars to end his quest to kill his wife (which he refused)". If he was offered and refused one million dollars then what on Earth could be the reason for his desire to end the life of his wife? He could have just accepted the money and transfered Terri's guardianship over to her parents. I can only assume from what I know (and, like you, I know very little about him, his wife, or his wife's family), that he believes that it is what Terri would want to happen.
Lastly, the only thing this entire ordeal has in common with the death penalty is that it has to do with someone dying. The point is not that she is being punished, the point is that this is what she would have wanted (if that is indeed the case, which is what the courts have decided time and time again).
I don't expect you to respond to this E-mail, but I hope you will at least read it.

Dear Ironlion,

First off, let me thank you for responding to my article (even if you don`t agree). I would like to take

your points and anwer them as briefly as possible (I could write a book the length of War and Peace on this subject without too much effort if I wanted. Brevity will be difficult, but brief I shall be!)

1. I have heard of Island, although I have never read it. I know Huxley was in fact a Socialist and drug abuser, and that he never really followed up on Brave New World. Yes, he probably would have been disgusted at my using his words against him (I categorically deny misrepresenting him) but, then, Huxley was himself an object of disgust, so I think I shall not lose any sleep over his feelings. Still, none of this matters; Huxley wrote what he wrote, and you can`t deny that this nightmare vision he created was a Socialist Utopia gone mad. This was not a Capitalist state, or any other ``conservative`` society. Huxley understood where Fabian Socialism was taking the World, and he eloquently articulated it. That a man may later reject what he himself has said does not necessarily make it any less true. Pop psychology, false pseudo-religion, mind control, easy euthanasia, free, unfettered sex are all out of YOUR tradition-not mine.

2. Sorry, but the Liberals are the ones who try to pidgeonhole everyone into classes. Blacks have to think a certain way to be black, Hispanics have to be hispanics, women have to think like NOW. We have gay culture, fat culture, little people, etc. The liberal is the one who tries to pin these people into these particular slots. High taxation guarantees people can`t save or better their lives; who supports high taxes? Yes, we do have multinational corporations, but we also have Mom and Pop small businesses, and these began blossoming thanks to the REMOVAL of onerous government regulations. Your way PROMOTES the large corporation. Oh, and which side opposes drug use, and which side laughs it off?

3. I didn`t bring up stem-cell research, I brought up EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL RESEARCH. We have been hearing from your friends about the miracles to be wrought if only we had MORE embryonic stem-cell research. Your side rails against Bush, falsely accusing him of stopping research in this direction (it`s a lie; Bush was the first President to FUND this research-he just limited it to a certain cell line. You guys can`t seem to tell the truth on this one.) The fact is, if the proponents of embryonic stem-cell research were as confident in these miracles as they say they would DEMAND Terri be kept alive because a cure would be right around the corner. They have been strangely silent. Why? Because this has always been about justifying abortion and human cloning. They know full well that Adult stem-cells offer as much promise. They have insisted on using embryos because it would solidify their justifications for CONTROL of life and death. YOU know that as well as I do.

4. I agree with you on abstinance. I do not agree with you on ``intelligent`` sex education. I knew early on about sex, and about the causes of pregnancy. I expect you did, too! These kids are far more savvy than I ever was thanks to a sex-drenched culture, Cinemax, and Howard Stern. What sex-ed does is PROMOTE sex. It titilates kids while teaching them the manner to indulge their urges. I don`t argue sex should be off limits, but sex-ed is certainly not the way to go. Putting condoms on bananas and teaching about ``alternate lifestyles`` is hardly affecting out of wedlock births.

5. You should read my blog, if you think I undermine my own argument. First off, no-where in my article did I accuse Michael Schiavo of doing it for the money (you haven`t been paying attention!) But since you bring this matter up....
Michael Schiavo sued for medical malpractice and won a dandy settlement. He immediately began lobbying to remove Terri`s feeding tube after that. Michael has life insurance which will pay out on Terri`s death, and Michael will have a book deal, speaking engagements, a movie of the week, etc. If he had taken the deal and walked away from Terri he would be known as a scoundrel. Now he walks away rich, and a hero as well.

6. This ordeal has a great deal to do with the death penalty. This is about the power of the State to take someone`s life. In both cases the law is ordering someone`s death. The convicted criminal is being killed because of a heinous crime which demands justice. Terri is being killed because one man, Michael Schiavo, wants her dead. She is being KILLED, not allowed to die, as so many on your side assert.

Given the length and obvious anger in your reply I must conclude I have touched a nerve. It seems I am more right than I know.

I don`t expect you to reply to this, but at least read it!

I'm glad you responded. Thank you.
Huxley was not a hypocrit. Brave New World does not contradict Huxley's views in the slightest. You must be crazy if you believe that I, with my liberal attitude, would ever support a society like the one represented in Brave New World. I assure you that no liberal would support that kind of world and, in fact, we would utterly oppose and attempt to stop its creation. You can also be sure that there are no liberals that would champion what happened in the former Soviet Union under Stalin. It is also ridiculous to say that nazism is anything like liberalism. I'm surprised that you don't know: fascism is a political ideology of the far right.
On your second point: I find it humorous when people on the right try to turn us into the racists and classists(?). It's not a bad thing to recognize differences. Today, gay people do have their own culture, most likely because they are marginalized by people like you. We liberals say Blacks have to think a certain way to be black? This is a huge issue that has much to do with African Americans trying to create an identity after more than 3 centuries of discrimination, racism, and slavery. We DO make people aware of classes. People who are stuck on the bottom must be aware that they are being pinned down. The liberal tradition is one of mind control? Please, I would love you to tell me how that is. Our tradition is one of FACT. Perhaps you are speaking of the propaganda in the Soviet Union under Stalin, or under Hitler in Nazi Germany. Well, both Stalin and Hitler were dictators. Liberalism and Authoritarianism are not in any way related to one another. Please, I would like you to imagine a hippi ordering millions of Jews killed, or political opponents rounded up and shot. That should be hard to imagine. Ours is a tradition of pseudo-religion? If I had any idea what that meant, I'm sure I could counter it. What is false religion? Buddhism? Islam? Judism? Anything that isn't fundamentalist Christian? I'm afraid you're rigth about unfettered sex. Liberals are all for allowing people to make their own decisions. I for one am not for outlawing sex out of wedlock. It is a free country after all.
Bush is the first president to fund stem-cell research because he's the first to have the opportunity to. If Clinton had had the chance, I guarantee you it would have gotten many times more funding along with more freedom to research. I can tell you why stem-cell advocates weren't begging Michael Schiavo to stop. Stem cells have a lot of potential to cure many different diseases. However, Terri Schiavo's problem is in her brain, unlike someone like Chritopher Reeves, who broke his back. Perhaps in the far future stem cells could help someone like Terri Schiavo, but not any time soon. Suggesting that there is some conspiracy to justify abortion and especially human cloning honeslty sounds downright paranoid. Do you honestly believe that scientists want to use embryonic stem cells to have some control over life and death? Do you think that was on their mind? I can assure you it was not.
Europe has sex education that goes much further than just abstinence. Their teen pregnancy rates are MUCH lower than those in the US. Are their men and women just less furtile, or could their low pregnancy rate be because they use protection? Less pregnancies mean less abortion. European TV has MUCH more nudity than that in the US. They even have sex in commercials, and yet their teen pregnancy rate is still lower than ours. It works. It's fact. If you don't want your children to have sex out of wedlock, than you are always free to teach them.
I'm not going to make any more assumtions about Michael Schiavo's motives, and I urge you to do the same. Perhaps he will have a book deal after this ordeal. If he does, it will be because of the opposition and subsequent media coverage of his and what he believes are his wife's wishes. Do you think he knew this entire process would be covered by the national media?
The law is not ordering someone's death in this case, it is merely upholding the decision of Terri Schiavo's guardian.
Finally, you are correct. You have struck a nerve. Not because you are right, but because you are putting words in people's mouths. In your article you are attempting to explain my ideology, and as I read, I saw how completey wrong you were. You are taking stabs in the dark and clearly don't understand the philosophy of the left. If you would like to know our beliefs so that you can tell me what's wrong with them, feel free to ask.
Because you responded to my response, I must assume that I struck a nerve. I must be more right than I know.

I responded to your e-mail because a. you seem like a thoughtful liberal and I hoped I might be able to rescue you from the abyss :) and because I try to respond to everybody who e-mails me about an article I write.

Let me take your points in order.

1. I take Huxley at his word, and accept what he says because I know he is onto something. I realize no liberal would support that type of world-but, as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is precisely the kind of world we will get if the Liberal Movement triumphs.

Fascism is a Left Wing ideology, and if you understood the roots of the movement you have allied yourself with you would know that. Fascism has it`s roots in Rousseau`s vision of Nationalism. Rousseau wanted to break the power of the aristocracy and the Church, and he advocated a concept which we call supernationalism, which is nothing more than substituting national identity and a mystical concept of nationhood for religion. This was expounded on by the (liberal) German philosopher Nietzche, who taught the concept of the Uberman; the superior Man created by the Will. Most Nazi themes come straight from Nietzche, and he drew his ideas largely from Rousseau. Finally, the Nazi`s drew heavily from Social Darwinism, which was a natural progression in Darwinian thought, and this philosophy gave them a ``scientific`` basis for their racial beliefs. This trio of liberalism, along with a good deal of pagan mysticism, is at the core of Fascist and Nazi ideology. Bear in mind the word Nazi is an abbreviation for National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. If you had a time machine, and go back to 1933 and ask a nazi what side of the divide he was on he would tell you unhesitantly that he was a socialist. You liberals have labored mightily to persuade the public that nazis were right wingers. It is absolutely unprovable. Your only argument is that the fascists were anti-communist. That was true; it was also because communists were rivals for dominance within the liberal movement (and, I would like to point out, there were rivals in the communist movement as well-the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, S.R.`s, etc.)

3. You are the one who went on about how we have been divided up into classes, then you laugh when I point out that YOU are the dividers. You can laugh all you want, but it doesn`t make it less true. Why do you think Huxley HAD those classes in BNW? Because he knew that a segment of the liberal movement wanted to do just that. Margaret Sanger was the big advocate for eugenics. Oh, and pseudo-religion is a faith which substitutes a lesser thing for God or gods. Your belief system substitutes Man and reason-as I pointed out in my article.

4. Liberalism and Authoritarianism go hand in hand; what the hell do you call the most communists?-and yes, I can imagine a hippie ordering deaths; every heard of the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Black Panthers, etc.?

5. I am a standard Catholic, not a fundamentalist Christian. No-one has proposed outlawing sex outside of marriage, as far as I am aware. You are imagining things which aren`t real.

6. The Neural connections in the back work in precisely the same way as those in the Brain. That argument doesn`t wash.

7. The law is ordering someone`s death. She is not being kept alive by life support, and if you would care to look up the Florida statutes on the matter you would see that the courts have overstepped their authority because Florida law says clearly that in the absence of a living will a feeding tube may not be removed. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court said in the Nancy Cruzan case that the courts may not overturn a state statute on the matter. Michael Schiavo did not have the authority to issue this request. And NO-ONE has the right to kill someone by denying them water and food. That is plain immoral, and the determination to carry this murder out proves my point.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I know your beliefs better than you do.

I can understand your points of view (I resent the last line of your response). I know what I believe, and I know what I stand for better than anyone else.
Here is a definition of fascism written by Mussolini: I'll quote some of it.
"...that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State...."
It can be gathered that Mussolini did not consider himself a liberal, socialist or in favor of democracy. He (the man who carried out fascism in Italy) established that it was not a liberal or socialist government. He established that the government is the absolute authority. You may be thinking "big government: liberal". When the state acts as if it owns the people, that is not a liberal state. That is why the Stalinist Soviet Union was not communist. Communism is to the far left, but there is no example in the world of a truly communist state. Why? Because it never works, it always turns into a dictatorship (far right). Admittedly, there is a fine line between both political extremes. At both sides often begin to resemble one another.
"And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society...."
Does that sound liberal to you?
"The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State...."
Here, a fascist claims that the "Liberal State" is not a directing force. A fascist says clearly that a liberal state is not authoritarian.
So, if you asked Mussolini if he were a socialist, what do you think he would say?
The Nazis were also fascist in the same way. You are correct that they would call themselves socialists. But they were socialist only in name. They're actions speak louder than their words.
Both the Italians and Germans engaged in corporatism, which gives corporations political power, and ends up stifling the lower classes.
These things are not on the left side of the political fence. Much of it did originate on the left, but over time morphed and once in practice, was clearly a right wing political system.
On your sixth point: Are you a doctor? You may be correct that the neural connections in the back and brain work the same way. The difference? The brain is a large 3 dimensional object whereas the spine is a line of cells. Replacing cells in the spine would be a much simpler task than in the brain. Also, because Schiavo suffered a heart attack, my assumption is that her brain damage is due to a lack of oxygen. This would effect all of the cells in her brain. Are you suggesting that they ought to advocate replacing her entire brain? My guess is no.
If you would like to understand the liberal point of view, ask me about my beliefs and why I believe what I do. Perhaps we could come to some sort of understanding. Wouldn't that be crazy?

Haven`t you heard of the dictatorship of the proletariate? You show you have absolutely no concept of what liberalism is. State control is absolutely necessary to your political philosophy because you are compelling people to do that which they would not do of their own accord. Liberalism is about manipulation of society for mankind`s betterment-wether they like it or not.

I notice you completely ignore the opening lines of the piece you site: Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome].

Oh, I guess Mussolini did a complete 180 and turned Conservative! That`s impressive!

Again, I said Fascism was a rival socialist system to Marxism. You are desperate to deny any connection to your liberalism, so you try (desperately) to argue that because Fascism isn`t Marxism it isn`t part of Liberalism. Mussolini`s claim that fascism isn`t a liberal state hardly divorces it from your movement; it means he is not of the ``progressive`` liberal wing. Sorry, nice try. Show me the conservative roots of fascism-I dare you! You can`t. It is squarely and solidly in the liberal camp. You claim that Nazi`s are socialist in name only. Oh please! They come straight out of YOUR movement, as I explained to you already. I guess it`s tough to explain how a party called the National Socialists aren`t socialist, or even members of the liberal movement.

``These things are not on the left side of the political fence. Much of it did originate on the left, but over time morphed and once in practice, was clearly a right wing political system.``
You have lost any and all credibility with this statement. They are right wing because YOU want them to be right wing! YOU and yours have engaged in a practice that was much employed by Joseph Goebbles. You have repeated a lie, and often, to try to change the the facts. Sorry, but the truth is the truth, no matter how much you may want to deny it.

On the stem-cell issue-you just don`t get the point! YOU PEOPLE are the ones claiming the glorious new era being ushered in by grinding fetal brains for stem cells. I was pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of those on YOUR SIDE. I was making no such claim. We heard ad nauseum about how fetal stem cells were going to cure any and all neurological disorders. Well, if that`s the case, then why aren`t YOUR PEOPLE fighting to keep Terri alive until a cure can be found? YOUR SIDE is the one making all of the great claims. Yet you are strangely silent.

Rob, I have a pretty good idea of what you liberals believe. I do not say all of you are all full of hate or bile. There are many liberals who become liberals because they feel it is more compassionate. I disagree. I think that liberalism is, in the end, terribly destructive. I further KNOW that many liberals DO walk around full of bile. I notice you haven`t asked ME what I believe. I suspect you think conservatives are small, petty, angry, hatefilled religious zealots who enjoy seeing babies starve and brain-damaged women suffer. I`ve studies liberalism extensively; my thesis in college was on the roots of the liberal movement. What do you know of conservatives?


More on the Liberal Mind

Brian Melton has a piece over at Intellectual Conservative which dovetails nicely with my American Thinker article. Read about it here.

Also, you may want to check out the three part series on the return of Naziism in the Thinker. Charles Coulombe expounds on some points I made in my article (in fact, I have often considered writing this very thing) and has been a fascinating read. Check out part one here.

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

A Warm Fuzzy

(Click the Header)

A little Global Warming now and then can make the world a better place! Does anyone really believe the Innuit enjoy 50 below weather?

By the by, during the Mideval Warming Period temps were several degrees higher than now, and the sea level never rose. The Brits grew wine grapes, the Germans olives. Doesn`t sound so bad to me!

Fear of a Knock on the Door

Aussiegirl over at Ultima Thule has a powerful post in which she explains her passion on the Terri Schiavo issue-and why she fears the slippery slope our nation is walking down. Great read! Check it out here.

Monday, March 28, 2005

A Brave New World

In my latest article in the American Thinker I conduct an in-depth study into the Left`s fascination with and pursuit of death. Many Conservatives have been puzzled by the zeal among Liberals to kill poor Terri Schiavo, and I try to elucidate the deep, convoluted workings of the Humanist mind and explain what is to us a bizarre impulse to kill.

I have been greatly honored; David Limbaugh (brother of the Great Rush Limbaugh and powerhouse Conservative intellect) has linked my article on his website! Read his comments here.

To any new visitors, I`d like to welcome you to my site! Feel free to hang around, take your shoes off, and make yourselves comfortable. I welcome any and all here, and If you`d like to leave a comment, feel free! I promise I won`t bite!

Revolving Door

I suspected this kind of thing was happening; we`re rounding `em up and the Iraqi`s are letting `em go.

Iraq insurgents given lenient sentences

Baghdad, Iraq, Mar. 13 (UPI) -- Iraqi insurgents convicted of weapons and explosives offenses are sometimes sentenced to prison terms as short as six months under the current court system.

U.S.-led coalition forces have expressed concern that some judges left over from Saddam Hussein's era have been lenient to demonstrate independence from the coalition, the Independent reported Sunday.

The Independent said some Shiite judges have privately said their Sunni colleagues are giving out light sentences to Sunni defendants to show sympathy with the insurgents.

Coalition forces want to respect judges' independence, but a senior U.S. officer serving as a liaison with the court said he is concerned the criminal justice system does not pose a deterrent.

"There are times when the sentences are a source of frustration for the soldiers involved, but we have committed ourselves to respecting the independence of the court and the decisions it makes. But this is a frustration shared by other parts of the Iraqi government," said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a spokesman for U.S. military's detainee operations in Iraq.


Now, I`m for offering an amnesty to low level ``insurgents`` to get them to give up arms, but I would like to ask these judges how they think they can have a stable society (and keep their jobs) with terrorists running roughshod over the land? Even if they hate the coalition, these loose cannons can turn on them as easily as the coalition. Finally, why are Saddam`s judges still in office?

We have got to run this like a War and not a police action.

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Audacity, Audacity, Audacity!

Yet more proof of the depths to which the mainstream media will sink to defend their pro-death position in the Terri Schiavo case. This is truly nauseating.

The MSM has pulled out all stops to confuse this issue; Delay`s father required extraordinary means to be kept alive-including dialysis, a respirator, etc. Terri simply needs food and water. I refuse to believe that the writers at the L.A. Times aren`t aware of the differences between the two cases. This is merely another lame attempt to attack Republicans-especially pro-life Republicans. They have no decency, and no shame!

He Is Risen!

In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the Week,came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the Sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from Heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightening, and his rainment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered, and said unto the women, fear not ye; for I know ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here, for he is risen as he said.


And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary, mother of James, and Sa-lo-me, had brought sweet spices that they might come and anoint Him.
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came to the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
And they said among themselves, who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
And when they looked they saw that the stone was rolled away; for it was very great.
And entering into the Sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment, and they were afrighted.
And he saith unto them, BE not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: He is risen: He is not here; behold the place where they laid Him.


Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared and others with them.
And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.
And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee,
Saying the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.


But Mary stood without the sepulchre weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked within the sepulchre.
And seeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, the other at the feet of where the body of Jesus had lain.
And they say unto her, woman, why weepeth thou? She saith unto them, because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou has laid Him, and I will take Him away.
Jesus saith unto her Mary. She turned herself and saith unto Him Rab-bo-ni: which is to say, master.


This is the Word of the Lord.


Saturday, March 26, 2005

Rebellion in Baluchistan

Pakistan, our erstwhile ally and nuclear proliferator, may be on the verge of a great fall. Pakistan has atomic weapons, and may be willing to use them if it must. Civil War in Pakistan has far reaching geopolitical implications and would be a terrible blow to the War on Terror and to our national security.

We can`t afford to let Pakistan fall.

Same Old Song and Dance

I just love this; Arab News reports a meeting of the Arab League at which the attendees huff and puff about Israel. Looks like they haven`t changed a bit...

Ben Stein Gets It

(From the American Spectator Online)
Ben Stein nails it-short and sweet:

To Be Absolutely Frank
Simply Terrifying
By Ben Stein
Published 3/25/2005 11:38:48 AM
Here is what makes me furious about the Terry Schiavo case, short and sweet.

The courts of the United States can find a right for the abortion industry to take a fully formed, totally healthy baby at nine months' term, out of his mother's womb and murder it by putting scissors through his brain and grinding them about.

They do this without one single word of support from any Congressional act of any kind ever.

They can find a right of savage murderers of innocent women who drown them for a lark to avoid the death penalty because they are old enough to drive and to kill but supposedly too young to be executed. Again, there is not one syllable in any Congressional act that sanctions this protection of the guilty.

But with the Congress and the President of the United States pleading for the life of a woman who is not brain dead, who responds to words and to touch, who is not on life support, whose parents beg for her to be kept alive, whose nurses give affidavits that she can be rehabilitated, with a specific law commanding the courts to review the case to keep this poor soul alive, the courts instead find no rights for her.

This is a court system totally out of control, obviously committed to death, obviously bound by nothing beyond its morbid obsession with its own omnipotence and its fascination with the letting the innocent die. This is simply terrifying. The Falange followers of Francisco Franco had an evil cry: Long live death. Obviously, Justice Kennedy was listening.

Friday, March 25, 2005

A Bone to Pick

Another interesting new developement regarding stem cells. My question is, will we have the courage to follow this line of research or will we be too chicken! (No cackling, please!)

Death Heads and the Corruption of the Law

In the Nancy Cruzan case (here in Missouri) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Judiciary can not override State Law and compel the removal of a feeding tube. In Cruzan v. MDH the Court threw out an appeal to override Missouri law and kill Nancy Cruzan through dehydration/starvation.

Which makes this situation with Terri Schiavo all the more bizarre because the legal precedent was clearly set in 1990 by the High Court. Florida statute pretty clearly forbids what Hanging Judge Greer ordered. Read the statute here.

The refusal of Anthony Kennedy and the Supreme Court to take the case when their own ruling is being challenged by a local judge is nothing short of astounding! (I found it interesting that the Court should not jealously guard their rulings, then I realized the ruling was from
before the Clinton years!) So, what do we have? The Judiciary has ignored a thousand years of common law, ignored American History, ignored our Judeo-Christian heritage, ignored the Florida Legislative and Executive branches, ignored the U.S. Legislative and Executive branches, and ignored it`s own previous Case Law. The Judiciary has convicted itself of Hubris of the highest order. It`s high time they be taught a lesson in humility! It`s past time for us to act! Stop stalling, Mr. Delay!

The Death Heads (If Grateful Dead groupies can be called Dead Heads, I think the groupies of Death-abortion supporters, Euthanasia people, embryonic stem cell people, etc. should be called Death Heads) think they have won a great victory this day. It may be more of a pyrrhic victory in the end for them; this case has stirred an enormous amount of passion in the public, and we may see a groundswell of opposition to the multifarious forces which worked to destroy Terri. Perhaps her death will not have been in vain.

God bless Terri Schiavo, and all who stood by her!

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Stem Cell Breakthrough

(Click the Header)

It looks like a monumental breakthrough has occured in the arena of stem-cell research; Australian researchers have worked out a way of growing adult cells easily. The debate about embryonic stem-cells may be mute.

Too bad it is too late for Terri Schiavo. Maybe that`s always been the point.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Throwing Terri to the Lions

Some quick thoughts on the thumbs down by the modern day Caesars in our Judiciary:

1. This is yet one more reason why Congress should embrace the ``nuclear option`` and change the fillibuster rules in the Senate. We cannot continue allowing activist judges to rule from the bench. WE control Congress, WE control the Presidency, WE should have our judges in power. Sanity must be restored to the Judiciary.

2. This underscores the mediocrity of our elected officials. Although Congress did act by allowing her to appeal to a Federal Court, they should have known WHO the appeal was going to in advance, and took the necessary next steps. They should have been prepared to defend their right of subpeona as a coequal branch of government. Congressional Republicans are forever getting outfoxed. We are winning only because we have more talent OUTSIDE of government than the Democrats.

3. Once Terri passes on, don`t be surprised to hear demands from the very people who helped kill her for more embryonic stem-cell research. Where have these people been while Terri awaits death? I thought stem-cell research was the miracle cure! It`s advocates have assured us that in a handful of years we would have cures for Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc. Why should Terri die now, when a miracle cure is within grasp? They have been strangely silent. I suspect we`ll be hearing a lot more from them after poor Terri is gone.

4. Ditto the opponents of capital punishment. Why is life so important for the guilty, but not the innocent?

5. If Terri can be tortured to death legally, how can we oppose non-lethal torture of the guilty-especially terrorists and serial killers?

6. Terri is being denied the most fundamental of human rights-life. Why isn`t the ACLU on her side? Where is the U.N.? This is a gross violation of her civil rights. Why doesn`t Jesse Jackson organize protests?

7. If we accept gay marriage, we will have polygamy following on it`s heels. If a spouse alone can decide life or death, how will we decide WHICH spouse will get the decision? Will we need a quorum?

I fear we have opened a Pandora`s box. If you all remember, Pandora released all the ills of the world by opening it, and I fear great ills will come from this foul murder. God is just.

Monday, March 21, 2005

Colds Stink

Sorry for the light blogging; I seem to have caught a rather nasty bug. Hopefully, I`ll be up for more tomorrow.

Saturday, March 19, 2005

Murder Most Foul

It looks like the Republicans in Congress are, well, not exactly growing a spine, but at least growing a notochord (that certainly is progress!) They have begun to take action to prevent the foul murder of Terri Schiavo. Read about it here.

Patrick O`Hannigan, in The Paragraph Farmer, has a very interesting piece on this issue, one which is a must read (along with my mosquito buzzing comments at the end). Check it out here.

Aussiegirl has some very eloquently stated thoughts at Ultima Thule on the matter. Click here to to read her piece.

The point which the Mainstream Media has labored to hide is that extraordinary means are not being used to keep Terri Schiavo alive. She breathes on her own, her heart beats on it`s own, she does not require dialysis or any other complex medical equipment to keep her alive. She simply requires a tube to deliver food and water to her stomach. What Michael Schiavo wants to do to the poor woman is kill her slowly, painfully via dehydration. Anyone who has ever read an account of death by dehydration (such as shipwreck victims) knows it is one of the worst, most agonizing ways to die. That this woman`s husband would care so little about her as to put her through this is proof of the assertions made by Terri`s parents, in my opinion. It would be far kinder for Michael Schiavo to smother her with a pillow, or slip her cyanide tablets. (Of course, that is both illegal and immoral, and he would be rightly condemned for it; it`s perfectly acceptable, however, to murder her slowly with thirst because an arrogant member of our godlike judiciary decreed it so.) This is evil.

I have heard it argued that Michael Schiavo is only doing what Terri wanted, and as proof, his defenders say he turned down offers of money-up to ten million-to help his poor, suffering wife. This, they say, proves he is not about money but merely wants to do what`s right. Bullshit! Had Michael Schiavo taken the money he would have been universally condemned as a foul, hateful person. His name would have been Mud (Dr. Mud, I might add, got a very bad rap, but I digress). He would have been O.J.Simpsonized. However, having ``taken the high road`` he gets it all; a book deal, movie rights, a speaking tour, the talk show circuit, etc. He becomes a hero to the Hemlock Society and other Euthenasia organizations. He`ll have the money, he`ll have fame, and he`ll get to play hero while enjoying his new wife and family.

Meanwhile, if Terri is really brain dead, what does it hurt to allow her family more time with her? What do they get out of Michael`s success? Heartbreak and anger and the knowledge that their daughter was murdered by a heartless bastard of a husband and a cold hearted legal system. They get to see America at it`s worst.

Another point to ponder; why are we so convinced the court-appointed Doctors who examined Terri are infallible? (Read Patrick O`Hannigan.) We recently witnessed a woman in a similar situation come back from the darkness. How can we be so certain that won`t happen here?

I would like to tell a cautionary story about the folly ofexcessive trust in the medical community. One of the most respected pediatricians in St. Louis was almost responsible for my brother`s death. As an infant, my brother developed Pyloric Stenosis. He was projectile vomiting all of his food. My mother took him to see the pediatrician, who immediately told her there was nothing wrong, and that he had a nervous mother on his hands. My mother knew what it was because my father had it as a child. This pompous ass of an M.D. told her it was impossible because my brother was the second child and P.S. only affects firstborns (my father was a second child also, but this doctor ignored that completely.) My mother demandedthat tests be run, and this Doctor complied to shut her up. They immediately wheeled my brother into surgery, and the surgeon later told my mother that my brother was very near death. Now, the point of this story is that the medical community often makes mistakes; they aren`t gods, and they aren`t infallible. (If they were we would never have had to put up with John Edwards and his ilk.) Why should a woman be put to death in such a gruesome manner based on the word of a court appointed Doctor? Doesn`t she have the right to another opinion?

Finally, I would like to point out that this issue reminds me of the Dred Scott case; the courts followed their own whims and almost tore the United States apart.
We are again seeing the arrogance of the Judiciary, and the Judiciary is but one branch of government. It`s high time they be pruned back to the size intended by the framers of the Constitution. Congress has impeachment power-they should use it! A contempt citation should be issued for the Judge in this particular case; he told Congress that his authority exceeds their. It`s high time Congress took a stand!


Check out Hyscience for some shocking details of the political corruption involved in this case. (Thanks Aussiegirl!)

Technical Difficulties

To one and all,

I have been experiencing technical difficulties with E-Blogger, and have lost two posts I had made last week. One was about a Washington Post editorial in which the writers seemed under the illusion that John Kerry won the election (sorry Gindy and Esther, your comments are lost.) The other was along the lines of my Valentine`s Day post in which I deal with the life of St. Patrick. Although I have saved these to draft, I don`t think they will ever post up adequately. I have tried to repost them repeatedly, and they give me the same problem each time; my entire index-recent post section, blogroll, and archives section are reformatted so that they scroll down from the top, forcing the reader to scroll way down to get to the posts. The posts themselves have been narrow and longer. It appears that new posts aren`t affected by this, so I`m going to have to let these two posts go.

Hopefully I won`t have any more of these kind of problems in the future, and I can continue in my usual vain of inserting foot firmly into mouth.

You may resume your regularly schedualed reading (provided no further trouble and the cold I just came down with doesn`t drag things out too badly!)

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Transmigration of Beef

...Would you like Curry Powder on those fries, Sir?

Oddly Enough - Reuters

Look Who's Talking at the Drive-Through

Fri Mar 11, 8:42 AM ET Oddly Enough - Reuters

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - McDonald's Corp. wants to outsource your neighborhood drive-through. The world's largest fast-food chain said on Thursday it is looking into using remote call centers to take customer orders in an effort to improve service at its drive-throughs.

"If you're in L.A.... and you hear a person with a North Dakota accent taking your order, you'll know what we're up to," McDonald's Chief Executive Jim Skinner told analysts at the Bear Stearns Retail, Restaurants & Apparel Conference in New York. Call center professionals with "very strong communication skills" could help boost order accuracy and ultimately speed up the time it takes customers to get in and out of the drive-throughs, the company said.


Call me old fashioned, but I just don`t see how sending your order to a guy in India is going to improve service. (That business about a North Dakota accent is bunk; they`d have to pay more than the minimum wage their paying the drive through guy now, and they just aren`t going to do it.)

Cattle are considered holy in India; will I be forced to have a funeral for my Big Mac? Remember those Wendy`s commercials where the old lady asks ``where`s the beef?`` Now we have our answer; it has gone on to a better place!

Dirty Business

The left wing nuts at the Ivy League never cease to amaze me. Every student at Harvard plans on launching a high-powered, high dollar career, yet they disdain this guy for being enterprising. Considering that most of Academia and Government comes out of the Ivy League, is it any wonder why we`re in the mess we are in?

Oddly Enough - Reuters

Harvard in Lather Over Campus Maid Service

Fri Mar 11, 8:37 AM ET Oddly Enough - Reuters

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Reuters) - A Harvard University student's fledgling dorm-cleaning business faced the threat of a campus boycott on Thursday after the school's daily newspaper slammed it for dividing students along economic lines.

The Harvard Crimson newspaper urged students to shun Dormaid, a business launched by Harvard sophomore Michael Kopko that cleans up for messy students.

"By creating yet another differential between the haves and have-nots on campus, Dormaid threatens our student unity," the Crimson said in an editorial.

"We urge the student body to boycott Dormaid."

Like many elite American universities, Harvard comprises a mix of affluent students as well as those who are less well-off.

But Kopko, 20, said he could not understand the Crimson's reaction to his business, which he said was all about creating jobs and wealth at the Ivy League school.

"In a free economy it's all about choice, and the Crimson is trying to take choice away from people," the student entrepreneur told Reuters. "I think it's a very uneconomic and narrow view. It's essentially against creating wealth for society."

Kopko said since launching his dormitory-cleaning service last month in the Boston area, he has signed up 50 clients. He plans to expand the service to other parts of the country and is aiming for $200,000 in annual sales in a year's time.

Monday, March 14, 2005

European Dreaming

(Click the Header)

I`d like to continue my tirade against the European Union. Craig over at Static Noise has a hard-hitting piece which dovetails nicely with what I have been doing, and is well worth the read!

Insecure Data

(CLick the Header)

Our old friend GeeWhiz has a chilling post about internet insecurity over at Twisted Steel. He makes a frightening and powerful case.

Sunday, March 13, 2005

The Natural God

Robert Bidinotto has some thoughts on the crackup of the Environmentalist movement (something near and dear to my heart, as my loyal readers can attest!)and he makes the case that Environmentalism is really about a mystical notion of the intrinsic value of Nature without Man. He makes some great points.

Saturday, March 12, 2005

Ars Gratia Artis

This piece was written by Fellow St. Louisan Christopher Orlet a while back in The American Spectator Online.

At Large
A Load of Rubbish
By Christopher Orlet
Published 1/18/2005 12:06:06 AM
"This is a two-million-dollar piece of conceptual art. This is bin full of wastepaper. Okay, class, who can tell me what the difference is?"

This is just one of the questions trash collectors in Frankfurt, Germany, will be asked when they begin mandatory art classes next month. The classes were mandated after one of the city's sanitation workers picked up a sculpture by the artist Michael Beutler believing it to be a pile of junk. The piece, part of a city-wide exhibit, was later thrown into the city incinerator and burned.

A London newspaper reported that the poor befuddled sanitation worker believed he was disposing of debris from a shanty used by poor migrant construction workers. "I didn't recognize it as art and there was no sign or anything to show it was art," the sanitation worker, a Mr. Peter Postleb, told the Guardian newspaper. The sculpture was one of 10 commissioned by the Frankfurt Art Society. All were made of plastic sheeting used by builders to box concrete. As of Jan. 14, two more sculptures had perhaps not so mysteriously "disappeared."

Herr Postleb, head of the city's "Clean Frankfurt" initiative, received a harsh reprimand from Mayor Petra Roth, and he along with his fellow rubbish workers were ordered to attend contemporary art appreciation classes after it became known that Postleb and his crack crew of trash collectors "had last year nearly removed two other conceptual art pieces: a car completely filled with sand and a bathtub tied with a leash to a tree." The artist, Mr. Beutler, meanwhile agreed not to press charges.

Such misinterpretations occur more often than one might think. In October 2001, a London art gallery cleaner threw out a £5,000 exhibit by Damien Hirst which he mistook for garbage. Last month Reuters reported that a female suicide was mistaken for a performance art piece. In Berlin, of course. God knows how many similar instances were not reported to the press so as not to embarrass the artists, gallery owners, and fawning art critics.

Unlike the Frankfurt Art Society, Sanitation Director Postleb at least had the good sense to recognize discarded concrete boxes for what they are: junk. And had Mr. Postleb not been a true-blue German, unwilling to disobey orders or question a superior, he might have told Oberburgermeister Roth to shove it. After all, his job is to remove discarded concrete boxes, among other trash. He evidently does this all the time. Sadly, Mr. Postleb was not privy to the latest ideas constituting minimalist pomo kunstwerk. Nor was it likely that Postleb was overly familiar with the latest works of Richard Serra, Walter De Maria, Robert Smithson or Sol LeWitt. How was he to know these particular concrete boxes were not trash, but masterworks? There was no way to know. And all the mandated contemporary art classes likely will do is confuse poor Mr. Postleb and his crew, causing them to stop and inspect every piece of debris, every peel of banana, every soiled wrapper of gum, leading to long discussions and heated debates over the form and context of a discarded shoe, perhaps calling in an "expert" from the Bauhaus Archiv, which will only succeed in delaying the normal trash pickup.

When Quintilian (c. AD 35 95) wrote that "the height of art is to conceal art," he was referring to sculpture or perhaps drama that was so lifelike as to be mistaken for the real thing -- not mistaken for garbage. Besides verisimilitude, another indisputable quality of great art is its permanence, or whether it transcends its particular time and place by offering eternal truths or whatnot, or the difference between the poetry of T.S. Eliot and the doggerel of Fitz-Green Halleck. What does it say about an exhibit made of makeshift materials meant to be displayed on a temporary basis? To me it says the artist wasn't even trying for greatness. He just wanted his take so he could skip town before someone tipped off the townsfolk.

My office window overlooks a similar tragedy, a Richard Serra sculpture titled Twain located in the heart of downtown St. Louis. The installation is universally despised by St. Louisans, with the exception of a few art theory types who doubtless hate it too, but cannot bring themselves to admit a piece of contemporary art might be bad. Were Sam Clemens around to see his namesake he would doubtless sue the artist for defamation of character. Newcomers to the city without exception mistake the rusted steel slabs for a patch of blighted landscape. Others believe the work's graffiti-scarred walls (much of the graffiti reads "Get rid of this!") mask a sloppy construction area. Serra sculptures have been knowingly and legally removed from other cities after long and persistent public outcry, but in St. Louis the pressure from local art groups not to give in to the philistines is strong and has thus far carried the day.

And yet if Twain were not so massive (the eight slabs weight 20 tons each) it doubtless would have been carted off by trash collectors ages ago. The lesson for contemporary artists is plain. The larger and heavier your artwork the less likely it will end up in the city dump or incinerator. I wonder if they teach that in contemporary art class?

Christopher Orlet is a frequent contributor.


I reposted this for a good reason, as you will see! I responded in reader mail:

I must protest Mr. Orlet's insinuation that "Twain," the rusted metal sculpture in downtown St. Louis, is a useless pile of rubbish. On the contrary, I have noticed it is very useful as a place for vagrants to defecate, and as overflow urinal during the St. Patrick's Day Parade. We would have a serious restroom crisis in downtown St. Louis without it.

Truly, the "critics" who utilize this great piece of work do not know much about art, but they know what they like!
-- Timothy Birdnow
St. Louis, Missouri

I have reprinted all of this for a very good reason; today is THE day! I`ll be attending the St. Patrick`s Day Parade, and may well have occasion to utilize the facilities kindly provided by Richard Serra and the City of St. Louis. (And Chris Orlet says it`s a worthless pile of junk! HA!)


Tim McNabb has an essay about the unliberalness of modern Libs. As always, Tim blows the leftist smog away to reveal the naked truth; he is always a great read! Everyone should check out Five Hundred Words. Below is a sample:

Liberal Use of the Word
You’ll find this on Democratic Singles website as a definition of "Liberal”.

lib·er·al \Lib"er*al\, Adj.

1. Favoring political and social reforms tending towards democracy and personal freedoms for the individual; advocating reform or progress in education, religion, etc.

2. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; not bigoted.

3. Open to new ideas for progress; tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

4. Describing Democratic forms of government, as distinguished from monarchies, aristocracies, oligarchies, fascism, etc.

I’m going to beat on these point-by-point, comparing the aforementioned principles with the practice.

1. If by personal freedom, you mean the right to sex unencumbered by responsibility or tradition, then I’ll grant that liberals believe in it, but when it comes to progress in education – ha!. Mentioning “vouchers”, “charter schools”, “homeschooling” or “accountability” to a liberal is like hosing Dracula down with holy water. It’s conservatives who want to try different approaches to education, recognizing that the status quo simply isn’t working. Liberal shriek, howl, shake the bars and fling poo if you try to make educational freedom available to citizens.

2. After checking out Webster online for their definition of liberal apparently liberals are not even bound by the traditional meaning of words. Still, I can attest to te fact that I have found liberals to be some of the nastiest bigots I have ever met in my life, particularly to Christians. In fact, I confronted an academic liberal about his bigotry and got the response “If you (collective you, not me personally) quit trying to shove Jesus down everybody’s throat…” This defense in essence blames my co-religionists for his intolerance, an attitude I run into frequently.

3. Tell Larry Summers that liberals are tolerant of ideas and broadminded. One can argue that Summer’s job was to raise money for Harvard and administer the university, not stir up trouble on campus. Nevertheless, he was set upon by a pack of liberal jackals for daring to posit that one of many possible reasons there might be fewer women in science and math might be an inherent difference between men and women. These broad-minded and tolerant of new idea liberals are still gnawing on the poor man’s carcass.

4. Modern-era liberals believe in democracy only if those exercising their freedom choose the “right” leaders or produce the “right” outcome. The recent Roper v Simmons decision was hailed by liberals for the result, but they are unconcerned that judges abandoned many important aspects of jurisprudence and sovereign governance. Liberals today are satisfied so long as they get what they want without regard to the wishes of the majority or even the ability to choose a different path in the future. This isn’t fidelity to Democracy, but rather a weird form of authoritarianism where an enlightened minority impose their lights on us all.

On nearly every point, garden variety liberals I’ve observed routinely fail this definition. I don’t know what to call them, but it’s not liberal.

Tim McNabb

Friday, March 11, 2005

Potemkin Global Village

From the National Center for Policy Analysis:

E-Team News
Release Date: February 15, 2005
NCPA E-Team Scholar Says Treaty Isn’t the Solution to Global Warming
DALLAS (February 14, 2005) – As the Kyoto Protocol goes into effect there has been little or no discussion about the causes of global warming, the implications of implementing the treaty or whether the treaty is an appropriate response, according to NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett.
“Whether or not human actions are causing the current warming trend,” Dr. Burnett said. “The greenhouse gas reductions required under the Kyoto Protocol will not prevent it.” Why won’t Kyoto work?
Even if all signatories meet greenhouse gas emission targets, the effect on global temperature would be insignificant.
Fast growing, non-developed countries, such as China, India, South Korea and Indonesia, are exempt from emission reductions.
According to the International Energy Agency, as much as 85 percent of the projected increase in CO2 emissions over the next 20 years will be produced in exempt countries.
Signatory countries, such as Canada and Japan, are not likely to meet Kyoto’s emission cuts, and the European Union is on a path to exceed its commitments.
The Bush Administration has been severely criticized for not signing the treaty even though economic forecasts show that compliance would hurt the U.S. economy. During the Clinton Administration the Energy Information Administration, the official forecasting arm of the Department of Energy, issued a report predicting that meeting Kyoto greenhouse gas limits would:
Increase gasoline prices by 52 percent and electricity prices by 86 percent.
Decrease gross domestic product (GDP) by 4.2 percent and reduce disposable income by 2.5 percent.
Furthermore, an NCPA study written by Dr. Stephen Brown of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank determined that compliance would reduce GDP by as much as 4.3 percent in 2010, representing a loss of up to $394.4 billion, or $1,320 per person.
“Rather than spending time and resources slowing the increase in greenhouse gases, which may not be the cause of global warming, we should prepare for a warmer world and all its effects, regardless of the cause,” Dr. Burnett added.

Sowell Long, Rather Not See You Again

(Click the Header)

In, Thomas Sowell bids a fond farewell to that pillar of journalistic integrity-Dan Rather. Dr. Sowell, ever the most incisive thinker, systematically dismantles the current spin surrounding ``Baghdad`` Dan. Enjoy!

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Geopolitical Frankenstein

Thanks be unto the all wise and gracious Aussiegirl for inspiring this via her brilliant blog Ultima Thule.

In 1816 a young girl, stuck in Geneva due to nasty weather, sat beside a bonfire and told ghost stories. Her husband, a famous writer, and his close friends, also shining literary luminaries, had taken to telling ghost stories late in the evenings as a means of passing the time until the weather broke. This particular night a challenge was issued by someone in the group (Byron); three of the story tellers were to actually write their stories down, then the rest would decide which was best. That night, Mary Shelley began writing what would become one of the great classics of English literature-Frankenstein. (The weather cleared by the next night and the other contestants abandoned their manuscripts in favor of mountain climbing.) Young Mary, encouraged by her husband Percy (whom many accused of ghost-writing Frankenstein-pardon the pun) developed her short campfire story into a masterpiece about Hubris and the wages of Human Pride.

Frankenstein is about the obsessed scientist, not about the pathetic monster he creates. Viktor Frankenstein becomes obsessed with overcoming death and, in what constitutes classic tragedy, destroys himself through his pride and determination. He creates an abomination from dead body parts, and breathes life into this horror via electric current. Once he has accomplished his goal, he flees in terror from the great evil he has wrought, leaving the monster free to walk the Earth. He, along with everything he cares about, is eventually destroyed by his horrible creation.

I think this cautionary tale is applicable to that leviathan Creature, the European Union. The E.U. was created by a collection of ``mad scientists`` who sought to reanimate the dead corpses of the Cold War World. Much like the good Doctor digging body parts out of cemeteries and stitching them together in his basement, the E.U. was cobbled together out of nations which had lost their cultural and moral identity, but which have been sewn together into a macabre imitation of life. This was done to restore and revitalize the fortunes of the dismembered corpse of Germany, as well as the pathetic, arrogant remains of the once-mighty France. Holland, Belgium, etc. were also stitched on to the bloated cadaver, an animating force was applied (unified currency and a new Constitution) and the sinful abomination rose from the French operating table. Now, much like Doctor Frankenstein, the creators of this monster look with trembling upon what their hubris has wrought, and now the Dutch may want to flee from the face of the monster.

The idea of a confederation for mutual defense and economic interest in Europe is a decent one; the idea of a leviathan state in control of economics, culture, and law is a horror. What will become of Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Andorra, etc. if this monster subsumes them into a new United States of Europe? What will happen to the linguistic history, the local cuisine, the national character of the smaller European states? Is French/German pride worth the souls of the rest of Europe? Look at what Europe has become since the birth of the E.U. Can anyone say Europe is stronger in any real sense? Europe has become a backwater of culture. No one outside of Europe has any interest in what Europe has to offer (other than economic).Morally, Europe has become horribly corrupt (remember the libertines who threw condoms at the Pope?) Spiritually, Europe is dead. Is this cultural/moral/spiritual decline merely coincidental to the rise of a United Europe? I think not.

But the cure is worse than the disease. The Eurotrash think that their problem is the United States; they need to somehow create an entity which can compete with America for money and influence. They don`t grasp that their problems are self-imposed.

Frankenstein ends with the Doctor facing up to his culpability, and making an effort to rectify his errors. (That is the definition of Tragedy; a noble hero is destroyed by his own flaws, but faces the consequences of his failures at the end.) Will the member states which created this monster do the same?

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

The Half Baked Chickens

I found this link on the Bidinotto Blog (through Hog Haven)and thought the writer really nailed it; Europe has turned into Super Chicken (minus the super part).

The Twentieth Century was most unkind to Europe; the Great War decimated the Great Powers on the Continent, who fought themselves to utter exhaustion for the glory of their respective empires. The sense of Nationalism which had energized and animated the peoples of Europe during the Nineteenth Century gave way to an anomia, a sense of national futility. Socialism had been one of the dangerous cultural forces of the 1800`s, but had been beaten back by the successes of Britain and America, as well as the yeoman work of Otto Von Bismark in establishing the Second Reich around the nucleus of the Prussian Monarchy. Even the Russians had been able to stem the tide of socialism, despite the humiliation of the Russo-Japanese War. WWI changed all of that; the peoples of Europe lost their collective sense of national purpose as a result of the War, and the socialists had been waiting in the wings for just such an opportunity. Russia fell, first to Kerensky and the Soviet coalition, then to the Bolsheviks. Hindenberg saved Germany by proclaiming the Weimar Republic as the socialists marched to proclaim Germany a Soviet Socialist Republic (word has it he was sitting down to breakfast in his hotel room in Berlin when he heard a great commotion. He stuck his head out the window, ascertained the cause of the commotion, shouted to the crowd a proclamation of a new republic, then sat back down to his breakfast.) The French and British also began experimenting with liberal government.

This was all exacerbated by the Great Depression, which also gave us quasi-socialism via Franklin Roosevelt and the Nude Deal. In Germany crushing debt and forced war reparations (thank you Clemenceau and Woodrow Wilson) led to Adolph Hitler ascending to power (Hitler, I might add was a socialist-a National Socialist!) and no one in Europe had the stomach to fight the rising tide of radical socialism-either National or International. France crumbled with virtually no resistance to the Wehrmacht, and the British, realizing their folly by following such spineless losers as Neville Chamberlain, raised up a has-been hawk named Winston Churchill to lead them in what would be the greatest military struggle in all of history.

But as soon as the War was over, the Brits kicked Churchill out of office in favor of that socialist wimp Attlee, and Britain began it`s slow, agonizing decline from World Power to backwater. The French likewise enthusiastically promoted socialist type government (thank you Charles De Gaul), and Germany was, of course, partitioned. The great threat of the Soviet Union led to the creation of NATO, which was (let`s face it) an American Operation. The Europeans turned responsibility for their own defense to America.

This situation continued for 40 years. The Europeans have become incapable of defending themselves, or even of handling matters of great importance with any kind of courage or decisiveness. Socialism, the demise of their International Empires, decades of reliance on American military defense, and the establishment of the United Nations (which is clearly a mechanism for European diplomats to bloviate ad nauseum, which the Europeans have come to consider ``statecraft`` and ``strategy``) has allowed Europe to hide from the unpleasant realities of the post-modern world. They have not had to deal with these issues for so long (thanks to the United States) that they have become incapable of dealing with them; they confuse diplomacy games for real action on critical issues. In short, Old Europe has become Super Chicken. They have lost any strength or cultural worth they had, and think ankle-biting the United States gives them some sort of potentcy, or relevancy. They chaff at having to be protected and supported by their kid brother America, but they are unwilling to give up the socialist imposed ease and leisure which forces the matter. They are blind as bats!

Western Civilization has real enemies lurking in the shadows, evil people who seek our ruin and destruction. Old Europe has become so degenerate they are unable and unwilling to look reality in the face, and take a stand. In fact, they are angry with America and George Bush for forcing them to look behind the mirrors and see what is hiding in there. That is why so many in Europe hate the President; he has forced them to see themselves for what they have become, and this is intolerable. They want their life of 12 week vacations sipping wine on the Riviera back. The want no worries and fat bank accounts, and they don`t want to face that they could wind up with a smoking radioactive crater where Paris now stands. Furthermore, they want to hide the fact from themselves that they are largely responsible for the tiger we have by the tail; Ayatollah Khomeini was given sanctuary in Paris, which has also aided and abetted numerous other terrorists throughout the years, as well as most of Old Europe has been doing business with every cutthroat Sheik and Ayatollah for a profit at the expense of security around the world. They`re not going to blame themselves, so who to blame? Of course, it`s that shoot-em-up cowboy George Bush`s fault! If he would have just minded his own business and ignored the 911 attacks everything would have been fine! The Israelis have to put up with this kind of thing, so why shouldn`t the Americans! I once read a commentary comparing the U.S. to a spoiled valley girl who just broke a nail, and now everyone would pay!
That is how the Europeans choose to see us! Three thousand dead is like breaking a fingernail!

It`s good we have new friends; Eastern Europe had to fight their way to freedom, and their national characters are far closer to ours then our oldest ``friends`` in decadent Europe. New Europe has a spine, Old Europe has become half baked Chicken!

Monday, March 07, 2005

Blue Fairie 911

(Click the Header)

Someone really should forward this website to Maureen Dowd; maybe she can find herself a man! (That`s all we need; some milqtoaste lefty metrosexual to marry the Blue Fairie and breed!)

Proof of Insanity

(Click the Header)

This story in the St. Louis Past Disgrace by Jo Mannies is just more proof that the Democrats throughout these United States have gone off their collective rockers. If insanity can be defined as repeating the same mistakes over and over while expecting different results, then the Grand Old Party has absolutely nothing to worry about-their opponents have flipped their curly blue wigs.

Can an entire political party be committed?

I`m No Saddam! (But I Play One on T.V.)

This from the New York Daily News:

'I'm no Saddam,' says
conciliatory Syria prez

WASHINGTON - Syrian President Bashar Assad in a report yesterday asked the U.S. to choose diplomacy over force and avoid the kind of confrontation that ended the reign of his neighboring dictator.
"Please send this message: I am not Saddam Hussein. I want to cooperate," Assad pleaded in a Time magazine interview.

Syria has been on the defensive since the assassination of ex-Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri in Beirut last month. Under pressure from the U.S., France and protesters in Lebanon, Assad has agreed to pull troops from Lebanon after three decades of occupation. But the U.S. wants him to move faster.

Lebanese officials said Syrian troops willbegin heading for Lebanon's Bekaa Valley near the border today, after a meeting between Assad and Lebanese President Emile Lahoud. It was not clear when or if theywould leave completely.

The White House has demanded the immediate removal of the troops, and yesterday said that also applied to Syria's intelligence and secret police.

Syria got support from one quarter yesterday. The militant group Hezbollah, which is backed by Syria and Iran, called for pro-Syria demonstrations in Beirut tomorrow.

James Gordon Meek

Originally published on March 7, 2005

Just a couple of quick observations;
It`s pretty obvious that Syria is
very afraid of George Herbert Walker Bush. Assad clearly doesn`t want to end up in a spider hole. (Can`t say I blame him.)

Also, did you notice that part about Syrian troops being evacuated to Lebanon`s Bekka valley? Hmmmm? So this evacuation is going to be done in stages, with the Bekka as the final point of exit for the entire Syrian army. Assad is practically begging for mercy in this article, and yet he wants a slow withdrawl. I wonder what he`s been hiding in Lebanon? Could it be those stories about Saddam`s WMD`s being stashed in the Bekka are true?

U.N. Quilt Social and Sexual Revolution

(Click the header)

At a U.N. ``Womens`` Conference the U.S. delegate was booed for advocating sex-ed which emphasized abstinence. Tell me, why are we even participating in this exercise in stupidity? What I find really amazing is that we tabled our anti-abortion amendment to make this collection of Madame Defarge Old Biddies happy.

Why should the United States acquiesce to these demands? I seem to remember that Ronald Reagan, when asked to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty, refused because his election meant a new start for America and he was not going to sign a flawed treaty just because a bunch of blathering bags of gas had talked about it for a decade. Reagan was right; no treaty was better than a bad treaty. Just because a bunch of diplomats have been working on it does not mean we should accept it. The U.S. should have walked out of this conference rather than allow itself to be jerked around by these Margaret Sanger wannabees. We have the right to not sign anything we don`t agree with.

Once again, we see the United Nations for what it really is-anti American, anti-religion, pro-liberal. Why should we give in to their demands? The U.N. has lost any worth or credibility it had; it`s time to bid them a fond adieu.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

What can we expect from a Hillary Clinton Presidency? Well, here`s one aspect I really hope we never see..

``I like Bill Clinton. He's a very entertaining man. His peccadilloes gave me an endless amount of material for eight years. I'd love to meet him for a beer some time (so long as my sisters are out of town.) But I tremble at the thought of what would happen if he becomes First Lady. Considering the trouble he got us into when he had the most time-consuming job in the world, how would he conduct himself with lots of free time? We'd have to establish a special Secret Service detail not to protect Clinton from the public, but the public from Clinton." --Tom Purcell

Thanks to the Federalist Patriot!

Sunday, March 06, 2005

Another Clinton Atrocity

Former President Clinton is the best friend a tyrant could have. Thanks to Jerry Scharf at Common Sense and Wonder for posting this.

Bill Clinton has been channeling Jimmy Carter. As President Truman once said of Clinton's mentor Wm. J. Fullbright, and it applies equally well to both Carter and Clinton..."He's an overeducated son of a". Noam Chomsky has obviously had a greater impact on our government that I had thought.
Clinton represents the concept, espoused by Ms. Albright, that the governemnt that governs best is the governemnt that kisses the most foreign butt. Let me know if this speech doesn't make you want to puke.

(By Amir Taheri in the Arab News)

Where is the country that Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States, feels ideologically most at home?

Before you answer, here is the condition that such a country must fulfill: It must hold several consecutive elections that produce 70 percent majorities for “liberals and progressives.”

Well, if you thought of one of the Scandinavian countries or, perhaps, New Zealand or Canada, you are wrong.

Believe it or not, the country Bill Clinton so admires is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Here is what Clinton said at a meeting on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, just a few weeks ago: “Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.”

And here is what Clinton had to say in a recent television interview with Charlie Rose:

“Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.”

So, while millions of Iranians, especially the young, look to the United States as a mode of progress and democracy, a former president of the US looks to the Islamic Republic as his ideological homeland.

But who are “the guys” Clinton identifies with?

There is, of course, President Muhammad Khatami who, speaking at a conference of provincial governors last week, called for the whole world to convert to Islam.

“Human beings understand different affairs within the global framework that they live in,” he said. “But when we say that Islam belongs to all times and places, it is implied that the very essence of Islam is such that despite changes (in time and place) it is always valid.”

There is also Khatami’s brother, Muhammad-Reza, the man who, in 1979, led the “students” who seized the US Embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days. There is Massumeh Ebtekar, a poor man’s pasionaria who was spokesperson for the hostage-holders in Tehran. There is also the late Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali, known to Iranians as “Judge Blood”.

Not surprisingly, Clinton’s utterances have been seized upon by the state-controlled media in Tehran as a means of countering President George W. Bush’s claim that the Islamic Republic is a tyranny that oppresses the Iranians and threatens the stability of the region.

Clinton’s declaration of love for the mullas shows how ill informed even a US president could be.

Didn’t anyone tell Clinton, when he was in the White House, that elections in the Islamic Republic were as meaningless as those held in the Soviet Union? Did he not know that all candidates had to be approved by the “Supreme Guide”, and that no one from opposition is allowed to stand? Did he not know that all parties are banned in the Islamic Republic, and that such terms as “progressive” and “liberal” are used by the mullas as synonyms for “apostate”, a charge that carries a death sentence?

More importantly, does he not know that while there is no democracy without elections there can be elections without democracy?

Clinton told his audience in Davos, as well as Charlie Rose, that during his presidency he had “formally apologized on behalf of the United States” for what he termed “American crimes against Iran.”

But what were those “crimes”? Clinton summed them thus: “It’s a sad story that really began in the 1950s when the United States deposed Mr. Mossadegh, who was an elected parliamentary democrat, and brought the Shah back and then he was overturned by the Ayatollah Khomeini, driving us into the arms of one Saddam Hussein. We got rid of the parliamentary democracy {there} back in the ‘50s; at least, that is my belief.”

Duped by a myth spread by the Blame-America-First coalition, Clinton appears to have done little homework on Iran. The truth is that Iran in the 1950s was not a parliamentary democracy but a constitutional monarchy in which the Shah appointed, and dismissed, the prime minister. Mossadegh was named prime minister twice by the Shah and twice dismissed. In what way that meant that the US “got rid of parliamentary democracy” that did not exist is not clear.

There are at least two things that Clinton does not know about Iran and Iranians.

The first is that the claim that the US changed the course of Iranian history on a whim would be seen by most Iranians, a proud people, as an insult from an arrogant politician who exaggerates the powers of his nation more than half a century ago. The second thing that Clinton does not know is that in the Islamic Republic that he so admires, Mossadegh, far from being regarded as a national hero, is an object of intense vilification. One of the first acts of the mullas after seizing power in 1979 was to take the name of Mossadegh off a street in Tehran. They then sealed off the village where Mossadegh is buried to prevent his supporters from gathering at his tomb. History textbooks written by the mullas present Mossadegh as the “son of a feudal family of exploiters who worked for the cursed Shah, and betrayed Islam.”

Apologizing to the mullas for a wrong supposedly done to Mossadegh is like begging Josef Stalin’s pardon for a discourtesy toward Alexander Kerensky.

Clinton does not know that it was President Harry S. Truman’s energetic intervention in 1946 that forced Stalin to withdraw his armies from northwestern Iran thus foiling a Communist attempt to dismember the Iranian state.

Clinton does not know that if anyone has to apologize it is the mullas who should apologize to both the Iranian and the American peoples. He does not appear to remember images of American diplomats paraded in front of TV cameras, blindfolded, and threatened with summary execution every day — images that did lasting damage to the good name of Iran as a civilized nation.

Speaking of apologies, Clinton also ignores the fact that Iranian agents in Lebanon, led by the “ liberal progressive” Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Mohtashami, organized and carried out a string of terrorist attacks in the 1980s that cost the lives of over 300 US citizens, including 240 Marines.

And does Clinton remember the dozens of American citizens who were held hostage by the mullas’ agents in Lebanon, sometimes for more than five years?

Clinton forgets that anti-Americanism, and hatred of the West in general, is the ideological backbone of Khomeinism; that that the devise of the mullas’ regime is “Death to America”, and that the American flag is burned or trampled under foot in thousands of official buildings throughout Iran every day?

Clinton claims that the mullas “still kind of like the West in general, and America in particular.” That must be as much news to the mullas as to anyone else.

The former president endorses another claim of the mullas that Saddam Hussein, the deposed Iraqi dictator, invaded Iran on behalf of the United States.

Clinton says: “Most of the terrible things Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full, knowing support of the United States government.”

Don’t be surprised if Clinton’s next apology is addressed to Saddam Hussein, another victim of American Imperialism!

Friday, March 04, 2005

Marlborough Mafiosa

St. Louis County will probably be joining the ranks of other bloviating Bolsheviks with a proposed anti-smoking ordinance. Read about it by clicking the header.

In the interest of full disclosure, I don`t smoke (although my parents do) and prefer to sit in a restaurant or bar without someone blowing the products of that noxious weed in my face. Nonetheless, I am bitterly opposed to attempts to ban smoking for a variety of reasons.

First, there is not one tobacco shred of proof that there is any such phenomenon as second hand smoke. The populace has dealt with smoking for hundreds of years, and yes, everyone has always known smoking is bad for you. Cigarettes were often referred to as coffin nails or cancer sticks long before the Surgeon General issued his report. No one ever noticed any affects from second hand smoke; at least not until it became obvious that the bloviating Bolsheviks weren`t going to be able to cram laws against smoking down our collective throats. Suddenly, the Bolsheviks found the tool they needed; they could claim smoking hurt other people. They still haven`t been able to prove their contention, despite decades of desperate effort. This is the Great Con.

Secondly, I have never seen a constitutional authorization for government to intrude into what is clearly a matter between a man and his bartender (or restauranteur). Smoking is a legal activity, tobacco is a legal product, and government has no right to impose restrictions because a minority hates it. This is a matter of the free market; if bar and restaurant patrons do not wish to inhale smoke then they should go to bars and restaurants which ban smoking as a matter of policy. That few bars and restaurants are willing to do this stands as a damning testament to the claim that these laws are enacted by popular demand. They are enacted by the shrill insistence of an activist minority. Basic capitalist principles guarantee that services for the anti-smoker would develop, provided there was adequate demand. The sad fact is that there really isn`t great demand, and so the blustering bolsheviks are forced to rely on the force of law.

Those who hate smoking salve their consciences by saying to themselves that it`s for the smokers own good. The reality is that it is solely for the benefit of the anti-smoking zealots, and it allows them to stand high and mighty while bending the smokers to their godlike will. To the zealots it is about power. (As Orwell stated ``the purpose of power is power``!) This should be obvious to anyone who has been in public with a smoker and heard the nasty and abusive comments from certain members of the anti-smoking crowd. These laws are designed as much to cause pain as to protect. The Contra- Marlborough Mafia enjoy the thrill of wielding power, and making the smokers suffer.

The slippery slope principle applies here. If smoking can be whittled away, why can`t any other activity deemed dangerous or bad by the Bolsheviks? Certainly the case against eating fatty foods can be made on similar grounds, and in fact already has been. Driving with your cell phone on? Ban it! Too much coffee got you jittery-you may have an accident! Restrict caffeine! Driving is always dangerous, and perhaps better restricted to a chosen few. This path leads to the tarpits; you can fall in, and not climb back out.

It`s laughable what arguments our leftist friends will use; they say they are protecting the public health by discouraging smoking, but offer needle exchange programs and condoms to keep drug abuse and illicit sex ``safe``,while making the case that these behaviors cannot be modified. They argue that smoking costs the taxpayer in insurance claims, while ignoring the costs to the taxpayers of Aids, syphilis, Gonorrhea, drug addiction, and the myriad other ailments promulgated by their promotion of ``alternate lifestyles``. It is pure hypocrisy!

When I was in college (oh, so many years ago!) I remember getting into an argument with a foxy liberal girl (I would probably have laughed at her otherwise!) over the use of sugar cane in Brazil to produce fuel alcohol to run cars. She found the concept appalling; Brazil should be growing food for the poor, not making alcohol to run cars! Of course, I pointed out that without those cars the poor would be less likely to get food but, you all know how liberals are! This opened my eyes to what the left really thinks, and why they hate tobacco. I spoke with other liberals and it became clear that liberals hate cash crops. Tobacco is often grown in Third World countries for export to the United States, and the left in America sees this as despicable because everyone should be growing food to feed the poor! How dare they! People are starving, and America is buying tobacco! Oh, the humanity!

So the left has been waging a war on tobacco, joining forces with groups they normally would have nothing to do with (such as certain Fundamentalist Christian sects) to stamp out the evils of smoking (tobacco, that is; I once saw a movie starring John Cleese as Sherlock Holmes. He lit his pipe on a public bus in England, and the Sikh driver came back and demanded he extinguish it. Holmes pointed out that the sign said ``No tobacco smoking`` at which the driver lit up along with the dopie detective! Not far from the truth!) Tobacco is the first step in a much larger war they intend to wage. Who will come next?

Fellow St. Louisan Christopher Orlet had an interesting column on the subject. Read it here. Also, check out our friends at Static Noise for Craig`s take on the matter.

I understand full well why many people don`t like to be enclosed with smokers. I really do sympathize, but I think the market should determine this matter. I am of the opinion that the anti-smoking zealots have very different motives than the ones they claim, and I think this bandwagon will have serious repercussions on America in the future. It`s time to stop this madness. It`s time for the Marlborough Mafiosa to ride off into the sunset.

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Another Bad Decision

I was going to write a lengthy post about the Supreme Court Taffy Pull and Personal Fulfillment Seminar where they declared juvenile death sentences unconstitutional but Dave Holman from Potomac Gadfly and the American Spectator beat me to it. Dave has a solid analysis of the matter, and pretty much captures my own views.

I think that, once again, the Supremes have created law based on their own personal opinions. If this were not the case, they would not have had to site foreign law and (dubious) public opinion. The job of a court-any court-is to exercise the law as it is codified or commonly practiced (in the case of common law). Their job is not to make decisions based on ``evolving moral judgements`` or any such crap. That the Legislative branch has allowed the Judiciary to usurp their constitutional duties is a testament to the stupidity of Democrats, and the weakness of Republicans in Congress. Legislating from the bench should be grounds for impeachment, and if Congress had any courage they would do precisely that to activist judges. It`s time for the citizenry of these United States to rise up and demand accountability!

That said, I do think that an age of majority should be established by the States and that this age should be adhered to legally. Clearly, a seven year old child is not responsible for his or her actions. Likewise, as a Christian I believe that a juvenile should have an opportunity for redemption. I do not believe, however, that a seventeen year old is incapable of making adequate moral judgements, and I have no problem with the death penalty being meted out under certain circumstances. I think this is up to the States to decide.

Here in Missouri we have a young man who has just been released from death row. This particularly evil young man threw two young girls to their deaths one dark night off the abandoned Chain-of-Rocks bridge into the murky black water of the Mississippi River, and forced their male cousin to jump at gunpoint (he survived). He was seventeen, and counted on that to protect him. (I lived in the neighborhood where this happened, and my mother had taught these two girls when they were in grade school, so I have been following this case for years.) He was tried and convicted as an adult, and has been fighting his execution ever since. The Supreme Court has just handed this monster a get-off-death-row-free card. It`s just not right. Justice demands more!

Everyone wonders why we are losing control of the youth. Why is drug abuse, alcoholism, crime, teen pregnancy rampant? Why wouldn`t it be! This horrible decision simply reinforces what juveniles already know; they can get away with anything-even murder-and won`t face any consequences. There is no means of discipline! Parents want to be their children`s friends, or don`t care about their kids. Schools are afraid of lawsuits, as are churches, counselors, etc. and so won`t take any serious, decisive action. Often, the worst punishment meted out in school is a suspension, which may as well be a reward for the unruly child. (Suspensions should be served in the gymnasium where the kids should have to drill like buck privates in boot camp.) Children have learned, thanks to the pollyanna do-gooders, that they are inviolate. It should come as no surprise that children without limits behave as if they have none.

The Supreme Court has just removed another limit, and are to blame for the consequences that will follow.

(Oh well, I guess I made a lengthy post after all!)

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by