So, apparently Mel Gibson got drunk, went out for a drive, and when he got pulled over and arrested, he repeatedly made anti Semitic remarks. The first thing I thought of when I read the story was how this damages Mr. Gibson’s credibility in light of his direction of “The Passion of the Christ.” He spent huge amounts of money to make a movie that presented in graphic detail the basis of the faith he claims, and it won acclaim from Christianity in general because of its attention to detail and accuracy.

In addition, Mr. Gibson presented a very Catholic view of Christ’s Passion and Death, to viewers who were not necessarily Catholic. It was a very good primer about the Stations of the Cross for those who aren’t familiar with them. Not only that, Mr. Gibson is widely known as being a particularly conservative Catholic. So, what does something like this do? If we’re not careful, it brands conservative Catholics as a bunch of anti-Semitic nut-jobs who preach one thing and do another.

Two saving graces in the story: 1. Anyone who knows anything about Christianity knows that man is in a fallen state, and that applies to Mel Gibson too; 2. Gibson’s apology was a real, remorseful apology, not a standard Hollywood/D.C. non-apology apology (like Jihad Cindy’s “I wish it had never happened” apology.)

Here’s the article; be aware, language in it is NSFW and pretty bad anyway. Last paragraph is the apology.

The Senate voted tonight to make it a crime to take a pregnant girl across state lines to obtain an abortion without her parents’ knowledge, handing a long-sought victory to the Bush administration and abortion opponents.

The bill would help about three dozen states enforce laws that require minors to notify or obtain the consent of their parents before having an abortion. It would bar people — including clergy and grandparents — from helping a girl travel to another state to avoid parental-involvement laws. Violations could result in a year in prison.

Now this is an interesting one. If a girl “finds herself pregnant,” and she’s in a state that requires parental notification, no one can help her get across state lines into a state without such a requirement. She can go to another state by herself, and that’s okay, no penalty according to the article.

Note the list of people who are barred from helping a girl get across the state lines – grandparents and clergy. Two things: 1. why do they even put clergy in there? How many members of clergy in any denomination would put themselves in a situation of transporting an underage girl across state lines to get an abortion? 2. Read the whole article, and you’ll find no mention of the sperm donor being barred from taking her across state lines. Nothing new here…the thought that a father even exists never enters into the minds of the pro-abortion crowd.

Unless you’ve been under a rock since midday, you know that President Bush used veto power for the first time today, to kill a bill that would have expanded federal funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR). Over the next few days listen to the media, who are by and large supporters of ESCR to say Bush “banned” ESCR. No, he simply said we’re not going to spend taxpayer dollars on it. Guess what – the majority of the important scientific advances made in our society have been conceived of (no pun intended) and funded by PRIVATE INDUSTRY! Why does the government have to give funding to ESCR? Why not let pharmaceutical companies do it?

I have heard a couple of people posit that the reason the government needs to fund it is that private industry doesn’t want to spend the $$, because they don’t know what kind of payoff there will be. They do know that they can accomplish great things using stem cells collected from umbilical cord blood and from adults, and they’re agressively doing just that. The great thing is, there aren’t nearly as many morally objectionable things about cord blood stem cell research and adult stem cell research.

Let me say – according to the Church, those who destory those embryos, and those congressmen who voted to federally fund the destruction of embryos are anathema. This may just be an opportunity for some of these folks to re-evaluate where they really stand on life issues.

A cloned human would probably consider themselves to be an individual, a study suggests.

Scientists drew their conclusions after interviewing identical twins about their experiences of sharing exactly the same genes with somebody else.

How could a logical, thinking person draw such a conclusion about two individuals who are artificially identical based on the experiences of two individuals who are naturally identical?

But go a little deeper. Is the problem (or potential problem) with cloning of humans that the clones will be vapid people devoid of personality? Or is the problem something to do with the moral evil of messing with the creative process involving God and a husband and wife? I’ve not heard anyone object to cloning on the grounds that the clones won’t feel good, won’t feel like individuals.

Incidentally, check out a Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode called “Parts: The Clonus Horror.” It’s about a corporation that clones people and stores their clones on a clone farm, where they attend classes on how to train to take a trip to America, and they regularly work out to get ready for their trip to America. Of course, the trip to America is simply the code for “your body parts are now needed.” Well, one of the clones escapes, finds his original, confronts him, and the whole thing ends with everybody important to the story either being lobotomized (those who ask too many questions) or killed except Peter Graves, who manages to maintain his youthful looks (!) and get elected president. No, not a happy ending, but it gives you pause when you think about where we are today, potentially on the edge of being able to do this.

“The Zionists think that they are victims of Hitler, but they act like Hitler and behave worse than Genghis Khan,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Here’s what’s funny. Some time ago:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday the Holocaust is a “myth” that Europeans have used to create a Jewish state in the heart of the Islamic world.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1134309577132&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

So, to review, the Holocaust is a myth. Therefore, Hitler was a guy who ran Germany but didn’t really do anything negative to anyone. So, if Israel’s acting like Hitler, they’re essentially sitting around not doing anything.

Makes about as much sense as voting for the 87 billion dollars before voting against it.

Benjamin Netanyahu was on Hannity Friday afternoon. He said, “Look, Israel did what the international community said. We pulled out of Lebanon to the last inch, we pulled out of Gaza to the last inch. The international community told us if we did these things there would be peace.” Well, there was peace for a little while. Clearly, in this situation, Hamas and Hezbollah were unprovoked – they kidnapped Israeli soldiers to make trouble, and trouble they got.

Why must the Vatican sit back and tell Israel to take it on the chin? We should be standing strong beside our elder brothers, encouraging them to defend themselves.

First things first, this is a Reuters story, and their bias is well-known and made very clear in their wording in the story. An excerpt:

MITCHELL, South Dakota (Reuters) – Supporters of a South Dakota abortion ban, passed as a challenge to an established U.S. right to abortion, launched their campaign on Wednesday to uphold the state law in a November referendum.

The ballot issue is expected to make South Dakota a key battleground in a national election-year debate over abortion. Democrats are seeking to recapture the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives from President George W. Bush’s Republican party, where abortion opponents are bedrock supporters.

A few things are worth noting. One, Reuters has decided that this vote on whether the voters of South Dakota agree with a law passed by their general assembly is somehow connected to the overarching balance of power in national politics. Very interesting that states politics can effect national politics, especially since these wire services normally only care about national politics and don’t give a flip about what’s happening except on the coasts.

Here’s the other thing – I don’t think the legislature would have made the law if it hadn’t thought the public supported it (after all, a bunch of legislators could lose their jobs if the public didn’t support the law.) So, while this wire service is foaming at the mouth with excitement over how this vote will be a key referendum on the whole Republican party, I certainly hope that they’ll be sadly disappointed. And, why in the world is SD the first state to think about trying their own referendum? The states ran the white flag up the pole when the Supreme Court egregiously overstepped their authority and made judgements based on bad legal arguments. My hope is that more states will try this. Make it a states’ rights issue, which it deserves to be. Yeah, some states will vote for death, but let them – and give me a chance to shape the culture in my own state, Georgia, where, most likely, such a law would stand the vote of the public.

From CNS:
By calling on predominantly Muslim nations to exercise “reciprocity” by recognizing the rights of Christians, Pope Benedict XVI has been portrayed as taking a tough stance on Islam.

The article goes on to explain how various spokepersons outside the Vatican essentially clarify this to mean that this is not a threat or an ultimatum, but rather simply a statement that religious freedom is a human right for all.

Noting how Benedict has taken some tough stances lately, on the topic of Legionaries’ founder Father Maciel Degoladdo, or on the topic of “apparitions” at Mejugorje, could it be he’s also taking a tough stance with his comments directed at countries run by radical Islam? We can only hope.

Okay, so I stole this from others in the blogosphere…but take a look. Vernon Robinson is running for Congress in NC. Take a look at his blunt, honest, hard-hitting campaign ad.