Ahhh...

Our internet is finally back up. Blogging to resume shortly. :)

More Racism from the Left

Somebody needs to tell the Left that conservatives are supposed to be the jerks bringing up Obama's race in this campaign. That's what Barack Obama himself said would happen.

They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

So, why is it that only the loony Left keeps bringing it up? As Ed Morrissey at Hot Air pointed out, we've had multiple lefties maligning Obama (first, Ralph Nader said he wasn't black enough, then Jesse Jackson wanted to castrate him for pointing out that certain prevalent behaviors in the black community don't help people succeed).

Now, there's this cover from The New Yorker. I'm pretty certain that magazine can't be mistaken for the Weekly Standard or the Washington Times.

So, what does the moonbatosphere do? Why, complain that it isn't a satire of John McCain, of course! And certainly, those intrepid closet conservatives at The New Yorker are cackling gleefully, knowing this will serve as a recruitment tool for Karl Rove!

Warren Street is still deleting and mistranscribing comments on his blog, which shows the maturity level there, but the comments were golden and worth a peek.

Homosexuality and the Bible

Pam Spaulding (among others) likes to poke fun at Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong cuz the Bible says so.

But does the Bible constitute hate speech because of Leviticus (and other) passages? Evidently, one guy thinks so.

A gay man is suing two heavyweight Christian publishers, claiming their versions of the Bible that refer to homosexuality as a sin violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.
Bradley LaShawn Fowler of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan, based in Cascade Township, and $10 million from Nashville-based Thomas Nelson Publishing...

Fowler, 39, alleges Zondervan's Bibles referring to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."

The intent of the publisher was to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder," Fowler wrote.

Fowler's suit claims Zondervan's text revisions from a 1980s version of the Bible included, and then deleted, a reference to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians without informing the public of the changes.

The other suit, against Thomas Nelson and its New King James Bible, mirrors the allegations made against Zondervan.

Seems to me, this is a simple free speech issue. You don't have to agree with the Bible but you can't sue the publishers because the Bible makes you uncomfortable.

More Warnings About the HPV Vaccine

Merck and the FDA have expanded the warnings for Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine.

The new warning - added to the package insert and to an information sheet given to patients - was approved June 12 by the FDA, which states in documents on its Web site that the updated information "reflect reports received" after the vaccine went on the market in 2006.

Through June 10, medical professionals and others reported to a government database 8,864 instances of health problems, including fainting, numbness, seizures and paralysis, a study released June 30 by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch shows. The database is shared by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As many as 18 deaths were reported, the study found.

As I stated last year, my objection to Gardasil was the mandate by Texas Governor Rick Perry that all girls from 9 to 17 be vaccinated. That concern was twofold: that the government shouldn't be requiring parents to vaccinate their children for such diseases, and because the vaccine had not been tested long enough. It appears that the rush to bring this product to market has resulted in a variety of unexpected consequences. But remember, the only reason you wouldn't want your daughter to get this risky vaccine is because you want her to die of cervical cancer (according to Amanda Marcotte).

For the Record...

My internet connection has been a little iffy the last few days, which is why I haven't posted much. I'm hoping to have the problem fixed soon.

FISA Hysteria

Is it possible for liberals to not get hysterical about any political issue? I've seen "the sky is falling" posts about troop funding, oil drilling, the minimum wage, judicial appointments and now FISA.

This rambling post on Delaware Liberal has to be todays Screamer.

It took me about five paragraphs to realize that DonViti was ready to slit his wrists because Democrats capitulated yet again to that crafty (or is it moronic? It's so hard to tell without a scorecard) President Bush over FISA.

There are so many hilarious sections of the post. It reminds me of a 10-year-old claiming his parents are "ruining his life" because they imposed some unwanted restriction.

What is wrong? I ask myself to the point of tears almost. I really do, honestly, I get a sunken feeling in and around my heart when I wonder what the fuck is going on with this country? I mean what the fuck man? I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. It hurts me inside to know that such a small majority of MY country is controlling me.

Crying? Really? Because the government has granted immunity to telecoms for cooperating with the government after 9/11? Really?

I was quite astonished at the level of emotion over this issue. DonViti goes on to compare passing legislation with rape (I'm not making this up). I'm not a bra-burner, but I find rape analogies to be quite offensive. Lots of things might bother you, but they don't amount to rape. Only idiots and insensitive clods (hello, Clayton Williams) use them. I always find it astounding when such silliness comes from the Left. Aren't these guys supposed to be more sensitive about these things than us cold-hearted conservatives?

But I keep forgetting that not getting their way is personal with liberals. So, I guess it's time for the die-hards to close the blinds and hide under the beds because the big, bad telecoms are gonna listen in on their conversations with Aunt Maude in Boca Raton.

Obama and Forced Volunteerism

Evidently, Jonah Goldberg is receiving a lot of flak over his column on Obama's plan to force students to do community service. It doesn't surprise me, since race is the issue in this presidential race. Any time someone says anything that could be considered racial ("involuntary servitude"), it will be interpreted as a racist remark. Gee, is John Wiley Price on the Obama campaign?

Last week, on another blog, I mentioned Obama's plan for national service in response to a stupid argument that Democrats don't "legislate morality." This is bullshit, of course. Democrats just legislate different types of morality. For example, they like gay marriage and abortion and oppose 18 year olds drinking and people driving without seatbelts. Liberals oppose drilling our own oil (at least, for the moment) and support forcing people to pay for Amtrak and other forms of public transportation, even when such things are useless where you live.

If it supports traditional morality or makes you happy while minding your own business, liberals are against it. If it forces you to pay for things you oppose, they are for it.

Now, we have Barack Obama telling us that volunteerism is so good we have to be forced to do it. But as Goldberg points out, Americans already are the most generous people on Earth.

According to social demographer Arthur C. Brooks, in 1995 (the last year international comparative data on giving was available), Americans gave 3 1/2 times as much money to charities and causes as the French, seven times more than the Germans and 14 times more than the Italians.

In 1998, Americans also volunteered 21% more than the Swiss and 32% more than Germans -- two countries with compulsory national service.

People should do volunteer work because they want to do volunteer work, not because someone has decided to force people into it. At that point, it isn't really volunteer work at all, is it?

My problem with the whole forced volunteerism thing is twofold. First, anytime you have mandatory community service, the quality of that service will go down. Why? Because people who are forced to do things don't approach it with the same fervor as people who actually believe in the work they are doing. If you require that all students perform 50 hours of community service to graduate from high school, you'll get 50 hours of community service...and no more. Requirements cause people to feel less obligation to go above and beyond. Why should they? Someone else will pick up the slack.

The second problem I see is determining which organizations qualify for community service. If I go on a mission trip to build churches, does that count the same way reading to toddlers at the local library does? What if I volunteer to man the phones for a crisis pregnancy center? Who gets to determine what qualifies as acceptable volunteer work?

I do volunteer work through my church, but not all of that is religiously-affiliated. I suspect a lot of people get involved with organizations this way. They start with one group and gradually move to different groups over time. I'm not convinced that people would have this experience were they compelled to work. It's more blessed to give than receive, but it's more important to allow people the freedom to make those choices on their own.

Warren Street at Blue Girl, Red State shows his own inability to rebut Goldberg's arguments. "Hurr, hurr, he said 'founders' when discussing the 13th Amendment. Hurr, hurr, hurr." Yeah, Warren. It's not like people on the Left make any mistakes when referring to the Constitution. I mean, "founders" versus "authors" was the point of the essay.

Maybe This Is Why Our Kids Are Getting Fat

It's easier to sit in front of the XBox than play ball when the old folks call the lawyers.

Aww...

Obama's tired of being on the campaign trail.

He hasn't had a vacation for months. He sees his family little more than once a week. And now as the presumed Democratic nominee for president, he can't go anywhere without being trailed by a full crew of journalists.

He hasn't had a vacation in months? Poor baby! Lots of people don't get to take vacations, at least vacations where they go somewhere else and do something fun. He doesn't see his family much? Lots of dads do that, too, working second or third shift to provide for the family (my dad did and yeah, it sucks but I got over it). Oh, and all that attention because he's the Democrat presidential nominee.

Well, cry me a river, Barry. You could always resign. If you think the pressure's bad now, wait 3 1/2 years. Nobody looks younger after being president.




It's no accident men age considerably while president, Barry. Maybe you should be rethinking this whole strategy.

The "Black Hole" Affair

I've always loved the old addage that if the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. I guess the same can be true of racists; if the only tool you have is to castigate everything as racism, then everything looks like racism to you.

Take the case of this Dallas County commissioners' meeting.

County commissioners were discussing problems with the central collections office that is used to process traffic ticket payments and handle other paperwork normally done by the JP Courts.

Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections "has become a black hole" because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.

Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud "Excuse me!" He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a "white hole."

That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.

Mayfield shot back that it was a figure of speech and a science term. A black hole, according to Webster's, is perhaps "the invisible remains of a collapsed star, with an intense gravitational field from which neither light nor matter can escape."

Other county officials quickly interceded to break it up and get the meeting back on track. TV news cameras were rolling, after all.

Dallas has a lot of racial problems. John Wiley Price is one of them. Dallas is a majority minority city that is always on the verge of a riot, largely because city officials spend more time blaming each other than solving any problems. And JWP is eager to stir up any racism he thinks he sees. After all, it's his stock and trade.

As a city, Dallas has been a rathole for decades. White flight, caused by high taxation and crime, left the city filled with the poor who couldn't leave and a few tough ol' birds who refused to do so. And while I admire the bravery of proud citizens who kill the burglars trying to steal their stuff, that combination has tarnished the city's reputation and ability to attract tourists and business. Hell, even the Cowboys left Dallas in the early 70's to play in Irving (and now they're moving to the much, much nicer Arlington). Dallas, it ain't.

Now, I know that I'm not the most unbiased of observers. As a native of Fort Worth, I really hate everything Dallas, so watching the city's black-and-blue reputation get another black eye doesn't bother me a bit.

But the truth is that JWP's outburst (and the idiocy of Judge Thomas Jones of joining him) just goes to prove that our school system really is broken. How could anyone be alive in the 21st century and not know what a black hole is? I hope the African school named for Price spends a little more time on science that Price obviously did.

Why We Love Baseball

You just don't get this with soccer.

The Cost of "Sounding Black"

According to this study, if you "sound black," you can expect to earn about 10% less than if you sound white.

Sound racist? Well, yeah. That's probably the point of the study.

But buried in this New York Times article discussing the survey, you can expect to earn 6% less if you "sound Southern."

Is that racist? I bet fewer NYT readers object to that finding, considering they think anyone born below the Mason-Dixon line is inbred, anyway.

My first thought was, "If you can't understand someone when they speak, they probably will make less." That's a lot of what the euphemism "sounding black" is about. I don't have any polling data to back that up, mind you, but if I have to say, "Pardon?" or "Huh?" or "Could you repeat that?" more than once, my opinion of the speaker goes way down. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens to potential employers.

Employers search for candidates who fit the image the company wishes to project. Typically, that means someone who comes across as well-spoken and intelligent. People who speak slang, regardless of race, don't come across that way. Candidates who insist on speaking slang are less likely to be successful at work, regardless of race.

We all speak slang with our family and friends. Everyone. But expecting people to use standard English in business situations isn't racist or oppressive; it's making life as beneficial and easy as possible for potential customers.

The Short and Liberal View of Health Care

Everybody should make lots of visits to the doctor and government should pay for it.

Ok, that's not exactly what Jesse Taylor said in his long, rambling post on why he doesn't go to the doctor, but that's what it boils down to. Taylor says he's a healthy 25-year-old who either doesn't have insurance or doesn't have the right kind of insurance, so he doesn't use a family doctor and doesn't know anything about his shots. No offense to Mr. Taylor, but it sounds like he might need to just grow up a little and decide to take charge of things like finding a doctor and keeping up with his medical record.

I know that at 44, I'm an old fogey (at least, that's what Jeromy Brown claims when I point out the holes in his "I'm cooler, younger, hipper" arguments), but when I was 25, I had insurance and a family practitioner. I even had a separate OB/GYN that I saw every single year!

Now, a couple of things have changed in 20 years. One is the growth of CareNow-type doc-in-a-box places and the other is the decline of the family practice. I suspect the two are related somehow.

Taylor spends some time quoting from an article bemoaning the fact that so few medical students are choosing family medicine and general internal medicine as practices. Medical students are choosing other, more exotic fields several reasons besides money and student loans. Many of the reasons aren't discussed in the article, but considerations have to include prestige, hours, and the cost of insurance. Sure, an oncologist might have to pay more for insurance, but he's also getting at least three times what his family practice colleague makes. Bet he's not buying his dress shirts at Ross Dress for Less.

The upshot of Taylor's post is that our system sucks.

the big problem with our healthcare system is that it sucks for everyone. As much as we’d all love it if a new generation of young, soulful doctors came into family practice with a whole new attitude (this fall on ABC), we have an insurance system that encourages skipping extra steps and getting as little healthcare as possible to fix any given problem. We can make all the TV shows and send out all the proselytizers and forgive all the debt we want, but when the family doctor is the guy telling you that you’ll have to see the other guy you already suspected you’d have to see - and you’re paying for both visits - it’s hard to justify both visits.

I suppose if you are only looking at medicine as a cost analysis, this may be true. But, oddly enough, I always considered going to the family doctor because, most of the time, I wouldn't need to go to a pricey specialist. But maybe that's my age showing.

There isn't anything in Taylor's post to explain how we're supposed to fix this doctor shortage. Universal health care? That will increase wait times and discourage med students from going into family practice. Force med students into internal medicine? That was part of Hillary's original health care plan and it got rave reviews (/snark off).

Taylor may not like the answer, but not going to the doctor for toenail fungus or every cough is probably the right thing to do. Use some common sense. And find a regular doctor and stay with him or her.

Empty Nesters

The youngest kiddoes are at church camp this week. Oldest daughter lives two blocks over with her dad. That means that for the first time in 16 1/2 years, I am without children in my house. My husband pointed out that this is the first time since we've been married that there are no kidlets here.

I know, I know. It's just a week. And there aren't any arguments over who's played on the computer longest or who got the last Jell-O pudding. No complaints of boredom. No fights to settle. Nobody asking to go to the library or the pool.

But it's too quiet. And when I clean up the living room, it stays clean. There's something unnatural about this.

Liberal IQ Hovers at 8

I discovered this poor excuse for a blog via this post by Dana at Common Sense Political Thought.

First of all, anyone who would ban Dana from her site must have parchment-thin skin. Dana good-naturedly accepts the daily nastiness that liberals consider a part of normal debate. I, on the other hand, don't tolerate their nonsense.

Secondly, I love idiots--er, debaters--who hurl ad hominem attacks like this:

"They really are like simple, but nasty, children."

"Idiot’s Hall of Fame"

"The accumulated IQ of the above bloggers adds up to about 47."

"mouth-breathing troglodytes"

My favorite, of course was this retort:

You have a head? (In response to someone saying the illogic of liberals caused him to have a headache)

Now, I understand that when facts and logic aren't on one's side, one must resort to schoolyard taunts and name-calling. This is just stock and trade for liberals, particularly when they start in on the "Bush lied, people died!" meme. But Maha raises that dumbness to new levels by first claiming to "know" so much about yellowcake uranium because she "read things," then by arguing that the Bush administration is "evil," so endangering our troops in the field is permissible.

I haven't posted about the whole yellowcake flap because I thought others had done a better job. The point that those with low IQs (Maha) seem to have missed was that regardless of whether Saddam Hussein had all the equipment to create nuclear weapons presently, he actively sought such equipment and obviously thought that he would be able to get around the U.N. sanctions to get it. After all, he bought off enough U.N. employees to sell his oil to whomever he pleased. Why should buying uranium-enriching equipment be any different?

I'm always amazed at the Left's collective amnesia where Saddam Hussein is concerned. They cling to the "he didn't have WMDs!" argument as though that was the only reason for going to war. They forget the numerous violations of U.N. resolutions. They forget that he had invaded his neighbors. They forget he used WMDs on his own people. They forget the various human rights violations (not Korans in the toilet, but still) committed and sanctioned by Hussein. They forget his funding of suicide bombers and his funding of assassins against an American president. The same people who were outraged that we didn't take out Hussein in 1991 are evidently convinced that Hussein had transformed into a cuddly teddy bear and was no threat to American interests.

Well, it's ok if they want to play (ok, not play, be) dumb. The grown-ups took care of it for you. Now you can go back to the really important stuff like banning people who have the audacity to point out your stupidity.

Documenting Obama's Flip-Flops

Patterico has a good post regarding the collection of Obama's flip-flops. Commenters were asked to give the flip-flop and links. Great sourcing.

Are We Supposed to Feel Sorry for Them?

According to USA Today, illegal aliens are having a harder time getting into college.

Some states are making it harder for illegal immigrants to attend college by denying in-state tuition benefits or banning undocumented students.
In the past two years, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia and Oklahoma have refused in-state tuition benefits to students who entered the USA illegally with their parents but grew up and went to school in the state. That represents a reversal from earlier this decade, when 10 states passed laws allowing in-state rates for such students.

This summer, South Carolina became the first state to bar undocumented students from all public colleges and universities.

North Carolina's community colleges in May ordered its 58 campuses to stop enrolling undocumented students after the state attorney general said admitting them may violate federal law.

"The new trend is to kick illegal aliens out of college altogether," says William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee, which opposes taxpayer subsidies for undocumented immigrants.

Um, so? You can't get in-state tuition unless you have the proper documentation anyway, right? What am I missing here?

But--But Children Are Just Smaller Adults, Aren't They?

Occasionally, I comment on liberal blogs when the subject of family comes up. Specifically, when the subject of parent-child relationships comes up. These discussions are frequently started after some heinous situation where a parent is either abusive to a child or neglectful to the child. Then, the liberals scream about how awful the parents are and that the children have rights, you know.

Almost invariably, someone will ask why parents have so much control over their children and that the state should step in. The recent FLDS raid in Texas is a good jumping off point for these discussions, because the commenters are almost uniformly anti-religion and the FLDS church is sufficiently patriarchal to get their blood boiling. Of course, the state authorities were wrong and heavy-handed in the FLDS case, but that's beside the point, isn't it? When you point out that parents are in charge of children because they have a more vested interest in their children's outcomes than any stranger, you will get lectured about what a "patriarchal" viewpoint that is.

It's always amusing when 30-somethings without kids want to lecture those of us with kids about the "rights" our children enjoy or should enjoy. After all, we parents--particularly those with teenagers--have known for years what the rights of our children are: to be fed, clothed and sheltered and to be raised with enough discipline and love to become fully-functioning and independent adults. Different parents approach these goals with different strategies, but most children reach adulthood with some ability to make it on their own and not spend their entire paychecks at the therapist's office. But in a society which, on the one hand, wants to treat 12-year-olds as mature enough to make their own decisions and, on the other, as 20-year-old children still needing parental monetary resources to make it through college, it is often difficult to figure out what is appropriate and what is not.

Couple the everyday stress of raising children with a vindictive and destructive ex and you will get a recipe for disaster. Take the plight of this poor man.

A divorced, custodial Quebec father cuts off the Internet privileges of his 12-year-old daughter for accessing forbidden Web sites. Daughter uses friend's computer to post indecent pictures of herself on the Web. As punishment, father grounds her from a school excursion.

Daughter and mother conspire with a sympathetic lawyer. Daughter sues father. A Superior Court judge rules father's punishment is too harsh. Father rethinks his custodianship.

Public recoil from the court's appropriation of what most Canadians recognize as a private family dispute was swift and intense. As the Post's Saturday editorial noted: "The courts have no business -- none -- in such routine family matters. This ruling is so profoundly intrusive we can only hope the Quebec appeals court strikes it down, and quickly."

Well, it may and it may not. Thanks to the Charter of Rights, our judiciary has come to assume that all personal behaviours are legally examinable, with alternate behaviours liable to enforcement at the court's pleasure, and so -- under the guise of the child's "right" to a peer social ritual -- an appeals court validation is not unthinkable.

There's a lot of talk in divorce court about the "best interest of the child," which, as a child ages, is really just a buzz phrase in lieu of "whatever the child wants." By the time a child reaches middle school, he, regardless of the parents' marital status, has learned how to manipulate his parents. He knows which parent is more lenient, which one is most likely to say "yes," which is usually willing to bend to the child's whims. Throw divorce into this mix--where allowing the child to do some forbidden thing is just another way of sticking it to your ex--and you have a surefire mess on your hands.

Granted, there are instances where parents are well and truly abusive. If your 15-year-old weighs 50 pounds because food is withheld as punishment, that's abuse. Or if your 14-year-old has a broken arm that didn't happen on the football field. But most of what passes for abuse these days isn't abuse in any normal sense of the word. I've seen a raised eyebrow be described as "mental abuse." Since when is it not allowed for a parent to look skeptically at one's offspring when said progeny had done something questionable at best and over the line at worst?

As the author points out, the problem started with the "atomization" of society.

By coincidence, just as I was doing a slow burn over that story's implications, I happened to be reading a chapter called "Restoring the Pro-Family State" in a newly-published book, Oh, Oh, Canada! A Voice from the Conservative Resistance. The author, William Gairdner, gave eloquent voice to my indignation.

When the family is perceived to be the core unit of society, as it used to be, he notes, its value to society, including the judiciary, is greater than the sum of its parts. But today, Gairdner says, "[W]e all now take it as an article of faith that the parts are all there is." The end result of this belief is the "atomization" of society -- and in particular the breakdown of the "molecule" of the traditional family -- through judgment after judgment that, like the one above, "weaken[s] the grip of the family…by dissolving [its] unique values and prestige…"

Put another way, when parents no longer have the rights and duties to determine what is in the best interest of the family, chaos and social breakdown ensue. Which is where we are today.

Are Murder Victims Less Dead...

If their slayer is 13?

We Still Wave Old Glory...

Up and down the streets in Gilmer, Texas. I wish I had pics. It was very cool.