Previous 11 - 20 Next
Exactly right, Matt. A violent minority is torturing and murdering innocent people ex utero, while most of the "civilized" world is do so (mostly) in utero. As we approach March 4, 2015: The 150th anniversary of Lincoln's second inaugural address, a slight updating of the language conveys the timeless meaning of those prophetic words: "...until every drop of blood drawn with the suction curette shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." God, help us!
What ever happened to saving sex for marriage? That's what all this legalese contractualization of sexual activity is evolving toward anyway, isn't it? (How about a law that dictates that you can only have sex if you swear to lifetime fidelity in front of a judge or clergyman and ofher witnesses?. Imagine!) But it is very hard to enforce on your kids immersed in the hypersexualized environment of college. Better to keep them living at home and attending a public college nearby, saving you a whole lot of money and probably your kids, too.
In response to:

Republicans and the Language of the Left

jb168 Wrote: Oct 25, 2014 8:46 AM
While we're at it, let's also acknowledge that there is no such thing as a homosexual (Human beings are all heterosexual). And if you think you have trouble wrapping your mind around that, you are either a woman or you think like one: Women wrap their minds around concepts, men penetrate them. So, women: can you wrap your minds around that? And men, do you find that impenetrable?
I'm a biology professor at a public university (almost 30 years now), and having touched on the subject of "homosexuality" (There is no such thing in our species; only pseudohomosexuality, worms are bisexual--i.e., hermophroditic--and bread molds and paramecia are homosexual--i.e., isogamous--but neither two men nor two women can have sexual intercourse with each other.), a gay male student was upset about the marriage issue, and why the state should favor traditional marriage. I pointed out that the lifetime of a nation was far longer that a single human lifetime*, and one of the responsibilities of government is to help enable future generations of citizens. Therefore, the institution that actually best produces native citizens--marriage--is rightly the beneficiary of special protections. His response: "That seems fair". There is still room for honest dialog in my classroom. *Lest the nation ignore natural laws, in which case it may not last any longer than a single human lifetime, e.g., the Soviet Union.
In response to:

Our Judicial Dictatorship

jb168 Wrote: Oct 10, 2014 9:18 PM
All true, but you are too kind to GOP Presidents. When the Terri Schiavo case came to W's desk in 2005, he punted to Congress, just as his brother, Jeb, declined to rescue the incapacitated--but still very much alive--Mrs. Schiavo. Why? Because Jeb's chief counsel--Raquel Rodriguez--and W's chief counsel--Alfonso Gonzalez--said the executive did not have the legal power to defy the two-bit county judge's order. Why not? Because lawyers act totally under the authority of judges. So naturally, that's what they advise the chief executives they serve. But the (not so bright, really) Bush brothers just mindlessley went along with the advice of counsel, thus surrendering the authority of the executive branch to the judicial branch, with nary a peep of protest. Alas, even when we can elect GOP presidents, they seem to be not quite intellectually up to the job.
In response to:

Let's Repeal Reality

jb168 Wrote: Oct 10, 2014 9:03 PM
Hey Mona, check this one out: I'm a biology professor and here is what one major text (Campbell) has been saying for many years: (paraphrasing perhaps a bit, as I'm counting on my memory): "Carbon is uniquely suited to be the key element for life because of its ability to bond with multiple partners." (Good grief:-0)
PS my earlier comment: For example, 9/11/01 was a very big deal for the US, of course. But let it be noted that on that very day, the majority of innocent people brutally murdered in the USA had not yet even been born.
The situation is simpler than we imagine: As I see it, there are two major forces at play which are destroying civilization, for both believe in, and engage in, the mass slaughter of innocents. One side slaughters them by the millions (about a thousand per HOUR, worldwide, by my estimation) before birth, and the other side slaughters them some years or decades after birth. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult for those of us who correctly perceive both sides to be evil to have somewhere to go on this earth (the earth not being fragile, by the way, but civilization sure is).
No doubt the Observer editorial was cobbled together as a bundle of sticks.
In response to:

A Hidden Threat

jb168 Wrote: Oct 03, 2014 12:44 PM
This is all part of the pattern of "ending" wars without winning them, started by Harry Truman. After following through and winning WWII, Truman fired Gen. Macarthur for his wanting to win the Korean War with nukes. And Eisenhower went along with it, and did not order the US military to win the war. So now, over 60 years later, we are still officially at a state of war with N. Korea, and they may well get to use nukes on us first.
A brilliant piece, as usual. But I have one small--though fundamental--correction: You say: "Homosexual conduct is always sin." I would say homosexual conduct is always impossible. What we call "homosexuality" is really properly called "pseudohomosexuality", since sexual intercourse can actually only be between a male and a female. Once we call something by its right name, its untruth is immediately clear. I believe that our society really started down this particular sinful road the day the word "homosexuality" was coined, and allowed to stand.
Previous 11 - 20 Next