Just a reminder for all of you that Senator Carl Levin is not acting on principle when he opposes the nominations of judges to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. His motivation sits a little closer to home.

Senator Levin is very upset that a particular Clinton-nominee never got her bench. Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Helene White was nominated by President Clinton to fill one of the open Sixth Circuit seats but was never confirmed by the Senate. So, like every nomination of a retiring president, her nomination was returned without approval at the end of President Clinton's second term. This is neither a surprising nor an uncommon result. Indeed, John Roberts, who served as the first Bush administration's number-two lawyer before the Supreme Court, waited more than eleven years between his original nomination by President George H. W. Bush to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and his eventual confirmation by the Senate two years after being re-nominated by President George W. Bush. No Democrat — be they Levin or Leahy — fought for his re-nomination by the Clinton administration as a matter of "tradition" or "comity." It is just part of the reality of electoral politics: with the victor go the spoils.

But John Roberts was no Helene White. He didn't have the singular qualification that could bring the entire democratic and judicial process to a standstill — he wasn't Carl Levin's cousin-in-law. You see, Judge White happens to be married to Senator Levin's cousin, a fact that Senator Levin fails to emphasize whenever he rails on the Senate floor about President Bush's unacceptable tactics. The real "fundamental issue" with President Bush's judicial nominees to the Sixth Circuit, then, has nothing to do with the prerogatives of home-state senators and the grand traditions of that lofty institution. It is that none of them can make a scene at a Levin family picnic.

But the filibuster, we are told, is the cornerstone of the Republic – preserving for lynching, racial discrimination, and nepotism on behalf of the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

This neat story about the reaction of the Catholic faithful to the newly elected pontiff.

Two months into the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, crowds are pouring into St. Peter's Square in near record numbers to see and hear him.

"The pope is here!" a man shouted in Italian Wednesday morning. Cheers rose from 35,000 as Benedict appeared, standing in a white Jeep-like popemobile. It circled the square, moving slowly as the 78-year-old pope, whose mane of white hair matched his vestments, waved to the faithful.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

This little attrocity from India, where they define charitible activity by Christian missionaries as coercion.

ANGRY Hindu youths have beaten three American missionaries, and tried to kidnap one, as they held a bible studies class in Mumbai.

About 30 or 40 men attacked the missionaries, part of a group of eight, on Saturday night because they thought the Americans were trying to convert Hindus in the Indian financial capital, police said.

The three were treated for bruises and cuts at a hospital but were not seriously injured.

"While this kind of attack is rare in Bombay, the police must take serious action against those responsible and send a clear message that religious intolerance will not be accepted in India," Mumbai Catholic Sabha president Dolphy D'Souza said.

Christians are often accused of "forcibly" converting poor and uneducated low-caste Hindus by bribing them with money and gifts.

Missionaries deny the charge.

I guess those Hindus are scared to death that some more of their untouchables will convert to Christianity and escape the barbaric caste system that still holds sway in India, despite legal attempts to end it.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

Everyone knows by now -- not guilty.

I'll refrain from expressing my opinion on the verdict, lest I be mauled by one side or the other.

My only question is this:

Wasn't the White Dove release a bit over the top?

And as my wife asked as we watched it, "If the verdict was guilty, would that woman have strangled them outside the courthouse?"

Posted by: Greg at 01:43 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

If you would like to submit one of your posts for inclusion in the non-council member vote over at Watcher of Weasels, the Watcher himself makes a weekly offer of link whorage. Click here for information -- all submissions muct be made by 8 PM, Eastern Standard Time, on Tuesday.

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

I've made no secret that I love our Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleeza Rice. A rare combination of talent, brains, and beauty, she demonstrated her class Saturday night. And she put politics aside to do it, for the benefit of a good cause.

A musician long before she became an academic and then a world-famous diplomat, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took to the Kennedy Center concert stage Saturday to accompany a young soprano battling an often-fatal disease.

Rice's rare and unpublicized appearance at the piano marked a striking departure from her routine as America's No. 1 diplomat. A pianist from the age of 3 she played a half-dozen selections to accompany Charity Sunshine, a 21-year-old singer who was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension a little more than a year ago.

The soprano is a granddaughter of Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., and his wife Annette, who Rice has known for years. The Pulmonary Hypertension Association, formed in 1990, presented the concert to draw attention to the disease from which more than 100,000 people are known to suffer.

Congressman Lantos is a big-time liberal Democrat. I disagree with him quite often. But my heart reaches out to him and his family, especially since my wife and I know the sort of struggle faced by patients (and their families) who suffer from illnesses that are painful, debilitating, and rare. There usually isn't much research into such diseases, and you often have to hope that research into something else brings a breakthrough that can be applied to the less common condition.

Oh, and for those who are curious, Condi played selections by Verdi, Mozart and Jerome Kern.

To learn more, or to contribute, to the fight against Pulmonary Hypertension, click here.

Posted by: Greg at 07:43 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

All proper rituals having been observed, the Watcher's Council has selected this week's winners. Congratulations to all who were nominated, and most especially to our winners

This week's council member winner is Right Wing Nut House, with Remembering Why I Love History.

This week's non-council winner, is Winds of Change, with THIS is a Gulag.

Vote totals are found here. I encourage you to read the winning entries, as well as the other nominees.

Visit Watcher of Weasels for details on entering next week's contest.

Posted by: Greg at 06:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

Do you think a single-tier medical system like Canada's is just what we need in the US? Think again. It isn't really a single-tier system at all.

The supporters of our supposed single-tier health-care system are aghast that Thursday's Supreme Court ruling could threaten Canadians' equal access to treatment.

It is a long-held myth, of course, that there is no queue-jumping in this country. Most Canadians have no special privileges when it comes to receiving care, but some do. Military personnel, the RCMP, prisoners and workers' compensation claimants don't fall under the medicare umbrella.

So while the typical Canadian waits and waits for a diagnostic test or surgery, the members of these groups are entitled to speedy access. All of them are exempt from the Canada Health Act.

Posted by: Greg at 05:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

Just look over at AmericaBLOG, run by gay liberal activist John Aravosis. There are a couple of good examples, from both John and his commenters.

I mean after all, what would be the reaction of the liberals if we started telling a well-respected GOP African-American female to shut up because she wasn't toeing the party line? Well, that is John's take on Donna Brazile, who gave a qualified endorsement of Howard Dean in an interview. But I'll concede, he has said similar things about Joe Biden and other top Democrats who recognize that Dean's comments are not going to help the Democrats win elections, so maybe it is simply that he likes Dean and is willing to help him pass the Kool-Aid around to the rest of the party.

But then there is the troubling aspect of certain comments that he allows to remain on the board. It isn't just that he allows criticism of people, but he implicitly welcomes racial slurs by refusing to delete them. Consider this comment from a thread about another post.
more...

Posted by: Greg at 02:50 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 544 words, total size 3 kb.

Having faced criticism from elected officials in his own party for his inflamatory rhetoric against Republicans, Howard Dean has now gotten some positive feedback from the grassroots.

After a meeting of the DNC's 40-member executive committee at a downtown hotel, members said Dean was doing exactly what they elected him to do -- build the party in all states and aggressively challenge Republicans.

``I hope Governor Dean will remember that he didn't get elected to be a wimp,'' said DNC member Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a South Carolina state representative. ``We have been waiting a long time for someone to stand up for Democrats.''

more...

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

No "democracy", either. And forget about using other phrases that might upset the Red Chinese dictators.

Microsoft's new Chinese internet portal has banned the words "democracy" and "freedom" from parts of its website in an apparent effort to avoid offending Beijing's political censors.

Users of the joint-venture portal, formally launched last month, have been blocked from using a range of potentially sensitive words to label personal websites they create using its free online blog service, MSN Spaces.

Attempts to input words in Chinese such as "democracy" prompted an error message from the site: "This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech from this item." Other phrases banned included the Chinese for "demonstration", "democratic movement" and "Taiwan independence".

It was possible to enter such words within blogs created using MSN Spaces, but the move to block them from the more visible section of the site highlights the willingness of some foreign internet companies to tailor their services to avoid upseting China's Communist government.

Beijing has long sought to limit political debate on the internet and is in the throes of a campaign to force anybody who operates a website to register with the central government.

So we see which side the world's largest software giant is on. When it has to choose between profits and principle, it chooses profits. Never mind if doing so helps to perpetuate slavery for a fifth of the world's population.

I'm curious, Bill -- would you have collaborated in blocking any mention of "Jew", "concentration camp", "Final Solution" and "Auschwitz" from your sites in Germany for fear of disrupting your business ties with the Nazis?

Posted by: Greg at 10:14 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

The US Senate is about to pass a resolution apologizing for its failure to pass a law against lynching -- as first proposed by President McKinley over a century ago. Why the delay? Senate filibusters, part of that proud tradition of democracy that Senator Robert Byrd (KKK-- Dogpatch) and the rest of the Senate Democrats have talked about in recent weeks.

The U.S. House of Representatives, responding to pleas from presidents and civil rights groups, three times agreed to make the crime a federal offense. Each time, though, the measure died in the Senate at the hands of powerful southern lawmakers using the filibuster.

The Senate is set to correct that wrong Monday, when its members will vote on a resolution to apologize for the failure to enact an anti-lynching law first proposed 105 years ago.

"The apology is long overdue," said Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), who is sponsoring the resolution with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). "Our history does include times when we failed to protect individual freedom and rights."

Uh, does anyone notice something missing in the first paragraph I quoted -- and the rest of the article? The obstructionists who wanted to make sure that no white man was ever prosecuted for the murder of a black man were DEMOCRATS. The folks who shut down the Senate for SIX WEEKS in 1936-37 with a filibuster against a federal lynching law were DEMOCRATS (including Senator Hugo Black, who would be appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR in the midst of the filibuster, despite his known membership in the KKK).

The reporters and the editors of the Washington Post, of course, would never include that detail in an article. It would require reminding folks which party was the party of emancipation, which party lent its overwhelming support to every Civil Rights Act , and which party has always rejected racism and favored the best interests of African -Americans. It would also require mentioning which party supported slavery, disenfranchisement of blacks, Jim Crow, the appointment of segregationist judges, and, yes, lynchings of uppity black men.

And it would require reminding folks that the filibuster, trumpetted by Senate Democrats as the key to preserving minority rights, has long been used by them to obstruct the interests of blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, and others who stood in the way of the interests of Ol' Massa the leaders of the Democrat Plantation Party.

UPDATE: Seems that Captain Ed has stirred quite a controversy by commenting on this same article.
more...

Posted by: Greg at 09:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1264 words, total size 8 kb.

Well, Dick Durbin knows who is at fault for the controversy over Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Deans recent extremist comments attacking and insulting Republicans. The news media!

The No. 2 Democrat in the Senate yesterday blamed "the right wing" and elements of the press "in service to it" for repeating Howard Dean's remarks about Republicans and inflating them out of proportion.

"I think we all understand what's happening with you all," said Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin, in remarks echoing Hillary Rodham Clinton's blaming a "vast right-wing conspiracy" for her husband's legal-ethical woes.

"The right wing has got the agenda moving. Fox [News Channel] and everybody's got the agenda. It's all about Howard Dean. You've bought into it," Mr. Durbin said.

"You can't let up on it. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves."

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

We know, of course, that homosexual marriage advocates would NEVER attempt to force religious groups or individuals to violate their firmly held beliefs against homosexual marriage. So then why does the proposed law permitting homosexual marriage not protect such groups, and why are there already legal actions against religious groups that do not choose to participate in them.

Liberals will tweak their contentious same-sex marriage bill but can't guarantee ironclad religious protections, admits Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.

Churches won't be forced to perform gay weddings, he says.

But it's beyond his legal reach to protect provincial marriage commissioners or religious organizations who turn away same-sex couples, he conceded yesterday.

"That's right," Cotler said, when asked if his hands are tied by jurisdictional limits.

Ottawa has the authority to define marriage but provinces have the power to solemnize weddings.

A range of conflicts has already emerged.

Human rights challenges are underway in cases where religious groups refused to rent halls for gay celebrations.

And given the things that such legislation will apparantly allow to be foisted upon unwilling religious believers, what makes anyone think it will be long before protection for churches themselves is jettisoned?

Posted by: Greg at 05:42 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

An earthly loss for the persecuted Church in China -- but they gain one more saint before the throne of God to intercede on their behalf.

Bishop John Wang Xixian, who was arrested for being a Christian and who lived 21 years in a forced labor camp, has died. He was 79.
Bishop Wang of Hohhot, in the Inner Mongolia region, ended his two-year struggle with bone cancer last week, according to the Fides news service.

Father Wang had been a priest only four years when he was arrested in 1957 for the faith.

After 21 years of forced labor, he was released, and in 1980 he returned to his life as a priest. He was ordained a bishop in 1997.

When near the end he was told that Benedict XVI had been informed of his illness and assured him of his prayers, Bishop Wang murmured: "I am unworthy of such consideration."

Bishop Wang's funeral was held May 31 at Sacred Heart Cathedral in Hohhot.

The Diocese of Hohhot has 50,000 Catholics. It has 50 priests, about 100 women religious and 40 seminarians.

May the day soon arrive when the oppressed believers of China see the dawn of a new day of freedom. And may all of us remember the heroic sacrifices of believers like Bishop Wang, and be inspired to work toward the coming of that day.

Posted by: Greg at 05:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems that a liberal gay Hispanic is no longer enough to make one immune from censorship on one California campus.

Writer Richard Rodriguez, invited to speak at the California State University East Bay commencement in Hayward on Saturday, has decided to withdraw from the program after some graduating students threatened to boycott the event.

Rodriguez, author of the acclaimed memoir "Hunger of Memory," drew criticism from some students for his views against bilingual education and affirmative action.

"I'm a bilingual educator," said student Leah Perez, 32, who is graduating with a master's degree in urban teacher leadership and protested Rodriguez's presence at the graduation. "He believes in assimilation and rejection of one's cultural identity, and we don't feel that is what we stand for in our program, and we don't want him representing us."

Views such as Rodriguez's go against the mission of the university, she said, noting that CSU East Bay has an education curriculum that produces bilingual teachers and emphasizes social justice.

Uh, no it doesn't -- especially since bilingual education goes against state law out in California, as dictated by the voters several years back. Besides, isn't it also part of the idea of a university to encourage the expression of diverse thought?

more...

Posted by: Greg at 02:00 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

A mother in England has three daughters, age 16 and under, who have all given birth within the last few months. Three of them. So of course, when asked why this has happened, she blamed. . . the schools, and later still, the government as a whole.

Julie Atkins' three daughters fell pregnant within a few short months of one another. Natasha recently gave birth to a girl, just around her 16th birthday. Her sister Jade, 14, also gave birth to a girl.

However, the first of the three sisters to deliver a baby was 12-year old Gemma, who gave birth to a boy. She named him T-Jay, which presumably means something in 12-year-old circles, and was chosen, of necessity, without consultation with the 14-year old father, who has made himself scarce.

Nor does 14-year old Jade seem to have any great expectations of seeing the father of her baby any time soon either, noting off-handedly that she became pregnant as a result of "a one-night stand".

Their twice-divorced mother, who lives with her daughters and their babies in a free three-bedroom council house told the papers, "Frankly, I blame the schools."

When the neighbors, reading this, lost no time in calling the papers to report that Mrs. Atkins had been allowing her then-11-year old daughter to have sex with her 13 year old boy friend in the family home, Mrs. Atkins widened her sphere of culpability for her daughters' pregnancies to include "the government."

more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1103 words, total size 6 kb.

At last, one of the best judges in the country has been confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. What's more, there are other judicial nominees who will be confirmed soon.

The Senate on Wednesday confirmed California judge Janice Rogers Brown for the federal appeals court, ending a two-year battle filled with accusations of racism and sexism and shadowed by a dispute over Democratic blocking tactics.

Senators quickly followed by ending another long-term filibuster, clearing the way for a vote Thursday on former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor as outlined in an agreement last month that averted a showdown that could have brought Senate action to a halt.

After giving Pryor a final vote and confirming two Michigan nominees to other appeals court posts, senators plan to leave President Bush's other controversial nominees dangling, moving on to other matters after devoting a month to historic but exhausting debate over judges.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Not a legitimate case?

So Pryor ruling repeatedly against gay citizens every chance he got, even publishing anti-gay tirades over cases that never entered his court doesn't mark him as an extremist.

I surely hope you're not being a hypocrite and would equally agree that there was no extremism present in a nominee that did exactly the same thing to Christians.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 04:13:52 2005 (fgsGh)

2 Dolphin: The fact that it bothers him doesn't make him an extremist. It just means it bothers him.

Following your logic, every single politician and judge that is a significant advocate for gun control is an extremist.

Bartleby

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 05:41:30 2005 (lkCzp)

3 Dangit - that was Subjugator.

I use a different ID on another blog and accidentally signed off as that here.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 05:42:07 2005 (lkCzp)

4 I disagree. When a judge goes out of his way and out of his job to attack an entire population of US citizens it makes him an extremist.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 06:28:34 2005 (fgsGh)

5 Define 'attack'.

Democrat judges and politicians consistently attack HUGE populations.

If you like guns, you're a redneck, a caveman, or a 'gun nut'.

If you oppose "reasonable" gun control, you're a "gun nut". Funny that the slippery slope argument has proven to be true with gun control. Every year it's just a little bit more "reasonable" control. "All we're asking for is x", but then next year, they want x AND y. The year after that, it's even more.

So yes, following your logic, most Democrat politicians and judges are extremists.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 06:35:19 2005 (lkCzp)

6 Democratic politicians and judges are not denying the humanity of gun-owners however. Therein lies the difference.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 08:40:49 2005 (fgsGh)

7 Got any quotes where he called homosexuals inhuman?

Bartleby

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 08:47:06 2005 (lkCzp)

8 Oops...

One more thing...I'll tend to agree with you if you can.

Sub (NOT BARTLEBY! GAH!)

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 08:48:53 2005 (lkCzp)

9 Marriage is a human right, he argues that gay people don't deserve marriage. An entity that does not deserve a human right is not a human by definition.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 09:38:36 2005 (fgsGh)

10 OK - we disagree here. I do not believe that marriage is a human right. I don't believe it is something that governments should even acknowledge.

Bartleby

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 09:46:25 2005 (lkCzp)

11 To help make it a little clearer. Pryor (as AG) put links to anti-gay sites on the STATE WEBSITE for Alambama. I think that's completely inappropriate, regardless of your views.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 11:24:43 2005 (4CZkM)

12 Marriage is a human right -- but marriage is also something that, by definition, is between a man and a woman.

That is where your whole argument falls apart, as you fail to take the mandatory first step -- proving that your revision of the definition of marriage that has been applied for the last couple millenia is correct and that the traditional one is wrong. You start with that as a given, rather than your initial assertion to be proved, and therefore convince no one of the rest of your argument.

And from there, the argument about Pryor (and the rest of us opposed to government recognition of homosexual marriage) falls apart. Disagreeing with a point of your argument does not mean that we don't believe you are a human being -- it merely means that we believe you to be a human being who is wrong in his position on the issue at hand.

And then to start with

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 11:30:53 2005 (JMjzp)

13 Oh, and by the way -- your definition of "anti-gay websites" tends to be pretty extremist in and of itself. You have labeled this site as such, due to the fact that I have the audacity to disagree with you on the issue of homosexual marriage. Therefore I am inclined to argue that such links are not only not inappropriate, but are probably mainstream sites that would be acceptable to the majority of Americans -- and certainly the majority of Alabamans.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 11:34:01 2005 (JMjzp)

14 I'd like to see what you label as an anti-gay site Dolphin. I don't think RWR is anti-gay...and if you think his site is anti-gay, then we may disagree on others as well.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 12:06:35 2005 (F02fZ)

15 Subjugator, I'm Deaf first of all. Pryor is pretty much anti-disabled.

It's a setback -- certainly a huge setback.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Thu Jun 9 13:35:26 2005 (ODDFf)

16 Actually RWR, we've been through this a million and one times. You know that your "traditional marriage" have been constantly changing and evolving throughout history and cultures and at various points throughout history and cultures has even contained the very same definition you now feel so threatened by.

Sub:

To answer your question, one of the sites that Pryor linked to was the Family Research Council (www.frc.org). While RWR may consider this group to be "mainstream" and "acceptable to the majority of Americans" I do not and I believe a look at the site speaks for itself. Aside from being a blantantly religous site, and being blantantly anti-gay (in fact a major stated purpose of the FRC is to stop marriage equality), the president of FRC has confirmed KKK links.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 13:51:29 2005 (MIt/1)

17 Interestingly enough, your assertion doesn't make it fact, dolphin. And while there may have been relatively small modifications, one thing has been a constant -- that marriage is between members of the opposite sex, not the same.

Also, I think your assertion that the FRC is a hate group is proof that your defingition of "anti-gay hate group" is "anyone who disagrees with dolphin on gay issues." And the documented Klan links" consist of renting David Duke's mailing list and speaking to a conservative citizen's group that has its roots in groups opposing integration. Unfortunately, though, that would also require you to state that many Democrats, including the homosexual friendly Dick Gephardt, also have documented links to the KKK.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 15:43:50 2005 (wfdL5)

18 The links go beyond that and you know it.

Like I said, I'll let the FRC site speak for itself. They are a well known anti-gay organization and I am by far not the first person to assign that designation to the organization. The fact that you honestly think they are an appropriate "resource" for the government to link to scares me about the fate of this country should people like you get hold of it and quite frankly knocks down much of the respect I once held you in.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 17:08:46 2005 (MIt/1)

19 Actually, I know no such thing. Care to document them.

And you are right -- others have made the same statement about them -- and they are wrong.

Or does the fact that some have made statements about the ACLU and NAACP which call them extremist and anti-American make such charges true? And are such labels a legitimate basis for banning them from governemnt websites?

What you and yoiur ilk engage in is nothing more than a left-wing form of McCarthyism.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 17:48:19 2005 (WrPVI)

20 First of all, I don't call anybody Anti-American, that's the tatic of the right. mcconnel is a good example since we're on this site.

Like I said, the site speaks for itself. I don't have to defend my views of it, it's all there.

Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 10 03:57:13 2005 (fgsGh)

21 Here's another that speaks for itself:

www.afa.net

Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 10 03:58:00 2005 (fgsGh)

22 Which of course is essentially a carbon copy of FRC anyways.

Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 10 03:58:32 2005 (fgsGh)

23 dolphin, give an example of my "anti-American" posts. I'm curious.

Posted by: mcconnell at Fri Jun 10 04:20:56 2005 (LmcbS)

24 First, dolphin, are you not familiar with the concept of analogy? I was seeking to copare the different charges made by extremists against mainstream organizations -- the NAACP, ACLU, FRC, and AFA.

But as I've thought about it, it seems clear to me that your statements above (linking folks to the Klan, labeling groups as hate groups, and as found on another thread, saying that right-wingers have made this country stand for something other than freedom) really are accusations that conservatives and their organizations are anti-American. You just lack the integrity and testicular fortitude to come out and say it.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 10 04:48:36 2005 (LGV5B)

25 Oh, and here's that thread, down near the bottom.

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/086019.php

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 10 04:56:15 2005 (LGV5B)

26 Hi Dolphin,

I checked out the FRC website and cannot say that I find it to be inherently bigoted. Instead I would say that I find it to be religion oriented and that part of their beliefs is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

While I don't care who marries whom, I don't find it to be bigoted to say that marriage is a religious bond that was formed by Christianity and that such omits same-sex pairings.

What I *am* curious to find out is if RWR et al would mind some other form of legislated domestic pairing for homosexuals.

...well?

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Fri Jun 10 06:41:45 2005 (lkCzp)

27 Hate = Anything Dolphin Doesn't Agree With.

Posted by: Hube at Fri Jun 10 08:41:38 2005 (SlnGf)

28 Hube - that is starting to sound like a theme. RWR doesn't sound like a person driven by hate, but of logic and a consistent belief system.

While my Christian beliefs don't match his 100%, that makes neither he nor I less Christian. It just means that we see His word in different ways.

RWR isn't a hater - any true Christian is a lover of all.

Bartleby

Posted by: Subjugator at Fri Jun 10 09:04:16 2005 (lkCzp)

29 I'm open to some form of partnership that would be recognized by government, carrying with it some of the advantages (inheritance & medical decision-making, as examples) and disadvantages associated with being married. At the same time, I would hope that recognition, while binding on government and certain other entities, would not necessarily impart a general obligation for private parties to recognize them against their beliefs or morality.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 10 10:24:27 2005 (GRVNH)

30 Sounds fair to me. I hope Dolphin got to see that before he left. He and I disagreed a lot, but I kinda liked him anyway.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Fri Jun 10 14:09:43 2005 (F02fZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It is black letter law in Washington state -- schools are available for rent outside of school hours. It is also black letter law that school districts cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination in renting out such facilities -- especially not on the basis of the religious teachings of an organization.

So why is the Lake Washington Education Association demanding that one particular church be denied its rights under the US Constitution and Washington state law?
more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 651 words, total size 4 kb.

We remember the controversy over the Bush twins having the audacity to try – gasp! – to drink underage in a college-town bar. You would have thought they were guilty of mass murder. Their behavior was supposed to prove the bankruptcy of Bush (and GOP) family values.

I wonder why the media isnÂ’t nearly so judgmental about this case involving the daughters of Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch (who recently announced as a candidate for the Democrat nomination for governor), in a case that has wound its way through the Illinois judicial system. more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:21 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

If a Muslim suffers even the most incidental slight, we have cries about hate crimes. If someone fails to show sufficient deference to the Koran, there are riots in the streets of the Muslim world.

On the other hand, if Muslims murder Christians for being Christians, it hardly qualifies as news.

A Baptist lay pastor has been beheaded in Bangladesh, the second Christian leader to lose his life in that country in a year, a Christian news organization has reported.

Posted by: Greg at 01:17 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

If a Muslim suffers even the most incidental slight, we have cries about hate crimes. If someone fails to show sufficient deference to the Koran, there are riots in the streets of the Muslim world.

On the other hand, if Muslims murder Christians for being Christians, it hardly qualifies as news.

A Baptist lay pastor has been beheaded in Bangladesh, the second Christian leader to lose his life in that country in a year, a Christian news organization has reported.

Posted by: Greg at 01:17 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

Woke up this morning, and realized that this is my first blogiversary. Yeah, that is right -- a year ago today, I started my oiginal Blogspot blog over at Precinct 333. In April, I moved over to mu.nu, courtesy of the wonderful Pixy Misa and a blog-buddy who was willing to nominate me.

During the past year I have eulogized two of my greatest heroes -- Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul the Great. I've honored one of my first teaching colleagues, and one of my first blogging buddies as they have gone home to their eternal rewards. And I have mourned my grandmother, whose loss is still keenly felt nearly a year later. I've also commented on an election and a host of other news events that I might have let go by without a second thought if not for this forum. After all -- who would listen.

And so it was with great surprise that I awoke this morning to find that I had received a wonderful blogiversary gft -- membership in the Watcher's Council over at Watcher of Weasels. Thanks man -- just what I have always wanted!

Here's hoping I'm granted many more years of blogging.

Posted by: Greg at 11:50 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Happy blogiversary!

Here's to many more. [salut!]

Posted by: Jim at Wed Jun 8 02:07:13 2005 (tyQ8y)

2 Grats on both!

Posted by: Scubachris at Wed Jun 8 03:27:07 2005 (AktpP)

3 Va voom! Congratulations man!

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 8 07:59:21 2005 (lkCzp)

4 Happy Blogiversary!

Posted by: Chris Elam at Wed Jun 8 08:56:50 2005 (M7kiy)

5 Bah humbag, you know my reaction to it, RWR. ;-)

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Thu Jun 9 13:37:47 2005 (ODDFf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Just listen to Howard Dean -- they are the party of hate and division.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, unapologetic in the face of recent criticism that he has been too tough on his political opposition, said in San Francisco this week that Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

"The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people," Dean said Monday, responding to a question about diversity during a forum with minority leaders and journalists. "We're more welcoming to different folks, because that's the type of people we are. But that's not enough. We do have to deliver on things: jobs and housing and business opportunities."

Let's see here. George W. Bush has a Cabinet that is more diverse than any in history -- the Democrats tried to stop those nominees. The President has tried to appoint more minorities to the federal bench -- Democrats have filibustered them. According to recent research, the GOP is the party favored by every income level except the ultra-rich and the extremely poor. The GOP welcomes people of every faith, while the Democrats are hostile to people of faith.

So Howard, it seems that you folks are the party that is exclusive -- exclusive of real Americans. Yours is a party of hate, which cannot accept that the American people have weighed it in a balance and found it wanting.

Posted by: Greg at 01:55 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

We keep hearing from advocates of homosexual marriage that no church will ever be required to perform such ceremonies if they run contrary to church teachings. Supporters of overturning millenia of Western Culture on the matter of marriage insist that they only want to have their relationships recognized by the state and obtain benefits.

I think, though, that recent events in France tell us otherwise.

About two dozen protestors scuffled with priests and security guards at Notre Dame Cathedral Sunday. As stunned worshipers looked on the protestors marched down the aisle to the alter where one, dressed like a priest, performed a mock marriage ceremony for a lesbian couple.

As priests and security guards tried to hustle group out of the nave, one priest was knocked to the ground. The demonstrators chanted "Pope Benedict XVI, homophobe, AIDS accomplice."

Monsignor Patrick Jacquin, who received a minor injury, called the protest an outrage.

Most of the protestors were from the group Act Up Paris. A spokesperson for the group said the demonstration was timed to coincide with the first year anniversary of France's first same-sex marriage.

Interrupting worship services. Profaning the sacrament and the sanctuary in the Cathedral. Assaulting the priest.

The demand for acceptance will not stop with the passage of laws recognizing homosexual marriage. The next demand will be for a law requiring that religious organizations perform such marriages -- no doubt on pain of refusing to recognize any marriages performed if the teachings of the church are not jettisoned.

The line has been drawn.

Posted by: Greg at 04:45 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

1 C'mon. It was done in the name of mockery. The Act-Up organization is famous for shock value -- it was in response to the years of abuses, homophobic messages spewed by its Church on gays.

Hey, payback is bitch, is it?

Cry me a river, please. You're sinking. Your religion is slowly disintegrating and guess what? Jesus will never come by -- after all, he's DEAD.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon Jun 6 21:33:04 2005 (ODDFf)

2 Sorry -R, but you're WAY off base here.

Churches are private property. What you have here is Criminal Trespass and Battery. These people need to be jailed.

I can *say* whatever I like. That never gives anyone a right to come on to my property and harass me.

Rephrased - if someone tried to invade say...my home...in such a manner...they would be shot...repeatedly.

Who do they think they are? Someone hurts their feelings so they get to knock people down, push their way into a sacred ceremony, and interrupt what they were doing?

Also - WHAT abuses? Do you mean condemning the behavior? THAT is not abuse. THAT is an opinion. Further, the Church is not homophobic. I cannot STAND that term. They believe (wrongly I think) that homosexuality is a sin. That does not mean they somehow fear it - it means they believe it to be a sin. Don't read more into it than that.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 00:35:22 2005 (r/FBF)

3 I wonder -- how many dead activists would there have been if they had tried this at a mosque? Would it be an international cause celebre, with demands for harsh punishment of those who desecrated a Muslim house of worship and failed to show proper respect to Islam?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 7 03:51:10 2005 (4nXaP)

4 Sub, that is YOUR opinion. Let me emphasize this again -- ACT UP is the radical organization founded during the Reagan Years in response to use the shock tactics to force the government/churches to look at their lack of efforts in finding solutions in early 80s.

Today, the ACT UP remains to be the most radical organization of gay spectrum. Their actions, sometimes, are not something that I approved but am I ever surprised with their antics when they crashed through the Cathedral and make the situation a mockery of their faith? NO, NOT AT ALL! In fact, I EXPECTED IT ALL.

Churches, you may argue that it is private, are not probably private in France.

You can *say* whatever you like. Absolutely. You remind me of a videotape I saw where the gay neighbor installed the secret videotape to videotape the harassments they received at the hands of their straight neighbor. AS the gay man was tending the front yard, he was harassed by the straight man with throwing beer cans, objects and at times, the straight man ran across the property and socked the guy down then fled back. They called the cops. Nothing was being done because there was lack of evidence. Even with the guy providing the tape, they said that it is not enough. One word: bullshit. Like you said, if someone do that to me on my property, I'll shoot them but guess what? I'll still go to the jail.

What abuses? Pedophilia. Its repeated arrogance of telling people that being gay is wrong and less than 2nd class citizen (it encouraged people the option to attack gay people as whole). You argued that it is an opinion. But the nutty Church try to make it an authority on their opinion for others to follow. The Church is homophobic, period. The Church will dissipate if people continue to learn the truth that they are nothign but a tool to control the mass of the people.

When I heard that the ACT UP organizers crashed through the Cathedral, I laughed. It is so typical of them. I'm so used to it. You should be.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 03:55:37 2005 (ODDFf)

5 Absolutely not. Book 'em. Charge 'em with felony counts. Attempted murder. Assault. Let them enjoy prison time.

A church is a sanctuary. And I WILL drag them out if that happened in my church. A church is private property but open to those who seek refuge and learning, but not desecration.

Of course, RWR, "R" won't answer the mosque question. He must think everything in a Christian concept.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 04:13:15 2005 (zudZk)

6 I think the key here is, as Ridor mentioned, Act Up is a radicial organization. If you are going to say that Act Up represents all people who think gay people are human, then I fully expect you to say that all Christians are just like Fred Phelps. Well??


Secondly, what do this event have to do with same-sex marriage. Nobody involved as trying to force a church to conduct a same-sex wedding ceremony. This particular radical group used a mock same-sex wedding as a form of protest, but nobody even once claimed that the church should be required to perform any marriage ceremony, especially since even Civil Marriage isn't an option for French same-sex couples.

Finally, I don't know where you live, but here in American, France doesn't make our policy decisions for us.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 04:15:00 2005 (fgsGh)

7 You must have been commenting the same time I was mcconnel. Attempt murder? for walking into a church? Assault is a potential charge since a priest was knocked down in the struggle, but attempted murder??

Geezz now THAT'S a precentdent I wouldn't want to see set.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 04:17:27 2005 (fgsGh)

8 RWR wrote: "I wonder -- how many dead activists would there have been if they had tried this at a mosque?"

Absolutely none. Because they are all dead. Think about it. ;-)

Basically, I'm all for the desceration of holy places -- including the mosques AND Christian churches. It is my personal belief that these are just a building that people tried to make it "sacred".

But again, ACT UP is the radical organization that does not reflect all gays as whole. I enjoy their antics because it is hilarious. It poked fun and mocked at the system that does not work at all.

Telling Africans not to wear condoms is sending them to death -- and that is abuse, subjugator, by withholding the information that could save lives -- for a change, I ain't talk to you, mcconnell.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 04:55:54 2005 (ODDFf)

9 We weren't there. And we don't know if they planned (or expected) to see some hurtin' while protesting. Murder (or manslaughter) is a potential given the volatility of that group's action, whether intentional or unintentional. But I agree with you dolphin, murder may be a bit too far, however, only time will tell when you have extremist groups who get nuttier every year who infringes and trespasses other people's property.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 04:59:51 2005 (zudZk)

10 Ever hear of this group, Protest Warrior? http://www.protestwarrior.com

They respect people's property. Debate with a cool head. They protest in their assigned spots. No resorting to violence. Avoid violence at all costs. And use clever signs to make a point. However, even then Liberals attack them with violence. How ironic.


You don't have to "talk" to me "R". But you just did. Keep quiet on that part for a change. Keep your word. Keep it to an absolute bare minimum. Agree? Shhhhh...

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 05:13:36 2005 (zudZk)

11 McConnell: Member of ProtestWarrior, own a lot of shirts and a bumper sticker, as well as their (new) DVD.

Dolphin: A person that shoves their way into my house, knocking me aside, is an intruder...an invader...into my home. A person who decides to break in to my home had better expect a swift and sure response. As far as what this has to do with same-sex marriage; the participants in this invasion/protest made it fairly clear that at least part of their protest is due to the Catholic church refusing to allow same sex marriage within the scope of the religion.

-R - The sex scandals are just that...scandalous and evil. Their response to it has been FAR less than it should be. I totally agree. Now let's talk about abuses against GAYS.

Their abuses against gays are...none? Telling people not to use condoms is not an abuse. It's a tenet of their religion. Telling people that being gay is wrong is also a tenet of their religion. Jews tell people that eating pork is a sin - I am not hurt by this, despite the fact that I consume large quantities thereof. Muslims tell people that consumption of alcohol is a sin, and I am not hurt by that either (though I only drink very rarely).

So - why are you for the descration of something that someone else finds to be sacred? Why do you CARE that someone else finds it to be sacred? They're not hurting you by thinking that a statue, building, tree, salt stain on a wall, or smoking brazier is sacred...what's your problem where you want to make them feel bad over it?

As for me saying whatever I like, so long as I am not being incredibly loud, and am not violating the rights of another (i.e. I'm not throwing things at them like the cretin in your example), I can say whatever I wish. I do not dislike or have a problem with homosexuals myself - I don't even think it's sinful. That said; I firmly believe in someone's *RIGHT* to believe as they wish and respond appropriately within the scope of their religion (so long as it does not violate a person's rights in so doing - i.e. you can teach that something is wrong, but cannot hurt them or otherwise violate them).

It sounds to me as if you believe that the right to exist includes the right to make others appreciate your beliefs, views, and desires. Many people dislike me and don't follow my viewpoints. That does not give me ANY right or excuse to invade their property, shove them aside, and do as I wish on their property.

You have the right to exist as a human being. You have the right to peaceful enjoyment of your home...to a certain degree (you can't tell your neighbor to stop growing a certain kind of flower or something like that because it interferes with your enjoyment (unless it's in your CC&Rs or is illegal).
You have the right to coexist in some way with the partner(s) of your choice.

You do not have the right to marry in the church of your choice unless they are willing to do so.
You do not have the right to have everyone like you and what your choices or desires are.
You do not have the right to tell others what the tenets of their religion are.
You do not have the right to go onto other people's property to protest their belief system.
You do not have the right to damage the property of others because you do not agree with their beliefs.

You're all for the desecration of people's sacred objects or sites?

I am all for the arrest of you or anyone else who does so with any property that is not your own.

Again, in the event that another invades MY property, they can expect to be shot. Thankfully, in Indiana, if someone breaks into your house (or is even TRYING to break into your house), the presumption is that they intend you or your family harm, and you can shoot on sight. I do not suffer people who break into my home or otherwise threaten my family gladly, and will do whatever is necessary to protect them in the event that such is necessary.

Note that such does NOT include a detailed query as to the intent of the person who threatens my family.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 06:39:52 2005 (lkCzp)

12 Dolphin: A person that shoves their way into my house, knocking me aside, is an intruder...an invader...into my home. A person who decides to break in to my home had better expect a swift and sure response.

Ok, not sure what that has to do with anything at all, but thanks for sharing.

As far as what this has to do with same-sex marriage; the participants in this invasion/protest made it fairly clear that at least part of their protest is due to the Catholic church refusing to allow same sex marriage within the scope of the religion.

While I disagree with you assessment (and suspect that oyu're not familiar with the methods of Act Up), if that was the ENTIRE point of their protest I don't see how that is representative of government policy forcing churchs to marry couples they'd rather not marry, as RWR suggested. The Catholic Church doesn't marry divorcees, the government has never made them. It's merely scare tatics to suggest that this will be any different, a way of avoiding the issue at hand if you will.

That said; I firmly believe in someone's *RIGHT* to believe as they wish and respond appropriately within the scope of their religion (so long as it does not violate a person's rights in so doing - i.e. you can teach that something is wrong, but cannot hurt them or otherwise violate them).

I agree wholeheartedly with you on this one. My view on same-sex marriage is, believe it's wrong if you want but don't try to hurt me by denying me legal rights.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 07:34:22 2005 (fgsGh)

13 Sub,

Yes, PW sells mechandise. It's called "free enterprise." Anything wrong with that? Perhaps the extra $$ for future protests and help cover expenses such as paying for their website. What of it?

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 07:44:30 2005 (LmcbS)

14 Subjugator, you are overreacting.

It is interesting to note that some considered gay to be an active form of evil. And when the sex scandals within the Church is considered to be "evil" -- it is OK as long as the Church gets to delegate what's wrong and right so that they can say, "It was not my fault. It was the Devil's acts!" Hogwash. The Church is responsible for its behavior, whether if it is evil or not.

They preached for years that gay sex is abhorrent. The Mormon Church encourage the electric shock to turn the gays into straight guys. There are horror stories that the Church went as far as to do things.

Look at Fred Phelps! Focus on the Family! Exodus International! These are typical of Christian's behaviors. Look at Michael Sacavarage (sp?), he used his "tenet of his religion" to bash on gays at the gay pride festivals. That is abuse. To attack people of their choices, trying to scare them with hocus pocus is a form of abuse! It is like telling an abused wife that if she tells the cop, she'll be dead.

It is my belief that not to share the necessary information about the protection, especially in Africa, is a form of abuse. This is to SAVE lives, not to worry about the tenet of one s religion!

Who cares about one's tenet of others?! The point is that there is a pandemic in Africa! Why worry about condoms? You do not believe in it, that is OK but to prevent others from getting it is not OK.

I'm all for the desceration of sacred stuff -- know why? To minimize the hocus pocus. People are obsessed over materialism. People needs to see that burning Vatican to the grounds will not halt the world from turning into the tomorrow. Nuke Jerusalem will not bring the armageddon. IN fact, everything will just roll on. People needs to see that there is more to life than religions. But that is my personal belief.

They do not hurt me but they do offend me when they attempt to decide things for me. For instance, I knew of a born-again Christian who came to me and my brother and told us that they can cure us of our deafness because they are born-again Christians. Whoopee! I politely declined and told them that we are fine being deaf. Guess what they did next? They put their hands on my heads and start to pray. What do I do? I shoved the bitch down and knocked her down. For a minute, she thought she was seeing the devil incarnate!

That is the whole point -- the religious groups claimed that they did nothing wrong but they go around and criticize others, telling them what ot do with their lives. IN the past, they destroyed faiths that rejected Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Ask Natives, ask Irish, ask Pagans, ask Canaanites!

Sometimes they need to feel bad for doing things like that.

Like you, I respect their beliefs, but for them to use the bullhorns trying to spread misinformation, that is crossing the line. So when the ACT UP did this, you could say payback is bitch.

It is not a good excuse but it happens all the time. I could use disability issue to point that I abhor hearing people. I could use religion issue to point that I can't stand religious nuts. I could use the politics to point out that I despise conservatives prick but guess what? They are still there, I already accepted that a long time ago -- but I do not have to respect nor listen to their craps.

I already wrote in my blog a long time ago that the Church reserved the right not to perform the same-sex marriage. I personally will not get caught dead setting my foot in the church property.

Just few days ago, Pope Benedict spoke against the gay marriages and urged the governments to stop it -- this man is trying to make us 2nc class citizen. He is willing to use his religion to pressure governments to succumb to his will. The whole point is that many gays need the marriage license, not to marry, but to get the benefits, protections and rights. We do not care about the weddings that you see on reality-based TV shows!

Who wants to visit Indiana? Certainly not me.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 07:45:46 2005 (ODDFf)

15 Finally, I don't know where you live, but here in American, France doesn't make our policy decisions for us.

Tell that to the Supreme Court who has had the inclination to use foreign legal precedent as foundation for some of their opinions!

Posted by: Hube at Tue Jun 7 07:50:59 2005 (hLmHh)

16 I guess people are for the desecration of gay marriage, too. But I don't like the Mormon church or any overly religious zealots. If they want to pray for you, they can. Just do it privately.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 08:44:37 2005 (LmcbS)

17 Umm...McConnell?

*I* am a member of PW. *I* own shirts. *I* bought the DVD.

Heck, I'm wearing a PW shirt right now (the one that shows the signing of the Declaration of Independence and says 'Right Wing Extremists' on it).

Furthermore, I'm a capitalist. I love it when people make money from my purchases...that means they're more likely to be there the next time I need something.

I was talking about what a great site it is, not complaining.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 08:51:36 2005 (lkCzp)

18 Sub,

Ah. Duly noted now that you've explained.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 09:11:02 2005 (LmcbS)

19 Hehe.. I just saw a site talking about PW. He got kicked out, because he offered a suggestion that they hold a rally at a military recruiting center and those of appropriate age all join up. He posted the suggestion on his site, it was incredibly polite and actually I thought a good idea.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 09:19:21 2005 (fgsGh)

20 Dolphin: Sorry, I completely misread something you'd said earlier. When you said, 'Attempt murder...for walking into a church?' I thought you were saying that in answer to my statement about someone going into my house. Ignore that and muy apologista.

Re: the ACT UP protest - I'm not entirely familiar with them. I mean, I've heard about some of the stuff they've done from friends of mine who are gay (I don't remember anything specific though), I don't follow their actions.

You and I are dead on in agreement with religion and how it relates to marriage. My position on marriage is that it's none of the government's business and it's between the people and their religious personage(s).

-R: The pedophile priests are practicing as much evil as you say. I know all too well how much havok a pedophile can wreak on the life of a child, and am dealing with the fallout of that right now. Further, the response of the church has been weak at *BEST*. A lot of people have a lot to answer for that. Unfortunately, we agree all too much on how much evil has been spread there.

Also, please make NO mistake...
I do NOT think homosexuality is evil or a sin.
I do NOT think that homosexuality means one is a pedophile (as some mind blowingly stupid people do).
I do NOT think homosexuality is the result of mental illness (once again, as some mind blowingly stupid people do); though I do think that depression can quite naturally result from people being jerks to homosexuals.

The only reason I'd ever be concerned about one of my children being a homosexual is that, as above, people can be jerks to them and that can make life harder.

That associate of yours that tried to heal you against your will was rude and intrusive. I do not support that sort of behavior; that's called 'battery' and when done in a religious context has the same smell as rape to me (though not nearly as strong).

Here's one to throw a few of you through a loop, but I believe in the allownace of plural marriages and find it to be astonishing that it's illegal. I also find it to be astonishing that some people have gone so far as to make same sex marriage specifically illegal. I mean, what do they care about who marries who? THEY don't have to be in the marriage, so they have no reason to care.

The one objection I have to *any* sexual relationship is when people are overt with public displays of affection. I don't mean hand holding or a quick peck, but deep kissing and public touching of private areas. Keep that to private or secluded places please. I don't want my kids to have to either re-live bad memories or have to explain anything to them. They've experienced enough thank you, and now that they're mine (and not the monsters who abused and allowed the abuse), I'm keeping them nice and sheltered until they're older.

That also means that sex education is under MY purview. I don't want them being introduced to anything that's going to throw them for a loop without my wife or me being the one to introduce it to them. Stuff they see on a day-to-day basis won't make them wonder, but stuff they see rarely *will* make them wonder. In other words, I don't care if they see two guys or gals holding hands or giving each other pecks, but I don't want their teachers reading to them about Rainbow Parties (they do not refer to homosexuality, but to group oral sex), same sex households, or other advanced subjects on sexuality without my express consent.

Sorry...got off on a tangent there.

Sub

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 09:30:58 2005 (lkCzp)

21 Maybe you should turn over your children to my mother who bluntly cut to the chase when I was a kid, she said in ASL: "RT (that's my sign name)! MUST TELL YOU IMPORTANT. YOU NOW TEENAGER. YOU KNOW ALL BOYS HAVE PENISES! ALL GIRLS HAVE VAGINAS! IF YOU PUT IN GIRLS' VAGINAS, CAN GET PREGNANT. YOU CANT DO THAT OR I WILL DISOWN YOU! YOU UNDERSTAND ME??"

That was a blunt and straightforward education but I already knew I liked boys when I was 12. But I do not forget what she said. It cuts to the chase then on my own time, I ask about things related to sex.

Subjugator, I hate to say that but I suspect we are much alike in many ways. I think overtly making out in public can be kept somewhere in the dark. But not in the public eye. But I think it's ok for a guy to hold another guy in the public. I feel that the plural marriages are fine as long as women wanted it as well. I mean, these ones in Utah is not good reflective of plural marriage because they forced the teenagers to pull out of school and wed. It has to be done of their free will. In fact, I knew of gay tri-relationship in Tacoma, Washington -- they are happier. Even worse, one of the partners' mother lived in a senior citizen's group home and she bragged that her son has two partners!

Live and let live, that is the motto -- the religious groups seemed to interfere people's lives at its best when people chose to decide for themselves.

Regarding the ACT UP, I believe the famous act that the ACT UP did to the Catholic Church in New York was throwing red paint on St. Patrick's Cathedral Church in New York which stunned the public at large. Its actions are absurd but at that time, very effective. But today, the ACT UP has become somewhat ineffective.

R-
R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 10:42:12 2005 (ODDFf)

22 I guess I am showing my age, folks, but I am old enough to remember when "homosexual rights" meant "stop vice raids on gay bars and bathhouses, and let us in the military." That was only 30 or so years ago.

Later it became "employment non-discrimination".

Then it became "domestic partner & hate crimes legislation".

Then it became "civil unions."

Then it became "marriage."

Next step? Require churches perform homosexual marriage or the government stops recognizing marriages performed by churches that won't -- or declare it a "human rights" issue that overrides religious freedom, which used to be considered a human right.

At least that is what I see, just from watching the trends -- from places like Canada, France, Sweden, and other countries.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 7 11:11:59 2005 (oNb3q)

23 RWR, just watch. The ACLU will probably be first to sue a church for not performing a gay marriage. Or has it already happened? Next comes the govt where Liberals will be all too happy to see the violation of separation and church and state by enforcing church to perform gay marriages. I may not be too off here considering the pace.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 11:26:09 2005 (LmcbS)

24 RWR, GOOD! ABout time the religions are put in the closet ... permanently.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 18:59:39 2005 (ODDFf)

25 In other words, Ridor, that annoying little First Amendment thing in that irrelevant little Constitution thing needs to be violated and ignored in the name of what you view as the greater good.

Glad that you finally admitted that you don't believe in American values.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 7 23:25:59 2005 (MWljv)

26 Sorry Ridor, but religion should not be in the closet. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that we have to stop doing it. In much the same way that you should not have to be in the closet being gay, religion should not be a closeted society either. There is no shame involved in either.

Rather than being non-religious, you seem to be anti-religious...actively opposing it. That sounds suspiciously like bigotry.

Side note: the ACT UP paint splash incident - I don't call that protest, I call that vandalism, and it's a crime. They'd have been thrown in jail were it up to me.

See, protest is when you stand outside somewhere and make your point known. It's not when you destroy someone else's property.

It would seem you and I tend to agree on the subject of marriage. So long as it's voluntary and between adults, it's none of my business.

RWR: I think the busting up of gay bars was wrong so long as none but adults are inside and what happens inside is not visible or audible to the people nearby.

The employment and marriage stuff I would leave to the indivudual religion or business. I've always thought that bigotry was part of the right of expression, even if cretinous.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 8 00:14:05 2005 (r/FBF)

27 RWR,

You're right and the march to equality continues. Here's where your slippery slope argument breaks down. All that you have listed have been about establishing equality. None (save perhaps employment non-discrimination, which you don't agree with but it's still a matter of equality since it exists for everyone else) have been about making YOU change at all. To jump from "Gay people want the government to grant them the same rights is grants other citizens" to "churchs will have to change their beliefs" is not only a HUGE leap of logic, but it defies historical precedent and I strongly suspect you don't believe it yourself. The thing is, gay people have gotten married in this country now and the sky hasn't fallen and nobody's heterosexual marriage has broken up over. If the neo-con right has any hope of taking marriage equality away from us they have to shift their fear-tatics from "protecting marriage" to the (equally erroneous) "protecting religion." That's what you're trying to do here I believe.

I have said it many times. I don't WANT to get married in a church that thinks of me as less than human.

Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 8 04:12:41 2005 (fgsGh)

28 RWR....ROFLMAO!! Hadn't a good knee slapper in longgg time.

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 8 04:58:10 2005 (zudZk)

29 Dolphin...

Just to be clear, I also think that employers should be able to refuse employment to anyone for any reason they like at any time. If they want to refuse to hire me because I'm bald and/or fat (I look a lot like Elmer Fudd), they can do so in my world. If they want to refuse to hire me because I have splotchy skin (I have vitiligo (sp?)), they can do so in my world.

This is not restricted to any particular group. I figure it's their money to spend as they wish and kinda falls in line with the legal saying that allows pre-emptory dismissals of jurors:

I do not like thee, Doctor Fell,
The reason why, I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.

You can hire whomever you like, so long as you live up to the contract(s) you sign when so doing.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 8 07:14:11 2005 (lkCzp)

30 Sub,

That's fine, while I might disagree, I understand that view, my point was that employment non-discrimination is something that's offered to ALL citizens so offering it to gay people fits in with equal rights not <gopbuzzword> special rights </gopbuzzword>. While I would disagree with taking away employment non-discrimination polcies, the most important thing abotu them is that they are applied (or not) the same to everyone.

Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 8 09:15:15 2005 (fgsGh)

31 /agree

I completely agree with you there Dolphin. If you're going to have a law protecting a set of things (employment, dog walking, shopping, marriage, what have you), then protect it for all rational subsets or not at all.

One of the 'minority' (now a majority I guess) groups that I belong to is fat people. I screamed with rage when a fat woman sued GNC because they refused to (now get this) WIDEN THE AISLES so she could FIT DOWN THEM. She called that a 'reasonable accomidation.' I called it 'not disabled' and said she needs to put down the fried chicken. Mind you, if anyone's got an excuse to be fat, I do (bad thyroid, low blood sugar (*NOT* from being fat), bad knee (work injury), and bad ankles (old skating injuries), not to mention just being flat uncoordinated)...and I know I can lose weight if I put my mind to it.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 8 09:38:29 2005 (lkCzp)

32 I'll agree with you, Sub, about the bars and bathhouses. And I even agree with dolphin about the employment issue -- there should be equal laws there, though I disagree with employment discrimination laws that apply to any entity except government.

I even support equal rights for homosexuals regarding marriage -- they can marry any individual of the opposite sex they desire.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 8 12:50:27 2005 (jNFpp)

33 *grin*

OK - I admit, the surprise there made me laugh.

I can't agree with you on the last bit RWR, simply because I think the government should stay out of marriage. It's none of their business who I marry or how I marry them. Marriage is a function of religion - if gays can find a religion to marry them, so be it - it should not have any relevance whatsoever with the government.

Management of property should be through standardized contracts (or non-standard ones), as should medical decisions, custody, etc...for ALL people, hetero and homo alike.

I hate that the government legislates marriage. I know WHY they do it, but I don't have to like it.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 8 14:56:51 2005 (r/FBF)

34 I even support equal rights for homosexuals regarding marriage -- they can marry any individual of the opposite sex they desire.

I always find that to be an interesting view that anti-gay individuals bring up whenever they can't back their hatred. First I find it interesting because it's word for word exactly the argument that was used against interacial marraiges, it went like this then: There's no discrimination, a black person can marry any member of the same race, just like a white person can." It wasn't right then and it's not right now. But I suspect such hate-groups and their followers will continue to try the same old tired rhetoric.

Secondly, there is NOT equality. Any woman in this country can marry a man but I can't. Why, ONLY because I'm male. If gender is a legitimate reason to discriminate aginst American citizens, then can I assume you are in support of removing womens sufferage? Can I quote you on that?

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 04:41:58 2005 (fgsGh)

35 No, you may not, as that is not my opinion.

Nor am I anti-gay -- merely pro-marriage.

Marriage was, is, and always will be the union of one man and one woman. The racial restrictions illegitimately imposed were not fundamental to the nature of marriage, and were, in fact, contrary to the clear dictates of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same cannot be said of homosexual marriage, which requires a fundamental disruption and reconfiguration of the institution of marriage as generally understood for the last couple of millenia in Western Society.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 05:53:03 2005 (DTBYN)

36 You are ANTI-MARRIAGE. You may think gay people don't deserve human rights but to claim to be "pro-marriage" is an outright lie. Who is trying to stop marriages from happening? YOU! You are not doing anything to help any marriage. That's a FACT, with the exception of Rick Santorum (and probabyl a few others) even the strongest opponents of marriage equality acknowlege that straight marriages can't be hurt by gay marriages.

Let's be CRYSTAL clear, the only people trying to ban any marriages at all is YOUR SIDE, PERIOD. Believe what you want but DO NOT delude yourself into thinking that seekign to ban marriage is anything less than ANTI-marriage and ANTI-family.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 06:46:11 2005 (fgsGh)

37 I even support equal rights for homosexuals regarding marriage -- they can marry any individual of the opposite sex they desire.

By your definition, I'll lie to the woman that I'm not gay, I will cheat on her by fucking guys in bathhouses and adult bookstores ... as long as I am able to juggle both worlds in secrecy.

Such a fabulous idea! Not.

Your argument is so retarded.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Thu Jun 9 13:41:44 2005 (ODDFf)

38 Who said anything about lying.

If you decided to marry, I would hope you would be as up front about it as you are about your deafness.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 15:33:36 2005 (wfdL5)

39 Then your entire argument falls apart RWR.

It wasn't a very good argument to begin with but nobody is going to marry somebody they already know doesn't love them romantically. So now your back to denying marraige rigths just because a person is gay.

This is just one issue that is so plainly black and white that I can't bring myself to understand why there's even been a debate. Eitehr gay people deserve the saem rights as others or we don't. I'd like to think that in America there wouldn't be a question, but that's the America of ideals and until the far right has been knocked from power we will continue to see an America that looks quite different from anythign that could be refered to as the land of the free.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 17:14:52 2005 (MIt/1)

40 So by your definition, America has never been the land of the free, and has always been ruled by hateful anti-gay right-wingers. After all, homosexual marriage has NEVER been permitted in the US, except under the rulings of a couple of rogue judges. And the American people have never supported homosexual marriage, as witnessed by the fact that EVERY TIME THEY VOTE they reject it.

You are absolutely hysterical.

Oh, and by the way, dolphin, the fact is that the issue is black and white -- marriage is between members of the opposite sex, not the same sex. That is why I cannot believe that we, as a society, are even having the debate.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 17:56:16 2005 (WrPVI)

41 RWR,

I repeat again, what is it that has given you such a vile and intense hatred for gay people. Were you wronged by a gay person. If so might I suggest you speak to a counselor. Perhaps you can learn to direct your anger at that one person, express it and move on, this hatred is actually bad for your health.

Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 10 04:05:06 2005 (fgsGh)

42 Excuse me, dolphin, but your dime-store psychoanalysis is quite off base.

I don't hate homosexuals.

I believe homosexual activity is sinful and immoral.

Big difference.

So why don't you go take a class in speech or logic and learn how to make an argument without ultimately returning to a baseless ad hominem attack on your opponent.

Posted by: at Fri Jun 10 04:54:13 2005 (LGV5B)

43 I'm assuming the above comment was made by RWR?

Posted by: mcconnell at Fri Jun 10 08:04:32 2005 (LmcbS)

44 Dolphin: While I don't believe homosexuality is a sin and immoral, I also don't equate believing so to being a hater of homosexuals.

Typically...or I should maybe say ideally, a person who believes another is engaged in sinful behavior will want to try and help the other and not hate them for it. Generally speaking I wish to help people that I see who are sinning...sometimes I also feel pity.

That said; even if I though homosexuality was a sin, I don't view it as any more of a sin than my pride, or my overeating, or, or, or...you get the idea. I'm a sinner as much as you or anyone else. It's a binary situation - either you are a sinner or you are not. I'd like to help other sinners...but frequently don't because it'll be intrusive and won't help at all.

Anyway - I'm a sinner, you're a sinner...we're all sinners.

...but God loves us all anyway. That's (part) of why He is so much better than us. He sees the beauty in everyone. My blind eyes see the beauty in but a few.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Fri Jun 10 09:00:47 2005 (lkCzp)

45 Well, Dolphin's not going to answer. Doesn't see intellectual diversity (honesty) for what they are.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Jun 11 05:34:01 2005 (zudZk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

You sort of get to know folks over time around the blogosphere. One of the folks I first met was a guy who went by the handle Bunker Mulligan. I liked him, liked his site, and enjoyed his insights on the world. Later on, I joined up over at Texas Blogs, which was one of his projects. From what i could tell, he was a great guy.

Perusing the blogosphere this evening, I was shocked to read the following.

It is with a very heavy heart that we tell you that on the morning of 3 June 2005 Mike passed away from a heart attack. Obviously, this sudden, unexpected event has had a tremendously tragic effect on all of us. But being the kind of selfless man that dad was, he would probably tell us not to make too much of an issue about it.

Damn.

Knock me over with a feather.

I encourage folks to look at the links above to see how this man is remembered by his family. May we all be spoken of so highly -- and be worthy of it.

Mike will be laid to rest on Friday, 10 June, at the San Antonio National Cemetery. In lieu of flowers, we request any memorials for him be made to Homes For Our Troops. Further information can be found at www.homesforourtroops.org.

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord.
And may perpetual light shine upon him.
May the souls of the faithfully departed through the mercy of God rest in peace.
Amen.

Posted by: Greg at 04:23 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

I didn't mess with the "runaway bride" story at all, mainly because the evidence was too scanty. And when she turned up, I looked at my wife and commented that she had committed no crime in disappearing like that -- and held to that position until the police said that she reported a kidnapping when she did turn up.

Why talk about that now? Because of this case, which I vaguely remember from when it took place.

A Texas A&M University student who had been feared murdered after disappearing nearly seven years ago has been found alive and working in Kentucky, according to authorities.

Brandi Stahr went missing in October 1998, and police spent hours searching for her body in wooded areas. They questioned a serial rapist and murderer about her just hours before he was executed last year.

But a telephone tip led investigators to Florence, Ky., where Stahr has been working for the last five years at a Sam's Club, said Texas Ranger Frank Malinak.

"We thought we were dealing with a missing persons case," Malinak said. "But, in actuality, we were dealing with a person who did not want to be found and was in hiding."

more...

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.

I really felt an incredible desire to be ill upon reading this article, for a whole bunch of different reasons.

Elva Hernández never imagined she'd give birth to a son in a medical helicopter flying over the Arizona desert.

The 29-year-old woman, who was seven months' pregnant, felt contractions and went into labor after walking in the heat, rain and in the cold of night for nearly 20 hours as she and her family tried to illegally enter the United States.

Hernández, her children and her husband were abandoned by a smuggler soon after she went into labor.

Last Sunday, she gave birth in the helicopter minutes after being rescued by U.S. Border Patrol agents.

She and the premature baby, Christian, a new U.S. citizen, were taken to Tucson's University Medical Center. The infant is stable, but remains in intensive care. Hernández left the hospital Tuesday.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 09:08 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 3 kb.

I keep hearing the Left claim that Bush lied about Iraq having the material to make WMDs. I keep hearing that no such material was ever found. Now it appears that the material that didn't exist has disappeared from its storage areas on Iraq.

U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday.

U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003 so they have been using satellite photos to see what happened to the sites that were subject to U.N. monitoring because their equipment had both civilian and military uses.

In the report to the U.N. Security Council (search), acting chief weapons inspector Demetrius Perricos said he's reached no conclusions about who removed the items or where they went. He said it could have been moved elsewhere in Iraq, sold as scrap, melted down or purchased.

He said the missing material can be used for legitimate purposes. "However, they can also be utilized for prohibited purposes if in a good state of repair."

He said imagery analysts have identified 109 sites that have been emptied of equipment to varying degrees, up from 90 reported in March.

The report also provided much more detail about the percentage of items no longer at the places where U.N. inspectors monitored them.

So please let me understand -- things that folks claim never existed are now missing.

So which is it ?

Was Bush right about this material, or did it never exist in the first place?

I think we all know the answer -- as inconvenient as it may be for the Left to admit.

Posted by: Greg at 02:58 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

1 FOX NEWS is not reliable.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sat Jun 4 15:44:24 2005 (nWmj6)

2 Hear ye, hear ye. "R"'s word is gold. Let's turn over the reign to Newsweek, cBS, BBC, and the lovely Diva Ms. Couric.

Key words that the great "R" missed:

"U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday."

And surprise of surprises what France said!

France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said Thursday the commission's expertise "should not be lost for the international community."


Kill the messenger, eh "R".

A typical facist liberalista response.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Jun 4 17:03:53 2005 (qzj0i)

3 They're saying that materials which could feasibly be used as WMD, but were not meant as such, disappeared and that they find it odd. They aren't themselves weapons however, nor are they any sort of proof that Iraq was pursuing WMD.

The whole of the U.N.'s point was that they were monitoring these materials, which they did not believe were being used illegally. Now that they've disappeared, the situation may have changed and the materials could be used to make weapons.

Posted by: N.J. at Sat Jun 4 18:17:04 2005 (FJAxe)

4 Fox News isn't reliable, but that's besides the point here.

Materials to make WMDs are not the same as ACTUAL WMDs. I'm no chemist but I bet I could make a bomb with ordinary materials that I have in my home, but that doesn't mean that I have a bomb!

Bush's claim wasn't that Iraq had the materials to make WMDs, Bush claim as that Iraq not only had WMDs but was an imminent threat to the USA, a claim his own hand-picked weapons inspector has declared false.

Posted by: dolphin at Sat Jun 4 19:37:20 2005 (MIt/1)

5 Bush claimed they had WMDs...and they actually did have *some*...though apparently not nearly as much as he'd originally thought.

Yaknow what though, France, Italy, Germany, and Russia thought Saddam had WMDs as well. Everyone who says Bush 'lied' is full of caca. Bush was 'wrong', and even then Saddam still had to be taken out.

The person we REALLY need to dust is Kim Jung Il.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Sun Jun 5 02:37:49 2005 (r/FBF)

6 A breaking story here...

Huge underground hideout uncovered in Iraq

Search in Anbar province yields large weapons cache
Sunday, June 5, 2005 Posted: 8:14 AM EDT (1214 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. Marines and Iraqi soldiers have uncovered a 503,000 square-foot underground insurgent hideout in central Iraq containing large stores of weapons, ammunition and supplies.

The bunker -- the size of nine American football fields or six soccer pitches -- is the largest found in the past year, the U.S. military said Sunday.

No insurgents were in the bunker, but Marines found fully charged cell phones and fresh food in the kitchen, said 1st Lt. Kate VandenBossche, a spokeswoman for the 2nd Marine Division.

The bunker, which measured 902 feet (275 meters) by 558 feet (170 meters), also included furnished living spaces, two showers and an air conditioner, she said.

Other rooms contained machine guns, mortars, rockets, artillery rounds, black uniforms, ski masks, compasses, log books and night vision goggles, she said.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/05/iraq.main/index.html

Of course, maybe Commie News Network is unreliable as well.

But, an underground lair about the size of 9 football fields?!! Kind gives you a new perspective of how many types of weapons could be hidden or even manufactured or the storing of WMD.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Jun 5 05:22:49 2005 (jXhtw)

7 Everyone who says Bush 'lied' is full of caca. Bush was 'wrong'

Well what would you call it?

We now know that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." I'd call knowingly altering intelligence report to make them back your plans when they didn't in reality lying.

Posted by: dolphin at Sun Jun 5 11:04:49 2005 (SVh3K)

8 I'd not heard that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"; what is the context in which that was presented? Also, did Bush - directly or indirectly - get people to change the intelligence? He could have told them he wants evidence that Saddam had WMDs. That's different than lying.

Also, did Bush somehow manage to convince all of the other world leaders to lie as well?

Posted by: Subjugator at Sun Jun 5 11:11:20 2005 (r/FBF)

9 I don't have much faith in the Downin Street memo -- and even if the thing is authentic, and that sentences is not a later addition, one does not need to read that as "altering intelligence". It is just as easy to read it as "selecting and using the evidence that best supported the case for war".

Think about it -- you have two bits of information -- one that supports your beliefs and one that doesn't. Which do you believe and use?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 5 12:15:31 2005 (lUWVO)

10 I stated it poorly. Thankfully RWR stated it better than I.

Posted by: Subjugator at Sun Jun 5 14:37:04 2005 (r/FBF)

11 Let's say your right and the memo actually only indicates that he was SELECTING evidence rather than ALTERING it. Isn't intentionally leaving out information that contradicts your claim and only offering what back it also lying? Didn't I just recently get attacked when it was percieved that I had done just what you're talking about?

Posted by: dolphin at Sun Jun 5 18:02:41 2005 (MIt/1)

12 *cough* Global warming, Dolphin?

You do have a good point though, in that if that's what he was doing, unless the evidence against was minimal or weak, it was intellectually dishonest and he should have given the whole story.

Not knowing what he did or said, I'd say there's at least evidence for suspicion. That said; my personal reasons for supporting our venture in Iraq are good - though I am being logically inconsistent in said support (I have serious difficulty reconciling it with my opposition to taxation) - and all I rely upon for actions I support are my reasons, not his.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Mon Jun 6 00:07:37 2005 (r/FBF)

13 Sub,

Your pet topic (global warming) has already been addressed in another post. Why don't you address it there instead of trying to make it the topic of EVERY post.

Posted by: dolphin at Mon Jun 6 05:03:02 2005 (fgsGh)

14 Indeed, every intel agency thought Saddam had WMD. Many prominent Democrats said this very thing, too (see here). So, how did Bush "lie?"

The Downing St. Memo, from I've seen, is as RWR says most likely -- that Bush and co. utilized [certain] evidence to make their case, not that they made up evidence. If Kerry and co. want to bring impeachment charges about this, good luck with the Repub. Congress!

Posted by: Hube at Mon Jun 6 10:41:40 2005 (WfW9j)

15 Most of those who believed that Iraq had WMDs believed so based on the evidence that Bush presented to them. Yet you still ask how Bush lied?

You got it spot on with that last line Hube. Bush cannot be impeached. He could single-handly kill every first born child in the US and as long as the GOP controls Congress he would happily sit there in office.

Posted by: dolphin at Mon Jun 6 12:04:12 2005 (hkQ+k)

16 I wasn't addressing the topic of global warming, I was addressing the topic of selective use of evidence. Global warming happens to be a very convenient example thereof.

As for the rest - they had their OWN intelligence agencies and believed that WMDs were possessed based on their own data. You can't possibly believe that Russia, England, et al do not have their own competent intelligence agencies.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 00:09:19 2005 (r/FBF)

17 And you can't possibly believe that the US wasn't offering them information to try to get them on board.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 04:19:37 2005 (fgsGh)

18 Competent Russian intelligence? Have you forgotten that Putin accused Bush for firing Dan Rather??


=========
'We didn't criticize you when you fired those reporters at CBS.'

Bush's aides have long feared that former KGB officers in Putin's inner circle are painting a twisted picture of U.S. policy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60098-2005Feb28.html
===========

Tell me again about how competent Russian intelligences are.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 06:46:36 2005 (LmcbS)

19 I can believe that we shared information with them. Can you believe that they also shared information with us?

I believe that it is entirely possible that Bush was intellectually dishonest. I just also believe it was possible that he wasn't intentionally so.

The reason I tend toward the second is because Bush has shown himself to be a fairly honest man, and I've not found proof of him ever having lied. In fact, when presented with the subject of past drug use, rather than lie, he refused to answer when he could have lied. Pretty tough thing to not lie about when he'd lie about something like this...ESPECIALLY since his request to congress for a use of force did NOT include mention of WMDs...it only included notation of Saddam's refusal to follow the basis of the cease fire.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 06:47:32 2005 (lkCzp)

20 Bush has shown himself to be a fairly honest man

I shouldn't have read that while eating. I almost choked. Funny stuff though, keep up the comedy!!

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 07:43:18 2005 (fgsGh)

21 Most of those who believed that Iraq had WMDs believed so based on the evidence that Bush presented to them. Yet you still ask how Bush lied?

URRRNT!!
Completely incorrect. Wow, I know libs are paranoid about American power projection, but to say that Bush hoodwinked every Western (and some non-Western) intel agencies as well as the UN is, well, ultra paranoid!

Posted by: Hube at Tue Jun 7 07:54:20 2005 (hLmHh)

22 BTW dolphin, you guys still can't decide whether Bush is a dunce or insidiously smart! It's a riot! Hey, but based on today's news, we now know that "intellectual/nuanced" Kerry had the same GPA at Yale as the pres.! How 'bout that?

Posted by: Hube at Tue Jun 7 07:58:35 2005 (hLmHh)

23 Sub,

You're incorrect about "his request to congress for a use of force did NOT include mention of WMDs...it only included notation of Saddam's refusal to follow the basis of the cease fire."

Look at the text of Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress on October 11, 2002.

It mentions "weapons of mass destruction" 7 times. Not to mention the word "weapons" 17 times.
Congress voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as >>required

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 08:02:03 2005 (LmcbS)

24 forgot to add the link of the Joint Resolution on Iraq:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html

Posted by: at Tue Jun 7 08:02:58 2005 (LmcbS)

25 that was me who added the link.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 08:03:34 2005 (LmcbS)

26 Congress voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as >>required

Posted by: at Tue Jun 7 08:06:21 2005 (LmcbS)

27 Ok, one more time. It's picky about a certain symbol used here.

Congress voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as REQUIRED by the UN resolutions.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/


It was an enforcement policy where the UN refused to address it after 12 years.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 08:48:50 2005 (LmcbS)

28 BTW dolphin, you guys still can't decide whether Bush is a dunce or insidiously smart! It's a riot! Hey, but based on today's news, we now know that "intellectual/nuanced" Kerry had the same GPA at Yale as the pres.! How 'bout that?

Bush is a moron. I've never said otherwise. If grades are so important to you, I personally scored higher than Bush on the SATs, and I didn't come from enough money to buy whatever grades I wanted. He's a moron, but a moron with an agenda, and a number of advisors.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 09:14:45 2005 (fgsGh)

29 Every U.S. President comes in with an agenda. Clinton's first agenda after eyeing Lewinsky was probably to try and bag her. He succeeded.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 09:44:35 2005 (LmcbS)

30 I think the PBS article has the most relevant text. Looks like I was incorrect.

Mea culpa. Sorry.

Now that I've read the request, if you read the whole declaration and request for the use of force, you'll note that it's only a small part of it and that there are other things as well beyond the WMDs. That may have weighted the decision of the legislative branch, so it could be worse to be wrong about that than other things, but it's still got a strong potential for being wrong.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 09:58:09 2005 (lkCzp)

31 Bush has an agendum I am sure. So does everyone else on this planet...it's whether or not said agenda are harmful that is of concern.

What I believe about Bush is that he is sincere and wants to do the right thing. I kinda see him as being fairly similar to Carter as far as personality goes...I have vast respect for both, but disagree with many policies enacted by them.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 10:00:58 2005 (lkCzp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Penn Jillette became a father on Friday. While I'm not a fan, and never have been, I offer my congratulations, since the birth of a healthy child is always a matter of great joy.

On the other hand, I don't think much of the name he and his wife selected.

Jillette, 50, and his wife Emily, 39, welcomed Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette on Friday, according to publicist Glenn Schwartz. It was the first child for the couple, who married last year.

"We chose her middle name because when she's pulled over for speeding she can say, `But officer, we're on the same side,'" Jillette explained. "`My middle name is CrimeFighter.'"

Frankly, I'm disappointed. After his recent show that dealt with Mother Teresa, I was hoping that the middle name would be "F*cking", since he kept referring to the Angel of Calcutta as "Mother F*cking Teresa." Or, if he wanted to combine two words into a middle name, perhaps he could have chosen "F*ckingC*nt", since he referred to the members of the Missionary Sisters of Charity as "f*cking c*nts" during the show.

Maybe they could have just named her after her daddy -- "BigottedHatemonger".

Posted by: Greg at 02:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.

Here is a man talking simple common sense about race in contemporary society. When are we going to do away with government-sponsored segregated graduation ceremonies at colleges and universities?

Because our daughter is African American, we had the dubious honor of attending two ceremonies — one for African Americans only, and then the next day, one for the general population of graduates. This was our third child to graduate from college, and all three universities — two in California and one in Washington — had these twin exercises.

Posted by: Greg at 01:57 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 694 words, total size 4 kb.

Looks like a little bit of common sense might be injected into Texas school disciplinary proceedings if a bill recently passed by the Texas Legislature is signed.

A bill that would give school officials more discretion in discipline matters by allowing them to evaluate individual circumstances before expelling students for certain infractions is awaiting Gov. Rick Perry's approval.

The measure, House Bill 603, co-authored by Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, would have a significant effect on cases in which students unknowingly bring weapons to school.

"There are circumstances when students don't realize they have brought illegal items to school and this bill would offer them some protection," said bill supporter Lonnie Hollingsworth, director of governmental relations with Texas Classroom Teachers Association.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 12:05 PM | Comments (68) | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.

If this were done to the Koran, people would die. But since it is only the Bible, some will click their tongues and liberals will call it another blow against "right-wing Christian theocrats."

A publisher is touting a new edition of the Gospels that identifies Christ as a woman named Judith Christ of Nazareth.

LBI Institute says its version, Judith Christ of Nazareth, The Gospels of the Bible, Corrected to Reflect that Christ Was a Woman, Extracted from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, takes Thomas Jefferson's edited Gospel one step futher by "correcting" the gender of Christ and God.

"This long-awaited revised text of the Gospels makes the moral message of Christ more accessible to many, and more illuminating to all," says Billie Shakespeare, vice president for the publisher, in a statement. "It is empowering. We published this new Bible to acknowledge the rise of women in society."

And lest you think this is a joke, you can get confirmation here.

Posted by: Greg at 04:46 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

Howard Dean, the son of wealth and privilege that heads the party of the wealthiest office-holders and political donors in America, now claims that Republicans are dishonest and don't work.

Asserting that some Florida voters stood in line for eight hours in November, Dean said that was a hardship for people who ''work all day and then pick up their kids at child care.''

But, he said, Republicans could stand in eight-hour lines ''because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.''

I'v got a suggestion for you, Dr. Howard F*ing Dean. Come down here to Houston some day. Spend an afternoon with me in my classroom, and then follow me to my night job after dinner with my disabled wife. Come with me to a Harris County GOP meeting, and see how many of my fellow precinct chairs are hard-working Americans who are out there working their tails off to support their families.

And then you can hop on your chartered jet and go back to Washignton, where you can have dinner with John Kerry, the gigolo who is the richest member of the US Senate, Jon Corzine (the Goldman-Sach profiteer), Herb Kohl (heir to a retailing fortune), Jay Rockerfeller (we know where he got his cash), Ted Kennedy (still living off of Daddy's bootlegging bucks), Marc Dayton (another guy who inherited his money), and Dianne Feinstein (she earned her money the old-fashioned way -- she married a rich guy). Heck, maybe you can call up Warren Buffett (speculator) and Bill Gates (stole IBM's operating system and Apple's interface, and uses monopoly power to control the software industry) to join you.

So are you suure you want to talk about folks who have never done an honest day's work, Howard?

Posted by: Greg at 04:00 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

. . . is even less balanced liberal reporting.

At least that's the prescription from a bunch of liberal MSM types at the "Take Back America" (from the real Americans, I guess) conference.

"The conservatives have got us, as a country, now believing that balance -- giving both sides -- is the same as truth, and there are some things that are just false," said Linda Foley, president of The Newspaper Guild, during a panel discussion on media reform at the "Take Back America" conference in Washington, D.C.

Funny, that sounds like she is complaining that conservatives VOLUNTARILY follow the dictates of the old "Fairness Doctrine". You know, the thing that the Left constantly demands be brought back as an antidote to conservative talk radio. Ms. Foley, though, seems to thing that presenting multiple sides to a controversy is a bad thing. After all, that might imply that the sides are equally legitimate and that reasonable, rational people can take either side.

Consider this controversial area.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 03:31 AM | Comments (63) | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

Bill Clinton has violated the deal made to avoid prosecution at the end of his term as president. As such, the agreement not to prosecute him for his crimes is no longer in effect, and federal authorities should pursue all appropriate charges against the former president. After all, there is no longer any basis for arguing that investigations or a trial interfere with his ability to carry out his official duties. I mean, he no longer has any.

Let's recall what the agreement required. Clinton had to admit that he did, in fact, lie in the Paula Jones case. Furthermore, he had to accept being disbarred. Now he has come back and made the claim that all charges against him were, in fact, false. These claims, in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, seem to be a deal breaker to me.
more...

Posted by: Greg at 05:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, the Texas Left has again demanded that Governor Rick Perry suspend the First Amendment to the US Constitution, insofar as it applies to those who object to the invasion of the United States by undocumented border-jumping criminals. This is the second such demand in the last month.

State Senator Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa and a group of Texas lawmakers attempted to pass a resolution insisting thet the governor prevent the Minutemen from monitoring the Texas-Mexico border for invading border-jumpers, as they did in Arizona this spring. The basis for the demand that the Constitutional right of Americans to peaceably assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances be abridged was that allowing the exercise of those rights could "impede the traffic and negatively affect both tourism and trade along the border."

Governor Perry responded appropriately, though he failed to give support to the Minutemen as I had hoped he would.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 04:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

Forgive my language, but it seems like too many senior pranks this year revolved around shit. Cow manure, chicken feces, and, in one case, even elephant dung were spread around American high schools by graduating seniors, who were just trying to be funny. They weren't -- though the elephant manure did sort of raise the bar for originality.

That is why the senior prank at Montpelier High School in Vermont is such an exceptional one. A group of kids broke into school over the weekend and painted a mural on the lobby ceiling (a picture is included with the article). And the official reaction to the prank is one that demonstrates that administrators can exercise common sense and common decency in carrying out their responsibilities.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 02:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 3 kb.

I am generally warm in my attitude towards Jews. I have similar warm feelings for Israel. That is why I share some concerns with Rachel Neuwirth regarding the recent indictment of Larry Franklin on charges related to mishandling of classified documents, and the likely indictment of certain officials of AIPAC, the principle pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington. I don't want to see our relationship with Israel upset, and I would hate to see the stereotype that Jews are more loyal to Israel than the US reinforced.

But I think Neuwirth goes too far with this concern.
more...

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 688 words, total size 4 kb.

I can't believe it was unanimous.

The law "does not elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution's need to maintain order and safety," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said from the bench in announcing the decision.

Ginsburg said judges who handle inmate cases should give deference to prison administrators.

So what we have here is a vindication of the ability of prisoners to worship freely, provided that doing so does not undermine prison security. Hardly an outrageous proposition -- especially since we give such accommodations to the terrositst ad Gitmo.

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.