tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32950092024-03-23T10:15:54.625-04:00Blithering Idiot"Let the reader, where we are equally confident, stride on with me; where we are equally puzzled, pause to investigate with me; where he finds himself in error, come to my side;
where he finds me erring, call me to his side. So that we may keep to the path, in love, as we fare on toward Him, 'whose face is ever to be sought.'"<br>
<br>
-- Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity 1.5
Williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16728861369292158996noreply@blogger.comBlogger1564125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-1096561000367370192023-01-02T16:22:00.000-05:002023-01-02T21:49:21.589-05:00<p><strong>The Dylan Chronicles</strong>. In honor of Bob's soon to be released autobiography (and the Newsweek <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6100668/site/newsweek/">cover story</a>), here are my top ten Bob Dylan <a href="http://www.bobsboots.com/boot.html">Bootlegs</a>, a few of which have been released.
</p><blockquote><p>10. <a href="http://www.bobsboots.com/CDs/cd-a25.html">All Hallows Eve &
More</a> which has been released by Dylan as <a href="http://www.bobdylan.com/albums/live1964.html">Live 1964</a>. </p><p>9. <a href="http://www.bobsboots.com/CDs/cd-c23.html">Contract With The Lord
I</a> and <a href="http://www.bobsboots.com/CDs/cd-c24.html">II</a>. This one
might be more highly rated if it had been a soundboard boot, instead of an
audience recording. Nevertheless, for an audience recording, the sound is good
and the performance of his gospel tunes is excellent.</p><p>8. <a href="http://www.bobsboots.com/CDs/cd-e03.html">Eating Caviar In A
King-Sized Bed</a> -- this 1998 recording shows Bob ain't dead yet.</p><p>7. <a href="http://www.dylantree.com/trees/setlist.php?treeID=30">Genuine
N.E.T. Covers</a> - a nine or ten disc set of all of Dylan's covers of other
(non-Dylan) songs from the Never Ending Tour.</p><p>6. <a href="http://www.dylanbase.com/specificinfo.asp?albumID=1012">A Tree
With Roots</a> - also known as the Genuine Basement Tapes revisited. This is it,
the whole shebang.</p><p>5. <a href="http://www.bobsboots.com/CDs/cd-f30.html">From Newport to the
Ancient Empty Streets in LA</a> Several tracks from the Newport Festival in 64
and 65 flowing into the 1965 Hollywood Bowl show -- excellent. (see also, <a href="http://www.bobsboots.com/CDs/cd-w08.html">We Had Known A Lion</a>.)</p><p>4. <a href="http://www.bobsboots.com/CDs/cd-f14.html">Folksinger's Choice</a>
The Cynthia Gooding Show, March 11 1962 -- this sweet radio
interview/performance showcases Bob before he became Bob.</p><p>3. Blood on the Tapes (aka <a href="http://www.bobsboots.com/CDs/cd-b28.html">Blood on the Tracks New York
Sessions</a>) - this is the original version of Blood on the Tracks that was
pulled just before release.</p><p>2. Complete Waterbury 11-11-75 -- the full version of a Rolling Thunder Revue
concert, from T-Bone Burnett covering Werewolves of London to the closing
ensemble singing This Land Is Your Land with Baez, McGuinn, et al in
between.</p><p>1. "<a href="http://www.bobsboots.com/boots/rah/index.html">Royal Albert Hall
1966</a>" which, famously, came from Free Trade Hall in Manchester. This May 17,
1966 concert sizzles, opening with a traditional Dylan accoustic set before
unleashing an electric performance with the Band. When listening to this, turn
it up to hear the exhange between Dylan and the audience. "Judas!" cries out
someone in the audience, to which Dylan replies: "I don't believe you; you're a
liar." He then tells The Band to "Play it f***ing loud." The good news about
this boot is that it has been released by Dylan and Co. See <a href="http://www.bobdylan.com/albums/live1966.html">Live 1966</a></p></blockquote>Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-32400289863252729392012-01-11T16:45:00.002-05:002012-01-11T16:49:40.875-05:00<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Reawakening</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>- wow, it's been so long since I've posted, I'm not sure where to begin. I want to write about Judge Bellow's decision on the "multi-church litigation" - however, it make take a few days. I'll start now and maybe finish this weekend.Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-3928558559085320832010-02-21T19:49:00.001-05:002010-02-21T19:50:39.879-05:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">Yes, I am alive.</span> <br /><br />No, I have not been able to blog for quite some time. I hope to come back again, one day.Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-42183563403146520902009-01-28T12:41:00.000-05:002009-01-29T12:46:51.319-05:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">Gerson on the Speech.</span><br /><br />From <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/januaryweb-only/103-56.0.html?start=2">CT, reprinted here (because it will disappear)</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-weight: bold;">Michael Gerson: Obama's Speech Rhetorically Flat, but Ideologically Interesting</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial; font-style: italic;">A former presidential speechwriter examines President Obama's inaugural address.</span><br /><span style="font-family: arial; font-style: italic;">Interview by Sarah Pulliam in Washington, D.C. | posted 1/23/2009 04:19PM</span><br /><br />Former speechwriter Michael Gerson was quick to parse President Obama's speech to the nation on Tuesday, calling it "rhetorically flat" but "quite interesting from an ideological perspective." Gerson's pen was behind President George W. Bush's inaugural addresses in 2001 and 2005, and in preparation, he studied every single presidential inaugural address in American history.<br /><br />Now a columnist for the Washington Post, Gerson spoke with Christianity Today yesterday about Obama's inaugural address, religious references, and whether he thinks an evangelical should serve in the new administration.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What did you think of the inauguration?</span><br /><br />I thought it was surprising. I came to Obama's speech in many ways expecting something that would be rhetorically masterful and maybe ideologically shallow, because of his ideological background, and we got something very different from that.<br /><br />I thought it was rhetorically flat, uninteresting from a literary perspective, but quite interesting from an ideological perspective. He set out some interesting themes about political pragmatism. It was one of the strongest defenses of pragmatism against ideology in any inaugural address that I can recall. I think that his assurances on national security issues were pretty reassuring. He recognized that we're in a war and talked about defeating our enemies and talked about soft power a little bit with the fight against global poverty — I thought all those things were good. And then his closing theme of renewing America by returning to its oldest values and virtues — he used the word "virtues" — is a traditional inaugural theme, but I think a very good one.<br /><br />He talked about loyalty, and duty, and responsibility, among other things, and I think that's both an effective message and an important one. In fact it's been the message of most of America's great progressive leaders, whether it's Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, they always talk about recreating our country by returning to its oldest and deepest values. So that was a good theme. But I just wish the speech itself had been better.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What was missing rhetorically?</span><br /><br />I found some of the phrasing odd when they tried to reach they did not reach effectively for memorable phrases. The use of the word 'swill' is very odd in the speech. I found a lot of use of cliché language, "gathering storms" and "children's children," and things you would expect to find in a House floor speech. There were some nice moments, but it was very uneven in its quality.<br /><br />I don't think it made that much difference to the two million people on the Mall — they were into the moment, and I don't think the speech was terrible, but it was a missed opportunity. This was an unbelievably historic moment, and you look for example at the end of that speech, at the mentioning of Valley Forge and those values, and that's fine, but it could have literally been given by any president in American history. There was nothing specific to the moment, nothing that made it the summary of this great, extraordinary cultural progress culminating in an African American president. Maybe he did that on purpose, maybe he didn't want that to be the rhetorical culmination of much of American history. Maybe he just wanted to lower his sights and be less ambitious. But it's hard for me to be a fan of that as a fan of rhetoric.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">How does this compare to his campaign speeches?</span><br /><br />I think he rose in the Democratic Party because of some very fine speeches that he gave, his speech on the night of his Iowa victory I thought was a brilliant speech. His race speech in Philadelphia I thought was a serious speech, a serious and interesting speech. But now he's given two speeches in the most high profile settings: his convention speech, which was actually very poor — it was unbelievably typical — and now his inaugural speech, which was not that bad, but it wasn't equal to the moment. Somebody's going to eventually notice that this man who has risen because of his speaking ability has not risen to the moment in some very important historical contexts.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">How did you prepare for President Bush's inaugural addresses?</span><br /><br />I read every single inaugural in American history when I was preparing for the first one in 2001. There were some weak ones, but there was some marvelous rhetoric as well. The story of America is, in many ways, the story of this extraordinary founding flaw, that we were a nation dedicated to liberty that was also a prison for millions of people. It explains the arguments at the constitutional convention, the run-up to a bloody Civil War, reconstruction, civil rights, and in 45 years we've gone from a circumstance in which when Martin Luther King spoke in 1963 civil rights workers were murdered, where African Americans with doctorate degrees where denied the right to vote because of so-called literacy questions that asked how many bubbles are in a bar of soap and how many jellybeans are there in a jar. That is the central story of American history and one of the dramatic stories in world history, the progress we've made. Obama did nothing to summarize that moment. He made one reference to his father, if he had been here 50 or 60 years ago he might have been denied service. Which I thought was fine, but it needed ambitious rhetorical summary and he purposely did not do it.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What about Rick Warren and Lowery's prayers?</span><br /><br />I think Rick Warren did a great job, but I also think Reverend Lowery did a great job. I was very impressed with him, because for me, who was looking for this kind of summary moment, it was very nice to have one of the large figures from the civil rights era putting his blessing on this moment in American history and to hear the cadences of civil rights rhetoric in his prayer. I know some people found it a bit much; I found it very much a great rhetorical tradition in America, which I wish I had seen a little more of in Obama's speech.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Did you parse Rick Warren's prayer?</span><br /><br />Not really. He made a point of using Jesus' name, which I think is a genuine pluralism. Pluralism shouldn't mean that we have these common denominator situations; it means that everybody should have a voice. I thought that was a strong reassertion of that. Warren was appropriately enthusiastic about the moment. My basic view there for all the controversy is it's a biblical mandate to pray for those in authority, and that's what Rick Warren did.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Obama's speech had several religious references. What did you think of them?</span><br /><br />He was completely within the tradition of American inaugural speeches. I mean they often have references to scriptural passages. His were 'setting aside childish things,' which I thought was a very effective line, it called attention to one of his great political strengths, which is he seems like an adult. He has a very mature manner. And he also used the phrase still waters, which I thought was interesting. But you know, there's a little bit of a double standard here.<br /><br />When George W. Bush used scriptural passages they thought it was somehow a threat to the Constitution and when Barack Obama uses them they're normal rhetorical devices. But I thought it was interesting, the one thing that maybe was unprecedented in the speech was the mention of nonbelievers in the litany. That's something other presidents, including George Bush, have done in other speeches, but not an inaugural address. I think it's a recognition of an electoral reality that you've had over the last few decades, a significant growth in an area of voters identified as nonreligious. That was recognition of reality. It didn't bother me at all but it was interesting. So I thought he made fairly good use of religious references.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Does it matter if Obama has any evangelicals in his administration?</span><br /><br />I've never really viewed it that somehow you need some quota of evangelicals. I think the policy matters more.<br /><br />I do know that the Obama transition team has worked pretty closely with Jim Wallis and some other religious leaders in some early stages of policy development. I'm told that their director of the domestic policy council is very open to faith-based ideas and other things.<br /><br />The encouraging thing is that Obama comes from a community organizer background and at least understands the role of faith and faith-based institutions in our society and you hope that translates broadly in his administration. But we also know there are elements of the Democratic party that are deeply secular and have been highly critical of any recognition or cooperation with the role of faith-based institutions in our public life, and so I think that's probably a struggle within administration. I hope Obama's viewpoint, at least the one he outlined in the campaign, prevails.</blockquote>Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-82994125611256226752009-01-20T21:15:00.002-05:002009-01-20T21:22:18.279-05:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">An Inaugural Address.</span><br /><br />My own favorite address, as I have mentioned many times before, is <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html">Lincoln's Second</a>. Nevertheless, Thomas Jefferson's <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html">first</a>, is a meditation in good government. An excerpt:<br /><br /><blockquote>During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.<br /><br /> Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.<br /><br /> About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />March 4, 1801Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-13012308873005978292009-01-02T17:01:00.002-05:002009-01-02T17:05:00.875-05:00<strong>Calvin's Institutes in a Year</strong>. From Princeton Seminary, in honor of John Calvin's 500th birthday, <a href="http://www2.ptsem.edu/ConEd/Calvin/">a way to read the Institutes in a year</a>. (h/t Jim H.). Personally, I'm going for the audio version.Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-33764181211188736712008-12-18T06:54:00.005-05:002008-12-18T08:13:48.692-05:00<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.profootballhof.com/assets/hof/mug1172.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 180px; height: 220px;" src="http://www.profootballhof.com/assets/hof/mug1172.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sam Baugh, the Greatest Football Player there ever was</span>.<br /><br />I picked up the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/18/redskins-sammy-baugh-early-superstar-dies-at-94/">paper</a> and saw that Samuel Adrian "Sammy" Baugh passed from legend into Glory yesterday. Without a doubt, he was the greatest player that football ever saw.<br /><br />He played both quarterback on offense and safety on defense, plus was the punter for the Washington Redskins. As noted in his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sammy_Baugh">Wikipedia entry</a>:<br /><blockquote>By the time he retired, Baugh set 13 NFL records in three player positions: quarterback, punter, and defensive back.<br /><br />Two of his records as quarterback still stand: most seasons leading the league in passing (six; tied with Steve Young) and most seasons leading the league with the lowest interception percentage (five). He is also second in highest single-season completion percentage (70.33), most seasons leading the league in yards gained (four) and most seasons leading the league in completion percentage (seven).<br /><br />As a punter, Baugh retired with the NFL record for highest punting average in a career (45.1 yards), and is still 2nd all-time (Shane Lechler 46.5 yards), and has the best (51.4 in 1940) and third best (48.7 in 1941) season marks. As a defensive back, he was the first player in league history to intercept four passes in a game, and is the only player to lead the league in passing, punting and interceptions in the same season. Baugh also led the league in punting from 1940 through 1943.</blockquote><br />The game in which he intercepted four passes, he also threw for four touchdowns - against Detroit in 1943.<br /><br />My favorite story about Sam Baugh (he was known as Sammy or Slingin' Sammy, but preferred Sam) was about the 1940 title game, which the Bears won 73-0 (still the most lopsided game in pro football history). Earlier that season, the Redskins had won a close game against the Bears, 7-3, and this game figured to be close as well. The Bears took an early lead, 7-0, on the second play of the game when their fullback, "Bullet Bill" Osmanski, broke off a 68 yard dash to the end zone. The Redskins responded by methodically marching down the field and Baugh hit Charlie Malone in the end zone with a perfect pass. Unfortunately, the usually sure-handed receiver dropped the pass and the Redskins failed to score. After the game, the sportswriters wanted to know if that was a turning point - "Would the game have been different had Malone caught that pass?"<br /><br />Sam reflected, momentarily and drawled, "Sure, the final score would have been 73-7."<br /><br />Sam Baugh was a man. The greatest who ever played football.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">more</span><br /><br />A <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=luksa_frank&id=3776948">tribute</a> on the ESPN website.Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-27413389137526423322008-12-15T18:15:00.000-05:002008-12-16T09:45:28.919-05:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">Faster.</span><br /><br />It isn't just <a href="http://fasterbook.com/">James Gleick</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feiler_Faster_Thesis">Bruce Feiler</a>, consider this from John Steinbeck:<br /><br /><blockquote>The split second has been growing more and more important to us. And as human activities become more and more intermeshed and integrated, the split tenth of a second will emerge, and then a new name must be made for the split hundredth, until one day, although I don't believe it, we'll say, "Oh, the hell with it. What's wrong with an hour?" But it isn't silly, this preoccupation with small time units. One thing late or early can disrupt everything around it, and the disturbance runs outward in bands like the waves from a dropped stone in a quiet pool.<br /><br />-John Steinbeck, East of Eden, 1952 (Chapter 49).<br /></blockquote>Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-88949930298316381162008-12-07T12:47:00.001-05:002008-12-08T13:04:16.185-05:00<strong>67 years ago - infamy.</strong><br /><br /><a href="http://library.umkc.edu/spec-col/ww2/pearlharbor/radio.htm#news">Here</a> you can listen to the radio bulletins, as recorded at the time, of the attacks on Pearl Harbor and other military bases in the Pacific.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07341/839947-85.stm">Here</a> is a news article which gives some background on how some of these recordings were made - which wasn't normal at that time.<br /><br />At Thanksgiving, my father told us his memories of December 7, 1941. He had gone with his family and aunts to a special presentation at <a href="http://www.stcas.org/parishbio.html">St. Casimir's</a> Catholic Church in Lansing on missionary efforts in Alaska. They had a party afterward in the parish hall and then went home. He remembers the radio reports and, then, he said, all the women started crying, because this meant war and the loss of sons and husbands and brothers...Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-59847245839444823512008-11-08T12:43:00.001-05:002008-11-08T12:43:49.290-05:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">Out for a time</span><br /><br />...again.<br /><br />I might be back after Advent.Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-19327327105379513722008-11-05T21:19:00.001-05:002008-11-05T21:21:52.040-05:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace</span><br /><br />An opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal by "an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004."<br /><br /><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html">Please read it all</a>.Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-47514718621693599682008-11-04T22:36:00.002-05:002008-11-04T22:41:34.825-05:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">Wrong Again.</span><br /><br />I sure blew that prediction. While I'm very happy that America has overcome the race barrier, I'm concerned that we have selected someone so far to the left.<br /><br />Gird your loins.Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-62650973969429051952008-11-04T04:05:00.003-05:002008-11-04T22:39:15.783-05:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">My Prediction.</span><br /><br />I'm going with Obama to win the popular vote in the neighborhood of 49% to 48.8%, but McCain to win the Electoral College:<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhvORUSAOX6OepRWQPd-mcmJ_rBRj9masa-EZbFFfdchqHri6t74KXoWLzaSXu_5OCpuPpVLfOubXR5-2HdaG40XOL7CN3Lic36EmxlSMfhbmwn2KnpvlDjZSw5Yodh516uH3vLw/s1600-h/my_prediction.JPG"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhvORUSAOX6OepRWQPd-mcmJ_rBRj9masa-EZbFFfdchqHri6t74KXoWLzaSXu_5OCpuPpVLfOubXR5-2HdaG40XOL7CN3Lic36EmxlSMfhbmwn2KnpvlDjZSw5Yodh516uH3vLw/s1600-h/my_prediction.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5264881126286708562" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; width: 500px; height: 438px; text-align: center;" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhvORUSAOX6OepRWQPd-mcmJ_rBRj9masa-EZbFFfdchqHri6t74KXoWLzaSXu_5OCpuPpVLfOubXR5-2HdaG40XOL7CN3Lic36EmxlSMfhbmwn2KnpvlDjZSw5Yodh516uH3vLw/s400/my_prediction.JPG" border="0" /></a>Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-27200185664414432082008-11-04T04:01:00.001-05:002008-11-04T14:16:44.595-05:00<strong>The coming Messiah.</strong><br /><br />A music video for election day.<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8xtNr5-up0U&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8xtNr5-up0U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />(note that the Obamaniacs have flagged this as "inappropriate" - but there's nothing wrong with it.)<br /><br />Song: Comfort Eagle by Cake.Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-39724660952082536732008-10-31T17:20:00.004-04:002008-11-02T18:07:39.965-05:00I'm updating the blog - if you see this note, it's still not done. <strikeout>In doing so, I've taken down the Haloscan comments and will enable Blogger comments later.</strikeout><br /><br />I'm mostly done with the updates - some of the links are broken and I need to go back and fix those.<br /><br />Also, I'm having trouble posting the <a href="http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/linking_to_prolifeblogs.php">ProLife Blogs icon</a> on my sidebar:<br /><a href="http://www.prolifeblogs.com"><br /><img src="http://www.prolifeblogs.com/prolifeblogs2.gif" border="0"></a><br /><br />If anyone has any ideas, please let me know.Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-11193096126042648652008-10-31T16:08:00.002-04:002008-10-31T16:13:16.772-04:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">Responding to Obama</span>.<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/5mzrps">This post</a> by Christina Dunigan is absolute must reading. I left Sen. Obama's "argument" up on its own (below) without critique. Ms. Dunigan responds and destroys his comments with flawless logic and true humanity.Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-83896143439819898552008-10-30T20:27:00.004-04:002008-10-30T20:54:30.217-04:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">"What happens to the mind of a person...?"</span><br /><br />Here is audio of Senator Barack Obama arguing against the Born Alive Abortion Bill in Illinois:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YUkbuhXzbvI&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YUkbuhXzbvI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have twenty years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.</span><br /><br />- Jesse Jackson, National Right to Life News, January 1977. </blockquote>Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-42001881975324392452008-10-28T00:50:00.001-04:002008-10-28T07:53:42.237-04:00<p><strong>I'm voting for this guy...</strong></p><p><object height="370" width="434"><param name="movie" value="http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/flash/player.swf?id=4072"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/flash/player.swf?id=4072" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="434" height="370"></embed></object></p>Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-31599016198882275242008-10-24T21:14:00.002-04:002008-10-24T21:18:41.049-04:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">A Personal Choice</span><br /><br />BabyBlue has a story - a true story up about a man named Frank who reads "the series called, 'Conversations with God'. . . the third book in the series discusses suicide and emphasizes suicide as 'a personal choice'...<br /><br /><blockquote>This is a story about Frank.<br /><br />Frank was a bright young officer under my command in Kosovo. We spent many long hours talking, especially late at night when all was quiet, unless their was a disturbance downtown or something. Frank was a recovering alcoholic and a man in search of answers. I worked hard with him, making steady progress until I finally reached the point where I could share the Gospel with him.</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2008/10/lost-without-compass-how-can-church.html">Please read it all</a>Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-88008352179913564652008-10-23T22:06:00.002-04:002008-10-24T14:15:44.284-04:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">In Memoriam</span>.<br /><br />Today, we observe those who died in the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing. It happened 25 years ago, October 23, 1983.<br /><br /><a href="http://241.savethesoldiers.com/">Here is a list of those who died for our country that day</a>; 220 Marines, 18 Navy sailors and three Army soldiers.<br /><br />Remember too, the near simultaneous attack on the 3rd Company of the 1st Parachute Infantry Regiment, France (La 3ème Compagnie, 1er Régiment de Chasseurs Parachutistes) which killed 58.<br /><br /><blockquote>And then there came a shadow, swift and sudden, dark and drear;<br />The bells were silent, not an echo stirred.<br />The flags were drooping sullenly, the men forgot to cheer;<br />We waited, and we never spoke a word.<br />The sky grew darker, darker, till from out the gloomy rack<br />There came a voice that checked the heart with dread:<br />"Tear down, tear down your bunting now, and hang up sable black;<br />They are coming -- it's the Army of the Dead."<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />The folks were white and stricken, and each tongue seemed weighted with lead;<br />Each heart was clutched in hollow hand of ice;<br />And every eye was staring at the horror of the dead,<br />The pity of the men who paid the price.<br />They were come, were come to mock us, in the first flush of our peace;<br />Through writhing lips their teeth were all agleam;<br />They were coming in their thousands -- oh, would they never cease!<br />I closed my eyes, and then -- it was a dream.<br /><br />There was triumph, triumph, triumph down the scarlet gleaming street;<br />The town was mad; a man was like a boy.<br />A thousand flags were flaming where the sky and city meet;<br />A thousand bells were thundering the joy.<br />There was music, mirth and sunshine; but some eyes shone with regret;<br />And while we stun with cheers our homing braves,<br />O God, in Thy great mercy, let us nevermore forget<br />The graves they left behind, the bitter graves.<br /><br />Robert W. Service<br /><a href="http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-march-of-the-dead/">The March of the Dead</a><br /><br /></blockquote>Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-66617340551096494322008-10-19T20:28:00.005-04:002008-10-19T21:46:20.559-04:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">Obama, Kmeic and Abortion, (continued</span>).<br /><br />The smart side of the blogosphere continues to look at the evasions by the Obama camp on his extreme pro-abortion stance and his efforts to downplay that stance.<br /><br />First, <a set="yes" linkindex="214" href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.18_Chaput_Charles%20J._Little%20Murders_.xml">here's</a> Archbishop Chaput, at <em>Public Discourse</em>, excerpt:<br /><blockquote>Prof. Kmiec has a strong record of service to the Church and the nation in his past. He served in the Reagan administration, and he supported Mitt Romney's campaign for president before switching in a very public way to Barack Obama earlier this year. In his own book he quotes from Render Unto Caesar at some length. In fact, he suggests that his reasoning and mine are ''not far distant on the moral inquiry necessary in the election of 2008.'' Unfortunately, he either misunderstands or misuses my words, and he couldn't be more mistaken.<br /><br />I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ''abortion-rights'' presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973. Despite what Prof. Kmiec suggests, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively ''pro-choice;'' it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child - and let's remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ''murder'' - the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life.<br /><br />Prof. Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator Obama. Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates.<br /><br />To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's ''real'' prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse.</blockquote>Notre Dame Law Prof. Rick Garnett <a href="http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2008/10/chaput-kmiec-an.html">writes</a> of the Kmeic essay, mentioned below:<br /><blockquote>Doug Kmiec's latest, in the L.A. Times, seems, at the end of the day, to endorse the old "personally opposed but . . . " argument from Gov. Cuomo's Notre Dame speech....<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">* * *<br /></div><br />This is not the pro-life view. Nor, until a few months ago, would Doug Kmiec have regarded this as the pro-life view. It is emphatically not the case - at least, it is not the case for those who hold the views that Prof. Kmiec always professed to hold — that the regulation of abortion involves a burden on the religious freedom of those who do not believe that unborn children are entitled, as a matter of human rights, the protection of the law. To protect unborn children is to vindicate human-rights commitments. It is not to impose sectarian morality on non-adherents. (Remember, Doug Kmiec professes to believe that the Constitution requires governments to ban abortion. It doesn't, but that's not the issue. Can it be that the Constitution requires a ban *<span style="font-style: italic;">and</span>* that "the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment"?)</blockquote>In Newsweek, the unholy trio of Obama apologists (Nicholas P. Cafardi, M. Cathleen Kaveny and Douglas W. Kmiec) who claim to be communicants in the Church of Rome <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/164445">respond</a> to <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3qx2rr">George Weigel</a>. Unfortunately, the best they can offer about Obama is that he's not McCain:<br /><blockquote>The church asks its faithful to find meaningful—not hypothetical—ways to promote human life. While getting the law and philosophy right might eventually do that, it does bring up the question: What are you doing for the cause of life now? The McCain answer: not much.<br /><br />Besides being prepared to nominate justices like Samuel Alito and John Roberts, who in keeping with their judicial oath are certainly not on record as having a predetermined view on the reversal of Roe, McCain's planning has all the narrow, in-built affluent bias of the near-identical Bush ideas. In terms of health care, McCain makes no provision for the uninsured and proposes that the insured pay more, in all likelihood dumping people into a private insurance market that is more expensive and less responsive to those with pre-existing conditions.</blockquote>They are unable to give any positive reason explaining how voting for the radical pro-abortion Obama is consistent with Roman Catholic theology.<br /><br />On <a href="http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/">Mirror of Justice</a>, <a href="http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2008/10/doug-please-res.html">Richard Stith replies</a>:<br /><blockquote>Doug Kmiec, Cathy Kaveny, and Nick Cafardi make some good arguments for voting for a Democrat who actually helps women choose life as opposed to a Republican who pays only lip-service to the pro-life cause (even though lip-service from a bully pulpit counts for a lot). As a life-long Democrat, a passive member of Democrats for Life, and an active member of Consistent Life [formerly “Seamless Garment Network”], I would be quite open to such an argument.<br /><br />But that argument would be valid only if we had candidates like Jimmy Carter running against pitiless Republicans.<br /><br />By contrast, Obama has refused to endorse our modest Democrats for Life proposal to help women choose life. Far worse, he has said that his first act in office will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. FOCA will hurt women as well as children, especially because it will eliminate state laws that discourage overly hasty abortion decisions.<br /><br />Why don’t Doug and his friends ever respond fully to the FOCA question raised by Weigel and George? (I call Doug “Doug” because he was my colleague here in Valparaiso for two years or so, during which, by the way, I don’t recall him ever hinting that he agreed with my pro-life stance. I was pleasantly surprised to hear of his views later on.)<br /><br />More generally, they don’t seem to take seriously Cardinal George’s statement that “children continue to be killed [by abortion], and we live therefore, in a country drenched in blood. This can't be something you start playing pragmatically against other issues.”<br /><br />My suspicion is that all three of them –and indeed John McCain as well—have failed to grasp the fundamental pro-life argument for human equality....</blockquote>More later, I'm sure.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">More already:</span><br /><br />From <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1200">Richard John Neuhaus</a>:<br /><blockquote>As abortion extremists put it, the woman has a right to a dead baby. Obama apparently agrees, even saying that it is a constitutional right. In this he goes farther than almost any reputable constitutional scholar, claiming that the abortion license is covered by a right to “privacy” that is found not only in the “penumbra and emanations” of the Constitution but in the Constitution itself.<br /><br />This, together with his adamant support for the government funding of abortion and for the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate all state regulation of abortion–including waiting periods, parental notification, and other very modest measures–leaves no doubt that Senator Obama is on the farthest edge of abortion extremism. And it highlights what is arguably the most important single issue in this election: Who, as president, will get to nominate the next one, or two, or three, justices to the Supreme Court.</blockquote><br /><br />------------------------------------------<br /><br />BTW, I looked for a link to this here and see I failed to mention it last spring. Therefore, from last April, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html">this</a> by Michael Gerson, in part:<br /><p> </p><blockquote><p>But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the <a linkindex="158" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Illinois?tid=informline" target="">Illinois</a> state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life. </p> <p>For decades, most Democrats and many Republicans have hoped the political debate on abortion would simply go away. But it is the issue that does not die. Recent polls have shown that young people are <i>more</i> likely than their elders to support abortion restrictions. Few Americans oppose abortion under every circumstance, but a majority oppose most of the abortions that actually take place -- generally supporting the procedure only in the case of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother. </p> <p>Perhaps this is a revolt against a culture of disposability. Perhaps it reflects the continuing revolution of ultrasound technology -- what might be called the "Juno" effect. In the delightful movie by that name, the protagonist, a pregnant teen seeking an abortion, is confronted by a classmate who informs her that the unborn child already has fingernails -- which causes second thoughts. A worthless part of its mother's body -- a clump of protoplasmic rubbish -- doesn't have fingernails. </p> <p>Abortion is an unavoidable moral issue. It also has broader political significance. Democrats of a past generation -- the generation of <a set="yes" linkindex="159" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Hubert+Humphrey?tid=informline" target="">Hubert Humphrey</a> and <a linkindex="160" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Martin+Luther+King+Jr.?tid=informline" target="">Martin Luther King Jr.</a> -- spoke about building a beloved community that cared especially for the elderly, the weak, the disadvantaged and the young. </p> <p> The advance of pro-choice policies imported a different ideology into the Democratic Party -- the absolute triumph of individualism. The rights and choices of adults have become paramount, even at the expense of other, voiceless members of the community. </p> <p>These trends reached their logical culmination during a congressional debate on partial-birth abortion in 1999. When Democratic Sen. <a linkindex="161" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barbara+Boxer?tid=informline" target="">Barbara Boxer</a> was pressed to affirm that she opposed the medical killing of children <i>after</i> birth, she refused to commit, saying that children deserve legal protection only "when you bring your baby home." It was unclear whether this included the car trip. </p></blockquote><p></p>Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-88687918435688368422008-10-17T22:32:00.003-04:002008-10-17T22:55:37.485-04:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">...But for Wales.</span> I have been reading Douglas Kmiec's repeated endorsements and statements on this subject (including his self-professed martyrdom in being turned away from Holy Communion - <a href="http://blidiot.blogspot.com/2008_10_05_archive.html#894784198290862210#894784198290862210">see below</a>). <br /><br />Recently, continued correction has come from, among others, Robert George of Princeton, see <a href="http://tinyurl.com/4y6nqp">this very powerful essay</a> and this <a href="http://tinyurl.com/5p2yb9">follow-up</a>. In addition, George Weigel has called out Dean Kmiec by name in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3qx2rr">this essay</a>. In the face of this, Kmiec <a href="http://tinyurl.com/684y4u">has issued yet another call</a> to vote for Obama, knowing that Obama has <a href="http://tinyurl.com/63ngy4">said</a> "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/568lsh">Freedom of Choice Act</a>." and that he favors the repeal of the Hyde Amendment which stops the government funding of abortion. See also <a href="http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2008/10/obamas-effect-o.html#more">this</a>.<br /><br />How can he continue to back the radically pro-abortion Obama?<br /><br />I am now convinced that Kmiec is doing this solely for personal gain - he is hoping to get that coveted judgeship. It has come time then, to view him as the very worst traitor - a 21st century version of Richard Rich. <br /><br />You may recall in the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3dd2pg">play</a> or movie "A Man For All Seasons" Robert Bolts' Thomas More is persistently pestered for an appointment to office by Richard Rich. More tells him early on that he can have a post at a school as a teacher:<br /><blockquote>MORE: Why not be a teacher? You'd be a fine teacher. Perhaps even a great one.<br /><br />RICH And if I was, who would know it?<br /><br />MORE You, your pupils, your friends, God. Not a bad public, that . . . Oh, and a quiet life.</blockquote><br />At the end of the play, when More is on trial, he refuses to testify and Cromwell produces Sir Richard Rich who gives perjured testimony that results in the eventual conviction of More. As Rich leaves the witness stand, this exchange occurs:<br /><blockquote>MORE I have one question to ask the witness. (RICH stops) That's a chain of office you are wearing. (Reluctantly RICH faces him) May I see it? (NORFOLK motions him to approach. MORE examines the medallion) The red dragon. (To CROMWELL) What's this?<br /><br />CROMWELL Sir Richard is appointed Attorney-General for Wales.<br /><br />MORE (Looking into RICH'S face, with pain and amusement) For Wales? Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world . . . But for Wales!<br /></blockquote>Kmeic is 57 and would be 66 at the end of the Obama presidency - it's his last hope for a judgeship. So what if Obama solidifies abortion on demand and makes you pay for it, he will be known as Judge Kmeic - isn't that worth it?Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-27008841945422966792008-10-11T12:56:00.002-04:002008-10-11T13:25:09.793-04:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">Amend It.</span><br /><br />I am strongly opposed to amending a state or U.S. Constitution to address something like marriage. I don't think the Constitution should have language which expressly sets forth marriage shall be between one man and one woman only. <br /><br />The problem is, judges don't share that belief. As we have seen, first in Massachusetts, then in California and now in Connecticut, judges believe they have the power and the duty to amend the state constitution to override the express will of the people and the state legislatures and radically alter the state constitution and create out of whole cloth a new definition of marriage. <br /><br />Accordingly, it is time to rebuke the judges and let the people amend their constitutions - it is probably time to pass a federal marriage amendment as well. <br /><br />It should be noted the extreme violence these radical judges are doing to the state of the law by substituting their own personal whims for the laws carefully thought out and developed over time. It could be that, in time, society will change and will decide to jettison marriage and substitute something new. So be it - it is not for the judges to act as tyrants to ram these changes through. <br /><br />Therefore - amend the constitution and send a clear message to the judges that they, too, are under the law.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">More</span><br /><br /><ol><li><a href="http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/1c8edeaa-676c-414b-b4f8-343228c2f20e">Beldar on the CT ruling</a>.</li></ol>Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-53707393786942446882008-10-10T21:59:00.005-04:002008-10-11T23:25:19.588-04:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">Two Charts</span><br /><br />First, the Dow from September 16, 2008:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8VX_NGnWPFnbCGfEZorUt_vlQs1XaNMHPbkX0K6zDzeObjaySZDUBuTITAysDZtojQsf_vOLJN9DeV83pQD6kItyGXIIq4sQ9Z8XWQC3F2kErtUwTrOzUS-DhPYwBai8Lp10wFg/s1600-h/DowJones+from+9_17.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8VX_NGnWPFnbCGfEZorUt_vlQs1XaNMHPbkX0K6zDzeObjaySZDUBuTITAysDZtojQsf_vOLJN9DeV83pQD6kItyGXIIq4sQ9Z8XWQC3F2kErtUwTrOzUS-DhPYwBai8Lp10wFg/s400/DowJones+from+9_17.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5255710514968277714" border="0" /></a><br />Second, the RealClearPolitics Average of Polls from September 17, 2008, the last time Senator Obama and Senator McCain were tied:<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDtwEO-Vvp37rsFHYMvP4qkvMbrSz2obq14DAgQELYpZrwYCfhWOki0pcZdDDZLF5zGWR_BERjI1C5B4tnMQklyR0HOySrmdGYicgVzuzjZpjF772TXtmRDCtvu72cIQUyMlo-Yg/s1600-h/BO_JM+from+9_17.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDtwEO-Vvp37rsFHYMvP4qkvMbrSz2obq14DAgQELYpZrwYCfhWOki0pcZdDDZLF5zGWR_BERjI1C5B4tnMQklyR0HOySrmdGYicgVzuzjZpjF772TXtmRDCtvu72cIQUyMlo-Yg/s400/BO_JM+from+9_17.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5255710610871945458" border="0" /></a><br />Is there a correlation?<br /><br />Is there causation?<br /><br />More<br /><br />In response to the <a href="http://jeffwolfe.com/instapundit-inspired.html">blogfather</a>, <a href="http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/025605.php">one reader notes</a>:<br /><blockquote>One of my hedge-fund readers emails:<blockquote> <p>The thumbnail future market history of this month is likely to include the phrase "correctly discounting the economic fallout of an Obama presidency and hard-left Congress repeating the failed frenetic economic policies of the 1930s". Let's just hope it doesn't take a re-run of the 1940s to extract us.</p></blockquote> <p>Ugh. Thanks for that comforting thought. And those enthusiastic for New Deal type solutions should be required to read <a linkindex="35" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060936428?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwviolentkicom&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0060936428">Amity Shlaes' book</a> on the subject.</p> <p>Or at least this: <a set="yes" linkindex="36" href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409">FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate.</a></p></blockquote><p><a set="yes" linkindex="36" href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409"></a></p><br /><br />P.S. Thanks for the comments!Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295009.post-76136579628378738012008-10-05T20:54:00.004-04:002008-10-11T12:53:23.890-04:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">McCain, Life and Human Rights (brief)</span><br /><br />I also want to get to Senator John McCain on his response to the human rights of a baby question. I think that while he answered the question in a manner that, say, a devout Roman Catholic might agree with, his past vote does not square with his answer. Again, from the <a href="http://rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-05.txt">Saddleback Civil Forum</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>Q: AT WHAT POINT IS A BABY ENTITLED TO HUMAN RIGHTS?<br /><br />A: AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. I HAVE A 25-YEAR PRO LIFE RECORD IN THE CONGRESS, IN THE SENATE. AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I WILL BE A PRO LIFE PRESIDENT AND THIS PRESIDENCY WILL HAVE PRO LIFE POLICIES. THAT'S MY COMMITMENT, THAT'S MY COMMITMENT TO YOU.</blockquote>Unlike my post below, this will be a brief one (for now - I may revisit).<br /><br />The problem is, that while John McCain <a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm">opposes "fetal farming</a>" or the creating of human embryos for stem cell research, <a href="http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Stem_Cell_Research">he is also in favor</a> of using human embryos already existing for such research.<br /><br />In addition, he has voted to fund such research:<br /><br /><blockquote>Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?<br /><br />A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.<br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007 </span></blockquote>As quoted from <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/John_McCain_Abortion.htm">here</a>.<br /><br />I respectfully submit, then, that he does not believe a baby is entitled to human rights at the moment of conception.Václav Patrik Šulikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com0