04/19/2006: Next to this piece of work, Robert Tilton looks like Charles Spurgeon.
Day: April 19, 2006
2nd Graders Hear Account of Gay Wedding from Teacher
04/19/2006: After this, is anyone still convinced that government education is not about indoctrination?
It is antics like this that actually keep the Republican party afloat. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, and marriage was at least a states-rights matter, the DNC would hold 80% of all Congressional (and Senate) seats.
Instead, every time a Democrat utters the words “family values”, they mean gay marriage, taxpayer-funded abortion, taxpayer-funded daycare and health care, gay adoption, handing out condoms to first-graders, and reading about gay marriage to 2nd graders.
If not for that fact, the GOP wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning an election.
Rules of Flying
04/19/2006: This from http://www.strategypage.com/humor/articles/20010406.asp
Rules of the Air
1. Every takeoff is optional. Every landing is mandatory.
2. If you push the stick forward, the houses get bigger. If you pull the stick back, they get smaller. That is, unless you keep pulling the stick all the way back, then they get bigger again.
3. Flying isn’t dangerous. Crashing is what’s dangerous.
4. It’s always better to be down here wishing you were up there than up there wishing you were down here.
5. The ONLY time you have too much fuel is when you’re on fire.
6. The propeller is just a big fan in front of the plane used to keep the pilot cool. When it stops, you can actually watch the pilot start sweating.
7. When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No one has ever collided with the sky.
8. A ‘good’ landing is one from which you can walk away. A ‘great’ landing is one after which they can use the plane again.
9. Learn from the mistakes of others. You won’t live long enough to make all of them yourself.
10. You know you’ve landed with the wheels up if it takes full power to taxi to the ramp.
11. The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival. Large angle of arrival, small probability of survival and vice versa.
12. Never let an aircraft take you somewhere your brain didn’t get to five minutes earlier.
13. Stay out of clouds. The silver lining everyone keeps talking about might be another airplane going in the opposite direction. Reliable sources also report that mountains have been known to hide out in clouds.
14. Always try to keep the number of landings you make equal to the number of take offs you’ve made.
15. There are three simple rules for making a smooth landing. Unfortunately no one knows what they are.
16. You start with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.
17. Helicopters can’t fly; they’re just so ugly the earth repels them.
18. If all you can see out of the window is ground that’s going round and round and all you can hear is commotion coming from the passenger compartment, things are not at all as they should be.
19. In the ongoing battle between objects made of aluminum going hundreds of miles per hour and the ground going zero miles per hour, the ground has yet to lose.
20. Good judgment comes from experience. Unfortunately, the experience usually comes from bad judgment.
21. It’s always a good idea to keep the pointy end going forward as much as possible.
22. Keep looking around. There’s always something you’ve missed.
23. Remember, gravity is not just a good idea. It’s the law. And it’s not subject to repeal.
24. The three most useless things to a pilot are the altitude above you, runway behind you, and a tenth of a second ago.
Special Forces Humor
04/19/2006: This from http://www.strategypage.com/humor/articles/20011128.asp
Special Forces Challenge
A large group of Taliban soldiers are moving down a road when they hear a voice call from behind a sand dune. “One U S Special Forces soldier is better than ten Taliban.”
The Taliban commander quickly sends 10 of his best soldiers over the dune whereupon a gun battle breaks and continues for a few minutes, then silence.
The voice then calls out “One U S Special Forces soldier is better than one hundred Taliban.”
Furious, the Taliban commander sends his next best 100 troops over the dune and instantly a huge gunfight commences. After 10 minutes of battle, again silence.
The American voice calls out again “One U S Special Forces soldier is better than one thousand Taliban.”
The enraged Taliban Commander musters one thousand fighters and sends them across the dune. Cannons, rockets and machineguns ring out as a huge battle is fought. Then silence.
Eventually one wounded Taliban fighter crawls back over the dune and with his dying words tells his commander, “Don’t send any more men, it’s a trap. There’s actually two of them.”
Stossel on the Cost of Government
04/19/2006: If I were President, John Stossel would be my Office of Management and Budget Director. Here is why.
Expulsion of Gay Student Causing Uproar; UC at impasse over State Funding
04/19/2006: By expelling Jason Johnson, an otherwise exemplary student who admitted his homosexuality over the Internet, The University of the Cumberlands (UC) has stepped into a minefield.
On one hand, they are under significant fire for alleged “discriminatory” practices. As emotionally-charged as that sounds, the argument is a non-sequitur. As a religious, private institution, UC has every right to enforce morality as they see it.
While I am not happy that Johnson was kicked out of school, he knew the rules going in, and that’s the price you pay. The same should hold true for other forms of immorality that would also be at variance with UC’s moral rules.
On the other hand, UC is receiving money from the taxpayers of Kentucky. Aside from the fact that this is clearly unconstitutional–there is explicit language in the Kentucky Constitution prohibiting such funding of religious schools–UC, as a recipient of taxpayer money, is subject to state non-discrimination laws.
It all comes down to this: if UC wants to retain the right to enforce morality on its terms, it must stop taking state money.
Given that the 2007-2008 budget is now on Gov. Ernie Fletcher’s desk, it is now his duty to line-item veto that $11 million of funding.
If I’m the UC president, it’s a lose-lose situation. Of course, I cannot compromise with respect to the moral code. On the other hand, I cannot help but question why expulsion is always the disciplinary path of choice. I also cannot help but wonder aloud regarding the extent this is enforced with respect to heterosexual immorality. I’m having a hard time accepting the premise that this is enforced consistently, even though immorality of the heterosexual variety is far more prevalent than the homosexual variety.
If I’m the UC President, I also know that–legally and morally–the right thing to do is decline state funding. However, $11 million is a lot of money. I have faculty and staff to pay, and buildings to maintain. That loss will force me to lay off faculty and staff, cut scholarships, and raise tuition.
Ultimately, religious institutions are going to need to face the music: accepting government monies subjects you to government rules. At this rate, it’s not a far cry from being a government funded religious institution (as we have today) versus being a “state church” as they have in China.
While both sides of the “separation of church and state” argument often carp over the extent to which the Church may influence public policy, the concept of such separation protects the church from government interference.
Fact is, the Church has always influenced public policy. While this has–at times–been a negative thing, overall that has served America well. After all, the abolition of slavery–and the modern Civil Rights movement–were very Christian in their origin. However, there is a fine line between influencing public policy and dictating it. Separation of Church and State forbids the latter.
On the same token, that very Separation doctrine protects the Church from government intrusion. That becomes less likely, however, as the Church insists on receiving government money.
Williams on Modern-Day American Slavery
San Francisco Quake: 100 Years Later
04/19/2006: The Newsweek article about the centennial anniversary of the San Francisco quake provides contrasts, lessons, and dire predictions.
While the article is insightful, I find myself alarmed at the lack of concern among the San Franciscans regarding the probability of future quakes.
That 1906 quake was a 7.8 on the Richter Scale, which puts it at an order of magnitude worse than the World Series quake of 1989 (which was a 7.1). An 8.0 quake is not out of the realm of possibilities, as seven different faults converge on the San Francisco area.
There are two places on this rock called earth in which I absolutely refuse to live:
(1) San Francisco
(2) New Orleans.
I don’t care how good the jobs are out there. I don’t care how much money there is to be made out there. I don’t care how good the real estate prices in New Orleans may be.
I’d live in downtown Baghdad–wearing an “Islam Sucks” t-shirt–before I live in San Francisco.
Back to my main argument: San Francisco is not prepared for a major earthquake. While it is true that engineers in California have taken greater care in designing buildings with respect to earthquakes, I doubt many engineers would stake their licenses that their designs will withstand an 8.0 quake.
I remember the Japanese commentary after the 1989 quake: they insisted that such damage could not happen in Japan because of their superior engineering. Then, in 1995, those Japanese engineers had to eat more than their words in the aftermath of the Kobe quake.
I have no doubt about the high competence of Japanese engineering–last time I checked, Toyota and Honda were kicking the crap out of GM and Ford–but anyone who bets his or her work against nature is quite arrogant.
Even worse, anyone who knowingly lives amongst such risks–and does not prepare for their eventuality–is just plain nuts.
Malkin on Moussaoui, Hamas
04/19/2006: Michelle Malkin delivers a mental assessment on that poor Zacarias Moussaoui–who, if it weren’t for his father, would not have morphed into an Islammunist piece of excrement. I get it now: we just need to understand him better, and help him with his self-esteem.
Perhaps that explains why his brother and sister are productive, law-abiding citizens who hardly aspire to fly jets into American buildings.
I’d say we need to make him–and his Islammunist friends–understand US a little better.
Quote of the Day
04/19/2006: From Burt Prelutsky:
The way I see it, if somebody tells you he’s Napoleon Bonaparte, clearly he’s insane. However, if you insist in arguing with him, it only goes to prove that you’re crazy, too.