CULTURE WATCH, Volume 19
by Nancy Morgan
Right Bias
The air waves this weekend were monopolized by the unfortunate death of Tim Russert,(Tim Russert: Enough Already!) As the media indulged in non-stop homage to Russert, other news got short shrift.
GOVERNMENT AT WORK:
The Supreme Court has ruled that foreign terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under our constitution. This should underscore the importance of electing a Republican president in '08. If Obama gets in, he might just appoint Muslim terrorists to the court.
House Republicans want people to know that right now, 60 miles off the coast of Key West, Fla., China is drilling for oil thanks to a lease issued by Cuba. Neal Boortz clarified: China is not presently drilling for oil, the point is, they can, and thanks to Democrats, we can't. Go figure.
Despite pledging to curb pork-barrel funding, lawmakers are gearing up for another spending binge, directing billions of earmarks toward organizations and companies in their home districts. A billion here, a billion there. It adds up. Oink, oink.
In other vital business, a San Francisco Bay lawmaker is pushing a bill that would force federal regulators to ratchet down the volume of commercials. Rep. Weiner, New York Democrat, is addressing another vital issue, sponsoring a bill that would make it easier for 'models' (as in fashion models) to obtain a visa to enter the U.S. The people's work is tough, but someone's gotta do it.
The House approved an extra three months of jobless benefits for all unemployed Americans, despite almost non-existent chance it will pass the Senate and White House. No matter, in an election year, its all about image, not results. And we're still falling for this stuff. Aaargh.
Other elected officials were busy doing the people's business: Dennis Kucinich introduced yet another resolution to impeach Bush. It got swept under the table. Another group of Democrats, no doubt concerned about panties being used when interrogating terrorists, have asked U.S. Attorney General Mukasey to name a special prosecutor to investigate torture. Terrorists are thanking Allah that we have these guys looking out for us.
Oh, those Democrats...they fight tooth and nail to keep health care, education, social security etc, from being privatised. Yet when their own senate dining service can't make payroll, (much less a profit), they have no problem turning to the private sector to bail it out. Crow, anyone?
On the bright side, at least these politicos aren't fooling all of the people all of the time. New polling data shows that the overwhelming majority of voters believe the federal government has itself become a special interest group that looks out primarily for their own interest.
I'm losing it. Time to change the subject to:
GOOD NEWS:
The nation's nuclear energy industry, all but stagnant for 30 years, is quietly building towards a resurgence. License applications are starting to flow into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is good.
Despite, or because of, the lack of federal action to enforce our nation's immigration laws, many states are stepping up to the plate. The number of state bills dealing with illegal immigration that have been enacted are triple the number that passed in 2006. This is also good. Rasmussen Reports that one-third of voters are still angry about lack of action by the Feds. Survey shows they blame Washington, not the immigrants.
Life expectancy in the U.S. has hit a new record: 78.1 years for babies born in 2006. And in extremely good news for a dude from Paris: A man whose heart had stopped beating woke up just as surgeons were about to remove his organs for donation. Whew.
In other good news, we should all be happy that:
1. The earth hasn't melted yet.
2. There have no terrorist strikes in The U.S. since 9-11
3. We're winning in Iraq.
4. Despite the shaky economy, we all are still the luckiest people in the world.
Despite all the gloom and doom reports, I count my blessing daily. How lucky we all are to have been born in America.
CULTURE:
Conservatives are losing the battle for traditional families. On Monday, California is due to become the second state to allow gays to marry. Officials are preparing for a flood of gays. Meanwhile, two openly homosexual members of Congress have recruited 50 of their colleagues to officially join them in promoting the homosexual agenda in Congress. Welcome the new House Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus.
Male priests marry in Anglican church's first gay 'wedding'.
In Massachusetts, a lesbian activist has been sworn in as a family court judge and in Norway lawmakers have approved a law allowing same-sex couples to marry. Up in Canada, the Alberta Human Rights Commission has fined a Canadian pastor $7,000 and ordered him to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public forum. Drip, drip, drip.
Americans beware: The ACLU has launched a major expansion campaign, looking to dramatically increase their work on 'social justice' issues. Be scared.
In Belgium, churches are to be turned into mosques as Christian congregations decline while Muslims demand more places to worship. This is not good. (Notice how Muslims never seem to 'ask'?)
Two children in Britain have become so addicted to their mobile phones that they were admitted to a mental health clinic.
ESSENTIAL TRIVIA:
In case you missed it, June 12th was 'Carbon Belch Day,' where people like you and I had a chance to do our bit to counter the global warming wackos, by belching as much CO2 into the air as we could. A good time was had by all.
For those that care, the image of the U.S. has improved slightly in many countries over the past year. And for those that need a good laugh:
IDIOT OF THE WEEK:
This week's award goes to congressman Je$$e Jackson, Jr., of Chicago, who proved once again that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree as he commented on Obama's clinching of the democrat nomination for president:
"What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation's political history. The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance."
I'm laughing.
Till next Monday,
by Nancy Morgan
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and a news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina, where she writes "Culture Watch" weekly.
Article may be reprinted with attribution. Bio available on request.
images:
* freerepulbic; ideagrove
Everything You'd Ever Want to Know:
Riding Shotgun
"Shotgun!"
How many car trips have begun with that memorable word? The correct answer is undoubtedly "countless" or "how many stars are in the sky?"
This article concerns all things riding shotgun: definition, history, origin, rights, privileges, duties and rules.
DEFINITION
Just so there's no disputes about the definition of 'shotgun', here's a good one:
The term "Shotgun" refers to the front passenger seat of an automobile. "Calling Shotgun" is the act of claiming the position of Shotgun for one's self. As this position is the most coveted of all positions when riding in a car, the following list of rules has been created to ensure that Shotgun can be acquired in a fair and equitable manner by any passenger of an automobile.
For readers wanting a second opinion, here's the Wikipedia version
To ride shotgun is to sit in the front passenger seat when riding a car or other vehicle, a phrase commonly heard in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Due to the influence of American popular culture it is also heard in several European countries such as Iceland, Ireland, Denmark and the United Kingdom, as well as other countries with large English-speaking populations such as South Africa and Israel.
ORIGIN
Where did the term "riding shotgun" originate?
The first known reference to "riding shotgun" in print occurred in Western pulp fiction in the March 27, 1921 issue of the Washington Post's "Magazine of Fiction," in a story entitled "The Fighting Fool" by Dane Coolidge. It was used to refer to riding as an armed guard in the front of a stagecoach, next to the driver (this would usually have been on the left, as stage drivers traditionally sat on the right, near the brake).
Historians have been unable to find a use of the term "riding shotgun" in the actual time of the Old West, when the terminology actually used was riding as "shotgun messenger." The use of the phrase in print to refer to automobiles occurred in 1954 simultaneously with the TV series Gunsmoke, which became extremely popular, and used the terminology of riding shotgun nearly weekly.
RULES
There are many local variations of the rules below. But the basic rules, like truth, beauty and hope, always remain the same. It's good to get the ground and local rules in place before any important--or incidental--trip.
of Calling Shotgun 1) The first person to yell "SHOTGUN" gets to ride in the front seat. 2) The remaining back seats may be divvied up in the same manner by being the first to call "back right seat", etc.. 3) The word "shotgun" must be loud enough to be heard by at least one witness. If no witness is to be found, or in case of a tie, the driver has the final word. After all, it is most likely his car. (note: if it isn't his car, and the owner is present, the owner's decision is final. Owner must be sober, however, or he will defer his judgment to the driver.) 4) Early calls are strictly prohibited. All occupants of the vehicle (including the driver) must be outside of the building and directly on the way to the vehicle before shotgun may be called. Under no circumstances may a person call shotgun inside a building. For sake of simplicity, a garage is considered to be outside. Parking structures and detached garages are always considered as being outdoors, even if they are underground. 5) A person may only call shotgun for one way of a trip. Shotgun can never be called while inside a vehicle or still technically on the way to the first location. For example, one can not get out of a vehicle and call Shotgun for the return journey. 6) Being as how everyone is created equal, men have the same right as women to the front seat of the car. i.e. women don't own the front seat. 7) One is allowed to ride shotgun as many times as he can call it, but for himself only. No one can call shotgun for their slower friend, unless the friend has a speech or mental handicap that prevents them from calling it for themselves. 8) The driver has final say in all ties and disputes. The driver has the right to suspend or remove all shotgun privileges from one or more persons. |
Read the rest of "Riding Shotgun: Rules, History, Duties of Riding Shotgun" at DBKP.com
by Mondoreb
Sources:
* Riding Shotgun: Rules, History, Duties of Riding Shotgun
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to DBKP at Blogger Front Page
The homeschooling movement got blindsided by a ruling from a California appeals court that restricts homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials.k
The ruling was a shock to the movement and leaves an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.
It also demonstrates the lengths government will go to protect its monopoly on education.
The homeschooling movement was shocked--to put it mildly.
"At first, there was a sense of, 'No way,' " said homeschool parent Loren Mavromati, a resident of Redondo Beach (Los Angeles County) who is active with a homeschool association. "Then there was a little bit of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation."
A dispute between the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services--doesn't that have a nice "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you"ring to it?--and Phillip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who have eight children they have been homeschooling.
Mary Long is their teacher, but holds no teaching credentials.
The parents said they also enrolled their children in Sunland Christian School, a private religious academy in Sylmar (Los Angeles County), which considers the Long children part of its independent study program and visits the home about four times a year.
The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that California law requires parents to send their children to full-time public or private schools or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home.
At least one justice saw nothing wrong with forcing parents to enroll their children in California schools which are a potpourri of multicultural and liberal educational theories in action.
"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. "Parents have a legal duty to see to their children's schooling under the provisions of these laws."
Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.
"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.
The fact that parents of almost 166,000 children in California have decided that the state no longer does this seems immaterial to the judge.
Will the California legislature fix this?
Don't hold your breath.
by Mondoreb
hat tip: Powell Gammill, FPhoenix
image: bartcop
Source: Homeschooling Setback sends Shockwaves Through State
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
A Mixed Bag...
...But not as bad as Clinton or Obama
"He is really hard to get a fix on with gun rights."
John McCain and the Second Amendment: how does he stack up?
When we tackled the question, we have to confess, we didn't know. We assumed that McCain's record on Second Amendment issues would be the same as the rest of his record: more conservative than most Democrats, but not an advocate for the gun owner.
And at the conclusion of reading McCain and gun control articles by various Second Amendment groups and gun owners' rights websites, that's the evaluation that remains.
After reviewing all the information on John McCain and his record on Second Amendment issues, we have to agree with gun rights website, Front Sight's, appraisal.
"He is really hard to get a fix on with gun rights."
Some groups hold McCain's feet to the fire whenever he teams up with Democrats on any gun control legislation.
That's fair.
Government never takes away rights in one fell swoop: it is almost always incrementally, over a period of time that citizens lose their rights.
And government, especially the U.S. federal government, is especially jealous of the power it gets. Once it gets power, it almost never ever (the 21st Amendment being the only exception we can think of) gives it back.
A quick survey of what's been said of the Republican front-runner on gun rights from around the web.
The Buckeye Firearms Association:
As if there wasn't already plenty of evidence that Senator John McCain is the wrong choice for pro-gun Republicans in the Presidential primary, the Columbus Dispatch has added one more item to the list:
The specter of Mike DeWine as U.S. Attorney General.
BFA then cites a story from the Columbus Dispatch titled, "DeWine Could have a Shot in a McCain Cabinet". The Buckeyes weren't too fond of DeWine, describing him as "an anti-gun candidate sporting a Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) endorsement, [who] proved himself out-of-touch with Ohio voters on the Second Amendment, [and] was drummed out of office just over 1 year ago."
The Ohio report then lists a little bit of background about Mike DeWine and his attitude toward Americans and firearms.
In 2006, Human Events Online named DeWine among the Top 10 anti-gun U.S. Senators. And shortly before his defeat, DeWine took a position in opposition to legislation which barred gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers or importers from frivolous lawsuits designed to put them out of business. He consistently cast his votes on the side of the most rabid anti-gun Democrats in the Senate. And now he wants you to cast your vote for Senator John McCain.
Approximately 1/2 million people have hunting and/ or concealed handgun licenses in Ohio. According to the Minneapolis StarTribune's Dennis Anderson, Ohio gun owners made up 27 percent of the total vote in Ohio in the year 2000.
And they were none too happy with Mike DeWine, McCain's possible Attorney General.
Another gun website was unhappy at McCain in 2001: www.gunowners.org. It gave the Arizona Senator "Two Thumbs Down" for his appearance in a trailer attached to "Pearl Harbor", then showing in theaters nationwide.
Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona has appeared onscreen in many theaters, peddling a dangerous and very explosive propaganda -- thanks to an anti-gun group based out of Washington, D.C., which is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to run the political ad as a trailer in theaters this spring.
Urging parents to lock up their guns at home, Sen. McCain says "we owe it to our children to be responsible by keeping our guns locked up." This might sound "responsible" at first blush, until one realizes this one-size-fits-all approach can be deadly.
The reason? People don't know exactly when they will wake up and find themselves under attack. Like the Japanese zeros, criminals do not phone ahead and tell their victims to prepare for an assault.
Locking up one's guns might sound to some like the "responsible" thing to do. But if, God forbid, you should have to use your gun in an emergency, you can be sure of one thing: the thug in your home will not have a trigger lock on his gun.
In 2002, McCain sponsored legislation with Joseph Liberman(CN) to crack down on private sales at gun shows. According to a NewsMax story:
The gun-grabbing senators are now threatening to insert their bill (S.890), banning private sales at gun shows unless all gun buyers undergo background checks, as an amendment to other bills, according to Gun Owners of America (GOA).
Americans for Gun Safety(AGS)--(Ed. note: a gun control group]--has already claimed there was a link between terrorism and gun shows. No such link was ever demonstrated. It was all immersed in deception used to exploit the 9-11 tragedy. Americans paid no heed to this nonsense and instead rushed to buy firearms for self and family protection.
Gun owners should be concerned. As GOA declared in a press release: "Even more ominous, the McCain bill would threaten the very existence of gun shows. S. 890 would impose a five-year jail sentence on any gun show organizer if a single attendee of the show were not notified of his obligations under the Brady law. Obviously, if this bill were passed, an organization would be foolish to even sponsor a gun show."
The gun site, Front Sight, is more charitable about McCain's gun record: it calls it "mixed".
It has an excellent summary of John McCain's statements, votes and record on almost every gun control and 2nd Amendment issue that has come before the Senate during McCain's tenure there.
Front Sight's summary on McCain:
John McCain suffers from “senator’s disease” as a presidential candidate: as a long-time U.S. Senator, he has the most documented track record on the issues of all the top echelon candidates for 2008. Living up to his reputation as a maverick and a free thinker, McCain has not toed the gun rights party line. His record is profoundly mixed. Sometimes he has been with us; sometimes he has been very much against us. At times he has advocated positions such as mandatory gun locks and background checks at gun shows and then voted against the legislation when it finally came to a vote. Also he has voted against particular issues and then later advocated them in public statements. He is really hard to get a fix on with gun rights.
For a complete breakdown on McCain's record on guns, visit the Front Sight article, "John McCain on Gun Control".
In conclusion, we'd have to say that John McCain is more conservative on this issue than on many others. Whether McCain is a conservative, as McCain, his backers, the New York Times and other Mainstream Media outlets insist, is problematic.
On many issues, the Arizona Senator and the Senators from Illinois (Barack Obama) and New York (Hillary Clinton) have virtually identical records or stands.
We think he's definitely better on this issue than the two Democrats running for president.
However, that's a decision that each voter, particularly Second Amendment enthusiasts, will have to make.
John McCain and gun control.
What do you think?
by Mondoreb
hat tip: pat
images:
* joebluhm
* Bob McCarty
Sources:
* John McCain on Gun Control
* Gun Shows and Gun Control
* Another sign John McCain is no friend of Gun Owners
* DeWine could have a shot in McCain cabinet
* Two Thumbs Down for John McCain's Gun Control Ad
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
California: beaches, Silicon Valley, Valley Girls.
And offended atheists.
Another story about another atheist filing another suit.Sacramento atheist made an ardent plea to a federal appeals court Tuesday to respect his religion and remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency.
Nedow, obviously an astute reader of the New York Times is afraid his daughter may somehow succumb to the lures of thousands of years of Judeo-Christian thought by studying money or pledging allegiance.
“I want to be treated equally,” said Michael Newdow, who argued both cases consecutively to a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “They want to have their religious views espoused by the government.”
The stalwart atheist is no stranger to the ups-and-downs of the court system.Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued his daughter's school district in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional.
The school district involved argued for history and patriotism, but the judge seemed unmoved.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children in another district.
In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento again found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional. The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit Court's ruling in Newdow's first case.
The same panel also heard arguments in Newdow's case against the national motto, “In God We Trust.”
In 2005, Newdow sued Congress and several federal officials, arguing the motto's presence on coins and currency violated his First Amendment rights.
Last year, a federal judge in Sacramento disagreed, saying the words did not violate Newdow's atheism, and Newdow appealed.
Nedow the atheist, ever sensitive to his own considerations, then presents his reasons why the vast majority's considerations should be ignored.
Terence Cassidy, a lawyer for the school district, argued Tuesday that reciting the pledge is simply a “patriotic exercise” and a reminder of the historical traditions of the U.S.
Judge Dorothy W. Nelson asked Cassidy whether removing the words “under God” would make the pledge any less patriotic.
“Not necessarily,” he replied, arguing it provided a historical context, not a religious one.But Newdow countered the pledge has “tons of religious significance. That's why everyone gets so angry when we talk about ... taking it out.”
As always, the fine members of the U.S. Judiciary show that their thinking is in tune with the majority of Americans.
Newdow's arguments were lively and impassioned, filled with references to legal precedence, Bible quotations and historical references. He said repeatedly he didn't advocate hostility toward God or religion and respected people's right to believe whatever they wanted to believe. He said he wanted equal respect for atheists, who've long been disenfranchised.
“They can't use the machinery of the state to get that (religious) message across,” he said.
Although a Justice Department lawyer helped the school board make its case, the judges appeared determined to right the wrong that "Under God" is doing to the country, in general, and Nedow's now-teenage daughter, in particular, great harm.On Tuesday, Justice Department lawyer Lowell Sturgill Jr. said “In God We Trust,” is not an endorsement of a particular faith, but simply a patriotic or ceremonial message.
My, how judicial reasoning has advanced in the last 50 years.
Questioning from the judges seemed to indicate their willingness to get the matters to the U.S. Supreme Court for consideration.
“How is pledging allegiance to a nation under God not a religious act?” Nelson asked.
“It affects Mr. Newdow every moment of his life,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt said. “The government has no compelling interest to put a slogan on a dollar bill.”
Congress first authorized a reference to God on a two-cent piece in 1864. In 1955, the year after lawmakers added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto “In God We Trust.”
Atheists hold themselves up as islands of offended reason surrounded by a sea of intolerance.
Usually, one can measure the magnitude of an offense by how strongly the offended believes in something. For example: the general skeptic is amused, but not easily offended, by stories of UFOs or ghosts.
For a group who makes their mark by emphasizing what they don't believe, atheists once again demonstrate a micro-thin skin. Or an inability to tolerate a traditional patriotic point of view.
Or both.
Source:
"In God We Trust", Pledge of Allegiance Cases Heard in S.F.
by Mondoreb
notes: Little Baby Ginn
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
