A tale of two+ comments

Here is Annette Benning on Sarah Palin: 

“We really want to hear her views, and I’m sure she’ll do very well in the debate. She’s obviously a very accomplished woman … I’m a Democrat, I’m a supporter of Barack Obama but she certainly deserves our respect.”

And now, representative of so many of the glitterati, Sandra Bernhard:

Bernhard said Palin would be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” if she visited New York City.

Pink says “The woman terrifies me.”

Matt Damon: ““I think there’s a really good chance that Sarah Palin could be president, and I think that’s a really scary thing…”

“Dr.” Laura Schlessinger: “What kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down syndrome, and then goes back to the job of governor within days of the birth?”

Margaret Cho: “If Sarah Palin had her way, she would take away that right not to be a mom. She wants to outlaw abortion — so to call her a feminist is as laughable as calling evangelicals ‘Christians.’ They shouldn’t have the right to call themselves Christian, for they have no Christ-like attributes.”

Ms. Benning should be commended for her moderation.

Guns, Moose, Jews and Blacks

At the end of September, Rep. Alcee Hastings, an African-American congressman from Florida, made a statement about Sarah Palin, in which he admits to saying that “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”  Aside from the fact that black democrats get a free pass when it comes to racist remarks, what does hunting moose have to do with Jews and blacks?  Does Hastings have some statistical evidence that the more one hunts moose, the more racists one gets? 

I’d say Hastings is the real racist here.

Ugly as Sin

Could this be the ugliest church in America?

It is the Cathedral of Christ the Light in Oakland.  It cost $190-million to build.  Could not that $ have been better used to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, etc?

Meltdown of the feminists

Well, it looks like feminism is either eating its young, or choking on it, but either way it is a meltdown.  Hard to think they will ever be taken with a straight face again. 

The issue of course is Sarah Palin.  I love this Foxnews story (and many others like it) about how the femmes don’t know what to do with her.  A woman for VP–yeah!  Oh, but SP isn’t the right kind of chic.  So we get this:

The feminist debate has come full circle. As Sarah Palin barnstorms throughout the country emphasizing her personal story of being Alaska’s governor and the mother of five children, many liberal commentators are asking whether she can balance the rigor of the vice presidency with the demands of parenting.

But I thought women can have it both ways?!?!!?  Or get this:

Sally Quinn, a columnist with The Washington Post, wrote in a recent online column that Palin’s need to care for her special needs son, Trig, and her daughter, Bristol, not to mention her three other children, would “inevitably be an enormous distraction for a new vice president (or president) in a time of global turmoil.”

As if Sally Quinn knows what is best–does she have a pregnant daughter and a Downs baby?

Its bullshit, and all but the femmes know it.  It is called hypocrisy, a disease particularly rampant on the left.

See this also, from the National Review:  “Whether or not Sarah Palin helps John McCain win the election, her greatest work may already be behind her. She’s exposed the feminist con job.  Don’t take my word for it. Feminists have been screaming like stuck pigs 24/7 since Palin was announced as McCain’s running mate.”

Choice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sarah Palin:  “Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support. Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family.”

Barry Obama: “I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

An easy choice to make for me…

Money, but not their time

I find this Yahoo News article interesting, and it confirms my experience with many people and family members I know, myself excluded.  “

“When asked to volunteer their time to charity, Americans are likely to give more money,” the column reports. In one major student that asked folks to donate their time, it turns out guilt may be a factor also: “Participants in an online survey read a statement about lung cancer and a cancer research foundation’s mission. The participants who were asked to donate time eventually pledged more than those who weren’t asked.”  A second trial also found this result: In the second test, “the same researchers introduced undergraduate college students to HopeLab, a nonprofit organization that serves children with chronic illnesses. The average donation level was nearly five times higher for participants who were first asked about donating their time to the organization.”

Now to be sure, lots of organizations need time from people and their money.  Groups that need to lobby need cash to pay their lobbyists, buy advertisements, create publicity, etc.  Some causes are by their very nature set up to take money for their causes rather than time: what can I do to find the cure for cancer, for example, other than donating money to fund current research? 

On the flip side, I have more than a few times offered to donate my time when I did not have any money, but have been rebuffed repeatedly.  The example here is my undergrad alma mater, W&L, which really just wants a check, and could care less about my willingness to actually do something for them. 

Nevertheless, having been involved with charities (esp. through church) I also would have to state that people don’t want to be bothered with others, despite Christ’s frequent call for us to do acts of charity or “good works,” and strive to assuage their guilt by forking over cash instead.

To be discontinued….

Due to time constraints at work and personal life, I have decided not to actively post on this blog any longer.  Folks can still comment, of course, and I will try to respond when they do, but I just can’t keep up with placing anything new here. 

Best regards,

JM

 

Fighting the “Walmart of Abortion”

Some Congressmen, it has been reported today, want to strike a blow for morality against Planned Parenthood, which they call the “Walmart of Big Abortion.”  According to LifesiteNews.com, “Planned Parenthood is the nation’s number one abortion provider, providing 290,000 abortions last year.  Planned Parenthood provided nearly one in five abortions nationwide in 2005, the latest year nationwide abortion statistics are available.”  They go on to report that “The idea that Planned Parenthood cares one whit about reducing the ‘need for abortion’ is absurd,” said the President of the Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser.  “But even if this were a sincere claim on their part, they have failed miserably by their own measure.  The number of abortions Planned Parenthood performs continually rises, this year reaching 290,000.  It is past time to de-fund Planned Parenthood.  It is time for a taxpayers’ revolt.”

According to its latest annual report, Planned Parenthood posted total revenues of $1,017,900,000 – over one billion dollars.  Nearly one third of that – $336.7 million – came from “government grants and contracts.” In 2007, the U.S. Congress, under new Democratic Leadership, approved a $17 million dollar increase in federal taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood through the Title X Program.

Let us hope that this monster can be slain in record time.

Too many lawyers…

“If you look at the figures, where does the top of the class in college go to? It goes into law. They don’t go into teaching. Now I love the law, there is nothing I would rather do but it doesn’t produce anything.”

—Justice Antonin Scalia, 2008

SCOTUS: Guns are for individuals

The U.S. Supreme Court has held, this morning, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual one.  The decision is here in full. 

By a vote of 5-4, The United States Supreme Court today ruled that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a fundamental, INDIVIDUAL right to own a firearm.

Voting with the majority were Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens voted to uphold D.C.’s complete gun ban.

The ten best cities

Kiplinger’s Magazine has its new list of “the ten best cities in which to live and work,” which is to say places with “strong economies and abundant jobs, then demand reasonable living costs and plenty of fun things to do.”  Obviously this is quite subjective, but the results are interesting none the less.  None of the locations are in New England or the Mid-Atlantic regions, and only one is in the Midwest.

No. 1: Houston

 

No. 2: Raleigh

 

No. 3: Omaha

 

No. 4: Boise

 

No. 5: Colorado Springs

 

No. 6: Austin

 

No. 7: Fayettville

 

No. 8: Sacramento

 

No. 9: Des Moines

 

No. 10: Provo

Historian Sean Wilentz & the Clinton campaign

Is Princeton historian Sean Wilentz a whore for the Clinton campaign?  Kevin Mattson sure thinks so, as noted in a lively exchange on HNN.  I think Wilentz’s response makes himself look worse than Mattson’s initial summary.  And see his Hillary puff piece at Salon.com.

My question is: how are we to take the “gratuitously patronizing” Wilentz’s new book on the Reagan years seriously as a piece of balanced, objective scholarship when his extreme partisanship is so well known now?  This is the guy, you should recall, who argues that W may be the “worst president in all of American history.” 

According to the Princeton University website, “Sean Wilentz studies U.S. social and political history, specializing in the early nation and Jacksonian democracy. He received his Ph.D. in history from Yale University (1980) after earning bachelor’s degrees from Columbia University (1972) and Balliol College, Oxford University (1974). Chants Democratic (1984), which won several national prizes, including the Albert J. Beveridge Award of the American Historical Association, shows how the working class emerged in New York City and examines the changes in politics and political thought that came with it. It has recently been republished with a new preface in a 20th-anniversary edition. In The Kingdom of Matthias (1994), Wilentz and coauthor Paul Johnson tell the story of a bizarre religious cult that sprang up in New York City in the 1830s, exploring in the process the darker corners of the 19th-century religious revival known as the Second Great Awakening. Professor Wilentz is also the coauthor and coeditor of The Key of Liberty (1993) and the editor of several other books, including Major Problems in the Early Republic (1992) and The Rose and the Briar (2004, Greil Marcus coeditor), a collection of historical essays and artistic creations inspired by American ballads. His most recent book is The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (2005). A contributing editor to the New Republic, Professor Wilentz lectures frequently and has written some two hundred articles, reviews, and op-ed pieces for publications such as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Review of Books, the London Review of Books, the American Scholar, the Nation, Le Monde, and Salon. He is the Dayton-Stockton Professor of History and the director of the Program in American Studies.”