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,