For those who are salivating at the chance to use the Murder of George Tiller to attack Christians or defend the killer, let me quote the relevant passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

II. Good Acts and Evil Acts

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts – such as fornication – that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. (emphasis mine)

As the passage above shows, the church never defends such an act (sorry lefties), nor can a believing Catholic attempt to defend it. The other McCain is exactly right on this. It is true that abortion is akin to murder but it is even more true that murder is akin to murder. Justifying it is no different than Groucho’s telling Mrs. Claypool that he was with another woman because she reminded him of her.

It reminds one of the fetus isn’t human nonsense, lets avoid such stuff altogether. It’s simply doubletalk without the greasepaint mustache.

…to blog about it till now but Jim Blazsik writes the definite word on the subject:

But in the end, whatever Mancow’s intent or conclusion – he actually proved that waterboarding ISN’T torture. Why? Think about it. Would Mancow submit himself to this procedure if there was any chance that his body would be permanently damaged? What if he knew that after the experience he would only have one eye, 8 fingers, his back beaten by bamboo, his toes smashed by a hammer, select parts of his body electrocuted, or punched repeatedly until his nose was fixed on a different part of his face?

Would Marine Sgt. Klay South waterboard Mancow if he knew he was going to hurt the guy? When the CIA used waterboarding (with only three terrorists), a doctor was always required to be present. If it is torture, where was the doctor?

Why wasn’t he arrested for “torturing” him?

We know the answer to all the questions above.

Yes we do don’t we.

So my message to the idiot who thought that shooting down late term abortionist George Tiller was a good thing….

WRONG!

This is simply another evil act that deserves the full punishment of law. This is not a “yes but” situation and any person who like myself considers abortion murder needs to publicly state this without any equivocation.

In moral terms it is just as mortal a sin and carries the same punishment as the abortions performed.

Update: The other McCain is all over this.

the dog.

The Goode family is absolutely hilarious, much better than An American Carol. Even funnier has been some of the reviews particularly since places like NPR don’t get the joke. Rusty Shackelford elaborates in comments at NPR:

After watching the first episode – at least when I wasn’t too busy laughing out loud – I now find out I was wrong. It wasn’t funny after all. Who knew? I sure am glad there’s someone out there who cares enough to help me get my mind right, or perhaps more appropriately, left.

At least the review is unintentionally amusing in that its tone serves to reinforce the “greenie” stereotype as simultaneously self-deprecating and unable to embrace the humor inherent to their follies. What delicious irony! But I guess I should expect nothing less from one who can’t see the rainforest through the trees. Keep up the Goode work!

My favorite is Che, mainly because he is a (mostly) normal dog, or as you would put it in psychological terms; a repressed carnivore.

This one is going to be family viewing every Wednesday night.

MarianconspiracyMy review of Big Finish Doctor Who adventure #6 The Marian Conspiracy staring Colin Baker as The 6th Doctor and Maggie Stables as Dr. Evelyn Smythe is available at Amazon.com here.

For some reason I kept managing to lose this episode on eBay till I finally broke down and bought a new copy mail order from Mike Comics out of Worcester (they managed next day delivery without my asking, definitely worth your time). After listening to the story it’s a real shame I waited so long.

In my opinion it is one of the most important adventures of the run. First of all it was the first Big Finish to introduce an original companion to the series. It established an independence to the series that was necessary, after all we all know the fates of the doctor and each of the companions of the series (except for Ace) very limiting. She proved so popular that Baker didn’t have a different companion for over 18 months.

The second was what it did for Colin Baker. He was not a popular Doctor and his departure from the series was not a happy one. His initial story was of a poor quality. A second bad story would have really damaged the whole series. Remember at this point 8th doctor adventures were not part of the series. If he had been given another clunker that’s every third episode that doesn’t sell.

marianalt Anyways this one is very worth your money and time.

Update: Forgot to put in the cover.

Update 2: Colin Brockhurst has done some first rate alternate covers for Big finish products, with his permission I’m including his alternative cover on this post, and will include them in future reviews. As you can see they are pretty good.

I am very pleased to read this:

Moderate followers of Islam said the protest played into the hands of extreme right-wing groups and made their day-to-day lives on the streets of Luton more difficult.

Yesterday, after weeks of rising tensions sparked by the protest, members of the two groups of Muslims clashed.

Qadeer Baksh, chairman of the Islamic Centre in Luton, said a group of around 200 moderate followers descended on Bury Park in the town – where the extremists regularly preach from a stall – to drive the protesters away.

This is exactly the thing that will prevent the catastrophe that I’ve been worrying about. It is vital that we support such people without marginalizing them within Islam.

More please

The attempt to silence critics of president Obama pick of Judge Sotomayor have run into into two large snags. One of them is Rush Limbaugh who the administration foolishly elevated, cowardly ducks, and has actually driven listeners to. His listing of democratic reactions to Janice Rodgers Brown and Alito are devastating to the above the fray arguments.

The second is the Thomas Nast like quality of Judge Sotomayor’s own statements. Boss Tweed knew that even the illiterate in New York understood “Those damn pictures”.
bosstweed

It helped lead to his downfall.

Like the Nast Cartoon pictured Sotomayor’s statement is devastating to her and the White Houses cause because it is easily understood by any person of any education. Some democratic analysts understood this right away. Attempts to spin it or “contextualize” it are doomed because the average person who doesn’t follow politics knows exactly what it means.

This is why the White house and media are slowly showing signs of concern.

I predict that within a few days the media will all decide it was a minor case of “mispeaking” and try to move on. We will see if it works.

They are just lucky there is not a youtube video of her saying it. That would be the stake through the heart.

…but I think this argument is pretty weak:

If Sotomayor is unfit for the bench because she concedes that she struggles to remove herself from her own experiences, then O’Connor and Scalia are unfit as well because they believe the Court should not stop jurors from making decisions based on the own backgrounds and previous experiences.

Read the whole thing, it is one thing for a judge to state that you can’t remove a person’s life experiences from a juror’s judgment. (You can’t) It is a totally different thing to state that a particular racial or ethnic judgment is superior to another due to race.

The bottom line is Judge Sotomayor’s statement is indefensible and the “so’s your old man” argument isn’t going to wash. Very intelligent liberal voices know this, so the path of the argument has to change. This argument for example that rebuts the “radical” charge is solid but doesn’t address the question on the floor.

I repeat my question. If Judge Sotomayor’s was a white male who made such a statement publicly would that disqualify such a candidate for even a lower judgeship than Judge Sotomayor currently holds? Anyone Bueller? Bueller?

…and I guess on Morning Joe they were reading a different column.

I didn’t see anything attacking Rush or Newt but the way the morning Joe crowd was talking you would have thought it was a shot across the bow attacking them.

You can certainly make the case that since the odds of blocking this appointment are slim we should save our powder for when it matters but I think that apathy and concession breeds apathy and concession.

Charles is trying to elevate the debate, he makes points but it seems to me he is choosing to be Captain America bringing a shield to a sword fight. In case you forgot here is what happens when you do:

What happens when you come to a swordfight without a sword.
What happens when you come to a swordfight without a sword.

This president is a Chicago Pol, the democratic party is one big Chicago Machine in the way it works. The right way to handle it is the Chicago way.

If we are going to uphold what we believe is right we have to be willing to fight. As one of my favorite presidents (a democrat) said: A public office is a public trust. If a person doesn’t meet that standard we need to fight it out. I can’t find the clip but the operative quote here is from the liberal movie The American President:

A. J. MacInerney: Oh, you only fight the fights you can win? You fight the fights that need fighting!

This fight needs fighting.

If you read this blog at all you might guess that I’m not all torn up about losing Fr. Cutie to the Anglican Communion:

A popular U.S. Roman Catholic priest photographed frolicking with a woman on a Florida beach announced on Thursday he had joined the Episcopal Church to pursue the priesthood in a faith that allows married clergy.

The word that comes to my mind is addition by subtraction. We had a situation like this in my Parish, a very nice priest wanted to leave the priesthood to get married, he struggled with this and talked to the diocese and eventually left the priesthood and got married but remains in the church. To me that is still really bad; but he remained in the church worked through the diocese when he left and with confession is forgiven and is a Catholic in good standing and is bringing his family up Catholic.

There is an interesting contrast here as well. The Archbishop of Miami (via the Curt Jester) touches on it during his pastoral letter on the subject:

I must also express my sincere disappointment with how Bishop Leo Frade of the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida has handled this situation. Bishop Frade has never spoken to me about his position on this delicate matter or what actions he was contemplating. I have only heard from him through the local media. This truly is a serious setback for ecumenical relations and cooperation between us. The Archdiocese of Miami has never made a public display when for doctrinal reasons Episcopal priests have joined the Catholic Church and sought ordination. In fact, to do so would violate the principles of the Catholic Church governing ecumenical relations. I regret that Bishop Frade has not afforded me or the Catholic community the same courtesy and respect. (emphasis mine)

Without meaning to the Bishop hits on something. Over and over when I read about Anglican priests becoming Catholic we hear about the study of doctrine and the conclusion that the Church is true and right. On the other side we hear the I wants. The church doesn’t allow something that the person whats or objects to a sin that the person does, so they find a different church.

One group looks for truth and goes toward it, the other has sin and wants justification to allow it.

This is why Fr. Cutie is pathetic. He will be celebrated for his failure and will lead people away from truth for his own desires. It’s a sad thing but it’s on him and he has the rest of his life to repent…

…after that he’s on his own.

It’s Republicans Republicans Republicans

I’m listening to Morning Joe today and the talk is all about the troubles of the republican party.

Limbaugh this, Cheney that, what would MSNBC talk about without them? Is it just me but if this was a national sports cast it would be talking all about the Baltimore Orioles.

As a rule for national sports casts you focus on the stars and the teams that are relevant. The teams that are winning. The republicans have a vast minority in the House, the democrats have a fillerbuster proof majority in the Senate. They have all the cards, yet the only talk is about Republicans…

…the sad truth is if they had to talk about democrats it would be a story of mismanagement and failure in Government since the start of the administration, failure on the economic and the defense side and about backing away from campaign promises.

So the story HAS to be about the republicans, that way it can be a story of political success for democrats. It’s the only success this administration can muster.

Did some quick channel surfing this morning and got a glimpse of Morning Joe. They had Christine Todd Whitman on the TV talking about Nuclear power.

Other than the obligatory “Does Colin Powell belong in the republican party” question the statements on Nuclear were very relevant but everyone there is forgetting something concerning why we don’t get have more clean Nuclear power in the US today. The cause should be loudly proclaimed:


The reason why Nuclear power never advanced were environmental “community organizers” who litigated and protested plants to death supported by Hollywood, liberals and democrats. It was an energy policy driven by a Jane Fonda movie

Just as they want the country to forget which side they supported and appeased in the cold war our liberal friends will do their best to make sure this is ignored or part of one more grand revision a la the French Resistance/Collaborators.

Why conservative leaders don’t pin this tightly on these guys is beyond me.

…the simple test is to reverse the words “Latina Woman” and “White Man” and imagine her as a white guy speaking to an audience saying that.

If you make the reversal and conclude that a man saying that would be an unacceptable racist then so is she.

Update: Darren Hutchinson thinks that it is a PR loser, he might be right but that doesn’t address the question on the floor:

If a White candidate made the statement as indicated above would he be disqualified for even a lower court position?

Reality should always trump PR.

…I would have thought that president Obama would have waited for his 2nd opening for this one due to her radical nature and opinions.

The media will mainstream her as best as possible but i don’t see any chance of her being stopped.

Since she is replacing a reliable liberal vote I would have saved this nominee for attempts to replace a more conservative justice.

I’m wondering if due to the Gitmo issues they felt the need to make sure they made their base happy right away.

We shall see how it goes.

You might recall something I wrote a post about a month ago called Is the worm Turning where I listed a series of items that indicated that things might be changing. In a follow up post I gave this advice:

When the president says he wants a dialog take him up on the offer. And when he ignores it ask: why? Remember how many months has it been since Rush offered him time on his show to debate the issues with him and the White house still has its tail between its legs? Note the dismissive comments at the Tea Party Site by the brave acolytes of this White House. They know their leader’s strength is image not reality so his followers make excuses and insults. This is called fear.

Remember these guys over reach. Don’t forget the feared John Stewart was given a spanking by Bill Whittle and he apologizes publicly.

The worm continues to turn. We just have to keep fighting.

The results of fighting back continue to come:

Item: Dick Cheney proves that more Conan and less Captain America causes fear in Democrats that leads to bad decisions:

White House officials deny that they felt any pressure from Cheney’s prior attacks to give a speech like the one he delivered on Thursday, but they did concede that Obama’s stance has been distorted in the debate over terrorism.

Congressional Democrats, however, tell a different story. Aides to top Senate and House Democrats say congressional leaders dragged the White House into delivering a speech Obama was reluctant to give, pleading directly with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. They warned of the revolt that finally materialized Wednesday when a solid Democratic majority in the Senate was stampeded into a landslide 90-6 vote against the president on funding the closure of Gitmo.

This was supposed to be a mismatch, It was.

Item: The neverending saga of Nancy Pelosi. The republicans have the Democrats on their heels on this issue. It’s so bad even the Boston Globe editorial page can’t defend her.

Item: California, land of liberalism rejects tax increases emphatically and one newspaper is so stung by the the reception of their voter bashing editorial that they back off claiming error as the most popular comment on the page says:

Hi … we’re the SacBee Editorial Board and we’re going to tell you how to vote. When you decide to ignore us and vote against what we’ve told you to do we’re going to lecture you and tell you how stupid you all are. Then, when you have the unmitigated gaul to defend your actions and hold us accountable, we’re going to change our message and hope that you don’t notice. See … now we’re not agreeing with you, you’re agreeing with us. We’re the SacBee Editorial Board and we suck.

Good thing that MSM is on the liberal side isn’t it?

Item: Not only do new polls show pro-life gaining a majority among Americans, but In New Hampshire “Gay Marriage” lost a vote the left thought was a fait accompli. I guess social conservatism can win in New England after all.The media obsession with Carrie Prejean naked tits really galvanizes support for “Gay Marriage” doesn’t it?

Item: Even when we don’t fight the White house is capable of self inflicted wounds as the Kindergarten fiasco manages to not only makes them look heartless but they blow the chance for an incredible photo opt of kindergarten students and the Pittsburgh Steelers making care packages for the troops together.

These people are vulnerable as hell. We need to keep up the pressure. More Conan, less Captain America.

Update: In case you’ve forgotten things have looked much worse before:

In 1977, as in 2009, the future seemed dark for the country’s conservatives, shut out of all of the conduits to power, with nary a bright spot in sight. “The result of the 1976 election was Democrats in power as far as the eye could see,” wrote Michael Barone in Our Country (1992). “It was almost universally expected that the Democrats would hold on to the executive branch for eight years; it was considered unthinkable that they could lose either house of Congress.” “Once again, the death knell of the Republican Party was being sounded,” added Steven F. Hayward, in his two volume study of Reagan. Notes historian John J. Pitney Jr., “The hot bet of the moment was not whether the Republican Party could reshape politics, but whether it could survive at all.”

Gee I wonder what happened next?

You know it hits me that the Monty Python crowd have similar or even more radical views than Whoppi but when i still see I still think silly walks:

Or Biggus Dickus:

Or Nudges:

and of course splunge:

I guess that’s the difference between good humor that fades in the memory and timeless humor that makes you smile for the rest of your life.

…but you know the View has done her a disservice in one way. It’s made us forget.

It hit me today for no particular reason that she is a good actress, Sister Act and the Associate were both very funny. She was first rate in Ghost. That silly basketball movie Eddie was pretty good too.

On Star Trek TNG she was first rate. She was an excellent addition to the cast and made the show better.

Her work with Comic Relief was commendable.

All of that seems to be forgotten because all we see now is the political/gossip side. It’s true a lot of what I cited was from her earlier work but that doesn’t change that it was worthwhile.

One of the problems with political discourse is that it can provoke a reaction. Goldberg used to produce a smile when I saw her, now when I see her I think: “Bush Hater”, “Palin Hater”.

It’s a bit of a shame but that’s the price of being out there like that.

More fallout and the Vice president continues to shine.

7:04 a.m. You want me on that bunker you need me on that bunker.

7:06 a.m. The NYT tries to say these guys were radicalized in Gitmo, excuse time.

7:10 a.m. You can’t just beat your chest.

7:12 a.m. He is comparing the left position to a protestant televangelist, that’s gotta leave a mark.

7:16 a.m. Here is the Nicholson speech that they are talking about.

7:21 a.m. Of course they welcomed it they planed to upstage the Vice President and it blew up in their faces.

7:36 a.m. Did Freeman not just condemn Cheney et/al then say sometimes it has to be done.

7:38 a.m. Deutsch makes my point about the timing.

7:40 a.m. Grey is the new black? This sounds like waffling to me.

7:55 a.m. I don’t think it’s hard case at all, the blogs and the grassroots didn’t like big government conservatism and spoke out about it loudly.

8:04 a.m. There has never been a successful escape from stalag 13 a supermax prison. Is it just me or do these guys all sound like Klink?

8:07 a.m. Last time Liz Cheney cleaned all their clocks lets see what she does today.

8:09 a.m. Deutsch tries to bait Cheney into calling the president a liar, she not only doesn’t fall in the trap but point out the material isn’t released and Joe point out he can release it at any time.

8:11 a.m. Donnie loses the argument on the: If this is 9/12 I would say take out the steak knives. The point is EVERY DAY IS 9/12!

8:13 a.m. She is cutting him to pieces. She nails it once they are on US soil then the Federal judges can make rulings to make the difference.

8:14 a.m. He says things as a platitude. God this woman is good!

8:16 a.m. The NYT guy point out he was talking about the dangers of the world in 1993.

8:24 a.m. Donnie is right they are close in one respect, The White House is going to do what Cheney says, they are just going to say that they aren’t going to do it.

…not only will fox, MSNBC and CNN all carry both speeches but because they will finish before 11 a.m. RUSH will be able to pick apart both speeches on his show. It will be teed up for him, just what the White House doesn’t want.

I jumped over to CNN and watched the reporter tie herself in knots saying first that the republicans want the vice president to go away and in the very next sentence went on how the republicans have won a significant victory on this issue.

Oh and after 5 months of president Obama both president Bush’s and VP Cheney’s approval numbers are up (6 and 8 point respectively).

If those numbers keep up Romney will need to neutralize Cheney not Palin.

It has been suggested that the president is very wise scheduling a speech suddenly today against the former Vice president:

1) The Obama White House runs the savviest information ops of any White House in modern history. This is all about rebutting an increasingly effective exponent of aggressive counter-terrorism policies. 2) Why do it? The simple answer is that the public is listening to Cheney on the issues, and if the Democratic Congress’s decision this week to deny funding to close Gitmo is any indication, finger-in-the-wind politicians are listening, too.

Already today on Morning Joe Vice president Cheney’s speech is being called the “Republican response” even though it was scheduled long before the president making it seem a “me too” speech in perception. That’s smart right?

My opinion is different. These guys are falling into the Rush CPAC trap.

Consider a few months ago, the White House and Limbaugh traded barbs (the White House STILL hasn’t taken Rush offer of radio time cluck, cluck ) because of this the CPAC speech which would have normally been ignored by the networks was carried by both FOX and CNN live exposing his ACTUAL opinions and positions directly thousands of people who would have never heard a word he ever said unfiltered by the media. It’s hard to demonize someone when you have actually heard him someone yourself. The increased audience for Rush and the success of the Tea party movement show this.

Now if the president had not given his speech today, the vice president speech would have been given and individual sound bites would have been picked up by the MSM and spun according to their whims to favor the White House.

Instead because of the president’s speech Vice President’s speech will be covered live and unfiltered. The public will not only be able to hear his position articulated but also articulated in a speech that he has had time to write and develop. At best it could be a game changer for the debate, at worst people who have only seen a filtered or caricature of the vice president will see the real thing.Minds will be changed.

Meanwhile the president, a fine speaker, will be reading a speech developed quickly in response to political issues. He has a good staff and I’m sure the speech will not be bad, but it’s very nature is reactive and it is not credible to assert that a speech written over the course of a day will be superior to one developed over time.

Add to that the Vice president convictions and experience on the issues of government and the difference will be noticed!

The end result will be pressure to pressure a policy that keeps America safer. That makes us all winners.

Update: Michelle nails it:

I, for one, and gratified to see this White House forced to put national security on the front burner. If not for the forceful public defenses by Vice President Cheney of the aggressive, proactive measures the last administration took to keep us safe, the current commander-in-chief would be happily gabbling about solar panels and weatherization subsidies or somesuch.

Well Michael Graham is going on about the changes and charges concerning credit cards.

Since I’m not one to pay fees it means that I’ll be using my card much less if I don’t cancel them. Lucky for me there is this wonderful invention called Cash and another innovation called checks I will be using these new things more often. The end result will be as follows:

The first loser is of course the credit card company. They lose the 3% on every purchase that they were making from the people who accepted cards. Every new purchase and every bill I don’t pay with those credit cards is 3% they don’t make.

Since I will need the cash etc that means less discretionary spending that means retailers and resturants that I would normally have spent money at won’t get it. They Lose.

Since I won’t be earning Amazon coupons I’ll be going there less, I invariablly spend more than the coupon so those purchases go.

And of course the Amazon coupons that I would give as gifts are gone too, that much less those guys get.

There are some winners. Providers of necessary items and utilities win since they aren’t paying the 3% to the companies.

However the gas station loses since it’s cash on hand I won’t be getting the car wash I would get with my fill-up.

And since I’m waiting on the paychecks rather than a time of the month no extra stuff to buy at the supermarket.

This also means that I’ll be paying bills with checks instead of credit cards too so the

Since there is this wonderful invention called Cash and another inovation called checks I will be using these new things more often.

Hey if they don’t want my money I have no problem keeping it.

Jeff Jacoby gets it:

International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs’ goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down.

He also points out some pre-Israel history.

In 1936, when Palestine was still under British rule, a royal commission headed by Lord Peel was sent to investigate the steadily worsening Arab violence. After a detailed inquiry, the Peel Commission concluded that “an irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country.” It recommended a two-state solution – a partition of the land into separate Arab and Jewish states. “Partition offers a chance of ultimate peace,” the commission reported. “No other plan does.”

But the Arab leaders, more intent on preventing Jewish sovereignty in Palestine than in achieving a state for themselves, rejected the Peel plan out of hand. The foremost Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actively supported the Nazi regime in Germany. In return, Husseini wrote in his memoirs, Hitler promised him “a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world.”

I thought it was the west bank and gaza that was the cause of the trouble? That’s what we’ve been told. He cuts to the chase:

To this day, the charters of Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian factions, call for Israel’s liquidation. “The whole world” may want peace and a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want something very different.

The only thing the Palestinians want from the Jews are their lives.

Update: Nordlinger hits it out of the park in his entire Impromptus today but these two paragraphs complement this post perfectly:

There are major Arab excuse-makers here by the Dead Sea — and the leading one, I would say, is Amr Moussa, the longtime secretary-general of the Arab League. He is the epitome, the purest representative, of the Old Guard. But you know who most of the excuse-makers are? Americans and Europeans. Middle Easterners themselves are far more likely to be candid and clear-eyed.

They’re the ones who have to live with these problems. They’re the ones who have to live with a lack of progress. Americans and Europeans can sit in their free societies, fat and happy, and say, “Damn those Israelis, and damn us meddling, injurious Westerners.”

Read it all.

I mentioned last week that it would take two generations before the damage from changes such as “Gay Marriage” shows up. (The two generations rule often works with positive things too btw) but Maggie Gallagher finds some effects that show up after only 5 years:

A further 36 percent of voters who oppose gay marriage agreed with the statement, “If you speak out against gay marriage in Massachusetts you really have to watch your back because some people may try to hurt you.” (Twenty-six percent agreed strongly.) Fifteen percent of voters who oppose gay marriage say they personally know someone who experienced harassment or intimidation because of their belief that marriage involves a man and a woman. (emphasis mine)

This can’t be, supporters of Gay Marriage are supporters of tolerance right?

The NOM/MFI Massachusetts Marriage Poll thus documents a fairly significant level of apprehension among voters who oppose gay marriage about the consequences of speaking openly or acting on their belief that marriage means a husband and wife.

Nothing like a little fear, particularly in a bad economy. Believing Catholics need not apply I guess.

What difference has gay marriage made five years later? Support for the idea that children need a mom and dad has dropped, and a substantial minority of people believe it is risky to oppose gay marriage openly.

Yet another reason for my boys to go.

…unfortunately the state they will raise the revenue is New Hampshire:

The Massachusetts Senate approved a 25 percent increase in the state sales tax by a veto-proof 29-10 vote on Tuesday.

and that’s not all!

On a voice vote, senators also agreed to lift an existing exemption from the sales tax on beer, wine and alcohol purchased in stores — a change that could bring an estimated $80 million for substance abuse programs.

One of those rare creatures in Massachusetts known as republican senators had this to say:

Opponents pointed out that, of the five states bordering
Massachusetts, only Rhode Island, at 7 percent, has a sales tax rate above 6.25 percent. Only eight states nationwide have a higher rate. They warned that the higher tax rate would hurt the state’s ability to recover from the recession.

“Maybe we should call this the New Hampshire economic stimulus
bill,” Senator Robert L. Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican, said with sarcasm.

Massachusetts isn’t a large state and New Hampshire is not more than 90 minutes from any point in the state. This is about as stupid as it gets.

There is a reason why New Hampshire has so much development just across the border.

I was reading the story to my son who starts college in the fall. He is an almost straight A student. He will make something of himself, but it won’t be in Massachusetts. He is exactly the type of person who is going to get out of here.

I’m nearing 50, my mother is 84 and has years ahead of her, I’ll be staying here but if this state doesn’t want my honor student boys then so be it.

And people wonder why there are tea parties…

Crashed on the couch after game night and woke to Morning Joe:

7:45 a.m. Did I just wake to see Chris Dodd talking credit cards, oh joy.

7:47 a.m. How can you question Dodd about his troubles and not mention Countrywide or the Irish Cottage?

7:49 a.m. Joe forgot the last line of the quote…go and avoid this sin.

7:52 a.m. This guy Rubin seems to be cheering $4 gas. He should be thinking WWGPD? What Would Gateway Pundit Do? He would Drill!

8:05 a.m. More people get killed on the roads and new cars become more unaffordable, also Since steel is removed US steel makers take another hit. Plus the taxpayer will end up paying for the re-tooling as Rush said

8:07 a.m. The problem is the price of the car, I haven’t bought a new car in almost 20 years, they are too expensive. This is due to the Union costs

8:09 a.m. The Gitmo trap has bit them on the rear, and Mika is actually spinning a bit on the we didn’t build Gitmo.

8:16 a.m. Ford talks sense.

8:28 a.m. Barnicle’s doctor is Ryan’s uncle. Small world.

8:32 a.m. Specifics from a pol. Amazing!

8:45 a.m. Yeah Cheney is bad, that’s why Obama and Pelosi is running away from their Gitmo and Waterboarding stuff.

8:47 a.m. I would point out that Goldwater led directly to Reagan.

Picking up on the post yesterday concerning the supreme court something hit me this morning.

As you might have gathered I have a beef against the 60’s. I think the cultural changes have produced a lot of problems but there have been some changes of a very positive nature and one of the results of those changes is before us.

Professor Hutchinson and I have a chicken and egg argument in that would like to see “diversity” highlighted as a reason for a choice while noting that there are many qualified candidates who meet that test. I wish to see qualifications highlighted and diversity de-emphasized but note that there are plenty of “diversity” candidates that meet the qualifications standard that I have and if that standard is achieved I’m satisfied.

The amazing and wonderful thing is the increase of the pool of “diverse” candidates that are without a doubt qualified for the position.

Think 1968, there is no question that Thurgood Marshall would be a on short list for the supreme court in terms of qualifications but how large would be the pool of “diverse” candidates with his qualifications existed? Or at least were known by the general public?

Fast forward two generations we are having the debate over a new opening on the court. If the president wants to make a choice based on color or race it is actually much harder, not because of the breaking of a barrier but because of the number of qualified candidates to choose from, in fact it would take real effort for the president to choose an unqualified “person of color”.

This is an incredible thing, and the country should celebrate this fact. This is the ultimate success of the civil rights movement and the reason why at the time affirmative action was not a bad idea. The moves made two generations ago produced the pool of qualified candidates and assures us of that pool from this point on.

President Johnson had the problem of getting the country to accept a supremely qualified candidate for the high court who happened to be black. President Obama has the opposite problem, choosing one candidate from a large pool of supremely qualified candidates.

The fact that nobody notices how wonderful this is , shows how far we’ve come. Life is pretty good and we don’t even realize it.

Jay echos Steyn in today’s impromptus with this bit:

Begin with the flight — my flight from JFK in New York to Queen Alia International in Amman. I can’t help thinking of Mark Steyn. It’s natural to think of Mark Steyn, isn’t it? In this particular case, I’m thinking of demography, and all the arguments Mark has made over the years. He speaks about “demographic energy”: and this is not coming from Westerners.

On my Royal Jordanian flight are many, many children. I believe half the passengers are under ten. Seriously. Parents have brought along three children, four children, five children, more. And I find myself thinking, “My, what large families.” But, when I was growing up — in good old America — that was pretty unremarkable, routine. Now there’s one child, or two if you’re really, really fecund and reckless. And these Middle Eastern families seem: large. “It’s all relative,” as the saying goes (and in this case there’s a double meaning, I guess).

Whenever I am on a “Third World flight” — impolite term — I notice this: children. On the flights within the U.S. I take, children are almost a novelty. Same with flights to and from Europe. But whenever I wander beyond those regions: kid-o-rama.

This cannot be without consequences, can it? Whether you regard them as good or bad: It cannot be without consequences. For more, please consult Mark Steyn.

You just don’t think long range when you have few children or no sense of an afterlife, you tend to be narcissistic and live for the now. This is what the drug culture and the changes of the 60’s have wrought. I’m not likely to live to see the final results but it will be a tough time for my boys.

…and that doesn’t happen all that often:

Yeah, that’s the ticket. Because only Obama, who did very little before taking on the Oval Office, has the wisdom and the gravitas to bring Netanyahu to such a position. You can’t expect the 83 year-old professor who lived through Nazism and Statism and understands that the greatest evils of the 20th century began with people disrespecting the personhood of the guy standing next to them, to have had any impact on Israel’s thinking.

You can’t expect an old intellectual who has been talking about the battle between truth and relativism from his teenage years in a POW camp, through his elevation to the papacy, to have contributed anything of value to the decades-long acrimonies of the Middle Eastern Nations can you?

It’s the Bookworm who nails it:

What the loopy-loo wackos on the Left (and, increasingly, in the middle) don’t understand, is that the Arabs have never wanted and will never want a two state solution. They want a Judenrein world, and they’re patient.

It is this desire for a one state (all Arab) solution, that explains why, as Rick Richman points out, no Middle East solutions have worked thus far.

Until the Arabs want a “two state” solution it doesn’t matter what Israel thinks. One of three things will happen. Either the Arabs will manage to slaughter the Jews, the Jews will finally decide they have enough and decide to slaughter the Arabs (which they’ve had the ability to do for decades, for all the cries of Jewish genocide of Arabs they are sure doing a lousy job of it aren’t they), or the Arabs will decide to live in peace.

Unless choice three comes about, choice one or two is inevitable. It’s just a question of when.

Oh and if you are of the mind that God will not permit the destruction of Israel (choice 1) that’s just not true. He has allowed the Kingdoms of Israel to fall over and over again, but he has never allowed the Jewish People to be eliminated. The history of the people of Israel is a sine wave; they rise and fall just as Moses predicted. In fact it pre-figures the cycle of confession and repentance in the church: man sins, man repents, God forgives, man is tempted and repeat until death or man escapes sin state.

…as a qualification is not grasped by Talk Left:

Empathy — for the little guy, for the powerless, for the meek and mute and broken members of society who aren’t noticed by conservative judges, who can’t afford teams of lawyers to plead their cases — empathy allows their voices to be heard: voices of the ordinary and common, voices of the frightened and dispossessed, voices that deserve the attention of Supreme Court Justices.

Is that we can see what liberal empathy has done with urban areas such as Detroit, Washington DC etc. Place after place becoming dependent.

That isn’t the reason why it’s an issue the real problem is you never know who someone might empathize with. Empathy makes for good friends and neighbors but bad law, because the rules are not consistent.

But it’s a moot point anyway since the president will choose who he wants and there is almost no chance that anyone will be able to stop it.

I generally disagree with Darren Hutchinson but you can be sure he will give you not only an honest argument but a reasoned one. He does so again today on the subject of identity politics and the court:

Although Obama relied upon identity politics for his electoral success, the White House is instructing GLBT, Latino and women’s groups to kill the identity talk. Several GLBT, Latino and women’s civil rights groups have urged the president to pick a candidate who will enhance the Court’s diversity. No openly gay or Latino person has ever sat on the Supreme Court. Only two women (both white) have occupied a seat on the Court. And two black men have also served on the Court.

I agree that the candidate should not look like a “token” hire, but there are many persons of color, women, and GLBT lawyers who would make excellent Supreme Court justices.

Now of course who I would like to see on the court and who Professor Hutchinson would like to see are likely as night and day philosophically but like the professor I think a token hire is a bad idea. However the professor also says this:

White House is doing its best to toss aside the very identity-based movements and politics that won the election for Obama. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that: “I don’t think that the lobbying of interest groups will help. . . .I think in many ways lobbying can – and will –be counterproductive.” Of course, Gibbs never identifies the dangers the groups create by stating their preference for diversity. Also, it seems odd that Gibbs would disparage “special interest” groups, when labor, civil rights, feminist, pro-choice, anti-war, glbt, and many other “interest groups” are essential components of the Democratic Party. Without their support, neither Obama nor Gibbs would have a job at the White House.

That may be so but it’s not relevant. You don’t want to end up with a “Black” seat or the “Asian” seat or the “Latino” seat etc etc etc.

Of course among equally qualified candidates race is irrelevant as long as the candidate is well qualified all the other stuff is moot.

The whitehouse is doing the right thing in de-emphasizing identity. Not only is it patronizing but once you have a quota established then it becomes an entitlement and that will divide us even further.

The disagreement is about a principle since of course the president will almost certainly make an identity choice. Unless there is an old Chicago debt (a la Abe Fortis) to pay back I can’t imagine that either of us will be disappointed with at least the qualifications of the selection.

Update: Somehow missed the word “like” in a sentence above.

Unfortunately our Dynasty baseball league lost a player and as league Treasurer I will be the “interim” manager for the orphan team.

Although the game is pretty good I’m not really looking to go back to our league full time so a new full-time manager is in order.

If you are in the central Massachusetts area or can be on a weekly basis and are interested in joining a face to face tabletop baseball league that has been active in the area for 21 years then leave a message in comments and we can get the ball rolling.

For all of those who try to make the Abortion compromise business as the president suggested or argue about “hey how can you vote for War and be Catholic” lets play the “Safe legal Rare game”:

You can use that phrase with the word “War”

War should be “Safe”…for civilians.

“Legal” because a country has to right to defend itself or defend its future.

and “Rare” because War should never be the first resort.

Ok now try that with:

Slavery, or Torture, or genocide.

You can’t use that phrase with it because they are intrinsic evils. The same is true of abortion. It just doesn’t work.

This is the argument that should come out every time. This and Nordlinger’s question on why should Abortion be rare if it isn’t wrong?

Update: Added links