They say August is slow for news…

You wouldn’t know it if you look around the internet – I see interesting stories and provocative articles that SHOULD be interesting news stories all over the place…and now you will too!

But before we begin, I should probably clue you in on a little secret.
Ready? Move closer….psssst…it’s really the year of our Lord, 1968! Truly! Girdles are back, too!

First up – those provocative articles that should be news stories? Well, here’s two of them, one is the continuing work of the blogs in delving into and forwarding the facts as concerns Air America and their misuse of public funds and apparent inability to make their payroll, or pay the funds back. Believe me, this SHOULD be a major news story, but – ahem – it doesn’t hurt conservatives, so it’s not flying…yet. The suggestion is that the press, which greeted AAR’s start up with hosanna’s and seriously complimentary coverage, will wait for Air America to fold before reporting a word about its troubles, just as they waited for Eason Jordan to resign from CNN before quickly disposing of any and all stories about him.

The second story found on the internet and not quite being covered as news is Drudge’s evidence that the woman accusing President Bush of killing her son spoke very differently about the CIC just a year ago. But reporting that fact might screw up a sweet narrative, so aside from within the blogosphere, I doubt we’ll see much writing on it.

Speaking of our troops, Hoo-rah - they have uncovered a virtual car bomb factory in Iraq, which is excellent news. Car bombs and mines are the things taking the lives of both innocent Iraqis and coalition troops. I don’t think you’ll see much on the news about the find, though. You didn’t, after all see much about this either.

In other news, some people are wondering why the White House is so reluctant to take a victory lap for the Goldilocks Economy, not too cold, not too hot…just right. It’s a good question. With a press that cannot bring itself to praise the economy (oops, president has the wrong letter after his name, talk it down, talk it DOWN), it seems to me almost hapless, the way the Bushies are allowing others to define them. Whatever – a president certainly doesn’t need an Anchoress to tell him what’s what.

Speaking of money (in a way) it seems that some folks have put their hands into the “post 9/11 funding” till more than they should have.

Despite its public statements, the office of acting Democratic Gov. Richard Codey played a key role in doling out millions of dollars in state homeland security grants this yearto legislative districts controlled by his party, a review of government documents shows.

It’s a long story, worth reading, if only to make up for all the time we had to listen to Democrats complain about how President Bush was “exploiting” 9/11. Or maybe, to them, it’s okay to exploit 9/11 for money...just as long as you don’t exploit it for feeeeeelings! In which case, I once again don’t know what to think about the people surrounding Mrs. Sheehan.

On to church matters! David Warren has written a very good piece on those women who disagree with every bit of dogma and doctrine, and who see no need to attend a seminary or conform to chaste ideals, but who still insist that they be ordained as priests – Roman Catholic ones, say they. Well, they ain’t, and this bit of theatre is getting old, too.

On the other side of pond, gay clerics in the Church of England
are laughing at the bishops who have said they can be married, but only if they remain celibate. If you ask me, these bishops deserve all the scorn these gay clerics are heaping upon them. You can’t say, “alright, you can be married, but only a little bit married, and not realllly.” The bishops of the CofE needed to take a stand (for once) and actually do the daring thing and say “ummm…NO” ‘way back when they were being pressed to ordain “practicing homosexuals.” At least that answer would have had some clarity, even if it made them terribly unpopular. This weird, “well, it’s okay to be actively gay, but not too active” is just a moral mishmosh that will – I have no doubt – end in schism.

Speaking of creative religioning, ever hear of the Theology of Global Warming? James Schlesinger writes about it in today’s Wall Street Journal (subscription only):

It was Michael Crichton who pointed out in his Commonwealth Club lecture some years ago that environmentalism had become the religion of Western elites. Indeed it has. Most notably, the burning of fossil fuels (a concomitant of economic growth and rising living standards) is the secular counterpart of man’s Original Sin. If only we would repent and sin no more, mankind’s actions could end the threat of further global warming. By implication, the cost, which is never fully examined, is bearable. So far the evidence is not convincing. It is notable that 13 of the 15 older members of the European Union have failed to achieve their quotas under the Kyoto accord — despite the relatively slow growth of the European economies…

But our friend Kobayashi Maru helpfully excerpts from it, reminds us that Schlesinger is not a right-winger and provides links and commentary – it is a subject that he’s spent a lot of time pondering.

The only thing he didn’t do was link you
to this excellent piece in TCS, that talks about how President Bush has moved beyond Kyoto without the help and guidance of the UN. Ah, but it seems, I’ve linked you to it, so that’s okay, then! :-)

Speaking of science, our friend Matteo is linking to an excellent piece on Intelligent Design!

Speaking of science
, Betsy Newmark brings up this quickly disappearing story about how there have been some promising breakthroughs in stem cell research using placentas.

Up for reading about a little racism? Sigmund, Carl and Alfred have a post that will raise yer hackles a bit. Excerpting and commenting on this piece SCA points out this quote from “troubled Muslim youths” in England:

Imam Sajid feels differently. “Tony Blair’s task force — police, intelligence officers, government officials – are all white people,” he pointed out. “The government cannot impose its views on the religious community. The community will not accept its logic.”

To which he responds: In other words, asking- no, demanding- law and order in unacceptable. Demanding cilvilized behavior is unacceptable. Muslims are to be given a pass. The Community will not accept the demand that law and order prevail because they come from ‘white people.’ Talk about racism!

It’s a good post – you’ll want to read it all. Then you can read about racism and ridiculous rhetoric here.

If you’re in the mood for testosterone-y reasoning
delivered with the prosaic finesse of a louisville slugger, well…here’s Gerald! :-)

Oh, and I found a cool place to send nun e-cards!

That’ll do, for now! Some slow news month.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Diana B

    COOOOOOL! Thanks for doing all that work to bring us those links…the problem I have now is deciding: do I stay up till the wee hours reading, or take the day off work tomorrow? ;) The first option is satisfies the “are we there yet” side of me, yet the second has great appeal! Decisions, decisions!

  • Diana B

    COOOOOOL! Thanks for doing all that work to bring us those links…the problem I have now is deciding: do I stay up till the wee hours reading, or take the day off work tomorrow? ;) The first option is satisfies the “are we there yet” side of me, yet the second has great appeal! Decisions, decisions!

  • Bender B. Rodriguez

    On the other side of pond, gay clerics in the Church of England are laughing at the bishops who have said they can be married, but only if they remain celibate.
    —Grrrrr. It is 100 percent impossible to be married and celibate!!! The definition of celibate is “unmarried,” NOT sexually abstinant. Its understandable, since everyone makes the mistake, but its frustrating. It should read that “they can be married, but only if they remain CHASTE.”

  • Bender B. Rodriguez

    On the other side of pond, gay clerics in the Church of England are laughing at the bishops who have said they can be married, but only if they remain celibate.
    —Grrrrr. It is 100 percent impossible to be married and celibate!!! The definition of celibate is “unmarried,” NOT sexually abstinant. Its understandable, since everyone makes the mistake, but its frustrating. It should read that “they can be married, but only if they remain CHASTE.”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X