Reasoning with Liberals

I am beginning to wonder if you can even reason with the liberals any more. Coming from the New York Times, the reporters try to be reasonable as they report the what appears to be spiteful decision of the top Democratic contenders to even appear on a Fox News sponsered debate. It even has the Liberal media confused:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/washington/27fox.html

by Raymond Hermandez and Jacques Steinberg

[T]he leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus began looking for a television outlet to co-sponsor and broadcast a presidential debate to address the concerns of minority voters.

Only one news channel made an acceptable proposal, and an unlikely channel at that: Fox News, in what some Democrats viewed as an effort to associate itself with a group that could help it make good on its claim of presenting “fair and balanced” news coverage.

But now that relationship is being shaken by the decision of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina to shun the debate . . .

Fox’s proposal included broadcasting the debates in prime time, giving the caucus a say in selecting moderators and covering much of the production cost. . .

There is no reasoning with them. It is all about power with them. Compromise means agreeing with them, as we can see with the vitriol that continues even after a compromise has been worked out on immigration reform. Of course, the right wingers are just as opposed to the new bill. Many of them are no more willing to accept anything but their way either. There is no reasoning with them, either!

Fox News tries to be fair, but they apparently can't be balanced as long as news directors edit what is aired. Someone has to CHOOSE what is aired, and in that there is a bias. But to shun such a network because they can't control them -- that is not fair. Not to the network, nor to their viewers.

Perhaps the minority voters will see through the propoganda of the left in this most recent hypocrisy. Or not.

"You didn't have a baby, you had a fetus"

How utterly heartless to say such a thing to a grieving mother of a stillborn child. But such is the mindset of the pro-abortion crowd. The state official that explained to Joanne Cacciatore that a death certificate was all she would get was just pronouncing the "official" practice in most states. A baby is not "alive" until it breathes air.

This is patently false! And the abortionists know this. The science is so clear that the pro-abortion forces are against the movement that has gotten nineteen states -- including such bastions of liberalism as California and New Jersey! -- to pass laws allowing official documentation of the births. But Democratic governor Bill Richardson (who happens to be "running" for president) has vetoed a bill that would have given babies in New Mexico this honor.

How can someone be granted a "death certificate" without first having LIFE? That is a logical inconsistency if language means anything at all. What a stillbirth amounts to is a spontaneous late-term abortion. A majority of "abortions" used to be just "stillbirths," for intentional acts of violence against a developing child was thought to be barbaric. Unfortunate deaths of developing children were grieved as any such tragic deaths were.

Thankfully, South Carolina is one of the states that offer certificates. But three cheers -- and accolades -- to Indiana, Missouri, and Arizona! These states not only offer certificates, they give tax exemptions for the child. Now THAT'S commitment to life.

Chart and story

I read this first in the NYTimes Headlines online edition, Seeing the headline there, I immediately thought of the "abortion debate." And sure enough, that angle received its due. I was a surprised that some at Planned Parenthood were soft to the idea of giving the parents ways to greive their loss.

Solar Powered Flashlight -- for real!

Okay, I know folks have joked about a "solar powered" flashlight. I mean, after dark, how would you use one? But then, who's to say that a solar battery charger couldn't do the trick?

I had seen solar-powered walk lights advertised, but I didn't need those. It makes sense, but I didn't think how much of a difference it would make to Africa and other developing nations where ineffecient kerosene and throw-a-way batteries were eating away at there economy and their ecology. No, I don't necessarily mean "global warming," but just that there are more economical and "safer" ways of getting light into the darkness.

Anyway, I thought this would be a good way to get the message out:

Here is the URL. This is a GOOD IDEA. More on this later.

400 Years! Happy Birthday Jamestown

This weekend marks the beginning of the fifth century of English America. In a very real way, the observance of the signing of the Virginia charter on May 14, 1607, is a "birthday" celebration for America. The "American dream" began with this experiment in liberty. Though a commercial enterprise, its purpose was primarily for the furtherance of the Kingdom of God on earth. One hundred years ago, these words were inscribed on a monument to mark the 300th anniversary (concluding instructions to the colonists):

Lastly and chiefly, the way to prosper and achieve good success is to make yourselves all of one mind for the good of your country and your own, and to serve and fear God, the Giver of all goodness, for every plantation which our Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted out.

Ah, yes, the American dream was still alive at the dawn of the twentieth century. Now, though, history is being re-written daily. Lest we forget our heritage, let us reflect with Stephen McDowell on the Uniqueness of the United States:

"America has been different than any nation in history. America has been exceptional. This has not been due to any inherent value of her people, but has been due to the valuable ideas upon which she was founded.

These include such ideas as: valuing the individual; freedom of worship; opportunity for all to labor and benefit from the fruit of their labor; freedom to elect representatives; freedom of expression of ideas; freedom to own property; freedom to get ideas, start businesses and create wealth; limited jurisdiction of civil government; the central role of the family."

"D.S." should not mean "Death Sentence"

I was catching up on this week's headlines and come upon this article.

This article calls attention to parents of children with Down Syndrome fighting for the continued acceptance of these precious people. I have known the worst cases and the best, and it is a tragedy that 90% of those parents told their child will suffer this disability will chose to terminate that young life before it gets a start! To be fair to these parents, most of those that consent to the test are predisposed to abortion as an option anyway. But nonetheless, I salute these parents of Downs children who are speaking out.

By the way, this seems to be largely non-political, and is not linked to any pro-life group.

Not Quite Solomon

For my small readership, I offer this test (available here for a limited time). On the side bar of the New York Times online, the teaser was an offer to test by Monica Ardelt from the University of Florida to assess one's "wisdom." Since fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, I was not sure how well I would do on such a test. Thirty-nine questions later, I find out (at least according to this scientist's test) that I am moderately wise.



I suppose this is about right, since I am probably two-thirds of the way through life. That would mean, of course, that I project myself to live another 27 years at least! At least by the age of 81 I might rate an 4.5. Since my grandmother Allen was my oldest surviving grandparent at 88, I suppose the 81 is reasonable. I have surmised elsewhere that my unusually good health might have "condemned" me to the life of a centenarian. If I do, then I guess I might attain the covetted rating of "5" on the good doctor's scale.

I wonder what HER score was? :-)