DMoriarty's Blog

I’m tired of pro-choice folks being re-named as pro-abortion.  This is simply not true.  Allow me for a minute, for the sake of argument, to redefine pro-choice.  Let’ s say that the choice in “pro-choice” is actually the choice of religion.  I think we can all agree that the freedom to worship as we please is a  good thing.  So, to simplify things a bit more for the sake of this argument, let’s say there are two choices in religion; Christianity and Islam.  Like in the abortion issue, there is either to abort the fetus or to have the child, then the choices are Christianity or Islam.  If you are then for the freedom of choice in religion, then according to the same logic that says that pro-choice are pro-abortion, then you, who supports the freedom to choose your religion, is therefore Pro-Islam.  Not exactly true, is it?  So, can’t we just say that there are many who are pro-choice ( legal but rare: the actual majority of pro-choicers) are not actually pro-abortion? 

John McCain and Barack Obama both appeared before the nation's newspaper editors yesterday. The putative Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. The likely Democratic nominee was likened to a terrorist.

At a luncheon for the editors hosted by the Associated Press, AP Chairman Dean Singleton quizzed Obama about whether he would send more troops to Afghanistan, where "Obama bin Laden is still at large?"

"I think that was Osama bin Laden," the candidate answered.

"If I did that, I'm so sorry!" Singleton said.

"This," Obama told the editors, is "part of the exercise that I've been going through over the last 15 months."

McCain's moderators, the AP's Ron Fournier and Liz Sidoti, greeted McCain with a box of Dunkin' Donuts. "We spend quite a bit of time with you on the back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we've decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride," Sidoti explained. "We even brought you your favorite treat."

McCain opened the offering. "Oh, yes, with sprinkles!" he said.

So how's that for the liberal media???

I know this is hardly new news, but strides are being made.  I for one, as a parent, would love the security of knowing where my children were, if God forbid, they ever were abducted:

NEW YORK —  From little ones prone to running off in crowds to big kids hitting the road for the first time, a bunch of new devices claim to help parents keep an "eye" on their children — even when they're not around.

The most controversial of these gadgets is an under-the-skin personal location device from Applied Digital Solutions. Using Global Positioning Satellite technology, a microchip surgically implanted in the body finds children and notifies parents of their whereabouts.

ADS says the device, which is the size of a wristwatch-face and may become even smaller, could be used to find kidnapped children, locate young kids who wander away from parents and track teens who participate in at-risk behavior.

"With an implanted device, the child doesn't have to remember to wear it. It can't be lost or stolen or stripped away. And it's totally concealed," company spokesman Matthew Cossolotto said.

A prototype will be available later this year. In the meantime, ADS already manufactures two similar products: VeriChip and Digital Angel.

Cossolotto says VeriChip ($200 plus $9.95 a month), an under-the-skin, tamper-proof method of identifying one person against another, could help prevent kidnappings like the one of Utah teen Elizabeth Smart.

There is a great movement I have been reading about recently.  It is called "Daughters of Abraham" and it is a group of Christian, Jewish and Muslim women who meet on a regular basis to discuss the similarities and differences in their faiths.  I believe it was started in the Northeast following 9/11.  There are chapters popping up everywhere, though, including here in North Texas.   Here is an excerpt from their website detaling the "rules":

Principles for Interreligious Dialogue

1. Enter into dialogue so that you can learn and grow; not to change the other.

2. Everyone must be honest and sincere, even if that means revealing discomforts with your own tradition or that of the other. Everyone must assume that everyone else is being equally honest and sincere.

3. Everyone must be permitted to define their own religious experience and identity, and this must be respected by others.

4. Don't feel that you are the spokesperson for your entire faith tradition or that you ought somehow to know everything there is to know about it. Admit any confusion or uncertainty you might have if a puzzling question arises.

5. Don't assume in advance where points of agreement or disagreement will exist. 6. Everyone should be willing to be self-critical.

7. All should strive to experience the other's faith "from within" and be prepared to view themselves differently as a result of an "outside" perspective.

8. Trust is a must.

Isn't this great?

Maybe, just maybe, this can be the small pebble that leads to a snowball of tolerance and coexisting on this rock that God gave us all. 

Is anyone else surprised at how easily and quickly otherwise intelligent folks fall hook, line and sinker for the election year smear e-mails.  No one is a bigger recipient this year than Barack Obama:

"He's a Muslim. He was sworn into office on the Koran. He doesn't say the Pledge of Allegiance. He's a tool of Louis Farrakhan. He's anti-Israel. His advisers are anti-Israel. He's friends with terrorists. The terrorists want him to win. He's the Antichrist. "

All of these things couldn't be further from the truth.  But, at least two family members have sent me these e-mails, particularly the pledge of allegiance one, puporting them to be true.  

After I carefully argued the points against these ridiculous claims, I still feel that the anonymous e-mail has won the credibility battle!

What gives?  Has it come to this, that we believe it "just cuz it's on the internet?" And well, my brother in law sent it to me, so it must be true....  I for one, hope not.