The lawyer for Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga), who punched a Capitol Police officer who stopped her when he didn't recognize her as a Member of Congress, says that she's guilty only of"being in Congress while black."
From which I deduce that white congressmen routinely punch Capitol policemen with impunity, eh?
By contrast, Rep. McKinney's own comment is about exactly right. She blew it, and she knows it- and she, herself, seems willing to face up to that fact.
Guess it's a case of the person who doesn't represent herself having a fool for a lawyer.
Notice, BTW, who come out in the third from last paragraph of this blatently biased AP article as the bad guys.
I am not qualified to analyze Ward Churchill's psychological condition. Nor do I necessarily think that absurd and even bizarre political opinions need necessarily be symptoms of mental illness. But this sort of comment- made while knowing full well that the people who lost utterly innocent family members at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon or in that Pennsylvania field would read it- goes beyond the realm of the merely eccentric or even asinine. There has to be something wrong with someone twisted enough to make such a statement. Maybe his disorder isn't mental, but it is surely moral insanity of the first order.
"Hate speech" is a much-abused concept, and one that generally causes my eyebrow to rise. I do not necessarily advocate the silencing even of people whose opinions I find crude or ignorant or bigo…
Rumors- and perhaps more than rumors- are sweeping the world of a concentration camp at Sujiatun in northeastern China where followers of the outlawed and persecutedFalun Gong cult are forced to serve as living organ donors for the international market, while others are killed in order to harvest their vital organs.
The story of the Sujiatun death camp originates with Chinese human rights activists, some of whom claim to be eye-witnesses.
First, "prayer" as such has no particular virtue. Praying to Allah, for example, would figure to be about as effective as praying to a paper clip (sorry, Daystar). Less effective, even. At least a paper clip exists. The object of prayer is a rather significant datum here. So are the terms on which the prayer is offered (see John 14:6, among other passages).
As it happens, in this particular prayer, only Christians- a team of Catholics, and a team of unidentified Protestants- were involved in the praying part. The prayers were standardized, and written out ahead of time. The result: no difference in outcomes between the prayed-for patients and the control group, except that the prayed-for patients had a greater incidence of complications.
Their evidence: two comments a photographer claims Scalia made at the time. Scalia denies it, and nobody else heard them. That, and lukewarm support from the cast of "The Sopranos."
The Herald claims that the gesture Scalia made was not the one he described. So why investigate it?
On the other hand, when the Herald polled Italian American members of the cast of "The Sopranos" (which Scalia had said members of the Herald staff watched too much), they were divided. The consensus: it was a crude gesture, but not a grossly crude one- "not as bad as the middle finger," but "not something I'd do to my mother." One specified that it could, indeed, be interpreted as meaning exactly what Scalia said.
Since no cultural anthropologist was located to explain exactly what the gesture means in Sicily (though several authorities provided diverse meanings from other parts …
When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia flicked his fingers under his chin after Mass on Monday in response to a question about media comments concerning his impartiality in matters concerning the relationship between church and state, he explained to reporters, "That's Sicilian."
Scalia responded by citing Luigi Barzi's book The Italians, wherein the author explains that "the extended fingers of one's hand moving slowly back and forth under the raised chin means 'I couldn't care less. It's no concern of mine. Count me out."
The article referred to Scalia as "an Italian-American jurist." Scalia replied, "From watching too many episodes of The Sopranos, your staff seems to have acquired the belief that any Sicilian gesture is obscene- especially when made by an 'Italian jurist.' (I am, by the way, an American juri…
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't actually hate cats, and I certainly don't approve of abusing them. But as I read about Lewis and his victims in Fairfield, I find myself thinking back to my household companion when I was in the ministry. You see, I myself was terrorized by a cat for eight years.
It's not that she inflicted bodily harm on me very often. She wasn't abusive or anything. And she only drew blood when she thought the offense truly deserved it. The major problem, rather, was that she was unclear on the distinction between the concepts "litter box" and "parsonage rug." This did not endear her to the congregation, and she ended her days as a farm cat.
Cassie and I because roommates when the woman I was dating at the time- Cassie's previous owner- called me after church one Sunday in tears, and told me that she had taken Cassie to the shelter the pre…
Isaac Schrödinger will probably be alive whether or not you read his blog. But he sheds some light on what in my book is no trivial indictment of Islamic society: the problem it has with dogs, which are among the noblest creatures on Earth.
Not to beat a dead horse, but in my experience a person's attitude toward dogs (and even more, their evaluation of that person) says a great deal about him or her. And religiously- based cruelty to animals- and dogs in particular- does not say very much that is good about the religion that inspires it.
ADDENDUM: Google, owner of Blogspot and Blogger, also cooperates in supplying China with the technology to operate the "Great Firewall of China," preventing web searches for disturbing notions like "free speech" and "human rights," or websites dealing with such anti-social topics.
The dog is a most faithful animal, and would be highly prized if less common. --Martin Luther, Table Talk Any theology which condones this is a theology for barbarians- and any angel who dislikes dogs is clearly a fallen one.
I cannot personally imagine anyone looking upon torturing and killing dogs, much less sexually abusing them, as a religious duty.
Demonstrations against his release underscore the fact that his life would be in danger were he to remain in Afghanistan.
The basic facts remain: the Taliban shielded bin Laden. We had to take out the Taliban. Having taken out the Taliban, somebody else had to be put in their place, or they'd come back and play ball with bin Laden again. Having put somebody in their place, they still have to run Afghanistan. And if they're going to run Afghanistan, they're going to have to survive.
As unjust and repulsive as this outcome is, it's the best one available.
Channel surfing of an early Monday morning, I have come upon Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close on the Hallmark Channel, reprising Kate Hepburn and Peter O'Toole's triumph in one of my all-time favorite movies: "The Lion in Winter."
Close, surprisingly, is closer (so to speak) to being an satisfactory Eleanor of Aquitaine than Stewart a satisfactory Henry II- as much as I love Stewart.
Regrettably, I am too late to see how Close renders one of my favorite Hepburn lines: "Of course he has a knife! We all have knives! It's the Eleventh Century; we're barbarians!"
I'm deeply honored to have had nine of my posts submitted forLutheran Carnival XX- a kind of "highlight reel" of the Lutheran blogosphere during the time the Carnival has been up and running- even if, as is apparently the case, they all came from the same person!
Anyway, lots of good stuff here in the "oldies but goodies" edition of the Carnival.
Some time ago, I gave an interview to Lee Duigon of The Chalcedon Institute about my experiences with the fudging that goes on with God's Name and self-predication in the ELCA, and the games that are played there with goddess-worship and out-and-out idolatry.
That interview issued in this article, in which some of the things I said are misquoted in significant ways. I am anxious that the record be set straight.
I realize how easy it is for a reporter not conversant with the details of a specific matter to confuse them; I've been there myself. I do not mean to suggest that Mr. Duigon intentionally misrepresented what I said, but I made the distinctions to which I want to call attention plain at the time of the interview. I fully recognize that I, myself, may not have been as clear on some of these points as I thought I was. In any case, concern for the Eighth Commandment requires that I disavow those misquotations, among other places, specifically in this blog, since the arti…
Several years ago, the publisher of TIME said in so many words that envirnomental issues were too important for the magazine to even attempt objectivity.
He deserves credit for his honesty. Not many in the Left-leaning media have been nearly so honest about their biases- even with themselves. But even so, after that statement- and given TIME's track record since- how can it expect anyone to take what it publishes on the subject seriously?
Current global temperature trends are well within historic cyclical parameters. And sinceTIME has long since ceased even pretend to be a purveyor of unbiased scientific information on environmental matters, it might be well to look elsewhere for one's information on the topic.
This will give you some perspective on the whole matter of natural vs. anthropogenic origins for greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.
Yes, Saddam did have those WMD's. He admitted having them. He was required by seventeen UN Security Council resolutions to destroy them under UN supervision. He was required by the peace treaty that ended the first Gulf War to do the same thing.
He hemmed, he hawed. He shaked, he baked. He even kicked the inspectors out of the country once for an extended period. Those inspectors, BTW, never had a brief from the UN to go searching for WMD and to satisfy themselves that Saddam didn't have them anymore. Their brief was to supervise their destruction.
It's not that I lack compassion for these poor people who flood across our border in search of a better life. But defying our laws to do so just isn't cool. Neither is it all that compatible with our national security.
It's perfectly true that we are a nation of immigrants. It's also true that these folks take jobs nobody else would want. But if they want to be a part of our society, they need to become a part of our society- and playing by the rules is a good start.
So is learning the language- not necessarily immediately, mind you. Adjusting to a new culture takes time, and plenty of immigrants in the past have had a generation go by before English became the language of the home- and were no less good Americans for all that.
But on the other hand, during my time in the Washington, D.C. area, I learned what it's like not to be able to go into a McDonald's in one's own country and order a carton of skim milk w…
Just watched my first two episodes of the new Doctor Who, on the SciFi Channel.
The Doctor is in! Like the original series, the writing- and therefore, the quality of the episodes- is uneven in the extreme. The second of tonight's doubleheader- co-starring Charles Dickens- was far superior to the earlier homage to Douglas Adams'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
As a whole, though, it's great to have an old friend back. Sad to learn, though, that Gallifrey was destroyed in an interstellar war, and that the Doctor is the last surviving Time Lord.
As petty and self-important as that race was, the sci-fi universe is poorer for their passing. Though they live on, of course, in their most worthy example.
Or, for that matter (to ask a question which seems to be an afterthought in this whole conversation the Missouri Synod is having right now), what did (does) Jesus think?
One of the most basic rules of hermaneutics is that if there is some question about the meaning of a text, and you want to understand the writer's intent, you look at what he has written elsewhere on the same subject. What he says in the same document about that subject is generally held to be especially helpful.
Seems to me to be a matter any honest inquiry into the meaning of that disputed passage in the Large Catechism would investigate rather early in the process- certainly before issuing accusations of false teaching against those with whose interpretation they disagree.
Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has let it be known that, like German Chancellor Angela Merkel (see previous post), he hs been personally assured by Afghani President Hamid Karzai that Rahman will not be executed.
For six years, we've listened to people with demonstrably lower IQ's than George W. Bush's pretend that this Ivy League MBA is dumb. It's been as infuriating has it has been sad. Well, and a little funny, in a pathetic sort of way.
ADDENDA: First, they seem to have fixed the headline. And second, this young man's death is obviously more important than the grammar used in the headline announcing it. I apologize if my use of this example to illustrate my concern about the state of the language among professional journalists seemed to trivialize this tragedy.
Its concern for confessional fidelity is touching. Interesting, though, that this moving paean to the importance of the Confessions refers to those who disagree with its author and support the Readers' Edition, apparently without even a second thought, as "the confessionalists."
What does that make the Daystar crowd, and the Readers Edition's critics, hmmm? And does anybody buy this "concern for the confessional fidelity" business for even a moment? Aren't the Daystar folks the ones who think it's misguided to be too concerned about Lutheran confessional identity?
The Daystar crowd is criticizing what by all accounts is at the very least a grammatically valid alternate translation of the text- one characterized by a former EKiD pastor …
No, Abdul Rahman is not out of his noodle. And neither is this Afghani Christian, who converted from Islam sixteen years ago, going to be executed for doing so.
Yes, Afghani clerics are indeed calling for his head- literally- and it's doubtful whether he could survive his release in what is still a primitive and backward society where the Taliban are a lot closer to mainstream than we can readily appreciate in the West.
The meeting, according to the documents, was personally approved by Saddam.
The documents also discuss measures to deceive Hans Blix and his UN inspectors, who were searching for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction despite the requirement of seventeen UN Security Council resolutions and the truce ending the first Gulf War that Saddam to destroy the WMD under their supervision.
Also discussed are Saddam's awareness of, and interest in, an al Quaeda presence in Iraq, French campaign laws (several French politicians …
I think this guy is wrong about Saddam Hussein's WMD. I strongly suspect that they remain intact to this very day in various locations in Syria and Lebanon- just as Mossad insisted when those satellite photographs showed those caravans of trucks moving across the border in the days immediately prior to the invasion.
But in a more important sense, Jonathan Gurwitz, is right: those captured tapes, documents, and other materials the media seem so determined to give such short shrift leave no rational person the option of screeching "Bush L-I-I-E-E-D!"
The case that Saddam retained his WMD- right or wrong- was, at the time, an eminently reasonable one. Only a person motivated by partisanship and irrational hate could conclude otherwise.