YAWN

Someone needs to tell the TEC Diocese of New York that lesbian bishops are SO last year.

Rowan Williams to Seek Meeting with Mugabe

This should create not a little controversy. George Conger reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury intends to seek a meeting with Robert Mugabe to discuss Zimbabwe’s persecuted Anglicans – persecuted by Mugabe to be exact.


I do not know what to think about this. Certainly, Dr. Williams has a pastoral duty to do his best on behalf of persecuted Anglicans. And, like it or not, Mugabe is in charge in Zimbabwe.


But how evil does a leader have to be before one determines that meeting with him would be pointless? If Mugabe made some sort of agreement with Rowan, would he keep it? And certainly ++Canterbury seeking a meeting with Mugabe (whether Mugabe agrees to a meeting or not) would buttress the stature of that thug.


I’ve been highly critical of Dr. Williams. But on this, he has not my criticism, but my sympathy. This is a difficult and ethically problematic decision indeed.

The Obama Regime and False Accusations

A word of advice to men going off to college in the next few days: beware of being falsely accused of sexual assault, especially under the Obama Regime.

For his Education Department is virtually requiring that those accused of sexual assault not receive a fair hearing from college authorities. For starters, his Education Department Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is pressuring colleges not to allow the accused “to question or cross-examine the accuser” during college hearings. Also, the accuser must be allowed to appeal decisions, subjecting the accused to double jeopardy.

But, perhaps worse, the OCR is requiring colleges to use “a preponderance of the evidence” standard, an absurdly weak standard for a rape case worthy of a kangaroo court:

This is the lowest standard. It is much less demanding than "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is used in the criminal justice system, and the intermediate standard of "clear and convincing proof."

Yet the Obama Regime would destroy a student’s reputation and career based on such a low standard.

Read more here. It suffices to say that the OCR’s version of “civil rights” omits the civil rights of the accused. Because womyn never make false accusations of sexual assault or harassment in the correct feminist view, don’t you know.

This is not the only indication that the Obama Regime cares not a whit for college students falsely accused of sexual assault. Months ago, Obama appointed one Cathy Davidson, an English professor at Duke University, to the National Council on the Humanities.

Davidson was one of the infamous Group of 88, a cabal of Duke faculty who made statements extremely prejudicial to the falsely accused Duke Lacrosse students years ago. Worse, she refused to admit her wrong and instead brazenly defended the Group of 88 when it became clear the accused students were innocent.

The best source on the whole sordid affair is the Durham-in-Wonderland blog. Look back on the posts in the Spring of 2007.

I was so outraged by the actions of the Group of 88 that this alum wrote to the Duke Board of Trustees and suggested the following:

Each member of the Group of 88 should individually be asked either to publicly and completely apologize for their extremely prejudicial actions against the three students or to begin seeking employment elsewhere.

That will be more courtesy than those faculty members deserve. And it's the least that furthering a safe, welcoming, and just atmosphere for students demands.

Obama instead gives one member of the Group of 88, Cathy Davidson, a plum appointment. That adds insult to injury to those students who have found themselves falsely accused of sexual assault.

Bishop Tutu Proposes a White Tax

After reading this, I think I should perhaps give up parody and just report straight news. For Bishop Tutu has proposed a tax on being White:

Tutu called for a small "wealth tax" on all white South Africans as they had benefited during apartheid, the race based segregation system that operated between 1948 and 1994, according to the Cape Argus.



He said the wealth tax call was not new but came up during the TRC process where many in the white community were ready for it at that time. "It could be quite piffling, maybe 1 percent of their stock exchange holdings. It's nothing. But it could have helped," Tutu said.



"Our white fellow citizens have to accept the obvious: You all benefited from apartheid. But that does not mean that all are responsible for apartheid," said Tutu, who retired from public life in 2010 at the age of 79.

What an idea! Myself, I think, here in the U. S., Blacks have benefited disproportionately from affirmative action and welfare programs. So I propose a tax on being Black. Also in certain areas of California, gays have an unfair edge in their careers. So I propose a California Gay Tax as well.

And you just know there ought to be a Jew Tax.

I’m sure other special taxes would be good also. Such taxes are the right thing to do. After all, those who benefit from inequities in our society should pay their *fair share*.

-----

I think Christopher Johnson should be hit with a special tax, too. His blog gets more traffic than mine. Unfair!

A Reminder

My loyal readers may have noticed I do not post here as often as I used to. I just haven’t had the time and energy and inspiration lately.

I do expect a special treat for you all beginning in late September.

But for those who just cannot get enough of my ranting, a reminder that I have a Twitter feed, linked over there on the right, which has become both more active and more wide ranging than this blog. Recent posts rant about King Obama and rejoice in Burger King dethroning its creepy king. There are also rants about sports among other odd posts, including doubts about the latest Black Death theory.

In other words, my Twitter feed has something to amuse and/or offend just about everyone! So go there. You know you want to.

Warren Buffett, SHUT UP!

The other day, Warren Buffett once again called for raising taxes on the “rich”. Buffett comes across as a nice rich grandpa and is very popular, so he usually gets kid glove treatment.

But it is time to take the gloves off.

The arrogance of a man who is worth billions calling on the feds to make it harder for those behind him to create wealth galls me.

And it appears I am not the only one. The Wall Street Journal goes yard on his hypocrisy this morning, concluding:

Mr. Buffett is one of the great stock-pickers of his time, and we don't begrudge him a single dollar of his wealth. We only wish that, having already made himself rich, he weren't so intent on making it harder for others to become rich too. If he's worried about being undertaxed, we'd suggest he simply write a big check to Uncle Sam and go back to his day job of picking investments.

In other words, Warren Buffett, SHUT UP!

“Imaginary” Vote Fraud

We have recently been informed that vote fraud is an “imaginary crime.”

I am so glad to know that. Then it must be just my imagination that three North Carolina Democrats have admitted to voting for Obama . . . two times apiece. Glad to know that didn’t really happen.

And ACORN being fined the maximum amount for violating voter registration laws in Nevada? Just my imagination. The judge must have been really delusional. He said he would send the perpetrator to prison for ten years if he could.

And that NAACP and Democrat Party official who just got sentenced to five years for vote fraud, why, we should march in the streets for her. How dare the court send a Black woman to prison for an imaginary crime! That’s RAAAAACISM! Just like those Voter ID laws. Preventing imaginary vote fraud is RACIST!

Anyway, I am so glad I have had the delusion of vote fraud lifted from me. I will no longer have to waste time on this issue.

“In Britain, everything is policed except crime.”

Over the weekend, I came across the above seven words. I think they summarize exceedingly well much of what is wrong with the current state of UK law and law enforcement as well as why the riots got so out of hand.

I wish I could take credit for said words, but they are Mark Steyn’s. Of course, his quip overstates his case slightly for purposes of impact and humor. But they are deliciously on target nonetheless.

Why do these words resonate so much with me? Back in 2007, I saw a photo in the Daily Mail of a scraggly gentleman being caught red-handed conducting a smash-and-grab on a car. You see, the car was booby-trapped with a camera which took a wonderful photo of the gentlemen.

But what shocked me was the caption. Without further comment, it noted his sentence. I wish I could remember the sentence or find the photo online, but I do remember it was a slap on the wrist, outrageously so. And, no, he was no juvenile. He looked well above 30.

Also back in 2007, I remember seeing, and most definitely hearing, animal rights protesters out the window of the Bodleian Library. The protesters, complete with at least one very loud megaphone, were intentionally disrupting an Oxford graduation ceremony. And I saw this act at more than one such ceremony.

Now certainly the protesters have their right to free speech. But they do not have the right to disrupt an once-in-a-lifetime ceremony as well as those reading in the Bodley. Well, actually they do in the UK, complete with police protection no less.

This mentality allowed the riots to get out of hand. What, it took three days for Cameron to suggest water cannons? What about rubber bullets? No wonder the looters ravaged without fear. Common sense required a tough response on the very first night. But common sense is lacking among UK authorities. They do precious little to defend your property. Hell, they hardly allow you to defend your property.

In the UK, it seems at times that criminals have more rights than citizens who wish to live a quiet and peaceable life. “In Britain, everything is policed except crime.”

Indeed.

The Kindergarten President

Yesterday, President Obama gave a stump speech in Michigan, complete with the usual class warfare and blaming. Really, a long stretch of his speech blaming everything but his regime for the economy was downright comical:

Now, some of what we’re facing today has to do with events beyond our control. As the economy was improving and improving through 2009, 2010, the beginning of this year, suddenly it was hit with the unrest in the Middle East that helped send gas prices through the roof. Europe is dealing with all sorts of financial turmoil that is lapping up on our shores. Japan’s tragic earthquake hurt economies around the globe, including ours, cut off some supply chains that were very important to us. And all of this has further challenged our economy. And as we’ve seen, it’s playing out in the stock market, wild swings, up and down, and it makes folks nervous, and it affects the savings of families all across America.

Now, challenges like these — earthquakes, revolutions — those are things we can’t control. But what we can control is our response to these challenges. What we can control is what happens in Washington. Unfortunately, what we’ve seen in Washington the last few months has been the worst kind of partisanship, the worst kind of gridlock –- and that gridlock has undermined public confidence and impeded our efforts to take the steps we need for our economy. It’s made things worse instead of better.

So what I want to say to you, Johnson Controls, is: There is nothing wrong with our country. There is something wrong with our politics. (Applause.) There’s something wrong with our politics that we need to fix.

Of course, those politics are not his fault at all, no more than the earthquakes, revolutions, sea monsters, etc. etc.

One statement later in his speech also stood out to me:

We can’t ask the people in this room — working families, middle-class families — to bear the entire burden. We’re not going to balance our budgets on the back of middle-class and working people in this country. Everybody has got to do their part. (Applause.) Everybody has got to do their part. Everybody has got to chip in. That’s fair. You learn it in kindergarten.

And you know, Obama is right. We do learn a lot in kindergarten.

What do kindergarteners learn and learn well? They learn to blame others. I remember saying, “It’s not my fault.” Those were among my favorite words. I even remember blaming my babysitter for drawing on a white sofa. Why, I didn’t do that.

Has Obama learned to blame others? Check! (Pats Obama on head.)

Kindergarteners also learn to whine, “It’s not fair!” Hey, I said that a lot, too!

Has Obama learned to whine about fairness and to play that card against “the rich”? Oh, has he! Check!

And we see both traits in his speech yesterday . . . and practically every other day.

Barack Obama – the Kindergarten President.

Abomination of the Week

Puppet of Doom consumes a congregation foolish enough to attend St. Joan of Ark Roman Catholic Church, Minneapolis, which is a veritable zoo of abominations.

I always thought that interpretations of the Apocalypse that associate the Church of Rome with the Beast were a bit over the top. But I might make an exception for that parish.

Blame Games

When the blameworthy engage in blaming others, it says more about those engaging in blame games rather than their targets. Two instances (actually three *coughSchoricough* but I may get to that later) over the weekend stand out in that regard.

First, the worst of the Labour Left have tried to pin the blame for the Tottenham riots on the Tories. Red Ken Livingstone is, of course, among those playing that blame game. Yes, I can envision Maggie Thatcherites and businessmen in suits setting London on fire.

The blame, of course, belongs with the lowlifes who rioted and, perhaps, with the very soft response to their predations.

But if one wishes to blame political parties, which party is it that opened the door to massive indiscriminate immigration of those whose culture is an ill fit with English culture? If any party owns those who rioted, it is Labour, most definitely not the Tories.

Second, in the aftermath of the S&P downgrade of U.S. debt, Democrats have tried to pin the blame on Tea Partiers.

Excuse me. Who is it that created a welfare state of entitlements that we cannot afford? Who is it that has created another massive entitlement, Obamacare? Who is it that, for decades, whenever someone dares to stick his neck out and reform Social Security and Medicare so that they are slightly more financially rational, they demagogue, engaging in scaring the elderly and in mediscaring and in selling out our future in order to win the next election?

And under whose President do we have three straight $Trillion plus deficits, exploding the national debt?

And Tea Partiers get blamed because they are striving to put a stop to this madness.

Comment of the Week

Yes, this post is a first for me. I've never had a comment of the week before. But with all the blaming of our current debt situation and the accompanying S&P downgrade on eeeevil Republicans, TERRORIST CARJACKING tea partiers, George W. Bush, etc. etc., it is a good time for a reality check. And this comment by one Deacon Michael Harmon is a reality check that goes yard:

The national debt when Bush left office was approximately 10.0 trillion. It took us about 233 years to accumulate this amount. The current debt limit that was just expanded was $14.3 trillion, and it was expanded to $16.7 trillion, which is expected to get us through 2012. Therefore, Obama’s first term in office will add 60 percent of the total debt the nation will experience by the start of 2013. To recap, $10 trillion in 233 years, $6.7 trillion in four years.

He calls it Winning The Future, but I just use the initials.

About Child Bans

There has been no little controversy lately about private businesses banning young children. Such bans are being decried as anti-children. And it is hard to deny that they are literally anti-children. But the issue is not so simple.

(Note: The story linked above notes that a Missouri Whole Foods is reportedly banning young children during certain hours. The reports are wrong. The Whole Foods in question is actually assisting families with young children. Glad I double-checked that!)

On the one hand, businesses have a right to seek to provide a pleasant experience for their customers. On the other hand, although most parents do their best to make their children act tolerably in public (and gently remove them when they do not), enough do not that it can be a problem. I still can remember one set of parents who let their precious one bang his silverware on a metal tray, metal on metal, without let or hindrance at a meal I tried to enjoy years ago.

I have mixed feelings about all this. Society should and needs to welcome children – for its own good! Still, there are certainly some places were young children are not a good fit.

The Service of Nine Lessons and Carols at Kings College comes to mind. Does anyone in their right mind think it appropriate to allow in babies and toddlers to interrupt the music? And Kings ever politely and rightly states, “Please note that the service is not suitable for young children.”

Less clear cut, but still understandable is the controversial McDain’s restaurant banning of children under six. The owners tried to accommodate families with young children. But some families were less than cooperative.

In a very tactful summation of the scenario, the McDain's Restaurant owner says he doesn't hate kids: “Parents have gradually diminished their cooperation.”
 


Basically there's been a lot of customer complaints -- and the owner's obviously tired of dealing with it.
 


“This is a three-part issue," says Vuick. "One is the increasing number of small babies that can’t be controlled. They can’t be quiet and really they can’t be expected to.” He says the kindergarten crowd has “shown increasingly poor manners.” And the McDain's guy says parents “act like we’re the ones being offensive” when staff asks them to help their children simmer down.

What we have here are jerk parents (and their little ones who predictably take after them) making life more difficult for others, including for those parents who try to control their kids and not inflict their misbehavior on others.

And parents need to realize that they are responsible for their children. While, again, society should welcome children, that does not mean people are obligated to put up with all of their enormities in every situation.

And with the decline of common sense courtesy in our society (I could have a good rant on that topic!), private businesses and other institutions have to make some hard choices. I understand those who make provision for those who have a reasonable desire for some peace.

You Tea Partiers are Racist Terrorist Carjackers!

First, tea partiers and those of us who oppose higher taxes and spending were raaaaacists.

That tack did not work too well in the 2010 elections for some reason. Some haven’t gotten the memo, however.

More recently, we are terrorists. Again and again in the past couple weeks, tea partiers have been compared with jihadis, suicide bombers and Hezbollah. So much so that these attacks appear coordinated.

Now, we are carjackers, too, according to Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post. Gimme your Lexus, NOW.

Next thing you know, the Southern Poverty Law Center will declare us a hate group.

This all has become so silly, it is hard for me to get very indignant about it. The Left is seeing that their cycle of endlessly higher spending is coming to end and might be even in the process of being reversed. And as for their fond vision of turning all those “millionaires and billionaries” into tax slaves, forget about it. So hissy fits abound.

And this racist terrorist carjacker is enjoying the show.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and “Hate Groups”

Touchstone is having some fun with the Southern Poverty Law Center listing the Family Research Council and the Illinois Family Institute as hate groups. I notice SPLC also lists the American Family Association as a hate group for being “anti-gay”. I am very familiar with the AFA, and, although they are not my cup of tea, calling them, the FRC, and God knows who else a “hate group” is absurd and outrageous. Apparently, opposing gay marriage makes you a hate group along with the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

I also note on their Hate Map that advocating immigration law enforcement or “radical traditional Catholicism” can land one on their hate group list.

Now I am not acquainted with every “anti-immigrant”, “radical” Catholic, or “anti-gay” group so listed on the Hate Map. So some of them may be haters for all I know. But count me as a skeptic.

Before we laugh off the SPLC as another collection of Leftists who brand opponents as haters and bigots, I wish to point out two reasons for concern.

1. The Southern Poverty Law Center as long been used by the “mainstream” news media as a credible source. I remember back in the 80’s frequently seeing local North Carolina news stories citing them as a source. The gullibility and bias of the news media combined with effective PR enables SPLC to get their extreme views portrayed as respectable and mainstream.

2. Totalitarians of both Left and Right have a long history of vilifying those they later repress. To think the SPLC and like-minded Leftists have no intent of taking freedoms from those of us who oppose gay marriage or unrestricted immigration and may be a bit “radical” and traditional in our Christian views would be naïve indeed – dangerously so.