On September 13th, King of the Democrat Party, Howard Dean appeared on "Hannity & Colmes." You can read portions of the actual transcript at Fox News, but it's rather dull and boring. Instead, you can read this translated version that removes all the doublespeak and provides the actual meanings:

COLMES: Governor Dean, welcome. Thank you for being with us.

KING HOWARD DEAN: Shut up. Why don't you hate Bush as much as I do?

COLMES: What's with the aftermath of Katrina?

SUPREME RULER HOWARD DEAN: You know, if Bill Clinton were president, and he should be, because the Constitution doesn't really MEAN that you can't be elected more than twice, and you folks better vote for Hillary because she's almost as good, then all would be well in the world. The only reason this hurricane caused so much damage is because Bush was the president. After all, Bush lied, people died, yet again.

COLMES: The president did say today, he said, "I take personal responsibility."

EMPEROR DEAN: Well sure, but what good does that do? It's one thing when former President Bill Clinton, who was the best president that this country has ever seen, apologizes for something he had nothing to do with, slavery, but it's completely different when Bush tries to do the same thing because people died.

COLMES: Is it the governor's responsibility on — as you divide the responsibility ...

LORD AND HIGH RULER DEAN: Here's how it works. I had nine things, and now there's seven. When I was governor, I had seven, but I think Governor Blanco had nine. And she tried to do things, as she should have, but then Bush's FEMA didn't respond in the first 12 seconds, so she used five of the other seven things when she federalized the mobilization of the troops that were in Iraq because FEMA stinks under Bush's leadership.

COLMES: You've said that President Bush doesn't care about all the American people and you said something similar about Judge Roberts, that he may love the law, but doesn't necessarily love the American people.

DEAN THE ALMIGHTY: Yes, that's true. This president is the worst president since the civil war, and in fact he's trying to start another civil war in this country so that he can get money for his war machine and use more oil to profit Haliburton. Because of Bush, my wife didn't get to participate in sports. You can only fix things by pointing them out -- not actually doing anything, mind you, but you really have to point your finger as often as you can, and usually at Bush.

COLMES: Barack Obama the other day talked about active racism versus kind of a passive, more innocent kind of negligence. Are they both equally racism and then both equally reprehensible, whether it's active hostility or just a lack of ...

FORMER GOVERNOR HOWIE DEANIE: Well you know I know the president personally -- I've actually touched him and shook his hand. And I know, from that one contact with him, that he isn't racist, but I think he intentionally hurts as many people as he can. He's not homophobic, even if I'm heterophobic, but he wants all gays, blacks, hispanics, and women dead or out of his country. And that's why he picked John Roberts for the court, because Roberts will help Bush kill more people.

COLMES: When considering Judge Roberts, is that enough to say, look, maybe we should really look at this person and he might be the appropriate choice?

ASSISTANT HIGH CHIEF MUCKITY-MUCK DOCTOR OF INSANITY DEAN: Look, the man is smart -- much smarter than I am, and that bothers me. He won't answer questions, he won't respond to my emails, he won't promise me that he will actually perform an abortion live on the Senate floor, so I can't approve of him. He wants people dead -- anyone who doesn't look like him. So I'm going to take the Democratic Party all across the country and tell everyone that Judge Roberts, if confirmed, is going to kill blacks, hispanics, and women.

*** END TRANSCRIPT

Posted by: Ogre at 03:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 689 words, total size 4 kb.

Time again to provide the answer converse about the weekly Christian Views Symposium. Each week there's a question or questions provided for discussion on your own blog, or in comments. Nearly always the question will make you think -- so exercise your brain and answer the question.

This week:

Are we winning the War on Terrorism?
If not, how can we reverse that trend?
If yes, how long will this war last?
Should we be handling terrorism as a war or as a criminal act?

Posted by: Ogre at 01:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

The inane "questioning" continues of Judge Roberts. Again, keep in mind this is pretty much all show at this point. Nearly everyone agrees that he is going to be confirmed -- so anything that happens at this point is just people playing for the press.

Roberts said two things regarding Roe vs. Wade:

legal precedent already set by the court is a "very important consideration."

I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent. ... It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision was wrongly decided

I should not, based on the precedent of prior nominees, agree or disagree with particular decisions and I'm reluctant to do that

He said he believes

very strongly in the separation of power Â… that is very protective of our individual liberty

As could be expected, Edward Kennedy acted like a child and kept interrupting Judge Roberts until Senator Specter told him to act like an adult.

Senator Biden, in an attempt to appease leftists through TV appearances, screamed and yelled that judge Roberts wouldn't answer all his stupid questions, including asking Roberts how he would rule on specific cases.

Chuckie I-Hate-Everyone-Else's-Guns Schumer even held "mock hearings" in his offices to help him raise campaign funds for his re-election campaign. Yes, he is planning on using the hearings only to raise money from leftists.

What a absolute, incredible cesspool the United States Senate has become.

Posted by: Ogre at 10:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

I completely support a representative republic. This is a form of government in which people are elected to represent people. It is NOT mob rule. The people elected are supposed to consider all the people that will be affected by rules or laws, and they are supposed to do the right thing. That's not the case in North Carolina.

In North Carolina, 75% of the population supports a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Democrats in the state legislature refused to hear any bills regarding this issue. Not one hearing or vote was permitted.

72% of the people in North Carolina support a taxpayer protection act that would limit the ability for North Carolina government to grow uncontrollably -- a basic tenet of representative government (people controlling government). The Democrats in the legislature would not allow any hearings or votes on this issue at all.

A full EIGHTY-THREE percent (83%) of citizens of North Carolina opposed using their tax dollars to give free educations to criminals -- illegal aliens. The Democrat-controlled legislature passed laws ensuring that all illegal aliens get all the free education and healthcare they desire, without punishment, and without any cost.

In North Carolina, only the elite rule. The Democrat legislature cares not what the people think, nor what they people want. They are completely and totally out of control. If you're voting Democrat in North Carolina, realize that you are supporting those who oppose you.

Posted by: Ogre at 09:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

The anti-war and anti-Americans in this country continue to exploit anything to further their goals of a communist America. Of course they're trying to use the hurricane as another reason to bash America. Move America Forward has a new video ad they're running to oppose these people. Have a look-see.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

On one hand, We the People are told that we cannot interfere with nature. At the same time, Raleigh FINES people who do not. Yes, government in Raleigh is SO big and they have so much time on their hands, that they have inspectors that inspect the various types of plants growing in your yard.

Apparently there's no crime in Raleigh, or surely the city would be using it's resources to fight crime rather than fine people for allowing natural, native plants to grow, right? The education system must be perfect because the city has so much extra time and money that they can actually search for native plants in yards, right?

This is absolutely assanine. The Raleigh city council is actually debating what to do about laws that currently FINE homeowners if poison ivy, a NATIVE PLANT grows in their yard. Really, I couldn't make this stuff up.

Currently, if you allow a native plant to grow in your yard, you get fined $100. Never mind that birds might have caused it to grow there, it's your fault for "letting" it grow and you can be fined.

The city council is considering the issue and trying to remove any parts of the law that seem "silly." Hey idiots, how about removing the law entirely and doing things that government is SUPPOSED to do instead of snooping around my backyard looking for a native plant!

Posted by: Ogre at 05:03 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Before I started reading your blog my dream was to retire in NC. Here in Broward County they encourage the growth of natives... as long as they don't overhang the street or sidewalks. Or block a corner view...

Posted by: pam at September 14, 2005 07:39 AM (l6NIn)

2 Well, the weather sure is nice... and that's about the only reason many can give to move to North Carolina. I lived in Broward County for a few years -- but at the time I really didn't pay attention to politics, so I can't make a good comparison.

Posted by: Ogre at September 14, 2005 07:42 AM (/k+l4)

3 Let me guess, they wouldn't say anything if a native marijuana plant sprang up in your back yard naturally? I just ask because they seem to be a little backwards, so it stands to reason that a natural marijuana plant probably wouldn't bother them.

Posted by: Echo Zoe at September 14, 2005 12:27 PM (K+h36)

4 I think they'd claim that one was NOT natural, and therefore you should be fined. See? Then they get to win either way. And no, you cannot pave your land, either, without asking their permission for zoning permits and changes...

Posted by: Ogre at September 14, 2005 12:56 PM (/k+l4)

5 Salt the ground......if they say anything tell 'em it's in the bible and you are just being religious......then call the aclu for help when the city decides to sue you.

Posted by: Kender at September 24, 2005 11:09 AM (CfDyC)

6 That will only work if I claim I salted the ground because I'm a witch and because the Christians said I couldn't.

Posted by: Ogre at September 24, 2005 12:32 PM (iJFc9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A few carnivals to alert you to, in case you missed them this week:

First up, the Tarheel Tavern. This one is a personal favorite of mine, simply because it's a carnival of posts from and about the Tarheel State (North Carolina). The host this week, Bora, from Science And Politics graciously included me, even though I forgot to submit an entry. Thank you Bora!

Next, The Carnival of Liberty XI. This carnival really highlights some of the best you'll read out there. Seriously. If you're not concerned about property rights, you should be. The majority of the people that participate in this carnival really, truly love liberty. READ THIS CARNIVAL. There's 18 entires this week, and yet again I forgot to submit my entry.

Just look at the titles of some of the entries: Liberty Is The Right Policy. A Crisis They Cried. On Constitutional Interpretation. Are Progressive Taxes a Good Thing?. These are good. Really good. READ!

Finally, don't forget the New Blog Showcase Carnival (or was that new blog carnival showcase? or new carnival blog showcase? I forget). There's just one participant, so take a moment and go visit! It's fun! It's free!

Posted by: Ogre at 06:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.

According to Wikipedia:

Uniformitarianism is one of the most basic principles of modern geology, the observation that fundamentally the same geological processes that operate today also operated in the distant past

However, even the basic definition given above is flawed. It claims that uniformitarianism is "observation" -- but then it applies that observation to the distant past. That's not possible.

Uniformitarianism says that everything you see happening today has always happened. In other words, it say that the rate at which water flows downhill is constant and has never changed. It presumes all physical laws, such as the speed of light, are what they are and have never been different. It presumes that gravity has always been at the exact rate it is today.

Now this rule certainly seems simple. In your lifetime, I'm sure that you can observe the same physical rules happening over and over again. You can observe the sedimentation rate of sediment in a stream. You can easily make predictions of ocean currents, rates of erosion, and many other related observations.

This is what modern science has done -- made observations and tested them to see if they hold true. They have found many laws that apply to various physical characteristics that always hold true -- as long as they are tested. The same experiments always give the same results because the rules do not change.

To me, I see this as rather self-centered. Just because physical rules have not changed in your lifetime, or even in the last hundred or two hundred years of observation does not mean they have never been different. Consider for a moment, what if this rule isn't true?

What if all the currently discovered laws of physics haven't always been true? What if, at some time thousands of years ago, gravity was different? What if the laws of thermodynamics have only applied for two thousand years? What if gravity didn't exist 5,000 years ago?

ALL of today's science is based on a complete and total belief in uniformitarianism. If uniformitarianism isn't completely, 100% true, a large portion of "known" science might not be true, too. Just consider it -- what are the possibilities if man simply cannot know everything?

Now there's no direct evidence that refutes uniformitarianism -- just as there is no direct evidence that uniformitarianism is true. It's just presented and accepted as fact, without debate. But what if it's wrong?

There actually now are some scientists that claim that this may be the case. They describe that the speed of light -- the basis of much of physics -- might not actually be constant. What if all the physical processes we see today were actually different at some time in the past?

Posted by: Ogre at 02:01 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

Hey look! The HomeSpun Blogger Symposium is back. The Symposium is supposed to be a weekly question asked by MajorDad1984 -- but he's been a little busy recently and hasn't had a question each week. If I weren't so busy myself, I'd provide questions for him.

Meanwhile, if you'd like to join up and participate, see the Homespun Bloggers homepage and join up. It's just a coalition of bloggers who all blog simply because we like to. And you can participate in the Symposium any time you like. This week's question:

How do you feel about Hurricane Katrina?

Posted by: Ogre at 12:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

Interesting to note, as a footnote to the Katrina gross expenditures. Just this past week, North Carolina government GAVE away almost $250 million to businesses. These are cash grants -- which mean they are simply gifts, not loans. And yes, this is the same legislature that raised taxes over $10 million last year and created a $17 BILLION budget that was "cut to the bone."

The beneficiaries of this enormous cash gift was business. Yes, that same business that Democrats so demonize as evil and Republican. Remember, good reader, the North Carolina Legislature is controlled with an iron fist by Democrats -- no Republican ideas EVER see the light of day in that legislature.

Why did they get cash? Because "The individual business owners might not be coming back." This is after flooding of our own from various different natural disasters, including hurricanes of the last year.

If the businesses don't want to come back, why force them to? Why bribe them? Why not let free markets work? Why am *I* personally being forced at gunpoint to bribe a business to "come back?"

And some don't even need the money! In Marshall county, which got $400,000, the "regional planning director" said, "Up in Marshall the flooding didn’t really cause a lot of long-term damage,” she said. “Most people were able to pump out the water … and keep running their business.”

In other words, they didn't even need the money to rebuild businesses -- they're already rebuilt! But far from even considering giving the money back, they're going to use it. What for? "Revitalizing the downtown historic district and renovating buildings."

Great. I'm telling you, I need to buy some investment land -- in a hurricane zone. If you own a home or a business that's hit by a hurricane, the government will pay you cash. What a horrible use of government.

Posted by: Ogre at 10:32 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm still not a big supporter of Judge Roberts. While there's plenty that would be much, much worse than him; there's others who would be better. It doesn't seem to matter, as he appears to be in the job (as he should be since the President selected him).

Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around.

Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.

It is that rule of law that protects the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world. Because without the rule of law, any rights are meaningless.

I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes

If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind.

I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability.

But talk is cheap. Who knows how he will really rule? After all, this guy is highly likely to be The Chief of the Supreme Court for the next 40 or 50 years.

Posted by: Ogre at 09:04 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Good post. I think Roberts is playing these senators the best he can without revealing too much about his actual views. Like Ruth Vader Ginsberg did, he shouldn't answer any questions about Abortion or Gay rights until a case comes to the court. The problem with all these judges is that their views only come out after the process, when it's too late to do anything about it without term limits. Therefore, I think there should be term limits for justices and the congress so we can replace mistakes like Ginsberg and Souter.

Posted by: OTTMANN at September 13, 2005 01:00 PM (3wWRp)

2 Term limits for Supreme Court Justices? Hmm... of course that would require amending the Constitution, and I don't think that thing will EVER be amended again because too many people will oppose ANYTHING if it's proposed by the other party. Instead, what needs to happen is judicial reform so that LESS cases actually get to the supreme court! The Legislature can pass laws that limit what the supreme court can review -- they just don't have the guts to do it! Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 01:57 PM (/k+l4)

3 I haven't really thought too much about him, or this whole process of committee meetings in Congress and all that...If I go by the headlines, it's all about abortion. Thanks Ogre for helping me figure this out better. I have learned something here!

Posted by: Raven at September 13, 2005 07:35 PM (7mbx+)

4 Glad to help -- I'm following it closely just because I can. It's a done deal, I just like to see what's said and make fun, I mean watch the Democrats.

Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 08:10 PM (iJFc9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Has anyone noticed the price of gasoline the last week or so? In case you've been taking public transportation and haven't seen, it's dropping like a rock. Some "experts" are predicting it will fall, perhaps as low or lower than "pre-Katrina" prices within a week.

How is this possible? Don't you remember all the complaining just last week? Don't you remember all the doom and gloom about how it was the end of the world because evil oil companies were gouging people? Heck, GA instituted "investigations" into price gouging. Gas stations were running out of gasoline because there was a "shortage." It was the end of the world.

However, since government mostly stayed the heck out of the way, we now see the free market at work. Katrina struck just before Labor Day weekend -- the weekend in the year where demand is the highest for gasoline. Gas prices ALWAYS are at their highest in August (when demand is highest), and usually peaks about Labor Day weekend. Just like every other year, after the demand falls, the prices drop.

There's no such thing as "price gouging." If you don't want to buy it, don't buy it. You can't claim you "need" it and therefore there should be government control -- do you need food? Certainly you need food quite a bit more than you need gasoline -- but there's no government regulation of food in the form of price caps, is there?

Every time the free market is tried, it works. Supply and demand systems WORK. Let them work. The only time they do not is when government gets involved because government, by definition, can only interfere and damage the free market system.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:26 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Right On! Ever notice that they'll institute price caps before even considering lowering the gas tax? Which is more likely to work?

Posted by: Echo Zoe at September 13, 2005 07:35 AM (keU2o)

2 I'm telling you, if government would just get out of the way, this country would be an economic engine that would put the world to shame!

Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 07:49 AM (/k+l4)

3 well the reason price is dropping is because I've stopped driving my truck. The Oil companies have lost a lot of revenue since I started car pooling. Scarily enough right after I bought that truck the gas prices sky rocketed and shortly after I stopped driving it they are starting to drop. I know it's a coincidence, but it's amusing.

Posted by: Contagion at September 13, 2005 08:44 AM (Q5WxB)

4 Also remember that prices began rising two weeks before katrina hit, because of the Labor Day holiday. Gas prices always rise before a holiday. Fortunately for the oil companies, katrina came along, and they were able to keep the inflated prices up another week. ExxonMobil announced the other day that their quarterly profit is $10 Billion. Thats $10 Million per day!

Posted by: hiikeeba at September 13, 2005 09:28 AM (PdMcB)

5 It's all a scam. My Wal-Mart ran out of coffee, hasn't had any in a week...they blame Hurricane Katrina, now how do they get all other foods but not coffee? How is it Hurricane Katrina's fault? Please tell me, I really want to know.

Posted by: Cindy at September 13, 2005 09:51 AM (tys5d)

6 Cindy - actually, since a lot of coffee comes from South America, the damage to the Gulf Coast ports could raise transportation costs, since the beans will have to be delivered via a less-direct path.

Posted by: Harvey at September 13, 2005 10:18 AM (ubhj8)

7 And strangely enough, Contagion, I did the exact opposite. It was just days before Katrina hit that I traded my 15mpg vehicle for a 30mpg one! Isn't that great, hiikeeba? I think everyone should go buy stock in ExxonMobil! Then everyone could share in the record profits. Cindy, I'm pretty sure that's Bush's fault, too. Something to do with Bush's dealings with the Columbian drug lords as the CIA tries to kill all black people by getting them addicted to crack. Currently most of the shipping markets must be used by the crack dealers and they have no room for coffee. Oh wait, don't they use coffee to hide drug shipments? They did in Beverly Hills Cop, right? Wait, isn't Eddie Murphy black? So therefore, I have proven that Bush hates coffee.

Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 10:55 AM (/k+l4)

8 Gas went up to 4:09 last week..then suddenly it dropped back down to 3:10 where it's been hovering...we haven't seen a shortage of coffee (Ogre gags at the thought of coffee smells LOL) We see a shortage of fruits and juices though.

Posted by: Raven at September 13, 2005 07:37 PM (7mbx+)

9 4:09? O'clock? There wasn't as much of a shortage as the press wanted you to believe. I'm not sure you can actually trust the press to report anything accurately any more -- it's always about excitement and drawing in viewers -- not about what actually happened anymore.

Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 08:16 PM (iJFc9)

10 I posted on this and got nothing. People dont want to talk aout this issue. I'm glad you did! Great ideas. I saw an interview with a Rep from Washington State - it has a 33 cent tax on gas and their legislature won't roll it back, not even for a few months. Does anyone else think this is wrong?

Posted by: patd95 at September 13, 2005 09:42 PM (/KuBm)

11 No, lower prices don't make the news nor gather attention -- only higher prices! And I'm opposed to darn near every tax that exists, so yes, I think the heavy gas taxes are wrong. Heck, here in North Carolina, the gas taxes are used for anything the legislature wants -- like bribing officials, paying off for votes, or just giving cash to friends.

Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 10:04 PM (iJFc9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've mentioned before that the primary reason government regulation of business exists is to punish business and reduce competition. Now one government agency has actually admitted that is their purpose, but no one seems to care.

The director of the North Carolina agency for regulating group homes (yes, there really is such an agency) said of new regulations, "We expect that's going to reduce the number of new applications we have to deal with."

They intentionally made new rules so that people would not go into business. It wasn't to save lives, it wasn't to help people, it wasn't even to "protect the children" (okay, they claimed it was) -- it was done specifically do reduce new businesses.

As could be expected, current owners of group homes "applauded" the new rules -- of course, they are already in business and this reduces competition.

I don't understand why no one seems to care. Certainly the press in North Carolina doesn't care, as they like regulation, they support big government, and the vast majority of them honestly hate freedom -- they believe you are too stupid to make decisions on your own.

But individuals are not. This country was founded on individualism. People should find some statesmen and get them elected. Real men who will stand up for what is right against corrupt businesses and officials. And no -- that's NOT Democrats in North Carolina -- they are the ones in power that are working WITH the businesses, protecting businesses, and trying to stifle and crush the people.

Government regulation of a free market is bad. More government regulation is worse. But the North Carolina legislature continues to expand their powers, and expand their regulation -- at the expense of individuals in the state. I'm not sure if it's too late for North Carolina to ever recover.

Then again, as long as the weather stays nice, people will continue moving here without regard to the horrible, corrupt politics coming out of the state capital, Raleigh.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

This is the blogburst that Kit at Euphoric Reality started in partnership with Mustang at Stacking Swivel and Social Sense.

I am all for protecting our borders, because --we shouldn't be sharing all this opportunity with people who are illegals--in spite of Vicente Fox's goal of giving social security benefits to Mexican Citizens who then turn around and return to Mexico. Don't we have enough American dollars flooding into Mexico with the number of manufacturing facilities who've packed up and moved down to such depressed areas as Matamoros, not far from Harlingen, Texas?

According to a Pew Hispanic Center and Inter-American Development Bank report, Mexicans in the United States will send $13 billion this year to relatives in Mexico.

Mexican consulates in the United States started issuing an identification card, called matricula consular, to Mexicans illegally living in our country. This card, BY DEFINITION, should prove that the holder is in the United States illegally, but it began to be accepted by our police, our banks and even driver's license offices in some states as though it were a valid I.D.! What kind of madness is this?

The ally-ally-in-free immigration policy of George Bush and Vicente Fox, beloved of corporate America, has created a hell on our southern border.

Those Southwestern states are being inundated by illegal aliens trashing ranches, killing cattle, committing crimes and eating up tax dollars. The traffic in narcotics and human beings from Mexico is a national scandal and a human rights disgrace.

What is true of New Mexico and Arizona is true of our nation, which is now home to an estimated 10 million to 15 million aliens who have broken our laws and broken into our country. It is a mark of the cowardice of our leaders that they are so terrified of being called "bigots" they tolerate this criminality. The moral rot of political correctness runs deep today in both national parties.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson declared a state of emergency "due to a chaotic situation involving illegal alien smuggling and illegal drug shipments" on his southern border on August 12. Only three days later, Gov. Janet Napolitano followed suit in Arizona. Is anyone even paying attention?

With the focus on the howling leftists who are blaming Bush for what's happening with Katrina, why aren't they focusing on Bush where it could make a difference and where I clearly see a presidential failing--protecting our borders?

Can anyone fairly say the President is helping our border patrol to enforce our immigration laws? Those laws are clear. People who break in are to be sent back. Yet the astonishing reality is-more than 10 million have broken in with impunity, and another million attempt to break in every year. Half a million succeed. Border security is homeland security. How, then, can the Department of Homeland Security say America is secure?

Kit at Euphoric Reality is leading this effort, email her to get on the blogroll.

Posted by: Ogre at 09:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 4 kb.

It's time for the New Blog Showcase Carnival! This carnival is a weekly (traveling) carnival of new blogs that have appeared in the last week or 12. It highlights blogs that are less than 3 months old. If YOUR blog is less than 3 months old, be sure to submit it through the multi-carnival submission form, and it will be included next week.

In addition, the Carnival is looking for hosts. We need exposure and hosts. The last few weeks have been very light -- very few blogs appearing and very few different hosts. Heck, even if you're a NEW blog, you can still host the carnival! All you have to do is make a single post that highlights new blogs -- in whatever format you like.

Even if you don't host it, it you happen upon a new blog (blog-sister, blog-son, etc.), be SURE to get them to submit a post of their new blog to the Showcase Carnival. Also, feel free to link to this post to tell others about the carnival. Now, on to the show:

This week there is ONE submission. That's all, just one. Well, that beats the other week when there were zero...

This week's entry is Hitting the Books. This blog is written by a "new mom living in the Northern Neck of Virginia who loves to read/inhale/devour a wide variety of books."

For the carnival, she submits a post regarding increasing readership of blogs! Go on over there and leave her a comment to show her how much traffic the New Blog Carnival Showcase can get you! Yes, do it now! Go ahead, I'll wait.

Seriously, if you're a blogger, you might remember when you were new and didn't have people commenting. You remember hitting "refresh" over and over again, hoping to see a comment appear. I know that wasn't just me. So go over to the new blog and leave a comment -- just say "Hello" if that's all you've got!

(Linked to TTLB's Ubercarnival).

Posted by: Ogre at 12:17 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

1 This is so nice of you. I remember what it was like being a new blogger not too long ago. It took me a whole month to get my first comment. Glad I didn't give up. I really enjoy blogging Too bad I'm not eligible for this Carnival, my blog is four months old.

Posted by: NYgirl at September 12, 2005 06:01 PM (JEAUq)

2 You know, we've had so few entries recently, I'm sure we can fit you in at 4 months! Just submit using the form and I'll be sure you get included!

Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 07:26 PM (iJFc9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Evolution is a lot of things to a lot of people. Darwin's theory of evolution is what most often comes to mind. At the same time, few people understand what it is that was actually proposed. Darwin proposed that all living creatures, and by extension, matter itself, had come from previous, simpler substances. He failed to address where this endless cycle began.

However, today there are various facets of evolution. One area in which people may become confused is when comparing macro evolution and micro evolution. Micro evolution can be observed today, while macro evolution is a theory that simply cannot be observed.

Micro evolution is the idea that all species experience mutations and can have genetic adaptations. However, micro evolution, as observed, shows that the mutations and adaptations only occur within a species. Each mutation and adaptation is designed and works to keep the species the same as itself.

In other words, when a dog mutates, it will change and adapt, and it will remain a dog. No matter how many adaptations and mutations occur, it will always remain a dog, and will never sprout wings or gills. All current mutations and adaptations observed fit into that category of evolution.

Macro evolution, on the other hand, says that adaptations and mutations exist, occur, and allow new species to form. This sort of evolution proposes that the DNA in individual animals and plants change from one creature to another -- from a dog to a bird, for example.

Macro evolution has never been observed in any way, shape, or form. However, when speaking of science in schools and teaching evolution, this is the type of evolution that is addressed. Darwin's theory of evolution is this type, and it is still taught in schools -- despite zero observation or true scientific evidence.

Posted by: Ogre at 09:01 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Not to mention all the hoaxes and lies in the theory that have been disproven. Good, simple explanation for such a complex subject.

Posted by: Jay at September 12, 2005 10:23 AM (2FcUc)

2 Thanks, Jay. I'm just trying to make a complex subject simple to understand to get people thinking.

Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 10:49 AM (/k+l4)

3 Learn before you speak: http://talkorigins.org

Posted by: coturnix at September 12, 2005 12:56 PM (I1kb9)

4 I have seen that site. Was there anything specific about it you wanted to point out?

Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 01:00 PM (/k+l4)

5 Of course, Gravity is only a "theory" and has never been observed either.

Posted by: Denny Hix at September 12, 2005 01:05 PM (LQJdM)

6 Drop your keyboard, Denny, and tell me what you observe.

Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 01:12 PM (/k+l4)

7 I think my favorite part of that site, coturnix, is where the author first claims that "Creationism fails to be a theory" because it's "not useful;" then declares that you can only refute the theory of evolution if "the evidence ... fits another theory better." So in other words, he's making the rules and you're not allowed to disagree with them, no matter what might be reality or observed -- or, two is not a number, and I've decided that 1+1=5. You cannot claim I'm wrong unless you can come up with a better number.

Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 01:26 PM (/k+l4)

8 Evolution is a theory and should be taught as a theory, not fact. However, I do believe that the theory of evolution is correct.

Posted by: Contagion at September 12, 2005 03:53 PM (Q5WxB)

9 And you have worded that correctly -- you can believe that theory if you like. Over the next few months, on a very irregular basis, I'll see if I can convince you otherwise.

Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 03:56 PM (/k+l4)

10 You can try, however most people that have only ended up making me do more research to strengthen my oppinion.

Posted by: Contagion at September 12, 2005 04:23 PM (Q5WxB)

11 That's always the sign of a good debate -- and just keep in mind macro- vs. micro-evolution.

Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 04:59 PM (iJFc9)

12 Who said anything about seperating the two, personally I think there is no difference. It's all part of the same process.

Posted by: Contagion at September 12, 2005 06:44 PM (e8b4J)

13 This sounds like it is going to be interesting. Can't wait to hear (see) more of your thoughts on this. BTW, I like the color separation of the comments.

Posted by: vw bug at September 12, 2005 07:06 PM (J3xJ9)

14 Well thanks! I experimented quite a bit before I settled on the alternating backgrounds.

Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 07:23 PM (iJFc9)

15 If that's the case, Contagion, then I can agree that evolution does happen, and it is completely observed and tested. Of course, that's on the micro-evolution scale, as defined above.

Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 07:24 PM (iJFc9)

16 Right on about micro- vs. macro-evolution. I think my favorite example of evolutionary reasoning is from my college geology class. We were taught that "trilobite" fossils found in the "Ludicrous" layer were "450,000" years old because that is how old that layer was dated at. The funny thing is we were also taught that said "Ludicrous" layer was "450,000" years old because--yup, you guessed it--there were "trilobites" found in it. (Note: It may not have been trilobites and Ludicrous and 450,000 years ago--I remembered the fallacy, not the specifics.) Needless to say, the "theory" of evolution is rife with shoddy science and half-baked ideas taught as absolute truth, not theory. To those who hold to evolution as dogma, I say: Fine, teach evolution if you must, but do teach it as theory, not fact, and present other theories from which people can draw their own conclusions. If you choose to deny the Bibical creation account, at least look into the intelligent design theory. There's a lot of very highly-respected scientists who, the more they learn about the universe and our own little planet, are finding themselves forced to admit intelligent design is a very real possibility. A great book on this is "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. As one songwriter put it, "It takes a lot of faith to say we're accidents of nature."

Posted by: nessili at September 12, 2005 11:05 PM (eItn5)

17 Thanks, Nessili! And even more interesting (at least to me) is the people who initially promoted that theory -- they had a specific agenda in mind and were predisposed to their own answer -- they refused to even consider any other possibility -- as many still do today.

Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 05:48 AM (iJFc9)

18 At the site I linked to above, go to FAQs. Choose the topics: "theory", "macroevolution" and others. You are using the term "theory" incorrectly, as in "hunch", or "hypothesis", which is a colloquial way of useing the word, while in science it has a very specitific definition, that of a very large and well supported body of knowledge. Evolutionary theory is actually BETTER supported by evidence than the theory of gravity. Difference between micro and macro evolution is quantitative, not qualitative, and a number of cases of what you call macroevolution have been observed both in the lab and in nature.

Posted by: coturnix at September 13, 2005 08:17 AM (I1kb9)

19 But that points to the site's claim I outlined above -- evolution is a theory that is supported by evidence, and no one can question that theory unless they have a better theory -- and then they claim intelligent design is not a theory. That's like me telling you that I'm right unless you can prove me wrong, only you're not allowed to prove me wrong because you're wrong. That site attempt to describe rules that define anything other than evolution as wrong, by definition. That's how people who support evolution normally support it -- everything else is automatically wrong and simply cannot be considered because evolution is right just because. That's a very weak argument. And I would seriously love to see any example of any species mutating into another species. I've never heard of anything like that. When has a horse mutated into a dolphin?

Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 10:52 AM (/k+l4)

20 Well, i've seen an OGRE transform real times in para universe comes a cat like lightening connecting sole. Questening misspelled... who is that ... a soft sound???/ no it's analogin ;>

Posted by: ml at September 14, 2005 12:58 AM (kwO4l)

21 A sphincter says what?

Posted by: Ogre at September 14, 2005 05:59 AM (iJFc9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Radical homosexual groups are damaging families under the guise of civil rights.

If you are in Canada, you agree with all the above. If you support the Canadian government, you support agreement with all those statements. As a matter of fact, the Canadian government is in the process of jailing and fining someone for saying a similar statement.

How can someone be punished -- personally fined and place in jail -- for speaking? Of course, that punishment, so far, only applies to Christians who speak. Anyone who says anything about Christians is protected -- by the government, the ACLU, and others. For example, the person suing in this case has called the defendant a bigot and hate-mongerer.

So if you're Christian, you cannot be offended and everyone has the right to say anything they like about you. But if you dare say anything that offends anyone, at least in Canada, you're going to jail.

I'm certainly glad, at least for the time being, that we have some freedom in the United States. You might believe that "it can't happen here," but we're not far from it. When people get "civil rights" and "protections" for behaviors, we're on our way.

When the time comes, I suppose I will just join Reverend Stephen Boissoin in jail for daring to speak.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't like government welfare. I don't like it when it takes from productive citizens and gives it to non-productive citizens, and I don't like it when it's being used for companies. There's no reason for government to have to GIVE money to anyone -- people or company.

For those who were educated in government-run schools, you may not understand how government operates. I'll help you: government has but ONE single way to get money. The ONLY way they can get money is to take it from working people. That's it. There is, quite literally, no other way. Every time government gives or spends money, they took it from someone who EARNED it.

This is the case in tiny Ramseur, NC. With a population of 1,588, it's a really small town. They are reliant on one company for employment, Ramtex. Recently one of the company's water tanks sprung a leak. Instead of the company fixing it, the TOWN paid for repairs.

That cost $31 per resident.

I'm not debating whether the residents should have paid. The problem is that the GOVERNMENT paid. That's just wrong. The way it was done DOES matter. If the people of the town wanted to collect money VOLUNTARILY, then that's fine. But when government does it, it's plain wrong.

Good intentions NEVER trump freedom.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:02 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 1 kb.

The Louisiana Libertarian has another post up about his experiences from inside the heart of the storm -- the politics after Katrina, not the hurricane itself.

His entire hometown was basically destroyed by the hurricane, although his own home was spared for the most part. They still do not have power. He points out what the governor and the mayor are doing now (hint: nothing useful). He also lists some of the horrible abuses already occurring, including those who have urged him to take aid, even though he doesn't need it.

Indeed, it's tempting (to take aid when you don't need it). In fact, I'm considering buying some beach front property anywhere in a hurricane-prone area. Why not? I'm going to get cash from the federal government if a hurricane strikes, so why not join the lottery?

Posted by: Ogre at 07:12 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Just letting you know that I'm back to blogging and also to reading. Thanks for being such a loyal reader back "then".

Posted by: Joanne the Happy Homeschooler at September 11, 2005 11:56 PM (6krEN)

2 Wonderful news, glad to see it! I'll have to come back and start reading your excellent posts again!

Posted by: Ogre at September 12, 2005 05:32 AM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here we are again on a wonderful Sunday afternoon. It's time for me to introduce a new neighbor. For those who aren't familiar with this feature, I'll describe it. It's a concept introduced to me by Joe Carter of The Evangelical Outpost. He put together a rather long blogroll of Evangelicals (it can be found in my list of blogrolls), and suggested somehow that we all get to know one another.

To do that, each Sunday I find one of the blogs on that blogroll and feature it here, introducing you, my good reader, to that blog. So, since it's Sunday, here is the blog I've selected from that list this week:

Rebecca Writes

Then I noticed where the writer is from: WhiteHorse, Yukon, Canada. I checked with mapquest -- it's 3,695 miles from me -- only 62 hours, 34 minutes by car. I don't think I'll make the weekend trip to see the nice country.

But that's not all she writes about. Rebecca Writes is written by, well, Rebecca -- who likes The Princess Bride!

She's also got a great series written about Hebrews 11. If you'd like to learn a bit more about the happenings in Biblical times and Hebrews, you should go and read it. It's well-written and easy to read, and very interesting, too.

The site appears to have been around since January, 2004, and appears to be updated daily or close to it. So, if you're out web surfing this Sunday afternoon, please be sure and head on over and visit a neighbor, Rebecca Writes.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.