http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXvHRnGe940

If you know, let me know - send me an e-mail. Ok? Thanks
Wish you all the best. Ørjan - norwegian dude.

That said, assuming I get somewhat motivated my office wall will soon hopefully look similar to Leopard’s Arabesque screensaver.

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3178&print=1

There are many ways to debate our proper role with welfare, the Iraq war, energy policy. That debate will consist of shadings of wisdom and poor argumentation, shadings of moral and immoral solutions. But the debate over the unborn is either kill a child or defend its life. There is no shading there.

With the number of abortions in America EACH day eerily close to equalling the number killed on 9-11 (3500-4000) as well as the number of American deaths in the Iraq war it would seem that those defending abortion have a VERY significant moral problem.

For a more erudite defense of the above I’ll leave you to Father Thomas D. Williams who has written an interesting book Knowing Right from Wrong: A Christian Guide to Conscience.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Mjc0OTgxYmZlN2UzZGQxYWE1N2JkMWNmYzQyNmVhMmU=

(For some insight as to why we rubes like Palin: http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=M2Y2NTNjMWIwYjI5MTUxNjliMTIwNDdmYzJiODk3Zjk=)

2. There is a great difference between producing a video such as the one mentioned above and on the other hand, an individual who whether agreeing or disagreeing with a candidates policies would comment, as Senator Biden did about Governor Palin, that she is attractive. Only the former would be properly classified as being pornographic.

Both are “inappropriately sexualized?” Please! Let’s not yield to a spirit of inordinate political correctness.

About the article itself: The article seems to make some basic factual and argumentative errors. For instance, it decries Andrew Sullivan as a liberal. In fact, he is a self-proclaimed conservative and widely thought to be so. (However, his support for Obama in this campaign muddles the issue somewhat.) The article also says that the lurid portrayals of Palin are coming from the political left, but I see no evidence that people on the left are more likely to treat her in an inappropriately sexualized manner than people on the right. Do you have some reason for thinking this is the case? Additionally, the article’s attempt to draw out the contrasts between a non-existent pornographic treatment of Obama and a pornographic treatment of Palin seems to ignore a fundamental and important distinction about the way that men and women are differently portrayed in sexualized or pornographic manners. I also see no reason to think that “on the Left, anything goes–the more slimy and disgusting, the better.” What is the connection between liberal politics and being “slimy”? Am I supposed to conclude that because Andrew Sullivan linked to a dirty video (I haven’t seen it, but I’ll assume), that liberal politics is somehow morally bankrupt? That’s an incredible reach. There must be more to the argument, but I don’t see it.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021890.php

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OTUyNWJjODc2OTViNWJlODBhMzk3YzkxYmM0ZDRjNTk=

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ODE2MDAxZjBiYTI1OWI4YzNlM2RmYWU4MzU2MTM3Zjc=

And to quote: “There is one thing, however, that is certain: Barack Obama’s partnership with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn calls into question not only his political judgment, but his ethical reasoning. Their sustained relationship raises the question of his soundness to serve in high office. The mounting evidence indicates that Barack Obama is morally unqualified to be the president of the United States of America.”

— Joseph Morrison Skelly, a college history professor in New York City,

Many decry the stances of his opponent from Kyoto to welfare reform to the war in Iraq, but reasonable Christians and reasonable people can disagree and debate all those topics. As stewards of God’s creation, we want a clean environment. As followers of Christ we want to help those who cannot help themselves. As followers of the Prince of Peace, we want and must pursue resilient peace. Yet there is room for discussion on how to achieve those goals in a lasting way that does not cause more harm in the process to the poor and helpless or to those who aren’t, who despite their poverty OR wealth and power are created in the image of God as well (I know that makes many choke, but it’s the truth. Remember Zachaeus?).

But to defend the killing of the unborn for any and every reason, to say that a mother has a right to terminate the life of her child for the sake of financial or personal convenience, to say that in a botched abortion, the care givers should be forbidden to even minister to a child that is struggling to live, is not Biblically debatable. Obama said that if his daughter became pregnant, he would not want her punished with the burden of a child. His solution: kill the child; kill his grandchild. What does that tell you about this man? And saying that such a response is no more objectionable than another’s stance on global warming or an economic bail-out or energy independence is breathtakingly wrong. Reasonable people can disagree and debate the later topics. Keep the child, raise the child, love the child or kill it? Where is the room for debate? What topic is more fundamental than the right to life? Yet he would deny that right.

Obama voted “present” over 130 times in his tenure in the Illinois State Senate, but he made sure he showed up to vote to deny medical help to that child and any other like it. He wanted his voting record on abortion to be above reproach. He didn’t want his hard left credentials to be threatened. He would need them to defeat Hillary.

He is smooth. He speaks the language of bringing people together, but as a community organizer he taught people how to harass others, engage in class warfare and divide a community. He is an oratorical genius. He looks good, but in his heart he is a hard left opportunist who will use the his ties to the Chicago political machine to achieve his ends. He used (as long as it worked) his link to the twisted, radical, Afro-centric (as opposed to Christ-centric) theology of Jeremiah Wright (and then swiftly repudiated his virtual ‘father’ Wright when it threatened his purposes). He used his ties to Bill Ayers to launch his political career. Ayers is a man who at last report had a picture on the door of his university office of a man who was convicted of putting a bullet in the head of a Philadelphia policeman as he lay helpless and dying in the street. The picture was not in a collection of America’s Ten Most Wanted, but rather an example of some of Ayers’ (other) political heroes. He will use Acorn and massive voter fraud. He will use thuggery and his ability to fool most of the people most of the time (and he has it) to win power. When he has it, God help us all. Well need it.