March 14, 2007
The version above may be what they have in mind, but, maybe not.
I’m not certain how this happened, but the LA Times, not your average conservative cheerleader, published an opinion piece encouraging the addition of Bible study to public school curriculum.
Frankly, I’m stunned. Most public school personnel would call the ACLU and the police if a Bible was discovered on school grounds. Nevertheless, uniform curriculum would be strictly adhered to and the goal would be to raise seriously shameful illiteracy regarding scripture.
Why anyone at the LA Times would think that was a good idea is beyond me.
Excerpts from the article:
“In a religious literacy quiz I have administered to undergraduates for the last two years, students tell me that Moses was blinded on the road to Damascus and that Paul led the Israelites on their exodus out of Egypt. Surveys that are more scientific have found that only one out of three U.S. citizens is able to name the four Gospels, and one out of 10 think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. No wonder pollster George Gallup has concluded that the United States is “a nation of biblical illiterates.”
“One solution to this civic problem is to teach Bible classes in public schools. By Bible classes I do not mean classes in which teachers tell students that Jesus loves them or that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but academic courses that study the Bible’s characters and stories as well as the afterlife of the Bible in literature and history. Last week, the Georgia Board of Education gave preliminary approval to two elective Bible courses designed to teach religion rather than preach religion. As long as teachers stick to the curriculum, this is a big step in the right direction.”
Read complete article here.
March 14, 2007
I’ve committed my Wednesday post to honoring the men and women who serve the United States of America through all branches of the military service. These heroic, volunteer service people have made themselves available to defend the nation, and cannot be praised or thanked enough.
Almost a month ago, the Wednesday Hero Blogroll received an email from a reader named Mike Gardner that contained something he had written in honor of this country’s heroes. He asked that it be considered for a future post. It took almost a month, but here is his tribute.
At The Right Time, We Remember
The honor roll goes back farther than we can remember, it contains names we will never know…
I wasn’t there when the American Colonial Army stood winter guard in the snows of Valley Forge wearing bloody rags for boots as they fought for my freedom.
I wasn’t there in the war of 1812.
I wasn’t in the trenches when the German’s seared the lungs of young American men with mustard gas as they fought for my freedom in World War One.
I wasn’t at Pearl Harbor when a single Japanese bomb detonated a million pounds of black powder on the Arizona and instantaneously killed over one thousand American sailors preparing to defend my freedom against the Japanese and the Nazis.
I didn’t see the bullet riddled bodies of the Americans who died defending my freedom in Korea.
I only vaguely remember the nightly news clips of American soldiers as they carried out our government’s orders in the jungles and swamps and tunnels of Vietnam.
I have never been with a family who lost a son or a daughter defending Kuwait, Afghanistan, or Iraq.
I wasn’t there with any of them when they suffered as prisoners of war in any of these wars.
I have never been with a family whose child died in a peace time military training exercise.
Not every one of our veterans saw combat. Some were clerks, cooks, mechanics, machinists. Some served during war time, some served during peace time, some serve in peace today, ready for battle tomorrow. Today they prepare for the ongoing war against terrorists. Some gave their lives, some suffered wounds, some saw things that no human should ever have to see, and many did things that no human should ever have to do. And all gave their daily life, for a period of time, while many more gave their time to work in the industries that sustained our veterans.
Not all of those who have protected my freedom were even in the military. Some of them were the firemen, policemen, and paramedics who risked their lives each day, rushing in where most of us would never tread. Some are the doctors and nurses who treat the wounded, and go home and cry for them. Some of them were “just” passengers on commercial airline flights who, with faith in Christ, calmly chose to fight, and die if necessary, rather than let Flight 93 be used as a weapon against their country and their fellow citizens.
When I tried to join the US Air Force, my application was turned down for medical reasons.
Because others were, and will be there, I am privileged to continue to live in the greatest nation the world has ever known and to enjoy the greatest freedoms that any people have ever known.
The honor roll stretches forward to times, and places, and names we will never know…
And so I thank you, veteran, whoever you are, and wherever you are, whenever your service.
Thank you Vet. Thanks Dad. Today, I remember WHY I am free, and I thank you.
I know that when you were asked, at the right time, like Christ, you gave your life for me.
These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.
We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived
This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. If you would like to participate in honoring the brave men and women who serve this great country, you can find out how by going here.
Wednesday Hero – Google It
March 13, 2007
Posted by icanplainlysee under climate change
, culture war
, global warming
Of course, Al denied he did anything improper in selling this big government, high tax program considering the moral truth he was portraying, despite exaggeration, and convenient deletion.
I encourage you to consider the source of this story, with an eye toward removing this obstacle from Al’s eventual move to save mankind from itself from the office of the President of the United States.
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 13, 2007
New York Times
Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
Don J. Easterbrook, a geology professor, has cited “inaccuracies” in “An Inconvenient Truth.”
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”
Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”
“An Inconvenient Truth,” directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Mr. Gore quickly became a best seller, reaching No. 1 on the New York Times list.
Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”
He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.
“He has credibility in this community,” said Tim Killeen, the group’s president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. “There’s no question he’s read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.”
Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, “Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.”
Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.
Read the rest.
March 13, 2007
Do you ever wonder, when reading another’s writing’s, political in particular, if the person emphatically declaring a point of view which you may find laughable, actually believes that drivel? Do you find yourself questioning not only the truthfulness or accuracy of the person, but also their sincerity?
What kind of person would write obvious propogandist tripe, believing enough people will alter their perception and view?
My guess is, many. Many people know what they purport as truth is simply not. Many, needing acceptance, or at least tolerance, of their positions, actively subvert reality and fact with a twisted version, which ends with persuading others to adopt the falsity.
George Orwell said this about writing:
“The first thing that we ask of a writer is that he shall not tell lies, that he shall say what he really thinks, what he really feels. The worst thing we can say about a work of art is that it is insincere. And this is even truer of criticism than of creative literature, in which a certain amount of posing and mannerism, and even a certain amount of downright humbug, doesn’t matter, so long as the writer is fundamentally sincere. Modern literature is essentially an individual thing. It is either the truthful expression of what one man thinks and feels, or it is nothing.”
Well, I try my best to express, truthfully, exactly what I think and feel. I’m not always successful, but not for lack of effort or wilfull attempt to defraud or deceive. Then there’s this little problem:
“The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house.”
Cliche’s, worn phrases, trite mantras, prattle of any kind, in other word’s, sounding like Hillary Clinton, are the first thing’s I edit. Someone wrote that anything that sound’s familiar to you will certainly sound familiar to the reader.
I really enjoy sitting down and typing my thought’s into view. Even if I say something dumb, at least I’ve had my say.
What can be better than that?
March 12, 2007
Posted by icanplainlysee under anti-war
I know, I know. The title to this post is a real shocker. I hope you were sitting down.
Frankly, the effort’s of Congress to dictate foreign policy and war strategy is nothing new in the history of armed conflict and American politics, and virtually all presidents in time of war have had to deal with congressional interference.
The deja vu with this Congress and it’s effort to micro manage defeat using similar Vietnam era style tactics is most disheartening. 3,000,000 Vietnamese were massacred or died in re-education camps because of the American cut and run forced on our troops by the Democratic Congress of the time.
Abandoning Iraq and letting the bloodbath begin isn’t an option for America, a nation rich in law and practice regarding the value of human life. Unless, of course, your a liberal Democrat, with millions of aborted babies under your belt, a burning desire to make suicide as acceptable as getting a drivers license and even putting the deformed out of their misery because of “quality of life” issues. With that record, what’s a few more bodies?
Only the Socialist Left in America wants to cut and run from Iraq, consequences be damned. Why? Because anything even perceived as an American defeat, is a source of glee and pleasure. Anything that damages the reputation, dimishes the influence or injures cohesion or security of the American nation is what these people are all about.
Imagining the lie about “supporting the troops, but against the war” is believable is another example of self delusion and shows an arrogance about the aptitude of their fellow countrymen. No culture, society or nation on earth honors cowards, or those who break their promises. Fighting the enemies of this country at home is every bit as important as fighting those abroad.
Never give up.
Excerpts from The Politico article:
“In 1973, Congress sought to deal with its de facto exclusion by passing, over President Richard Nixon’s veto, a War Powers Resolution. It required the White House to cease hostilities within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes military force or extends the time. Every president since Nixon has viewed the key provisions of the resolution as unconstitutional.”
“During the Korean War, there was hot talk on Capitol Hill of impeaching President Harry Truman for having sacked Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination.”
“As the war went on, it often solicited testimony from both high-ranking and junior officers. It leaked secret testimony to newspapers to sway public opinion. And it repeatedly pressed President Abraham Lincoln, sometimes successfully, to dismiss generals not to its liking.
Shortly before taking on the committee’s chairmanship, Wade wrote a friend that Lincoln’s views on slavery “could only come of one born of poor white trash and educated in a slave state.”
“On numerous occasions, they browbeat the president to remove a general or endorse a piece of legislation they thought was important. They were angered when Lincoln did not give in. They complained about the president’s humor and his penchant for handling conflict by telling anecdotes.”
The Politico is new, but right on top of the facts for now. Read the rest here.
March 10, 2007
Think about this for a minute.
Who would want any harm to come to cute, loveable, wild animals? Whose heart strings wouldn’t be touched by possible suffering of God’s creatures, who exist at the mercy of evil man and his destructive engines of industry and his polluting, consumerist lifestyle? How could any person turn a deaf ear to protecting defenseless creatures, especially when sinful human excesses are causing global trauma in the worlds animal communities? Be ashamed Human. Be very ashamed.
Oh, and here’s a way to purge your sinful transgressions, return to guilt free activity and maintaining life as you want it, assuming you can afford to. You, too, can continue to live exactly as you had before. All you have to do is send cash to the appropriate sin-elimination center of your choice, and they will plant trees or build a big windmill for you and your loved ones. Eco-sin problem removed, life goes on.
Well, not exactly. But then, religious charlatans go back eons. The difference now is, where guilt and shame are necessary human emotions to cause a search for relief and purpose in life, eco-guilt is a sham, set up to extort cash and power from other humans.
People are, after all, spiritual beings. Longing for a connection with something bigger and grander than everyday human life is universal. Filling this inner need, this unfilled void that plagues us all, is a vulnerability waiting to be exploited, sometimes by the most bizarre, and even destructive.
Enter the Church of Anthropogenic Climate Change and Guilt Relief Sales Center.
“Moreover, there has been a conscious awareness that religious fervor would be needed to energize the environmental movement. As Joseph Brean points out in his recent National Post review of Dr. Orrell’s book:
“Forty years ago, shortly after Rachel Carson launched modern environmentalism… a Princeton history professor named Lynn White wrote a seminal essay called the Historical Roots of our Ecological Crises: ‘By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.’ It was a prescient claim. In a 2003 speech… Michael Crichton… closed the circle, calling modern environmentalism ‘the religion of choice for urban atheists… a perfect 21st century re-mapping of traditional JudeoChristian beliefs and myths.”
Now, there is nothing wrong, and a lot right, with the human instinct to try to understand man within a larger transcendental context. The arrogant and monstrously dilated individual human ego is the direct cause of much of mankind’s suffering throughout our benighted existence.
And while I have my own religious thoughts, I will not disdain any man’s search for the transcendent. But a religion should be understood by both its adherents and others for what it is — a religion. The trouble with global-warming believers is that probably most of them delude themselves into thinking they are practicing science — not religion.
And yet, the signs of religiousness are readily to be seen. Al Gore and his Hollywood coterie have almost comically manifested one aspect of their new religion in the last few weeks — the sense of sin and the search for remission of such sin.”
Please read complete article here.
Gore uses religion to attract global warming converts
Global warming: bogus religion of our age
March 9, 2007
Socialist/pacifist house liberal Democrats, quaintly labeled progressives, are fired up and ready to mutiny against Speaker Pelosi. Ending the war in Iraq trumps anything else on earth. Any measure will do, cutting off funding for the troops, ending the war procedurally, whatever. Get out NOW! And, don’t let the door hit you in the ….
A great WSJ article gives the ugly, hateful details.
Here’s what the Democrats had to say about WMD. (video) Thanks Pat Dollard
Next Page »