Teapot Tantrums

White House Looking for Muslim Staffers ... mmmmmmK

During the 2008 presidential campaign season, much hay was made of Barack Obama having grown up in the Muslim faith, which he never really denied. It was said that he could say/sing the Koranic prayers "beautifully". He was listed as a Muslim on his school registration in Indonesia, but professes to be a Christian. (I'm sorry, but a "Christian" who professes that Christianity is "only one path to spiritual enlightenment" is anything *but* a true Christian.)

And then there was his interview with George Stephanopolous in which he claimed he was "being good" by telling the press to leave Sarah Palin alone (while we know he didn't say any such thing to his staffers), and made the famous freudian slip about "my muslim faith", which Stephanopolous immediately "corrected" for him.

Barack Obama "My Muslim Faith" @ Yahoo! Video

I'm sorry. I still think the guy's a closet muslim. I believe he's practicing the age-old muslim concept of "taqiyya":

Within the Shia theological framework,^[1] the concept of Taqiyya (تقية - 'fear, guard against', also taghiyeh)^[2] refers to a dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.^[3]

The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "dissimulation." ^[4]

So, what's got the hairs on the back of my neck standing up?

Well, it seems that Dear Leader has put out a search for the cream of the crop of Muslims for staffing at the White House. To what purpose, you ask? Well, could it possibly be that he likes what he sees happening in Britain, where steps are being taken to institute Sharia law right beside English law? Oh, right now, it's supposed to help address the legal concerns of practicing muslims, but how long 'til it's being mingled in with English law for non-muslims, or cases where one of the participants is muslim ... but the other isn't ... and a non-muslim finds him/herself tried by Sharia law? and how long 'til it replaced English law?

Well, that could be a possibility, but I think the final paragraph (bolded) of this World Net Daily article pretty much sums it up better than anything else.

Obama seeks Muslims for White House posts
45 Ivy League grads, Fortune 500 execs,government officials submitted for look

---

Posted: March 28, 2009
11:55 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Rep. Keith Ellison taking oath of office

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama is conducting his own affirmative action program to get more Muslims in the White House.

The move began with Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn, who took his oath of office with a hand on the Quran, to solicit the resume

of what he considered to be the nation's most qualified adherents of Islam.

According to the Denver Post, when White House officials heard about the program, it was put on overdrive.

So far, 45 Ivy League grads, Fortune 500

executives and government officials have been submitted for consideration.

J. Saleh Williams, program coordinator for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, sifted through more than 300 names as part of the search.

"It was mostly under the radar," Williams said. "We thought it would put (the president) in a precarious position. We didn't know how closely he wanted to appear to be working with the Muslim American community."

Ellison is serious about his faith. He made the pilgrimage to Mecca with the sponsorship of the Muslim American Society, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In 1991, Mohamed Akram wrote a memo for the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood that explained its work in America as "a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

Too Many Protestors "A Problem" in Florida??

Social Narcoleptics ... It's time to WAKE UP!!!!

The Scenario:

A protest is planned on a specific day, one that means a lot to "the masses" ... but now authorities are concerned that "too many protestors" might show up. Authorities have decided to pull the permit for the protest.

The ACLU is bound to get involved and help out the protestors, right? After all, they're all about supporting the application of the First Amendment's guarantees to free speech and freedom of assembly, right?

Well, that might be true if it were a *LIBERAL* group doing the gathering and protesting. Not so if it's a less-than-liberal group ...

What's happening is that a Tea Party rally protesting the bailouts and excessive government involvement in our lives and giving of taxpayer dollars to poorly managed/mis-managed corporations deemed "too big to fail" has been scheduled for Tax Day (April 15) in Cape Coral, FL. The problem is that local officials are now concerned that too many people might show up for said protest.

Do I have any doubt that this would not be an issue if the protest were being held by Liberals *against* a Republican president??? Do I have any doubt that the ACLU would be jumping all over this if it were a protest being held by *Liberals* against a *Republican* president???

What this screams to me is that the local officials are afraid that the news media might actually be paying attention to so many Tea Party-style protests being scheduled around the country for the same day and might get their town some little-appreciated attention, and they don't want to help the less-than-liberals get any attention that might help wake up the rest of the country to what's really going on. Maybe they don't want to help Atlas wake up enough to Shrug.

Someone in Cape Coral needs to forget about trying to get the ACLU involved, 'cause they seem to only be concerned about the rights of Liberals. Someone needs to call the ACLJ (American Center for Law & Justice) and get them involved. They will actually support the rights of all people, even those they may disagree with, if the Constitution is being violated.

The Red State blog posted a great article by Warner Todd Houston about it here. I've posted the entire article here in case you don't feel like clicking the link, but consider going there to read the comments.

Want to protest your government by going to a Tea Party event? DENIED!

Posted by Warner Todd Huston (Profile)

Sunday, March 29th at 4:38AM EDT

Remember this report from our nation’s history?

CNN (Continental News Network) Boston, 1773: The city of Boston canceled a proposed protest over tea taxes today, citing the fear that too many people dressed as Indians would be gathered near the wharves. Organizers expressed sadness over the cancellation, but meekly returned to their homes fearful of upsetting the officers of the Crown. Taxmen breathed a sigh of relief as the tar and feathers were put away not to be used this day.

You don’t remember that pre-revolutionary history? I should say you shouldn’t, because it didn’t happen. But flash forward a few hundred years and you’ll find it is happening today in Cape Coral, Florida where city officials canceled a tax day tea party gathering because they “feel too many people could show-up.”

That’s right, folks, the God-given, long-held American right to assemble and protest the actions of our government has been canceled due to too much popularity of the protest.

And what does it come down to? Money. You see, the city officials want an insurance policy taken out so that organizers can cover any loss that might occur as a result of the rally. And those insurance policies cost hundreds of dollars.

The tea party organizers of Cape Coral, though, aren’t the only ones to find this restriction of their free speech and rights to assemble. Tea party organizers all across the country have begun to find out just how difficult, if not impossible, it is to be “allowed” to exercise their God-given right to speak their minds against government excess and criminality. City governments all across the country are charging fees for “permits,” forcing organizers to pay out huge sums for “insurance policies,” and binding tea party organizers in all sorts of government red tape.

In many instances, organizers are being told that they aren’t “allowed” to hold rallies on government property. Imagine that? We, the taxpayers of the city/state/federal government aren’t “allowed” to gather on property that our own taxes paid for.

And then there are the “permits” required to reserve the day, arrange the police protection, and clean up afterward. Often those “permits” can only be applied for at certain times a year, precluding any spontaneous assembly. Also, these “permits” can be denied with no reason stated quashing at birth any plan to exercise the right of assembly.

Here one might wonder how it is that we so often see those lefties appearing on our TV sets engaging in their many organized protests? Don’t the flotsam and jetsam of the far left seem to have large protests all the time? One might be drawn to imagine that the government is involved in some sort of grand conspiracy to allow those with anti-American sentiment, the moonbats of the left, to march with impunity. But, hold the tinfoil hats, won’t you? Because the wackjobs of anti-war ilk and the shrill, circus acts of the Code Pinkos are expected to cut through the same red tape the tea party organizers have been confronted with. The lefties are just better at it.

You see, contrary to popular conception, the far left has some deep-pocketed backers (your George Soros types, unions and even government funds) and a raft of organizations that do “protests” as a full time job. Their protest marches and rallies are far from spontaneously organized. These groups are thoroughly knowledgeable about the red tape and governmental hoops through which they must jump to carry off a successful protest assembly. After all, the hatemongers of the left are intimately intertwined with city governments all across the country. They understand what needs to be done because, by and large, city officials used to belong to, or belong still to the sorts of groups that plan lefty protests. Your new president is one of them. Being part of government, these leftie protest marchers help write the rules, being intimately associated with government they are quite well informed about what is required and how to get around or satisfy those rules.

But the obstacles are coming as a shock to the average citizens that love this country. For their whole lives peace-loving, work-a-day Americans have taken for granted that there exists the freedom to assemble completely unaware that those rights have been eliminated by stealth regulation by governments all across the land.

And now the folks in Cape Coral, Florida have learned their lesson.

Americans do not have the rights they always thought they did. There is no right to protest government. There is no right to assemble. The people have no rights at all to voice their displeasure. Shut up people. Go home. Nothing to see here. Go quietly back to your IPods and DVDs. Big daddy government will take care of you. The Obemmessiah will decide what’s best for you. Don’t worry your little heads. Oh, and thank you for your payments on April 15th.

Put away the tar and feathers, won’t you? There’s a nice fella.

I thought this was a particularly good point ....

And what does it come down to? Money. You see, the city officials want an insurance policy taken out so that organizers can cover any loss that might occur as a result of the rally. And those insurance policies cost hundreds of dollars. ... And what does it come down to? Money. You see, the city officials want an insurance policy taken out so that organizers can cover any loss that might occur as a result of the rally. And those insurance policies cost hundreds of dollars. ... You see, contrary to popular conception, the far left has some deep-pocketed backers (your George Soros types, unions and even government funds) and a raft of organizations that do “protests” as a full time job. Their protest marches and rallies are far from spontaneously organized. ... But the obstacles are coming as a shock to the average citizens that love this country. For their whole lives peace-loving, work-a-day Americans have taken for granted that there exists the freedom to assemble completely unaware that those rights have been eliminated by stealth regulation by governments all across the land.

Can't you just imagine that, should Conservatives come up with the bucks to pay the insurance on these gatherings, the Leftists within their communities (and without, too, no doubt) would take that as an invitation to disrupt, invade, infiltrate ... and cause as much destruction as possible, so's to make the Conservatives look bad? You know Conservatives would never do that, but with the Black Bloc, you know it would be pretty likely.

Yep, we spend our days being productive, working our jobs, making a living, paying our taxes. We don't have the time or the inclination to become "professional protestors and agitators" as so many Liberals are wont to do. Maybe it's time for the more wealthy among our ranks to start bankrolling conservative protests / protestors ... oh, but wait ... if Liberals got wind of that, it would suddenly be all over the news about how Conservatives with deep pockets were doing that, even though they would never publicize how Liberals do it.

Well, Liberals have been touting the "patriotism" in civil disobedience for decades, haven't they? Perhaps it's time for Conservatives to wise up and use the tactic to their own benefit for a change.

G.I.V.E. = Conscription/Slavery (& no religion allowed)

People, if this doesn't wake you up to the obvious comparisons to Obama's regime and the Nazi regime, what exactly will it take?

Enforced "volunteerism" is nothing short of conscription and/or slavery. Wait 'til we have enforced charitable contribution (which I've heard referenced as SHARE Act), which will be nothing short of theft and/or even more taxes.

Gateway Pundit has it posted here but I'm posting the majority of it for you. Be sure to go there and read the comments section.

Obama's Hitler Youth Will Not Be Allowed to Express Religious Beliefs

March 25, 2009
(Bumped)
The House passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act on Monday. The bill includes language indicating young people will be forced to participate in mandatorya mandatory part
That doesn't sound much like "volunteerism" does it?

The Hitler Youth Plan was just passed by the US House this week.

German youth praising Hitler.

The mandatory youth plan requires America's youth to participate in mandatory service youth programs.
But that's not all.
The mandatory youth plan also forbids members from attending religious services and forbids youth from witnessing their religious beliefs.
The Voice Magazine reported, via Free Republic:

national service programs. The bill also states that "service learning" will be of the youth curriculum.

Is this the change you really voted for? President Obama has only been in office for two months. Now we have HR 1388. The Bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) with 37 others. The Bill was introduced to the floor of the House of Representatives where both Republicans and Democrats voted 321-105 in favor. Next it goes to the Senate for a vote and then on to President Obama.

This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). It forms what some are calling “Obama’s Youth Brigade.” Obama’s plan is require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade. His goal is one million youth! This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it.

The Bill would forbid any student in the brigade to participate in “engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.” That means no church attendance or witnessing.

Again, is this what America voted for? Here is part of the HR1388 Bill’s wording:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
…

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

Hat Tip Mike Moseley

Previously:
House Passes Hitler Youth Bill

More... Beto Ochoa reminds us that this bill directly goes against the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Not that this bothers the Democrats.

UPDATE: It looks like Democrats may already have their training video for the youth service group.
Hat Tip Gregory of Yardale

Will Someone Please Explain the News To Me?

Sometimes it seems like politicians and those in the media use doublespeak straight out of "1984". I half expect someone in the news to describe someone they dislike as "double plus ungood".

Sometimes it seems like the people who are supposed to be "in the know" are really just using big words they think the audience doesn't understand and talking in circles (or at least out of both sides of their mouth) in order to confuse everyone, keep from saying anything they can be blamed for later, and possibly alienating their campaign donor base.

Others, including our sitting POTUS, seem to be in perpetual campaign mode. We need someone to explain things!

Well, about a year ago, my boss's hubby introduced me to someone who's very good at explaining what's going on, and from a unique perspective that even the young 'uns can "get". Let me introduce you to "Uncle Jay."

More Dangerous Than "Hardening of the Arteries"

The following was recommended by a good friend, and I thought it was very thought-provoking, so I wanted to share it with y'all. Although I'm not Catholic, I have to agree with the author, Abbot Joseph. There is a hardening of the heart, and at times it seems to be nearly epidemic. Although I believe God can soften the hardest of hearts, I believe there will come a day (perhaps in my lifetime?) when God chooses *not* to soften hearts ... allowing some to make the ultimate, for-all-time choice. For those people, there will be no turning back, no hope of escaping the ultimate, awful judgment.

The Hardening

I learned something recently. Actually, it has been a long process of growing awareness, but it has suddenly become clearer. I think it’s something that I didn’t really want to believe, but if I’m to be honest, I have to acknowledge the evidence.

In the Letter to the Romans, St Paul declares: “a hardening has come upon a part of Israel…” (11:25), and he says this is a mystery we need to understand. Now I don’t wish to talk about Israel here, because I think that the hardening has come upon the whole world—not every individual, of course, but upon many. The hardening is that of the heart, in biblical terms, which results in a refusal to recognize the truth, even when it is clearly and unmistakably set before them. It is a willful rejection of that for which there is plentiful and often irrefutable evidence—just because they have some other reason for believing a lie.

In my naiveté, I had always thought that those who rejected the truth did so because of ignorance, of not having all the facts or evidence, or of some other impediment or incapacity that was not (entirely) their fault. The presumption was that if an ordinary, rational human being were presented with clear evidence or cogent arguments, especially if the evidence or the logic were manifestly unassailable, he would naturally accept the truth that was shown him. But this is not so when dealing with a hardened heart.

St Paul said this of the pagans who refused to believe in Christ: “they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart…” (Ephesians 4:18). Thus their ignorance is culpable. Hardness of heart alienates one from God, and hence from truth and love.

Here’s an example that helped tip the scales for me. “Emile Zola went to Lourdes for the purpose of condemning the whole enterprise. But unexpectedly he witnessed a striking miracle before his very eyes. An eighteen-year-old girl was suddenly cured of three apparently incurable diseases: advanced lupus, pulmonary tuberculosis, and large ulcerations on her leg. Zola himself described the girl’s face as being eaten away by the lupus: ‘The whole was a frightful distorted mass of matter and oozing blood.’ She went into the bath and ‘emerged completely cured.’ Zola was present. And the cure was permanent, because sixteen years later she remained in perfect health. But there was no change in Zola’s mind” (Thomas Dubay, The Evidential Power of Beauty, emphasis added). Someone who can witness such a dramatic and undeniable miracle and walk away unmoved, unconvinced, can only be said to have hardened his heart.

One cannot reason with people like that; one cannot show them compelling evidence and expect them to accept it; one cannot assume that they will call white white and black black, but in fact may do just the opposite. Those who have hardened their hearts seem to be increasing in number, and they hold influential positions in the media, the government, and even in the Church—and especially in lucrative enterprises like the abortion industry. You really have to have a hard heart to be able to cut little babies into pieces every day, and then take home a nice paycheck without looking back. And there are many who are complicit in this evil, who don’t actually do the dirty work.

A hardening has come upon many who attack the Church, whether from without or within. It is clear what the Church teaches; read the Catechism and papal documents. But many try to reject, deny, distort or otherwise make them into something that fits their own preference or agenda, and then denigrate those who uphold her teachings! Why? If they don’t like what the Catholic Church teaches, there are plenty of others who accommodate their brand of error quite willingly; they can join them! But no, a hardened heart has reasons that reason would shudder to know.

I think we have to accept that there are many with whom we will get nowhere by reasoning, clear argumentation and documentation, or any other form of normal, rational dialogue. They will not see or hear the truth because somewhere deep within they have already decided to reject it at all costs. What they stand to gain—economically, politically, socially—is more important to them than what is true, good, and beautiful. For them the only thing we can do is pray and sacrifice, so that the Holy Spirit will somehow reach them from within, overturning their chosen obstacles to truth and righteousness, shining a clear and divine light within them.

Then perhaps a “softening” will occur, and hearts and minds will open to the truth, will abandon arrogance, greed, self-aggrandizement and the “malignant narcissism” that is at the core of many of today’s hardened hearts. Don’t expect to soften a hardened heart with words. Go to the Lord instead with words of supplication, pleas for mercy—and then from his heart rivers of living water will flow, to wear away all hardness and to bring new life. This may take a long time, for a hardened heart is the most difficult thing to heal, more so than ravaging diseases of the body. The girl at Lourdes was instantly healed of those, but Emile Zola walked away still bearing his hard heart. Let us trust that with God all things are possible, and begin praying in earnest.

Steelers to Lose Super Bowl Trophies

No, I don't know who wrote this, but it's making the rounds, to I thought I'd share:

Steelers to lose Super Bowl Trophies

Pittsburgh, PA

The Super Bowl XLIII Champion Pittsburgh Steelers, the only team to win six titles, will soon be losing half of those trophies. After a meeting between NFL Commissioner Rodger Goodell and President Barack Obama, Obama decided to redistribute half of their Super Bowl victories and trophies to less fortunate teams in the league.

"We live everyday in the country that invented the Super Bowl." said Obama "We are not about to lose this Great American tradition in the wake of these difficult times." Obama’s plan calls for the Steelers, who are a successful NFL team, to give half of their Super Bowl trophies to teams that are not successful or have not been as successful as the Steelers. "The Detroit Lions are just as much a part of the same fiber of the NFL as the Steelers and they should, no rather will, be entitled to a Super Bowl Trophy as well." Obama explains in his plan that he has imposed on Goodell and the NFL.

The Pittsburgh Steelers, who by virtue of hard work, excellent team play, stellar draft choices, responsible investing of free agents, careful hiring of coaches and excellent community service and commitment to their fans, have prospered greatly during the past 30 years and have won six Super Bowl Trophies. But President Barack Obama’s plan calls for the Pittsburgh Steelers to carry the larger burden of the NFL’s less successful teams. Obama went on to further proclaim, "In these difficult times we are all in this to work together. We must reclaim the NFL Championship Dream for every team, for every city and for every fan."

"My plan will not affect 31 of the 32 teams in the league." Obama assures. That’s over 95 percent of the teams in the NFL will not have to worry about losing any Super Bowl Trophies. "The worst teams in the NFL and the teams that can’t seem to get a break and win a championship will no longer have to worry about going without a title." Obama promises. "We are a country and league of hope. We all need to make a change. It does not matter the color of the teams uniforms, the personal decisions that the teams make or their performance but rather if they are a member of this great American league."

The Super Bowl XLIII trophy will be redistributed to the 0-16 Detroit Lions. Through no fault of their own incompetence, the Lions could not manage a victory all season and this trophy will help ease the pain of their lack of performance and give them hope once again.

The redistribution of Super Bowl XL trophy will go directly to the Steelers’ division rival the Cincinnati Bengals. The Bengals who also have fallen on hard times have never won a Super Bowl. This victory will bring a smile to hundreds of Bengal fans all over the world as they can now celebrate. Finally, one of the Steelers’ two Super Bowl victories over the Dallas Cowboys will go back to the Cowboys since the league needs to provide hope in the face of difficulty and provide hope in the face of uncertainty. This is a heavy burden for the Steelers but together we can all prosper.

All hope is not lost for Pittsburgh fans; Barack Obama has another plan in place. Obama has met with MLB Commissioner Bud Selig on a similar plan. The New York Yankees will redistribute two of their World Series trophies to the Pittsburgh Pirates as a supplement to their 16 straight and counting losing seasons. This plan will help stimulate the Pirates and enable them to regain the American Dream. Barack Obama will be meeting with the NHL and Michael Phelps in the upcoming weeks as this issue is high on his agenda for "Hope and Change."

Conservatives Are the Problem, Right? Think Again!

***UPDATED 3/22/09***

I've conferred with my counsel and agreed it was a *bit* rash to give Commenter on "Badge of Honor" post's complete name and IP address on this blog post. I have retained a copy of the original information in case it becomes necessary to follow up the harassment in her local jurisdiction.

In addition, after careful consideration of the well-thought out comments by "Unkind Mind", and having had conversation with Dannette, I have decided to remove Dannette's rather hasty and inflammatory remarks. In claiming the high ground, I truly shouldn't have let them stand as long as they did, but I am still incensed at the reasoning that liberals get to say any nasty thing to conservatives that they want, but if a conservative says anything even *remotely* snarky back (yes, I admit, this was more than simple snark), it gets jumped on like the snarky one was the Antichrist ... or for the liberal translation ... George W Bush or someone like that.

Unkind Mind ~ I appreciate your well-reasoned second comment, and have achived it as a reminder to myself that I must strive even harder to remain consistent in application of which comments stand and which do not. I stand before the blogosphere, humbled and convinced more than ever that I am *not* perfect, nor will I ever be.

However, I am removing your comments and Dannette's in the hope of keeping the flames to a minimum.

~ MizDi

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow … unbelievable …. Sometimes I check my personal email during lunch, and sometimes I get notifications of comments to the blog. Unless they’re truly inflammatory, disgusting or, in the words of many individuals on Ravelry who don’t know any better, “vile” I let them stand. I prefer to let Liberals show themselves for what they are.

What I didn’t realize, however, is that Liberal trolls really hate to be ignored. Y’see, there’s this one individual from Ravelry that used to cause us no end of grief in the Bunker because she was obsessed with us … simply couldn’t leave us alone. No amount of trying to get members to just ignore the woman would work, because she’d just keep harping at us to get *someone* … *anyone* to respond.

So, Thursday I got notification of a comment posted. I didn’t recognize the name (I don’t *know* her y’see) and it wasn’t “vile”, so I let it stand. “I’m still here,” she said, which I took to mean something like “Nyah, nyah … I play by Rav rules so I’m still here while you’ve been banned.”

Ah, another of my favorite weiners -- I mean whiners. You know, after reading this page, you have my vote for sainthood. Rarely does one come across someone of the blessed innocence of Mother Theresa, yet here were a whole 600 of you, and we all failed to understand. Certainly all our correspondence was full of the milk and honey of human kindness.

The only solace I can offer is that you, and all those other saints who were viciously and maliciously expelled from the invective-flinging fiber society, will have special seating in the Rapture section, where God Himself will be able to judge the absolute veracity of your claims.

Good luck with that. Oh, and BTW... I'm still there.

Posted by: Commenter on "Badge of Honor" post | Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 02:55 PM

Hmmm …. So I check today’s comments and there’s another from her (which shows above this entry) … the first one wasn’t much, but when put with this second entry, it made me pause a little.

Dear MizDi,

I have a problem. A lady who claims to believe in free speech keeps taking my perfectly reasonable posts off her site, just because I am a liberal. Gosh, I have a RIGHT to free speech ANYWHERE I WANT, right? So why are you taking my posts off? It couldn't be that you recognize that troublemakers aren't wanted, could it? It couldn't be that you know, down in your heart of hearts, that the situation isn't as saintly as you present it...

Anyway, I just wanted to say that Ravelry was less fun without you there, but now that I know how to find you, life is back to wonderfully screwy.

Your friend,

Me

Posted by: Commenter on "Badge of Honor" post | Friday, March 20, 2009 at 03:47 PM

(Apparently she didn’t know that my blog only shows a certain number of comments on a page until you have to press the little chevron button thingie above the box where you post comments … whatever … oh, and remember that I don't know this woman ... I've seen her "ravatar" and have avoided engaging with her when I saw what a pain in the tuckus she was to fellow Bunker members.)

But that was only a little less freaky and sad … until I opened my email account and saw that this woman simply *refuses* to be ignored.

<<<The email that was formerly posted here, which I felt was threatening, has been removed. It has been archived for use if it should need to be turned over to law enforcement.>>>

Even though she claims I've been deleting her comments, I think the best way to give this woman her free speech is … oh, I don’t know … let all of her harassing comment posts to my blog stand and let my readers decide what’s what.  Let me clarify ... posting a person's harassing email is a *bad* idea ... don't do this. Her comments, though, were posted of her own free will.

So, let me make this clear-–

The Constitution gives us the First Amendment, which does indeed give you to the right of free speech. However, that said, it does not give you the right to be heard or the right to be read. Additionally, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that by giving you the right to say what you want it compels me to put up with a threatening or abusive tone, nor does it abrogate my freedom to determine with whom I choose to communicate or decline said communication. As the owner of this blog, it is my right to determine whether you will be given a place to air your views.

If you’d like to take your “issues” to the nearest “free speech plaza” or “hate free zone”, you are perfectly welcome to do just that, and I would invite you to do so.

Poster & Emailer, what you have begun is nothing short of a pattern of harassment, which is clearly a direct by-product of the site administrators of Ravelry keeping available, for all to see, their misleading, inflammatory, disingenuous, and libelous accusations against members of the former Ravelry Bunker group and now the off-site Bunker group. (Let me remind you that the site admin expressed appreciation and approval for an off-site venue, in an attempt to keep confrontations to a minimum.) By labeling a group of people as “dangerous to our community” when he’s actually just unwilling to admit publicly that he disagrees with them to the extent that he’d prefer they weren’t around, he’s fanned a lot of unwarranted flames, and unwarranted “flames”, too.

My counsel advises that I remind you that your IP address can be traced right to your home if it becomes necessary and that, should you choose to continue, we will inform the proper local authorities in your jurisdiction, file a formal complaint of harassment and stalking (that’s a crime, remember), and let them take you in hand and school you about what’s ok and what’s not.

So, please accept my invitation to just go away and keep to sites where you can contribute something positive, mmmK?

Badge of Honor -- Too Conservative for Ravelry?

**Updated 3/16/09**

I would never have self-identified as someone who was 'too outspoken' ... outspoken, yes, but *too* outspoken? I would never have pegged myself as someone to be viewed as a threat of any kind. I try to treat others with kindness, encouragement, and love. I try to treat others as I'd prefer to be treated. However, if someone treats me unkindly, that doesn't mean I respond with anger and vitriol. I prefer to let respond with kindness or at least civility and then let those people alone. I don't need to add to their misery and suffering, because there's obviously something like that under the surface.

So it was a shock for me to find out I'm too radical for Ravelry.

Oh, how to begin?

Yesterday I got up with the pups ... fed 'em, gave Vi her pill (she's up to 1.5 in the a.m. and 1 in the evening to keep her seizures at bay) and sat down to do some blogging. Did that, then went to check with my friends at The Bunker. But first, I logged onto Ravelry.com, which was commonplace ... I check both places daily. But there was a problem when I went to log on at Ravelry ... I was redirected to an error page that said simply: 

Error 403 - Forbidden

No warning, no nuthin' .... I'm too conservative for Ravelry, but that's OK with me. I'll wear it as a badge of honor. I was getting more and more disillusioned with the cesspool anyway.

For those that haven't been keeping up, Ravelry used to be just a fiber arts community-type website. It has morphed into a site with "groups" for everything from people who like certain TV shows, to those who have particular affection for their pets or their pet cause, to people proud of their ethnic, religious, or political affiliations ... to those that proudly proclaim themselves to be Lazy, Stupid & Godless (a.k.a. "LSG") ... their parents must be ever so proud. There's even a group that calls themselves "Ravelry Rubberneckers" (a.k.a. "RR") who supposedly try not to antagonize people in other groups by actually participating in said groups ... instead, they direct their friends and co-horts to whatever groups has come to their attention through various means ... and then they make fun of the people involved in their own group's discussion pages. Nice, huh?.

The Bunker wasn't originally "The Bunker" ... it was originally a group started on Ravelry.com started by good friend and Bunker Babe EllieJane, who'd been "textually harassed" in a supposedly conservative group by moderators who were supposedly conservatives but preferred to side with liberal trolls over active *truly* conservative members ... they are the ones that chased me out of the group, too. I tried to blend in at the GOP knitters group, but it wasn't a very active group, and I refused to go back into the Conservative Knitters group because it had been made clear to me that I just didn't belong there ... I guess I wasn't the right brand of conservative for them. Y'see, I'm what I call a "triple-threat" conservative ... I'm a political, fiscal and social conservative. Some people are uncomfortable with that, and I let 'em be. But they didn't let me be, and they didn't let EllieJane be, so she started up her new group and invited me over to play.

Our new group (which later became The Bunker) was devoted to supporters of John McCain in his (failed) bid for the presidency. Many of us had supported others, but when it became apparent that McCain had the blessing of the Republican "powers that be", we decided to do what we could to support the man ... mostly because we knew what a disaster Barack Obama could/would be, and it was apparent that the way was being made clear for Obama....McCain was going to need all the help he could get.

In EllieJane's McCain group, we started getting other people joining ... some who'd been dissatisfied with the Conservative Knitters, some who enjoyed the GOP Knitters but were also looking for a more active group to play in. Some members came to us who'd initially been Obama supporters ... until they started to really *listen* to what he was saying ... some had been Hillary Clinton supporters, but became dissatisfied with the Dems because they treated her so but treated Obama as if he were (to quote AllyKatt) a 'special snowflake'. MyDailyFiber quickly made a name for herself in our group and endeared herself to all members not only with her wit, common sense and unique perspective, but also her ability to churn our pro-McCain "Ravatars". She also became the second Moderator pretty quickly, and was such a help to EllieJane that I can't even describe it.

(For those unaware of "avatars", those are the little pictures that often get associated with a username, so people can connect a "face" with a "name" even though you're likely using a nickname instead of your real name and most people don't put their real faces out there for security and/or self-esteem reasons -- many use pictures of our pets, a favorite TV character, a symbol, or something that means something to us.)

When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his choice for the VP bid, we were *very* enthusiastic, and gained members in droves! Soon we became a haven for over 600 members. We also became a convenient target for "trolls" ... those who naturally disagreed with us, but who felt the need to "educate" and "enlighten" us ... we poor, unfortunate, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, McCain supporters ... we were often painted with the broad brushes of fascism, Nazi-ism, neo-con-ism, bigotry/racism, class-ism, and just about any other "ism" you could name.

I looked long and hard at what my friends and I were tarred with, but you see, I didn't think it could stick, because the "isms" thrown at us seemed to me to be a classic case of psychological projection ... in which the person hurling the invectives is doing the very action of which they're accusing you ... except you're not the one engaged in the objectionable action ... but they can't be honest and admit it's them doing it, so it must be the horrible "other".

At one point, EllieJane had to go on vacation or some such thing, and she asked me to step up and be one of the substitute moderators while she was gone. She never removed me from Mod status, but I rarely got to "see any action" ... the other moderators ranged from Eastern time to Central time, and here I was out in the lovely Pacific North-Wet ... sometimes it would be just TammyKnits and me keeping the board "active" at 8:30 and later (Pacific time) ... and we'd shout out to AllyKatt who would be up at 10:30 our time (12:30 hers) ... I still don't know how she could keep those hours and function, but then again, I feel like I'm getting old.

Anyway, on to 'seeing action' ... As the campaign season wore on, we got more and more troll activity. EJ, MDF, AllyKatt and the others instituted the best possibly policy in dealing with trolls ... the theory is, if someone comes into your living room and (pardon me) craps in the middle of the floor, you don't just leave it there to stink up the place ... you clean it up and move on. Likewise, our moderators simply deleted troll posts. They tried not to engage trolls in any way ... just delete, ignore, and move on.

Trolls don't like this. They are special snowflakes and mustn't be ignored when they so much with which to beat you over the head enlighten and educate you. "Resistance is futile," they seem to think. "You *will* be assimilated, whether you agree with us or not, so just give in already!"

I tried to check in most mornings before work (yep, it caused me to get there closer and closer to 8:00 instead of 7:45 as I normally did). I often tried to check in during lunch (eating at my desk, ducking behind it if I saw a client coming up the walk --- no, wait, we're closed at lunchtime outside of tax season), and I spent many evening hours.

Because I'm on Pacific time, however, and the huge majority of our members seemed to be from the other three time zones, by the time I checked in at lunch, trolls had been taken care of, drama-poo had been dealt with and cleaned up, and I got to see the aftermath.

As the election cycle came to a close, we got more and more negative attention. Now let me set this straight....for the most part, our members refrained from most profanity ... the majority of us don't care for it, and our membership respected that. We were not, however, politically correct. Political correctness is the anathema of free speech. We did NOT allow racism, sexism, or what most people with common sense would consider hateful. We did, however, allow our members to equate BHO with a socialist, as his own words and actions had confirmed this to us. We did allow our members to speculate and lament on the fact that BHO has spent in the realm of $1M in covering up whether he's a natural-born citizen ... it would've cost less than $20 for a duplicate of the "vault copy" of his birth certificate ... you can figure that one out on your own, I'm sure. We did allow our members to be sassy, sarcastic, and lean toward "snark" ... I'm sorry, but polite drawing room conversations concerning "the weather and everyone's health" (c'mon, what movie is that from?) just didn't suit a group geared to discussing politics ... after all, in polite conversation don't you avoid religion and politics?

As we got more and more unwanted attention from "opposition groups" such as LSG & RR, we got unwarranted "flags" on posts, claiming bigotry, racism, hate speech ... I saw the posts that were flagged, and I saw the "reasons" for said flags ... apart from a couple (mostly from new members who didn't "get" the group yet and hadn't read our rules) they were spurious at best ... anything truly flag-worthy was deleted and the member who'd posted it was "talked to" by a moderator. We continually cautioned our members about "feeding the trolls" we tried to self-censor as best we could without stifling conversation and reasonable free speech. Many of us had left the Conservative Knitters group under more and more stringent dictates of "you can't say that", and we didn't want the same thing happening in the McCain group.

Actually, we asked for help before the election was ever over. Because of some of the vile and offensive pictures that showed up on ravatars (boob fondling, crotch shots, nekkid parts ... and this on a site where someone's children might walk up behind them at any moment, not to mention the minor-age members, and see this stuff -- not a family friendly site ... oh and the language on some of the boards would make sailors and truck drivers embarrassed!... but I digress) the site owner *finally* gave the users tools to hide offensive ravatars, including simple hiding of the picture or a "green" cover with which you could replace the ravatar of those with whom you disagree (which we gave the term "disagreening"). During the last two weeks of the election cycle, the owner actually took away rights to click on "buttons" indicating "love", "disagree", "funny", "educational" and "interesting" because of the drama it caused ... we actually had trolls pile on, clicking "funny" in droves, when a member talked about her mother's death. Nice. Right.

And then Barack Hussein Obama was elected.

Yep, we lamented, cried, sighed, complained and shared with our members. The same people who couldn't "get over it" when Bush won two elections now screamed, cajoled, nagged and berated us to 'get over it, already' and embrace Barack Obama. We wouldn't and continued to discuss amongst ourselves our fears, concerns, and suspicions and decided that the group should be renamed. (Well, McCain lost, so The McCain Ravelry didn't fit anymore, now did it?)

We decided to "hunker down" and retreat to the safety of the bunker, similar to what the president would do when faced with danger. The McCain Ravelry was renamed "The Bunker".

... and the trolls came out to play.

"That's a Nazi reference" was the accusation ... apparently these people didn't get out much or read much more than Mother Jones, The Nation, The Rolling Stone or whatever communist rag is printed in their local towns. They simply didn't get the idea that a "bunker" is a place of safety.

Could we ever be left in peace? Nope! We were no longer touting our support (albeit reluctant, in some cases) for John McCain, and wished the trolls would just leave us alone. That's really all we wanted. We wanted to be left alone to enjoy each other's like-minded company. We (and by the collective "we", I mean the other moderators) begged help from Ravelry's owner to keep the trolls at bay. We asked for tools to ban trolls who spuriously flagged posts, or to at least restrict non-member use of the buttons. 

Nuthin' ... no help at all ... the site owner was getting angrier and angrier at "the time he had to spend" on issues surrounding The Bunker ... little did we know that the LSG & RR groups were going to him directly, complaining about ever little perceived non-infraction, making his life hell. But *we* were blamed for taking up his valuable time. We tried to remain calm, cool, and collected when dealing with the site owner ... we were polite and diplomatic, offering to help out as best we could. There were times, however, when we moderators (in a moderator-only section of our group) would express our disagreement for a decision or express offense at some of the unfair comments that were made about us off the top of his head, many of which he apologized for when he gave the issue more thought. For the most part, we were nothing but conciliatory, trying to help keep things going smoothly in our group.

In January of this year, things started getting hairier and hairier ... there were times when I dreaded checking in at lunch time, dreading seeing the number of PMs (private messages) which nearly always signaled some troll-caused drama. Sometimes a few of the PMs would be from members who asked me to clarify what was going on ... y'see, while the other Mods dealt with trolls, I often got to be "mom" to some that trusted me ... and I got to be "mom" when I saw statements by members that needed to be modified. I'd PM the member and ask them to edit their posts and give reasons why, including "PLEASE don't give them any ammunition to use against us!" I also would publically remind members not to make blanket statements against "all liberals" because several of our most treasured member had been quite liberal at one time and still had liberal leanings, but that we'd all come together out of concerns for more conservative values than what Barack Obama espoused. Yep, no drama for me, but peace making ... works for me. But because I missed the troll-post deletions I often wondered what had happened, and sometimes felt like I wasn't a 'real' moderator. Oh well ... enough about me.

In mid-February, after a particularly "dramatic" couple of weeks, I signed on at lunch, not more than 20 minutes after the site owner had given *one* moderator (AllyKatt, our most active moderator) notice that The Bunker would be shut down in 24 hours and that those of us who'd been moderators in The Bunker would no longer be allowed to Mod *any* politically-themed group. He was done with us, tired of fighting with us and those that simply couldn't let us alone, and was dispensing with the drama. Of course, I'm paraphrasing ... but instead of blaming it on the content of the group and our expressed opinions, he blamed it on the moderators, saying we didn't take care of problems fast enough, allowed our members to use hate speech, etc.

(Explain to me how someone saying Sarah Palin should be raped with a hockey stick and that President Bush and Vice President should be shot, hung, or pushed over cliffs is *not* hate speech, but mentioning a scarf Obama was wearing *was* hate speech ... because the individual who made the comment about the scarf was from Mississippi!!! Let me be clear about this ... we have many members from many varied ethic groups, and none of them complained about racism or hate speech, and they *knew* they could take *anything* to the moderators and listened to seriously...if they didn't have a problem with the speech there, there *was* no problem with the speech there. But again, I digress...)

.......

Update:  I received clarification of the "scarf incident" from the person who made the original comment:

To clarify, I made the comment and it was NOT about a scarf Obama was wearing.  Obama was not mentioned or even alluded to, at all.  It was a reference to a thread in one of the "Big Six", entitled "Inagural Scarves", on inauguration day.  When I saw that title, I mistakenly assumed it was about some sort of KAL [knit along] of scarves that people were going to do during the day-long inauguration television fest.  That thread was, in fact, comments on some of the pretty scarves that were televised on people at the inauguration -- Michelle O's mother was one, I think.  (I didn't open the thread until later to take a look.)  I didn't open any Big Six threads to read that day, because we were all hunkering down, depressed, in the Bunker -- to console each other.  I didn't watch the inauguration, so I haven't a clue as to what Obama or anyone wore -- scarf or no scarf.

 

While talking in the Bunker I made the comment, and even prefaced it with the clarification that it was HUMOR, saying something like, "On a humorous note," at the beginning.  Then I said I unbelievably saw a thread title in the big six that said "Inaugural Scarves".  My comment was that we called them nooses".  NooseSSSS... plural.  The reference, which obviously was lost on some people, was that WE were sick enough over his election to hang ourselves.  How can PLURAL nooses be construed as a lynching threat on the president?

 

The comment, which I now sorely regret (you have no idea!) has been so twisted that I think our own Bunkermates forget that it originally was NO reference to Obama or anything he was wearing.  I kept my eyes and ears  OFF the inauguration that day, so I neither heard nor saw Obama.

 

Anyway, just wanted to clarify that to you.  I'm sure I'll be doing this sort of thing til the day I die...

....

So, we said our goodbyes, verbally hugged each other, "friended" each other (that's the only way some less active members realized something was up, when they received six to ten friend requests within an hour's time), expressed our sadness (some expressed outrage ... and none too kindly), and we Mods tried to keep things calm. Trolls came in to gloat, gleefully poking at the open wound, expressing "the king is finally dead, hurrah!" kind of sentiments you'd expect to have come from the peasants during the French Revolution.

Why were we such a threat? Did we really worry them that much? Were they so concerned that someone might actually look at current events without looking through the liberal filter and maybe get an inkling that not all's green in Oz? We had had several people who came in seriously looking to understand where we came from ... and left with a new perspective to consider. The majority of non-members came in with the threats of playground bullies ... some came in with relief at finally finding a "safe haven on Ravelry" where they could talk with like-minded ladies (mostly) without having to walk on verbal eggshells for fear of getting piled on by the liberals on that board.

So ... our group got dissolved ... the Great Bunker Eviction ... some of us looked to other more conservative groups on the site and were told in not so many words (and in some cases *in* so many words) that we and our attitudes and expressions weren't wanted. Sometimes it was because the "flavor" of the group tended toward the more genteel discussion and expressions, which is fine and understandable (the Bunker had it's own flavor, too) but sometimes it was expressed more as a concern that we'd bring the trolls with us ... some of those trolls are cyber stalkers, don't ya know ... and cause them to get shut down. Some of the members of the other boards didn't want false rumors started about them (someone started a rumor that one of our members had threatened the life of the site owners' dog ... which the site owner has confirmed to AllyKatt, one of our members, that said threat was actually a bogus rumor -- but he refuses to make that particular bit of information public "because the incident was on an off-site venue") and some were concerned that they'd become the objects of scorn and threats (EllieJane, our group's founder, received a threat against her children from someone who'd done their research and found out where she lived).

MyDailyFiber had the forethought to start an off-site board where we could go to express our more controversial opinions (read, troll magnets, opinions not welcome by the liberal majority on Ravelry). She paid for it out of her own funds. When it was mentioned to the site owner, he expressed that he was glad we had someplace where we could express ourselves without opposition groups getting involved. When we were Evicted, someone had the grace to give me an invitation to join there.

We re-grouped and tried to figure out how we could gather on Ravelry, hang out together and stay under the radar. Many/most made pledges to stay away from *any* of the political groups.

AllyKatt made a group where we could discuss the read-along of "Atlas Shrugged", which she had been recommending for some time, and which I've heartily recommended here myself.

One member made a group called Dutch's Reading Room, which was to be strictly a site where we could post links to articles on both a national and state scale for things we found concerning ... and on which we could read some of the great quotes made by Ronald "Dutch" Reagan.

One member made a group in which we expressed our appreciation for The Noodle (a.k.a. KnittinNoodle, one of our sassiest and most outspoken members).

Someone else (I think it was AllyKatt) made a group for fans of Alfonzo Rachelle, a.k.a. Machosauce. She was told that she couldn't moderate that group. It wasn't a political group. It's fans of a conservative individual, but the site owner stripped her of her moderator status there, too.

What happened in these groups, you ask?'

The Conservative Knitters, GOP Knitters, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity fan groups got a sudden uptick in troll activity, which I assume died down when Bunker Babes forced themselves to sit on their hands and *not* participate.

Lessee ... Dutch's Reading Room was mostly left alone, 'cause people didn't really express many opinions in there.

The Noodle group was immediately infiltrated by trolls who couldn't leave well enough alone ... but "just happened" to find a group filled with former Bunker Babes ... no, they don't stalk conservatives/Bunker Babes, now do they?

The "Atlas Shrugged" discussion group, "Galt's Gulch", was immediately infiltrated by trolls who just *had* to become members in a group filled with Bunker Babes ... no, no stalking there. AllyKatt had the presence of mind to lock the group, delete all the troll posts and wait it out until she could figure out specific group guidelines (rules). Only through direct negotiations was she able to keep her moderator status on this group.

So, that pretty much brings us up to yesterday when I was banned ... along with almost all the other Bunker Babes ... because many of us had changed our usernames and avatars, we rarely knew when we were in the presence of a "friend", so someone on the off-site board suggested we add a designation to our ravatars so we'd recognize each other.

Within a week, we were booted. Some people got the 403-Forbidden screen, and others were taken to a screen that said "Your account has been suspended until further notice. Contact legal@ravelry.com." Later in the day, some of those initially suspended had been further redirected to the 403-Forbidden screen. Personally, I'm thinking that we'll all be permanently banned, and that being "suspended" is only temporary until they can get everyone's accounts permanently banned. The site owner cites this as his reasoning:

A group of users have been organizing together on another website and visiting Ravelry directly from it, disrupting normal site activities. All users of that particular site have had their Ravelry accounts (including any duplicate accounts) suspended until further notice. This is a serious action that we felt needed to be done to protect the Ravelry community.

All inquiries can be directed to legal@ravelry.com.

Yes, we've been gathering at another website, and yes, we sometimes clicked a link to see what a member had taken issue with ... but there have rarely been more than 20 Bunker Babes on our off-site board at any one time. Even if those 20 people clicked on a given link, how could those 20 hits "disrupt" anything? Don't website owners normally *want* more hits on their site, driving up their stats??

"This is a serious action that we felt needed to be done to protect the Ravelry community."

From what??? From independent thought, from people who refrain (for the most part) from the profanity, licentiousness, glee in perversion that our "opposition" expressed??? Give . Me . A . Freaking . Break!!! 

The problem is that, while some of our members didn't get banned, some innocents were swept up in this dragnet along with the rest of us. It seems to have been people from whose computer a member might've logged onto Ravelry. In some cases, it's a family member who's also been a "Raveler" and shares a wireless hub on a home network, but has never been to The Bunker. In some cases, it's been paying advertisers. In some cases it's been designers who sell their fiber arts patterns. In some cases it's grandmothers whose granddaughter was a Bunker Babe.

The site owner has prevented members from getting onto Ravelry and deleting their personal information. In some cases, there were purchases pending, and the seller has no idea if she will get the money. We're talking about intellectual property being held hostage ... if it were a conservative site that had done this to liberals, you *know* there would be Hell to pay! There would be such a hue and cry that it would be all over the Net and the Lamestream media.

The Hubby made a good observation ... E-Harmony.com was forced to accommodate gays & lesbians that wanted to use the matching service. Shouldn't a site like Ravelry.com try to remember the lessons learned there. Yes, it's a free site, which constitutes "his sand box" ... but if you're going to allow free speech, shouldn't *all* speech be acceptable, not just that with which one agrees?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The site owner claims to have over 300K members on Ravelry ... of course, this doesn't account for duplicate accounts (which are supposedly forbidden, but which are very prolific) or those accounts that have gone inactive because the site owner refuses to delete them because he "doesn't have the tools to do that" ... some of those inactive users left because of disgust at the behavior and language exhibited ... some left because the site just wasn't for them/wasn't a good fit ... but have the membership numbers been changed to reflect this? I doubt it ... perhaps he's hoping to sell the site to some investor when it "comes out of beta" ... would an investor want to buy a site with inflated member numbers? I don't know that's the case, but if I were an investor or an advertiser, I'd look long and hard at whether this was a good place for people to hang out. I'd hate to be an advertiser and suddenly not have access to the site.

Parents, take heed and protect your underage fiber enthusiasts from what they will see on this site without warning. And if you are interested in using Ravelry yourself, be aware that objectionable content can/may/will pop with no warning whatsoever. If you're easily offended, this site is not for you. If you don't mind nekkid/obscene yarn creations, foul language, celebration of just about everything under the sun (and I mean *everything*), then you're welcome to it. I won't be going back. There are plenty of other places to find crochet patterns & supplies ... and I have plenty of Bunker Babe friends who either dye and spin yarn or who have friends that do. I'll be fine.

As you were ........

Other posts regarding the Banning of the Big Bad Bunker Babes are listed below (I forgot to write everyone's names down as I cut & pasted the blog addresses ... sorry, ladies!):

Our Side of the Story -- EllieJane

Apparently -- Kidyquat

More Ravelry Censorship -- KnittyHorse

Ravelry.com -- DogwoodDreams

Woo Hoo, I'm a Bad Person! -- Chrisknits

Well, This Is a New Experience for Me

Goodbye, My Friends

Suspended From Ravelry

Censorship in America -- Whimzee

Ravelry - Bren

Former Bunker Members Banned from Ravelry? -- YarnKandy

President Jekyll & Mr. Hyde Ride Again

Could really, possibly be that words and actions have consequences?

Throughout the recent presidential campaign we heard nuthin' but "hope" and "change" from now-Prez Barack Hussein Obama. Oh wait ... there was something else ... there was also that bit about how people wouldn't be "allowed" to drive what they want, eat what they want, and keep their homes at the temperature they desired ... and have the rest of the world "be ok with that."

Oh, and there was that bit about America wasn't what she should be. And then there was the part about race and class .... and then I started hearing Charlie Brown's teacher's voice (Wahh Wahh Waahh Wahh) as he proceeded to denigrate everything I love about this country. He spoke of some of our freedoms as though they were temporary and given to us by the state.

And the economy began to fall. Did anyone notice how it really started to get "iffy" last February, when this guy ... this teflon friend of Tony Rezko ... was able to slough off scandal by playing the race card, and nothing that, had it touched a Republican, would've meant quick political death (No, I am *Not* advocating harm to the president, so don't start with your nasty comments!!!) ... but any scandal that touched BHO rolled right off his back like water on a duck?

And as it became more and more evident that his associations with Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, "Frank the socialist poet", Father Fleger (sp?) and others

... and as concerns about his growing up around socialists, and his travels on various passports, and his questionable nationality (did he become an Indonesian citizen via his step-father or not ... and was he actually born in Hawaii or was his Kenyan birth just *recorded* there, as was allowed at the time)

 ... and when he wouldn't release school records, university papers written, etc . .... did anyone else notice how the stock market and the economy got wigglier and wigglier?

And then last September, when it became *really* evident through his big "celebration" of his nomination (for which he still hasn't paid the City of Chicago, to the tune of at least $2M) ... complete with it's temple-like setting, reminiscent of the grandeur insisted up on a certain 1930s dictator in Europe, with that one's fascination with mythical gods, etc. ... the market really began to slide ...

... and while John McCain (who was my default nominee) went back to Washington DC to do the job the people had elected him to do, BHO said, "call me if you need any help" ...

And when BHO's tune morphed from "hope and change" to doom & gloom ... people finally started noticing ... well, ok, maybe the people who started noticing were the "conservatives" who'd "had enough of Bush" and those that wanted to "teach the Republican party a lesson" and voted for BHO because he couldn't be "all that bad" ... those might be the ones that started noticing, because those (and the people who never voted for him in the first place) started taking their money out of the market and stuffing it in their mattresses ... ok, maybe it was more like hiding it in other places, or putting it into more tangible things than "the stock market" ... but the market started to tank, with the willing accomplice known as "the media."

... and when he actually became (le sigh) our president (le sigh) with yet another lavish extravaganza paid for by taxpayers (his contributors knew they were funding his campaign, but I wonder if they knew they were going to fund extravaganza after lavish fete) he began to show his true self to those of us who had been looking at a "nekkid emperor" all along. While his supporters were exclaiming their relief that he'd won because now they wouldn't have to pay their mortgages or car payments or rent, the rest of us said "oh shit, here it comes" and listened to him start spouting things that to the trained ear sound like socialism, and to the liberal (comatose) ear sounded like relief from obligations and personal responsibility.

And the market tanked in a big way ...

... and Obama, who took office less than 3 months ago, has struck down one by one conservative values that had been preserved one by one by President Bush ... and Obama did it with victory in his voice and glee and vindication in his eye ...

... and the market continued to tank.

And BHO said that Wall Street and capitalists are greedy and must be more generous, and that aid should be given to people who take no responsibillty for their lives, and that "everyone who makes under $250K/hr" will be given a tax cut ... 'course, that number kept changing throughout the campaign season to where it finally reached under $100K, so we don't know where that will actually end up, do we? And if you give "tax cuts" (also known as "income credits") to people who dont pay taxes, isn't that more of a combination of welfare and confiscation?

... and the market continued to tank.

And then we had TARP1 and TARP2 and the "Spending Stimulus Package" and the Omnibus bill ... these were supposed to stimulate the economy, but when money you've thrown at a situation ends up being the same amount lost by the people whose company you were throwing it at, well, that's a nice example of pearls before swine, now, isn't it?

And there's talk of yet *another* "stimulus" package looming ... even though the huge majority of economists say it's not necessary. Let's talk turkey here ... these 'stimulus' bills are just a way for the Democrats in Congress (that's both the House *and* the Senate, remember) to get money for their constituents back home, a.k.a. keeping their jobs 'cause they don't know how to do an honest day's work anymore.

And then, when he *finally* recognizes that the constant drumbeat of doom & gloom coming from so many sources is actually hurting the stock market because he and his administration make investors *very nervous*, BHO changed his tune Thursday, 3/12

Confronting misgivings, even in his own party, President Barack Obama mounted a stout defense of his blueprint to overhaul the economy Thursday, declaring the national crisis is “not as bad as we think” and his plans will speed recovery.

Challenged to provide encouragement as the nation’s “confidence builder in chief,” Obama said Americans shouldn’t be whipsawed by bursts of either bad or good news and he was “highly optimistic” about the long term.

And then Friday 3/13 China's leadership made a speech in which BHO & Congress are admonished to be responsible with our economy and not devalue the dollar too much because they have invested so heavily in us.

At the NPC meetings, Premier Wen Jiabao expressed concern over $1 trillion of U.S. assets held by China, and called on the U.S. to guarantee its “good credit.” From the Washington Post:

Wen’s remarks, which were made at the close of the annual National People’s Congress meeting in Beijing, echoed those that have been made by other high-ranking policymakers and bankers over the past year since the subprime crisis devastated the value of the mortgage-backed securities that made up a large chunk of China’s U.S. holdings.

“We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried,” Wen said.

At a number of diplomatic meetings since then, Chinese officials have raised the issue of U.S. Treasuries and have sought assurances the United States that it will do everything possible to maintain the stability of its economy. On Friday, Wen called on the Obama administration to “maintain its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of China’s assets.” 

So Saturday, 3/14 Obama's Mr. Sunny again.

President Barack Obama on Saturday downplayed divisions between the U.S. and Europe over how to tackle the world's financial crisis and said China should have "absolute confidence" that its sizable investments in the United States are safe.

In a conversation focused heavily on the economy, Obama met in the Oval Office with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. It was the latest in a series of talks the president has had with his counterparts around the world before a pair of international meetings where the economic crisis will dominate.

Both leaders will attend the Group of 20 countries summit in London on April 2, and the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad in mid-April.

Obama said the notion that the U.S. and Europe are already taking sides, with America pushing for more stimulus spending and European nations favoring tighter regulation of the financial industry, is a "phony debate."

"I can't be clearer in saying that there are no sides," Obama told reporters after the meeting. He said a full range of approaches, including stimulus spending such as his own recently enacted $787 billion package, and financial regulation, are needed to help revive the global economy.

Financial regulation "is front and center" among the issues he wants to deal with, he said.

"In my mind, at least, there is no conflict or contradiction between the positions of the G-20 countries and how we're going to be moving forward," Obama said, adding that differences in details were being worked out. "I expect to have a productive meeting."

...

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao had said Friday he was concerned about the safety of the estimated $1 trillion his country has invested in U.S. government debt. China is Washington's biggest foreign creditor, and Obama's administration is counting on the Chinese to help pay for the $787 billion economic stimulus package by buying U.S. bonds.

"Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried," Wen said. "I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."

Wen - and other investors - needn't worry, Obama said.

"There's a reason why even in the midst of this economic crisis you've seen actual increases in investment flows here into the United States," Obama said. "I think it's a recognition that the stability not only of our economic system, but also our political system, is extraordinary.

"I think that not just the Chinese government, but every investor, can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States," he added.

Vice President Joe Biden on Saturday said he believed there were signs that the public's confidence is growing in the administration's ability to tackle the financial crisis. He credited the "Obama factor."

"There is no doubt in our minds and there is no doubt in the president's mind that in fact we will overcome this. We will climb out of this hole," Biden told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "It just takes some real perseverence and you've got to have a guy as gutsy as the president who's willing to make some really tough decisions."

Biden, who was in Little Rock on Saturday night to help Sen. Blanche Lincoln kick off her re-election bid, said he believed the economy was showing some signs of hope.

"Consumer confidence is slightly up. The market is slightly up," Biden said. "It'll go down again, but the people are beginning to figure out that the president's got a plan and he believes we can work our way through this."

During his appearance at the White House, Silva said the crisis gives world leaders an "extraordinary opportunity" to demonstrate to their people that they are capable of handling major issues. He said it was critically important to create jobs, create incomes and boost consumption.

"We are in a large ship and water is leaking," Silva said, speaking through a translator. "Now is the time to fix the leaking and make the economy go back to the tracks."

Only time will tell, but I'll bet Obama's mouth is getting tired from talking out both sides of it.

Some Dems Don't Actually Travel Lock-Step With Their Party

How refreshing that Sen. Bayh can come out in the open and say the $410 Omnibus Spending Bill shouldn't (have been) signed ... it's too bad so many other Dems are either too narcissistic, stupid or afraid to stand up and say the same thing.

Uncle Stan Speaks

Uncle Stan is a very witty guy with a dry sense of humor, but he makes observations that are right on the mark. I really value his perspective and have recently received permission to share his missives (or parts of them, anyway) with friends. I thought this was worth sharing with y'all:

From Friday in TN:

I have a very open agenda today. I plan to get (granddaughter) from school and go to the (gym). Beyond that I may just stare at a wall or the TV. The TV depresses me, however, especially the news. News reporting seems to focus on two themes. One is the inhumanity of humanity towards each other, from local shootings to national wars. That makes a case for the truth that no life form one earth is so irrational as that life form that possesses the highest rational powers. I wish that were a paradox, but I fear it is a true contradiction. The other theme is the policies and perspectives on governing from our President and Congress. They tell me I am incompetent, stupid, weak, dependent, and impotent. Therefore, I need them to bail me out, to entitle me, to give to me what others have earned or take from me what I have earned and give to others. Nothing on the news makes sense in the long run. But, who keeps the end in mind? Perhaps the answer to all this is to buy a bigger and more comfortable chair for watching TV, a larger TV, and a beer cooler next to my chair and keep it fully stocked daily. Is that not the end of government kept morons? I may live that way, just as soon as B. H. Obama makes it legal for me to buy beer with my food stamps!  :))

No, he's not really on food stamps ... there's that wit and dry sense of humor.

Judge Roy Moore's Poem

Remember Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama judge who was removed from the bench for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom wall? Well, my friend Bonnie forwarded me a reminder about this awesome judge and the poem he wrote. I think you might appreciate it.

America the beautiful,
Or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims' pride;
I'm glad they'll never see.

Babies piled in dumpsters,
Abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty;
Your house is on the sand.

Our children wander aimlessly
Poisoned by cocaine
Choosing to indulge their lusts,
When God has said abstain

From sea to shining sea,
Our Nation turns away
From the teaching of God's love
And a need to always pray

We've kept God in our Temples,
how callous we have grown.
When earth is but His footstool,
And Heaven is His throne.

We've voted in a government
that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges;
Who throw reason out the door,

Too soft to place a killer
In a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby
Before he leaves the womb.

You think that God's not Angry,
that our land's a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait
Before His judgment comes?

How are we to face our God,
From Whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do,
But stem this evil tide?

If we who are His children,
Will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face
And mend our evil way:

Then God will hear from Heaven;
And forgive us of our sins,
He'll heal our sickly land
And those who live within.

But, America the Beautiful,
If you don't - then you will see,
A sad but Holy God
Withdraw His hand from Thee..
~~Judge Roy Moore~~

The 10th & 11th stanzas are a direct reference to the scripture that I recently chose for my new email signature:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.­ -- 2 Chronicles 7:14

Don't Bother With Your Return ... The Gov't Will Do It **FOR** You??

Today the boss forwarded a newsletter she got and said "Read the "Say What?" Article!" (As soon as she reminds me what the newsletter was, I'll cite that source ... I did *not* write the following, but I wanted to be sure to pass it on to my friends):

Say What?? - Proposals for Government-Prepared Tax Returns

In November, then President-Elect Obama named Austan Goolsbee as Staff Director and Chief Economist of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Member of the Council of Economic Advisers.  In 2002, he wrote “The Turbo-Tax Revolution? Evaluating the Ability of Technology to Solve the Tax Complexity Dilemma.”  The paper argued that commercially available tax software programs would do little to simplify tax filing for the majority of taxpayers, and called for replacing 1040 EZ filings with “automatic return free filing through the employer.”  Goolsbee later refined the proposal in a Brookings Institution paper published in 2006, as “The Simple Return,” which “would have the IRS take the information about income directly from the employers and banks and, if the person’s tax status were simple enough, send that taxpayer a return prefilled with the information.”

Goolsbee’s thinking is aligned with other policymakers who are pushing for government-prepared tax filing.  This “thinking” is apparently also aligned with those who are purposely oblivious to the problems that the IRS has had in implementing current record-keeping and withholding requirements.  Could we please have some ice cream with our pie in the sky?

The proposal, and variations on it, would obviously entail a significant, even historic, change in federal tax policy, with serious implications.  Some thoughts immediately come to mind:

§  Having the IRS take over preparation of individual income tax returns would fundamentally alter the U.S. tax system.

§  Extending the proposal to cover all taxpayers would represent the largest change since the beginning of automatic withholding, shifting the system from voluntary compliance with taxpayers controlling their ability to claim legitimate credits and deductions to a confiscatory system with taxpayers appealing the government’s claims to their hard-earned money.

§  This shift in the burden of claiming legitimate deductions and credits could potentially subject all taxpayers to audit-like experiences just to claim money that is rightfully theirs.

§  The IRS’ past history of abuses, including those that required enactment the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, raise questions about granting the agency such far-reaching powers. 

§  Implementation of this system could lead to a stealth tax increase, if the system constrains the use of legitimate deductions and credits. 

§  The IRS has a troubled track record in maintaining and modernizing the technology needed to administer the current system. 

§  This concept has compiled a broad record of failure wherever it has been tried:

o   England: Systemic and catastrophic breakdowns that include the failure to deliver tax credits.

o   Canada: The government’s Netfile system crashed in 2008 and was offline for ten days preventing individuals from filing their taxes.  The Canadian Parliament has expressed concern about single points of failure in a system that would be vulnerable to cybercrime.   

o   California: The state’s “Ready Return” system had 11,000 users, far short of its goal of 2 million users. 

You can’t make this stuff up.  Why?  Because no one would believe that any individual with any degree of actual knowledge about the current state of our tax system would take this proposal seriously.

Can you just see the potential for governmental abuse, political power plays, and cybercrime???

The author says that no one would believe that any individual with any degree of actual knowledge about the current state of our tax system would take this proposal seriously ... but our elected officials often don't have any knowledge about what they vote on. Didn't they prove that with the recent spending "stimulus" plan? So they'll look to other countries that have done this as an excuse a good example of why we should try it. ...

And if the examples of England and Canada, who’ve tried this pre-filled returns thing and had such problems ….. never mind, our gov’t wants to go to socialist medicine with the apparent failures of England and Canada as a “good example”

One Mistake Per Day Isn't So Bad .... *Is* It???

A friend picked this up from Michelle Malkin's site, but I went right to the source, Don Surber's 3/12/09 blog post at Blogs.Dailymail.com to find this for your enjoyment:

52 days, 52 mistakes

Let me count them up, in no particular order. Some are big. Some are small.

We all make mistakes. Here’s his:

1. A do-over on the oath of office.
2. Tim Geithner.
3. Bill Richardson.
4. Tom Daschle.
5. Eric “Nation of Cowards” Holder.
6. Leon Panetta.
7. Arne “Cappuccino” Duncan.
8. Hilda Solis (OK, her husband has the tax liens).
9. Nancy Killefer.
10. Charles Freeman Jr.
11. Ron Kirk.
12. Adolfo Carrion.
13. Banning offshore oil again.
14. Letting Nancy Pelosi write the $787 billion “stimulus’ plan.
15. Relying on Tim Geithner to explain it.
16. It is a $13-a-week stimulus, or as his wife said of Bush’s plan: “You’re getting $600. What can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything. But maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn’t pay down every bill every month.”
17. Going to a press conference without a TelePrompTer. I… Uhh… Umm… Could you repeat the question?
18. Using a TelePrompTer at a press conference. Big boys don’t need training wheels.
19. “Good evening, everybody. Please be seated. Before I take your questions tonight, I’d like to speak briefly.” 1,228 words later he took his first question.
20. Going after Rush Limbaugh.
21. Going after Rick Santelli.
22. Going after Jim Cramer.
23. “Never waste a good crisis.”
24. Obama supporter Warren Buffett: “I don’t think anybody on December 7th would have said a ‘war is a terrible thing to waste, and therefore we’re going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things and — but we expect to — expect the other party to unite behind us on the — on the big problem.’ It’s just a mistake, I think.”
25. Writing a love letter to Vlad and Dmitry.
26. Putting Poland under the bus.
27. Putting Tibet under the bus.
28. Putting Israel under the bus.
29. Taking Cuba out from under the bus.
30. Having his tax cheat go after the tax cheats in Switzerland. Cognitive dissonance.
31. “Karzai has a bunker mentality.”
32. Iran has plans to Marine One helicopters.
33. “I won.”
34. BlackBerry singing in the middle of the night/ Take these golden secrets and learn to fly…
35. Obama: “If Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off.” CEO: No. There will be more layoffs.
36. DVDs to Gordon Brown.
37. “You can’t take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime.” Vegas convention bookings nosedive.
38. Wagyu.
39. Reset/overcharge button given to Russia.
40. Taking a 4-day holiday weekend before signing “emergency” legislation.
41. “I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement — the prescription drug plan — without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word ’socialist’ around can’t say the same.”
42. Stiffing Chicago for nearly $2 million for that Election Night par-tay.
43. Caroline Kennedy.
44. Bombing Pakistan.
45. Sending the bust of Sir Winston Churchill back to the British.
46. Saying: “President Obama has accomplished more in 30 days than any president in modern history.”
47. A window is not a door.
48. Doctors must perform abortions.
49. Signing earmarks while denouncing them.
50. Adding signing statements while denouncing them.
51. Quadrupling the deficits, while denouncing them.
52. Missing the Gridiron Club dinner.

But be of good cheer. He has 1,409 days left to make up for his stumbles out of the starting gate.

UPDATE: Linked by Michelle Malkin. Thanks.

Linked by Glenn Reynolds. Thanks.

Also, from reading the comments, it seems as if I overloooked a few. They could replace a few of the lamer ones I cited. And please, read Anna’s comment.

53rd day, 53rd mistake. 

(Psssst ... that 53rd should make our men & women in uniform really unhappy....)

President Jekyll / Mr. Hyde

Barack Obama needs to learn how to keep his story straight. One day he's telling us that these are the worst days since the Great Depression (um, but they're actually not as bad as they were in the 70s when Jimmah Carter was prez), and then he tells us, "Wait....never mind."

From Michelle Malkin's site:

On February 5 she shared that Obama spake Doom-n-Gloom:

By now, it’s clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

Today we have news from Breitbart.com that's it's just not that bad:

Confronting misgivings, even in his own party, President Barack Obama mounted a stout defense of his blueprint to overhaul the economy Thursday, declaring the national crisis is “not as bad as we think” and his plans will speed recovery.

Challenged to provide encouragement as the nation’s “confidence builder in chief,” Obama said Americans shouldn’t be whipsawed by bursts of either bad or good news and he was “highly optimistic” about the long term.

The president’s proposals for major health care, energy and education changes in the midst of economic hard times faced skepticism from both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, as senators questioned his budget outlook and the deficits it envisions in the middle of the next decade.

But Obama, speaking to top executives of the Business Roundtable, expressed an optimistic vision and called for patience.

Richard Parsons, chairman of beleaguered Citigroup Inc., asked if Obama could offer some help in a national battle “between confidence and fear.”

“A smidgen of good news and suddenly everything is doing great. A little bit of bad news and ooohh , we’re down on the dumps,” Obama said. “And I am obviously an object of this constantly varying assessment. I am the object in chief of this varying assessment.”

“I don’t think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say,” Obama added. “Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They’re not as bad as we think they are now.”

“And my long-term projections are highly optimistic, if we take care of some of these long-term structural problems.”

(Be sure to follow the links and read the whole articles.)

So ... which is it?? Is it the worst economy ever, ranking right there above the Black Death? Or is it roses, rainbows and unicorns? No, BHO didn't say everything's "all better now", but I'm getting dizzy and looking to go to the store to find a neck brace.

This reminds me of all the times that Libnuts kept cycling between saying that President Bush was alternately "Chimpy McBush, the simpleton that couldn't think for himself to the degree that Karl Rove made all his decisions for him" and "the evil BusHilter, the mastermind of the downfall of the world."

Maybe it's just me, but you can't have it both ways. When will the Twits That Be get that???

Will Atlas Shrug?

While I understand that Ayn Rand was very much the atheist, and heartily disagree with her there, I have to say that I agree with quite a lot of what she wrote about in her final novel, "Atlas Shrugged".

Some background ... a few years ago Maureen got interested in reading some dystopic novels, and asked me to read them at the same time so we could discuss them. So, for the first time, I read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and Orwell's "1984" ... I had read Orwell's "Animal Farm". It was amazing to me to see how of what had been written in these books has come to pass in our societal make-up.

Then, someone I worked with recommended "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. He said it "changed his life and how he viewed the world." I couldn't begin to understand how a novel could change a person's outlook on society. I picked up the book (and a copy for Mom, hoping we could do a "read along" like Mo and I had done), but I just couldn't get into the book. Ok, I have to say that part of the reason is that it's a 1,100-ish page book in about 8-point type .... these old eyes just don't want to work *that* hard. So I set it aside and decided that I'd "get to it some time" down the road.

Well, lately some friends have made references to it, and I got curious again. I looked at the book again and just couldn't bring myself to read type that small. But I've read a few posts/articles here and there and see that it ranks #2 to the Bible's #1 status as books that have changed the world.

So a friend from Ravelry suggested that a bunch of us do a "read along" and I really wanted to participate ... but having had the detached retinata several years ago makes it hard for me to read that small of type for very long ... so I came up with a solution ... iTunes.

I downloaded it and am now in the third of three 10-chapter sections. And it's astounding how much I can see from this dystopic novel that is paralleled in our society today. So many attitudes and "feelings" expressed in the text of the novel are commonplace in American society. So many abuses of "the system" and "government" are evident, as they were in the novel.

People are having "tea parties" around the country in protest of the current economic stimulus "remedies", and signs are showing up in photos saying things like "Atlas Will Shrug" and "It Work Worth It?"

It's interesting that bookstores are having the Dickens of a time keeping this book on their shelves. Libraries have waiting lists for this book that are several patrons deep, all clamoring for a chance to read the borrowed copy.

It's also interesting to find that while the new book "Pocket Obama" is showing up on Amazon.com at #175,052 in sales, "Atlas Shrugged" is showing up at #45.

"Atlas Shrugged" is also show up in more frequent articles lately, such as this one in the Wall Street Journal.

So my questions are:

1.  Have you read this book?

2.  What parallels did you see in the book that mimic today?

3.  Do you see this as a cautionary tale?

4.  Do you see this as a manual on how to re-make society to be more caring?

5.  The groups pointed out in the novel are the "Looters", "Moochers", and "Producers" -- which group will eventually win in our society?

(Of course, we know that God wins in the end, but the elements of this "Randian" society depicted in the novel is what I'm getting at...)

Obama = Urkel??

Ok, just 'cause I stumbled upon this at Michelle Malkin's site (which she linked from http://twitpic.com/1vb42):

And Now For Something Light

Because I've had about as much as I can stand about ObaMao and his Communist Slide plans for our country, I decided to post something totally unrelated. I'm really tired of my stomach clenching every time that man speaks and our stock market plunges.

As my daughter says: "The media is the wet nurse of hysteria!"

So, have fun with a little trivia to get your mind off the serious stuff for a minute, mmmmK?

Questions:

 

1.            Where did the Wright Brothers make the first successful powered flight in 1903? '

2.            How is the Jewish Day of Atonement better known?

3.            How many times does the letter “p” occur in the first line of the tongue twister abut Peter Piper?

4.            Which is the only common chemical compound to expand when it freezes?

5.            Which country’s name means “The Savior?”

6.            How many of Snow White’s seven dwarfs had beards?

7.            Which two elements are liquid at room temperature?

8.            Which amendment to the American constitution protects witnesses from self-incrimination?

9.            Who wrote “Tosca?”

10.          In the northern hemisphere, does water drain clockwise or counter-clockwise?

11.          What morbid coincidence links Mama Cass and Keith Moon?

12.          What is known in France as “mercredi des Cendres?”

13.          In which film did the song “Moon River” originally appear?

14.          Which composer conducted a performance of one of his works in Wanamaker’s department store in New York in 1904?

15.          In which sport do competing teams try to travel backwards and in opposite directions?

16.          What was the first national park in the U.S.?

17.          Where is the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury?

18.          After the White House what is the most visited home in the U.S.?

19.          A mother and father have five sons.  Each son has one sister.  How many people are there in this family?

20.          Which 1949 novel was originally titled the Last Man in Europe?

21.          How many feet are in a mile?

22.          Which note does an orchestra tune up to?

23.          What average speed did the winning car of the Indianapolis 500 exceed for the first time in 1925?

24.          A man jumps from a bridge into a river and swims for a kilometer upstream.  At exactly one kilometer, he passes a bottle floating in the river.  He continues swimming in the same direction for half an hour and then turns around and swims back towards the bridge.  The man and the bottle arrive at the bridge at the same time.  If the man had been swimming at a constant speed, how fast is the river flowing?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Answers:

1.    Kitty Hawk

2.    Yom Kippur

3.    Nine

4.    Water

5.    El Salvador

6.    Six

7.    Bromine and mercury

8.    Fifth Amendment

9.    Puccini

10.  Counterclockwise

11.  They both died at the same address (12 Curzon Place, Mayfair, London)

12.  Ash Wednesday

13.  Breakfast at Tiffany’s

14.  Richard Strauss

15.  Tug of war

16.  Yellowstone

17.  Graceland

18.  10 Downing Street (it is the title held by the British Prime Minister)

19.  Eight

20.  Nineteen Eighty-four

21.  5,280

22.  “A”

23.  100 mph

24.  1 km per hour

Google Fun

1.) Go to Google.

2.) Type "Chuck Norris Google" in the search bar.

3.) Press the "I Feel Lucky" button.

4.) Clean Off Your Keyboard.

Archbishop of Denver to Catholics: "Hope Is Not A Virtue"

From FreeRepublic.com, we learn about a recent speech in Toronto, Canada by the Archbishop of Denver:

Toronto, Canada, Feb 23, 2009 / 09:03 pm (CNA).- Canadians packed St. Basil’s Church in Toronto on Monday evening to hear Archbishop Charles Chaput speak about how Catholics should live out their faith in the public square. He warned that in the U.S., Catholics need to act on their faith and be on guard against “a spirit of adulation bordering on servility” that exists towards the Obama administration.

The public lecture by Archbishop Chaput took place on the campus of the University of Toronto at St. Basil’s Church and was attended by an overflow crowd of more than 700 people.

After giving a sketch of the basic principles in his New York Times Bestseller “Render Unto Caesar,” the archbishop offered his insights on the need for an honest assessment of the situation of the Church in the public square.

“I like clarity, and there’s a reason why,” began the archbishop. “I think modern life, including life in the Church, suffers from a phony unwillingness to offend that poses as prudence and good manners, but too often turns out to be cowardice. Human beings owe each other respect and appropriate courtesy. But we also owe each other the truth – which means candor.”

The Denver prelate then provided his critique of President Obama.

“President Obama is a man of intelligence and some remarkable gifts. He has a great ability to inspire, as we saw from his very popular visit to Canada just this past week. But whatever his strengths, there’s no way to reinvent his record on abortion and related issues with rosy marketing about unity, hope and change. Of course, that can change. Some things really do change when a person reaches the White House. Power ennobles some men. It diminishes others. Bad policy ideas can be improved. Good policy ideas can find a way to flourish. But as Catholics, we at least need to be honest with ourselves and each other about the political facts we start with.”

Yet this will be “very hard for Catholics in the United States,” Chaput warned.

According to the archbishop, the political situation for Catholics is difficult to discern because a “spirit of adulation bordering on servility already exists among some of the same Democratic-friendly Catholic writers, scholars, editors and activists who once accused pro-lifers of being too cozy with Republicans. It turns out that Caesar is an equal opportunity employer.”

Looking ahead to the coming months and years, Chaput offered four “simple things” to remember.

“First,” he said, “all political leaders draw their authority from God. We owe no leader any submission or cooperation in the pursuit of grave evil.”

“In fact, we have the duty to change bad laws and resist grave evil in our public life, both by our words and our non-violent actions. The truest respect we can show to civil authority is the witness of our Catholic faith and our moral convictions, without excuses or apologies.”

In a reference to the messianic treatment the Barack Obama received from some Americans during the presidential primaries, Archbishop Chaput delivered his second point: “in democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs.”

Noting that Obama actually trailed in the weeks just before the election, the Denver archbishop said that this places some of today’s talk about a “new American mandate” in perspective.

“Americans, including many Catholics, elected a gifted man to fix an economic crisis. That’s the mandate. They gave nobody a mandate to retool American culture on the issues of marriage and the family, sexuality, bioethics, religion in public life and abortion. That retooling could easily happen, and it clearly will happen – but only if Catholics and other religious believers allow it.”

The third point to focus on when the beliefs of Catholics are challenged is that “it doesn’t matter what we claim to believe if we’re unwilling to act on our beliefs,” Chaput counseled.

“The fourth and final thing to remember, and there’s no easy way to say it,” remarked Archbishop Chaput, is that the “Church in the United States has done a poor job of forming the faith and conscience of Catholics for more than 40 years.”

“And now we’re harvesting the results – in the public square, in our families and in the confusion of our personal lives. I could name many good people and programs that seem to disprove what I just said. But I could name many more that do prove it, and some of them work in Washington.”

American Catholics need to realize that many in the current generation haven’t just been “assimilated” into the American culture, but have in fact been “absorbed and bleached and digested by it,” Archbishop Chaput asserted.

If this realization doesn’t happen, the coming generations will continue on the same path and “a real Catholic presence in American life will continue to weaken and disappear,” said Chaput.

Citing the example of “unhappy, self-described Catholics who complain that abortion is too much of a litmus test,” he stated, “We can’t claim to be ‘Catholic’ and ‘pro-choice’ at the same time without owning the responsibility for where the choice leads – to a dead unborn child.”

The archbishop also addressed the “abortion reduction” argument being made by some in politics.

“We can’t talk piously about programs to reduce the abortion body count without also working vigorously to change the laws that make the killing possible. If we’re Catholic, then we believe in the sanctity of developing human life. And if we don’t really believe in the humanity of the unborn child from the moment life begins, then we should stop lying to ourselves and others, and even to God, by claiming we’re something we’re not.”

“Catholic social teaching goes well beyond abortion,” Chaput noted. “In America we have many urgent issues that beg for our attention, from immigration reform to health care to poverty to homelessness.”

Winding his talk down, the Archbishop of Denver remarked on the misunderstanding of the word “hope.”

“For Christians,” he explained, “hope is a virtue, not an emotional crutch or a political slogan. Virtus, the Latin root of virtue, means strength or courage. Real hope is unsentimental. It has nothing to do with the cheesy optimism of election campaigns. Hope assumes and demands a spine in believers. And that’s why – at least for a Christian – hope sustains us when the real answer to the problems or hard choices in life is ‘no, we can’t,’ instead of ‘yes, we can.’”

The full text of the archbishop’s speech can be found here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=790