Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Thanks, Guys.

The drainage in our house hasn't been top notch since we moved in this past June. The toilets, tubs and sinks have never drained fast enough - as far as I was concerned.....it seemed to me that something was causing a clog in the main drain.

Last night, while I was at work, my wife called to tell me that it had gotten worse. It was obvious now that a serious clog had developed; flushing the toilet in one part of the house made the toilet in another part (closest to the street) over flow. Even running water in the kitchen sink was coming out in the bathroom.

There was no way I could afford a professional plumber. I called my friend, Jerry for help. He's an electrician - not a plumber, but he's working on a house and one of the guys working with him knows plumbing.

We rented an auger and Jerry's friend, Chris, removed the toilet and ran the 75 feet of cable through the drain line. Chris said he could feel the obstruction about 5 or 6 feet down.

Whatever was clogging the drain line was pushed through and into the main sewer.

Chris replaced the toilet and everything is working better than the day we bought the house.

Jerry and Chris wouldn't take money. I only had to pay the rental on the auger and for a new wax seal kit for the toilet.

Thanks, Jerry and Chris.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Pope Benedict XVI Addresses UN Summit With Video Message.

This from UN Summit on Climate Change:

In lieu of live national statements in the plenary - to allow for more inter-active discussions during the Summit - all Heads of State and Government were invited to send in a pre-recorded video statement to be posted here and on YouTube beginning on the day of the Summit.

I've uploaded Pope Benedict XVI's video statement - as well as a transcript (it's sometimes difficult to understand the Pope's thick accent).
My thoughts on his statement will come in a later post.

video

I wish to reflect today upon the relationship between the Creator and ourselves as
guardians of his creation. In so doing I also wish to offer my support to leaders of
governments and international agencies who soon will meet at the United Nations
to discuss the urgent issue of climate change.

The Earth is indeed a precious gift of the Creator who, in designing its intrinsic
order, has given us guidelines that assist us as stewards of his creation. Precisely
from within this framework, the Church considers that matters concerning the
environment and its protection are intimately linked with integral human
development. In my recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, I referred to such
questions recalling the “pressing moral need for renewed solidarity” (no. 49) not
only between countries but also between individuals, since the natural
environment is given by God to everyone, and so our use of it entails a personal
responsibility towards humanity as a whole, particularly towards the poor and
towards future generations (cf. no. 48).

How important it is then, that the international community and individual
governments send the right signals to their citizens and succeed in countering
harmful ways of treating the environment! The economic and social costs of using
up shared resources must be recognized with transparency and borne by those who
incur them, and not by other peoples or future generations. The protection of the
environment, and the safeguarding of resources and of the climate, oblige all
leaders to act jointly, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest
regions of the world (cf. no. 50). Together we can build an integral human
development beneficial for all peoples, present and future, a development inspired
by the values of charity in truth. For this to happen it is essential that the current
model of global development be transformed through a greater, and shared,
acceptance of responsibility for creation: this is demanded not only by
environmental factors, but also by the scandal of hunger and human misery.

With these sentiments I wish to encourage all the participants in the United
Nations summit to enter into their discussions constructively and with generous
courage. Indeed, we are all called to exercise responsible stewardship of creation,
to use resources in such a way that every individual and community can live with
dignity, and to develop “that covenant between human beings and the
environment, which should mirror the creative love of God” (Message for the
2008 World Day of Peace, 7)!
Thank you.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Indoctrinating the School Children.

Listening to Neal Boortz's radio show this A.M., I learned of this little video.
How's that Hope & Change workin' out for you?

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Support Obama and Say "No" to the Taliban.

I don't read Trudy Rubin's column often. As a matter of fact, the only reason I read her column from this past Sept. 13 is because the column was reprinted in my local newspaper and reading materials are scarce in the break-room at work.

In this column, Ms. Rubin argues that we should pass Obama's health care plan. Now, I wasn't surprised that she wants us to support the President, but her arguments for our doing so are, far and away, the most bizarre arguments I've come across in our national health care debate.

She writes;
"A U.S. president who fails on his signature issue - health care - won't have the strength and public support to deal with new challenges by Islamists. He will be seen at home and abroad as seriously weakened. Yet neither party seems much bothered by this threat."

The gist of her argument is this : Should Obama fail to pass health care reform, he will be seen as weak and that weakness will embolden the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

It doesn't really matter that the health care reform offered may not be in our best interests. We should let Obama have his way in this. Passing Obamacare will show that the President has power and thereby frighten the Islamic terrorists.

According to Rubin, we and our Representatives and Senators should start thinking beyond our narrow self-interest and win one for the One.

Well, at least she didn't call us racists.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Douglas Kmiec Interviewed in Malta.

In an interview published online on the times of malta website, the new American Ambassador to Malta, Douglas Kmiec, tells of a conversation he once had with Obama where Obama asks;

"What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table."

Compare this to Obama's statement;

"I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

Obviously, with the financial advantages that the Obama family have, should one of his daughters get pregnant as a teenager, she would not be without shelter, without insurance or concerned about where her next meal is coming from.

Still, Obama would have no difficulty aborting his grandchild to prevent his daughter being "punished".

Kmiec goes on to say that, although he has some disagreements with Obama, he supports the President because Obama believes it is the responsibility of government to provide a family wage, to care for the environment and to provide health care for the uninsured.

What, exactly, is a "family wage" and why would it be the responsibility of the "government" (read taxpayers) to provide everyone with one?
So then, does that mean the government forces companies to pay everyone whatever it takes to buy whatever food our families need - along with mortgage, car payments, furniture, TV , and internet access? Where would it stop? Who determines what my family needs? Me? And the government sees to it that I'm paid enough to cover it all?

The environment?
Everyone - even mean spirited capitalists - want clean air and clean water. But, in order to combat "global warming" a government would have to take control of every aspect of our life to "save us from ourselves". After all, according to some environmentalists every thing humans do damages the planet.

"provide health care for the uninsured"?

Just how can that be managed? I don't make a great deal of money, but a portion of my pay check goes to cover my family's health insurance. I know people who make as much, or more, than I, yet don't provide their family with insurance and will use the money to have a bigger house, or a nicer TV and such as that. My taxes have to go up to help those folks?

Douglas Kmiec may have convinced himself that Obama has the answers, but he hasn't convinced me.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Celebs Sing to Stop Global Warming.

In an article entitled World celebrities sing to stop global warming ,we learn that 55 celebs - including the likes of has beens Duran Duran and world class singer, Desmond Tutu - have joined together in re-recording "Beds Are Burning", to bring attention to global warming.

Like we never heard of global warming.

Funny thing, the song is not about global warming at all.
The wikipedia article says the song
"....is a political song about giving native Australian lands back to the Pintupi, who were among the very last people to come in from the desert. These 'last contact' people began moving from the Gibson Desert to settlements and missions in the 1930s. More were forcibly moved during the 1950s and 1960s to the Papunya settlement. In 1981 they left to return to their own country and established the Kintore community which is nestled in the picturesque Kintore Ranges, surrounded by Mulga and Spinifex country. It is now a thriving little community with a population of about 400."

There is a Youtube video of the song as recorded by the original group, Midnight Oil. It isn't available to embed, but it can be seen here.

The song asks the question, "How can we dance when our earth is turning?"
Of course, the answer to that can be found in this video.....

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

"The World's Largest Denomination" redux.


In March, 2008, I posted a piece entitled The World's Largest Denomination in which I commented on a story in Reuters - Muslims more numerous than Catholics.

The Reuters article said that the number of Catholics in the world total 1.13 billion people. The article goes on to say it is estimated that Muslims total around 1.3 billion.
The statement I found most interesting in the Reuters article was "that if all Christian groups were considered, including Orthodox churches, Anglicans and Protestants, then Christians made up 33 percent of the world's population -- or about 2 billion people."

The point of my post was that it seemed odd to me that in comparing the totals, Christians were broken down into separate denominations while, apparently, the Muslims were not. The numbers compared the total of Catholics versus Muslims, where as it should have compared number of Catholics versus Sunni Muslims......subtract the number of Shi'a Muslims (215 million) and we might get a more accurate comparison.

That post sat dormant in the archive of forgotten posts until I received a comment recently from some going by the name anima. Although anima's profile tells us nothing....I don't even know whether address this person as "he" or "she"..... Google Analytics tells me he/she hails from Saudi Arabia (probably Riyadh) and arrived at my blog by googling the phrase vatican confirms muslims largest number of followers.

Rather than address my point, anima comments that
"even then..all the 1.3+ million are bound in unity by the one and only-Holy Qur'an.
so its not just in the name but even the scripture that gave the name-muslim!!!
surprisingly ,catholics and protestants do not follow the same number of Biblical books,fracturing the only scripture they've had which..well..does'nt even address them as 'Christians' !!! "

In reply, I pointed out to anima that
"You cannot say the Sunni and Shia Muslims are united simply because they use the same Qur'an. They are killing each other every day."

Where upon anima says
"Irrespective of the present day escalation in conflict that is obviously among the various repurcussions of the current Occupation in those Muslim countries, muslims (as against the followers of Christ)all over the world have the strongest case.

Islam is the only religion on the face of the earth which has preserved an undisputed documentation of its scripture-the Holy Qur'an ,with regards to:
1.'What'(language or script) was revealed .
2.'When' it was revealed.
3.'Where' it was revealed.
4.'How'it was revealed.
5. unto'Whom'it was revealed.

I say "revealed" and not "revised/updated" as its again a unanimous consensus about the veracity of the claim-the verbatim "Word of God".

No conflict arises from the scripture that names its followers as Muslims and whatever there is, does not pertain to the scripture-again a marked distinction! "

Here is my answer to anima on that
"You wrote;
"Islam is the only religion on the face of the earth which has preserved an undisputed documentation of its scripture-the Holy Qur'an ,with regards to:
1.'What'(language or script) was revealed .
2.'When' it was revealed.
3.'Where' it was revealed.
4.'How'it was revealed.
5. unto'Whom'it was revealed."

I would say that the Latter-Day Saints with their, "Book of Mormon" would disagree with you on that.

"Irrespective of the present day escalation in conflict that is obviously among the various repurcussions of the current Occupation in those Muslim countries"....I'm afraid you'll have to rephrase that because that comment makes not sense as written."

Here in the United States, we have freedom of religion. Some would even say "freedom from religion" as well. Although I was raised in the religion of my ancestors (Catholicism) in this country, I am given the opportunity to study every religion imaginable and decide on my own which one, if any, I will follow. I haven't always looked at myself as Catholic, but after studying Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism and Sikhism I've returned to the Church.
Living in Saudi Arabia, anima isn't given that choice. Whatever information anima gets regarding religions other than Islam is bound to be completely distorted by Muslim censors. Anima could not convert to another religion, even if he/she wanted to, under fear of death.

I seriously doubt that anima could be objective in any discussion of religion. He/she is welcomed to prove me wrong.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Will You Donate Blood?

For years,Gallup polls have reported that 40 percent of Americans attend a church every Sunday.
New studies suggest that the number is actually only half that.
Still, even at 20%, that number dwarfs the number of Americans that donate blood. According to the American Red Cross, only 3 out of every 100 people in the U.S. donate blood.
I would have thought that those of us who recognize God would recognize the importance of helping our fellow man. The blood given to groups such as the Red Cross or Blood Assurance can save lives. It doesn't cost you a dime and usually takes less than an hour.

There is no substitute for human blood.

You can donate double red cells every 112 days, whole blood every 56 days or platelets every 2 weeks.

I recently read that the most common reason given for NOT donating blood is "because I wasn't asked." OK. You can't use that excuse now, because I'm asking.....will you donate blood?

Friday, September 11, 2009

Joe Wilson's Website.

Like, apparently, a gazillion other people, I attempted to access Congressman Joe Wilson's website - http://www.joewilson.house.gov/
A screen shot of my browser says it all.

Chuck2 Has His Say.

In a column published in the Washington Post, Richard Cohen recently wrote about the Republicans' behavior towards President Obama during his latest speech to a joint session of Congress.
Although I've provided a link to the column here , there is absolutely no reason for anyone to read it. You already know what it says.
The Republicans' behavior was, he says, completely over the top....far worse than any Democrat has ever treated any Republican President. And, he tells us, the reason for this boorish behavior can only be for one thing.
The Republicans hate Obama for one reason and one reason only....can you guess? It's because Republicans are racists.
Oh, geeze; I sure didn't see that comin'.

There's no point in my arguing with Cohen. Republicans know he's full of it and no argument I could give would convince a Democrat that Cohen doesn't know what he's talking about. My point in posting this is because of a comment left on the Washington Post website by an Obama supporter.
This comment was left by someone calling himself chuck2. I've pasted the comment below in red. I have not changed the comment in any way and have left in all spelling errors.

Mr Cohen has expressed an inconvenient truth. You conservative bombastics, can't bolviate all summer about how Obama wasn't a legitmate president (despite winning 53% of the popular vote to W Bush's 49%), you can't whip up hyteria about radical connections of Obama (even though Palin belongs to groups with links to white spearatists and McCain had his own followeringsd whocalled for Obama's violent demise) and you can't demonisze his background (Hawaiian, mixed race) and then get OUTRAGEd when people connect the dots and begin to see the hysterical response as partly racist. If you Republicans are opposed to Obama merely on the merits of his porposals, then you should be the first to decry the birthers and confront the hateful elements of your party who show up at Obama rallies with semi-automatic waepons. You should be able to effectively counter his policiy prescriptions without resorting to ugly and decisive tactics that seek to demean and destroy to Office of the President just because the occupant is one of who you don't aprove.

Racism? If the shoe fits...wear it!

Posted by: chuck2 | September 10, 2009 10:42 AM

Judging by his command of the English language, I'd say Chuck2 makes his living as a Nigerian scammer.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

The Pro-Choice Myth.

In an op-ed piece published in today's Washington Post [The Next Health Reform Myth] writer Ruth Marcus attempts to dispel the notion that any new Democrat proposal for "health care reform" will use taxpayer money to fund abortions.

"Don't believe it", she says. "These inflammatory statements do a disservice to a complex issue of public policy:".

Later in the piece she contradicts her own statement. She writes;
"Actually, let's remember: Tax dollars already are used to pay for abortion."

In the fairy world of politics,tax money is used for abortions, but yet it's not used for abortions. It will be used for abortions in the future, yet it won't be used for abortions.

And this all makes sense to her.

Marcus feels obliged to let us know where she stands on the issue of pro-life versus pro-choice. She writes;
"I am firmly in the camp of those who think the abortion decision should be left up to the woman. But I respect those who fervently believe that abortion is the taking of human life, so I am sensitive to concerns that their tax dollars not be used to pay for the procedure."

Now, I'm assuming that Ms. Marcus is an educated woman. The Washington Post isn't going to employ anyone who hasn't graduated from a fine, upstanding University. Surely, she's no dummy. But, yet, she does not seem to understand that a fetus, growing inside a woman, is alive. She also doesn't seem to comprehend the obvious fact that the "thing" growing inside the woman is a human being.

Was she asleep in class when they were teaching basic human biology? For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone in the "pro-choice" camp can honestly say that what is destroyed in an abortion is not a human being.

If they want to say that the decision should be left up to the woman, they should be honest enough, with themselves and us, to admit that they are advocating that a mother has the right to take the life of her unborn child.

Those in the "pro-choice" movement are intellectually dishonest and too cowardly to live up to the truth of what they preach.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Obama's Address to the School Children.

There's been a lot of controversy about Obama's plan to speak to the nation's school children today. There's been talk that he is trying to indoctrinate the young ones.

It isn't that, he assures us. He merely wants to convince the kids to stay in school and give it their all and that sort of thing. To ease our fears, he's released the text of the speech in advance. It can be found here - http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/.

I suppose the closest he comes to big government propaganda is when he makes statements like:

"And this isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future."
and;
"We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country."

The speech is, for the most part, just a typical "stay in school, work hard, do your best, blah blah blah pep talk".

It doesn't appear to be as dangerous as some had imagined.....but then again, it could have very well had been recorded and shown at a time when the local school systems felt was best. I'd say the cost of streaming this and delivering it nation wide is a waste of valuable time and money.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

It's All For The Schoochildren.

The first photo below is a screen shot of a page taken from whitehouse.gov announcing the President's upcoming national address to school children. As pointed out on the Drudge Report, someone at the White House misspelled "school children"......it reads schoochildren.

A fine example of how to educate our young folk.

The second photo is proof that someone in the Obama administration reads Drudge. The spelling error has been corrected.

Click on each photo to enlarge.


I Pledge.......

After reading this article and seeing the video, I pledge to expose this piece of leftist propaganda.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Ben and Jerry's Celebrate "Gay Marriage".


To celebrate the legalization of same sex marriage in Vermont, Ben and Jerry's has renamed one of it's ice cream flavors - Chubby Hubby - to Hubby Hubby.

According to the Ben and Jerry's website;

"In partnership with Freedom to Marry we are gathered here to celebrate Vermont and all the other great states where loving couples of all kinds are free to marry legally. We have ceremoniously dubbed our iconic flavor, Chubby Hubby to Hubby Hubby in support, and to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality."

A telegraph.co.uk article states;

"The firm has striven to retain its freethinking reputation despite its 2000 sale to food giant Unilever......"

It shouldn't come as a surprise that Unilever would be in favor of same sex marriage. After all, Unilever also makes Vaseline.