I Thought Abstinence Was Unrealistic

I love this story. CBS is reporting that a school district in Long Island, New York is urging students to abstain from touching each other due to the dangers of swine flu:

As students across America prepare to head back to school, officials and parents are bracing for a spike in swine flu cases. With the possibility that nearly 2 million people will be hospitalized, and 90,000 people across the county could die, one Long Island school district is taking no chances and has set into place a new "hands-off" approach to fighting the swine flu.

Chest bumps. High fives. Hugs and handshakes. Glen Cove Middle School students Ali Slaughter and Hannah Seltzer say that's what friends do on the first day of school. But when students in the Nassau community return to school next week, the superintendent will be urging abstinence. Everyone from the tiniest tots to the biggest high school football players will be asked to limit skin-on-skin contact in an attempt to prevent the spread of swine flu when it re-emerges this fall.

"It will [be hard] because you really like your friends and you didn't get to see them," Seltzer tells CBS 2.

Abstinence from touching one's friends? Come on. Give me a break. They're kids. You can't stop them from touching each other. It's just unrealistic to ask them not to touch each other, right? They're just going to do it anyway.

As studies (not shown here or even available anywhere) have clearly indicated, children are going to touch each other no matter what those in authority tell them, so it's best to simply protect the children so that they touch each other in the safest manner possible.

Perhaps even full body condoms are the way to go.
So we agree? Let's keep our kids safe.

Just like teen sex, there are inherent and deadly dangers to touching each other now.
And it seems to me that the danger of children touching each other would be far greater than students falling on top of each other while naked. But in one case school administrators around the country often say abstinence from sex is impossible but then they turn around to say abstaining from any contact is very possible for teens?

Not sure I'm understanding their take on this.

So I say full body condoms should be handed out to all students. Kids are going to touch each other. As adults we just need to protect them from themselves. It's for the children.

Jon Voight: Obama Playing the 'God Card'

Some pretty profound words from Jon Voight including these: "They are trying to take away God's first gift to man; Free Will."

HT Big Hollywood

Is Randall Terry Helping?

I've read somewhere that Randall Terry is staging a comeback in the pro-life community. I know some people love him and others think he's a shyster. I honestly don't know enough about him to know which is true but I do know that theatrically stabbing baby dolls and pretending to kill a little old lady while dressed as a doctor doesn't help.

And it's not that I'm against using humor to get serious points across as evidenced by just about anything we've written here in the past two years but this just seems a little low-rent and ill thought out.

But look, I know that sometimes ideas that seem great in your head just don't work in reality and maybe that's the case here. But this little stunt seems less aimed at actually changing people's minds than it seems aimed at getting picked up by the media.

I'm interested in what you guys think.

HT Jill Stanek

Connie's Corner

Liberty without a little shouting
is like a melody without music.

Progress always moves forward.
Progressivism does not.

The quality of Gov't programs
are inversely proportional
to their perceived urgency.

Fr. Barron on Edward Kennedy

Bring Out Your Dead!

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and many other Democrats aren't wasting a moment before politicizing the death of Ted Kennedy to further their legislation.

Hey, they even politicized the man's funeral.

ABC is reporting that Pelosi said, "Ted Kennedy's dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration."

Now, as Catholics we are quite familiar with the issue of raising the dead but I'm pretty sure that this is not what Jesus intended.

But CMR loves the idea of exploiting recent deaths and we're suggesting that both parties continue this ugly tradition. Hey, if it works, it works. So let's put our noggin's together to come up with ways that both sides of the aisle can further their agendas on the backs of recently dead notables.

CMR would like to start the brainstorming by suggesting the "Michael Jackson Child Protection Act" which should be scheduled to be introduced by the GOP ASAP. Yeah, you might say this one's a little below the belt but nobody can convince me that Corey Feldman didn't sleep a little better after Jackson's death.

GOP Line: Nobody knew better than Michael Jackson that children are susceptible to danger from predators and we'd like to do what Michael Jackson couldn't do in his lifetime and that's protect children by placing stiffer penalties on those convicted of being child predators. We must continue Jackson's avowed legacy of protecting children.

The GOP could all even wear one shiny glove on the day the bill comes up for a vote. Just imagine Trent Lott walking around the halls of Congress with a sparkly glove. Priceless. And you'd get the pleasure of seeing Lott lead one of his apology parades on BET that did him so much good last time after he was criticized by the media.

And when Democrats vote against the Jackson bill the GOP could run ads saying something like "When Democrats voted against the Jackson bill it was almost like Michael Jackson was killed all over again." Maybe a teary eyed Corey Feldman or Macaulay Culkin could star in the ad as I'm pretty sure they're not really doing all that much right now anyway.

But the Dems aren't going to end their use of the dead with Ted Kennedy. After some initial successes using Kennedy's death to further their political agenda, Dems could introduce the Fairness Doctrine in an effort to silence conservative criticism forever.

But some infighting among Democrats may hamper their efforts as they may be undecided as to whether to call it "The Don Hewitt Fairness Doctrine" or the "Walter Cronkite Fairness Doctrine." One Democrat insider said the problems with them are that nobody knows who the one is and nobody cares about the other.

But it must be admitted that both were quite familiar with biased reporting.

The GOP could introduce a counter proposal to make journalism better called "The Robert Novak Journalism Bill." One possible snafu that might worry GOP consultants is Novak's nickname was "The Prince of Darkness" which could potentially backfire against Republicans.

The GOP could also push their own Kennedy bill called the "Eunice Shriver Kennedy Pro-Life" bill which would urge Democrats to reconsider the legalization of killing babies. But Democrats will likely ignore the "Eunice" bill much like they did Eunice except when she was donating money to them.

So if you have any thoughts on others who have passed whose name or image can still be mined for political exploitation please let CMR know. The CMR Lobbying firm will then put the screws to the legislators to enact your agenda.

I'm a Barabbian

I don't understand how atheists adopt much of Christian morality while saying there's no God. Many still profess to be kind, caring and loving. They aspire to be charitable to the poor and help friends in need.

In fact, they argue that this is evidence that people don't need God to be good people. I actually had someone say to me a few years ago that "You don't need to believe in God to be a good Christian." Huh?

And when asked these good atheists don't have any argument as to where their morality comes from. I can never seem to get them down to a basis for their definition of good other than they have some notion that it's agreed upon in some manner. They don't understand that they're defining being good mainly by Christian standards. Even in supporting the abomination of abortion they often couch their support of it in terms of love and mercy for the would be mother. They are unwittingly but incorrectly following the morality which stems from Jesus' teachings. In a chaotic universe, why strive after such things as love and mercy anyway?

Even a famous atheist like Richard Dawkins called himself a "Cultural Christian."

But doesn't the matter of whether we were created to love by God or we came about by freak chance have any difference in our morality. I'm telling you now that if I was an atheist I'd be a pretty bad guy.

As Jeff Miller asked the other day concerning the morals of atheists:

Jesus asked "Why do you call me good" trying to get a response of faith, but I might ask the atheist "Why do you want to be called good" in a morally relativist world?

So let's say for a moment there's no God. Why on Earth would I adopt the teachings of some lunatic from the Middle East who claimed to be God over 2,000 years ago who ended up being tortured and executed by the state.

And I'm supposed to allow my 21st century life to be based on the mores of a madman who was born 2,000 years ago? It makes no sense at all. Why not randomly pick another 2,000 year old criminal to base your life on? Why not Barabbas? That's right. Why not be a Barabbian?

It would make just as much sense.

To drill it down to a finer point, if Jesus claimed to be God and was not you'd have to assume he was a raving lunatic. But how do you get from there to yeah he was a lunatic but he advanced the morality on which I base my life as does much of the world?

Seems kind of a jump, doesn't it?

Prayer for ObamaCare at Teddy's Funeral

Nice. Including ObamaCare in the intentions during Ted Kennedy's funeral mass was a new low in the politicization of Kennedy's death.

And the fact that they had a child do it was clearly an attempt at attempting to shield it from criticism. But not us. Patrick and I have ten children between us. Children don't scare us. We look down the barrel of twenty little peepers every day. And we lived to tell about it. HotAir's Allahpundit compared the use of the child to human shields.

During the funeral mass they perhaps should've been less concerned with earthly matters and more concerned with praying for Kennedy's soul.



Check out Gateway Pundit for commentary.

Kennedy Like Moses and Peter

It's always the right wing that gets accused of mixing in religion and politics. We get accused of bringing God into politics. The left doesn't so much as bring God into politics, they just elevate their politicians to divinely inspired levels. (See: Obama)

One editorial in the Boston Globe: “Like all figures in history — and like those in the Bible, for that matter — Kennedy came with flaws. Moses had a temper. Peter betrayed Jesus. Kennedy had Chappaquiddick, a moment of tremendous moral collapse.”

Moses? Peter? Give me a break.

As Jonah Godberg rightly points out in NRO Peter did not betray Jesus but did deny Him.

But I guess it's too much to ask journalists to understand the religious references they're making.

Pope Not Sufficiently Acknowledging Kennedy?

Time Magazine worries that the Pope hasn't made any statement about the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy in a piece entitled "After Kennedy's Death: Silence from the Pope.

As of yet, unlike some other world leaders, Pope Benedict has not commented or issued an official communique in response to Kennedy's death.

Giving it more prominence is the fact that the story is also linked above the banner on the Drudge Report.

Hey Time Mag, did you know 146,000 people die every day and 99.9999 percent of the people who die don't go remarked on by the Pope?

Hey Time Mag, just because Ted Kennedy was your guiding star on immigration reform and abortion, doesn't mean he was all things to all people.

Hey Time Mag, although Kennedy was your favorite Catholic he was still just a Senator.

Hey Time Mag, the Pope is the Pope of the world. Not Washington DC. And not just America either. The world.

And Ted Kennedy doesn't need a press release right now. He needs prayers. And that, I'm sure, he's getting from the Pope. And the Pope is praying for the other 145,999 folks that died the same day as well.

Ad: 50% Off Abortion if You Show Student ID

A hospital in Chongqing, China, recently released an advertisement offering half-price abortions for women who show a student ID, SF Gate reports.


The advertisement (above) reads:

Students are our future, but when something happens to them, who will help and protect them? Chongqing Huaxi Women's Hospital has started Students Care Month, where those students who come to get an abortion can get 50% off if they show their student ids. Abortion surgeries are the most advanced in the world, won't stretch (your womb), won't hurt, it's quick, and you can do what you want afterward, it won't affect your studies or your work.

Now, I know many people have registered their outrage over this ad and many are saying that it's China and that could never happen here. But the truth is that America puts essentially no limits on abortion. And we have a President who's stated his desire to do away with even minor limitations such as state parental consent laws. And even where we do have parental consent laws, Lila Rose has show many times that that Planned Parenthood regularly ignores the law. And even when state authorities see the violation on video they routinely ignore it (with some exceptions)

Here's the thing -once you devalue the fetus completely you can't argue that abortion is wrong. America's liberal abortion laws aren't that much different from China. This is a crude advertisement crudely. But is that really where the line is drawn? Is the argument that we want to make really abortion's fine but just don't advertise the death of a baby in a crude fashion? Is the 50% off that much much more offensive than Planned Parenthood offering gift cards for abortion for Christmas.

Remember this? Patterico reported:

Gift certificates are good gifts when you aren’t sure what to buy that special woman in your life who puts everyone else first:

“Why not buy a loved one a gift this holiday season that they really need,” [Planned Parenthood of Indiana president and CEO Betty] Cockrum says in a press release LifeNews.com obtained. “The gift certificates are also a wonderful idea for that person in your life who puts everyone else first.”

“Please join Planned Parenthood of Indiana and give the gift of health this holiday season,” she adds.

The Chinese ad is offensive because it doesn't hide what pro-aborts really think of abortion. To them, it's merely a business arrangement.

For so long we've heard from our legislators that they're personally against abortion and they offer lip service to abortion being tragic but sometimes necessary. They purse their lips and stare off into middle distance because it looks thoughtful to the cameras.

This ad simply removes that mask. It tears the facade off. This ad is disturbing because it makes people confront the true nature of the abortion industry. It's about money. Lots of it. And this ad is offensive to some because it doesn't obfuscate.

I want more ads like this one. At least they're honest.

Court: Homeschooler Too Religious, Must Join Public School

Uh-oh. A New Hampshire court is ordering a girl to be taken out of homeschooling and put into the public school system because she might be too religious.

As is typical with these kinds of cases it seems to have started with a divorce where the mother, who homeschooled the child, is religious and the father doesn't want the same things for their child. So a court case ensued. That's all sadly typical but the strange thing is the judge's ruling which should shock and worry homeschoolers everywhere.

The Alliance Defense Fund reports:

An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney filed motions with a New Hampshire court Monday asking it to reconsider and stay its decision to order a 10-year-old home-schooled girl into a government-run school in Meredith.

Although the marital master making recommendations to the court agreed the child is “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level” and that “it is clear that the home schooling...has more than kept up with the academic requirements of the...public school system,” he nonetheless proposed that the Christian girl be ordered into a government-run school after considering “the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others.” The court approved the order.

“Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. In this case specifically, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working,” said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton. “The court is essentially saying that the evidence shows that, socially and academically, this girl is doing great, but her religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held and must be sifted, tested by, and mixed among other worldviews. This is a step too far for any court to take.”

The ruling can be found in its entirety http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/08/judge-orders-homeschooler-into-public-school-for-being-too-religious/. But here's some quotes for your perusal:

"The counselor found Amanda to lack some youthful characteristics. She appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith...

"The Guardian Ad Litem concluded that Amanda's interests and particularly her intellectual and emotion development would be best served by exposure to a public school setting in which she would be challenged to solve problems presented by a group learning situation and by the social interactivity of children her age. She also concluded that Amanda would be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior and cooperation in order to select as a young adult which of those systems would best suit her needs...

The evidence support a finding that Amanda is generally likable and well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level....

Amanda's vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other points of view...

The Court has not considered the merits of Amanda's religious beliefs but considered only the impact of those beliefs on her interaction with others both past and future...

This is a worrisome ruling and, I fear, a sign of things to come.

HT Culture War Notes

Cdl Mahony: Kennedy Was Champion of Powerless

This one sickens me. And not just a little gurgle in my stomach. I'm talking about Linda Blair projectile vomiting, spin my head around, and hurling insults at anyone near me. Yeah, that kind of sickening.

According to the LA Times:

Cardinal Roger Mahony issued a statement today calling the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) a champion of "the voiceless, the powerless and the most needy of our citizens."

This is sickening and troubling at the same time because Kennedy was a debauched politician who turned his back on the unborn for political expediency. Yeah the unborn who are the voiceless, the powerless and the most needy of our citizens.

Now you can argue that Mahony was likely referring to illegal immigrants. But it seems the Cardinal needs an editor because illegal aliens or undocumented workers aren't citizens. We can argue about whether they should be but it's just not factual. So to get this straight, if anyone walks over the border they're citizens who deserve all of the rights granted to Americans but those little people in the womb aren't citizens worthy of all the rights of citizens.

I'd also bet that Mary Jo Kopechne qualified as voiceless and powerless as Teddy swam away.

Kennedy believed in 1971 that the unborn were worth standing up for. Sadly, as the Democratic Party headed towards abortion extremism Kennedy didn't defend the unborn, he acquiesced and even became a leader in the cult of baby killing offering millions of Catholics cover for turning their backs on the unborn as well.

In '71, Kennedy wrote:

While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.

On the question of the individual's freedom of choice there are easily available birth control methods and information which women may employ to prevent or postpone pregnancy. But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire.

I share the confidence of those who feel that America is willing to care for its unwanted as well as wanted children, protecting particularly those who cannot protect themselves. i also share the opinions of those who do not accept abortion as a response to our society's problems -- an inadequate welfare system, unsatisfactory job training programs, and insufficient financial support for all its citizens.

When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.

Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy

Kennedy knew that standing up against abortion was about willing to care for the "unwanted" who cannot protect themselves. And in one of the most tragic about-faces of the 20th century, Kennedy turned his back on those whom Cardinal Mahony praised him for defending - the powerless and the voiceless.

Update: As Pundette says: As a Catholic I pray for their souls but I wouldn't hold either Kennedy or Mahoney up as a role model for my kids.

Thanks to Crunchy Con for the letter.

Secularist's Favorite Body Part

For years, the appendix has been many secularists favorite body part...if you don't count the body parts you can use to abort babies.

The appendix's popularity has been mainly because the organ's perceived uselessness was thought to be evidence of a Godless universe. If God created man, they'd ask why would He have given man a useless organ. And because of this, it was evidence not only of a godless universe but it also proved evolution. Hey, at least they found a use for the appendix.

Take for example this essay on the useless organ by The Surgeon's Blog:

In the appendix, we have a thing within us of no demonstrable value, but which is capable of doing us great harm. People may argue at the edges, but there are two things we know with central certainty: the presence of the appendix kills a lot of people or makes them real sick, and its absence is of absolutely no consequence. Evidently, that's a threat to the concept of intelligent design/creationism...By its existence, the lowly and useless appendix would seem to deal a fatal blow to the idea (at least Ken Ham's version) of Intelligent Design. Slain, by that ignoble worm, that surgeons'sidekick, my midnight mistress. If you deny evolution, then you have to say the designer wasn't paying attention, says the appendix to my scalpel; or the designer acted deliberately to stick within us something which serves only to harm. Even more scary. Unless, of course, you're a general surgeon.

Ah you see, the appendix delivered the fatal blow until...this shock of shocks. It turns out that the appendix isn't all that useless. The Examiner says:

Some scientists are now saying that the appendix could be useful in battling disease. It may serve "as a vital safehouse where good bacteria could lie in wait until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea." Other studies have indicated "the appendix can help make, direct and train white blood cells."

Hey, you silly God-lover I know that this new science would seem to deliver a fatal blow to the useless-appendix-delivering-a-fatal-blow-to-God argument.

But you'd be wrong.

Now, the appendix's usefulness is the latest and greatest evidence of a Godless universe and of evolution.

Weird Science reports:

Poor Darwin -- everyone's always pointing out his mistakes. But somehow, his theory that animals evolved from common ancestors is stronger and more confirmed than ever.

OK. So when the appendix was useless it was evidence of evolution and when it's shown to have a use it's...guess what...evidence of evolution.

Now, I have no problem with accepting some amount of evolution among species but many proponents of the theory believe that macro-evolution makes God useless in the process of creation. That's right, many secular evolutionists see God as the appendix of the universe. We can only pray that they too one day discover God and his very real and loving purpose.

Connie's Corner

If the founding fathers saw
what is happening in our country today,
they would have their slaves turn them over in their graves.

Post partisan politics is a close relative of the Unicorn.

Looking at what has become of our government,
is it safe to say that perhaps
King George got a bum rap?

Read all of Connie's Daily Doses of Common Sense

Building Bridges - Why Ecumenism?

Ecumenism is the opposite of pornography, easy to define but you are never sure when you are actually seeing it.

Last week a group of Jewish leaders were gnashing their teeth because the Church said that the one of the purposes of ecumenism is sharing the gospel.

Jewish groups said they interpret the new document to mean that the bishops view interfaith dialogue as a chance to invite Jews to become Catholic. The Jewish leaders said they "pose no objection" to Christians sharing their faith, but said dialogue with Jews becomes "untenable" if the goal is to persuade Jews to accept Christ as their savior.

"A declaration of this sort is antithetical to the very essence of Jewish-Christian dialogue as we have understood it," Jewish leaders said in a letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The signers were the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and rabbis representing the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform movements.

The statement fueling the tension was issued by the bishops in June to clarify a 2002 document called "Covenant and Mission." The bishops said the earlier document mistakenly played down the importance of sharing the Gospel and was therefore misleading.

The temptation to say "so what?" is very great as the dissatisfied in this case are a perennial crop. Leaving them aside, perhaps it is time to better define ecumenism so that in the future we can recognize it when we see it. In a recent interview Monsignor Brunero Gherardini lamented a ...

“misguided ecumenism, in search of what unites, rather than of what divides. … We entered into a new spirit of conciliation, adaptation, resignation, wary of other people’s preconditions, almost as though we believed, perhaps without admitting it, that the truth was on the other side.

Amen, what passed for ecumenism the last years was far from it. Right thinking ecumenism clarifies differences, it does not blur them.

Let me put it in this simple way. Ecumenism is like building bridges. When many people think of bridges they think of a support structure designed to get people from one side to the other, from their side to yours. This is certainly a key goal of ecumenism for those headed generally in the same direction. But bridges also serve another critical function. They enable those going in a completely different direction to pass under or over safely without crashing into you. This is an equally worthwhile purpose. So too ecumenism.

So that is the dual purpose of Ecumenism. To enable those headed in your direction to find their way across the divide or for those going in a completely different direction to pass by safely. Either way, it is important that everyone agree on which side of the road we should all drive.

Connie's Corner

Alas, the Tree of Liberty
was not chopped down for instruments of war
but for 1018 pages of paper.

The phrase 'the Gov't will get you coming or going'
has a whole new meaning these days.

Socialized Medicine is to health care
what Bob Shrum is to a presidential campaign.

Read all of Connie's Daily Doses of Common Sense

No Such Thing as Abortion Trauma

Psychiatry is not rocket science. It's much much much more difficult. Impossible for little brains like yourself to understand. I myself am obviously much too thick to understand. You see, I read blogs and I've read literally hundreds of stories from women who suffered depression and felt awful about their abortion.

But you see we only think these women are suffering. A number of psychiatrists from the American Psychiatric Association have informed us otherwise. The Psychiatric Times reports: that there's no such thing as women suffering after they'd had an abortion.

Abortion trauma syndrome is a fabricated mental disorder conceived by anti-abortion activists to advance their cause and is not a scientifically based psychiatric disorder. So said two psychiatrists at the American Psychiatric Association’s recent annual meeting in San Francisco.

“Abortion does not cause psychiatric damage, but the claim that it does is a prime strategy of the anti-abortion movement, which has convinced many people in the US,” said former APA president Nada Stotland, MD, MPH...

For instance, the Elliot Institute, founded by David C. Reardon, PhD, claims that women who have abortions are prone to abortion trauma syndrome and are at increased risk for substance abuse, clinical depression, sleep disorders, and suicide and that their children are prone to behavioral problems.

Countering those assertions is the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion, which recently collected, examined, and summarized the most current scientific research on mental health and abortion. The task force’s 2008 report concluded that “among women who have a single, legal, first-trimester abortion of an unplanned pregnancy for nontherapeutic reasons, the relative risks of mental health problems are no greater than the risks among women who deliver an unplanned pregnancy.”

When bills were introduced in the legislature asserting that abortions cause significant and long-lasting psychological damage, Stotland testified that such allegations are contrary to scientific evidence. In her 2004 testimony before a House Subcommittee on Health, which looked at postpregnancy mental health in women, she told members, “Abortion trauma syndrome does not exist in the psychiatric literature and is not recognized as a psychiatric diagnosis.”

So there's no trauma related to abortion? OK. Well probably psychiatrists have a very high bar before they call something a disease and it finds placement in the DSM, which is essentially the encyclopedia of mental illness.

So I decided to look at some of the awful illnesses that did make the cut.
Harper's Magazine reported:

According to the DSM-IV, something called frotteurism (302.89) is the irresistible desire to sexually touch and rub against one's fellow passengers on mass transit. Something called fugue (300.13) consists of travel in foreign lands, often under an assumed identity...

Are these really mental illnesses? Really? Couldn't it just be some creep on the bus?

And traveling in foreign lands under an assumed name is really a mental illness? Couldn't there be a very logical explanation for it...like...you got caught rubbing up against some chick on a bus and she called the cops so you had to skedaddle to Mexico under a different name. It seems to me that traveling to a foreign land under an assumed name is hardly a sign of mental illness but perfectly logical in that case.

But the question remains - do the number of occurrences of fugue really dwarf the number of women depressed over killing their own child?

But it gets even crazier. Harper's reports:

Current among the many symptoms of the deranged mind are bad writing (315.2, and its associated symptom, poor handwriting); coffee drinking, including coffee nerves (305.90), bad coffee nerves (292.89), inability to sleep after drinking too much coffee (292.89), and something that probably has something to do with coffee, though the therapist can't put his finger on it (292.9); shyness (299.80), also known as Asperger's Disorder); sleepwalking (307.46); jet lag (307.45); snobbery (301.7, a subset of Antisocial Personality Disorder); and insomnia (307.42); to say nothing of tobacco smoking, which includes both getting hooked (305.10) and going cold turkey (292.0). You were out of your mind the last time you have a nightmare (307.47). Clumsiness is now a mental illness (315.4). So is playing video games (Malingering, V65.2).

So clumsiness should be treated but a woman who is sorry she had an abortion should be ignored.

Aren't these guys brilliant? I just thank goodness they're not using their expansive intellects to politicize psychiatry.

Check This Out!

I know my sister made this and starred in it so I have to say nice things about it but I think it's really funny and has the benefit of being a true story. Check it out for a good laugh:

ObamaCare - Rejected Bumper Stickers

Created Equal?

For many years, one of the main arguments for abortion was to simply punt on the question of humanity. They'd say since we can't say when life begins we might as well keep it open season on babies until they're born (and sometimes a little after).

Now, nobody with an honest mind can actually question when life begins. When they say they don't know when life begins they're intending to say they're unsure when life is worthy of being protected. Or they say that it's they don't know when "life" becomes human life.

But it seems to me that Thomas Jefferson took care of all this. The opening of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, states as follows:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Created?

A thought about that. If the Declaration is one of the foundational document on which this country stands, it would seem to me this country, if it is to be based on principles rather than fads and whims of elitists in matching robes, there could not be legal abortion.

If all men are created equal that tells us that when we are created we are equal to all others and assume the same rights as others - even those fortunate enough to make it outside the womb.

It doesn't say that when we are born we assume those rights. It says that we are created equal.

I don't think anyone could argue that creation itself occurs anytime other than the moment of conception.

How could the pro-abortion types advance their agenda is "created" was the yardstick by which we judged humanity? Could they possibly argue that creation happens at a moment other than conception.

Scientifically, it is without question that conception involves creation of a human. One couldn't possibly argue that creation occurs later. I've heard pro-abort types argue that it becomes human later or if talking religion they argue when the moment of ensoulment occurs. But there's no way to argue logically that creation takes place at any moment other than conception.

Now, I understand that the Declaration is not the Constitution but I would argue that it embodies the truth on which our system stands. And in this day and age when justices say they can pick and choose their way through other countries' documents to find substantiation for their own laws, the Declaration would at least seem to hit closer to home. And the Declaration itself and those words have been used in Supreme Court decisions including the infamous Amistad case.

I know that pro-abortion types and their grisly cadre of followers will simply pretend not to understand the distinction of when creation occurs. They'll say it's above their pay grade or something. In fact, the Supreme Court has ignored these great words before. In 1857, the Supreme Court ignored the words of our founding fathers with their ruling in Dred Scott v. Sanford that stated that slaves could be treated as property of the slaveholder. Part of America's story is that a terrible price has been paid by America when she failed to live up to those words.

America has always struggled with the ideals laid forth in the Declaration. That struggle started with Jefferson himself and exhibits itself in every generation. We struggle with those words and we seek to live up to them. Jefferson, who penned those famous words, owned slaves.

But those words didn't die with Jefferson. Almost a century later, Abraham Lincoln used Jefferson's words in his efforts to end slavery. Lincoln sought to raise America and push it to live up to those words.

And a century after that, Martin Luther King Jr. invoked those same words in calling the nation to fulfill its promise to make all men equal.

And now, we too look to Jefferson's words. We seek to make his words written almost 250 years ago more true than they have ever been before. We call out to America to live up to its promise. We invoke Jefferson's words and we call on America to simply become better than she is today.

Connie's Corner - Daily Dose Of Common Sense

If you know what is good for you,
you will never vote for somebody who says
they know what is good for you.

I don't think that cremation is for me,
I don't want to give God any ideas.

Before voting remember,
true love cannot be faked
but compassion can.

Read all of Connie's Daily Doses of Common Sense

Girl Converts, Escaping Honor Killing

Thousands of honor killings occur every year, according to the United Nations. They go largely ignored by the mainstream media. But a recent case is putting honor killings in the public eye for the first time. American Thinker writes about a young woman who is living in fear of being murdered by her father because of her conversion to Christianity. American Thinker has more:

The unassuming and previously unknown Rifqa Bary, has now become, arguably, America's most conspicuous apostate from Islam to Christianity. Truncated, grossly warped media depictions of her plight demonstrate that the American chattering classes remain stubbornly unwilling to even acknowledge, let alone confront Islam's malevolent doctrinal intolerance, ignoring Magdi Allam's plaintive appeal.

Rifqa Bary is a 17 year-old Sri Lankan native who was living in New Albany, Ohio (a suburb of Columbus) until recent dramatic events precipitated her flight to Orlando, Florida. An excellent student and High School cheerleader, Rifqa apostasized from Islam, clandestinely practicing Christianity for some 4-years by her account. Hard evidence, i.e., a FaceBook webpage captured by Pamela Geller -- consistently ignored by the media, including Fox News -- clearly documents that she was a professing Christian over two years ago, at any rate.

Here's a video of the girl explaining her fears:

Some Walked Away

Yesterday's Gospel reading had me thinking about those who walked away from Jesus because they found his teachings too hard. There are three ways to go when you find the Church's teachings difficult. You can walk away or you can work to keep yourself in line with Jesus's teachings. The third and one of the more popular responses today is you stay in the Church and you work to change the meaning of Jesus' words and recategorize your sin as actually a long unrecognized good:

Many of Jesus’disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?

What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me
unless it is granted him by my Father.”

As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”

Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

Now imagine, if you will, more of a modern spin on this. Some of the disciples find some of Jesus' teaching hard but they don't leave. They stay. They stay and proclaim loudly that they are a disciple of Jesus but they set up factions within the group of those who still follow Jesus.

While Jesus is talking, they're standing off to the side explaining that wasn't exactly what Jesus meant and here's really the main point. They explain that they believe in most of what He says, you know all the parts about healing the sick and not judging others but not much of the other stuff.

No. Back then there weren't any Apostles for Free Choice, Voice of the Apostles, of Future Jesus clamoring that Jesus wasn't really on target on a few things. Now in fairness back then there was a small group called Judas for Selling Jesus for Thirty Pieces of Silver but it had a very small membership at the time. (And from what I read it didn't end well)

All this is not to say that those who stay don't sin. We are a Church of sinners. We accept those who who regularly hurt Jesus. But the Church asks that we don't seek to modify what it is the Church holds as true to recategorize our sin as acceptable or perhaps even good according to what Jesus really meant.

If we're going to do that, it might be better if we'd just walked away because at least then your choices are clear and you have the options of staying away or returning and accepting the teachings. And you avoid seting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what Jesus really meant.

Common Constance's Almanack

Summer holds on with some hazy, hot, and humid days still ahead of us. Cucumbers and a rebellious spirit are now at their peak.

A progressive is someone
who wants to fix something that isn't broken
by throwing it out.

The world has enough for everybody’s need,
until Gov't decides what everybody needs.

Eternal truths are the most easily forgotten.

At Long Last - Reform of the Reform?

Andrea Tornielli reports in il Giornale that the reform of the reform, long awaited, may finally be on its way. Tornielli reports that a document was delivered to the Pope from the Congregation for Divine Worship, following a vote therein, recommending a number of changes to the Novus Ordo. It reports also that this document has been approved by the Pope. Changes like this take time, but perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel. The list of proposed changes includes (translation from the wonderful Rorate Caeli with Bullets added by me.)

The Cardinals and Bishops members of the Congregation voted almost unanimously in favor of a greater sacrality of the rite, of the recovery of the sense of eucharistic worship,

• of the recovery of the Latin language in the celebration,
• and of the remaking of the introductory parts of the Missal in order to put a stop to abuses, wild experimentations, and inappropriate creativity.
• They have also declared themselves favorable to reaffirm that the usual way of receiving Communion according to the norms is not on the hand, but in the mouth. There is, it is true, and indult which, on request of the [local] episcopates, allows for the distribution of the host [sic] also on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact.
• The "Liturgy Minister" of Pope Ratzinger, Cañizares, is also having studies made on the possibility to recover the orientation towards the Orient of the celebrant, at least at the moment of the eucharistic consecration, as it happened in practice before the reform, when both the faithful and the priest faced towards the Cross and the priest therefore turned his back to the assembly.

This is amazing and wonderful news. Without a doubt this will necessarily move slowly, but move it will. I will pray for this intention every day.

P.S.Of course no discussion of the reform of the Novus Ordo is complete without mentioning my offered services in the ad campaign to promote it.

Annie Lennox Criticizes Pope

I've heard the Church criticized so often as being all about money. You've heard it. I've heard it. They say that the Church's prohibition against birth control is only because it callously wants Catholics to have many babies to grow up to sit in the pews and fill up the collection baskets.

But many of the same people also suspect that the Church's stance against birth control is equally callous in the case of HIV/Aids, because the Church's stance, according to the Church-haters, is killing its own people.

So it seems to me the Church haters shouldn't be able to hate the Church for both things at once. But ironically, the holding of two mutually exclusive ideals comes easy to some.

You can't say that the Church is against condoms because it wants to fill the collection baskets and then claim that the Church is against birth control even thought they're callously killing their own people.

I raised this because I read about another "attack" on the Church today. I know you're going to be shocked. But a "rock star" criticized the Pope. Annie Lennox of the Eurythmics fame opened up a can illogical whoop-ass on the Pope. Press reports called her words "stinging" and "passionate." CMR calls them stupid. Well let's try to be nice. CMR calls them "half thought out." (And we're rounding up.)

She said that the Pope’s denunciation of condoms on his recent tour of Africa had caused “tremendous harm” and criticised the Roman Catholic Church for causing widespread confusion on the continent.

She also condemned the media’s obsession with “celebrity culture” for keeping the Aids pandemic off the front page.

In an emotional address, in which she was at times close to tears, the former Eurythmics singer said that churches could be a force for good. “They are directly connected with the community at large, so of course churches can do a tremendous amount. I know many do.

“Or then again they can do tremendous harm, because when the Pope goes to a country in Africa and tells them that they shouldn’t use condoms, when we know that HIV is a sexually transmitted disease — I don’t think that makes any sense at all. It is very confusing.”

During his tour of Africa earlier this year Pope Benedict XVI said that Aids “cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems”.

This kind of shallow compassion is the equivalent of throwing change to some unfortunate alcoholic on the street and criticizing Alcoholics Anonymous for pushing their unrealistic agenda of "No drinking, no exceptions."

But this thinking is so rampant among the "I-feel-like-really-really-bad-about-Africa-so-I'm-better-than-you" crowd.

The Church does more to help those suffering from AIDS than any organization on the face of the planet. So I get a little tired of the criticisms of verbose musicians who attempt to Bono-fy themselves back into social relevance.

Note to Annie Lennox: Folks in the U.N. have been shipping condoms out there like it's the answer to all problems. But here's the thing - condoms are not safe. There's so such thing as safe sex. You're encouraging bad behavior by lying to the people most at risk. And then you blame the Church which has the 100% fool-proof solution to the AIDS epidemic and which does more to alleviate the suffering of AIDS sufferers around the world than any other organization.

Annie Lennox and her ilk assume that AIDS is rampant because the Church tells the African people not to wear condoms. But the Church also tells them not to have sex outside marriage. One would have to assume that the African people are very religious and subservient to the authority of the Church when it comes to condoms but not sexual behavior. That, to me, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

There is a clear correlation between the distribution of condoms and an increase in sexually transmitted infection rates. Condoms therefore are part of the problem not the solution as the Church often says. But it doesn't seem everyone's listening.

Newsweek Blogger Wishes Disease on Protesters

The joint venture of Newsweek and Washington Post On Faith blog has been a source of near constant enjoyment to me since its inception.

My delight with them stems mostly from a masochistic delight in illogic. Writer Susan Jacoby does not disappoint me with her latest rant. Jacoby, one of On Faith's in house atheists, wishes in today's edition that all ObamaCare protesters, whom she calls "wretched specimens of humanity," would be made by a mythical God to suffer a painful sickness to make them "feel like they were dying."

So sweet. But remember conservatives are the mean cruel nasty un-American types.

Jacoby starts out invoking Jesus even though she's an atheist. She clearly has the understanding of religion of an atheist. She starts out by saying:

"it does seem reasonable that the Jesus of the gospels would not have bothered to heal the sick unless he believed that health care was a right."

Brilliant, huh? OK. According to that logic, then booze should be a right too since Jesus turned water into wine.

Are there any editors over there at On Faith? Heck forget editors, are there any grownups over there? But it only gets worse from there.

Jacoby then goes to call anyone who opposes ObamaCare "anti-health care reform crazies" who are not only "morally wrong" but "antirational" and "immoral."

She goes on to wish there was a God if only to bring down a plague of sorts on conservatives:

One reason I don't believe in God is that if he existed, I just feel certain that he would inflict some really, really uncomfortable (not fatal--I've never liked the Passover tale of the plagues or the slaying of the Egyptian first-born) ailment on the screamers at town hall meetings. Something like poison ivy. No, not bad enough. Poison ivy plus a flu severe enough to make them seek medical attention. And then they'd have to wait, say, five or six hours to see their doctor, since physicians pack in too many patients because insurance companies reimburse them for high-tech procedures, not talking with patients and treating ordinary miseries of the flesh. Yes, if there were a deity, he'd definitely spread around some nasty bacteria at the town halls. And he'd spare the too-polite proponents of reform. This fantasy god wouldn't kill anyone but would just make a few wretched specimens of humanity feel like they were dying. Just for a while.

Funny thing is that I'd bet Jacoby is firmly against waterboarding and torturing Al Qaeda terrorists but I guess she's cool with torturing conservatives. Making someone feel like they're dying sounds like torture, doesn't it?

Are we sure Newsweek really wants to stand behind this imbecilic hate-filled rant? Or has quality so long since left these two bankrupt organizations that they don't recognize drivel upon seeing it?

Your Wife Must Be A ...

Sorry to go all Andy Rooney but, did you ever notice...

For the fathers out there with a bunch of kids, I have a question. Is it just me? Whenever I am out with my five kids someplace, a park, the store, or even church I get the question. You all know the question, but I am not interested in the question right now. I am interested in what comes after the question.

I am out somewhere with the kids and someone, typically another mother, will mosey on up and ask me with a disbelieving look "are they all yours?" The snark rolodex then whirs into frenetic motion trying to find just the right response. I could use Matt's line about them actually being hitchhikers I picked up because I thought they looked so darn much like the others. I could make a remark about how I just have the young ones and the other ones are still at home school. I could give them the unblinking stare and ask them if I can share some literature with them. But instead I opt for brevity and respond "Uh huh."

But then, then comes the part that gets me. More often than not I will get some variation on the following remark. "Your wife must be a saint." Now the truth is that my wife is a saint. She has more patience than Job and the wisdom of Solomon, but how do they know that? Why don't they ever say "You must be a saint?" For all they know my wife could have run off with K-fed six months ago, after all I am the one out with the kids. But no, she is the presumed saint and I am presumed to be on supervised visitation.

So I have decided to update my snark rolodex with some retorts to this derisive presumption. I thought that one clever response would be to suddenly break out in tears and ask the offender if they know my wife and if they have seen her lately as the kids miss her. But, being a guy, displays of such emotion are difficult for me. Then I thought that I could mumble something about how I truly believe she could be a saint one day, after she gets out of rehab ... again. That was better, but still requires me to really sell it and frankly that takes too much energy, I am with the kids I remind you. Anyway, I have my new response at the ready the next time some unsuspecting soul tries to confer blind sainthood on my wife. Ready?

Hey, are all those yours?

Ummm, yes.

Wow. Your wife must be a ...

YES! Yes she is. But the kids and I love her anyway.

Newsday: Bishop Murphy Supports ObamaCare

The media feels that Obama has been attacked enough so now they're gathering their forces to defend The One and his healthcare plan, even if it means lying.

Case in point, Newsday is claiming that Bishop William Murphy supports ObamaCare based a letter he penned for the USCCB. Oddly, when Inside Catholic covered Murphy's letter they entitled it: Bishops Blast Obama Health Care Plan.

Newsday wrote:

A variety of Long Island religious leaders expressed support for President Barack Obama's national health care reform efforts Wednesday...

Bishop William Murphy, the head of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, could not be reached for comment. But in a letter he sent to all of Congress last month on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Murphy said the bishops support "comprehensive health care reform that leads to health care for all, including the weakest and most vulnerable."

Murphy's letter also opposed not treating immigrants or using public funds for abortions. Murphy says abortion goes against church teachings.

Obama's preferences for a health care bill don't include public funding for abortions or health care for illegal immigrants.

This claim by Newsday of Bishop Murphy's support is nothing short of a lie.

The closest thing their is to an endorsement is this:

"The bishops want to support health care reform. We have in the past and we always must insist that health care reform excludes abortion coverage or any other provisions that threaten the sanctity of life."

And as we all know the healthcare bill does indeed threaten the sanctity of life.

How can Newsday possibly say that Obama's preference for the bill doesn't include abortion when the bill itself does include funding abortion?

I mean, let's just pretend for a moment that Obama really didn't want abortion to be covered (which he does). The question remains - who cares what Obama wants? The legislature is writing the bill and they've included abortion funding and Obama hasn't said (and won't) that he'll veto it if it includes public funding of abortion.

You can read the text of Murphy's letter here.

The funny thing is that, Newsday doesn't only lie about the Catholics supporting the bill. There's this quote from Rabbi Anchelle Perl, the head of Congregation Beth Sholom Chabad in Mineola:

"Health care reform needs to be done in a balanced way, along a middle ground, so you don't destroy the present infrastructure," he said. "This is a capitalist society."

Does that sound like he supports the health care bill? Not to me.

The media is pulling out all the stops for their man Obama. I think it'll only get worse as the polls worsen.

A Clear Sign From God?

As far as signs from God go, things don't get any clearer than this!

The other day we told you how the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is in Minneapolis deliberating on whether to lift the celibacy requirement for gay clergy. Amazingly, God has decided to weigh in on the debate. He did this Old Testament style by displaying his wrath. A tornado hit the Central Lutheran Church, which is directly across the street from where they are deliberating, knocking the cross off the steeple and inverting it. You can't make this up!


Should we say debate over?

ht to The Orate Fratres

Obama Gets a Demotion!

President Obama says "We are God's partners in matters of life and death."

God's partner? What?!

All I can think to ask is who demoted Obama and forced him to take on a partner on matters of life and death? Who does this "God" think He is to assume equal status with The One? What election did He win?

For years, Obama has assumed a singular autonomy on all issues relating to life and death. Obama, as Gateway Pundit points out, "This comes from the same guy who voted 4 times to kill live babies."

Obama even shared with the country his willingness to destroy his own grandchildren by saying, "Look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

And for years, Obama hasn't even needed God in order to define sin because Obama defined sin as "Being out of alignment with my values."

Does this sound like someone who needs a partner? But according to the Politico:

A reader points out that President Obama's call with the rabbis today — as recorded in Rabbi Jack Moline's and other clerics' Twitter feeds — freights health care reform with a great deal of religious meaning, and veers into the blend of policy and faith that outraged liberals in the last administration.

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said, according to Moline (paging Sarah Palin...), quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is decided "who shall live and who shall die."

The president ended the call by wishing the rabbis "shanah tovah," or happy new year — in reference to the High Holidays a month from now.

Well, the reason for the new "partnership" is clear. Obama's selling something. And he's coming up short by himself so he's going to raise the name of his silent partner God until he convinces enough people that God wants ObamaCare to pass.

It's funny that after all these years of acting alone, when Obama does allow God into the conversation it's to say God agrees with him. So we should all do what they say, I guess.

Update: RS McCain asks: God endorses ObamaCare?

The Defining Author Of Our Time

At first pass I wanted laugh - to scorn - but then I thought about it. What if they are right?

In a gushy puff piece on Dan Brown designed to hype his "long-awaited new novel", the TimeOnline headlines the piece by calling him "the defining author of our time."

What?!

I jumped to my keyboard ready to mock without mercy. The defining author of our time? Are they kidding?! So I sat there with my fingers poised at the ready, but the mocking wouldn't come. Is it possible? Could they be right?

But then I thought about it. They said defining, not best, not important, not even riveting. No, they said defining.

Then I realized that in some strange, pathetic, and unintentional way, they are right. Dan Brown, purveyor of false history, pseudo-intellectualism, childish secularism, and mindless conspiracy theories is the defining author of our time.

The TimesOnline article points us to an interview in which Stephen King mocks Brown and compares his writing to mac and cheese.

On May 7, 2005, the horror author Stephen King gave the commencement address to graduates at the University of Maine, his home state. In it, he half-joked: “If I show up at your house in ten years from now ... and find nothing on your bedroom night table but the newest Dan Brown novel ... I’ll chase you to the end of your driveway, screaming, ‘Where are your books? Why are you living on the intellectual equivalent of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese?’ ”

Mac & cheese tastes good and fills your belly but does little to nourish. An apt analogy for the defining author of our time All this, of course, says more about our time than about the author.

Sign of the Cinnamon Cross

Visiting Grandma today. So we woke up and I got my children dressed nicely. I rushed us all into the van to get an early start and they all got in the van and settled in for an almost three hour car ride. They hadn't eaten breakfast so I said we could pick something up on the way. I said it was up to them what we get.

Yeah, big mistake. I know. But it gets worse.

They voted unanimously. Cinnamon buns! Yeah, huge mistake.

Now, I'm not a Cinnamon bun guy. I've had them maybe a few times in my entire life. But my wife introduced the kids to them a few weeks ago and they've been jones-ing for them since. So I bought some Cinnamon buns from a local bakery.

As they took the buns out of the bag all that melty goodness was already all over their hands. I focused on the road and handed back napkins and told them to be as neat as possible. They were giggling they were so excited.

I was hoping somehow that their outfits would be spared.

And then I heard all of them in unison. "Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Bless us O Lord and these thy gifts..."

I quickly looked in the rearview mirror and all five had a cinammonny goop mess on their foreheads, their chest, and their shoulders. The two year old whose sign of the cross always looks like she's telling Jesus to steal third base has it on her nose, her belly, and her elbows.

As they completed the prayer and said "Amen" I was already going through my mental inventory of packed outfits so I could change them down the block from Grandma's house.

Find The Metaphor

I don't know how, but in some way this must be a metaphor for the Democrats and Health Care. Help me out here!

Vogue Mag Doesn't Like Christians Much

I just read an article on Gov. Mark Sanford's wife Jenny Sanford in Vogue Magazine. Vogue clearly (and rightly) feels some sympathy for Mrs. Sanford but their obvious distaste for her Christianity and all things conservative comes through so obviously that it's laughable.

Not going to be a whole lot of analysis. I'm just going to use their own words against them.

Ready. The first example is just illogically anti-conservative:

Before Jenny Sanford came along, the options for wronged political wives were pretty poor. You could suffer silently (see Silda Wall Spitzer), deny everything (hello, Hillary), or make catty asides about the harlot who caused your husband to stray (Elizabeth Edwards). Then came Jenny Sanford.

Early this past summer, just as the world was savoring the news that yet another conservative Republican politician had tumbled from grace in a manner worthy of the best French farce—“hiking the Appalachian Trail” will never have the same meaning—there emerged an unlikely hero in the mess down in South Carolina.

Yet another? All the scandals Vogue mentioned were disgraced Democrats. They then say "yet another" conservative Republican?

It's not that there aren't examples out there of conservative calamities. It's just Vogue didn't show its work.

And does the world really savor the destruction of conservatives or is just the world surrounding Vogue?

But then Vogue shows how uncomfortable they are with the idea of God. They write of her brief statement after news of the affair became public:

Her one-page statement saying as much was written without the help of spin doctors or media consultants. It came from her heart and her head. It mentioned God without making you squirm.

The very mention of God makes Vogue reporters squirm? Gee, I wonder what they think of Sarah Palin?

It gets better from there. Vogue writes:

It’s a house for boys to knock around in and friends to gather in. The Sanfords are conservative Christians, but they’re not the teetotaling, proselytizing sort. There are bottles of wine on the kitchen counter. Ayn Rand is on the bookshelf, but so is Gabriel García Márquez. The Bible sits front and center on the coffee table, alongside Forbes magazine. “You could be friends with her for 20 years, and she would never bring up the religious stuff,” says her friend Marjory Wentworth, poet laureate of South Carolina and a self-described liberal who once worked for The Nation.

You notice that every time they mention her Christianity they feel the need to offset it. It's like they have to tell you that yeah she's one of them Christians but she's not like all crazy with it.

Offering no evidence Vogue concludes of her career before motherhood:

One of the few females in the office, she blazed a trail upward by putting in long hours and learning to set aside some of her innate moral squeamishness.

But they never back up how she set aside her "innate moral squeamishness."

All in all shoddy journalism with an extreme distaste for at least half the country. But it's Vogue Magazine, what did we expect?

A Prophectic Word

Woe to him that enables changing of the subject.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the entire health care debate has been the inability of the left to change the subject. Further, now more than ever, the left needs to change the subject. This debate, while including the requisite amount of hyperbole, has generally been about ideas. What is the proper role of government? What is the role of the free market? How should these apply to health care? These are some of the questions. But even more troubling for the left is that the debate has been very much focused on what is in the bill and its long term ramifications. This is amazing. This has been a fight in the arena of ideas and the left has been pummeled worse than Jerry Cooney.

But say what you want about the Democrats, they have a playbook that has been very effective for them in the past and they are not about to panic because they have had a bad quarter. Whenever the breaks have been beating the boys, the democrats pull out one play that is sure to work and that is changing the subject. Further, the best way to change the subject is to demonize someone. To trash them, to ruin them, to destroy them while at the same time making them the face of the opposition.

To be sure, the Democrats have already tried this during this debate but have so far been frustrated by their inability to select the right target. Oh they tried with the feeble "nazi" claims only to have it backfire on them. They tried to make the idiot who brought a gun to the townhall the poster child for the movement, but that has not gained traction either. The trouble for the democrats this time around is that people have been watching these protests. They have seen the people and in doing so have recognized themselves. The democrats are unable, this time, to demonize or marginalize the entire group simply because people see themselves when they look at the protesters.

So now I am very sure that they will give up on the idea of marginalizing all the protesters but change the subject they must. To do this, the Democrats will destroy a person. An individual. I am talking the worst type of politics of personal destruction. Apocalyptic Sarah "The Plumber" Bush type destruction. They are actively seeking their target and the very moment that someone even remotely prominent on the other side makes a mistake, their life as they knew it is over.

Watch for it. They are as desperate as I have ever seen them. I don't know who it will be or what the topic will be, but it doesn't matter. They must change the subject. Woe to him who says or does or says something really stupid over the next weeks. They will wish they had never been born.

The Quiet

I placed my two year old in the Hurricane machine. Yup. You read that right.

I could tell you that she was with the nine year old and the four year old but that doesn't make it much better, does it? She's still a two year old and it's still something called "THE HURRICANE MACHINE."

I'm not going to defend myself. But I will explain. My children finished all their assigned reading for school and I promised them some fun at the mall.

The Hurricane Machine is a bright red telephone booth sized room in the middle of the mall that whips up winds up to 80 mph inside for two dollars. The kids have been begging for a chance to go inside since they first saw it a few months ago.

I didn't expect the two year old to want to go in but she kinda' poked herself in there when the nine year old walked in. I could've taken her out but I figured I could always grab her out if she got scared. My nine year old picked her up as the winds picked up. The four year old ran in place screaming but the two year old loved it. Her cheeks ballooned with air and her hair flew around her face and every time she laughed the windows were sprayed with kid drool.

A number of people stopped to watch and a man in a suit suddenly said from behind me, "Next time you do this you have to take video of it."

I joked by saying, "Uh. Do I really want evidence that I put my two year old in something called the Hurricane machine? And do I really want my wife seeing this video?"

"Good point," he said.

When the three of them got out the six year old and the seven year old got in together, mainly because the last thing either of them did alone was get born. And as I put my two dollars in the man in the suit laughed and said, "They all yours? Ha. You must not like quiet too much." And then he stood there looking over me and my children smiling as if we were the long awaited punch line to a private joke he'd just been telling. He nodded his head as he looked at me and the children.

"I'd imagine you don't get a lot of quiet," he said.

I honestly didn't know where the man was going with this so I looked at his hands. You see, the eyes tell you if you're gonna' have a problem with a man. The hands tell you how much of one. If he's got something in them, if they're balled up, or twitching. It tells you something.

But the man's hands were relaxed. "You don't get much quiet, huh?," he repeated as if I hadn't heard.

"I get enough," I said over my shoulder at him.

"I bet you do," he roared, laughing and causing others at the mall to turn their heads.

The girls giddily climbed out of the Hurricane Machine and we walked away. And we didn't see him again although the kids sensed that we were walking away from something rather than to something. Don't know how they know but I could see it in how they looked behind us that they knew something was going on.

We entered a new store in the mall which had rides and video games. We walked up the stairs inside and my older children bounded up ahead of the two year old and I mainly because she can't walk up stairs too fast. She feels the need to hold the railing which she can hardly reach. And she's the kind of crazy that if she stumbles on a step she goes back down and does it again right.

I know there's probably whole books that tell parents how to deal with that kind of crazy but I figure I'll just let it play out a while. Sometimes crazy just wears off or they invent all new kinds of crazy. And instead of buying all those books just think of how many rides in the Hurricane Machine she could get for that. Eventually maybe it'll blow the crazy right out of her. And if nothing changes, she'll have the strongest legs of any two year old in the hemisphere.

We reached the top of the stairs and my children were all standing there frozen, mouths agape like witnesses to a vision out of a children's Bible. Ah, the sweet siren of unbridled capitalism blinked, whirred and beeped at them, overwhelming their senses with all its neon glory, hailing tokens out of their pockets.

There were car racing games, motorcycle games, and dance games. Some kind of spaceship looking thing bounced about blinking red and blue lights. Skeet ball. Basketball hoops. A room of nets and tubes and slides with a floor filled with balls.

They wandered forward slowly as if rushing towards it all would make it disappear. They looked to me for approval to dash headlong in the anarchy. And I knew that my assent would usher in madness. I waited a moment. Two. And then I nodded. Never had a simple nod unleashed such insanity. They ran towards the net, tube, and ball room while removing their shoes in stride. There was no delicacy or grace in their movements. It was pure speed which interested them. Every moment they were not up to their knees in Styrofoam balls was a wasted moment for them.

The two year old released my hand and dashed behind them all and...FACE PLANT! This childish Las Vegas proved too much for her and she'd lost her bearings and ran straight into the motorcycle game and crashed to the floor. She didn't so much as raise her hands for protection on the way down. I honestly still believe that even as she fell she made the choice to keep her eyes firmly affixed on the big blue tube slide rather than the onrushing floor.

I know this is bad but I hoped she didn't bruise for a couple of reasons. One, because she's my child and I love her very much but two, the thought of explaining it all to my wife seemed dangerous.

Wife: Honey, what happened to the baby?
Me: Well she hit the motorcycle.
Wife: She got hit by a motorcycle?!
Me: No the motorcycle was the aggrieved party here. She hit it.
Wife: Why?
Me: Well, she may have still been a little disoriented from the "Hurricane Machine" because we were moving fast away from the strange man making lewd cracks about us.

And I didn't see the conversation getting better from there.

But the baby cried for a few moments and I patted her as she explained in her gobbledygook English how that motorcycle had jumped out and clearly attacked her. I agreed with her. But soon she was fine and the kids played together.

I stood near a bench where the other parents sat. One of them said to me, "Are they all yours?"

I get that question a lot.

I told her that two of them were actually hitchhikers I picked up because I thought they looked so darn much like the others. They laughed but another woman there said, "I was just saying how loud this place is but you probably don't even notice it because your house must always sound like this."

I laughed. The other woman added, "God bless you. I don't know how you do it. Your wife must be a saint."

I told her that on that we could agree.

Those kinds of places really do show the best and worst of parenting. It's nice because at first you see the parents smiling at their children, taking video and clicking pictures and then comes the inevitable "we have to leave" which ushers in many stages. Upon the initial call to leave, the child pretends they can't hear their parent. Then after that charade seems implausible comes the "one more minute" request which often ushers in a new round a pretending not to hear the parent when the one minute is up. Then after communications are established and both sides are locked in on one another, then and only then are the battle lines drawn. And the child has a decision to make. And much of it comes down to whether or not they think Mom is willing to crawl up that tube and come after them.

Sadly, I can say most of the children there didn't believe their Mom would crawl up and there were screaming matches and tears, granted requests for later sentencing, and most of them were hailed out only by promises of Icees and pretzels. In short, most of the parents there ended up sorry they took their children there in the first place. And said so.

I know that I do have one advantage in this respect. My children know I'm the kind of crazy that wouldn't hesitate before climbing up a tube to "gather" a disobedient child. You see, when children know that Dad is crazy, it makes them a bit more sane.

But watching my children in there was great. I know the place was loud as an electronic apocalypse but I didn't notice it. I was focused on their smiles and their laughter and watching them take care of each other when they fell in the balls (mostly on purpose). At one point they pretended the balls were quicksand and they saved each other from certain death.

But amid the cacophony for me it all seemed...quiet. I started thinking about that man's question. Despite having five children and a not-so-big house, the funny thing is that I feel like I do live a quiet life.

I should know. I lived loud for many years. I lived loudest when I was younger and wanted to drown out the quiet. Because back then it was the quiet that scared me.

You can sleep with noise. It's the quiet that doesn't let you sleep. It was in the quiet moments when all the questions came into my mind and jarred me and jeered at me.

During the day it's always easy to pretend you have all the answers. But at night there's nobody to lie to. All those seemingly unanswerable questions come out and they sit on your chest. They're unanswerable mostly because you just don't want to know the answer.

So I learned to dread the quiet. And I lived loud.

But eventually things change. Things like meeting the greatest woman in the world and having children and actually facing down the big questions in your life make you quieter.

I think once you accept God, all the other questions seem to quiet down. And all your own noises don't seem all that loud. And let's face it, as you get older, you just realize you don't take up the space in the universe you once thought you occupied. And I'm good with that. I like my little space in the universe here.

It's a funny irony that when I was young and dumb and believed I was the center of the universe I took nothing seriously except myself. But as I've gotten older it seems I take most everything else seriously except myself.

In my quiet life I like kissing my wife after a long day and praying with all five children at bedtime on a summer night while the sun is still hanging up in the sky. And when I lay down at night now it's quiet. The kind of quiet you can sleep to. The kind of quiet you thank God for. Well, at least I do.

Lutheran Prepare For Gay Vote

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is preparing for a big vote this week on whether to allow openly gay clergy. Oh, get it over with already.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, one of the largest Christian denominations in the country, will decide this week whether to allow gay people in relationships to serve as clergy.

Currently, sexually active gay people are not permitted to serve in the clergy, but celibate gay people are. By Friday, church delegates meeting in Minneapolis are expected to vote on a proposal that would permit congregations to let gay men and lesbians in committed, monogamous relationships serve as clergy.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church is the latest major denomination to wrestle with the question of gay clergy. The issue has divided the Episcopal Church, which last month voted to make gay people eligible for any ordained ministry, further threatening to split the worldwide Anglican Communion, of which it is a branch. And earlier this year, the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted against accepting openly gay pastors, although the margin narrowed compared with a 2001 vote.

Ordinarily I would rail against such a thing, but frankly I am tired. Let's face it, these mainline protestant churches will all do it eventually, so let's get it over with. There is nothing to stop the roll down the hill that started centuries ago, it is only now more apparent that we are closer to the bottom. So fine. Permit it all, you know you want to. Spend your inheritance. Get it out of your system and when you finally hit bottom and are eating and sleeping with the pigs, remember that you can always come home to papa.

Of Bloggery and Snobbery

Maggie Gallagher, whom I agree with on many issues, wrote a line in her review of "Julie and Julia" that jumped out at me. And not in a good way. She wrote of the main character Julie, this line:"Julie is not even a writer. She's a blogger." (Her emphasis not mine)

What?

Well, unquestionably blogging and writing are not mutually exclusive as Gallagher is a writer who blogs at NRO. So clearly, as she is able to assume both monikers a blogger by definition can still be a writer. So maybe it's when they're just a blogger that they no longer qualify as writers.

So I have to ask Maggie Gallagher 'What pray tell is a writer?'

Someone who writes something that many people enjoy reading? I'd ask Maggie Gallagher how many people need to read someone's writing before that person can be considered a writer. 100? 1,000? 10,000? Please help me out here. I'm looking for a numeric distinction so I can put this issue to rest and prevent thousands of bloggers from falsely considering themselves writers only to find out from Maggie Gallagher later that they are merely pretenders.

Or is it a matter of money? Do you have to earn a certain amount before you're considered a writer?

Is it perhaps it is the lack of a gatekeeper that bothers her? Is it the fact that anyone can coin a domain name and start writing...oh...I mean blogging at a site and nobody can say no to them? On this world wide interweb thing, there's no grizzled old J-school graduate deciding who gets to write and who doesn't. Nobody decides who gets hired and who gets fired?

Blogging is Darwinian. You put your stuff out there and live or die on your merits. There have been plenty o' pundits and writers who have ventured into the blogging world and failed miserably.

And some of the best things I've ever read have been posted on blogs by gasp...bloggers. Someone should inform them, I guess, that they're not writers. They're just bloggers.

Now, I've earned a decent living writing for all sorts of newspapers and publications and wrote press releases for all sorts of organizations but right now I enjoy writing on the blog more than I enjoy writing anywhere else. It doesn't really pay so great but I enjoy it. I still write for money elsewhere but I really can't see how my being hired or not hired by a publication that may very well be out of business in a few years (at least partially because of blogs) as a distinction worthy of seeking.

It's like someone from the buggy whip industry mocking Henry Ford as not a real transportation expert.

Are you telling me that Diogenes is not real writer but Jayson Blair is? Ed Morrissey from Hot Air is just a blogger while Howard Kurtz is a real writer?

Can anyone say with a straight face that IowaHawk is not a great writer? (This sentence is interesting mainly because it's the first time "straight face" and "Iowahawk" were used in the same sentence.)

I don't know why this ticked me off but it did and I just had to write about it...oh wait...I mean blog about it.