Roundup

From the shadenfreude department, some Darwinian on Darwinian verbal violence – aka, PZ Myers reaps what he sowed.

Ten resources to help you defend the resurrection of Jesus as history

If Canada’s Bill C-389 passes, transgenderism will be taught in kindergarten – coming soon to a country near you.  This is the logical consequence of turning sexual preferences into civil rights.  It is child abuse to teach kindergarteners that they aren’t “really” boys or girls.  These people should be in jail.

New study links father absence to increased bullying – so when people want to reduce bullying in schools across the board – instead of just protecting their favored students – remind them how important stable one man / one woman families are.

The top three books that helped change me from a mindless, irrational Darwinist into an ID proponent

War and killing – excellent overview of the biblical view

Union Fights to Force You into Obamacre While Getting Waivers for Itself – one more reason to dislike unions and Obamacare.  Unions fought hard to make you pay for this but are opting out themselves.  If it is such a swell program, why aren’t they excited to be in it?  If they don’t like it, why did they lobby for it?  This is politics at its worst.

EPA Issues First Waiver For New Greenhouse Gas Regulations – shockingly, it goes to a major Obama supporter and a recipient of major government spending.  Where are the Halliburton haters now?

Another thing you won’t get from the mainstream media: How The CDC Coverup Now Turns to Bureaucratic Panic when they were caught hiding abortion data.

More Assaults From the Supporters of the Homosexual Agenda – be sure to eat more chicken (at Chik-Fil-A, a restaurant with excellent governance that treats its employees well).

‘House of Horrors’ abortionist made over $1.8 million/year, now claims to be broke — apparently abortion pays pretty well for those selfless heroes.

According to the grand jury report, a search of Gosnell’s Philadelphia home uncovered $240,000 in cash and a gun hidden in a filing cabinet in his 12-year-old daughter’s bedroom.  Other than that, his income appears to be unaccounted for except for his assets and real estate investments. “The money’s unaccounted for,” District Attorney Joanne Pescatore told the Inquirer. “The only thing we know about is the money taken out of the house.”

According to the Inquirer report, Gosnell and his wife own seventeen properties, a motorboat, a Dodge Durango, a Ford F-150 pickup truck and a Ford Expedition.

Despite these assets, Gosnell now claims to be broke . . .

 

11 thoughts on “Roundup

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Roundup « Eternity Matters -- Topsy.com

  2. Seriously awesome round-up, Neil.

    Love that someone uncovered what an abortionist makes. $1.8 million a year for killing children? Crime does pay….

    That aside, why doesn’t this guy charge less, if he cares about women’s health and access to reproductive care? By the pro-abort’s own admissions, late-term abortions cost more and, therefore, access is limited to the wealthier women. If this guy cut his salary in a quarter, he would still be among the wealthiest 1% of wage-earners and could give more women access to “vital reproductive services”. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing.

  3. As for fathers and bullying (or lack thereof!): a stable, two-parent, mom and dad family is linked with EVERY good out come around. As Ann Coulter said, regardless of race, income, or parental education, the way to hit the jackpot is to be born to a two-parent family in America.

    As most long-time readers of Neil’s blog know, my parents did the shotgun wedding thing when they were young. The marriage didn’t last (and divorce is terrible, let me tell you), but they are both happily remarried, successful individuals. Things are NOT perfect, but, like capitalism, a shotgun wedding is bad, but a million times better than any other option. (Or whatever that quote is.)

  4. Wow, two honorable mentions in one post! Thanks, Neil.

    I’ve been thinking about doing something like this for a long time; there are so many things I come across that to do an individual article on myself would take lots of time. I think I’m going to have to do a “roundup” thing now and then!

    • Your commission check is in the mail!

      I like having things in the Roundups for when I want to search for them later, plus I like plugging good blogs.

  5. The top 3 books about ID vs evolution were what I read many years ago, and they are excellent. However, there is a new book out which I highly recommend; in response to Dawkins’ book, Jonathan Sarfati has written and excellent rebuttal titled, “The Greatest Hoax On Earth.”

  6. “This is the logical consequence of turning sexual preferences into civil rights”

    A logical consequence, then, of making it a civil right that straight folks can get married if they want to?

    • “This is the logical consequence of turning sexual preferences into civil rights”

      A logical consequence, then, of making it a civil right that straight folks can get married if they want to?

      I realize you were trying to make a cute sound bite to refute my point, but your comment is symptomatic of the incredibly sloppy thinking that is foundational to the LGBTX enterprise.

      You see, it implies that the definition of marriage came before the thing it defines, and that the mean, bigoted 98% of the population deliberately deliberately created a new enterprise to deprive the 2% of the population what they wanted (which in a Darwinian worldview would be completely “moral,” but that’s another issue).

      But is that how it worked? Of course not. Marriage — the word — came into being to describe a unique situation: A union of man and a woman, the fundamental building blocks of society that by nature and design produce the next generation.

      Straight folks could always get married. Society just realized the obvious, which countless studies and common sense overwhelmingly support: Children do much, much better in traditional family relationships. Therefore, society sought to encourage and protect those relationships. Now we have many groups attacking those foundations.

      A term used to describe that union is not in any way a logical precursor to the oxymoron that is “same-sex marriage.” That people had to use tricks to change the definition of the word at the same time they argued that the word always included their meaning reveals much.

      Also, we aren’t prohibiting gays, lesbians and bisexuals from having relationships. We just oppose applying a term to these relationships that is completely inaccurate.

      Your worldview is so perverted that you thought your comment advanced your cause instead of being a self-parody of it.

      Also note that in your moral bankruptcy you aren’t concerned about destroying the innocence of little children. If that gets in the way of the required acceptance — not just tolerance — of gays, lesbians and bisexuals, then you don’t seem to care. That’s pretty sick, buddy, even for a man-made religion.

      • Regardless. If I tried to say you couldn’t marry your wife, you would treat it as a civil right. I know you have your (very bad) reasons to consider gay rights not civil rights. But you’ll have to argue those reasons in the particular (as you’re doing in your reply), make a case that straight sexual preferences lie in one absolute category while homosexuality, transgenderism … polygamy, bestiality lie in another. You can’t just assume that gulf. A slippery slope argument always goes both ways: not just “where does it stop” but “where does it begin.”

        Any categorical split you try to make is likely to strike me as cooked up, semi-rational, indeed immoral unless it’s along the lines of exploitative-vs.-non-exploitative, basically-commensurate-with-general-flourishing-vs.-basically-at-odds-with-flourishing.

        As for destroying children’s innocence, I’ll try to be circumspect about getting into that issue too deeply: for time and clarity’s sake and in order not to bore us both by trotting out positions that everyone already knows we hold, I’d rather keep the discussion focussed on the slippery slope question. Suffice it to say that of course I recognize there’s a level of detail that’s inappropriate for younger kids, and a level of detail that’s helpful, and it’s an area requiring detailed conversation.

      • If I tried to say you couldn’t marry your wife, you would treat it as a civil right.

        Now you are just making things up. If you were to say I couldn’t be married in the eyes of the gov’t, you’d have to have a reason.

        Remember, if gays want to find some apostate church to “marry” them, like the Episcopals, they are free to.

        I know you have your (very bad) reasons to consider gay rights not civil rights.

        Sexual preferences are not civil rights. Using your logic, pedophiles have civil rights.

        The rest of your first paragraph was incoherent blather. Try to stay on topic. You made a ridiculous claim, so you should have retracted it or supported it. As usual, you are changing the subject. Try again on another post, I don’t have time for you today.

        Any categorical split you try to make is likely to strike me as cooked up, semi-rational, indeed immoral unless it’s along the lines of exploitative-vs.-non-exploitative, basically-commensurate-with-general-flourishing-vs.-basically-at-odds-with-flourishing.

        Don’t be so dense. Marriage defines a particular relationship. You are, once again, trying to redefine the word at the same time you claim your perversions were always in the definition.

        As for destroying children’s innocence, I’ll try to be circumspect about getting into that issue too deeply: for time and clarity’s sake and in order not to bore us both by trotting out positions that everyone already knows we hold, I’d rather keep the discussion focussed on the slippery slope question.

        Of course that destroys their innocence. That you can’t see it is more evidence of how seared your conscience is. I hope any time you spend around children is highly supervised by rational adults.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s