| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/16 |
| 2008/4/22-5/2 [ERROR, uid:49800, category id '18005#21.0536' has no name! , ] UID:49800 Activity:low |
4/22 Obama plans to scuttle NASA
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obamas_plan_for_nasa.html
[spam deleted]
\_ It wan't spam, it was people pointing out that the news "source"
above is about as reasonable as the weekly world news for
dittoheads.
\_ http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/redefining_swiftboating_and_re.html
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/5y6ymd [american thinker]
I don't really give a shit about the article you posted, but
any website that writes this kind of shit like the swiftboat one
doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
\_ http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/barack_obama_the_wisdom_of_for_1.html
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/4dg393 [american thinker]
Oh and look, 1000 words about how bad Obama is cause he flipped
off Hillary when he scratched his cheek. You actually believe
this steaming pile of crap?
\_ http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/straight_talk_about_casual_sex.html
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/42llww [american thinker]
This is fun. Pre martial sex is going to make you sad and lonely!
\_ http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/ben_steins_intelligent_adventu.html
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/6q6zx8 [american thinker]
Oh looky. A positive review of Ben Stein's brave defence against
those horrid "Darwinists"!
\_ http://http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_obama_aesthetic.html
You couldn't make a funnier parody of the Right's fears if you tried.
You couldn't make a funnier parody of the Right's fears if you
tried.
\_ These responses should be a model for anyone who understands that
source can have an effect on perspective.
\_ I work for NASA. Postpostponing the Constellation program is
not the same as scuttling NASA. If anything, Constellation and
the Shuttle are killing NASA's budget for science and research.
Taking a lot of money off of the that table and using some of
Taking a lot of money off of that table and using some of
it to expand existing programs elsewhere, including not at
NASA, sounds good. However, there's a lot more money to be had
at the DoD than at NASA. |
| www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/obamas_plan_for_nasa.html Lee Cary As the legend goes, when the Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortez landed in what is now Mexico in 1519, he ordered the boats that brought him and his men there to be burned. Although the MSM has largely ignored Barack Obama's plans for NASA, the issue is likely to bubble up during the general election campaign, if he's the Democratic nominee. There's a potential confluence of two events - one possible and one planned: an Obama presidency and a mission shift already underway at NASA. The Constellation program is not scheduled to begin manned flights until 2015. Meanwhile, NASA faces dramatic job reductions among its 21,000 labor force at the close of the Shuttle Program. Constellation Program is the follow-on to the Shuttle program. NASA is in the early development stage of the new Ares 1 rocket and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). The plan is for them to take astronauts to the moon which will become a staging area for the eventual exploration of Mars. The Shuttle program is, metaphorically, like Cortez's boats. The Constellation project will provide the vehicles for the next big step in space exploration. That is unless Barack Obama becomes our 44^th president. Plan For Lifetime Success Through Education" reads: "Barack Obama's early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent an increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, using purchase cards and negotiating power of the government to reduce costs of standardized procurement, auctioning surplus federal property, and reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office, and closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with fighting the war in Iraq." budget as the band takes an extended break between sets, taking their instruments with them. And for how long does the US postpone a new space transport capability? This will free-up funding for his aggressive plans to federalize pre-school. They're about his education plan wherein he will: * Recruit High-Quality Math and Science Teachers * Enhance Science Instruction * Improve and Prioritize Science Assessments Back to the Cortez analogy. The space boats are being burned on schedule as the Shuttle program phases out. The way forward is on the Ares 1 rocket and the CEV - Cortez's guns and horses. But Capitan Hernando Obama says, "Men, let's keep the guns clean and the powder dry, but not feed the horses for five years while we sit here on the beach and hope." In the meantime what happens to NASA's cadre of scientists for five years? The answer is they move on because putting the Constellation Program on hold for five years is tantamount to killing it. Many of those that cannot retire find jobs elsewhere - maybe teaching High School math for Obama, or working in China's space program. Then, at some indefinite "minimum" time down the road, the US space program restarts and they come back. In the meantime, how do our astronauts get to the International Space Station? Simple, they hitch rides on Russian space craft until the Chinese enter the space transport competition. "We're not going to have the engineers and the scientists to continue space exploration if we don't have kids who are able to read, write and compute." By the same logic, we should also suspend medical research grants and close down the National Institute of Health because we're not going to have physicians and biologists if we don't have kids who are able to read, write and compute. During the Q & A session at a campaign stop in Wyoming, Obama was asked about the nation's space program. I don't think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. A little later, he addressed another on energy, and spoke of the need for an alternative energy effort. The Global Social Worker aims to shift funds from space exploration to federal pre-schools. All this suggests the most poignant irony of this entire campaign season. Barack Obama, the candidate who has often been portrayed by some in the media as Kennedyesque, would leave the space exploration legacy of JFK sitting idle on the beach. |
| www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/redefining_swiftboating_and_re.html If the words "swift" and "boat" must be combined and turned into a verb, then let us insist on its proper use. The word as a verb originates from the campaign undertaken in 2004 by the Swift Boat Veterans in response to the John Kerry presidential candidacy. The word means, or should mean, the exposure of a fraudulent autobiography of one seeking political office or public influence. It is the correction of a personal and professional record that has been selectively and dishonestly compiled, as the Swift Vets did so effectively to that of John Kerry. Although swiftboating may be a neologism, there are other recent examples of this phenomenon. Justus Reid Werner, in a seminal Commentary article, exposed the fraudulent life story created by Edward Said to advance his political agenda. Dan Rather's macho claims to be an "ex-marine", when he did not finish marine basic training, were also revealed to be fraudulent. The Left is now redefining and, therefore, misusing the term swiftboating, and this misuse has become one of the many notable aspects of the 2008 presidential campaign. Democratic candidates and their partisans in the blogosphere use this word to mean smearing their candidates for public office with lies and innuendo. For some blog sites, the word is now synonymous with "screeds," the "politics of smear and fear," and "character assassination of proven effectiveness." Recently, some candidates have angrily declared that they will not be swiftboated. To Set the Record Straight, How Swift Boat Veterans, POWs, and the New Media Defeated John Kerry, by Scott Swett and Tim Ziegler. In 2004 John Kerry chose to make his service in Vietnam as a supposed war hero the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. In a scene now reminiscent of Groucho Marx's addresses to Fredonians in Duck Soup, who can forget John Kerry's infamous "reporting for duty" speech to the Democratic Convention in 2004? This strategy adopted by Kerry actually made sense when one examines his time-serving and singularly undistinguished career in the Senate. Here is a man who ran for President for no reason other than he could afford to. To Set the Record Straight chronicles the actions of the galvanized Swift Vets and their campaign to expose the fabrications of John Kerry. In far more detail than can be mustered in campaign television ads or press releases, this book documents Kerry's scant service record in Vietnam and his disgraceful behavior after he returned to the United States. We see a more thorough account of: * Kerry's dubious "wounds" and purple hearts, * his night under attack in Cambodia that could not have happened, * the "heroic" rescue on the Bay Hap River that had little in common with the account of Kerry's colleagues or the physical evidence, * Kerry's highly publicized and false claims of wide-spread genocide perpetrated by American soldiers in Vietnam, * the usefulness of his 1971 Senate testimony to the North Vietnamese as a device to demoralize American POWs. These accounts and the examination of the facts and circumstances compiled by the Swift Vets set the record straight as well as can now be done. The term deserves the positive connotation of "whistle-blowing." The book's very detailed account of the response to the Swift Vets from the mainstream media and other denizens of the Left is revealing, and this response is consistent with the thinking behind the current redefinition of swiftboating. The book provides unsurprising accounts of spiked and distorted news stories, the drumbeat of false accusations about links to Karl Rove and the White House, the attempted sabotage of fundraising efforts, and attempts to trash the website of the Swift Vets. The reader can re-live the experience of Lawrence O'Donnell's hilarious and embarrassing meltdown on MSNBC, where he displayed all the wit and depth of one singing the 1960s tune "Liar, Liar, You're Pants Are On Fire." Despite their short-term relevance to the 2008 presidential campaign, this current misuse and redefinition of swiftboating are far more than just semantic developments. Words and their meanings, like ideas, have consequences. Here, there is a very real and conscious strategy involved with the redefinition of this word. It entails the contempt for and the willful disregard of the convincing case made by the Swift Vets. It also entails the continuing support of the illusions of an entire movement. To make the definition of swiftboating synonymous with "smears," "lies," and "innuendo" is to declare John Kerry's innocence. Once declared, one may conclude that it is the service of the Swift Vets that is tarnished, and that there may be some truth to Kerry's claims of heroism and charges of genocide in Vietnam. After all, both Kerry and the Swift Vets cannot be telling the truth. Whether explicitly, or implicitly with this newly created derogatory connotation of swiftboating, to declare Kerry's innocence is to do again to the Swift Vets in 2008 what Kerry and cohorts did to them in 1971. Every time that a candidate today complains of being smeared by calling it swiftboating, he seeks the same exoneration or immunity that this redefined word gives to John Kerry, and, perversely, that candidate reinforces the false impression that the Swift Vets did something dishonorable in their campaign against John Kerry and in Vietnam years ago. This clever manipulation of the meaning of words and its exoneration of John Kerry has much broader implications. In the 1970s John Kerry led a high profile movement that not only defamed American servicemen as crazed killers, but Kerry and his real "band of brothers" also successfully pushed policies that had truly genocidal consequences in Southeast Asia. To exonerate John Kerry is to exonerate his movement and all who participated in it for their role in the genocide. It is to whitewash all of them from the consequences of their actions. So, down the memory hole is flushed another sad chapter authored by John Kerry and his ilk. John Kerry and the movement that he led have demanded and, for the most part, received a free pass for over a generation. They even had the effrontery to demand a memorial celebrating the "bravery" of their movement back here in the United States where they so heroically endured the hardships of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. In 2004 the Swift Vets made them pay a little for that otherwise free pass by setting a small part of the record straight. This is the meaning of swiftboating, and we should demand more of it. All we have to lose are the dishonest autobiographies from our self-serving political class. |
| preview.tinyurl.com/5y6ymd -> www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/redefining_swiftboating_and_re.html If the words "swift" and "boat" must be combined and turned into a verb, then let us insist on its proper use. The word as a verb originates from the campaign undertaken in 2004 by the Swift Boat Veterans in response to the John Kerry presidential candidacy. The word means, or should mean, the exposure of a fraudulent autobiography of one seeking political office or public influence. It is the correction of a personal and professional record that has been selectively and dishonestly compiled, as the Swift Vets did so effectively to that of John Kerry. Although swiftboating may be a neologism, there are other recent examples of this phenomenon. Justus Reid Werner, in a seminal Commentary article, exposed the fraudulent life story created by Edward Said to advance his political agenda. Dan Rather's macho claims to be an "ex-marine", when he did not finish marine basic training, were also revealed to be fraudulent. The Left is now redefining and, therefore, misusing the term swiftboating, and this misuse has become one of the many notable aspects of the 2008 presidential campaign. Democratic candidates and their partisans in the blogosphere use this word to mean smearing their candidates for public office with lies and innuendo. For some blog sites, the word is now synonymous with "screeds," the "politics of smear and fear," and "character assassination of proven effectiveness." Recently, some candidates have angrily declared that they will not be swiftboated. To Set the Record Straight, How Swift Boat Veterans, POWs, and the New Media Defeated John Kerry, by Scott Swett and Tim Ziegler. In 2004 John Kerry chose to make his service in Vietnam as a supposed war hero the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. In a scene now reminiscent of Groucho Marx's addresses to Fredonians in Duck Soup, who can forget John Kerry's infamous "reporting for duty" speech to the Democratic Convention in 2004? This strategy adopted by Kerry actually made sense when one examines his time-serving and singularly undistinguished career in the Senate. Here is a man who ran for President for no reason other than he could afford to. To Set the Record Straight chronicles the actions of the galvanized Swift Vets and their campaign to expose the fabrications of John Kerry. In far more detail than can be mustered in campaign television ads or press releases, this book documents Kerry's scant service record in Vietnam and his disgraceful behavior after he returned to the United States. We see a more thorough account of: * Kerry's dubious "wounds" and purple hearts, * his night under attack in Cambodia that could not have happened, * the "heroic" rescue on the Bay Hap River that had little in common with the account of Kerry's colleagues or the physical evidence, * Kerry's highly publicized and false claims of wide-spread genocide perpetrated by American soldiers in Vietnam, * the usefulness of his 1971 Senate testimony to the North Vietnamese as a device to demoralize American POWs. These accounts and the examination of the facts and circumstances compiled by the Swift Vets set the record straight as well as can now be done. The term deserves the positive connotation of "whistle-blowing." The book's very detailed account of the response to the Swift Vets from the mainstream media and other denizens of the Left is revealing, and this response is consistent with the thinking behind the current redefinition of swiftboating. The book provides unsurprising accounts of spiked and distorted news stories, the drumbeat of false accusations about links to Karl Rove and the White House, the attempted sabotage of fundraising efforts, and attempts to trash the website of the Swift Vets. The reader can re-live the experience of Lawrence O'Donnell's hilarious and embarrassing meltdown on MSNBC, where he displayed all the wit and depth of one singing the 1960s tune "Liar, Liar, You're Pants Are On Fire." Despite their short-term relevance to the 2008 presidential campaign, this current misuse and redefinition of swiftboating are far more than just semantic developments. Words and their meanings, like ideas, have consequences. Here, there is a very real and conscious strategy involved with the redefinition of this word. It entails the contempt for and the willful disregard of the convincing case made by the Swift Vets. It also entails the continuing support of the illusions of an entire movement. To make the definition of swiftboating synonymous with "smears," "lies," and "innuendo" is to declare John Kerry's innocence. Once declared, one may conclude that it is the service of the Swift Vets that is tarnished, and that there may be some truth to Kerry's claims of heroism and charges of genocide in Vietnam. After all, both Kerry and the Swift Vets cannot be telling the truth. Whether explicitly, or implicitly with this newly created derogatory connotation of swiftboating, to declare Kerry's innocence is to do again to the Swift Vets in 2008 what Kerry and cohorts did to them in 1971. Every time that a candidate today complains of being smeared by calling it swiftboating, he seeks the same exoneration or immunity that this redefined word gives to John Kerry, and, perversely, that candidate reinforces the false impression that the Swift Vets did something dishonorable in their campaign against John Kerry and in Vietnam years ago. This clever manipulation of the meaning of words and its exoneration of John Kerry has much broader implications. In the 1970s John Kerry led a high profile movement that not only defamed American servicemen as crazed killers, but Kerry and his real "band of brothers" also successfully pushed policies that had truly genocidal consequences in Southeast Asia. To exonerate John Kerry is to exonerate his movement and all who participated in it for their role in the genocide. It is to whitewash all of them from the consequences of their actions. So, down the memory hole is flushed another sad chapter authored by John Kerry and his ilk. John Kerry and the movement that he led have demanded and, for the most part, received a free pass for over a generation. They even had the effrontery to demand a memorial celebrating the "bravery" of their movement back here in the United States where they so heroically endured the hardships of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. In 2004 the Swift Vets made them pay a little for that otherwise free pass by setting a small part of the record straight. This is the meaning of swiftboating, and we should demand more of it. All we have to lose are the dishonest autobiographies from our self-serving political class. |
| www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/barack_obama_the_wisdom_of_for_1.html Lee Cary The simple yet profound wisdom of the movie character Forrest Gump -- "stupid is as stupid does" -- has entered the Democratic race for the nomination. This time, though, the lesson is: arrogance is as arrogance does. Sun, it's clear that Senator Obama delivered a common obscene gesture in Senator Clinton's direction as he spoke to a crowd of his loyal followers in North Carolina the day after the Philadelphia debate. He shot Hillary the bird, only slightly surreptitiously. Obama's explanation of how the debate questions represented "Washington" playing "gotcha politics" is telling by itself. Whining does not become anyone who aspires to be the President of the United States of America, as Obama likes to voice the complete title of the job he wants. And his assurances that he was unfazed by the perceived attacks he received from the ABC moderators resemble the braggadocio of the boxer who climbs up from the canvas on a nine count, nose bleeding with one eye swollen shut, saying "Hey, he never laid a glove on me." So what is this video all about, and what does it tell us about Barack Obama? Why in the world would a US Senator use an obscene gesture to send a marginally subtle message to his inter-party opponent in a nomination campaign? He will, if challenged on it, deliver an incredible denial alleging that such an interpretation is itself another effort of gotcha politics. Only children below middle school (hopefully) and the visually impaired can miss his intention. This is the act of one who would be President that displays a remarkable level of immaturity. As Forest Gump would say, "Arrogance is as arrogance does." This guy is not running for a seat on the City Council of a small town. In mine, and most small towns, giving the bird to an opponent would seal defeat in a close election. The obvious fact that his followers liked what he did, and that he enjoyed them liking it, should give us sober pause. Collectively, those in that audience also lack humility. It was an act of self-defeating stupidity for a politician at his level. If you're a Hillary Clinton supporter and you see this, what impact does it have on you? The best coached athletic teams will not run up the score on their opponents at the end of the game when they're ahead. Two reasons: they respect their opponent, and they know a humiliated opponent will be motivated to seek revenge. In a voting public evenly divided between the two major political parties, Obama as the nominee will need support from all of Hillary's backers. If you're one of them, will you forget the "finger" moment? His was the behavior of a divider, not the uniter he claims to be. Lastly, it was an act of someone who is being seduced by the adulation of those he has seduced. We care more about that, as Americans, than the inside-the-Beltway wonkishness of programs and policies that he says we want to hear about. The literate among us have gotten those points already, thank you. Besides, most of what candidates promise never see reality after they get elected anyway. After a point reached relatively soon, we're more interested in knowing the person than their platform. Obama has been lulled into a sense of invincibility by his cheering, fainting, fawning crowds. Until the CBS debate, that adulation was being propelled by the MSM But for some reason, Charlie and George decided to join Tim's brief moment in that shining light of the journalistic maturity he displayed in a previous debate, and they actually asked tough questions! This is the same man who wants to sit down with our adversaries and reason with them? Never ridicule your opponent -- not before, during or after the contest. Never assume the contest is over until there is absolutely no possible way for your opponent to take the lead in the remaining time. If you win, treat the defeated with utmost respect, regardless of how well they played the game. Perhaps this is old fashioned sportsmanship in the era of ball spikes and trash talk. But it did govern the way we dealt with the losers of World War II and it worked well in that venue. By his offensive behavior toward Hillary Clinton, Obama offended her followers. Obama easily walked into the US Senate after his opponent was sabotaged by sexually bizarre sealed court records of his dovorce being ropened at the behest of the Chicago Tribune. Obama's eleventh hour opponent, Alan Keyes, is an articulate and honorable man who never had a prayer of winning that election. Consequently, Obama is in the first real fist fight of his short political career and he's getting arrogant because he's running against the former First Lady of an impeached President. |
| preview.tinyurl.com/4dg393 -> www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/barack_obama_the_wisdom_of_for_1.html Lee Cary The simple yet profound wisdom of the movie character Forrest Gump -- "stupid is as stupid does" -- has entered the Democratic race for the nomination. This time, though, the lesson is: arrogance is as arrogance does. Sun, it's clear that Senator Obama delivered a common obscene gesture in Senator Clinton's direction as he spoke to a crowd of his loyal followers in North Carolina the day after the Philadelphia debate. He shot Hillary the bird, only slightly surreptitiously. Obama's explanation of how the debate questions represented "Washington" playing "gotcha politics" is telling by itself. Whining does not become anyone who aspires to be the President of the United States of America, as Obama likes to voice the complete title of the job he wants. And his assurances that he was unfazed by the perceived attacks he received from the ABC moderators resemble the braggadocio of the boxer who climbs up from the canvas on a nine count, nose bleeding with one eye swollen shut, saying "Hey, he never laid a glove on me." So what is this video all about, and what does it tell us about Barack Obama? Why in the world would a US Senator use an obscene gesture to send a marginally subtle message to his inter-party opponent in a nomination campaign? He will, if challenged on it, deliver an incredible denial alleging that such an interpretation is itself another effort of gotcha politics. Only children below middle school (hopefully) and the visually impaired can miss his intention. This is the act of one who would be President that displays a remarkable level of immaturity. As Forest Gump would say, "Arrogance is as arrogance does." This guy is not running for a seat on the City Council of a small town. In mine, and most small towns, giving the bird to an opponent would seal defeat in a close election. The obvious fact that his followers liked what he did, and that he enjoyed them liking it, should give us sober pause. Collectively, those in that audience also lack humility. It was an act of self-defeating stupidity for a politician at his level. If you're a Hillary Clinton supporter and you see this, what impact does it have on you? The best coached athletic teams will not run up the score on their opponents at the end of the game when they're ahead. Two reasons: they respect their opponent, and they know a humiliated opponent will be motivated to seek revenge. In a voting public evenly divided between the two major political parties, Obama as the nominee will need support from all of Hillary's backers. If you're one of them, will you forget the "finger" moment? His was the behavior of a divider, not the uniter he claims to be. Lastly, it was an act of someone who is being seduced by the adulation of those he has seduced. We care more about that, as Americans, than the inside-the-Beltway wonkishness of programs and policies that he says we want to hear about. The literate among us have gotten those points already, thank you. Besides, most of what candidates promise never see reality after they get elected anyway. After a point reached relatively soon, we're more interested in knowing the person than their platform. Obama has been lulled into a sense of invincibility by his cheering, fainting, fawning crowds. Until the CBS debate, that adulation was being propelled by the MSM But for some reason, Charlie and George decided to join Tim's brief moment in that shining light of the journalistic maturity he displayed in a previous debate, and they actually asked tough questions! This is the same man who wants to sit down with our adversaries and reason with them? Never ridicule your opponent -- not before, during or after the contest. Never assume the contest is over until there is absolutely no possible way for your opponent to take the lead in the remaining time. If you win, treat the defeated with utmost respect, regardless of how well they played the game. Perhaps this is old fashioned sportsmanship in the era of ball spikes and trash talk. But it did govern the way we dealt with the losers of World War II and it worked well in that venue. By his offensive behavior toward Hillary Clinton, Obama offended her followers. Obama easily walked into the US Senate after his opponent was sabotaged by sexually bizarre sealed court records of his dovorce being ropened at the behest of the Chicago Tribune. Obama's eleventh hour opponent, Alan Keyes, is an articulate and honorable man who never had a prayer of winning that election. Consequently, Obama is in the first real fist fight of his short political career and he's getting arrogant because he's running against the former First Lady of an impeached President. |
| www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/straight_talk_about_casual_sex.html Janice Shaw Crouse It's not news to anybody these days - not if they watch any television or glance at the covers of the magazines lining the checkout counters at the grocery stores - that we live in a sex-saturated society where supposedly the majority of young people are "doing it," more often than not without "benefit of marriage." The Playboy Philosophy and its derivatives are trumpeted by a thousand voices that glamorize casual sex, while most of the shrinking mainline churches present pitifully watered-down messages about morality that confuse rather than clarify. Academic institutions, particularly the women's studies programs, promote the idea that marriage is optional and young people are advised to "just do it!" The secular mantra, heard from middle school on up, is that sex will make you popular and happy; There is a mountain of media out there promoting a phony philosophy about the joys of casual, risky sexual experimentation; one need look no further than the junk advice featured in magazines like Cosmopolitan to see just how pernicious it is. Even the relationship advice columns in many daily newspapers spread the expectation of sexual activity even for the youngest of our teens. This assault will not be neutralized until a brigade of those who know better find their voices to convince today's Sex in the City generation of young women that only discipline and restraint - it is having an attitude that says, "I won't mess up my tomorrows by fooling around today" - will open the gateway to achieving their dreams and ambitions. The time for some straight talk about casual sex is long overdue. Every young person needs to know the following three truths: Truth #1: Casual sex impairs the ability to establish a lasting emotional bond. When natural human emotional responses are repeatedly denied, the person is hardened and the capacity to bond is weakened. Donald Joy published groundbreaking research in the early 80s and has updated it periodically in the intervening years. His research indicates that human beings respond to sexual intercourse by bonding, and they are driven to make that bond permanent and exclusive. Joy reported on the work of a researcher at a hospital clinic in Detroit who worked with 1,000 couples for 10 years studying their marital problems and recording their sexual histories. He concluded that sexual intercourse is constructive only within marriage. His evidence is overwhelming that one or the other of the partners in casual sex (usually the girl or woman) experiences immediate emotional pain even in the absence of acknowledged injury. The experience of casual sexual intimacy produces memories that can contaminate future relationships and create lingering problems later on, when the person eventually marries. When the married couples in his research had problems, he said, "The pain in the marriages was rooted in their promiscuity." Truth #2: Casual sex leaves young people alone and lonely. Counselors tell us that sexually active girls are three times more likely to be depressed than their abstinent peers. Among the boys, sexually active ones are depressed twice as often. Sexually active teens are more likely than their abstinent counterparts to attempt suicide (girls 15 percent to five percent and boys six percent to one percent). But the most telling fact is that the majority of teenagers, 72 percent of the girls and 55 percent of the boys, acknowledge regret over early sexual activity and wish that they had waited longer to have sex. So much for the cultural mantra that "sex is no big deal!" On another front, replacing marriage with casual sex is especially harmful to young women's long-term well-being. The marriage rate in the United States has dropped by nearly 50 percent since 1970. In 1940, less than eight percent of all households consisted of people living alone; The number of unmarried couples living together temporarily in the US is 10 times as large today as in 1970. Truth #3: The so-called "sexual revolution" has produced dramatic increases in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Sadly, 65 percent of STDs appear in young people under age 25, and fully 20 percent of all AIDS cases are among college-aged young people. In the US, over 15 million new cases of STDs appear annually, a number that is triple what it was six years ago. Having three or more sexual partners in a lifetime increases a woman's odds of cervical cancer by 15 times. The National Center for Health Statistics analyzed data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and found two startling facts. Among young women who used contraception at first intercourse, the probability of giving birth at each age is roughly half that of those who did not use contraception. Further, the probability of a sexually active female giving birth approximately doubles between 18-20 years of age whether the young woman uses contraception at first intercourse or not. A young person's choices about sex reveal his or her attitudes about others. Treating sex as something casual can never actually make it a casual matter. The Scriptures raise the age old question, "Can a man take fire to his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?" Sexual intimacy triggers the strongest and deepest, most exhilarating passions in life. Its purpose is to bond a man and a woman into "one flesh" in the deepest intimacy that human beings can share. Further, sex is designed to both create life and build a strong relationship to protect and provide for that life. Little wonder that the Creator fashioned the means of creating life in such a way that it is one of the most awesome forces in our lives and then linked it to marriage so as to signify to us, "Priceless. We cannot expect young people to act responsibly when adults - whose thinking is sometimes clouded by their rationalization of their own hurtful and toxic sexual experimentation - are irresponsible by not providing the best possible information to encourage self-discipline and self-control, which are the surest keys to young peoples' long-term well-being. |
| preview.tinyurl.com/42llww -> www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/straight_talk_about_casual_sex.html Janice Shaw Crouse It's not news to anybody these days - not if they watch any television or glance at the covers of the magazines lining the checkout counters at the grocery stores - that we live in a sex-saturated society where supposedly the majority of young people are "doing it," more often than not without "benefit of marriage." The Playboy Philosophy and its derivatives are trumpeted by a thousand voices that glamorize casual sex, while most of the shrinking mainline churches present pitifully watered-down messages about morality that confuse rather than clarify. Academic institutions, particularly the women's studies programs, promote the idea that marriage is optional and young people are advised to "just do it!" The secular mantra, heard from middle school on up, is that sex will make you popular and happy; There is a mountain of media out there promoting a phony philosophy about the joys of casual, risky sexual experimentation; one need look no further than the junk advice featured in magazines like Cosmopolitan to see just how pernicious it is. Even the relationship advice columns in many daily newspapers spread the expectation of sexual activity even for the youngest of our teens. This assault will not be neutralized until a brigade of those who know better find their voices to convince today's Sex in the City generation of young women that only discipline and restraint - it is having an attitude that says, "I won't mess up my tomorrows by fooling around today" - will open the gateway to achieving their dreams and ambitions. The time for some straight talk about casual sex is long overdue. Every young person needs to know the following three truths: Truth #1: Casual sex impairs the ability to establish a lasting emotional bond. When natural human emotional responses are repeatedly denied, the person is hardened and the capacity to bond is weakened. Donald Joy published groundbreaking research in the early 80s and has updated it periodically in the intervening years. His research indicates that human beings respond to sexual intercourse by bonding, and they are driven to make that bond permanent and exclusive. Joy reported on the work of a researcher at a hospital clinic in Detroit who worked with 1,000 couples for 10 years studying their marital problems and recording their sexual histories. He concluded that sexual intercourse is constructive only within marriage. His evidence is overwhelming that one or the other of the partners in casual sex (usually the girl or woman) experiences immediate emotional pain even in the absence of acknowledged injury. The experience of casual sexual intimacy produces memories that can contaminate future relationships and create lingering problems later on, when the person eventually marries. When the married couples in his research had problems, he said, "The pain in the marriages was rooted in their promiscuity." Truth #2: Casual sex leaves young people alone and lonely. Counselors tell us that sexually active girls are three times more likely to be depressed than their abstinent peers. Among the boys, sexually active ones are depressed twice as often. Sexually active teens are more likely than their abstinent counterparts to attempt suicide (girls 15 percent to five percent and boys six percent to one percent). But the most telling fact is that the majority of teenagers, 72 percent of the girls and 55 percent of the boys, acknowledge regret over early sexual activity and wish that they had waited longer to have sex. So much for the cultural mantra that "sex is no big deal!" On another front, replacing marriage with casual sex is especially harmful to young women's long-term well-being. The marriage rate in the United States has dropped by nearly 50 percent since 1970. In 1940, less than eight percent of all households consisted of people living alone; The number of unmarried couples living together temporarily in the US is 10 times as large today as in 1970. Truth #3: The so-called "sexual revolution" has produced dramatic increases in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Sadly, 65 percent of STDs appear in young people under age 25, and fully 20 percent of all AIDS cases are among college-aged young people. In the US, over 15 million new cases of STDs appear annually, a number that is triple what it was six years ago. Having three or more sexual partners in a lifetime increases a woman's odds of cervical cancer by 15 times. The National Center for Health Statistics analyzed data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and found two startling facts. Among young women who used contraception at first intercourse, the probability of giving birth at each age is roughly half that of those who did not use contraception. Further, the probability of a sexually active female giving birth approximately doubles between 18-20 years of age whether the young woman uses contraception at first intercourse or not. A young person's choices about sex reveal his or her attitudes about others. Treating sex as something casual can never actually make it a casual matter. The Scriptures raise the age old question, "Can a man take fire to his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?" Sexual intimacy triggers the strongest and deepest, most exhilarating passions in life. Its purpose is to bond a man and a woman into "one flesh" in the deepest intimacy that human beings can share. Further, sex is designed to both create life and build a strong relationship to protect and provide for that life. Little wonder that the Creator fashioned the means of creating life in such a way that it is one of the most awesome forces in our lives and then linked it to marriage so as to signify to us, "Priceless. We cannot expect young people to act responsibly when adults - whose thinking is sometimes clouded by their rationalization of their own hurtful and toxic sexual experimentation - are irresponsible by not providing the best possible information to encourage self-discipline and self-control, which are the surest keys to young peoples' long-term well-being. |
| www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/ben_steins_intelligent_adventu.html Kate Wright Ben Stein's new film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed, is a documentary that appears to be about Intelligent Design and the shortcomings of Darwinism. The film is not just an exploration of the limitations of The Origin of Species, but a journey to uncover the mindset that Darwinism engendered among those with an agenda to replace traditional understandings of God with pure materialism. But far from offering a weighty discourse on theories of monism, Stein delivers a pop culture MTV-style Road Film that has already reignited the Culture Wars, with a just-issued cease and desist letter from a group at Harvard. claims that a clip in the film plagiarizes an "Inner Life of the Cell" animation, and possible further legal action could disrupt the opening of the film on April 18. We enter Ben Stein's argument through images of the building of the Berlin Wall. Using inter-cuts, upbeat music, original text, and exciting graphics, Ben creates his own music video genre, as he visits professors who were "expelled" from universities and think tanks for merely mentioning the words "Intelligent Design" in their work. Then, unexpectedly, we find ourselves in Dachau Concentration Camp, but this is no ordinary detour. Suddenly, we realize that Ben is about to link Darwinism to Nazism, by way of exposing the mindset of that gave way to the Jewish Holocaust. What begs question of the ontological connection between Darwinism and Nazism, however, is the tour of the Nazi Hadamar Eugenics Labs. Watching a modern-day German woman guide Ben through the labs is, to put it mildly, revolting. Despite Ben's gentle prodding, she remains neutral throughout, unmoved, as she impassively informs Ben that 15,000 victims were exterminated in the gas ovens of the Eugenics labs during World War II. Then, despite her polite demeanor, she confirms what we fear most. She is unable to express any remorse whatsoever for the atrocities that happened; how Nazis, in pursuit of the master race, exterminated disabled, insane, feeble-minded, homosexual, and fragile human beings, alongside 6,000,000 Jews. By revealing this mindset for its arrogance and profound lack of shame, Ben succeeds in motivating a new generation of film-goers to "Never again!" At the same time, he pushes the "story" forward through the ideas behind the story. They reveal what the story is about through the ideas behind the story. In this film, the "spine" that reveals the "story" hinges on the conflict between materialism, as Darwinism, and consciousness, as Intelligent Design. Materialism is a philosophy that holds that the only thing that can be proven to exist is matter. In general terms, Darwinism relies on materialism, to the exclusion of dualism, pluralism, and idealism. Intelligent Design, by contrast, relies on consciousness in the realm of phenomenal reality, to explain that which cannot be explained by matter. In simple terms, Darwinism addresses the material changes that take place in cells in evolution, but never addresses the origin of life itself. In a world where materialism prevails, there is a permanent academic divide between Darwinism and Intelligent Design; and like two cultures separated by the Berlin Wall, never the twain shall meet. The reality that godless materialism gave way to Darwinism and, at the same time, became the basis (as historical materialism) for Nazism, may be too much 19^th Century German intellectual history (Kant, Kierkegaard, Feuerbach, Nietsche, Marx, Engels, and Hegel) for some viewers to appreciate within this 93-minute film. For others, this is why Ben's nexus creates a fascinating road-trip unlike any other. Free Speech Rather than detail the implications of Neo-Darwinism by tracing the history of dialectical materialism and historical materialism in the development of Nazism, Ben makes his satirical case by featuring the flappable faces of authoritarian academics who ferociously deny Ben's right of academic inquiry into the origin of life and the universe. In so doing, Ben succeeds in positioning this film, in the narrow context, as an argument against academic suppression, and in the larger context, as the "must see" pop culture argument for free speech. Via onscreen interviews with Neo-Darwinists such as Professor Richard ("The God Delusion") Dawkins, Ben typifies the pervasive practice of authoritarian attitudes in academic elites, particularly toward God-fearing people. This is a first-rate expose about the consequences of suppressing freedom of expression, based on the questionable assumption that atheistic secularism is the state religion of the United States of America. As history reveals, however, the proliferation of any fascist, authoritarian or totalitarian mindset wreaks grave consequences that are not limited to the atrocities that happened in Hitler's Germany. Stalinism, Maoism, and Communism plagued the 20^th Century with the world's most sinister dictators (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, to name a few) who delivered mass genocides totaling well over 130 million deaths. The Problem of God This film states that Neo-Darwinism is about world view, not scientific exploration. At its heart, however, the film also addresses the role of consciousness in human development; By depicting this dialectic through the prism of the Holocaust, the film succeeds in raising the most basic existential question we all face as human beings: The Problem of God. Post-secular world How do we approach the "problem" of God, in a post-secular world? Does the continuum of intellectual thought assist us in solving the "problem"? Or can we come to a greater understanding of the "problem" through the Natural Law of the universe? To explore this post-secular question in the historical context, Ben takes us to the Jefferson Memorial and the Washington Monument, to rediscover the true meaning of freedom. By reminding us that freedom exists as a gift from God, Ben brings to light that America defends the dignity and rights of all human beings, regardless of race or creed, by virtue of the fact that that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights." The Desire to be God Meanwhile, the viewer is tacitly making his or her private assessment of the two sets of onscreen proponents and their opposing world views: 1) those that ascribe to the atheistic (Darwinian) view that reflects itself in the extreme end of the materialist realm as the desire to be god, and 2) those that credit the theistic (Intelligent Design) view that reveals itself in the idealist realm, as the search for God. In a sublime moment at the film's climax, Ben presses Professor Richard Dawkins to explain the origins of life. but it is possible, and indeed likely, that intelligent life from outer space landed on earth, and that's how it all got going. Freedom of Moral Conscience (The Moral of the Story) Discerning right from wrong is different from knowing right from wrong. The German tour guide at Hadamar Eugenics Labs may have been able to discern right from wrong, but somehow, was not able to know right from wrong. This capacity for moral conscience, like academic and scientific inquiry, is fundamental to freedom of expression. Despite all the failed ideas and experiments along the continuum of intellectual history, we still yearn for poetic ideals and, as a civilization, recognize the need for an international ethos that links us to the past and guides us into the future. As such, the continuum of history inspires us to return to, and America relies on, our foundational roots: the universal moral truths handed down by the Jews, to all human beings in the form of moral conscience, through Christian Enlightenment. As images of the Berlin Wall being torn down fill the screen, we are left with the idea that freedom of thought is fundamental to the scientific process, as well as to the search for God and the development of a moral conscience. Above all, we appreciate that America (where 82% believe in God) is the hope for mankind. And this movie, thanks to freedom of expression, is for grown-ups, regardless of age. |
| preview.tinyurl.com/6q6zx8 -> www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/ben_steins_intelligent_adventu.html Kate Wright Ben Stein's new film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed, is a documentary that appears to be about Intelligent Design and the shortcomings of Darwinism. The film is not just an exploration of the limitations of The Origin of Species, but a journey to uncover the mindset that Darwinism engendered among those with an agenda to replace traditional understandings of God with pure materialism. But far from offering a weighty discourse on theories of monism, Stein delivers a pop culture MTV-style Road Film that has already reignited the Culture Wars, with a just-issued cease and desist letter from a group at Harvard. claims that a clip in the film plagiarizes an "Inner Life of the Cell" animation, and possible further legal action could disrupt the opening of the film on April 18. We enter Ben Stein's argument through images of the building of the Berlin Wall. Using inter-cuts, upbeat music, original text, and exciting graphics, Ben creates his own music video genre, as he visits professors who were "expelled" from universities and think tanks for merely mentioning the words "Intelligent Design" in their work. Then, unexpectedly, we find ourselves in Dachau Concentration Camp, but this is no ordinary detour. Suddenly, we realize that Ben is about to link Darwinism to Nazism, by way of exposing the mindset of that gave way to the Jewish Holocaust. What begs question of the ontological connection between Darwinism and Nazism, however, is the tour of the Nazi Hadamar Eugenics Labs. Watching a modern-day German woman guide Ben through the labs is, to put it mildly, revolting. Despite Ben's gentle prodding, she remains neutral throughout, unmoved, as she impassively informs Ben that 15,000 victims were exterminated in the gas ovens of the Eugenics labs during World War II. Then, despite her polite demeanor, she confirms what we fear most. She is unable to express any remorse whatsoever for the atrocities that happened; how Nazis, in pursuit of the master race, exterminated disabled, insane, feeble-minded, homosexual, and fragile human beings, alongside 6,000,000 Jews. By revealing this mindset for its arrogance and profound lack of shame, Ben succeeds in motivating a new generation of film-goers to "Never again!" At the same time, he pushes the "story" forward through the ideas behind the story. They reveal what the story is about through the ideas behind the story. In this film, the "spine" that reveals the "story" hinges on the conflict between materialism, as Darwinism, and consciousness, as Intelligent Design. Materialism is a philosophy that holds that the only thing that can be proven to exist is matter. In general terms, Darwinism relies on materialism, to the exclusion of dualism, pluralism, and idealism. Intelligent Design, by contrast, relies on consciousness in the realm of phenomenal reality, to explain that which cannot be explained by matter. In simple terms, Darwinism addresses the material changes that take place in cells in evolution, but never addresses the origin of life itself. In a world where materialism prevails, there is a permanent academic divide between Darwinism and Intelligent Design; and like two cultures separated by the Berlin Wall, never the twain shall meet. The reality that godless materialism gave way to Darwinism and, at the same time, became the basis (as historical materialism) for Nazism, may be too much 19^th Century German intellectual history (Kant, Kierkegaard, Feuerbach, Nietsche, Marx, Engels, and Hegel) for some viewers to appreciate within this 93-minute film. For others, this is why Ben's nexus creates a fascinating road-trip unlike any other. Free Speech Rather than detail the implications of Neo-Darwinism by tracing the history of dialectical materialism and historical materialism in the development of Nazism, Ben makes his satirical case by featuring the flappable faces of authoritarian academics who ferociously deny Ben's right of academic inquiry into the origin of life and the universe. In so doing, Ben succeeds in positioning this film, in the narrow context, as an argument against academic suppression, and in the larger context, as the "must see" pop culture argument for free speech. Via onscreen interviews with Neo-Darwinists such as Professor Richard ("The God Delusion") Dawkins, Ben typifies the pervasive practice of authoritarian attitudes in academic elites, particularly toward God-fearing people. This is a first-rate expose about the consequences of suppressing freedom of expression, based on the questionable assumption that atheistic secularism is the state religion of the United States of America. As history reveals, however, the proliferation of any fascist, authoritarian or totalitarian mindset wreaks grave consequences that are not limited to the atrocities that happened in Hitler's Germany. Stalinism, Maoism, and Communism plagued the 20^th Century with the world's most sinister dictators (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, to name a few) who delivered mass genocides totaling well over 130 million deaths. The Problem of God This film states that Neo-Darwinism is about world view, not scientific exploration. At its heart, however, the film also addresses the role of consciousness in human development; By depicting this dialectic through the prism of the Holocaust, the film succeeds in raising the most basic existential question we all face as human beings: The Problem of God. Post-secular world How do we approach the "problem" of God, in a post-secular world? Does the continuum of intellectual thought assist us in solving the "problem"? Or can we come to a greater understanding of the "problem" through the Natural Law of the universe? To explore this post-secular question in the historical context, Ben takes us to the Jefferson Memorial and the Washington Monument, to rediscover the true meaning of freedom. By reminding us that freedom exists as a gift from God, Ben brings to light that America defends the dignity and rights of all human beings, regardless of race or creed, by virtue of the fact that that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights." The Desire to be God Meanwhile, the viewer is tacitly making his or her private assessment of the two sets of onscreen proponents and their opposing world views: 1) those that ascribe to the atheistic (Darwinian) view that reflects itself in the extreme end of the materialist realm as the desire to be god, and 2) those that credit the theistic (Intelligent Design) view that reveals itself in the idealist realm, as the search for God. In a sublime moment at the film's climax, Ben presses Professor Richard Dawkins to explain the origins of life. but it is possible, and indeed likely, that intelligent life from outer space landed on earth, and that's how it all got going. Freedom of Moral Conscience (The Moral of the Story) Discerning right from wrong is different from knowing right from wrong. The German tour guide at Hadamar Eugenics Labs may have been able to discern right from wrong, but somehow, was not able to know right from wrong. This capacity for moral conscience, like academic and scientific inquiry, is fundamental to freedom of expression. Despite all the failed ideas and experiments along the continuum of intellectual history, we still yearn for poetic ideals and, as a civilization, recognize the need for an international ethos that links us to the past and guides us into the future. As such, the continuum of history inspires us to return to, and America relies on, our foundational roots: the universal moral truths handed down by the Jews, to all human beings in the form of moral conscience, through Christian Enlightenment. As images of the Berlin Wall being torn down fill the screen, we are left with the idea that freedom of thought is fundamental to the scientific process, as well as to the search for God and the development of a moral conscience. Above all, we appreciate that America (where 82% believe in God) is the hope for mankind. And this movie, thanks to freedom of expression, is for grown-ups, regardless of age. |
| www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_obama_aesthetic.html Thomas Lifson Barack Obama's campaign has been all about image. The well-dressed, impeccably groomed, and elegantly articulate speaker was able to speak of hope, change, and unity, and for awhile the public bought it. Capitalizing on the huge store of guilt, compassion, and hope for better racial relations among the vast majority of Americans of all races, Obama posed as the man who might heal the wounds of the past. The bonhomie lasted for months, as the press corps, no strangers to t Obama's halo heir own guilt and hope and leftist inclinations, averted its eyes from those elements of his politics and life story that were discordant with a unifier's mission, and portayed him as almost supernaturally virtuous. Obama long ago learned how to disarm strangers who might find him an unusual or perhaps threatening figure, and as long as the scrutiny didn't get too detailed, the game worked splendidly. But that was before Hillary Clinton's campaign took him seriously. Before the Clinton war room wizards, past masters of planting stories and themes in friendly media hands, got to work on him. But until very recently, the major media were content to allow his chosen narrative of centrism and unity to prevail. No messy qualms about actual policies disturbed the aesthetic of hope and optimism and unity. mock it savagely, and receive kudos for puncturing the bubble. With the impetus of scornful laughter haunting them, mainstream journalists began to pay more attention to Obama's dubious associations. Video of Pastor Wright hit ABC, and from there the rest of the mainstream media began to pay attention to discordant notes in his rhetoric of reassurance to middle Amercia. The ABC News-sponsored debate Wednesday night featured unprecedentedly tough questioning (at least for a liberal) by George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson. Obama stumbled in his responses, comparing admitted terror bomber Bill Ayers to United States Senator Tom Coburn, a physician who has delivered thousands of babies. retreated to the realm of class warfare, insisting that regardless of the consequences, he wants to punish the owners of capital in the name of "fairness." Welcome the new aesthetic of Barack Obama, the left wing ideologue. The signs have long been there, for those with the eyes to see them. Obama HQ Che poster It is no accident that Obama has become the candidate of the Democrats' left wing fringe, typified by the Daily Kos crowd, despite his continuing efforts to sound a centrist note. working with a poster of Che Guevara looking over their shoulders have been attracted to Obama because they read the little signals belying his centrist pose. Of course, it may be unfair to hold a candidate responsible for all the actions of any of his supporters, but when a campaign itself indulges in the aesthetic of leftism, it may actually mean something. "Progressive" is, of course, the favorite euphemism for the hard left today. Take a close look at the Obama campaign emblem placed on the "progress" poster. It is placed almost as if it were a medal worn on his lapel. And in place of the ordinary Obama campaign "O" seen on the "Change" poster, the "Progress" poster features a five pointed star in the middle. leftist recycling Image by Daniel Montrose Barack Obama has been able to preach racial harmony while attending and donating to Rev. He has been able to masquerade as a centrist while hobnobbing with the radical chic activists and unrepentant terrorists of Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He has been able to pose as a centrist while believing in the necessity of punishing owners of capital. But with Hillary Clinton and her minions aggressively pursuing him, and an awakened press chagrinned at giving him a pass for so long, those days may be numbered. Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of American Thinker. |