Our Fathers
On Showtime tonight. I don't have cable or satellite, so I obviously can't watch it. Even if I could, I probably wouldn't, as I'm sure there will be plenty of unwarranted and unsubstantiated slams against the Church that have little or nothing to do with the Situation. I mean, for crying out loud, uber-Hollywood leftist Ted Danson is in this thing.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
In Case All the "Sith" Showings are Sold Out
You can try catching the other prequel Exorcist movie that was made a couple of years ago but never released until now.
You can try catching the other prequel Exorcist movie that was made a couple of years ago but never released until now.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
John Conyers is a pandering Left-wing dolt. (HT: ChronWatch Blogs)
An Islamic civil rights group is urging all "people of conscience" to support a Democrat-sponsored resolution recognizing that the Koran, like the holy book of any other religion, "should be treated with dignity and respect."
The resolution, to be introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), also "condemns bigotry and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors and citizens of the Islamic faith."
"This resolution expresses America's respect for the holy texts of all faiths. If passed, it will also reiterate our nation's condemnation of bigoted behavior and religious intolerance," said Corey Saylor, CAIR's government affairs director.
When I read that line from CAIR, the milk I was drinking sprayed out of my nose.
John Conyers is a pandering Left-wing dolt. (HT: ChronWatch Blogs)
An Islamic civil rights group is urging all "people of conscience" to support a Democrat-sponsored resolution recognizing that the Koran, like the holy book of any other religion, "should be treated with dignity and respect."
The resolution, to be introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), also "condemns bigotry and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors and citizens of the Islamic faith."
"This resolution expresses America's respect for the holy texts of all faiths. If passed, it will also reiterate our nation's condemnation of bigoted behavior and religious intolerance," said Corey Saylor, CAIR's government affairs director.
When I read that line from CAIR, the milk I was drinking sprayed out of my nose.
Friday, May 20, 2005
What I'm Reading
Because I frankly have nothing else to blog about right now:
Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President
Because I frankly have nothing else to blog about right now:
Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President
Someone Needs to Close Up the "Big Tent" Flaps
WorldNet Daily reports that "actress" and former California gubernatorial candidate, Mary Carey, will be attending a GOP sponsored fundraiser dinner for President Bush.
"I'm hoping to run as lieutenant governor of California next year," Carey said. "Since Arnold [Schwarzenegger] is a Republican, I thought this dinner would be a great networking opportunity for me."
"I'm especially looking forward to meeting Karl Rove," Carey added. "Smart men like him are so sexy. I know that he's against gay marriage, but I think I can convince him that a little girl-on-girl action now and then isn't so bad!"
How do you respond to such silliness?
WorldNet Daily reports that "actress" and former California gubernatorial candidate, Mary Carey, will be attending a GOP sponsored fundraiser dinner for President Bush.
"I'm hoping to run as lieutenant governor of California next year," Carey said. "Since Arnold [Schwarzenegger] is a Republican, I thought this dinner would be a great networking opportunity for me."
"I'm especially looking forward to meeting Karl Rove," Carey added. "Smart men like him are so sexy. I know that he's against gay marriage, but I think I can convince him that a little girl-on-girl action now and then isn't so bad!"
How do you respond to such silliness?
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
The Left Hates Traditional Believing Christians
And longs for the institution of religious litmus tests for the judiciary. Such is perfectly illustrated by this headline in the New York Times and this picture which briefly appeared on the website of Moveon.org.
And longs for the institution of religious litmus tests for the judiciary. Such is perfectly illustrated by this headline in the New York Times and this picture which briefly appeared on the website of Moveon.org.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
May As Well Throw In World Peace and a Cure for Cancer While You're At It!!
That's what I felt like blurting out at a court hearing today in Los Angeles on whether there should be public disclosure of the personnel files of several former employees of the Diocese of Orange who had been accused of sexually molesting or abusing minor children. I was specially representing one of the non-priest employees who did not want his personnel files made public.
In the papers that I filed, I basically argued that since my client was not an expressly named party in the action against the Diocese of Orange, his personnel files were protected by the right to privacy under the California Constitution. Absent his consent, the only way that my client's files can be publicly discolsed is if the requesting plaintiffs can show a "compelling interest" and the information they seek cannot be gathered from any other nonconfidential source or by way of deposition.
At the hearing today, plaintiffs' counsel (there were several of them) essentially argued that getting "the truth" out about all the allegations that led to the sexual abuse lawsuits against the Diocese of Orange was a compelling interest. In counsels' collective mind, unless the personnel files are publicly disclosed, the plaintiffs in the matter will have no proper sense of "closure," even though they've all been paid a boat load of money in a settlement with the diocese. There was also a nonsensical suggestion that not getting "the truth" out would somehow deny the public of having any knowledge that there was/is a sexual abuse problem in the Church. On this, I felt like yelling out in court, "Just so you know: Japan militarily attacked Pearl Harbor in December of 1941!"
As objectively weak and surreal as the above arguments are, the presiding judge in the hearing, Peter Lichtman, was clearly buying into them. In fact, while I was making some remarks on behalf of my client in support of his disclosure objection, Lichtman rhetorically, and somewhat brusquely, asked me if I wouldn't make the same argument as the plaintiffs. When he said this to me, I pretty much knew that I was wasting my breath. Lichtman was basically signaling to everyone in the courtroom that he thought plaintiffs' thinly veiled desire to publicly humiliate the Diocese of Orange was a compelling enough interest to undermine the privacy rights of certain individuals who were never criminally charged or personally sued for doing things they have only been accused of committing. Given the disposition he displayed today, I will be absolutely shocked if Lichtman doesn't allow public disclosure of the personnel files in question here.
Sidebar Note: Looks as though Judge Lichtman is quite an ambitious jurist.
Update: Qualified shock. Although several personnel files were ordered to be publicly disclosed, it seems that many of them were withheld because of the objections that were made. I didn't stay around to see if Lichtman was going to make a ruling from the bench, and since my client is in pro per, I'll have to wait for him to get notice of the ruling in the mail before I know how he made out.
That's what I felt like blurting out at a court hearing today in Los Angeles on whether there should be public disclosure of the personnel files of several former employees of the Diocese of Orange who had been accused of sexually molesting or abusing minor children. I was specially representing one of the non-priest employees who did not want his personnel files made public.
In the papers that I filed, I basically argued that since my client was not an expressly named party in the action against the Diocese of Orange, his personnel files were protected by the right to privacy under the California Constitution. Absent his consent, the only way that my client's files can be publicly discolsed is if the requesting plaintiffs can show a "compelling interest" and the information they seek cannot be gathered from any other nonconfidential source or by way of deposition.
At the hearing today, plaintiffs' counsel (there were several of them) essentially argued that getting "the truth" out about all the allegations that led to the sexual abuse lawsuits against the Diocese of Orange was a compelling interest. In counsels' collective mind, unless the personnel files are publicly disclosed, the plaintiffs in the matter will have no proper sense of "closure," even though they've all been paid a boat load of money in a settlement with the diocese. There was also a nonsensical suggestion that not getting "the truth" out would somehow deny the public of having any knowledge that there was/is a sexual abuse problem in the Church. On this, I felt like yelling out in court, "Just so you know: Japan militarily attacked Pearl Harbor in December of 1941!"
As objectively weak and surreal as the above arguments are, the presiding judge in the hearing, Peter Lichtman, was clearly buying into them. In fact, while I was making some remarks on behalf of my client in support of his disclosure objection, Lichtman rhetorically, and somewhat brusquely, asked me if I wouldn't make the same argument as the plaintiffs. When he said this to me, I pretty much knew that I was wasting my breath. Lichtman was basically signaling to everyone in the courtroom that he thought plaintiffs' thinly veiled desire to publicly humiliate the Diocese of Orange was a compelling enough interest to undermine the privacy rights of certain individuals who were never criminally charged or personally sued for doing things they have only been accused of committing. Given the disposition he displayed today, I will be absolutely shocked if Lichtman doesn't allow public disclosure of the personnel files in question here.
Sidebar Note: Looks as though Judge Lichtman is quite an ambitious jurist.
Update: Qualified shock. Although several personnel files were ordered to be publicly disclosed, it seems that many of them were withheld because of the objections that were made. I didn't stay around to see if Lichtman was going to make a ruling from the bench, and since my client is in pro per, I'll have to wait for him to get notice of the ruling in the mail before I know how he made out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)