Bush adminstration prepared for pandemics, Tevi Troy, Wall Street Journal:
Swine flu has presented the Obama administration with its first major public-health crisis. Fortunately for the Obama team, the Bush administration developed new tools that will prove critical in meeting this challenge.
Under President Bush, the federal government worked with manufacturers to accelerate vaccine development, stockpiled crucial antivirals like Tamiflu, war-gamed pandemic scenarios with senior officials, and increased the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) sample identification capabilities. These activities are bearing fruit today
Criminal Stupidty, so says Fran Townsend of the one, via Kathryn Jean Lopze, Natiional Review:
“I would call this felony stupidity. This is probably not the right job for Mr. Caldera to be in if he didn’t understand the likely reaction of the New Yorkers and the mayor. And while the White House have said they are furious, I think they have to look at whether or not this is the right job for Mr. Caldera.”
“I think this office is too important to have somebody who doesn’t have the judgment to understand the impact of this. This was not necessary.”
Ten minutes and fifteen dollars. Mark Hemingway, National Review:
Regarding my observation that the use of Photoshop could have prevented yesterday’s Air Force One photo-op debacle, a few NRO readers have taken that suggestion and run with it.
This reader writes, “I am a graphic designer in Southern California. I spent ten minutes throwing this together this morning, which at my rates equals about 15 dollars. However, I will settle for the thanks of a grateful nation.”:
Maybe Eric can Photosop one of Nightlly Ramble One:?
Does sodomy make you stupid ?, Mail(UK)
A senior teacher has been suspended from his £50,000-a-year job after he complained that a training day for staff was used to promote gay rights.
Kwabena Peat, 54, was one of several Christian staff who walked out of the compulsory session at a North London school after an invited speaker questioned why people thought heterosexuality was natural.The presentation was given by Sue Sanders, a co-founder of the Schools Out organisation which campaigns for gay equality in education
Note that natural is not some synomym for good. Rather, natural meerly refers to existing in nature. If hetersexuality wsa not natural, Sanders would not be around to ask her stupid question.
Common sense in the face of stupity, Donald Douglas, American Power:
Same-sex couples cannot claim to be biologically equal to heterosexual couples. What they seek is to change society’s discourse and overturn the historical and regenerative conception of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Same sex couples need to talk to God if they seek equality.
Tags: Ace, aig, Al, Ali, America, amp, Ann, Ben, bigot, BitsBlog, bloc, blog, Breakfast Scramble, Campaign, campaigns, change, Che, Christian, common sense, David, Day, Don, Ed, Education, equality, Eric, G, God, Hang, Hat, hetersexual, Ho, I, ig, job, LONDON, mail, marriage, New, news, note, POW, Q, question, Rain, Ramble, Sam, schools, sex, target, ted, ting, train, TRO, U, UK, UN, W, woman
April 29th, 2009 at 14:10
“Biological equality” is a straw man. Same sex couples are not
claiming men and women are biologically equal. They are claiming that
men and women are (or should be) equal under the law.
The ability to procreate is lovely, but it is not the be all and end
all of the legal marriage contract. It never has been. The idea that
the state has an interest in restricting the legal benefits of marriage
to those who have parts that fit together biologically is crazy. (If it
was about procreation, the state would deny marriage to those who are
too old, sick, or philospohically opposed to having children.) People
marry for all sorts of reasons, many of which are applicable to same
sex couples, as well.
Relying on historical concepts as a reason to avoid moving forward
doesn’t hold much water, either. The idea that, “We must continue to do
it this way, because we’ve always done it this way before.” is a denial
of every step forward man has ever taken. To be sure, not all change is
good; but it is equally true that not all change is bad, either. The
fact that same sex marriage has never been permitted before is not a
reason to deny permitting it now, any more than the fact that it is
permitted in some places already is a reason to automatically permit it
everywhere. Many laws have changed, in spite of their being laws for a
very long time. People change and grow. Situations change. Knowledge
changes. History doesn’t have all the answers.
Besides, no one’s wiping out traditional marriage. Those who want their
marriage to be between one man and one woman will still be able to do
so, whether or not they wish to procreate. The only difference will be,
they will have less legal say in the “marriages” of those who don’t
love as they do.
(My anti-spam word was “Ikea.” Is that irony, or what?)
April 29th, 2009 at 14:39
Advocates of same-sex marriage are not asking for equal treatment based on sex. Rather they asking for treatment based on their choice of sexual partner[s]. I am not willing to go there. Are you? Is anybody?