Thanks to Perri Nelson for turning me on to this excellent resource.

The Patriot Post is a wonderful place to spend some time.  Among other pages, there is a library of historical documents, and a daily founders quote.

Much better use of your time than keeping up with Britney’s latest descent into the white trash whirlpool…

From the Daily Mail (UK):

At the age of 27 this young woman (Toni Vernelli) at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.

“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

I agree completely that people of Ms. Vernelli’s political/social proclivities should voluntarily be sterilzed.  In fact, I hoper that it becomes vogue, and a full fad/trend for such folks.

Is there any way that we could convince Lawyers to go the same route?

Shelled out my $20 (the signifigant other thought it looked interesting as well) last night for The Mist.

I will admit up front that I had read the Novella, and was more curious as to how the story translated to the big screen.  I had read reviews that it was well done, and even the orioginal author, Stephen King, had spoken very highly of it (rare for an author to approve of an adaptation).

Overall, the movie follows the book fairly well.  I was a tad disappointed that the first portion of the novella, which really set the mood, was truncated to about 5 minutes.

The central part of the story (which is really about how thin (and fragile) the veneer of civilization really is) is well done, and pretty creepy.

The special effects beasties are OK by todays CGI standards, but not revolutionary.

I was, I admit, shocked by the ending.  It is far different from the Novella, and casts an entirely different complection on the morality tale.  Sorry, no spoiler here. 

All in all, I recommend it as worth seeing, though I think I would wait until is hits DVD or Satellite/Cable. 

COMING SOON:  Beowulf 3D!

The Washington Times reports on a new revelation that, indeed, the Democrat Party is the party of the RICH.

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

This should come as no surprise to anyone who lives in the Seattle or Portland areas. Indeed, we are reminded of it every election cycle.

My personal theory is that these people (the Money behind the Democrat Party, if not the foot-soliders), are, to a minor extent, Old Money (not so much on the Left Coast as on the East) who have little or no concept of the value of Work and sacrifice.  But far more so New Money, that DO understand the value of work and personal sacrifice - but little else.  Unfortunately, most have been raised and indoctrinated through the schools, and worse, Higher Education, to be souless, amoral, and with only progressive oriented ethics.  Since they are spending a great deal of their time amassing, and maintaining, wealth and possessions (se McMansion), the guilt-load becomes almost unbearable, and they must enlist others to “do good for them” (see Affluenza).

In steps the Democrat Party, and their affiliated hangers on and fellow travellers, willing to take their money to support the Party’s goal of taking more of everyones money, to DO GOOD.

The most egregious case is Warren Buffett, constantly complaining that his Taxes aren’t high enough.  Strange, since I am unaware of ANY law preventing him from paying MORE than the required amount of taxes - or from donating his entire wealth to the government - or better, directly to charity.  What he really means is, everyone should pay more taxes, because the Government is a better arbiter of where your money gets spent than you are.

In an opinion piece in the UW Daily, Chris Heide presents the argument that Pharmacists should have no choice in dispensing birth control drugs:

In July 2007, several Washington pharmacists “filed a federal lawsuit over a regulation requiring them to sell emergency contraception, saying it violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between ‘their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs,’” according to the AP.

A pharmacist’s responsibility to his or her customer must trump his or her personal values.

…

Few people would appreciate a dose of morally superior advice from a pharmacist when they go to pick up a prescription. A person’s autonomy over his or her own body is sacrosanct. It must be protected from interference by both church and state.

I agree with Heide that I would not welcome commentary from my druggist concerning my prescription. But that is not the issue here. I am unaware of any case where a pharmacist has proselytized or evangelized to anyone concerning contraceptive prescriptions. What is at issue is whether a pharmacist must prescribe any drug for any reason, regardless of their personal convictions.

In addition, the author returns to the basic illogic of the pro-choice activist, by extending the right to be “sacrosanct” in ones own body, to the body and life of another person, just because the other person in question resides within, and is dependent upon, the person making the choice.

In essence, by a requiring a pharmacists to dispense RU-486, the so-called “Morning After” pill; which blocks a hormone, to essentially chemically terminate an early pregnancy; you are requiring that pharmacist to aid, abet, and participate in what they may consider murder of another human being.

I wonder if Chris Heide would extend this logic to all Gynecologists, requiring them to perform abortions on demand? The same flawed logic follows…

If a drug is approved by the FDA and prescribed by a doctor, then a person has a legal right to obtain and consume that drug. A pharmacists refusal to fill a prescription could put the lives of his or her customers at risk.

No Argument from me. If Doctor prescribes a drug, a person should be able to get that drug. But in this capitalist market economy we live in, there are more drug stores and pharmacies available today than there are places indoors to smoke a cigar, while you have a cocktail.  In my area alone, on a three mile stretch of (highway 161) there are three Walgreens, two Rite-Aids, A Safeway, an Albertsons/Sav-On, a Fred Meyer, and two Wal-Marts (I am sure I am missing some more here, but you get the point) where a person can get a prescription filled. By what stretch of logic must EVERY pharmacist, working EVERY drug outlet be forced to act against their conscience?

And of course, we have my all time favorite straw man argument, thrown in to confuse matters, and justify the coercion of a pharmacist to act against their faith:

Sexual promiscuity is a problem with teenagers in the United States. However, restricting access to birth control options such as emergency contraception does not prevent teenagers from having sexual intercourse. It simply makes them less prepared and definitely less safe while having sex.

Of course, when you turn this argument around (Gun use is a problem with criminals and nutbars in the United States. However, restricting access to Guns does not prevent criminals and nutbars from using Guns. It simply means that they can be sure their victims cannot shoot back.) the very same people look at you like you are from Mars.

A person certainly is entitled to his or her moral beliefs and should be applauded for defending them. However, if pharmacists feel that their moral objections would prevent them from performing all aspects of the job, then they should simply quit.

Referring back to my previous response, why not let the market decide? The various Pharmacy owners should be allowed to decide, as a matter of policy, whether or not their employees must dispense any and all drugs prescribed, regardless of their personal convictions? At that point, the pharmacist in question is free to find another job, at a pharmacy that supports their freedom to fully follow the articles of their faith.

But of course, for those that haven’t actually read the opinion piece in question, Chris Heide’s root problem here is not as much freedom of prescription access, as it is an apparent fear that a person would allow their religion to influence their public life, with a dose of fear of America becoming a Christian Theocracy thrown in for flavor.

While addressing an international conference of Catholic pharmacists Monday, Pope Benedict XVI urged Catholic pharmacists to refused dispensing medications that have “immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia,” according to the Associated Press.

He argued that pharmacists have a duty to protect the lives of humans from conception until natural death. This includes all drugs that would inhibit normal human life.

…

The pope’s suggestions would incite something of an illegal coup in this country. Religious freedom is a fundamental aspect of the first amendment. To refuse to fill a prescription for deep religious values would be to impose those values on other citizens.

This is different than pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for their personal beliefs, because normal citizens have no other alternatives to obtain their meds. This would violate the first amendment and would therefore be unconstitutional.

Let’s hope that the pope’s suggestion never becomes a legal reality in our country.

And of course, we need to add a dash of Bush Derangement Syndrome:

Reuters also reported that last August President George W. Bush said he supported restricting access to emergency contraception for minors.

Because any University student in America today KNOWS that President Bush is trying to establish a Christian Theocracy in America today.  And (see straw man statement above) minors are going to have sex anyway, so not supplying them with the morning after pill is JUST CRUEL.  God Forbid (sorry for the religious figure of speech) that their Parents actually teach them some morals and discipline.  Oh right, that’s not allowed today…