Liberals Need to Change Language to Avoid Debate

For liberals, language and its perversion is very important.  Since emotion trumps reason for most issues, the words used are more important to liberals than concepts.  Take for example Bill Clinton who when questioned about certain actions responded:

It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.

You get the picture.  Now comes the war on words regarding those among us who are not citizens and are here illegally.  Most common sensed people would call such individuals “illegal aliens.”  But not liberals.  In part to obscure the facts and in part to prevent hurt feelings (remember that “feelings” are very, very important to liberals), new language needs to be developed to prevent the public at large from associating illegal aliens with their illegal and alien status.  In fact, they propose laws for just such an agenda.

TALLAHASSEE — A state legislator whose district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants wants to ban the term “illegal alien” from the state’s official documents.

“I personally find the word ‘alien’ offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children,” said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. “An alien to me is someone from out of space.” [only a liberal could come to this as a first definition of the word]

She has introduced a bill providing that: “A state agency or official may not use the term ‘illegal alien’ in an official document of the state.” There would be no penalty for using the words.

In Miami-Dade County, Wilson said, “we don’t say ‘alien,’ we say ‘immigrant.’”

She said she encountered the situation when trying to pass a bill allowing children of foreigners [not "illegal alien" and now not even "immigrant"] to get in-state tuition at colleges and universities. Wilson, who directs a dropout prevention and education program in Miami, said she politely asks witnesses at public hearings on such issues not to use the term.

“There are students in our schools whose parents are trying to become citizens and we shouldn’t label them,” she said. “They are immigrants, through no fault of their own [really? how did they get here illegally?], not aliens.”

Wilson said the first word isn’t as bad as the second.

“‘Illegal,’ I can live with, but I like ‘undocumented’ better,” she said.

Asked if her bill (SB 2154) might run afoul of Gov. Charlie Crist’s “plain speaking” mandate for government agencies, Wilson said, “I think getting rid of ‘alien’ would be plain speaking.”

il·le·gal [i-lee-guhl]

–adjective

1. forbidden by law or statute. 2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass. 

–noun

3. Informal. illegal alien. 

 al·ien [eyl-yuhn, ey-lee-uhn]
–noun

1. a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen). 2. a foreigner. 3. a person who has been estranged or excluded. 4. a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial.

 –adjective

5. residing under a government or in a country other than that of one’s birth without having or obtaining the status of citizenship there. 6. belonging or relating to aliens: alien property. 7. unlike one’s own; strange; not belonging to one: alien speech. 8. adverse; hostile; opposed (usually fol. by to or from): ideas alien to modern thinking. 9. extraterrestrial.

Note that in each definition above, the first definition is the one most appropriate to describe those who are ILLEGAL ALIENS!

HillaryCare: A Look Into the Future

Want to see what a government run healthcare system looks like?  Oh it goes by many names; single payer, universal healthcare and the like, but regardless of the name, it is socialized medicine.  And for those of you who think that America would be healthier under such a system, consider the following in the UK:

“Minimum waiting times” have been imposed by at least 43 per cent of Acute NHS Trusts, a survey for Channel 4’s Dispatches programme found. Treatments are often postponed for more than 20 weeks, despite staff and equipment being available.

Patricia Hewitt, the beleaguered Health Secretary, has vowed to resign if the NHS fails to balance its books by the end of the financial year.

The delays were described as “unnecessary” and “crazy” by James Johnson, the chairman of the British Medical Association.

Remember that in Canada, waiting is routine just because the system is inefficient.

Meteorologists Forecast Doubt Over Global Warming

Meteorologists here in the midwest seem to be doubting the alarmism being pushed by the PC correct crowd.  Here in Cleveland, there is an article concerning our local weathermen who scoff at all the global warming hype. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Sure, a panel of 2,500 scientists this month declared that it is “unequivocal” that global warming is occurring and at least 90 percent certain that humans are responsible.

And, yes, the international report predicted that world temperatures will rise from 3.2 to 7.8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 and that sea levels could rise from 7 to 23 inches, leading to worldwide catastrophe.

OK, fine — but don’t get too worked up over it.

“We have maybe 100 years of data on a rock that’s 6 billion years old,” said Johnson, a WEWS Channel 5 weatherman. “Mother Nature tends to even herself out, and the fact is, the Earth is cyclical.”

Goddard, WJW Channel 8 meteorologist, said scientists have flip-flopped on the matter: “I have a file an inch thick from 30 years ago that says the planet was cooling,” he told the crowd of several hundred.

They cautioned listeners not to put too much stock in what they said was an insufficient history of warming.

“The term global warming’ strikes fear in the heart of people every time you say it, but it’s simply a rise in temperature over time, and it’s happened before,” said Nolan, meteorologist at WKYC Channel 3. “I’m not sure which is more arrogant for humans: to say we caused it or to say we’re going to fix it.”

Don’t worry guys.  We’re not going to turn you in to the weather gestapo.

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program “The Climate Code,” is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their “Seal of Approval” for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

Global Cooling (Just Kidding)

Some scientists seem to have a short memory.  With all the “certainty” of global warming, there is a convenient amnesia regarding past predictions.  When I was in high school, the concern was that global cooling would devastate crops leaving millions to die of starvation.  The same “sky is falling” scenario is playing out concerning global warming.  For the sake of nostalgia, consider this from Newsweek 1975:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

They were certain and “almost unanimous” about the cooling trend.  Here we are some 30 years latter and they’ve moving 180 degrees on the subject.  Now there is “certainty” about global warming, the effect of green house gasses and man’s evil environmental ways.  Those heretics who challenge eco-nazi orthodoxy are burning at the state of MSM.  They are “deniers” and they must be silenced!

PC Restriction of Speech Enters US Court

Think that freedom of speech is not threatened in the US as we have read about in Canada?  Think that freely speaking of Christian and traditional family values in public could not possibly be restricted in this country?  Better think again.  The US 9th Circus Court of Appeals is hearing a case dealing with just this type of issue.

TEMECULA, Calif., Feb. 14 /Christian Newswire/ — On Thursday morning, in a special session being held at the Stanford University Law School campus a critical First Amendment case is being argued before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case deals squarely with the issue of whether Christians have a right to use neutral language in the workplace to talk about same-sex marriage and other issues at the forefront of national debate.

Attorneys Scott Lively and Richard D. Ackerman will be arguing the case before the Ninth Circuit on behalf of an African-American Christian woman who was threatened with termination at her job with the City of Oakland. The City of Oakland claims that references to the “natural family, marriage and family values” constitute hate speech which is scary to city workers. The Ninth Circuit panel of judges includes two women and one man.

Back in February of 2005, United States District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the city of Oakland had a right to bar two employees from posting a Good News Employee Association flier promoting traditional family values on an office bulletin board. According to the lawsuit, gay and lesbian city workers had already been using the city’s e-mail, bulletin board, and written communications systems for promoting their views to other workers, including the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs, Regina Rederford and Robin Christy posted the flier in response to an e-mail to city employees announcing formation of a gay and lesbian employee association. The two responded with a promotion of their own — the start of an informal group that respects “the natural family, marriage and family values.”

But supervisors Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered removal of the flier, stating it contained “statements of a homophobic nature” and promoted “sexual-orientation-based harassment,” even though it made no absolutely no mention of homosexuality.

Read the entire article.  Note that nowhere did the flier mention homosexuals or sexual orientation.  The mere fact that such a group might be opposed to such behavior was enough to enrage the “tolerant” types forcing them to spring into action to save the city from certain ruin.  Yet another disgusting example of how those that preach tolerance of fringe views and behaviors are themselves the least tolerant.  The fact that such a case has reached this level in the legal system shows just how far fringe groups have forced their agenda on the public. Š

A Tale of Two Faith Stands

Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is in Tanzania facing orthodox [read:faithful] bishops of the Anglican Communion.  Things seem to be rather heated from the reports available, but in a show of good news, there is apparently some agreement on oversight of the Episcopal Church and its endorsement of homosexuality.  We’ll see.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has said that the creation of a pastoral council to provide oversight to dissenting churches and congregations in the U.S. is  “an interim solution that will certainly fall very far short of resolving all the disputes that are before us” but was nonetheless one that would “provide a way of moving forward with integrity.”

Meanwhile, U.S. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori asked Episcopalians to “be of good faith” following the ultimatum issued by Anglican leaders for the American church to state unequivocally by Sept. 30 that it would bar same-sex blessings and stop ordaining gay bishops.

A communiqué released by primates of the Anglican Communion at the end of their meeting Feb. 15-19 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania warned of consequences if the demand is not met but did not spell them out.

At a press conference held shortly after the release of the communiqué, Archbishop Williams indicated that the consequence would not be downright expulsion from the Communion. He said that if the U.S. church cannot “in good conscience” comply with the demand “that has to affect some of the consideration we would want to give about the organs of the Communion.”

Asked whether this included withholding invitations to the Lambeth Conference, he replied, “Among other things, that’ll have to be under consideration. I don’t pre-empt a decision but that’ll have to be discussed.” (The next Lambeth Conference, the decennial meeting of the world’s Anglican bishops, will be held in Canterbury, England, from July 16 to Aug.4, 2008.)

In a recent USA Today interview, Shori makes it clear that she sees two “forms” of Christianity. 

She [Shori] sees two strands of faith: One is “most concerned with atonement, that Jesus died for our sins and our most important task is to repent.” But the other is “the more gracious strand,” says the bishop who dresses like a sunrise.

I would conclude that Shori sees the US Episcopal Church as the “gracious” stand and will move from the “atonement” Anglican strand.Š

“Liberals Aren’t Very Good at Talk Radio”

This is the title of Ken Blackwell’s recent column posted (HT Pullinsreport) at Townhall.com. This of course refers to the liberal push to legislate “fairness” on the radio waves. Conservative talk dominates the radio and despite the fact that millions have been pumped into Air America, even this nurtured child of the left cannot compete. What’s the obvious liberal solution? Of course just legislate fairness. Think that the fairness will apply to all media? Think again.

Before we begin the chorus of amens, it’s important to note the congressman isn’t talking about the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC. He isn’t talking about the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, San Francisco Chronicle or even the Cleveland Plain Dealer. And no, he doesn’t care about CNN and MSNBC either. They don’t bother the good representative. He is talking about Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager and Michael Medved.

While liberals hold a virtual monopoly on broadcast television and print news, many on the left just can’t stomach the reality of a dominant conservative presence on talk radio. They want to give Mr. Franken and his pessimism and rage-filed talk radio comrades something they could not obtain on their own – market share.

This is why liberals are so eager to bring back a roundly rejected and blatantly unconstitutional piece of government intrusiveness know as the Fairness Doctrine. And Hinchey is ready to do the heavy lifting with his Media Ownership Reform Act, which includes reinstatement of the doctrine. If it passes, the legislation would force radio stations that air conservative talk shows to also air liberal shows – regardless of listener interest or sponsor support.

Blackwell hits this one right on the head. Don’t give the comrades what they want, give them what the Politburo wants them to have.

“They shall look on Him whom they have pierced” (Jn 19:37)

This is the Gospel passage that Pope Benedict XVI takes for our Lenten meditation.

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

“They shall look on Him whom they have pierced” (Jn 19:37). This is the biblical theme that this year guides our Lenten reflection. Lent is a favourable time to learn to stay with Mary and John, the beloved disciple, close to Him who on the Cross, consummated for all mankind the sacrifice of His life (cf. Jn 19:25). With a more fervent participation let us direct our gaze, therefore, in this time of penance and prayer, at Christ crucified who, dying on Calvary, revealed fully for us the love of God. In the Encyclical Deus caritas est, I dwelt upon this theme of love, highlighting its two fundamental forms: agape and eros.

Cartoon

“The science is very solid.”

Mark Steyn has a great piece in the Chicago Sun-Times concerning the continued controversy over “climate change.”  Do read the whole piece.  I love the sarcasm.  When someone in science declares that the “issue is settled,” know that that person has little regard for science which ALWAYS is open to more information and better methods of data collection. 

And, if you really don’t like the global weather, wait half-a-millennium. A thousand years ago, the Arctic was warmer than it is now. Circa 982, Erik the Red and a bunch of other Vikings landed in Greenland and thought, “Wow! This land really is green! Who knew?” So they started farming it, and were living it up for a couple of centuries. Then the Little Ice Age showed up, and they all died. A terrible warning to us all about “unsustainable development”: If a few hundred Vikings doing a little light hunter-gathering can totally unbalance the environment, imagine the havoc John Edwards’ new house must be wreaking.

The question is whether what’s happening now is just the natural give and take of the planet, as Erik the Red and my town’s early settlers understood it. Or whether it’s something so unprecedented that we need to divert vast resources to a transnational elite bureaucracy so that they can do their best to cripple the global economy and deny much of the developing world access to the healthier and longer lives that capitalism brings. To the eco-chondriacs that’s a no-brainer.

Those who declare there is no controversy in climate science wish only to close any thoughtful debate and move on with their political agenda.