The Rev. Keith Ratcliff, head of the Iowa NAACP, has quit the organization because of the NAACP's support for gay marriage. I suspect this is going on more than reported. And I'm sure that the bigotry accusations have already started.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120607/NEWS/306070077/Gay-marriage-foe-leaves-Iowa-civil-rights-group
Rev. Ratcliff understands a core issue - authority for the definition of right and wrong either comes from something greater than ourselves, or, if that something does not exist or is not considered relevant, it comes from individuals. That so many think it comes from themselves is part of the "Everybody has their own truth" argument, which, although containing a huge logical fallacy, is very popular now.
In the case of gay marriage, the definition of marriage long held by most of Western culture has been that it is one man, one woman. That is now being set aside for a new definition: one man, one woman; one man, one man; one woman, one woman. Okay, old definition set aside for a new one.
So when do we set aside the new definition in favor of legalization of polygamy, of one man, two women, or vice versa? If it is discrimination to deny marriage to any couple who says that they are in love, how can it be possible to deny multiples who say they are in love?
Friday, June 8, 2012
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
R.I.P.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Get out the duct tape!
Or maybe not. The convoluted nonsense that passes as thought amongst pro-aborts doesn't really surprise anymore, so it's not really as necessary as it once was to have to apply emergency duct tape to prevent one's head from exploding.
We established some time ago that whether or not a child is wanted is what determines whether what a woman is carrying in her womb is or is not human. Warm fuzzy feeling = human. Not warm fuzzy = not human. Recently, it was made clear that the sex of the child carried is one of the sub-criteria that determines humanity. Such things would be laughable if the end result of this wasn't so disastrous for the child being chopped to pieces and sucked into the garbage. After all, as a juror I would have to determine guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt in order to convict. No pro-abort can prove that what is being aborted is not a human being - and the conviction of not human carries the death penalty. But it's real scary to not be a part of the "I'm scared to step out 'cause choice sounds so good" crowd, so many will still go galloping after deadly absurdity. You don't need real facts in order to hold a position - just ask Al Gore.
But sometimes the mental twistedness of "choice" reaches new heights, as it did in Spain recently. Try to kill a child, manage to NOT chop it into pieces and suck it out, child gets born, and now the abortionist gets socked with a lawsuit. Poor guy. He thought he killed the damned thing. And there it is, somehow having morphed into a human being - the one who lived, er, got away. And I assume that their socialized medicine will also pay for the mental health care the accidentally-alive child will need when they get old enough to find all this out.
We established some time ago that whether or not a child is wanted is what determines whether what a woman is carrying in her womb is or is not human. Warm fuzzy feeling = human. Not warm fuzzy = not human. Recently, it was made clear that the sex of the child carried is one of the sub-criteria that determines humanity. Such things would be laughable if the end result of this wasn't so disastrous for the child being chopped to pieces and sucked into the garbage. After all, as a juror I would have to determine guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt in order to convict. No pro-abort can prove that what is being aborted is not a human being - and the conviction of not human carries the death penalty. But it's real scary to not be a part of the "I'm scared to step out 'cause choice sounds so good" crowd, so many will still go galloping after deadly absurdity. You don't need real facts in order to hold a position - just ask Al Gore.
But sometimes the mental twistedness of "choice" reaches new heights, as it did in Spain recently. Try to kill a child, manage to NOT chop it into pieces and suck it out, child gets born, and now the abortionist gets socked with a lawsuit. Poor guy. He thought he killed the damned thing. And there it is, somehow having morphed into a human being - the one who lived, er, got away. And I assume that their socialized medicine will also pay for the mental health care the accidentally-alive child will need when they get old enough to find all this out.
The consequences of socialist medicine are rearing their ugly head in Spain. Spain recently fully legalized abortion in 2010 under a socialist government. Shortly thereafter, a Spanish woman, 7 weeks pregnant, decided to have a “vacuum aspiration” abortion, a surgical procedure where the baby is literally sucked up out of the womb into a jar. The procedure went well according to the surgeon, who even had the patient come back for a follow-up ultra-sound two weeks later and confirmed the “success” of the surgery.
Only one problem: the patient felt pregnancy symptoms 3 month later and was quite surprised to hear from her OBGYN that she was 5 months pregnant.
The extremely generous and competent abortion clinic decided to reimburse its patient for the failed surgery and graciously offered another abortion free of charge -- past the 22-week legal limit. The patient decided to keep the child instead, and sued the clinic.
This week, the Spanish legal system awarded the patient 150,000 Euros in moral damages, and sentenced the clinic to pay her a monthly 1,000 Euros child support for helping raise the child. Where is the father? Who knows? But, of course, the clinic is paid by the state, not by the patient. Welcome to the world of socialized, liberal medicine, where you – the taxpayer -- can now be forced to pay full alimony, not for a doctor killing a patient, but for failing to kill an unborn child.Um, would somebody please remind me why I'm an evil conservative because I oppose this?
![]() |
| Heidi Huffman, a non human who is supposed to be dead |
Monday, June 4, 2012
Gotta get me one of these!
Well, OK, I can't buy any more guns for a while. But this, or something like, has moved to high on the list for the future. Murphy's Law's SUV repair bill today probably cost him nearly as much as one of these would, but while waiting for the auto shop's phone call we went out and played for a while. I checked this time - the range is only 10 minutes from town. And it's really hysterical to be the driver when you have an A-type driving personality as a passenger.
As usual, I did most of the playing and he did the training. ML brought his Marlin 1894 in .357 magnum and a 1911. I brought the M-1, the little .38, and my 9 mm. The aiming problem with the .38 is resolved and that aiming correctness just needs to be repeated regularly, with some single handed and moving added each time. Still working on getting the sighting just right with the Glock - when shooting the spinner I sometimes hit the one below the one I'm aiming at, which tells me that I'm tilting the gun instead of keeping everything straight at the wrists. ML showed me some one-hand drills - there comes that moment when you are standing there with an empty gun and thinking "Um...now how do I get a new magazine in there with one hand?" That's interesting - I now know, at least in theory, how to chamber a round using the back sight of the Glock and my holster. That's not something one normally thinks about.
Moved to 100 yard range, put a magazine in the M-1. Chamber round. Aim. Click. Huh? Eject round. Magazine falls out. Oh. Gotta make sure I hear and feel that seating "click" when I put in a magazine.
Some straight up target practice with the rifles and then some runnin' through the jungle. My oh my that gets the heart rate up! ML went first. I watched carefully, waiting for him to fall into a hole so I'd know not to go to that particular spot. No such luck - would have been entertaining if he had. I managed to put 10 out of 20 on my target. Found that fairly satisfying considering I was jumping in and out of briers and poison ivy and switching magazines in the middle. I at least had the benefit of a magazine. Reloading the Marlin on the run looked like a serious challenge.
There was another shooter on the 50 yard line when we got there. And he seemed to take forever for each shot. I realize that aiming carefully is important, but Yeesh! I can't see how he was having any fun doing it that way. I also realize that there's a good chance that I'll never need any of the fancier skills ML is teaching me. But it adds to the challenge of shooting. And folks take CPR classes on the off chance they might need them one day. I figure this is the same - I hope I'll never need it. And it's a lot more fun than a CPR course.
Now I need to put my poison ivy exposed jeans in the wash - carefully.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






