Charter Member of the Sub-Media

January 30, 2008

July 19, 2007

Maybe Therapy Might Have Helped Terri Schiavo « GWOM »

Man with liquid-filled brain case has full, normal life.

A man with an unusually tiny brain managed to live an entirely normal life despite his condition, caused by a fluid buildup in his skull, French researchers reported on Thursday.

Scans of the 44-year-old man's brain showed that a huge fluid-filled chamber called a ventricle took up most of the room in his skull, leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue.

Ironically, I saw this report at Hot Air*, whose main poster is Allahpundit. The irony is that if I recall correctly, Allahpundit was one of the main opponents of attempts to prevent Terri Schiavo from being starved to death, and often citing a near-identical fluid-filled brain as "proof" she was brain-dead.

Now, I admit that it might not have been Allahpundit who posted that headline to the Hot Air page. Or I might be wrong that he was ridiculing those attempting to save Terri's life. If so, there is no irony.

Read More "Maybe Therapy Might Have Helped Terri Schiavo" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 01:54 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

March 20, 2005

Why Are Democrats Blocking This? « GWOM »

What, passing a bill to save Terry Schiavo's life might undermine the "Constitutional" Right to Choose (to have an abortion)?

Althought perhaps a better question is: will they pay any political price for their obstructionism? After all, a significant portion (a minority? a majority, possibly?) of the people wanting to save Terry's life are liberals and/or Democrats...

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:45 PM | Comments (0)

March 18, 2005

Probably Un-Enforcible « GWOM »

But interesting.

Bill introduced to ban suggestive cheer routines.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:37 AM | Comments (2)

March 11, 2005

Simply Mind-Boggling (UPDATED) « GWOM »

A man tries to send an email to complain about the subjects being taught to high schoolers, and his email get rejected because of "adult content!"

That's right, folks: the terms and subjects many liberals (groups like Planned Parenthood and the like) are saying we need to use in teaching our teenagers, are deemed inappropriate for adults to have to hear/see!

So, exactly how were they going to teach this course? Have a teenager teach it?

Sooner or later, liberal ideology always twists itself into a hypocritical pretzel.

UPDATE: Andy points out the article if hard to find. Apparently Townhall's C-Log "permalink" really doesn't work. Even if you link the specific entry, it still brings you to the most recent post, so you have to scroll down quite a bit to find it. The title is Smut for thee, but not for me

You can find a summary/reaction in Friday's Best of the Web. Scroll down to the entry entitled, "Dispatch from the Porn Belt".

I've also included the complete text of the original Townhall post in the extended entry.

Read More "Simply Mind-Boggling (UPDATED)" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:08 PM | Comments (3)

March 10, 2005

Et Tu, Hillary? (UPDATED) « GWOM »

I expect to see complete outrage on the part of liberals and libertarians now that a prominent liberal Democrat is speaking out against sex and violence in entertainment.

Including cute phrases like, "Keep the Democrats out of my entertainment, and the Republicans out of my wallet!"


Surprisingly, (or maybe not so surprisingly) Yes.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:54 AM | Comments (0)

March 07, 2005

Why Are Democrats Having PR Problems? « GWOM »

Here's one explanation:

One of the Democratic Party's problems is that it doesn't have enough contact with its rank and file. Right-wing people in this country have a place to meet and talk politics--their churches, increasingly the megachurches in the exurbs. There's not a meeting place like that for liberals and for Democrats.

I think in this case, the bigotry expressed by the speaker is more of a problem for Democrats than anything contained in his explanation.

From Today's Best of the Web.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 02:02 PM | Comments (5)
"Public" Broadcasting and Biased Mainstream Media « GWOM »
The message of this piece is even less unmistakeable than that of Rosin's, and it is: "Only a cranky bigot could possibly object to using taxpayer funds to propagandize small children in favor of same-sex marriage."


Even when confronted with affirmative evidence that there is rather more to the Buster story, Montgomery contrived not to notice it. "Pieper [one of the women featured in the Buster Vermont episode] said the producers had been looking for two-mom families and settled on hers after another option fell through. They liked how Emma and her siblings and moms interacted." In other words, this is not a case of some over-active imagination over-interpreting Tinky Winky's handbag. Buster's producers consciously intended to use their position of trust as publicly funded broadcasters of children's programming to advance a highly controversial agenda of their own. For them to act shocked, shocked, shocked that anybody might object is highly disingenuous. And for a reporter to feign shock along with them is doubly disingenuous.

By David Frum.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:21 AM | Comments (2)

March 06, 2005

Have You Ever Noticed...? « GWOM »

Interesting, is it not? ...that you can buy pornography on eBay, but not firearms?

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:21 PM | Comments (0)

March 04, 2005

I'm Still Irritated « GWOM »

Okay, absent Sen. Stevens' remark, I wouldn't be starting some crusade to clean up cable TV. And I'm not really trying to start one now.*

But I would like to point out, that except for a minor quibble about the current law, no one, not one person has come up with a single explanation of why keeping cursing and nudity on Cable TV should be considered one of the great freedoms of the United States' experiment in democracy. Not even the venerable Lileks himself.

Okay, if a majority of people want to leave Cable TV alone (and I'm sure it is a majority, currently), no problem: I'm not going to try to argue a minority opinion has more right to determine the issue.

But everyone is acting like extending broadcast standards to Cable TV would violate the US Constitution or something. That the very suggestion of such a thing is beyond the pale. That Sen. Stevens idea reveals him as an out-of-touch prude, or maybe even an idiot.

I'm a little tired of that.

Any person who attempts tp put forward the argument that Obscenity/Profanity on Cable is a Cornerstone of Liberty should address the following facts:
-There are numerous places in the United States that one cannot get broadcast TV without cable.
-There are literally millions of households in which cable TV is not paid for by the resident, but comes automatically with the rent or housing association dues.
-Broadcast standards were established because of underage viewers; there are literally millions of underage viewers watching cable TV now.
-Holding cable TV to broadcast TV standards does not mean the imposition of standards where none now exist. It would only mean tightening cable TV standards by an increment of some scope.

It's perfectly fine if your only answer is: "Because that's the way it is, and I like it to stay that way." But if so, please get off your high horse: you aren't any Defender of American Freedom or anything, you are just trying to make us more like Canada and Europe. Thanks heaps.

Read More "I'm Still Irritated" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:20 PM | Comments (11)
The Supreme Court and The 10 Commandments « GWOM »
The Texas case is dicier, since the display isn't quite so clearly part of a historical statement. Expect tangled 5-4 decisions in the two cases that do little to clarify anything. The Ten Commandments are one of Western culture's great symbols of law. In its arbitrary and erratic jurisprudence, the U.S. Supreme Court has become a symbol of the opposite.

Rich Lowry

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:26 AM | Comments (0)

March 02, 2005

They Say It Like It's A Bad Thing « GWOM »

I guess I'm Heteronormative.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:05 PM | Comments (0)
Turning It Off « GWOM »

Appropriateness is one of the aspects we are arguing here. And Social Environment.

Like it or not, we are society of a great diversity. Although a limited and immature viewpoint might think so, we aren't just composed of 22-year-old males who like scatalogical humor. There are children around all the time. We all have mothers, and Great Aunt Sadies. Religious folk rub elbows with atheists.

One of the most necessary social skills is to know when to "Turn it off". I love humor. I've got a ton of jokes that I love. I sometimes enjoy dirty jokes. I do enjoy a racy movie. I admit it: I like boobies.

But the context is of utmost importance. The military environment in which I work places a high emphasis on self-control and professionalism. But if you are always formal, you suffer from a lack of esprit-de-corps. One of the things I've learned long ago is to know when you can relax and be "people", and when you need to stand on formality. I know who I can tease, and who I can't. When I'm speaking to a superior officer, you will always hear proper addresses of respect coming out of my mouth. But when I'm with my own subordinates, the working situation is much closer, and I allow them to relax quite a bit. I don't allow them to call me by my first name, no, but they can joke around and even tease me.

But if another officer is around, or another enlisted, I demand that they tighten up and show me proper respect and courtesies and such. It's not that I deserve it, or need my ego fed, but the military lives and dies on its formality, and ability to follow the proper customs. That's how you can order men to charge the machine-gun nest, and they'll do it, even knowing that most of them will die.

Please note: I set the standard with my subordinates. My superiors set the standard with me. When the superiors are around, their standard is default over mine.

It should be the same way with profanity/obscenity/sexuality. If someone lives their lives watching TV shows with F-bombs when they aren't necessary to the storyline, what language might they use when they get irritated with the salesperson at Target?

When my daughter belches loudly, I don't spank her, of course. But I remind her that she should try to do it quietly, and say "excuse me" if she can't or makes a mistake. But if the TV show or movie has belches and farts as humor, it makes it that much harder to teach her proper manners.

When someone steeps themself in profantiy and obscenity, they begin to think that's the default. When there are no children around in 90% of their life, and they are used to acting like that, and everyone they watch on TV and movies acts like that, are they going to stop and check to make sure no children are around before they let loose with a string of profanity? Somehow, I doubt it.

But what if the standard were Family Friendly? There are always ways to get less-family-friendly fare. Rent movies, go see movies, pay-per-view, purchase CDs, stream audio/video over the web, wait until after 10pm on HBO (that was the old standard...I'm fairly certain it doesn't hold true anymore, but I haven't watched HBO in more than a decade, so I could be wrong). Still, these things could all emphasize that in our society, you assume there are kids around and act accordingly.

Right now, they don't.

I can tell a string of dirty jokes if I want to. I even think some of 'em are funny. But I can also tell a string of funny clean jokes. And most of them are far funnier. Can you?

The word on the street is that Chris Rock just isn't funny without the F-bomb. Bill Cosby touched on the same issues with greater depth and sensitivity, with more humorous results. Isn't it sad that Chris Rock (and other modern comedians) can't do that anymore?

Ellen Degeneres reportedly could read the alphabet and make it funny. But she had to learn to be funny under pretty stringent standards, didn't she? Compare that to the next generation of comedienne: Jeneane Garafalo. No comparison.

And when Ellen stopped being a comedienne and started being an "alternative lifestyle" pioneer, she stopped being funny right along with it. That may not really prove any points, but it is interesting, I think.

The point is, adults should set the standard for mature behavior for children to properly model. Then, in adult settings with no children around, go ahead and bring out the juvenile humor and sexualizations, etc. But cable TV is ubuquitous enough that it can no longer be considered an adult setting.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:42 AM | Comments (0)
Follow-On to Social Standards « GWOM »

My Miriam-Webster Word O' the Day is: "Misanthrope" Woot!

And while people are up in arms about Sen. Stevens using the legislative process to see if standards can be applied to cable TV, I find this to be more disturbing, more upsetting, and more worthy of debate and outrage.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:34 AM | Comments (4)
Art « GWOM »

As a musician, one thing I understood a long time ago is that Art occurs through creativity within limits.

The best music often had the most restrictive limitations. The worst has almost none.

Free-form jazz is nearly unbearable to all but the most-sophisticated jazz aficiandos, because the limits are so fluid that most people can't even see them. When any note is just as good as any other, where's the beauty of finding the right one?

When anything is permissible, where is creativity in trying to find ways to imply?

The most horrible and moving thing I've ever seen was something I never saw. Remember the movie The Hitcher. At one point, Tommy Howell is eating French Fries and bites into a finger. Gross, but not all that bad, because you saw it.

No, the worst was when Tommy's love interest was chained between a diesel tractor and its trailer. And Tommy has the chance to shoot Rutger Hauer...if he does, she dies; but if he doesn't, Rutger lets go the clutch and she dies. He freezes, and they show Rutger letting go the clutch...

That scene was riveting and moving and disturbing and only possible because of the limitations and standards placed on movies at that time. Nowadays, they would probably show her getting pulled apart (Computer-Generated Images, dontchaknow?) and the movie would be the worse for it.

Can anyone honestly say that the story and impact of Starship Troopers was enhanced by nude shower scenes?

Something I pointed out to my friends, although they didn't seem to get play a video game that has a fake-looking sexy girl in it. You want to see her naked. Why? There's a trillion pictures of naked boobies on the web, why would you want to see this one? Because you care about the character, and because you can't see 'em. Anyone who understands that it is far more sexy to conceal than reveal understands what I'm saying.

You don't have to eliminate sexuality and sexiness by not allowing excessive skin. In fact, you enhance it. But by doing so, by concealing overt sexuality, you put it into a context that adults can understand and appreciate but will go right over kids' heads without affecting them in the slightest.


I know I'm not, but sometimes I feel like I'm the only one fighting the battle for quality against smut. Because, yes, I do believe the two are mutually exclusive.

If you don't understand that, you don't. No amount of trying to point out examples is going to get through. And maybe I'm wrong...but I really don't think so.

Just thinking aloud on this part:
I really want one person to explain why a$$ and f--- are okay on cable TV during primetime, but not on broadcast TV at all...without resorting to "that's the way it is", or "that's what I like". I want a logical explanation that is internally consistent on why it is better for society to have this (i.e. the current standard) rather than Sen. Stevens' or "All Porn, All The Time!" as the allowable standard. I don't think it can be done.

But you know what? Don't even try. Your thought process will satisfy you, but not me, and we'll get in an argument and both of us will get mad and nothing will get resolved.

But if you drop an F-bomb in front of my kids out in public, you have no right to complain or sue when I punch you in the nose. If you say I have the right and responsibility to control what my kids see and hear in an adult-default environment, you have no right to complain about how I do it. Deal?

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:30 AM | Comments (6)
Decency Standards « GWOM »

One of the problems with having a default "Adult" setting for entertainment that parents must preview and/or restrict access to for their children is simply that we get a separate "Kid-Friendly" entertainment.

When I was a kid, I watched The Magnificent Seven and Rio Lobo and A Bridge Too Far and Kelly's Heroes and M.A.S.H. and The Walton's and The Carol Burnett Show and Star Wars. These were all made for adults, but were family-friendly.

Got that? Made for adults, but without graphic sex and profanity and violence. So there was no need to come up with anything else for the kids.

What was the greatest travesty foisted on an unsuspecting public in recent years? It's probably a toss-up between Caillou and George Lucas' kid-oriented Star Wars prequels.*

Point being, when you set out to make something for kids, you get lots of fart jokes and a fear of showing people use guns. And everything works out as long as people share. And no one gets a spanking, even if they really need one.

But if the adult entertainment remained suitable for an entire family, then you wouldn't need to come up with a secondary category for kids, and you wouldn't end up with dumbed-down entertainment. One of the best things about Pixar (which stands in stark contrast to anything else put out by Hollywood) is that it writes stories for adults, but puts it in a medium that kids will enjoy just for itself, even if they don't get all the jokes and the subtext and deeper meanings.

Heck, a thought just occurred to me: I grew up before dumbed-down children's entertainment became a big thing. I didn't have to suffer through Scrappy-Doo and Care Bears and GI Joe (where millions of kilotons of ordnance are set off weekly and no one ever gets even a splinter of injury). Is my taste deeper and more mature because I wasn't raised on crap? Do we actually teach our children better taste, better humor, more complex issues of life, and so forth, when we don't have Children's Programming, i.e., when the stuff adults watch is okay for kids, even if not aimed at them?

Don't get me started on why putting the tag "Adult" on the front of entertainment usually means "gratuitous at the level a 14-year-old appreciates most".

Again, this is all rant and emotion against the people who condescendingly refuse to acknowledge that they aren't actually advocating a lack of censorship, they just want it to be automatically set at their desired level of immaturity. Their logic isn't internally consistent: if you can always turn off stuff you don't like, and it is the job of parents to control their kids viewing, than there truly is no reason not to broadcast XXX sex shows and snuff films on broadcast television.

I want the default setting to be "child friendly" while still aimed at entertaining adults. Sexual and Violent situations can still be addressed and included, but not during primetime on broadcast or cable, I say. There are good and logical reasons for that view that should be obvious.

Read More "Decency Standards" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:13 AM | Comments (5)
Counter Proposal « GWOM »

Tell you what: let's censor the crap out of cable TV, and if you don't like it, you can always turn it off. No one forces you to order Cable TV, either.*

Read More "Counter Proposal" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:55 AM | Comments (0)
More on Censorship « GWOM »

Digger's Realm has more on the issue I weighed in on here.

I'm going to use that as a pretext to continue ranting.

I'm also going to clarify once more, I don't support Sen. Stevens. But I'm growing ever-more incensed at the reaction to it.

Does Sen. Stevens not have the right to let his ideas be put in a public forum to be voted on? Some of you people are acting like he's trying to tear up the US Constitution.

We're getting lots of witty sayings out of this, like, "Keep the Democrats out of my wallet, and the Republicans out of my entertainment industry -- Stephen Green." Yeah, that sounds cute, but like that old saw says, a clever saying doesn't constitute an argument.

Hollywood is strongly aligned to the left. You know what you get with that? Marxism, socialism, PETA, ELF, anti-gun attitudes, anti-religion attitudes.

So Republicans would want to keep curse words out of entertainment. Does that make the entertainment worse? Only if you think gratuitous use of obscenities is funny in and of itself.

Leaving entertainment in the hands of Democrats (which Mr. Green and his supporters apparently have no problem with) means that The Passion of the Christ would never have been made. I guess you guys care nothing about that sort of censorship, eh? It went on to be one of the highest grossing movies ever, because when given a choice, people will watch better stuff than Hollywood wants to give us. But the "Democrat"* standards which are supposedly so free, in reality are only free to reach the lowest common denominator.

It means that Fahrenheit 9/11 is held up as a shining example of "truth". It means that Culture of Death movies are made without concern, perhaps in a conscious attempt to shape opinion, like Million Dollar Baby.

People, if we leave entertainment to Hollywood, we get Caillou.

Let's look at some of the things that "Republican" Standards brought us:
-Star Wars
-The original Star Trek
-The Honeymooners
-Scooby Doo
-The Flintstones
-Marilyn Monroe
-Speed Racer

Excellent stuff there, no? Would any of those been improved with the addition of boobies and cusswords? What do more relaxed standards bring us? A live-action remake of Scooby-Doo, complete with Scrappy Doo urinating on Daphne. Nice job, there, guys. I don't see how the addition of Sen. Stevens' standards wouldn't have made that better by subtraction. Or another example: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure was a most excellent movie. Was it improved by the contrived scene of having Napolean fall down and say "Merde!" with the expletive appearing in subtitles, just so it wouldn't get a G rating? When Hollywood adds profanity and obscenity to get a PG rating, how are we served? Sure, it might make a few adolescents giggle...but the vast bulk of our society does not consist of adolescents. I see no reason why we simply must set our standards on the basis of adolescent attitude.

Let me restate my premise, if it has gotten lost in my ranting:
Entertainment was better 30 years ago. It is not because they had more restrictive standards, necessarily, but the looser standards become, the more crap they offer us. "Lowest Common Denominator" entertainment seems to invariably be worse. If (and only if) imposing Sen. Stevens standards would result in better entertainment, I would be all for it. But since that's an impossible proposition, I'll fail to give my support and just complain about all you people who think using the word "a$$" 10 times in half an hour is funny in and of itself.

Read More "More on Censorship" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:04 AM | Comments (2)

February 28, 2005

Attitude Kills « GWOM »

Setting aside for now about the efficacy of the "HIV = AIDS" thesis, this demonstrates that wilfull behavior is the most important reason we still haven't made much headway against AIDS deaths.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:08 PM | Comments (0)

February 25, 2005

It Just Keeps Getting More Strange... « GWOM »

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin...

But even officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have acknowledged the case is alarming.

...I'd say, it's alarming if you are gay and have had sex with 100 men in the last month or two while going through crystal meth like it was candy. Otherwise, I'm not sure I'm all that worried.

Instead of being a new strain, the virus could have rapidly developed into full-blown AIDS because of something unique to the patient, said Dr. Douglas Richman of University of California at San Diego., having gay sex with 100 men in the last month or two while going through crystal meth like it was candy is not unique to this man? I just want to make sure I understand what they're getting at, here.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 05:37 AM | Comments (0)

February 24, 2005

Hard To Argue With « GWOM »
... she's got the right to choose, but only as long as her choice is abortion. If she chooses life, it's not legitimate. I don't want to assume such a horrid thing, but it really begins to appear as though these people will consider themselves successful when they perform more and more abortions every year. Their claims of "safe, legal and rare" ring hollow. If they're so concerned about women's rights, they should also provide ultrasound for their people.

From Anywhere But Here.

If she's not on your blogroll, she should be.*

Read More "Hard To Argue With" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:28 PM | Comments (9)
Why "Roe V Wade" Will Not Stand Much Longer « GWOM »

Exhibit A.

Exhibit B.

Read More "Why "Roe V Wade" Will Not Stand Much Longer" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 04:00 PM | Comments (1)

February 18, 2005

Hidden Messages? « GWOM »

Have I mentioned that I hate "Caillou"? I'm not the only one.

Today the Message O' the Day from the episode "The Mighty Oak" is that "Trees sometimes get sick. If they do, you have to cut them down. But don't worry, it is like cutting a toenail. It doesn't hurt, and it is no big deal." Then they go buy a new tree, and there are multiple comparisons between the new tree and a baby.

I can't help but feel like there is a foundation being laid to support the liberal view of euthenasia, at the very least (if not abortion). Sure, I'm probably paranoid...

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:17 AM | Comments (10)

February 04, 2005

Don't Irritate the Pro-Choice Powers « GWOM »

They will spread lies about you.

So much for journalistic ethics, not when you have a chance to smear a prominent Christian, pro-Life, anti-Planned Parenthood blogger.*

Read More "Don't Irritate the Pro-Choice Powers" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:56 PM | Comments (1)
I Can't Believe This « GWOM »
"The victory wasn't sweet," [Ms.] Young said Thursday afternoon. "I'm not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson."

Learned their lesson about what?

They learned never to try and do anything nice for Ms. Young, ever.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 01:18 PM | Comments (1)

January 31, 2005

Hmm...or is that, "Ugh."? « GWOM »

If you feel you are lacking enough soft porn in your life, look no farther! Canadian publications online are here for you!*

Um, apparently "enhancements" are a requirement...

So I ask you: is this sort of thing really necessary?

Read More "Hmm...or is that, "Ugh."?" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:10 PM | Comments (0)
In Retrospect, Not A Surprise « GWOM »

An unintended consequence of Legalized Prostitution.

I really hope they follow up on the story.

Money Quote:

"The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."

I'm sure dozens of people will say "this couldn't happen in the US." It could. You can't have it both ways. This is an unsought but inevitable part of the Planned Parenthood society atheist liberals would like to see. Because if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:17 AM | Comments (0)
» Anywhere But Here links with: Unintended Consequences

January 11, 2005

Expect To See This All Over The Web « GWOM »
It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society.

Notice anything funny?

Yeah, the ellipses (in the original) kinda leave out an important part, don't they? The freedom of religious expression. It's bad enough that they leave out that part, but even worse that they insist on a totally inaccurate conclusion from that omission: that Freedom of Speech is the first freedom listed, and so must be the most important.

Which group has this paragraph on their official website? I thought you'd never ask:

Read More "Expect To See This All Over The Web" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 02:27 PM | Comments (2)
» The World Wide Rant - v3.0 links with: Pardon Me, But...
» Unscrewing The Inscrutable links with: Kicking Our Own Ass

December 29, 2004

Helping Out « GWOM »

Ace links to Michele trying to understand the magnitude of death from the tsunamis in South/Southeast Asia.

I've got an easy way to understand it!

100,000 people dead. That's a mere one tenth of the number of babies aborted each year in the United States alone.

One Tenth.


Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 02:25 PM | Comments (6)

December 17, 2004

Dichotomy « GWOM »

So Matthew Shephard is still in the news.

But have you heard about Jesse Dirkhising lately?

Part of the reason Matthew Shephard's death is in the news again is because indications are growing stronger that the crime had nothing at all to do with sexuality.

Not so with Jesse Dirkhising.

Never Forget.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:20 AM | Comments (0)
» Yippee-Ki-Yay! links with: It's a Hoedown!

December 16, 2004

Yes, Virginia, There is a Campaign Against Christianity « GWOM »

The only surprising part is how freely they admit it:

They asked the city council to remove the tree because it represents Christmas, which is a Christian holiday.

Stock says city hall should: "Act as a place where everybody feels welcome. It is impossible for everybody's religious belief to be displayed and non-religious belief to be displayed, so therefore, no religious beliefs be displayed."

On the plus side, it is encouraging that the largely liberal/atheist news media considers this worthy of reporting.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:57 PM | Comments (0)

December 15, 2004

Mickey Kaus Agrees With Conservatives Again « GWOM »

I don't see how he could have voted for Kerry, because he keeps on making excellent arguments against Democrat and liberal values and thought processes.

Scroll down to the part about Marc Rich and Clinton. Excerpt:

Here's an instance where the convenient case for public figure privacy in matters of sex--made most conveniently by Clinton himself, but also by Jeffrey Toobin***, Andrew Sullivan, etc.--completely breaks down. It turns out to be fairly important whether Clinton was or wasn't not having sexual relations with Denise Rich, Marc's glamorous ex-wife, who lobbied for the pardon. It's hard to explain Clinton's gross error any other way.

... P.S.: Do Democrats really want to elect the woman who let all this happen under her nose? Just asking! ...

*** When defending Clinton, Toobin ludicrously declared that a politician's sex life "tells you absolutely nothing about their performance" in office. Marc Rich might disagree. ...

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:29 AM | Comments (0)

December 13, 2004

December 10, 2004

Thoughts on Chastity « GWOM »

I have nothing to add to this. Well, for now, at least.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:15 AM | Comments (2)

December 09, 2004

Yeah « GWOM »
Politicians, especially Democrats, are now trying harder to appeal to people of faith. But people of faith are not just another interest group, like gun owners. You have to begin by understanding the faith. And you can't understand this rising global movement if you don't meet its authentic representatives.

Not Falwell, but Stott.

I don't know, necessarily, about John Stott. I've only heard the name myself, I don't think I've knowingly read anything he wrote. I'd hold up C.S. Lewis as an example of an authentic version of a thoughtful traditional Christian.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 11:04 AM | Comments (0)
More on Abstinence Education « GWOM »

From one of the links in the previous post:

...many social science studies link beginning sexual activity at an older age to higher levels of personal happiness in adulthood.
...governments spent $4.50 on "safe sex" programs aimed at teens for every $1 invested in abstinence.

These spending priorities are the exact opposite of what parents want. In a recent Zogby poll, 85 percent of parents said the government's emphasis on abstinence for teens should be equal or greater than the emphasis placed on contraception. Only eight percent said teaching teens to use condoms is more important than teaching them abstinence.

For example, in the government-sponsored program "Focus on Kids," middle- and high school students are told about the joys of bathing together, watching sexually explicit movies together and reading erotic books and magazines. The "Be Proud! Be Responsible!" program promoted by the Centers for Disease Control asks teens to "think up a fantasy using condoms" then "use condoms as a method of foreplay." Kids as young as 13 are taught to "act sexy/sensual" while putting on condoms.
(emphasis mine)

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:34 AM | Comments (0)
Must Read « GWOM »

An email exchange between Andrew Sullivan and Annie of After Abortion.

Some of the best parts:

Even worse data was provided here: "Research conducted in the United States by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory revealed that the HIV virus is 60 times smaller than a syphilis bacterium and 450 times smaller than a human sperm. Analyzing test results conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control which tested leakage rates of latex condoms, doctors discovered a 78% HIV-leakage rate. As one U.S. surgeon put it, "The HIV virus can go through a condom like a bullet through a tennis net."

it's already BEEN "government policy" to "spend 12 times more [government money] promoting so-called 'safe sex' than it does encouraging people to wait," so why not level the "playing field" since abstinence is being credited in many places with success?
Why do you think that only 4 years ago, there were 226,800 post-abortive women in National Right To Life Committe and only 39,000 of them in NARAL?
if you're so worried about hysteria and spending taxpayer dollars: " the parents-not-allowed "Nobody's Fool" conference running yearly since 1990, Planned Parenthood has taught children as young as nine how to masturbate, have sex and gave them nine reasons to have abortions. [It also] makes 93.5% of its money from providing abortions and dispensing 633,756 Morning After Pills a year...[and] they also sell a 6-inch ruler for schoolkids emblazoned with the question, 'Does Size Matter?' directing them to their sexually-fixated website, TeenWire. [And] in FY2003, Planned Parenthood received $254.4 million in taxpayer money, an all-time record that surpassed tax dollars received in FY2001 and FY2002 combined (it's all in their Annual Report). The Bush Administration, on the other hand, is now having to give multiple millions to counteract the promiscuity education efforts of Planned Parenthood for at least a decade, maybe two or more."
(emphasis in this blockquote is mine and mine alone).

Hat tip to Dawn Eden.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:28 AM | Comments (0)

December 07, 2004

Too Provocative to Post in Zombyboy's Comments (Slightly Revised) « GWOM »

I wanted to and nearly posted the following comment to this post by the intelligent and reasonable Zombyboy:

Taken as a single event, I would agree with you. I think part of the reaction by Ms. Malkin and other Christian commenters is this is right on the heels of the ACLU succeeding in getting the Boy Scouts barred from military bases, the "Jesusland" map circling the internet, Democrats complaining about President Bush's use of the word "Jesus" and "faith" even though Bill Clinton used those words more without a peep, the derision of blue-staters of what they felt was typical red-stater Christian-based morals, extreme language from secularists about not even being able to be in the same room as a monument to the 10 Commandments, an attempt by an atheist to get "Under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegience, the White House "Holiday Tree" (rather than "Christmas" tree), attempts to scrub the Thanks to God out of Thanksgiving history, etc, etc, etc. Pro-abortionists react just as strongly to anything that might weaken abortion rights. Gun owners react just as strongly to things that might weaken gun rights.

Personally, I'm getting in a mood to fight things like this, because I'm tired of "when there is a controversy, complaint, or problem, it should default to secular/atheism". Too many of these disputes are being resolved by "Fine, NO religious expression, then". And if that happens too many times, you actually shift the center point.

I'm tired of people being told to "deal with it" or "change the channel" or "it's no big deal you repressed prudes" when Janet Jacket flashes people in a prime-time TV event, but atheists think "Under God" establishes a religion and is therefore an affront to their sensibilities. I'm tired of a society in which nudity in gay pride parades is considered more of a right than a privately-funded nativity scene. I'm tired of the only expression not allowed is morality and decency.
I'm tired of the idea that "religion" is somehow more corrosive and dangerous than any other belief system, and must be restricted to inside a person's home as long as it can be proven that no tax dollars whatsoever were used in any way in any possible connection to anything Christian at all (but to support Wiccan/Gaiea studies is fine).

But since ZB is so reasonable and intelligent, I felt he didn't necessarily deserve such an unreasonable and unintelligent response. [grin] In any case, I'm sure I'll write more posts in the near future decrying this assault on religion. It seems to be the Topic O' the Day since the election.

And an assault it surely is, even if most of us are late to recognize it. It is a Global War on Morality by certain liberals, as the category title says, and I've entered the fray. I won't fight every battle to the death, because that does no one any good. But I also won't be afraid to express my opinion. Last time I checked, the 1st Amendment still guarantees me that right, despite the best efforts of a number of secularists and atheists.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 03:43 PM | Comments (1)
» resurrectionsong links with: Happy Holidays and the Parade of Lights (Updated)

November 24, 2004

Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State « GWOM »

Obviously, there are lots of people harboring misinformation and misapprehensions about the subject of religion and its relation to the nation.

Start by wrapping your minds around this concept:

In this regard it is often stated that while the US has a separation of Church and State, it is not a separation of government and religion.

Got it? Note the capitalizations implying proper nouns. Once you understand the full implications, you should see that deflates the majority of atheist/secular arguments in one stroke. It also explains why the government pays the salaries of military chaplains, builds chapels on military bases, has "In God We Trust" on currency, has chaplains open and close sessions of Congress with prayer, why the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience is Constitutionally sound and appropriate, as is "God Bless America" and tax dollars going to Faith-based charities that are not engaged in proselytizing.

Then you can continue your self-education from the site where I obtained the quote: Wikipedia.

Here's their entry on Separation of Church and State, and one on Freedom of Religion. Wikipedia wisely reminds you several time that those are not the same concepts. The entries are wonderfully factual and cross-linked. The only thing that bothered me is that there did seem to be a very slight negative attitude toward conservative views...but nothing was actually distorted, so I'm cool with that.

Have fun reading, it will make conversations go much smoother.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 10:28 PM | Comments (9)
Jumping to Conclusions for Socio-Political Gain « GWOM »

Read the whole story. Then explain to me why, exactly, the anti-gay group is suspected.

They may turn out to be the perpetrators, and if so, should be punished. But an equally strong case could be made for the perpatrators being the Rainbow Sash coalition, or a frame-job, or even confused, idiotic vandals.

A whole lot of innuendo seems to be thrown around on no evidence at all except the assumptions of specific interviewees.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:08 PM | Comments (3)
The Eradication of Faith From Public View « GWOM »

Lest anyone think I was exaggerating the case when I said I feared atheists/secularists were trying to sanitize society for their own sensibilities, in violation of the 1st Amendment, check this out.


Williams asserts in the lawsuit that since May he has been required to submit all of his lesson plans and supplemental handouts to Vidmar for approval, and that the principal will not permit him to use any that contain references to God or Christianity.

Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams, are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."

"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote," said Thompson, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which advocates for religious freedom. "The principal seems to be systematically censoring material that refers to Christianity and it is pure discrimination."

Let's just whitewash any part of history we find inconvenient, shall we? The techniques of Orwell, Marx and Lenin are still being used in United States schools.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 06:02 PM | Comments (6)

November 09, 2004

News From the Global War On Morality* « GWOM »

A victory**.

A loss.

A battle joined.

Read More "News From the Global War On Morality*" »

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 08:27 AM | Comments (0)

September 29, 2004

Can You Spot the Fallacy? « GWOM »

But it's an interesting discussion, nonetheless. Jim Durbin particularly nails the issue with his 2nd comment.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 07:29 PM | Comments (0)

July 23, 2004

Global War on Morality « GWOM »

Make no mistake, there is a non-organized, apparently spontaneous war on morals and standards in the United States, and worldwide. It involves enforcing adult standards on adolescents, pre-adolescents, and children.

Here's one of the battles lost.


The New Mexico Health Department is standing behind a sex-education teacher in Santa Fe who encouraged ninth-graders to taste flavored condoms...
...According to the report, Dorothy Danfelser, deputy director for the public-health division of the state Health Department, said she wrote Gallegos last week to say Escudero did nothing wrong.

Nice set-up, isn't it? You can cajole kids into being more comfortable about the idea of having sex. If that fails, you get to sexually harass them into a negative experience that may help ruin chances for a healthy attitude toward a loving sexual relationship within a marriage. And if that fails, you get to heckle, ridicule, and intimidate heterosexual males. It's a win-win-win situation for amoral liberal standards!

Found via Michelle Malkin.

Show Comments »

posted by Nathan on 09:44 AM | Comments (4)