Sycophantic sheep bleat in protest

From Poynter Online:

WH correspondents file another complaint about background briefings
Washington Post | Los Angeles Times

"We protest in the strongest terms the Obama administration's frequent use of briefings done on a background basis," says AP's Jennifer Loven, president of the White House Correspondents' Association. Press secretary Robert Gibbs responds that it's "interesting" that AP had no qualms about relying on unnamed "officials" in breaking the news of Sonia Sotomayor's court nomination. || James Rainey: Team Obama has continued a distasteful and potentially damaging practice.

Marriage Decision

Here is the decision.

The California Supreme Court upholds the constitutional amendment but finds that it cannot be applied retroactively.

From my brief skim of the decision, I'm amazed at the tone of the concurrences, i.e., the people can amend the Constitution, but they can't change the Court's decision; all that the people decided was the official designation used for gay unions, everything else remains; the government still has an obligation to make gay unions in every way identical to real marriages - perhaps by enacting a law that recognizes the right of gay couples to make babies?

It's amazing how seven lawyers can amend the constitution, but when the people dare - dare! - to return the constitution back to the way it existed last year, it's as if they had violated holy writ.

Amazing.

"So to sum up, the epistemological critique of religion — it is an inferior way of knowing — is the flip side of a naïve and untenable positivism. And the critique of religion’s content — it’s cotton-candy fluff — is the product of incredible ignorance."

Stanley Fish responds to atheist NYT readers:

Some readers find a point of vulnerability in what they take to be religion’s flaccid, Polyanna-like, happy-days optimism. Religious people, says Delphinias, live their lives “in a state of blissfully blind oblivion.” They rely on holy texts that they are “to believe in without question.” (C.C.) “No evidence, no problem — just take it on faith.” (Michael) They don’t allow themselves to be bothered by anything. Religion, says Charles, “cannot deal with doubt and dissent,” and he adds this challenge: “What say you about that, Professor?”

What I say, and I say it to all those quoted in the previous paragraph, is what religion are you talking about? The religions I know are about nothing but doubt and dissent, and the struggles of faith, the dark night of the soul, feelings of unworthiness, serial backsliding, the abyss of despair. Whether it is the book of Job, the Confessions of St. Augustine, Calvin’s Institutes, Bunyan’s “Grace Abounding to The Chief of Sinners,” Kierkegaard’s “Fear and Trembling” and a thousand other texts, the religious life is depicted as one of aspiration within the conviction of frailty. The heart of that life, as Eagleton reminds us, is not a set of propositions about the world (although there is some of that), but an orientation toward perfection by a being that is radically imperfect.

The key event in that life is not the fashioning of some proof of God’s existence but a conversion, like St. Paul’s on the road to Damascus, in which the scales fall from one’s eyes, everything visible becomes a sign of God’s love, and a new man (or woman), eager to tell and live out the good news, is born. “To experience personal transformation that in turn can truly move and shake this world, we must believe in something outside of ourselves” (Judith Quinton).”The kind of religion that moves me,” says Shannon . . . is the story of hope and love . . . not the idea that any particular story describes concrete historical ‘truth.’” “It isn’t about moral superiority,” says Richard. “It’s about humbly living an examined life held up to the mirror of a higher truth. It certainly does not seem to be about comfort.”

Secularists have to keep repeating the myth that there is a war between science and religion

Catholics, on the other hand, just do science.

Father Barron on "Angels and Demons."

That explains a lot

Other blogs have noticed that MSNBC talking head Keith Olbermann seems to have a very wide streak of misogyny. James Taranto explains the reason for this seemingly cowardly character trait:

The liberal blogger Bob Somerby is no fan of MSNBC ranter Keith Olbermann, and that much we have in common with Somerby. He goes too far, however, in a recent post blasting Olbermann for a "buffoonish" segment on Carrie Prejean.

Prejean, whom Somerby unchivalrously describes as "an insignificant 21-year-old," competed as Miss California in the Miss USA beauty pageant. A kerfuffle ensued when a contest judge, Perez Hilton, asked Prejean what she thought of same-sex marriage. She gave what seemed an anodyne, if somewhat disjointed, answer:

Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

But Hilton, who apparently wanted a full-throated blessing, lashed out at Prejean. Later, as we learn from Somerby, so did Olbermann.

Meanwhile, as the Washington Post reported, Marion Barry, a Washington city councilman and former mayor, cast the council's lone dissenting vote on a measure to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states. Then--in a city with a history of race riots--Barry said: "All hell is going to break lose. We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this." (At this writing, most hell has not in fact broken loose.)

Somerby contrasts Olbermann's viciousness toward Prejean with his silence on Barry:

Barry is an older man, not a younger woman. As Olbermann has made dumb-foundingly [sic] clear, he seems to live for the opportunity to ridicule young women. He never says boo about older man [sic]--perhaps understanding they could come to his studio and engage in conduct which might require him to obtain a sphincter implant.

As a rule, it is cowardly for a man to pick on women, especially young women. But Olbermann is exceptional, as New York magazine made clear in a 2007 profile:

It probably won't come as much of a surprise that when Keith Olbermann was a kid, he got the tar kicked out of him on a regular basis. And not by the football team. "I got beat up by girls all the time," says Olbermann. "They literally posted a sign-up sheet and would take turns. I think that's why I've always been such a fan of Mencken's [actually Finley Peter Dunne's] line, 'Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.' I've been afflicted."

Olbermann's affliction began at age 5 . . ."

If you're outmatched by 5-year-old girls, taking on a grown woman requires at least a modicum of courage.

Actually, the Left's readiness to embark on what Leftists often decry as the "politics of personal destruction" against women who leave the Left's political reservation is all too common. Michelle Malkin, for example, is far too often bashed by Leftwing blogs in terms that are explicitly women-hating. Ann Coulter - no stranger to Leftwing attacks explicitly premised on her gender - speaks to truth to power in this column:

Liberals used the divorce papers to argue that Prejean had some deep-seated psychological disturbance causing her to oppose gay marriage. Symptoms of this debilitating illness include a belief in some sort of "god" and a reverence for the Bible.

It's not as if Prejean's special talent in the Miss USA contest was to perform an opposite-sex marriage. (Or, as the president and I call it, "marriage.") She didn't even volunteer her "controversial" views on marriage. Rather, she was asked for her opinion on gay marriage and gave it -- in an answer wrapped in so many layers of sugar it took 10 minutes to get to the point.

"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised, and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."

What a vicious hate-monger! Any second there I was expecting her to bust out a "by golly!" or an "oh my gosh!" Angry gay-marriage supporters should be happy they didn't get my version of that answer. It contains some terms you won't find in your Bible.

Liberals wouldn't attack James Dobson with the amount of bile they've directed at a 21-year-old beauty contestant. It's not just Christianity -- it's women liberals hate.

From Jean-Paul Sartre, Pablo Picasso and Bertrand Russell, who treated women -- mostly their mistresses -- like dogs, to Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton in our own day, liberals are ferocious misogynists. They share Muslims' opinion of women, differing only to the extent that liberals also support a women's right to have an abortion and to perform lap dances.

You'd be better off in a real burqa than under the authority of a liberal American male.

I'm not sure we needed a psychological profile of Prejean to figure out why she holds the same position on gay marriage as: the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and his mistress, and the vast majority of the American people.

But what is crying out for an explanation is why every bubble-head TV news anchorette from a nice, churchgoing red state ends up adopting the political views of Karl Marx.

From Katie Couric on CBS to Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC, the whole stable of TV anchorettes weirdly have the exact same politics as their liberal masters. It's the ideological burqa women are required to wear to work in the mainstream media. As with a conventional burqa, it enforces conformity and severely restricts the vision.

The only way to protect yourself is to do the liberal male's bidding, as the bubble-head anchorettes do, or stand on the rock of Christianity.

Now, another beautiful Christian has thrown off the liberal burqa, thereby inciting mass hysteria throughout the liberal establishment. Prejean doesn't care. She is blazing across the sky, as impotent nose-pickers jockey for a piece of her reflected light by hurling insults at her.

Here is a video of Coulter taking on a mob of suddenly puritanical leftists who suddenly think that it is alright to pry into privacy.



Bunch of hypocrites.

Correcting the Historical Record

Or the first draft of history, at least.

Rabbi Eckstein observes in the Wall Street Journal that that "The Popes Israel Trip was a Success", notwithstanding the insta-criticism. Rabbi Eckstein writes:

Most Israelis seem to agree that the pope's just concluded trip to Israel wasn't a raving success. Far from healing wounds, his address at the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum garnered harsh criticism for failing to adequately address the horrors memorialized there.

I see the visit in a much more positive light.

Jewish-Christian relations have always been of a wary sort, laced with mutual suspicions that have deep theological roots, and with painful memories of persecution and anti-Semitism. But in the past half-century, the church's attitude toward Jews has undergone a fundamental shift.

The Nostra Aetate -- the Declaration on the Relations of the Church with Non-Christian Religions, issued by the Second Vatican Council and published in 1965 -- was the harbinger of the change in Catholic attitude toward the Jews and their faith. Later, Pope John Paul II further advanced the process of reconciliation.

Karol Wojtyla had been a fighter in the Underground against the Nazi regime and had many close Jewish childhood friends. Deeply aware of the horrors that befell the Jews during World War II, Pope John Paul's personal sympathy for and close acquaintance with the Jewish people led to an era of fruitful dialogue and rapprochement between Jews and Catholics.

This healing was made possible mainly because the pope, together with Jewish leaders, focused on shared values, biblical traditions and moral principles common to both faith communities.

Pope Benedict XVI does not yet enjoy the goodwill his predecessor generated. Aspects of his past and statements he has made are arguably controversial and have generated criticism -- some valid -- from Jews.

But this week, he arrived in Israel for the first papal visit in nine years. I was part of a delegation that greeted him in a special ceremony at the airport. Sadly, a number of Israeli political and religious leaders refused to participate.

Had they attended, they would have heard the head of the church speak of the terrible suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust, their biblical rights to the land of Israel, and the deep bonds between the Christian and Jewish faiths. Had they joined him on his journey, they would have heard him lash out against Holocaust denial, condemn anti-Semitism -- past and present -- and seen him pray at the Western Wall.

They would have witnessed him meeting with rabbis, political leaders and even the parents of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who is still being held hostage in Gaza. These are just a few of the acts of solidarity and gestures of reconciliation the critics would have witnessed during the pope's pilgrimage.

Of course, the pope is not above reproach. But there is no question that this pope deeply respects Judaism and stands solidly for the security of the state of Israel.

As someone who has dedicated the past 35 years to fostering respect between Jews and Christians, I was deeply encouraged by the pope's visit and believe that it has contributed significantly toward supplanting the dark and violent history between Jews and the church.

The world desperately needs this model of reconciliation. I pray that it extends to our Muslim cousins too, so that all the children of Abraham might find peace with one another.

That's good news.

Degrees of Perfection

Check out this Roger L. Simon video about how confronting evil gave him a glimpse of God.

In a way, Simon is gesturing at one of St. Thomas Aquinas' famous "five ways" for a proof of the existence of God:

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

"This should not happen in America": Watching Carrie Prejean on Fox

Wow! She pulled no punches in describing the hateful smear campaign against her. She is reminded everyone that she is an average American who was punished for exercising her right to free speech. She sounded betrayed, as if she hadn't realized that free speech only applies to the left.

She also sounded strong.

She shouldn't have had to defend herself.

Very well spoken and very well reasoned.

Here's the video.

What's there to worry about?

It's not like members of the power elite lump us into ungoodthoughtcrimething status.

Cybil Shepard channels her social class - which is a lot closer to power than those she stereotypes:

Tennessee-born beauty Cybill Shepherd definitely isn’t one to waste words -- and had she no qualms in speaking out about who she thought was to blame for the passing of Proposition 8 in California's last election, which led to gay and lesbian marriage rights being overturned.

"The Mormons and Catholics," she told Tarts at the recent L.A Gay & Lesbian Center’s "An Evening With Women" celebration in Beverly Hills. "Most of the money came from Utah, it’s very unfortunate."

She also shares:

"I’m a Christian Pagan Buddhist Goddess worshiper, but I’m also a feminist. I think the ultimate glass ceiling is God, in another words, if we think God is a man, then we make man a God, and I studied and learned that there is a whole other history of the worshiping of the great mother," she explained. "I really think that probably God is a woman, that helped me to break through that celestial glass ceiling."

A "Christian Pagan Buddhist Goddess worshipper" and a "feminist"?

How does she manage to hold those two wildly different views at the same time?

Global Warming Update


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

But, hey, we should wreck the economy because the data just seems right.

The Outrage of the Day

Remember when dissent used to be patriotic?

Remember when a President publicly grinning at the prospective death of a prominent critic would be considered threatening?

Remember when comedians "talked truth to power."

All that is so last year in the Days of Hope and Change.

Here's the video.



The reaction of the elite media audience - which appeared to find Wanda Sykes' comments funny - is as appalling as Obama's grinning, although he may have been programmed to keep grinning while the masses feted him.

Pooh and Public Health Policy






I'm sure that my middle daughter - a fan of Pooh - wouldn't appreciate this reflection on the "Swine Flu Panic of 2009."

[Via Protein Wisdom]

The First 100 Days

For some, it's not a symbolic issue.

This essay in First Things is simply amazing - and depicts the real issue in Notre Dame's decision to honor a president who could not bring himself to support a law against killing babies born alive.

For many members of the Notre Dame Class of 2009, the uproar surrounding the university’s decision to honor Barack Obama with this year’s commencement address, and to bestow on him a doctorate of laws, has provoked strong feelings about what the ensuing conflict will mean for their graduation.

I know how they feel. Ten years ago, my heart was filled with similar conflicts as we came closer to the day of my own Notre Dame commencement and my commissioning as an officer in the United States Army.

You see, I was three months pregnant.

That March, I had gone—alone—to a local woman’s clinic to take a test. The results were positive, and I was so numb I almost didn’t grasp what the nurse was getting at when she assured me I had “other options.” What did “other options” mean? And what kind of world is it that defines compassion as telling a young woman who has just learned she is carrying life inside her that she has the option to destroy it?

When I returned to campus, I ran to the Grotto. I was confused and full of conflicting emotions. But I knew this: No amount of shame or embarrassment would ever lead me to get rid of my baby. Of all women, Our Lady could surely feel pity for an unplanned pregnancy. I recalled her surrendered love to God’s invitation to become the home of the Incarnate Word. “Let it be done to me according to thy word,” she had said. In my hour of need, on my knees, I asked Mary for courage and strength. And she did not disappoint.

My boyfriend was a different story. He was also a Notre Dame senior. When I told him that he was to be a father, he tried to pressure me into having an abortion. Like so many women in similar circumstances, I found out the kind of man the father of my child was at precisely the moment I needed him most. “All that talk about abortion is just dining-room talk,” he said. “When it’s really you in the situation, it’s different. I will drive you to Chicago and pay for a good doctor.”

Way to "cowboy up."

What a man.

What a horrible example for his now ten year old daughter.

Because the choice was a person. The author writes:

And then a miracle came: On All Saints Day 1999, I gave birth to baby Mary. Her name is no accident. This Mary was living inside me while I walked the campus of a university dedicated to a woman who is mother of us all, and it was Mary Our Mother who gave me courage when I was afraid of what would lie ahead. Mary teaches us always to be open to seeking the will of God in our lives, no matter what it is, and never to be afraid of God’s will. God’s will may contain suffering, but God’s will also brings peace and joy. When we place ourselves at God’s disposal, he will do great things for us.

Those great things included the precious moment when my father came to meet his granddaughter on that glorious day she was born. He took one look at Mary in my arms and said to me, “This is your gift for making the right decision.” At that moment, I realized my little girl and I would be forever blessed.

Notre Dame is a special place, but it is not immune to the realities of modern life. There are students who face unplanned pregnancies, and—most tragically—women who think their only option is abortion. Statistics show that one out of every five women who have an abortion is a college student; many of these women cite the fear that they will not be able to complete their education as a primary reason. On campuses all across this country, abortion is the status quo. We need to change that with an unambiguous stand for life, and Notre Dame needs to be in the lead.

There have been many things written about the honors to be extended to President Obama. I’d like to ask this of Fr. John Jenkins, the Notre Dame president: Who draws support from your decision to honor President Obama—the young, pregnant Notre Dame woman sitting in that graduating class who wants desperately to keep her baby, or the Notre Dame man who believes that the Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is just dining-room talk?