A Few Acres of Snow

"King Louis XV of France was in conversation with Voltaire when he received the dreadful news that Canada was no longer French, but British. Aware of his sovereign's anguish, Voltaire spoke to him consolingly:

"After all sire, what have we lost ~ a few acres of snow?"

Thus begins the book "A Few Acres of Snow" by Robert Leckie.
One of history's all-time understatements made by one of histories greatest minds.

Misunderstandings and understatements. How much further would life be if those two things didn't exist?

The Sincerest Form of Flattery

Raymond Fiest, author of the Riftwar Saga, exposes his readers to an alien planet with huge cities yet Draconian art and literature. A main character remarks that the society is dying a slow death because there are no new ideas, either in song or literature. Each song is simply a variation of a common one, as is artwork.

I believe we're coming to a period in our society where we could be in the midst of a slow death. How many original movies and songs have you heard lately? Movie remakes and sequels set records.

Original thought and execution would be a wonderful breath of fresh air.

Something I never thought I'd Say

Looking at the Democratic landscape, it's interesting to see the DNC search for its voice. For the first time in recent memory, there isn't a person who lends credibility in speaking for that party.

Going back to the 1960's, from Kennedy, LBJ. In the '70s, you had Teddy, Carter. During the Reagan years, Teddy, Tip O'Neill. 1990's, the Clintons basically ran the show. However, since Al Gore dropped the torch in 2000, what one democrat is the face and voice of the party? Pelosi and Reid certainly showed they weren't up to the task in the Democratic response to the State of the Union. Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Byrd, and Dean all have taken turns in recent weeks, nobody has shown anything other than bitter paritisanship.

The one person who has been consistent in her message and ability to at least show a willingness to work with the GOP? Hillary Clinton. It pains me to say that, me being ardently pro-life, but Senator Clinton has been the only person in recent months to show herself to be above the bickering ~ at least in public ~ that her DNC mates have perfected. Her positions on defense have distanced herself from the Kerry/Kennedy debacle. Her reasoned responses have pushed her away from the Boxer Rebellion and Dean. Her willingness to discuss moving towards "common ground" regarding abortion is really un-DNC.

Unless she sheds the yoke of NARAL, I probably will never vote for Sen. Clinton if she does indeed become the Democratic candidate for president in 2008. But at least she gives the DNC a face of credibility, something that hasn't existed in five years.

A voice in the Wilderness

Since moving to our new town several months ago, I've had difficulty accepting our new home Catholic parish. The church where we moved from was very traditional and conservative. Our new parish is close, but there are some subtle differences. My biggest gripes include not having 100% kneelers in the church, no bells during Consecration, and omitting words in the Nicene Creed to make it PC.

Every time I reach a point where I don't like this parish, the priest, Father Don, delivers on something I think the American Catholic Church is lacking: leadership.

During his homily, Fr. Don criticized the ABC TV show "Desparate Housewives," saying that any TV show that condones adultery towards one's spouse is dispicable and "no Catholic" should watch it. He also mentioned an adult "club" that's about five miles north of town. Using the same tough language, he lamented the fact that it also promotes adultery.

I find it extremely comforting to hear those warnings. Call me old-fashioned, but listening to a person in authority, in terms of spritual and morality, condeming something mainstream like a TV show, is wonderful. If our American Catholic Church had more men of mettle, I wonder what our social landscape would look like.

Need a reason for a chasity belt?

Dr. John R. Diggs on HPV:

Students reading this article have to pay the bill for the cavalier ways of the sexual revolution. At some colleges the rate of HPV infection stands at 20%, or 1 in 5 young women. Two decades of condom and “safe sex” promotion has resulted in more than 65 million Americans over age 12 having an incurable STD according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Later in the article, he mentions the fallacy about the safety condoms provide:

The most dangerous misinformation surrounding HPV today is the myth that prophylactics will protect women. "Condoms, condoms, condoms," cry university health staffs. Incredibly, condoms are offered up like sacrifices to ‘the pleasure god’ to ward off ugly HPV. However, scientifically, condoms have been shown to be ineffective in significantly reducing HPV transmission. Lacking an alternative, public health officers are loath to admit this. They are left to sigh, shrug, and slide condoms across the desk. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) say:

For HPV, the Panel concluded that there was no epidemiologic evidence that condom use reduced the risk of HPV infection, but study results did suggest that condom use might afford some protection in reducing the risk of HPV-associated diseases, including warts in men and cervical neoplasia [cancer or precancer] in women.

Notice that the NIH says condoms “might afford some protection” and not “do provide protection.” The research on condoms fails to show significant protection. If the world’s biggest medical research organization cannot say ‘they work,’ should you really rely on condoms to protect you from genital warts and cervical cancer?

So, you have a docter of internal medicine with a degree from Harvard who is expert in the field of STDs saying condoms don't work in preventing STDs like genital herpes. Contrast this with this from our friends at Planned Parenthood:

In their efforts to discredit the effectiveness of condoms, right-wing ideologues who want to institute sexual abstinence until marriage as a standard for all Americans have instigated an alarmist and misleading public policy and media campaign about very common, and usually benign, sexually transmitted infections — the human papilloma viruses (HPVs). State and federal legislative bills have been introduced, misinformation has been disseminated, and lawsuits have been threatened to inspire public doubt about condom use and unnecessary alarm among the many sexually active women and men — as many as three out of four — who have been infected with this extremely common, and most often harmless, infection.

So, PP says condoms are effective in preventing HPV. Ironically, PP's condoms, that they distribute, are the worst the market has to offer.

It's hard to remember that PP is there to help women despite the fact that they readily hand out condoms that don't work (thereby increasing their "supply" of pregnant women seeking abortions) and don't prevent a disease that is linked to cervical cancer.

Good to see where their loyalties lie, eh?

Swami Says

First, Afghanistan was all over the news and became a quagmire. The MSM reported every battle it could, emphasizing the quagmire. Their elections came up and the talking heads warned that voting wouldn't happen.

Well, Afghanistan's election occurred swimmingly. Since there was nothing but good news to report, the MSM moved on to Iraq.

Iraq soon became President Bush's Vietnam, another quagmire. Pundits from the NY Times and other left mouthpieces, like ex-President Carter, repeatedly sounded the horn on how the Iraqi elections were doomed to failure. Well, as you know, history was made on 1/30.

I'm willing to bet somebody else's paycheck that because Armageddon didn't occur in Iraq, the MSM will move on to different pastures, probably social security, and banish Iraq to Afghanistan-level reporting only because our media have shorter attention spans than we do.

Sometimes Bias is Subtle

Hugh Hewitt on Kerry/Russert:

... John Kerry's extraordinary interview with Tim Russert last Sunday. There's a lot to absorb here, including Kerry's assertion that he did indeed run guns and CIA men into Cambodia on secret missions--and to aid the Khmer Rouge no less!

What is really remarkable is not Kerry's whoppers--he couldn't have meant the Khmer Rouge, right?--or his almost certain not-to-be-fulfilled pledge to sign the form 180. It is the set of questions Tim Russert posed.

Russert is generally regarded as the toughest interview in television, and he did bleed Kerry a bit during the campaign; afterwards Kerry never again came close to Russert's set before November 2.

But if the questions posed by Russert on January 30, 2005--on Kerry's fantasy life in Cambodia, on the sequestered records, etc.--were legitimate and useful inquiries after the votes have been cast, why then did no one pose them to candidate Kerry when they might have made a difference in the election? The blogosphere and the center-right media were full of such demands from August 1 forward, but not a single reporter from mainstream media bothered to pose even one of the Russert questions prior to the vote.

Why was that?

If the country's most respected television journalist asks a series of questions after the election that no one asked during the contest, doesn't that tell us all we need to know about the mainstream media's coverage of Kerry? Doesn't that conclusively answer the question of whether the debate moderators really came to the stage prepared to ask the questions that mattered most?

But we knew that, didn't we? Tim Russert just provided the proof.

The pathetic effort to avoid posing tough questions to Kerry (and by contrast the Mapes-like fanaticism against Bush) highlights the almost lunatic imbalance of ideologies within mainstream media. Tim Russert may have taken aim at Kerry's Walter Mittyisms, but he hit his journalistic colleagues instead.

Bias? What bias?

Lost it in the follow-through

In today's NY Times:

Pope John Paul II was stable and working from his hospital bed on Wednesday, the Vatican said, after a scare that again raised questions about his failing health and the succession of leadership in the Roman Catholic Church.

Why would there be questions of succession of leadership in the Catholic Church? When the Holy Father passes away, which happens to every human, Pope or not, a new Pope is elected. Just like it has happened for the past 2,000 years.

Another thing that bothers me is the fact that the quote is the fourth paragraph in the story (it was the lede this morning). Read the whole thing. Nowhere else does it mention anything about succession.

This a good example of poor editing and I think lazy reporting.

Howard Dean Hates Me

A couple of days ago, Howard Dean was quoted in the NY Daily News:

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization."

I pointed this quote out to a Dean supporter who is a friend. She said, quite correctly, that just because she supported Dean, she doesn't have to agree with 100% of what he says.

I'm the same way. My wife is my best friend. I hope I show her the support she deserves. I also don't agree with 100% of what she says.

What I'd like to know, however, is this: is Dean making that statement simply to gain support in his quest to become DNC Chair, or does he truly hate everything about Republicans? To me, that's key.

I voted Republican in each of the last elections. I guess that would make me a Republican even though I don't classify myself one. If Dean hates everything I stand for, my God, my family, and my country, what does that make Howard Dean?

How can our country function if people like Dean truly hate?

Update: I should clarify, I don't know if Dean really feels this way or if it's just political posturing. I really hope it's posturing.

What? I stink?

A few years ago, I worked as a technical writer for a company that manufactures dairy parlor equipment. On occasion, I would have to leave the office during the day and travel to a local dairy farm to install equipment that I was writing an installation manual for.

During the course of my visits, my clothes (I wore jeans and a pair of coveralls) would end up smelling just like the barn. Because I was there, I became acclimated to the odor and would be completely unaware of my scent until co-workers would crinkle their noses at me.

It's kind of a stretch, but I believe that analogy works for most people on the left when confronted with the concept of a biased media. Today, a friend of mine, who is slanted left, was unbelieving in my claim of MSM liberal bias. This is the third time I've been on the receiving end of incredulity.

When you are around people with similar beliefs and also hear those same beliefs constantly in media outlets, you wouldn't be aware of anything.

Just like smelling like a barn after spending a morning there, people on the left simply don't notice.

Biased or Lazy?

Is the MSM biased? Or, is it just lazy?

A fallout from the "Me First" generation is that people aren't taking the time to do things correctly. How's the adage go? "If you don't have time to do it right the first time, how do you have time to fix it?"

I've seen Chris Matthews interview authors without reading their books! Aside from his howling attacks on the Swift Boats, Michelle Malkin, and whomever else that dares disagree with him, how can he retain any credibility?

Matthews is just a quick and easy example. Powerline was on the receiving end of another ludicrous attack by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The writer, Camille Page, accuses them of not fact-checking. Turns out, she's guilty of the crime she's accusing Powerline of. Only difference? Powerline, when they use quotes or facts, gives their sources freely, thereby opening them up for instantaneous fact-checking by fellow bloggers. Columnists, on the other hand, think they have carte blanche in their invectives, no accountability.

I dunno. Maybe I would like to think that bias isn't real, that the people who hold the media positions I once dreamt truly aren't biased. Realistically, the problem with today's MSM is the combination of some level of bias, laziness, and hubris.

Dad, what does "Gay" mean?

That's the question posed to me by my 9-1/2 and 8 yr old daughters. I was all alone ~ my wife was in route coming home.

I believe anybody has the right to do what they want without my judgment. As long as it doesn't harm my children or wife, I don't care. I personally don't agree with the lifestyle choice, but that lifestyle choice is not mine to make. As long as respect is shown, respect should be given. For me, that holds true for all things controversial; religion, orientation, politics, etc.

Now, to answer sounding as objective as possible.

I decided to keep it simple: "You know how mommy & daddy love each other? Well, gay is when a boy loves a boy and a girl loves a girl."

"What's a lesbian?"

"A lesbian is another way of saying a girl likes a girl. You can also love your friends like a sister or brother and not be gay."

That pacified them. A few seconds later, "daddy, what's sex?"
And I wonder why I'm losing my hair.

Tell a lie often enough...

Michelle Malkin has a great post on the inaccurate abortion numbers in the 1990s:

Glen Harold Stassen a professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, released the politically-charged study just before the presidential elections.

Stassen claimed that abortions increased in 11 of 16 states and he assumed abortions must be on the rise nationwide.

However, Stassen used wrong figures in several states – sometimes using old abortion stats and, in South Dakota, using the birth rate instead of the number of abortions.

Meanwhile, Clinton also said that during her husband's administration, "we saw the rate of abortion consistently fall."

"The abortion rate fell by one-quarter between 1990 and 1995, the steepest decline since Roe was decided in 1973," Clinton told a conference of the Family Planning Advocates of New York. "The rate fell another 11 percent between 1994 and 2000."

Those numbers also come from the flawed Stassen study.

Tell a lie enough and people will believe it.

The Hillary quote that really truly infuriated me was this:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that friends and foes on the issue should come together on "common ground" to reduce the number of "unwanted pregnancies" and ultimately abortions, which she called a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."

My question is, if a pre-born baby is nothing more than a lump of tissue like the pro-aborts claim, why is the decision "...sad, even tragic?"

Us vs. Them

Speaking of inability to play well together, columnist Nick Coleman of the Mps. Star-Tribune tried a hack-job on Powerline. Editor & Publisher places a pretty good synopsis of the situation.

Back in "J" school, we were taught to report the facts, try to show all sides, let the reader decide. Key word here is "facts." You don't have the facts, you don't get anywhere. Period. It's people like Nick Colemen who made my decision to leave the field of journalism much easier.

I was working as a general assignment reporter when the initial air attack of the first Gulf War started. My news director wanted me to find a local family who had a family member over in the Gulf and spend some time with them, getting their perspectives and feelings. I didn't feel comfortable with that assignment in the least figuring, among other things, the last thing that family needed was some schmuck intruding on their space while their loved one could die.

Luckily, my news director didn't pull rank and outright order me to follow his order. We compromised by having me go to the mall, a tavern, and other places getting reactions from people as they walked by.

I realized then that in order to succeed in journalism, I be able to place myself in awkward situations and be that intrusive person that I don't like. In order to get the facts, you have to ask the tough, and sometimes awkward, questions. People like Nick Coleman show that they are unable to ask those tough questions to get the facts and simply made stuff up.

If but a conscience, a dash of integrity, and a pinch of ethics, I could've ended up being Nick Colemen.

More UNhonesty

I discovered the Diplomad blog right after the tsunami, thanks to Powerline.

Read through Diplomad's blog, it's amazing information on the ability of the UN to be perceived as a worthwile organization while living off the laurels of others.

Self-Indulgence

I believe there's been a growing hypocrisy in our society that has really gone undetected. It's the left's demand for tolerance while, at the same time, not allowing opposing ideas into their realm.

Thomas Sowell articulates it rather well:

The enraged speeches and street disorders across the country that accompanied the inauguration of President Bush may tell us more than we want to know about what is happening to this country.

The media dignify these outbursts by calling them "protests" but what are they protesting?

His last paragraph really brings it home:

We are seeing the ugly face of intolerance under the idealistic pretense of protest. We need to recognize it for what it is, even if the media refuse to do so. Above all, we need to see it as a warning of where our society is headed. Whether at home or abroad, if political conflicts are reduced to contests between the wimps and the barbarians, the barbarians are going to win.

Read the whole thing.

At some point in the very near future, the saturation point will be exceeded by the left's inability to respect opinions contrary to their own. Intolerance has never been accepted in our country. Violence begets violence. I know it takes two sides, but when one side is so narrow minded, how can the two sides meet in the middle?