The city has released the schedule for the 2012 Jack Hopkins social services finding process.The schedule is below:
Application Deadline - Monday, April 9
Agencies Present Applications - Tuesday, May 15, 5:00 P.M. - City Council Chambers
Committee Recommends Allocation Of Funds - Thursday, May 31, 5:00 P.M. - City Council Chambers
City Council Votes On Funding - Wednesday, June 20, 7:30 P.M. - City Council Chambers
Christians in Bloomington have been pleading with the City Council to not include Planned Parenthood with the agencies that get a portion of these limited funds. Every single year, the city council ignores the pleas of Christians and gives more of our tax money to an obscenely wealthy international corporation that throws babies into the flaming mouth of Molech every Thursday just a few blocks south of the county courthouse.
As I pointed out earlier this month, Planned Parenthood of Indiana admitted in their annual report that they enjoyed $15,135,052 in revenue while spending $14,232,019 - a profit of over $900,000. Are you seriously trying to tell me that Planned Parenthood "needs" a grant every single year from the Bloomington City Council?
Following is a list of the grants this evil corporation has gotten from city government:
|1999||Medical exam table||$5,000|
|2000||Teen education (Community Development Block Grants)||$2,000|
|2001||Equipment to test for anemia||$1,394|
|2002||Autoclave for the purpose of sterilizing instruments.||$1,495|
|2004||6 sets of cervical biopsy equipment||$2,923|
|2005||Security cameras and equipment||$1,500|
|2006||Install cabinetry and purchase files and furniture||$2,440|
|2007||Friend to Friend Patient Pass program ||$5,000|
|2008||Colposcopies for women with abnormal Pap test results||$2,500|
|2010||Distribute birth control to women & girls as young as 13||$5,000|
|2011||HIV test kits||$4,200|
See previous articles here:
♣ Don't give tax money to abortionists -- May 5, 2002
♣ There is no reason to force taxpayers to subsidize abortionists -- June 18, 2002
♣ City Council gives money to Planned Parenthood -- June 30, 2002
♣ No corporate welfare for the merchants of death -- May 28, 2003
♣ Don't give tax money to Planned Parenthood -- April 30, 2004
♣ Don't give tax money to Planned Parenthood -- May 8, 2004
♣ Sturbaum should recuse himself -- May 23, 2004
♣ Planned Parenthood's grant request represents cynical politics -- June 8, 2004
♣ City Council gives $$ to Planned Parenthood -- June 19, 2004
♣ No corporate welfare for the merchants of death, part VII -- May 10, 2005
♣ City Council gives $1500 to Planned Parenthood -- June 16, 2005
♣ No corporate welfare for the merchants of death, Part VIII -- June 19, 2006
♣ City Council funds Planned Parenthood -- June 22, 2006
♣ Planned Parenthood’s latest request for corporate welfare -- May 1, 2007
♣ Planned Parenthood’s request for corporate welfare -- June 18, 2007
♣ Time to end the city's subsidies to Planned Parenthood -- May 5, 2008
♣ Billion-dollar corporation gets corporate welfare from Bloomington City Council -- June 20, 2008
♣ Monroe County Council funds Planned Parenthood -- December 9, 2009
♣ No corporate welfare for the merchants of death -- April 26, 2010
♣ Follow-up on corporate welfare for Planned Parenthood -- May 5, 2010
♣ Bloomington Democrats subsidize sexual abuse -- June 22, 2010
♣ No corporate welfare for the merchants of death -- September 27, 2010
♣ Monroe County Council funds felonies with tax dollars -- October 20, 2010
♣ No corporate welfare for the merchants of death -- May 10, 2011
♣ No corporate welfare for the merchants of death -- June 15, 2011
♣ Planned Parenthood gets corporate welfare again -- June 17, 2011
There were two good common-sense laws passed in this session of the general assembly relating to alcohol and the consumption of it. While these are good developments, it is unfortunate that these were not put in place decades ago. Nonetheless, it is good to see some sanity creeping into our alcohol policy that still has influences from Prohibition.
First, people who are walking home or riding in a vehicle will not be subject to arrest provided they are not causing problems. The Republican candidate for Mayor raised this issue in 2003 and drew derision from the Left.
This legislation really should not have been necessary. There is no need to mess with someone who is doing exactly what he is supposed to do by walking home or being driven by a sober friend. We do not want people to be drinking and driving, so law enforcement should not be acting in a manner that discourages responsible behavior. It should not have taken legislative action to curb overzealous law enforcement - that should have been in place years ago as a matter of internal policy.
The second step toward sanity (not to mention compassion) is the Lifeline law recently signed by Governor Daniels. This would exempt underage adults from charges of illegal consumption (and a few other things) if they have called 911 to report another person who has consumed far too much alcohol and is dangerously intoxicated.
Given the unfortunate prevalence of binge drinking, this will probably save some lives. Prior to this law, underage adults had a disincentive to call for medical attention for a dangerously intoxicated person. With that disincentive removed, hopefully more people will seek medical attention sooner. Of course, not getting so plastered drunk that your life is in danger in the first place would be the best policy, but promptly seeking medical attention once that foolish choice has been made is critical.
It would be better if underage adults were not prohibiting from drinking alcohol at all. I know I have said this repeatedly, but it is more than a little silly that an 18-20 year old can fight, kill and die in a war but cannot legally have a beer in his own living room while watching a football game. While I do not expect the drinking age to be lowered to a more common-sense level any time soon, it would be good public policy.
|Wednesday, March 28, 2012|
Last week in the Herald-Times, there was a sad but uplifting story about a hot air balloon pilot who sacrificed his life to save his passengers when a thunderstorm came out of nowhere.
In the comments, David Coonce posted the following political satire:
This selfless act by the pilot is no different than socialism or communism!! How dare he think of the greater good!! America is about individual freedom, and everybody should get his own. Who cares about others. ME ME ME!!!! What a commie!!!!
I, for one, am just glad my taxes don't have to pay for any medical care these reds received.
For context, David Coonce is a very liberal Democrat and Obama supporter.
The negative ratings rained down on the comment, with responses such as "Totally unacceptable comment!" and "We shouldn't drink and post." My favorite, by far, was the hysterical temper tantrum posted by "Marq" eleven hours later:
This is one of the most VILE comments I've ever seen posted on HTO.
You're a perfect example of what happens when one subordinates their basic humanity to political dogma.
You should feel ashamed of yourself -- but I seriously doubt if you have any conception of the word "shame".
Really? Vile? Someone who subordinates his humanity to political dogma?
Now, one could argue that this kind of political satire is out of place in comments for a story like this one. But even someone who does not know anything about Coonce's political leanings should be able to spot this obvious, glaring sarcasm.
This is one of the things that is wrong with American politics. People are so emotionally invested in their political agendas that they become enraged by opposing views. They react on a visceral level, with feelings guiding their "arguments" instead of the cool water of logic. We see this all the time on social networking sites and through the blogosphere, where obvious sarcasm becomes inflated and produces people who are OUTRAGED!! OUTRAGED, I TELL YOU!!
Cool down. Have a glass of warm milk and take a nap. Ask yourself if you are interpreting something correctly. You can avoid humiliating yourself if you react with your brain instead of your feelings.
When the Marion County Election Board ruled that Senator Richard Lugar was not qualified to vote in his precinct, the Lugar campaign bitterly complained that Lugar is not required to physically live in the state:
|If a person has established residency for voting purposes in an Indiana precinct prior to his or her service in Congress, that residence remains the Congressperson’s residence as long as he or she remains on the business of the state or the United States.|
I am not going to get into the legal issues, though I think whining about the fact that there was a challenge is silly. People have the legal right to file these complains, and our system exists to ensure that these issues are addressed. Whining that people are exercising their legal rights under Indiana law indicates Lugar is out of touch.
And that is the entire point - that Lugar is out of touch. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Lugar's legal argument is entirely correct - that it is perfectly legal for Lugar to both vote in his precinct and represent the state of Indiana in the U.S. Senate despite his home being in Virginia for the last 35 years.
The simple fact that Lugar thinks it is OK for someone who is for all intents and purposes a Virginian and has been a Virginian for over three decades to represent the state of Indiana in the U.S. Senate proves that Lugar is out of touch with the average Hoosier. The concept is very simple: Just because something is legal does not make it right.
On March 9, the Metropolitan Planning Organization voted 7-6 to include Interstate 69 in the long-term plan, which will allow federal money to be spent on building the highway and (for now at least) avoids a confrontation with INDOT that would have cost the city and county tens of millions of dollars in funding for infrastructure.
It's not over yet. Sore loser county commissioner Mark Stoops is challenging the vote because the adult son of county highway director Bill Williams is employed by a subcontractor of a company working on the highway. (Williams sits on the MPO and voted yes.) Local activist David Keppel whined in a letter to the editor that Williams' yes vote was "legally and ethically dubious."
This situation reminds me of the following exchange in one of my favorite movies, Spaceballs:
Dark Helmet: I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.
Lone Starr: What's that make us?
Dark Helmet: Absolutely nothing!
Folks, this is ridiculous. The purpose of conflict of interest laws is to prevent people from voting on things that would directly benefit them, or would benefit a spouse or minor child. That anti-interstate radicals are seeking to trash the personal and professional reputation of an honorable and professional county employee in order to advance a political agenda is representative of everything that is wrong with politics today. Williams cannot simply disagree with anti-interstate radicals on the substance of the issue. No, he must be somehow ethically compromised. This is shameful!
Are we really seeking to have Williams' vote voided because of where his adult son happens to be employed? If we are really going to trash someone's personal and professional reputation because of that, there are an infinite number of permutations of conflict of interest we could get into. After all, every single person in the community is going to be directly impacted by the work to upgrade 37 to interstate standards and connect it to the rest of the highway.
There are legitimate arguments against Interstate 69. It is going to be very expensive to build. Some people are going to lose their property to the highway, including their homes. There will be an environmental cost to the highway. We have been debating the construction of the highway for decades, and those objections are as relevant today as they were twenty years ago. The argument about cost might even be more relevant today because of the staggering budget deficit and national debt.
We can and should continue to have that debate, but the debate over I-69 should be based on substantive public policy issues - not on shameful personal attacks against dedicated county employees. Stoops and Keppel should be ashamed of themselves, and both of them should publicly apologize to Williams for their false accusations.
Bristol Palin has a great blog post calling out Barack Obama for his hypocrisy in not condemning Bill Maher, who donated $1,000,000.00 to the Super-PAC supporting Obama. Maher, as you know, was much more insulting and demeaning to Bristol and her mother, and has even stooped to viciously attacking a three year old child. (Also see the CNN report on Obama's two-faced hypocrisy.)
Obama may not be legally allowed to contact the PAC directly but nothing is stopping him from making a public statement that the PAC should return the donation.
This is excellent news!
Posted with permission from IRTL PAC.
Indiana Right to Life Political Action Committee endorses Richard Mourdock for United States Senate
March 22, 2012
For Immediate Release
The Indiana Right to Life Political Action Committee announced today that it is endorsing Richard Mourdock in Indiana's Republican primary for the United States Senate. In a media statement issued this morning, IRTL-PAC Chairman Mike Fichter made these comments on the endorsement:
"The Indiana Right to Life Political Action Committee is pleased announce its endorsement of Richard Mourdock to represent Indiana as a member of the United States Senate. While there are many reasons we are proud to make this endorsement, it simply comes down to this: we cannot afford to give Richard Lugar the opportunity to help place one more activist judge like Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor onto the United States Supreme Court. Should President Obama gain a second term, and should he have the opportunity to fill one of the Supreme Court seats currently held by a conservative justice, we will lose the Supreme Court for a generation unless we have Republican senators willing to fight this administration's attempt to use the federal courts as a tool for judicial activism.
Richard Lugar will give the President his rubber stamp approval for any nominee put forward for the Supreme Court, just as he did when he voted to confirm Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Richard Mourdock, on the other hand, understands the dangers of judicial activism and will firmly oppose any Supreme Court nominee who does not hold to a conservative judicial philosophy that is rooted in the United States Constitution.
Unlike Richard Lugar, who has twice voted with a majority of Senate Democrats to use federal dollars to pay for embryonic stem cell research that requires the killing of human embryos, Richard Mourdock will fight to see that not one dime of federal funding supports this type of research that is abhorrent to the pro-life community.
And unlike Richard Lugar, who supports federal restrictions known as McCain-Feingold that trample the free speech rights of organizations like Indiana Right to Life when it comes to election-related communications, Richard Mourdock will work to roll back these restrictions, recognizing the freedom for organizations like ours to engage in election-related communications without the threat of overbearing government regulations.
Hoosiers understand that we are at a critical juncture in our nation's history. The status quo in Washington has given us a legacy of federal judges that are making law up as they go along, federal agencies that are dramatically eroding the freedom of everyday Americans, and federal spending that is digging a financial hole that our great grandchildren will not be able to get out of. And tragically, the status quo is giving us the federal takeover of health care that is attempting to force every American to subsidize the business of abortion.
It's time for dramatic change in Washington, and it starts with the election of men and women who are willing to do things differently than the way they are currently being done in Washington. Richard Mourdock is such a person for a time such as this.
The Indiana Right to Life Political Action Committee is proud to endorse Richard Mourdock for the United States Senate, and we call on every pro-life Hoosier to give him their vote in this primary election."
I made this for the first time last week and it's too good not to share.
- 1 - 2 lbs hamburger fried
- 1 onion chopped
- 1 (16oz.) can chili beans, slightly drained
- 1 (15oz.) can kidney beans with liquid
- 1 (15 oz.) can hominy or corn, drained
- 1 (8 oz.) can tomato sauce
- 2 Cups water
- 2 (14.5 oz.) cans peeled and diced tomatoes
- 1 (4 oz) can canned green chile peppers, chopped or adjust to your taste
- 1 pack taco seasoning
Put all of it in the crock pot and put on low for 8 hours. This serves 4 to 6 people.
I used chicken instead of hamburger and it worked fine.
Mohammed Merah is suffering in horrible burning agony in Hell right now. He will continue to suffer in horrible burning agony in Hell for all eternity. This proves that Jesus Christ is a loving and merciful God, because Merah's victims have Divine Justice.
Thank God for Hell! Praise Jesus for Hell!
I could not be a Christian without the knowledge of Hell.
I've written in defense of negative campaigning before, and I've floated that editorial on the blog a couple times the last two years. Here is another important point to consider.
Some people do not like to go negative and will refrain from doing so. An incumbent running for re-election may want to focus on his record rather than criticize his opponent, and someone running for an open seat may want to only talk about his qualifications for the position and why he should be chosen for that position. In a primary election where two very similar candidates are seeking an open seat, a lack of negative campaigning would not be unusual.
This is not something I agree with, as voters should hear all of the information about the candidates, both positive and negative, in order to make an informed choice. But there are some candidates who have an obligation to go negative against their opponents, and those candidates are the ones challenging an incumbent. After all, the very fact that the challenger is on the ballot is a statement to voters that the incumbent is unqualified to continue serving in office. If the incumbent was doing a fine job, then why bother challenging him?
Simply put, the voters deserve an explanation as to why they should remove the incumbent from office. What has the incumbent done wrong? Has the incumbent abused his authority? Has the incumbent mismanaged his office? Does the incumbent advance policies that are ineffective, counterproductive or destructive? In a primary election, does the incumbent not represent the majority of the party?
When someone is running for office against an incumbent, the burden of proof is on the challenger as to why the incumbent should be removed from office. If the challenger cannot or will not show voters why the incumbent should be removed, why would anyone vote for that challenger? Why not simply keep the incumbent in office?
If a challenger does not articulate why the incumbent should be removed, then the message sent to voters is not that we need to go in a new direction, but that the challenger is seeking office for his own personal ambition. Candidates who are seeking to remove an incumbent from office purely for personal ambition instead of the desire to make a substantive change (especially in a primary) do not deserve to be elected.
|Wednesday, March 21, 2012|
Published in the Indianapolis Star, March 17, 2012
To the Editor:
A March 14 letter to the editor in the Indianapolis Star grossly misrepresents the Koran burning incident in Afghanistan. Our soldiers did not burn Islamic holy books because they were arrogant. It was an accident.
The fact of the matter is that Muslim terrorists were writing messages to each other in the pages of the Koran - which is considered a desecration of the Koran in Islam. And yet, neither the Muslim terrorists nor their apologists in Indianapolis are heaping condemnation on the Muslim terrorists who intentionally desecrated the Koran. I wonder why that is?
The desecrated Korans were confiscated by American soldiers. A different group of soldiers were disposing of various items and erroneously included the Korans with the other materials - and then immediately retrieved the books when they realized the mistake. All of this has been well documented.
The fact of the matter is that this was a mistake. It was a mistake that should not have happened, and I am confident there are procedures in place to prevent it from happening again. But the response was telling: Muslim terrorists rioted and murdered a number of people in response to the burning of some paper with ink on it. That is the action of savage barbarians, not devout people of any faith.
Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant Word of God, yet you do not see Christians rioting and murdering over charred paper.
Some of my fellow Republicans have criticized Barack Obama for apologizing for the Koran burning. I'm no fan of Obama, but this was the right thing to do, even though the burning was completely accidental. If you step on someone's foot, do you refuse to apologize because you did not intend to cause harm? No, that would be silly. Of course an apology was appropriate here.
In my letter to the editor on Sunday, I said that a good standard for when government should intervene is that "government should prohibit harm." Allow me to clarify that point: What I meant was government should prohibit harm to others. For example, it should be illegal for someone to steal or destroy someone else's property. Government should not be in the business of making sure we do not harm ourselves though nanny state legislation.
I would have posted this in the comments but Herald-Times editor Bob Zaltsberg is a liar and a hypocrite.
In addition, I am on the ballot in contested races for Precinct Committeeman and Delegate to State convention. The campaign Web site is up: www.VoteForTibbs.org.
Finally, tomorrow will be 15 years since I was diagnosed with cancer. I knew what was going on for a couple weeks before I had the surgery, but the surgery and biopsy confirmed it. I wrote about my experience with cancer in a guest editorial for the Herald-Times as I approached the ten year anniversary of the surgery.
Bloomington Herald-Times, March 18, 2012. (Comments)
To the editor:
I am a conservative, which means I support limited government. I am not an anarchist.
Limited government, by its very nature, is incompatible with anarchism. After all, limited government requires that a government exists, though the powers of that government are restricted, usually by a constitution. This applies to all conservatives - we are not anarchists.
With this concept established, can we please move beyond the childish and oversimplified meme that conservatives want to eliminate all government?
Both conservatives and liberals recognize that government needs to exist. The debate is over the proper role of government. How much power should government have in a particular area of society? In what cases should we have a more "hands off" policy and in what cases should we have more regulations?
Here is a good standard: Government should prohibit harm. As we determine where government regulation is appropriate, the next question is obvious: What level of government should have that regulatory authority? What powers are appropriate for the federal government, and what should be handled on a state or local level?
Legitimate discussions over the role of government are necessary. Let's not make reasonable discourse impossible with absurd oversimplifications of others' ideological leanings.
"We cannot afford to continue watching the human and economic toll from tobacco rob our communities of parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends and co-workers." - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
Question: Given how bad smoking is, why not simply ban tobacco?
Answer: Tax revenue from tobacco taxes.
Over at CNN, Brian Flynn argues that we need to expand Congress.
This is a topic I've addressed before. In January of 2001, I argued that we should increase the size of the U.S. House of Representatives. Increasing the House to 6,000 members is not practical, but there is no reason it needs to stay at 435 forever. Why not bump the number to 1,000 members?
Last May, I blogged about the Herald-Times' decision to delete comments that refer to abortion as murder. When I objected to the deletion, H-T editor Bob Zaltsberg explained the decision via e-mail:
|Killing is not the same as "murdering." While there still is some debate about whether PP is killing babies, that's not the point here. If your post said, "In other words, stop killing babies and you can have the money" it would be left up.|
Now the H-T has taken it a step farther, to a ridiculous extreme that exposes the Herald-Times not as a "newspaper" but as a partisan political newsletter. In the an editorial praising Charlotte Zietlow, The H-T wrote that she "has stood for justice for all in her 40-plus years of working for people in Monroe County." I posted the following comment:
|Actually, that's not true. She worked for an organization that has perpetrated a terrible injustice by killing babies every week on South College Avenue. If she's interested in justice, Zietlow should renounce her affiliation with Planned Parenthood and denounce the abominable acts they commit each week.|
I followed Mr. Zaltsberg's instructions exactly, using the word killing instead of murdering - and my comment was deleted anyway. This was the third comment that was deleted within 14 days, so this triggered an automatic suspension of posting privileges for the next 14 days, meaning I will be unable to post until March 26.
This is simply unbelievable. How can anyone follow the rules when the rules are changing like this, especially when things that were perfectly within the rules ten months ago are now forbidden with absolutely no notification of the change in policy? Since the language I used in the post that triggered my auto-ban was pre-approved by Zaltsberg last May (specifically that the word killing would have been left up) a two week suspension from HTO is grossly unfair.
The Herald-Times is free to set rules for comments on stories, and people are free to participate or not (or subscribe or not) based on what they think about the policy. Setting rules is one thing, but retroactively changing rules is another. HTO comment policy is often wildly inconsistent, to the absurd extreme that actually quoting the text of articles published in the "newspaper" can result in a comment being deleted.
And really, deleting comments that say abortion kills babies? Really? That is the new rule on HTO? Really? In his March 12 column, Herald-Times editor Bob Zaltsberg wrote "main purpose of the comments... is to advance community dialogue about issues of importance and interest; to allow people to exchange views on the main topics of the day."
There are few policies that stifle discussion over "issues of importance and interest" more than deleting comments that say abortion kills babies. After all, that is the entire thrust of the debate over the legalization of abortion. If abortion opponents did not believe that abortion killed a human being, we would simply not care that a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy. If there is no killing, then abortion is no more morally complex than clipping toenails.
If I did not believe abortion killed a baby, I would not waste my time picketing Planned Parenthood, writing letters to the editor, lobbying the city and county councils, attending anti-abortion rallies or being active in local anti-abortion organizations. That would be the case for 99% of anti-abortion activists.
With this new policy, the Herald-Times has ceased to be a "newspaper" and has become a partisan political newsletter. The Herald-Times cannot pretend to be anything close to balanced, and cannot claim to be seeking to legitimately report the news in an accurate manner if HTO moderators are going to outright ban the primary argument of abortion opponents. HTO moderators have eliminated dissent on this issue by brazenly putting their finger on the scale.
Again, the Herald-Times is free to set whatever policies it wants. What the H-T should not do is shamelessly change the rules with no notice and brazenly take sides in one of the most contentious political, social, cultural and theological issues of our time by outright banning arguments from one side of the issue.
Richard Mourdock, the incumbent state treasurer who won re-election with 60% of the vote in 2010, picked up another major endorsement in his primary challenge to Richard Lugar in the 2012 U.S. Senate primary. This time, he was endorsed by the National Rifle Association.
This is a huge endorsement, because of the NRA's history of compromising principles for access. The NRA has endorsed a number of Democrats, despite the fact that their Republican opponents have better records on Second Amendment rights. They endorse incumbents to preserve access, so the fact that the NRA is endorsing a challenger to an incumbent who has been in the U.S. Senate for over three decades is a very big deal.
Lugar's record on the Second Amendment is indefensible. As the Mourdock campaign points out:
- Lugar voted against reciprocity to carry concealed weapons across state lines (2009)
- Lugar voted for background checks on all firearms transactions (2004)
- Lugar voted in favor of extending the Assault Weapons Ban for 10 years (2004)
- Lugar voted for the Brady Handgun bill (1993)
- Lugar voted for the Assault Weapons Ban (1993)
Lugar's record is so bad that even the NRA could not overlook it.
We should not forget Lugar's votes for Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. While a legitimate case can be made that the Senate should respect the President's choices for his Cabinet, lifetime judicial appointments are another matter entirely. When Barack Obama is defeated this November, his Cabinet will leave with him. Kagan and Sotomayor will stay for decades. There is a reason the U.S. Constitution gives the Senate the authority to approve or reject Supreme Court nominees!
Lugar is clearly worried about Mourdock. The Lugar campaign has launched one negative attack on Mourdock after another, and Lugar's e-mail list has been devoted to attacking Mourdock repeatedly for months. Generally, incumbents do not go this negative this early unless they need to go negative. Lugar knows he is out of the mainstream with Republican primary voters, and that his decades-long service may well be over next January.
|Wednesday, March 14, 2012|
I believe in a literal, six-day creation as described in the Book of Genesis. I generally do not engage in debates over creationism and evolution, though, as I do not have a lot of interest in the topic. This is one of the times I will make an exception to point out a great resource on the topic for Christians. My friend Mr. Sepetjian has been pounding the theory of volution for months at his excellent blog, Across the Fruited Plain.
Here are his posts on the topic - a must read for believers in Jesus Christ as we live in this pagan world.
♣ What is Evolution?
♣ Deflating the “Truth” & Size of the Big Bang
♣ Radium Polonium Halos: Proof-positive the earth was never a hot molten mass
♣ What is the Big Bang Theory?
♣ Refuting Fossil “Evidence” for Evolution: The Data is NOT in the Strata
♣ Variations Within the Kind
♣ Horse Evolution: Fraud Exposed 60 Years Ago, Still in the Textbooks?
♣ Survival of the Fittest : More Circular Reasoning
♣ Refuting Homologous “Evidence” for Evolution
♣ Grand Canyon: More Myths of Evolution
♣ The Geologic Column: Invented to “Free the science from Moses”
♣ Carbon-14 Dating: An Unlikely Young Earth Apologist?
♣ The Inflation of the Age of the Earth
♣ Pangaea Theory: A Remonstrance
♣ Scientific Predictions By Worldview
♣ Age Limiting Factors: The Sun
♣ Age Limiting Factors: Earth’s Moon
♣ Does Ontogeny Recapitulate Phylogeny?: Refuting Embryological “Evidence” for Evolution
♣ Are Dinosaurs Alive Today As Birds?: Refuting Archaeopteryx as “Evidence” for Evolution
♣ Age Limiting Factors: The Geomagentic Field
♣ Age Limiting Factors: Stars & Supernovas
♣ Smaller Means More Complex, Not Less
♣ Refuting Vestigial Organs as Proof of Evolution
♣ Organisms That Defy Evolution: Brachinus sp., Metrius sp., Stenaptinus sp. (One of my favorites.)
♣ Could Blind Chance Produce a Seeing Eye?
♣ Age Limiting Factors: Niagara Falls
♣ Age Limiting Factors: Spiraling Galaxies
♣ Population Under-Crowding: Silent Witness to a Young Earth
♣ Age Limiting Factors: Red Giants
♣ Chromosomes: An Introduction to the Complexity of DNA
♣ Bacterial Flagellar Rotation: Gripping The Irreducibly Complex
♣ Debunking Deception Through DNA
♣ Age Limiting Factors: Sahara Desert
♣ Chance DNA & Percentage Sequencing
♣ Organisms That Defy Evolution: Pluvialis fulva
♣ Age Limiting Factors: Earth’s Oldest Living Organism
♣ Age Limiting Factors: Erosion Rates
♣ Age Limiting Factors: Moon Dust
♣ On Why Natural Selection Does Not Produce Evolution
♣ The Stretch Factor: Mathematical Proof the Universe was Created in 6 Days
I have written a lot about anonymity on the Internet, and I have suggested several times that the Herald-Times require people who post in the comments on HeraldTimesOnline be required to use their real names, as is the case with letters to the editor. The response has become a predictable meme: "Scott Tibbs is known to send letters to people's employers because he does not like their political views, so we have to be anonymous to protect ourselves from him."
This is a lie. It is a brazen, blatant, bold faced lie. I have never contacted anyone's employer because I disagree with his or her political views. Not one single time. It has never happened.
It is to my shame that I admit this campaign of lies has a tiny grain of truth to it. In September of 2004, a local Leftist (who I will not name for reasons I explain below) posted that I have "a plethora of sketchy ties" with anti-abortion terrorist groups - in effect calling me a terrorist. I complained via e-mail to his employer, the Bloomington Herald-Times, that this damages his credibility as a journalist and that it damages the credibility of the newspaper. These were fine points, and would have been great for a blog post - but should not have been sent in an e-mail to his employer.
What I did was wicked. I compounded my shameful action by being very petulant about it, and I did not apologize for eight months. I did finally publicly apologize to the individual I wronged, and he apologized to me for his libelous accusations of criminal activity. We both forgave each other and moved on. The fact that my enemies cannot move on from something that did not involve them speaks volumes about them. The fact that my enemies have dishonestly spun a single hasty e-mail into something much worse also speaks volumes about them.
I will not name the individual I wronged, because it is wrong to attach his name to his libelous accusations. He apologized and I forgave him, so what business do I have reminding anyone about what he said, by name? Why should people be reminded of what he did?
So that is it. I overreacted to a libelous accusation made against me and I responded shamefully. This happened exactly one time, not multiple times as my enemies have said over and over and over in HTO comments and elsewhere. I am not going to spend the rest of my life on my knees because I lost my cool and sent a hasty e-mail, especially since my enemies have acted much worse against me.
I have made this point in comments on HeraldTimesOnline (see here and here) but it needs to be made again. Please pay careful attention to the next two paragraphs.
Sandra Fluke claims that she and other students at Georgetown are unable to afford birth control, as it will cost them $3,000 over the course of three years. (Not $3,000 every year as has been erroneously reported.)
Both Wal-Mart and Target offer prescription birth control for $9 per month. That is $108 per year - a far cry from the $1,000 per year that Fluke claims to be paying for birth control. We're talking about a couple of value meals at McDonald's or a single meal at Applebee's. Are you seriously trying to argue that these students at Georgetown University cannot afford a paltry nine dollars per month?
Of course Leftists do not want to argue that, because the American people would laugh at them. That is why this phony figure of $3,000 is being thrown about. Other than a few blogs and people commenting on websites, no one is calling them out on this absurd dishonesty. Why are the Republicans in Congress (and the GOP candidates for President) not pointing out that the $3,000 figure is absurd and pointing them to Wal-Mart?
If a woman is paying $1,000 per year for birth control instead of $108, she is being ripped off and needs to find a different provider. She should also report the shysters who are selling this to her. If an insurance company (or Medicaid) is paying $1,000 a year for birth control - ten times more than what they should be paying - then I want to see someone go to prison, because there is fraud going on. This is the kind of fraud that drives up insurance rates for everyone, and it contributes to drastic increases in health care costs.
Folks, the math simply does not add up here. Before we even get into the political, moral and philosophical debate about whether or not Christian organizations should be forced to pay for an insurance policy that covers contraceptives, we need to get our facts straight. This nonsense about birth control costing $1,000 per year instead of $108 needs to be called out and exposed for the fraud all thinking people know it to be.
♣ Santorum's classic libertarian position on contraception - January 13, 2012
♣ We must also oppose chemical abortion - February 13, 2012
♣ Obama's hostility to Christians continues - February 22, 2012
♣ The Limbaugh controversy is not about insults - March 6, 2012
Here is an excellent blog post:
|In a day and an age when everyone does what is "right" in their own eyes and most people feel they have the "right" to do whatever they please, it almost seems archaic and chauvinistic to some to not allow women in combat. In fact, this announcement may have been the first time some have realized that women were not already serving in combat roles in the United States Military. However, despite the recent shift in winds, the fact is, there are many good reasons to continue the time-honored ban on women in combat.|
For more, visit Across The Fruited Plain.
Here is a thought-provoking article about bad NBA teams "tanking" their season to get a more favorable lottery pick. We know NBA teams intentionally lose games at the end of the season, but what should be done about it?
Arguably the best example of "tanking" is the 1996-1997 San Antonio Spurs. A look at their record over several seasons is striking. Over the previous seven 82 game seasons, San Antonio won 56, 55, 47, 49, 55, 62 and 59 games - a combined winning percentage of 66.7%. Then, suddenly, they won only 20 of 82 games in 1996-1997, snagged the #1 draft pick in the lottery and drafted Tim Duncan.
In fairness to the Spurs, some of that was out of their control. The team was hit hard by injuries: David Robinson played only 6 games, while Sean Elliott (an All-Star the previous season who averaged 20 points per game) only played in 39 games. But a reasonable case can be made that San Antonio could have done better and intentionally did not.
If San Antonio did intentionally tank the 1996-1997 season, look what it got them - a Hall of Fame player, 15 consecutive seasons as a championship contender, and 4 world championships, including 3 in 5 years. The Spurs have won at least 50 games for 13 consecutive 82 game seasons, and won 37 of 50 in the 1999 season that was shortened by a lockout. There is little argument that losing 62 of 82 games paid off.
It is bad for the NBA for teams to intentionally mail it in at the end of the season. It deprives fans of competitive games and damages the integrity of the league. It is simply unsportsmanlike to intentionally make a bad season worse and put forth a poor effort. It mocks the game and makes fans cynical. But what can be done about it? Zach Lowe reports on an interesting, if imperfect, proposal in his blog post.
Addressing this problem is complex and there are several factors to consider. Adam Gold's solution can be mixed with other options. For example, the NBA could discourage tanking by reducing the odds of winning the lottery for teams that have a lower winning percentage after being mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. But for the good of the game and for the reputation of the league, this problem needs to be addressed.
Last week, Indiana Right to Life sent out an email alert passing on the good news that abortion had declined in 2009 from the previous year, including in Monroe County. While this decline is good news, it follows a sharp increase in the number of abortions here in Monroe County since 2005. See below:
This is obviously a very bad thing. Had the number of abortions remained level, two hundred children would be alive today. Instead, those children were killed by dismemberment, and those murders were protected by federal law. Indiana has no authority to stop the bloodshed in our cities.
Most of those abortions take place at the Planned Parenthood "clinic" on South College Avenue, a source of shame for Bloomington. According to Planned Parenthood of Indiana's annual report, Planned Parenthood murdered 5,250 babies across the state in their most recent fiscal year.
According to that same report, PPIN enjoyed $15,135,052 in revenue while spending $14,232,019 - a profit of over $900,000. Are you seriously trying to tell me that Planned Parenthood "needs" a grant every single year from the Bloomington City Council? Is Planned Parenthood actually arguing that legitimate local charities should be denied a grant so that the baby killers at Planned Parenthood can take a chunk of the limited social service funds?
This is shameful, folks. While our city fathers continue to give money confiscated by force from taxpayers to baby killers, those baby killers are ramping up the number of babies they kill every year. Each and every one of these people need to be thrown out of office.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Historical designation and property rights
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 16:17:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Tibbs <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
I am very disappointed in your decision to establish a historic district to prevent the house at 700 N Walnut from being moved - intact - to a nearby neighborhood.
A letter to the editor last Saturday argued, "when someone has the means to purchase properties that have obvious architectural historic value, they have a responsibility to society to preserve the integrity of those structures." There was never any question that the integrity of the structure was going to be preserved. It was simply going to be in a different location.
The fact that the house was going to be moved, not demolished, is the reason why you should have voted down the historic district. The historical value of the home would not be damaged if it existed in a different part of Bloomington, instead of the Walnut Street artery, which is an important commercial corridor for our city. Because the house is unattractive as office space, much of it sits empty.
The Herald-Times reported that some neighbors supported the historical designation because the house is a "buffer to nearby development." One could argue whether or not this is a good argument in terms of land use policy, but it is a poor argument for whether a property should be designated historic. Whether a property is or is not historic has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it serves the interest of a specific land use policy goal.
Because of Indiana University, Bloomington is better off economically than surrounding communities, but we have still felt the sting of this harsh recession. The property owner was poised to create jobs for your constituents, both short term construction jobs and long term jobs once the property is developed. You could have seen jobs created without raising a finger or spending a dime of taxpayer money, but you chose to stand in the way of more jobs.
The Fifth Amendment places an important restriction on government with the following clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." If the City Council feels that it serves the public for this property to be preserved as is, then I will make the same suggestion I made when you designated the Elks Lodge building as historic. Buy it. By preventing the Bomba family from developing the land, you have engaged in an effective taking of the property, but the owners will not be compensated for it.
The most important job you have as city councilors, above and beyond anything else you do, is to protect the rights of the people of Bloomington. To the two members who voted to protect private property rights, thank you. To the other seven, you have failed in your most important duty as elected officials.
Resident of City Council District I
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. - 1 Corinthians 6:18
If you believe that the controversy over Rush Limbaugh calling a Georgetown law student a "slut" is driven by legitimate outrage over what Limbaugh said, I sincerely hope that you take along a trusted and discerning friend when you go to purchase a used automobile. Because you are a very naïve person.
This is not to defend what Limbaugh said. He was being intentionally provocative, partially to get attention and partially because he genuinely enjoys offending Leftists - who take the bait more often than not. He could have accomplished the same point had he not based his argument on insulting Sandra Fluke. I do not agree with the idea of being intentionally provocative for its own sake. Limbaugh issued an "apology" that wasn't an apology at all, because he did mean to say what he said and he did mean to be insulting.
But this has nothing to do with Ms. Fluke. This is a coordinated effort by the Democratic Party and allied groups to silence a major critic of Barack Obama ahead of a difficult election, where he may well be thrown out of office. This is about 2012 politics, not defending the honor of Ms. Fluke. If it were about the honor of Ms. Fluke, Limbaugh's enemies would be more concerned with shaming the men who are sexually exploiting her with no intention of caring for her in the future.
There was a time in this country, within my lifetime, where it would have been unthinkable for a woman to go before the U.S. Congress and admit to regularly having sex outside of marriage. It would have been unthinkable for a woman to go before the U.S. Congress and ask the federal government to force someone else to pay for her birth control so she can continue to have sex outside of marriage.
And before anyone starts whining about double standards, it is just as wicked for men to use a woman sexually with no intention of marrying her as for women to have sex outside of the context that God has established for sex - marriage. And please, let's not even pretend that Christians are opposed to sex. After all, the very first commandment in the Bible (Genesis 1:28) is to have sex. How exactly are we supposed to "be fruitful and multiply" without having sex?
But, once again, this whole ginned-up controversy has absolutely nothing to do with sexual morality, birth control, or offensive comments by a radio talk show host. This is about a bunch of authoritarians who cannot abide dissent trying desperately to silence one of the President's most prominent political opponents. Some on the Left are even raising the "fairness doctrine" again, hoping to use the federal government to censor Limbaugh and force radio stations to carry state-approved messages for the sake of "balance." And that effort must be intensely opposed.
The 2012 primary races are set, leading to a very interesting match-up on the Democratic side, one contested race on the Republican side and two races that I have a very personal interest in.
The most interesting race should be the Monroe County Council race on the Democratic side. Former councilors Sophia Travis and Scott Wells are challenging the three incumbent Democrats for a spot on the November ballot. Travis gave up her council seat to run for county commissioner in 2008 and lost to Iris Kiesling in the primary. Wells ran for re-election in 2004 and lost in the Democratic primary, finishing in fourth place behind an Indiana University student.
So the Democratic primary features the top vote getters in the last three general elections: Travis, Wells* and Julie Thomas. Wells gets an asterisk because, while he was the top vote getter in official results, Jeff Ellington actually got more votes in the 2000 general election. There were a few hundred votes that did not get counted that would have made Ellington the top vote-getter that year. It should be interesting to hear Wells and Travis explain why the incumbents of their own party need to be replaced.
My races should be interesting. For precinct committeeman, one of my opponents was the Libertarian candidate for Congress in 2010, challenging Todd Young and Baron Hill in a race Young won handily. It should be an interesting challenge given Greg Knott's name ID. I am not familiar with my other opponent.
The delegate race will be very tough. Barbara Clark, who won two countywide races for auditor and three countywide races for treasurer, will almost certainly win one of the two seats in District 4. This leaves the contest for the second seat between me and Marjorie Hudgins, who sits on the city's Historic Preservation Commission and ran for City Council in 2007. Nonetheless, I think my chances are better in my district than at-large, where 43 candidates will battle for 19 seats countywide.
|Mark Stoops||County Comm District 2||D|
|Randy G Paul||County Comm District 2||D|
|Iris Kiesling||County Comm District 3||D|
|Geoffrey McKim||County Council at Large||D|
|Jeff Carson||County Council at Large||D|
|Julie L Thomas||County Council at Large||D|
|Scott Wells||County Council at Large||D|
|Sophia Travis||County Council at Large||D|
|Warren Henegar||County Council at Large||D|
|Alphonso Manns||Judge, Seat 3||D|
|Kevin P Enright||Surveyor||D|
|Vivien M Bridges||Auditor||R|
|Walter L Hatfield||Coroner||R|
|Nelson Shaffer||County Comm District 2||R|
|Brian Ellison||County Council at Large||R|
|Christopher D Kilander||County Council at Large||R|
|Jennifer K Mickel||County Council at Large||R|
|Skip Daley||County Council at Large||R|
|Marc Kellams||Judge, Seat 2||R|
|Frances Hill||Judge, Seat 3||R|
|Greg "NoBull" Knott||P C Perry 05||R|
|Scott Tibbs||P C Perry 05||R|
|Tom Roberson||P C Perry 05||R|
|Barbara Clark||S D District 4||R|
|Marjorie Hudgins||S D District 4||R|
|Scott Tibbs||S D District 4||R|
With thanks to Across the Fruited Plain.
Local Christian ministers deny Christ
Denying Christ, Part II
Christians must be faithful to Scripture
No, we do not all worship the same god.
When hatred pretends to be "tolerance" - Part I
When hatred pretends to be "tolerance" - Part II
"Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit that we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office." -- President Barack Obama, February 23, 2009
Three years ago, Barack Obama promised to cut the deficit by half.
He has failed. Not only has he failed, he has made it worse.
First, let's address Obama's claim that he "inherited" the deficit. As you can see in the numbers provided by the Office of Management and Budget, the deficits under President Bush peaked in 2004, and than began to decline. The budget deficit in 2007 - the last budget approved by the Republican Congress before Nancy Pelosi became speaker - was $160 billion. When the Democrats took over, the deficit exploded. So, yes, Barack Obama inherited a huge deficit from the Democrats in Congress.
You can also see above that it is irresponsible spending, not revenue, that is driving the debt.
Barack Obama, with the help of a Democratic Congress, has put us on an unsustainable path. This country cannot afford four more years of this man's destructive policies. He must be defeated.
Last week, Monroe County Economic Development Commission member Greg Travis posted a shockingly racist comment in the Herald-Times comment section. Travis' wife, Sophia Travis, is running for an at-large seat on the Monroe County Council. In 2005, she voted to appoint her husband to the EDC, a public endorsement of his views.
When HTO commenter bilgerat described the attitude of those behind the comprehensive plan "thinking that they are the only ones who know what is best for how we utilize our property and pursue our dreams," Travis wrote:
Right out of South Carolina's Declaration of Immediate Causes:
Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.
So there you have it. A prominent Monroe County Democrat who holds a position of authority in county government is actually equating ownership of land with the practice of slavery.
Travis dug in his heels after being called out for his racist statement:
I wonder if Scott considers the government's taking of southern whites' property without due compensation a violation of their fifth amendment rights.
The next day, he continued to equate owning land with "owning" human beings:
I'm heartened that HTO's right wing brain trust joins with Tibbs in rejecting an absolute interpretation of the Fifth amendment and recognizes that property title and control is not absolute but subject to social norms, testrictions, and ultimate collective title (eminent domain)
He then continued to equate ownership of land with "ownership" of people:
Now bilgerat has taken us right back to the notion of absolute property rights, the same constitutional argument put for in defense of owning humans by the South
Bilgerat, should southern slave holders have been compensated by the government when the latter took their property? That argument is alive and well today among property rights absolutists
Or are propert owners only entitled to compensation when they are alienated from certain types of property? In which case, who determines which types of property can be alienated and which cannot?
This is simply shameful. A member of the Monroe County Economic Development Commission is actually arguing that "owning" human beings and forcing them to work without compensation against their will is the same as owning a piece of land and developing that land.
Sadly, this is not an unusual position for Monroe County Democrats. During a planning commission meeting in 1999, Perry Township Trustee Dan Combs compared people arguing for property rights against the minimum lot size requirement were the same as the people arguing for the "right" to own slaves in the 1800's. This shameful race baiting has no place in public discourse, especially when uttered by public officials like Travis and Combs.
It should be emphasized, once again, that Sophia Travis (a candidate for Monroe County Council) voted to place her husband in a position of authority on the MCEDC. Does Sophia Travis also believe that owning and developing land is the same as the abominable practice of slavery? She needs to answer this question.
If we had a newspaper worth the paper it is printed on, a reporter for the Herald-Times would have immediately asked Sophia Travis if she agrees with her husband's views. Since that is not the case, the Republicans running for Monroe County Council need to make this an issue in the campaign. It should not be the case that I am the only one willing to make this an issue.
See the stand-alone post with screenshots here.