People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Thursday, February 03, 2005

You Can't Fool Me

This may be welcome news.
MTV to Air Ads 'Empowering Women'
By Susan Jones CNSNews.com Morning Editor

February 02, 2005 (Editor's Note: Contains material some readers may find objectionable.)

(CNSNews.com) - One of the nation's premier organizations for girls and young women is launching a campaign protesting the way, "women and girls are routinely devalued in today's society," that includes advertising on a cable television channel increasingly criticized for its sexually suggestive and demeaning portrayals of women.The Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) campaign includes TV ads on MTV, which has come under increased scrutiny for its programming because of questionable content.

One day after the YWCA announcement, a study of MTV programming accused the cable channel of "blatantly selling raunchy sex to kids." The Parents Television Council (PTC) study involved 171 hours of around-the-clock programming during the week of March 20-27, 2004, which MTV billed as its "Spring Break" coverage. According to the PTC analysis, MTV music videos averaged 32 instances of foul language per hour and "reality programs" averaged 13 sexual scenes per hour. (link)
You mean to tell me there is actually an organization of women out there that objects to their sisters, daughters, and granddaughters being called bitches and being treated like they were all whores? There are women out there who think it not a good idea that teenage girls get the hell routinely beaten out of them by their live-in boyfriends? Women who choose to defy the current MTV culture of degradation and abasement? Who think it wise to instill a sense of worth in young women?

We can only hope.

So We're The Bad Guys?

The Democrats have finally come around to the notion that Iraq does indeed need to be liberated ...

... from us.
Congresswoman Attempts to Redefine the Phrase 'Occupying Force'
By Marc Morano CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's use of the term "occupying force" to describe the U.S. military presence in Iraq was not a "harsh term," said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.), who attempted to redefine the terminology.

"I believe that we can, if you will, change "occupying's" definition to being collaborators -- collaborators with the Iraqi people and moving them toward their own self-government," Jackson Lee told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday night at the U.S. Capitol following President Bush's State of the Union address.

"So I think it is not a harsh term. We were there occupying, if you will, and we needed to do so for a certain degree, if you believe that the war created the havoc that occurred," Jackson Lee said.

"I think you can look at the U.S. presence in [Iraq] many different ways; and for large numbers of Iraqi people, despite the democratic elections [on Sunday], we are occupying," she added.

Pelosi, in her State of the Union rebuttal, said on Wednesday, "The United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue to be viewed as an occupying force." Pelosi also criticized President Bush for not presenting a "clear plan" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. (link)
Can we put these people on a plane and dump them in Tora Bora so that they can commiserate with their soul brother, Osama bin Ladin? I truly believe sometimes that the views of most Democrats in Washington is more akin to those of the terrorists than to ours.

Shame on Pelosi, Lee, and the entire squalid bunch of them.

A Growing Consensus

Suzanne Fields uses a phrase in her article in the Washington Times this morning (The Green 'State of Fear') the substance of which seems to be taking hold in the scientific - and literary - world.
Environmentalism ... is the religion of choice for urban atheists. (link)
She cites author Michael Crichton and brings to mind a section of his new bestseller, State of Fear, that I found, when I read his thriller about environmentalists turned terrorists, to be stunning in its implications. She writes:

He compares the science of the environmentalists as similar to that of the study of eugenics a century ago. The study of eugenics, the idea that the human race could be "improved" by selective breeding, was at first supported by presidents, Nobel laureates, major universities and the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations, and together they molded public opinion. The science was insidious, pseudo-, and wrong.

Eugenics, recognized nearly everywhere now as both morally and criminally wrong, led directly to the Holocaust, with the Nazis killing first the feeble-minded, and ultimately extended to include Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals. Those who opposed eugenics were reactionary, ignorant or both.

Research motivated by racism, fear of immigrants and "keeping the wrong people out of the neighborhood," drew few protests.

Mr. Crichton argues that many environmental studies today are similarly flawed, directed by scientists who shape their research to fit the cause, and read by an ill-informed public duped to believe that scientific papers are "objective."

For those of you who are not students of history and are not inclined to do any research on the subject of eugenics (and its influence on an icon of modern feminism - Margaret Sanger), go get the book. Crichton encapsulates the problem with groupthink - and with the psuedo-science that passes these days for thoughtful fact-based inquiry as it relates to the theory of global warming.

And go in fear. The scientists have taken over the asylum.

As I Said ...

I had harsh words the other day for a federal judge (a Carter appointee) who doesn't have a clue when it comes to the law. U.S. District Senior Judge Joyce Hens Green determined that, among other rights, the foreign terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo are entitled to due process as if they were American citizens. I made the point that she didn't base her "judgement" on anything written in the Constitution, and that it was, in a word, shameful.

It is good to know that the Justice Department agrees with me.

There is no basis in the Constitution, or in history, for according aliens captured by the military outside the United States and classified as enemy combatants 'due process' rights under the Constitution, there is nothing in our historical tradition that would entitle those aliens to all classified intelligence information and sources used to classify them as enemy combatants or to demand a lawyer to assist them in claiming that they were erroneously classified," the department said. (link)

For those of you who are afraid of a rogue President foisting his "extreme" idealogy on an unwilling populace, please remember that a president is at the mercy of the electorate (a la November 2, 2004). Judge Hens Green, because she sits on the federal bench forever, will be rewriting the Constitution for the rest of her life. And delivering such absurd rulings ad nauseum.

I will be more fearful of her.

Changing The World

With regard to President Bush's State of the Union speech last night, I agree with the New York Sun editorial entitled "The Hug of Freedom" that says:
It was a room full of famous and powerful politicians and generals, but the most memorable moment during President Bush's State of the Union address last night came in an embrace between two women hardly anyone had heard of beforehand. One was an Iraqi voter, Safia Taleb al-Suhail, whose father was assassinated 11 years ago by Saddam Hussein's intelligence forces. Another was Janet Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, whose son, a Marine sergeant, was killed in the attack on Fallujah. Both were watching the speech from Laura Bush's box. When Ms. al-Suhail reached out, apparently spontaneously, to embrace and comfort Ms. Norwood, Ms. Norwood, who was clutching her dead son's military dog tags, seemed to press them on Ms. al-Suhail. It left even the grizzled television commentators and politicians deeply moved. (link)

The world is indeed changing ... for the better.