To prevent a woman from killing the child in her womb is an insufferable intrusion of the government, but we need the shower police to stop these shower heads from getting the soap out of your eyes.
The Gods of Liberalism Revisited
The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever. But how can we escape the snare?
Saturday, December 24, 2005
...soldiers in Iraq are more likely to get a show from a Christian hip-hop group, a country singer you have probably never heard of and two cheerleaders for the Dallas Cowboys. - The Guardian
The article points out that while previous wars have enjoyed the support of the entertainment industry, they are missing from action in Iraq. Notable exceptions are Gary Sinise, and Ted Nugent with a Glock at his side.
Surprise, surprise. We support the troops, blah blah blah.
Tip of the hat to Al Franken in the article, though; unlike most of his other Leftist buddies, he went to Iraq to perform for the troops. But having a captive audience is about the only way Al Franken is going to get somebody to listen to him anyway. Still, thanks for the effort, Al.
Friday, December 23, 2005
While I'm sure other entertainment options are a factor, maybe Hollywood should take a look at the quality of what they're putting out there.
Family-friendly movies continue to lead in earnings at the box office, but the movie industry insists on pushing trash on us like "Brokeback Mountain," "Memoirs of a Geisha," "Wedding Crashers," "Eyes Wide Shut," "American Beauty," and those awful "American Pie" movies.
It makes sense from a logistical perspective that family-friendly movies would make more money (after all, a family taking the kids to see "Narnia" is going to sell more tickets than just mom and dad going to see "Wedding Crashers" or some homosexuals going to see "Bareback Mountain." But maybe your average American is also realizing that a lot of those filthy moves Hollywood is offering are just pure rot that corrupts your soul--and they don't want to pay to have their hearts darkened.
While they're at it, maybe they should consider the possibility that many Americans (like me) are tired of spending money to support the liberal and anti-American activities of the likes of Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, George Clooney, Janeane Garofalo, Woopie Goldberg, Mike Farrell, and their ilk.
Like all Americans, they're entitled to their opinions, but I find it a little distasteful that we're expected to listen intently to their drivel about how America has generally been screwed up it's whole history when their greatest qualification is that they can pretend to be something they're not.
They have their freedom to make complete idiots of themselves in public, and I have the freedom not to subsidize their public display of anti-Americanism. Hollywood would do well to take a look at that when they try to figure out why Americans aren't spending money on their product--an encourage these ungrateful babies to put a sock in it.
Many media outlets are billing the Science magazine's top scientific achievements as proof of evolution. For example, these headlines:
"Evolution takes science honours" - BBC News
"Darwinism hailed as breakthrough of year in snub to creationists" - The Independent
"Evolution named 2005's top scientific breakthrough" - San Diego Union Tribune
"Journal cites evolution studies in 2005" - USA Today
"Evolution comes out tops" - News24
"Evolution 'breakthrough of the year,' Science journal declares" - CBC Ottowa
"Evolutionary studies top annual scientific breakthrough" - People's Daily Online (China)
"Evolution evidence rated as top ‘breakthrough'" - MSNBC
In the article in BBC News entitled "Evolution takes science honours", we hear
"The studies bestowed with the title "breakthrough of the year" by Science include the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome; recreation of the 1918 flu virus in a laboratory; and a study on European blackcap birds which demonstrated how two different populations can become two separate species."
In the Independent we hear these studies "have shown beyond any doubt how evolution underpins all aspects of modern biology."
The people at Science didn't say that at all. According to BBC News (in a stunning stroke of candor), news editor Colin Norman said, "...it was in the realisation that scientists tend to take for granted that evolution underpins modern biology." He didn't state unequivocally that evolution underpins all aspects of modern biology, he said that scientists tend to take it for granted. BIG difference. Kinda like "Bob Ellis is an incredibly handsome guy" versus "Bob Ellis takes it for granted that he's an incredibly handsome guy"--the difference being reality versus my psychosis.
The Independent article did however point out that the people at Science did have their own agenda: "this year some segments of American society fought to dilute the teaching of even the basic facts of evolution. With all this in mind, Science has decided to put Darwin in the spotlight by saluting several dramatic discoveries, each of which reveals the laws of evolution in action."
But getting back to my overall point, these science achievements (chimp genome sequencing, flu virus recreation, and bird studies) don't prove squat about evolution.
The media--Science magazine included--is just looking to ridicule creationism and intelligent design theory, just like they seek to ridicule anything that doesn't fit their secular liberal worldview. They cannot bear any dissent from their "God is dead, and hail to the evolution of communism" philosophy.
The elephant in the living room that evolutionists try DESPERATELY to ignore is that in order for evolution to occur, NEW genetic material must somehow come into being. Yet the only species changes scientists can point to are small changes that ALWAYS result in a LOSS of genetic information. That's not evolution, but devolution, with the resulting organism retaining less genetic diversity, not more.
For instance, the original dog created by God contained enough DNA (genetic diversity) to produce a large variety of dogs (beagles, German shepherds, poodles, etc). The poodle doesn't "evolve" from the original dog; it merely displays a dominant set of genetic characteristics inherited from its ancestor. No new genetic material came into being; instead, the genetic traits that make a poodle a poodle are isolated by breeding two dogs which both have those dominant genetic characteristics.
In the case of the bird studies, two different kinds of birds does not mean new genetic material has come into being; nowhere in the study does it have the audacity to purport that new genetic material has been produced.
In order for man (and all other organisms) to have evolved from the simple, single-celled organism which evolutionists claim we all came from, a LOT of new genetic material had to come into being.
If you can't show new genetic material coming into being, then you have no proof of evolution or evolutionary change. You can spin it any way you like, but in the end what you've spun bears a strong resemblance to a certain emperor's clothes...
Some scientists say that because monkeys and humans share mostly similar genetic makeup, that this proves humans and monkeys evolved from the same ancestor.
I guess that also proves that since the Chevrolet Beretta and Chevrolet Cavalier share a similar makeup, this proves the Cavalier evolved from the Beretta...
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Cindy Sheehan interview:
You feel like you were mistreated by the press? They got hold of everything I've ever said and scrutinized it so carefully. They never scrutinized what Bush said. No one said, "Why did you lie to the American people and say there was WMD?" The press found an easy target in Iraq, and they found an easy target in me.
Why doesn't this pathetic woman have the self-respect to grieve in person--especially when she's revealing what a complete idiot she is, in the process. You can't even laugh at her pathetic behavior without feeling a little guilty...
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
A U.S. appeals court today upheld the decision of a lower court in allowing the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse display, hammering the American Civil Liberties Union and declaring, "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Naw, really? This is apparently a "revisionist judge" who invented this silly idea that there is no wall of separation between church and state. I bet this judge probably planted a fake case in the Supreme Court records called Wallace v. Jaffrey where he makes it appear that Judge William Rehnquist said the same thing 20 years ago. In fact, all those quotes from the Founders and authors of the Constitution which plainly illustrate no wall of separation were almost certainly planted in the history books by this revisionist judge, too.
(See Saddam item below for further clarification).
Saddam would make a good liberal.
After a witness in his trial testified that Saddam's goons had tortured people by ripping off their skin, Saddam then bloviates about some alleged beating and torture he's been subjected to in jail.
That's just like liberals do! They always accuse other people of doing the exact same thing they do! This domestic spying non-scandal is typical: previous liberal administrations have done the same thing (though not in a global war on terror, just during peacetime), but when Bush does it to prevent another 911 IT'S IMPEACHABLE!!!
They also like to "steal" language that reveals what they're doing. Like how Leftists try to revise history to say the Founders weren't Christians, that the First Amendment was intended to keep religion totally out of the public eye, and so on, and then when you point out that their revisionism is without foundation, they accuse YOU of revisionism just for pointing out THEIR attempt to revise history.
Saddam is also tries his best to throw a money wrench in the works when good people are trying to bring bad people to justice; he even throws as good a tantrum as the Senate liberals.
Maybe the libs should consider Saddam for the '08 ticket. After all, still they're doing their best to legitimize him.