Pope Hunt (more hatred via MSM)

There have been some good explanations of the Fr. Murphy case in regards to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and how then-Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in the case. I think though that Jimmy Akin has the clearest and best presentation of the Fr. Murphy case I have seen. He lays out the facts as we know them along with the Church’s process and timeline of events. He also points out areas where the handling of the case could prudentially be criticized.

The hysteria that the New York Times generated in it’s piece which could be described as a “Pope hunt” go so far beyond the evidence that it is hard to see other than malice involved. Though Jimmy Akin also charitably addresses this aspect.

The Government is causing Obesity!

My buddy Flying Van is hostile towards school lunches. I believe he feels that the government is spending his money incorrectly. A point I am in agreement with.

The idea behind the lunch entitlement is that poor people can not afford to buy food or they care so little about the kids they have they choose not to feed them or they lack the training on how to purchase and prepare food. Seeing how kids are required to go to school, this makes it a logical place to feed these poor starving kids, who must be thinking about their empty stomachs instead of learning reading, writing and arithmetics.

That is to say your brain needs calories to function. Add to that the fact that hunger is a distraction and you have a prime example of the Government aiding education!

One of the primary problems with the above idea that people are starving. No doubt there are people in the US, who cannot access the cornucopia of goodness. If someone is starving the human thing to do is to get them fed, then have them to feed themselves. Finally have them help feed those who are starving.

So holding a parent responsible for providing for their child gets jettisoned. Having a community wanting to help the less fortunate is also jettisoned. And the chance of the child learning to feed themselves is shunted towards letting the government feed you.

Case in point: If you are on food stamps the USDA added incentives and other changes that targets the link between Obesity and Food Stamps with an idea to trim rampant obesity rates among low-income groups. Obesity is not caused by starvation... Right?

So we know that food stamps, from the government, are making poor people fat. Now I read that school lunches are not just making sure that hungry kid has sustenance to insure better performance. No our School lunch program, from the government, are making hungry kids Obese.

I never got\purchased school lunches. My mom made me a sandwich with some fruit and veg for quite a number of years. Sadly, many of those lunches were never eaten. Sometime around third grade I was responsible for my own lunch. Which means I had breakfast and dinner at home and ignored lunch. In HS I was on swim team and had instant breakfast (beats upchucking). Again, if I did have some lunch it was not everyday.

Basically, I was too lazy to make a lunch and too busy to bother with lunch. When I did eat, I made up for the missing meals. I did a pretty good job of burning off any extra calories as well.

Now my daughter needs to have regular intervals of food intake or she gets listless. My nephew would have to eat a certain nutritional balance to avoid nasty headaches.

To my way of thinking. Yes, we need to feed habitually hungry kids. The parents need to be held responsible or face some kind of consequence. Funding a Union does not seem to be covering the basic need.

Superbowl Abortion advertisement

Copy Pasted from here: By Jeff Miller

Being both a Catholic pundit and living in Gator country by contract I am required to comment on the Im Tebow Superbowl ad. A lot of pixels and ink have already been spilled over this so I will spill some more.

Those who support legal abortion often chaff at being called pro-abortion - the much prefer pro-choice. No doubt they believe this is the case, but in reality there are few if any who see abortion and not having an abortion both a morally neutral acts of exactly the same weight. After all what was the last time you saw a Planned Parenthood Maternity Ward or a NARAL Home for Unwed Mothers.

The fuss over the Tim Tebow ad really proves this. The ad presents one side of choice so what is the big deal to them? A mother talking about the decision to choose life is not exactly controversial since all of our mothers did exactly the same thing.

The obvious reason they hate they so much is that it shows the reality of "choice" the existence or the snuffing out of a human being. Over the years more and more people whose mothers considered abortion and decided against it have been talking about this fact. They are survivors of a "choice". There is also the case of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen who lived despite the attempt to abort her. The pro-abortion side is upset that they can't run similar ads. In fact they have been able to find zero aborted babies willing to film a Superbowl or any other ad for them. They can't even find people who want to take their mothers to task for having them. Those that each day regret their mothers did not abort them.

Tim Tebow does not represent a tissue mass or any other ecumenism euphemism for a child in the womb, but the normal consequence of not stopping life while in the womb. A Heisman Trophy winner is present because he mother choose life over the doctor's suggestion. Though Joy Behar said he could just as easily have become a "racist." Great idea Joy Behar - we should kill all children to prevent such an occurrence. Seeing Tim Tebow and hearing this story can remind us of the 50 Million individual persons who did not survive their mother's choice.

The abortion industry and abortion supporters have always been about minimizing or hiding reality. Women are told across the world falsehoods about the stages of the child in their womb. Terms are used to describe this that have no bearing on the reality. Over and over Ultrasound has been called a weapon because it helps to visualize reality. Laws requiring that women be properly informed about the life in the womb and presented with factual medical and scientific information about this are blocked time and again by the pro-abortion crowd.

A mother choosing life is polarizing and divisive. What a sick culture we live in.

A rather odd fact is that Planned Parenthood is responding to this ad by having two men, an ex-footbal player and a Gold Medalist, talking about women's rights being respected. Now could you imagine the outcry of a pro-life ad involving two men talking against abortion? The pro-abortion crowd would go crazy criticizing it for being so out of touch and not being able to speak for women.

Though I guess Planned Parenthood could get lots of men who favor abortion to do commercials for them. They could speak how abortion saved them from being trapped in a relationship. How abortion enabled them to maintain their lifestyle of treating women as objects and to keep pretending their was not natural consequence of sex. Predatory males certainly love legal abortion. In the meantime pro-abortion supporters want to remain to keep their head in the sand and to deny that a women's choice determines if a person will continue to live or not. Tim Tebow should just go away and not remind them of the consequence of "choice".

For us who are pro-life it reminds us to pray for those mothers in difficult situations that are considering abortion as a solution and to help them in every possible way that we can.

No Divorce for you!

I caught this AP release: Movement under way in California to ban divorce

It is a stunt centered around the audacity of those "unenlightened" of us who feel marriage is something that should be preserved. My first reaction was a small chuckle and a pang of appreciation for the cleverness of the protest. Then I started pondering the implications of such a ban.

Personally, it would be a non-issue. I have a Till-Death arrangement. However it would change the current statistic for divorce rates in America. First marriage divorce is 41%, second marriage 60%, third marriage 73%. It would certainly make marriage less likely overall, which may be a good thing given the current climate. The courts and lawyer time would be freed up from divorce proceedings.

Would it be a good thing, bad thing or just swap various good and bad? Personally I think that getting married is much too easy. The concept that getting married is proof of love and devotion makes anyone who has been married for a significant length of time burst with laughter.

Trust me when I say that marriage requires much more then feelings of love to have any degree of success. Among my many ideas that would make the world even more perfect is the legally required pre-nuptial agreement. A pre-marriage divorce settlement that would really open the eyes of those not ready to be fiscally intertwined. Hardly romantic...

High Infidelity

I read someplace that one in every four marriages is impacted by infidelity. If you haven't experienced the searing pain of unfaithfulness, odds are you know someone who has. The affects of infidelity are devastating and have destroyed many families.

The intrusion of the Tiger Woods story across the various media. In case you have missed it. The most famous golfer of his generation was in a car accident. He was unconscious. He was in serious condition. He was treated for facial lacerations and released. He hurt his face in the accident. He hurt his face before the accident. His wife hurt his face. He's having an affair. They're just friends. There are more of them. (and so on).

Then the thought occurred. If the roles were reversed and it was Tiger's wife who had the accident and then refused to talk to police, if Woods had gone berzerk over the possibility of another man, if he had scratched her face and then wielded a golf club as a weapon as she tried to escape, I guarantee the question on everyone's lips would be, "Is Tiger Woods a wife beater?"

When someone does snap, the American double standard kicks in and dictates how we react based on the gender of the parties involved. We have zero tolerance for men who assault women but make excuses for women perpetrators.

Sexism is alive and well!

A man can never hit a woman, but a woman hitting a man is not big deal, especially if he was "asking for it" by having a girlfriend on the side? But what does this say to female victims of domestic violence? That sometimes there's a good reason to batter? That sometimes the victim is asking for it? That the violence wouldn't have happened if only the victim hadn't made the abuser so mad? These are the excuses that have been used by batterers of every generation. They don't suddenly become legitimate reasons when the abuser is female.

As a society shouldn't we treat assault by a woman against a man (or a woman against a woman, or a man against a man) exactly the same way as violence by a man against a woman. For that matter, we wouldn't make a distinction between domestic violence and the same acts perpetrated against strangers on the street.

The charlatan fourth estate

Source material.

Anyone who does more then just watch the nightly news has noticed that there has been a dynamic shift away from "News" to more "Info-Tainment".

CNN with its 24\7 coverage had to fill up time in such a manner that people would watch. Sure they did have the Challenger footage and Baby Jessica, but it was the first Gulf War in 1991 that really made CNN shine. You figure it must have looked like a good idea because FOX news channel launched October 1996, followed by MSNBC on July 1996.

So now you have competition for advertising dollars, which means people having said station playing. Add to that the Internet where you not only get access to various news agencies, you also get eyewitness accounts, and fact checkers (and some kooks).

We have gone, in short order, from Network control of information to non-centralized non-control. I can read a story on MSNBC, google search and find more info that either confirms or refutes the story.

Currently we have lots of opinions shoved into the facts of a news cast. Spun this way and that way in order to "Shape" the news rather then inform. Some would say it has always been this way, just look at Walter Winchell or Hearst. The current polling is showing there is a low trust for various news outlets.

The Van Jones story is really telling. Here you have someone appointed by The President of the United states, with very controversial beliefs and statements. It was only covered by FOX until he resigned claiming he was smeared, by his own statements on video. Many of the folks around my office were wondering who Mr. Jones was and why he resigned.

So what can you do? Newspapers, Magazines, NPR, Broadcast and Cable news outlets all are more opinion padded facts then anything else.

I am hoping that people voting with their feet will start some change. The most bias of Newspapers are on the brink of collapse. Maybe they will consider it a good business move to provide factual news rather then party line.

Kennedy

With the Senators passing there has been many newspaper pendents lionizing the Senator. Two more practical writings I read came from Daniel Hannan and Susan Estrich. They have different takes from that of the state controlled press.

As a Catholic Ted Kennedy's have always been a bit of an embarrassment, his stance on abortion and the entire Mary Jo Kopechne incident. Still I want to believe that the soul of Ted Kennedy will see God face to face. I desire this for every soul. I know not all will see God.

That said…

Do rules which apply to all Catholic apply to Sen. Kennedy? He has always seemed to be the Exception. Are there special rules in the Catholic Church for the Kennedy Clan?

Does canon law and liturgical law apply to the Kennedy Clan?

I have seen it written Pres. Obama is slated to give a eulogy during a Funeral Mass for the late Sen. Kennedy. The Rite of Christian Funerals 141 says: “A brief homily based on the readings is always given after the gospel reading at the funeral liturgy and may also be given after the readings at the vigil service; but there is never to be a eulogy.”

The 2000 GIRM 338 says: "At the funeral Mass there should as a rule be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind. The homily is also recommended at other Masses for the dead celebrated with a congregation."

Eulogies are inappropriate during a Catholic Funeral Mass. There is no given exclusion. Further, will the sight of the most aggressively pro-abortion President in history giving a eulogy, in a Catholic church… during a Mass… for the most aggressively pro-abortion Catholic Senator give scandal to the Catholic faithful?

This is a very difficult thing to see such a wanton disregard for a groups beliefs.

Much easier is the question of should Sen. Kennedy have a Catholic funeral?

Perhaps. It depends on whether he showed some adequate sign of repentance before his death. We have to be lenient on that point. Given what I have read of Sen. Kennedy’s last hours, I would not oppose this. It is disturbing, due to his decades long unrepentant support of abortion, and the scandal that caused. However, the Church’s law is very lenient. Thanks be to God.

Dock o da bay

I had surgery (not talking about that directly). Now I am in recovery. Most of the dire warnings of what to expect have not occured. There is pain involved, but easily managed and I have some pretty good pain pills and some anti-biotics because infection is the real enemy!

I also have limitations. I cannot do much but hobble around from four area's where I sit. Today I felt like going out to get some Eggs, as we ran out yesterday. I quickly remembered that the pain meds I am on are not supposed to be in your system when you drive.

While I feel okay to drive, I decided not to inflict a lack of judgement on my community. So I check stuff on the internet, watch some TV and eat some food and sleep and the occasional bio break.

So I have a feeling of not participating rather watching the tide come in and go out. At least I am being well cared for.

Bizzarro World?

I feel that I am living in Bizzarro world. There is so much weird stuff going on, and it sort of explains itself.

Lets start with Joe Bidens take on fiscal responsibility: “Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’”

Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

The push by Obama for the Government take over of health care was given a "no thanks" by the Mayo Clinic. Good luck finding that on the news. Then the Zogby polling (that seems to follow with workplace scuttlebutt), "By a 50-42 margin, Americans oppose the House of Representatives' bill introduced July 14".

This is a 1200 page bill that few have read and what is coming out is not sounding like reform.

I wonder if no confidence in the government doing anything efficently has to do with the failed pork filled stimulus and horridly corrupted TARP?

I'm sure of course with Health Care they will do everything better?

Walter Cronkite passed away and with the memorials and remembrances there is a strong attempt to re-write his Liberal Bias that was well known and documented.

There was quite a bit to reflect on Mr. Cronkite's career, being unbiased is not one of them.

Which brings up fallen comic Janeane Garofalo, with this Bizzarro quote "I mean there is almost no liberal outlet for news commentary or editorializing."

I guess, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC are just too far Right for her?

Lastly,

I keep reading, from the left, how Fox News is a horridly biased media outlet that is extreme and it should be censored and pulled off the air.

How do you account for the popularity?

I turn off news items that are not-interesting or irksome and offensive. For broadcast news I am far more interested in my local stationl. Consider that the bulk of peoples do not really care about the political landscape. Most of the newswatching is to see what is happening outside our bubble.

FNC – 981,000 viewers

CNN – 573,000 viewers

MSNBC –343,000 viewers

CNBC – 179,000 viewers

Popularity is not a measure of quality, Longevity is! FNC has both. What is popular is mainstream.

(Note here, Rush Limbaugh has an audience between 14.25 million and 25 million)

Please read and act.

This is a must-read, must act upon essay.

The Wiz in stark terms lays out the burning of Rome while the media fiddles.

Borrow and Spend has to stop, we the people have to stop this!

Contact your Representative.

Contact your Senator.

eliminating undesirable members of the populace.

Wow, I never considered the roe .vs. wade decision was about eliminating undesirable members of the populace.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

Hmmmmmm...

All others Pay Cash!

There is an ongoing question in many scientists' mind around humans ability to formulate understandable mathematical expression of virtually every natural phenomenon. Could this be speaking to a supernatural existence?

In the book, Quantum Questions, Ken Wilber compiled the original writings of thirteen important founders of modern quantum and relativistic physics, to explore their understanding of the relationship of physics and mysticism. Without exception, each one of them believed that modern physics does NOT prove spiritual realities in any fashion. And yet each of them was a mystic, not because of physics, but in spite of it. By pushing to the outer limits of their discipline, a feat of true genius, they found themselves face to face with realities that physics categorically could not explain.

One scientist explained that quantum physics provides us with a precise map of a part of God's creation, and in this respect we get more precise knowledge and understanding of God obliquely, He thinks science can never decisively "prove" the presence or absence of God. He felt God was somebody whom we trust and accept without proof.

DNA may prove my own Pop is my biological father, but I don't care about that. I know my Pop and Mom, love and care for me, and that's more then enough.

Acceptance of God is a matter of faith, not of scientific proof.

There is a professor of brain neurology who has became an Christian because he had been caught by an inexplicable awe when he was examining the mechanism of brain function. He concluded that nobody-else than God could have made the brain in such an orderly and sophisticated manner.

Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo said: "The Church never fears the truth of science, because we are convinced that all truth comes from God"

I think we should examine our "old maps" more seriously and be open-minded to refer to the "new maps" that science provide us. This does not mean that we throw the old away and accept new uncritically. Because an old map is still relevant and a new map can contain false information.

Charles Krauthammer, telling it like it is. Taking it to the "Man"

Charles Krauthammer, columnest for The Washington Post, has done an excellent job eliminating bias and spin from the above linked artical.

While the rest of the MSM spouts and spins off propaganda on how wildly sucessful or most beloved, hallowed, President Obamas triumph in Europe has been, Mr. Krauthammer has gone right down the middle.

It has been up to Radio and the New media to fill in the information void the MSM is creating, seemingly deliberately, around, beloved, hallowed, President Obama. 

We the people should NOT have to work so hard just to get the basics, but like it or not, it's the reality.

Learning from History on Recession Fix

This is a very straight forward explination of why government bailouts and stimulus has never worked.

I am not sure if you have seen this excellent chastising of the British PM by Daniel Hannan.  It is very significant to the situation the USA is heading.  Further it shows a lack of strong conservative voices currently in our representatives. 

The words they are a changin'

So President Obama has ended the "Global War on Terrorism."  and started the "Overseas Contingency Operation."

Oh and we no longer have to worry about "Toxic Assets"  those are now "Legacy Loans" or "Legacy Assets"

"Man Made Global Warming" is now a thing of the past look out for "Climate Change"

How about the term "Liberal"  that is so passe'  you need to be "Progressive"

Be very aware that the very words the policy makers are using, have changed into something other then what Webster has listed.  They are more mallible and have a warm fuzzy feel.

The MSM appears to be in cahoots as well, turning a blind eye to news and reporting propaganda in its place.

Political Cartoon

Dieting

Dieting, has to be one of our nations favorite past times.  Just look at the book sales around this topic.  Not to mention the countless TV shows!  Yet we all know in our heart of hearts that Diets do not work for weight loss and exercise does not work for weight loss.

What does work?  Responsibility for your actions.  Eat less then you burn.  

Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) + Exercise = Your daily burn rate in carlories.  

Every 3500 cal deficit will loose a pound.  There you go, it is all about the calories.

So take it a week at a time try to lower your calories by 500 a day below your daily burn rate.

 wait!  if I dont eat enough my body will go into starvation mode???  Well yeah but you need some facts on that.

Using myself as an example, my current weight is 255 lbs. and my bmr is 2061.  So, I would have to cut my calories to below 1030 per day.  However, if I were at my goal weight of 190 lbs., my RMR would be 1725, and so I would have to cut my calories to below 862 calories.

In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with caloric deficits; as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster. 

But here's the thing: no study has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. 

Starvation mode you say. But you still have a 40% daily deficit. 

At least thats what makes sense based upon all the studies.  BTW, check with your doctor.

Another of my shows Cancelled

Back in 1987, ABC put together a show about investigative journalism in a near future time.  It went two seasons for a total of 14 episodes. Then it was cancelled.  This show was called Max Headroom (It should have been kept. 20 minutes into the future).  

This is significant because, it was the first time a TV show, I was really into, got cancelled.  

Yesterday, I found that Life on Mars was cancelled.  A show with a Great story, solid cast being flushed.  This was a remake of a BBC show by the same name, which was a big hit there.  I guess some things just do not translate over to this side of the pond.

On the brighter side of things, with our switch from Dish we now have BBC America and they are starting the sequal to the UK Life on Mars, Ashes to Ashes in a scant three days.

This leaves me to ponder the how's and why's of network executive decisions.

Paul Harvey 1918 -2009

When I walk home for lunch, my little AM radio is tuned into The Paul Harvey Noon news.  I believe I have been listening to him for Forty years.   His news items always had good news laced in with commercials blended throughout.  He was entertaining and and informative.  

I sometimes felt I was back in a simpler time, nostalgic for an era I never witnessed.  Always appreciative of his "Rest of the Story" features, trying to figure out which historical figure he was referring too, often times not even comming close.

I bought my first pair of Wells Lamont gloves because of him.  Recommended Roach Prouf to many folks who enjoyed the results.  Over the last few years his contribution was pre-recorded, the guest newsreaders kept alive many of the elements that made his broadcasst so unique.

Being a long time Radio fan, his passing really does make me sad.  At least he is reunited with his Angel in heaven.  Thank you Mr. Harvey.

How do you tell when a politician is lying?

His lips move.   If you were expecting President Obama to be a man of his word, to continue his message of Hope for Change and an end to business as usual in DC.  Here is some evidence that nothing changes.

Obama promised us:

Make government open and transparent.

Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.

Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public.

No more secrecy.

Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.

You’ll know what’s in it.

We will put every pork barrel project online. (still waiting)

Now there used to be a News Media that would look for the truth of things and let the public know when our representatives stopped representing us and started representing their party.  By and large that Media is a spin doctor for a biased favored son.

Blogging has taken up the gauntlet.  There is a problem in that for every good blog you get a dozen or so bomb thrower, cults worshiping blogs.  So sorting the wheat from the chaff is difficult at best.  At least we know by content and expletives.  That is you assume a blog is going to be editorializing.  The Nightly news, you would hope would be straight with you.

Aside from the BBC our media is in need of an enema. 

Take for instance this story from TIME.  Touting that Obama is a Pro-Life president.  Sullivan's evidence? Well, the president has picked a Pentecostal preacher -- who once worked for a New Jersey Congressman with a 100% score by NARAL Pro-Choice America -- to head his faith-based initiatives office and "abortion reduction" is one of the major stated goals of one of the president's advisory boards.

So President Obama's actual Pro Abortion record is beside the point?   Take this example for what you will. There is a lot of similer spun stories that the Obama pocketed Media is foisting upon a public too tired of news overload to sift through.

The Old Media (TV, Cable, Newspaper) needs to be switched off. Or maybe the fairness doctrine needs to be put in place.