adamelijah’s whereIstand Blog

In the early scenes of the movie "Amazing Grace," social reformer and abolitionist William Wilberforce stops a man from beating his horse to death. Wilberforce had a great affinity for animals of all sort and didn’t appreciate cruelty towards them. 

While, I’ve never owned many animals, senseless cruelty to them bothered me. Certainly, some animals are killed for meat, and an animal is not superior to a man. But still, merely doing harm for its own sake is a great evil. 

 I remember my gut-turning at the Columbus Zoo when kids jumped up against the glass and violated zoo rules by scaring Gorillas charging into the class. In Idaho, a State Rep. introduced a bill to take dog fighting from a misdemeanor to a felony and I would be supportive of the measure if there were actual proof that Dog-fighting was going on to any degree that a new law would make a difference. This story out of Germany is amazing in it’s absurdity and cruelty:

Tiny, fluffy and adorable, Knut the baby polar bear became an animal superstar after he was abandoned by his mother.

He rapidly became the symbol of Berlin Zoo, whose staff bottle-fed him and handed out cuddles in between.

At three months old, however, the playful 19lb bundle of fur is at the centre of an impassioned debate over whether he should live or die.

Animal rights activists argue that he should be given a lethal injection rather than brought up suffering the humiliation of being treated as a domestic pet. 

When Knut was born in December, his mother ignored him and his brother, who died. Zoo officials intervened, choosing to raise the cub themselves.

But Albrecht and other activists fret that it is inappropriate for a predator, known for its fierceness and ability to fend for itself in the wild, to be snuggled, bottle-fed and made into a commodity by zookeepers.

They argue that current treatment of the cub is inhumane and could cause him future difficulties interacting with fellow polar bears. "They cannot domesticate a wild animal," added Ruediger Schmiedel, head of the Foundation for Bears.

A tad absurd, isn’t it? If you’re dead, you can’t very well interact with other polar bears. In addition, according to zoo staff, there’s another problem by these clueless animal rights supporters:

But Berlin Zoo holds different opinions. Its chief vet Andre Schuele says the activists’ criticisms would make him angry if he could take them seriously. "Polar bears live alone in the wild. I see no logical reason why this bear should be killed."

Schuele also argued that given the increased rarity of wild polar bears, it makes sense to keep them alive in captivity so that they can be bred. "Polar bears are under threat of extinction, and if we feed the bear with a bottle, it has a good chance of growing up and perhaps becoming attractive as a stud for other zoos," he said.

But though it might save the species, it would be "unnatural." 

Dan Riehl said it best:

The animals in this story aren’t the polar bears. It’s the nut jobs who think to prove you care for the animal, you have to put it to death.

What so bothers these animal rights activists that a cute bear has to be executed for its own good? I’d consider several things as key:

1) Nature First, Life Second

Many "animal rights" folks and enviromentalists don’t love the environment and nature, as much as they hate man’s interferrance in it. When I left Montana, the state’s land was on fire again. Clinton Administration policies directly escalated the number of wildfires in Montana. My last time in Glacier before leaving, I couldn’t go past the tourist center, the some was so thick. 

It was thanks to policies like, "Let it burn," which discouraged fire suppression efforts and led to larger and large fire. The Clinton Interior Department insured loggers couldn’t go in and log high risk areas resulting in thousands of acress of trees becoming nothing more than fuel for out of control fires. A special hatred seemed reserved for loggers. Environmentalists even opposed them going into burned out areas and removing trees. One said on the local news, "I’d rather see it rot."

Forest fires are incredibly natural and so are the deaths of hundreds and even thousands of animals, but if its natural, it must be good.

2) Life Is Only Worth Living If It’s Optimal

Knut is better off dead because he is not going to have the optimal polar bear life:

A woman in Spain comments on how absurd this is:

I could understand putting the animal down if it was destined to be released into the wild (obviously being raised by humans it could never fend for itself in the wild) but as it never was and never will be could somebody please explain to me why on earth put it down. I thought that all animals that live in a zoo are dependent on humans for their welfare and if the only reason to put knut down is because he is dependent on humans then surely the same applies to all animals that live in a zoo.

Of course she’s correct. The argument against Knut is reminiscent of a pro-choice canard that there are children that are better off dead than raised in circumstances that are far from ideal. If a human should be killed, than doing it to a polar bear is small beans in comparison. After all, wasn’t it the mother polar bear’s right to choose?

Regarldess, this absurd attempt to destroy a polar bear for no good reason is over according to the zoo. The idealogical struggle that spawned it on the other hand is har from at an end.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

whereIstand Tags

• Is life fundamentally precious?

In his latest despeare bid to get in the Hall of Fame, Pete Rose is claiming to have bet on the Reds every day:

He (Rose) said he bet on the Reds "every night" to win while he was the team’s manager. Rose also said that was consistent with the Dowd Report’s findings.

Well, what does John Dowd, the man who wrote the report have to say?

Not so, Dowd said: "I never heard (until now) that he bet every night on the Reds…"

"When (Mario) Soto and (Bill) Gullickson pitched, he didn’t bet on the Reds," Dowd said when reached at his Washington, D.C., office. "We only put in the report what we could find and corroborate three different ways." 

Now, Manny Soto wasn’t a man I’d bet on. Soto went 20-27 from 1985-87 with the Reds. Gullickson went 25-23 with the ’86-’87 Reds with a very high ERA. Betting on Tom Browning on the other hand made sense. Still Rose wants into the Hall. Even if we could somehow believe his story, Dowd makes the case that it doesn’t matter:

Dowd said he thinks that Rose’s most recent admission will paint him as a sympathetic character with fans, and build a groundswell of support to lift the ban.

"OK, he’s now admitted he violated the capital crime of baseball every single day. Now he’s saying, ‘I violated Rule 21 every day.’ And baseball is now supposed to let him back into the game?" Dowd said.

Exactly, no man played more baseball games than Pete Rose and none had more opportunity to consider that when Baseball said that being caught gambling would mean a lifetime suspension, it might mean something.

Hat Tip: Ben Maller

whereIstand Tags

• Should Pete Rose be allowed in the Hall of Fame?

Terp in response to my post in which I asked response to some questions, rather fires back with an accusation:

What you want is a theocracy. You want to be ruled by a religious dictatorship that intervenes in the lives of all citizens

Wow, apparently Terp knows me better than I know myself because I don’t advocate for that. As is usual, the English language is beaten like a hated stepchild here on WhereIStand. The word thoecracy means:

1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

Not only don’t the vast majority of Americans want a theocracy, but I’d posit that it’s impossible to get a theocracy in America. Understand, that Christianity is not under one head (other than Christ) in this country, and the religious conservative movement often included Orthodox Jews who are not even Christians.

How do you get a theocracy from that? You don’t. While this group called Religious Conservatives agree on many issues, they could not manage a theocracy. Let’s go through some issues.

Birth Control:

Traditional Catholics and a smattering of Protestants (maybe some Orthodox Jews) have a problem with it, everyone else has no problem with it inside of marriage.

Smoking:

Most Evangelicals and Mormons have a serious problem with smoking. (Most wouldn’t go with it to the point of banning it.)  Catholics, conservative mainline Calvinists, Orthodox Jews, and other groups have no problem.

Drinking:

Again, many Evangelicals and Mormons stand against the whole of the rest of the group.

Gambling:

Most Catholics tend not to have a problem, the Mormon Church is officially against it, though I’ve known some people including former Missionaries who’ve gone to the Jackpot Casino. Many Evangelicals have a problem with it, but not all.

We could go on, but you get the point. A government by theocracy is impossible because on many different issues, members of the large religious conservative coalition differ from one another. 

Issues such as abortion, opposition to homosexual marriage, and the belief in allowing public displays of religious significance cross denominational lines and bring people together in spite of their differences on other issues.

You may find it wrong for religious people to form coalitions. You may find the involvement of any religious person in politics to be a danger to the safety of the Republic, but please don’t give me blather about a theocracy. It’s simple and pure nonsense.

whereIstand Tags

• Terp
• Are religious beliefs vital to society?
• Will the Left and Right ever find a way to live with each other in a civilized manner?

I’m a tad late for my posts tonight, but with good reason, I took part in the TalkShoe network’s Talkathon. I volunteered for 15 minutes, was scheduled for half an hour, showed up 8 minutes late due to computer problems and ended up on the air for 52 minutes.

It was a nice break from all the controversy and what not that surrounds my life normally. (Particularly all that what not.) Our Talkathon was for Kiva.org, one of the most revolutionary ideas to hit the internet.

Kiva.org connects people with lenders who will lend a small amount of money (as little as $25) to help enterprising people in countries across the world. They repay the loan and you can either get your money back or re-loan it. The best part about it is the same $25 could be lent immeasurable times, rather than spent once never to be used again as it is in traditional charities.

It was a great production and part of the reason, I’m so proud to be part of the Talkshoe team.

whereIstand Tags

• Is capitalism the most effective economic system?

Many here at whereistand.com, particularly on the left persist in a belief that the right and left will learn to get along in a "civilized manner." It would certainly be my hope that we could, but based on the shallow reasoning provided heretofore on that side of the debate leads me to conclude that we will not. 

All arguments have on the "yes" side have resorted to two tactics depending on capitulation from the other side or minimizing the issues to the point of triviality. 

In her latest post, Terp commits both cardinal sins. She proposes libertarianism as a compromise. Fancy that, the libertarian proposes we give her her way on the issues and we call it a compromise. I call it idealogical opportunism. She writes:

Rightsiders: You will never achieve the utopia you dream of, in which all Americans are constantly thinking only of their significant (heterosexual) others. I won’t go into any more examples. You ought to get the point. The only person you can and ought to have the right to control is yourself (and of course your children, to a point) - aside from when other people’s actions endanger your own life. Luckily, that is the libertarian philosophy….

To the liberals:

The big-government programs you (and the neo-cons) have developed stymie growth and production. Frankly, charities do a far better job of providing for the poor and devastated. Consider the Katrina disaster - and the Tsunami. Who were the first ones on the scene? The LDS Church (no problem Shaun). Dammit, we are so much better at spending our money than the government is. Trust me. I’m in a government position that ought to be part-time, but the bureaucracy allows for that reality to stay unrecognized, and for me to continue reaping a full-time salary.

While on the economic point, Terp is certainly right, it’s nothing liberals have not heard before. For the right, she does far worse, elevating the desire of having a decent culture to some absurd fantastic principle that is beyond any possible reach. 

And then there are the problems with implementing "libertarian philosophy." The Libertarian philosophy would require school choice for parents, not the monopoly of the state as libertarians have called for a "separation of school and state" Would liberals really give up their hold on public schools through parental controls?  Would they surrender their hope for the future. The one way to save liberalism is to use schools to propogate liberal dogma and once that’s gone, it’s only a matter of time. For this reason, liberals won’t accept libertarianism.

Conservatives have a problem with it too. Washington said that "Religion and Morality are indispensable supports." The Libertarian Party in effect says, "Not so much." In addition, the abortion question is one that divides the LP. The most libertarian of Candidates for the Presidency, Ron Paul is also pro-life.

The arguments go round and round. Playing "let’s pretend" is perhaps one of the worst of political and debating sins. "Let’s pretend" that these issues are silly little quibling points." "Let’s pretend that the other side will capitulate."

Terp also uses some quite fallacious reasoning here:

Consider the latest "outrageous" comment from far right heroine, Ann Coulter. The reaction, while absurdly out of proportion (Come on people, it’s Ann Coulter, for Christ’s sake. Does it really matter?), does not compare to the heinous ways in which disputes are dealt among opposing political groups in most other countries. In Rwanda, people fighting for power hacked each other with machetes for a full year, until 1 million people were dead. In Bosnia they chose a weapon called mass rape.

The argument seems to say:

1) Our problems are not as bad as the rest of the world’s; therefore

2) They’ll never be as bad as the rest of the world’s; therefore

3) The diferences are relatively trivial

If you’re going to insist that our country’s right and left will dwell together civily than you must comprehend the true issue and provide a solution. In ages past, the issues that divided us were parochial, things like which states would benefit by the coinage of silver. The issues confronting us today are far more fundamental. 

It is an issue of worldview that centers around questions like, "Who is God (or is he there?)? Who is Man? What is Science? What is our history? What is our purpose and place in the Universe? What is the basis of law? What is the family?"

There are not little simple questions to be solved in neat little 600 word answers. Nor does Nick’s wishful thinking about Christianity imploding bring us to any resolution. As an observer of the church, I’ll be frank that in Africa, Christianity is exploding. In China, Christianity is exploding. Odd enough, after decades of official state Atheism, we have more Christians in China than they had before the Revolution. 

I issue a straightforward challenge to those who argue that the right and left can get along in a civilized manner: 

1) Provide a solution or method to obtaining a solution between radically different worldviews.

2) Show me how this is not a clash of worldviews.

3) Renounce your position.

Bring real evidence. Stop with all the sillyness.

whereIstand Tags

• Terp
• Will the Left and Right ever find a way to live with each other in a civilized manner?

In 1938, Adolf Hitler, fast on his way to the Dictator’s Hall of fame, abolished home schooling. Hitler would be proud of how Germany carries on his legacy to this day:

A German appeals court has not only affirmed a lower court’s decision that ripped a 15-year-old homeschooler from her family and subjected her to a forced stay in a psychiatric hospital because she is homeschooled, but also ordered her parents to be given psychiatric evaluations, an international rights organization says.

Joel Thornton, president of the International Human Rights Group told WND that fears the state will use those court-approved tests to destroy the family of Melissa Busekros are very valid.

A German appeals court has not only affirmed a lower court’s decision that ripped a 15-year-old homeschooler from her family and subjected her to a forced stay in a psychiatric hospital because she is homeschooled, but also ordered her parents to be given psychiatric evaluations, an international rights organization says.

Joel Thornton, president of the International Human Rights Group told WND that fears the state will use those court-approved tests to destroy the family of Melissa Busekros are very valid.

"The trouble is this emboldens the state again, only now it’s at a higher level, and the courts still are agreeing with them. This could put Melissa back into the psychiatric system where she could disappear from sight entirely," he said.

The family’s five other children also are endangered now because of potential court rulings that could be based on any evaluation of the parents, he said…

Besides the other children in the family, there are further ramifications, too, with the decision raising questions of larger government attacks on homeschoolers in Germany, where that choice of education is illegal because the government wants to stamp out any "parallel" societies utilizing a worldview different from the state’s.

Thornton said the problem is that the original psychiatric evaluation was so vague, anyone could have been determined to need treatment under its conclusions.

"It’s easy to see … if they want to, the government could take more of the children away from this family using the same process. And there is an increased fear among homeschoolers about whether their children are next," he said.

Even those German families who already have fled to other countries because of Germany’s homeschool ban are moving into hiding because of the possibility they could be returned to face German fines or jail time for homeschooling, Thornton said

How does the state excuse such wanton trampling on Civil liberities of parents and children. It’s all for the children and the good of the state:

Just a little earlier, in a response published on a blog to a letter expressing concern about Melissa’s case, Wolfgang Drautz, consul general of the Federal Republic of Germany, said that the government "has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion or motivated by different world views and in integrating minorities into the population as a whole."

The case involves the schoolgirl who had fallen behind in math and Latin, and was being tutored at home. When school officials in Germany, where homeschooling has been illegal since Adolph Hitler decided he wanted to control the educating of all children, discovered that fact, she was expelled. School officials then took her to court, obtaining a court order requiring she be committed to a psychiatric ward because of her "school phobia."

She later was moved, and then put in a foster home, and although she’s been allowed a brief meeting with her parents, they still are not allowed to know where she is living or under what circumstances.

Drautz cited the German constitution that places the entire school system under the supervision of the government. "Homeschool may be equally effective in terms of test scores," Drautz wrote. "It is important to keep in mind, however, that school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

This is where the whole use of foreign precendents in American courtrooms becomes alarming. It’s also at this point that liberal arguments that conservatives are merely being paranoid become quite hallow.

Really, philisophically there’s little difference in basis between American, Canadian, German, British, or Swedish liberalism, and it’s American counterparts. It is only America’s federal system, its checks and balances, and the right to keep and bear arms that have checked liberals from going in this radical direction. But the fact remains that homeschooling is most tightly controlled in Blue States that would rather it not occur at all.

To American Conservatives and Christians, Edmund Burke is still right, "Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty."

whereIstand Tags

• Which is the most effective method of education?

Whenver a debate occurs over whether people should cohabitate before marriage, a string of platitudes will come from cohabitation advocates who compare women and men to cars that you "get a test drive" on before you drive. The reason you don’t get too many facts is that the world of facts offers little to proponents of the practice:

The longer couples cohabited before marrying, the more likely they were to resort to heated arguments, hitting, and throwing objects when conflicts arose in their subsequent marriage. A longer length of cohabitation was linked to a greater frequency of heated arguments, even when controlling for spouses’ age.

Feminist leader Gloria Steinhem once famously declared that a man without a woman is like a fish without bicycle. Fathers are often denigrated in the culture, but the facts once again come by once again:

Higher levels of father involvement were associated with less aggressive and anti-social adolescent behavior, and partially accounted for the impact of family structure on adolescent behavior. Father involvement was measured by adolescents’ responses to seven questions; examples of the questions included: “how often the father talks over important decisions with the adolescent,” “how often the father knows who the adolescent is with when not at home,” and “how close the adolescent feels to the father.”

Sample or Data Description
2,733 respondents to the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth aged 10-14 surveyed in 1996 and 2000

Indeed, the fact of the matter is that the whole thing called the traditional family actually does work better than modern variants like shacking up, and quicky divorces. 

Hat Tip: Evangelical Outpost

whereIstand Tags

• Should a couple live together before getting married?

Mister E attacked Ann Coulter’s use of the word f—–t  at CPAC and suggested it showed how unsophisticated conservatives are. Well, as one ad hominem deserves another, conservatives have unearthed some remarkable posts from our left wing friends as documented by CNS News:

(Warning: May be offensive, but don’t blame me, liberals wrote it.)

Daily KOS headlines:

"Democrats and the faggot problem."

"Who invited the little faggot?" 

The we get to other blogs:

Indymedia, a left-wing activist site, carried an Oct. 2006 rant under the headline, "Bush is a closet faggot."

A posting on the Firedoglake blog that pokes fun at Christian leaders found to have been involved in homosexual relationships: "I have been spending my time since the election attempting to hone my knowledge of the Radical Gay Agenda in hopes of infiltrating the Christianist chuch [sic] and bringing it down from within. But it looks like the sad, sick, repressed faggots that run the place are saving me the trouble."

Blogger Melissa McEwan, on her site Shakespeare’s Sister, used the line — in reference to Leonardo da Vinci — "I’m not so sure it’s such a good idea for students to be studying that faggot anyway

.This even goes offline:

In 2003, Howard Dean’s campaign manager was reported to have written a letter to the presidential campaign of fellow Democrat and rival Dick Gephardt, complaining that a member of the Gephardt team had called a Dean staffer a "faggot."

Homosexual-rights groups employ a double standard too, it appears.

In its response to Coulter’s remarks last Friday, GLAAD not only slammed the author but accused CPAC itself of promoting "discriminatory policies," and GLAAD president Neil Giuliano called on media organizations — NBC News in particular — to stop offering Coulter a platform.

Three years ago, however, GLAAD took a rather different approach when rapper 50 Cent told Playboy magazine, "I ain’t into faggots … We refer to gay people as faggots, as homos. It could be disrespectful, but that’s the facts."

In that instance, GLAAD responded with a polite — almost respectful — press release expressing "concern" about the comments, and inviting 50 Cent to attend GLAAD’s annual media awards.

And no, there was no suggestion that anyone stop giving the platinum-selling New York "gangsta" a platform.

But I thought liberalism was the repository of goodness, civility, and all that jazz? They’d never stoop to using that word about a constituency they’re using. Sorry, facts are facts, and a long line of evidence tells the truth.

Hat Tip: Human Events

whereIstand Tags

• MisterE
• AnnCoulter
• Will the Left and Right ever find a way to live with each other in a civilized manner?

There are many things I disagree with the Catholic Church about, and I do them quite publicly at times. The difference? I’m not a member of the Church, which brings me to a couple recent incidents.

First, Sean Hannity decided to call a priest on the show who had criticized his stand on Birth Control:

I’m fairly certain that though the priest is a little bit harsh (Hannity can be ferocious when ticked off) he’s mostly right regarding birth control. 

Hat Tip: Jill Stanek

Meanwhile, a couple lesbians are cheesed off now that the Catholics have stepped in and offered some church discipline:

Leah Vader grew up in the Catholic church. She went to Catholic school. She took communion every week. But on March 1, she got a letter from the Rev. Cliff Jacobson, the pastor of St. Matthew’s Catholic Church, which she attends.

The letter said that “because of your union and your public advocacy of same-sex unions, that you are unable to receive communion.”

Vader and her spouse, Lynne Huskinson, were married in Canada. They’ve been outspoken advocates for gay rights.

Hat Tip: Pam’s House Blend. 

As I’ve stated, I’m not Catholic, but doggone it, I find this liberal anger at Catholic Church at the Church having its own doctrine. It seems to me that people want to call themselves Catholic, enjoy all the benes that come with it, but not actually have to follow any of the more challenging doctrines of the faith. 

If you want unlimited contraception or to have a Lesbian union that’s recognized and honored by your church, go join an Episcopal Church or a United Church of Christ .

I’m not Catholic and I know that, but am irritated by people who can’t accept that they don’t belong or believe in chief doctrines of the Catholic Church. It’s simply that either the Pope is God’s Vicar on Earth and the direct successor of St. Peter (Catholic position,) he’s a good man with wise insights (respectful Protestant position,) or he’s a man in a funny hat who you can ignore. Pick a position and act accordingly.

whereIstand Tags

• SeanHannity
• Is the Catholic Church’s position on contraception correct?

Mars is also warming:

Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun’s output. Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth’s current global warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National Geographic News.

“Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."

And Jupiter, Pluto, and Triton:

Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who monitors studies and news reports of asteroids, global warming and other potentially apocalyptic topics, recently quoted in his daily electronic newsletter the following from a blog called Strata-Sphere:

“Global warming on Neptune’s moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets … Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”

Peiser included quotes from recent news articles that take up other aspects of the idea.

“I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”

Perhaps, it’s not. What it does suggest is that human activity is not necessary to cause warming. This should make us skeptical of doom and gloom scientists at the very least.

Hat Tip: Right Mind

whereIstand Tags

• Is global warming a problem primarily caused by humans?