A man who said he left a ruthless street gang in Central America and later won praise for his anti-gang work in Los Angeles was arrested Wednesday by authorities who allege he conspired to kill a rival even as he spoke out against gang life.
Alex Sanchez, 37, who heads the local office of the nonprofit Homies Unidos anti-gang group, was taken into custody at his Bellflower home on federal racketeering charges
I may be what some call a “wanna be” but I think this would be what people might consider a “legitimate story” as opposed to what Sam Stein calls: “fairly uncontroversial” at Huffpo. At least Talking Points Memo implies by its very name that it is spinning.
Normally one would not consider the video in question an example of “raising the level of debate” but it’s hard not to raise the level when it started at zero. But in the interest of raising the level of debate lets instead embed this video by Kerry Pickett on a protest in the NY 9th District to ask Anthony Weiner to resign:
Talk about a classic Brooklyn accent. I’ll bet his parents or grandparents were Dodger fans.
I’m going to make a couple of assumptions here: married women don’t like being cheated on, women don’t like being sex slaves, and there’s more to life than screwing around.
Wintery Knight opines that women allow men to cheat: we simply do not hold men to high standards. (Little Miss Attila and her commentariat have more.) He’s largely correct: women who stay with their husbands for power (e.g. Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Shriver) condone their husbands’ infidelity. Likewise, it’s impossible to commit adultery without another willing partner (absent rape), and the women who sleep with married men are making his infidelity possible. My disagreements with him are limited: I don’t hold much against women like Jenny Sanford and Elin Nordegen, who were devoted, caring wives who kicked their cheating husbands to the curb. If a man cannot be compelled to stay faithful for the sake of his own wedding vows, he may stay faithful because of fear that his wife will find out and leave him.
We want our youth to be protected from adultery,” said Al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout merchants.
This is not religiously forbidden,” she added, indicating that Caliph Haroun Al-Rashid (766-809 AD) was married to one woman but possessed 200 concubines.
(Hat tip: Michael Graham.) Rather than putting female prisoners of war in, say, a female prison until the end of the war, or given asylum in a different country, we should take these poverty-stricken, suffering women and sell them into rape. That way, a powerful man doesn’t have to worry about having a stain on his immortal soul; the only cost to this is the sanity, health, dignity, and integrity of a poor woman from a war-torn nation. Note to Al-Mutairi: perhaps the prohibitions on adultery are there because otherwise, men would feel free to abuse their positions to take advantage of women who do not have their advantages in society.
Jack Kevorkian died yesterday at the age of 83, after complications from pneumonia and kidney problems. (NYT story here.) Kevorkian had been in the hospital for a month, and, despite his failing condition, did not seek unnatural ways of ending his life. By all accounts, the 83-year-old fought for his life until yesterday.
Unfortunately, he lost that battle. Now, Kevorkian will never understand that the cause to which he dedicated his life was horrifically wrong, that doctor-assisted death is not a part of medicine, nor that so-called euthanasia is anything but compassionate. Now, none of the seven billion people on this planet can hear words that could change history: “I was wrong”. Kevorkian will never be the Bernard Nathanson of the pro-life movement, natural death or not.
Ronald Reagan said that everyone who is pro-choice has already been born. On the other end of life, advocates for doctor-assisted death do not realise how wrong they are until it is too late – until they are already dead. We can see that “euthanasia”, which begins as a voluntary procedure (or as voluntary as it can be, given the circumstances these people are in) has become much less voluntary. In the Netherlands, upwards of 20% of people who are put to death do not even know that it is happening, let alone consent. Oregon considered not paying for some cancer treatments but paying for suicide. (When the government takes your money for your own health care and refuses to give it to you unless you kill yourself, there is a problem that goes far beyond helping terminally ill people through their final days.)
That the culture of death lead to such perversions is hardly surprising: euthanasia is predicated on the belief that the right to life is not unalienable, nor the right from which all other rights flow. It also warps the meaning of “human dignity” from a concept in which all humans, regardless of state and station in life, are considered of equal and infinite worth, to a conditional meaning of the term. Euthanasia, like abortion, is about conditional love, conditional rights, and conditional human dignity. Strong people get them; the weak, elderly, and young do not – a situation which is the exact opposite of the aims of any sane civilisation.
I challenge anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the propaganda of Germany in the 30’s and 40’s to go to the link and claim that this is simply opposing a medical procedure. I challenge the author of this comic or any of the commentators at Joe My God to show these images to any of the survivors of the camps or any of the still living troops who liberated them and ask THEM if this is anti-Semitic.
The first amendment protects this speech but remember, this is a clearly drawn line. Where you stand on it self identifies you for what you are.
And just a reminder of where we once were
I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that I would see something like this from a “mainstream” non-nazi, non-klan group in America in the 21st century. That the children and grandchildren of those who fought in Europe could do this is beyond me.
Update: This bears repeating, I invite any other blogger to use this image today in solidarity with the Jews and join with me in stealing a line from the fictitious Fr. O’Malley:
Abdul: What is your name?
Father O’Malley: William O’Malley.
Abdul: I did not call you.
Father O’Malley: You called for all the Jews. I’m Jewish, just like Jesus Christ. You take one, you gotta take us all.
Fr O’Malley’s clip starts at 4:35
We must loudly stand against this. Justice and honor demands it!
2. If the answer to question one is “No” since the highly liberal New York Times took 160 years to have an openly gay op/ed columnist have we established that “160 years” is an acceptable watermark/deliminator to decide how quickly institutions can wait before advancing an opening gay person to their most prestigious positions without being considered bigots/racists/homophobes?
I maintain that the tabloids which, the moment this story broke, and before we were aware of his version of the facts—or any facts at all—called Strauss-Kahn a “perv” (the New York Daily News headline), were indignant at his release on bail (the New York Post: “Frog Legs It”) and echoed unconfirmed rumors, always playing against him and changing every two hours (hasty departure… airline ticket purchased at the last minute… looking stressed out…), have set themselves up as judges in the place of the judges—which is still another infraction of the most elementary of rules of law.
Little Miss Attila promised our listeners a series of links on dressing for the Modesty movement and she has delivered.
This is not a guide for starting your career and acquiring a work wardrobe, which is a more specialized subject. Rather, we’re talking about what they call “sportswear,” which has become, in department-store speak, a term for casual clothing. This is also not a resource for how you should dress at church, or in your temple or mosque. (Although I would double-check the cut of your slacks, and put an overshirt or silk cardigan over that tank top; if the air-conditioning is working, there’s no reason to show a lot of skin during a church service. You know what I’m sayin’?)
Before Today’s Show Coach Dan Duddy have a word with me about his book:
After the show the Coach spoke at the Il Camino about his upcoming book
Batman didn’t have a game date. American boys need mentoring not coddling. his appearance was arranged by some of the same folks developing Catholic radio for Fitchburg.
He talked about how his mentor always taught him you have to stop your opponents three best plays. As he put is Satan’s three prime targets are the family, the young and the clergy. Without strong families the young are not taught properly, weakness in the clergy discourages the young from choosing the priesthood and without the priesthood there is no sacrament of Holy Communion and that is as he put it the Atom bomb to Satan.
He reminded all that Saints are just sinners who kept trying, I spoke to him after his appearance on my radio show where he stressed that it is not a question of being perfect, we all fail, but it’s a question of getting right back up and going on. That is the message he gives to his young men if they fail on the football field or in life.
His message about mentoring and responsibility has advice that can of course apply to the secular minded. He reminding his listeners that your young men today live better than royalty of years past. He pointing out that in doing and service men find their way and become themselves: “It is in our generosity that we find our true calling as men.” He reminded the attendees that we are all born to die and “A man’s last words or actions are his legacy.” and it is those actions that define how we are remembered and the legacy and inspiration we leave behind.
We hope to have Coach Duddy back when his book is released, meanwhile you’ll want to see him if he appears anywhere nearby.
I have been reading textbooks for decades, the left complaining about a change in direction in Textbooks is an incredible laugh considering the leftward turn their version of “history” had taken. They give the game away in this paragraph:
Up until the 1950s, textbooks painted American history as a steady string of triumphs, but the upheavals of the 1960s shook up old hierarchies, and beginning in the latter part of the decade, textbook publishers scrambled to rewrite their books to make more space for women and minorities. They also began delving more deeply into thorny issues, like slavery and American interventionism. As they did, a new image of America began to take shape that was not only more varied, but also far gloomier than the old one. Author Frances FitzGerald has called this chain of events “the most dramatic rewriting of history ever to take place.”
The wording of this paragraph is interesting, the idea that textbook publishers “scrambled to rewrite their books” belies the left’s efforts for re-writes of American History to paint America in an unflattering light. For decades the left in Academia pushed this thesis practically without opposition. Unfortunately for them, the right has taken notice and has used things like the internet to mobilize with some success.
Let’s also not forget where the US was in terms of education before the upheavals of the 60’s and 70’s and where we are now. The policies and programs of the left can certainly take a bow for it. There is also a real irony in this paragraph:
Until recently, Texas’s influence was balanced to some degree by the more-liberal pull of California, the nation’s largest textbook market. But its economy is in such shambles that California has put off buying new books until at least 2014. This means that McLeroy and his ultraconservative crew have unparalleled power to shape the textbooks that children around the country read for years to come.
So in other words the leftist mecca that has been driven by an overwhelmingly democratic legislature and whose laws have gone farther and farther in the direction our objecting friends has desired have become such a basket state that they are unable to influence people to follow their cultural example? And this is a bad thing?
Cultural shifts and opinion are normal in a society. The left, unable to grasp that they have no divine right to shape culture nor able to obtain the imprimatur of the people can only insult and attempt to marginalize those who have beaten them. I’m not surprised, it’s easier than making an actual argument, particularly when history is against them.