No, not as in graffiti "tagged". Christina tagged me to answer the following:
How many books do you own?
I have not counted, but I do have a separate room in my house for a study/guest room. The books take up every available surface, with the exception of the bed and a little patch of desk where the lamp sits.
Book(s) I am reading now:
1. Blood and Thunder, by Hampton Sides
2. The Colonel and Little Missie, by Larry McMurtry
3. Act of Treason, by Vince Flynn
Books I've read recently:
(In no particular order)
1. Godless: The Church of Liberalism, by Ann Coulter
2. Madame Bovary, by Gustave Flaubert
3. No Retreat, No Surrender, by Tom DeLay
4. Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America, by William C. Davis*
*No, I don't think he's related to Jefferson Davis.
Five Books That Mean a Lot to Me:
1. The Catechism
2. The Lord of the Rings
3. The Harper Anthology of Poetry
4. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (a huge leather bound tome that could give one a concussion or a badly bruised foot).
5. A small, untitled book that has recipes from my grandmother and great-grandmother
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Mouse Wants a Glass of Milk!
Many people that support civil unions for homosexual couples claim that the end is not to redefine "marriage". Civil unions would permit same-sex couples to have the same legal rights that a man and woman enjoy in the state of matrimony. They argue that civil unions permit couples to share equally in property, health care and retirement benefits, and in terms of adopting children. In Connecticut, they already gave the mouse a cookie.
According to a Reuters article eight same-sex couples, who are already joined in civil unions, are before the state's supreme court arguing that their unions should be called...marriages! So it's not about financial and legal equality? Connecticut legalized same-sex civil unions in 2005, through their legislature. The civil unions allow for protection under state law, but not federal law. Of course, given that each state determines the criteria for eligibility for marriage licenses, that would make sense. Also, according to Bennett Klein of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the civil union legislation denies the couples "equality as couples and families". He went on further to say that marriage "is a status that the state confers on people, and it's a status that has with it profound personal meaning to individuals." The state confers this status? Yes, you obtain a license from the state in which you are to be married, but most people are married in some sort of religious context.
Marriage is much more than a piece of paper to the majority of people. In the case of the Catholic Church, it is a sacrament and one of the ways that we can experience God's grace. How insensitive these people must be to want to trivialize something that means so much to so many. Of course, because Christianity is so "intolerant" of the homosexual lifestyle, most members of the gay and lesbian community do not see any need to exhibit tolerance themselves. Are same-sex couples going to begin demanding that they be allowed to marry in religious ceremonies, even when said religion, in no uncertain terms, teaches that homosexuality is wrong? Talk about a violation of the separation of Church and State!
Would you please do me a favor? Go grab a dictionary and look up the word "marriage". Here is the dictionary.com definition. Given that the very definition states "a man and a woman", it certainly looks like these activists are using the courts to overrule the will of the people as exercised by their elected representatives. There is no law against these people using words like "marriage" or "husband" or "wife". They can take it upon themselves to exercise their First Amendment rights and use whatever words they want to describe their life choice and their significant others. Rather than do that, they feel it is necessary to make everyone, including the government, to redefine the very meaning of marriage. This, like all political correctness, is all about hypersensitivity and control over other people. A few people get themselves worked up about words, rather than behavior or actions. Have you ever stopped yourself from saying something amongst your acquaintances because you're afraid it might offend? I know that I have, but here's the thing: even if you decide to trade euphenisms, people who are looking to be offended will be offended by the most innocuous things. So, we'll see if the Connecticut State Supreme Court starts pouring the glass of milk.
According to a Reuters article eight same-sex couples, who are already joined in civil unions, are before the state's supreme court arguing that their unions should be called...marriages! So it's not about financial and legal equality? Connecticut legalized same-sex civil unions in 2005, through their legislature. The civil unions allow for protection under state law, but not federal law. Of course, given that each state determines the criteria for eligibility for marriage licenses, that would make sense. Also, according to Bennett Klein of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the civil union legislation denies the couples "equality as couples and families". He went on further to say that marriage "is a status that the state confers on people, and it's a status that has with it profound personal meaning to individuals." The state confers this status? Yes, you obtain a license from the state in which you are to be married, but most people are married in some sort of religious context.
Marriage is much more than a piece of paper to the majority of people. In the case of the Catholic Church, it is a sacrament and one of the ways that we can experience God's grace. How insensitive these people must be to want to trivialize something that means so much to so many. Of course, because Christianity is so "intolerant" of the homosexual lifestyle, most members of the gay and lesbian community do not see any need to exhibit tolerance themselves. Are same-sex couples going to begin demanding that they be allowed to marry in religious ceremonies, even when said religion, in no uncertain terms, teaches that homosexuality is wrong? Talk about a violation of the separation of Church and State!
Would you please do me a favor? Go grab a dictionary and look up the word "marriage". Here is the dictionary.com definition. Given that the very definition states "a man and a woman", it certainly looks like these activists are using the courts to overrule the will of the people as exercised by their elected representatives. There is no law against these people using words like "marriage" or "husband" or "wife". They can take it upon themselves to exercise their First Amendment rights and use whatever words they want to describe their life choice and their significant others. Rather than do that, they feel it is necessary to make everyone, including the government, to redefine the very meaning of marriage. This, like all political correctness, is all about hypersensitivity and control over other people. A few people get themselves worked up about words, rather than behavior or actions. Have you ever stopped yourself from saying something amongst your acquaintances because you're afraid it might offend? I know that I have, but here's the thing: even if you decide to trade euphenisms, people who are looking to be offended will be offended by the most innocuous things. So, we'll see if the Connecticut State Supreme Court starts pouring the glass of milk.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
What Came First: The Weather or the Weatherman?
Environmental "scientists", such as Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, and Laurie David are fond of pointing to our wacky weather as evidence of man-made global warming. The headlines have been trumpeting ecological armageddon with the tornado that destroyed Greensburg, KS and the heat wave that has hit California. Today, the first named hurricane to form in the Atlantic this season is causing the drive-bys to embrace their inner Chicken Little.
I have a question for the "experts": did the Native Americans name hurricanes, too? How long have we been actually keeping records of weather trends here in the U.S.? If they had paid attention in junior high and high school western civ class, they would realize that we humans have not been around very long on this earth. In the lifetime of the earth, our existence has been the equivalent to the blink of an eye. We have always had extreme weather on this continent. That is how tall tales such as the stories of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill came into being; they were the American equivalents to the gods of Greek and Roman mythology. Weird natural phenomenon was explained by these tall tales.
When I took a class in state water policy and law, we had to read Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert. While I did not agree with much of what was stated in his book, he made a few interesting points. One of which was the exploration of the Southwest from the conquistadores to the Americans. The Spaniards, and later Mexicans, discovered that weather in the western part of the continent was erratic at its best, and deadly at its worst. The San Joaquin Valley, home to the vast majority of farming in California, was by turns a lush valley and a flat desert surrounded by mountains (depending on the amount of annual precipitation). Sudden torrential rains would wash away villages (and trees) sending the debris toward the Pacific Ocean. Father Junipero Serra, the man responsible for founding the system of missions on the coast, made sure to locate each mission near a reliable source of water and space them within a day's ride of each other. John Wesley Powell, a former military engineer who served has chief of artillery in the Union Army's 17th Corps, led an expedition on Green and Colorado Rivers, even rafting through the Grand Canyon. During his expedition, he encountered nature's beauty and its cruelty. Rapids wreaked havoc on the group and seasonal flooding from snowmelt and monsoons swelled the Colorado River to monstrous proportions.
The notion that we, insignificant mortals that we are, can irrepairably damage the earth is born of two ideas. The first is that this life is all that there is; there is no Creator, and this all happened by chance. The second idea is that because there is no Creator, it is we who are all powerful and we can make or break the "delicate balance" of nature. What the global warming experts fail to recognize, however, is that nature is adaptable and the forces of nature will work, whether we like it or not.
Looking at the planet as a thermodynamic system, we go through a cycle of heating and cooling. Because the planet does not change in mass, the pressure, temperature, and volume of the atmosphere must change in order to maintain equilibrium. The earth absorbs energy in the form of heat and radiation from the sun; however, only half of the earth is exposed to the sun. The other half is experiencing night and facing away from the sun. Just as the earth can absorb heat, it can also release heat (which is why temperatures are always lowest right before dawn). Also, consider this: the entire planet is the system, so any rain or snow that occurs anywhere on the planet is part of the heating and cooling process. Just because we don't experience it doesn't mean it is not happening. Nature has its own way of healing itself. Saying that that is purely coincidence is a greater leap of faith than belief in God.
I have a question for the "experts": did the Native Americans name hurricanes, too? How long have we been actually keeping records of weather trends here in the U.S.? If they had paid attention in junior high and high school western civ class, they would realize that we humans have not been around very long on this earth. In the lifetime of the earth, our existence has been the equivalent to the blink of an eye. We have always had extreme weather on this continent. That is how tall tales such as the stories of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill came into being; they were the American equivalents to the gods of Greek and Roman mythology. Weird natural phenomenon was explained by these tall tales.
When I took a class in state water policy and law, we had to read Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert. While I did not agree with much of what was stated in his book, he made a few interesting points. One of which was the exploration of the Southwest from the conquistadores to the Americans. The Spaniards, and later Mexicans, discovered that weather in the western part of the continent was erratic at its best, and deadly at its worst. The San Joaquin Valley, home to the vast majority of farming in California, was by turns a lush valley and a flat desert surrounded by mountains (depending on the amount of annual precipitation). Sudden torrential rains would wash away villages (and trees) sending the debris toward the Pacific Ocean. Father Junipero Serra, the man responsible for founding the system of missions on the coast, made sure to locate each mission near a reliable source of water and space them within a day's ride of each other. John Wesley Powell, a former military engineer who served has chief of artillery in the Union Army's 17th Corps, led an expedition on Green and Colorado Rivers, even rafting through the Grand Canyon. During his expedition, he encountered nature's beauty and its cruelty. Rapids wreaked havoc on the group and seasonal flooding from snowmelt and monsoons swelled the Colorado River to monstrous proportions.
The notion that we, insignificant mortals that we are, can irrepairably damage the earth is born of two ideas. The first is that this life is all that there is; there is no Creator, and this all happened by chance. The second idea is that because there is no Creator, it is we who are all powerful and we can make or break the "delicate balance" of nature. What the global warming experts fail to recognize, however, is that nature is adaptable and the forces of nature will work, whether we like it or not.
Looking at the planet as a thermodynamic system, we go through a cycle of heating and cooling. Because the planet does not change in mass, the pressure, temperature, and volume of the atmosphere must change in order to maintain equilibrium. The earth absorbs energy in the form of heat and radiation from the sun; however, only half of the earth is exposed to the sun. The other half is experiencing night and facing away from the sun. Just as the earth can absorb heat, it can also release heat (which is why temperatures are always lowest right before dawn). Also, consider this: the entire planet is the system, so any rain or snow that occurs anywhere on the planet is part of the heating and cooling process. Just because we don't experience it doesn't mean it is not happening. Nature has its own way of healing itself. Saying that that is purely coincidence is a greater leap of faith than belief in God.
Is the Pot Calling the Kettle Black?
Apparently Comrade... er, President Vladimir Putin didn't see the declassified Soviet files regarding his own country's behavior between the Bolshevik Revolution and the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Oh wait, he's a former KGB agent! He would know all about kidnapping, murdering, espionage, and stealing top-secret information. Putin has compared U.S. foreign policy to the Third Reich (read the International Herald Tribune article here). Of course, this is nothing new. We've had a poor excuse for a college professor from Colorado refer to the victims of 9-11 as "little Eichmanns". Even the former Chancellor of Germany (a member of the spin-off to der Fuhrer's political party) had called President Bush "Hitler". This is also not the first time that "our friend" has blasted U.S. policies abroad.
In a speech from Munich on February 10, Putin accused the United States of trying to establish itself as "one single center of power: One single center of force. One single center of decision making. This is the world of one master, one sovereign." First of all, if this were the case, we would have already conquered "Mother Russia", the Soviet satellite nations, and the entire Middle East...back when Reagan was President. We would have torn down the wall for Mr. Gorbechev (and spanked the Red Army in the process), dusted both Ayatollah Khomeni and Saddam Hussein, and put Kim Il Sung in a straight jacket. They'd all be English-speaking, Judeo-Christian, democratic societies, gas would be $0.50 a gallon, and we would all be vacationing in Cuba for Spring Break. Hugo Chavez ("Big Red"), Kim Jong Il ("Big Mac"), and Mahmood Ahmadenijad ("Small Fry") would not have had the opportunity to rise to the level of power that they have. Then again, we aren't bullies and would prefer the rest of the world to solve its own problems as peacefully as possible.
Secondly, does Putin even talk to Russia's ambassador to the United Nations? Is he getting the Cliff's Notes version of what goes on there, or is he taking a nap during the phone call? If there was ever a force at work in the world to establish One World Order, it would be the United Nations, and the Third World thugs that abuse the institution to line their pockets with foreign aid meant to feed their starving masses. They hate our guts, but love our money. It sounds like the kind of marriage that requires a pre-nup.
To top this off, Putin's largest point of contention appears to be our development of a missile defense system. What makes him think we don't already have it? It's not a new idea, and R&D is always a busy (and clandestine) business. Do we not have a right to defend ourselves and our allies? Or are we supposed to be like pre-WWII France and let our enemies roll through the nation's capital? Unfortunately, that may have to happen before people realize that this is real...and it's serious. "War is upon you, whether you'll risk it or not."
In a speech from Munich on February 10, Putin accused the United States of trying to establish itself as "one single center of power: One single center of force. One single center of decision making. This is the world of one master, one sovereign." First of all, if this were the case, we would have already conquered "Mother Russia", the Soviet satellite nations, and the entire Middle East...back when Reagan was President. We would have torn down the wall for Mr. Gorbechev (and spanked the Red Army in the process), dusted both Ayatollah Khomeni and Saddam Hussein, and put Kim Il Sung in a straight jacket. They'd all be English-speaking, Judeo-Christian, democratic societies, gas would be $0.50 a gallon, and we would all be vacationing in Cuba for Spring Break. Hugo Chavez ("Big Red"), Kim Jong Il ("Big Mac"), and Mahmood Ahmadenijad ("Small Fry") would not have had the opportunity to rise to the level of power that they have. Then again, we aren't bullies and would prefer the rest of the world to solve its own problems as peacefully as possible.
Secondly, does Putin even talk to Russia's ambassador to the United Nations? Is he getting the Cliff's Notes version of what goes on there, or is he taking a nap during the phone call? If there was ever a force at work in the world to establish One World Order, it would be the United Nations, and the Third World thugs that abuse the institution to line their pockets with foreign aid meant to feed their starving masses. They hate our guts, but love our money. It sounds like the kind of marriage that requires a pre-nup.
To top this off, Putin's largest point of contention appears to be our development of a missile defense system. What makes him think we don't already have it? It's not a new idea, and R&D is always a busy (and clandestine) business. Do we not have a right to defend ourselves and our allies? Or are we supposed to be like pre-WWII France and let our enemies roll through the nation's capital? Unfortunately, that may have to happen before people realize that this is real...and it's serious. "War is upon you, whether you'll risk it or not."
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Properly Celebrating May 1
The world over, people were celebrating today as May Day. The first day of May has evolved from being the first day of summer (in Celtic and Germanic tradition), to the first day on the month of the Blessed Virgin (marked with pageants and festas), to the Marxist day for protesting "the evils of capitalism". A Wikipedia search has unearthed some very ironic discoveries, in light of the Marxist connotation taken on by present-day May Day observances.
In 1921, May 1st was declared as "Americanization Day" to counter the internationally "celebrated" Labour Day. I write "celebrated" because to celebrate something implies that one is joyful about it (anyone who's watched liberals at May Day celebrations has not seen a jubilant people). In 1958, Congress made it an official holiday, calling it Loyalty Day. President Eisenhower then went a step further by issuing a Presidential Decree, declaring that May 1 was Law Day in the United States. The decree was codified into federal law in 1961.
Why do I say this is ironic? Well, here in the U.S., the second largest news item of the day was the illegal immigration rallies. Granted, this year's numbers were quite depleted from last year's, but it was enough to make it on the news. Most of the talking head and student/protester sound bites called for "a path to citizenship" for illegal aliens currently residing here. Part of becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States of America is taking the following oath:
How is it that one can take such an oath after already breaking it? Are we as a people supposed to trust the word of anyone who has? In the not-too-distant past, we had a President who was impeached and got disbarred for having perjured himself (in front of a grand jury, no less). Unfortunately, we didn't throw the bum out of office, but suffice it to say that he's still trying to do some post-Presidency legacy building so he doesn't go down...oops, poor choice of words...so he doesn't remain known as "Horn Dog in Chief".
In 1921, May 1st was declared as "Americanization Day" to counter the internationally "celebrated" Labour Day. I write "celebrated" because to celebrate something implies that one is joyful about it (anyone who's watched liberals at May Day celebrations has not seen a jubilant people). In 1958, Congress made it an official holiday, calling it Loyalty Day. President Eisenhower then went a step further by issuing a Presidential Decree, declaring that May 1 was Law Day in the United States. The decree was codified into federal law in 1961.
Why do I say this is ironic? Well, here in the U.S., the second largest news item of the day was the illegal immigration rallies. Granted, this year's numbers were quite depleted from last year's, but it was enough to make it on the news. Most of the talking head and student/protester sound bites called for "a path to citizenship" for illegal aliens currently residing here. Part of becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States of America is taking the following oath:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me
God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.”
How is it that one can take such an oath after already breaking it? Are we as a people supposed to trust the word of anyone who has? In the not-too-distant past, we had a President who was impeached and got disbarred for having perjured himself (in front of a grand jury, no less). Unfortunately, we didn't throw the bum out of office, but suffice it to say that he's still trying to do some post-Presidency legacy building so he doesn't go down...oops, poor choice of words...so he doesn't remain known as "Horn Dog in Chief".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)