A planet where apes evolved from MAN?!?

Narnia: The Christians seem to like it

and so I soon expect to see the backlash from the anti-religion and anti-Christian leftists as a result.  I expect to see a fine-tooth analysis of every possible angle and possible allegory that will put those of the Fundies (and I say that with affection) to shame.

And for the record, not all lefitsts are anti-religion or anti-Christian.  But those who are constantly manage to amaze me with their venom and ability to go off the deep end over anything, anything, that may make Christians happy or paint any Christian faith in a good light.

Take a look over at Blogs4God, and see their roundup of the Christian segment of the blogosphere

UPDATE:

Found the link on the link about... for a prime example

So, Bush's tax cuts hurt the federal govt, limiting the money it had to spend?

NOT

So, the decline that began under Clinton, hit it's nadir in 2003, when Bush put in place his job recovery plan and a few more tax cuts. Look where it's gotten us....
In the words to the Puppy Blender, "heh"

Don't worry...

... by dawn tomorrow, this will all be Bu$hHitler's fault

Meanwhile, at the Hall of Justice

   I had jury duty yesterday, for the State of NJ and County of Camden. And yes, the county courthouse is named The Hall of Justice. I shit you not.

   Anyway, so I set out to get to the court for my 8:15 sign-in, in beautiful down town Camden, NJ. Not at all to my surprise, the city had shoved the public walks and roads, but had not put down any salt or sand. As a result even 4x4 and AWD vehicles were fish tailing and drifting at all of the intersections. That I only saw one accident I can only chalk up to sheer blind luck. Oh, yeah, we had snow the night before. Happy Birthday to me.
   Oh, yeah, Monday was the birthday. Second year in a row it has snowed on my birthday, which at this lattitude isn't really common. Global warming? My ass.

   So, after well as sat around for an hour or two, they took 92 of us upstairs to see if they couldn't fill a 14 body jury for a murder trial. Murder, illegal possesion of a handgun, illegal discharge of a handgun, etc. And on and on it went. And Craig Mitnick was the lawyer for the defense. Which, as luck would have it, also got me excused. While Mr. Mitnick is perhaps the best known (some might say infamous) criminal defense attorney in Camden County, his father doe brisk trade in civil suits. One of his clients is my neighbor (yes, that neighbor). Throw in my general pro-cop leanings (yes, I know there are plenty of less than stellar police out there, but I put more weight on the word of a cop than the guys on the other side of the bars) and associations, and Mr. Mitnick had me dismissed from the panel. Which, from his standpoint, was a good thing, since the judge nearly tossed me off too. Had I been called early in the day, rather than late, I think I would have been bounced pretty quick. The thing I found interesting, and the last thing I will say about the whole thing, was that as of my leaving, the proscecutor only bounced one juror, a self admitted party girl. The defense asked that 10 or more jurors be sent back tot he pool, in adition to the dozen or more the judge passed on.

   Anyway, my slow day in the court left me time to think, about a numbe of things. Including other court issues.

The Soloman Amendment bruhaha
   So, a bunch of liberal law school types don't want the military recruiting on their grounds, because the military doesn't allow homosexuals to serve openly. They are claiming that by allowing and being required to provide the same access to the military as any other recruiting entity is a violation of their civil liberties, in particular their First Amendment right to political speech.
      Now, nobody is actually forcing these schools to host the military recruiters. But as part of Soloman, the funding they get from Congress has a few strings attached. One of them is that the military must be allowed to send recruiters on the campus.
      So, if you don't take the money, you don't have to host the boys and girls from the JAG corps.
      But, that would mean schools like Yale would have to give up some money if they want to punish the military for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
      And this means that really what they want is to eat their cake and have it too. Give us the money, but don't you dare expect anything in return.
So here my take on all of this.

• They are punishing the military for a choice CONGRESS made

That's right. Congress, at the behest of the President (at the time, Clinton), implemented the policy that has Yale et al's panties in a bunch. But the rhetoric is not going after Congress, but the Pentagon. This means that the law schools are either exceptionally deficient in logic, or they are being just a tad dishonest. The latter would never surprise me from lawyers and progressives, and the former would seem to me as another great reason not to give federal funds to such a school.

• Yale... grubbing at the federal trough...

I'll be honest, if the schools were small schools whose reputation was one of modest means, I might have some sympathy. But when Ivy League schools that can afford to be picky about enrollment, and are, I find it hard to have alot of sympathy here. Especially since it is essentially pay for play.

• It's not enough that the military is what allows them to be free and have freedom of speech

Nope. The role the military servers in our soiciety is not enough for these ingrates.

• It's like taking a man's hospitality, and spitting on his floors

Or entering a Japanese home in your muddy shoes. Come on, people.

   Ug. Given that it is Congress that came up with don't ask, don't tell, anybody know why they aren't pressuring Congress? You know, harrassing them to change the ruling? Single out the supportors and signatory parties?
   Or could it be, that this really isn't about gay rights (or not entirely)?

The SCSIwuzzy Manifesto

Less fun than the Meatbeat Manifesto
Less insane than the Unibomber's Manifesto
More cogent than the Communist Manifesto or Earth in the Balance

It's the first part of the SCSIwuzzy Manifesto.
   Call it a mission statement, or a masthead, or whatever you want to call it, but this topic heading is where I will lay out, in detail, where and why I stand on something. Why? One, to point back to when commentors and other bloggers question where I am coming from and/or call me a hypocrite for a position I am taking on a given day. Second, as a means of crystalizing how I feel. Sometimes, until you really think about it, and either lay it out in text or talk it out, you may not spot the inconsistencies inherent in your mind and heart. Membership to TypePad is cheaper than a therapist :) Third, the general ego stroke that this kind of blogging provides us. MoDo has the Times Op-ed pages, I have you, the blogosphere.

   OK, so how shall I launch this new series of ranting screed? Since the headlines have been full of abortion news, and I've been having vigorous debate with other posters and bloggers over at Wizbang, it seems like a good place to begin.
   First, let me lay out some basics so y'all can follow along. Some of my thoughts are already fact or law in some states, so nobody get pissy if it is, or isn't. You can disagree with it, but don't whine "that's already how it is, dumbass" to me. These points are how I feel it ought to be.

• Abortions have their place in medicine and society

   Some children need not be born, plain and simple. A child that will likely kill the mother (in the course of pregnancy or birth), or the child of incest, rape etc. However, the rape issue to me is not a sure fire reason to abort a child. If a woman can find it in herself to raise this child, or give it up for adoption, God bless her.

• The primary choice to have an abortion, or not, lies with the pregnant woman (notice the word woman, not girl or child)

   Look, a woman that doesn't want the child is a lot less likely to be a good mother, in nearly all dimensions. If she is having the baby only because she cannot get an abortion, she's more likely to try something drastic, like taking something to kill the child or the infamous coat hanger abortion. Failing that (from apathy or fear) she may just not care, and do things like drink, smoke (tobacco, meth, crack, weed), snort cocaine or a host of other abusive things that she may enjoy but can kill or maim the child. Short of strapping a woman to a bed and feeding her through tubes for nine months, you cannot force someone to be a healthy and caring mother. If her first instinct is to kill the child, I don't hold out much hope for her as a mother.

• Abortion is a surgical procedure

   And as such, it caries risks to the mother. This needs to be understood by the mother to be. And I mean in the short and long term arenas. I am talking about the risks of infection, permanent damage preventing further children and possible psychological problems, such as depression. I know women that have had abortions at reputable clinics in the 1990s and 2000s and later discovered they could never conceive or bring a child to term again. It is more common than the folks at NARAL and related groups would have us believe. I also know other women who fell into deep depression, once the full weight of what had happened set in.

• Life begins shortly after conception

   So yes, I think abortion is killing a human. The further along things are, the worse I think it is. That any children are conceived and unwanted is saddening to me. But I cannot change that fact, any more than I think I can force people to want to see things my way.

• The doctors should also be able to choose whether or not they will perform an abortion, unless the mother's life is in clear peril (what I would call the emergency room clause)

   Simply put, if a doctor has moral objections to the procedures, they should not have to perform them. They should refer the patient on to another doctor without the same scruples. If a doctor feels a fetus is a person, I don't see how they can honor the hypocratic oath and perform an abortion. If they don't see the fetus as anything but a bloody mass of tissue, then the oath isn't an obstruction (if you don't see it as your patient, you can't very well see you actions as causing harm)

• The moral, psychological and spiritual repercussions are borne by those involved

   If there is an afterlife and we are judged, then yes, we will all face the consequences of our choices. I don't claim to know what God wants. Or to know that the God I believe in is truly the final arbiter of our souls (I believe, but don't have the audacity to think that the feeble human mind can really understand the grand design of creation. I hope a fraction of that understanding is waiting for us in the next world). The point is, abortion is about as final a thing as we humans can do. A tattoo can be removed. Breast implants removed. Apologies made, angry words forgiven. But taking a life is final. I don't think it is my place to add to the burden in this life, or the next, that must be shouldered by a woman who chooses to abort her child.

• Third, but liable, parties should be informed.

   Here's the thing. If I father a child, and the mother decides to keep it, I am liable to support this child. Legally, and in my opinion, morally. If the mother chooses to abort the child, I should also know. Why? How is it my business? Well for one, if we are still together and she kept it from me, we wouldn't be together any longer. Shouldn't I have the right to know that the woman I think I love decided to kill our child? I may not have a legal or binding voice in the choice, but I should know the outcome. I think part of consenting to having a relationship with someone also means telling them something like this. Now, some guys would be glad to hear she chose to abort. They'd keep going with her as a result. But that's not me. Oh, and I think legally, only husbands (by marriage or common law) need to be informed. Morally, I think the woman should do so regardless of the law. But, not everyone is me.
   In the same light, I think parents should be informed as well. Parents have a legal and moral responsibility for their daughters' health and welfare. This is a surgical procedure that carries risks and can have some very nasty complications or repercussions. And the parents will be on the hook for dealing with them. A daughter that hides the pregnancy and the abortion, is also likely to hide any ill effects as well. And these hidden problems can quickly grow into serious issues, perhaps life threatening.
   The exception, of course, is when the parents or father are demonstrably a danger to the mother if they learn the truth. A judge should be able to determine whether the liable parties can be kept in the dark.

• Abortion should never be the first recourse. It may be birth control, but it should not be the primary means of birth prevention

   Condoms, chemical contraceptives, diaphrams. These are means of prevention. They are not hard to get in this day and age, in America. Which, by the way, is all I am talking about. Any attempt to apply this to other societies will be met with a rude gesture. You cannot see it, from your side of the screen, but I will be making it, be sure.

• If the State is going to subsidize abortions, there should be a mandatory waiting period and counseling.

   So, to buy a gun in many states, and a handgun in all of the US, you need to wait a few days for the transaction to be completed. The primary reason is to cut down on crimes of passion. The notion is, that if I am forced to wait, I will have time to calm down and then may realize that killing someone is a bad idea, and not go through with a very stupid course of action. So why not similar logic for abortion? The action is irrevocable, and will be with the woman all of her life. What would the harm be in requiring that she wait 5 or 7 days from the day she announces that she wants an abortion (to the doctor/clinic) and the day the procedure is performed. I've known more than a few women over the years that said that between fear and pressure (from friends, the father, a professor) and general confusion they rushed into an abortion. Some came to regret the choice at once, some not for months or years. But all wished they had spent a little more time thinking about it, and maybe would have chosen differently. Or at least been able to live with the choice better, knowing it was properly deliberated upon.
   In a similar fashion, why not have some free and mandatory counselling as part of the waiting period? Make sure the woman knows the ups and downs of everything she is about to do before she makes a choice she cannot take back? At the very least, it would provide a neutral party to talk things out with, who should have no vested interest in seeing the child live or be aborted.

• Abortion providers should be fully licensed, and subject to regular inspections.

   This is just common sense.

More on this later, but for now I have a headache. Between a busy day at work, a bouncing barometer and busting this out in the last 20 minutes, I am feeling some pain behind the temples, and I still have homework waiting at home.

[Listening to: A Party for Santa - Big Bad Voodoo Daddy - Everything You Want for Christmas (02:53)]

Christmas Cards?

Muhahahaha
I love this idea.

May I recomend this one?

Or perhaps this one?

Which one do you think would tick off your favorite Anti Christian Leftist Utopian more?