Lessons From A Decent Man

When I was very young, my grandfather was my hero. He could do no wrong and he loved me, most of all, or so I believed. I would follow him around and listen as he told me stories of his youth, about his successes and his failures and the lessons he learned quickly and others that took him longer to understand. His incessant message was one of service. No matter what, do things for others and never look for recognition.

Around the Holidays, he and I would embark on our 'secret mission.' We would take the bus (streetcar' as he would say) to the East End, where our plans were to be executed.

He carried with him a list, pulled from his breast pocket, behind his handkerchief. On that carefully folded piece of paper, were names and addresses. We would go to the corner where he would wait, 'under the lamp, because that's where senior agents wait,' as I went off to the address he would write on a small, manila coin envelope. I was to ring the bell and give the envelope to the lady of the house and then walk away. For each envelope I delivered, I was given 25 cents, a princely sum, indeed.

After a year or two, I understood what was in the envelope. My grandfather, a wealthy man, made sure that his factory workers had enough money for the holidays. Our 'mission,' was always in the middle of the day, while the workers were at their machines. He wanted to make sure that the wives and mothers knew they were not forgotten. We both knew the truth of course, as to what was is those envelopes, but I dutifully delivered them as he stood under those street lamps. I returned after delivering that small manila coin envelope and upon my return, my grandfather would pay me. After a few years, he gave me a dollar for each one. On the day he told me that is was time he take one of the younger grandchildren in my place, it was if a knife was thrust into my heart. That was the first time in my young life I was to know the confluence of pride, pain and gratitude. On that ride home, he put his arm around me. I can still feel that warmth, not to be duplicated until the day I held my daughter for the first time and then again, when I held her as she cried when she didn't get the part in the play she had worked so hard for.

Our time together was not over. As I passed from my teens into my twenties, I was to know and participate in other 'missions,' and learn other lessons

Whenever someone from our community passed away, my grandfather would call me. I would pick him up in my old beat up car (he would always tell me I drove like the best chauffeur in all the land) and we would head to the house of the bereaved. He would pay his respects for a few moments and then, open a closet door and pick out the nicest looking shoes. He would repeat that for everyone who lived in the house and on more than one occasion, was looked at as if he were 'daft' as he used to say. I would be waiting for him, on the back stairs, with a large well worn, brown grocery bag. Inside, was his shoe shining kit.

We would polish the shoes of the bereaved, taking as long as we needed to, because, as he said, 'They never remember to polish their shoes. The family needs to look 'proper.' He would tell me to take care to polish the children's shoes especially well- though children, they were equal in their loss. He would remind me that some might look at the children with a critical eye- he wanted to make sure the parents would be looked at in the best possible light.

I wanted to write this to remind people that in the end, in the very end, it is only decency that counts.

At my grandfather's funeral, many- many- people came up to my father and handed him envelopes- payments on loans my grandfather had made, without telling anyone. Many of those payments were enclosed in brown manila coin envelopes, handed respectfully to my father. They stayed for the whole service and then followed along to the cemetery, for the interment. They were among the last to leave. They wanted my father to know they would keep making their payments. My father was stunned.

The night before the funeral, about half a dozen people showed up at my home, to shine my shoes. I knew my grandfather was a decent man. It was on that evening, before the funeral, I understood that he was a great man. As I watched a few men polish my shoes, I saw dignity.

We're Glad Nobody Is Reading

A little while ago, we got an email from 'Nobody.' That's right, somebody with the moniker of 'Nobody' wrote us and sent us an interesting link to an NPR 'On the Media' story called, News Outlets: Choosing their Words Carefully. In a broadcast strangely familiar ('Well, that depends on what the meaning of 'is,' is) The broadcast is an interesting look into the minds of the people who believe style is more important than substance. There is a notion that without media help, we might view social security 'reform' very differently than social security 'overhaul.'

In addition, the use of capitals in the 'war on terror' is problematic for some and even the words are disturbing to others- notwithstanding the reality that terrorists (never referred to as such) want to blow us to smithereens just prior to their entry into never ending religion induced orgasms, the quality of which to be determined by the number of Kafirs killed. No, they aren't terrorists. That word is to highly 'charged.' Perhaps we need to refer to those people who would do us harm as 'dance instructors.'

Thank you, 'Nobody,' for reading and sending us the link to the ever PC NPR. Without them, 'dance instructors' might never be 'understood' or be regarded as 'sympathetic figures.'

On another note, Tommy of Striving for Average has again demonstrated that he has too much time on his hands. In a post, The President Encourages Fuel Conversation, Tommy managed to get his hands on an off the air discussion between Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty, plucked out of the air with a commercial grade NSA satelitte ground station Tommy keeps in his back yard. It makes for a most interesting read.

Chill Pills, Obligations And Why Decency Matters

We have just reread, Awright, Take a Chill Pill, over a The Anchoress. We mention that because while we appreciated the post last night, upon a good reread, it is even better (not unlike day old chili, or properly aged wine, if you are of the delicate type).

There is an interesting theme that runs through her post, though it is implied and never stated- that of integrity/decency.

Throughout the 'current events' and 'opinion' part of the blogosphere, there is an undercurrent of tension that often manifests itself in bitter exchanges, charges and counter charges. In fact, it is a replay of what transpires every day in the MSM- the deliberate attempt to nullify and invalidate other points of view and those of differing opinion.

If the (news and opinion) blogging community wants to be taken seriously- and distinguish itself from the MSM, it must elevate itself and embrace higher standards of ethical behavior. Far too many blogs are caricatures of the MSM itself- self absorbed, cruel and fully comfortable in bending the truth to fit an agenda. The difference is that those bloggers use profanity, in the attempt to shock and set themselves apart from other bloggers. We believe that works, up to a point- but in the end, style never trumps substance.

That is what happened with the 'Ratghergate' affair. The MSM ignored and attempted to discredit the blogging community and deceive the public in the process. The bloggers responded appropriately- and bombarded CBS and the MSM with the truth of the matter. Reluctant at first, the MSM finally picked up on the blogger contribution to the story and the rest is history. Those bloggers actively engaged in the story, acquitted themselves well. They stayed on target and focused their efforts on the matter at hand- despite the vicious attacks against them.

If a government wants a civil and decent society, it must be reflected in how they govern. There can be no favor or special treatment for anyone. Regardless of who commits a crime, they must be called to justice. No one is exempt from the law. Indeed, as we have written in Broken Partneships, Broken Societies, in addition to more recent posts, a civil society is predicated on the obligations it has to society. The rights afforded in a society are predicated on the fulfilling those obligations.

To demand more from government means we must demand more from ourselves. The great French playwright and philosopher, Moliere, made a profound observation: “The less we are like our ancestors, the less we deserve them.”

If a citizenry expects a government of integrity and decency, they must behave in that way. One cannot expect to be corrupt and then demand accountability from elected officials. Decent government comes from decent people. It is always true that in a free society, our leaders reflect, 'We the people.'

So it is with the media and bloggers. If we wish to participate and be taken seriously in public debates in the town squares of this country, we too must behave in a civilized manner, and they too, are obligated to contribute and not just tear down. Those who wish to live in anarchy, may be free to do so, amongst themselves. They do not have the right to tear away at the fabric of our society in the name of their agenda or in an attempt to disrupt the will of that society.

Read The Anchoress post here.

The Omnipresent Google

Google is big. Really big. They have made tons of money for themselves and their stockholders. Most of us would have mortgaged the family farm to invest in Google, looking back.

SC&A are going to give you a look into the future. That's right- if you look closely, the future of Google is in full view.

Here is a list of domain names Google has registered. Here is another list, registered in June, 2005.

Lastly, Google is going intergalactic. Seriously- no joke. See this story and list of domain names registered by Google.

Given how successful Google has been in the past, we suspect they will be making their investors money for a long, long, time to come.

Remeber Cisco?

Cold Showers For The Mind

Dr Sanity will shake you out of your carb induced stupor tonight.

No one can accuse Dr Sanity of ambiguity. In Democrat Entitlement, she pointedly asks,

When did the Supreme Court of the United States become yet another entitlement program for the Democrats?

Where is it written that the Supreme Court must be "ideologically balanced"? Who has ever claimed that the minority party has any rights (except the usual "advise and consent role")to determine who is selected by the elected President of the US?

Whenever Dr Sanity poses questions like that, we pay close attention- and so should you. She reminds us that we are not limited by the menu that is placed in front of us. We can, if we desire, ask for a different dish from the kitchen. We are the consumers- we have the right to be served what we wish. Sometimes, the kitchen staff needs to reminded of that, if they wish to stay employed.

In another effort, Dr Sanity links to an article in FrontPage magazine. Her post, Sipping Coffee on the Eupharates, links to a conversation between two brothers in Iraq, in which they discuss the war, America and Cindy Sheehan. It's a must read.

Lastly, her post, Choice, is poignant- not so much in the content, but rather, in the conclusion. In it, she discusses the reality of women, choice and Islam.

Even if there is only one single woman anywhere under Islam's tyranny who desires to be free to live her life as she chooses, then I am completely, totally, and irrevocably on her side.

It is amazing how much truth unadulterated clarity uncovers. But were the feminist supporters of the anti-war movement, so honest.

Dr Sanity's views and beliefs may not always coincide with your own, but her clarity remains a constant. She will make you think.

Now that we have your attention, Maxed Out Mama has a post on the people who decide what lives are worth living and which ones are not. In Dutch Euthanasia Guidelines, MOM extrapolates the number of deaths in America, if the Dutch euthanasia figures are used.

Extrapolating from a population of 16 million to our own (295 million), the reported number of 2000 would become 36,800. That's a lot of deaths...

Read her post- and extrapolate for yourselves, what that means for children, grandparents and other people in your world- and wonder if there will be people to decide if their lives meet a certain criteria for living.

Wedding Planning, Anyone?

Wedding planning is a huge business, part of the massive. Marriage Industrial Complex.

Fausta, over at Bad Hair Blog, links to Ace of Spades who reports on the first legal polygamous marriage. After perusing the photos of the happy, er, trio, at Bad Hair Blog, we got to thinking.

This turn of events is going to put a huge burdern on wedding planners. They will now have to deal with brides and choice of colors or dresses ("Brown, we have to have brown, my mother is wearing brown," or, "You had better lose weight before the wedding," or "You aren't serious about actually wearing that dress, are you?") . Can you imagine the travails the photographer will face ("YOU stand on the left" and "No, YOU stand on the left" and "What do you mean I need to fix my makeup?")?

Then there's honeymoon, selecting furniture, and so. Of course, all we gave to say is "A guy who looks like that got two women to marry him?

Then again, he'll pay. Oh boy, will he pay. See Bad Hair Blog here. Check it out, too. Fausta is on top of stuff.

From The Author of SC&A, On Abortion

I have to be one of the luckiest guys around.

Since I have begun blogging, I have had the opportunity to read and learn from some very fine minds, bloggers all. Some are like minded, some almost like minded and some not so like minded. I have learned from them all. I am grateful for that.

Writing this blog has been an eye opener. I thought I'd have so much to contribute on my own, but in reality, whatever few words I do write are much influenced by my peers, bloggers and readers alike. I have learned from my readers-- and that has helped me see things in ways I might not have, otherwise.

It is also true that in terms of influence, I am aware that for the most part, bloggers are 'preaching to the choir,' as Ruth of Chaos Theory has noted on more than one occasion. She is right, of course. The successful blogger is one who manages to have their reader think.

There is one undercurrent that seems to bind bloggers that write about the issues of the day. That is issue is morality. Everyone, it seems has a view, opinion and belief structure that helps define them in a world of the mundane.

I like that. Those issues of morality, more than any other, helps me focuse on the things that are important to me.

Moral struggles are important, if for no other reason than they make us uncomfortable.

Morality is a moving target. You can't just nail it once and call yourself moral. Some of the moral choices we are faced with are easy, some are more difficult. There are choices we face everyday and others we face once in a lifetime and everything in between.

There are also matters of morality that are cultural and religious. Yes, Virginia, there is a difference.

There are choices that we make that are intensely personal and others that are more communal in nature. There are some choices we make that we're never sure of, either and there are some choices we make we wish we could take back. There are also choices we have made, that if given the choice again, we'd still struggle with.

Before I was married to my ex, she got pregnant and had an abortion. It wasn't a matter of carelessness or indifference. The pregnancy happened.

To my ex, an abortion was no big deal. She was raised in communist Eastern Europe and as a matter of course, abortion was considered a form of birth control. She was a nominal Catholic and had a limited amount of religious instruction. In the 70's and 80's, that's how it was in Eastern Europe. As in the Arab world today, citizens believed what they were taught- at first, anyway.

God, religion and morality were 'cultural' in the same way national costumes and national dance were cultural expressions of a society. Science and art (approved art, of course), were the defining character of her place of birth. Church was for older people and even national spokespeople who spoke for the Church were state approved. The State was the real religion. The laws of the state were canon law.

This wasn't a lifetime ago. The Wall came down in 1989, only 16 years ago.

In any case, my ex had an abortion. By that time, she understood that there was an issue. She had been in the west long enough to know that there was indeed a different morality. Still, that is what she chose to do. She had her reasons. Whatever they were, some of you would concur and others would not.

It would be easy to to criticize her, but I didn't back then and I won't now.

Personally, abortion makes me uncomfortable- actually, it makes me very uncomfortable and angry. I can't debate the science of conception and I don't have to. Ask any infertile couple, trying to have a child and they will tell you a fetus is not 'tissue.' That is enough for me.

By the same token, I do believe an individual has a right to choose what is right for them. It may not be what I agree with and I may find immoral, even. But until I'm in that person's shoes, what right do I have to tell someone what is moral for them? Should not morality come from within and not be imposed? There are people and societies out there that want to do just that-- impose a set of values on us that we disagree with. That imposition of morality goes against everything we believe in.

That is not a baseless argument. There are people out there with terminal diseases or in dire need of organs. Despite the desperate situations and the pain and suffering some have to endure, we do not force anyone to donate their bone marrow or organs, even in the event of death. In not doing so, we condemn those people who are ill, to death. These individuals and unfortunates are innocent and defenseless. We do not mandate that like it or not, everyone must donate what may be lifesaving to another. Is that moral? I don't know.

Irrespective of the argument, we all make choices. We are endowed with free will, for better or worse.

I chose to write about this because someone I respect a great deal, emailed me and questioned me on my post, below, Abortions and Elections, Past and Future. That person remarked that I was a principled individual and appeared to stand by my convictions. I'd like to think so, of course. In truth however, the principles and convictions I have don't always come easily. I know I will be criticized by some and I will disappoint others. A few may even agree with me. Regardless, there are some things I struggle with.

America is unique in many ways. One of the most important I think, is that this that one of this country's most contentious issues is a moral one. I cannot think of any other place where moral issues divide a society as much as they do here.

The tension is a good one, I think. As long as there are moral issues at stake, we focus on our beliefs and values. It may not be pretty at times, but for the vast majority of us, the non professional agitators, both sides of a moral debate give us pause, even if we don't admit it. That we anguish over morality is a moral choice in itself. Europe has long since abandoned any moral debate and they are the poorer for it.

Unlike the societies and cultures that have a 'one size fits all' mentality and structure, we know, on a visceral level that we need to constantly define and redefine ourselves and values. There is great value in a society that allows for that debate, as difficult and hurtful as it is at times. We learn from it and we grow.

The Founding Father's offered us the 'Pursuit of Happiness.' There was no guarantee of happiness for us all-- only the pursuit of those ideals that each of us believe in, be they material, spiritual or physical. We are only guaranteed the right to express ourselves and beliefs. We cannot impose on our neighbors those things that they may not agree with, until they do agree. Abortion is no exception.

I am proud to say I'm the father of one child, a beautiful daughter. My ex is a wonderful mother-- I couldn't be more blessed that way. I love the 'dad' thing and the relationship I have with HRH (Her Royal Highness, as I refer to my daughter).

I'm at an age where people still ask if I'd want to be a dad again. My stock answer is that it isn't only up to me. Truth is, I wouldn't mind, but if that isn't in the cards, well, I've fulfilled my paternal instincts.

I can't say what I would do if I were faced with the same situation I was in, years ago. Neither can my ex. I know what I believe and what I think the moral choice would be. Some of you might be upset with me, others less so, for my lack of sureness.

Since that event, I have tried to be more moral. It had an effect on me that still resonates, deeply, in many ways. I think of that time, every now and then.

My son would be 17 years old.

Abortion And Elections, Past And Future

Political pundits, analysts and commentators will discuss the 2004 election for decades to come. Despite garnering more votes than ever before, the Democrats lost the Presidential election to the Republicans, who garnered even more votes than the Democrats. The irony of two records broken on a single election day, cannot be easily measured or clearly understood.

Naturally, opinions differ as to why Mr Bush won the last election. On one side, there were those who believe that elections are won or lost over 'dirty politics,' a candidates beliefs having no bearing on the outcome. On the other side, there is a belief that 'dirty politics' notwithstanding, it is a candidates beliefs that will in the end, be the final arbiter on election day.

There are those who believe that the election outcome of 2004 was clearly determined years earlier. It is fair to say that Bob Casey, former Governor of Pennsylvania, was one of those who saw the handwriting on the wall.

During his tenure as Governor of Pennsylvania- a Democrat governor (1987-1995), Mr Casey was to play a pivotal role in the what was to be the redefining of the Democrat Party.

As the Governor of Pennsylvania, the nations fifth largest state, it was to be expected that he would speak at the 1992 Democrat National Convention. That was not to happen, because Mr Casey was a pro life Democrat. In his place, six pro abortion rights Republican women were given the podium.

Back in 1992, Casey had warned his Democrat colleagues that the party was becoming no more than the mouthpiece for agenda based ideologues, "little more than an auxiliary of NARAL," as he put it. In his autobiography, he put it this way

Many people discount the power of the so-called cultural issues and especially of the abortion issue. I see it just the other way around. These issues are central to the national resurgence of the Republicans, central to the national implosion of the Democrats, central to the question of whether there will be a third party. The national Democrats may, and probably will, get a temporary bump in the polls—even, perhaps, one more national election victory —from their reactive strategy as the defenders of the elderly and poor who rely on Medicare and Medicaid. But the Democrats’ national decline —or better, their national disintegration—will continue relentlessly and inexorably until they come to grips with these values issues, primarily abortion.

It is clear that Casey touches upon so deliberately left dormant in the Democrat hierarchy.

Now, to be clear, we are not discussing merits of a pro-choice or pro-life agenda. We are however, discussing the political impact of the debate has had on America, reflected in national elections.

Clearly, George Bush has come a long way. He lost the popular election in 2000- and came back to win the battle for the 'hearts and minds' in 2004- and beat his opponent. If that weren't clear enough, the Republicans came back and won more seats in the house. Whatever the Democrat message was, it got lost and it got beat.

Democrats need only look to their Catholic membership of their leadership. Their apologies for this is a important distinction we will address later) defending a pro-choice platform drove many of their constituents into the open arms of the Republican Party. The voters they abandoned to the Republican Party, could have swept Kerry into office.

Some Catholic Democrats, for reasons of political expediency, adopted a pro-choice platform, reluctantly. John Kerry, for example, stresses his Catholic faith aopportunityortunity- and then declares, defiantly, "We stand proudly for a womans right to choose," that has caused much of the Democrat base to turn away from it's long held political 'home.'

Americans understand political expediency. Americans understand the reality of what it takes to get votes and they understand politica horsetrading.

Had the Democrats been less proud and more humble, they very well might have won the 2004 election. Instead, the Democrats have boxed themselves in- New York Senator Charles Schumer said that the "deeply held" Catholic beliefs of Bill Pryor precluded him from sitting on a federal court.

Not one of opposition from Catholic Democrats. Not a single word of protest or outrage. Is it any wonder that Catholic voters feel abandoned and disenfranchised by the Democrat leadership and it's policies?

It wasn't always the case. Religious voters had cause and reason to be proud Democrats.

In 1971, Senator Edward Kennedy wrote the following to a constituent:

"While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.

"I share the confidence of those who feel that America is working to care for its unwanted as well as wanted children, protecting particularly those who cannot protect themselves. I also share the opinions of those who do not accept abortion as a response to our society's problems -- an inadequate welfare system, unsatisfactory job training programs, and insufficient financial support for all its citizens.

"When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception."

Obviously, Mr Kennedy has come to change his position on the contentious issue of abortion. He is now in full support of abortion on demand. We will not take issue with Mr Kennedy's position. We are only discussing the political fallout of the shift within the Democrat Party- a shift that needn't have been as cataclysmic as it was.

There is a huge chasm between the reluctant support of abortion and the endorsement of abortion. Some Democrats initially saw support of abortion as a necessary evil. That wasn't enough for many in the party, and that reluctant support had to be converted to active support and participation on the abortion rights movement. A line had been crossed. The choice for political expediency had been converted to a choice of a particular moral stand. Had abortion been handled with humility rathenthusiasmnthusiam, a good argument could be made for an entirely different political landscape countrys countr.

Whether you like Hillary Clinton's politics or not, she hit the nail on the head when she addressed the issue: There are far too many abortions and we need to find a way to reduce or eliminate, as much as possible, that number. The response? She referred to as a traitor- for saying what we all know is a truth- abortion has a negative impact on women and the country. Mrs Clinton touches a nerve. By simple extrapolation, she is admitting that NOW and NARexamlpleexamlple, are exerting more influence on American morality than the Catholic Churimplicationslicatons of that are enormous, from a political and moral point of view.

Abortion has had harmful effects on women- socially, medically, psychologically and culturally- and that truth remains constant no matter which side of the issue you are on. Nothing NOW, NARAL or anyone else can say that. These groups, are anything but pro choice if you disagree with their politics/morality- and that has been made clear to the politicians who ask for their support. In return for that support, these groupsaggressivegressive support, in both the political and moral voices. No tickee, no washee. Those demands are so real, that when a small group, Democrats for Life, asked for a link on the DNC websiteMcAuliffecAuliffe refused. He removed all links from that website, instead. It should be noted thaMcAuliffecAuliffe (a graduate of Catholic University of America), had the distinction of having one of the gimplosionplosions of a national political party happen on his watch.

Understandably, Democrats keep to keeo talking about the war in IHalliburtonliburton. As they do, NOW and NARAL attempt to solidify their positions. While one may take heart that the attempt to shoot down the nomination of John Roberts failed, it will be interesting to see who voted 'nay' because of the NOW/NARAL influence. We submit that those who will vote for Roberts will pay a price for that heresy. While the Democrat Party may never be pro-life, it could have taken a very different position. There are many positions other than NOW, NARAL and Planned Parenthood that could have been adopted- positions, that while allowing for choice also embraced responsibility and, as Senator Kennedy alluded to in his letter,

"When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family and to fulfill its responsibility to its children..."

While abortion may be an option for some women in our society, it does not have to be an option that is celebrated. Indeed, the politician who says, 'my support for abortion is necessary but reluctant,' is a voice many Democrats would have respected- and heeded.

Dogging? Blogging? Freudian Slip?

LONDON (Reuters) - Proponents of the latest Web trends were warned Tuesday that the rest of the world may not have a clue what they are talking about.

A survey of British taxi drivers, pub landlords and hairdressers -- often seen as barometers of popular trends -- found that nearly 90 percent had no idea what a podcast is and more than 70 percent had never heard of blogging.

"When I asked the panel whether people were talking about blogging, they thought I meant dogging," said Sarah Carter, the planning director at ad firm DDB London.

Dogging is the phenomenon of watching couples have sex in semi-secluded places such as out-of-town car parks. News of such events are often spread on Web sites or by using mobile phone text messages.

More people (56 percent) understood the phrase "happy slapping" -- a teenage craze that involves assaulting people while capturing it on video with their mobile phones -- than podcasting (12 percent) or blogging (28 percent).

"Our research not only shows that there is no buzz about blogging and podcasting outside of our media industry bubble, but also that people have no understanding of what the words mean," Carter said. "It's a real wake-up call."

A blog, short for Web log, is an online journal, while podcasting is a method of publishing audio programs over the Internet -- a name derived from combining iPod, Apple's popular digital music player, with broadcasting, even though portable devices are not necessary to listen to a podcast.

DDB, a unit of New York-based advertising group Omnicom, said the survey results indicate that agencies may be pushing their clients to use new technology -- that is, to advertise on the new media formats -- too quickly.

"We spend too much time talking to ourselves in this industry, rather than getting out there and finding out what's really going on in the world," DDB's chief strategy officer David Hackworthy said.

Mamacita's Credentials

Everyone knows we are big fans of Mamacita. We have written about her- and she has, on more than one occasion, written a guest post on this blog. See this, this and this, as an examples of what teachers know but won't necessarily share.

Irrespective of degrees, CEU's, awards and prizes, a teacher only real credentials are her former students.

The following appeared on another blog. It was written by one of Mamacita's former students- one of the many that taken together, make up her Doctorate in Education.


I was asked to respond to a point in a discussion somewhere about Gifted and Talented programs in schools. This got me to thinking about teachers I have known, and I felt my response was worthy of being posted here as well. And yes, the teacher referenced has her own blog - I'm proud to link to it.

Anyhoo, enjoy.

---

In an ideal world, all children would have access to a quality education and given the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Of course, we do not live in an ideal world. Therefore, those of us who have taken the mantle of teacher - for my money, the single most important mantle in the world - have to find ways to get kids to that point in some hideous circumstances.

I count myself fortunate beyond compare that Jane was my teacher, because she believed in me when it looked like no one else really cared. Here's my story.

In fourth grade, they took three of us from my elementary school and pulled us out for G/T class 2 or 3 times a week. If memory serves (and years of college will dull the memory of elementary school somewhat), we took a class on basic computer use. (In rural Indiana in the early-to-mid 1980s, a computer was a wonder.) This class wasn't much, but it was something. It sent me a message - that the school district, while still believing strongly in educating every kid, felt that certain kids showed the promise of greatness to justify extra opportunities. I grew up on a hog farm; my family was not (and to this day is not) wealthy (indeed, for most of the 80s, we were no more than one missed payment from foreclosure - I still don't know how we made it). I was not rich, connected, or related to a member of the school board. Yet, because I showed aptitude, I was given a great opportunity.

The next year, there was no G/T. One of the three junior high schools wanted a new gym floor, so they cut the G/T program to pay for it.

For three years, I was rarely challenged. I kept up my grades - what choice did I have? - but I learned to loathe the small minds and xenophobics that populated my school district.

Then I had Jane for 8th grade English. She encouraged me and believed in me when, as I said above, my entire community was sending me the message that good enough was good enough. She exposed me to culture unavailable to the average son of a hog farmer. She took me up to the nearest College town and let me explore the bookstores up there.

Because of her, I believed in myself again. Because of her, I went on to college (it was not a given - my two brothers are quite intelligent, but they have no degrees) and then to grad school. Because of her, I knew what a good teacher is. Every time I step into a classroom, Jane is there.

And it's all because she believed in the spirit of what a G/T program should be. All of her students get a good education - but she finds those with potential and sends them to places they couldn't have imagined otherwise.

And you can quote me on that.

WF

The State of Journalism In China

The jailing of Chinese journalists is an indication of just how far away from democracy China really is.

Here are a few articles that are wake up calls.

A Disgraceful Sentence, Jail Sentence for Online Writer, the Third This Year, Chinese Internet Writer's Hunger Strike Reaches Three Weeks, Chinese Dissident Sentenced to Seven Years Imprisonment, Epoch Times Reporters Jailed in China, China’s Suppression of the Epoch Times Revealed.

A.N.S.W.E.R must be so proud of their comrades.

Journalism, The Imperfect Faith

It occurred to us that we might extend our discussion of the past few days. We have discussed, morality, religion and secularism. While the words we have written are few, the conversation is incredibly important.

To that mix, we would add journalism. That profession is decidedly secular in nature. In fact, we have been conditioned to believe that only secular journalism is professional journalism. If a journalist is identified as having religious beliefs, he or she are immediately suspect- and that they would be more likely to be less objective than secularist members of the same profession. In effect, the message is that journalists who are believers would knowingly deceive others.

Of course, secularists do not see their own bias- that is to say, they consider themselves the norm and believers as one of the great anomalies of the human condition. Whatever biases they might have, can be set aside because they are 'fair minded'- a quality apparently not found in

In fact, the whole notion of 'professional' journalism is a direct offshoot of human progress, if you were to believe the secular community.

It was journalists, secularists say, that assumed the role of educating the masses. Morality and ethics were to be the purview of the religious community. What is significant is that the role journalists assigned themselves was also declared to be of equal importance to morality and ethics. After the passage of time, in their role of 'educating' the masses, journalists came into conflict with the religious domain of morality and ethics. That was easily dealt with- they would assume the mantle of moral and ethics teacher. Religion was to be further relegated to the back of the bus.

Journalism was to be the newest faith- perfect in every way and noble in the pursuit of justice. Woodward and Bernstein were the newest prophets, to be revered and emulated. An entire generation of Journalism school graduates would ride off in the sunset in pursuit of the ultimate investigative journalist story, that would right the world and bring justice to all. It was perfect. Religious nobility and the American cowboy spirit- a spirit we admire, and would thus forgive, in the case of excess.

So what if a few lives were wrecked in the pursuit of the story? So what if innocents, knowingly hung out to dry before the country, were to spend years in prison- after all, those prophets meant well. That happened, as the country was held spellbound as reports of Satanism in preschools, were made to sound as if it was a national epidemic. The noble prophets of journalism were protecting us from evil- how could we not be adoring and grateful? An exaggeration? No, not really. See this, this and this, from the Village Voice, for starters.

Even the coverage of religion was to be secular in nature. Many religion journalists are not at all qualifies to discuss religious issues in a serious manner, covering the topic as they might cover the weather- happy faces, everybody is getting along and religion must always appear to be progressive- that is, assume the same moral position as the secularists.

It is interesting to note that secular journalism, ostensibly in pursuit of the truth, has carefully crafted an Ivory Tower for itself. Giving religion voice an equal voice in matters of morality and ethics, scares the journalists and the MSM- more than it should? Why is that? Likely, because if religious voices were to be perceived as credible and substantive- and fit in with the world as we know it, the stanglehold that journalism has on our culture will come into question- an idea intolerable to secularists.

Yes, it is as fair to report on religious excesses as political excesses. Nevertheless, there is a mainstream, moderate voice that is ignored, or regarded as suspect- by design. The media will cover Jesse Jackson and and never ask him the hard questions that need to be asked. The media will not cover Jesse Peterson- treating him as a quirk or an anomaly, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The media relationship with religion is a curious one- paternalistic, critical and belligerent.

To paraphrase the Bard, "They doth protesteth too much."

The Tour Bus

Check out the Lost Budgie's post on the goings on in the Royal Ontario Museum. The show is controversial- made moreso by lack of discussion on the comtoversial event. In addition, The Lost Budgie hit the big time apparently, he is now banned in China. All in all, not a bad thing.

When you're done with that, put away that cup of coffee and put some distance between yourselves and liquid.

Tommy, at Striving ofor Average, authored, "Where is Your Hat" and 'The Bird Flu Epidemic," some of the best takes on the goings on on matters in the news.

Revolutionary Role Models

You know how it is when you can't quite put your finger on something- but you know exactly what is you know?

Katrina, Rita, and Cindy Sheehan have brought into sharp focus the agendized media that is our reality. Regardless of one's personal politics, it is clear that the media is riding it's own pony.

The NYT pursues an agenda and won't come clean on an apology. Nationally, the media report as fact, that which is not true- and no one apparently, seems to see the problem as overly worrisome. Ray Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans that didn't do a damn thing to evacuate his city, is quoted as if he were an Apostle. The same reporter that asks the President where he was during Katrina, asks the President if his presence in Texas during Rita is distracting- or worse, to FEMA and first reponders.

Editorialists- supposedly the 'sober second thought' of the journalistic community, expect us to take seriously the notion that all that goes wrong in Washington can be placed at the feet of George Bush. When that notion is disposed of, they shrug their shoulders and move on to the attack, knowing full well the moral bankruptcy in siding with individuals and causes that are indefensible or untrue.

The Anchoress has gently, if firmly, put her finger on the relationship of the mainstream media, bloggers and the consumers of news. Her post, A tip of the hat to CBS, describes the heating battle for hearts and minds, a bit of competeing marketing campaigns and a lot of the truth, lost in the incessant cacaphony of bleating agendas.

In the meantime, bloggers move forward as the pamphleteers of this generation. All of us, on both sides of the political spectrum and every place in between, have a voice and a place. The blogging community have good role models- Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, William Molineux and Paul Revere, have each left a the legacy of integrity and inclusion.

The MSM would do well to remember that.

The theme of media influence and reality is the topic of discussion at Maxed Out Mama. In her post, Why Spinning is Often Political Suicide, she lays bare some of the silliness that agenda based politicking. In particular, she notes how some people believe that Vietnam was better off after Americans left- completely ignoring the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands and the internment of over a million more in 're-education' camps. The breadth of the shallowness is breathtaking.

Great Minds

The following are excerpts from a few emails in response to the post, Would You Be Able To Parent A Gifted Child?

Yes, the insight is from Mamacita, descended from a long line of teacher and tutors that educated and instructed, Ptolemy, Alexander the Great, Jeremiah (she instructed him in homiletics and fashion), Shakespeare, Sigmund Freud, of course and Yasser Arafat (which goes to show that some children are uneducable. After that experince, she abandoned the notion of social promotion and started blogging, telling it like it is.).

To those of you who wrote asking for anonymity, thank you for your opinion and advice- more than a bit of it is most helpful.

...Most respected scientists, performers, artists, musicians, philosophers, teachers, etc, do not fit into any one pattern of standardization. Most of them had trouble at school, because of their quirky ways of viewing things that most people find uniform. Einstein wasn't allowed to go to high school; Edison wasn't allowed to finish grade school. Thinking 'out of the box' was always a good sign, in my opinion.

Realize also that any 'gifted' class a child is place in, will also have a lot of students in it whose parents insisted they be included, and who really aren't gifted at all. Politically powerful parents usually get whatever they want at their child's school, whether it is deserved or not.

I think that creativity is the deciding factor, in my own admittedly quirky not-always-approved opinion. I don't mean just in writing or drawing or music, necessarily; but also in things that most people don't find any creative outlet in.

"...Making stained-glass windows in geometry class, and being able to point out arches in buildings and knowing why they're there. Taking a beloved novel and writing extra chapters for it. Taking a disliked book and re-writing it to make it better. Having characters from one book meet up with characters from another book. FanFiction is a great site for such. There's a lot of shit there but there is also a LOT of genuinely wonderful transformations...."

"Gifted people often re-write other people's stuff in their minds. They sometimes carry a little notebook with them wherever they go, to make sure they don't 'lose' a good idea. Sometimes they write down their dreams before they get out of bed."

"...Gifted kids are different, and in our society, particularly the cut-throat society of the schoolroom, different is dead. Kids who would rather write poetry than play dodgeball are labeled by the vicious little dodgeball-players. Kids who would rather play a bassoon than cover second base are suspect and probably gay. Kids who can sing like Charlotte Church in fifth grade often keep their mouths shut rather than be singled out or pointed to as 'different.' The herd mentality is rampant in our schools and society, and it extends, yes, even to the adult world, to our shame. People in our society, civilized though they may claim to be, are quick to sniff out someone who is 'different,' and do their utmost best, not to rise up to that level, but to force the talented one down to average, or below. School systems and curriculums are good at this. Horrifyingly good.

If it can't be measured, then we don't need it. It frightens me.

People idolize celebrities who exhibit these qualities, but for some reason, people become hostile when a supposedly ordinary person 'in our class' or 'right there in the office' displays talent not found in the others. I've never understood why. Parents whose kids are not chosen sometimes become hateful to the kids who WERE chosen, and to their parents. Parents whose kids WERE chosen sometimes become unbearable towards those whose kids were not.

Here is what I think. Take it with a grain of salt. Or a shaker.

Go ahead and let your daughter join the class. Monitor the curriculum closely. Make sure it is 'different,' and not merely 'more of the same.' So many teachers/systems/administrators 'reward' a gifted child who finishes fast by actually punishing them with more of the same kind of work. This is NOT a gifted curriculum. If ever it becomes simply 'more of the same stuff' pull her out, and do it fast..."

"...I say screw that PC nonsense. Let smart kids do smart work. Not more work, SMART work. Stop telling parents that their kids 'right at average' score on standardized tests means all is well. Hell, don't people have goals any more? Average is as close to the bottom as it is to the top... "

It's Not Abstract

Beth, over at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, has a terrific post up that illustrates clearly that however we think and feel about the war in Iraq, makes a difference. In an Email from Iraq, from a Marine lifer, we hear the following.

I think you would be amazed at the morale of the young military people here. I know I am. I’ve been in for over 28 years and I have seen good and bad. These youngsters are getting the job done in a way I would never have imagined. They go on convoys, get shot at or have IEDs go off, then they return still in high spirits. The trick here is to convince the bad guys they have been beat. The idiots at the peace rallies are what’s really hurting since the stated goals of the insurgents is to break down public support for the war in the US.

It isn't as if protesting the war is wrong- indeed, that is what we fight for- the right to freely express our views. It is in how we protest the war that makes the difference. If, in our protests, we give 'aid and comfort' to the enemy, well that isn't exactly the political message we want to send- that we will sacrifice our own in the name of a political agenda.

Cindy Sheehan notwithstanding, those that have declared their intentions to kill Shia men, women and children are not 'freedom fighters.' They- and their supporters do not care about Iraqis, Americans or anything other than a political agenda. Cindy Sheehan and her supporters are frauds- and there is no dance they can do that will change that. Their agenda is tainted with a venom of hatred.

Read Beth's post and consider the truth that what we say and how we say it, has meaning- and consequences.

Would You Be Able To Parent A Gifted Child?

What would you do if you're child was a genius? Would you be able to parent a child so gifted?

What constitutes 'pushing' a child too hard, versus challenging a child to excel?

How does a parent balance social achievement versus academic achievement?

Some gifted children are branded with the ADHD label, often misdiagnosed. How does a parent deal with that?

If a child is identified as gifted and attends a special public or private school program, will that really have any bearing on academic success- or failure? Are the qualifications for gifted children programs realistic? Who decide what those qualifications should be? Should parents have equal input?

The Council for Exceptional Children identifies the early signs of giftedness as:

• Abstract reasoning and problem solving skills
• Rapid progression through developmental milestones
• Curiosity
• Early and extensive language
• Early recognition of caretakers
• Enjoyment and speed of learning
• Extraordinary memory
• Very high activity level
• Intense reaction to pain, noise or frustration
• Sensitivity and compassion
• Perfectionist
• Very alert in infancy
• Has a very vivid imagination

There are children who do not show signs of giftedness until after they start school. The State of Florida calls them 'Plan B' children, and places them in alternate programs only after they start primary school. They identify Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison as 'Plan B' type students.

Do you have confidence in the teachers you know might be able to encourage or even recognize giftedness?

About 20 minutes ago, we received an email from a teacher, informing us that our daughter needs to be taking advanced coursework- way, way advanced coursework. The fact is, we knew she was bright (sometimes too smart for her own good, even!), but we pretended it wasn't relevant to her upbringing (We credit the ex, a lot- she is a fanatstic mother). Well, that jig is up. Do we listen to the teachers, go with our instincts, and do we need to involve our daughter in the decision making process?

While we are proud, we are more afraid. This is a whole new ballgame- and that is why we are 'asking around.'

Those are a lot of questions. We know many of you have kids, teach or work with kids. We also know that many of you are a whole lot smarter than we are when it comes to making decisions like this. We are asking for your considered opinions.

How To Get Re-Elected

Doing the right thing will get a politician elected.

Burundi's president has told ministers to stop orders for luxury government vehicles in a drive to cut costs in a country where most survive on the equivalent of 25 U.S. cents a day.

Burundi's president has told ministers to stop orders for luxury government vehicles in a drive to cut costs in a country where most survive on the equivalent of 25 U.S. cents a day.

In a similar move, neighboring Rwanda announced this month it had impounded over 1,000 government vehicles to be sold at auction in a bid to cut spending in a country where more than half the budget is financed from foreign donors.

If they can do it in Burundi and Rwanda, why can't the Palestinians fight corruption? Then again, those four wheel drives are used by terror leaders to get away and family weekend picnics. The good news is that they make nice, big, juicy targets for Israeli missiles.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Environment , God And The Intellectual Aristocracy

A comment was left by Eric, author of Island Catholic, on our post Progress Religion and Secularism. Eric stated,

I would like to say though that I'm sure the religious background and beliefs of both Darwin and Einstein contributed to their views, their work and their science, but you can also say the same thing about those who call themselves atheist.

Everyone grows up in an environment with a certain religious climate or temperature. As you say, it is impossible to disregard it or deny it without losing an appreciation for the dynamics of a society.

There is no question that environment has a lot to do with how religion is perceived. The well known sociologist, Bryan Wilson stated that modernity and religion are incompatible. Anyone who flushes a toilet or watches television cannot believe in the divine.

History textbooks are replete with the idea that as social structure evolved, so did 'consciousness' (read- progress). What is left unclear is why technological progress, by itself, should undermine religion. It is also fair to ask why great migratory shifts, a dominant feature of industrialization, for example, should serve to undermine religion. These assertions are taken as truth- but in reality, they remain theories at best.

Religion, excluded from the town square, came about as a result of efforts of individuals. Who those people were, and the study of what motivated them, has never been made clear. We know little of their grievances, politics, or even what outcomes they desired. Clearly, political support was necessary- from whence did that support emanate? Was it political ideologies were they were espousing? Who were their idealogical supporters?

Edward Shils wrote that Western intellectuals espoused four intellectual traditions: scientism, romanticism, apolalypticism and populism. The American intellectual community has embraced the first two traditions. Scientism is self explanatory. Romanticism, as an intellectual pursuit, can be understood as the appreciation of the genious of the individual. That is, anything that highlights and spotlights individual achievements. Traditions, family, community faith all are enemies of individual self expression. The market, and sense of communal obligation are anathema to the individual- they impose restrictions and preclude 'self expression'- as if self expression were the highest of human achievements. The notion that communities have expectations from their citizens is repugnant to these 'thinkers.' Communities are an enemy of genuineness and creativity. In The Battle for the American Soul, we posit that is an absurd notion. Neither religion or secularism is the enemy of progress. Each has been and will continue to be contributory to mans advancement.

The religious community must remember that Free Will is just that- free will. We have a choice in how we live our lives- and that is between man and God. Non believers can be as moral or even moral than a flawed believer- and we would do well to remember we are all flawed.

The secular community must remember that they do not replace the religious community. Scientific education and the secular study of ethics and morality do not make for an intellectual aristocracy, to be held in higher esteem than all others. One cannot negate the impact for good the religious community has had upon this nation and world. The value of that good is not demeaned by a relationship with God.

In fact, in the Times obituary of Bryan Wilson, he was quoted as saying, "It (religion) offers another world to explore as an escape from the rigours of technological order and the ennui that is the incidental by-product of an increasingly programmed world."

It is true that religion has caused much pain. It is also true that the same could be said of secularism.

Religion has earned, by virtue of its good deeds, a place at the table in the matter of public discourse.

Progress, Religion and Secularism

One of the great assumptions (rarely questioned) of the ages, is that progress is the great impetus for secularism. In fact, many argue that secularism and progress are the result of the abandonment of religion and/or long held moral values.

These are ideas are taught everyday, if not directly, then by implication, in schools across the country. By the time students hit college, to even question that assumption is to mark oneself as 'uninformed' and irrelevant.

Why is the assumption that progress, by necessity, means secularism, and that is belief is never challenged? We believe there are two primary reasons.

First religion has been moved from the public square- completely. Religion, specifically any one religion, should not dominate that public square and take center stage, of course. We all agree on that. However, we have reached a point where there are no public debates where religion can have an equal voice in helping to shape our communities. Fabled Town Hall debates, used to be held in churches, because it understood that in matters from morality to the settling of disputes, the churches had standing. The secularists could not abide that. In their world, there was no place for God. They could not tolerate or risk a confrontation with the Churches. They wanted to stack the deck against them, by obviating them. Liberalism, evolutionary theory, Marxist ideology, and so on were all designed to exclude religion. Man himself was to be elevated to a god-like status. One didn't need God to be merciful and high minded. As we wrote earlier, in Battle for The American Soul, they accomplished that by focusing on the 'rights' rather than the obligations of individual in society.

While it is true free societies naturally evolve, they must retain some of the original DNA that was there at their creation. That original DNA that served as the basis of free societies had less to do with the self and a lot to do with the society and community. What causes societies and communities to be be founded and succeed, is the abiding focus on the welfare of that society and community, as a whole. It is true that great emphasis in free societies is placed on the individual, but in the end, that focus is really about the place the individual has within society. In exchange for his contributions, the individual is accorded certain rights and privileges- in exchange for those contributions and obligations.

What was to be the pincer movement against religious participation in society and its subsequent marginalization, was the false notion that religion and science were to prove to be incompatible. One could not be a scientist and be religious. That of course, flies in the face of reality. Science was once the purview of the religious communities, from Catholicism, to Islam to Judaism.

What biologists won't tell you is that Darwin himself remained a committed Christian and saw no conflict with his beliefs. Physicists forget that Albert Einstein was a Believer. 'God does not play dice with the universe,” he used to say. In one of his last public lectures at Princeton, Einstein set out to prove mathematically, the existance of God. When he was finished , he asked if there were any questions. His reputed response on the ensuing silence was, “Good, I didn't think there would be any. You paid attention.” It is said that Princeton no longer offered him the courtesy of lecture hall space. He had insulted the Physics Department and that was unthinkable. Scientists will tell their students they have no time for religion.

It is true that culture, philosophy, value systems are all subjects that merit study on their own. They cannot however, be separated from the systems that gave them life- the religious, historical and social systems from which they sprung. In fact, it is those origins that help those fields of study to keep on evolving.

It is the secularists that wish to make the distinction from religious influence to secularism, a clear and cataclysmic event. The way we learn history reflects that. In less than a century, we were to have gone from the 'Age of Faith' to the 'Age of Reason.' Supposedly, the legend goes, we went from a universally religious society to an almost universally secular one. That too, is a lie. The idea that primitive man is religious while educated man is not, is a mythology, used as a marketing tool of secularism. The truth is clear- every single version of materialism, skepticism and spiritual devotion can be found across the spectrum of the human condition of 500 years ago in rural Europe and Asia. That real truth corresponds to the same spectrum of beliefs found today, in New York City.

In fact, the first real secularists were the Jews and Christians. They were to question everything. They were to debate the meaning of man and life. Within each religion were debates, wars, intellectual truces and eventual compromises. Not quite the description of religion taught, is it?

In fact, an argument can be made that religious thought is far more flexible than secularist thought. Moral beliefs are by nature fluid. They are not scientific and unbending. There are no time clocks, robotic laser welds or conveyor belt and packaging machines. The moral mind cannot function in a world so structured and defined. God exceeds those constraints. It is the secularist that thinks 'inside the box' and the believer that thinks 'outside the box,' by design.

Religion has come a long way. We wrote:

In truth, for a long time, religion was used as method of oppression. However, that expression of faith has no foothold here. We were founded by those who wished to escape that and other forms of tyranny. It is religion that allowed for and was the original guarantor of freedom in this country.

Is secularism the answer to our future? Secularism, and all it's derivatives, were understandable reactions to being held underfoot by a Church and faith that cared not a whit for it's believers. That Church, thankfully, no longer exists, in no small measure due to the reality that human dignity, especially under God's Dominion, demanded freedom. When a slave broke the chains of his bondage, he didn't stay long enough to have tea and say good bye to his master. He ran, as far and fast as he could.

Those former slaves to that less than whole and open Church, found a new replacement for God. That new religion, for many, was Science- and Ethics. Nietzsche defiantly and confidently declared that "God is Dead." He was right. The God that Nietzche and the other starring cast of the Enlightenment understood and knew, was indeed dead. In it's place a new belief structure arouse. As the Church once oppressed, in extremis, so too did the resulting backlash of secularism, in a hedonistic orgy of self centered obsession.

That's not assumption. That is reality.Perhaps the day will come when secularists are able to self critricize and grow in the same way the religious community has.

Succinctly Offensive

Here's what you read when lunch had too many carbs and you're feeling a bit sleepy. While don't agree with all of it, there is much to consider.

Missing: Rose Colored Glasses...

Burger King will be withdrawing and changing the logo for its ice cream cups because, if one looks very closely and has a good imagination, the logo appeared to some Muslims to look sort of like the word Allah in Arabic if it was viewed from just the right angle. Not wanting to offend, Burger King caved in to the constantly complaining and whining Muslims who seem to find some offense in just about everything these days. One has to wonder just how many Western Muslims can even read Arabic.

The Taliban found offense in the ancient statues of Buddha in Bamiyan, Afghanistan, and blew them to bits. These Muslims also found offense in several smaller and much easier to destroy ancient clay and wood-carved statues at the same location. All of these irreplaceable pieces of history were destroyed because some Muslims found them “offensive.” Should the great pyramids of Egypt be destroyed if someone finds them offensive?

The Taliban also found music, flying kites, dancing of any kind, women leaving the house without a male family member, and balloons offensive. Any woman leaving the house without being covered from head to toe was so offensive that she risked being beaten to death.

Strict Islamics find the human female body offensive and believe that every woman should be covered from head to toe. Muslims will tell you that they cover their women out of modesty and respect but this simply isn’t the case. Strict Islamics believe a woman is born in sin and is just one living, breathing sin that needs to be covered at all times so that the public cannot see her shame. If a woman crosses a man's path while he is praying, he must begin anew because the woman is offensive to Allah.

An incomplete list of people Islamics also seem to find offensive is: all Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, ex-Muslims, and all non-Muslims.

These days, it seems that Sunni Muslims find Shia Muslims to be offensive as well.

Also offensive is any reference to the Quran by non-Muslims that does not expound on how every word is perfect and written by God himself. Anything less than complete agreement is an offense that often carries a death sentence. Just ask Salman Rushdie, author of “Satanic Verses,” who had to hide for years to stay alive, and Theo Van Gogh, who paid with his life for speaking the truth about Islam.

This past week, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts suggested that since virtually every terrorist attack around the world has been carried out by Muslims, it might behoove us to listen in on what is being preached in American mosques. Just as a reminder, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was planned with the assistance of Muslim cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, better known as the “Blind Sheik.” As expected, the Council of American/Islamic Relations (CAIR) went ballistic. To no one’s surprise, CAIR did not claim that Islamic governments don’t eavesdrop on Christian churches. Of course, Islamics don’t do that; Islamic governments just burn churches down, occasionally with the people still in them.

Strict Islamic countries find women wearing white socks sexually provocative and offensive. Pictures of humans or animals are offensive and men who shave their faces are offensive. Card playing is offensive. Girls attending school and receiving an education are offensive. Women who vote are also offensive.

A woman daring to leave her home without permission even to rush her sick child to a doctor is offensive. Of course, female doctors are offensive, so any woman requiring medical care can’t receive it because all the doctors are men.

Islamics also seem to be offended by America, Great Britain, Poland, Israel, Australia, Spain, Italy, Japan, Russia, and New Zealand, just to mention a few countries. Interestingly, Islam doesn’t seem to be as offended by France or Germany.

In fairness, what Islam doesn’t find offensive should be examined. Many Muslims did not find the murder of 3,000 people on 9/11 offensive. Saddam Hussein, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of fellow Muslims, was not offensive. Forbidding the practice of other religions in an Islamic country is not offensive while daring to question what might be going on inside a mosque in America, is terribly offensive.

The murder of thousands of Iraqi Muslims doesn’t seem to offend Islamics, as long the killing is being done by other Muslims. If an American soldier kills a Muslim trying to kill him, that is offensive. The beheading of helpless prisoners by “freedom fighters” is not offensive. Putting mass murderers in a prison camp that provides good food, allows time to pray, provides copies of the Quran and prayer rugs, gives medical and dental care, and allows Islamic clerics to provide the prisoners with religious council, is offensive.

The Quran touching the floor is offensive but urinating on or burning the Bible is not. Profiling people from Islamic countries that support terrorism is offensive but imprisoning Christians for wearing a cross is not.

Teaching people about Islam is encouraged, but teaching Christianity is a beheading offense.

Islamics are not offended when Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, declares that it is the goal of CAIR to replace our Constitution with the Quran and is incensed if Americans are offended. After all, that is being disrespectful of the Quran. Any American who does not want the Quran replacing the Constitution and who speaks out against Islam is immediately labeled an “Islamaphobe.” When Islam is involved, there is no freedom of speech.

Another thing that doesn’t seem to offend many Muslims is the killing of a ten-year-old rape victim. She must have been “asking for it.” The little vixen soiled the family name and was probably wearing white socks. Also not offensive is the stoning to death of women who are merely suspected of “being with a man not their husband.” Hanging college students who dare to speak out against oppressive and cruel ayatollahs isn’t offensive to many Muslims either.

Muslims are not offended by the age-old Islamic tradition of forcing their young daughters to marry their 60-year-old uncles. Girls as young as 12 are forced to marry their cousins and occasionally even their half-brothers. This is done to keep the family money in the family. However, this practice also produces the genetic defects caused by constant inbreeding.

What Americans should find offensive is how the media, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), CAIR, and American leftists recoil in horror if a cruel word is said about Islam as they all set about the business of destroying our own Christian-based society. As socialists and atheists slowly remove all traces of God from America, Islamics are standing ready to fill the void with Allah and Islamic law. Any American who doesn’t believe that we are war with Islam isn’t paying attention.

Americans need to wake up from their liberal-media and television-induced stupor. CAIR and the ACLU do not represent American culture but they are both being allowed to destroy it. That offends me. It should offend you. Perish the though that we should offend anyone...

The Grip On Sanity

Over the last few days, Dr Sanity has posted some terrific pieces. Of course, that isn't at all a surprise- Dr Sanity's track record speaks for itself. That said, there have been some great posts, one after the other, that merit attention.

First, read Just Another Utopian Nightmare. Just read it. Think of it as a rose colored glasses removal system.

In Answers About A.N.S.W.E.R, Dr Sanity puts the black and white of one of the main anti-war/anti Bush players on the table. We mention this, because her one remark works well.

You know, most of my patients with paranoid schizophrenia have a far superior grasp of reality than these folks.

In a further examination of the anti-war folk, she says in Good Question,

Let's be honest. These people are not "antiwar". They do not stage protests about the killing of innocent people from Al Qaeda jihad. They do not demonstrate against the 100 million or more people murdered by communism in the last century. They do not express their rage at the mass graves of Saddam.

They are anti-American. They are only protesting because America chooses to defend itself against Islamofascist thugs who want to create a new Islamic caliphate by waging....war.

Let's face the truth. If there are "innocent" and "fine, sincere people" who are participating in these demonstrations, then they have to be the most clueless, vapid, and seriously intellectually challenged individuals in history. They joyfully support the ideologies that stand behind these demonstrations; and that makes them complicit to the most savage and vile behavior that has ever been perpetrated on the human species. It is their "peacefulness" that has led to the slaughter of millions of their fellow human beings. It is their cluelessness that has enabled and supported dictators and oppression throughout history.

In The Stuff of Delusion, she discusses Able Danger at length. That may not turn your crank (even though it should), but her observations are pointed. In discussing matters where the facts remain unknown, she says,

These differences in perspective and opinion are completely normal when dealing with a situation in which all the facts are not known.

When all the facts are not known, the mind naturally will "fill in the gaps" and try to create a coherent picture -- perhaps even when there is no coherence. This process is similar to what happens to paranoid psychotic people. They experience something for which they have no explanation--say, a strange tingling in their head that occurred when an airplane flew over.

The post is subtle and direct, all at once. You may not agree with all her politics, of course. Dr Sanity's observations however, are spot on.

We like Dr Sanity, a lot. She is thoughtful, cogent and smart- and she expects the same qualities from her readers. She doesn't pander and it shows. Her posts are on target and well persented.

Imagine that- a real psychiatrist with a grip on reality.

One is almost tempted to ask, 'What is wrong with her?'