The Unmentionables

2005-06-27T23:08:00.000-08:00

One Positive Note

Among all the crap flying around out there today. Ronald Reagan is (once again) Number One, winning Discovery Channel's Greatest American voting. AbrahamLincoln, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and George W. Bush round out the top six.

Perhaps there's some hope for us yet.

2005-06-23T15:32:00.000-08:00

Bend Over

You have been Borked. The whole country has been Borked.

"Stevens was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects that benefit the lower and middle class.

They were joined by Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy in rejecting the conservative principle of individual property rights". [Emphasis mine.]

And just how did "Reagan appointee" Justice Kennedy get on the Supreme Court? Hmmmm? Anyone remember? Kennedy (and that name alone should have set off every alarm you can imagine) was a dismally poor compromise second choice to…

Robert Bork.

The man whose name was transformed into a verb long before anyone thought of "fisking."

And a man with Watergate ties. Bork was Nixon's solicitor general who became acting attorney general during the "Saturday Night Massacre" of then-Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, both of whom resigned rather than fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Bork stepped into the job and carred out Nixon's wishes.

They say elephants never forget. Perhaps. But Asses never stop taking revenge.

Robert Bork believes the courts should interpret the law, not create new ones, and he vocally objected to the Supreme Court's "discovery" of a new "right to privacy" in the Roe v. Wade decision. As he writes: "We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own."

In 1987 Presient Ronald Reagan nominated U.S. Appeals Court Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. His disagreement with the court-ordered "right to privacy" was enough to disqualify him in liberal minds. The usual suspects--Judicial Committee Chair Joe Biden and senior member Ted Kennedy, at that time part of the Democrat majority--showed the below-the-belt tactics for which they have become so infamous.

So instead of originalist Robert Bork, we have Anthony Kennedy merrily amputating bits and pieces of the Constituion and Bill of Rights as he sees fit.

"At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

"Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices."

This most recent ruling ignores the difference between public use and public purpose. The public will not have free use of the hotel, health club, and offices New London intends to build on their homesteads. The public will pay through the nose and the private owner/developer will reap the benefits of an almost free gift.

"Critics had feared that would allow a small group of homeowners to stymie rebuilding efforts that benefit the city through added jobs and more tax revenue for social programs."

Oh my. I forgot about the benefits of all those "social programs." Pardon me if I don't believe any of those displaced property owners will benefit one iota.

"New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights..."

The Framers of the Constitution understood there was nothing more important than property rights. They, their fathers and grandfathers had come from Old Europe, where kings had a "divine right" to snatch property whenever it suited them and use it to reward loyal followers. In fact, the framers felt so strongly about property rights, they restricted the right to vote in elections to property owners.

Now we are the subjects of five black-robed "kings" who have given their legal blessing to the rich truly stealing from the poor.

All because, nearly twenty years ago, a Democrat majority refused to confirm Robert Bork.

2005-06-03T09:09:00.000-08:00

Dan Rather on Larry King

In the midst of all the lefties' rosy remembrances of their stunning success with Watergate, Dan Rather continues to cling to the Titanic's smokestacks.

"RATHER: […] But the documents were part of a fairly wide array of information we had, that the facts that we presented as -- and some of it new information -- was supported by all kind of things other than the documents. […]

KING: Are you saying the story might be correct?

RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might take that view.

KING: Do you have that view?

RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might take that view."

(From the CNN transcript. Scroll half-way down, immediately after the first recorded break.)

2005-06-01T12:42:00.000-08:00

No Hero

Thirty-five years ago the course of this entire country was irrevocably altered, and the face of journalism twisted, by a petty little man who had been passed over for promotion.

Even worse, his family encouraged him to reveal his identity only to cash in, although I can see why they feel they might as well grab some of the millions Woodward and Bernstein have raked in over the years.

"His motive for tipping off Woodward and Bernstein remains unknown, but the Post suggested in a story Tuesday night that anger over Nixon's decision to pass him over for FBI director after the death of J. Edgar Hoover could have been a factor.

"Felt had expressed reservations in the past about revealing his identity, and about whether his actions were appropriate for an FBI man, his grandson said. His family members thought otherwise. His daughter, Joan, argued that he could "make enough money to pay some bills, like the debt I've run up for the children's education."

No hero--merely a whiny functionary with thwarted ambitions who left us with a bloody legacy.

"If there is such a thing as kharma, if there is such a thing as justice in this life of the next, Mark Felt has bought himself the worst future of any man on this earth. And Bob Woodward is right behind him, with Ben Bradlee bringing up the rear." -- Ben Stein, The American Spectator .

2005-05-28T13:27:00.000-08:00

Eddie Albert

Albert was a consumate film actor. He was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Roman Holiday (notable for introducing Audry Hepburn to filmgoers) and The Heartbreak Kid , and co-starred in the original Longest Yard with Burt Reynolds.

Some might remember him in the '75-'78 TV series Switch with Robert Wagner, but he was most famous for playing Oliver Wendell Douglas in TVs Green Acres .

What you might not know was that Green Acres actually started life as a summer radio show in 1950 titled Granby's Green Acres, and the scripts were transferred almost verbatim to TV.

"Cast: Gale Gordon and Bea Benaderet as John and Martha Granby, ex-bank teller and wife who moved to the country to become farmers. Louise Erickson as Janice, their daughter. Parley Baer as Eb, the [old] hired hand. Announcer: Bob LeMond; Music: Opie Cates; Writer-Producer-Director: Jay Sommers. Granby's Green Acres grew out of characters played by Gale Gordon and Bea Benadaret on the Lucille Ball series "My Favorite Husband ."

You can listen to four of the programs at the link.

Over the past few weeks I've been rediscovering the old radio shows my parents talked about--everything from Father Knows Best to Abbot and Costello's classic "Who's on First?" As a member of the TV generation, I'm amazed at the number of great shows out there--many of them transferred to television to become equally as popular.

Considering the success of Nick at Night and TVLand , I've been wondering… Why hasn't some enterprising radio programmer started a regular evening line up with a collection of these old shows? It would give "Talk Radio" a whole new meaning.

See--er--listen for yourself.

2005-05-26T13:44:00.000-08:00

R.I.P. SW:ROTS

I deliberately delayed writing about Star Wars: Revenge of The Sith because, well, frankly, there have been enough tragedies to deal with over the past twelve months. As a rabid fan (some might say "geek") of the original who lined up to see Phantom Menace , I feel as if I've watched a dear friend die an agonizing death of a long, wasting disease.

My reluctance also stemmed from having actually been a movie critic during the 80's and 90's (yes, I got paid), making it difficult to see any movie without breaking it down into its component parts. When I first saw Phantom Menace , I was appalled--hated it on the spot. But everyone around me was raving, so I decided perhaps the wee hours viewing plus a very bad cold was affecting my opinion. Two viewings later I decided neither had influenced my original opinion which generally boiled down to something like suffering through the longest video game in history.

I was wrong. In a video game you would have had the option to take out Jar Jar Binks on Level One.

The Star Wars saga is an example of how technological advancement is not always a good thing. The original dazzled because, after a decade of being inundated by naval-gazing films lecturing on the gray area of morality, or the gory glorification of murderous mafioso, we were suddenly being treated to a movie that said there was, after all, an absolute right and wrong. Whatever Lucas' religious beliefs, with the Force he tapped into the simple fact there is a supernatural element in every religion that we had all discarded and forgotten. Whether I agreed with the idea of accessing the Universal Consciousness certainly didn't matter. Lucas seemed to grasp the duality of the human spirit--the simple truth that we will fall into the Dark Side without the influence of a Greater Power of Good.

And he did it within the flimsiest of frameworks.

Lucas claims now it was all in response to Vietnam and the Cold War. Well, fine--he can rewrite his own history if he wants. But the original Star Wars owed much more to the adventures of the late 30's and 40's, when the world was battling the Nazi juggernaut. Sure, the characters were central casting stereotypes. Fortunately they were fleshed out by actors who actually managed to act --and who rioted through the film with a gleam in their eyes that said "we know this is a totally unbelievable space fantasy, but what the hell--we're having fun!"

When The Empire Strikes Back was released, I was writing reviews. I recall taking heat for insisting Vader was lying when he told Luke he was his father (not to mention being royally pissed off at Han Solo being left frozen in cryptonite). To this day I wonder about Lucas' claims that he had the entire story outlined from the beginning. I firmly believed Vader was merely being a manipulative bastard to serve his own--and the Emperor's--ends.

By Return of the Jedi , I decided Lucas was making it up as he went along. He had painted himself into a corner with the "father" line and was in the process of desperately trying to work his way out. The whole story arc felt less like it had been designed from the get-go and more like a jigsaw puzzle Lucas was assembling by pounding round pieces into square slots. As for the Ewoks, their appearance firmly cemented my opinion Lucas had sold out to the Dark Side of Making Millions With Market Tie-Ins.

I was disappointed, yet it didn't stop me from enjoying the film. How could you not enjoy the opening hour at Jabba's palace and the subsequent battle? Yes, at the end Vader's "conversion" was hackneyed, and Luke was a bit too sappy, but it was acceptable within the happily-ever-after framework.

There is no way one can compare the current crop of "Star Wars" films--pandering, preachy, and ponderous in spite of the brilliantly beautiful special effects--with the original trilogy. If Vader's reversion to the Light Side in ROTJ was formulaic, Anakin's descent into the Dark Side is shallow and selfish.

Every artist knows there is a point during creation that you have to stop, step away, and let everything alone. One more word, one more note, one more brushstroke--one more computer-generated light saber battle--and the masterpiece is ruined.

Sadly George Lucas never learned that lesson.

2005-05-20T15:04:00.000-08:00

The Email - Part IV - The Fanatics

Part I. Part II. Part III.

You knew it would eventually come down to…the Jews , didn't you? Oh, it takes her a while--and she begins with Christian-bashing as a smoke-screen--but you know if a certain type of person talks long enough, they eventually sink to the bottom.

Look seriously you can say there are fanatical muslims but what about fanatical christians.

When was the last time "fanatical" Christians (or Jews) rioted and murdered because it was rumored someone threw the Bible or the Torah down a toilet? In fact, when Palestinian terriorists holed up in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, it was "rumored" they used the Bible as toilet paper. Where was the rioting/burning/killing across the American Bible Belt over that incident?

there used to be plenty though now there are considerably less and though they do not commit terrorist acts they aren't any better.

Are you actually attempting to claim that Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell saying something really, really, really stupid on television is the same as Islamic terrorists beheading someone on television? And please--please---detail the "plenty" of murderous, "fanatical" Christians who bludgeon, behead, and burn at the drop of a headscarf.

I mean look at the amish, thre was poor girl in her teens repeatdly raped by her brothers her parents having full knowledge but doing nothing about it saying God will punish him when his DEAD.Not much use to the girl don't you think.

No, it isn't. Since I grew up very near various Amish communities, I also understand the various "orders" within that religion. The abuses have occurred in those considered Old Order--extremely insular--dare I say inbred--communities. It is, in fact, a prime example of what happens to religious sects that cut themselves off from--or attempt to insulate themselves from--general society. Exactly what far too many Muslims themselves do, which is why I could cite the same type of stories from those communities. But they carry it one step further. The strict Islamist father would kill the girl, claiming it was her fault she was molested/raped by her brother.

And don't forget the Jews. They have their fanatics as well who are just as bad as the muslim fanatics. Its just you don't hear much them because their not controversial, not news worthy.

You're kidding, right?

It always comes down to the Jews. That's your real problem, isn't it? What's the matter--did your mother choke on a matzah ball while you were in vitro ?

As far as not being "news worthy"… Do you live in a cave? Not a day passes without the nation of Israel--or Jews of any nationality--being blamed for something . Check that--blamed for everything . Jews (and Christians) are routinely castigated for every ill that befalls the world--including being blamed for nineteen Arab Muslims flying three airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon (and trying with a fourth).

Start reading this blog and follow all the various links if you're really interested in learning.

The point I'm trying to make before you critise the so called enemies look at your friends, they are not any better. The only difference is they'er not as news worhty.Every religion and culture has to go through the cycle of violence. Give it a few more hundred years and it will pass. [Emphasis mine.]

That last is the most idiotic statement I have ever read.

Muslims have been in a cycle of violence since 622 AD--that's one thousand three hundred eight-three years --the longest case of pubescent angst in the history of the universe.

Look at Judaism and Christianity. Though of course you will never fully eliminate fanatics but you shouldn't be so harsh on them it isn't like muslims are the only one with fanatics. Besides fighting doesn't solve anything just keeps the cycle going. There really are no enemies only delusion and misinterpretation. Open your mind. Tunnel vision kills people.

Okay, snuff out the weed, get clean, get sober, and break the damn Joan Baez CD. That meme was old back in the 60's, and I've already lived through that crap.

All you have to do is look through history it is what it's there for to teach people. Just no one wants to learn.

I’m a teacher. I've been a teacher for thirty years. Don't try to lecture me on history, little girl--at least not until you've actually grown up and learned how to read and write properly.

2005-05-20T12:44:00.000-08:00

The Email - Part III - Moral Relativism aka "The Inquisition"

Part I. Part II.

I will never understand why debaters (?) always try to use this argument--as if they think Christians believe the inquisitions were a good thing.

Besides you could say fanatical muslims have caused many problems through the world but what exactly did the inquisition do in the middle ages? I don't think they were very nice people.

This argument is called "moral relativism," in case you were wondering.

Before I go any further, I'd like to offer a free history lesson. Long before the current War on Terror, Winston Churchill described Islam as "that religion which above all others, was founded and propagated by the sword - the tenets and principles of which are incentives to slaughter and which in three continents had produced fighting breeds of men (and) stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism."

As far as inquisitions--well--today they're called "ethnic cleansing," and the Muslims have turned it into an art form. Look at Kosovo where Muslim mobs have burned down about 300 churches and religious facilities aiming to establish an Islamic Theocratic dictatorship. Or perhaps you should visit Sudan and see what Islamic government troops have done to African Christians in Darfur. After that you can move on to Nigeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Armenia, Macedonia, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Chechnya, Russia, the Kashmir, Pakistan, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Technically Muslims caused the infamous Spanish Inquisition--which began almost immediately after they were driven out of Spain. Ferdinand and Isabella (yes, the same who commissioned Christopher Columbus) decided to unify Spain under Catholicism after all the wars, division, and strife of the previous centuries. Their way of creating a "strong" country was to drive out all non-Catholics one way or the other. Not a good idea, but they stuck to it.

An "inquisition" was as much a political tool as a religious one. The Romans used it as their empire began to crumble, so it was certainly not the sole province of "Christians." There was a whole shopping list of medieval "inquisitions" from The Knights Templar to Joan of Arc and beyond. Torquemada of Spain, however, was the most infamous Inquisitor and, to their credit, the Catholic Church and the Pope tried to intervene. Unfortunately, having found a convenient political bludgeon, the Spanish rulers ignored them.

So… The Spanish Inquisition lasted from 1478 to 1834. Muslim ethnic-cleansing of anyone who is not Muslim started in 622 and continues to this day. Christians learn from their mistakes. Muslims won't even admit they make any.

And to use Cheneya [I think she means Chechnya] as an example, I think you should know most of those people don't have a choice. Many are forced to partake in these acts of terrorism else their families are killed by the fanatics.

A note about Chechnya. It was long a part of the Muslim empire of Central Asia including Turkey, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. In 1858 Chechen leader Imam Shamil and his troops (primarily Sunni Muslims) attempted to establish an Islamic state, only to be defeated by Imperial Russia. During WWII the Chechens whole-heartedly joined Hitler's attack against Russia, enthusiastically killing Jews, Gypsies, and other "undesirables" right along with Red Army troops. So the Chechen people have a long history of hatred for Russia and certainly do not need to be "forced" to fight against those they consider their long-term, historic enemies.

However, every human being with a working brain has a choice. Those without a working conscience are another story.

I can't say, at this moment, what I'd do. But as a Christian, I certainly hope if I had to choose between saving hundreds of innocent children or my family…I hope I'd have the guts to save the the kids.

2005-05-19T15:47:00.000-08:00

The Email - Part II - Dracula Redux

Part I.

Somehow I never thought of using the non compos mentis defense for Dracula.

Also to say Vald Dracul knew what he was doing is absurd. You are talking about a guy who cut open his mistress's stomach just to find out if she was pregnant. The man for god's sake ran away as soon as he heard the turks were coming. It was just lucky the Turks got scared shitless by the thousansa of kebabed people Dracul had surrounding his castle for his own personal pleasure.

Ironically it wasn't just Vlad Dracul who battled the Muslim enemy. Timur the Mongol (or Tamerlane-- Christopher Marlowe's play Tamburlaine recounts his conquests) claimed--falsely--to be a descendant of Genghis Khan. Even more ironic--he was a Muslim who slaughtered his way though most of the Muslim Middle East, conquering Persia, several Russian states, the Crimea, Dehli, Georgia, Aleppo, and Baghdad.

At the time (1402) his campaigns saved Constantinople. His army wiped out the forces of Islam and divided the Ottoman Empire among several princes, reducing it to a state of vassalage. When he died, however, the Ottoman's were back in business, intent on expanding their empire into the Balkans.

Long into the 15^th century the Ottoman Empire never ceased their attempt to take Christian Europe, focusing particularly on the Balkans and Constantinople, heart of the Eastern Orthodox Church. It was only three years before Vlad Dracul took power that the siege and conquest of Constantinople took place. The city had lasted two months again Mohammed II, but, after a bloody conflict that killed Emperor Constantine XII, Contantinople fell. There followed wholesale slaughter--as was to be expected from Muslim conquerors. It was reported Mohammed II rode over the piles of corpses into the Church of St. Sophia, entered it on horseback, and declared it a mosque.

This is the history Prince Vlad Dracul knew--along with the fall of the Balkan Orthodox states of Bulgaria and Serbia--when the Muslim hordes turned their attention toward Romania. Ergo--he knew exactly what to expect and what he was doing. Whether or not he took pleasure in impaling his enemies and displaying them across the landscape as far as the eye could see, I have no idea. But it wasn't me who listed him in reports as one of the "Christian princes" who led the resistance against the Ottomans.

Romanian prices led Christian resistance against the Ottomans for centuries. They included Mircea the Elder in Wallachia (1386-1418); Ioan Corvin of Hunedoara, Duke of Transylvania (1438-1456), afterwards regent of Hungary; Vlad the Impaler in Wallachia (1456-1463); Stephen the Great and Holy in Moldavia (1456-1504),…and Michael the Brave of Wallachia (1593-1601), who for the first time united the three Romanian Principalities into a single state in 1600, and has since remained a symbol of unity for the Romanian People."

Prince Vlad died fighting the Muslim hordes. His head was chopped off (sound familiar?) and carried back to Constantinople where it was displayed on a stake. Thanks to Bram Stoker, however, no one remembers that footnote of history. And, thanks to the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu claiming Dracula was his idol, many are loathe to consider Vlad Tepes might, in some way, be a hero.

2005-05-19T12:40:00.000-08:00

The Email - Part I - The Crusades

Apparently a girl in Australia (I'm guessing from her email addy and I won't use her name without permission) read a lot of what I've written over time--God know why. Anyway, she felt strongly enough--or had been so conditioned by the pc police--to write me at length. At such length, in fact, it will take a few posts to respond to all her misconceptions.

The crusades were never about religion

It was indeed about strong religious beliefs, especially when the European Christians learned how the Islamicists were harassing Christian pilgrims and teachers in Jerusalem, and attempting to destroy the Eastern Orthodox Church. Read the letters written during that time if you're really interested in "learning history."

and it was the christians who started it.

Wrong. It was the Muslims who started it--by invading Christian Europe, then attempting to push Christians out of Jerusalem after they had lived there for over 1,000 years. In case you can't figure it out on your own, Islam was created by Mohammed 622 years after Jesus was crucified and at least 3,000 years or more after the Israelites settled the area.

For the first ten years of Islam, Mohammed spent his time solidifying his base in Medina and gathering his forces to take Mecca. He died two years after that event and the Koran was compiled a year later. The over the next 100 years, the leaders who followed Mohammed expanded their conquest across the Middle East, pushing into France, where they were finally defeated at Tours by Charles Martel in 732 AD. During this period the Muslims conquered Syria, Palestine, Persia, North Africa, Spain, and Egypt--where they destroyed the famous library and bookcopying industry of Alexandria because no book aside from the Koran was to be read. They had also pushed as far east as India and managed inroads in Sicily within the next fifty years. Christian Europe was very aware of the "personality" and intentions of the Muslims.

The European kings, dukes and othe aristocrates had too many sons and couldn't divide their wealth amoung them after their death. So the father's told the son they least liked to go to the middle east, kill a few people and get your own land and wealth. It took many years before people were fighting for religion.

Wrong again. For your edification, modern movies are not a good way to learn history. Unfortunately a number of peasant groups did leave before the official start of the First Crusades, all of them engaging in various forms of villainy, from massacring Jews to looting and raping.

The nobles themselves who led the Crusades did so out of a desire to restore the Holy Land to Christian control. Philip I of France, William II of England, and Henry IV of Germany, led the First Crusade--probably to get back into the good graces of the Pope--but they led it nevertheless.

A partial list of other participants in the successful First Crusade includes Count Stephen of Blois and Chartes; Bohemond of Taranto, Count of the Normans; Godfrey, Duke de Bouillon of Lorraine; Raymond of Toulouse, Count of St. Gilles (?), Hugh (the Great?) of Vermandois, brother of the King of France; Baldwin of Boulogne; Robert, Count of Flanders; and Robert, Count of Normandy.

Others involved over the years:

Second Crusade - Conrad III of Germany and Louis VII of France led it and Louis' wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, accompanied him.

Third Crusades started when Saladin took Jerusalem in 1187. Philip Augustus of France, Frederick Barbarosa of Germany and Richard the Lionhearted of England led the armies.

Although some kings and many, many vassal nobles took part in the next half dozen Crusades (Emperor Frederick II - Sixth Crusade; Louis IX of France - Seventh Crusade; Louis IX and Prince Edward of England - Eighth Crusade) the bottom line was: with the exception of the Knights Templar (who were rumored to have found the treasures of Solomon's Temple) neither wealth nor lands were acquired by anyone, rich or poor.

2005-05-19T11:44:00.000-08:00

Back for a While

I haven't been blogging for a couple of reasons. First because I've been dealing with a host of personal issues and did not want to become a whiny, navel-gazing blogger endlessly rehashing my problems. If they touch mainstream issues (such as Social Security) I might make a comment now and then, but no one needs to be bored with endless alarms and depressions.

Second, I frankly got bored with saying the same thing about the same outrages over and over and over and over again. There are certain givens--biased media, perdifious Democrats, liberal Hollywood, etc. etc.--that don't seem to ever go away.

Now I'll settle for small victories--like calling the local radio news show, raising hell with the on-air "Voice" until the news director gets on the line, then convincing them to stop announcing the Republicans intended to "change tradition" over the judicial filibuster. Hey, it worked. And the misinformation sent out over the wire services to the local affiliates was edited--out.

One thing, however, has spurred me back on line. I recently received an email commenting on a number of issues I've discussed. Rarely does one have the opportunity to read so much ignorance in one place.

There is so much, in fact, I'll have to handle it in a series of posts.

2005-04-03T18:58:00.000-08:00

A Man for All Seasons

Pope John Paul II - 1920-2005
Who stood fast to his convictions and beliefs in the face of all opposition. Each of us should learn from the example of his life.

2005-04-01T12:51:00.000-08:00

Blind Eyes

I've been a teacher for all of my adult life--in fact, I started teaching music while still in high school. Like so many other teachers I've watched in horror as the Blob of "modern educators" oozed its way across academia, absorbing, consuming, and destroying everything in its path until it has become impossible to break the mind altering lies now firmly implanted in the psyche of two full generations of Americans.

The Terri Shiavo case highlighted one of the most insidious--that the judiciary is the final stop of our "rule of law." Anyone with half a brain--or a decent education--should realize that is a flawed concept. Our sacred courts have, in the past, ruled both Dred Scott and Plessy to be legitimate.

Hitler's judiciary claimed final judgment on Germany's laws. Stalin's judiciary claimed final judgment in the USSR. China, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia all have judiciaries claiming to be legitimate under the "rule of law" but I doubt very much any American would want to submit themselves to those courts.

Our Legislative Branch has the authority to control rogue courts under Article III of the Constitution. The only job of the courts is to rule on the constitutionality of legislation. It is not their job of create new laws.

The secondary fallout from the Shiavo case is the attempted demonization of Christians and the legitimization of executioners who kill under the guise of "death with dignity." Under the mythical separation of church and state, they claim the church has no place in arguments about the power over life and death.

Frankly I do not believe there is any turning back. Eight years of the Clinton Administration--formative years for those in their twenties and early thirties--have allowed the cancerous fibroids of lies to spread far and deep. We in the blogosphere chatter among ourselves with the delusion we are making a difference. In truth we are no more than a swarm of gnats with inflated egos.

Some of us will continue to debate and vent which, I suppose, is a healthy outlet for our frustrations. But if any of us think we're actually educating or enlightening we have to think again. Our national Eye has been altered and, as William Blake said, "… the Eye altering alters all… "

"This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye."
~ William Blake, The Everlasting Gospel

2005-03-27T14:01:00.000-08:00

Ordeal

It's been a month since I posted this information, but in light of what Terri Shiavo is suffering at this very moment, I'm reposting it for all those of you out there who think she is "at peace" during her ordeal.

I ran across this post at Res Publica. I haven't seen much written about the specifics of death by starvation and dehydration, and if anyone is still on the fence regarding the issue of removing Terry Schaivo's feeding tube this is an unnerving description.

"Since the people to whom this is done generally can't communicate, we mostly don't know what they actually experience. But in at least one case we do: that of a young woman who had her tube feeding stopped for eight days and lived to tell the tale.

"At age 33, Kate Adamson collapsed from a devastating stroke. She was diagnosed as likely to develop a persistent vegetative state (PVS) but was actually "locked in"-that is, she was completely awake and aware but unable to communicate.

[…]

"The agony of going without food was a constant pain that lasted not several hours like my operation did, but several days. You have to endure the physical pain and on top of that you have to endure the emotional pain. Your whole body cries out, "Feed me. I am alive and a person, don't let me die, for God's sake! Somebody feed me."

"Moreover, although Adamson was not deliberately dehydrated-she was constantly on an IV saline solution-she still had horrible thirst:

"I craved anything to drink. Anything. I obsessively visualized drinking from a huge bottle of orange Gatorade. And I hate orange Gatorade. I did receive lemon flavored mouth swabs to alleviate dryness but they did nothing to slake my desperate thirst.

Read it all, then tell me Terri Shiavo is not suffering through her murder.

2005-03-25T12:18:00.000-08:00

Bleg

If anyone out there has an answer to this I'd like to read it.

I thought Florida had a law against assisted suicide, even at the request of of the patient. Allegedly the rational for Terri's starvation is that she stated her desire for assisted suicide to her husband which, according to FL law, is illegal. Why can't law enforcement arrest those responsible--including the husband--in Terri's onging death?

2005-03-24T12:45:00.000-08:00

Reasonable Doubt

Having sat on a number of grand juries in the past few years, I've learned a bit more about examining evidence that would result in someone being held over for trial and, perhaps, convicted and jailed. While there are compelling arguments on both sides, I personally see too many questions in Michael Shiavo's actions to have confidence in his suitability as Terri's guardian.

1. In the original hospital admittance report there was evidence of trauma to Terri's neck that apparently was never fully explained.

2. There were reports from Terri's friends she was considering a divorce from Shiavo just prior to her sudden collapse.

3. Is there a life insurance policy on Terri Shiavo naming her husband beneficiary? When was it purchased and what is the amount?

4. Michael Shiavo did not "remember" her wishes until after seven years and a $1.2 million malpractice settlement.

5. Nurses have testified Shiavo deliberatey denied proper rehab and therapy even though it had been ordered by the courts.

6. Caregivers have testified Shiavo seemed anxious to have Terri dead and anticipated he was going to be rich when she finally succumbed. (See #3 above.)

7. Michael Shiavo's attorney is a leader of the right-to-die movement in Florida.

8. Until 2002 that same attorney sat on the board of directors of the hospice where
Terri is confined.

Much of this evidence is circumstantial, yet if it had been presented to the various grand juries I sat on there is a very strong possibility we would have voted to have Michael Shiavo held over for trial where a full accounting of all the evidence would be presented and judged.

I find the conflicting reports of doctors and caregivers unsettling, raising too many questions about both their political agenda and finanical interest in this case. If for no other reason Terri's feeding tube should be restarted to allow for independent examination, including video monitoring of her day to day behavior and responses.

And if I was the adjuster for the insurance company holding Terri's life insurance policy (if any) I would strenuously urge my superiors to deny payment until every conflict of interest is examined.

2005-03-22T11:16:00.000-08:00

Principle, not Expediency

As Terri Shiavo continues to die in the most painful way imaginable, we continue to center our debates around the quality of her life--or, as I heard one radio personality comment, what good is her existence in her current state?

The real debate is the sanctity of life--and she has already done us all a lifetime of good just by bringing this issue to prominent public awareness. Does it matter if Terri knows or understands what she's done? Of course not. What matters is our response not hers.

News reporters would have us believe Terri Shiavo is on life support, implying her heart and lungs cannot function without mechanical help. Thanks to the blogging community, this false information has been--and will continue to be--debunked. Terri has no motor controls over her body making her unable to feed herself or consume food normally. Whether or not this is from a lack of proper physical therapy shortly after the onset of her illness will never be known. She cannot speak and doctors have diagnosed severe brain impairment. Again, the permanence of this diagnosis differs from expert to expert.

But Is her lack of speech, coordination, and ability to feed herself enough reason to allow her to starve to death? If you answered yes to that question, then you would support the "merciful" starvation of these people as well.

Michael J. Fox - Parkinson's Disease . The late stages of Parkinson's include significant swallowing problems--and the need for a feeding tube. Patients are limited to a wheelchair or a bed for most of their day and suffer severe dementia from the high drug dosage. When the time comes for Michael J. Fox, should his wife or other caregiver starve him to death because his "quality of life" is no longer up to our standards?

Dr. Stephen Hawking - ALS . Author of A Brief History of Time , Professor Hawking was 21 when diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. In his own words:

"Up to 1974, I was able to feed myself, and get in and out of bed. Jane [his wife] managed to help me, and bring up the children, without outside help…In 1980, we changed to a system of community and private nurses, who came in for an hour or two in the morning and evening. This lasted until I caught pneumonia in 1985. I had to have a tracheotomy operation. After this, I had to have 24 hour nursing care.

"Before the operation, my speech had been getting more slurred, so that only a few people who knew me well, could understand me. But at least I could communicate. I wrote scientific papers by dictating to a secretary, and I gave seminars through an interpreter, who repeated my words more clearly. However, the tracheotomy operation removed my ability to speak altogether."

Should he be starved to death because his "quality of life" is so limiting?

Read this interview with the mother of a young adult with ALS--who can only "eat" through a straw. Should she be starved to death because her "quality of life" is preventing her parents from moving on with their lives?

President Ronald Reagan - Alzheimer's . In the last years of his life, President Regan had lost the ability to respond to his environment, speak, and control his movements. Alzheimer's patients cannot walk, sit upright, or hold up their head without assistance. Their reflexes are erratic and their muscles become rigid and even their ability to swallow is impaired. Should he have been starved to death because his quality of life was no longer equal to what it had once been?

2005-03-08T20:17:00.000-08:00

A Picture is Worth 133 to 233 Bullets

And one big lie.

Via Little Green Footballs: pictures of Giuliana Sgrena death car "riddled" with 300 to 400 bullets. (Enlarged pictures by LGF reader "Thomas.")

Now compare that with this picture of the Bonnie and Clyde death car "riddled" with 167 bullets:

2005-03-02T18:55:00.000-08:00

Fear and Society

"The point is, ladies and gentlemen, is that fear--for lack of a better word--is good.
Fear is right.
Fear works.
Fear clarifies, cuts through, and caputres the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Fear, in all of its forms--fear for your life, of poverty, of loneliness, of ignorance--has marked the upward surge of mankind."

The reworking of Gordon Gekko's famous "greed" monologue from 1987's Wall Street is the response we should all have to the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Fear of retribution has held society together and kept people safe for over six millennia.

The Supreme Court just ruled to eliminate the fear of retribution for those who need the restraining hand of fear the most.

If they rule to eliminate the Ten Commandments from government facilities, they will have completed the quest to eliminate the acknowledgment of fear--and retribution here or hereafter--from all of society.

2005-02-28T13:08:00.000-08:00

Attention Evil Powers that Be

Per your request I'm officially changing my name. Since my station in life has been so drastically altered (without my consent or knowledge I might add) it is necessary to adopt a more accurate appellation.

Henceforth I will be:

Joe Btfsplk is very simply the world's biggest jinx. He walks around with a perpetually dark rain cloud a foot over his head. Once he appears on any scene, dreadfully bad luck befalls anyone in his vicinity.

Though well-meaning and gentle, his reputation inevitably precedes him, so Joe is a very lonely and feared little man.

He is also a character with an apparently unpronounceable name, but creator Al Capp pronounced Btfsplk with a "raspberries" sound, also known as a "Bronx cheer."

That just about sums it up.

PS: You can get off my case any time.

2005-02-23T12:29:00.000-08:00

Death by Dehydration

I thought everything had returned to normal and I could get back in the swing of regular blogging, but…

However, in light of the Terry Schaivo situation, I had to take a moment and post this information I ran across at Res Publica. I haven't seen much written about the specifics of death by starvation and dehydration, and if anyone is still on the fence regarding the issue of removing Terry Schaivo's feeding tube this is an unnerving description.

"Since the people to whom this is done generally can't communicate, we mostly don't know what they actually experience. But in at least one case we do: that of a young woman who had her tube feeding stopped for eight days and lived to tell the tale.

"At age 33, Kate Adamson collapsed from a devastating stroke. She was diagnosed as likely to develop a persistent vegetative state (PVS) but was actually "locked in"-that is, she was completely awake and aware but unable to communicate.

[…]

"The agony of going without food was a constant pain that lasted not several hours like my operation did, but several days. You have to endure the physical pain and on top of that you have to endure the emotional pain. Your whole body cries out, "Feed me. I am alive and a person, don't let me die, for God's sake! Somebody feed me."

"Moreover, although Adamson was not deliberately dehydrated-she was constantly on an IV saline solution-she still had horrible thirst:

"I craved anything to drink. Anything. I obsessively visualized drinking from a huge bottle of orange Gatorade. And I hate orange Gatorade. I did receive lemon flavored mouth swabs to alleviate dryness but they did nothing to slake my desperate thirst.

Read the whole thing.

2005-01-24T13:04:00.000-08:00

Computer Snafus

Having some major ones, which is why I'm only posting about once a week. Because of all the other problems I'm dealing with, they've been shoved into the rumble seat.

Working on them now so I can get back to business.

2005-01-21T23:49:00.000-08:00

Today in History…

…Louis XVI lost his head over the revolution.

Having just written about Thomas Paine, I was curious how the History Channel would portray the French Revolution in their Monday night special. (It will be rerun tomorrow, Saturday, at 8 pm for those interested.)

In brief, on May 6, 1789 the Commons (the Third Estate) broke away from the States-General, eventually being joined by some members of the First Estate (the clergy) to become the National Constituent Assembly in July of 1989. King Louis XVI reacted by firing his popular finance director Jacques Necker, whom he considered too sympathetic to the Commons, and, within days, the Bastille is stormed and taken. The following month the Assembly adopts their charter of basic liberties entitled "The Declaration of the Rights of Man." Two years later the National Assembly adopted the first French Constitution

As I mentioned before, Paine wrote a rebuttal to Englishman Edmund Burke's criticism of the French entitled "The Rights of Man" and shortly thereafter arrived in France to support their revolt against the monarchy. Knowing almost nothing about the French--or even being able to speak the language--he managed to become a member of the Assembly. Not long afterward, the French Assembly issued their "Declaration of the Rights of Man," and for the next two years Paine helped write their Constitution.

The History Channel managed to ignore those small facts. The only mention of America was how support of our Revolution bankrupted the government and led to Louis downfall. No mention is made of the influence of Franklin and Jefferson on the thinking of the independence-minded government assemblymen, and not one hint of Thomas Paine. They even failed to mention the fact he was imprisoned by the Robespierre-led radicals who highjacked the Revolution from the moderate Girondins Party.

The primary difference between our own revolution and the French is their distaste and denial of Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular. In that era, the Church was far more closely aligned with the monarchy, anointing rulers with the "divine right" to rule. While the American colonists were an ocean away from George III, and already populated with a variety of religious believers of all denominations and dogma, the French were starving a mere twelve miles from the opulence of Versailles. The Enlightenment philosophers echewed worship of any being higher than Man Himself and encouraged a government powered by pure Reason.

What resulted, of course, was man setting himself up as god. All public displays of the Church and Christianity were banned from public display, ripped down, broken apart, destroyed and disavowed. The eloquent leader of the Jacobins, Maximillien Robespierre (once he had disposed of his opponents and former allies during the Reign of Terror) managed to have the Cult of the Supreme Being declared the official religion, including a lavish Festival of the Supreme Being.

Six weeks later Robespierre and his cohorts, who had trumpeted the rule of Reason and of Man, and enforced it with secret police and informants, were overthrown by more conservative members of the Assembly. They followed Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, and all their other victims to the guillotine

The History Channel claims the French Revolution was the turning point of history--the act that changed the world forever--apparently forgetting the American Revolution entirely. The French Revolution is portrayed as the epitome of the Enlightenment philosophy that would influence all revolutions to follow--from Russia to China. In short--it was the French, not the Americans, who brought the modern concept of a free republic to the world.

Sadly too many will accept this as truth when the exact opposite is the case. Brilliant men who rise to power with no fear of God's judgment--believing themselves to be gods themselves--will always fail. The tragedy is how many innocents across the world die before they are brought down.

Two hundred years after two bloody Revolutions we can stand back and see which was truly the turning point of history--the one fought by men who fashioned themselves gods or the one fought by men who feared God.

2005-01-14T19:27:00.000-08:00

Thomas Paine-in-the-Ass

A few years ago, when I first began running through the fields of information and commentary on the Internet, I noticed a reoccurring theme: Thomas Paine had somehow become the patron saint of libertarians, moderates, and slightly-right-of-center blogs. Many posters even used his name as their nom de guerre . In fact, if you were (are?) ignorant of American history, you would get the impression Thomas Paine single-handedly instigated, fought, and won the Revolution, then moved on to write our Constitution and its attendant Bill of Rights.

Not quite.

Thomas Paine was a bit of a johnny-come-lately. In 1772 he was an excise officer (tax collector) in England--until he was fired for leading protests for higher salaries. Sometime in the next two years he met Benjamin Franklin and came to the conclusion life would probably be better on the other side of the pond.

Not until late 1774 did Paine arrive in America--with a letter of introduction from Franklin--and shortly thereafter became editor of the Pennsylvania Magazine . Understandably disgruntled with the English, he took up the American cause, publishing the famous pamphlet Common Sense in 1776 and another series of pamphlets entitled The Crisis over the next seven years. It's also been generally accepted that Thomas Jefferson was more of an editor of the Declaration of Independence, the bones of the document having been written by his close friend, Thomas Paine.

There is no denying Paine's brilliance with the written word, whether he wrote from idealistic zeal or from personal animosity toward Britain. And he did back up his words by enlisting to fight in the war. At some point he was appointed Secretary to the Committee for Foreign Affairs by the Continental Congress. It was then his sense of moral superiority and personal egotism began affecting events. He also became the prototype of the modern opposition liberals now residing in our own Congress.

Believing Silas Deane (one of our original secret agents, the man who personally brought the Marquis de Lafayette to the American side, and who held the contract to John Paul Jones' American privateer Bonhomme Richard ) was profiting from a private arms deal in France, Paine publicly denounced the affair. (Deane was exonerated in 1842.) Unfortunately his denunciation exposed America's secret negotiations with the French for help in the Revolution, a serious breach that could have affected the outcome of the war. Paine was immediately dismissed from his post.

Perhaps to make amends, he sent $500 to George Washington to help supply the war effort. While the hefty donation was undoubtedly welcome, subsequent events seem to indicate Thomas Paine's motives were now suspect and from then on he would be kept at arm's length.

Now here's where modern history becomes vague and fuzzy. While we have a detailed account of Pain's activities prior to this point, afterward most writings jump directly to "… after the War he retired to his farm in New Rochelle, NY, then went to England in 1787…" Ostensibly Paine went to England to seek financial aid to build an iron bridge over the Schuylkill River.

The Revolution ended in September of 1783. At some point in the ensuing years, Thomas Paine privately asked Washington for help in acquiring the job of Postmaster General of the new United States as compensation for his war work. It is said Washington considered recommending Paine for the position, then rejected his application. [NOTE: According to secondary sources, there is a letter Washington wrote regarding the matter, however, it isn't cited in any on-line Thomas Paine biography I could easily find.]

Paine was furious and began to publicly denounce Washington. (It may be that many of the "facts" modern deconstructionists cite to discredit Washington were rumors created by a vindictive Thomas Paine.) However, to Paine's surprise, the attacks were not well received, hence the trip to England. There's also some evidence Paine was greatly displeased with Washington's openly Christian beliefs which led him to write The Age of Reason . While in England he wrote the Rights of Man , a reply to Edmund Burke's criticism of the French Revolution, and immediately found it necessary leave England for France.

In the French Revolution Thomas Paine saw the same goals as the American Revolution, with one major difference. The French Revolution would be based on human reason and ideals, divorced from any "religious" interference. History shows us what resulted. Sadly, the French were no more appreciative of his efforts than they are of our modern assistance toward their country. Paine ended up in Luxembourg Prison, living in fear of execution, until American Ambassador James Monroe secured his release after the Reign of Terror ended.

In gratitude, Thomas Paine immediately released another diatribe against George Washington for failing to help him, attacking the President's reputation as a soldier as well as his administration's policies. This will sound a familiar note:

"The eventful crisis to which your double politics have conducted the affairs of your country, requires an investigation uncramped by ceremony. There was a time when the fame of America, moral and political, stood fair and high in the world. The lustre of her Revolution extended itself to every individual; and to be a citizen of America gave a title to respect in Europe. Neither meanness nor ingratitude had been mingled in the composition of her character.

Later in the same letter comes a very Kerryesque accusation.

"The part I acted in the American Revolution is well known; I shall not here repeat it. I know also that had it not been for the aid received from France, in men, money and ships, that your cold and unmilitary conduct (as I shall show in the course of this letter) would in all probability have lost America; at least she would not have been the independent nation she now is. You slept away your time in the field, till the finances of the country were completely exhausted, and you have but little share in the glory of the final event. It is time, Sir, to speak the undisguised language of historical truth.

"Elevated to the chair of the Presidency, you assumed the merit of everything to yourself, and the natural ingratitude of your constitution began to appear. […] As to what were your views, for, if you are not great enough to have ambition, you are little enough to have vanity, they cannot be directly inferred from expressions of your own; buy [but? ] the partisans of your politics have divulged the secret."

When his old friend Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801, Paine decided it was safe to return to the United States. President Jefferson planned to offer him free transport on a United States ship, celebrating him as a hero. But even after the passage of five years, the public had not forgotten Thomas Paine. The opposition to Jefferson's plan from all sides was so loud and furious, the President backed down. Paine returned in 1802 only to be thoroughly ignored. In 1809 he died and was buried on his farm in New Rochelle. Ten years later, a plan to return his bones to England for a memorial burial were abandoned when, after exhumation, the remains of Thomas Paine were lost.

An ignoble end for a brilliant yet ignominious man.

2005-01-14T11:55:00.000-08:00

Word Play

Surfing around during the weeks and months after the election, I noticed disgruntled leftest had glommed on to a particular phrase, claiming it as their own. "A Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community" was popping up everywhere. At first I found it amusing, rather like all those TV docudramas "based on a true story" that have nothing to do with "reality." The only benefit of the phrase was to serve as a warning I was entering the red-light district of the blogosphere.

Then I read Slate's amusing article about the "Word of the Year" decision process by the Linguistic Society of America.

"During the afternoon voting, everyone agreed that Most Unnecessary had particularly good candidates. The suffix -based , as in faith-based or reality-based , was widely disliked. "It's its own opposite," said Bill Kretzschmar, editor of the Linguistic Atlas of America . "If it's reality-based , it's not real."

Reality-based communities--living life in a Michael Moore documentary.

Found via Silflay Hraka.