Wow. Read the whole thing here. Rush Limbaugh is right when he calls abortion the sacrament of the Democratic Party.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Oh, well... My opinion: if he decides to take a page from the first black president, he may win re-election. Excerpts:
Obama's approval rating in April 12-14 polling is down most among independents when compared with his 2011 average to date as well as his term average among this group. Currently, 35% of independents approve of the president, nine points off his average from independents this year. Democrats' current ratings are also below what he has averaged thus far in 2011 (down four points), while Republicans' are the same.
President Obama is now as unpopular as he has been at any time since he became president. He faces difficult challenges ahead in trying to improve the economy and get the federal budget deficit under control, and must do so with Republicans in control of the House. His ability to navigate these challenges will help determine whether he will be elected to a second term as president. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton all were similarly unpopular at this stage of their presidencies, but the last two were able to turn things around in time to win a second term in office.
Friday, April 15, 2011
This is creative destruction at its absolute best. Check out the comments to the video, they're very funny, especially when some obviously unamused folks start warning about all the toxic substances in old TV sets and receive sarcastic and dismissive remarks from the producer of the video.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Of course I was immediately impressed with his profile picture which speaks a thousand words, as all pictures do. I think some of those words are "There's nothing like your favorite wine to take the edge off a bad hair day." Or something like that.
Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Here's a good Am Thinker article about Trump and his strategic request as a non-birther for President Obama to release his birth certificate. The main thrust of the piece is to show how bad the media looks in their soft handling of Obama's shady background. To me, the last three paragraphs are the most cogent and interesting:
This has important implications for the country. Questions about Obama's family and his relationship to Islam, for example, and hence his world view, remain subjects of speculation. Former CIA officer Larry Johnson, for example, believes that the full birth record from the State of Hawaii was probably amended in 1968 to show Obama was adopted by his step father, the Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro, that he became formally known for a time as "Barry Soetoro," and may even have his religion listed as Muslim. This would completely change what Obama has said about his past and represent a public fraud of a very significant magnitude.
At the very least the full record might help explain Obama's strange discomfort with exercising American power against radical Muslim regimes in Libya and elsewhere, where he has farmed out the defense of American interests to the United Nations, and his insistence on "dialogue" with rogue Muslim regimes in Syria and Iran. All of this while touting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Al Qaeda associated Muslim opposition groups in Libya as democracy craving freedom fighters.
Some of the missing details of Obama's life are doubtlessly trivial. Obama probably has benign explanations for not providing more information about them. Even Trump admits that the evidence strongly suggests Obama was born in Hawaii and is an American citizen. But that Obama has not yet released this information, and that the media refuses to criticize him for not doing so, is a testament not to the insanity of the "birthers," but to Obama's penchant for secrecy, and the dangerous amount of latitude the media has been willing to cede him.
Maybe a few people still wonder what I really think about the recent attempts by the legal, media and entertainment industries to resurrect the dead scandal involving gay Catholic priests abusing kids. Fortunately there is now an ad written by Bill Donohue and run in the New York Times by the Catholic League which can serve as a manifesto for my position. You can read it here and after you do, you will understand exactly what I think about it. There are some really choice paragraphs in it will I will excerpt and add my own comments below.
Every time a new wave of accusations surfaces in one diocese, not coincidentally we see a spike in accusations in other dioceses. What is not often reported is that the vast majority of new accusations extend back decades. For example, for the first quarter of this year, 80 percent of the cases of alleged abuse involve incidences that occurred before 2000.
This is significant and sheds light on what a joke most accusations are. Yes, most accusations against priests are a JOKE. Want me to write it again? The people who have legitimate accusations are the ones who should be the most angry about this current situation because they are lumped in with the other lying money-grubbers.
The refrain that child rape is a reality in the Church is twice wrong: let’s get it straight—they weren’t children and they weren’t raped. We know from the John Jay study that most of the victims have been adolescents, and that the most common abuse has been inappropriate touching (inexcusable though this is, it is not rape). The Boston Globe correctly said of the John Jay report that “more than three-quarters of the victims were post pubescent, meaning the abuse did not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia.” In other words, the issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia.
Bill Donohue sounds like a broken record on this, but he has to keep saying it because the kids in the media haven't gotten it yet. Once everybody knows it and understands the ramifications I'm sure that Donohue won't feel the need to continue educating everyone.
Why are priests being singled out when the sexual abuse of minors among other segments of the population is on-going today? According to Virginia Commonwealth University professor Charol Shakeshaft, the nation’s leading education expert on this issue, “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” We know from the work of Jenkins, and others, that there is no reason to believe that the rate of abuse is higher among Catholic priests than among the clergy of other religions. Moreover, there has been a slew of stories over the past few years detailing the extent of this problem in the Orthodox Jewish community; some rabbis still insist that sexual abuse cases should be handled internally. No wonder Jenkins maintains, “As a result of the furious investigations of the past decades, and particularly the John Jay study, the U.S. Catholic clergy are now the only major group on the planet that has ever been subjected to such a detailed examination of abuse complaints, using internal evidence that could not have come to light in any other way.”
In civil society, public teachers should be held to just as high a standard as Catholic priests. Justice is blind... remember?
The real damage done by the therapeutic approach is that it fostered the phenomenon of reassigning priests after they were treated. The exact same thing happened in the teaching profession. Indeed, moving treated teachers to new school districts is so common that it is called “passing the trash.” While moving treated priests to new parishes is no longer tolerated, the New York Times found that the practice of moving abusers around who work in New York’s state-run homes is commonplace.
In civil society, public administrators should be held to just as high a standard as Catholic bishops. Justice is blind... remember?
If I as a Catholic want to be angrier as a Catholic about the Catholic Bishops and priests screwing up one way or the other then that's fine. Maybe I get piety points for that, I don't know. In fact, maybe I'll make some targets with the US Catholic bishops' face on them to go shoot at the pistol range. That would accomplish a lot because it would show everybody how serious I am about child abuse, dammit.
There is a huge difference between an accusation, a credible accusation, a substantiated accusation and a finding of guilt. But not when it applies to priests. I once had a female reporter lambaste me in my office when I expressed my opposition to proposals calling for all dioceses to publish the names of accused priests. I then asked her for her boss’ name and phone number. Startled, she asked why. “Because I want to press charges against you for sexually harassing me,” I intoned, “and then I want to see your name posted on your employer’s website.” She got the point.
This is exactly the right way to educate these asinine prigs. Hold up a mirror—"This is what you look like."