Fred Thompson created a 17-minute video that details his conservative principles in general, his specific proposed policies, and his experience that he believes qualifies him for the office of president. If you are among those complaining that you don't know what Fred stands for, take a few minutes and watch this video.
A few quotes:
"The bigger the government gets, the less competent it is to run our lives."
"I know who I am, I know what I believe, and I'm ready to lead."
Regarding all the Democrat presidential candidates: "They're all NEA, MoveOn.org, ACLU, Michael Moore Democrats. they've allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course."
Fred has the best philosophy, hopefully he can mount a stronger campaign and/or inspire some of the Republican candidates to some better sound bites and sounder philosophy.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
just vote Democrat...
don't think of consequences
just claim to care for people
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
push bad ideologies
ignore progressive failures
hope is stronger than reason
The list is out from this non-profit, bipartisan organization. A few highlights:
*6 out of the 10 are Democrats.
*4 are presidential candidates.
*2 are prominent leaders of their party.
*1 is a presidential candidate AND a prominent party member.
Pam, this list really doesn't speak to me. The link was e-mailed to me and it just looks like more of the same that we expect from our politicians. I would be surprised if they weren't on the take.
How else do you explain someone that takes a job making less than 200k, maintaining 2 houses, with one near DC, and still becoming a millionaire? Looks fishy to me.
Call me cynical, but to actually point out that Hillary Clinton is corrupt is like saying the sun is hot or water is wet.
Cory, Romney is from the Masshole state, don't you think that he had to get the Kennedy family approval before running for governor? 'Nuff said?
The top news of the day, of course, is about Benazir Bhutto today...as it should be. My first words after hearing about her assassination yesterday were, "The fat's in the fire now!" The next few days will be crucial ones in a situation where things have the potential to get very ugly indeed. All eyes are on Pakistan.
Still, my weekly article (written before this news broke) is running as scheduled over at FamilySecurityMatters.org and in it, I talk about what I think are the top national security bloopers of 2007. Here's a snippet:
#3: MEDIA BLASTS CIA FOR KEEPING INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, WELL, SECRET
Why is the media having a fit that the CIA, whose every move is supposed to be cloaked in secrecy, is trying to keep its interrogation tactics a secret from the enemy? This makes even less sense when you think about how many MSM outlets were outraged about the “outing” of (non-covert) agent Valerie Plame. The CIA’s decision to destroy interrogation tapes of high-value al Qaeda captives makes sense in a time of war: you don’t tell your opponents your battle plans; nor do you tell them anything else that might give them an advantage. Besides, as Cliff Kincaid pointed out, the whole thing was blown out of proportion by a press salivating at the chance to place the White House in a cover-up scandal not seen since the days of Watergate.
Apparently "Fair and Balanced" is not just a slogan. According to a report by the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University:
Who’s Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.
On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.
Emphasis mine.
The report also indicates that not only has Hillary received the lion's share of the attention, most of it is negative...and Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have received the most positive reporting.
My column about His Dinginess over at Family Security Matters:
One might be tempted to feel sorry for Reid. After all, the poor guy’s been “obstructed” by the Republicans who, as the minority party, aren’t being good boys and girls and allowing the big kids to take over the playground. But it wasn’t too long ago that the Democrats were in the minority, and obstruction was the word of the day. Reid seems to have forgotten one of the cardinal rules in Congress: stop the other party from getting their legislation through. It was okay when he was one of the Huns at the castle gate, but now that he’s sitting in the throne room, he doesn’t enjoy the sound of the battering ram.
His number 2, Dick "Turban" Durin, is up for re-election next year. He's a heavy favorite to win, but the growing corruption cloud surrounding the Ill. Democratic Party gives us a glimmer of hope that Dr. Steve Sauerberg can knock Durbin out.
posted by John Ruberry at December 21, 2007 10:58 PM
Depends on the gift; I like paper, but bags are better for some items.
2. Real or artificial tree?
As a kid, we had fake trees until my parents divorced and my mother remarried...my stepfather is a real tree fan. I now prefer a real tree, but a couple of years ago informed hubby that I was tired of the yearly arguments that would invariably break out when choosing, lugging home, and struggling to put up the real tree. This way I only have to nag him to get it down from the attic; the girls and I can handle it from there.
3. When do you put up the tree?
Usually the weekend after Thanksgiving, but no later than two weeks before.
4. When do you take the tree down?
New Year's Day.
5. Do you like eggnog?
A cup or two is fine, but I am not crazed about it. And no booze, please; I have a very low alcohol tolerance and don't like to make a fool of myself in front of the relatives.
6. Favorite gift received as a child?
My Easy Bake Oven.
7. Do you have a nativity scene?
No.
8. Worst Christmas gift you ever received?
I can't remember...perhaps I blocked the terrible memory?
9. Mail or e-mail Christmas cards?
Mail, but I have gotten worse and worse about getting them out in a timely fashion; as of this writing, none have gone out this year. Bad, Pam, bad!
10. Favorite Christmas movie?
A Christmas Story, followed closely by Trading Places (that Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy classic)
11. When do you start shopping for Christmas?
A couple of weeks before...and usually right before (but not including) Christmas Eve.
12. Favorite thing to eat at Christmas?
I have to pick a favorite? I love everything (and my waistline proves it). Okay, um...turnips, because we usually only have them at Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Here are the rules:
1. Link to the person that tagged you, and post the rules on your blog.
2. Share Christmas facts about yourself.
3. Tag random people at the end of your post, and include links to their blogs.
4. Let each person know that they have been tagged by leaving a comment on their blog.
Done, thankyouverymuch. I'd post a link here, but your site doesn't like the name of my provider - Square Space. When I try that as all one word, it doesn't like me.
Uh, turnips are your favorite thing to eat at Christmas? I think that I would rather eat the real Christmas tree. No, no the partially dried paint stuff when you kinda leave one of the paint cans open. Or glass Christmas tree ball-things. Or fire. Or the dirt that turnips grow in. I just realized that I do not like turnips.
I am not always kind to CNN, but I like to give credit where it's due. As you know, the network brought public attention to little Youssif, an Iraqi boy who became horribly disfigured earlier this year when thugs doused him in gasoline and set him afire when he was playing outside his Baghdahd home.
Since then, Youssif and his family were flown to the United States so he could receive all-expenses paid medical treatment from the Children's Burn Foundation in Sherman Oaks, California. (My previous Youssif posts can be found here and here.)
Now, CNN is planning to air a documentary on Christmas Eve called "Impacting Your World -- Rescuing Youssif." From the press release I received today:
Born in Baghdad only seven months before the start of the war in Iraq, Youssif knew only a world of unpredictable violence. And yet, his family described him as happy and energetic with dreams of becoming a doctor. All that changed in January when three masked assailants doused Youssif in gasoline, set him on fire and left a scarred and traumatized boy.
Rescuing Youssif, the first television special related to CNN’s ongoing “Impact Your World” initiative, not only documents Youssif’s recovery but reveals how the network’s global audience embraced the story and offered money and support to speed his treatment. "Impact Your World – Rescuing Youssif" will premiere on Monday, Dec. 24, at 10 p.m., with replays on Tuesday, Dec. 25, at 1a.m. and 4 a.m. All times Eastern.
CNN’s Baghdad correspondent Arwa Damon first brought the story of Youssif’s plight to the world in August, reporting that treatment at a local hospital was second-rate and painful for Youssif. Youssif’s mother, Zaineb, movingly described how the dynamic personality of her son took a disheartening turn. CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta reports on Youssif’s medical progress and provides insight into his emotional and physical recovery.
Response from CNN’s global audience was immediate and overwhelming. Online, the story became the single most-visited non-breaking news story in CNN.com’s 12-year history, with nearly 4 million page views within two days.
News of Youssif’s plight surfaced two months after CNN developed its Impact Your World initiative, a multi-platform effort to empower its global audience to make a difference in response to the stories they see online and on air. Through Impact Your World, more than 13,000 people from around the world contributed more than $300,000 to the Children’s Burn Foundation, allowing Youssif and his family to fly to the United States for treatment.
In addition, plastic surgeon Peter Grossman donated his services for the half dozen or more surgeries Youssif required for recovery. For Rescuing Youssif, Damon and Gupta remained in close contact with Youssif’s family in order to monitor the boy’s medical progress at the Grossman Burn Center in Los Angeles.
The documentary follows Youssif’s family as they experience a series of ‘firsts’ as they traveled and arrived in the United States, from learning how to use a toaster to seeing the ocean for the first time. It shows a Youssif breaking out of his shell and becoming, once again, a happy and energetic boy. And it reveals the generosity and concern of thousands of CNN viewers and online users.
The media using its force for good is something I am always happy to promote.
Pam, I've tagged you with the CHRISTmas spirit! Following the link above!
Post the link I emailed you here:
posted by Aaron at December 18, 2007 07:42 PM
What a nice summary of the story of Youssif. I've been following him, like many others around the world. Anyone who has children can understand the wretched pain of the parents as they deal with the suffering their little boy is going through.
His mother's comments about how she was afraid Americans would not like them because of their nationality, and yet they have found our people to only be kind and supportive, was very heart warming. It shows that one small child can bring out the love in people. If only this love and understanding could be strong enough to heal this world. It's a great story that we hope will end well, although this child will carry these scars forever. Those who did this terrible thing should be caught and punished, tho there is little hope that will happen now.
posted by Joyce Wolfe at December 21, 2007 09:27 PM
David Hazinski: 'Citizen Journalism' is a Bad Thing
David Hazinski, a former NBC correspondent and associate professor of telecommunications and head of broadcast news at the University of Georgia's Grady College of Journalism, has a bone to pick: he believes "citizen journalism" is dangerous.
We must protect the children!
Using scare quotes all througout the Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-ed, Hazinski worries that without "education, skill and standards," everyday hacks will ruin all that has been achieved by "trusted professionals" and create gossip, not headlines.
So without any real standards, anyone has a right to declare himself or herself a journalist. Major media outlets also encourage it. Citizen journalism allows them to involve audiences, and it is a free source of information and video. But it is also ripe for abuse.
CNN's last YouTube Republican debate included a question from a retired general who is on Hillary Clinton's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender steering committee. False Internet rumors about Sen. Barack Obama attending a radical Muslim school became so widespread that CNN and other news agencies did stories debunking the rumors. There are literally hundreds of Internet hoaxes and false reports passed off as true stories, tracked by sites such as snopes.com.
Hoaxes and gullible people existed well before the Internet. Ever hear of Piltdown Man, the Loch Ness Monster, or receive a chain letter?
Hazinski obviously didn't get the memo that the professionals at CNN failed to vet General Keith Kerr to see if he had any political affiliations (or ignored the results of said vetting) not only before they used his YouTube question on air, but also before they paid to have him fly out, set him up in a hotel, and seated him strategically in the audience and gave him more microphone time than some of the candidates -- and for what? To make the Republican candidates look as though they hate gays? That was the impression I got. Seeing Bill Bennett inform Anderson Cooper of Kerr's Clinton campaign association live, on-air, was one of the sweetest moments in recent television history.
There are so many other "professional" journalism scandals I could list: CNN's Eason Jordan admitting they softened the news coming out of Iraq so Saddam Hussein wouldn't kick them out of Baghdad; Jayson Blair's fake reporting for the New York Times; Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" TANG documents; enhanced and/or fake photos by the likes of Reuters (dubbed "fauxtography" in the blogosphere)...need I go on?
Just as hoaxes and gullible people existed before the Internet, so did unscrupulous news reporters.
Neither Thomas Paine nor Benjamin Franklin were "professional journalists." And they did a heck of a lot more for our country than people the likes of Walter Cronkite, Chris Matthews, Dan Rather -- or David Hazinksi ever will.
Internet hoaxes only fool people who read the internet, and not many of them. The problem with citizen journalism is that it limits the amount of money that can go into research, and the access that the corporate media has to the centers of power.
There are many advantages too, primarily the divesity of voices contesting an ever smaller number of major media outlets. I remember a Nation cover that was concerned with the no. going down to ten or twelve, never mind the five we have now.
The free market will establish an equilibrium between the new and old media eventually. Newspapers we're objective sources of information for the first hundred or so years they existed, from the days when they were ad sheets, political party propaganda outlets in the early days of the republic, and sensationalist rags at the turn of the century. One reason I laugh when I hear accusations of media bias from the right is that, comparitively, the media is more even-handed than it has been at any time in history.
Seeing as it was on during the day, I couldn't watch the Des Moines Register Republican debate yesterday, but I've seen the highlight clips and read the reviews, and from what I can see, Fred Thompson absolutely kicked butt. Will it be enough to give him a much-needed surge? I don't know, but I'm thrilled that he gave such a great performance. He was funny, engaging and specific about his stance on the issues.
His "no hand shows" quip about the global warming question has been compared to Ronald Reagan's "I'm paying for this micophone" comment during a debate in New Hampshire during the 1980 campaign. Reagan recollected: "I may have won the debate, the primary - and the nomination -- right there." True for Fred? Again, time will tell.
FRedStates.com created a video with audio clips and photo stills from yesterday, combined with commentary from such conservative luminaries as Rich Lowry, Dean Barnett and Mark Hemingway. Enjoy!
While many believe that the Thompson campaign has been stalled for weeks, I believe that he has been biding his time. He recognizes that all the candidates got into the game far too early and that the American populace is rather bored with it all right now.
He's heating up now, just in time for the primaries next month. He's getting alot of press right now for standing tall and talking deeply about specifics - probably because everyone had counted him out.
Time to count him back in - he's just getting started.
posted by Kris, in New England at December 14, 2007 10:30 AM
As First Lady, Hillary! wasn't very popular. Compare opinion polls from the majority of her "first ladyship" with that of Laura Bush and you'll see what I mean.
But a funny thing happened: Monicagate.
Although he'd had numerous affairs before, the Monica Lewinsky scandal happened in the White House, and Hillary! was shamed by her husband enjoying the charms of a young 20-something. (At the time, Hillary was in her 50s.)
Suddenly, her poll numbers began to rise. People felt sorry for the poor, belaguered wife who had suffered so much at the hands of her philandering husband. Her meddling in federal affairs (i.e. Hillarycare) was forgotten, and Hillary! became everyone's favorite martyr. This trend carried into her Senate campaign: she trailed behind rival Rick Laszlo in the polls until he approached her podium during the debate and "menaced" her. Poor thing...another man treating her, the fragile flower, badly. That debate caused her to surge in the polls and the rest is history.
My free advice? Bill needs to get caught in flagrante delicto -- the younger the gal the better. I guarantee a bounce for the Clinton campaign.
My article about waterboarding should get the usual knickers in a twist:
Lest we forget, Saddam Hussein was one of the pioneers in the art of modern torture. His minions indulged in the quaint practices of cutting out tongues with razors, tossing dissidents into plastic shredders, public beheadings and the infamous rape rooms. Yet we were wrong to depose him because Iraq was, er, “more stable” under his brutal rule, right?
But let’s get back to waterboarding. As the confirmation hearings for Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general loomed back in October, Democrats and some Republicans indicated that unless he denounced “waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques” they would oppose him. (Despite his refusal to “categorically” define waterboarding as toture, Mukasey was confirmed by a 53-40 vote.)
I have never understood those who have objected to using water boarding as a interrogation device. I always thought that the general idea in interigating someone WAS to scare them within an inch of their life so they would divulge information. There has been no physical damage ever mentioned. And it is used by the military in training, and Fox News reporters have even undergone it. (maybe the major networks need to each contribute a reporter to undergo it so they would understand it better).
As for any psychological damage it could be no worse then that will be faced by a minority child who is facing a probable life of pimping, drug pushing or prison because the NEA will not allow school choice and so prevenat that child from obtaining a quality education to avoid that stress.
I am a Republican Candidate for President who is spending the third of what will be twenty-four days in New Hampshire making direct contact with voters before the New Hampshire Primary.
Vern Wuensche
posted by Vern Wuensche at December 15, 2007 04:37 PM
"Conservatives have a strong Libertarian branch and recognize the intrinsic value of a human being beyond image. This is why conservatives will always choose substance over silliness. Ronald Reagan over Ron Paul." ~ Matt Sanchez, in an interview with John Hawkins of Right Wing News.
This photo accompanies an article about Bill's concern over Hillary's derailing campaign, and the different ideas he's considering in order to revitalize it.
Alarmed by his wife's slide in the polls and disarray within her backbiting campaign, a beside-himself Bill Clinton has leaped atop the barricades and is furiously plotting a cure - or coup.
Obama has Oprah. Who does Hillary have besides Bill, someone who perhaps more than his "long-suffering" spouse wants desperately to get back behind the wheel.
Anyone else notice how often our former (thank God) President makes a point of displaying his wedding ring these days?
Anyone else notice the increased incidence of PDA between these two grifters?
I could just hurl!
posted by Gayle Miller at December 13, 2007 09:52 AM
I find it truly sad that a recent poll stated that a number of people who want to vote for Hillary are doing so in order to put Bill back in the White House! Even after knowing all we now know about their malfeasance, some folks are so twisted as to want to give that disgraceful excuse for a chief executive another shot at this country.
Now obviously George Bush is not running for office again, but I use him as an example because so much emphasis has been put on the "smart" vs. the "dumb" candidate -- "dumb" being equivalent to President Bush. When you realize that an entire industry has sprung up around Bush's "inferior" intellect, with numerous books, calendars, and other items for sale that impugn his IQ (and focusing largely on his propensity for mispronouncing words like "nuclear"), he's an obvious choice for discussion. (What will these entrepreneurs do when President Bush leaves office on January 20, 2009?)
If being smart was the only qualification for being a leader, one would assume from his treatment in the media that George Bush should never have gotten near the Oval Office...
The whole thing is here.
UPDATE: I received a lot of feedback from readers, most of it positive. However, I did get an indignant e-mail from a professor at the University of Wisconsin (in the engineering department). I will not reprint his name or e-mail here, since while he was condescending, he was not outright rude, nor was his message of a threatening nature (like some others I have read of). Here is the text of his message:
I see that you have joined the ranks of easy answers and offer more spoon fed ideology to the masses. Really schools produce anti-capitalist feelings among intellectuals? I teach at the University of Wisconsin, considered liberal, and we have more CEOs amongst our graduates than Harvard; and I believe and know some of them who qualify as intellectuals--how to explain that? Those verbal skills that you say shape entitlement are rarely graded; instead merit is usually determined through extensive writing, or testing and now more often in our college through product design and competitions.
But to some extent you are right, it is the intellectuals in IT who pointed out how the last elections were manipulated by touch screen voting, and it was the intellectuals in the pentagon who pointed out we needed more troops in Iraq, and it is the intellectuals in my class who I teach to be skeptical of all claims that are going on to lead us into a new and technically rich society.
My response:
Then by your implication, George W. Bush is an intellectual because he received his MBA at Harvard. Why didn't I see that before?
You seem to have missed the entire point of my article. I can't remember the last times CEOs, IT professionals and the like, as a group, were classified as intellectuals by the "great thinkers" of our time. That's not to say they are incapable of intelligent thought -- quite the contrary! Yet these thinkers, as you describe them, put a higher value on the end result than the "intellectual process." This is what distinguishes them from those who consider themselves to be intellectuals, i.e. philosphers, lecturers, and so on.
I do not mean to imply that there is no place for intellectuals in society. They provide a much-needed perspective on many things. I merely point out that "book smarts" alone do not necessarily make a great leader.
Am I to believe that you are actually going to use the word "intellectual" to refer to Al Gore and John Kerry? You might as well try to redefine "genius" to include Nancy Pelosi.
From Webster's: involving intelligence rather than emotion.
There is no way to remotely stretch the meaning of intellectual to encompass Gore or Kerry, both of whom are sand-poundingly stupid ignoramuses.
Don't you just love the way that ignoramus rolls off of the tongue when referring to them? Yeah, me too.
Hi Pam -- I would definitely agree that pure intellectualism is not enough to be a great leader, and I like your list of qualities a leader needs. I am a little hazy on what your definition of "intellectual" would be -- it would help me understand the article if you could pin down what that word means to you. I guess my biggest problem with GWB -- and the way the GOP has been leaning -- is not that he doesn't possess the qualities that are normally associated with intellect (I'm sure he must be a pretty smart guy to get where he's gotten), but that he willfully ignores and even ridicules things like science and history. No, "book smarts" are certainly not everything, but I believe that a good leader would at least listen to the advice of experts in their field when making decisions.
posted by Ro at December 11, 2007 06:06 PM
I am absolutely just dying to hear what Ro determines to be the ignored science and history. This should be fun.
Every Republican president has been derided as stupid, from Lincoln to GWB. Whereas glib liberals like Bill Clinton and John Kerry are widely assumed to be geniuses. Whence these characterizations originate is anyone’s guess.
I have a business associate who never graduated from high school that routinely describes George W. Bush as a stupid chimp. I asked her why she thinks Bush is so stupid and she said that because he is. I said, “Don’t you feel uncomfortable calling someone stupid when you never bothered to graduate from high school and the last book you read was the Da Vinci Code and you didn’t even understand that”? She told me to f---- off.
posted by El Duderino at December 12, 2007 05:56 PM
You mean you haven't already funded an extensive research project on the subject, TD? I'm so disappointed.
posted by Ro at December 12, 2007 07:27 PM
Certainly have, Ro, my name is Howard Zinn. Ever heard of me?
Lots and lots of rare beef and tons of seafood. Oh, and beer, can't forget the beer. You have never read my romance lessons obviously. You have no idea what you are missing.
Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) is the founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus. I had the opportunity to talk to her on the phone last week, and the transcript and audio of that conversation are both over at Family Security Matters. Click here.
"We support the troops but not the war." Leftists are full of it, especially those at NBC.
Although, according to MM, Drudge reports that they may be bowing to public pressure. We'll see. (MM also passes on the link reporting that the lawyer who said "no" to the ads is a major Democrat donor. You don't say?)
Just a few short years ago, Nancy Pelosi (among others) was briefed by the CIA on waterboarding, then a new technique designed to wrangle information out of terror suspects in custody.
With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).
Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."
As Glenn Reynolds says,
Lots of people who were talking tough back then subsequently changed their tunes -- out of either a sudden flowering of scruples or an unprincipled desire to go after the Bush Administration with any weapon that came to hand. But, you know, if you're going to say "it was different back then," it really has to be more than just an all-purpose excuse for politicians.
What a difference a majority (and a presidential election) makes...
A fireman in Boston was set upon by thugs -- beaten up and stabbed. Fortunately he's recovering. The fireman, who happens to be white, was attacked by Hispanics who said during the attack that they "don't want any gringo here."
(Of course, if gringos are the ones who are expected to put out the fire in that neighborhood, they'd better get there PDQ.)
That racism is alive and well doesn't surprise me, sadly. Neither does this:
...police are not classifying the incident as racially fueled...
The double standard that exists in our nation today is appalling. White perp, victim of color? Hate crime. Other way around? Just an ordinary crime, not worthy of special attention.
To me, the notion of "hate crimes" is preposterous, because the laws that exist cover assault, murder, etc., no matter what the color of your skin, where you came from, what religion you observe or, these days, who you sleep with. But when so-called "hate crime statutes" do exist and they are only enacted when a certain someone is the victim, well, that gets my blood boiling. It's obvious that they exist soley to "make whitey pay" for any and all past injustices. This is what's called "social justice," and it's rubbish.
It was 66 years ago today, on a peaceful Sunday morning, that a surprise Japanese airstrike decimated the American naval fleet at Pearl Harbor, killing over 2,400 Americans. It was this act that brought America into the raging battles of World War II. You can read more about that fateful day here.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, limousine liberal though he was, was a true American patriot and a strong leader when we needed it most. Here is the full text one of his most famous speeches, given the day after the attack, asking Congress to declare war on Japan:
Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives: yesterday, December 7th, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
***
The Greatest Generation indeed. This generation could learn a thing or two from them: resourcefulness, pride and love of country, bravery and self-sacrifice.
It's an important day to remember - arguably one that changed the world landscape forever. The Japanese failed at their goal - and as I said on my blog today, woke a sleeping giant.
posted by THIRDWAVEDAVE at December 7, 2007 01:16 PM
And the humility of the WWII generation is remarkable, too. I'll never approach it or understand it, but I stand in awe of this trait.
I went to Italy last year with Army Veterans, and the Italians love, love, love them and Americans, by extension, for their sacrifices in WWII. Think about that the next time someone off-handedly says that Europeans hate us. Not my experience.
posted by Casey Klahn at December 7, 2007 01:16 PM
Yes, Today is Pearl Harbor Day.
It is on this day in 1941 when the United States realized that our trust in Japan was not deserved, and that we were in effect, asleep with regards to Japan. On behalf of my illegally abducted American daughter, Melissa Braden, and the thousands of other illegally abducted children being held in Japan , and in hindsight, I suggest that we should all seriously consider the lesson of history on this day.
It appears that the Japan of 2007 has not changed in many ways from the pre-war Japan. Much of their actions may still be driven by the Empirical rule-the-world viewpoint that had to be stopped in WWII. Many significant parallels may be drawn between the history of the 1930s and 1940s, and today.
Today, Japan allows its citizens to ignore the laws, jurisdiction, and custody rulings previously established in another country , and in effect steal our children with impunity.
According to the US Dept of State and the NCMEC , JAPAN IS THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THAT THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO RETURN EVEN 1 SINGLE ILLEGALLY ABDUCTED CHILD FROM! Japan continues to defiantly operate in numerous areas, as if they are not a part of our global society and should not be held up to international standards on numerous issues, in spite of the way they appear to the rest of the world. Today, for their handling of international child abductions, Japan has been demarched by most of the industrialized world, and their response has been zero.
Healing these old wounds from WWII is a two-way street. The Childrens Rights Council of Japan estimates that there are over 10,000 outstanding cases ...all unresolved .
If you see a Pearl Harbor Day event, stop in and talk to those fellow Americans and any Japanese involved. Help spread our story.
Sincerely,
Patrick Braden
Global(dot)Future(at)Yahoo(dot)com
It's an exclusive over at Support Your Local Gunfighter. Wyatt has the interview no one else got, not even Baba Wawa or Larry King.
My generous-ness also knows no bounds when it comes to being a father. Look at me while I buy, er, adopt, another less fortunate child. And everyone knows that less fortunate children are the best kind. We could have adopted an American kid, but it's fashionable to adopt one from one of those loser countries. Brad Pitt is nothing if not fashionable. I mean, look at this Jeff cap: it cost $5,000!
Let me get this straight: For decades now, not only has Medea Benjamin not only been embarrassed to be an American, but she has actively participated in events that one might term seditious, or even treasonous. Suddenly, when faced with a situation where her civil rights and her personal safety really were at stake, she reminds us that she didn’t come to serious harm because she has the protection of being a U.S. citizen and – gasp – imagine the horrors the citizens of the other country must be experiencing!
Her comments regarding her adopted homeland were the single most offensive part of the article to me. She put a Maple leaf on her backpack and started saying "eh" at the end of sentences? Way to go, Ms. Stereotyper. Bigotry is offensive even if it is toward Canada, eh.
That's the gist of his speech at a New Hampshire campaign stop yesterday:
During a campaign stop on behalf of his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former president said he can't understand why so much of the media coverage of the campaign ignores her experience—and, without naming him, the relative lack of experience of her closest Democratic rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
"One percent of the press coverage was devoted to their record in public life. No wonder people think experience is irrelevant. A lot of the people covering the race think it is (irrelevant)," Clinton said to students at Keene State College.
Clinton referenced a study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism that indicated much of the coverage of the race is dominated by daily horse race reporting rather than about policy issues.
Well, if Mrs. Clinton's campaign wouldn't hand deliver silly topics to cover like essays Barack Obama wrote in elementary school about wanting to be president -- like no young child has ever before wanted "to be president when I grow up" -- then maybe we could all focus on policy.
But then, policy is exactly what would scare voters away. Mrs. Clinton may say she's all about being a moderate, but anyone who takes a look at her record -- and I mean her entire record, not just the past six or seven years in the Senate -- would know that she's all about creating a socialist state where individual choice and personal responsibility (the cornerstone of our society) would go the way of the dodo.
And, as my friend Tim B. pointed out, if the media were to cover her record better, Mrs. Clinton might end up in jail!
Mark D. sent this poem along...it reflects my feelings quite adequately.
Twas the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.
See the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas -- no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say,
December 25th is just a "Holiday."
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing other folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X-BOX, an I-pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Target was hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas was no where to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears,
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate "Winter Break" under your "Dream Tree"
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say:
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS!
(Related: a list of "important days in December" as per the Spokane public schools.)
if you really think there's a "war on christmas" then you're completely delusional. there's no argument to be had, christmas is everywhere, on everything.
Steve, Pam isn't the delusional one. There has been a war on Christmas, as well as anything at all that even remotely resembles the reason for the season for at least the past 10 years. Stores where employees are now forbidden to say Merry Christmas - even in reply to people who say it to them. Other stores that FORBID the use of the word Christmas in advertising. It's all part of the secularization of America by the leftwing elites whose only religion is global warming.
Pam is right and you are wrong.
posted by Gayle Miller at December 3, 2007 04:37 PM
I cannot believe that you didn't get the memo, look who got killed. Christmas and all religions are hereby cancelled.
Even Jesus had his feisty moments - remember the moneychangers in the Temple?
I am just so weary of people feeling quite free to insult and demean and denigrate my belief system while paying overly zealous heed to the feelings of "the religion of peace" adherents whose only goal in life is to kill every Christian and Jew on Planet Earth.
These are days for "muscular" defense of our beliefs and our traditions or surely, they will be taken from us by force!
posted by Gayle Miller at December 4, 2007 09:45 AM
Speaking as a non-Christian, if some tried to quelch all mention of one of my holidays, I'd be pretty racked off.
the dominant holiday is still christmas. the christmas season still begins just after thanksgiving. stores still put up christmas decorations and christmas displays. they still offer christmas savings and christmas sales. businesses still display christmas decorations. they still give their employees christmas vacations.
if you're so offended by someone saying "happy holidays" and not "merry christmas" out of respect for someone who might celebrate hanukkah instead then maybe you shouldn't go out of doors. do us all a favor.
Even though steve is wrong for his reasoning, he is right with his idea. The people who celebrate Christmas and like to say "Merry Christmas" should stay at home during the Christmas Holidays and not spend a cent. Celebrate the holiday the way that we should instead of spending money with the rest of the country that is worried about upsetting some dumbasses. Then the merchants would immediately stop this ridiculous pc thing when 95% of the population bankrupts the country because of the stupid people. Yes, it is 95% of this country that celebrates Christmas, steve, the Jooooos should stay home, instead.
The "Jooooos"? Yikes. Maybe there is a reason minority religions feel, erm, less than comfortable. Also, isn't it just as silly to be offended by someone saying "Happy Holidays" as "Merry Christmas"? Why must we all get our panties into a bunch over this? Besides, of course, I'm pressed to think of a Christmas tradition that doesn't have pagan roots anyway, so unless your "reason for the season" is the Pagan winter festival of Yule, the whole argument seems a little off-kilter.
posted by Ro at December 4, 2007 06:21 PM
Uh, Ro? My comment was tongue in cheek. Humor? Remember? I am a severe smartass, read my blog. And yes, "CHRISTmas" is a pagan holiday, because the HOLIday celebrates the birth of CHRIST Jesus.
That giving of gifts certainly was a pagan ritual started by the three wise men offering gifts to CHRIST Jesus in that manger, on that day that CHRIST Jesus was born, which we now celebrate on December 25th each year on a HOLIday that we call CHRISTmas.
Yes, the decorated tree thing is a pagan ritual that was asimilated in with CHRISTmas, the celebration of CHRIST Jesus.
Dense people crack me up with their urban legends.....
Sorry, Ro. I am not a religious bigot at all, but I am a severe smartass. I cannot help it, but I do try. As far as Yule is concerned, the pagans changed the date of THEIR festival to coincide with Christmas, the celebration of the birth of Christ our Lord after Christianity became the prominent religion, but you already knew that, you just skewed the facts about the celebration for your own benefit and point.
And I don't hate Jews, they are my absolute favorite religious minority. Some of my best friends are Jews.
Ok, Two Dogs, I'll totally buy that you are not a religious biggot. Groovy. However, MY favorite religious minority is the pagans, and your statement that the pagan midwinter holiday changed their time of year to be in late December is pretty much, well, totally not true. Yule is the winter festival. The one celebrating midwinter. Like, the same midwinter that falls sometime near mid-to-late December. Longest night of the year. Every year since the beginning of time. Pretty hard to change the date of that one without changing the position of the Earth around the sun. And I'm the dense one? Most Christian holidays do, in fact, have traditions steeped in paganism, and Christmas is almost as rife with it as Easter (almost). The tree, the "faery" lights people put on their homes, the yule log(of course), ringing bells, mistletoe kissing.
posted by Ro at December 6, 2007 01:00 PM
Sorry, Ro, you are absolutely incorrect about the pagans NOT changing the date of the festival as well as the near dates of the seasons, which most fourth grade students could tell you, if you would ask them for that commonly held knowledge. If yule WAS a mid-winter festival, according to you, I would assume that it would not be celebrated on December 25, seeing how that is at the VERY beginning of winter, since the beginning of time, I might add. However according to Wikipedia, which is notorious for its bad information, granted, (I really don't care enough about this topic to search further) Yule generally was celebrated on December 22 and then was moved after the popularity of Christianity, so, I'm right yet again on both counts. According to your statements, Yule was mid-winter festival, Winter which begins this year on December 22 and runs to March 22 and which generally runs in the Northern hemisphere from late December to late March, again since the beginning of time. If you would like knowledge instead of ignorance and lipping about something that you made up or completely misunderstand, I suggest the download of this tome, free! from Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/598 Therein lies the TRUTH about your pagan Yule Festival. You say that paganism is your favorite "religious" minority, yet know nothing about your favorite "religious" minority's celebrations or the fact that paganism is actually defined as ritualistic behavior that is not generally regarded as religious. Way to go, Ro.
As an aside, I willingly bet money that you did not know that "pagan" loosely translated means "hillbilly." That is damn funny to me.
Damn, steve, it was a joke. You leftists really have no sense of humor at all, except in Presidential candidates. I actually think that I know two Jews personally, I live in Mississippi and our Jewish population is rather small. I know quite a few from blogging, though, and they seem to be okay except for that murder of Christ. (Just for steve: That's a joke.)
Just to clear up the confusion about me, like it matters, I am Catholic and my fiance is Seventh Day Adventist, which to me is pretty close to Judiasm, oh with the Christ thing thrown in. (Just for steve: That's another joke.)
Um...wow. Just wow. Don't even know where to start with that one. How about here: Yule is not celebrated on December 25. It's celebrated on the longest night of the year, the solstice. I'm still not sure how you think that anything was changed to fit Christianity, especially considering the total lack of documentation on the actual, real birthdate of Jesus. Since we don't know when he was born, I think it's awesome that they chose a day on which to celebrate his birth -- great thing to celebrate, certainly. But, again, most of the modern trappings of the holiday have their roots in paganism.
And holy cow yes, paganism is a religion. Obsessive hand-washing is defined as "ritualistic behavior". Paganism is defined as a polytheistic, nature-based religion that follows many rich mythological traditions going back millenia -- much like Christianity. Also like Christianity, the religion sets certain guidelines for proper behavior, there are sacraments, churches, community gatherings, community outreach and charity programs, and it's even based on a holy trinity. It's a government-recognized religion. And I don't have to go to Wikipedia to look this up, so let's not pretend that you know more about it than me, k?
Oh, and Jesus WAS a Jew. Born a Jew, died a Jew.
None of this, though, is the point, right? I celebrate Christmas, and it doesn't ruin my day to hear "happy holidays". Why in the world does it ruin your? Why do Target and Walmart need to reaffirm you in your faith?
posted by Ro at December 6, 2007 03:52 PM
This is my final comment on this topic and probably my final response to anything that Ro may submit, Pam. I shall ignore her from this point forward, she is dead to me.
Ro, I thought you were just being silly and I enjoyed the banter, but now I realize that you actually believe the nonsense that you are typing, I don't know whether or not to be afraid of you. Ah Hell, you're just a girl, I think that I could whup you. And I can't tell if you are just overwhelmingly misinformed or actually ding-dong nuts, honestly it does seem like the latter. You really should download that FREE! book, it will correct your overwhelming wrongness regarding your favorite minority "religion."
That said, I have a problem whenever someone decides to use a certain word and has no idea what it means. Call it an obsession or whatever, I like to call it "words actually have a meaning." "Pagan" is derived from the Latin word pāgānus, which means dweller from the country, hence my terminology "hillbilly." Since you have obviously been named Keeper of the Linguistic Flame and are commissioned with the determination of the meanings of words all by yourself, I shall submit to your daffynition, ma'am. Paganism is a religion, even though forever it has been regarded as the exact opposite, a synonym is "heathen" and I will NOT try to debate the meaning of that word with you, either, I know better. But, I am just going on what is in the dictionary, and you ARE Keeper of the Linguistic Flame, remember?
Also, you first said that Yule was a mid-winter festival, but since the soltice does generally fall at the onset of winter, since the beginning of time, that IS why the seasons were set up that way, you were obviously mistaken that yule was celebrated during mid-winter or simply made a typo when you typed "midwinter" instead of "at the very beginning of winter." My keyboard kinda sets up like that, too, if I close my eyes, take a bunch of LSD, and continually hit myself in the face with a hammer while driving a Hum-Vee cross-country through the desert and getting a tattoo at the same time. I just took you at YOUR word, I don't know you, so I read what YOU typed and went from YOUR words. However, the FACT, which you totally ignore, is that yule was generally celebrated on December 22 and it was moved to coincide with Christmas after Christmas moved from around January 6. That is FACT, ma'am and it is available every single place that has a single reference to Yule on the entire Interwebs, but that is not the database that IS RO! KEEPER OF THE LINGUISTIC FLAME!. Maybe you have also been named Keeper of the Historical Timeline, then again I shall defer to your expertise. As a matter of fact, I just called YOUR office at Keeper of the Historical Timeline, Inc. and your secretary informed me that YOU have decided to celebrate yule on December 24 or 25 or maybe the even 22nd or YOU might even wait until NEXT YEAR on June 21. She also said that YOU as Keeper of the Historical Timeline, as well as Keeper of the Linguistic Flame, had a bit of a problem digging your head outta your ass long enough to catch a breath. I think that YOU as Keeper of the Historical Timeline and Keeper of the Linguistic Flame might want to talk to your office staff about their insubordination.
Very cute. I'm so going to miss our little talks, TD, although I'm a little unsure as to how I offended you so much as to be "dead" to you. I was, actually, enjoying the banter. I hope you're not afraid of me, although I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I'm a girl. So be it. I couldn't actually get through your last paragraph, as it didn't seem to make much sense. Something about a timeline and a flame...anyway, Merry Christmas to you as well, fart-face.
posted by Ro at December 6, 2007 05:13 PM
Since this is not that asinine yule/pagan topic, my assumption that you were female was based on the absolute lack of logic in your argument which was based solely on ideas pulled straight from your nether regions. I'm a sexist, too. And I figured you were not a gay man because since the total homosexual population of the entire world is less than one percent and all of them are flouncing around together right now, because they are completely unemployable, the odds were obviously in the favor of you being a girl. That's called logic. Try it sometime, but wear a helmet, your head may explode.
Oh good, so were talking again. Neat-o. Overt sexism aside, I'm very curious as to your "lack of logic" statement, as nothing about the "asinine" pagan/yule discussion requires any logic, just a small knowledge of the subject itself. Purely factual, not an argument at all. You didn't read the Wikipedia article too well, because most of what I said is there. Including calling Yule "midwinter". But whatever, you think what you think, and I guess the more words you can capitalize the more you think you're right. So, super-duper. Just curious -- what pissed you off so much about my post? Was it the Jesus was a Jew thing? Or just the info on a rather obscure religion?
posted by Ro at December 6, 2007 06:23 PM
Ro, I am not pissed off in the least. It's just that a debate requires some ground rules, much like the game of Scrabble. Again, I must say that words mean something. That is a pet peeve of mine. For instance, you may say "reverse discrimination" all you want, but it still means hating someone that is just like yourself. Pagan has a definition and it has an origin. Much like the term "midwinter." If you do not want to accept definitions and fact, you might as well call eveything the same thing and I hereby nominate every word to immediately be changed to "premblememblemation." Your turn.
Well, good, I'm glad you're not angry -- it sure did look like it from your post.
To your point re: meaning of words. Obviously our separate experiences infuse different meanings to words, as they will do for everyone, and starting from a common lexicon will ensure complete communication. That does not, however, mean that I am uninformedly making up non-existent meanings for words (although it happens often, but not in this case); it simply means you do not have the background for the lexicon I was using in this particular area -- not to insult your intelligence (although you seem pretty eager to insult mine). I don't need to argue with you over the meaning of the word "pagan" -- you have it exactly right, along with the word "heathen". The history of how it came to mean something close to "heretic" or "without religion", and then was reclaimed to mean those who practiced a religion of those in the "outskirts" who were uninfluenced by (or simply ignorant of) the rising popularity of Christianity is actually a pretty cool story. The fact that you don't know that bit of history is totally fine and cool -- most people don't -- but maybe it's not entirely appropriate to call me illogical and scary and egotistical because I do. And whether or not the pagan midwinter festival is actually in the middle of what we call winter doesn't change the date when the festival actually takes place, or the fact that it's called the midwinter festival. I didn't decide on the name, or the date, I'm just relating facts.
I guess my point is: yes, it is helpful to have a consistent use of language, but the fact that it's your pet peeve doesn't make you the Grand Decider of what the correct, culturally relevant definition of a word is. I'm not saying that I am, but I do have a much stronger background in history of world religions than just looking up something in the dictionary.
posted by Ro at December 6, 2007 07:43 PM
Ro, I did not write the dictionary and my life experience doesn't allow me to change the meanings of words. It must be liberating to you to be able to make up anything that you want and make it be fact. That means that you can never be wrong in your insulated, albeit padded world. Like now.
Didja read my last post, or are you being purposely obtuse? Just because you don't know something does not mean it was made up or untrue. Let me repeat that so you get it (read it s l o w l y): just because you don't know something does not mean it was made up or untrue. Sorry if that's a rough concept. I tried to be civil, I made no personal insults (except "farty-face"), I can scarcely remember what our original topic was, but I guess there's no talking with a self-professed sexist who cannot grasp easily-verifiable facts or maintain civilized discourse when being confronted with a word or concept he doesn't know. I think your earlier declaration that you're a "smartass" needs be shortened to simply "ass."
I'm out, but my my my Pam, the poem sure did shake up just about as many comments as I've ever seen posted here. Good on ya.
posted by Ro at December 6, 2007 08:34 PM
Forgive me, Ro, I did not realize that this "debate" was still ongoing. I offered you a link to the online text Heimskringla, which would have hopefully cleared up your confusion regarding the history of your "religion" which I have studied extensively, albeit, in a roundabout way. It seems that I produced a thesis upon which I received a thirty thousand dollar research grant from your Federal government for further study, along with a two year stay in Norway with a archaeological team that I sponsored with that money and a good portion of my own personal wealth at that time.
Portions of this research have been published in Sir Banister Fletcher's A History of Architecture, since the 19th edition. Ro, we will have to agree to disagree on the matter, you know best. I would like you to understand that every single living human in the world that has any knowledge at all regarding ancient Norway and its history, along with its customs, knows that you are extremely confroooosed. We do not begrudge you that. I also want you to know that anyone that has ever experienced confusion over the meaning of a word or the meaning of anything for that matter has usually consulted a dictionary or some type of reference book. I like your way better in all honesty. It is very liberating to me to simply slide through life never understanding anything and arguing to your dying breath about something which you have no clue. You are obviously a genius and I respect that. Openmindedness is cetainly a bad thing, especially when you are clueless on a topic.
In honor of the Ro Method of defining words, customs, traditions and anything else that strikes my fancy: I hereby proclaim the word "progressive" to mean someone who wishes to return to the sand-poundingly stupid political ideas that were monumental failures from forty years ago!
Holy cow, it's Christmas miracle! Two Dogs has gone in one day from "I really don't care enough about this topic to search further" [than Wikipedia] to having developed an expertise by sponsering a 2 year Federal research program into the "non" religion of Paganism (which, of course, doesn't exsist)! That's truly miraculous, my friend, and I commend you for it. Go on with your bad self.
posted by Ro at December 7, 2007 01:09 AM
The topic to which I was referring as irrelevent to me, the world, as well as history, was Yule. And in my prior post, simply to solidify the fact that you have no clue about the subject to which you have professed an undying love, I stated quite clearly, "I offered you a link to the online text Heimskringla, which would have hopefully cleared up your confusion regarding the history of your 'religion' which I have studied extensively, albeit, in a roundabout way." This means that the study of any local custom was NOT the primary focus of our studies, we were much more interested in techniques and skills that actually have withstood the test of time, much unlike Yule.
One of the main things that you will develop as you enter your teen years, Ro, will be a little character trait known to most learned people as "reading comprehension." That trait was what allowed me to completely dismantle your "facts" and inform you of your mistakes regarding every single tidbit of your ideas. Do not fret, it will come, but if you maintain the Little Miss Know-It-All routine without knowing the person that you are debating, it will be much more difficult, and just like what happened in this thread, you will appear to be a fool.
Just a comment or two and I'll be off of here. I agree with most of what Two Dogs is saying. However there are a couple of points that most people don't know.
One is as early as 98 AD Christmas was celebrated on Dec. 25th. NOT January 6th. As a matter of fact in most of the Christian world it never has been celebrated on January 6th LET ME EXPLAIN that. Also just so you know under the Bishop of Roman Pope Julius I, Christmas was officially set not just a tradition as it had been but now officially set on Dec. 25th in 350 AD. However in the 1500's the calender changed.. you can check this all out.. From the Julian 2 calendar used at the time of Christ until the 1500's to the Georgian or Christian Calendar. What that meant was Dec 25th on the Julian calendar was now January 6th on the Georgian Calendar.. The Greek and Russian Orthodox churches kept the Julian 2 calendar while the rest of Christendom was now on the Georgian Calendar. Both however were celebrating the birth of Christ on Dec. 25th, on each Calendar. There was just a 12 days difference between the two. Thus most of the Christian Churches now had 12 days of Christmas which also honored the 12 apostles and also the 12 tribes of Israel. Starting with day one as Christmas day Dec. 25 and ending on Jan.6. Since, as it was pointed out by Ro, that Christ was a Jew indeed He was. Never did He ever suggest downing Jewish tradition. So in most Christian Churches the 6th of January is celebrated as epiphany when the wise men (pagans) came to worship and bring their gifts to baby Jesus the King of the Jews. Remember Christ died and went to hell for all of us: Pagans, Jews, Gentiles,Rich, Poor, Beggar, Thief, etc. Then on the third day He conquered death, for everyone as well if we just believe it, and rose from the dead. Simple plain and free.
I might point out in 98 A.D. that there indeed would have been some living that would have known exactly when Christ was born. So very likely He was born on Dec.25. The reason why most of the Christian world decided to celebrate it on Dec. 25 under the new calendar was to keep confusion down to a minimum when they switched calendars to the much more accurate Georgian Calendar. Likely everyone kept their birthday's they had been celebrating rather than figuring the difference. But again although Christ was born in the time of the Julian 2 calendar (under Caesar Augustus) .. which was more accurate than the Julian 1 calendar..Both the Greek's, Roman's and the rest of Christendom celebrated Christmas on Dec. 25 on both calendars. There now. Holiday as it looked very much like someone knew it meant "Holy Day". I don't mind Happy Holidays since there are a bunch of Christian religious holidays near the same time, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years..Seasons Greetings though, hey come on what is that? I personally love to say Merry Christmas and I am personally seeing much more of it this year than in the last two years and that is good to know. Also depending on which one you read there are somewhere between 86 to 90% of the people in the USA claim to be Christian that is a lot of offending going on here. My Jewish Friends .. all celebrate Christmas and have Christmas Trees and wow even call them Christmas Trees.. and say Merry Christmas So there you go. This is America! So for nearly 2,000 years we have been Celebrating Christmas on Dec. 25 more than any other pagan heathen group has.
The Winter Solstice is not DEC 25 and it, as far as I can tell, never was on Dec. 25. But if it were Christ wouldn't care. He would not hold it against them that they shared that date.. But the fact is there is just no proof of that. So back to the poem it is good. I like it and thank you so much for putting it on your website.
Merry Christmas to all and to all a very good night.
joyful226
My commentary on a very sad case over at American Thinker today:
Like many girls that age, Megan ended a friendship with a girl who lived just four houses away from her. This is not unusual. During the teenage years, friendships often come and go. I remember being "best friends" with a girl during eighth grade, only to find in ninth grade that I had been replaced by someone else. I was hurt at the time but got over it, as most girls do.
But according to accounts in the St. Charles Journal and the New York Times, the mother of the former friend, Lori Drew, decided to "mess with Megan."
I am as horrified as you are about this girl's suicide. As a healthcare provider, I have a story to share. One of my adult patients gleefully related how she and one of her teenage daughters would sit in the waiting room and make terrible comments about the appearance of our staff members. Would give them names as applicable from an old TV show "Hee Haa." Vicious and mean names relating to teeth, eye structure etc. I know this patient saw my look of shock since she has never returned to the office. This all from a very average American family. This is all just the tip of the ice berg. Parents are living vicariously through the lives of their children, and in the process teaching little regard for humanity and civility. Thanks, just had to get this off my chest
Lori Drew is lucky enough to still have her child; the Meiers still have Allison, but what burdens will SHE carry throughout the rest of her life and what reverberations from the stupid, stupid, stupid (and callously amoral) behavior of Lori Drew will affect many of the young people who knew Megan and perhaps are feeling guilty that they either participated or didn't do something to stop this asinine nonsense before it went so far.
Megan suffered from depression and that craven coward Lori Drew probably knew it and THAT is what makes her responsibility and culpability so crystal clear and glaring! The woman is utterly despicable and probably beyond redemption. And what of Lori's daughter - what kind of angst is SHE going to carry throughout life because her mother is a criminal BITCH with no compassion or sense of proportion!
posted by Gayle Miller at December 3, 2007 04:32 PM
ENDORSEMENTS
"Your stupid requirements for commenting, whatever they are, mean I'll not read you again." ~ "Duke Martin", Oraculations
"One of the worst sites I've read." ~ Frank A. Niedospial
