Friday, April 25, 2008
Good news for Ohio families. We are allowed to defend ourselves in our homes.
Quote of the day:
Sen. Tom Sawyer, a Democrat from Akron, added that he didn’t view the legislation as a gun bill, but rather as one focused on self-defense.
“And when I stop thinking about guns, and start thinking about the baseball bat that I keep by my bed in my home, and the right that I reserve to use it to defend myself and my family in the event of an intrusion into my house, it puts a whole different light on the question,” Sawyer said. “And this bill protects me in that circumstance.”
No retreat, dog.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Mornin' Ralph (punches in):
And my point, Rod, is that what you call an "abstract theory" may in fact be something constitutive of the sacrament of Holy Orders as it was established by Jesus Christ, which the Pope does not regard himself as competent to just breeze past with the stroke of a pen. Until that possibility has really been grappled with, the actions of the Pope will continue, I think, to be enigmatic and perverse to you, just as his "refusal" to ordain women continues to completely baffle certain folk who simply regard it as his personal sexism and not as having anything at all to do with the nature of the sacrament.
I repeat: this does not mean that "bishops exist in some special mystical state that the Pope shouldn't threaten". Bishop can be and have been removed. But it does mean that such actions are not going to happen at "the stroke of pen". Not even when the bishop is begging for it and demanding it. Some explanation [other than] "circling the wagons" has to be found to account for the Pope's actions. And I would start with the nature of the sacramental office the bishop has and his *real* relationship with the Papal office, not the Innocent III fantasy that seems to dominate so many people's minds. The Constantinian papacy is loooooong gone. You will not make any headway at all analyzing the actions of either Benedict or John Paul so long as you continue to do so politically first and do not take *seriously* into account their understanding of the theology of the sacrament of Holy Orders. For the matter of that, you won't understand many of the actions of your own bishops till then either.
Posted by: Mark Shea | April 24, 2008 9
This seems to be a 3-point shot in the Spiritual Works of Mercy hoop game; he's instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful and bearing wrongs patiently. Meanwhile, the other team seems to be having trouble with lots of cheap fouls, double-dribbling and several of them have been disqualified for bringing axes and sledgehammers onto the court.
The article is really mostly about Kristol's remarks about Obama's remarks about religion. Sullivan's quote doesn't show up until the end. So as we bloggers tend to say, read the whole thing, but I'm giving away the end because it's spot-on and flippin' hilarious:
And now for the grossly undialectical bit. The ink on the Times was not yet dry when Andrew Sullivan rushed to the defense of his idol, I mean Obama. When one types all the time, sooner or later everything will be typed, and so Sullivan, in his fury against Kristol, typed this: "A non-Christian manipulator of Christianity is calling a Christian a liar about his faith." Ponder that early adjective. It is Jew baiting. I was not aware that only Christians can judge Christians, or that there are things about which a Jew cannot call a Christian a liar. If Kristol is wrong about Obama, it is not because Kristol is a Jew. So this fills me with a certain paschal wrath. Nice little blog you have there, Obama boy. Pity if frogs or locusts should happen to it. Let my people be!
Of course, if Kristol was a Christian believer, Sullivan would call him a "Christianist" because of his political stances. Does anyone still think this gay goofball is a conservative?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
There are two articles from yesterday that I read back-to-back and I advise everyone who still thinks the environmentalists really care about anything beyond politics to do the same.
First, check out Patrick Moore's "Why I left Greenpeace" in WSJ. Excerpt:
But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.
The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.
Then jump to Iain Murray's column in NR. Excerpt:
In 2004, for example, researchers on the Potomac River, downstream from Washington, D.C., found large-mouth bass that in most respects were males, but who had eggs in their sexual organs. Quite often when this happens to fish, they find themselves unable to reproduce. When it happens primarily to male fish, the fish population in general suffers.
The cause of intersexuality among fish, scientists speculate, is pollution in the water, particularly hormones. Why don’t we have more outcries about hormones, and campaigns to save the fish populations? Why aren’t environmentalists lobbying on Capitol Hill to keep these chemicals from being dumped into our rivers?
Maybe because the source of these chemicals is not some corporate polluter, but something a little more dear to the Left: human birth-control pills, morning-after pills, and abortion pills.
The environmentalists’ silence on this topic and their willful distortions when they do talk about it show how, for many of them, the environment is more a tool for advancing favored policies than a real cause in itself.
I suppose being large-mouth bass these transgendered males really look good in lipstick. But bad memories of fish nets probably keep them from doing drag routines.
Obviously some chemicals are "protected" by these self-appointed guardians of the environment.
We should all refuse to be lectured by these dangerous moral idiots on any subject. They are not scientists. As far as humanity is concerned they never make sense, correct me when that's been proven to be untrue. And now it turns out they don't care what happens to animals either. The truth is they really don't care about anything but political power and an increasingly incoherent agenda.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Earth Day. Whatever. Happy Earth day.... Earth.
Well, it's a reader's birthday today, and I wouldn't know except that now there are all these automagical networking systems out there sending people information. So here's a little homemade video made by someone having way too much fun. Don't tell the internet Puritans.