About Me

Name:Warner Todd Huston
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Stolen Baby Jesus 'Annual Phenomenon'

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Sunday, December 24, 2006 1:52:22 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

It is unfortunate that Nativity scene figures are the target of theft and vandals across this country each year during the Christmas holiday. As this ignorant crime increases from year to year, it shows the lack of respect that too many Americans have developed for their neighbors as well as a failed respect for private property.

Let's face it. The people who do such things are jerks. It's just that simple.

But, on a lighter note, The Hartford Courant employed an interesting choice of words in their story on the recent several  thefts of Nativity Scene figures across Southington, Conn.

After giving space to Church goers reacting with outrage over these mean-spirited, and pointless thefts, Courant staff writer, Ken Byron pulls this sentence out from his "professional journalism" bag 'o tricks:

The theft of baby Jesus from Nativity scenes is something police around the state and the nation have seen, and some say it is an annual phenomenon.
(Bold mine)

Do they now, Kenny? An "annual phenomenon", ya say?

Are ya saying, Kenny my friend, that they don't steal the baby Jesus year round? That they are only doing it on an "annual" basis? And only during the Christmas season, at that? Is the Baby Jesus safe on Halloween or Thanksgiving, do ya think?

Astounding! You have informed us so well, Kenny. We are grateful for your insight.

But, here is a little news flash for ya, Kenny. Of course it would be an "annual phenomenon". Christmas only comes ONCE a YEAR!

"Annual phenomenon", indeed.

See, folks? This is the kind of professionalism that our friend at the Opinion Journal, Joseph Rago, was talkin' about when he was pontificating on how bloggers just aren't of high enough caliber to be a real, honest to goodness journalist working for the MSM!

Why, no stupid blogger sitting in his pajamas and banging away at his keyboard like a monkey at play could have come up with the "news" that stolen Nativity figures might be an "annual phenomenon".

Halp uz, Josiph Ragoo, we r stuck hear on r blogs

And, unfortunately, thanks,  to Ken Byron for making this story of America's declining respect for private property and for our neighbors just a bit ridiculous with your remarks.

Merry Christmas, to all Publius' Forum readers from me, Warner Todd Huston.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do we Love the Famous... or the Infamous?

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Friday, December 22, 2006 9:46:40 AM
Recently, a poll of school children in England sparked a question over role models and what children there think should be the most desirable goals in life to strive for. In the poll, children under 10 viewed being a celebrity as the "very best thing in the world", though they seem not to think as highly about God.

In the 2006 top ten list such figures as Madonna and TV stars Simon Cowell and Sharon Osbourne appear. In the past, sports stars David Beckham and Wayne Rooney made it into the top ten, as well. But, many of these "celebrities" are famous as much for their ill-tempered comportment and the many offhanded remarks uttered in public and reported by a fawning tabloid media as they are for the extraordinary abilities that brought them to the top of their professions.

This raises an intriguing question: What has become of "fame"?

America's Founding Fathers are so revered today, for instance, because they didn't imagine they were striving to achieve mere fame as we define it today. To the Founder’s contemporaries celebrity status meant little but what was important to them was fame as defined by the ancients. Being well known for their deeds of import, moral gravity and worth bestowed true fame, as fame is properly defined.

England's great conservative, Edmund Burke, once said of someone, "He had no failings which were not owing to a noble cause; to an ardent, generous, perhaps an immoderate passion for fame; a passion which is the instinct of all great souls". By equating "fame" to "greatness" and "a noble cause" he equates fame to actions of a good and positive nature.

Founding Father and second President, John Adams, once quoted a few lines from Alexander Pope’s "Essay on Man" in his diary while pondering the sort of fame that he and his fellows hoped to win from the verdict of history and their countrymen:

Self-love but serves the virtuous mind to wake,
As the small pebble stirs the peaceful lake;
The centre mov’d, a circle straight succeeds,
Another still, and still another spreads;
Friend, parent, neighbor, first it will embrace;
His country next; and next all human race

Pope here explained the effects of fame in the allegory of ripples in the lake, ripples that one's actions will cause for community, country, and, ultimately, humanity. And that is the reason that fame was thought to connote positive moral stature because positive "ripples" are the only ripples worth celebrating.

On the other hand, being known for bad behavior, ill temper and venality wins infamy, not fame in the proper definition of such actions. Unfortunately, today we confuse and conflate fame with the lesser category of infamy.

People who make a name for themselves by over the top behavior, immorality and general surliness, like Madonna and Sharon Osbourne, have more correctly achieved infamy, not fame or celebrity. Yet it is the Madonnas and Sharon Osbournes of the world that kids think of as famous.

This cannot be a good thing and shows that we have lost reverence for respectability and cast aside the positive, proper definition for fame. We have degraded the word to simply mean well known and gutted the moral meaning. This does not raise up the well known to heights of fame, but lowers the well meaning to the depths of infamy.

Worse than the results of who the children thought were "famous", the top ten things that these kids thought were "very best things" reveals almost a complete lack of substantive goals in the ghastly choices given by the youngsters.

1. Being a Celebrity
2. Good Looks
3. Being Rich
4. Being Healthy
5. Pop Music
6. Families
7. Friends
8. Nice Food
9. Watching Films
10. Heaven/God

Granted this is a list of the interests of 10-year-olds, but can anyone doubt that the outcome of a poll of kids into their early teens would be much different? For that matter, could the list be much different than the responses of the general public at any age?

Still, that speculation aside, it is obvious that western society is not teaching its children what is good and right in society if Britain’s tykes grant admiration for such characters as Madonna. It is a sad commentary on our society that fame has been degraded to the same low status as infamy. (And I have to admit here, that my country, the U.S.A., is certainly no better and has contributed far too much to the degradation of fame.)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Troubled Childhood Increases Risk of Homosexuality

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:03:57 PM
-By Warner Todd Huston

Out of Denmark comes a study that will be sure to put a crimp in the we-are-born-that-way theory of the origins of homosexuality. The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, provides interesting and tantalizing evidence that the less stable or traditional a child's home is, the more likely that the child will turn to homosexuality as an adult.

The study used 2,000,355 native-born Danes between the ages of 18 and 49, virtually "the entire Danish population". With such a large base it can hardly be claimed that the sampling was problematic. Many studies in the past have been discounted because of their sampling sizes -- generally being claimed too small.

Denmark was the first country to legalize gay marriage and has a large variety of recognized modes of cohabitation and lifestyles, so this study is of particular interest in that the stats cover the longest range of time available from which to establish the most reliable statistics.

Effects of Upbringing on Sexual Orientation

As quoted on the NARTH website, the study's authors conclude: "Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood."

The authors go on to say, "Whatever ingredients determine a person's sexual preferences and marital choices, our population-based study shows that parental interactions are important."

A further observation is made by Linda Ames Nicolosi of NARTH.

Assuming that people who marry heterosexually are almost always heterosexual -- especially in a country where homosexuality carries little stigma, and gay marriage is legal -- and people who marry homosexually can be presumed to be homosexual, the study's findings offer intriguing evidence about family factors separating homosexual from heterosexual persons.

The findings show that children who have unstable or abusive homes are more likely to have homosexual relationships later on. This rings true to many studies that show homosexual males were often sexually abused as children.

This would also tend to prove that homosexuality is more a pathology, than a mere "natural" predilection. It would make the claims of being born gay problematic and, rather, a result of the mind's reaction to a troubled childhood.  It would also tend to make the removal of homosexuality from the rolls of mental health problems a mistake.

Here are some of the findings from the Danish report:

1. Men who marry homosexually are more likely to have been raised in a family with unstable parental relationships -- particularly, absent or unknown fathers and divorced parents.
   2. Findings on women who marry homosexually were less pronounced, but were still associated with a childhood marked by a broken family. The rates of same-sex marriage "were elevated among women who experienced maternal death during adolescence, women with short duration of parental marriage, and women with long duration of mother-absent cohabitation with father."
   3. Men and women with "unknown fathers" were significantly less likely to marry a person of the opposite sex than were their peers with known fathers.
   4. Men who experienced parental death during childhood or adolescence "had significantly lower heterosexual marriage rates than peers whose parents were both alive on their 18th birthday. The younger the age of the father's death, the lower was the likelihood of heterosexual marriage."
   5. "The shorter the duration of parental marriage, the higher was the likelihood of homosexual marriage...homosexual marriage rates were 36% and 26% higher among men and women, respectively, who experienced parental divorce after less than six years of marriage, than among peers whose parents remained married for all 18 years of childhood and adolescence."
   6. "Men whose parents divorced before their 6th birthday were 39% more likely to marry homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages."
   7. "Men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years had significantly (55% -76%) higher rates of homosexual marriage than men who cohabited with both parents until 18 years."
   8. The mother's age was directly linked to the likelihood of homosexual marriage among men -- the older the mother, the more likely her son was to marry another man. Also, "only children" were more likely to be homosexual.
   9. Persons born in large cities were significantly more likely to marry a same-sex partner -- suggesting that cultural factors might also affect the development of sexual orientation.

In any case, this is a large sampling culled from among what is purportedly the most "tolerant" nation toward homosexuality and alternate lifestyles and it shows that, far from being benign, homosexuality is a result of abuse and instability in the home, as opposed to being some natural proclivity, for a large percentage of the population.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Opinion Journal: Bloggers are a Mob -- 'Written by fools to be read by imbeciles'

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:57:35 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

WSJ's Opinion Journal has indulged in another round of the MSM's upturned nose to the lowly blogger, another cornucopia of contumelies, a mountain of maligning. We are all fools and imbeciles according to assistant editorial features editor, Joseph Rago in today's Op Ed, The Blog Mob.

Here's the wind up...

Blogs are very important these days. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has one. The invention of the Web log, we are told, is as transformative as Gutenberg's press, and has shoved journalism into a reformation, perhaps a revolution.

I feel a "but" coming!

And the pitch...

The blogs are not as significant as their self-endeared curators would like to think. Journalism requires journalists, who are at least fitfully confronting the digital age. The bloggers, for their part, produce minimal reportage. Instead, they ride along with the MSM like remora fish on the bellies of sharks, picking at the scraps.

A swing and a miss, Mr. Rago.

Few bloggers, Mr. assistant editorial features editor, imagine themselves to be anything like investigative journalists... few even consider themselves journalists at all. A small number may have taken steps into that field, but most bloggers who blog on culture, the news and politics are in it for opinion making. And, I'd lay odds that few would dispute such a claim.

On Publius' Forum, for instance, we are reacting to the MSM and it's bias. We are delineating the misreporting, lies, distortions and misspeak that occurs among the many assistant editorial features editors and their cohorts out there. But, none of us lay claim to original reporting.

So, Mr. Rago is complaining that we bloggers aren't doing something we aren't even attempting to do in the first place! Would Rago be mad that a dog doesn't meow… only if he wasn't aware that a dog instead barked? And it appears that Rago is completely innocent of the kind of barking that bloggers do.

Additionally, he seems to imagine that political blogging is all that the blog is for. He seems not to be taking into account that the blog was, indeed, originally designed to be an electronic, public diary, a mode of communication not designed specifically for "reporting", newsmaking or politics and that the great preponderance of blogs out there are just that; someone's little diary.

The way we write affects both style and substance. In this aspect, journalism as practiced via blog appears to be a change for the worse. That is, the inferiority of the medium is rooted in its new, distinctive literary form. Its closest analogue might be the (poorly kept) diary or commonplace book, or the note scrawled to oneself on the back of an envelope--though these things are not meant for public consumption. The reason for a blog's being is: Here's my opinion, right now.

I'd further suspect that Mr. Rago is not very informed of American Newspaper history. Most American papers were filled with columns copied from other papers (without attribution on top of it), hackneyed writing, partisan mudslinging, and rumormongering.  In fact, it has only been since the 1950s that newspapers were imagined to be straight "reporting" with commentary and opinions ostensibly relegated only to the editorial sections as opposed to running throughout every story in the paper.

In fact, before radio and TV became so prevalent, newspapers were expected to pick a political side and fight like wildcats for that choice. Political candidates even openly supported, and were in turn supported by, newspapers both on a national as well as local level.

In one complaint, though, Mr. Rago is closer to a legitimate concern.

...Instant response, with not even a day of delay, impairs rigor. It is also a coagulant for orthodoxies. We rarely encounter sustained or systematic blog thought--instead, panics and manias; endless rehearsings of arguments put forward elsewhere; and a tendency to substitute ideology for cognition. The participatory Internet, in combination with the hyperlink, which allows sites to interrelate, appears to encourage mobs and mob behavior.

Because political blogs are predictable, they are excruciatingly boring. More acutely, they promote intellectual disingenuousness, with every constituency hostage to its assumptions and the party line

Point taken. Let's face it; writing styles vary wildly, most being not of a very high caliber (perhaps myself included). And, yes, too many preach to the choir making little effort to convince or argue effectively.

It is also unfortunate that the blog, at times, lends itself to "panics and manias". We have all seen a story ripple through the blogging community that later turned out to be a humbug. I admit to having fallen for a few myself.

However, as I alluded to above, this is no departure from historical newspaper practice. This is, in fact, a complete and accurate reflection of newspaper history. It is little different even than the days of the Founding Fathers who wrote tracts and commandeered newspapers to disseminate their ideas. Thomas Jefferson didn't fund a printing of ideas of his enemies in some attempt at "moderation" or "bipartisan" reporting!

We only remember the best writing of that era because the worst was quickly forgotten and relegated to the scrap heap of memory. There were hundreds of newspapers in the old 13 colonies and not all produced the best writing, to be sure. Rago seems blinded by a narrow historical perspective.

After all, today we have the New York Times an organization that seems to have made it a practice to hire plagiarists and writers of fiction!

No, what we have here is a man who imagines his profession is far nobler than it really is -- now OR in the past -- as he turns up his nose at the new kids on the block.

As bloggers we can take note of assistant editorial features editor, Joseph Rago's bemoaning the oft times low level of literary acumen and erudition endemic throughout our work, we can take note of his admonitions and make a better effort to improve our product and enrich our content. But, on the other hand, the MSM might want to clean up its own yard before it complains about the neighbor's.

... and I'll have you note that I used a lot of fifty cent words to sound more learned, Joe. Did I pass the audition? Am I the fool or the imbecile?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Arabic Signs Panic Virginians

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:45:12 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

The AP is reporting that a program operating near Richmond sponsored by the  Virginia Interfaith Center is raising eyebrows and causing some members of the citizenry to worry that secret Terrorist messages are being left across the city.

The small beige signs bearing black Arabic script have been appearing all over town on buses and at colleges.

The signs, which below the Arabic script carry English translations and comments that indirectly caution against jumping to conclusions, are part of a campaign by A More Perfect Union, a program of the Virginia Interfaith Center, and are aimed at dispelling some of the public's fears toward the Muslim community. Organizers hope to eventually expand the program statewide.

Of course, the signs are not a secret terrorist message, but an attempt to soften the image of Islam. The idea is to get Virginians more at ease with seeing Arabic script and not to automatically associate it with terrorism.

"As people see Arabic, they immediately make an association with terrorism," said the Rev. C. Douglas Smith, executive director of the Virginia Interfaith Center, a nonpartisan coalition of faith communities that work for change through education and advocacy. "That's probably because since Nine-Eleven, not only is fear overwhelming us, but that's how we're being trained to think."

This campaign is, however, a most disingenuous and, ultimately, insidious one.

Insidious in that, should this campaign truly work to make Americans cease to be alarmed at signs of Islam, we will surely be giving Islamofascists succor and freedom. It can do nothing but assist Islamist extremists to tear down American defenses and allow them to more freely roam about our country to commit their murder and mayhem at will given cover by all lack of alarm at Islamic activities.

The AP story gave us a perfect example of its disingenuousness, as well.

Bias toward the Muslim community is a continuing problem across the country and in Virginia, said Imad Damaj, president of the Virginia Muslim Coalition for Public Affairs.

"There's so many lazy, unexamined assumptions about all of us and how we react to people," Damaj said. "We need to challenge ourselves."

Schoel said history has proven that Americans can learn to let go of irrational fears toward other cultures.

"After World War II, when people saw Japanese script it was scary," she said. "But now we see it and it's fun, it's hip, it signifies a cool culture."

"That's a huge turnaround."

Sure it's "fun, it's hip" and "cool" to become fond of Japanese symbols now because Japan is an ally and has gone from a militaristic, monarchy to a democracy. THAT is why it is now "cool" and "hip", not because Americans have successfully "challenged" themselves about Japan, but because Japan has itself changed to be more deserving of interest and respect. The Japanese people have given us a reason to become at ease with their culture. The Japanese have gone out of their way to become a respected, benevolent people and have joined the civilized nations in commerce, entertainment and culture.

Islam has most certainly not given Americans any reason whatsoever to trust it or become at ease with it and the Virginia Interfaith Center knows this full well, hence the disingenuousness.

This program acts as if it is we Americans that must somehow change, to accept Islam better, to be more "tolerant" of it, instead of Islam's to show us why we should be more tolerant of it. Islam has not done a single thing even to meet us half way to convince us that it is, in truth, a benevolent -- or even benign -- ideology.

Americans have absolutely no reason whatever to become at ease with signs of Islam.

Not one single reason.

This obsequious campaign by the Virginia Interfaith Center should be opposed until Islam gives us a reason not to be biased against it and displays of its symbols.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Editor & Publisher Hails Find of AP's 'Capt. Jamil' of '6 Burning Iraqis' Fame, Taunts Bloggers

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Monday, December 18, 2006 9:17:49 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

Editor and Publisher seems hardly able to hold back their excitement over the possibility that someone has found proof of the existence of the mysterious "Captain Jamil Hussein" who the Associated Press claimed as a source for the supposed burning of 6 Sunni Iraqis in retaliation for the depredations of that sect on their Shi'ite neighbors.

In a Sunday posting on their site, E&P is crowing about "Conservative Bloggers in the U.S." eating crow.

Though far from definitive proof, it was strong enough to cause at least one conservative blogger to wonder if those who had mocked the AP might have to eat "a huge shinola sandwich."

The tag for the story on the Hot Air home page currently reads, "Anyone got any good recipes for crow?"

It was a story that had no proof whatsoever except this "captain of Iraqi police" the AP quoted. There is no confirmation by any reliable second source, nor any proof by Iraqi government sources or US Army sources. No physical evidence, or photographs. In fact the US Army disputed the story openly. But the story made a great splash and was widely cited by news services all across the western media as if it was totally verified.

USA Today reported back on November 28th that "The Associated Press is standing by its report that six Sunni men were burned to death in Baghdad Friday by Shiites, even though U.S. military officials have accused the wire service of relying on a source who "is not who he claimed he was," an Iraqi police captain."

Now, Marc Danziger of Winds of Change Blog posted the following on the 17th:

With the help of some friends who have been doing a smidgen of looking, and it appears - appears, but is not certain - that there is in fact a Jamail Hussein in the Yarmouk police station in Baghdad. We'll know more tomorrow.

Editor & Publisher seems to be relishing that Michelle Malkin and others will have to "eat crow" if it is proven that this captain does, indeed, exist.

 However, E&P seems to be missing the real story... as usual.

The fact is, whether this Captain Hussein exists or not, there is still no corroboration for the story of six burned Iraqis.

And, it has always been a staple of journalism that more than one source should be required to publish a story reported as "fact". After all, if only ONE source is ever needed for a story, then anyone can publish anything as "fact" merely upon any single person's say so.

I slept with Marilyn Monroe, ya know? Print that as fact, AP... just because I say so. Even though I was but a child when she was found dead. But this one source says it's true, so the AP MUST assume it could be fact!

It is also interesting how E&P has jumped on a story that is reported as one being reported from "...some friends who have been doing a smidgen of looking, and it appears - appears, but is not certain..." How is this a story? With a may and a might and a could have been?

Isn't this just what they are chiding the "Conservative Bloggers" and Michelle Malkin for? Not having proof in hand of the truth of their claims that Captain Hussein didn't exist before writing their posts? Isn't that exactly what E&P just did with a report that "appears - appears, but is not certain"?

Further, did they not think that there could be more than a few Hussein's in Iraq, or any OTHER Muslim country for that matter, that could be a policeman?

If E&P wanted to stick a finger in Malkin's and those "Conservative Blogger's" eyes, they might have wanted to be sure themselves of the truth of the matter!

In the long run, E&P's "report" did nothing to clarify the situation and amounts to nothing but schoolyard finger pointing and an exercise of their own in mocking -- a thing they seem to be decrying in Malkin -- and they have opened themselves up to being slapped right back with claims of hypocrisy if this story of the found Captain Hussein turns out to be a false lead.

Looks like Editor & Publisher was in need of an editor for their report!

(See more at Michelle Malkin's HotAir blog)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iraq Study Group... Unbiased? Hardly

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Sunday, December 17, 2006 5:48:21 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

It amazes me that the Iraq Study Group was so hailed as a milestone in Iraq Policy. Worse, it has been claimed to be an unbiased deliberation of the situation in Iraq loaded with people with "gravitas" who have no political stake in the outcome.

But, any look at the people on the commission shows a group of people who came into this group with an agenda beforehand and none of them intended to address this task without preconceived notions that they were bound to prove out in their recommendations.

The putative leader of the group, James Baker, had well-known reservations about the entire Iraq enterprise so certainly couldn't approach the situation in an unbiased way. His most immediate cohort, Lee Hamilton, is a long time Democrat Party operative, so he was certain to be against the Bush Administration, as well.

Not only that but some of the supporting organizations are hardly those that might be considered "unbiased". Both the United States Institute of Peace and the Center for Strategic and International Studies are filled to overflowing with people who stood foursquare against Bush and his policies in Iraq since the day the president announced his plans.

And now, to further prove how members of this group can in no way be considered unbiased observers, another member of the ISG delivered the Democratic Party's weekly radio address following the president's.

Clinton's defense chief warns of Iraq 'quagmire'

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Iraq Study Group, said Saturday that Iraq could turn into a "quagmire" if the Bush administration fails to change strategy.

Perry, who led the Pentagon under President Clinton, delivered the Democratic Party's weekly radio address.

Referring to the Vietnam War, Perry said: "The term 'quagmire' recalls one of the saddest periods in American history, which we do not want to relive. But I believe that is likely to happen if we 'stay the course' in Iraq."

Here was the amusing part of the CNN report above...

The Iraq Study Group report was critical of just about every aspect of the administration's war policies.

It's no wonder when there was no one placed in the ISG or its support organizations that weren't publicly against the Bush team at the start.

And now one of the ISG is giving radio addresses for the Democratic Party?

Yeah.

VERY unbiased, that.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Murdering Babies for Stem Cell 'Research'

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:41:56 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

Well, here is the nightmare scenario that every right to life, Conservative has warned about when a society so disrespects life that it begins harvesting human cells and parts for "science" and medicine.

Ukraine babies in stem cell probe

There is heated debate about the ethics of using stem cells

Healthy new-born babies may have been killed in Ukraine to feed a flourishing international trade in stem cells, evidence obtained by the BBC suggests.

But now there are claims that stem cells are also being harvested from live babies.

The BBC has spoken to mothers from the city of Kharkiv who say they gave birth to healthy babies, only to have them taken by maternity staff.

In its report, the Council describes a general culture of trafficking of children snatched at birth, and a wall of silence from hospital staff upwards over their fate.

Couple this report with the constant reports that China is harvesting the organs from live prisoners of the state and the poor to sell to the rich in need of organ donors and you will see perfect examples of a lack of respect for human life.

These are the warning signs of a misuse of science, the kind of misuse featured in the "medical experiments" carried out by Nazis and Japanese "doctors" during WWII that so shocked the world. When a culture is so cavalier with life these sorts of trafficking situations are absolutely bound to occur.

If you life is not rated as special, as sacrosanct, then there is no mental or cultural barrier to harvesting organs from living people to benefit those who can pay to steal their organs. There is nothing to stop unethical medical practitioners from killing babies and adults to sell the parts they harvest from those warm bodies.

If a human life is to be considered an "unviable tissue mass" even in vitro, then there is no way to stop the practice of making human cells, human organs... life itself... a commodity to buy and sell.

In fact, if this practice stays in operation underground long enough, it will surely go above ground and become legal in the long run. After all, why not just legitimize it if it has been going on for years anyway?

Now that medical science has advanced to this level, now that human cells and organs can be used to extend other's lives, this kind of buying and selling of human body parts will naturally follow. And, without a healthy respect for life embedded deep in a culture's psyche making trafficking and stealing of those parts anathema, this kind of outrage will grow apace with science and the medical arts.

And scientists will continue to and in ever growing numbers cast aside ethical considerations for that next great breakthrough, or merely to make a living off the deaths of the less protected, those "worth less" to society.

But, then, the question must always be asked in Orwellian overtones: WHO is to determine which citizen is "worth less" and which is not?

Because, let's face it, the rich are who will benefit the most from such trafficking. After all, it is they who can pay for these black market body parts. And do we really want to develop the concept in the west that the "poor" are worth so little to the world except what cells and organs can be stolen from their still breathing bodies?

I hope not.

It must be a goal of any advanced society to foster a respect for life lest life become so unimportant that such abuses become commonplace. And, if such harvesting becomes commonplace, we would live in a society so separated by class that the rich would literally be able to live off the organs of the underclass.

We must have a serious discussion of these ethical considerations before the practice of harvesting organs from people becomes widespread. We must not wait until it is so pervasive in our societies that it becomes a crisis. Let us now resolve to sanctify life before many millions die in the name of science.

The murder of people for their cells, organs and appendages has already begun, but let us undertake a cultural shift away from such mistreatment.

Let us do it before it is too late.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Time Mag: Setting to Tear Down McCain... Their Own Creation

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Friday, December 15, 2006 1:29:05 PM
-By Warner Todd Huston

Proving that Time Magazine never understood a single thing about John McCain, Time writer, Karen Tumulty, is all worried about the "cost" of McCain's purported run for the 2008 GOP nomination for the presidency.

The head and sub-head lines alone are so filled with misconstructions, assumptions and laments that one doesn't have to read the rest of the story to know how far off they are in analysis.

Why It's Dangerous For the Maverick To Be the...Front Runner

John McCain was a straight-talking upstart in the 2000 presidential election. Now he's poised to be the G.O.P. favorite for 2008, but at what cost?

First of all, the "maverick" label is one the press created and drove McCain ever more toward with their fawning attention. This assumption of "front runner" now is also a figment of their imagination.

Then, they belie their supposed objectivity and reveal how much they loved the claimed maverick status of their hero, McCain, by claiming there now is a "cost" to be incurred with his attempt to get the '08 nomination. Tumulty's article reveals her bad feelings that he will have to try harder this time to court the base as opposed to imagining that the independent and moderate vote will catapult him past all comers in a GOP primary -- a woefully mistaken belief from the 2000 run that the press seems to have encouraged for McCain, an encouragement that doomed his candidacy.

They inflate his appeal from the 2000 campaign to a ridiculous extent with their "upstart" claims, too. McCain never had much of a chance amongst the base in 2000 with his entire campaign being a creation of the media. The last time the media tried to create a Republican candidate out of whole cloth it was Wendell Wilkie who faced Franklin Roosevelt in 1940.

Wilkie lost, too, just like McCain.

Now, Time is lambasting McCain's new slogan as one that doesn't "have quite the ring" of his earlier one. They also seem sad that a candidate running to get a Republican nomination will have to seem more like a Republican.

As a rallying cry. "Common sense conservatism" doesn't have quite the ring of "Straight Talk Express." But the new slogan on the website of John McCain's presidential exploratory committee--a slogan he manages to repeat at least three times in every speech he gives these days--tells you all you need to know about how different this presidential campaign will be from his last one. McCain '08 will be a bigger, more conventional operation--a tank, not a slingshot. The prevailing wisdom about McCain used to be that his bipartisan appeal would make him a sure bet in a presidential race--if only he could get past the Republican primary. But as more and more of the party establishment climb aboard a campaign that McCain has not yet even formally launched, it's starting to look as if the opposite may be true. By trying to become the perfect candidate for the primaries, McCain could be creating difficulties for himself in a general election.

I wonder if they ever lamented that a Democrat had to seem like a Democrat to get the nomination of the Democratic Party?

The article goes on and on about his "bad" views -- you know the ones, those conservative ones -- even quoting him as saying he is "more conservative than many of his fans believe him to be". No, he is more conservative than the media wanted him to be. If one looks at McCain's voting record, there could be little doubt that he stacks up as a pretty conservative Senator. It has always been such but the media turned away from this truth in favor of playing up his anti-Bush stances.

But, now without Bush around for the 2008 run, they are at long last setting out to bash McCain over HIS conservatism... yes, after they spent 8 years building him up as a "maverick". McCain will now see the fawning media turn hostile when they FINALLY start discussing his voting record, for sure.

But Time's report does help us see the hypocrisy in McCain's media stance and his voting record. His claims of "maverick" are at odds with many of his actual votes. Making his "straight talk" perfectly muddy, indistinct and filled with dissembling.

Still, McCain has no better chance of getting the 2008 nomination than he did the 2000 one. Even though his voting record is pretty good for the most part, he has spent the last 7 years hampering the Republican efforts in Congress, harming our national security, worsening our campaign finance laws, proving he hasn't a clue what the US Constitution means, putting the breaks on our judicial nominations and generally playing to the leftist media to get their slobbering approval. All things that will make him damaged goods to a Republican voter.

McCain will probably do worse than he did in 2000 because of his road blocking of the GOP agenda over the last 7 years, I'd bet.

Most amusingly, this article tied the supposed "racist" ad against Representative Bob Ford of Tennessee to McCain because McCain hired Terry Nelson as his campaign manager. "Nelson oversaw the Republican National Committee's independent expenditure operation, which produced the most notorious ad of the 2006 campaign. In it, a bare-shouldered white actress claimed that she had met the black Senate candidate Harold Ford at a Playboy party", Time informs us.

So, perhaps McCain might begin to see his beloved leftist media turn against him now that he is no longer a thorn in Bush's side. The Times, for their part, is ready to treat him as just another evil Republican. Watch for this to begin happening more.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CNN: Americans all Racists Says Poll

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:30:38 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

For creating a story out of nothing and then finger pointing at US society and saying how evil it is, this Dec. 12th CNN story takes the cake. In "Poll: Most Americans see lingering racism -- in others", not only is a somewhat leading poll cited as evidence that America is still rife with racism, but CNN uses comments emailed to them by their viewers as some sort of follow up proof for it!

Very scientific, I know. After all, CNN used science via the Internet and phone lines to conduct this farcical poll, I suppose.

(CNN) -- Most Americans, white and black, see racism as a lingering problem in the United States, and many say they know people who are racist, according to a new poll.

But few Americans of either race -- about one out of eight -- consider themselves racist.

And experts say racism has evolved from the days of Jim Crow to the point that people may not even recognize it in themselves.

How convenient that those "experts" can see racism where no one else can. So, racism is everywhere, but we can't see it, don't understand it as racism, nor do we see any examples of it, but only "feel" it in others. The perfect "proof" to shore up Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for decades to come.

The "experts" that CNN dredged up really went to town on this "poll", too.

University of Connecticut professor Jack Dovidio, who has researched racism for more than 30 years, estimates up to 80 percent of white Americans have racist feelings they may not even recognize.

"We've reached a point that racism is like a virus that has mutated into a new form that we don't recognize," Dovidio said.

He added that 21st-century racism is different from that of the past.

"Contemporary racism is not conscious, and it is not accompanied by dislike, so it gets expressed in indirect, subtle ways," he said.

That "stealth" discrimination reveals itself in many different situations.

Curiously enough, "researchers" once thought that gold could be created from lead via alchemy, too! These "racism" experts are little different than the sooth-sayers and shamans who pranced around countless primitive campfires with their rattles shaking as they talk in tongues. All "saw" things no one else could and found gullible benefactors to pay them for their visions. The "social sciences" are barely better than cave paintings.

But, more amusing than these supposed experts telling us how we are all secret racists -- so secret we don't even realize it ourselves -- is the interesting reliance on viewer's emails that CNN used to add further "proof" to their shaman's tale.

"Racism here is quite subtle," e-mailed CNN.com reader Blair William, originally from Trinidad, who now lives in Lexington, South Carolina.

The scintillating expertise is overwhelming there.

"I am a firm believer that racism is rampant in the United States," wrote another CNN.com reader, Mark Boyle, of Muncie, Indiana.

Mr. Boyle of Muncie, Indiana is no doubt a learned and well-known observer of American society.

And, not to be outdone by the common folk, CNN pulled in the trenchant commentary from New York Times writer Calvn Sims who, we are told, "recently wrote about his experiences in the city".

"If a cab passes you by, obviously it is frustrating, it's degrading and it's just really confusing, because this is akin to being in the South and being refused service at a lunch counter, which is what happened in the '60s and '70s," he said.

I hope not too many Americans fall for this tripe as serious commentary or scientific study of American society. I also hope that this kind of negative nonsense doesn't turn too many away from the fact that ours is one of the most inclusive societies in the world and that people of every nationality and race can find more opportunity here in the USA than in any other nation.

... and I can find a LOT of emailers to back THAT up!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (15) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pelosi/Democrats ARE Bad for Security

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:02:58 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston
 
Proving, once again, that Democrats just don't understand our security, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (Dem. Cal.), has chosen a guy that has no clue about what is going on to be the chairman of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence over someone who at least is familiar with the subject.

House intelligence chair calls al Qaeda Shi'ite

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Is al Qaeda a Sunni organization, or Shi'ite?

The question proved nettlesome for Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, incoming Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

"Predominantly -- probably Shi'ite," he said in a recent interview with Congressional Quarterly, a periodical that covers political and legislative issues in Congress.

<p>Unfortunately for Reyes, the al Qaeda network led by Osama bin Laden is comprehensively Sunni and subscribes to a form of Sunni Islam known for not tolerating theological deviation.

This fool hasn't the first idea of what is going on in the war on terror in general or Iraq specifically and HE is tapped to be the chair of the committee on intelligence? Where is he going to keep HIS intelligence, in a box? Because it SURE as heck ain't in his head!

We can also see that Pelosi will lead by indulging her petty hard feelings and feuds as opposed to striving for the best. That she will slight qualified people of her own party to spite them because she is in a snit over something.

A former border patrol agent and a congressional opponent of the Iraq war, the Texas congressman was chosen for the chief intelligence job by House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi.

She rejected the panel's top-ranking Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman of California, who has had strained relations Pelosi. Next in line in terms of seniority was Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, a former federal judge ousted from that post amid allegations of corruption.

What is the common refrain among leftists; that women are LESS prone to fighting and mean-spiritedness because of their softer, nurturing sides? Pelosi sure is doing a great job of disproving that leftist axiom.

One axiom she is NOT disproving is that Democrats are dangerous when it comes to national security. And picking a guy who doesn't know the first thing about current events is proof enough.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (11) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An ACLU Nativity Scene - No Jesus, But a 'Gary and Joseph' With Communist 'Wise men'

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Monday, December 11, 2006 9:50:38 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

I am sending out a salute for the creativity and wry sense of humor displayed by the Young Conservatives at the University of Texas for their spoof of the ACLU's war on Christmas.

As the ACLU has donned their crusader's dunce caps, the Young Conservatives have set to skewer them on a lance of parody revealing the ACLU's absurdity with absurdity in reply.

Dubbing the ACLU the Anti-Christmas Lawyers Unit, the YC of the U of Texas have created a nativity scene replete with the favored symbols of the left to replace the traditional figures of Biblical fare.

As the YC's press release explains:

“We’ve got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for homosexual marriage, and of course there isn’t a Jesus in the manger,” said Chairman Tony McDonald. “The three Wise Men are Lenin, Marx, and Stalin because the founders of the ACLU were strident supporters of Soviet style Communism. The whole scene is a tongue-in-cheek way of showing the many ways that the ACLU and the far left are out of touch with the values of mainstream America.”...The scene will also display a terrorist shepherd and an angel in the form of Nancy Pelosi.

Classic! AND funny.

To get serious, the YC also discussed the more meaningful message in their parody of the ACLU's attack on American tradition, values and religion.

“The ACLU and other left-wing extremist groups are working diligently to destroy American’s rights to the free expression of religion,” said Executive Director Joseph Wyly. “We’ve already seen in Chicago an attempt to censor the nativity by a city government this week. It’s just more evidence that there is a War on Christmas being waged by the far-left in this country.”

Spot on, Mr. Wyly and good on ya.

This is a great protest of the ACLU's anti-Americanism and I hope to see this a tradition down at the U of Texas, displayed for as long as the communist inspired ACLU attacks our morals and traditions and as long as the ACLU continues their attempts to destroy the culture of the United States.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Senator Durbin, Giving Welfare to Lawyers

Posted by Warner Todd Huston on Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:15:15 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston

It was news for one day in Chicago, the biggest city in Senator Dick Durbin’s home state. Since then, no one seems to have noticed this absurd bill being pushed by Senator Dick Durbin that would give away Federal welfare money to young lawyers.

Of course, Durbin isn’t calling it welfare. He is calling it "debt relief". It sounds helpful and innocuous doesn’t it? Relief is a nice thing, right?

On November 27th, the Chicago Sun-Times tried to soft sell the proposal as a way to help "people with over $100,000 debt" get "relief".

Gosh that is an awful lot of money to be saddled with, eh?

Debt relief may be in sight for lawyers

For prosecutors and public defenders drowning in debt, help might soon be on the way.

Since 2003, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been pushing legislation that would grant student loan relief to public sector lawyers in the criminal justice system. With the Democrats in control of Congress, Durbin plans to reintroduce his bill early next year. Some hope it finally has a chance of passing.

"It's the defining issue of this era" for prosecutors, said Bernie Murray, chief of criminal prosecutions for the Cook County state's attorney's office. "The number of people with over $100,000 in debt is amazing."