Amazon Basics leather case for digital phone/camera: Amazon Vine review

My rather silly review of Amazon’s basic leather case for Digital cameras (works with a small phone too) through the Amazon vine program is available at Amazon.com here.

I’m sorry there just isn’t any way to make something like this exciting.

Howard Zinn a communist? Next you’ll be telling me Madonna used sex to sell records!

What do this headline:

FBI Files Reveal Historian Howard Zinn Lied to Hide CPUSA Membership

and this one

So Clarkson was right: Sight of a scantily-clad woman drives men to distraction (… and off the road)

have in common?

Doctor Who Orbis: Amazon review

My review of #3.1 of Big Finish’s 8th doctor adventures Orbis staring Paul McGann as the 8th doctor and Sheridan Smith as Lucie Miller is available at Amazon.com here.

This begins Lucie Miller’s final full season with McGann. It’s a good one.

As always you can pick this up at Mike’s comics. You can also listen to a trailer the adventure here.

“The only Bible some people will ever see is ourselves, so act accordingly”

Poet James Marley… as said to me after I called and read him the Anchoress piece. (He has no computer) The “Act accordingly” is his but he doesn’t recall where he heard the rest of the quote.

That’s two Great Christian minds I’ve been exposed to in under 1 hour. Am I lucky or what?

I was going to write on the Anne Rice bit…

…but it would be impossible to do better than the Anchoress has done.

It’s much too good to pull a piece out of. Go read it.

I’m so sorry Rep Lofgern…

…for revealing that in the face of corruption we intend to give Charlie Rangel a stern reprimand!

The Texas Democrat said he intended to call the head of the full ethics committee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), to apologize for telling reporters that the subcommittee recommended reprimanding Rangel for allegedly breaking House ethics rules. The revelation was not included in the lengthy documents on the charges faced by Rangel that were released on Thursday.

So says Rep Steve Green.

Let me translate this for the general public.

“Rep Lofgren: I’m so sorry I let the cat out of the bag that we plan on punishing Rep Rangel; who over nearly 40 years in the house likely knows more secrets about members of the house than the CIA ever will; with only a reprimand rather than any actual punitive action. I’m sorry I’ve revealed that the ethics committee is not about to punish the man who writes the tax law for avoiding taxes thus putting all of us in an embarrassing position of having to explain why to the voters in a year when we are already in trouble.”

End translation.

If anyone was wondering why Rangel isn’t cutting a deal, you now know. And what will that mean for Rangel, lets look at some history:

A reprimand carries no consequences. A censure doesn’t either, except for the perception that it’s a stronger reprimand; Barney Frank got censured in 1990 for using his influence to fix parking tickets for his partner, but he still became chair of the House Financial Services committee. However, a Representative who gets censured has to stand in the well of the House to have the language read aloud, which at least causes momentary embarrassment. A fine would carry more sting, but an impeachment or expulsion would send a clear message about following the rules.

Or as Captain Ed closes:

Yes, this would mean that Rangel would get the exact same punishment that Joe Wilson got for exclaiming, “You lie!” during Obama’s speech to Congress last fall.

After all corruption and tax evasion is one thing, but defying THE ONE? That is unthinkable!

memeorandum thread here.

Krauthammer just said he is surprised that he would turn down a reprimand deal. Why should he make any deal? If they are afraid of doing more than a reprimand then he knows they aren’t willing to challenge him, and like I said, he knows where 40 years of secrets.

What does the Rangel case tell you about the democratic congress? They are more afraid of Charlie Rangel than the American people.

Update: I couldn’t help but think of the 4th doctor Episode City of Death and the Doctor and Duggen. Jump to 3:25 and you’ll see that in at least one respect the Democratic Ethic committee and the 4th doctor have one thing in common:

The text of the exchange is as follows:

The Doctor: If you do that one more time Duggan I’m going to take very very severe measures!

Duggan: Yeah? Like what?

The Doctor: I’m going to ask you not to!

Send that time lord to congress!

Ten Buck Fridays Patricia Sullivan

Ten Buck Fridays (as seen on the Ruby Slippers Blog and the newly redesigned Adrienne’s corner) today is promoting Patricia Sullivan, running in Florida for the Republican nomination against Allan “Die Quickly” Grayson in the 8th district in Florida.

I interviewed Sullivan on the healthcare mandate back in April and Stacy and I talked to her at CPAC this year. She is certainly a worthwhile choice for congress and deserves your backing. Her blog is here and you can kick in to her campaign by clicking HERE.

Like nobody saw this coming

Do the words: Blood on their hands ring a bell?

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said they were studying and investigating the report, adding “If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.”

This brought to mind something, twenty five years ago just out of college I started at Raytheon. In the list of document that had to be filled out when at my hire was one that caught my eye.

It was a list of offensives that made you subject to death or such lesser penalty as the law would allow.

When you’re 21 it’s really heady stuff to read that there are things you can do on the job that can get you executed. Of course I wasn’t planning to give classified info to the soviets in the middle of the cold war, but it was a sobering thing to read.

As I remember when the media convicted Richard Jewel I’m going to withhold judgment for now on the soldier who is being named in the media, but if an employee at a defense plant is aware that treason carries a possible death penalty how much more should a soldier, particularly during wartime?

If it is proved this or any soldier was complicit in the leaks, such an act that’s as clear a case of treason as there is.

And now it appears that those helping us will now pay for their support of America with their lives.

If this doesn’t warrant a firing squad I don’t know what does.

Memeorandum thread here.

My Shirley Sherrod Sucker post…

has produced some reaction in comments and from some friends who were surprised at my reaction. For those who are unsure, two posts at other blogs make my point best.

The short version comes from Robert Stacy:

A government official successfully pursuing a defamation suit against a private citizen is quite nearly impossible.

Any responsible lawyer would provide three words of helpful advice to Shirley Sherrod: “Discovery’s a bitch.”

The long version is at the American Thinker:

This past Sunday, in his weekly column for the San Francisco Chronicle, “Willie’s World,” veteran black politico Willie Brown confirmed that “there is more to the story than just [Sherrod's] remarks.”

“As an old pro,” Brown acknowledged, “I know that you don’t fire someone without at least hearing their side of the story unless you want them gone in the first place.” Brown observed that Sherrod had been a thorn in the USDA’s side for years, that many had objected to her hiring, and that she had been “operating a community activist organization not unlike ACORN.” Although Brown does not go into detail, he alludes to a class action lawsuit against the USDA in which she participated some years ago.

In the way of background, in 1997, a black farmer named Timothy Pigford, joined by four hundred other black farmers, filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, claiming that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly in all manner of ways, from price support loans to disaster payments to operating loans. Worse, they charged that the USDA had failed to process any complaints about racial discrimination.

The notion that the Clinton Ag Department had spent four years consciously denying black farmers their due defies everything we know about Clinton’s use of race and should have made the media suspicious about Pigford’s claims dating back to 1983.

Flush with revenue in 1999 and eager to appease this bedrock constituency, the administration settled with the farmers — more realistically, their attorneys — for fifty grand apiece, plus various other perks like tax offsets and loan forgiveness. If any of the presumably racist USDA offenders were punished, that news escaped the media.

Is this all talk? Is there an actual suit that will be filed? Boy does this administration hope not.

Quick FYI:

Blogging might be a little lighter than normal as I have to be in and out of the house a bit today.

To all of you who have stopped by from both sides of the aisle thanks for stopping by, glad to have you around.

Interesting: America Refocused Aug 21st & 22nd: Franklin Indiana

One of the things about the tea party movement that you might have noticed is that although you will find quite a few religious and social conservatives in the moment, it doesn’t touch on social issues per se because that is not the mission of the group.

Now there is a social/religious conservative basis for tea party positions. If you are a social conservative and want to attend something with a more Christian spin on the topic a group called America Refocused may have just what you are looking for.

America Refocused revival is two-day event that will be joining the grassroots Patriot movement and Tea Party’s with the Christian Church.

I guess you could call it a Christian Tea Party. Details and Registration are available online. it will be held at the Johnson County Fairgrounds in Franklin Indiana. If you want some details on America Refocused’s principles they are here.

Given my job/employment situation and the lack of success of my last fundraiser (Feel free to kick into DaTipJar if you wish), I will likely be missing this event, but if you are in better financial shape than me or closer to Franklin Indiana that I am it would certainly be worth your time.

Double Speech standard

it’s not news that our liberal friends are in an uproar because of Phyllis Schlafly, she has been giving them fits since I was 1 year old. I just want to know if anyone see the irony in this screen short from Memeorandum.

Note that at Memeorandum we can see the president’s actual remarks but we don’t know from the look what Schlafly actually said, so lets go to the tape:

Certainly nothing factually wrong there, Stacy McCain not only put it best:

This is what we in the journalism business call a “fact”

after including the numbers to back her up pointed out this:

Those numbers are from an exit poll conducted by a notorious right-wing extremist group — CNN — and Schlafly’s explanation of why single women vote overwhelmingly for Democrats is neither new nor “extreme” nor uniquely hers

Then again that’s nonsense what makes anyone think people are becoming dependent on the government:

I can’t see where anyone would get that idea

On the president’s remarks, can you imagine the uproar if George W. Bush said that? The coverage would be non stop 24/7 every station. I’m sure it’s unfair to suggest our liberal friends will not complain about the president calling Africian Americans “Mongrel People” on national TV and they will get around to denouncing it as soon as Shirley Sherrod (our national arbiter on racism) does.

As for Mrs. Schlafly; the only time our liberal friends will not be calling on us to denounce her will be on the day she is burred, and I’m not so sure about they will hold back then. Any candidate stupid enough to go along with this deserves to lose.

Anyway the Schlafly memeorandum thread is here.

Update: Bazinga!

Voices of the tea party: John Western of WCRN

John Weston host the show Conservatively Speaking (formally the tea party show) on Saturdays on WCRN in Worcester Mass.

If you want to hear the conservative tea party turnout make sure you give it a listen.

Tim LaHaye: Unclear on the concept

Forgetting the theological argument on how the end times will work. Can someone explain to me why this is a bad thing if you are a Christian who believes as LaHaye does?

Huckabee went on to prod LaHaye a bit further on his assertion. “Are we now living in the end times, from your perspective?” asked the former Arkansas Governor and possible 2012 White House contender.

LaHaye’s response: “Very definitely, governor.”

Ignoring the fact that nobody knows the day or the hour, since Christians believe the end time will eventually come and the second coming along with it, why is that a bad thing?

The second coming of Christ is a central belief of Christianity why would we worry if it comes because of President Obama or anyone else?

My advice to Christians? Always be ready because regardless of if LaHaye is right or if he is wrong sooner or later you will have your personal end time, obsessing over the date and hour distracts you from the main point of loving God with all your heart soul and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself.

Memeorandum thread here.

Shirley Sherrod you’ve just been SUCKERED!

The suit against Breitbart is going to bring up a ton of really fun stuff about her and her husband and about that lawsuit they settled. Congratulations Mrs. Sherrod every speech you gave, every statement you’ve made and your husband too is now fair game and will be out in the open for all the country to see.

Expressly false statements like this one:

“It wasn’t all media. It was Fox.” Sherrod said in commenting on President Obama’s remarks on The View blaming the media in part for the story

are really going to play well in court. This is going to print money and attention for Breitbart. So lets repeat my thoughts on this case:

Sucker!

Update: Memeorandum thread here Semi Exit question. Will the left try to use this to energize black voters?

A New Doctor Who adventure at Rich’s Comic Blog!

Yeah I’m upset about the Arizona ruling, the Massachusetts electoral college law and the Keeton case but there is joy in DaTechGuy ville today:

For Rich has started his newest Doctor Who saga Outrage today staring the 6th Doctor and Mel!

So get yourself over there and start enjoying yet another exciting and well drawn Doctor Who serial.

Oh and if you missed his just completed 3rd Doctor Adventure, The Stalker of Norfolk it is now available free as a PDF download.

See life is good

Not so fast on this one guys

When I first read this story my jaw dropped on the floor and rolled around a while:

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday’s ruling, according to Julea Ward’s attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views.

Sounded an awful lot like the Georgia case, I wrote about earlier. My outrage button was pushed and heading into overdrive but when I read the Fox story there was a twist that I noticed that should not be ignored:

She was removed from the school’s counseling program last year because she refused to counsel homosexual clients.

This is a most important sentence, we would not allow a doctor to refuse to treat a homosexual man, I can’t see how this is different than an Islamic bus driver keeping a guide dog off the bus.

A counselor’s job is to give advice, there is nothing wrong with a counselor shaping and framing that advice based on their beliefs (we are all of us are shaped by our beliefs) but to refuse a patient based on said beliefs, particularly in a training program, that’s off.

In private practice a person can pick and choose patients, but during training that is a different matter altogether.

Let’s put it another way. Murder is a mortal sin, Adultery is a mortal sin, Theft is a Mortal sin, all are explicitly prohibited by the 10 commandments. Would Julea Ward refuse to treat a person who committed any of these sins as well?

Christianity explicitly teaches that homosexual acts are sinful (many protestant denominations consider homosexuality itself a sin). It is a serious sin, but it is not the only sin, when we pretend that it is we make a grave mistake, almost as large as the mistake that is made when one pretends it is not sinful at all. One can magnify the legitimate sins of others in order to ignore our own. This is a trap not of our political foes making but of our spiritual foes making and its eternal consequences are much more dangerous to us as individuals.

Christian belief is not based on the separation of one from sinners, we are all sinners, it is based on the separation of one from sin and the willingness of Christ to forgive sin when one repents.

So lets be clear on what the 1st Amendment does and what it doesn’t do:

• Julea Ward has a right to follow any religion she chooses, natural law AND the 1st Amendment guarantees this right.

• A public university has no business trying to force any student or employee to change any person’s religious (or political) belief, that is a totalitarian act contrary to the natural law and the 1st Amendment.

• Any such speech code or rule by a public university to restrict the free expression and/or practice of religious (or political) belief is unconstitutional on its face per the 1st Amendment.

• Any and all such public universities who attempt to enforce such codes to change any person’s religious (or political) belief violating 1st Amendment rights should be sued until they are so broke that they have to go back to slide rules.

• A public university CAN however require that a student follow the basic rules of a degree program. An Islamic student can’t refuse to study the anatomy of a dog or pig if they want a degree in Veterinary medicine.  That is not a first amendment issue.

Julea Ward put herself in the wrong by refusing to counsel a homosexual student: From the ruling:

“In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs – including homosexual relationships.”

In such a case the correct and honorable move for Miss Ward would be to tell the patient openly that she considers homosexual relationships wrong and that her advice would be informed by that belief. She could then give said patient the option to either continue with her or request a different counselor. This empowers and informs the patient without violating personal beliefs. If the patient wished to continue with her she could give advice based on actions that are harmful (lying, selfishness, deceit etc) in any type of interpersonal relationship.

And the university put itself in the wrong by trying to change her beliefs:

Ward’s attorneys claim the university told her she would only be allowed to remain in the program if she went through a “remediation” program so that she could “see the error of her ways” and change her belief system about homosexuality.

By attempting to create a single mindset within said program the university harms itself by closing of it’s own mind and robs potential patients of the perspective and philosophy that can benefit them.

There is no question that the media culture and university culture is trying to promote and protect homosexuality (remember Dirkhising Christian & Newsom? Exactly!) and to attack Christianity as a rule. Let’s avoid helping them out in their endeavor.

Memeorandum thread here.

Update: I think we on the right are missing that key detail that makes this case different than the Keeton case. I would however concede that the Clinton appointed judge would have likely gone with the university even if she didn’t refuse the patient treatment.

Update 2: Outside the Beltway almost gets it.

This really isn’t complicated: You’re allowed to believe whatever you wish. Under the 1st Amendment, you’re allowed to say or write just about any damned fool thing you please without fear of sanction from your government. You’re also allowed wide berth in the practice of your religious beliefs.

But public institutions are allowed to set policies that conflict with some people’s religious beliefs, so long as they have a rational, secular basis for doing so. In this case, EMU did. It would be simply absurd to allow students to participate in a program designed to provide counseling credentials who would never be able to get licensure as a counselor.

This misses the point here, if a license is not allowed based on a religious belief that is a religious test and unconstitutional. If they decide a believing Catholic, Muslim or Protestant can’t be certified that is a de-facto religious test made by a public university based on beliefs also unconstitutional. It wasn’t the beliefs of Miss Ward that were the proper grounds, it was the INACTION in refusing to treat the patient that constituted the proper grounds for the University to act.

Update 3: The Anchoress zings in her own gentle way at the very end of this post

I guess my question is, if a gay counseling student expressed an inability to “embrace” religious people or their values also be subject to remediation? Are we drowning in irony, here?

Bazinga!

Wow! talk about turning the “run away” caucus on the defensive

Over and over we have seen on Morning Joe we have seen the people on set in unison (Ari Fletcher the notable exception) go after the Afghanistan war as un-winnable as not in our interest. Richard Stengel is stressing that if we go, it will be people like the woman on Time’s cover that will suffer.

It is an important point to be made.

That time magazine cover (not available online yet) should be put up every time the debate on the war takes place.

Update: That isn’t even touching on the lives of the people who supported us that are already in danger thanks to the Wikileaks and the treasonous bastard(s) who fed them info.

Update 2: The cover is now up:

The cost of running away

Time’s write up is here.

Update 3: Sissy Willis links in a first rate post. That’s almost as good as a new Dr. Who adventure from Rich’s Comic Blog.

Arizona ruling, and Supreme Court Election Politics

Everybody is writing about the court ruling on the Arizona Law. On Morning Joe today they talked a little about the national political reaction.

On Morning Joe they briefly discussed the political impact of the ruling. Charles Blow of the NYT lived up to his name blowing smoke claiming it helps the White House while Mike Barnicle made an important point telling a story that MSNBC viewers likely never heard.

I have yet to see anyone point to the BIG effect this will have on the election. Not in 2010 (everyone knows that the Arizona Law helps republicans) but in 2012.

No matter who the Republican Nominee is they will be able to point to this ruling by a Clinton appointee, they will likely be able to point to a Supreme Court that will have every justice appointed by Barack Obama ruling against said law (Let’s not pretend Justice Sotomayor or a future justice Kagan will vote otherwise).

Abortion is usually the big gun (and don’t get me wrong I expect any republican appointee to be against abortion) but this is an argument that is going to resonate on 2012. Conservatives and tea party members should be making the point every time they make a stop that a vote for Obama is a vote to strike down the Arizona law in the supreme court.

If the ad isn’t already cut it oughta be.

Oh and the “Hispanic” vote is not monolithic on this issue no matter what Chuck Todd says on Morning Joe today.

I wonder if Morning Joe that promotes the cover of Time regularly

will decide to push this tidbit?

Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill — he calls it “the leak” — is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype.

Well, Rush has a point. The Deepwater explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it’s no leak; it’s the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It’s also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far — while it’s important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago — it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. “The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared,” says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana.

Stacy McCain has a long memory:

Mother Earth is a lot more resilient than environmentalists give her credit for. I remember the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 — a horrible thing, but Santa Barbara today is as lovely a place as you’d ever want to visit and I’m not aware that there is any residual damage from that spill.

and has fun with undeniable truth of life 24 but the one that is actually applicable is #6 from the updated list.

The Earth’s eco-system is not fragile.

Will we see this mentioned on Morning Joe? Likely not today, but it could happen tomorrow. I’ll keep an eye on it.

Update: Memeorandum thread here.