Considerettes

President-elect Obama has invited Saddleback pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation (i.e. opening prayer) at the inauguration.  While Obama and Warren disagree on some issues, Obama says he wants to "create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable."  In fact, this follows in the footsteps of Bush’s choice in 2004, as the Huffington Post notes.

At his 2005 inaugural, George W. Bush tapped Rev. Dr. Louis Leon to deliver the invocation. Like Obama and Warren, the two shared a commitment to combating AIDS in Africa, as well as a friendship from time spent in each other’s company. But Leon was and is a progressive voice. And his selection in ‘04 sparked a lot of interest, though little of the outrage that we see with Warren.

Indeed, the "tolerant" Left side of the blogosphere didn’t seem to get the "disagree without being disagreeable" memo.

Americablog: “Great, then where are the racists, Mr. Obama?"

Markos himself at Daily Kos: “Yeah. Where is David Duke’s invitation? Or as Blue Texan notes, when do Phelps and Hagee get their invitations? Heck, throw up Tom Tancredo up there for good measure, so us Latinos can feel some of the hate!”

Atrios: "Wanker of the Day: Barack Obama."

Firedoglake: "President-elect Obama chose eliminationist hate preacher Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s Inaguration. With this choice, Obama sends three destructive messages. Number one: In Obama’s America, equal rights and reproductive freedom aren’t for everyone. Number two: President-elect Obama likes sharing the national stage with hate. Number three: While Obama enjoys his equality before the law, LGBT Americans can go to Hell. Literally. Gee. Is this change we can believe in?"

Andrew Sullivan: "…pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen."

Think Progress:  "…he laughs off accusations of being ‘homophobic’ because he ‘talks to’ gay people and served protesters water."

(A tip of the hat to Don Surber and John Hawkins, from whom I got much of this list, and who have even more examples.)

Once again, we have examples of liberals, who tout their "tolerance" and "acceptance", being wholly unable to handle any sort of deviation from the orthodoxy.  Additionally, as even the Huffington Post notes, the folks they claim are the intolerant ones actually were more accepting when they were in the same situation. 

Tolerance.  You keep using that word.  I do no think it means what you think it means.

Popularity: 8% [?]

The NY Times reports that things are looking better for black families.

The number of black children being raised by two parents appears to be edging higher than at any time in a generation, at nearly 40 percent, according to newly released census data.

[…]

According to the bureau’s estimates, the number of black children living with two parents was 59 percent in 1970, falling to 42 percent in 1980, 38 percent in 1990 and 35 percent in 2004. In 2007, the latest year for which data is available, it was 40 percent.

That’s definitely good news.  Let’s look at the reasons the Times suggests for this change.

Demographers said such a trend might be partly attributable to the growing proportion of immigrants in the nation’s black population.

Oh, so some of this can be attributed to intact black families coming in to the country.  Well, that doesn’t speak to the families already here.  How about them?

It may have been driven, too, by the values of an emerging black middle class, a trend that could be jeopardized by the current economic meltdown.

So indeed black have been doing quite well during the Bush administration.  You’d never know that from watching the news and listening to rappers dis’ Dubya.  Still, very good to hear.

So then, anything else>

The Census Bureau attributed an indeterminate amount of the increase to revised definitions adopted in 2007, which identify as parents any man and woman living together, whether or not they are married or the child’s biological parents.

Ah, I see.  By simply revising the definition of "parents", the Census Bureau can manufacture some good news.  As James Taranto (who gets the hat tip for pointing out this article) notes:

And why stop there? Suppose the Census Bureau were to redefine two as meaning "one." Voilà, any child who now lives with "one" parent would have an intact family. Instantly the rate would go from 40% to nearly 100%. Wait, make that nearly 200%.

Some may object that the middle of a financial panic is not the best time to start redefining numbers, a practice that could have unintended and undesired consequences for interest rates, currency exchange rates, asset values and so forth.

So here’s a more modest idea: Why not redefine together to mean "on the same planet"? So long as at least one man and one woman live on Earth, whether or not they are married or the child’s biological parents, every child is being raised by two (or more) parents, and this will remain true at least until we begin colonizing space. Hey, it takes a village!

Next: ending tyranny in the world by redefining tyrant to mean "lame-duck president."

In the original article, Prof. Robert Sampson, a Harvard sociology professor, call it "a positive change".  Right.  Kids are living with cohabitating "parents" instead of a married couple, the numbers look better partially because of intact families coming from other countries / cultures, and all this in spite of a burgeoning black middle class.

The good news is that the statistics are up.  The bad news is that actual change in the culture is not the reason we have the good news.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Anti-abortion activists have often claimed that for Planned Parenthood, abortion was primarily about money; more abortions, more income.  PP has insisted that it’s about freedom and choice and health.  But a new video that came out recently shows that following the law is a principle that can be ditched by PP when freedom, choice and health (or…money) is on the line.

Stop the ACLU has the story:

Many of you are already familiar with Lila Rose. About a year and a half ago, she recorded a conversation with a Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles (PPLA) staffer. She told the staffer that she was 15, and that her boyfriend was 23, a clear case of statuatory rape. The PPLA staffer told Lila to simply lie about her age and encouraged her to get an abortion. The conversation set off a firestorm. She also showed the racist eugenics that Planned Parenthood still seems to be practicing.

Earlier this month, Lila Rose’s organization, Live Action Films, released a video, the first in their Mona Lisa Project. For those who haven’t seen it, here it is:

[Embedded video]

This video has prompted an investigation from the Indiana Attorney General of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, in response to the video, fired the employee.

Last night, they released the second video in the series, at a separate Planned Parenthood, with nearly identical results.

The language in the two videos is nearly identical. The advice given is strikingly similar as well. It’s becoming a bit of a stretch to believe that it’s just one employee when these videos are so similar, isn’t it? Does Planned Parenthood perhaps coach their staffers on what to say? Not only do the two employees cover up for the felony of a 31-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old, they give helpful advice on how to cross state lines to avoid Indiana’s parental notification law. What kind of depraved people would do something like that?? How is it that Planned Parenthood can have what they believe to be a 13-year-old tell them they’ve been impregnated by a 31-year-old and not feel they need to take legal action? Aside from the clear fact that they’re breaking the law, do these people have no morals, no ethics?

Apparently not, which calls into question which of the aforementioned values — freedom, choice, health or money — is really more important to them.

The fig leaf that is no longer available to PP is that the employee on the first video was a lone staffer not following the rules.  Getting two examples of it starts to show how thin that leaf is.  They’re willing to close their eyes to the exploitation of a child by someone else so that they get their shot at exploitation, too. 

Your tax dollars at work.  Really.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Last Sundays’ sermon was about meeting the God of Christmas.  If Christmas says anything, it says that God is full of surprises.

The text was John 1:1-9, where Jesus — The Word — is introduced in 3 different ways; the Word (vv. 1-2), the Light (vv. 3-4) and the Life (vv. 5-9).  We see his pre-existence, his creative power, and his life-giving light, which overpowers darkness.  I find it interesting that many religions claim that there needs to be a balance between good and evil.  John 1:5 begs to differ.  There is no balance; the Light overcomes the darkness, and the Light our life.

Some say God cannot be understood, but God most certainly wants to be understood.  If not, He wouldn’t keep trying, all throughout the Bible, to reveal Himself.  True, we cannot know all there is about God, but it is also true that we can know what He does reveal and what we are willing to see.  After all, he came down at Christmas and became one of us and spent 3 years teaching us about Himself and what He is like.  He will speak to us in our language and in a way we can indeed understand.  What we learn may be difficult and, as mentioned, surprising, but that’s not His problem; that’s ours to overcome, with His guidance.

God came into the world because He wants the world to know Him.  He wouldn’t have made the effort if knowing Him was indeed impossible.  During this Christmas season, get to know the God of Christmas.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Yes YOU, if you opposed the auto maker bailout, want the economy to fail.  YOU are a reckless ideologue.  YOU don’t want to solve problems.  YOU want the US to suck up a Depression.  YOU are extraordinarily irresponsible.

So says Harry Reid and the Left side of the blogosphere.  If you want fiscal responsibility out of our government, you’re irresponsible. 

And in January, this line of thinking will hold even more sway in Washington, DC.  Hold on to your wallets, ladies and gentlemen.  It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Popularity: 6% [?]

From Mike Lester (click for larger version):

Popularity: 6% [?]

Thanks to Senate Republicans, the auto bailout didn’t happen.  For now.  The UAW, et. al. may just be biding their time until there are more Democrats in the Senate (i.e. January).  More analysis (and specific credit to Sen. Bob Corker) from Francis Cianfrocca at RedState.

Popularity: 6% [?]

The "Durban II" UN conference on human rights dealing with racism is set to meet next March.  The first meeting of this type in 2001 became so obsessive about Israel that Colin Powell pulled the US out of it.  In a Wall Street Journal editorial earlier this week, they suggested we not even show up this time.  A little harsh?  Premature, perhaps?

Consider this:

"Durban II," planned for April in Geneva, promises to be an encore of the same old Israel-bashing. The draft declaration says Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians amounts to no less than "a new kind of apartheid, a crime against humanity, a form of genocide and a serious threat to international peace and security." We’ll spare you the rest.

Israel will be the main obsession, but it’s not the only target. The draft declaration also goes after the West’s freedom of speech and antiterror laws under the guise of protecting religion (read: Islam) from "defamation." The entire West will be in the dock for allegedly persecuting Muslims. "The most serious manifestations of defamation of religions are the increase in Islamophobia and the worsening of the situation of Muslim minorities around the world," the draft reads. "Islamophobia" is a term used to brand any criticism of Islam as a hate crime.

The Islamic terrorists who have killed hundreds of thousands of their co-religionists get a free pass. Instead, the draft calls for a media code of conduct and "internationally binding normative standards . . . that can provide adequate guarantees against defamation of religions." If this sounds like censorship, that’s because it is.

Well, can’t we just reason with them?  If we don’t show up, we can’t make a change, right? 

But we may not be able to make a change anyway, given who’s in charge.

The conference is being organized by the U.N. Human Rights Council, which, like its discredited predecessor, the Human Rights Commission, has been taken over by the world’s main abusers of human rights. The Organization of Islamic Countries, the most powerful voting bloc at the U.N., put Libya in charge of preparing Durban II, assisted by such other pillars of the international community as Iran and Cuba.

Yeah, those stalwarts of human rights and tolerance.    The inmates are in charge of the asylum.  The UN continues to be an exercise in futility, giving evil regimes legitimacy regarding their actions, under the cover of "international cooperation". 

In fact it was so bad, that the name of the body was changed 2 years ago to avoid the (well deserved) bad PR it was receiving for doing exactly what this body is doing; making human rights abusers arbiters of human rights violations.  And how well has that worked out?  The blog UN Watch has been watching.

In its two years of existence, the Arab-controlled council has systematically undermined the cause of human rights and eviscerated the UN’s few existing tools that work. Human rights monitors in Belarus, Cuba, Liberia, Congo (DRC), have all been scrapped. Genocide by Sudan has been ignored, with the monitor of that country’s atrocities now on the  chopping block as well. Watch the March 2009 session, when the Sudan mandate is set to expire.

Violations by 189 other countries have been equally ignored, while Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism was encouraged. A full 80% of all country censures were directed at one nation, Israel. The list goes on and on.

Never in the history of international human rights has one of its own institutions inflicted so much damage.

On what basis will time be a healer? On the contrary, with each session, another remaining country monitor gets eliminated, more Islamic resolutions are adopted to curtail free speech in the name of “defamation of religion”, and human rights as a whole suffers.

The UN is fatally broken.  Its own attempts at fixing the problems simply keep the status quo.  If it is to survive, it must be remade from outside, or simply abolished.  The suggestion of a league of democracies has, I think, a much better chance at succeeding than the UN.

Some define madness as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I give you Exhibit A.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Parishioners in the Episcopal Church USA are bailing out.

More than 60% of dioceses in the Episcopal Church USA suffered double digit decline in Average Sunday Attendance from 1997 to 2007 with predictions that the figures will only escalate in 2008 with even greater hemorrhaging.

An official report, drawn from the Episcopal Church’s own figures, shows that the Episcopal Church drew 841,445 Episcopalians in 1997, but in 2007 that figure was 727,822, a drop of 113, 623. In 2008 the estimated loss is about 1,000 Episcopalians weekly. With whole dioceses leaving, that figure could well reach 1,200 now that a new North American Anglican Province has been formed. Recently, nearly 7,000 Episcopalians left the Diocese of Ft. Worth.

More numbers at the link.  The report also notes what the reason is.

All indicators are that the losses will only increase in 2008. More parishes will leave as the new Anglican Province in North America takes shape. There is now overwhelming evidence that the consecration of V. Gene Robinson, a non-celibate homosexual to the episcopacy, has been a huge net loss to the church. His much vaunted "God is doing a new thing" is emptying, rather than filling churches. The Diocese of New Hampshire lost 12% of its parishioners between 2003-2007 and a further 6% in 2006-2007. Losses are expected to escalate in 2008.

Parishioners are standing up for what they believe is right…and walking out. 

Popularity: 7% [?]

When gas prices were quite a bit north of $4, Democrats blamed Bush’s policies.  Now that they’re down to $1.50, do they give him the credit?

Cue crickets.

Here’s another one; when the dollar was tanking against foreign currency, it was blamed on Bush.  But in the past 6 months, as Don Surber notes, the dollar has rallied against many currencies.  Credit where credit is due?

Keep the crickets handy.

In fact, neither of these events may be directly related to Bush policies, but if you’re going to blame him when things go bad, you should be at least intellectually honest when things go well. 

Unless everything is partisan, no matter what it is. 

Popularity: 4% [?]

TChris on the lefty site Talk Left claims that the atheist display outside the Washington state capitol, considered "equal time" for the Christian and Jewish displays, is simply a matter of Constitutional protection.  The outrage that protestors and Bill O’Reilly are expressing somehow proves that they don’t really want freedom of religion.

Except this display of atheism is not simply a display.  It’s scorn and ridicule.  Here’s the text:

At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Aside from the first sentence, the rest is a denigration of all the other displays.  Indeed the sponsors say so.

"It’s not a religious display; it is an attack on religion,” Freedom From Religion co-president Dan Barker said. His group was behind the atheist display.

How "tolerant".  And it points out the fact that this is decidedly not a case of equal time or freedom of/from religion, in spite of the cover that Washington state politicians are taking behind the Constitution.

Gregoire and the state’s attorney general responded to criticism by citing the First Amendment and releasing this joint statement:

“Once government admits one religious display or viewpoint onto public property, it may not discriminate against the content of other displays, including the viewpoints of non-believers."

The nativity scene is a positive expression of belief, speaking no ill to those who don’t agree with it or believe in it.  The "Solstice Sign" is a protest specifically against those with different beliefs.  They are completely different things.  A nativity scene on government grounds does not guarantee the right to protest against it right next to it, any more than it would somehow guarantee the right for the KKK to put up its own display next to it.  They are completely different things, and those in Washington state who are sponsoring the sign and defending it seem to completely miss the concept.

But it does give us insight into what organized atheism considers "tolerance" towards religion.  They don’t just want equal time; they want additional rights to denigrate it.  That’s not equal.

Popularity: 7% [?]

A few links covering much of the non-change the Obama administration is giving us.

* The Audacity of Patience on RedState, noting status quo in cabinet appointments, the Bush tax cuts, but mostly the closing (or not) of Gitmo.

* The Washington Times:  "Don’t ask, don’t tell"?  Don’t hold your breath.

* The New York Times (yes, that New York Times):  Reality rears its ugly head regarding Iraqi forces.  I like this line:

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

Yes, I’m sure that’s the catchy way he said it in all his speeches.

Popularity: 6% [?]

NewsBusters is getting the word out, even before Obama is inaugurated, that his choice for Veterans Affairs was not thrown under the bus by the Bush administration.  The myth, which lingered for years, is being given new life, most recently by the Associated Press "news" organization.

Obama also spoke about his latest Cabinet selection, retired Gen. Eric Shinseki to head the Veterans Affairs Department. Shinseki was forced into retirement by the Bush administration after he said the original invasion plan for Iraq did not include enough troops.

His retirement had been announced nearly a year before his testimony.  They also note that FactCheck.org debunked this when it started making the rounds over 4 years ago.

The "narrative" or the news?  The AP has decided which side to err on.

Popularity: 5% [?]

That what the NY Times seems to think.  In today’s editorial (hat tip NewsBusters), we find this sentiment.

Experts say that Detroit’s automakers could achieve 43 m.p.g. by then even without technological breakthroughs. If the companies were willing to make smaller cars, they could achieve 50 m.p.g. Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out S.U.V.’s and vans by a certain date.

Eight years ago, my family exceeded what I called "critical mass"; we no longer all fit in a sedan, legally or comfortably.  So now when we drive about 1,000 miles to visit my folks or even the 10 miles to visit my wife’s, we should drive 2 sedans?  That’s more economical and green…how, exactly?

Popularity: 4% [?]

From Chuck Asay.  Click for full-size version.

On major things like global warming and the economy, expert opinions are good to have, but if we jump to conclusions too soon we may not have the whole story.  And predicting the future has been notoriously difficult, even for the experts.

Popularity: 8% [?]