About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Letterman and Lust

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 3:04:47 PM
This pretty much lines up with my thoughts on the David Letterman situation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Shrouded

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, October 05, 2009 7:53:58 PM
The news has been reporting that someone claims he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin using medieval technology.

My faith in Jesus Christ and His resurrection is not based on the Shroud. For sure, if the Shroud is actually a burial garment of Jesus', then it adds another reason to believe. But if the Shroud is a later work of ingenious art, then my faith is not lessened in the least.  Furthermore, even if someone shows that close reproduction was possible using later technology (which may have happened here), this does not prove the Shroud is a later work of art and not a burial cloth for Jesus.

There's a side to me that thinks it good if all physical artifacts involved in any miracle of Jesus or His crucifixion have been lost to history in the same way that I am glad we don't know with any certainty the actual birth date of Jesus. Astrologers, and those taken with astrology would make too much of His birthdate, just as too many people would focus on the wood or the iron or cloth that came into contact with Jesus - a thing - rather than focusing on Jesus and having a relationship with Him.

My faith in the resurrection of Jesus is based on objective reality and affirmed by my subjective experience (I know He lives in me). We have good reasons to believe Jesus was a man of history who was crucified, that He was buried, and that He subsequently appeared alive to many different people in different situations; and that His tomb was empty. All other explanations to cover those things are lacking. So I do believe that Jesus rose from the dead, resurrected and glorified, and I do believe what He taught - shroud or no shroud.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Your Papers, Please

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, October 05, 2009 6:18:53 PM
In a desperate attempt to find some way of removing a Constitutional, duly-adopted state constitutional amendment, a federal judge wants to determine the motivations of the backers of the ballot proposition that put that amendment in place. So, the judge has asked for their internal communications.

This is an example of what I mean by the term "homofascism".

My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Battle Hymn of the Republic

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, October 05, 2009 1:06:15 PM
Reading the lyrics of some of our great patriotic songs reveals much about our union's history. With the "prayers" to Obama some schoolchildren are making these days, I thought it would be good to post these lyrics to the Battle Hymn of the Republic. For those of you raised in government schools and without Bible study: you may not get the full effect of these lyrics, which have allusions to Biblical concepts.

Enjoy!

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His day is marching on.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on."

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Since God is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
While God is marching on.

He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
Our God is marching on.

(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Story Continues to Evolve

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:25:54 PM
It's all over the news today that the story of human evolution is being "rewritten" by recent discoveries, especially a fossil found 14 years ago. Associated Press science writer Randolph E. Schmid reports.
This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution, said anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University.

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor - but each evolved and changed separately along the way.
Oh well. So some of that stuff that was so important to teach our school kids and college students because it was "proven fact"; well, that's all changing... again.

This kind of science is forensic – involving events in the distant past - and involves a lot of speculation and assumptions. It is not like we are repeating and testing most of this stuff in labs. While you can get a bunch of scientists to assume philosophical naturalism, and thus exclude as a matter of assumption any supernatural intervention or creation, it isn't like all scientists agree on all of the important details of how we evolved, even if the ones in control of the journals and the universities and associations agree on the basic overall plot - that we evolved from an animal that itself evolved from nonliving materials that emerged from nothingness by mere accident. (Of course, if something can emerge from nothingness, then how can we trust that any lab results prove anything? Perhaps the end result is due to something emerging from nothingness during the experiment, and not the factors the scientist placed into the experiment?)

If there is a God, it isn't unreasonable to be open to the idea that He has acted in history, including the history of our biology – whatever that action was. (And by the way, that the world doesn't seem to be the way you would like it to be doesn't preclude the existence of God.)

Previously: Time For Education to Evolve
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not Ready For Primetime

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:55:59 PM
It's that time again - when GLAAD counts up the number of characters on primetime network television who are attracted to people of the same sex or both sexes or who dress in such a way as to pretend to be the opposite sex, or who go so far as to get hormones and surgeries in an effort to pretend to be the opposite sex. GLAAD, of course, wants to make sure that all of this is shoved into our faces as much as possible, and they want to make sure the networks are giving overall positive portrayals that advance the advocacy of homosexuality and self-mutilation.

Jill Serjeant has the Reuters story:
Some 44 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) characters make regular appearances in scripted shows on network and mainstream cable TV in the new 2009-10 television season, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), said in its annual "Where We Are on TV" report.
Not sure how this differs from their “Network Responsibility Index”, which I wrote about here.
The 18 LGBT characters on major U.S. networks account for 3 percent of all scripted series in the prime-time TV schedule, up from 2.6 percent a year ago, the report said.
According to their tally, the number is up slightly this season to 18 out of 600 roles, which would be in line with reality as far as percentages. However, this is only primetime network television, focusing on dramas and comedies. It doesn’t take into account daytime programming, movies, "reality" shows (many of which make a point of having openly homosexual contestants or have openly homosexual judges/hosts), news magazines, etc.

From the Associated Press article:
Using information provided by ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and CW, the group reviewed 79 scripted series announced to air this season.
So, no Bravo? MTV? Logo? So it is a little misleading. As my prior blog entry noted, "LGBT" characters/people are overrepresented on television. And while the GLAAD folks bemoan (mostly past) limits on what such characters do on-screen (for example -  shows that will show a both-sexes couples in bed together, starting activity under the sheets that makes it clear they are about to fornicate would only show two men hugging, not even kissing) – how many of those same shows will air the serious prayer of a character who is a sincere, level-headed, educated Christian, or show him serving others in the name of Christ? Most television tries to appeal to the widest audience, most of whom do not belong to the same religious denomination, and most of whom do not want to see two men making out. Television will push that, though, if the artists/producers are trying to push an agenda with the viewers.
The steady increase in gay characters is promising, as are story lines that are becoming "more reflective of current issues affecting our lives," GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios said in a statement.

Fair, accurate images of gay couples marrying, raising families and contributing to their communities help fellow Americans "come to accept and better understand" their gay family members and neighbors, he said.
What, no same-sex pairings struggling with infertility or an unplanned pregnancy?

How about programming that shows the higher rates of mental and physical illnesses, substance abuse, and domestic violence? But I suppose that is entirely the fault of families, churches, and politicians who aren't enthusiastic supporters of homosexual behavior, especially among minors living at home?

(This post is most certainly to get a link from a certain website that sounds like a brand of cotton swab.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Candidates Who Didn't Vote: Does It Matter?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:51:16 PM
Whenever it comes out that a political candidate wasn't a registered voter or didn't cast a vote in some or all past elections, it becomes an issue. I can see why political junkies care, because they eat and sleep elections, and someone coming to the playing field who isn't like them in that respect is odd to them.

I have voted every time I have been allowed to cast a vote - save perhaps one ballot on which only a minor local issue or two could be found and no candidates for major office. But I do think it is possible that someone else could have decided they didn't think it mattered or hadn't studied up enough to vote. I don't think everyone should vote - unless they have actually considered for themselves the merits of voting one way or the other.

Lately, this lack of voting has been one of the questions about Meg Whitman, who is seeking to be elected Governor of California as a Republican.

Does it matter to you if a candidate skipped on voting in the past? I'm not talking about elected legislators failing to vote on legislation. I'm talking candidates who have only recently gotten involved in politics. To me, it depends on the reasons why the person didn't vote.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hey Lefty Feminists

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:00:00 PM
I'm talking to Whoopi Goldberg and others.

Why is it that...

If a coed has sex and she later has regrets about it, that's rape.
But if a Hollywood darling director drugs and forcibly penetrates a 13-year-old girl, in the rear no less, that's not really rape?

If an office coworker tells a woman she looks especially beautiful today, but she has no interest in him, that's sexual harassment and he should be fired and sued.
But if a liberal President gets oral sex from a young intern and penetrates her with a cigar, it is nobody's business?

Oh, and does it surprise anyone that Woody Allen thinks it is no big deal to do a 13-year-old? He is the guy who took up with his wife's adopted daughter, after all.

Keep speaking out, Hollywood elites. You're revealing to decent Americans exactly what kind of characters you are, and more and more of them will respond with changes in their spending choices.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thirteen Will Get You Twenty, Unless...

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:51:35 PM
Drugging and raping a thirteen year old girl will get the average adult male some serious time in prison. In Hollywood, as long as you flee from your sentencing and direct movies, it gets you a lot of sycophants who will excuse your evil behavior. Disgusting.

This is exactly when the the activists who claim to be feminists need to speak up and demand that justice no longer be delayed.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lowering California’s Income Tax Rates?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:13:34 PM
Well, maybe. But there's a big catch.

Word was filtering out to the concerned public that a new tax plan for California was going to be proposed, and today was the day Governor Schwarzenegger formally unveiled it. I caught Eric Bailey’s initial report at LATimes.com, and I expect the article will be filled in with more details and quotes for tomorrow's print edition.
Under the proposal, the income tax would be flattened from the current half-dozen rates to just two - a 2.75% levy on income up to $56,000 for a married couple, and 6.5% for taxable income exceeding that threshold. Critics have attacked the proposal as a giveaway to the rich, with millionaires on average paying $109,000 less.
The fact the millionaires would be paying “$109,000 less” means they are currently paying hundreds of thousands of dollars now, on top of whatever federal income tax they are paying. But in reality, millionaires would still be paying a lot of that "$109,000 less" to the new tax...
To offset the reduction in income tax, the commission called for a revolutionary new tax for business and consumers.

The current retail sales and corporation taxes would be eliminated, replaced by a broader business tax that would tap practically every type of free enterprise, including service sector firms like lawyers and business consultants currently not hit by the sales tax.
This means that "millionaires" would be paying taxes on their use of lawyers, accountants, security, personal trainers, gardeners, drivers, plastic surgeons, consultants, etc.

Everyone would be paying taxes on things like theme park/sports/concert/movie tickets and other things that sales taxes haven't touched before.

As the article notes, the "selling point" is that this would bring stability to the state's revenue stream, but I'm not so sure it would. Also, labor unions, business groups, and even some of the people involved in the report have criticized the plan. All it takes to get something killed in California is union opposition.

A better way would be privatizing more of the functions that currently fall under the state government and going with user fees wherever possible.

One reasonable concern is that the income taxes will be raised back up and the new taxes will be kept in place as well, and perhaps increased. Currently, California not only has the personal income tax and business tax, but a high sales tax, a gasoline tax, property taxes, utility taxes, an extra tax on seven-figure income, and all sorts of other taxes in addition to fees and assessments.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Threats Against the President Are Intolerable

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 1:00:00 PM
A poll by a Facebook user where one of the options is threatening to our President? Really? Thankfully, Facebook managers removed the offensive poll.

Whether these kinds of threats are being made by sincere conservatives/libertarians/dissenters, or whether they are being made by Leftists trying to make those other people look bad, threats against the President as a person are inexcusable. Threaten his political career, say that his legacy will be a negative one - that's one thing. But we are a nation of laws, and we have lawful means of opposing a President's proposals without violence. We have lawful means of removing a President from office - elections, or impeachment/conviction if a President has committed serious crime.

Let us neither sink to the level of threats against the person nor shy away from our duty to stand up for the Constitution and the liberty it was designed to protect. That's true patriotism.
Tags: POTUS   winning  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Unintended Consequences?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, September 28, 2009 8:00:00 PM
Aside from the marriage neutering aspect, I have a concern about the possible ballot measure language submitted by those seeking to repeal the California Marriage Amendment. I just came across this language this afternoon, so I direct you to my second entry of the day over at The Opine Editorials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who Is On the California Court?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, September 28, 2009 4:51:51 PM
Carlos R. Moreno was the only member of the California Supreme Court to vote to overturn the duly adopted California Marriage Amendment. He was rumored to be under consideration for SCOTUS before a "wise Latina" got the spot. Maura Dolan of the Los Angeles Times has a profile piece on him, and I take a look at it over at The Opine Editorials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Downsize California?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, September 28, 2009 1:53:08 PM
Not to be confused with Billy Mays, Bill Maze has a real idea about how to deal with California, the "ungovernable" state. Gregor Washinski has the story in the Orange County Register.
Maze leads the group Downsize California Now that is preparing a ballot initiative for a two-state solution. According to their plans, 13 counties on the coast, ranging from Los Angeles to Marin, just north of San Francisco, would be split off and be named Coastal California, West California or whatever they please. The remaining 45 counties, including Orange County, would become the "real" California.
This is exactly what I have been calling for on this very blog.
The movement was formed at the end of last year, when angry farmers in Central Valley rallied against Proposition 2, a ballot measure banning the tight confinement of farm animals. Originally called "Citizens for Saving California Farming Industries," the non-profit group has grown into a broader platform for those who cherish limited government. They hope to see the two-state initiative on the ballot by November 2010.
Marriage and "divorce" on the same ballot? Could be.
Convincing Californians to vote for the division of their state will be a difficult task, though. A poll by the Field Research Corporation earlier this year found that 82 percent of registered voters opposed the idea of splitting California into an eastern and western state. Also, such a plan would require approval by the U.S. Congress.
Yes, and you can be sure that the unions and other socialist groups from Los Angeles and San Francisco will be running ads in opposition, claiming that children will be starved to death and, even worse, prevented from going to school. These groups don’t want to lose the tax money.
Since California became a state in 1850, there have been about 220 documented attempts to divide it, says Kevin Starr, a professor at USC and author of a multi-volume series on the history of California. "And none of them have gotten anywhere."
Maybe, just maybe, things will be different.
Rob Pierson oversees the petition drive at the headquarters of Downsize California Now in Fresno. After a successful secession, he explains, both states would hold a constitutional convention. The ideal California would feature a single-house legislature that would be in session only three months a year. Income taxes would be abolished and a balanced and an on-time budget would become mandatory.
Again, this is exactly the kind of thing I have been advocating. I hope this gets somewhere. Let the Leftists have their overregulation, overtaxation (they won't have a Prop 13), overspending, their sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, and gender confusion. They can have "any" two, three, four or more people getting marriage licenses. They won't have to be offended by those of us who resist such "progress".

Downsize California's website: http://downsizeca.org/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MOHEN

Posted by Playful Walrus on Sunday, September 27, 2009 9:00:00 AM
Euripides has an open letter to marriage neutering advocates and the gay community from MOHEN, the Monogamous and Heterosexual Education Network. It is definitely worth a read.

You may also want to check out this previous entry of mine, explaining one of the reasons I voted for the California Marriage Amendment.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…105106Next »