Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for April, 2010

“Advocate.com, will use NBC resources to produce daily news segments that will run online and on air via “The Advocate On-Air. NBC News, in turn, may use content and writers from The Advocate to report on issues relating to the LGBT community.”—Media Bistro

“Your [homosexual “journalists”] victories are our victories.”—NBC Universal


 

NBC Becomes New Gay Advocate

By Colleen Raezler

If anyone at NBC News has a sense of irony, they hide it well. Ironic is about the best you can say about a supposedly reputable, unbiased news organization taking up with a magazine called The Advocate. But there was NBC last month, announcing with a straight face (pardon the pun) a new partnership with The Advocate, a gay-oriented magazine.

According to Media Bistro, “The magazine’s online home, Advocate.com, will use NBC resources to produce daily news segments that will run online and on air via “The Advocate On-Air. NBC News, in turn, may use content and writers from The Advocate to report on issues relating to the LGBT community.”

In a statement, NBC News Channel president Bob Horner expressed optimism about the partnership:

The NBC News Channel prides itself on supporting the client’s mission. We respect the commitment Here Media [parent company of The Advocate] has to its community and we look forward to assisting The Advocate in its coverage of the issues important to the LGBT community.

NBC News Channel is the network’s version of a wire service.

Accuracy in Media raised concern about the partnership and content NBC could receive from the magazine, asking if someone will “vet the segments for accuracy” and warned, “otherwise, it will turn into a soapbox for The Advocate’s editors to tout what they see are the benefits of the LGBT lifestyle and omit the risks thereof.”

AIM is right to be concerned. NBC already has a history of promoting gay rights on its news programs.

“Today,” the network’s morning show, couldn’t find space in its four-hour length to report the day after the 2009 election about Maine citizens voting to uphold the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. NBC correspondent Lee Cowan implied that proponents of same-sex marriage are the only ones “still willing to fight for the institution” of marriage in a June 2009 that questioned the relevance of marriage.

NBC has also been decidedly biased in its coverage “don’t ask, don’t tell.” An October 2009 “Today” report featured five sound bites from opponents of the policy and none from those in favor of it. NBC “Nightly News” followed the same script in July 2008, giving four sound bites to opponents of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and only one to proponents.

CMI reported in August 2008, NBC Universal expressed its support of the gay community at the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association convention in a full page ad that read, “Your victories are our victories.” NBC Universal was also a “diamond sponsor” of the association’s annual “Headlines and Headliners” fundraiser in March 2010.

Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute

Read Full Post »

It was a mere “misunderstanding” for an elementary school teacher to require boys to dress as women in a fashion show to honor Women’s History Month and a sheer coincidence that the school scheduled the show on same day when students are asked to participate in the national “Day of Silence” to draw attention to the name-calling, bullying, and harassment of homosexual, bisexual, and transvestite students in their schools

I.M Kane 


 

N.J. Elementary School Cancels ‘Cross-Dressing’ Fashion Show After Complaints

By Joshua Rhett Miller

A school superintendent in New Jersey says a “misunderstanding” led an elementary school teacher to mandate that all students — including young boys — dress as women in a now-canceled fashion show to honor Women’s History Month.

Some suggested styles for elementary school boys at a now canceled fashion show at New Jersey's Maude Wilkins Elementary.

Maple Shade Township School Superintendent Michael Livengood said the show, which had been scheduled for Friday at Maude Wilkins Elementary School, has been canceled.

“I wish the letter had been clearer and had been worded differently,” Livengood told FoxNews.com, referring to a letter sent home to the children’s parents last week informing them of the assignment. “But it was a misunderstanding. It was meant to demonstrate students’ awareness in women’s roles, and along with that, their changes in fashion over time.”

In a 16-page packet sent home with students, teacher Tonya Uibel alerted parents that all students in her third grade class would have to participate in the activity, since it would be graded as an “end of unit” assignment. The packet also included suggestions of how students may dress, including fashions from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s like bellbottoms, poodle skirts and cheerleader outfits. Photographs of fashion icons like Twiggy and Madonna are also included.

“If your child is a young man, he does not have to wear a dress or skirt, as there are many time periods where women wore jeans, pants and trousers. However, each child must be able to express what time period their outfit is from. Most of all, your child should have fun creating their outfit and learning about how women’s clothing has changed!”

Livengood said students will now be asked to a draw a picture of a person dressed in clothing from a specific time period as the lesson plan’s culminating project.

He said the school’s principal, Beth Narcia, had not received “one single” complaint pertaining to the event from parents. But one parent told FoxNews.com she contacted Uibel directly after her 9-year-old son came home “in tears” after getting the assignment.

“My son was very upset,” said Janine Giandomenico. “He said, ‘Mommy, please don’t make me do this.'”

Giandomenico said her son has Asperger’s syndrome, a social interaction disorder, and she feared he would expose himself to ridicule from other students if he participated in the show.

“My husband and I are very open-minded, but this is a decision for my son to make when he’s old enough to understand it,” Giandomenico said. “I thought it was wrong. I felt like I had to say something.”

She said she also found it “very odd” that the event was scheduled to coincide with an anti-bullying “Day of Silence” organized by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which is encouraging students nationwide to remain mute during classes on Friday to call attention to verbal and physical abuse of gay students.

Instead of dressing in historical garments, Giandomenico said she suggested to Uibel that students create skits to memorialize significant moments in history pertaining to women. She also questioned why the fashion show idea was approved at all.

“They chose this route,” she said. “And I’m positive that my little boy was not the only one who felt uncomfortable doing this. I’m just being honest. So I felt I had to open my mouth.”

In a letter dated Monday, Narcia informed parents that the show, which was to be videotaped, had been canceled. She apologized for “any confusion or frustration” the assignment may have caused.

“I wanted to clear up any misconceptions about the clothing show,” the principal wrote. “It was never our intention to have boys dress up as women. There are many different time periods that had women and men dressing in pants, suits, and even sweat suits. Students were just asked to dress as a time period, not as a woman. The children were then being asked to identify their time period of dress.”

Calls to the school seeking comment were referred to Livengood.

Stacy Bowen, a mother of two young children in Bucks County, Pa., said she contacted the school’s principal after seeing Giandomenico’s Facebook posts on the matter.

“I was just so outraged,” Bowen said. “I find it completely alarming that a school would do this.”

Bowen said she also found it “ironic” that the event was scheduled on the “Day of Silence.”

“It’s a step out of line,” she said. “You’re forcing boys to participate in this, yet you stand for anti-bullying. They may feel pressured to do it when they don’t want to.”

Bowen, whose children are ages 2 and 5, said she would take matters into her own hands if a similar event were held in her school district’s classrooms.

“I would’ve kept my child home,” she said. “It’s a step too far to portray boys in this manner.”

Read Full Post »

Brother O and the Bread and Circuses Administration are more dangerous to America than all of her enemies combined.


 

Pence:  Obama Sees His Job as ‘Managing American Decline,’ But the ‘Job of the Prez Is to Reverse It’

Read Full Post »

Experts warn there won’t be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

“It will probably take 10 years to even make a dent into the number of doctors that we need out there”—Atul Grover, the Association of American Medical Colleges’ chief advocacy officer.

What ObamaCare will mean for most Americans is fewer doctors and increased caseloads, longer lines and wait-times, and reductions in quality care and the surplus population.

ObamaCare is not meant to reform America’s health care industry; it’s meant to destroy it. And if it’s not struck down or repealed, it will.

I.M. Kane


 

Medical Schools Can’t Keep Up

By Suzanne Sataline and Shirley S. Wang

As Ranks of Insured Expand, Nation Faces Shortage of 150,000 Doctors in 15 Years

The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.

Experts warn there won’t be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000.

The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.

The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.

Proponents of the new health-care law say it does attempt to address the physician shortage. The law offers sweeteners to encourage more people to enter medical professions, and a 10% Medicare pay boost for primary-care doctors.

Meanwhile, a number of new medical schools have opened around the country recently. As of last October, four new medical schools enrolled a total of about 190 students, and 12 medical schools raised the enrollment of first-year students by a total of 150 slots, according to the AAMC. Some 18,000 students entered U.S. medical schools in the fall of 2009, the AAMC says.

But medical colleges and hospitals warn that these efforts will hit a big bottleneck: There is a shortage of medical resident positions. The residency is the minimum three-year period when medical-school graduates train in hospitals and clinics.

There are about 110,000 resident positions in the U.S., according to the AAMC. Teaching hospitals rely heavily on Medicare funding to pay for these slots. In 1997, Congress imposed a cap on funding for medical residencies, which hospitals say has increasingly hurt their ability to expand the number of positions.

Medicare pays $9.1 billion a year to teaching hospitals, which goes toward resident salaries and direct teaching costs, as well as the higher operating costs associated with teaching hospitals, which tend to see the sickest and most costly patients.

Doctors’ groups and medical schools had hoped that the new health-care law, passed in March, would increase the number of funded residency slots, but such a provision didn’t make it into the final bill.

“It will probably take 10 years to even make a dent into the number of doctors that we need out there,” said Atul Grover, the AAMC’s chief advocacy officer.

While doctors trained in other countries could theoretically help the primary-care shortage, they hit the same bottleneck with resident slots, because they must still complete a U.S. residency in order to get a license to practice medicine independently in the U.S. In the 2010 class of residents, some 13% of slots are filled by non-U.S. citizens who completed medical school outside the U.S.

One provision in the law attempts to address residencies. Since some residency slots go unfilled each year, the law will pool the funding for unused slots and redistribute it to other institutions, with the majority of these slots going to primary-care or general-surgery residencies. The slot redistribution, in effect, will create additional residencies, because previously unfilled positions will now be used, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Some efforts by educators are focused on boosting the number of primary-care doctors. The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences anticipates the state will need 350 more primary-care doctors in the next five years. So it raised its class size by 24 students last year, beyond the 150 previous annual admissions.

In addition, the university opened a satellite medical campus in Fayetteville to give six third-year students additional clinical-training opportunities, said Richard Wheeler, executive associate dean for academic affairs. The school asks students to commit to entering rural medicine, and the school has 73 people in the program.

“We’ve tried to make sure the attitude of students going into primary care has changed,” said Dr. Wheeler. “To make sure primary care is a respected specialty to go into.”

Montefiore Medical Center, the university hospital for Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, has 1,220 residency slots. Since the 1970s, Montefiore has encouraged residents to work a few days a week in community clinics in New York’s Bronx borough, where about 64 Montefiore residents a year care for pregnant women, deliver children and provide vaccines. There has been a slight increase in the number of residents who ask to join the program, said Peter Selwyn, chairman of Montefiore’s department of family and social medicine.

One is Justin Sanders, a 2007 graduate of the University of Vermont College of Medicine who is a second-year resident at Montefiore. In recent weeks, he has been caring for children he helped deliver. He said more doctors are needed in his area, but acknowledged that “primary-care residencies are not in the sexier end. A lot of these [specialty] fields are a lot sexier to students with high debt burdens.”

Write to Suzanne Sataline at suzanne.sataline@wsj.com and Shirley S. Wang at shirley.wang@wsj.com.

Read Full Post »

The following information appears on the “Crash the Tea Party” Web page under the About Us heading:

“We want to dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by infiltrating the Tea party itself! … Whenever possible, we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them. … Sounds like fun? It is!”

Just a bit of good-natured sport carried out by some crypto-Marxists perpetually trapped in the early stages of adolescence and getting their kicks by framing and smearing those with whom they disagree.

I.M. Kane


 

The Left-Wing Speech Police 

By Carol Platt Liebau

Unable to tolerate fellow Americans dissenting peacefully against their government’s policies, the Left has set up a web site — known as “Crash the Tea Party” — encouraging people to pose as Tea Partiers and then “behave in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities . . . to damage the public’s opinion of them.”

Obviously, this trick is right out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook

But it also means that ugly behavior by supposed tea partiers can’t be taken at face value.  And it poses a challenge to the integrity of the MSM: Will its members investigate those who engage in disgusting behavior — to discover whether they’re genuine Tea Partiers or actually leftists bent on destroying the reputations of those who disagree with them?

On the “Crash the Tea Party” site, there is a place for registration.  I encourage fair-minded Americans — including those in the press — to check it out, and find out exactly what these opponents of free speech have in mind.

More than anything, however, the very existence of the site is an implicit admission that Tea Partiers are not the hateful monsters depicted by their adversaries (and, too often, the press).  If they were, there would be no need for this kind of despicable cloak-and-dagger foolishness.

Update 4/12:  Thanks for the link from Lucianne.com — a site I love.  The suggestion posted there with this item is a good one: Take a camera to the rallies and photograph anyone behaving in a way that suggests they’re part of this “Crash the Tea Party” foolishness.  That way, there’s at least some hope that they can be subsequently identified.

Read Full Post »

(H-T Clayton)

Sorry……the USA can’t afford your ailments anymore….

So your “End of Life Guidance Counselor”

Has selected you to participate in an all-expense paid cruise!

We hope you enjoy your cruise!

The coroner’s report will list global warming as the cause of death.

Read Full Post »

“Top Republicans are increasingly worried that GOP candidates this fall might be burned by a fire that’s roaring through the conservative base: demand for the repeal of President Barack Obama’s new health care law.”—the Associated Press

“Congressman Mark Kirk — the Republican running to fill Barack Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois — bravely vowed to ‘lead the effort’ to repeal the bill. Now he glumly tells a local newspaper, ‘Well, we lost.’

Repealing a bill that became law last month is radical. Acquiescing to a decades-long flurry of legislation that effectively repeals the Constitution’s limits on federal power is conservative.

[T]his appears to be the working definition of conservatism embraced by most GOP politicians. Republicans campaign on canceling spending programs, shutting down government agencies, and overturning Roe v. Wade. But once safely in office, they tend to leave most liberal handiwork alone,

If Republicans cannot repeal an unpopular bill where many of the costs are front-loaded, many of the benefits are yet to come, and where the creation of another entitlement is as detrimental to their own partisan self-interest as it is to the nation’s finances, then conservatives cannot count on Republicans to undo very much of what they routinely denounce and campaign against.”— W. James Antle, III


 

Republicans Against Repeal

By W. James Antle, III

Well, that didn’t take long. After Democratic supermajorities rammed through their health care bill, Republicans were full of sound and fury about how this injustice will not stand. Even John McCain was on board, telling a television interviewer, “Outside the Beltway the American people are very angry and they don’t like it and we are going to try to repeal this.”

But in the GOP, cooler heads always prevail. What these Republican heads want to cool down is the campaign to repeal the health care takeover. Reports the Associated Press: “Top Republicans are increasingly worried that GOP candidates this fall might be burned by a fire that’s roaring through the conservative base: demand for the repeal of President Barack Obama’s new health care law.”

One of the Republican leadership’s volunteer firefighters is none other than Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who chairs the committee responsible for getting GOP candidates elected to the Senate this fall. Cornyn initially unfurled the “repeal and replace” banner, only to quickly make an exception for the “non-controversial stuff,” such as the ban on preexisting conditions which is unfortunately exactly what necessitates the “controversial stuff” like the individual mandate.

Cornyn was later seen pouring cold water on the idea entirely. Asked by the AP whether he was going to advise Republican senatorial nominees to run on repeal, he said, “Candidates are going to test the winds in their own states… In some places, the health care bill is more popular than others.” Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee doesn’t need a weatherman to tell him where the wind blows: “It’s just not going to happen.”

Republican candidates seeking to join Cornyn and Corker in the club have gotten the memo. Shortly before Obamacare passed, Congressman Mark Kirk — the Republican running to fill Barack Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois — bravely vowed to “lead the effort” to repeal the bill. Now he glumly tells a local newspaper, “Well, we lost.”

Not only is it the case that Republicans “do not have the votes,” but Kirk noted “a sliver of good things in the bill which Republicans agreed with.” Judging from the similarities between the new national health care regime and the Massachusetts bill Republican Sen. Scott Brown voted for and GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney signed into law, for some Republicans it is more than a sliver.

Republicans against repeal have found an amen corner in the cooler heads among conservative commentators. One Oliver Garland even counseled that repeal was fundamentally unconservative: “True conservatives are not radicals; they respect tradition and work for stable reform to fix institutions.”

There you have it: Repealing a bill that became law last month is radical. Acquiescing to a decades-long flurry of legislation that effectively repeals the Constitution’s limits on federal power is conservative. Ronald Reagan should have raised taxes to conserve the Great Society and shouted, “Mr. Gorbachev, remember and reform that wall!”

Then again, this appears to be the working definition of conservatism embraced by most GOP politicians. Republicans campaign on canceling spending programs, shutting down government agencies, and overturning Roe v. Wade. But once safely in office, they tend to leave most liberal handiwork alone, failing to repeal even Bill Clinton’s tax increases. Occasionally they add a few big-government flourishes of their own — a new entitlement to enlarge Medicare’s unfunded liabilities here, a record increase in federal education spending there.

When David Frum blogs about the Republican pedigree of some ideas in the Democratic health care bill and suggests Republican snouts should have found their way to the trough, there is outrage. When Republicans actually govern this way, too often there is silence — eerily like the hush that falls over antiwar protests after Democrats are elected on promises to end wars, even though the wars still continue.

If Republicans cannot repeal an unpopular bill where many of the costs are front-loaded, many of the benefits are yet to come, and where the creation of another entitlement is as detrimental to their own partisan self-interest as it is to the nation’s finances, then conservatives cannot count on Republicans to undo very much of what they routinely denounce and campaign against.

The Republican Party will simply be the saucer that cools the Tea Party. Cooler heads will have prevailed — and so will have liberalism.

W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator.

Read Full Post »

(H-T elvisnixon.com)

“What they [homosexuals] are seeking is not, or not primarily, the right to confer Social Security benefits on their partners upon their death or medical power of attorney. What homosexual activists seek is honor – a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

Marriage developed over centuries to meet several specific, fundamental needs: children’s need for a father, a couple’s need for a promise of fidelity (and consequences for breaking that promise), young people’s need for a transition to manhood or womanhood and men’s (and women’s, but mostly men’s) need for a fruitful rather than destructive channel for sexual desire – a way of uniting eros and responsibility. In other words, marriage developed to meet the needs of opposite sex couples.

Same-sex marriage … would say that the ideal marriage is gender neutral – not a way for boys to become men by marrying and pledging to care for women. It would say that the ideal marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned and chosen – children would become optional extras rather than the natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union. It would say that the ideal family need not include a father – a message that is especially pernicious in a country where one-third of births in 2000 were to unwed mothers. And it would say (because who can imagine that most homosexual couples would wed?) that marriage itself is optional, not the norm – that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I aren’t heroic, we must not be called to marry.”—Eve Tushnet


 

What Homosexuals Want

By Eve Tushnet

The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what marriage is. But perhaps it’s better to begin from a different angle: Why does society give marriage special honor? Because it’s this honor that activists are really seeking. If homosexual couples could cobble together all the bureaucratic oddities and benefits (and penalties) that attend marriage but the law still refused to call their unions “marriages,” no one can pretend the activists would be satisfied.

What they are seeking is not, or not primarily, the right to confer Social Security benefits on their partners upon their death or medical power of attorney. What homosexual activists seek is honor – a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. So we should start with the fact that our society exalts marriage over all other chosen relationships. Yet marriage is hardly the only important kind of relationship.

Many women will admit their best friends are closer to them than anyone else. (This fact has spawned a whole genre of “chick flicks,” from beaches to Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood.) Many men will acknowledge they are more open with their friends than with their wives and that they are fiercely loyal to their friends. We rely on friends in familial, romantic, financial and medical crises.

Then there are siblings; uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews; beloved teachers; professional mentors; godparents; and models of faith. Most of us are blessed with at least one of these people in our lives – the person who was there for us, who believed in us, who guided us. We incur great debts to these people, and we live in loyalty to them. But we are not married to them, and no one is arguing that we should be. So clearly there is something more about marriage that merits our attention.

Marriage does more for society than the other kinds of loving, dedicated relationships. These other relationships do less to nurture children by giving each child a mother and a father; to corral the often destructive forces of sexual desire into loving and productive channels; to bring people from youth to adulthood; and to align the interests of parents and children rather than forcing tragic choices between the two. Marriage gets honor from society because it does all these things more than any institution does or could.

Marriage developed over centuries to meet several specific, fundamental needs: children’s need for a father, a couple’s need for a promise of fidelity (and consequences for breaking that promise), young people’s need for a transition to manhood or womanhood and men’s (and women’s, but mostly men’s) need for a fruitful rather than destructive channel for sexual desire – a way of uniting eros and responsibility. In other words, marriage developed to meet the needs of opposite sex couples.

At this point, the most common question that arises is, “So what? Okay, maybe marriage didn’t develop in response to same-sex couples, but c’mon – how can Bob and Jim getting married really affect your marriage?” There are three basic reasons to think same-sex marriage will damage, perhaps fatally, the institution of marriage – maybe not in this generation, but in the one that grows up with same-sex marriage as the norm.

The first reason is simple: This is America. This nation is built on the idea that even minorities can shape the culture they enter. Racial and ethnic minorities have already done so; no honest author could write a history of American culture without noting how much of it began as black culture, Jewish culture, and Irish culture. And from TV shows like “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” to subtler infusions of “camp” humor, homosexual culture is already affecting the majority culture.

The second reason is that homosexual activists are merely picking up on a trend begun by and for opposite-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is just the next step in the divorce culture. The belief that marriage is merely the way that our culture expresses its approval of atomistic adults’ sexual and romantic partnerships isn’t new – it’s the same “me generation” worldview that produced “fatherless America.”

And finally, unlike easy divorce, same-sex marriage would change the fundamental ideal of marriage. Even the most ardent defenders of divorce today view it as a necessary evil, a response to the tragedy of marriage failure. Same-sex marriage by contrast, would say that the ideal marriage is gender neutral – not a way for boys to become men by marrying and pledging to care for women. It would say that the ideal marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned and chosen – children would become optional extras rather than the natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union. It would say that the ideal family need not include a father – a message that is especially pernicious in a country where one-third of births in 2000 were to unwed mothers. And it would say (because who can imagine that most homosexual couples would wed?) that marriage itself is optional, not the norm – that marriage is for heroes, and since you and I aren’t heroic, we must not be called to marry. Any one of these changes would be destructive. Put together, they are a recipe for disaster, a recipe for revisiting and surpassing the harm done to families by the “sexual revolution.”

Marriage has taken a beating. Americans cohabit, we divorce, we remarry, we split our resources between several sets of children. But we still have hope that we may recover the true meaning of marriage, because we still know the ideal: the lifelong, fruitful union that makes boys into husbands and fathers, and reconciles the “opposite sexes” to one another. Same-sex marriage would mean losing that ideal and losing our best hope for marriage renewal.

Copyright © 2003 Circle Media, Inc., National Catholic Register

For Further Study

Books – The Homosexual Person by Fr. John F. Harvey and In Defense of Marriage by Tim Staples and Matthew Arnold

CD – Confronting the Gay Agenda by Tim Staples, Deacon Dr. Bob McDonald and Fr. Frank Fusara, C.P.M

Web Sites – MarriageDebate.com and DawnStefanowicz.com

Read Full Post »

The 4:20 youtube clip below is an explication of the Pledge of Allegiance by Red Skelton from his 1969 television show.


Red & the Pledge

Read Full Post »

Investigation reveals that an “an informal atmosphere” and “a weak command” led to the “avoidable collision.”

Early Friday morning, March 20, 2009, the nuclear submarine USS Hartford collided with the U.S. amphibious ship New Orleans in the Strait of Hormuz. Fifteen sailors on the Hartford suffered minor injuries and returned to duty.  Although both ships sustained damage, the fuel tank on the New Orleans was ruptured causing an oil spill of 25,000 gallons of diesel marine fuel. After the incident both vessels were able to continue under their own power.

It’s been over a year, and now the details of the investigation into the incident are beginning to emerge.


 

iPranged a submarine

By Neil Millard

A US nuclear sub rammed another ship causing nearly £60MILLION damage – while its navigator was listening to his iPod.

Sailors aboard the USS Hartford had also rigged up loudspeakers so they could play MUSIC on duty, an official report found last night.

All at sea … USS New Orleans before being rammed by the subSonar operators and radio men were missing from their posts. Others drove the attack sub while “with one hand on the controls and their shoes off”, it said.

The report slammed the navigator, who was listening to his iPod in his cabin while revising for an exam at the time.

The captain, Commander Ryan Brookhart, was relieved of his duties after the Navy found that more than 30 errors, – including “an informal atmosphere” and “a weak command” – led to the “avoidable accident”.

Fifteen sailors on the Hartford were injured when it hit the transport ship USS New Orleans in the Persian Gulf in March 2009.

Navy chiefs approved a whopping £57million repair bill for the Hartford and another £1.5million for the New Orleans.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »