Sunday, February 28, 2010

Chapter 19. The Firmest Ground: Principle

On Friday, the Daily Mail Online published the news that Catholic Care, the last Catholic adoption agency in Britain would be fighting the so-called Sexual Orientation Regulations  requiring agencies to accept gay couples as applicants, by an appeal to the High Court.  All previous encounters have ended in the closing of Catholic adoption agencies in the UK.
"But the Charity Tribunal ruled that it would be unlawful to allow Regulation 18 to be used as a defence by Catholic Care, saying that the proposed alteration of the objects ‘arose substantially out a desire to maintain a principled stance rather than being specifically designed to advance the ... charitable purpose of the support, relief and care of children and young people without families to care for them’."
Indeed.  The principle that a child is best raised by a father and mother, is not new to the Church or numerous other denominations and faiths.  Further, the principle not to knowingly participate in a grave evil is also a time-tested tenet of Christianity.

In a pastoral letter read at parishes in the Dioceses of Hallam, Leeds and Middlesbrough, the respective Bishops state:
"We are not judging other agencies that accept same sex couples for adoption, but feel strongly that we should not be forced to do so, nor is there a necessity for this to happen. We believe that this is a legally justifiable position to take and that it is a reasonable response to a legitimate end."
 But Catholic Care's reasonable position, based on principle but also justified within the pragmatic goal of placing at-need children into loving homes, is not good enough for the rabid forces, including but not limited to the homosexual activist community, that are now arrayed against the social structure of the western world and its primary building block, the family.  Compromise is not in their dictionary, or play book. It's not about one singular issue, but rather a radical re-making of our society.

The key to rebuffing this attack are our principles, and the willingness to stick to them when the false premises of political correctness, tolerance and an apparent short-term good make it easier to give in.

Quotient out.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Chapter 18. To Green Drivelists: Just Answer The Question

Two multibillionaires have become the revealed archetypes for the newest form of exploiter:  green.  As the catch-basket name would imply, green means making earth's foilage healthier and more abundant.  We are told this is to be accomplished by reducing our "carbon footprint" by cutting back on energy-producing processes that create greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.  But don't those plants breathe carbon dioxide, the chemical that the EPA, in December 2009, determined is dangerous?  And what about water, the most abundant greenhouse gas on the planet:  is it time to regulate water vapor?

These are a couple of the numerous Questions-Never-To-Be-Answered by the advocates of green.  Two such champions are enough for us to get a glimpse behind the curtain.

In a recent Economist interview with Shai Agassi, the Israeli-born entrepeneur stated his glorious vision for the world of the electric car, complete with fueling stations that allow the vehicle to have "infinite range."  He also states that the gas-powered car technology "has not undergone any innovation in a century."  Such exaggerations are the bread and butter of money-men like Agassi.  He also bombastically tosses out the claim that he can renovate a ten trillion dollar industry of "cars, spare parts, and everything else," without ever connecting this number to the switch to electric cars.  But, maybe spare parts are not needed for phantoms.

Mr. Agassi is an extremely bright and successful man, and maybe he is a visionary after all.  If so, can he answer the first Question-Never-To-Be-Answered:  where does the electricity come from?

The other green man is T. Boone Pickens, he of the national media blitz urging us to follow his plan to eliminate America's dependence on foreign oil in 10 years.  Pickens is a well known corporate raider from the 1980's, when he gobbled up oil companies and made his fortune off of fossil fuels.  Now he's green, at least partially.  His Pickens Plan would have created the largest wind farm in the country, supplying 4,000 megawatts of power to Texas homes.  The initial plan to purchase General Electric wind turbines became a possible purchase of 2,000 turbines, and eventually led to a single purchase of 677 turbines.  By July 2009, Mr. Pickens had abandoned his wind farm scheme, and recently turned his attention to his next money machine, natural gas.  Once again, maybe Pickens has the answer and deserves to be rewarded for it, but many doubts remain.

So, the Question-Never-To-Be-Answered:  how much power per dollar invested does a wind farm generate?

Don't hold your breath awaiting the answers to these questions from these men, or any other green advocates.  The answers exist, but have more to do with lining the pockets of green oligarchs than advancing fanciful notions that more properly belong on the cover of Popular Mechanics.

Quotient out.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Chapter 17. NOW What??

One might have thought that with all of the hype surrounding the decision of CBS to run the Super Bowl ad featuring quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, the ad itself would be a gritty re-telling of what might have happened to Timmy and the family had mom heeded the deadly advice of her doctors and had an abortion.

With a mixture of premature disgust and meaningless protestation, pro-abortion advocates awaited a gut rot straight-whiskey shot of audio-video.

The ad turned out to be more like a strawberry smoothie.

The 30 second commercial is benign, playful and somewhat vague, featuring the mother and son against a blank background, smiling and hugging amid gentle folksy guitars.  It ends with humor and an invitation to visit the Focus on the Family's website to watch the real, full story.

Prior to the ad being shown, Terry O'Neill, President of the misnomered National Organization for Women, stated to 

“The goal of the Focus on the Family ad is not to empower women. It's to create a climate in which Roe v. Wade can be overturned.  There are always going to be women who need abortions. In this country, one in three women will have an abortion.” Full Story

Loins girded for battle, the fembots were simply left looking silly.  Not to be deterred, however, Miss O'Neill experienced a sudden change of heart, or maybe face.  Her latest, and even shriller, objection to the ad concerns the CGI enhanced "tackling" of Mrs. Tebow by her son.  It's humorous, and at the end of spot she even says flat-out that she's tougher than him.  Apparently the sweetness and humor are lost on Miss O'Neill:

"I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it.  That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message." Full Story

Er, okay.  Right, celebration of violence.  Got it.

The fact is, Miss O'Neill and those of her ilk hate the Tebows, and for good reason.  They're Christian, successful and even good looking.  But most repulsive of all the Tebows don't suscribe to the philosophy of rending babies' limbs and crushing their skulls.  Go figure.

Quotient out.