Friday, March 31, 2006

"Humane" starvation of Terri began a year ago

[Post-dated to stay on top through March 31st. Please scroll down for new posts. Thank you.]

Here are my posts about Terri from last year for the ongoing blogburst in her memory:

D-Day for Terri

For Terri

Back when common sense actually was common

NYT calls death by starvation "peaceful," "gentle," "dignified"

Terri's bill signed into law by President Bush

Terri Schiavo vs. death-row inmates

When the shoe is on the other foot

Jeff Blogworthy's excellent post about the Bible and euthanasia

Terri Schiavo 1963-2005

Starving Terri: Facts change opinions

Another Florida judge, another feeding tube

How long did it take Michael to be awarded Terri's estate?

Be sure to check the blogburst link for more blogs and websites remembering and honoring Terri.

UPDATE: Another link for other bloggers' posts.

Zogby poll: majority of Americans hold strong pro-life views

Poll: 59% Say Abortion Ends a Human Life
The survey, commissioned by Associated Television News and The O'Leary Report, included 30,117 respondents in the 48 contiguous states, and was conducted from March 10-14, 2006. It carries a margin of error of +/- 0.6 percentage points.


The poll found a majority of respondents on 16 of the 20 questions took an anti-abortion position, including:
  • Parental notification laws that were recently upheld by the Supreme Court (55% support for girls 18 yrs. & younger; 69% for girls 16 years old & younger; only 36% and 23% disagree respectively)
  • Abortion ends a human life (59% agree; 29% disagree)
  • The prohibition of federal funds for abortions abroad (69% agree with the prohibition; 21% disagree)
  • Abortion because of the sex of the fetus (86% agree should be illegal; 10% disagree should be illegal)
  • Requiring insurance plans to cover abortions where the life of the mother is not endangered (56% disagree with such a requirement; 12% agree)
  • When life begins (50% believe it begins at conception; 19% believe life begins at birth)
  • A new federal partial-birth abortion bill (50% want to see another bill; 39% don't want to see another bill)
  • Requiring counseling about a mother's options before undergoing an abortion (55% agree with such a counseling requirement; 37% disagree)
  • A 24-hour waiting period (56% agree with waiting period; 37% disagree)
  • Federal & state financing of abortions for poor women (51% disagree with financing; 37% agree)
  • Laws that charge a person who kills a pregnant woman with two murders (64% agree with such laws; 23% disagree)
  • Another non-embryonic stem cell success story

    Nordeaster brought me word of this recent story of a boy whose life was saved by umbilical cord blood cells:
    But what's different about Chase is that daily he takes 11 medications. Weekly he undergoes physical, occupational and speech therapy sessions in his home, relearning and retraining muscles weakened in his battle against adrenoleukodystrophy.


    It was in July 2005 that the Davises learned their son had the genetically inherited, progressive neurological disorder. According to, adrenoleukodystrophy is a deadly disease which can be fatal or cause mental and physical handicaps due to complications of the disease itself or its treatment.


    Chase received a double cord blood cell transplant on Nov. 26. One transplant was from a male with A+ blood, the other from a female with B+ blood. The A+ transplant was the successful. Chase now not only has a new blood type but must retake all of his immunizations.


    "The first big boost was the MRI scan at 30 days. There was no change from the last one.

    "That was spectacular news," Charnas said. "Then at 92 days, it was also unchanged which was really spectacular. For a child as late in the disease as he was not to worsen was spectacular."

    Darrin Davis uses the word "miracle" in describing Chase's recovery.

    "This was not a miracle; it's wonderful," Charnas said. "But we went into this with science and years of experience. Chase is the first truly living testament."


    [Cue CanadianCynic to not-so-subtly suggest I'm racist. Oh, wait... Chase and his family are black. Sorry, CC. Not this time. Or ever again, really.]

    Students starting to question evolutionists' dogma

    Here's a three-part article in the LA Times about students questioning evolution and their teachers being ill-equipped to respond:

    Testing Darwin's Teachers

    This really exposes how evolutionists rely on unquestioning dogma probably as much or more than most religious people. Evolution "just is" to these people and anyone who dares question it is a backwards, ignorant, brainless, science-hating "fundy" Creationist (just ask U of M professor PZ Myers).

    Here are some excerpts from the article that caught my eye:
    "Isn't it true that mutations only make an animal weaker?" sophomore Chris Willett demands. " 'Cause I was watching one time on CNN and they mutated monkeys to see if they could get one to become human and they couldn't."

    Frisby tries to explain that evolution takes millions of years, but Willett isn't listening.
    Thousands of years of selectively breeding dogs and cats and we have been left with... dogs and cats. Not too long ago, scientists were able to selectively breed flies (maybe fruit flies - I don't exactly recall that detail) so that they refused to breed with each other and they declared it was proof of evolution. But, alas, they still were left with the same species: flies. Flowers, too. They selectively bred flowers and came up with a new flower. "Evolution!" they cried to the hills. Sadly, it was still a flower.

    Not to mention that selectively breeding plants and animals in a short amount of time completely disproves evolution, which is supposed to be an undirected process that takes millions of years.

    Unruffled, Frisby puts up a transparency tracing the evolution of the whale, from its ancient origins as a hoofed land animal through two lumbering transitional species and finally into the sea. He's about to start on the fossil evidence when sophomore Jeff Paul interrupts: "How are you 100% sure that those bones belong to those animals? It could just be some deformed raccoon."

    From the back of the room, sophomore Melissa Brooks chimes in: "Those are real bones that someone actually found? You're not just making this up?"

    "No, I am not just making it up," Frisby says.
    That's true. Other people made it up and you are mindlessly repeating them. It's amazing how evolutionists can take a tiny piece of bone and extrapolate not only what the entire creature looked like, but how it acted. And they present it as cold, hard fact! It's all a matter of "interpretation." Well, guess what. They "interpret" the fossils according to their preconceived notion about evolution. If something doesn't fit, they ignore it or "interpret" it to fit in with the theory they are desperately trying to prove.

    Some hold to a literal reading of Genesis: God created the universe about 6,000 years ago. Others accept an ancient cosmos but take the variety, complexity and beauty of Earth's creatures as proof that life was crafted by an intelligent designer.
    Nice to see an honest distinction being made between Creationists and people who promote Intelligent Design. That's something you rarely see among evolutionists.

    Far tougher are the science-based queries that force teachers to defend a theory they may not ever have studied in depth.


    Anxious to forestall such challenges, nearly one in five teachers makes a point of avoiding the word "evolution" in class — even when they're presenting the topic, according to a survey by the National Science Teachers Assn.

    "They're saying they don't know how to respond…. They haven't done the research the kids have done on this," said Linda Froschauer, the group's president-elect.
    And that is a big no-no to evolutionists. To them, kids should just mindlessly and unquestioningly accept as fact what is being fed to them in the classroom. Researching the material on their own is unacceptable because it might lead them to reject evolutionists' claims. Can't have that, can we?

    UPDATE: Yep. Just like I said. Don't you dare question the sacred cow of evolution!!! Just mindlessly accept it like people like CanadianCynic want you to. (Strong language in that link, so don't click it if you don't care for that sort of thing.)

    UPDATE 2: Reader Paul left these comment:
    I am so, so glad I don't live in the U.S.

    As an EX-Christian who used to believe in what is now called Intelligent Design, it saddens me when you promote the asinine activities of people whose approach to the subject of evolution is pre-determined. They have made up their mind what to believe, so are closed to other views. This is known as 'prejudice' in most parts of the world, but is apparently normal practice in the U.S.
    I totally agree. Evolutionists are prejudiced and approach the subject with pre-determined beliefs are are absolutely closed to other views.

    Yes, I know that's not the group you were refering to. I just thought it was quite amusing how your comment applies quite accurately to people like PZ Myers and CanadianCynic.

    The inane comments given as examples are all the more worrying, coming from people who in a few years will be 'responsible' adults in the most powerful, and least accountable, country in the world.
    Again, there are as many and most likely more inane and asinine comments and activities from the evolutionists' side.

    Now tell me, which aspect of Creationism or Intelligent Design accounts for the development or avian flu? or SARS? These are living examples of evolution and mutation at work.
    Creationism and ID do not discount mutation or minor changes within a species within a short period of time. Did the avian flu and SARS viruses spring up out of a puddle of organic goo? Did they evolve from some other species?

    Ignore them, and the next wave could wipe you out.
    Why do you think Creationists and IDers would ignore viruses?

    (Now there's an idea!)
    Um, yeah. Thanks for wishing harm upon me. Don't expect the same in return. It's not part of my beliefs and morals.

    Jesus sand sculptures - Awesome!

    These are so beautiful!

    Wednesday, March 29, 2006

    One safe, many more to go

    Afghan convert arrives in Italy: Berlusconi
    ROME (Reuters) - An Afghan Christian convert, who had faced the death penalty in his country for abandoning Islam, has arrived in Italy which has offered him asylum, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said on Wednesday.

    "He is already in Italy," Berlusconi told a news conference in Rome.


    "They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were not disappointed." --Psalm 22:5

    "I waited patiently for the LORD; he turned to me and heard my cry. He lifted me out of the slimy pit, out of the mud and mire; he set my feet on a rock and gave me a firm place to stand." -- Psalm 40:1-2

    Now all we need to do is address the issue of the safety of other present and future Christian converts in Afghanistan. Michelle Malkin tells us more.

    All I can really say is, "Pray, pray, PRAY!"

    More good news from the world of ADULT stem cell research

    Spinal cord injury eased by stem cells
    Canadian researchers have used stem cells to repair spinal cord damage in laboratory rats, restoring significant mobility in the animals and bringing the search for a human therapy another step closer.

    A team led by Toronto neuroscientist Dr. Michael Fehlings extracted stem cells from adult mice, which were transplanted into rats whose spines had been crushed. The stem cells developed into one type of cell destroyed by the injury — the kind that produces myelin, the insulating layer that cocoons the bundle of nerve fibres that make up the cord.

    Meanwhile, we're still waiting for embryonic stem cell research to get out to the launch pad. Lots of grandiose promises, but few - if any - results.

    Judges say President Bush's wire tapping program not illegal

    FISA judges say Bush within law
    A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

    The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

    "If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."

    The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.

    The left has either been silent on this story or, as Power Line points out, they have tried to spin it to appear to be supporting their conclusion that the program was illegal.

    Tuesday, March 28, 2006

    12 million illegals and 7 million unemployed Americans

    Liberals complain about the unemployment rate (and they are right to do so, but not to blame it on President Bush), but then they fail to recognize that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that legal Americans should have. Go figure...

    Monday, March 27, 2006

    Why does Hillary get away with it?

    David Limbaugh asks some very good questions:
    Can someone please explain why Hillary and Bill Clinton always get a pass from the secular left when they invoke God in their public discourse? Why is Dan Quayle ridiculed for championing family values while Hillary is glorified as a dutiful disciple of evangelist John Wesley?

    Do the God-mocking among us doubt the Clintons' sincerity and thus not perceive them to be a threat to their sacred church-state separation doctrine? Or could there be some other reason we don't see hysterical editorials when the power couple mention Jesus Christ, as when Hillary recently dragged Him and the Good Samaritan into the immigration debate?

    Why is no one calling Hillary an "American Taliban"? Why don't the media pillory Hillary like they did John Ashcroft for saying, "We have no king but Jesus?" Shouldn't someone step forward and ask, "Can a deeply religious person be president?" like Tony Mauro, then of USA Today, inquired concerning Ashcroft: "Can a deeply religious person be attorney general?"

    We all know the one answer that satisfies all these questions, don't we?

    Be sure to read the rest of David's column.

    San Francisco hates Christians; assemblyman calls Christians "loud," "obnoxious" and "disgusting"

    Evangelical teens rally in S.F.

    More than 25,000 evangelical Christian youth landed Friday in San Francisco for a two-day rally at AT&T; Park against "the virtue terrorism" of popular culture, and they were greeted by an official city condemnation and a clutch of protesters who said their event amounted to a "fascist mega-pep rally."


    That's bad news to Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who told counterprotesters at City Hall on Friday that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

    I'm sorry, Mr. Leno, but after seeing the following pics, I have to ask exactly who is "loud," "obnoxious" and "disgusting" again?


    The following link is to a Google search for the words "san francisco gay pride." The images - even if you just briefly view the thumbnails as I did - are extremely disgusting.


    Friday, March 24, 2006

    The latest Christian menace to the separation of church and state - the easter bunny!

    St. Paul City Office Boots Easter Bunny
    A toy rabbit, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter" were removed from the lobby of the City Council offices, because of concerns they might offend non-Christians.

    Well, thank goodness! Gotta watch out for those non-Christians so that their tender eyes and fragile sensitivities aren't violated by the sight of those awful, awful symbols of Christian oppression: cute bunnies and baby chicks!

    The pagan origins of the Easter Bunny

    Aw, crud...

    Just for fun:

    Woman: "Happy Easter! Here. Have a chocolate bunny."


    Wednesday, March 22, 2006

    CC again calls Haleigh's supporters racists, but shoots himself in the foot in the process

    Lame, lame, lame, desperate, lame, idiotic, lame, lame, foolish, lame, lame, lame, beaten-to-death, lame, lame, ineffective, lame tactic:
    All life is equal, but some life is more equal than others.

    You had to see this coming. WaPo's child wingnut, Ben Domenech, gets all weepy over Haleigh Poutre. And Sun Hudson? Not so much.

    I "laid the smackdown" on this tactic before here when he tried it on me. And to his mind, a single uncomparable case from a year ago is "proof." That's how people like CC work. They preach the virtues of logic and reason, but ignore them whenever it's convenient.

    The icing on the cake is that CC obviously didn't even read the article he's complaining about. It doesn't even mention Haleigh Poutre! The child in the case Ben Domenech is a boy identified only as "Baby MB."

    But, hey. What are facts and accurate information compared to a chance to falsely condemn another conservative as a racist?

    The left doesn't "get" motherhood, so they hate it

    Michelle Malkin highlights some of what is becoming typical comments from the left about conservative Washington Post blogger Ben Domenech. Read it [editted for language here, but not on Michelle's blog] and be disgusted:
    ****. this little ****** has been groomed from the getgo. bkny | 03.21.06 - 10:26 pm

    Luther | 03.21.06 - 10:27 pm | #

    ALTMAN (voice-over): His mom admits home-schooling is a full- time job.

    Don't these women have lives?

    Don't they want lives?
    Terry C, Coldplayer | 03.21.06 - 10:28 pm | #

    So he was home-schooled and daddy has political connections... just wow.
    cgreen | 03.21.06 - 10:28 pm | #

    mom teaches 15-year-old Benjamin, 12-year-old Emily, 10-year-old Alice, and little Florence, who's almost three.

    I repeat: The woman didn't have a life.
    Terry C, Coldplayer | 03.21.06 - 10:29 pm | #

    Home-schooling is like a lot of Rethug ideas, insidious once you understand its effects but incuous when you hear about it and never really examine it.
    kei & yuri | Homepage | 03.21.06 - 10:32 pm | #

    My apologies to those who think otherwise, but homeschooling is just plain WRONG, and should be inflicted on no child. Ever.
    Sallyh, Madame Poissonniere | Homepage | 03.21.06 - 10:34 pm | #

    Homeschooling is evil.
    smalfish, enemy of the state | 03.21.06 - 10:34 pm | #

    Wow, it's really *****-slap Ben Domenech day!
    Buzz Bomb | 03.21.06 - 10:34 pm | #

    Home schooling is certainly an effective way for abusive parents to avoid detection.

    OTOH, charter schools rock.
    Evacuee | 03.21.06 - 10:36 pm | #

    Like PZ Myers (see below), they consider homeschooling to be not just bad, but "wrong, "insidious" and "evil." Furthermore, if you're a full-time mom, you "don't have a life." According to whom, liberals? You? What would be "a life" for her according to you? Aborting her kids before they were born so she could have a career and get dead drunk every Friday and Saturday night? Is that "a life" according to you? Why isn't motherhood "a life?" Why isn't loving your kids as much as this mother does "a life?" Are you honestly that repulsed by the concept of motherhood that you have to smear everyone who doesn't fit into the nice little mental box you think all women should fit into?

    Tuesday, March 21, 2006

    Well, when you call Christianity "a blight upon the earth," what do you expect?

    Uber-atheist (and U of M professor) PZ Myers is shocked - shocked, I tell you! - that atheists are rated "below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society,'" according to a study released by... the U of M. (Boy, howdy! That must smart.) So why would people think such a thing? I don't suppose it has to do with vocal atheists like PZ Myers doing things like calling Christianity "a blight upon the earth" or anything, do you?

    More of Professor Myer's unique brand of "tolerance" here:
    Let us continue our Ben Domenech bashing. He's got this somewhat high profile gig at the Washington Post, and one has to wonder what his qualifications are. I think we can rule out "intelligence."

    GWW made an interesting discovery: he's a creationist. I don't understand why the Right is constantly elevating these ignoramuses; there must still be a few conservatives who read this site (I can't possibly have driven you all away)…aren't you embarrassed by this kind of thing?

    Actually, I'd be embarrassed if I were your employer, Mr. Myers.
    I'm not surprised to learn that he is the product of home schooling, which in its worst instances can foster an unfortunately narrow point of view, and usually means the kid is instructed by someone with absolutely no training in education. It seems to be only on the right wing that a frothing idiot like this guy can fall upward into a mass media job—where the first thing he does is chew out the mass media for being too liberal.

    Myers covers a lot of ground at one time, doesn't he? Christianity and Christians, Creationism and Creationists, the right wing and conservatives, homeschooling, etc. All bad, of course.

    Wonder if Christian students in his classes get a fair shake?

    Monday, March 20, 2006

    Would Brokeback Mountain garnered as much praise had it been about a man and a woman?

    I keep seeing comments from liberals that Brokeback Mountain isn't about homosexuality. "It's about love." For example:
    Um, Brokeback Mountain ISN'T about being gay

    The theme isn't homosexuality, but rather a universal one: not being able follow your heart can crush your soul. It just happened to have two male protagonists.

    I could relate, and I'm straight... because dwickham is right, it's about love.

    Movies win Oscars for being good movies, not for making political statements. Either Crash or Brokeback Mountain would have been worthy because they are both good films (and yes both have universal themes).


    Why do you keep insisting that their gayness is so important?

    What does it matter if it was a hetero or homosexual couple? Does it affect the quality of the love they share? Do gay people love differently or not as completely as straight people?

    The ENTIRE POINT of the movie is that people fall in love, and when people who love each other are kept apart by forces beyond their control, everyone gets hurt. The POINT is that gay couples are NO DIFFERENT in their love than heterosexual couples. Why do you insist that they are?

    So, okay, fine. It's not about homosexuality. "It's about love." Let's go with that for a moment. Take the plot of Brokeback Mountain and change one of the lead characters to a woman. Keep everything else as much the same as you can. Now, do you honestly - HONESTLY - think that liberals would've lauded over this movie as much as they have been? Would it have won the same awards? Would it have been nominated for the Best Picture Oscar? No. It wouldn't have. The ONLY reason it garnered as much attention was because it was about homosexuality.

    Now, to be fair, most Christian conservatives wouldn't have come out so strongly against this movie, either, had it been about a man and a woman having a pre- and extramarital affair over the years. Some would likely have even gone to see it. Yeah, that's hypocritical and it's unfortunate. Brokeback Mountain was only one film out of hundreds each and every year that glorify sin. How many people who opposed Brokeback Mountain had no problem sending their kids off to see the latest sex-soaked comedy from Hollywood? Think, people! Think!

    Friday, March 17, 2006

    MSM hypocrisy: unnamed sources vs. unnamed sources

    To the MSM, unnamed sources are good:
    Sources told ABC News that the vice president's team had debated issuing a statement early Sunday morning per the White House's request. But sources said Cheney's team decided it would be more credible to allow ranch owner and witness Katharine Armstrong to make the information public.

    However, to the MSM, unnamed sources are bad:
    (Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

    So remember, you fledgling reporters, if you want to be a part of the MSM, unnamed sources are good if they are saying something that hurts the Bush administration, but they are bad if they are saying something that helps the Bush administration. Why, if you follow that faithfully, you could become the main anchor at CBS News and work on 60 Minutes, too!

    [Purloined from Wizbang.]

    *snore* *snort* Huh? Wha-? Jessica Simpson? *snore*

    Wake me when there's something more interesting than a story about some has-been bimbo singer.

    Thursday, March 16, 2006

    A horror beyond imagination!!! When moobats attack!!!

    Indie videographer goes to film liberals protesting outside a recruiting office and the conservative counter-protesters. Guess which side gets violent.

    Video: Moonbats Unhinged

    Arianna Huffington takes a cue from the CBS "fake but accurate" school of reporting

    Via Wizbang:
    Clooney to Arianna: I Did Not Blog

    Oscar winner George Clooney may make politically provocative films like "Syriana." But he doesn't write politically provocative blogs.

    So imagine his ire when Arianna Huffington used some of his recent answers to political questions in a way that makes it look as if he wrote one for her Huffington Post blog site.

    "He doesn't object to the quotes," says Stan Rosenfield, Clooney's rep. "He said those things and those are his views. Arianna asked for permission to use the quotes and he gave it to her. What he didn't give permission for was the use of his quotes without source attributions to make it appear that he wrote a blog for her site. Which he did not. When he saw the posting Monday, we called and asked her to make the change, to simply attribute the quotes and make it clear that he did not write a blog. But she refused. And it's now Wednesday."

    Rather than keep waiting, Clooney got proactive and issued this statement:

    "Miss Huffington's blog is purposefully misleading and I have asked her to clarify the facts. I stand by my statements but I did not write this blog. With my permission Miss Huffington compiled it from interviews with Larry King and The Guardian. What she most certainly did not get my permission to do is to combine only my answers in a blog that misleads the reader into thinking that I wrote this piece. These are not my writings — they are answers to questions and there is a huge difference."

    Read the "fake but accurate" fabrication here.

    Read Arianna's weasely explanation here.

    The response from Clooney's people? Smackdown!
    But Arianna's defense does not impress Clooney rep Stan Rosenfield much: "I read (Arianna's) response. This wasn't a misunderstanding. It was misrepresentation."

    More damage control at the Huffington Post here.

    Wednesday, March 15, 2006

    Yahoo! likes me

    Someone found S&B; today after searching for "dixie chicks lyrics 'Not ready to make nice'" on Yahoo!. My post from Monday shows up as the 6th result. Remove the word "lyrics," and my post drops to #8.

    That's pretty cool.

    Previous post: Dixie Chicks "Not Ready to Make Nice" with President Bush while Faith Hill and Tim McGraw spread falsehoods

    New on my favorite blogs blogroll - A View from the Sidewalks

    AVFTS is a pro-life blog about sidewalk counselling (not protesting) outside abortion "clinics." Check it out: A View from the Sidewalks.

    20-year-old Corps study warned of breaches in New Orleans

    Paul at Wizbang brings us an update on the Corps claims that the breaches were unforeseen:
    The Corps came out with their own report last week (a Friday document dump) on why the floodwalls failed. It said the floodwalls failed because of an "unforeseeable combination of events." (Then it listed that series of events)

    In other words, "Don't blame us, there was no way for anyone to know the walls would fail, nobody could have predicted this."

    That whole "unforeseeable combination of events" line would be more believable if the Corps of engineers had not -themselves- tested the floodwalls and had them fail 20 years ago in the exact same manner they claimed last week was "unforeseeable."

    That's right. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers KNEW 20 years ago the design was faulty and they used it anyway. Then they lied (cough again cough) to cover it up.

    Paul's information comes from this article. Yes, it seems that the Corps screwed up, though I have to ask about what happened with the walls in these past 20 years. Were improvements made to help protect against the type of failure this study found? I feel we're only getting half of the story here.

    In light of these new revelations about the Corps, I am seeing a subtle change of the Bush-bashers' arguments happening. They've gone from "Bush knew about the breaches!!!" to "Someone knew about the breaches!!!" Note that this changes nothing about what President Bush was warned about, which was their original argument. If the Corps did this study, did not make any improvements and were thinking about it in the days and hours before Katrina hit, but did not provide this information to President Bush, then he still was not warned about breaches. As far as what he said on Good Morning America after the disaster, he still was going on the information he was provided. Was he supposed to use his non-existent psychic powers to read minds and see through time and space to find out that people at the Corps knew about the possibility of breaches? "He's too stupid to have understood it even if he was told," they claim, making sure the well is adequately poisoned. The tactics of these people are childish and illogical.

    Covering up information that could've saved lives is a criminal act. If people at the Corps did know and they warned no one, then I hope heads roll. However, to the chagrin of those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, one of those heads won't be President Bush's.

    Monday, March 13, 2006

    Dixie Chicks "Not Ready to Make Nice" with President Bush while Faith Hill and Tim McGraw spread falsehoods

    The Dixie Chicks are still smarting from the backlash they recieved after their little Bush-bashing stunt in England. Here's part of the lyrics from their much-hyped (thanks to the MSM) new song:
    It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her
    Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger

    Well, gee, Natalie. Do you mean like how liberals are teaching their kids to hate President Bush? Like you are teaching your young fans (those who still listen to you, that is) to hate him?

    Ah, well. It's all just a publicity stunt anyway. Just a way to grab some headlines so that people might be curious enough about their new album to buy it.

    Meanwhile, Faith Hill and Tim McGraw are spreading a favorite leftist meme about the response to Hurricane Katrina:
    When asked by reporters during Wednesday’s round table about the government’s slow progress, Hill, 38, said, “It’s wrong. It’s embarrassing. It really gets us fired up. That’s our homeland.”

    McGraw blamed state and federal politics for hampering efforts to get adequate shelter, food and supplies to victims.

    The only problem is that this perception is false:
    MYTH: "The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history."--Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005

    REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.

    As Laura Ingraham says, "Shut up and sing."

    Why did Google censor the People's Cube?

    Strange. Very strange.

    The final nail in the "Bush was warned about breaches" coffin

    "Corps: Floodwall break caused by unforeseen stresses"

    Let me repeat that headline with a little emphasis:

    "Corps: Floodwall break caused by unforeseen stresses"

    From the article:
    Unprecedented high water pushed back the floodwall, which is set into the center of the earthen levee. Once water got between the floodwall and the front half of the levee, it effectively cut the levee in half lengthwise.

    The floods then pushed the floodwall, and the half of the levee behind it, backward on a layer of soft clay below the surface, the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force report said.

    The floodwall's design didn't include either the possibility that water could get between it and the levee or that the clay might be unstable, corps officials and others said in a news conference. And, they said, it took both to create the break: neither alone would have done it.

    So when President Bush was being warned about possible overtopping, the scenario that played out and caused the breaches wasn't even on the minds of anyone.

    The clay that failed was not brought in to build the levees. Rather, it is the naturally occurring 20-foot thick layer beneath the layer of sand and peat that analyses by other groups had targeted as a likely culprit for the break.

    "The failure plane was not in the peat. It was in the clay below the peat. That became the weakest part of the system," Link said.

    The original soil samples probably did not find the "zone of weakness" at the "toe" of the levee, the rear edge, where it slopes to level ground and private property, Link said.

    No one knew about the weakness until the breaches happened.

    Tell me, liberals, exactly how could President Bush have been warned about something that was unforeseen? How could President Bush have been warned about something that no one even knew about?

    I eagerly look forward to your laughable replies. Perhaps you can get CanadianCynic to call me some more names. That's a really effective method to counter facts, reason and logic.

    UPDATE: here.

    Sunday, March 12, 2006

    Another child condemned to die by the state fights back

    On Wizbang, Kim points us to the updates on Baby Charlotte, a child condemned to die by a British court. She's beating the odds and showing the death-lovers that her life is worth living.

    Friday, March 10, 2006

    No media bias here. Please move along.

    It's all just a big coincidence with the photo cropping:

    Via Michelle Malkin and Drudge.

    UPDATE: Looks like this might be a matter of photoshopping instead of photo cropping. Take a look at this photo from the event that blogger Chris Christner found:

    The word "retirement" is at least a foot and a half above his head, yet the angle of the photo with "retire" just above his head isn't looking up his nose.

    Perhaps Cheney stood on a chair for the photographer.

    UPDATE 2: Chris has been told that the picture was probably taken with a zoom lens. I personally find it odd that this would make something 18 inches above your head shift to right behind it. However, I'm not a photographer and have never used a camera with any major zoom capabilities, so I can't really deny the possibility that this is the case.

    But however the picture came to be, it still shows an obvious bias.

    Thursday, March 09, 2006

    Bad times for the ACLU
    There seems to be quite a bit of disappointment going on at the ACLU lately. They are upset that Federally funded colleges have to accept Military recruiters on their campus. They are saddened that South Dakota is taking a stand to protect unborn children. They are upset that the Patriot Act was renewed. And we are sure they will soon have a press release expressing their concerns that the Intelligence Commitee will not be investigating the Bush Administration over the NSA program.

    Its been a bad couple of days for the ACLU folks, and we couldn’t be happier.


    A dubious honor

    Solaman, my biological brother and fellow MOB member, informs me that I got a mention in the Minneapolis STrib. Oh, rapture!

    Richard Nixon said the one thing he'd do differently if he had the chance was burn the tapes.

    President Bush is probably wishing he'd had taken Tricky Dick's advice. The only question: Which tape would he torch first?

    Would it be the tape of his Sept. 1 "Good Morning America" interview, in which he said, in response to a question about Hurricane Katrina and the devastation in New Orleans, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees"?

    Or would it be the recently uncovered tape of an Aug. 28, 2005, video conference -- the day before Katrina hit New Orleans -- in which the president is told by a National Hurricane Center meteorologist: "I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern"?


    Shock and Blog (3) found a loophole for the Bush administration. "Notice that the expert ... refers to the levees being topped, not breached. There's a difference. It's like comparing your bathtub being filled to the top and slopping over the edge and your bathtub being filled to the top and someone taking a sledgehammer to the side of it."

    "A loophole?" Is that what the left is calling facts and logic these days? Loopholes?

    Wednesday, March 08, 2006

    Topped vs. breached revisited: the AP corrects itself... sort of...

    I forgot to post on this earlier. Via Drudge and Wizbang:
    Clarification: Katrina-Video story

    WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

    The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

    The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.

    And Wizbang includes this amusing point:
    Update: Of course it's not as much fun for you the Wizbang reader unless you play along too, so let's have a bit of a challenge. Using The Associate Press Statement of New Values and Principles, lets see how many of those values and principles they had to disregard in their reporting of this story. I'll start you off with a freebie...
    When we're wrong, we must say so as soon as possible. When we make a correction in the current cycle, we point out the error and its fix in the editor's note. A correction must always be labeled a correction in the editor's note. We do not use euphemisms such as "recasts," "fixes," "clarifies" or "changes" when correcting a factual error.

    So they violated that principle with the first word of their release...

    UPDATE: And the left's canards once again rear their ugly, impotent heads. "It was a category 5 hurricane!!!" they caterwaul. "The levees weren't designed for that strength!!! They were designed for category 3 hurricanes!!!" The only problem with this objection is, of course, for the FACT that Katrina's full force didn't hit New Orleans. By the time it made landfall, Katrina had weakened to a category 3 hurricane (source) - a category the levees were supposedly designed to withstand. Furthermore, Katrina hit to the east of New Orleans and turned to the east, so the city never was hit by the strongest winds. As the article states, "winds in the city barely reached hurricane strength." Well, then the Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers complain, "But the overtopping washed away the levee foundations!!!" While this is true in some cases (and is NOT the fault of President Bush), it was not true in other cases. In fact, please read that whole Popular Mechanics article, which starts here. It puts many of the left's primary canards about the Hurricane Katrina disaster six feet under.

    UPDATE 2: Here's a video the media has all but ignored: AP Has Another Video: Gov. Blanco Told White House Levees Weren’t Breached:
    “‘We keep getting reports in some places that maybe water is coming over the levees,’ Gov. Kathleen Blanco said shortly after noon on Aug. 29, according to the video that was obtained Thursday night. ‘We heard a report unconfirmed, I think, we have not breached the levee. I think we have not breached the levee at this time.’"

    So I guess it's President Bush's fault for not using his psychic powers to see that Blanco was wrong.

    Read some laughable leftist spin on the Blanco video here.

    UPDATE 3: Here.

    Tuesday, March 07, 2006

    Haleigh Poutre continues to recover

    Via Michelle Malkin:
    Haleigh Poutre making strides

    A nurse told the mother of Haleigh Poutre during a hospital visit on Tuesday that the severely beaten Westfield girl, whom officials once wanted to let die, has been able to eat scrambled eggs and cream of wheat, and has tapped out drum rhythms during physical therapy, according to the mother's lawyer.


    Earlier in February, Poutre held up two fingers to signal that she wanted to see her younger sister, her grandmother's second grandchild.

    Poutre cannot talk, but she rubs the faces of her mother and grandmother and plays with their hair when they visit. The girl clings to their hands when the 15 minutes are up, and they have to pry her fingers off to leave, Molina said.

    Keep praying for her!

    Knock a few over the Pearly Gates for us, Kirby

    Baseball Hall of Famer Kirby Puckett Dies

    Monday, March 06, 2006

    Is my attitude about New Orleans victims "un-Christian?"

    In response to this post, I recieved some comments that ridiculed me as being un-Christian. (I did not approve these comments as they were rude.) Some people just really don't know much about Christian teachings. Consider 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12:
    In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

    We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.

    Now, it is true that this passage is aimed primarily at Christians and specifically to the Thessalonians, but it is a teaching that is applicable to everyone. It's great that people receive assistance when a disaster destroys their homes and livelihood, but that assistance should NOT become the person's life. It's been six months since the hurricane. Why are so many people still living on assistance? Why have they not found jobs and homes of their own? They are, in fact, idle. This sort of behavior should not be encouraged. We should certainly help people, but that means we help them back on their feet! If they don't want to go along with that, then it's time to end the assistance they've been receiving and to teach them that their idleness means they shall not eat.

    Thursday, March 02, 2006

    Thank God CanadianCynic wasn't a Founding Father!

    This is simply frightening:
    Most people, if you ask them, would undoubtedly tell you that people have certain "rights," be they the right of free speech, right to worship in their own way, right of assembly and so on. Some folks will even go so far as to say that some of those rights are "inherent," "fundamental" or "inalienable," by which they mean that some rights are so utterly basic that everyone is somehow absolutely entitled to them.

    That is complete nonsense.

    Quite simply, the only "rights" you have are the ones granted to you by those in power, and nothing more. You don't inherently have the right to, say, free speech if the government doesn't allow it. You can whine that you deserve it, or that you're entitled to it. But if no one allows you to exercise it, then you don't "have" that right. Period. End of discussion.

    If you read the Bill of Rights, it is undeniably evident that no document, government or person on earth grants us our rights. The BoR states that the various rights "shall not be infringed" or "shall not be violated" and not anything to the effect of "this document grants these rights" or "the people in power grant these rights." The Constitution both gives power to the government and restrains the government. The rights referred to in the BoR are considered to be pre-existent and incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred (i.e. "inalienable"). That's the way it should be. If our rights are "granted to you by those in power," then they are not rights at all and any concept of freedom under anyone of any political party is a complete and utter joke.

    It's kind of a stellar day for leftist nonsense over on CC's blog today. So far, he's cheered on China for attacking Christians with electric cattle prods and equated evangelism with physical assault. Thankfully, some of his backers are taking him to task in the comments. I tried to do so as well, but he couldn't handle facts and logic, so he's been deleting my comments despite the fact that other people are agreeing with me! (He isn't banning them, of course.)

    Topped vs. breached

    Facts for the factless liberals like CC.

    An AP video that Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers are crowing about lately can be found here:

    Notice that the expert at the end of the report refers to the levees being topped, not breached. There's a difference. It's like comparing your bathtub being filled to the top and slopping over the edge and your bathtub being filled to the top and someone taking a sledgehammer to the side of it.

    More facts from Kevin at Wizbang:
    And that's where the dishonesty in the AP story really lies. Contrary to popular belief New Orleans DID NOT take the brunt of Katrina. The Gulf Coast in Mississippi had that honor. As it veered east of New Orleans the force that Katrina hit the New Orleans area with was the equivalent of a Category 1 (or possibly Category 2) hurricane. On the video those officials are discussing a direct hit of a Category 5 storm, just as Paul was. A Category 5 storm didn't hit New Orleans...

    When the President said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" he probably should have been more specific for the casual arm-chair quarterbacking of the left. What he should have said was, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees in New Orleans from a Category 1 hurricane, since the levees were built to withstand the storm surge from a Category 3 hurricane."

    Even more here.

    UPDATE: Yet more at Captain's Quarters (fyi, two links there) and Powerline.

    UPDATE 2: Here.

    Wednesday, March 01, 2006


    That's the reaction many on the left are having to a recent Zogby poll. The oxymoronically named liberal website Think Progress stumbles about in drunken glee while CanadianCynic laughably ponders, "Why do those troops hate America?"

    As with the CBS News poll, here are the facts courtesy of NewsBusters:
    While Kristof and the Democrats paint the picture that these numbers are evidence of a military ready to cut and run, they don't take into account the fact that the Pentagon's existing plan calls for troop reduction of almost half in the next 6 months and about 75% by the end of the year. So it's reasonable to assume, since the responses are consistent with the existing troop reduction plan, that the respondents were taking this plan into account when answering the question. Hardly the bombshell the Left wanted to portray.

    Cue the left to argue, "That's the Pentagon's plan, not Bush's!" as if the Pentagon just does these things without the knowledge or consent of their Commander-in-Chief.

    In fact, further down in Zogby's report comes this little nugget:
    A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

    Wait... I thought the troops were "urging pullout"... So we're to believe they are "urging pullout" and simultaneously want to double the number troops? What sense does that make?


    And finally, another leftist canard is put to rest (again):
    Another interesting tidbit we're likely never to see in the MSM:
    A large majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington (adequate troop protection; body armor; Humvee plating, munitions).

    Web Pages referring to this page
    Link to this page and get a link back!