Saturday, October 28, 2006

Quoting Jack Bauer...


Can't say I didn't see this upending coming, though.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Pray for the Voters of South Dakota

Hopefully, a majority of them will vote "Yes" on Referred Law 6, which essentially bans all abortions in South Dakota.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

From Our Ever-Bulging "Give Me an Effin' Break!" File

The totalitarian/Maoist Khmer Rouge once widely, and abusively, used a method of waterboarding on political dissidents in Cambodia. Vice President Cheney apparently has no problem with using waterboarding on captured terrorists for the purpose of extracting information about terrorist plots. Therefore, in Mark Shea's "I don't have to define the meaning of torture; I know it when I see it!" world, Cheney and the Khmer Rouge are basically indistinguishable insofar as sanctioning evil is concerned.

Now, in order for the above syllogism to have any sort of merit, one has to accept that waterboarding is torture, and that torture is intrinsically immoral. The former proposition is a close call, but I am inclined to believe that, by itself, waterboarding is not torture. This article in makes a strong case for my belief.

With respect to whether torture is intrinsically immoral, at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the answer is that it is not, and no amount of documented misleading rants and false proclamations by people like Mark Shea changes this fact.

In light of all this, one is left to conclude that Mark Shea thinks Cheney=Khmer Rouge because both involve human beings who breathe air. Preposterous to anyone not suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Update (10/27/06): VP Cheney denies he expressed support for waterboarding by agreeing with a radio interviewer that it was a "no brainer" to allow captured terrorists to be dunked in water for purposes of extracting information. I believe Cheney, and here's why: First, waterboarding doesn't involve dunking anyone, so it's entirely possible Cheney thought the radio interviewer was talking about something else. Second, and more significantly, Cheney isn't stupid, and given the high level of controversy over waterboarding, I can't imagine Cheney would throw fuel on the fire by coming out in a radio interview this close to Election Day and saying he supports the practice. Thus, unless there is hard proof that he is lying about not supporting waterboarding (BDS induced cynicism falls well short of this) Cheney should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Now This is a Response Ad

Michael J. Embryo. Click the screen to go to the originating website. The responses which try to dismiss the embryo as a human being are, at best, idiotic. (via RelapsedCatholic)

Cheer for "Soop"

I don't have a dog in this year's World Series fight, but I will be cheering for the success of Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan, a graduate of Crespi Carmelite High School in Encino, CA who contributed his voice to the ad against embryonic stem cell research in Missouri.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Counter Celeb Ad to Michael J. Fox Lie

The operative word being "counter", as opposed to "responsive". I can't for the life of me figure out what Jim Caviezel is saying at the beginning of the ad.

Briefly on the infamous Michael J. Fox ad, I found it especially sickening that Fox used his illness in the manner that he did in order to more effectively perpetuate outright lies about Jim Talent's position on non-embryonic stem cell research (Fox makes no distinction between non-embryonic and embryonic).

And oh yeah, new research shows that injecting embryonic stems cells into people with Parkinson's disease will cause them to develop brain tumors.
Georgetown U. is not Catholic

Latest proof is the law school's endowment of a human rights chair in the name of Fr. Robert Drinan, disingenuous pro-abort Jesuit priest extaordinaire. What a joke. (link via Open Book)

Monday, October 23, 2006

Founding Fathers and the Nicene Creed

John Derbyshire over at The Corner asks which ones subscribed to it, and he posts a few reader responses.

Rick Brookhiser throws in his two cents.

Although some of the responses are interesting, I'm not sure they are all correct, insofar as there seems to be an erroneous equating of religious devoutness to full acceptance of and agreement with the Creed.