As linked to earlier, a 23 year-old Georgetown coed – scratch that – a 30 year-old women’s rights [sic] activist, Sandra Fluke, testified before an all Democratic committee advocating the notion that government provided contraception is needed due to the expense of purchasing it on your own.

At JWF, however, some light was shed on the reality of this testimony.

For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

And let’s not paint all of the coeds at Georgetown into the same corner that Fluke so proudly stands in. From Sandra Fluke Does Not Speak For Me,

Sandra Fluke doesn’t speak for me. Or for Georgetown.

She doesn’t speak for those of us who worked hard to be able to choose to come to a great institution with a great tradition of faith and scholarship. She certainly can’t speak for the Jesuits who dedicated their lives to God and Education with a long established set of rules. There are only ten of them, and Ms. Fluke would do well to give them a quick read.

Now, it seems, after Rush stepped in it, there is a call to appeal to Rush’s sponsors to pull their support,

Tell Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers: Stop Supporting Rush Limbaugh’s attacks on women.

When Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law School student, testified before Congress to protest rightwing attacks to limit women’s access to birth control, Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

Oh, the irony.

So much irony, as a matter of fact, that Liberal columnist Kirsten Powers wrote,

But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show…

…

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don’t show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Lest anyone think I am crying foul of the Left – that conservatives are being treated unfairly – fret not. As this post title states, it’s not about shouting “no fair!” but continuing to note it’s no fluke that the Left is hypocritical when it comes to defending women’s rights.

Good morning.

1. Care bear meta-ethics.
2. For the fast, advice.
3. So, is this the origin of the “slut/prostitute” claim? … condoms cost what? $.50 each? $3000 per year sure buys a lot of ’em … Speaking of which, the 98% of Catholic women use contraception claim … there are 22 million Catholics in this country and 12 million women use contraception … by which we can estimate that almost no non-Catholic women use contraception. Odd that.
4. Useful remarks on Mr Rush’s apology can be found here.
5. One more on that front.
6. The Lorax, not a tale of environmentalism, but one against stupid supply chain management.
7. Apparently we are to believe that teachers cannot figure out which teachers are good and bad. Sorry, that’s not tenable or even credible.
8. So, the left espouses separate but equal?
9. Speaking of inner city … a book recommended.
10. Get into the zone.
11. Let’s see a company mismanages funds, cuts back … however when it occurs is that the reaction? No, if not why not?
12. “Reduce costs by reducing births?” … uhm, hello? People produce stuff. Zero people -> zero production.
13. Trend our government wants to achieve? Hope, change and progress, eh? If we reduce the number of hospitals that will reduce money spent on healthcare (consider the limit).

In Canada, strip searches from possession of a deadly … crayon.

Also from the Great White North, government intrusion into homeschool, saying that Christian parents can’t teach a Biblical view of homosexuality. Freedom of religion is being chipped away slowly enough that most don’t see it.

If Obama is some post-racial president, why is he launching "African Americans for Obama"?

Medical "ethicists" are seriously arguing that post-birth newborns are "not persons" and can ethically be "aborted".

With all the religious implications of Obama’s policies, you’d think he’d have kept around his faith-based council for advice. Nope, they’ve just faded away.

Movie reviewers of the liberal persuasion are all for anti-war, anti-military or pro-environmental message movies, but that idea gets thrown out when they disapprove of the message. Suddenly, it’s "propaganda".

Scofflaw Democrats. "The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 further provides that if, for two years in a row, more than 45% of Medicare funding is coming from general revenues rather than Medicare taxes, the president must submit legislation to Congress to address the Medicare funding crisis. President Bush dutifully followed the law, but President Obama has ignored it for the last three years."

Obama claims that we can’t drill our way out of the energy problem, and then, in the same speech, notes that domestic oil production is at it’s highest level in 8 years. Because we drilled! Can’t have it both ways, Mr. President, but the press will try to let you have it.

Good morning.

1. One of those “your XYZ name” charts.
2. A (possibly? likely?) better indicator of future climate trends than CO₂.
3. Oh, and about that “big” Heartland AGW skepticism threat.
4. Two more posts, a little more reflective than reactive, on the med ethics journal article considering infanticide. Here and here.
5. Upcoming mindless fun entertainment.
6. Jeesh, 40+ posts mentioning Mr Breitbart’s death from the rabid/insane right before we get to one with suspicion and conspiracy. Hello, the guy must have had dozens if not hundreds of death threats from the loony left a week. Hey, back before blogging and the Internet, I spent a half year in the exercise of believing as true everything I read on alt.conspiracy … y’all are missing out on the fun.
7. Slosh = Schlitz?
8. Apology mania.
9. Insurance troubles?
10. Art leads to reflection.
11. That pipeline.
12. Statistics and genocide.

The Breakfast Burrito, from Charlie’s Chili, in Newport Beach, CA.

After a PhotoWalk on and near the Newport Beach pier, we had a great breakfast at Charlie’s Chili. The breakfast burrito is a large offering of egg, potato, bacon (or sausage), cheese, and salsa, served with fried potatoes. This order will set you back almost $10, but you’ll be set for the rest of the day!

Enjoy!

– image © 2011 A R Lopez

The right to government subsidized sex
Yes, believe it or not, an argument [sic] based on expense is offered for why women deserve to have government provided contraceptives. I wonder if there are studies which indicate the percentage of contraceptives prescribed for conditions such as endometriosis vs. mere desire.

###

That thoroughly modern phenomenon known as the Youth Pastor
From the Gospel Coalition,

All too often, youth programs have turned to entertainment-driven models of ministry in order to bring in youth. Success has become the name of the church-growth game. The devastating effects, however, are not only seen in the number of youth leaving the church after high school, but also in a spiritually and theologically shallow worldview among many American teenagers. The irony is that these same teens actually want to grow and learn hard truths. They want to know how to think about suffering, how to pray, and why Jesus had to die.

And here’s the book.

###

A President who hears from God

###

Have a mobile device? Malware has increased over 150%

###

Another apology to President Karzai

###

A First Century manuscript of the Gospel of Mark?
Wallace will be on the Stand to Reason radio program, Sunday March 4th, 2 – 5 pm PST.

Good morning.

1. Myths of the Middle ages debunked.
2. An interesting home project and its results.
3. More blowback from the academic paper suggesting infanticide might be a good idea.
4. Icon and smash.
5. Is that because they envy the position and power that the entitled had during that age?
6. Boom (still, it’s not a 50 pound sausage, but we’re getting there).
7. A question for Mr Obama (from the left, I’m pretty sure).

I’m still not sure who I’ll vote for in the Republican primary, and with Super Tuesday less than a week away, I don’t have much time to make my decision. However, it’s been very instructive to see how scared of Santorum the Left and media are. How else to explain their gross distortion of what he has been saying? (Well, I’m trying not to insult their intelligence, but that’s always a possibility, too.)

Santorum has said that contraception has been harmful to women, and to society in general, because of the changes it made to our society. James Taranto cites the facts and figures, and scholarly support, for Santorum’s claims.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the pill for contraceptive use in 1960. Over the next half-century, the marriage rate declined and the illegitimacy rate skyrocketed, Charles Murray notes in a recent Wall Street Journal essay adapted from his new book:

In 1960, extremely high proportions of whites in both Belmont [Murray’s metaphor for the upper middle class] and Fishtown [the working class] were married—94% in Belmont and 84% in Fishtown. In the 1970s, those percentages declined about equally in both places. Then came the great divergence. In Belmont, marriage stabilized during the mid-1980s, standing at 83% in 2010. In Fishtown, however, marriage continued to slide; as of 2010, a minority (just 48%) were married. The gap in marriage between Belmont and Fishtown grew to 35 percentage points, from just 10. . . .

In 1960, just 2% of all white births were nonmarital. When we first started recording the education level of mothers in 1970, 6% of births to white women with no more than a high-school education—women, that is, with a Fishtown education–were out of wedlock. By 2008, 44% were nonmarital. Among the college-educated women of Belmont, less than 6% of all births were out of wedlock as of 2008, up from 1% in 1970.

The same trends have been noted among blacks, although they started earlier and are more severe. Of course it would be a fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc, for those keeping score at home) to declare Santorum’s argument proven on the basis of these facts. But they do demonstrate that the argument is not inconsistent with the facts.

The usual criticism we’ve heard is that it is absurd to suggest a causal link between birth-control advances and illegitimacy because, after all, birth control prevents pregnancy, and giving birth out of wedlock entails pregnancy. By that logic, though, illegitimacy rates should have remained low, or even declined further, after the inception of the pill. The Santorum argument may be counterintuitive, but the counterargument flies in the face of the facts.

But Santorum’s argument is not really all that counterintuitive. It posits that the availability of birth control changed the culture in ways that encouraged illegitimacy. There is scholarly support for this hypothesis, in the form of a 1996 study in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, which served as the basis for a brief written by George Akerlof and Janet Yellen and published by the centrist-liberal Brookings Institution:

[snip]

Santorum has come under particular attack for saying that contraception is "harmful to women." It may reasonably be said that this is an overgeneralization: There are many women for whom birth control has not been harmful–those who don’t want children, who prioritize career over family, or who have been able to find husbands in the post-sexual-revolution mate market. Still, Akerlof and Yellin make a compelling case that birth control has been harmful to many other women, and it is not implausible to think, as Santorum does, that it has been harmful to women on balance.

Instead of discussing whether or not Santorum’s conclusion follows from the advent of the pill, mostly what we get is feminist sloganeering about government wanting to take away womens’ right to their bodies or similar tirades that just don’t address what he said and miss the point entirely. They scream about their rights but won’t address the other issues that Santorum is trying to focus on; illegitimacy, children having babies, and the explosion of the welfare state because of it. Even the huge increase in abortions, which, you would have thought, would have gone down with the pill. This hurts, not just women, but society in general.

No, instead, his detractors try to make it all about themselves. The narcissism of the Left is truly breathtaking.

Good morning.

1. Just to be clear here, the Julian Calendar (of which the Gregorian was a reform) also has a leap day today. The difference is in what occurs not on years divisible by 4 but by 100 and 400.
2. The death of the “get other people to pay for my stuff” state.
3. The whole “why we should” misses out on mentioning the bad stuff that will happen if we don’t. More arable land higher crop yields, oooh, that’s all really really bad, eh?
4. Our oil based economy.
5. Oh please, there’s a long standing tradition for Presidents to see failure to be re-elected as a national emergency of the highest order.
6. Insanity in medicine?
7. Walking for exercise put to good use.
8. So, “not a campaign speech” is that a lie or not?
9. Economics and the election in a nutshell.

Good morning.

1. Self discipline and child rearing … self-discipline is indeed a learn-able trait … an interesting thing to note at the start of Lent.
2. Occupy Whatever (is) Suggested embarrasses itself again.
3. AA and Lent.
4. A road less traveled.
5. Our state department deportment.
6. Democrat election tactics of which I’m sure they’re proud … and the lack of self-criticism makes their disparagement of Mr Rove hypocritical.
7. Uhm, because its not actually illegal to lie to a reporter.
8. Taking a stand against indirect consumer use taxes.
9. Only 11 years?!
10. Praise for grad school in the context of reasons why not.
11. I think I not only haven’t considered those bullet points but don’t know anyone who has (not to speak of doing them). Hollywood has a strange (unreal) impression of Christian culture.

So says two high-ranking government officials who would know.

In a stark warning ahead of next month’s Budget, the Chancellor said there was little the Coalition could do to stimulate the economy.

Mr Osborne made it clear that due to the parlous state of the public finances the best hope for economic growth was to encourage businesses to flourish and hire more workers.

“The British Government has run out of money because all the money was spent in the good years,” the Chancellor said. “The money and the investment and the jobs need to come from the private sector.”

What should George Osborne do to provide a tax cut?

Tax the rich more to allow the income tax rate to be lifted to £10,000Borrow more and worry about reducing national debt in future yearsWe can’t afford any tax cuts

Mr Osborne’s bleak assessment echoes that of Liam Byrne, the former chief secretary to the Treasury, who bluntly joked that Labour had left Britain broke when he exited the Government in 2010.

He left David Laws, his successor, a one-line note saying: “Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left”.

Mr Osborne is under severe pressure to boost growth, amid signs the economy is slipping back into a recession.

Conservatives have been saying this for a generation. Government spending bankrupts us all. The private sector is where economic growth comes from. Government spending may give us something of a jolt (if any), but the cost associated with it is far more than if the government would just get out of the way and let the engine run.

Good morning. Hopefully, we’ll be more consistent in posting this week, even though we have services at Church every evening this week as Lent kicks in with a running start.

1. And here’s how it starts (more background here)
2. The progressive past for the US.
3. Which is likely why suggesting its demise might be a little early. This too.
4. Although things like this suggest why its demise might be considered.
5. Our energy President.
6. Oddly enough, what the President said then, and says now, don’t quite jibe the way he’d probably prefer.
7. “It’s major weakness” is at home moms … although no support for that statement is given why that is a weakness. Perhaps those economists thing at home moms sit on their couches watching TV and snorting bon bons (and not working as hard or harder than the average working stiff).
8. This makes no sense at all.
9. Hard work behind the Lin “miracle.”
10. The blame/support network of education.
11. If we had a more balanced press corps.
12. Mr Krugman forgets he  is one of the rich.
13. Cinema recommended.

Diced Ham and Scrambled Eggs, from Paula’s Pancake House, in Solvang, CA. Yes, I know, ordering ham and eggs at a Danish pancake house in the middle of the Danish-themed town of Solvang might be considered an unpardonable act – but I prefer breakfasts with more savory substance that help carry me through a day of sightseeing.

I first tried the diced ham (or bacon) and scrambled eggs plate last December and really enjoyed it. I tend to go for hashbrowns and wheat toast (unless the establishment has killer biscuits) along with my eggs. Cheese is also mixed in this scramble, which helps bind the whole conglomeration together. A bit over-priced, in my opinion, but just about everything in this locale (wine country near Santa Barbara, CA) is.

Enjoy!

– image © 2011 A R Lopez

Recently, in Christian apologetic circles, it was noted that a former Christian professor of philosophy had converted to an Eastern religion. Dr. Michael Sudduth, from San Francisco State University, was highlighted in the blog post Michael Sudduth Converts to Vaishnava Vedanta!

As part of our home schooling effort, we engage in a weekly Current Events series in which I have my oldest daughter (high school) read various news items (which I have selected), and then write a brief commentary on the item, first explaining what the article was about and then giving her opinion on the story.

Here is what she wrote regarding the conversion story of Dr. Sudduth:

This article is a letter written by a man who has converted from Christianity to Vaishnava Vedanta. He had been a Protestant Christian for 25 years, but had increasingly become drawn toward Vedanta, both trough a philosophical attraction and an experiential attraction. As he began to explore the religion more deeply, he became profoundly affected by it and to feel the presence of God through it. He began to believe that his former beliefs in God were a limited expression of the deeper meaning he found through Vedanta.

Vaishnavism articulates a model of the love of God, where intimacy and separation are the two important elements of the divine-human love relation. People are both one with God and separate from God. The relationship with God is a simultaneous difference and non-difference. He believes that God is manifested in different ways, and God-realization takes on diverse forms. Vaishnavism acknowledges religious truth found across different religious traditions, and though the names are many, God is one. How we experience God depends on different aspects of our own personalities.

The author says that he does not believe he is worshipping a different God than he worshipped when he was a Christian – he believes it is the same God, under a different, and fuller manifestation. He says that the basic principles of Vaishnavism are compatible with a number of fundamental Christian beliefs, and that he is not relinquishing these beliefs but situating them in a different philosophical and theological context. He closes his letter by saying that he doesn’t want to convert any of his friends to Vaishnavism, but he hopes that they’ll make each other better devotees in their respective faiths.

From this letter, it seems like the author has based his entire conversion on experience. He felt something when reading the texts associated with Vaishnavism, he felt a closeness to the person of Lord Krishna, he felt profoundly affected and overwhelmed with a sense of the presence of God. He felt Krishna’s presence in his bedroom, he felt a validation of his spiritual journey. Even when he starts talking about philosophy and theology, he says that he has found aspects of the Vedanta theology and philosophy appealing to him. I think that his question should not be, “is it appealing?”, or “does it feel right?”, rather, he should ask “does it line up with reality?” He seems to ignore this question, replacing it with how he happens to feel. If these beliefs don’t line up with reality, if they’re not true, they shouldn’t be believed no matter how appealing they are or how good they make one feel.

The author claims that Vaishnavism is compatible with Christianity. He even claims he is worshipping the same God he worshipped before he switched religions. However, if he really means this, he couldn’t have been worshipping the Christian God before. Jesus said that He was the only way to God – obviously, the author believes there are many ways to get to God, so his beliefs are in direct opposition to fundamental Christian beliefs.

Lastly, he says that he’s only interested in making his friends better devotees to their respective religions, not in making them converts to Vaishnavism. Why is this? If he believes that Vaishnavism is true, then shouldn’t he want to convince other people of that? This religion seems to be one without much substance – it seems like anything you believe goes, and I don’t think that lines up to the way the world we know actually works.

Personally, I think that it is incumbent on us, as Christian parents, to prepare our children for the realities of a post-Christian America, thereby providing them with the resources to not only counter the worldviews they will come up against, but to courteously provide a clear explanation of the veracity of the Christian worldview.

And, I’m proud of my daughter’s grasp of these concepts, while in high school. We must engage our young adults (that would be anyone older than 13) in the marketplace of ideas, stretching them, and setting the bar high – they can achieve it.

NASA thinking about an Earth-Moon-Libration Point 2
Well it’s not quite Space 1999, but pretty cool nonetheless,

NASA is pressing forward on assessing the value of a “human-tended waypoint” near the far side of the moon — one that would embrace international partnerships as well as commercial and academic participation, SPACE.com has learned.

According to a Feb. 3 memo from William Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for human exploration and operations, a team is being formed to develop a cohesive plan for exploring a spot in space known as the Earth-moon libration point 2 (EML-2).

###

Do you know what a Mainframe is? Well, NASA just shut down their last one

###

Even more Geek News:  Photos of Mars Landers from Mars orbit

###

Abe Lincoln (on a penny) to be used as a quick size comparison indicator on the next Mars Rover

###

NASA taking stock of Eart’s melting land ice
From the 2003-2010 observations,

The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth’s glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That’s enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.

Yikes! That’s very unsettling news.

Yet, another report headlines us to the news that Earth’s Polar Ice Melting Less Than Thought. An excerpt (emphasis added),

Nearly 230 billion tons of ice is melting into the ocean from glaciers, ice caps, and mountaintops annually—which is actually less than previous estimates, according to new research by scientists at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Further in the US News report researcher John Wahr states (wisely, in my opinion),

“Even with an eight-year estimate, it’s not clear how far into the future you can project,” he says. “A lot of people want to predict into the end of the century, but I think it’s too dangerous to do that … We don’t have enough info to know what’ll happen. There’s some ebb and flow to these things.”

Indeed, if anyone ever wants to sell you something now based on a prediction of what will happen 100 years from now, you’d better grab hold of your wallet (I think Michael Crichton said that). From the NASA news release, after they’ve admitted the same as the US News report, it reads,

One unexpected study result from GRACE was that the estimated ice loss from high Asian mountain ranges like the Himalaya, the Pamir and the Tien Shan was only about 4 billion tons of ice annually. Some previous ground-based estimates of ice loss in these high Asian mountains have ranged up to 50 billion tons annually.

Ouch!

Imagine if you had some remodeling work done on your home and the contractor estimated it would cost $50,000 but the final bill came in at only $4,000? Well, of course you’d be ecstatic, but wouldn’t you also be wondering why the contractor was so inept? Or what if a stockbroker claimed an investment would return $50,000 but it only came back with $4,000?

Yet we’re supposed to based governmental subsidies, regulations, etc., all on long-range “scientific” esitmates that, quite frankly, are “dangerous” to do.