Friday, March 27, 2009

"Passionately adhere to the guideline that it is better to tell an R-rated truth than a G-rated lie." Really?

The article is probably a bit long to read, but the gist of it is that the fellow who made God's Army and some of those other early commercial "LDS" movies left the church. (Actually, the article is a couple of years old, but I'm slow...) The irony in it, if you read the article, is that some of the very approaches to filmmaking that Mr. Dutcher proposes current LDS filmmakers embrace appear to be some of the direct reasons why he is now choosing to leave the church.
While the art of LDS filmmaking has certainly exuded a disproportionate amount of cheesiness in the past, encouraging LDS filmmakers to "Passionately adhere to the guideline that it is better to tell an R-rated truth than a G-rated lie" not only expresses a wickedly false dillemma, but also belies Mr. Dutcher's expression of continued support for the LDS church notwithstanding his leaving it. Encouraging a generation of artists to trade their souls for their craft in the name of a false dillemma is hardly support, and is defenitely not any defense of the gospel, but is instead a subtle, backhanded betrayel of those very values Mr. Dutcher purports to simultaneously publicly acknowledge & personally reject.
Joseph Smith expressed it the best when a Brother Behunan (sp?) once stated that if he ever left the church he would leave it alone and would go somewhere where he would not interfere with the work. The prophet's response? "You do not know what you would do." He explained that if you leave the church it can only be under the influence of the evil one, whose sworn purpose is to destroy the work of God.
I for one am confident that faithful members of the LDS church can and will produce film and other art of the utmost quality that is also wholesome. I for one am confident that G rated truth is a noble goal. Shouldn't those two words, "quality" and "wholesome" really be synonymous anyway?

Saturday, March 21, 2009

The Great Distributor

For all of you who think that somehow Obama is going to create a fair distribution of wealth in the U.S., check out this Milton Friedman clip:

Friday, March 13, 2009

Are you male or female?

The citizens of Gainesville, Florida, are set to do battle over a gender-identity ordinance passed by the city council.

The ordinance passed by the civic leaders defines gender as follows: "An inner sense of being a specific gender, or the expression of a gender identity by verbal statement, appearance, or mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth."

Gives new meaning to being in touch with one's "feminine side," eh?

See the whole story at:


Thursday, March 12, 2009

we are the world's largest and most successful 100% gender selection program

This from "The Fertility Institutes" web site, available at:
Really? Maybe I'm ignorant, but this was news to me, and maybe I'm fashioned, but it kind of bugs me. Should we really be doing this kind of thing?

Fiscal Responsibility?

Check out this little Glen Beck piece.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

"America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." -- Alexis de Tocqueville

Prop 8 - It's Got Nothing to do With Civil Rights

I found the following article in a British newspaper online at

Proponents of "gay marriage" often argue that their cause is one of "civil rights," and that we have no reason to "force" our morals on others. This article from the U.K. is strong proof that it ain't about civil rights folks. It's about forcing someone else's immorality upon society. It's about the eventual destruction of families, religious freedoms, and parental rights. Methinks such stories as the below are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to "recognizing" "gay rights" in America.  Consider the following quote from within the article: "when it comes to so-called tolerance, the new, intolerant state religion of 'diversity' trumps the old religions any day of the week." Sound familiar anyone???

I'm reminded of the spot on (to borrow a British phrase) prophesy of Isaiah: "The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin to be even as Sodom, they hide it not. Wo unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves." Isaiah 3:9

Enjoy the article...

Celebrate gay history. P-p-pick up a penguin

By Richard Littlejohn
Last updated at 3:22 AM on 10th March 2009

Education, education, education. How's that going? Let's take a snapshot of the state of our schools. For instance, here's three stories from the past few days. Official figures revealed that nearly half of all children from low-income families fail to achieve a single pass at GCSE.

More than 42 per cent of the 75,000 pupils entitled to free lunches last year could not manage a single 'C' grade in any subject, which is the minimum level recognised by potential employers. As many as 7,500 of them are classified as 'persistent truants'.

They left school virtually unemployable, fit only for a life on benefits or a career in crime. These were the very children Labour came to office promising a better future, pledging to raise them out of a cycle of permanent low achievement.

Pervez Latif removed his two sons from school during Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month

Pervez Latif removed his two sons from school during Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month

Twelve years on and billions of pounds squandered later, they're still bottom of the heap.

Yesterday, another report showed that despite the Holocaust supposedly being an integral part of the National Curriculum, an alarming number of secondary-school children think Auschwitz is a brand of beer. Six out of ten had never heard of the Final Solution. They probably think it's some kind of washing powder.

Against this horrifying backdrop, you might think any drive to elevate history teaching in schools and clamp down on truants would be welcome.

So, on the face of it, you'd applaud the decision by Waltham Forest Council to prosecute parents who fail to send their children to school.

More than 30 pupils were absent without leave last week at the George Tomlinson Primary School, in Leytonstone, East London, one of the country's most deprived areas.

Waltham Forest is treating this as mass truancy and says parents could be dragged into court, fined and forced to sign parenting contracts.

But these aren't the usual feckless mothers and absentee fathers content to let their children bunk off school. They are deeply moral and religious people who object to their children being force-fed homosexual propaganda in the classroom.

As such, they exercised their right to withdraw their sons and daughters from lessons 'celebrating' Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month.

Devout Christian and Muslim parents had warned the school in advance that they had strong religious objections.

Pervez Latif, a 41-year-old accountant, kept his nine and ten-year-old sons at home and is now facing prosecution. He wrote to the chairman of the school governors, but his protests were ignored.

Sarah Saed, 40, withdrew her eight-year-old daughter with great reluctance. It was the first blemish on her 100 per cent attendance record. 'This was the only choice I had,' she said. 'It is not an appropriate age for children to be learning about homosexual relationships.'

As the law stands, parents have the legal right to exempt their children from religious education and sex lessons. That's why this is being smuggled in under the radar in the guise of 'history'.

Yet the 'lessons' on offer include a story called King & King - about a prince who turns down three princesses before falling in love with their brother - and another featuring a pair of gay penguins at a New York zoo.

Regular readers may remember these fairy stories from a couple of years ago, when they were part of a £600,000 government-sponsored project designed to peddle gay propaganda to children as young as five.

What has any of this got to do with 'history'?

It's about as historical as Andy Pandy. (Come to think of it, I'm surprised the relationship between Andy and Teddy isn't being explored as part of gay history month. Goodness knows what they got up to in that box.)

And why a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender month, anyway? Why not a Foot Fetishists, Spankers, Sadists and Masochists History Month?

Risibly, Waltham Forest said that action was being taken against the parents as part of a policy of 'promoting tolerance'.

So why not tolerate parents who, for sincerely-held reasons, consider their children too young to be taught about gay relationships?

That's because when it comes to so-called tolerance, the new, intolerant state religion of 'diversity' trumps the old religions any day of the week(emphasis added)

Parents who choose to tell their children about homosexuality only when they feel the time is right have to be pummelled into submission, using the full might of the law if necessary.

This isn't education, it's cultural fascism.

As I've written before, I have no problem with homosexuality being discussed in secondary schools. But not with children who won't even hit puberty for another few years. Let them enjoy their innocence, for heaven's sake.

And what about some respect for decent, law-abiding parents, trying to bring up their children in line with their own belief system?

Instead of hounding caring mums and dads like Pervez Latif and Sarah Saed, the education establishment should be targeting the tens of thousands of selfish, wastrel parents who never send their children to school.

Rather than filling the heads of impressionable boys and girls with fatuous drivel about gay penguins, schools should be ashamed of the fact that they are sending children out into the world barely able to read, write and add up properly.

Labour's deranged obsession with social engineering over genuine education has betrayed an entire generation, especially those unfortunate enough not to be blessed with conscientious, loving parents like Pervez Latif and Sarah Saed.

Is it any wonder some leave school unable to tell the difference between a concentration camp and a can of lager?

Thursday, March 5, 2009

this is the best description of being a Mom!

"I go into their rooms and watch them sleeping, their faces creased and rosy. Finally, they squirm and stretch themselves awake, reaching out for a hug. I gather them up, bury my face in them and breathe deeply. They are like towels just pulled from the dryer, tumbled warm and cottony."
" children curl around me on the sofa in the evening, often falling asleep, limbs limp and soft against me like the folds of a well-worn nightgown. For now, we still adorn each other, and they are content to be clothed in my embrace. ...of small hands clasped in mine. This time fits me. I plan to wear it well."

the complete article is at:

I am glad I am not alone in thinking children are a blessing unto all! : )

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Pork, Anyone?

This from the New York Times

Stage of Fools


Published: March 3, 2009


Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Maureen Dowd

If only Shakespeare had known how to Twitter.

There was a bit of King Lear in the scene on the Senate floor, a stormy, solitary John McCain on “this great stage of fools,” as the Bard wrote, railing against both parties and the president in fiery speeches and rapid-fire tweets.

“He’s mad that trusts in the tameness of a wolf, a horse’s health, a boy’s love, or a whore’s oath,” the Fool told Lear.

And he’s truly mad that trusts in the promise of a presidential candidate to quell earmarks.

The 72-year-old senator who seemed hopelessly 20th century when he confessed during the campaign that he didn’t know how to use a computer or send an e-mail has now mastered the latest technology fad, twittering up a twizzard to tweak his former rival.

Before the Senate resoundingly defeated a McCain amendment on Tuesday that would have shorn 9,000 earmarks worth $7.7 billion from the $410 billion spending bill, the Arizona senator twittered lists of offensive bipartisan pork, including:

• $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York. “quick peel me a grape,” McCain twittered.

• $1.7 million for a honey bee factory in Weslaco, Tex.

• $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa.

• $1 million for Mormon cricket control in Utah. “Is that the species of cricket or a game played by the brits?” McCain tweeted.

• $819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama.

• $650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi.

• $951,500 for Sustainable Las Vegas. (McCain, a devotee of Vegas and gambling, must really be against earmarks if he doesn’t want to “sustain” Vegas.)

• $2 million “for the promotion of astronomy” in Hawaii, as McCain twittered, “because nothing says new jobs for average Americans like investing in astronomy.”

• $167,000 for the Autry National Center for the American West in Los Angeles. “Hopefully for a Back in the Saddle Again exhibit,” McCain tweeted sarcastically.

• $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii. “During these tough economic times with Americans out of work,” McCain twittered.

• $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program to help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past. “REALLY?” McCain twittered.

• $209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in Georgia.

“When do we turn off the spigots?” Senator McCain said in his cri de coeur on the Senate floor. “Haven’t we learned anything? Bills like this jeopardize our future.”

In one of his disturbing spells of passivity, President Obama decided not to fight Congress and live up to his own no-earmark pledge from the campaign.

He’s been lecturing us on the need to prune away frills while the economy fizzles. He was slated to make a speech on “wasteful spending” on Wednesday.

“You know, there are times where you can afford to redecorate your house and there are times where you need to focus on rebuilding its foundation,” he said recently about the “hard choices” we must make. Yet he did not ask Congress to sacrifice and make hard choices; he let it do a lot of frivolous redecorating in its budget.

He reckons he’ll need Congress for more ambitious projects, like health care, and when he goes back to wheedle more bailout billions, given that A.I.G. and G.M. and our other corporate protectorates are burning through our money faster than we can print it and borrow it from the ever-more-alarmed Chinese.

Team Obama sounds hollow, chanting that “the status quo is not acceptable,” even while conceding that the president is accepting the status quo by signing a budget festooned with pork.

Obama spinners insist it was “a leftover budget.” But Iraq was leftover, too, and the president’s trying to end that. This is the first pork-filled budget from a new president who promised to go through the budget “line by line” and cut pork.

On “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, dismissed the bill as “last year’s business,” because most of it was written last year.

But given how angry Americans are, watching their future go up in smoke, the bloated bill counts as this year’s business.

It includes $38.4 million of earmarks sponsored or co-sponsored by President Obama’s labor secretary, Hilda Solis; $109 million Hillary Clinton signed on to; and $31.2 million in earmarks sought by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood with colleagues.

(Even Barack Obama was listed as one of the co-sponsors of a $7.7 million pet project for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions until he got his name taken off last week.)

And then there are the 16 earmarks worth $8.5 million that Emanuel put into the bill when he was a congressman, including money for streets in Chicago suburbs and a Chicago planetarium.

Blame it on the stars, Rahm, or on old business. But as Shakespeare wrote in “Lear”: “This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune — often the surfeits of our own behavior — we make guilty of our own disasters, the sun, the moon, and the stars.”