Paul Smith Jr has a new home for his blog: www.gazizza.net. Click to go there now!
Friday, September 17, 2004
War of 1812
OpinionJournal - Taste
Be sure to check out the History Channel's presentation of "First Invasion: The War of 1812". Excellent presentation. Not sure when it will be on again, but definitely worth watching.
The National Anthem
Thus for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research.
I know the feeling
I was just reminded of the National Anthem and we need to give it a greater respect and understand it better. It was written during the attack on Baltimore during the War or 1812. The loss of Baltimore could very well have spelled the end of America's independence.
What Key wrote of here was the anxiousness and anxiety he felt while waiting for the sun to rise to see if the American flag still flew over Ft. McHenry. If it was down, the battle was lost, and America could be over. It was up, we were continuing to fight and resist the British.
Despite, having opposed the war, Key was really anxious about the result since it could mean the end of our country. The first verse describes how he knows we were still holding the fort since the British were still attacking. But would the flag still be there in the morning? The second verse is the joy of seeing the flag still there at dawn. The third verse is rejoicing at the victory. And the fourth is thanking God and asking his continued blessings.
I used to think we should change our National Anthem to America the Beautiful, but understanding The Star-Spangled Banner had changed my mind.
You know it'll come to this someday
Thursday, September 16, 2004
CNN.com - And now�the news ...�in Klingon - Sep 15, 2004
This is just one more sign William Shatner was right on Saturday Night Live: "Get A Life!"
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
"I believe in God as I believe the sun has risen, not because I can see it, but because by way of it I can see everything else." --C.S. Lewis
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival." --Winston Churchill
"The federal government is slowly but surely destroying real families, but it is hardly a benevolent surrogate parent." --Ron Paul
"So John Kerry now is the first self-confessed war criminal in U.S. history to be nominated for president. Normally this would be considered an electoral plus only in the more cynical banana republics. But the Democrats seemed to think they could run an antiwar anti-hero as a war hero and nobody would mind." --Mark Steyn
Jay Leno: Here's an interesting fact, the Republican Convention boosted the New York economy $255 million. But the Democrat Convention in Boston only netted it $14.8 million. People wonder why it was so much less? Sure, Democrats don't like spending their own money. .... John Kerry has a new theme to his campaign, he says the "W" in George W. Bush stands for "wrong." The wrong direction, the wrong policy. Gee I wonder if Bush will say the "F" in John "F" Kerry stands for "flip-flop." Are these guys running for president of the 8th grade? .... Actually Bush got the last laugh. He said "everybody knows wrong starts with R." .... Did you hear this? "60 minutes" has a new policy. From now on they're going to spend at least 60 minutes verifying
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Well, if you agree with Rather, maybe you should give just a smidgen more slack to George W. Bush about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush's sources were more solid by several orders of magnitude than Rather's, and yet it is "obvious" to so many that Bush lied while Rather deserves the benefit of the doubt. George W. Bush had the head of the CIA, the intelligence agencies of all our allies, the Clinton administration, the United Nations, and most of the establishment media generally backing his understanding of the threat from Iraq. Dan Rather had a couple shoddy Xeroxes — not all of which were examined thoroughly or at all. He interviewed a partisan — Ben Barnes — a huge backer of Kerry whose story has changed several times. But because many who hate Bush believe he lied, they are willing to believe any lies that confirm what they already know to be true.
If these documents turn out to be forgeries, as seems likely, CBS can no longer claim that they are an unbiased source of news.
And as Jonah stated on the Corner
I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere, but let's be clear. The moment CBS admits these docs are bogus, theymust divulge who their source was. Protecting sources who tell the truth is honorable (though not as sacrosanct as some in the press think). Protecting sources who gave your news organization an umbrella enema and then opened it, is nuts. You have no obligation to protect a source who lies to you. Indeed, you have an obligation to out such sources. The only plausible motive I can think of for why Rather et al would protect the source of these documents -- once they admit the truth -- is that the source of these docs is even more embarassing than the fraudulent nature of the documents themselves. If it's Chris Lehane or Ben Barnes or someone else tied to the Kerry campaign, CBS News will have actively aided and abetted a partisan smear. And they can't afford to admit that.
Look at it this way: Assuming CBS comes clean, imagine if Karl Rove were the source. They'd admit it in a heart beat.
There is precisely one reason for CBS not to admit the source: it would expose them as the press wing of the Democratic party. If these are indeed fake, they have an obligation to reveal the source so the same source doesn't try something similar with another news agency. There must be another, even more embarassing, secret they can't dare reveal.