Kelinci Hutan
07 October 2013 @ 08:27 am
Obviously President Stompy-Foot was not going to let the fact that the GOP finally grew a pair stand unchallenged. So, in a fit of pique, he has decided to make the shutdown far more unpleasant than actually necessary. So far we have seen governance by temper-tantrum that would put most two-year-olds to the blush.

  • The Battle Of The Barrycades
    Location: National Mall, Washington D.C.
    Read about it here and here.

    After storming the beaches of Normandy, fighting actual Nazis, and generally being awesome, World War II veterans returned home, worked hard, kicked back in retirement, and waited fifty-nine years before the US finally built a memorial for their work on the National Mall. However, because the federal government is shut down, open air memorials (as in, it's just sitting out there on the Mall with no fences or enclosures or anything) like this one have been barricaded. So far, the vets have been undeterred (probably because after fighting actual Nazis, nothing in the world seems that scary anymore), and--aided and abetted by Republican legislators--have armed themselves to storm the Mall with wire-cutters.

  • The Closure Of The Ocean
    Location: United States coastline - all of it
    Read about it here.

    The National Park Service has actually been directed to prevent people from accessing the ocean. As in, no boats or swimmers allowed on open water. The sheer ridiculousness of this particular stunt pretty much is its own joke, so I'll make no further comments on this one.

  • The Hiding Of Mount Rushmore
    Location: Black Hills, South Dakota
    Read about it here.

    To be clear, I can understand closing down the Rushmore park. If the government is shut down, there's no park minions to man it, or anybody to pick up the trash that the rude tourists drop on the ground. So, that part makes sense. The bit where this becomes a temper-tantrum is where cones have been set up on overlooks on the roads outside the park to try and prevent anybody from even looking at the mountain.


  • The Amber Alert Website Goes Dark
    Location: the internet
    Read about it here and here.

    In a move that actually surprises me more than I thought it would, the Obama admin has closed the Amber Alert website. Unlike the previous examples, which might not have come directly from the administration (though I'd be surprised if they didn't), the Amber Alert system is purely a product of the executive branch, which brings the responsibility for this one to rest squarely in the Oval Office. And this is most certainly the most damning of all the tantrums.

    To be clear, the Amber Alert system is still operational. But the website isn't there for nothing. Quoting from a set of tweets in this article, "Now as you know, the website being down doesn't mean that the Amber Alert isn't still in place, but it does take away an important function. The Amber Alert website is connected to a lot of agencies and people are on it daily to help find missing children. With the site being down, they're ridding us a very vital source of information that could be helpful to people searching for missing kids. Perhaps there is a missing child out there right now and a person believes that they spotted them. They go to the site & it's down...", on the other hand, is still totally operational. Because FLOTUS' pet projects are more important than abducted children, apparently.

So, basically, Obama is taking steps to make the shutdown worse than it should be. Even if you blame the GOP for the shutdown itself, you can't possibly excuse this behavior.

Thanks, Obama!
Location: Ivy Manor
Music: "The Captain America March" - Captain America by Alan Silvestri
Mood: pissed off
Kelinci Hutan
07 November 2012 @ 09:30 am
Yeah, I'm mad.
Mood: angry
Kelinci Hutan
04 September 2012 @ 09:08 am
So, the Republican National Convention was a good watch. I really enjoyed the speeches from (Ann) Romney, Ryan, and Rubio. Romney-the-Presidential-Candidate's speech was not bad, but not quite as interesting. I was glad to hear Obama's top-down approach to government so thoroughly repudiated. As Marco Rubio said, "These are ideas people come to America to get away from" and I've seen the mess those ideas made in Indonesia enough to be certain that we don't want them here.

I also enjoyed observing the leftie obsession with "dog whistles" and how basically every other thing any of the speakers said was a dog whistle. Usually a racist one. My thoughts on that phenomenon are pretty well summed up by this article. I heard maybe one thing that would qualify as a dog whistle, and that was the end of Paul Ryan's speech when he condemned the left for perpetuating pro-abortion oppression, but he didn't use the word "abortion" to do it. I haven't seen these comments roundedly denigrated by every media outlet ever, as I had expected when he chose to end his speech on a pro-life note, so I'm wondering if perhaps that flew over the heads of those not in the pro-life movement.

I did notice, however, a lot of claims that most of the speeches didn't make policy statements, so I'm wondering if all of those were "dog whistles," too? I thought I heard some pretty clear ones from Romney towards the end there. Or maybe it's just that those on the right are familiar with the Republican platform already, and so the RNC is more interested in defining the reasons they adopted that platform then they are in telling people stuff they already know. I don't know that Democrats truly are better at making policy statements, but there seems to be broad agreement that they do make them more often. So, I'm wondering if that's because they feel (correctly or incorrectly) that people don't know what their policies are and they need to tell people.
Music: "Trying To Communicate" from Battleship by Steve Jablonsky
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
This week has been, so far, a great week to be a pro-lifer. Three great things.

First, a federal judge has placed an injunction on Obama's embryonic stem cell funding order. Judge Lamberth pointed out, and rightly so, that funding such research is in direct contradiction to the Dickey-Wicker Amendment which prohibits federal funding of research that involves destroying embryos. He further argued that it is ridiculous to suppose that you can pick apart bits of a continuous process, claim that one bit is unrelated to another, and fund each separately, saying, "Simply because ESC research involves multiple steps does not mean that each step is a separate 'piece of research' that may be federally funded, provided the step does not result in the destruction of an embryo." This injunction does not (indeed, can not, lamentably) stop people from obtaining private funding to do ESC research, even though ESC treatments have, to date, done nothing good for anybody and a lot of bad for the unfortunate test subjects who've been subjected to them.

Second, in Washington, the State Board of Pharmacy has decided to drop its rule forcing pharmacists to dispense "emergency contraception" pills, which can act as abortifacients, even against their own consciences. This rule was initially upheld by a court but has now been dropped by the pharmacy board, possibly because the court was ruminating on overturning it anyway (I heard some rumblings, but nothing definite, so don't quote me on this), and may be revisited again in the future.

Third, and in a turn of events that I find amusing and infuriating by turns, the Virginia Attorney General's office has issued an opinion stating that the state Board of Health can regulate abortion mills, and can, in fact, hold them to the same standard as they would any other medical facility like a hospital or a dentist or a vet. Wait! you say, They weren't held to those standards already? No, no they weren't. In fact, according to Virginia pro-aborts, being forced to meet standard health and safety regulations could result in 17 of the state's 21 abortion mills closing down! While many abortion apologists claim, probably correctly, that the state AG, Ken Cuccinelli, is really just trying to shut down the mills, the fact that all but four of the state's mills must be allowed to continue operating without meeting safety regulations or else close down should be where everyone's concern is. The fact that the pro-aborts are even trying to defend unsafe abortion practices is just...sad. This opinion is not binding and it may be two years before the state health board begins enforcing anything.
Mood: good
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
26 March 2010 @ 10:45 am
I'm mostly sticking this here so I can find it again. Basically, these are a couple of good articles on the "who's getting the worse threats" political football that's being tossed around at the moment. Here and here.
Mood: interested
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
20 March 2010 @ 01:58 pm
Okay, so after doing some reading around I have discovered this article which explains the Slaughter Rule in a better way than the previous links. Apparently, rather than entirely hijacking the governmental processes, it's more like a fantastically hilarious legislative gymnastic contortion.

Here is the problem: The Senate has passed its HCR bill. If the House passes the same bill, it goes on to the president; once he signs it, the bill becomes law. But House Democrats, when they vote for the Senate bill using the "Deem & Pass" dodge, also want to simultaneously pass a package of amendments to the law. Except HCR will not, at that point, be law. It will only become law when the president signs it. Congress can amend the law -- it does so all the time -- but can it amend something that isn't law?

So there you have it. And so that I'm being clear, this is a retraction of my previous statement of totalitarianism. Granted, I'm still frowning heavily in Pelosi's general direction, but the rule is not quite so bad as I had initially supposed.

Update, 2:55 PM - And apparently, the whole plan to use this rule is dead now anyway.
Mood: interested
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
07 February 2010 @ 08:02 pm
Okay, okay, okay, so the Tebow commercial came out. It's completely unobjectionable. Leik woah. So, I suspect in an attempt to mitigate the egg on their face from kicking and screaming about it before it came out, this article had a seriously funny paragraph.

The Women's Media Center, which had objected to Focus on the Family advertising in the Super Bowl, said it was expecting a "benign" ad but not the humor. But the group's president, Jehmu Greene, said the tackle showed an undercurrent of violence against women.

*eye roll*
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
23 January 2010 @ 03:59 pm
Yesterday, some people know, was the 38th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision. The very next year, 1974, the first annual March for Life was held in Washington DC, protesting legal abortion in our country. Since then, the pro-life movement has grown and is still growing. Yesterday was the 37th consecutive March for Life. Over twenty members of Congress spoke at the rally before the march, representing both the House and the Senate. Alvida King, Martin L. King's niece, was in attendance. Guess how much media coverage this march recieved?

Virtually none. Seriously, did you know about it? I thought not.

Okay, so what? Lots of Congress critters and a King showed up. Who cares? Alright, try this on for size: there were over two hundred thousand demonstrators. 200,000. Possibly as many as three hundred thousand. People came from at least all of the "lower 48," although I suspect Hawaii and Alaska were also represented. People came from other countries like Spain and France and Ireland. Name me any other movement in the history of the US that stages demonstrations like this dependably, every single year and doesn't have their big annual event get at least a solid mention in most of the major news outlets? Seriously. Name me one. Anything.

Yeah, I've got nothing, either.

So, let's look at some of the folks that did "cover" it. Here is NPR's article. "Roe v. Wade Anniversary Brings Anti, Pro Marchers To DC." Well, okay, technically accurate as there apparently were pro-abortion demonstrators there. This article estimates that there were "about 60 abortion rights demonstrators." Sixty? Really? Sixty pro-abortion demonstrators? To 200K pro-life ones? Even the abbreviated form of 200K is bigger than 60. They probably all felt like this picture from the NPR article:

That Scripps article describes the pro-life crowd as "angry," too. I have to say, I watched that rally on EWTN, (the only network reliably covering it) and they weren't "angry." The Orthodox Rabbi that spoke was a regular firebrand, I'll grant. He might have been a little bit angry. Certainly the crowd was energized and excited. But I suppose any energy seems like anger to people who want those who have it to be bad guys.

CNN gave a bit of a mention, as well. Near the bottom is this hilarious line. "'A fetus is not a life, sorry,' NOW President Terry O'Neill told CNN." Sorry, science! Sorry, biology! Sorry, common sense and intelligent philosophy! You are all wrong, because I say so! Ha, ha, ha! Yeah, it doesn't work like that.

To quote Steven D. Greydanus at the National Catholic Register:
This is sheer mendacity—not even just biased journalism, it’s outright malicious deception.

This was not a meeting or juxtaposition of two opposed demonstrations, however equal or unequal. It was a massive pro-life demonstration with a few counter-demonstrators. We were the event; they were a tiny footnote. That is simply a fact that the piece is nakedly attempting to bury.

bolding his

Why am I not surprised. Heaven forbid people actually discover how wide-spread and fired-up this movement actually is! Why then all those folks with pro-life leanings might actually figure out they're not alone!

So, if you're curious what it really looked like, Jill Stanek posted some of her pictures. The Washington Times has a good photo gallery, too. On YouTube, a search for "March for Life" and "2010" returned this.

Way to miss the story, media folks. When Roe comes crashing down and most of the country throws parties, you'll probably miss that one, too. I won't, though. I'll be with these guys, celebrating.

Location: Ivy Manor
Mood: annoyed
Kelinci Hutan
19 January 2010 @ 08:28 pm
So, I'm watching the Massachusetts election results and Scott Brown is winning. Which is weird because Massachusetts is really, really Democrat. Even weirder because the last man elected to this particular Senate spot was...Ted Kennedy.

So, the news people are going on about how this is a referendum on the Obama administration and how people are Not HappyTM with what it's doing. In fact, it was described as "neo-monarchical" and "arrogant." The people in DC think they are smarter than The People, they know better than The People, and they will decide for The People whether The People like it or not. And I think that's a pretty accurate description of the attitudes that you see from some of the higher up politicians and their "progressive" supporters.

On the other hand, this same crew is applying this as a broader referendum on the Democratic party in general and predicting a wild swing back to the GOP. In this I think they are mistaken.

See, everybody knows that Brown is very much a "New England Republican." He's sort of Conservative, but he's not that Conservative. And people are mad at some of the Democrats, but not all of them.

I think this a referendum on politics in general. And I think the message is that people are freakin' pissed. There are two groups emmerging in politics lately that are going to change everything. The first is the Progressives. Progressives tend to be Democrats, but they aren't exclusively so. The second is the Tea Party. They don't tend to be politicians at all, but voters. And they aren't really voting along party lines. And lately, Progressives and Tea Partiers have been fighting like cats and dogs.

2010 is going to be a fun year.
Location: Ivy Manor
Mood: interested
Kelinci Hutan
A while back, I wrote about how a bunch of people on WGW were getting all up in arms about the census worker who was killed, and how it was--magically, I guess--all the fault of the Republicans.

Except now, his death has been ruled a suicide.

But that's Michelle Bachmann's fault, too, right? Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, all those evil Republicans guilted this man into taking out huge life-insurance policies on himself and then faking his own homicide, didn't they? Because they hate census workers!

I am sorry this man is dead, but I just love when the blame-gaming people come up looking this stupid. This is me, pointing and laughing.
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
12 November 2009 @ 08:48 pm
I've been obssively reading the news lately, and I found this article that says that abortion rights or health care was a "false choice" that Congress was being forced to make.

To grab a couple quotes that caught my eye.

...With the Stupak-Pitts amendment hanging from it like an albatross, a bill was passed that would cover millions of uninsured Americans but also strip millions of American women of reproductive health coverage. To the uncompromising went the victory.

Is this how it goes these days?


It's now abortion-rights supporters being told they must make further concessions or lose health care reform altogether. And, as Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette said, "a lot of the people are angry. They feel like the liberals and progressives always cave in because they want the bigger goal. We have to draw the line somewhere."

Where exactly do you draw a line when the opposition keeps moving it? How do you compromise with those who are uncompromising? These questions are too common in our polarized climate, but the stakes are even higher in this debate.

This is the kind of thinking I see in a lot of pro-choice writing. Why don't pro-lifers compromise? Why won't they settle for what they have now? Why doesn't this issue go away?

First off, when the hell did compromising your principles become a virtue we are seeking to attain? "To the uncompromising went the victory. Is that how it goes these days?" I sure as hell hope so, you moron! Thank goodness that we're finally seeing pro-life people have enough clout to get some legislating done on it. Not compromising is a good thing. Geesh. Compromise is what you do when you can't get what you think would be better so you make do with what's available. It's not the ideal, it's something less. Good grief.

Next, and this is something I'm more and more realizing as I interact with pro-choicers, I don't think a lot of pro-choice people really understand the pro-life position as well as they think. Because if they did, there would not be much surprise that the pro-life movement isn't going away. There'd be even less surprise that it gets stronger in the face of every defeat, regroups and tries again. And no one would ever be shocked that it's uncompromising because this isn't the kind of issue you compromise on.

"How do you compromise with those who are uncompromising?" The answer is, you don't. You either beat them or not. If Ms. Goodman would think about it, I bet she'd understand why, too. Consider that every unborn fetus who is aborted is a person. No, don't shy away from it or roll your eyes 'cause you've heard it before. Really think about it. Wrap your head around that concept. Let it sink in. People. Real people. Real, honest-to-goodness, they-have-a-life-and-a-voice-and-a-place-in-our-world people. Some of them would be your best friend, your lover, your teacher, your student, your enemy, your mentor, your criminal, your charity, your victim, your acquaintance, and your stranger. Real people. Real, empty spaces that should be filled by them. Real lives that are really lost. Those are the people--not the fetuses or the "groups of cells," but people--that pro-lifers see in all those dead babies. All that lost life. Real life and it's really gone. Take a deep breath and ask yourself a question. If you saw people like that dying all around you, would you ever, ever give up? Would you stop or rest ever until they were protected?

It's not good enough to take what we have. There are people dying and they need to be saved. Abortion is not health care. It's a business of death, and it needs to be stopped.
Location: Ivy Manor
Mood: okay
Kelinci Hutan
10 April 2009 @ 03:27 pm
Today the guy from Jeff Sessions office returned my call and said that he's actually put some effort into trying to track down how many red envelopes were recieved by the White House. (!!!) Apparently the White House is not releasing that information (at least, not yet), even to people on "the Hill." (Shock, shock.) His theory was that they either don't feel like telling people, or the rather more mundane explanation that the mail hasn't quite gotten through screening yet (personally, I think the former is more fun, but the latter is more probable).

He also, very kindly, gave me a phone number to call. It is, unfortunately, the same number for the White House switchboard that I already have (darn!), but at least he tried. He also said that they were in support of the efforts of the project. Given Senator Sessions' leanings, I can't say I'm surprised.

So, my calling the Communications Office got nowhere (they may not pick up calls refered from the switchboard, or perhaps they were just busy), but I'll call them again on the other side of the weekend. In the meantime, still no official word on the internets beyond some guy who supposedly works in the mailroom named "Steve."

Go Jeff-Sessions'-staff-dude, though.

In other news, it's Good Friday and I'll be singing at services later on tonight.
Mood: happy
Location: The Solarium
Kelinci Hutan
08 April 2009 @ 02:15 pm
So, I did the Red Envelope day last Tuesday and I've been watching the news since to see if it got covered anywhere. Since the only place I've seen any numbers was in WorldNewsDaily (they say the White House has recieved at least 3.25 million red envelopes and that they're still coming in). WND is not the most reliable source, so I have gone looking for more official confirmation.

I called the White House switchboard and got referred to the Comments line. I called Mike Rogers office (mostly in case they could suggest someone better to call) and they suggested I call the White House. I called Richard Shelby's office and got a busy signal (apparently call waiting is not Senator Shelby's platform). I called Jeff Sessions office and left a message for their "guy who handles these things." Whatever that means. I emailed the White House and heaven knows how long it will take for them to get back to me.


I am calling the switchboard tomorrow and asking for the Communications Office. I'll see if that one goes any better.
Mood: determined
Music: Batman - one of the many