Monday - October 27, 2008
Well, gollleeee!
This map is probably already out of date. GasBuddy relies on volunteers to submit gas prices to them. I know that the station down the street has regular for $2.39.9; zooming in on their map shows the average price around here to be at least .25 higher.
But dayum, $1.97 in Tennessee! How cool is that?
Huh, funny, it looks like the red states are the greenest right now. Coinkydink?
on 10/27/2008 at 03:27 PM
Oil, Alternative Energy, and Gas Prices • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink
Whittle While You Work
Bill Whittle weighs in on today’s viral video.
Once again, the words straight from Obama’s own mouth ought to be a campaign killer. Once again, not one person with half an active brain cell and a cat’s lick of common sense and knowledge of what America is all about should be able to vote for this turkey. Not one.
But Bill says it better, as he always does:
The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.
The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.
Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”
There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.
We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.
If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”
That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.
We’re just getting started.
on 10/27/2008 at 01:40 PM
Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Politics • Stoopid-People • Tyrants and Dictators • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink
McCain on Fire!
Horry Clap, McCain’s on fire. Catch his speech from Ohio today; I’m sure Fox will have it as well as McCain.org and JohnMcCain.com, etc. He’s all over today’s viral video of Obama’s 2001 radio interview video. The old man is up on the podium, actually raising his voice! He’s energized! He’s shouting! He’s against big government! He’s against out of control spending! He’s against Socialism (but he doesn’t call a spade a spade and he doesn’t identify the obvious). He’s not lying down and giving up. It’s like a rally! It’s almost sounds like he’s a Republican!
The before the speech transcript from the NY Times is pretty close to what he actually said.
It’s been a long campaign and we’ve heard a lot of words, and great campaign trail eloquence. The amazing thing is that we’ve learned more about Senator Obama’s real goals for our country over the last two weeks than we learned over the past two years. It is amazing that even at this late hour, we are still learning more about Senator Obama and his agenda. He told Joe the plumber right here in Ohio he wants to quote “spread the wealth around.” It’s always more interesting to hear what people have to say in these unscripted moments, and today we heard another moment like this from Senator Obama.
In a radio interview revealed today, he said that one of the quote—“tragedies” of the civil rights movement is that it didn’t bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society. He said, and I quote, “One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”
That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor: It means taking your money and giving it to someone else. He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He is more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it, in redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity. I am going to create wealth for all Americans, by creating opportunity for all Americans.
...
Let me give you the state of the race today. There’s eight days to go. We’re a few points down. The pundits have written us off, just like they’ve done before. My opponent is working out the details with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid of their plans to raise your taxes, increase spending, and concede defeat in Iraq. He’s measuring the drapes, and he’s planned his first address to the nation for before the election. I guess I’m old fashioned about these things I prefer to let the voters weigh in before presuming the outcome.
What America needs now is someone who will finish the race before the starting the victory lap ... someone who will fight to the end, and not for himself but for his country.
I have fought for you most of my life, and in places where defeat meant more than returning to the Senate. There are other ways to love this country, but I’ve never been the kind to back down when the stakes are high.
I know you’re worried. America is a great country, but we are at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future.
Will we continue to lead the world’s economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children and grandchildren’s future be brighter than ours?
My answer to you is yes. Yes, we will lead. Yes, we will prosper. Yes, we will be safer. Yes, we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country. But we must be prepared to act swiftly, boldly, with courage and wisdom.
I’m an American. And I choose to fight. Don’t give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight.
Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what’s right for America.
Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington.
Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.
Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.
Fight for our children’s future.
Fight for justice and opportunity for all.
Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.
Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.
Now, let’s go win this election and get this country moving again.
on 10/27/2008 at 01:21 PM
Patriotism • Politics • Republicans • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink
Palin’s Problem
Sarah gives McCain/Palin Campaign aides the vapors.
What is Sarah Palin’s problem with McCain/Palin Campaign aides? It’s simple, they are a bunch of sexist pigs who think she’s a stubborn bitch. What you have here is a gang of egotistical control fools who don’t want to admit Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin has brains and a mind of her own. They don’t want Kathryn Janeway, they want June Cleaver.
Now Palin is fighting back. Sarah has burned her bra, taken back her maiden name, and is opening her own doors. The way those aides were acting you’d think she was busy castrating them with a dull plastic fork. Middle aged men with castration anxiety. As if they had any use for it.
The Sarahcuda is simply doing what John McCain needs to do, put a bunch of power hungry weasels in their place. McCain gives his aides too much credit because they supposedly know more than him. In contrast they don’t impress Sarah Palin. Since the aides hate people who stand up for themselves, they bitch, moan, and kvetch about what she’s doing, having none of the maturity needed to recognize she has to stomp on them, and stomp on them hard, for her to have any real role in a McCain administration.
And, it’s something John McCain needs to do if he is to have any real role in the McCain administration. John McCain, like Barack Obama, puts to much credence in his advisers. John McCain needs to start putting his foot down and reigning in people before they screw the pooch and start looking for ways to deny paternity of the puppies.
Good on ya, Sarah! Tell ‘em the truth, and give ‘em Hell!
Par for the Course
Typical college students ... ripping people off.
The Young Conservatives of Texas branch at the Houston-area Lone Star College-Tomball has been censored and threatened with campus-wide de-recognition for passing out a humorous pamphlet with gun jokes at a campus fair.
The dispute is being addressed by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, which has written college officials reminding them of the college’s constitutional obligation to respect the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to acknowledge the flyer’s contents are protected speech.
“Distributing a joke-filled top-ten list at a student activities fair is a creative way for a student group to educate its peers about itself,” said Greg Lukianoff, the president of FIRE.
College threatens students for even discussing guns
The Young Conservatives of Texas branch at the Houston-area Lone Star College-Tomball has been censored and threatened with campus-wide de-recognition for passing out a humorous pamphlet with gun jokes at a campus fair.
The dispute is being addressed by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, which has written college officials reminding them of the college’s constitutional obligation to respect the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to acknowledge the flyer’s contents are protected speech.
“Distributing a joke-filled top-ten list at a student activities fair is a creative way for a student group to educate its peers about itself,” said Greg Lukianoff, the president of FIRE.
The case developed at the school’s recent “club rush” when the Young Conservatives started handing out their list of “Top Ten Gun Safety Tips.”
The tongue-in-cheek recommendations included:
* Always keep your gun pointed in a safe direction, such as at a hippy or a communist.
* No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey.
* Don’t load your gun unless you are ready to shoot something or are just feeling generally angry.
* If your gun misfires, never look down the barrel to inspect it.
* Never us[e] your gun to pistol whip someone. That could mar the finish.
* No matter how excited you are about buying your first gun, do not run around yelling “I have a gun! I have a gun!”
The flyer then invited students to an informational meeting the following week.
Robert Comer, the chairman for the student group, said Shannon Marino, the school’s program manager for student activities, told him the flyer was inappropriate and confiscated his copies. When Comer appealed to E. Edward Albracht, the dean of student development, he ruled the flyer was inappropriate and cited the shootings at Virginia Tech.
Then, a few days later, Marino warned Comer the school’s legal department would review the flyers and the school might order the campus YCT branch disbanded or placed on probation.
“Lone Star should be ashamed of invoking the tragedy of Virginia Tech in an attempt to justify the censorship of any mention of firearms at Lone Star. Doing so is not only an affront to constitutional rights – it trivializes the experiences of the true victims of gun violence,” Lukianoff said.
Yeah yeah yeah, “invoking the tragedy of Virginia Tech”. What bullshit. I’m 99.78% positive that I’ve had my IMAO.us Top Ten Gun Safety Tips T-shirt since before the Virginia Tech shootings. Nor were gun jokes invented only after that event! And however well intentioned, those Lone Star college Conservatives STOLE THE WHOLE THING WORD FOR WORD from Frank J. and didn’t give him any credit:
Oh. Wait a second. Um, yeah, it’s ALSO an outrage that the college is having a hissy fit because somebody actually mentioned guns. That’s nuts. But I think those Lone Star folks owe Frank J. about $1 per leaflet.
Via Vilmar, but I cottoned onto the plagiarism thingy.
Wow. I am soooooo jealous. I’ve never been confiscated anywhere. Heck, this blog isn’t even banned in China. And I have no fatwas against me at all. I’ve got to try harder!!!
Monday Lunchtime Graphics
Because BMEWS is more than just politics. Well, we try to be. It’s hard sometimes, really hard.
and one for you flyboys and history buffs:
Spreading the Wealth Around
Obama in 2001. SSDD
Transcript and more over at Michelle’s.
I think I’m gonna be sick.
on 10/27/2008 at 10:46 AM
Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink
WWRD?
Selected excerpts from Ronald Reagan’s 1964 speech in support of Barry Goldwater. Originally titled “A Time for Healing” it is better known as his “Rendezvous With Destiny” speech.
All this was said in 1964. 44 years ago. Some things simply do not change. An earlier post here today points out how John McCain’s camp is upset that Sarah Palin is going off on her own and past his limits. But they don’t seem to realize that that is exactly what she has to do. She’s an actual Conservative. And he’s a Democrat. Her words seem to echo back to an earlier time ...
Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to.” In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.” Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they’ve had almost 30 years of it, shouldn’t we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
...
... anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always “against” things, never “for” anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood.
...
Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England. Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men...that we are to choose just between two personalities.
...
We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
...
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness?
McCain and Palin aides at war. (oh great. so we’re fighting among ourselves now?)
Just what I bloody well need to start the day, on top of everything else going on around here.
And in a foreign paper too. Good. Show everyone how divided we are among our own kind. Gee people, when the heck did the enemy become US?
Does Democrat/Liberal/Obama/Supreme Court/Taxes and heaven know what else, does any of that ring any bells? Jeesh!
Have any of you seen Mrs. Palin in blue jeans? Gosh she looks good in everything. I’m glad she answered her clothing critics and now we need to move on and stop the political death wish that seems to be encroaching our ranks.
PALIN IN 2012! Y E S !
McCain and Palin aides at war
Aides to John McCain and Sarah Palin have exchanged bitter barbs over the handling of the campaign.
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 12:39AM GMT 27 Oct 2008One adviser to Mr McCain was reported to have called the Republican nominee’s running mate a “diva” after her allies complained bitterly that she was too tightly controlled by Mr McCain’s aides.
The Alaska governor’s supporters said that she was so frustrated by her role in the campaign that she threatened to “go rogue” more often and do things her own way.
With Mr McCain already struggling to stay in the race with Mr Obama ahead in the polls, the row over his vice-presidential nominee is threatening to drain energy from the uphill challenge of beating his Democratic rival. Despite the strains in his campaign, and an average poll lead for Mr Obama of 7.8 percentage points, Mr McCain maintained a plucky outlook, declaring that he was still capable of a squeaking a narrow victory on Nov 4. “I believe that I’m going to win it. It’s going to be tight, and we’re going to be up late, but we’re going to win,” Mr McCain told NBC’s Meet the Press.
For encouragement he clung to the example of a new Reuters-Zogby poll that put his rival’s advantage at five points, compared to others placing it at 11 points. “The polls are all over the map,” he said, asserting that American voters were growing wary of Mr Obama’s plans for tax increases.
Yet again, he was forced to defend Mrs Palin, whose favourability ratings have slipped to 40 per cent from a high of 64 per cent shortly after her nomination two months ago.
Asked about the $150,000 (£93,000) spent on designer clothes for Mrs Palin and her family by the Republicans, Mr McCain insisted: “She lives a frugal life.”
However his backroom staff appear to be at war with Mrs Palin’s aides. As mutual hostilities rose within the Republican campaign at the weekend, an ally of the Alaska governor cited the bad publicity over the shopping spree as an example of how poor treatment by McCain staffers had tarnished her image and turned her into the butt of late-night comedians.
A senior Republican complained to Politico.com that “she never even set foot in these stores”, and had no idea of the cost. He blamed the fiasco on “completely out-of-control operatives”.
Adding that she had “lost confidence in most of the people on the plane,” referring to the staff who accompany her, he said she wanted to “go rogue” more often.
“These people are going to try and shred her after the campaign to divert blame from themselves,” said the insider, referring to Mr McCain’s chief strategist Steve Schmidt and to Nicolle Wallace, the former communications director for George W Bush who has overseen Mrs Palin’s media strategy.
An opponent of Mrs Palin within the McCain camp however lambasted her for branching out on her own and for criticising tactical decisions made by the senator and his advisers.
“She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone,” a McCain adviser told CNN. “She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else. Also she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: divas trust only unto themselves as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom.”
(A McCain adviser? Really nice quote from someone who’s supposed to be ON OUR SIDE.)Over the weekend Mrs Palin once again took a campaign message further than her senior partner. For days both have warned that Mr Obama’s tax policies are tantamount to “socialism”. But speaking in Des Moines, she warned that the Democrat would create the kind of country “where the people are not free”, raising the spectre of a communist state.
Just out of curiosity. Are you folks seeing this at home? This report I mean. With days to go till election, this can’t look very smart.
WELL, IF THE THEME BE HUMOR TO START THE DAY, HOW’S THIS. (and heaven help SF)
H/T J. Miller
( “not that there’s anything wrong with it” )Seinfeld
IMAGINE BEING A COP IN SAN FRANCISCO
Chief Heather Fong (left), the first SFPD female chief of police;
Theresa Sparks (center, former male), president of the San Francisco Police Commission, CEO of a multimillion-dollar sex toy retailer, and a transgender woman.
Sgt. Stephan Thorne (right, former female), the first transgender SFPD police officer.
Oh, Lord, please help us!
Sunday - October 26, 2008
Blame Macker
I found this on Macker’s World (did you know he’s been BANNED in India?)
I’m not a World of Warcraft fan, but this is just too funny! Especially when you recall that I spent six years as a seaman on the USS Truxtun.
Spread the wealth
on 10/26/2008 at 02:24 PM
Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Fun-Stuff • Government • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink
SHARIA LAW IN ENGLAND? IT’S OFFICIAL. BRIT COURTS TO RUBBER STAMP SOME SHARIA RULINGS.
MAYBE NOT THE FULL MONTY. Not yet, but the thin edge of the Sharia blade is here.
So, ya think we’re next in the USA? Hey, if they’re only ruling on fellow muslims. ? What’s the problem?
Surely you don’t think they will eventually rule on everything. Nah ... couldn’t happen. After all, they belong to the ROP.
Reasonable and civilized folk. Our new best friends.
Kind of arbitrary for me to have posted this when it has nothing to do with the story. Couldn’t resist the urge.
Sharia rulings on divorces and disputes to be rubber-stamped by English courts
A Government decision to allow Islamic courts in Britain the right to rule on family disputes and divorces has been condemned as discriminatory to women.
By Chris Hastings, Public Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 9:03AM GMT 26 Oct 2008Civil rights campaigners are angry that ministers have approved plans to allow Sharia councils in Britain the right to settle disputes regarding money, property and access to children.
They say such tribunals are institutions for male domination which treat women like second-class citizens.
Couples who choose to use the Sharia system must get the ruling rubber-stamped by a judge sitting in an ordinary family court.
But neither party has to attend this hearing and approval can be obtained by filling in a two-page application.
The endorsement of Sharia was announced to MPs by Bridget Prentice, a junior minister, in answer to a parliamentary question.
She said Sharia councils would still have no jurisdiction in England, and rulings by religious authorities would have no legal force.
But she added: “If, in a family dispute dealing with money or children, the parties to a judgement in Sharia council wish to have this recognised by English authorities, they are at liberty to draft a consent order embodying the terms of the agreement and submit it to an English court. This allows English judges to scrutinise it to ensure that it complies with English legal tenets.”
Campaigners condemned the plans as unacceptable and said that the rulings were not compatible with English law, while the Conservatives insisted that should be safeguards for women.
Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, said: “There can be no place for parallel legal systems in our country.
“It is vital that in matrimonial disputes where a Sharia council is involved, women’s rights are protected and judgments are non-binding.”
Another Conservative spokesman, Paul Goodman, the shadow minister for communities and local government, accused the Government of keeping the public in the dark and warned: “There must be one British law for everyone.”
Dr David Green, the Director of the Civitas think tank, said: “I think there are a number of problems with regards to Sharia law. These Sharia councils are supposed to operate under the Arbitration Act which allows citizens in a free society to settle their disputes on a voluntary basis if they so wish.
“But that legislation assumes that both parts are regarded as being equal. I think the problem is with tribunals like these you can’t always be sure that women would be treated equally.
“Under Islam a man can divorce a woman just by saying I divorce you three times. But a woman must go to a Sharia court to seek a divorce. Often the ruling goes in favour of the woman, but I think on the whole these councils are institutions for male domination. As a result I do not believe these rulings and proceedings should be recognised under British law.
“Under the traditions of Sharia law the voice of a women is not equal to that of a man.”
Mr Goodman said he did not object to the new rules in principle, on condition that all women were in receipt of proper safeguards. But he criticised the manner in which the Government had quietly introduced the new rules.
“The manner in which the Government has introduced these rules has been completely unsatisfactory,” he said. “There was no major announcement about this when it was quietly introduced in 2007. The public have been kept in the dark about what is going on.”
“Our understanding is that certain Muslim arbitration tribunals have been licensed to operate in the confines of the Arbitration Act just like the Jewish beth din courts. We have no objection in principle to these organisations operating within the confinements of the Arbitration Act.
“But we would be concerned about Sharia councils operating outside the confines of the Arbitration Act. We have raised concerns that in all circumstances women who attend these proceedings should and must attend on a voluntary basis.”
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice defended the changes. She said: “These procedures would not allow anything that would not be permissible under UK law.
“The Sharia Council can sit both parties down if both sides agree and produce a consent order. This then has to be approved by a judge sitting in a family court.”
Islamic tribunals have authority to make decisions in business and financial disputes where both parties are free to accept arbitration. Five Sharia courts operate mediation systems under the Arbitration Act of 1996.
But campaigners say financial disputes are less controversial because they are much less likely to raise problems over the status of women.
A spokesman for the Bar Council also defended the new changes, saying: “Anything that is decided under the Arbitration Act cannot run counter to the fundamental principles of English law.”
Television producers say swearing reflects “the way we live” - but so does the production of sewage.
Not so long ago there was a brief discussion here at BMEWS on the subject of bad language.
I got to thinking about it at the time. Sometimes you know things can get so frustrating you can’t find the words you want and so you let fly with bad language. Makes one feel a fraction better once in awhile. But not always.
The thing about TV in this case however, is bad language used in place of anything else. It’s simply gratuitous.
I’ve been away from American TV for four years now, so don’t know how much it’s changed there. Heck, I don’t even know what shows are on and popular. But unless it’s cable, I don’t think we go quite as far as these folks do. So, I thought you might be interested in the argument on that subject here.
Empty out the swear box
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 26/10/2008
Listening to a constant succession of swear-words is almost always depressing and unpleasant. We associate them with personal animosity and aggression. So why have television programmes, after the “watershed” of 9pm established by the regulations, become full of people who seem to do little except compete with each other in the production of offensive language?
We have yet to hear a good answer to that question. Television producers say swearing reflects “the way we live” - but so does the production of sewage, and no one thinks that is a reason for putting the process on TV every night. As the statistics we have gathered show, swearing has become so commonplace on television that it has long ceased to have the desired effect of shocking the audience. The response of those responsible for TV schedules seems to have been to increase the amount of bad language, on the principle that if one swear word does not upset the audience, 20 surely will. Thus one episode of Gordon Ramsay’s cooking programme had him use the f-word 80 times in 50 minutes.
No one benefits from the cascade of obscenity. It is time for television to grow up, and to stop thinking that there is something “cool” about swearing. In an ideal world, there would be a moratorium on bad language. That is too much to hope for: but a significant cut in the amount of pointless obscenity would be an enormous benefit, and it is eminently achievable.
Television has a responsibility to set standards, and in tolerating, indeed encouraging, expletives of the most obscene kind, it is failing to meet that responsibility. It is not merely children who need to be protected from constant swearing. Most of the rest of us are bored, irritated and offended by switching on the telly and being assaulted by the crudest, crassest and most vulgar language. Is it too much to ask that writers and producers exercise some self-restraint?
TV has set standards. All ya have to do to see them is open your eyes and look down.
A NEW QUIZ FOR FIVE YEAR OLDS? (NAME THAT BODY PART) couldn’t make it up folks.
Alright it isn’t really a quiz but heck .... it is bizarre.
Some short while ago I posted this subject and then forgot about it with so much else going on.
Well, apparently the powers that be haven’t forgotten and so we re-visit the subject with a mom who also writes for the Telegraph.
She makes legitimate points. Even as a non parent, I’m certain I would not be too comfortable with this if I were.
She’s right. There really is something ‘creepy’ about this.
Must they know about sex at five?
By Jenny McCartney
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 26/10/2008One thing stumps me about the news that the Government is to provide compulsory “sex and relationships” lessons for children from the age of five: how much can there really be to say?
On the subject of relationships, obviously, one could go on forever, recommending lengthy homework on everything from Jane Austen to Leonard Cohen lyrics. On sex, I would have thought there was rather less to discuss: one could surely exhaust the topics of contraception, pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases in a matter of weeks at the age of 11, perhaps with a brief refresher course at 13. After that, in what precise style young people proceed with sex in later life is surely a matter for them: there must be some areas to which even the omnipresent hand of the nanny state does not reach.
The news that there will now be a “naming of parts” session for five-year-olds, however - in which they learn the correct words for genitals and the differences between the sexes - gives me the creeps. By the age of five, many children have their own names for their private parts, often of a friendly, silly variety that will do them perfectly well until they are older. Is there really any point in school insisting on teaching them otherwise?
If a friend or relative suddenly insisted on lecturing your five-year-old about the official name for their genitals, apropos of nothing, I imagine they would be asked to shut up pretty sharpish. I am at something of a loss as to why this interference should be thought preferable coming from a primary teacher. And yet a sex education comic - Let’s Grow With Nisha and Joe - is already being promoted to primary schools. We learned to read with Dick and Dora: I shudder to think what they would do with that pair today.
The great irony in the Government setting itself up as the supreme educator on sexual and emotional matters is that, when it is given the task of actually looking after confused and vulnerable children all by itself, it is the worst parent imaginable. Girls who have grown up in care are sexually active earlier than other teenagers, and are 2.5 times more likely to become pregnant. A quarter of girls leaving care are already mothers or pregnant.
These girls are subjected to the same sex education at school as everyone else: I would be extremely surprised if any of them did not know in theory how to avoid having a baby. The real point, surely, is that they do not greatly want to avoid it. The emotional isolation they experience during their period in the unfeeling British care system means that they gravitate towards men as a source of affection and attention. The prospect of motherhood then offers them both an acknowledged social status and perhaps a reason for continued financial support from the state. Their early pregnancy is entirely logical, for any state that cares to read its own shortcomings written in the logic.
This, to a lesser degree, holds true for very many teenage girls who “accidentally” find themselves pregnant. The phenomenon is not helped by the fact that at the moment there is a wealth of information on what it means to have sex and very little on what it means to be in sole charge of a small baby that cries round the clock.
I believe in the good sense of basic sex education at school for older children, even if my own was pretty much confined to a terrifying film of a woman giving birth, and a hilarious, crackling 1960s film about male puberty called From Boy to Man. (We never got to see From Girl to Woman, despite being primed for yet more helpless laughter: the projector broke.)
There is a danger, however, that any philosophy that mainly concentrates on the somewhat deceptive notion of “safe sex” and the judicious use of contraception is in fact misleading. If a teenager doesn’t think that he or she is ready for the life-changing complications that might arise from sex - and few are - then the best advice is not to do it at all. Otherwise, they should be warned that contraception is very far from infallible, and they would be advised to double up on their methods.
I yearn for the day when “sex and relationships” lessons actually do something to make teenage behaviour wiser, and when lessons include: “Just because he sleeps with you doesn’t mean he loves you” and “New mum Mary can’t go out for two years. It’s 3am and the baby’s screaming with colic.” Sadly, the glum news that Jim Knight, the Schools Minister, has decided instead to start badgering the nation’s five-year-olds into naming their private parts doesn’t lead me to think that will happen any time soon.
for more:
http://tinyurl.com/6kttyo
on 10/26/2008 at 09:02 AM
Education • Nanny State • Sex • UK • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink
Saturday - October 25, 2008
Wasted Effort
Something other than McCain / Obama Politics
On Tuesday, November 4, the citizens of South Dakota will vote on the most restrictive abortion law in the country. Dr. Allen Unruh of VoteYesForLife.com says the opponents have launched a major battle against the pro-life measure. “Planned Parenthood is bringing in Barbara Streisand,” he explains. “They’re filling the airwaves with deceptive ads that are lies, and we’re going to attack for false and misleading advertising.”
The opponents of the abortion ban have raised almost double the amount of money for their campaign as the pro-life side has. So far, the pro-life campaign has not been able to buy advertising to combat it. “We haven’t had the funds to get on the air war,” Dr. Unruh adds. “This whole war on our side has been on the ground up until now, but it’s critical that we overcome their lies and deception.”
pregnancy illustration
Opponents in South Dakota have received a majority of their campaign’s funding from other states because, according to CNSNews.com, this ban could become a national concern. Leslee Unruh, executive director of VoteYesForLife.com, is thrilled at the idea that South Dakota would be the first “abortion-free state.”
“We are asking Christians all across America to stand up and be counted to say, ‘You know what, I want to make a difference. This is one place where I can make a difference,’” Dr. Unruh adds.
Read the rest over at One New Snow
This bill is known as Measure 11 on the South Dakota ballot. It is what is called an Initiated constitutional amendment.
The ballot entry for Measure 11 will state
Title:
An Initiative to prohibit abortions except in cases where the mother’s life or health is at a substantial and irreversible risk, and in cases of reported rape and incest.
Attorney General Explanation:
Currently a woman may obtain an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Beyond 24 weeks, abortions may be performed only if necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.
Measure 11 would prohibit all abortions performed by medical procedures or substances administered to terminate a pregnancy, except for: abortions medically necessary to prevent death or the serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily organ or system of the woman, and abortions to terminate a pregnancy of less than 20 weeks resulting from rape or incest reported to law enforcement.
When an abortion is performed as a result of reported rape or incest, the woman must consent to biological sampling from herself and the embryo or fetus for DNA testing by law enforcement.
Measure 11 would allow the provision of contraception substances prior to the time pregnancy can be determined by conventional medical testing, or assistance in obtaining abortions in states where the procedure is legal.
If approved, Measure 11 will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the United States Constitution. The State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.
YES- A vote “Yes” will adopt the proposed law.
NO- A vote “No” will reject the proposed law.
For the actual text of the measure click here
This is not the first time such a measure has come up in South Dakota. It was voted down 3 years ago. Even if this measure should pass, how will it be able to stand up against Roe v. Wade? I don’t think it can. Federal law trumps state law. Period.
Running over to CNN for a bit of background ...
Public opinion on abortion has remained remarkably stable over the years. A CNN/Opinion Research survey in October found 36 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances, 40 percent believe it should be available in a few circumstances, such as to save the mother’s life, and 22 percent say abortion should never be legal. That is almost unchanged in the past 15 years.
Justices William Rehnquist, Byron White and Anthony Kennedy said they would allow restrictions on abortion, but only if the restrictions had a rational basis. More important, the three conservative justices said a compelling government interest need not be required to justify restrictions on abortion. That was a blow for anti-abortion forces.
Then came the Planned Parenthood ruling, in which the justices clearly outlined their views on Roe. The decision (also 5-4) reaffirmed the heart of Roe while giving states the power to regulate procedures so long as they did not impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion. The standard: Undue burden exists if “the purpose and effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” The ruling left supporters on both sides of the issue dissatisfied, feeling it was ambiguous.
Sounds to me like making a general abortion a Class 4 Felony is an Undue Burden and then some. Sorry South Dakota, your Measure is doomed to failure.
At least two other states have issues pertaining to abortion on their ballots this fall.
- California is trying yet again - 3rd time in 4 years - to push through a parental notification bill
- Colorado is trying for an amendment that would “recognize the personhood” of a fertilized egg as a person. BIG implications on that one! On the ballots Initiative 36 will readShall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term “person” to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as “person” is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?
So this perennial Conservative Issue is still in play. Yet another issue that somehow didn’t make an appearance in any of the big deal Presidential Debates.
![[ Registered ]](/images/diarist.gif){kind=small}
