THE O.J. SIMPSON JURY

I refer to the first one, not the two that found honestly and correctly.

If you recall, that infamous dozen concluded essentially, “Since the DNA evidence proves the murderer’s guilt, we’ll just ignore that.”

I seriously doubt that all the evidence against B.O. has surfaced, and the news media that are so in love with him do their best to bury or conceal the many incriminating findings. However, there is more than enough proof for a conviction.

Among segments of the electorate, though, there is indication of the O. J. Simpson jury’s neglect for truth. Hopefully, enough sensible voting booth jurors will rally to send him back to the Senate – better farther away and lower.

Y.C.

BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE, THINK! READ!

BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE, THINK! READ!

Those of you that believe what you see in the New York Times – to cite a single example of the lying, distorting, concealing, lunatic liberal press – ought to glance at page 26 of the November 3, 2008 National Review.

According to B.O. and his news toadies, he MAY have bumped into Bomber Bill Ayers a time or two, way back when, but the truth of their relationship is far different. For one example, B.O. chaired the board of Ayers’ 6-year, $160M “education reform” package, which sent millions of $ to leftist projects.

Still proud of his terrorist exploits, Ayers is no less a revolutionary than when he was exploding bombs. He’s a regular Che Guevara of education, folks, and as recently as 2006 was down in Venezuela absorbing the admiration and approbation of Chavez and the Commies for equating education to revolution.

I’ve suggested before that you investigate how many of Ayers’ ideological descendants and clones are operating in your schools. Now, I’ll recommend, PLEASE, that you defeat the presidential ambitions of another of them.

Read that piece! Think! Discover the true colors of the person-of-color candidate. Whatever your eyesight, they are NOT RED, WHITE, and BLUE.

Whatever you do, don’t vote for a crew whose mantra is the destructive radicalization of our fine country.

ABSENTEE MAKES THE HEART GROW NERVOUS

I’m seriously concerned about absentee ballots; i.e., about the security thereof. In the packet sent me were an instruction sheet, two envelopes, and the ballot itself. The procedure was to mark the ballot, seal it inside the smaller, security envelope – it was called – and then seal that inside the mailing envelope. On the back of this last was a printed label with my name and a space for my signature, which was required.

Experience has taught me to mistrust the Postal Service on most points, so I didn’t mail it. Between sender and recipient various people handle a letter, and what if one of them should recognize my name and, having voting sentiments opposite mine, throw it away? What’s to prevent that? Similarly, what if an unscrupulous person, not acquainted with me, in the chain knows that people in my area generally favor Party A and is, himself, an adherent to Party B? What’s to hinder his disposal of my ballot?

When I delivered my letter in person at the place designated I asked the clerk just what becomes of it from that point forward. She said the office verifies the signatures, accumulates envelopes in a larger envelope, and delivers that to the vote-counters. With that she placed mine on a desk and walked away.

This is vote security? Of course, to the extent of their ability to catch forgeries, they can stop someone else’s using my ballot, but, again, what happens to it before transfer to the counting house? Couldn’t she, as soon as I walked out, have flushed mine down a toilet? In that office, anyone that wants to eliminate my vote and has an opportunity, which did not appear to be lacking, can do it. The moment I handed her that envelope she should have recorded in a log of some sort that Yves Chauvire’s ballot arrived. Then, when the absentee ballots are tallied, if mine is not among them, alarms should sound.

In this country there is no shortage of people that will attempt to cheat in every situation. We need better voting security systems, and they would be simple to design and implement. Often we hear about “one man, one vote;” it looked to me as if I could prove to be “one man, no vote.”

REFERENCE

It isn't my aim to act as a distribution center for other people's work and ideas, but I believe the article identified below addresses a number of issues that I've broached previously.

By the way, my surname is pronounced "show vee RAY." The final "e" has a little mark over it, but that's not available on this keyboard. It's French and approximately Chauvire', you know.


http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

WHERE DID THEY ALL GO?

When I first learned that B..O.’s friend, B.A., Bill “the Bomber” Ayers, was on the faculty at the University of Illinois – Chicago, I was amazed that it had taken B.O.’s candidacy to popularize the fact and that our objective and industrious press had failed to broadcast it long before. Immediately, then, I began wondering what had become of all Bill’s COMRADES in arms, the flag- and building-burners, bomb manufacturers, saboteur wanna-be’s, filthy speech revolutionaries, campus rioters, junkies, and other vermin of his time. If Bill had bubbled up into the frothy cream of education (OK, U of I – C is not stellar, it’s even a long mark from the best in that city, but it’s academically reputable), what about the rest of the infestation?

Do you suppose any of yourselves, your children, your grandchildren were or are being instructed by that dreadful crew? What kinds of gems do you suppose Bill the Bomber has passed along to his students?

This is not to advocate your charging out to demand background checks for all the teachers of you and yours – though it would probably be a good idea. No, for those of you with descendants still in school, I recommend your monitoring closely just what they’re being taught. Hopefully, you already do that. Don’t take for granted that because government has its thumb in that pie, too, everything is A-OK. Discuss the material with the students and find out just what is being inculcated upon them, and I don’t restrict that to the textbooks’ being used. Further, you should discover where the teachers were students and in what their degrees are. You check into your physicians’, attorneys’, and dentists’ credentials, don’t you? Are your descendants’ educations of lesser importance?

Not all the crazies of Bill’s days are still street people. Where did they all go?

Hmm. Now I’m wondering just how many drifted into news reportage.

Y.C.

SEMI-COLIN

SEMI-COLIN

From the visible aspects of his military career I thought Colin Powell intelligent and capable. The same seemed to be true of him as Secretary of State, though not since Richard Nixon has a president given one of those much to do. Therefore, it’s not obvious if Powell was good at that job, but he looked respectably in the position.

Therefore, what’s happened to him? Like most statements in support of B.O., his are nonsense remarks, worth less than the sums of the individual words.

First, he likes B.O., because he’s a “transformational figure.” Hmm. I guess that’s what Hitler, Stalin, Ho, Chou, Pot, Khomeini, and Mao were; they managed to TRANSFORM reasonably good countries into epitomes of hell. Talk about CHANGE, folks! Now, those fellows were among the greatest agents of change the world has ever seen, and every bit of it was not just bad, it was horrific. Is that what Powell admires; the potential for disaster?

Secondly, he claims not to approve the directions in which the GOP is moving. This is equally absurd. By all indications it is moving towards doing constructive things for the economy; protecting the LIVES (yes, they’re alive, and SCIENCE proves it) of the unborn; trying to guard us and others from terrorists; advocating traditional – and correct – concepts of family and marriage; maintaining a strong defense, adhering to the Bill of Rights … What’s there to disapprove? I admit these are not the directions endorsed at Hollywood and Vine, Berkeley, Columbia U. or by Ayers, Farrakhan, Wright, and similar patriots, such as the heads of state of Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.

It’s eye-opening and HIGHLY disappointing to see that Powell has sunk into that muck, which explains the title of this piece.

Has he, though? The day after his proclamation he was vaulted into the provisional, revolutionary government by B.O. himself. Was it, then, that Powell was merely panhandling for a job?

Another possibility, and there are other signals of it, is that the election is being transformed into a matter of race!

Q: Who’s doing that?
A: The Democrats

Q: What’s that called?
A: Racism

Conclusion: However you cut it, Colin Powell’s endorsement isn’t worth a farthing.

Recommendation: Vote AGAINST racists and FOR decent, healthy directions; i.e., FOR Sarah Palin and John McCain. THEY ARE DECENT PEOPLE.

THE BILL OF WHAT?

In truth, it’s not pertinent to ask what’s become of the First Amendment. That’s addressed to government’s law-making, whereas the assaults on it are consequences of a guerilla war of government coercion and of private intimidation.

Examples are so rife it’s nearly impossible to know what was the latest affront, but a very recent one was a sports announcer’s apologizing for a reference to Adolph Hitler in relation to comments regarding leadership.

Who knows all the background details? Perhaps it was merely stupidity that caused the man to believe he should grovel or perhaps he’s just so shell-shocked from reading of similar circumstances that he figured he’d be taken to task for the remark. That is, maybe no one leaned, mobster style, on him, though it has that stench.

In recent history there was a remarkable figure named Adolph Hitler, and if anyone has an inkling of doubt about his leadership abilities, look at the films of hundreds of thousands of screaming devotees just dying, and quite prepared literally to die, to do anything he asked. Compare what he asked to what they did. Was that not leadership? Tragically, catastrophically, he used his power to lead them in vile directions.

Where’s the harm in stating historical facts? Are we into Newspeak? Jewspeak? This probably was not a case of the latter, because Jews are always talking, even in jocose contexts such as The Producers, about Hitler. Is it that non-Jews are not supposed to mention him or was it mention of him in association with a quality generally admired that was wicked? Nothing is too far-fetched to be plausible these days, so perhaps it was because the commentator has a German name.

Whatever it is/was I wish everyone would go read the First Amendment, ignore all the word-burning fanatics that spurn what it says, and also have the guts to tell the fanatics to stuff it if they’re offended by inoffensive statements.

That’s my opinion.

Y.C.

MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT

Following are a few demonstrable attributes from a person's past and present.

1. Junkie
2. Winner of an election where the opponents' names are mysteriously stricken from the ballot.
3. Rewards his constituents by rarely casting any sort of meaningful vote; is strongly assertive on only one issue - see 4. below
4. A persistently vicious foe of the unborn
5. The chum of an admitted domestic terrorist
6. Married to and mentored by outspoken America-haters
7. Seen honoring our flag only after criticism for demonstrating his honest sentiments towards it

If credentials like these are what you want in a President, DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTES ON B.O.! Write in Fidel Castro, Osama bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, or Robert Mugabe. If you've any reason to disfavor one of them, select a random lunatic wandering the streets of San Fran, D.C., or Boston, all hotbeds of the sentiments itemized above. (This can be justified by observing the way these constituencies' choices vote.)

Y.C.

TWO QUOTATIONS

"The longing of the poor," thought Serena, "for nothing short of the best is sometimes overwhelming."

"Serena Blandish" by Enid Bagnold

**************************


"Then along came B.O. with lavish promises to satisfy those longings."

My Blog by Yves Chauvire

ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF -

On the National Archives Building, where the declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and other critical documents – as yet, one can’t punch “2” for Spanish versions – are housed, the sentence ends

“LIBERTY.”

For the present and for November, 2008, I should like to propose that

“A FAIR ELECTION” is also a pertinent object of the preposition.

Among other maneuvers, ACORN, B.O.’s Sturmabteilung of vote fraud, has already been caught in the act, and I believe, as one hears in the opening of “Showboat,” this is “Only the beginning, folks; only the beginning.”

The Democrats are old pro’s at stealing elections. The presidential one of 1960 saw an unprecedented number of reports of “voting irregularities,” and, not surprisingly, many were in states with large numbers of electoral votes, which, not surprisingly, Kennedy won. One was Illinois, where the father of Chicago’s present mayor ruled for years and boasted of his ability to “deliver the vote.” Irishman Richard J. Daley had an inveterate love affair with the Kennedy Klan, important in Chicago. (Read up on R. Sargent Shriver, a member of that nobility.) Around that city jokes about whole cemeteries’ voting and one man- twelve votes got laughs, but the implication of the corruption of a democratic (small “d”) process is not amusing.

Another hotspot of voting oddities that year was Texas, from which the President-in-waiting ruled the Senate.

Yes, in my view the Demo’s swiped that close election, and it also led to Richard Nixon’s downfall. There he was, about as certain to clobber whining McGovern as B.O is to change his mind tomorrow, when his guys are burgling those Watergate offices! Why on Earth? In my opinion, because he feared more Demo Dirty Election Tricks.

More recently we had the paper punch – “deus ex voting machina” ploy the Demo’s attempted in Florida. Fortunately for us, there were sane courts to trample their enurectic, factitious plaints into the dirt.

At any rate, Kennedy’s political offspring are champing at this election bit, believe me.

My recommendation to the Republicans, then, is to be certain you have IDEOLOGICAL, not just NOMINAL, representatives of your party close to where every would-be voter identifies himself, every voter votes, every vote is tabulated, and every conceivable place there might be tampering with people or their votes. Watch like hawks, and if there’s a hint of chicanery, CHALLENGE, BLOW THE WHISTLE, STAND UP FOR A FAIR ELECTION!
If you allow this one to proceed as in Mugabe-land, we may well end up with another Mugabe.

DESPERATE FOR AMMUNITION

Did you ever notice that if a critic has a prejudice for or against something – a painting, a piece of music, an article of literature, a scientific theory – he can always invent reasons to justify his “a priori” conclusion? The New Yorker magazine, for example, is invariably chock full of laughable, hyperbolic praise for works of “art” in various media that sensible people would flush down the toilet or refuse to see.

The same illogical bigotry is focused by the more rabid Democrats against Sarah Palin. Lately I heard imaginative reasons to dislike her offered by two mature – at least in years – women.

One was that, whereas Sarah would be quite capable at handling the affairs of a state, the person couldn’t picture her dealing with foreign statesmen (statespeople?). Surprisingly, this same thinker had been able to visualize a womanizing clown from the same level of government in Arkansas fulfilling that role.

The second odd proscription came from a woman with a B.O. banner stuck in her front yard. It was that women with children should not occupy the office of President, nor Vice-President, either, now that she’d thought about it.

This, too, was a strange thing emanating from a devout feminist, but, then, unreasoning women, inaccurately calling themselves “feminists,” flocked to vote for the womanizing clown from Arkansas. Liberals, isn’t it, that favor dads that stay at home while the moms work outside and baby-changing stations in men’s rooms? Consistency is never a strong point with the rabid.

She’s the only one of the four top candidates with experience at governance, and, if it came to it, whom would you rather see face to face with a foreign head of state; Sarah Palin or a wimp that shouts “present” and hides his head?

GEDANKENEXPERIMENT

According to the web this interesting nonce word was first used by Hans Christian Oersted, whereas I first learned it in relation to Ernst Mach – as in velocities relative to the speed of sound – who popularized it.

The translation is simply “thought experiment,” and the definition is “a mental exercise performed when an actual, physical experiment is impossible or impracticable.” As an example, suppose one has an idea for constructing a space vehicle to travel near the speed of light. Clearly, he can’t try out the scheme, but he can test the principles – vis-à-vis known physical laws – in his mind. Thus, he gets an idea about what might be correct and what wrong in his plans. It’s a simple concept, right?

What I want to propose to you is a Gedankenexperiment that is conceptually easy to perform and not awfully difficult physically but which, for social reasons, one might say, would meet with opposition. It follows below.

Pick a random age in years between 7 and 70 and a random sample, world-wide, of 500 each of white males, white females, black females, and black males.

The concept of true randomness is everyday stuff to statisticians, and this would be conceptually simple, but the samples must be random; i.e., drawn without any sort of bias. I admit that making the selections world-wide might be a bit tricky, as there are no lists of everyone in the world, but I rely upon statistics to proceed in an impartial and mathematically reasonable way.

Insofar as “black” and “white” are concerned, the samples must exclude people of mixed races, and capable molecular biologists can examine DNA and, relative to the present state of knowledge, make this judgement. Thus, in reality, our experiment becomes more costly to perform, but we operate here on the plane of thought.

Next, each person in each group is given two tasks; he or she takes a standardized IQ exam and runs 50 yards.

Don’t worry about a random person’s being physically unable to take an IQ exam, as, for example, by reason of blindness or of being incapable of moving 50 yards, as for a crippled person. We simply eliminate those people from the tests, and since statistics tells us that samples of size 30 almost certainly suffice for drawing conclusions about averages, we’ll have more than enough if we begin with 500.

Therefore, we perform the tests, and the reader’s Gedankenexperiment is to decide how the average results for the groups appear. Before looking down the screen or page, stop and give this some thought. Further, tell why you answered as you did.

Personally, I believe the black males and females would show lower average running times as well as lower average IQ scores. Why do I conclude that? It is simply because of a lifetime of observing various athletic contests and achievements and from a lifetime of observing intellectual contests and achievements.

Next, do the whole experiment 500 times; i.e., select a random age, pick the four random samples, do the tests, and examine the average performance figures. How do you suppose those results would look? I think that blacks would prevail in running times a significant number of times and that whites would do the same in the IQ tests.

If it turned out the way I predict, then Science would have demonstrated ways to improve certain aspects of everyday life. Consider the following scenario. The school board sits discussing the latest achievement scores. Why the devil is it that District W, predominantly white children, scored higher than those of District B, mostly black? They scratch their heads and decide it MUST be a difference in the quality of teaching or the quantity of something and that increased expenditure in B is the sole recourse. Does this occur frequently? Does Barack Obama change his tune often?

If it’s been proven that the difference is attributable to factors beyond the power of dollars to eliminate, then let’s save money. Another healthy implication would be that we could stop the harmful nonsense of lowering standards so that EVERYBODY scores x%, which implies pitching education to the bottom students, and allow the best students to reach their potentials. They, after all, will be the ones that have to accomplish things for us. We don’t neglect or deny resources to less capable students, whatever their races or other attributes, but, simultaneously, we don’t draw others down to that level. Neither do we spend disproportionate quantities of present resources in attempts to make improvements we know to be impossible.

At least two Nobel Prize winners have alluded to a genetic difference in the respective intellectual capacities of those two races. William Shockley, who helped invent the transistor, was rather blunt and mentioned explicitly the OBSERVED differences in standardized intelligence test scores. Naturally, there was a terrific furor over this, but those assailing him were not in his mental class and could hardly refute the statistical evidence. (Apparently simplified versions of our experiment have already been conducted.) More recently James Watson, who did most of the work in deducing the shape of the DNA molecule was admonished and punished for his well-reasoned comments on the topic. That’s the way of uneducated, American liberals, right? If one can’t argue intelligently against a point, try to discredit the person that made it and wail “Foul Play” as loudly as possible. Does that happen frequently in America? Does Jeremiah Wright hate his country?

Their models of the world, however unsupportable, MUST be correct; there MUST be some inscrutable factor that justifies their position, and if they can’t identify it exactly, well, so what? They MUST be right, anyway.

There are other cases of known intellectual differences between groups of mammals. For example, the marsupials, the pouched animals, are demonstrably less intelligent than the placentals. Therefore, why the big deal?

If my series of experiments, performed objectively and according to my specifications, turned out to show blacks’ average intelligence higher than that of whites, it wouldn’t affect my activities, accomplishments, or frame of mind any more than if I learned that most blacks my age can run faster than I. I consider myself an individual, able to influence my future and make of myself the best that I can. I am not roped to any properties of a group to which I happen, beyond my control, to belong.

At any rate, if you doubt my predicted experimental results, why don’t we get out of the realm of Gedanken, ja?

PROBLEM SOLVED!

“Is a puzzlement!” the King of Siam might have declared when observing B.O. become the darling, the favored bed companion, of the various news media bombarding us. They, you must understand, are all part of Horrywood (q.v., a previous post here), and if anyone doubts that news is entertainment, he should ask himself how there could be such amusing, expensive competition over reading into a camera and selectively distorting events occurring in the world?

At any rate, I, Yves Chauvire, (pronounced approximately as SHOW vee ray – this computer lacks the accent mark over the “e.”) solved the puzzlement, and it was only necessary to reflect a little on Horrywood’s harvest. Once again, I’ll use the abbreviation, “p.b.” to mean “partial black” and to designate people that are all or partially of the black race.

As much as possible I avoid network television, but now and then a friend, relative, medical office, or hotel room perpetrates it on me. More often than that, though, I watch Horrywood films, and I’m learning interesting, surprising lessons from all these sources.

Every group of people doing something together includes p.b.’s; put a collection of people in a room, and there will be a p.b. guy and a white girl on a couch, while others are distributed variously (It’s as if tax-evading Spike Lee’s one and only theme dictates all the ridiculous TV commercials.); the chief of the superhumanly intelligent research team is a p.b., as is the head cop dictating to and masterminding the activities of all the other cops, or, for that matter, the head anything dictating to all the other anythings.

To me and my experience this is Horrywood Fantasyland at its most erroneous; it’s nowhere I’ve ever lived, and I’ve lived and worked all over this country of ours, in all points of the compass and in everything from little towns to monster cities.

What I conclude, therefore, is that along came a p.b. candidate wanna be, on whom Horrywood, in its Affirmative Action frenzy, pounced to convert to a candidate. Now it is working frenetically – truth, ethics, sense, security, standards, economics, justice be damned – to promote him, under its freakish vision of the world, to the Presidency.

After understanding the news media romance with B.O., I began thinking how Horrywood would present the cinematic version of his ascendancy. It would be produced by Spielberg, except that Spike Lee would have responsibility for the sex scenes. Background music would be by Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, 2 Live Crew, and Ludicris. Mike Tyson and Peggy Lipton would play his father and mother, respectively, with Osama bin Laden as her second husband. Dustin Hoffman would have the title roll with Queen Latifah as the personable Michelle and Kim Basinger her stand-in for the erotic scenes. (By the way, where has the good wife gone? Do the Demo strategists have her in a cage somewhere with a rag stuffed in her mouth?) Madonna and Paris Hilton should be able to handle the roles of the Obama children. Robert Mugabe would play Jermiah Wright, Alec Baldwin, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright would have the dual roles of Mayor Daley and the Chaplain of the U.S. Senate. I can see Jesse Jackson as Joe Biden and Al Sharpton as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Horrywood, as usual, would take some liberties with the facts as known.

I want to say “God forbid!” to the concept of B.O. as president of as much as my county garbage commission, though as an official nation and a government brandishing “In God We Trust” as a motto, we affront God a thousand times a day. Why would He listen to us, or perhaps is all the woe besetting us lately the result of such observation? Still, deliver us from the Horrywood disaster of an Obama nation, which I still cannot help seeing as an ABOMINATION.

I should add that I do not dislike black people. Any having had dealings with me have been treated as kindly, congenially, and equitably as all others. On the other hand I tend to bristle when some agency or another seeks to stuff something down my throat.

B.O. IN LITERATURE

I’ve discovered a literary figure embodying B.O.’s behavioral characteristics; it’s Curious George, star of many children’s books and animations.

George has the inclination to meddle in matters beyond his comprehension and control. “The cutest little monkey,” as he is called in song, repeatedly gets himself and others into sticky situations by yielding to his curiosity. He invariably redeems himself by performing, in the midst of the turmoil he’s created, some very beneficial act.

What worries me about Curious - rather, Ambitious - Barack., however, is that, so far as I know, there is no author to pin “deus ex machina” parachutes on him to break the falls he is risking and towards which he would drag the rest of us.

AN ANCIENT BLUEPRINT FOR DECENCY

I didn’t read the novel, The Bonfire of the Vanities, but years ago I saw a film version. While I didn’t find this a landmark of the cinematic arts, one line of dialog is indelible in my mind, and the longer I live, the more often I recollect it and the more relevant it seems.

Towards the end, a judge tells, to the best of my faulty memory, a courtroom of agitated spectators,

“Go home; go home and be decent people.”

I must believe that if we all practiced this – or, at least, tried our best to practice it – our country, any country, all countries, would improve by a percentage greater than that of Zimbabwe’s inflation. If we were conscientious about it, then our children would learn decency, perhaps without requiring extensive lectures on the subject. They, then, would grow up decent people, and the rule of decency would be self-propagating through the generations.

There are people that apparently find it advantageous to be indecent, but I believe a large-scale commitment to decency would eventually extinguish them. For an example, if a drug pusher finds many potential customers averse to his wares, he has to leave the trade. The same would apply to a porn peddler, possibly a Horrywood producer, whose sales drop dramatically before a largely decent population. How about a lobbyist that encounters decent legislators unwilling to accept bribes, or a corrupt contractor whose lines of municipal influence suddenly are blocked by decent administrators?

If decency doesn’t interest you, STOP READING.

All right! Decency interests you! “How, then,” you will ask, “does a person get to be decent?”
“Easily,” I answer. “Just follow the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments.”

If you’re not a Jew or Christian, PLEASE DON’T STOP READING. THIS IS NO SERMON!

Ten? In different parts of the Old Testament, the list of rules has different numbers of items, but, for the sake of discussion, let’s take the ten found in the New Testament. In Yves Chauvire’s opinion, even if one ignores the ones mentioning God, what remains constitutes a blueprint for decency.

Decent people don’t kill, steal, commit adultery, tell serious lies about others, dishonor their parents, or vitiate themselves envying what others have. Personally, I believe the ones about graven images and having other gods applies to excessive, unhealthy pursuits of material things, but you decide. Don’t you think that if we just concentrate on the six that are purely secular, we’d become a better people, a better world? For a bonus goal, and even if you don’t believe he was divine, what if we’d try to adopt Jesus’ recommendation about loving neighbors as we do ourselves? If you think “love” is too ambitious, will you buy “like” or “don’t harm?” We wouldn’t lead others astray, then, would we?

What say we give it a try?
YC

OBJECTIVITY

I see that tonight's debate, advertised as Sarah Palin's "facing voters that don't think she is qualified" and featuring a large photo of Biden looking as fatuous as usual, by the left-wing news service that pollutes my Internet homepage, is being "moderated" by someone from NPR, where the word "moderate" is as foreign as most cab drivers in this country. If they wanted the DNC to do the job, why didn't they go out and recruit Truthful Teddy? Wonderful NPR coincidentally picked today for a big spot on former Alakan Sen. Stevens, thus sneaking in another swipe at Mrs. Palin. What a sleazy outfit, part of Horrywood. (See previous blog entry)

Larger questions to me are why Republicans agree to Democrat machinations and why they don't blast our shamefully biased excuse for a press.

Go out there and kick his butt, Sarah!

YC