Children seem to be less and less an extension and part of family and more and more a liberal government controlled set of peoples.
Parents have to worry about swatting their child on the behind for inappropriate behavior, while then being told they do not have the right to know their child is having an abortion?
Can't swat 'em, but can snuff 'em?
Can't swat a kid on the behind to hopefully give them reason to think twice before doing a wrongful act again, but can readily snuff them (through abortion) so that won't even be an issue? And this is suppose to make sense?
How did Planned Parenthood (and others) get so much control over the behavior and raising of "OUR" children? Who are they to make "OUR" decisions about how "OUR" children should be raised and what consequences "OUR" children face for inappropriate behavior?
Maybe it is time to figure out how other people wrongfully got so much control in the lives of "OUR" children and then take steps to reverse it all and get "OUR" children back under "OUR" loving influence. An influence that truly seeks the best for the children we actually know and love!
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, March 10, 2007
Children seem to be less and less an extension and part of family and more and more a liberal government controlled set of peoples.
When I think of Burger King, I think of a restaurant that is focused on children and family. Well, that is what I thought until I saw the commercial on the SciFi channel where a ballerina puts her hands down a man's (front) pant pockets. Talk about lewd and suggestive in the way it was done! I nearly fell backwards out of the room.
I looked up Burger King's site with the intent of sending them an email regarding this commercial. (A commercial that runs during times that children and teens may very well be viewing television.) They don't accept emails. Surprise! Surprise!
While on BK's site, I read their corporate policies regarding unsolicited marketing ideas. It stated in part, "We appreciate your interest in presenting us ideas, but our staff already extends much effort toward the development and implementation of new services, products, techniques, and equipment." I wonder if this, "we don't want to hear your ideas" applies to reactions to commercials as well? Irregardless of what they want, I do, for one, intend to contact them and let them know what I think about the commercial and it's vulgar suggestiveness.
Burger King doesn't have to listen to my opinion regarding their lewd commercial, but neither do I have to spend a dime there and I won't be!
Thank you for the introduction and welcome, Bob! I look forward to joining the fray!
Friday, March 09, 2007
I'll be extremely busy for the next couple of weeks and doing a fair amount of traveling, so I won't be doing much posting to the blog, or to the main Dakota Voice website.
In the meantime, I'd like to introduce you to Carrie K. Hutchens, who you might have noticed has already started doing some blogging in the past couple of days.
Thanks for holding down the fort, Carrie, and welcome to the fray!
Hot off the press from The Associate Press (published in the New York Times on March 9, 2007) is the article, "Gingrich Says He Cheated on His Wife"
An article that states:
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group."
I find the suggestion that Gingrich was going after Clinton for doing the same thing as he to be both inappropriate and misleading. Perhaps some do not remember, but it was PERJURY that was the issue being addressed. President Clinton lied under oath. An act that is taken seriously when done by someone other than him.
Pointing this out does not condone Gingrich's inappropriate behavior.
On the other hand, to suggest that Gingrich was going after Clinton for like behavior is liken to an attempt of down-grading the seriousness, and all the while distorting the truth, about what Clinton did. There is no getting around it -- he (Clinton) lied under oath and he lied to the American people. That needs to remembered for the importance it was and is!... not something to be swept under the rug by misleading suggestions.
Did you happen to see the pics going around the internet a couple of weeks ago showing some polar bears supposedly stranded on little chunks of ice--due to global warming, of course.
In case you were worried, it's no big deal. From the UK Telegraph:
However, Prof Derocher conceded that some polar bear-related evidence of the damaging effect of global warming was misplaced.
Contrary to concern over a celebrated photograph of a bear and its cub floating on a tiny iceberg, the animals often travel in that way, he said.
'Bears will often hang out on glacier ice or large pieces of multi-year ice,' he said.
(How polar bears deal with global warming)
And the bear population is doing quite well despite "global warming," thank you very much.
A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.
In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.
"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.
It looks like concern about this "North American Union" thing is moving beyond something that can be dismissed as "Right-wing conspiracy theory."
WorldNetDaily has a story today about 11 states with legislation opposing various forms of this plan:
The resolutions also typically oppose the creation of North American Free Trade Act superhighways along the model of the Trans-Texas Corridor, the car-truck-train-pipeline corridor that is four football-fields wide and is being built parallel to Interstate 35 from Laredo, Texas to the border with Oklahoma, south of Oklahoma City.
The WND article lists Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and even South Dakota. The South Dakota bill listed is SCR 7, "Urging that the United States withdraw from the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and any other bilateral or multilateral activity that seeks to create a North American Union."
I don't know for sure if this is a part of the same thing, but the South Dakota Department of Labor says the "Heartland Express" which is upgrading Highway 79 going south out of Rapid City is a part a "superhighway" which is intended to run from Mexico to Canada.
This might be something you'll want to read up on.
Did Ann Coulter call John Edwards a wuss?
From The Politico:
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said Wednesday he would not participate in the debate, citing Fox's conservative ties as a factor. His deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, sent an e-mail to the liberal website DailyKos, which was posted on the site.
Fox News looks conservative to Dems because anything that doesn't have a liberal slant like all the other networks appears "conservative" by comparison.
Republicans debate and go on news shows weekly on liberal networks such as CNN, PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS, et al all the time. Can't the Dems defend their views on the one network that's not ideologically aligned with liberalism?
As I've advocated family cohesiveness, I've often been challenged about what can be done to make it easier for one or more parents to stay home with their children to raise them, rather than paying someone else to do it.
Here's one thing, sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), from OneNewsNow:
Currently, the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit only provides a tax credit for paid daycare. Congressman Terry says a tremendous financial burden has been placed on middle-class families, sometimes forcing both parents to have to work just to make ends meet. 'So why not use the tax code,' he asks, 'to give the parents the option to empower the family if one parent wishes to stay home?'
No one will take care of your child like you, and no one will instill in them your values like you can. Usually sacrifices have to be made to give our children the best upbringing possible. This bill would make it a little bit easier.
Here's the headline from WBIR: "California high school students openly smoke medical marijuana at school"
Some California teens are giving a new meaning to 'high' school.Advertisement
Students are finding easy access to medical marijuana cards and presenting those cards to school authorities as a legitimate excuse for getting high.
This is just one reason I'm against the "medical marijuana" movement.
Two political scientists who analyzed two decades worth of Field Polls on the subject found that age was the strongest factor influencing whether someone opposed gay unions, with people born in the 1970s and '80s more than twice as likely to support them as those born before 1940.
This isn't too surprising. We used to teach people right from wrong back then. We stopped bothering with such things around the '60s.
Departing from normal procedures, the cable network didn't tout its big ratings win. The network also scheduled a last-minute special that harshly criticized its own documentary, and has yanked a planned repeat of 'Tomb.'
Maybe they realized, too late, that this dog just won't hunt.
From the Australian Sidney Morning Herald
TEN NETWORK's programmers are baffled. With so much attention on climate change and consumer research indicating viewers were keenly interested in a 2½ hour feast of practical advice on how they might save the planet, Ten's ratings for the Cool Aid blockbuster on Sunday night were still a disaster.
Maybe people just aren't buying what the Leftist media is feeding them about this global warming myth. Maybe many in the public who say they're buying it are really just trying to look like they're "with the herd" and don't really believe in it where it counts.
Even if a cool show was on another channel, if they really cared about it, I'd think they'd tune in.
Maybe this is an indication that the global warming hysteria runs shallow.
IMUS: This is not just something that has happened under the Bush administration.
SCHUMER: No . . . but with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the system has just been overloaded . . .
IMUS: Why haven’t any of you done anything about it?
SCHUMER: I tried . . . I’ve been pushing for better veterans benefits for years . . . We’ll get full funding for the VA this year for the first time . . .
IMUS: This is nonsense . . . You can’t possibly, seriously suggest that because the Democrats are now in power that something is going to be done about Walter Reed and about the mess at the Veterans Administration . . . That’s preposterous . . . Have you ever visited Walter Reed? When was the last time you were there?
SCHUMER: Not in a while, no . . . not since before Iraq…
Imus is a liberal, and while I can't stomach most of them (with the barely-articulate Ed Schultz at the top of the list), Imus at least has some intellectual honesty. I frequently enjoy listening to his show even though I seldom agree with him politically. I've often heard him get after Democrats for some of the stupid things they've said and done.
Wish I had heard this one...
After four years of the Democrats telling President Bush how he's done everything wrong in Iraq, I'm glad they've come up with a clear plan for victory.
From the Washington Times:
Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, of the Out of Iraq Caucus could hardly keep the details straight as she attempted to excoriate the plan proposed by her Democratic leaders.
'What they say is, if in fact there is no progress that we will pull out, if they can't certify by October, by December, but if there is progress, if they are doing well, we will stay,' she said. 'This would eventually get us out perhaps by March. The latest we would get out I guess with another progress report, or certification, by August of 1980.'
'Wait -- August '08,' Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat, quickly corrected her colleague.
'Oh, August '08,' Mrs. Waters corrected herself. 'That's how confusing it is.'
I guess we'll have victory if we don't have defeat, in which case it will be okay as long as it's not okay. Okay?
And the American people decided to trust these people with the nation?
Though I don't think I'd have said what Ann Coulter said, at the same time I've thought the furor over her "faggot" comment in connection with John Edwards was little more than political opportunism by Democrats and their willing accomplices in the "mainstream" media.
Reinforcing my estimation is a story from CNS News about how Leftists have used the word "faggot" before with no recriminations:
Daily Kos postings have included the word 'faggot' at least three times in recent years, as have other liberal blogs -- without apology, and without generating a furor.
Read the article for a list of uses.
It's beginning to look like "faggot" is a lot like the words "queer" or "nigger." If you're in the group associated with those words, then apparently it's okay to say the word. If you're not in that group, then it's verboten and you're a heathen bigot.
Using a word that accurately describes someone or someones behavior is one thing; slurs that just seek to degrade are another. Maybe we'd be better off if everyone--even those who use such words about themselves and their own "groups"--left off the slurs.
The Pierre Capital Journal has a story about how South Dakotans have the best credit score in the country, tied with Vermont:
Data from Experian credit services shows an average credit score for people in South Dakota at 705, which is the highest in the nation, tied only with Vermont. Data from Experian credit services shows an average credit score for people in South Dakota at 705, which is the highest in the nation, tied only
Some have ideas about why South Dakota may have this distinction:
"I think we use less consumer debt than other parts of the country, which would tend to improve our scores," Fitzke said. "I think our cost of living is considerably lower than in other parts of the county."
State Farm agent Gary Heintz said he thinks part of it might just be values.
"The people in South Dakota, in general are conservative by nature," he said. "They seem to be more conservative about what they do financially. Maybe that's tradition, maybe the heritage of the area has something to do with it."
I would guess it's a combination of the two. Economics are definitely a factor, but having spent several years working collections in the finance industry, I've seen that values and moral decisions have a lot to do with repaying debts.
As the Bible says, the wicked borrow and do not repay.
The Rapid City Journal has a piece on a rather disgusting French "performance artist" group called Costes who performed at the Dahl Fine Arts Center Wednesday.
After stripping off their grubby clothes, the pair gobbled potato chips and spit them on the crowd, vomited into a filthy commode and threw around fake feces and urine before being shut down about a half hour into what was to be a 45-minute
I won't reiterate the worst of what they did--you can go read the story if you want to know--but I don't think this fits within the category of "fine arts." Apparently even the promoter Kevin Dorsman agreed because he was the one who pulled the plug.
Any of us can make a mistake and end up with something we didn't expect, but Dorsman probably learned a lesson in doing much deeper research into the events he will promote in the future.
There's considerable discussion today in the South Dakota blog world about Sibby not being included in the Argus Leader's blogroll; both the South Dakota War College and South Dakota Politics are talking about it.
Sibby has strong opinions, and though it may come as a shock to my "dark companion" Todd Epp, I don't always fully agree with him. But I'm sure Sibby doesn't always agree with me, either. I can't even get my wife to agree with me all the time, so why should I expect anyone else to?
If I can presume to speak for him somewhat, Sibby's comment about Satan was not absurd...unless you've lost touch with Christian theology. If someone is doing work that Satan would be proud of, as many on both sides of the political aisle are doing these days, then I think it's fair to link them to Satan. Are they completely evil people? I guess that's for God and Satan to know, but perhaps we can glean something from the magnitude and volume of their actions; after all, the Bible does say we'll know where people's allegiances are by their fruits.
And if you don't think Satan exists, then congrats: he has you right where he wants you.
The Argus has every right to exclude Sibby from their blogroll. I don't include some of the blogs that feature content which is consistently far beyond anything I could in good conscious facilitate access to. And many blogs don't include Dakota Voice, probably for the same reason.
Truth be told, I don't hold "mainstream" newspaper blogs in very high regard anyway (the Rapid City Journal's Mt. Blogmore is pretty much just a forum for liberal commenters--Blogmorites--who otherwise wouldn't have the gumption to start a blog of their own). The "mainstream" media gets enough of their "objective" opinion out in their news stories--why do they need a blog to further spread their liberal slant?
But even before I read Sibby's latest post, somehow I knew he wasn't crying in his cornflakes over it.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
If President Bush has done anything wrong with the Iraq war, it was in not fighting it aggressively enough during the initial combat phase, or in the aftermath.
Marvin Olasky apparently agrees. From his TownHall.com column:
It turns out that Sherman was right: When an army gains an advantage, it has to pound away, not let up. My early misassumption -- and far more important, the Bush administration's -- became evident quickly: On May 15, 2004, the cover headline in World, the magazine I edit, was 'WHAT A MESS: U.S. mishandling of postwar Iraq is a recipe for civil war.'
Olasky now realizes "compassionate warfare" isn't feasible:
Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman would have scoffed at such a campaign. His doctrine was, "War is cruelty. You cannot refine it." He ravaged Georgia and South Carolina in 1864 and 1865, but had he not shown how devastating total war was, the surrender of Robert E. Lee might have been followed by years of guerrilla warfare.
Sometimes you just have to get in there and fight...and sometimes people get hurt.
I think Bush may have made the same mistake in Iraq that he made when he came to Washington determined to implement this "new tone" business, where he thought he could work rationally with national Democrats.
The fallacy of this assumption was quickly proved after he invited Ted Kennedy to the White House for popcorn and movies, only to have Kennedy viciously stab him in the back and malign him politically. Bush failed to realize that Washington Democrats aren't like most state-level Democrats. Back home in Texas, Democrats were still somewhat reasonable; in Washington, 98 out of 100 of them are nothing but socialists that would rather see their own country disgraced and crippled than see a Republican succeed.
Similarly, Islamic fanatics will never love the United States. You can set them free from their Islamic oppressors, and they'll only hate you for fighting another Muslim. Not all Muslims are like this, but there are enough to make Iraq a tough row to hoe.
Bush's "misassumption" with Ted Kennedy and Islamofacists is the same misunderstanding that many Americans suffer from: they can't come to grips that some people are just evil.
There are some people out there, as hard to believe as it may be, who are intent on doing harm to good people. They are intent on doing evil. It's a simple fact. It's also a simple fact that people like this must be dealt with swiftly, firmly, and without hesitation.
The faster Bush--and the American people--realizes this, the better we'll all be.
The Heritage Foundation released an interesting report today: Federal Spending 2007: By the Numbers.
To me, the most telling figure is found in the chart above. It shows in 2006 we spent 20.75% of the budget on defense (one of the few constitutionally authorized areas of government spending) versus 53% on pure, unadulterated socialism...which incidentally is NOT authorized by our U.S. Constitution.
Consider these statements by the men who helped forge this nation and write its constitution:
A wise and frugal government...shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. – Thomas Jefferson
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson
With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison
Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. – James Madison
So take a look at that budget (click it to enlarge it) and tell me: what's wrong with this picture?
How many times has this happened, only with abortuaries sweeping it under the rug?
In Italy, doctors are trying to save a child who survived an abortion attempt after he was misdiagnosed with a fetal deformity.
From the Australian Courier Mail:
The child's mother aborted 22 weeks into the pregnancy after doctors from the Florentine teaching hospital, Careggi, told her two ultrasound scans showed a high risk of a defective oesophagus. But when the fetus was aborted, heart still beating, doctors realised the child had been perfectly healthy, and rushed to resuscitate him. The child's mother aborted 22 weeks into the pregnancy after doctors from the Florentine teaching hospital, Careggi, told her two ultrasound scans showed a high risk of a defective oesophagus. But when the fetus was aborted, heart still beating, doctors realised the child had been perfectly healthy, and rushed to resuscitate him.
Why not wait and see if the boy was going to be healthy, or even survive? Why not leave his life up to God?
Obviously God's a little smarter than even doctors.
For those of you who look to Europe and long for the United States to be like them (including their socialized medicine), take note.
From Investors Business Daily:
Europeans once thought they had a better way — a 'third way' between socialism and capitalism — that would deliver both income equality and economic growth. But in reality, the third way delivers neither — and now Europe faces a massive, long-term problem of catching up to the U.S.
This isn't just our opinion. It's the basic conclusion of a study by Eurochambres, a continentwide business think tank. It concludes that the European Union is roughly 20 years behind the U.S. in economic development. Twenty years.
It's interesting to see something I used to say when I lived in England now come out in print from an official study. I used to observe British technological innovation, culture and societal infrastructure and often remarked, "They're about 20 years behind the States."
According to the Eurochambres report, the U.S. reached Europe's current level of economic development — as measured by GDP per person —back in 1985, a 21-year deficit. Europe also lags behind in a number of other measures, including productivity (17 years), employment and R&D (28 years), and Internet use (four years).
So why the difference?
Why the difference? The U.S. has smaller government, less regulation and much higher productivity. It also has what Nobel Prize-winning economist Edmund Phelps recently called "dynamism" — a culture of entrepreneurialism that doesn't exist in Europe.
You can essentially boil that paragraph down to one word: socialism. It destroys the will of people to exercise responsibility, frugality, initiative, or effort above and beyond the minimum necessary.
Hat tip to the folks at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Yep, if it ain't about sex, abortion, murder, assisted suicide and death -- it's considered fair game to remove it from the public eye, it would seem!
The pro-family group that initiated a business boycott of Ford Motor Company last spring is calling a recent move by Ford -- dropping sponsorship of an awards show held by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) -- one of a series of steps by the automaker to 'silently' move away from its support of the homosexual agenda.
I've heard reports over the last year or so that Ford was continuing to lose ground. The article goes on to say
The automaker's financial bottom line has continued to drop since the start of the boycott last March; sales were down 13.5 percent in February compared to a year ago.
Many companies try to curry favor with homosexual activists just because homosexual activists are a vocal minority. If people who believed in traditional values would just speak up a little more, maybe some sanity might return to our culture.
For those of you who were so happy when they finally murdered Terri Schiavo a couple of years ago, I hope you think long and hard about your position when you read about the woman who spent seven years in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) like Schiavo, but woke up for three days and was talking.
A woman who spent nearly seven years in a coma, woke up for a short time Sunday and started talking. Christa Lilly, a native of Colorado Springs, relapsed into her previous unconscious state today.
Lilly suffered a heart attack and then a stroke in November 2000 and was diagnosed as being in a 'vegetative' state but with her eyes open. Like Florida's Terri Schindler Schiavo, she is being kept alive by a feeding and hydration tube while unconscious.
During her short period of wakefulness, Lilly spoke with CBS affiliate KKTV news reporters, saying, 'I think it's wonderful. It makes me so happy.' She said that she was having difficulty re-learning how to speak, but was eating cake. Lilly had experienced periods of wakefulness before, but had never spoken.
Terri Schiavio had been trying to talk, could smile and laugh, and look around for a long time before they euthanized her. But somehow none of that was important to many of you. Just because she couldn't actually talk, and because a few men in white coats said her life wasn't worth living, you jumped on the bandwagon to murder her.
Tell me: does this incident cause you to stop and think for just a moment, and maybe reevaluate your position? Or is your head still stuck firmly in the sand?
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
The article is about the decline of morals and values in America, but also sheds light on the media's role in this slide.
"The media really take it on the chin," Fitzpatrick said. "Americans from virtually every demographic division, every values group, agree that the media are damaging America's moral values."
CMI said Americans should demand that the media "strive to more fairly represent all views, including those of the Orthodox."
"Americans perceive a decline in American cultural and moral values, and it's only going to get worse as long as the media continue to promote liberal, secular values," Fitzpatrick said.
That's why Dakota Voice exists. You get plenty of Godless, secular values from most of the media. It's time we had more traditional values represented in the news, especially in South Dakota.
From Fox News:
'This is the Katrina of 2007,' said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., comparing the hospital scandal to the 2005 hurricane that left Gulf Coast residents stranded for days without federal assistance.
You mean this is the biggest piece of overblown political opportunism we've seen since Katrina? Because that's what the "Katrina scandal" was. That was a case of blame-Bush-instead-of-the-state-and-local-nincompoops-who-screwed-up-evacuation-and-response.
This, however, appears to be a genuine problem. But while Schumer and the Dems lick their chops at another opportunity to blame Bush for something, people should realize that the neglect and bureaucratic mess at Walter Reed didn't just materialize in the last 6 years. This goes back through the Clinton administration and perhaps even before that.
Messes like this don't happen overnight. So we'll see whether the Dems in charge of Congress actually care about helping the troops, or whether it's just another vehicle to bash Bush for something.
Several weeks ago, administrators at Heritage High School in Vancouver, Washington, denied a request from Christian students to start a prayer club. The students, who were not allowed to meet for prayer in a private room, instead gathered before school in the cafeteria to pray; however, they were reported by a student who claims to be a Satanist.
The school's vice principal then told the Christian students they could not pray in the cafeteria and would have to go outside. The Christian students refused and were suspended, some for three days and others for ten days. Staver says the students' constitutional rights were violated.
This is absolutely outrageous!
That we have sunk so low, and that public educators have so lost touch with the Christian roots of this country, and have such a lame understanding of America's highest law, that they would deny children their First Amendment right to pray!
If Christians don't quit sitting around, wringing their hands and belly-aching without going on the offensive to defend what is right, this kind of attitude is going to be entrenched as the de facto law of the land.
I've been critical of a number of Governor Rounds' initiatives in the past few months, so it's only fair that I give him credit where it's due.
The Argus Leader says this morning, he vetoed the booster seat bill that would have required children 5-8 weighing less than 80 pounds be in a booster seat in the car.
He said he has an initiative that encourages parents to use booster seats for “appropriate children,’’ but he told lawmakers in his veto message “I do not believe mandating and criminalizing their conduct is good public policy.’’
I'm all for requiring small children to be in a child seat, and I'm all for requiring older children to be in a seat belt (though I'm against mandating it for adults who can make their own informed decision to be stupid), but this bill was nit-picky and as the governor also said, difficult to enforce.
Kudos to Governor Rounds for his veto of "nanny state" legislation.
Hat tip to Chad at Clean Cut Kid (see, we CAN agree on something). :-)
Is God trying to tell these global warming hystericists something?
From Drudge today:
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily points out in his column today that Associated Press (AP), probably the most widely used news wire, is big on Leftist propaganda.
Farah points out that the New York Times, CNN and other media outlets catch a lot of deserved grief for their Leftist slant, but they may not be the biggest offender:
Yet, it is my considered opinion that one news agency gets off nearly scot-free from criticism despite being the worst purveyor of political propaganda and distortion.
I refer to the largest news-gathering organization in the world – the Associated Press.
The Rapid City Journal and most newspapers around the country use AP for their national news. Unless the newspaper is in a large metropolitan area, they just don't have the resources to investigate news on a national scale. So they rely on services like AP to bring world and national news to their readers.
Examples from the Journal today:
This has a lot to do with how liberal bias has become so prolific in our culture: wire services like AP that are used across the country spread the bias like wildfire, regardless of how much or how little the paper's editorial board leans Leftward.
Just something to be aware of when you're reading the newspaper: take everything with a grain of salt.
The National Center for Policy Analysis has a piece today on how the Massachusetts health care mandate may cost twice the original estimate:
Then-Gov. Mitt Romney estimated coverage could be obtained through the state-run 'Connector' -- which allows those who don't have access to employer-based insurance to obtain coverage -- for as little as $200 per month.
However, this January, when the state-run Connector announced its minimum plan requirements, some insurers projected their premiums would run as high as $380 per month -- nearly double the earlier estimate.
As the South Dakota legislature looks at health care ideas in our state with their Zaniya Project, they would do well to take note of this, especially since some of the same people involved in producing this "wonder" in Mass. testified before the SD legislature in January.
Apparently it isn't only cat farts that are destroying the planet. Seems that same company that was offering products to make your cat "carbon neutral" are also offering fart fixers for your dog.
From National Geographic:
For 35 Australian dollars (about 27 U.S. dollars), customers of Sydney-based Easy Being Green can offset a year's worth of carbon emissions linked to their dogs, from trips to the vet to, yes, breaking wind.
Socialists who are just honest-to God ignorant (as opposed to the ones who know better and just don't care) wonder how I can be so opposed to socialized medicine and greater government involvement in government health care.
Well, read up on the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal and you'll have a clue. I was in the Air Force for 10 years, with three of those years stationed in England (where they have a National Health Service), so I know a little about government run health care first hand.
From Terence Jeffrey's Townhall column today
From the start, this government health-care system has mishandled his outpatient care. It discharged him from the hospital when he was still disoriented, giving him a 'photocopied map' so he could find his way alone -- on stumbling feet -- to the hotel. It let him sit idly in his room for two weeks because his case manager could not locate him. It forced him to file masses of paperwork. (Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull, who broke the story about Shannon and the mismanagement of outpatient care at Walter Reed, reported that soldiers moving through the process are required to fill out 22 different documents filed with eight different commands.)
After a number of months, Shannon testified, Walter Reed had to restart his MEB process because it lost his paperwork. This January, he was told his MEB and PEB needed to be suspended until he finally undergoes the plastic surgery he needs and is fitted with a prosthetic eye.
It is as if he were in a time machine that keeps taking him back to the start of his ordeal. 'I'm hearing the same things about the process that I heard when I first began two years ago,' he said.
I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg, too. There are probably countless military men and women with stories like this, perhaps some that make this one pale in comparison.
If you truly knew what government health care had in store, even the notion of it being "free" wouldn't be enough to keep you from running the other way as fast as you could.
I walked in the room just in time to see the video on CNN of the teenage uncle allegedly giving his baby nephews pot to smoke. I shook my head. Just more PROOF that this world has gone mad and started doing so many years ago -- not just recently. This uncle is maybe 17 years of age and somewhere back in his younger days, he was led to believe this behavior is acceptable??? And that is the scary part of it all. He just doesn't GET IT -- he doesn't GET what the big deal is!?!?! How many others are in the very same "duh mode"?
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
What's wrong with this picture (the one below, not the one on the left)?
From Yahoo News:
The owner and three managers of a New Bedford leather manufacturer that's won more than $91 million in U.S. military contracts were arrested Tuesday for allegedly hiring illegal immigrants.
Whatever happend to doing what's right for your country...even when you're not making a buck?
This is why last year's South Dakota Amendment C (marriage protection amendment) used the term "quasi marital" in banning all forms of same-sex unions. Proponents of the measure knew homosexual activists would continue to coin new terms to try and skirt prohibitions on legal recognition of homosexual unions.
From the Concord Monitor (hat tip to the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy):
In addition to Baxley's bill, which would create full-fledged same-sex marriage, lawmakers will debate a Vermont-style civil unions proposal. Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, a Manchester Republican, proposed that bill, which would give same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples. Splaine considers spousal unions to be somewhere between civil unions and same-sex marriage, since 'we would be terming our partners as spouses.'
The Rapid City Journal has an editorial today advocating the taxpayer funded HPV vaccine.
One of the important aspects they gloss over is that it isn't "free" as they claim. It's being paid for by the taxpayers, which is you and me. Unlike mumps or measles, HPV is pretty much exclusively behaviorally related. So the taxpayers get to pay to protect people from exercising responsibility.
The editorial board also says remaining abstinent until marriage isn't "always attainable" when the girl grows up. Well, that's true. Many may not, especially if we demonstrate to them that we don't expect them to. And if as an adult they decide to ingore their parents advice and have sex before marriage, they can march themselves down to the nearest clinic and pay for their own HPV vaccination.
Some of those posting comments to the "Rapid Reply" at the bottom of the story have some telling remarks, such as "Reader":
"I think those mothers who feel heir daughters are saving themselves until marriage should wake up. This isn't the Leave it to Beaver generation anymore. The kids are engaging in "promiscuous" behavior in their early teens now, both male and female. It's not uncommon anymore to see kids as young as 13 or 13 going to the doctor for problems relating to sex."
With that kind of defeatist attitude that says, "I expect my kids to screw around," perhaps people like this SHOULD get their children immunized from the few strains of one STD that they can. Apparently there isn't going to be any parental reinforcement of responsibility to help protect these girls.
In my Rapid City Journal column today, I examined how many in the South Dakota Republican Party have abandoned their own platform and core Republican values.
Too late, I realized I had unintentionally painted with too broad a brush. While in my mind I was referring almost exclusively to Governor Rounds and the state Senate, I should have made it more clear that, with the exception of a few individuals, the House has done well in upholding the traditional values upon which the Republican Party is founded.
In failing to make that more clear, I fear I did House Majority Leader Rep. Larry Rhoden, a fine man with a tough job, a disservice. If so, I apologize.
Not so with my friend Sibby today. Steve's piece deals more with school funding, but it's illustrative of the difference in the state House and Senate. If liberalized bills were to be stopped, they were stopped in the House. In talking with some of my sources, I found there was far more going on--especially in the House--to stop some of the irresponsible spending of taxpayer money than I had realized.
There are some good folks in the Senate, too, but the proportion of liberals (or as Steve calls them, "Country Club Republicans") is much higher than in the House. The state Senate could learn a lot from the folks in the House, if they're not too proud. Some of them may pat themselves on the back for their "bipartisanship," but I don't think I could be proud of expanding government and supporting more irresponsible spending.
According to Canada's National Post, Claude Allegre, socialist and scientist from France, was one of the first to sound the alarm about global warming. But now he's hopped off the global warming bandwagon:
With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.
Dr. Allegre isn't just some Right-winger, either:
Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Scientists say they've found a new variation of triceratops that is "proof of evolution."
From Fox News:
That makes the newly found creature an intermediate between older forms with large horns and later small-horned relatives, said State of Utah paleontologist Jim Kirkland, who with Douglas Wolfe identified Zuniceratops in New Mexico in 1998. He predicted then that something like Ryan's find would turn up.
'Lo and behold, evolutionary theory actually works,' he said.
Yes, and Chihuahuas evolved from Dobermans.
Please...and they call this "science?" Sounds like desperate fantasy, to me.
The Des Moines Register features a pro/con piece with different authors advocating mandated health care coverage, opposing it, or somewhere in the middle.
The part by Michael Tanner is where I come down on the subject:
the mandate crosses an important line: accepting the principle that it is the government’s responsibility to assure that every American has health insurance. In doing so, it opens the door to more widespread regulation of the health-care industry and political interference in personal health-care decisions. The result will be a slow but steady spiral downward toward a government-run health-care system.
And here is the eventual outcome of such an autocratic solution (as already evidenced in countries like Canada and England):
An individual mandate, therefore, should not be seen in a vacuum. It is more akin to the first in a series of dominoes. By distorting the health-care marketplace, an individual mandate sets in place a cascading series of additional mandates and regulations resulting, ultimately, in a government-run health-care system. For the vast majority, that would mean longer waits, higher prices and less care.
Perhaps the most disappointing thing in the article is that Dr. Robert Moffit from the Heritage Foundation, a (normally) conservative think tank, advocates something in the middle that I find unpalatable:
The option not on the table is to charge the cost of one’s personal irresponsibility to others (taxpayers). No one has a right to increase the existing burdens of the mandate on individual taxpayers. So, to be clear, persons should have the personal right to self-insure, but they also have the personal responsibility to pay their own medical bills. Rights and responsibility are inseparable.
I agree that taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for other people, but to force people to pay for health insurance is unAmerican. If the demonstration of willingness to pay is some monumental threshhold, then only the rich would be able to maintain their freedom. If this is Moffit's plan, only the wealthy would be able to opt out of the mandate. Essentially, they'd be buying their freedom from government mandates.
And as important as freedom is, a situation where freedom from government oppression can be purchased by the wealthy turns my stomach.
Also, there won't be enough wealthy folks opting out of such an oppressive system to stop that downward spiral of government involvement mentioned by Tanner above. So even under the Heritage Foundation plan, you'd still end up with socialized medicine masquerading as something "free market."
Most chilling, our legislature is going to be looking at health care solutions in the next year, and from the language of SB 131 (which was tabled) and SB 132, I'm very concerned for the future of freedom in South Dakota. And since Dr. Moffit and other Heritage Foundation people testified to the Health and Human Services committees in January this "freedom for sale" plan is likely to be seriously considered.
Instead of stirring more socialism and government intervention into the mix (which is the key ingredient that got us into this mess), we need to look for free-market solutions that reduce costs and over-use of the system.
From the British Life Style Extra:
Accepted theories about man causing global warming are 'lies' claims a controversial new TV documentary.
‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.
Some interesting excerpts from the article:
Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.
Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.
One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite.
He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the Earth’s history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels.
Prof Clark believes increased levels of CO2 are because the Earth is heating up and not the cause. He says most CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans, which dissolve the gas.
Scientists in the programme also raise another discrepancy with the official line, showing that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, when global temperatures then fell for four decades.
It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend of rising temperatures began.
This, claim the sceptics, is a flaw in the CO2 theory, because the post-war economic boom produced more CO2 and should, according to the consensus, have meant a rise in global temperatures.
It claimed to be the opinion of 2,500 leading scientists, but Prof Reiter said it included names of scientists who disagreed with the findings and resigned from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and said the report was finalised by government appointees.
The CO2 theory is further undermined by claims that billions of pounds is being provided by governments to fund greenhouse effect research, so thousands of scientists know their job depends on the theory continuing to be seen as fact.
"It’s ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2C or 3C."
"At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion and this is dangerous."
In the programme Nigel Calder says: "The greenhouse effect is seen as a religion and if you don’t agree, you are a heretic."
CNS News says Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) sees growing skepticism over the global warming myth:
Some of the most recent 'scientific reversals' Inhofe discussed in his talk involve the Kyoto Treaty. Sixty scientists wrotea letter to the Canadian prime minister in 2006 and said 'Kyoto would almost certainly not exist' had they been aware of information in the 1990s that has come to light in recent years, the senator said.
Claude Allegre, a top French geophysicist, became a skeptic in 2006 after initially embracing 'alarmist' views on climate change. According to information provided by Inhofe's office, Allegre now accuses the advocates of human-induced global warming of 'being motivated by money' rather than sound science.
Inhofe also pointed to recent scientific studies which he said indicated that the sun may itself be largely responsible for the planet's warming period. Climate scientist Henrik Svensmark released a report showing that the Earth is experiencing a natural period of low-cloud cover as consequence of fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.
The subject of polar bears also figured into the senator's talk.
Contrary to what has been widely reported, he said, the polar bear population is on increase, and has risen to 25,000 in comparison with 10,000 50 years ago.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
From the UK Telegraph:
More than 30,000 funerals in Britain last year were nonreligious, as families turn increasingly to 'celebration-of-life' ceremonies rather than church services, according to new figures.
The rise is being attributed to people's growing willingness to admit that they are non-believers, and to their desire to avoid 'hypocrisy'.
Ten years ago, a funeral without a minister of religion and reference to God was virtually unheard of but increasingly, services are presided over by a 'celebrant' and involve poems instead of psalms, while mourners are often asked to wear something bright rather than black.
There's something to be said for this honesty. God did say he'd rather we be hot or cold (i.e. either in His camp or fully out of it); at least they're not pretending to believe something they really don't.
It is, however, a sad testament to the rise of paganism and Godlessness. And it may leave people even more surprised when they themselves wake up in eternity to find that they won't be celebrating anything there and, um, "global warming" was the least of their problems.
Never underestimate the power of human beings to delude themselves.
From the Columia Tribune:
Local and state clergy involved in the Missouri Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice say making abortion illegal again in Missouri would return the state to the days when women with unwanted pregnancies suffered mutilation in pursuit of what the group sees as a God-given right of controlling your own procreation.
The church has offered a covenant of 17 conditions to Calvin Brugge, who says he will sign it. Among other restrictions, he can only attend the 7:30 a.m. Sunday service, and he's barred from using the restroom or attending church-sponsored functions that include children.
Plans call for a support team to meet with him regularly and an accountability team to observe him while he's on church property.
These are certainly the right steps for the church to take to protect children in their church and to minister to this man.
This is a tough one. I agree that church attendance is one of the best tools for this man to stay on the straight and narrow path. But I sympathize with the safety fears of parents in the church.
At the heart of it, though, I don't think the church should have to be wrestling with this. A pedophile should be locked away for a long, LONG time; especially one who is a multiple offender who has violated his parole.
He was convicted in California in 1989 and 1997 for sex offenses involving children, according to the state's sex offender registry. Brugge has been identified as a tier three sex offender who poses a high risk of recidivism and threat to public safety.
Brugge, 60, is on parole for five more months after serving eight months in a California prison for violating his parole in 2005.
This is a failure of our justice system. It's dereliction of duty has left the church to deal with the problem.
I concur that this man needs spiritual redemption, but he could get that behind bars from a prison ministry without endangering the public.
I tend to use the word "pathetic" a lot--perhaps too much--when it comes to describing the current state of justice and the court system in our country today. But I just don't know a better word to describe how unbelievably lame it is, and how terribly it is failing to punish wrongdoers and protect the innocent.
This church seems to be doing the best they can with a situation that our judicial system should never have put them into in the first place.
The spiritual leader of the world Anglican Communion says the struggle to keep the fellowship unified despite deep divisions over the Bible and sexuality is hampered by the lack of real theological discussion on the issues.
I agree. Since the sexual anarchists in Christendom insist on sidetracking the church with social trends, perhaps we need to discuss the biblical and theological aspects of these cultural issues.
Showcasing what the Bible actually says might be the only way to finally reveal that Leftist infiltrators in the church are operating outside what the Bible says is right and wrong.
Another consideration of Leftists in Christendom dragging this unpleasant business to the forefront:
Williams lamented that Anglican leaders had to spend most of their Tanzania assembly discussing sexuality, when there are so many more pressing issues to address, such as missions to help the poor and sick.
'The public perception, as we've been reminded by several commentators in the last week or so, is that we are a church obsessed with sex,' Williams said.
I'd have to sadly admit that he may be right, and this may have become the perception of many.
The Bible's position on human sexuality is pretty simple and pretty clear: no sex outside of marriage, and marriage is comprised of a man and a woman.
If we could just accept what God has clearly told us, instead of trying to wrangle loopholes to allow us to follow our lusts, we could get on about the work of bringing people the good news of freedom in Christ, and the secondary consideration of helping the poor and the sick.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has a severely warped understanding of Christianity.
He calls Jesus an exemplary revolutionary and often recalls the Bible passage that declares it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.
Contrary to what is popular in our socialism-saturated culture today, Jesus never had a problem with money, riches, or rich people in general (you might recall some of his most commended followers were very rich--Job, Solomon, etc.).
What God says is wrong isn't money, but LOVE of money. And though it may come as a shock to shallow thinkers, a poor man can love money just as much as a rich man, even though he may actually possess less of it.
In fact, since our culture has bought into the class envy of Marxism so much, it could be possible that many poor people are as guilty of loving money as are some rich people.
Anything that has become your obsession, especially to the point of covetousness, has become your god.
Chaves should rethink this, and many other things, in his quest to make a socialist ruin of Venezuela.
There may still be some tangles with this idea, but I believe it has some merit and should be examined further.
From the Rapid City Journal:
Sturgis Williams Middle School seventh-grade students have been working ahead of the Meade County Commission when it comes to one of the biggest issues it has faced in years.
On Wednesday, students in Kerry Skinner’s seventh-grade class took a project concerning the Bear Butte buffer zone controversy to a competition in Pierre and earned a superior rating from a panel of eight judges.
The project, entitled “Zoning: Natural Rights vs. Property Rights,” was a part of Project Citizen, sponsored by the Chiesman Foundation for Democracy.
Native Americans are upset at how the area around Bear Butte near Sturgis is becoming a field of swill and debauchery, as saloons, etc.' encroach upon the monument many Native Americans hold sacred.
While I don't ascribe to their religious beliefs, I sympathize and would like to see a solution that could work within the setting of our free market system. At one point, I had an idea that was vaguely along the lines of what these students propose.
After conducting the surveys and studying the issue, students decided the best way to deal with the issue is to increase tourism and expand understanding of Indian culture. They believe that granting a concessionaire’s license to Indians interested in creating a buffer zone around the sacred site could generate enough revenue to buy the land surrounding Bear Butte, creating -- in essence -- an informal buffer zone.
I hope the powers that be and those involved in the controversy will take a close look at this idea to see if it can work, or if parts of it can be adopted for a solution that everyone can live with.