September 30th, 2006

Conservatives Sleep Better at Night,

By admin

This morning on Fox news I heard about a dream and sleep study which contrasted the sleep patterns of Conservatives vs Liberals. A quick Google search turned up the following June, 2005 study. So at this time it is about a year old. Some interesting points for the study:

This study examines the dreams of American liberals and conservatives in order to highlight patterns that might correlate with their opposing political views.  A total of 234 participants (134 self-described liberals, 100 self-described conservatives) completed a lengthy sleep and dream survey, and their answers revealed several notable patterns:
 

The liberals and conservatives in this study are not radically different species, at least when it comes to sleep and dreaming.  People of both political persuasions share a common substrate of basic human sleep and dream experience. 
 

Conservatives sleep more soundly, with fewer dreams.  Liberals have more restless sleep and a more active dream life.  Conservatives sleep somewhat longer, with better sleep quality; they recall fewer dreams, but report more lucid dreams (especially conservative men).  Liberals (particularly liberal women) have worse sleep quality, recall a greater number and variety of dreams, and have more dreams of homosexuality. 
 

Liberals and conservatives report a roughly equal proportion of bad dreams and nightmares.  This is different from my earlier study (using dreams gathered from 1996-2000), when the conservatives had many more nightmarish dreams than the liberals.  In the present study (using dreams gathered post-September 11, 2001 to the end of 2004), the conservative frequency of negative dreams is somewhat less, while the liberal frequency is much higher.  It appears liberals have become more upset and troubled in their dreams, while conservatives have become less so in theirs.
 

The dreams of liberals are more bizarre than the dreams of conservatives.  This is consistent with my earlier findings.  Liberals have more dreams with unusual, distorted, fantastic elements than conservatives, whose dreams are more likely to portray normal characters, settings, and activities.
 

The similarities and differences identified here may be artifacts of my study’s small sample size.  Only future research can determine that.  In the meantime, any interpretation remains provisional.  With that caution in mind, if we follow the research premise that dream content is continuous with waking life emotional concerns, the results of this study may be interpreted as follows:  These dreams provide an accurate reflection of contemporary American politics.  The current political weakness of liberals (especially liberal women) is reflected in their troubled sleep and varied, agitated dreaming.  The current political strength of conservatives (especially conservative men) is reflected in their sounder sleep and diminished frequency and variation of dreaming.

So what do we make of all this? I choose to say that deep down inside the Liberals know they are wrong, and it is effecting there sleep. I am sure the liberals will see it a bit differently.

Just something fun on a Saturday morning.

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.yacrwb.org/2006/09/30/conservatives-sleep-better-at-night/trackback/

Posted in Humor | No Comments
September 29th, 2006

Massachusetts expands Gay Marriage

By admin

A Massachusetts activist judge has taken it upon himself to expand Massachusetts legalization of gay Marriage beyond state borders. The following is from the Boston Globe:

A Superior Court judge ruled Friday that same-sex couples from Rhode Island have the right to marry in Massachusetts, finding that Rhode Island laws do not expressly prohibit gay marriage.

Wendy Becker and Mary Norton of Providence, R.I., argued that a 1913 law that forbids out-of-state residents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be permitted in their home state did not apply to them because Rhode Island does not specifically ban gay marriage.

[…]

After Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage in 2004, couples from many other states began lining up to get marriage licenses here. But Gov. Mitt Romney directed municipal clerks not to give licenses to out-of-state couples, citing the 1913 law.
 

Eight out-of-state couples challenged the law. In March, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Massachusetts could use the 1913 law to bar gay couples from Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont from marrying here. But the court said the law was unclear in New York and Rhode Island, and sent that part of the case back to a lower court for clarification.

Several questions come to mind, first and foremost being, with a lack of any Federal guidance, how do states, such as RI, who do not have specific provisions against Gay marriage recognize these couples? Also, if Road Island has no law against Gay marriage – why drag this through the court in Massachusetts, just get married in Road Island?

The answer to the first question would need a legal opinion, and I bet it will be complicated and doubtlessly lead to other lawsuits in other states with organizations like the ACLU and Lambda leading the charge.

The answer the second seems frightfully clear. The agenda here was much less about getting these two lesbians married, and much more about expanding the already gaping wound of Massachusetts same sex marriage provisions. This is the next logical step in forcing the national recognition of same sex marriage in providing a state where people can go to get married if they are in a state that is not among the 38 states specifically banning the practice.

The funny thing is, the ACLU knew this was coming. See the attached from the ACLU website:

If we don’t live in Massachusetts can we still get married there?

Maybe. Massachusetts has an old law suggesting that out of state couples who can’t marry in their home state can’t marry in Massachusetts either. Yet since Massachusetts’s highest court has ruled that it’s illegal to discriminate against same-sex couples who want to marry, this law may not be enforceable. This will take some time to resolve. The governor of Massachusetts, who has been very resistant to the court’s decision to stop excluding same-sex couples from marriage, has told clerks statewide that they cannot grant marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Some clerks have resisted this order, and the governor’s office may end up declaring out-of-state couples’ licenses invalid. We’re monitoring the situation closely as it continues to unfold. Check back here for updates.

That was almost prophetic – and who says the ACLU doesn’t have an agenda? The ACLU has been one of the most vehement supporters of same sex marriage; it only seems odd that they where mostly silent on this current ruling.

The next logical step, now that a shoehorn has been pried into the 1913 law in Massachusetts that would have stopped out of state, gay couples from getting married in the state, is to widen the decision to include any couple regardless of home state or that states stance on same sex marriage.

Then I would not want to live in Massachusetts as they provide a safe haven for same sex marriage across all 50 states.

The next step would be to do similar things in other states that may be sympathetic to same sex marriage.  From there it is anyone’s guess.

Regardless of the all of this, I still do not believe the Federal Marriage Amendment is the right way to go. Marriage laws, impacting only that state, belong in the state and should represent the position of the majority. 

With that said, we cannot let states make decisions which so blatantly impact other states. Massachusetts have effectively fostered a default position of supporting same sex marriage on the 11 other states, like Road Island, which have no law restricting it.

Perhaps this is where the Federal Government, it its traditional roll as mediator between the states, comes in.

Click here to find out where you state stands on Gay Marriage.

Click here for a history of the Gay Marriage battle in Massachusetts.

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.yacrwb.org/2006/09/29/massachusetts-expands-gay-marriage/trackback/

Posted in Family | 1 Comment
September 29th, 2006

Politics in the Classroom

By admin

I normally hate to post on things like this, as some topics should be ignored completely lest we accidentally infer some semblances of sanity to otherwise inane claims. Yet this story has an upside.

The following from New Hampshire WMUR webpage:

A small group of students has started a petition to remove a University of New Hampshire professor who believes that Bush administration officials planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks or knew about them and allowed them to happen. “Basically, we watch professors to just ensure they’re doing their job … they’re not biased in the classroom and are not teaching what they are not supposed to teach,” said Bill Hunt, chairman of the newly formed and unrecognized organization Students for Academic Integrity.

Woodward, a tenured professor, belongs to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, whose members question the official story about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and contend that the U.S. government either had knowledge of the attacks or had a role in them.  Gov. John Lynch called Woodward’s beliefs “completely crazy and offensive” and asked the trustees to investigate. 

Woodward has said he does not push his views on his students but has mentioned it in his classroom in the spirit of full disclosure.  Bruce Mallory, provost and executive vice president for Academic Affairs, said he has investigated the controversy surrounding Woodward and has not heard of the Students for Academic Integrity petition. He added that the university still stands by its position that Woodward acted within the bounds of academic freedom.

I guess, if I was attending UNH I would have to wonder as to the mental stability of the Psychology professor; how dose he work 9/11 into his Psychology class?

In any event, it’s the students who are standing up to this that get my hat-tip. While the student body doesn’t have the right to elect there professors, they should have the right to express concerns over the validity of what they are being taught.  The goal of a university needs to be to first educate and then build a pattern of rational though. By dismissing this wacko’s teaching it at least shows they are rational in thought.

Should the wacko be kicked out? No so easy, that. I most certainly think he is crazy, misinformed, and has no right pedaling conspiracy theory’s off as fact. However the right to constructively express an openion is a fundamental right. If he otherwise fulfills his role as professor, then so be it.

I am sure our buddies over at the ACLU would say that teaching is covered under the 1st Amendment right of free speech, which is a grand fallacy. Teaching is about facts, process, and discovery; never about rumor, gossip, and conspiracy theories. Teachers who engage in such should be removed.

A similar view was posted on OTB.

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.yacrwb.org/2006/09/29/33/trackback/

Posted in Education | No Comments
September 29th, 2006

Senate OKs Detainee Interrogation Bill

By admin

Cross Posted from StoptheACLU.com: Hat tip: Michelle Malkin:

I went out to eat tonight, so I’m late on the news! I guess I’ll just do a roundup.

The Senate Passes the Detainee Interrogation Bill. The NY Times:

The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush’s plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism.

The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president’s desk by week’s end. The House passed nearly identical legislation on Wednesday and was expected to approve the Senate bill on Friday, sending it on to the White House.

The bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit some of the worst abuses of detainees like mutilation and rape, but grant the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible.

Hotair reports the predictable: The nutroots go beserk! Check it out, they’ve got the vote count and all the details.

Sister Toldjah: Senator Pat Leahy says we have become just like the Taliban.

Macsmind says it is a big win for national security. I agree!

AJ Strata: says its a democratic disaster!

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.yacrwb.org/2006/09/29/senate-oks-detainee-interrogation-bill/trackback/

Posted in War on Terror | No Comments
September 28th, 2006

CITGO Boycott being felt down south

By admin

I pick them up from Stuck On Stupid, who picked it up from Investors Business Daily:

President Bush may have been loath to reply to last week’s U.N. speech by the sulfur-tongued Hugo Chavez, but the American public wasn’t. Its boycott of Venezuela’s Citgo gas has set off alarms in Caracas.  The big blow came Wednesday when 7-Eleven announced it would not renew a 20-year contract with Venezuelan-owned gas supplier Citgo. Instead, it would start selling its own brand, to be supplied by three U.S. oil firms. 7-Eleven admitted Chavez was a public relations disaster for the firm after his United Nations speech, denouncing President Bush as “the devil,” and affected its decision. 

“Regardless of politics, we sympathize with many Americans’ concern over derogatory comments about our country and its leadership recently made by Venezuela’s president,” said a 7-Eleven spokeswoman, who’d obviously been hearing from the public. “Chavez’s position and statements over the past year or so didn’t tempt us to stay with Citgo.”  That’s about 2,100 gas stations off the books for Citgo, cutting total outlets to 11,000. 

The rest are likely to remain targets of the infuriated American public’s wildcat boycott of Venezuelan crude. If so, it would be the first time in modern memory a spontaneous consumer boycott had such a commercial impact.  Watching from Caracas, Rafael Ramirez, Venezuela’s energy minister, said he was stunned at the “brusque” tone of 7-Eleven’s announcement, calling it “bitter to swallow.” 

The main point to know is that CITGO still has over 11,000 outlets here in the US – so we have our work to do. Please boycott these stations!

 

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.yacrwb.org/2006/09/28/citgo-boycott-being-felt-down-south/trackback/

Posted in General | No Comments
September 28th, 2006

Firearms

By admin
I received this in an e-mail from a friend. Hat tip to the orriginal author.  

         
           If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in
the Iraq Theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of
2,112 deaths,
          That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
          The firearm death rate in Washington, D.C. Is 80.6 per 100,000 for
the same period.
          That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed
in the U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the
nation, than you are in Iraq.
           Applying Democratic Logic:
            The U.S. should pull out of Washington, D.C.

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.yacrwb.org/2006/09/28/firearms/trackback/

Posted in Humor | No Comments
September 28th, 2006

Funny Clinton Videos

By admin

I found these two clips over at HotAir – I always hurt myself laughing so though I would share them with you.

 

[youtube]34-mz-wEHCs[/youtube]

 

 

[youtube]tOI3LqS_ML4[/youtube]

 

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.yacrwb.org/2006/09/28/funny-clinton-videos/trackback/

Posted in Humor | No Comments
September 28th, 2006

On Torture

By admin

Being a Christian I live in a world of moral absolutes, a world where Truth (with a capital T) exists, and shades of grey are merely distortions. Most people cannot fathom such a world, and would call me inflexible, elitist, or naive.  If you are one of those people, please don’t read further – this will only confuse you.

So how dose one fit torture into a world of moral absolutes? If right is right and wrong is wrong – where dose torture stand? Is it right or wrong, for we just said shades of grey are distortions?

Well … yes. Taken that way it is not so easy.
 

War and torture come under, to me, a single category of violence. When is it right to do violence to another person? Is it always wrong and always right – or is it is situation dependent.

Wait, you may say, that is a shade of grey! No, I am sorry, it is not.

William Buckley said it best: If one man pushes an old lady in front of a buss, and another man pushes an old lady out of the way of a bus – we cannot condemn both for pushing around old ladies. Situations matter.

It is human nature to try and separate things down to the smallest whole part – a single concept which stands alone. We try this with torture and war, and we loose the circumstance which holds the entire moral element. While we would love to say that torture is always wrong, that is an over simplification.

Rick Moran, over at The Right Wing Nuthouse has a different and much better articulated view. Though I agree with Rick on most things, I can’t agree here. The following is an excerpt from his article from today:

Jack Bauer knows that a terrorist strike is imminent which justifies his brutal treatment of prisoners in most people’s minds. But in the real world, that kind of certainty is almost definitely lacking. And even though the capture of a “high value” terrorist operative would almost by definition be an intelligence bonanza regarding future attacks, the idea that any of them would be imminent and a direct threat to American citizens would almost certainly be unknown. Therefore, torture would be carried out in these cases not to necessarily uncover any plots but rather to see if there are any plots worth responding to in the first place.

The situation in this case is that person captured is indeed a high value terrorist operative. One who would be in “the know” for terrorist activities targeted at our country. In this case, boil him in oil – his activities and choice of careers have exempted him from moderation. To do less then our best to protect the lives of innocents from the terrorists is most certainly wrong.

This is not a case of taboo, nor a case of upholding the Geneva Convention – those are mortal constructs. This is a case of right and wrong on a grand scale. To not defend our faith, or families, and our country with every tool in our arsenal is wrong.

Yet I must interject a word of caution. We must not confuse torture, or War, with justice – as that is not its intent. It is not a tool of revenge, vindication, or reconciliation. It is a tool for rough men to use in defending our country. It is a distasteful necessity in today dark world.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” – George Orwell.

Torture, like War, is unpleasant – we long for a world those things are put away forever, but we are not there yet. I think it is absolutely better that one terrorist suffer than the thousands who would be impacted by another 9/11.

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.yacrwb.org/2006/09/28/on-torture/trackback/

Posted in General | 3 Comments
September 28th, 2006

Supreme Court New Term Fast Approaching

By admin

I picked up the following on Reuters:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s new term has cases on abortion, the environment and racial diversity in schools, some of the country’s most contentious social issues for a court primed to shift sharply to the right by President George W. Bush’s conservative appointees. The nation’s highest court, with Bush’s two appointees, could decide to limit or overturn recent precedents upholding abortion rights for women and programs to foster a racially diverse student body, legal experts said. 

“The term is going to be a bellwether on the shift in the court’s ideology. The court is revisiting a series of profound issues,” said Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who closely follows the court. “With Justice (Sandra Day) O’Connor’s departure from the ideological center seat, there’s the prospect for a significant shift to the right,” he said of the term that begins on Monday. 

It will be the second full term for Chief Justice John Roberts, who succeeded the late William Rehnquist, and the first full term for Justice Samuel Alito, who replaced the more moderate O’Connor. Bush appointed both Roberts and Alito. 

All I can say is pray for wisdom for the court and the judges. The opportunity to rethink this nations stance on issues like Abortion is critical. The current view of the judicial system is out of line with that of most Americans. The vocal minority supported by small by noisy special interest groups have twisted our constitution so far left that average America is either sickened or oblivious. Roberts and Alito should be a breath of fresh air on these topics, lets support them in any way we can.

 

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.yacrwb.org/2006/09/28/supreme-court-new-term-fast-approaching/trackback/

Posted in Legality | No Comments
September 28th, 2006

Syria - supplier to any who attack Israel

By admin

What do you do in a dark, dark world where there is no effective united body to stand up to the militants of the world?

This just in from Reuters:

Syria will keep supporting Hamas and Hizbollah despite U.S. threats to impose more sanctions on it, a government newspaper said on Thursday.
 

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice threatened this week to toughen sanctions Washington imposed on Syria in 2004, mainly because of its support for the two movements, which Washington regards as “terrorist organizations”.
 

“Syria is more determined to stand by the resistance until the land is liberated and Israel is defeated,” an editorial in the newspaper Baath said.

Rice said this week that the United States was going “to have to look at tougher measures if Syria continues to be on the path that it’s on.” She said Washington would like other nations to join it in imposing “other kinds of sanctions” on Syria.

Notice Condi is not calling on the ineffectual, bloated, anti-American UN to help; and rightly so. The UN has never passed an effective resolution against the Arab world in the 64 years it has been in place.

Syria has always been a blight on the world, and ranks right up there with Iran and North Korea as the largest threats to world stability. They are overcome with hatred for Israel and any who stand with her.

The international community sits back and does nothing, and allows Syria to continue to openly supply terrorist organization that blatantly attack civilian targets.  The US cannot continue to be the world conscience – its time for a new approach. If the UN cannot do its job, then it is time to scrap it and bond with countries of like mind; replacing the UN with a construct that can and dose act.

Trackback URL for this post: http://www.yacrwb.org/2006/09/28/syria-supplier-to-any-who-attack-israel/trackback/

Posted in International Affairs | No Comments
« Previous Entries |

Y.A.C.R.W.B is powered by WordPress | Using Tiga theme with a bit of Ozh + WP 2.2 / 2.3 Tiga Upgrade