The Tiller Murder: Political Repurcussions And Advice For Pro-Aborts

I have a few more thoughts about the murder of George Tiller.

Pro-lifers despise killing. We hate the reduction of the human person to a problem whose solution is death. No pro-lifers will celebrate the death of George Tiller.

My advice to pro-aborts on this is to be careful. George Tiller and his late-term abortion practice, and his close association with HHS Secretary Sebelius, was an embarrassment to you. His "martyrdom" will be much more useful to you than was his practice. You'll be able to spend the next period of time -- and we know it'll be as long as you can make it -- forcing pro-lifers to get off-topic at least long enough to deplore the murder of Tiller the Killer.

My advice: try not let to your glee at his murder show. You guys are the ones who are about death. That you succeeded in converting Scott Roeder to your pro-death worldview is not an indictment of the pro-life position. It is a warning to us all of what lies at the end of the "pro-choice" line of reasoning.

Scott Roeder stopped standing for life; instead, he made a choice. No doubt it was a heart-wrenching decision he made.

Unfortunately, outlawing murder hasn't ended all murders. This was, to use your terminology, a "back-alley" murder. But now you will make George Tiller into the martyr for death. Your sacrament now has a saint. Congratulations.

Tiller Murdered - But Not By A Pro-Lifer

I was shocked to log on this evening and learn that George Tiller has been murdered.

I have argued long and loud on this blog that people who claim to be pro-life but who support pro-abortion politicians are not, in fact, pro-life.

It is all the more easy to argue that someone who claims to be pro-life but who murders a man is not, in fact, pro-life.

George Tiller's murderer is someone who, like Tiller himself, presumed to claim the authority to decide who might live, and who must die.

The world is a better place without George Tiller, but his murderer should be brought to justice, and face the full penalties provided in Kansas law.

Is She Good, Or Not?

(H/T: Brutally Honest via Cartago Delenda Est)

Thank You

Sometime on Saturday (tomorrow), this blog will pass 175,000 hits, since I got the counter in August of 2005.

Thanks to all who have supported this blog in reaching this milestone.

Gay Marriage Doesn't Work

What's the worst thing about gay marriage? It doesn't work (H/T: conservativeBrand):

There is a new consensus on gay marriage: not on whether it should be legalized but about the motives of those of us who oppose it. All agree that any and all opposition to gay marriage is explained either by biblical literalism or anti-homosexual bigotry. This consensus is brilliantly constructed to be so unflattering to those of us who will vote against gay marriage--if we are allowed to do so--that even biblical literalists and bigots are scrambling out of the trenches and throwing down their weapons.

But I think that the fundamental objection to gay marriage among most who oppose it has very little to do with one's feelings about the nature of homosexuality or what the Bible has to say about sodomy. The obstacle to wanting gay marriage is instead how we use and depend on marriage itself--and how little marriage, understood completely, affects or is relevant to gay people in love. Gay marriage is not so much wrong as unnecessary. But if it comes about, it will not be gay marriage that causes the harm I fear, as what will succeed its inevitable failure.

The embrace of homosexuality in Western culture has come about with unbelievable speed--far more rapidly than the feminist revolution or racial equality. Less than 50 years ago same-sex sexual intercourse was criminal. Now we are arguing about the term used to describe a committed relationship. Is the right to marry merely lagging behind the pace with which gays have attained the right to hold jobs--even as teachers and members of the clergy; to become elected officials, secret agents, and adoptive parents; and to live together in public, long-term relationships? And is the public, having accepted so rapidly all these rights that have made gays not just "free" but our neighbors, simply withholding this final right thanks to a stubborn residue of bigotry? I don't think so.

When a gay man becomes a professor or a gay woman becomes a police officer, he or she performs the same job as a heterosexual. But there is a difference between a married couple and a same-sex couple in a long-term relationship. The difference is not in the nature of their relationship, not in the fact that lovemaking between men and women is, as the Catholics say, open to life. The difference is between the duties that marriage imposes on married people--not rights, but rather onerous obligations--which do not apply to same-sex love.

The relationship between a same-sex couple, though it involves the enviable joy of living forever with one's soulmate, loyalty, fidelity, warmth, a happy home, shopping, and parenting, is not the same as marriage between a man and a woman, though they enjoy exactly the same cozy virtues. These qualities are awfully nice, but they are emphatically not what marriage fosters, and, even when they do exist, are only a small part of why marriage evolved and what it does.

The entity known as "gay marriage" only aspires to replicate a very limited, very modern, and very culture-bound version of marriage. Gay advocates have chosen wisely in this. They are replicating what we might call the "romantic marriage," a kind of marriage that is chosen, determined, and defined by the couple that enters into it. Romantic marriage is now dominant in the West and is becoming slightly more frequent in other parts of the world. But it is a luxury and even here has only existed (except among a few elites) for a couple of centuries--and in only a few countries. The fact is that marriage is part of a much larger institution, which defines the particular shape and character of marriage: the kinship system. [Emphasis added.]

There's much more, all worth a read.

Can A Pro-Lifer Support Ron Gidwitz?

Tom Roeser makes a compelling case for the election of businessman Ron Gidwitz for Governor:

It has become clear to me that the man we need now is one who is not going to trade on charm or windy bromides…but one who knows more about state government through dint of experience…more also about education and taxes through his background as civic leader and business entrepreneur…than anyone else in the lists. He’s Ron Gidwitz. He hasn’t hired me or rented me and frankly he and I aren’t very close friends. He helped out on The Chicago Daily Observer but then between John Powers and I we got the thing started and continuing…and have far outstripped his contribution-so he’s certainly not our Daddy Warbucks. Nor does he want to be the sole Daddy Warbucks for his candidacy-although he has given millions of dollars to worthy causes in philanthropy.

I met with him the other day and am satisfied…after my 56 years in the Republican trenches in two states…that he is willing to run for governor-IF. If those who are looking around for a candidate understand that there are tough choices and prescriptions to be made…and IF they are willing to help him get elected to prescribe that medicine.

I have immense respect for Tom, his experience and opinions. I enjoy his writing, and usually find myself in agreement with him.

But I've got three questions on this idea of his, and the comments link on his blog isn't working.

First: Isn't he asking us to support someone based on who he is, rather than on what he proposes to do? Just what are the prescriptions Gidwitz feels are necessary for Illinois? Without a platform, isn't he just asking us to support Gidwitz as a different kind of "personality candidate," as he calls them?

Second: If Gidwitz will run "IF," as Roeser says, are we talking about a situation in which Gidwitz thinks he's condescending to do us a favor by running? If that's the case, I'm not very excited about that.

And thirdly (and to me, most importantly), isn't Gidwitz pro-choice? Roeser's pro-life credentials are impressive, and his disdain for pro-choice Republicans like Judy Baar Topinka in the past has been evident. But I've been arguing here and elsewhere for years that pro-lifers have to support pro-life candidates, or else we'll never get anywhere. I argued that it was mortally sinful to support Barack Obama and John Kerry. I argued that for pro-lifers to support Topinka would mean that the GOP in Illinois wouldn't have another pro-life nominee for at least another decade, maybe two.

I hope Roeser isn't starting down the path of Douglas Kmiec. I think he's better than that.

And besides, if Gidwitz is so smart, why doesn't he see that the unborn have as much right to life as the born? And, if I recall correctly, Gidwitz opposed the effort in 2006 to get a marriage amendment on the Illinois ballot. Roeser has written movingly on this topic as well. Has Gidwitz read it?

Roeser writes compellingly about the moral cesspool that is Illinois:

Illinois has the Worst Moral Climate in History.

...we have a sickeningly immoral situation in our politics…from the Democratic party… that can make one throw up. Consider: a junior Dem U. S. senator who was caught on tape trying to wheedle his appointment via what would be regarded as near-bribery…A Dem governor who was first arrested, then impeached, then fired by the legislature for corruption, unmatched since the days of the Kingfish Huey Long in Louisiana.

His Dem successor who moved up to governor but for most of the time kept his mouth shut about the boss’s evident corruption-and whose campaign manager offered to make “face time” available to lobbyists at the tail-end of the legislative session for $15,000 a pop…and who wants to hike your income taxes steeply…A likely Dem challenger to the Senate seat a young man who conferred loans from his family’s bank to Outfit leaders… A federal prosecutor probing the hiring and kickback practices of the Dem mayor of Chicago, the leader of the Illinois Democratic party, an outfit that has been in charge of Chicago since 1931, longer than the old Soviet Union..

All these things have come to pass because…as bad as the Democratic party has been… the Republican party of Illinois forgot its mission. It served up a bulbous-nosed back-slapping old pol to become governor on the basis that he could get along with everybody. He sure did. He’s serving a term in jail now. He was the latest descendent of a line of Republicans who inured to the Democratic party practices in the past, blocked any glimmer of Reagan high principles to invade the precincts of the state. Thus the GOP became known as the stepchild of the Dems-with campaigns that didn’t mention tax hikes but following elections, tax and fee hikes came. [Emphasis in original.]

Roeser says it's "No-Nonsense Time" now, but he knows that these concerns aren't nonsense. Does Gidwitz know that?

Henry IV famously said that Paris was worth a mass when he gave up heresy and returned to the Church. Might Gidwitz decide that the Governor's Mansion was worth giving up his support for "choice" in order to embrace the entire Republican platform? That's what I'd need.

Finally, I have to say that I think that Roeser is far too dismissive of the announced candidates, any of whom would be a major improvement over the Democrat options. I have a favorite, of course, but I think they all deserve better than the brush-off Roeser is giving.

Was Mancow's Waterboard Experience A Hoax?

You decide.

Doug Kmiec Gets Spanked Again

See the video here.

Best Argument I've Seen For Marriage All Week

Nation's Girlfriends Unveil New Economic Plan: 'Let's Move In Together'

Meanwhile, Over At Vox Nova

They're talking about The Tudors, Showtime's racy version of the reign of Henry VIII.

And from that, I was pointed to this, a tribute to St. Thomas More:



And from there I found this, about Queen Katharine of Aragon, whom I privately consider to be a saint as well:

Barack Obama and Morton's Fork

In the reign of England's King Henry VII, there was a minister named Morton, whose job was to raise taxes. And he would go to the nobles who were living lavish lifestyles, and he would say to them, "I see you have a great deal of money, so you will be able to contribute generously to the King's coffers." And then Morton would go to the nobles who were living frugally, and he would tell them, "I see that you are frugal, and must have saved much, and so you will be able to contribute generously to the King's coffers."

This two-pronged argument was called "Morton's Fork."

Perhaps we should call this "Obama's Fork." To the pro-lifers he sends pro-life apologists like Douglas Kmiec to tell us that his anti-life policies aren't that bad, and that his other good works are so much more significant, and even comes himself to Notre Dame to tell us he wants to find "common ground" on which to discuss our "irreconcilable" differences.

And to the Congress, he sends legislation like this:



(But if Douglas Kmiec and the other Catholic Obama supporters were really pro-life, they'd stop spending all their time telling Catholics how nice Obama is, and spend more time telling Obama and the pro-abort Democrats how nice the unborn are, and how they should be protected in law.)

Not Every Abortion Decision Is "Heart-Wrenching"

A pro-choice doctor testifies (H/T: American Catholic):

The strident pro-choice left would have it that no women choose abortion blithely, and that all weigh it carefully. They would have us focus on the cases at the edges, where the circumstances are most extreme and least likely to cause dissent. They would have us ignore the difficult truth that for some, abortion is not a heart-wrenching decision.

Much of my experience would make for a harder rhetorical fight for the pro-choice side. Many of my patients, all of whom (by nature of being in the clinic in the first place) had access to free contraception, made the decision to abort with no apparent hesitation at all. The option was exercised by some several times. Adoption planning was chosen so infrequently as to have been all but eliminated from the conversation. While I would not like to create the impression that I would wish the young women in question to have been tormented by their decision, I was genuinely disheartened by how blithely it was made by many. [Emphasis added.]

Nominated Again

Thanks to those who nominated this blog in the following categories:

• Best Blog by a Man
  
• Best Written Blog
  

Rather than campaign for votes, I intend, during the voting period, to look at the other nominees in these categories, and offer reasons for you to vote for them. Stay tuned.

Conservatives Should Oppose Sotomayor

In a rare but courteous dispute, I find myself pointedly in disagreement with Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate. Jay believes that conservatives shouldn't oppose the confirmation of President Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor:

Conservatives and Republicans would be wise to hold their fire on this pick. She's going to be confirmed anyway, and the conservative cause has very little to gain by standing athwart this historical nomination (the first Latina Supreme Court nominee) yelling "Stop!" In fact, they have much to lose (i.e. what's left of the Latinos who still vote for them) by being seen as opposing this nomination.

Besides, Feddie is right. We've dodged a bullet. It could have been much worse, and I'm actually a little surprised Obama didn't go ahead and use some political capital while he still has it to go for broke on as big a lefty ideologue as he could find. Believe me, there are some disappointed folks on the left who likely view this pick similarly to how some of us on the right viewed the Harriet Miers pick.

The better strategy for the right is to let Obama have this one ... maybe even confirm her 100-0. Ask tough questions during the confirmation hearings, but don't go overboard, and definitely don't be seen as hostile to her personally. State openly for the record that you're willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt on his first pick, but that future nominees will draw much tougher scrutiny.

I frankly disagree. And very strongly. As I've discussed in Jay's comments section, I see Jay's point:

Granted it could have been worse.

Granted, too, that we can't win.

Remember the Alamo. Just because we can't win doesn't mean we shouldn't fight. Just because it could have been worse doesn't mean we have to accept this.

If our side's culture warriors never join battle, how can we hope to gain experience? How can we hope to toughen ourselves? And how can we avoid our opponents concluding that we lack the dedication to fight for what we claim to believe?

The liberals believe that what's theirs is theirs and what's ours is negotiable. When we have a president in the White House, we have to fight like dogs to get an appointment confirmed. They should face the same obstacle.

After all, who will there be to think well of us if we just let this one slide by?

But Jay believes that "a President is entitled to the Supreme Court nominees of his choice." To me, this sentiment is a quaint old custom which it would be nice to return to. Them first.

Until then, we should insist that even a bad president make good appointments. We'll have to live with this long after Obama is gone.

Judge Sotomayor, like President Obama, believes that her personal experience, her gender, her ethnicity, and her personal desires all trump what the law says, whenever she wants them to. She supports racial discrimination against whites. Too, she's been described as a "bully" (anyone remember John Bolton's treatment?), and she thinks that the courts are where policy is made. She is clearly unsuited to be a judge in any court, and especially the Supreme Court.

And in all likelihood, she thinks Roe v. Wade is good law. Planned Parenthood has endorsed her.

We should give a Democratic president's appointments no more deference than was given to a Republican president's. And, unlike with Bork, Roberts, and Alito, at least when we call her qualifications into question, it'll be true.

It Was Real Fun

Congratulations to the winners!

No, I didn't win, but some of the blogs I voted for won, and a blog I contribute to won.

How The Iowa Supreme Court Ignored The Facts To Get Gay "Marriage"

From National Catholic Register (H/T: For The Greater Glory):

This case, known as Varnum v. Brien, began with a half dozen same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses in Polk County, Iowa. The county clerk, acting in accordance with the law, refused. Mind you, the state of Iowa did not go bothering unassuming people who were minding their own business. This was a staged case. These couples went to the clerk's office intending to be refused. They sued Timothy Brien, Polk County recorder and registrar, an ordinary county employee.

The plaintiffs, that is, the people who complained, were not exactly average citizens battling the big mean state of Iowa all by themselves. They had the backing of homosexual-rights establishment organizations. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund took in $20 million in 2007. Lambda Legal is a nonprofit devoted solely to bringing legal challenges like these.

By contrast, Polk County, Iowa, has a budget of $15 million for the entire court system. One of the attorneys of record for Lambda Legal has degrees from Yale and Columbia. Iowa's law was defended not by the state's attorney general, nor even by the county attorney, but by two assistant county attorneys.

The case wasn't a fair fight: It was more like David and Goliath without the benefit of divine intervention.

Most citizens do not realize that this mismatch of legal resources is typical for advocacy cases. So, advocacy organizations on the side of natural, man-woman marriage came into the case as friends of the court, trying to help defend the law of the state of Iowa. Most notably, a group of scholars presented briefs and affidavits on various aspects of the social significance of marriage. But the trial court refused to admit five out of the eight expert witnesses presented to them.

These experts covered a wide range of issues, including the ethics of artificial reproductive technologies, the rights of children to be raised by their parents, the procreative purpose of marriage, the history and meaning of marriage, and the significance of gender differences in parenting. The trial court refused to hear the testimony of Allan Carlson, author of five books on the history of marriage, Margaret Somerville, founding director of the McGill University Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, and Stephen Rhodes, political science professor at the University of Virginia. This is the very sort of evidence that courts in other states, such as New York, have found persuasive.

After refusing to hear their testimony, the court had the nerve to declare a whole list of facts were "undisputed." Instead of listening to both sides and deciding impartially, the court lifted the "facts" directly from the brief of the same-sex "marriage" advocates.

When this case went to the Supreme Court of Iowa, several friends of the court pleaded with them to reopen the admissibility of the evidence, to hear it, and to consider it. The Supreme Court said, "The error committed by the trial court in failing to do so is of no consequence" since they were going to review it themselves.

But their review didn't amount to much. As for the parenting issue, surely one of the most significant issues under discussion, the court relegated it to a footnote.

"The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else," says the court, but the court offers no citations to any evidence in support of this remarkable claim. If we took that statement out of the context of the same-sex "marriage" debate and applied it generally throughout society, we would create enormous problems. But put that point to one side for now. Just realize that the Supreme Court of Iowa did not do the public the courtesy of citing a single source in support of this claim.

The debate over marriage hinges in large part on what people think is the subject: Advocates of genderless marriage believe it is about fairness and equality. Advocates of conjugal marriage believe it is about the role of marriage. By dismissing testimony so obviously germane to the functions of marriage in society, the Iowa courts prejudged the case and tacitly declared equality to be the only issue.

The homosexual lobby continually hectors the rest of us about "fairness" and "equality." But when they get the power, they ignore the most basic rules of fair play. [Emphasis added.]

Where Is Sotomayor On Abortion?

There seems to be some question:

On the crucial issue of abortion, however, Sotomayor—a U.S. appeals court judge who previously served as a federal district judge—is largely a blank slate. "Sotomayor has never directly decided whether a law regulating abortion was constitutional," according to a recent Americans United for Life analysis.

Despite the purported outrage by conservative groups, Sotomayor's thin record on abortion is most likely a relief to those groups—and may actually wind up making abortion-rights groups anxious. In light of today's AUL statement, for instance, it may come as a surprise that Sotomayor receives the kindest treatment of nine potential Obama Supreme Court nominations the group examined.

AUL notes that Sotomayor upheld a ban on federal funds going to abortion providers overseas. "The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the antiabortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds," Sotomayor wrote in the decision. She has also ruled in favor of antiabortion protesters who sued West Hartford, Conn., claiming that police there used excessive force against them at a demonstration.

If this woman is confirmed to the Court and casts the deciding vote to overturn Roe, I'm going to owe some kind of apology to Catholic Obama supporters. It is one I would gladly render.

Anyone care to predict that that's what will happen?

Obama's New Justice

Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Courts "are where policy is made."

So I guess we should just send congress and the President home. I for one wish to welcome our new black-robed overlord. America is no democracy, nor even a republic. Our system is one of judicial feudalism. We are ruled, ultimately, by Philosopher-Kings who rule not by divine right but by their inate sense of their own moral superiority.

Hey, where are those people to told me Obama was a moderate? Is this a "moderate" pick?

Meanwhile, Over At Vox Nova

Whatever it is that they use for patriotism is on display for Memorial Day.

What's Wrong With Homosexuality?

Damfino.

More News You Won't See At Vox Nova

It is not the policy of the Obama administration to seek to reduce the number of abortions.

Did you get that?

Let me emphasize it for you again: “IT IS NOT OUR GOAL TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS.” (H/T: Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate, via Creative Minority Report via Hot Air.)

Let's put that quote in context, shall we? Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, is at a meeting at the White House to discuss abortion with representatives of groups both opposing and supporting abortion rights. This happened a few days before President Obama went to Notre Dame:

Ask nearly anyone, “What is Obama’s goal on abortion?” They’ll answer, “Reduce the number of abortions.” A Notre Dame professor and priest insisted this in a television debate after Obama’s speech. The Vatican newspaper reported it. Rush Limbaugh led a spirited debate on his radio program the next day based on this premise.

But that’s not what his top official in charge of finding “common ground” says.

Melody Barnes, the Director of Domestic Policy Council and a former board member of Emily’s List, led the meeting. As the dialogue wound down, she asked for my input.

I noted that there are three main ways the administration can reach its goals: by what it funds, its messages from the bully pulpit, and by what it restricts. It is universally agreed that the role of parents is crucial, so government should not deny parents the ability to be involved in vital decisions. The goals need to be clear; the amount of funding spent to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions is not a goal. The U.S. spends nearly $2 billion each year on contraception programs -- programs which began in the 1970s -- and they’ve clearly failed. We need to take an honest look at why they are not working.

Melody testily interrupted to state that she had to correct me. “It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.”

The room was silent. [Emphasis added.]

This comes as no surprise to me. If you've been paying attention, it should come as no surprise to you. The Obama Administration is pro-abortion. Abortion is not a bad thing, in their view, and they have no interest in discussing ways to end abortion, nor even to reduce the number of abortions.

It was a lie. Just like all his other lies. The people who claim to be pro-life and who supported abortion have been patsies. Suckers. Useful idiots, to use a term I saw over at Vox Nova to describe conservative pro-lifers.

The only question is, will the ostensibly pro-life Obama supporters claim to be surprised? Will they resent being shown, and so quickly, to be patsies, suckers, and useful idiots? Or will they continue to make excuses for their real savior? I expect no conversions. There is nothing, nothing Barack Obama can say or do that will cost him the support of Morning's Minion or Douglas Kmiec. He could sign FOCA, he could personally perform abortions, and his Catholic "pro-life" supporters would still be out there shilling for him.

The "dialog on abortion" that the President called for at Notre Dame was already completed before he went to South Bend, the outcome was never in doubt. Obviously so, because if the President had ever intended a genuine dialog on abortion he would permit a vote on abortion. And why should he? If the issue is, as he said, "irreconcilable," why should he simply not resolve it to suit himself? After all, he won.

I fear that, as I predicted, the abortion issue may have been decided once and for all by the election of 2008, and it's just a matter of time before the pro-lifers have their noses sufficiently rubbed in it.

Congratulations to the turncoats who made this moment possible. This is their achievement, make no mistake, and it is not reasonable to believe any claim they might make that this outcome was unintentional or unexpected. This is Douglas Kmiec's achievement. This is Nicholas Cafardi's achievement. This is the achievement of the Vox Nova Four, and all the contributors at VN who cover for them and lend them credibility by their presence on that blog. They are enablers for getting out the pro-abortion message by attracting readers that these culture war quislings could never attract alone.

The "pro-life left" has lost whatever credibility it may have ever had. Every bad thing ever said about the Obama Administration's pro-abortion policies is fully justified, and every apologist and excuser who has lent his name or keyboard to the defense of the Administration is discredited.

It's a bitter win. The "pro-life" progressives are not allies at all. They are infiltrators, and it's time for real pro-lifers to wake up and see them as they are.

For Memorial Day

In the U.S., we observe Memorial Day on Monday, with a day set aside to remember the fallen who gave their lives in the defense of our freedom. In honor of Memorial Day, longtime readers may remember this video:



And (H/T: Blackfive):



I will be spending the weekend with my father, a retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant (served 1946-1966) and my brother, a retired USAF Master Sergeant (served 1976-1996), with our families.

The Efficacy Of Abstinence

It never ceases to amaze me how people who deny the Virgin Birth can continually insist that abstinence doesn't work, but condoms do.

This in spite of the fact that when abstinence "fails" it's because it wasn't used, but condoms often fail even when they are used.

Over at Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex they've got some actual numbers.

Halos

How liberals see Barack Obama:



How conservatives see Barack Obama:

Are Civil Unions Coming To Illinois This Month?

Maybe (H/T: The Capitol Fax Blog):

The Illinois General Assembly is expected to approve a measure next week that would legalize civil unions, according to an LGBT activist.

Rick Garcia, political director for Equality Illinois, said Thursday he's "absolutely" expecting the full state House and the Senate to pass a civil union measure either Tuesday or Wednesday. The bill has support from Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D).

The House Youth and Family Committee, chaired by Rep. Greg Harris, who's gay, intends to attach an amendment legalizing civil unions to a "shell bill" that's already been approved by the Senate, Garcia said. If the full House votes in favor of the legislation, the bill would be sent to the full Senate within hours for a vote of concurrence.

Garcia said Illinois lawmakers often use "shell bills" to pass legislation expediently. He said it's necessary to legalize civil unions through this method because the legislative session ends May 30 and the approach limits the time that opponents of civil unions can lobby lawmakers.

"We get it out of the House and then senators only have a few hours of being beat up by our opponents rather than three days or a long weekend," he said. "Since there is a perfectly legitimate way of doing it in one day, that's what we're going to do."

Way to avoid the input of the people!

The official purpose of the "shell bill" that lawmakers are planning to amend relates to death and estate issues.

On March 5, the House Youth and Family Committee reported out legislation that would have legalized civil unions with a vote of 5-4. The amendment that lawmakers intend to attach to the "shell bill" has identical language to the legislation, Garcia said.

Garcia said Equality Illinois has nine lobbyists working as either full-time staffers or contractors to encourage lawmakers to vote in favor of civil unions. Other groups assisting in passing the measure include the American Civil Liberties Union, the AIDS Foundation of Chicago and the Service Employees International Union, Garcia said.

Sneaky.

"Civil unions" are not a compromise. They are a milestone. The people seeking civil unions today will be back next session pushing for gay "marriage". Civil unions are just a way of desensitizing people.

They want to pretend that a measure intended to re-define the basic unit of human society will affect only a small minority of people, and the rest of us shouldn't care. But make no mistake. This is, like all gay political agenda items, about nothing other than gaining recognition of homosexuality as being morally and socially the same as heterosexual marriage.

Shameful Use of Holy Eucharist as a Weapon

[guest commentary by Paladin]

What is the world coming to?? Can't we all just get along?

(N.B. If I ever end a sentence with a preposition, you can at least suspect that what follows is satire of some stripe...)

MEDIOLANUM, May 20, 390 (Ille Curator) - The Catholic bishop of Mediolanum has been accused of "political grandstanding" by some bishops and representatives of other Christian denominations, after he expelled the Western Emperor, Theodosius, from his cathedral on Friday - apparently a response to the recent alleged killing of 7,000 in Thessalonica.

Eunomius of Cyzicus, a leader in the Arian school of Christianity, and bishop Palladius of Ratiaria have distanced themselves from Archbishop Ambrose, saying he has engaged in an unnecessary public clash at the cathedral that was ill-befitting his position as a Church leader. Palladius said that refusing to allow the Emperor to enter except as a barefoot penitent was an "extreme and unpastoral" approach, that it had been "hasty" and was tantamount to "using the Holy Eucharist as a political weapon."

Read the rest here...

Obama At Notre Dame

The day of "dialog" has come and gone. No one -- no one who matters that is -- told President Obama that he is wrong about abortion.

That would be impolite.

President Obama did not tell Notre Dame that it is wrong about abortion. I doubt that President Obama can find anything to criticize or disagree with in Notre Dame's words or actions regarding abortion.

President Obama made it clear that he intends to offer no obstacles to the "heart-wrenching" choice to have one's baby's arms and legs hacked off, or to have one's offspring's brains sucked out through a tube. (These actions are not considered "impolite", but, like urination and defecation, they are not properly mentioned in polite company.) He encourages us to continue to make our arguments, but President Obama will not be listening. His position and ours are "irreconcilable."

(As the president defended his position on abortion, and called on pro-lifers not to "demonize" him, a baby cried. No one paid attention. President Obama will not go to a Planned Parenthood convention and call on pro-aborts not to "demonize" pro-lifers. He will continue calling us extremists, ideologues, and a host of other names.)

As he bluntly reminded Republican Senators trying to argue with him about fiscal policy, he won the election.

And on Sunday last, he won again. President Obama needs to keep the Catholic vote in order to be re-elected. In order to do that, he needs to continue his ongoing campaign to separate Catholics from their bishops.

A Catholic author seeks the imprimatur of a bishop. President Obama has sought and received the imprimatur of Notre Dame. They have both, the president and the university, elevated each other to the pinnacle of American Catholicism.

When Obama receives the Margaret Sanger Award next year, he can display it next to his honorary doctorate. Fr. Jenkins will not be troubled by this.

We can be sure that Planned Parenthood, in the spirit of "dialog" so laudably exemplified by Notre Dame, will not be inviting Archbishop Chaput to address its next national convention. "Dialog" is a one-way street.

The Catholic people are being shorn away from their bishops. Can they then hope to long remain Catholic?

There was an impolite person there. He shouted "stop killing our babies" while the president was speaking. To drown him out, the students, insensible of the irony, began chanting "Yes we can!" Are these Catholics?

Ex Corde Ecclesia is a dead letter. Its resurrection would be no less of a miracle than the resuscitation of Lazarus.

Catholics in Public LIfe is an historical footnote, a nice idea that was never observed or implemented, now fully discredited.

Obama came and went to Notre Dame, and no one who made it happen is sorry. There will be no limit now on who can come and speak to any Catholic group anywhere. Look for the "Catholics for a Free Choice" chapter coming soon to a parish near you.

Barack Obama has scored a greater victory over the Catholic Church than any head of state has managed since Henry VIII. Indeed, one suspects that had the president last Sunday declared himself to be the Supreme Governor and Head of the Church in America, the priests on the platform and the students in the audience would have cheered and made their obeisances.

There is little left to do. Laymen cannot rescue the Church from its present state. We can only fight a holding action against the encroachment of the culture of death into our parishes and sanctuaries, many of which are already lost.

There is a short list of men who have the possibility of being able to restore American Catholicism to its former glory. Whether they have the courage or the will to face the martyrdom that some will likely suffer is an open question. But unless the Holy Father and the American Bishops start imposing consequences on those who ignore them, the current march will continue unabated.

U.S. President Barack Obama and University President John Jenkins have both hit grand slams. They're not sorry. Others will imitate them, and they won't be sorry either. Every doctrine except Catholicism will preached to Catholic audiences, by every speaker except faithful bishops.

And then who will be sorry?

Pro-Choice On Slavery

In the midst of an excellent piece on the abortion issue, Teri O'Brien recently asked the question, "could one be a 'centrist' on the issue of slavery?"

The answer is, of course one could. Back in the day, U.S. Senator Stephen A. Douglas (D-IL; who was Barack Obama's direct predecessor in the U.S. Senate), was the voice of moderation on the slavery issue. Douglas could be described as "pro-choice" on slavery, although he preferred to speak of "popular sovereignty," by which he meant the rights of the people of the several states and territories to decide the slavery question for themselves.

This made him very unpopular with the abolitionists and other anti-slavery types like Abraham Lincoln, who believed of slavery (to use Lincoln's words) that, "if this is not wrong, then nothing is."

It ultimately also made him very unpopular with southern slave-holding interests, who wanted to assert their right to migrate with their slave property to the territories, and have their property rights recognized there in law.

(Of note: Douglas himself owned slaves through his first wife, and later his sons. He was not the owner of record, but on their behalf he managed a cotton plantation in Mississippi which was worked by slave labor.)

Douglas contended that, contrary to Lincoln's assertion in his "House Divided" speech that the nation could not long endure half-slave and half-free, that the nation had already endured half-slave and half-free since its founding, and he could see no reason why it should not continue so, if only people would would uphold the doctrine of "popular sovereignty."

Douglas was born within four years after Lincoln, and died within four years before Lincoln. The two were opponents for the U.S. Senate in 1858 and for President in 1860. For most of their careers, Douglas was by far the more famous of the two. Douglas had toured Europe, and after the death of his first wife was considered the most eligible bachelor in Washington. He was all the things Democrats today claim for themselves: highly intelligent, articulate, self-made, worldly, and irreligious. (Douglas was never baptized in any Christian denomination, and virtually never attended religious services. His Catholic wife arranged for his funeral to be according to Catholic rites.)

Both Lincoln and Douglas are remembered with memorials in Illinois, Lincoln's in Springfield and Douglas' in Chicago. I wonder which gets more visitors?

Douglas was wrong on the most important moral issue of his day. That single fact has stained the memory of a man who would otherwise have been remembered as among the greatest of Illinoisans. How will the moderates and pro-choicers of today be remembered, I wonder, when this nation again comes to recognize the right to life of its most innocent and vulnerable?

(Cross-posted from Illinois Review and also to Southern Appeal.)

Save Illinois $25 Million!

Illinois State Rep. David Reis has proposed de-funding Planned Parenthood:

For several years, Illinoisans have been told about Planned Parenthood clinics counseling young girls on how to avoid reporting sexual abuse by older men and helping their victimizers skate state statutory rape laws. Several years ago, Planned Parenthood counselors throughout Illinois were recorded giving shady advice, and nothing changed.

With this year's $11 billion state budget shortfall, State Rep. David Reis (R-Olney) has introduced HR 417, which urges that Planned Parenthood be cut from this year's deficit budget. Rep. Reis will need the support of Illinoisans concerned about minor girls and vulnerable women to call their state reps, urging a "YES" vote on HR 417 when he tries to get it called for a vote and move towards saving Illinois $25 million in one quick swipe.

God bless him.

The Moderate GOP Platform

A diarist at RedState asks if there is such a thing as a "moderate" GOP platform. Well?

The “moderate” camp accuses “social conservatives” of spoiling the party for everyone, claiming voters “in the middle” don’t like divisive social issues, don’t like all the talk about abortion, gay marriage, etc. and are punishing Republicans for bringing it up. The “social conservative” camp accuses the “moderates” of ignoring the issues that matter most to them & of turning tail on the party when hard votes need to be cast.

Both have a point (though they seem loathe to admit it):

* for the moderates - - no, conservatives can’t win elections on their own; and, yes, winning requires building a majority around some common principles, and governing for any length of time requires compromise amongst members of your majority coalition.
* for the conservatives - - no, the moderates can’t win elections without you - at least, not as Republicans; and, yes, the party has to stand for something or what’s the point?

The challenge for the moderates - and it is their challenge, because they’re the ones agitating for a wholesale rethinking of what Republicans stand for - is to lay out the program which is both “moderate” and capable of generating the excitement, passion & allegience of a majority of Americans.

1. What is the moderate position on taxation & how does it differ from the ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ line?
   
2. What is the moderate position on deficits? What makes it unique from what others put forward?
   
3. What is/was the moderate position on Obama’s budget plans? What makes it unique?
   
4. What is the moderate role for the United States Military? Its budget? How is it unique?
   
5. What is the moderate position on regulation?
   
6. What is the moderate position on AGW? How is it different from “Democrat-lite” or “Conservative-lite”?
   
7. What is the moderate position on health care reform? There’s a lot of sentiment on the Democrat side for a single-payer system, not so much on the Republican side - where do you come down? If you don’t favor single-payer, how will you insure your ‘reforms’, if adopted, won’t take us further down the road toward a single-payer system?
   
8. What is the moderate position on abortion? How is it different from the Democrat position? At what point do you say “this far and no farther”?
   
9. What is the moderate position on same-sex marriage? How is it functionally different from the Democrat position? Where is your “this far and no farther” point?
   
10. What role - if any - should social conservatives have in the Republican Party? Make the case that you’re not asking them “Give me your vote and then shut up until the next election.”
    
11. How do the ‘refinements’ you’ve made to the Republican platform add votes to Republican totals?

Until that happens, there’s really no reason why any conservative should see the moderate carping as anything more than (yet another) attempt to purge the party of the people of those icky social conservatives.

So - how about it, moderates? Show us the flag we’re supposed to rally around, and not just with platitudes and generalizations - tell us what hills you’re prepared to die on for the moderate banner. [Emphasis added.]

Does Evil Exist?

(H/T: Creative Minority Report)

Adam For Illinois

I had dinner this week with the man who ought to be Illinois' next governor: Adam Andrzejewski. There were just four people, including him and me, and I feel I got an accurate impression of the man.

First of all, to answer the question I hear you asking, it's pronounced "Anji-EV-ski."

I am always more impressed by ideas than by experience, but Adam's experience is important. He has no experience of selling offices, taking kickbacks, or saying nice things about running mates who do. He has no experience opposing real reform. He's never supported legislative leaders who are RINOs.

So I think that he has some good experience. Plus, he's a self-made millionaire with experience starting and running a real business, employing real people, and helping other small businesses grow their businesses.

He's pro-life, and for all the right reasons. He opposes gay "marriage," and supports the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

And his ideas for reform are spot on. Not only will they work, but they may well be the only ideas that can work.

Adam is my choice for governor of Illinois. If you live in Illinois, I hope you'll give him a look. And if you don't, I hope you'll consider donating to a good candidate with a bright future. Check him out here.

Here's My Big Tax Increase

President Obama wants to tax me for my "sin," so he can finance abortion overseas:

Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.

Senior staff members for some Democratic senators at the center of the effort to craft health-care legislation are weighing the idea behind closed doors, Senate aides said.

The president promised during his campaign that if I made under $250,000 a year, that I would not get a tax increase. Here it comes.

Oh, but wait, the beverage industry will resist these new taxes. Of course; just like the tobacco industry. Thank you Democrats!

The Truth Of Human-Caused Global Warming

They say perception is everything...

Perhaps this is how we are causing global warming (H/T: Dad29):

The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Until now, no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality of the measurement environment of those stations.

During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.

We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. (Emphasis added.)

Maybe we should look at this before we wreck the economy any worse. Any other course would be anti-science.

Kass Predicts The News

The Tribune's John Kass predicts the weekend news (H/T: Backyard Conservative):

President Barack Obama arrives at Notre Dame on Sunday already triumphant, the champion of the pro-abortion rights lobby ready to be honored by America's pre-eminent Roman Catholic university.

This controversy has been spun as Catholics opposing a president offering a commencement address at Notre Dame. That's not really the issue. What most are angry about is that a great Catholic university is conferring an honorary degree upon a politician whose position on abortion is in absolute conflict with Catholic teaching.

Given how this has been spun, by an adoring pro-Obama (and pro-abortion rights) media, the weekend's news coverage is tiresomely predictable:

Christian protesters whose faith teaches them to oppose abortion will be depicted as intolerant extremist fanatics, perhaps just one step removed from the Appalachian snake dancers.

Obama will charm them and talk about furthering "dialogue," and he'll win rave reviews for courage. Most analysis will likely include the phrase "highly nuanced" to praise Obama's verbal dexterity. It took some time, but "nuance" finally surpassed "gravitas" in the lexicon of journalists hellbent on conferring virtues upon politicians who haven't earned them.

Priceless

(H/T: Illinois Review)

Blogger Refuses To Give Up Faith

Charlotte takes umbrage at suggestions she jettison her identity as a precondition of discussing gay "marriage":

Dear "James",

I respectfully decline your invitation to abandon my faith and renounce Christianity. It's something I won't do.

It is infuriating that the gay community insists that people who do not support them renounce who they are and what they believe in order to have a discussion, while at the same time, the gay community will give up nothing that they believe in order to engage in that same discussion. (Or is it really that they have given up everything that they have ever believed in order to have unregulated, irresponsible sex on demand?)

It's also extremely offensive to suggest that anyone who has a religious outlook is being anti-intellectual, unoriginal, or is brainwashed because they adhere to any particular religious belief system. The same argument can be applied to atheism: Please James, provide me with a rational discourse on the benefits to society as concerns gay marriage without using the principles of atheism.

It's a worthwhile read.

This is post number 1,800 to this blog.

Tell Me Again...

How "No One Is Pro-Abortion"!

Because some people clearly are (H/T: Southern Appeal):

... a corps of women trying to whittle down the current high rates — estimated at 80 percent — of women who abort at-risk children.

They range from Monica Rafie, a Chicago-area mom of five who in 2001 was told her second child, Celine, would likely die of an underdeveloped right heart ventricle, to Anna Lise "Cubby" LaHood, a Silver Spring woman who learned in the spring of 1988 that her unborn son, Francis, would only live briefly outside the womb.

Both women were encouraged to terminate their pregnancies but refused.

Cubby and husband Dan LaHood decided that while their son may die, it would not be at their hands. Reaction was swift; her family disinherited Mrs. LaHood and refused to see the child. The couple transferred their care to Georgetown University Hospital, a Catholic institution that encouraged her to continue her pregnancy.

"The pressure from the medical community to abort was severe," she said.

On Oct. 6, 1988, Francis was born with polycystic kidney disease. He was held by his parents, quickly photographed and baptized before he died a few minutes later.

Today, the LaHoods are lay Missionaries of Charity, the group founded by Mother Teresa, whose photos decorate the walls of their Silver Spring home. On a small $100,000 annual budget, they operate St. Joseph's House, which provides respite and day care for children with severe disabilities.

"People think your life is over when you have a handicapped child," Mr. LaHood says. "It's a cultural view to eliminate them as undesirable. They don't know what the demands are and what the rewards are."

At the risk of transgressing Godwin's Law, people like the LaHoods are fighting against a culture of death ("life unworthy of life") that the Nazis would have applauded.

And what about Cubby LaHood's parents, who so insisted on an abortion for their adult, married daughter that they disowned her when she refused? This is the true meaning of "choice". Because the only valid "choice" is for abortion. We see it again and again: it's all about the killing. For important reasons like severe disability, for trivial reasons like eye color or pregnancy out of wedlock, and even for no reason at all.

Tell me again, go ahead say it. "No one is pro-abortion." Lie to me.

Relatively Speaking (updated)

[guest commentary by Paladin]

UPDATE:
Due to popular demand (?), I've made a (hopefully successful) attempt to "bump" this thread back near the top (for those of us who [*sheepish look*] are too lazy to bookmark relevant threads...). We'll see if it works...

Okay, so real life is conspiring to overwhelm me into neglecting my blog-sitting duties. To that, I say "Ha!", and forge ahead... at least until the next swarm of chores overwhelms me. :)

In my last "philosophical thread", I was trying to lay the groundwork for the following problems I have with moral (or any other type of) relativism:

1) It seems, to me, that a moral relativist must either deny objective moral truth (i.e. nothing is "truly wrong"), or deny moral relativism. If there's no "true right and wrong" (or if there's a hypothetical "true right and wrong" that's simply unknowable), then we're left with a free-for-all of personal tastes and political pressures; get 50.001% of the public to vote for [x] (or have the local despot mandate [x]), and it becomes "right" by definition... which seems rather incoherent, to me.

2) Re: past discussions about what constitutes "harm", wouldn't such a definition need to be stable over time (i.e. enduring) as well as consistent? There are many today who would deny that voluntary suicide (or even involuntary suicide--a.k.a. homicide; think "Terri Schiavo") is "harm"; so... are they right? Their view contradicts mine; so logic would appear to say that one of us must be wrong, in general, yes? So... does taking a straight razor to your wrists constitute "harm" if you desire it? We seriously need a coherent definition, here.

3) Those who are moral relativists have effectively cut the ground out from under any claims to calling anything "unjust", "unfair", or "bad"--unless they're describing their mere personal tastes ("I don't care for raping people, myself... but I can't impose my personal views on others."). If there's no absolute truth, then all you can do is complain, with no moral authority; why should anyone listen to you when you beg them not to rape, torture, burn alive the pet animals of homosexuals, etc.? Their preferences are just as valid as yours, aren't they?

Help me out, here... especially those who reject theism. How do you arrive at your moral certitudes? By consensus of the voting public? By parental indoctrination? What?

Beginning Our Fifth Year

Yesterday, May 10th, was the fourth anniversary of the beginning of this blog.

All of the staff, cast and crew here at Thoughts of a Regular Guy would like to thank you, the reader, for your support and kind attention over the years. We remain committed to continuing to improve this blog to make it more interesting and entertaining.

Iowahawk: Pelosi Briefed On Torture, Mistook It For Foreplay

Once again, Iowahawk has the story:

...it appears I was unaware this meeting was with the Central Intelligence Agency. Instead I was under the impression that it was a coffee chat with Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, an important constituent group from my home district. In their description of waterboarding, fuzzy caterpillars, etc., I simply assumed they were speaking of new Castro District trends in sexual foreplay. Had I known the real truth -- that they were describing the grim tools of a sadistic torture regime beyond the worst imaginings of Mengele himself -- I would have vigorously objected, and would have never cheerfully told my briefers, "play safely!"

This is easily the most plausible explanation I have yet seen.

The Parable Of Arlen Specter

(Crossposted from Southern Appeal, where it originally appeared on April 29th.)

Once upon a time, in 2004, the Great State of Pennsylvania was represented in the United States Senate by two Republican: Pro-choice liberal Arlen Specter, who had led the fight for the confirmation of Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court but had also voted to acquit Bill Clinton at his impeachment trial, and pro-life lion Rick Santorum, who had gained recognition as the Senate's foremost defender of unborn human life.

In that year of 2004, Arlen Specter's term was up.

The Goal: keep that seat Republican.

The Plan: As an incumbent has a better chance of re-election than a challenger seeking an open seat, re-nominate Specter.

The Problem: Pro-life Pat Toomey, more interested in the lives of the unborn than in the continuance of Specter's political career, was challenging Specter in the primary, and showed every sign of beating him.

The Solution: Santorum, and even pro-life President George W. Bush, would campaign for Specter's re-nomination.

And just how well did that solution work out for the Republican Party?

Today, the Great State of Pennsylvania is represented in the United States Senate by two Democrats.

Let's take a look at just where, as a former boss of mine used to say, did the wheels come off?

Specter, with Santorum's and Bush's support, was re-nominated, and re-elected. He was grateful for this support to them and to the Republican Party, yes? Maybe not so much.

Two years later, faced with his own re-election challenge, and with the sting of Toomey's defeat still marring his pro-life credentials, Santorum was defeated by Robert Casey Jr., son of the late popular pro-life governor Bob Casey (who is most famous outside Pennsylvania for being denied permission to make a pro-life speech at a Democratic National Convention). Casey Junior, running as a pro-life candidate was able to draw enough of Santorum's pro-life supporters away to defeat Santorum. After over two years, Pennsylvania pro-lifers are still awaiting Casey's first pro-life vote. Specter did support Santorum's re-election, but somehow Specter's support was not persuasive to Pennsylvania's pro-life communinity.

And now, with liberal Specter voting with the Democrats on virtually every issue, and faced with the task of running for re-election again in 2010, and faced again with a challenge from Toomey, Specter, told by his pollster that he cannot win a Republican primary (no doubt due to his abandonment of every distinctly Republican principle), has switched parties, and will seek re-election as a Democrat.

Was this not utterly predictable? Was it ever likely that Specter, as one of the Republican minority in the Senate, would stand up against the majority for GOP principles?

The Lesson: The Republican Party will win as a pro-life party, or not at all. The label isn't enough, Republicans must actually believe in the platform.

Lust As A Tool Of Political Oppression

An excellent post over at American Catholic.

Choose Life

H/T: (Southern Appeal)

Star Trek

First: The new Star Trek kicks ass and takes names. It is a good movie, for fans and newcomers alike. As a fan since the days when bad behavior meant not being allowed to stay up to watch the original series, and as a fan of all six series, including the cartoon, and all ten prior movies, I was worried about this movie. I needn't have been, it is excellent. J.J. Abrams and his team show respect for the property they were working with. They didn't just take the name, they took what was best about Trek and they presented it for a 21st-century audience.

Second: If you were worried about all the sex in the movie that seemed to be suggested by the trailers, there was less sex and much less nudity than appeared on TV in the last series, Star Trek: Enterprise.

And now, if you haven't seen it, stop reading. Spoilers follow.

The movie includes the following popular Trek cliches:

• Kirk says "Kirk to Enterprise."
  
• Spock says "fascinating."
  
• McCoy declares, "I'm a doctor, not a physicist!"
  
• When Kirk, Sulu, and some guy in a red uniform go out on a dangerous mission, you don't have wonder which one isn't coming back.
  
• When Kirk asks Sulu which martial art he's studied, the answer is "fencing."
  
• All the Starfleet officers are heroes (in the original series episode, "City on the Edge of Forever," Harlan Ellison wanted to make an Enterprise officer a drug dealer, but Gene Roddenberry wouldn't let him).
  
• The survival of the Federation is at stake, and the Enterprise, with a crew of cadets, is the only ship in range.
  
• Scotty is a technical genius, and manages some nice miracles under pressure.
  
• Chekov is the new Wesley Crusher, a 17-year-old whiz kid.
  
• Now we know why he's called "Bones."
  
• Bad time travel, this time by flying into a "black hole" and coming out "the other side" in a different century.
  
• Nimoy as Spock is still an insufferable know-it-all. Quinto's Spock isn't so bad.
  
• Majel Barrett as the voice of the computer, one last time.
  
• "Phasers on stun."
  
• "Shields down to 20%."
  
• McCoy calls Spock a "pointy-eared hobgoblin."

New things I liked:

• The new Enterprise, beautiful, sleek and powerful. On this ship, "fire all phasers" takes on a whole new meaning.
  
• The pace was much quicker, without sacrificing any of the intellect.
  
• Actually getting to see Kirk take the Kobayashi Maru test; he was a real jerk about it.
  
• The new uniforms.
  
• The new actors. Without exception, they took on familiar characters and made them their own without losing any of what we loved best about them.
  
• The reference to "Admiral Archer's prize beagle." (Jonathan Archer was Captain of the first warp five starship in the last series, and went to space with his pet beagle.)
  
• 2009-quality special effects.

Things I didn't like:

• Nimoy as Spock. If we're going to make a break, let's make a break.
  
• Kirk spends too much time dangling over precipices, in at least three different scenes.
  
• Eric Bana, his character Nero, and most of the plot. Ricardo Montalban's Kahn remains unchallenged as the greatest Trek bad guy.
  
• The camera work was made up of too many shots of too little duration.

Phaser fu, sword fu, precipice fu, no breasts, six gallons of blood. Five stars, the Regular Guy says, "check it out!"

(Cross-posted to Southern Appeal.)

My First Meeting Of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

I had the great pleasure Friday of attending a gathering of Illinois bloggers sponsored by the Sam Adams Alliance and Illinois Review. I picked up strategies, skills, and, most importantly, made new contacts, all of which I'm sure will serve me (and you, my reader) well in the months and years to come. Here are a few pictures:

Here I am with two of my favorite Illinois bloggers, Fran Eaton, editor of Illinois Review, and Anne Leary, the Backyard Conservative.



Here I am with the Warrior Princess of the Airwaves herself, Teri O'Brien, formerly of WLS, now of Blog Talk Radio where she can be heard live on-line starting about 2 hours from now.



Former congressional candidate Roseanna Pulido was there. She has a smile that could light up a room. (I'll bet her electric bill is really low.)



Here, John Ruberry of Marathon Pundit makes a point during a panel discussion while Jerry Moore of Suburban Life and Fran Eaton look on.



Trent Seibert of Texas Watchdog made a very interesting presentation, and it was also a pleasure meeting Cao (pronounced like "key") of Cao's Blog (her commentary on the event is here), Dennis LaComb of Illinois Review, Dave Diersen of GOPUSA (I highly recommend his headline service), Bill Baar of Bill Baar's West Side, Erik Telford of Americans for Prosperity (Erik was named "2nd Worst Person in the World" by Keith Olbermann, resume fodder if I ever heard of it), and many other great folks. My special thanks to Emily Zanotti and the whole team at the Sam Adams Alliance and our hosts at Carlucci Restaurant, whose great food and service I highly recommend.

UPDATE: Cao writes about me here.

Happy Mother's Day To The Extraordinary Wife

Happy Mother's Day, cutie! I'm hope you liked the breakfast and the roses!

Allowance

So a few weeks ago, the Extraordinary Wife and I decided it was time to give our 7-year-old son, the Extraordinary Boy, an allowance. Here are the terms:

• They have daily chores to do. If these are done, the boy gets $2.50 per week.
  
• If he helps with the trash, he gets an extra $1. If he helps with the vacuuming, he gets an extra $1. His maximum potential is $4.50 per week.
  
• He doesn't get paid for everything he does around the house -- not even most of what he does. This is intended to show that he's expected to make a contribution to the running of the household. We are careful to recognize his contributions with expressions of thanks.
  
• His payday is when I get paid, bi-weekly on alternate Fridays.
  
• He's required to donate 10% at mass, and save 20%.
  
• He's encouraged to save the rest, and he needs our permission to spend his money.

The effect has been amazing. He no longer asks us to buy him every Lego set he sees. He now plans how long it will take him to save up for what he wants. He is diligent to make sure that he maxes out his earnings every week, and he does it cheerfully.

He offered to by me a hot dog the other day.

This is absolutely working out.

(Cross-posted to Catholic Dads.)

"I'm personally opposed, but..."

[guest commentary by Paladin]

Sorry I've been so silent, lately--school frenzy increases exponentially, this time of year! But this was just too good to pass up:

This was gotten fourth-hand, I'll have you know... from the inimitable Fr. Longnecker, who was left it by the ever lucid Child of God, who discovered it on the fabulous Amy Welborn's blog comments, left there by an anonymous commenter:

All of you commenters here who keep bringing up torture and going on and on about it:

You all are such simplistic one-issue voters on this torture issue. You're in such lockstep with the Vatican and the hierarchy that it's clear you have abandoned free thinking entirely.

I’m personally opposed to torture, but I don’t think I could ever impose that view on somebody else.

I’d rather see us have a President who works to reduce the need for torture. We need to get at the deeper issues here – it’s not just as black and white as you religious-types always say. We should work with torturers to support them, not criminalize them.

Your belief that torture is “wrong” is just that – a religious belief. Well, what about all of the people who don’t share that belief? We live in a diverse, pluralistic society. Get with the program.

How can you take what is a matter of faith for you and impose it upon another person who might not share that faith?

Did you know that the amount of torturing in this country actually went up during the Clinton presidency? It was lower under Republican presidencies.

Torture is a difficult issue, and people of good will can disagree about it. Ultimately, I think the torturer should be free to make that choice in consultation with his attending doctors, his field agents, and his God.

Besides, even if we made torture illegal, guess what? - there would still be people out there torturing. And they wouldn’t have access to all the sophisticated equipment that we have in modern torture chambers. They’d use whatever they could find – sticks, broken glass, even coat hangers.

Is that what you want? You want us to go back to the days of back-alley torturing with coat hangers?

A truly enlightened society would keep torture safe, legal, and rare.

Liberal Intolerance Continues

The Boy Scouts are being sued again, and the Ninth Circuit has invited everybody to play:

The City of San Diego leases portions of Balboa Park and Fiesta Island to the San Diego Boy Scouts, which use the land to operate a camp and aquatic center. The Boy Scouts use the leased areas for their own events but otherwise keep them open to the general public — and have spent millions of dollars to improve and maintain facilities on the properties, eliminating the need for taxpayer funding. While the Boy Scouts’ membership policies exclude homosexuals and agnostics, the Scouts have not erected any religious symbols and do not discriminate in any way in administering the leased parklands.

Nevertheless, a lesbian couple with a son and an agnostic couple with a daughter challenged the leases under the Establishment Clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions. Although none of the plaintiffs has ever tried to use the parklands or otherwise had any contact with the Boy Scouts, the Ninth Circuit found they had standing to proceed with their lawsuit because they were offended at the idea of having to contact Boy Scout representatives to gain access to the facilities. The court denied en banc review over a scathing dissent by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain.

They are offended that someone who disagrees with their religious values might possibly do business with the city. And they have sued, and the Ninth Circuit finds that they have standing. I've had gay commenters here who assured me that such things couldn't happen.

The Boy Scouts have asked the Supreme Court to review the case — whose outcome conflicts with other federal courts of appeal — and Cato joined the Individual Rights Foundation in filing a brief supporting that petition. Cato’s brief argues that the Ninth Circuit’s decision dangerously confers standing on anybody wishing to challenge the internal policies of expressive associations having any business with local government; chills public/private partnerships of all kinds for reasons disconnected from the beneficial services civic organizations provide the public; and generally represents a radical extension of standing jurisprudence — opening the courthouse doors to anyone claiming to be subjectively offended by any action and manufacturing litigation out of political debates. [Emphasis added.]

And then we have this little gem, a sodomite being lionized in the gay press for harassing Knights of Columbus collecting money for charity (H/T: Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate):

For those who were shocked by Obama "faith" advisor Harry Knox knocking the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic men's group, as an "army of oppression," he is not alone. Gay activists are now taking pride in getting Knights charity drives crushed at supermarkets.

Metro Weekly, a D.C-based gay "news" magazine, honored a man for his "Storefront Stand" -- he harassed Knights of Columbus volunteers raising funds for the mentally disabled (usually with Tootsie Roll candies) outside a Safeway store in northern Virginia. Allison also succeeded in getting other Knights thrown off one Giant supermarket's property. To passers-by at Safeway, Brad Allison compared the Knights to the Ku Klux Klan: "It is a bit of an extreme point to be making, but I thought it was effective."

That's an especially uneducated taunt, considering the Klan was viciously anti-Catholic. Allison also lied to the public by claiming the Knights don't do charity work. Here's Will O'Bryan's account in Metro Weekly:

Whenever his Knights of Columbus counterpart made his plea to passersby on behalf of "needy children," Allison would counter that $1.4 million of the group's money did not go to help children, but to support Proposition 8.

But that's not how Allison described his pitch on his own blog: he said they were not a charitable group at all:

Each time the Knights of Columbus man would say, "Would you like to help disabled children?" I would speak up and say, "They are not helping disabled children. They gave $1.4 million to Prop 8 last year. Not a penny of that $1.4 million helped a single disabled child. They are a political group pretending to be a charitable group in order to get your money."

Again, over and over this worked. People put their dollars back in their pockets.

Preventing the Knights from collecting donations for mentally disabled children? Most of that money would have gone to mental health charities in that community.

Gays and liberals taking aim at Boy Scouts and the kids served by the Knights of Columbus. Two more examples of liberals who hate children. And I'm supposed to be persuaded to let these people redefine the basic building blocks of our society to suit their own disordered selves?

(Cross-posted to Southern Appeal.)

Trekkies Pan New Trek Movie

"...sullies the vision of someone called 'Gene Roddenberry.'" But I'll still go see it!


Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

(H/T: Cartago Delenda Est)