We Win, They LoseThe Wit and Wisdom of Three Guys Named Brent, Mark and Mike
Saturday, February 28, 2004
Hadley Arkes rocks.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
NRO runs an article making the same point I made a while back -- if someone shows up in San Francisco wishing to marry his horse, on what grounds will Mayor Newsom stop them? The article states:
[G]iven present circumstances ... the best strategy is to take the mayor at his word and employ "street theatre" in a provocative way in order to force the other side to defend their marital nihilism in all its glory. Here's the plan: Have about 50 folks go to San Francisco city hall and request marriage licenses, but not for gay marriages, rather, for other sorts of "unions" that are also forbidden by the state: three bisexuals from two genders, one person who wants to marry himself (and have him accuse the mayor of "numberism," the prejudice that marriage must include more than one person), two married couples who want a temporary "wife-swap lease," a couple consisting of two brothers, two sisters, or a brother and a sister, an adult mother and son, and a man who wants to add a second wife and a first husband in order to have a "marital ensemble," etc., etc. Let's see if the mayor will give these people "marriage" licenses. If not, why not? If not, then the jig is up and the mayor actually has to explain the grounds on which he will not give licenses to these folks. But what could those grounds be? That it would break the law? That marriage has a nature, a purpose, that is not the result of social construction or state fiat? If so, then what is it and why?
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Constitutionally acceptable discrimination
Today the Supreme Court decided Locke v. Davey, a case involving the use of a scholarship for pursuing a theology degree. The Washington State constitution forbids the use of public funds for religion. Our Supreme Court held that this was ok -- thus, students are allowed to use the Promise Scholarships at any institution, for any purpose, so long as it is not religious. Apparently, it is ok to discriminate against religion, despite the First Amendment, which was designed specifically to protect religion.
As Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent:
In an era when the Court is so quick to come to the aid of other disfavored groups, see, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635 (1996), its indifference in this case, which involves a form of discrimination to which the Constitution actually speaks, is exceptional.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
I found a cool blog -- Antioch Road. It is billed as "news, commentary, and tidbits from a Christian and conservative perspective." Looks very good -- think I'll keep an eye on this one. (Hat tip to IlliniGirl.)
Still on Sabbatical, but
I had to post a link to Bush's strong statement today about a need for a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
Just the MBE to go . . .
Monday, February 23, 2004
Ms. Paglia cracks me up...
Naomi Wolf, feminist extraordinaire, is accusing a former professor of hers at Yale of sexually harassing her in the 1980's. Camille Paglia takes her apart:
It really grates on me that Naomi Wolf for her entire life has been batting her eyes and bobbing her boobs in the face of men and made a profession out of courting male attention by flirting and offering her sexual allure.
I just feel it’s indecent that if Naomi Wolf did not have the courage to pursue the matter at the time, or in the 1990s, then to bring all of this down on a man who is in his 70s and has health problems - who has become a culture hero to readers in the humanities around the world - to drag him into a ‘he said/she said’ scenario so late in the game, to me demonstrates a lack of proportion and a basic sense of fair play.
She doesn’t want to leave that magic island when she was the ripening teenager. How many times do we have to relive Naomi Wolf’s growing up? How many books, how many articles, Naomi, are you going to impose on us so we have to be dragged back to your teenage-heartbreak years?
This is regressive. It’s childish. Move on. Move on. Get on to menopause next.
Ms. Paglia cracks me up.
Kerry and Abortion
Deal Hudson, editor of Crisis magazine, has an excellent piece on John Kerry and his views on abortion. He notes that Kerry
told a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that, "What I believe personally as a Catholic as an article of faith
is an article of faith. And if it's not shared by a Jew or an Episcopalian or a Muslim or an agnostic or an atheist or someone else, it's not appropriate in the United States for a legislator to legislate your personal religious belief for the rest of the country."
Hudson goes on to establish that many of Kerry's prior statements seem to contradict this "personally opposed" baloney he is now claiming. He concludes:
It just doesn't look like John Kerry is telling the truth on this. When he talks to Catholic and Hispanic groups, he plays up his personal struggle with abortion and his respect for Church teaching. But when his audience is less religious, he suddenly turns into a pro-abortion crusader.
In the end, his "personally opposed" rhetoric doesn't fly... Kerry clearly isn't personally opposed to abortion. It's just a
dodge he's using to pander to religious voters.
I have often thought that people who spout this "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I wouldn't presume to tell other people what they should do," are morons. It seems they are willing to jettison their beliefs because they are afraid of actually having to stand up for something.
If they, like Kerry, are unwilling to stand up for something simply because their reason for believing it is religious, that is particularly weak. Think of all the beliefs you hold -- how many of them are based on religion? how many on politics? how many on just plain old intuition? how many on straight-up, incontrovertible fact?
I'll wager that most of your beliefs are based upon a combination of the above. It has always seemed odd to me that religious people are so willing to discard their beliefs simply because they are religion-based. It is something like an environmentalist nutjob saying that while he feels personally opposed to (pick you topic -- cutting down rainforests, drilling for oil, etc.) he would never legislate based on this belief, because he knows other don't share it.
Let's face it folks -- nearly all of our opinions are just that -- opinions. They are no less valid when based on religion as when they are based on any other feeling, such as environmentalism, or feminism, or anything else. So why have religious people been cowed into throwing their opinions overboard so easily?
In fact, take Kerry's quote above and fill in the blank with your choice of opinions based on something like faith, such as environmentalism, feminism, atheism, liberalism, etc. "It's not appropriate in the United States for a legislator to legislate your personal [fill in the blank] belief for the rest of the country." How silly.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Rated "R" -- Should Mormons see The Passion?
Ryan Boots has an interesting post on the R-Rated The Passion, and its implications for Latter-day Saints. Another piece from Keith Merrill (in Meridian Magazine) can be found here.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
In USA Today, Representative Melissa Hart has a good piece on the recent dust-up regarding the Justice Department's subpoenas to hospitals for PBA records. She says:
Proponents of partial-birth abortion have argued for years that it's medically necessary. Congress heard years of testimony and disagrees. It's time for these doctors to put their money where their mouths are.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Good "Passion" Article
University of Illinois student Bridget Sharkey has an excellent column on Mel Gibson's movie. A taste:
[W]hat do you want poor Mad Max to do, rewrite history?
We just cannot expect that. If Mel Gibson's movie were any less honest, any less forthright, it would not be accurate. It would be politically correct, but it would not be telling the basic truths of the Gospel.
Again, Foxman manages to find a way to disagree, as he says, "You know, the Gospels, if taken literally, can be very damaging."
What in the world does that mean? Does this mean that Jesus did not die on the cross? Or does it just mean that the Jews did not put him there?
An honest Christian realizes that the sins of the world put Jesus there. Jews may have been the ones urging his death, but it ultimately happened because of the sins of the world, the sins of every person everywhere. Not just Jews, not just Gentiles.
Therefore, these fears of anti-Semitism that threaten to keep perhaps the most honest and heart-wrenching portrayal of Jesus' death from millions seem ridiculous to me. True Christians do not think of the cross and say, "Those Jews. Way to go, guys. You killed God."
Instead, Christians see their own sins upon the cross. Anyone who sees this movie and gets angry with the Jews is absolutely missing the point.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Brent on sabbatical...
By the way, Brent will not be posting until he finishes the Utah bar exam next week. Wish him luck!
First SF, now Chicago?
This is nuts. Read this article for a glimpse of the anarchy possibly headed your way:
[Chicago Mayor Richard] Daley said he has no control over marriage licenses in Cook County. But if [County Clerk]Orr wants to take that bold step, the mayor has no problem with it.
Orr said he was "game to looking at options" provided a consensus could be built.
"I'm fed up with people being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. We can't even pass a law that eliminates discrimination against gay couples. [But] whatever you do when it comes to challenging laws, you want it to be effective and not knee-jerk," Orr said.
The clerk noted the protest that has gay couples from around the nation lining up for hours outside San Francisco's City Hall was meticulously planned.
It wasn't just "the clerk waking up one day and deciding to marry someone," Orr said. It had the support of the entire "city apparatus" in San Francisco -- from the mayor, City Council and advocacy groups on down. That's the model that would have to be followed here, Orr said.
"Whether or not, here in Cook County, we should be considering a San Francisco or other kind of protest, that is what some of us are discussing. I'm quite interested in exploring that with key players in the city and county. I'm already discussing that with a number of advocacy and key groups. I would like to discuss it with the mayor," Orr said.
State law says same-sex marriage is contrary to public policy. It recognizes only a marriage between a man and a woman.
Daley and Orr are going farther than gay activists are willing to go on the issue of gay marriage.
Henceforth, it appears that the officials elected to execute the laws stand ready instead to directly undermine them, provided a "consensus" can be built. What a joke -- if there were a true "consensus" wouldn't the legislature vote to change the law? The gay rights movement is now in open rebellion against the rule of law.
How can this group claim to be "discriminated" against when they can openly and flagrantly violate the law without consequences? Name another group that can get away with this.
Mel Gibson and The Passion in the News
More on Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ.
"Remember it's only a movie" from the NY Post. (Ed. note: Although Ms. Smith treats Mel Gibson somewhat favorable she clearly doesn't understand that a person can be religious and not be a "fanatic." She also tries to sound like she is familiar with the New Testament but several comments reveal that she does not.)
Increased interest in the film is causing an expansion in the number of theatres to carry it.
Gibson's critics will not let go of their belief that the movie is "anti-semitic." See also here for an article about Abe Foxman's attempts to get the Vatican to discredit the film.
Interesting commentary on the gospels and the Talmud.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
9th Amendment Debate
There is a great debate on the scope, purpose and proper reading of the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution going on over at Southern Appeal. Check it out.
Civil Unions Not Acceptable Compromise
Peter Wood makes the above argument in an NRO piece from yesterday.
More on marriage debate:
Commentary on the religious nature of the debate from the Heritage Foundation.
Not to be outdone by the mayor of San Francisco, Mayor Daley of Chicago decided to jump into the fray suggesting that the Cook County Clerk could issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if it wanted to.
I have to say that this is just absolutely unbelievable. Mark made a comment to me the other day that, since the Goodridge decision we went over a cliff and now we are in a freefall, and he is absolutely right. Whatever happened to government of the people, by the people and for the people?
Some good news: California officials have indicated that they will not honor the marriage licenses.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
BYU professor Lynn Wardle has a good article by that title over at NRO.
UPDATE: Two other articles on this topic worthy of mention. One by by William Kristol and Joseph Bottum at the Weekly Standard, the other by William J. Watkins at Intellectual Conservative.
Monday, February 16, 2004
Mel Gibson Talks About His Passion
I took a brief break from my studying to watch Diane Sawyer's interview of Mel Gibson on ABC's Primetime. Short on time, I am not able to fully put my thoughts down here at the present time, but let me just say that I was struck by his decency, his honesty and his faith. In my opinion, Mel Gibson is a good Christian man. He acquitted himself well in an interview marked by ridiculous and incredulous questions. If you did not see the interview, you missed a seeing a rare exposition of honesty and sincerity from a prominent public figure.
More on The Passion of the Christ:
Movie review and commentary by Keith Merrill, an LDS filmmaker.
Article on Mel Gibson in The Mercury News.
"This is John 3:16 in a feature-length film."
Celebrating Washington's Birthday
Commonly referred to as President's Day, as a nation we celebrate George Washington's birthday every third Monday in February. For a wonderful tribute to George Washington, read here.
For more information about George Washington check out these links here, here, here, here and here.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Richard Wilkins, a BYU law professor, makes some excellent points about marriage and its purposes and effects on society in this Meridian Magazine article here.
Other news and commentary on the marriage front:
Virginia proposes strengthening ban on same-sex marriage.
San Francisco continues to issue illegal marriage licenses unabetted.
Promoting the sanctity of marriage over "till death do us party."
Same-sex marriage proponents say civil unions not enough--want full marriage rights. (Note, this commentary may cause an uncontrollable urge to sigh with exasperation and talk to your computer screen.)
ACLU v. Declaration of Independence
John Eastman at the Claremont Institute has a good post on the briefs filed by the ACLU in the Pledge of Allegiance case. Says Eastman:
Not surprisingly, the brief filed by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the ACLU object precisely because the reference to "under God" follows a tradition in this Country "of humbly seeking the wisdom and protection of Divine Providence." Of course, the invocation of the protection of Divine Providence comes directly from the Declaration of Independence. As Pontius Pilot once remarked, what more need have we of witnesses. The ACLU's attack is aimed at nothing less than our founding charter and the principles upon which our nation is based.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
This just in ... Anthony Lewis (and his wife) are both idiots.
Last week, Ryan at soundfury had an interesting post on his conversation with Anthony Lewis, whose wife is the nutjob that has foisted same-sex marriage on us. Check it out
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Today, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to allow for the performance of same-sex civil marriage. I would say "unbelievable" but in this day and age, there is so little that ultimately surprises me. So much for the rule of law.
Armstrong Williams takes down the NAACP, which has nominated R. Kelly for an "Image Award." Williams:
"It is not [R. Kelly] that is being nominated, it is the album," explained NAACP president and CEO Kweisi Mfume. "It's a soulful album. I think it's going to be accepted by people in different ways."
And indeed, the album has generated widespread acclaim and two Grammy nominations.
Unlike the Grammy's, however, which dole out awards purely on the basis of artistic merit, the Image awards celebrate positive role models in the black community. According to the official awards statement, "the annual NAACP Image Awards are given to those who strive for the portrayal of positive images and meaningful opportunities for African-Americans in motion pictures, television and recording." Does R Kelly really fit the bill? Has he presented a positive image of a person of color? Has his behavior shed a positive light on black American culture? Are these the qualities best embodied by our brothers and sisters?
Absolutely not! In case you don't understand why, let me break it down: if you're not allowed to travel without court approval, you don't deserve an image award. If a judge orders you to avoid Michael Jackson (presumably for fear of sharing child porn) you don't deserve an award. If you can't keep from continually being charged with child pornography, you don't deserve an image award. See a pattern? There is absolutely no valid reason that R Kelly deserves an image award. Not unless you want to try to make the argument that behavior that repeatedly leads to charges of child pornography and investigations for drug use present a model of striving to be emulated and praised.
Sadly, the NAACP doesn't see it that way. Instead of tossing out the R Kelly nomination, they have decided to let it stand. After some prodding, they admitted to flaws in the nomination process. But that's it. Meaning that 2004 could be the year that a man repeatedly charged with raping children preens around with an NAACP image award tucked under his arm.
How disgusting. Who are they going to nominate for next year's image awards? OJ Simpson?
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Three Cheers for South Dakota!!!
This looks very interesting:
Following an emotional debate, the South Dakota House has passed a bill saying that life begins at conception -- something that would outlaw abortions in the state.
(Thanks to After Abortion)
I have not seen "The Passion," or even read that much about it. The Washington Times carries an interesting defense of it in today's edition. Written by an orthodox rabbi, it includes the following:
Do we really want to open up the Pandora's Box of suggesting that any faith may demand the removal of material that it finds offensive from the doctrines of any other faith? Do we really want to return to those dark times when Catholic authorities attempted to strip from the Talmud those passages that they found offensive?
The rabbi also explains "why I believe that those Jews protesting 'Passion' lack moral legitimacy[.]" It is quite interesting.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
A couple of guest commentators at NRO have made some suggestions for fixing the same-sex marriage problem in Massachusetts. Pat Buchanan also suggested yesterday that Governor Romney could choose to simply ignore the SJC's unconstitutional ruling. (If I were Romney, I would either refuse to follow the court's decision, after analyzing the pro's and con's of doing so from a rule of law perspective, or resign in lieu of signing into law legislation that strikes at the heart of our society.) Will the legislature and governor have the moral will to do what is right?
Sunday, February 08, 2004
My posting is likely to be reduced significantly during the next three weeks. I will be taking the Utah bar exam on February 24 and 25, and I want to ensure that I pass. Thus, my blogging time will be spent studying. Mark has assured me he will keep things going strong in my quasi-absence. Thanks to all.
I have tried to avoid Sunday posting over the past few months. I have thought, however, that it might be appropriate on the Sabbath to post on a religious topic that I have been studying or thinking about during the week. So here goes.
I taught Sunday School today, and the lesson covered chapters 16 through 22 of 1 Nephi, in the Book of Mormon. I focused our discussion on the differences between Laman and Lemuel, the prophet Lehi's two oldest sons, and Nephi, his youngest. Laman and Lemuel met the challenges that the family faced traveling toward the promised land (hunger, deprivations while traveling, death of a loved one, building a ship, etc.) with murmuring, anger, despair, resentment, lack of faith, hard heartedness and wickedness. Nephi on the other hand, exhibited great faith. He actively sought solutions to their difficulties, he sought God's guidance and he was obedient to God's commands. The contrast between these brothers is great. I remembered reading a verse earlier in 1 Nephi that sheds some light on why Laman and Lemuel were the way they were. In 1 Nephi 2:12, Nephi says that the cause of his brother's murmuring was that "they knew not the dealings of that God who had created them."
Knowing God's dealings with mankind gives us perspective. It gives us hope, peace and joy. It enables us to love one another better and to exercise faith, even through adversity. What is interesting is that as we exercise faith during trials, we come to know God even more. (Many Mormon pioneers, including survivors of the fateful Martin and Willie Handcart Companies, claimed to have acquired a deep knowledge of God through the trials they encountered during their trek to Utah). Laman and Lemuel did not know God, and they never bothered to try to come to a knowledge of Him. This affected every aspect of their lives. So it is with us today. Our lives will be enriched as we develop a love for and a knowledge of that God who created us. We can learn great lessons from Laman's and Lemuel's bad examples and from Nephi's good example. (For a more detailed analysis of Lessons we can learn from Laman and Lemuel read the transcript of discourse here by Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.)
Note also that Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, also of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles recently spoke about Jesus Christ and how one of the tasks he fulfilled during His mortal ministry was to teach mankind about God the Father. Indeed, Elder Holland states:
Of the many magnificent purposes served in the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, one great aspect of that mission often goes uncelebrated. His followers did not understand it fully at the time, and many in modern Christianity do not grasp it now, but the Savior Himself spoke of it repeatedly and emphatically. It is the grand truth that in all that Jesus came to say and do, including and especially in His atoning suffering and sacrifice, He was showing us who and what God our Eternal Father is like, how completely devoted He is to His children in every age and nation. In word and in deed Jesus was trying to reveal and make personal to us the true nature of His Father, our Father in Heaven.
I would encourage readers to read the whole text of Elder Holland's discourse. As we come to know, appreciate and understand God's dealings with us, we will be the better for it. Indeed Christ taught long ago that eternal life is knowing the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom He sent. (See John 17:3)
Saturday, February 07, 2004
The Mulatto Advocate has an interesting post by that name. In it, he details the process of having his kids enroll for school in the Seattle Public School System. Makes an interesting read. A bit:
So, off to the registration office we go. We show up armed with our papers and proof of residency (like I would lie to get my kids into a Seattle school). We meet with a very nice but very bureaucratic black lady who politely informs us that we need to choose a racial classification for our kids. My wife very curtly informs the lady that we will not be choosing a racial classification for the kids. So the lady chooses one for us.
Now here's where it gets interesting. Our oldest is much darker that I am. (He is my wife's son from a prior relationship. I adopted him in '98.) The lady marks him as black of course. Now our daughter is an "octaroon". She easily passes for white, since she has blond hair and grey-blue eyes. Interestingly, the lady categorizes her as black. "One drop rule"? You betcha.
The interesting thought that came to me later on is that my children were dealt different cards in life. My son will always be treated as if he needs help because of his skin color, and my daughter will be discriminated against because of her lack of it. I wondered if she would have gotten the same school assignment if she had been categorized as "white". Mrs. Mulatto left that office fuming that day. I tried to calm her down by explaining that the lady wanted to respect our wishes, but that was the "policy". Even though the racial classification issue was offensive to us, the lady had to "play the game" so to speak.
Mrs. Mulatto said "We shouldn't have to play games to get our children into school!"
You just have to read this story to believe what a leftist legislator is proposing. A Washington State lawmaker, Rep. Maralyn Chase, is the sponsor of what she calls the Two-or-Fewer Bill, which aims to promote population sustainability. According to Worldnetdaily, "the bill does not mandate the number of children, but calls for a pamphlet to be distributed by Washington's health department spelling out the presumed benefits of having no more than two children." Even state promotion of a self-imposed child limit is just absurd. This is America, not Communist China. Is it just me, or are policies of communist nations, or former communist nations, being proposed with greater regularity here in this country?
Which reminds me, for those who have not seen the movie Cheaper By the Dozen, I would encourage you to do so. It was a great film! Life with many children can be hectic, but what a blessing large families are. Population sustainability. Give me a break!!
Friday, February 06, 2004
How can anyone take this guy seriously?
Wesley Clark shows once again how inconsistent he is. No wonder this guy is getting killed in the primaries. Just weeks after telling one newspaper's editorial board that "life begins with a mother's decision," he tells a woman in Tennessee that "I don't believe in abortion."
The Associated Press reports:
On Wednesday, a woman in Tennessee pressed Clark on how he felt about abortion, and he said, "I'm against abortion, but there's the law of the land and that comes from the Supreme Court and the law is called Roe v. Wade. And I support the Supreme Court. I have to support the law."
Clark continued, saying abortion "should be safe, legal and rare. And I think what you've got to do is you really have got to work with families and you really got to help people understand what their choices are and not do the wrong thing because I don't believe in abortion."
Just a couple of comments:
1. Where's the backbone, General? "I support the Supreme Court. I have to support the law." What if the Supreme Court ruled that men could rape women? Would you "have to support the law"? You're an idiot. And a sissy. Check that -- a half-a-sissy.
2. If abortion is "the wrong thing," and you "don't believe in [it]," then why do you support it? Why did you wholeheartedly and full-throatedly endorse it just a month ago? Oh, that's right, you're an idiot. And a half-a-sissy.
3. You're in the wrong party if you "don't believe in abortion."
4. "[T]here's the law of the land and that comes from the Supreme Court[.]" This perfectly illustrates the utter lack of thought that comes from the morons who think they have what it takes to run our country. What a joke.
5. Looks like it's time to head back to CNN, dork.
My comments on his earlier remarks can be accessed here and here.
"Act worthy of ourselves."
The Washington Times has published this tribute to Ronald Reagan on this his 93rd birthday. We hope he and his family enjoy this day and we issue our public thanks for his great leadership over the years.
Bush May Finally Come Through for Conservatives
David Frum notes that President Bush reportedly will "give a full-throated and unequivocal endorsement to the Federal Marriage Amendment in the wake of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Council ruling." Frum also notes that it is now up to conservatives in the states to promote the Federal Marriage Amendment. He then issues this admonition:
It is true, however, that whether traditionalists win this battle will depend very largely on whether they can keep their temper. This debate will be won by whichever side does the better job of convincing the public that it stands up for the deepest values of American life - and conservatives should remember at all times, as if they didn't know, that any incidents of extremism or harshness or vilification will instantly be publicized nationwide. And they should remember, again as if they didn't know, that the other side will not be held to the same standard.
So let's fight hard - but let's be careful to fight smart.
I agree wholeheartedly with Frum's admonition. In standing up for morality and traditional family values there will be those who disagree with our position. We have no choice but to disagree, but we can disagree without being disagreeable. As we do so, we must remember other moral principles and traditional values--longsuffering, kindness, humility, patience, goodness. It is a good fight worth fighting.
Sidenote: Even the ordinarily liberal and pro-same-sex marriage Washington Post has issued an editorial criticizing the recent Massachusetts ruling.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
I thought a cormorant was a fruit...
Just kidding! Anyway, some animal-rights nutjobs are suing the government to try to block new rules that permit the killing of double-crested cormorants. One of the nutjobs, Michael Markarian, the president of The Fund for Animals, said:
"Cormorants, like many other birds, eat fish to survive, and should not be punished for doing what comes naturally."
A couple observations -- when is some fish-loving group gonna sue the cormorants?
Also, it seems this "should not be punished for doing what comes naturally" argument is running rampant these days. First the homosexuals, now the cormorants -- why don't the hunters argue that they are only doing "what comes naturally"? After all, people have been hunting animals since the beginning of time, and classifying oneself by one's behavior, then arguing you can't help it, is very much in vogue these days.
More from Kurtz
Stanley Kurtz has another good article on marriage here. Also Hadley Arkes wrote a guest commentary at NRO which you can access here.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Janet Jackson she ain't...
The Deseret News runs a story on an opinion from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court's determination that the LDS girl was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of whether the University of Utah discriminated aginst her religion by requiring the actress to use profanity when portraying a character. Interesting.
Democrat Party Loyalty Oath?
Papers are reporting that the Democrat Party attempted to force voters in yesterday's primary to swear their allegiance to the Party. This online paper is reporting that:
The party had planned to force voters in today's primary to swear, "I consider myself a Democrat." Voters in South Carolina do not register by party, but those who refused to sign would have been ejected.
Loyalty oaths to a political party? Unbelievable. This is America not some communist country where loyalty to a party trumps individual independence and patriotism. Thankfully, after widespread outrage, the Demcrat Party dropped the program. However, the fact that such an idea was attempted should be of concern. I will say again, both the Republican Party and Democrat Party create a host of problems for this nation. George Washington's counsel ought to have been heeded. In his Farewell Address he warned:
All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and Associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, controul counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities are distructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Medved on The Passion and Anti-Semitism
Michael Medved penned this excellent commentary on Mel Gibson's soon-to-be released movie. (Thanks to Steve at SA for pointing this out.)
Marriage Decline Update
As an follow-up to my prior post on marriage and Stanley Kurtz's analysis of the decline of marriage in Scandinavia, readers should read a new article by Kurtz in yesterday's National Review Online.
Monday, February 02, 2004
Janet Jackson is an idiot
I can't help but comment on yesterday's half-time debacle, which Mr. Timberlake assures us was unintentional -- yeah, right. If it was not planned, then why hasn't Janet Jackson filed a lawsuit (or at least let everyone know what a cad Mr. Timberlake is)? The reason, I submit, is because she knew it was coming and was fully aware of what the plan was. If she did not know it was coming, then she has not one ounce of self-respect -- which is doubly true if she knew. Either way she is a woman of absolutely no virtue. The same applies for everyone else involved.
UPDATE: Jackson has admitted that she knew about it ahead of time, thus confirming she has no class.
Sunday, February 01, 2004