Bits and Pieces
Trying to get back into the swing of posting more regularly. On those days when I simply can't get a full-fledged commentary completed, I'll at least try to get something like the following posted.
JLH
- I see where Planned Parenthood – one of the organizations that leads the charge in ending parenthood wherever possible – has launched a line of keychains promoting condom use. Included in this line is one model that features a doctored version of Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam. Only in Planned Parenthood’s version God is handing Adam a condom. It reminds me of NARAL’s “Choice on Earth” Christmas cards in its mockery of Judeo-Christian imagery.
Beautiful, just beautiful.
Frankly, the simple form of Christianity I adhere to doesn’t put much stock in painted or carved images depicting the Divine. And I don’t even celebrate Christmas from a religious standpoint. But I know an awful lot of Americans do. And I know that regardless of how I, or anyone else might react to, or ignore, such gimmicks, I recognize the intent to mock, or at least exploit, the cherished beliefs of many to promote an agenda when I see it.
I have to think that Somebody somewhere doesn’t appreciate the intent. And while I think these promotions on the part of abortion advocates are tacky in the extreme, I’m content to let them be judged elsewhere for their effrontery.
- I plan to have some things to say – a lot of things, actually – concerning the Alito confirmation hearings in the next couple of days. But for now, I’ll just take note of a story I saw in the Washington Times about a group of twenty female Democrat members of the House of Representatives who have declared Samuel Alito to be unfit for the Supreme Court.
All I know to say when I hear such things is, “So what?” These women have no Constitutional say in who gets nominated/confirmed to any federal court. So what’s the point? Grandstanding? Fundraising? Or maybe it’s just the liberal need to execute some form of public protest when they don’t get their way?
- This is kind of dated, but I noticed where former President Bill Clinton said that he believes that the country is ready to elect a woman president – as long as she is the right kind of candidate. I don’t suppose I have any argument with that statement, but the obvious implication on his part is that the country should be willing to vote for Hillary.
Okay, obviously he feels she is the “right kind of candidate.” I suppose that term might have a different definition depending on who you’re talking to, but it would have been helpful if he had explained what he meant by it.
I have said for some time that if Hillary wants to run, she has the right to. And if people want to vote for her, they have the right to, even if they don’t know why. I certainly don’t know why they would. And I don’t say that to bash Hillary in any way. I honestly don’t know what it is about her that commends her to America as the best choice for President, and would love for someone to tell me what it is.
Michael Oates Palmer, who wrote for “The West Wing” (Or is it still on the air?), offered to buy a beer for the first Hillary supporter who “can point me to one decision or vote she’s made in the last four years where she took a stand that went against her best political interests.”
That is a valid question from a purely political standpoint. But for me, it goes even further. I just want to know what she’s done, what she’s accomplished, that makes her the best candidate, or even the best candidate among women. Can anyone help me out here?
- Maybe it’s only of interest to me because of my ties to Russia as the result of the adoption of my sons and the friends we made there in the process, but Lee Edwards had an interesting commentary in the January 5 Washington Times, the principal purpose of which was to talk up a proposed memorial to the victims of communism to be located in Washington. Regardless of how you feel about the proliferation in recent years of more and more “landmarks” in the nation’s capital, the piece provides some sobering reminders of the cost that has been imposed by, as he puts it “the bloodiest ideology yet devised by man.”
I’m reminded of an episode a few years ago in which my wife and I were in some other folks home in East Tennessee, when the news broke that Elian Gonzalez had been seized in a late night raid, and was to be returned to communist Cuba. As all who were gathered where we were discussed the events and their implications, one of the sons of our host, in his early twenties, said something to the effect of, “How bad can life in a communist country really be?” I was stunned into silence.
It only reaffirms the truth of Edwards’ statement that “We Americans are lucky. We’ve never had to worry about a knock on the door in the middle of the night, with members of the secret police ready to drag us from our homes.” Unfortunately, as that episode demonstrated, our good fortune in this regard has, in many cases, made us blind to the terrors of this ideology that many faced, and continue to face. For as Edwards’ notes, communism still remains a force for terror over one-fifth of the world’s population. And certain nations that have thrown it off previously stand in danger of falling back in it’s particularly deadly brand of tyranny.
- Remember when President Reagan was mocked for saying that trees contribute to global warming?
Well!
I had to chuckle when I saw the Reuters story proclaiming that German (that’s European) scientists have confirmed that living plants are major producers of greenhouse gasses.
But this really isn’t about that particular news item.
President Reagan was brutalized for suggesting this very thing two decades ago. Not because his statement had been dis-proven scientifically, but because, you see, he was a buffoon and had no business contradicting the accepted wisdom on the subject.
President Reagan’s simple-mindedness and ignorance was a major assumption made by many in the press and on the left (Or am I being redundant?) that served as their starting point on how to evaluate anything he said or did. Indeed, making unproven assumptions as starting points for evaluating any number of phenomena seems to be becoming more and more accepted as valid practice – which may be why the German study can’t explain why such a large source of the gasses had been overlooked before. Maybe it’s because they had previously started with the assumption that plants couldn’t be a source, so never bothered to look at them before.
In any event, as time goes by, new revelations/admissions made by those in politics, science, or whatever are revealing that maybe the Gipper wasn’t a buffoon for suggesting the emperor had no clothes after all – on more subjects than just greenhouse gasses. And his stature only becomes all the more impressive for his refusing to back down from what he believed simply because it wouldn’t be accepted by those who supposedly knew better than him (Weren’t we discussing communism a moment ago?). History is being very kind to him, as many of us knew it always would.
Now we have another President who is evaluated the same way by all the “smart people” – that is, begin with the assumption that he is a buffoon and that anything he says is laughable, particularly if it goes against the accepted wisdom of the day. Many in this community of “smart people” are already labeling him as one of the worst presidents ever – including a well-educated friend of mine who should really know better than to try to evaluate the historic quality of a presidency while it is still going on. But President Bush is standing by his beliefs with regard to the most pressing issues of our time. Don’t be surprised if history is equally kind to him in another quarter-century or so.
JLH
- I see where Planned Parenthood – one of the organizations that leads the charge in ending parenthood wherever possible – has launched a line of keychains promoting condom use. Included in this line is one model that features a doctored version of Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam. Only in Planned Parenthood’s version God is handing Adam a condom. It reminds me of NARAL’s “Choice on Earth” Christmas cards in its mockery of Judeo-Christian imagery.
Beautiful, just beautiful.
Frankly, the simple form of Christianity I adhere to doesn’t put much stock in painted or carved images depicting the Divine. And I don’t even celebrate Christmas from a religious standpoint. But I know an awful lot of Americans do. And I know that regardless of how I, or anyone else might react to, or ignore, such gimmicks, I recognize the intent to mock, or at least exploit, the cherished beliefs of many to promote an agenda when I see it.
I have to think that Somebody somewhere doesn’t appreciate the intent. And while I think these promotions on the part of abortion advocates are tacky in the extreme, I’m content to let them be judged elsewhere for their effrontery.
- I plan to have some things to say – a lot of things, actually – concerning the Alito confirmation hearings in the next couple of days. But for now, I’ll just take note of a story I saw in the Washington Times about a group of twenty female Democrat members of the House of Representatives who have declared Samuel Alito to be unfit for the Supreme Court.
All I know to say when I hear such things is, “So what?” These women have no Constitutional say in who gets nominated/confirmed to any federal court. So what’s the point? Grandstanding? Fundraising? Or maybe it’s just the liberal need to execute some form of public protest when they don’t get their way?
- This is kind of dated, but I noticed where former President Bill Clinton said that he believes that the country is ready to elect a woman president – as long as she is the right kind of candidate. I don’t suppose I have any argument with that statement, but the obvious implication on his part is that the country should be willing to vote for Hillary.
Okay, obviously he feels she is the “right kind of candidate.” I suppose that term might have a different definition depending on who you’re talking to, but it would have been helpful if he had explained what he meant by it.
I have said for some time that if Hillary wants to run, she has the right to. And if people want to vote for her, they have the right to, even if they don’t know why. I certainly don’t know why they would. And I don’t say that to bash Hillary in any way. I honestly don’t know what it is about her that commends her to America as the best choice for President, and would love for someone to tell me what it is.
Michael Oates Palmer, who wrote for “The West Wing” (Or is it still on the air?), offered to buy a beer for the first Hillary supporter who “can point me to one decision or vote she’s made in the last four years where she took a stand that went against her best political interests.”
That is a valid question from a purely political standpoint. But for me, it goes even further. I just want to know what she’s done, what she’s accomplished, that makes her the best candidate, or even the best candidate among women. Can anyone help me out here?
- Maybe it’s only of interest to me because of my ties to Russia as the result of the adoption of my sons and the friends we made there in the process, but Lee Edwards had an interesting commentary in the January 5 Washington Times, the principal purpose of which was to talk up a proposed memorial to the victims of communism to be located in Washington. Regardless of how you feel about the proliferation in recent years of more and more “landmarks” in the nation’s capital, the piece provides some sobering reminders of the cost that has been imposed by, as he puts it “the bloodiest ideology yet devised by man.”
I’m reminded of an episode a few years ago in which my wife and I were in some other folks home in East Tennessee, when the news broke that Elian Gonzalez had been seized in a late night raid, and was to be returned to communist Cuba. As all who were gathered where we were discussed the events and their implications, one of the sons of our host, in his early twenties, said something to the effect of, “How bad can life in a communist country really be?” I was stunned into silence.
It only reaffirms the truth of Edwards’ statement that “We Americans are lucky. We’ve never had to worry about a knock on the door in the middle of the night, with members of the secret police ready to drag us from our homes.” Unfortunately, as that episode demonstrated, our good fortune in this regard has, in many cases, made us blind to the terrors of this ideology that many faced, and continue to face. For as Edwards’ notes, communism still remains a force for terror over one-fifth of the world’s population. And certain nations that have thrown it off previously stand in danger of falling back in it’s particularly deadly brand of tyranny.
- Remember when President Reagan was mocked for saying that trees contribute to global warming?
Well!
I had to chuckle when I saw the Reuters story proclaiming that German (that’s European) scientists have confirmed that living plants are major producers of greenhouse gasses.
But this really isn’t about that particular news item.
President Reagan was brutalized for suggesting this very thing two decades ago. Not because his statement had been dis-proven scientifically, but because, you see, he was a buffoon and had no business contradicting the accepted wisdom on the subject.
President Reagan’s simple-mindedness and ignorance was a major assumption made by many in the press and on the left (Or am I being redundant?) that served as their starting point on how to evaluate anything he said or did. Indeed, making unproven assumptions as starting points for evaluating any number of phenomena seems to be becoming more and more accepted as valid practice – which may be why the German study can’t explain why such a large source of the gasses had been overlooked before. Maybe it’s because they had previously started with the assumption that plants couldn’t be a source, so never bothered to look at them before.
In any event, as time goes by, new revelations/admissions made by those in politics, science, or whatever are revealing that maybe the Gipper wasn’t a buffoon for suggesting the emperor had no clothes after all – on more subjects than just greenhouse gasses. And his stature only becomes all the more impressive for his refusing to back down from what he believed simply because it wouldn’t be accepted by those who supposedly knew better than him (Weren’t we discussing communism a moment ago?). History is being very kind to him, as many of us knew it always would.
Now we have another President who is evaluated the same way by all the “smart people” – that is, begin with the assumption that he is a buffoon and that anything he says is laughable, particularly if it goes against the accepted wisdom of the day. Many in this community of “smart people” are already labeling him as one of the worst presidents ever – including a well-educated friend of mine who should really know better than to try to evaluate the historic quality of a presidency while it is still going on. But President Bush is standing by his beliefs with regard to the most pressing issues of our time. Don’t be surprised if history is equally kind to him in another quarter-century or so.
posted by JeffreyH | 1:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home