An Unhealthy Interest in Controversies

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. This is one of my favorite sayings. I used it every time CNN reports an accurate, non-biased story, or when Obama announces a policy that will not run our economy into the ground, aid anti-American terrorists, or further the secular-progessive agenda.

That being said, militant atheists who demand the freedom to insult religion next to nativity displays are not completely wrong about faith being used a basis for hypocrisy, intolerance, and vindictiveness--all being displayed gracelessly by the Grace Community Church in Jacksonville, Florida.

Scripture can be interpreted to support myriad viewpoints and behaviors. Unequivocally, Rebecca Hancock sinned by having a sexual relationship with a man to whom she was not married, and her church mentor (whatever that means) acted correctly in attempting to dissuade Ms. Hancock from her sinful behavior, understandable as it was. However, Rev. Christmas (seriously) is wrong in believing that Matthew 18:17 orders or even justifies Ms. Hancock's public humiliation.

Early Christian churches were generally small and often persecuted. Thus, it was paramount for church leaders to keep disputes between members to a minimum, as any rift could cause the small congregation to disperse and the church to collapse. It was for this reason that Jesus said

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Matthew 18:15-17

The elders of Grace Community Church conveniently ignore the fifth and sixth words of the passage--against you. If these false teachers and perverters of God's word considered Ms. Hancock's real sin her sexual immorality rather than her refusal to obey them, they would have no standing to act against her.

For after David committed adultery with Bathsheba and was punished with the death of their child, he wrote

Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak
and justified when you judge. Psalm 51:4

As Ms. Hancock's sin was against God and not the church directly, only He is justified in judging or speaking against her. That is, if the elders of her former congregation do not break the First Commandment and consider themselves gods before God.

The behavior of the leadership of Grace Community Church is disgusting and despicable--reminiscent of revenge rather than spiritual guidance or discipline. Their attempts at intimidation parallel the actions of gay rights activists in California who have threatened to publicly identify--and presumably harass--citizens who donated as little as $100 to opponents of Proposition 8. Both groups seem to view dissent as a personal affront and unforgivable sin.

Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18 were intended to preserve unity in the early church. However, it would be truly frightening if a supposedly-Christian congregation could be united in supporting the public reading of the sins of a woman who no longer attends their church, but has children among its members. Decency alone demands that the congregation refuse to participate in such a medieval and vindictive punishment, and scripture does as well.

Even non-Christians should be familiar with Jesus' response to the crowd preparing to stone the adulterous woman.

If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. John 8:7b

Following this, of course, the crowd had no choice but to disperse, as none then or now can truthfully claim to be without sin, Grace Community Church elders included. I wonder how many of them would be willing to submit to the same "stone" they threaten to hurl at Ms. Hancock?

These people are disgusting, and are rightly being exposed as the false teachers they are.

If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. Timothy 6:3-5

Good thing I wear gloves!

Text from company-wide e-mail I received yesterday:

The training system will have intermitten outages resulting from...

The War at Home: Your Money for Terrorism

It's worse than you think.

Your bailout money isn't being used only to help brain-dead executives play golf and get lap dances (what do you think they were doing in Vegas?). The government that is supposed to represent you and work for you is spending your money on businesses that promote Sharia law, the Quran-based demand for the destruction of non-Islamic nations such as the US. In addition to providing the motivation and justification of the 9/11 attacks, Sharia law also proscribes the stonings and beheadings for which the Islamic "justice" system is so well known.

According to this Newsmax article, as a result of October's bank bailout (also known as "corporate welfare," or "taxpayer shakedown), the US government now owns American International Group, Inc., or AIG.

AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with the 1200 year old body of Islamic cannon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West, including the United States.

This may just be another case of political-correctness run amok. Obviously we live in an extremely tolerant nation, if our government could knowingly subsidize the operation of a business which openly endorses the destruction and subjugation of not only the government, but of the entire nation as well. God bless America.

Or is it God save America? There is, of course, no such thing as government money. Every penny of AIG's bailout windfall was provided by you and me, and by citizens like Kevin J. Murray, who is being represented by Center for Security Policy attorney David Yerushalmi and the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Michigan, in a lawsuit against Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. and the Federal Reserve Board. According to the lawsuit, the use of taxpayer money to perpetuate an America-hating firm such as AIG is not only despicable and nonsensical, but also unconstitutional.

An Iraq War veteran, Mr. Murray stepped up to preserve and defend the United States Constitution at his government's behest. Now that government is taking his money--and that of every other veteran and tax-paying American--to operate a company that employs a Sharia Advisory Board comprised of Saudi and Pakistani members, to ensure that it's products and business practices sufficiently further the jihad against the free West.

Read the complete article for more information on Sharia's compulsory religious "donation," and the Treasury Department's additional complicity with radical-left indoctrination institutions (also known as universities) to force you to fund the jihad.

Dog Owners Will Miss the Detroit Free Press

The real victims of this decline in newspaper readership are American youths. The rude awakening about there being no easy way to make a buck will no longer be a preteen rite of passage.

Only a clueless, out-of-touch clod would be surprised by this situation, so doubtlessly the newspaper industry is completely confounded. Naturally, those whose profession is observing, listening, and getting at what's under the surface are still bewildered that Americans would rather not pay for a medium that degrades this great nation, advances a radical agenda, and gets funny-smelling ink all over your hands.

Then again, there's nothing better-suited (in more ways than one) for training puppies.

It's About Time.

It's not news at all that a college would punish a student for being conservative, although I appreciate the school's honesty about its progressive agenda. They should all be so transparent.

And it's yet another example of the extreme ignorance and narrowness of perspective of the denizens of academia that Prof. Strom-Gottfried finds social work to be "at odds" with conservative beliefs and values. As every college graduate knows, conservatism is a cold, heartless ideology, forcing people to work for material gain, teenagers to suppress their hormonal desires, and selfish women to face the consequences of their reckless promiscuity. How could a proponent of such punishment, such--responsibility--possibly want to help people?

The irony of the Professor's position and that of the faculty at the Rhode Island College of Social Work is that their progressive welfare free-for-alls actually hurt society, though they will never for a second believe it. Of course a group of people who spend the past forty years (at least) loitering in lecture halls and will probably continue to do so long after they keel over think education is the answer to everything. Make people work for benefits--no way! School-yes! "We can make them just like us!"

Jesus Christ was one of the earliest social workers, and his message was very simple: trust God, and help yourself. It's debatable which part the progressive movement finds more threatening. If the public trusts God, they will rely on Him and His church in times of need, and not on the kinds of government programs which employ a lot of post-doctorate education addicts. And if people think they can help themselves, well--there will be a lot less societal whining, a lot less blaming of the haves by the have-nots. The perpetuation of liberalism relies heavily on the doctrine that you'll never get ahead, so don't bother.

College professors are, of course, the nation's biggest believers in the efficacy of socialism, even though their belief has no basis outside wishful thinking. Their plan to give people something for nothing has a twofold benefit. First, making people dependent on the government, as they will be when they are offered no incentive nor opportunity to help themselves, will naturally require an increase in government. A federal government bloated like a whale carcass in July is a socialist's dream. Secondly, as the poor will be lifetime slaves of government handouts, there will need to be an endless supply of funds--which will come from those commit the ghastly social crime of achieving financial success. Voila--wealth distribution and a government nanny for every citizen!

Is that your face, or...

What is up with this guy's beard?

It's as if he wanted to be reminded of what his ass looks like every time he sees his face.

The Sports Fan Double-Standard

I know I would be jealous. I'm extremely bitter that I don't possess such immodesty and lack of taste. Damn her.

Giants Stadium security had it right; we need to keep our sports arenas family friendly places where children can feel safe among the garishly-painted hairy potbellies of drunk middle-aged men belching and hollering off-color taunts.

Newsweek Train Wreck Redux

The cover article in the latest outbreak of Newsweek is like a train wreck, or a reality show starring Paris Hilton. It's so appallingly awful you can't look directly at it, but so incredible in it grotesqueness that you can't look away. Would such a famous name in journalism has-beens even have published such glaringly abominable blather if their shame reservoir was not already scraping bottom, and deservedly so? Lisa Miller's deplorable excuse for an article (on the front-page, no less) could feed the average blog for weeks. However, this one is unusually voracious, so we could dissect each flaw in a matter of days.

Still, refuting the article is like cleaning a master bathroom so filthy that life forms are evolving. Where does one start such a monumental, dirty job? The shower-curtain scum? The grout mildew? The slimy, hairy, greasy clogs? If we could just get past the sewer of inaccuracies in the first paragraph.

I guess the last sentence of Ms. Miller's first paragraph isn't quite an inaccuracy, but it shouldn't be read as a question, either. She writes,

Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Obviously this is meant to be rhetorical, the implication being that only a hopelessly pessimistic and old-fashioned couple in a loveless union comprised of strict, unbending gender roles (she washes the dishes while he has a beer) would interpret or even read the Bible in anything but the most loose, abstract, non-binding terms.

This attitude is symptomatic of the elitism and narrowness of experience of the liberal hacks on which the popular media rely. Who in this day and age, snort writers like Ms. Miller, could possibly look to the Bible for advice on life and love? Don't we have Sex and the City for that reason?

I hope those writers aren't reading this blog, because they will probably spray macrobiotic organically-grown chai tea all over their ergonomic recycled-hemp keyboards at this next sentence. The Bible is an always has been the most knowledgeable source for direction on how God intends for us to live our lives. I certainly hope that Ms. Miller isn't married, as she seems completely oblivious to the fact that marriage is life; thus, as the Bible is the utmost authority on living, it is the utmost authority on marriage as well. And in some parts of the country, though obviously not in the parallel dimension where Newsweek is published, people--even "modern, sensible" ones--take the Bible seriously, whereas Ms. Miller appears never to have even read it.

For she writes,

First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

This is false. 1 Corinthians 7:2 states, "each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." Paul does not go on to permit a man to have a husband, or a woman to have a wife, or men or women to share wives or husbands. Marriage according to the New Testament is between one man and one woman, and this could not be any plainer. However, as Ms. Miller proves, "there are none so blind as those who will not see."

We are almost done dismembering the first page of Newsweek's latest heresy, and it has taken only about seven pages of blogging. Ms. Miller goes on to prattle a bit about the difference between civil and religious marriage, neglecting to mention that the former, or every benefit of the former, is an option for gay couples in nearly every state. "Biblical literalists will disagree," she says,

but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

Ms. Miller obviously thinks of "Biblical literalists" as knuckle-dragging Appalachian cabin-dwellers carding wool by candlelight while planning to give their preteen daughters in marriage to polygamous snake-oil salesmen in exchange for a rooster, six hens, and a 12-gauge shotgun. While different churches may understand scripture differently, it is the responsibility of all Christians to interpret the Bible as the literal word of God. Perhaps in a later entry, we will define Christianity and further explain how identification with the religion requires the literal interpretation of Scripture.

But the point is Ms. Miller is wrong, as is anyone else who believes that the Bible condones homosexual relationships, let alone supports gay marriage. Scripture itself may not speak strongly enough against gay marriage, but living biblically does. Men and woman are not the same. God created us this way because we have different roles in the church, and different roles in a virtuous, godly marriage. In such a union, a man and a woman complement each other in such a way that two people of the same sex never could.

GOP to Blame? I hope so!

The United Auto Workers union claims Republicans are responsible for the failure of the latest bailout bill. I certainly hope so! At least one party needs to continue to stand up to power-hungry money-grubbing union bosses, and we know it won't be the party of the SEIU and NEA's bedfellow and president-elect.

Ironically, labor union heads have become the kind of corrupt, strong-armed, authoritarian monsters that their organizations were meant to fight. Huge, obscenely powerful unions have the ability to cripple their industries at will.

The original function of unions was to prevent rich executives from mistreating and exploiting workers. However, we now have laws against the kinds of abuses unions formed to combat. In addition, in this free market economy (for now, anyway), employers understand that unhappy employees have the liberty to leave and go work for someone else. Worker satisfaction is in the best interest of a successful business.

Incredibly, since the extinction of the big, bad businessman, unions have become the aggressor--the cheater has become the cheated. The modern union objective and practice is the protection of bad employees at the expense of good ones. While a captive of the UFCW, I paid exorbitant amounts to this group and never saw a penny back. No doubt, my hard-earned wages were being used for in the defense of some sap caught sleeping on the job or committing lewd acts with rotisserie chicken.

Unfortunately, the victims of these outrageously misplaced priorities are often not just good workers, but also consumers and ordinary members of the public. Nowhere is this a bigger problem than in public schools, in which administrators cannot fire incompetent or even criminal teachers without dancing through an endless gauntlet of union-erected hoops. With the NEA, it's "innocent until we damn well say so and God help you if you even hint otherwise." No organization has subverted nor perverted its mission as well as the American labor union.

It's Broken, So Let's Abuse It Even More?

Just when I thought it would be a slow news day, Newsweek, that once-respectable (weren't they all) source of balanced reporting and insightful commentary turned laughable left-wing cesspool, comes through handsomely. In terms of sheer inaccuracy and transparent bias, they have outdone even themselves.

The very subtitle of Lisa Miller's horribly-written, atrociously-researched attempt to plead that Scripture supports gay marriage shows how little she knows about the Bible and how much less she and her pathetic periodical are interested in presenting an accurate picture of Christ's teachings on love, as opposed to their desire to be a sloppy, dribbling mouthpiece for the homosexual agenda.

I'm not anti-gay; I'm pro-truth. And the truth is not what Ms. Miller babbles, which is that "Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side." The Bible does teach a lot about love. But it also covers morals and societal responsibilities, which gay marriage proponents obviously eschew and which also provide compelling arguments for the traditional definition of marriage.

The basis of the article--a house built on sand if their ever was one--is that the Bible actually provides a bad model of marriage, starting with Abraham fathering Ishmael with Hagar because he and Sarah were unable to conceive. Ms. Miller evidently wants her ignorant readers (probably the only kind Newsweek has) to believe that the patriarch snuck off with the servant because his wife was unable to validate his manhood by giving him a child. Readers of this blog, however, will not need to be reminded that Abraham slept with Hagar at Sarah's nagging. As desperate as she was to conceive, Sarah realized how much their childlessness also grieved her husband. Putting Abraham's happiness above her own, she insisted that he father a child with her servant. To Christians, this is an excellent model of marriage: a couple supporting and cleaving to each other despite their hardships, a valuing the health of their union over their individual pride and wants. Even after Ishmael was born, causing Hagar's view of her own status in the household to become inflated, Abraham was a devoted husband to Sarah, and Isaac's birth proved that God was ultimately pleased with both husband and wife.

Of course, the kind of secular-progressive radical feminists who read Newsweek and write its drivel are revolted by the idea of a woman making any sort of concession for a man. This kind of never-back-down, never-give-up attitude surely contributes more to the sorry state of marriage today than any Biblical passage.

Ms. Miller is correct that many prominent Old Testament figures were polygamists. This contrasts with the language of modern Defense of Marriage legislature, which defines marriage as the union of "one man and one woman." However, while it most certainly condemns homosexual relations, the Bible does not condemn plural marriage. The only restriction placed on marriage between men and woman comes from Titus 1:6, which states that a church elder must be "the husband of but one wife." Rather than an endorsement of monogamy, this stipulation was meant to ensure that an elder devoted enough time to his responsibilities to the church. As any husband knows, a wife demands a lot of time and money, and a man with more than one wife is in danger of not having enough resources left for his spiritual responsibilities.

It is also true that Paul wrote in one of his many letters that it is "better to marry than to burn." While readers of Scripture may interpret this as an insult to marriage, it is hardly an endorsement of gay marriage. Paul's devotion to the church superseded all earthly relationships, and he wished that all Christians were so committed. Understanding that he could not force others to live his way and that man was meant to multiply, Paul preaches virtuous marriage between a man and woman as an alternative to being married to the church. He was hardly "lukewarm" toward the institution of marriage, as Ms. Miller's article claims, and vehemently opposed to any homosexual relationship.

This entry has covered only the first paragraph of Newsweek's disgustingly inaccurate, insulting, and ineffective attempt to portray Scripture as endorsing gay marriage. As Jesus himself never married (no matter what Dan Brown says), and in light of Paul's personal preference and the popularity of polygamy in the Old Testament, Ms. Miller may argue with a modicum of coherence that biblical support for marriage between one man and one woman is shaky at best. However, in seeing this as support for gay marriage, she is falling victim to a non-sequitur that is nearly as common to gay marriage advocacy as is intolerance of religion.

Heterosexual marriage is in a sad state in this country. However, giving legal credence to the farce of gay marriage will only expedite the decay of this treasured and holy institution. Perhaps this is what gay-rights activists want. This is all the more reason to save traditional marriage now by returning to it Biblical values such as faith and selflessness. Lack of support for heterosexual marriage in Scripture (even if this were the case) is far from an endorsement of gay marriage, just as deficiencies in marriage today by no means excuse the further subversion of the institution.

A Tale Told By an Idiot

Like everything else that comes out of San Francisco, a lot of sound and fury--but signifying nothing.

The Best Americans are Made, Not Born

I like to believe (so I do) that this is a Christian nation, as Christianity is still the religion with which the most Americans identify. However, the concept of forgiveness is central to Jesus' teachings, and most of the time we react to hardship by blaming and suing rather than forgiving and sympathizing.

No man in America today has more reason to recriminate than Dong Yun Yoon, who lost his entire family when a Marine Corps F-18 crashed into his San Diego home. In his first public statements, Mr. Yoon has reaffirmed his faith in God, humbly reached out to the community for support, and expressed concern for the emotional well-being of the doomed fighter jet's pilot, who safely ejected and was rescued.

If it is possible for this story to have an additional element of sadness, the increase, small though it is, is due to the fact that Mr. Yoon, who emigrated from Korea in 1989, is a far better American than almost everyone who had the good fortune to have been born in this country. While dredlocked Ivy League graduates reeking of patchouli vilify the only nation in which the recipient of a post-doctorate in the Comparative History of Post-Modern Neo-Deconstructionist Lyric Poetry does not automatically starve to death (at least not involuntarily, as an alarming number become vegans), an immigrant who has lost everything retains his love of God and his respect for the military--those most responsible for his loss, understanding better than many natural-born citizens the value of the armed services and the respect they deserve.

God willing, none of us will ever have to suffer as Mr. Yoon has and will continue to suffer. But if it is His will, I pray that we will all bear it with as much grace, humility, and forgiveness as Mr. Yoon has shown.

Hill of Hope: The Blog That Doesn't Care Whether You Read It

I guess we really can't blame homosexuals for believing they're super-special and expecting oohs and ahs simply for existing. As America is the most self-centered nation on earth, these attention-mongering prima donnas are simply a product of their environment.

I don't have a mySpace page, and I resisted joining Facebook until my interest in staying in contact with old friends superseded my contempt for the crass exhibitionism that has come to envelop our culture. If you read this blog regularly, first of all you need professional help, but second, you might suspect that I'm not a very social person. So I have very little interest in the social networking promised by these websites. More than that, though, my philosophy tends to be, I'm not interested in you--so why would you be interested in me?

Dennis Miller said that he likes climate-change alarmist czar Al Gore until he (Gore) starts thinking he's significant. The Internet is crawling with people who harbor the delusion that they are significant. I have a friend who told me that a friend of his from college now blogs for CNN. My response was, "Wow! 'I blog for CNN! There's only like one million of us!'" Honestly if I ever ask you what you do for a living and you proudly reply that you blog, I will laugh derisively.

Seeing that I feel this way, you may wonder why I have a blog. Sometimes I wonder myself. The best explanation I have is that occasionally I have something to say, and I may want someone to read it, someday.

Someday I may also want to look back and say at least one of two things:
a) Wow, I was extremely witty and perceptive back then
b) Wow, I was a really stupid b****

Or you can save me time and say these things now.

Racial Ignorance in the South (Who Would Have Guessed?)

I went to one of those "divide and conquer" diversity events and got a book called Breaking the Bamboo Ceiling: Career Strategies for Asians. When I started reading it I was reminded of something that happened to me when I was in the Army--actually my last day in the Army.

I was raking leaves and a black female NCO came over and started asking us about our Christmas plans. You know the type if you've ever been in the military--maybe you are the type--the female warfighter convinced that all of her male colleagues secretly harbor contempt for her gender, and that any friendly or respectful actions on their part are driven only by their hope of obtaining sexual favors. When in reality they actually hate her because of the huge chip on her shoulder and would seek carnal pleasure from sheep first, or if sheep are not available, camels.

Anyway, she asked me where I was from, and I said, "Seattle, Sergeant," and she said, "No, I mean your ethnicity," as if she had just asked me for the time and I'd responded by drooling on her boots. So I said, "Chinese," and she said, "Ah, China. Are you going back there?"

Inasmuch as I've never been to China, I could no more go "back" there than I could go back to Mars.

I wonder how she would have reacted if I'd asked her if she was going back to Africa?

Day Without Gays? Sounds good to me!

I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it ironic to have a bunch of people call work and say, "Can't come in today--I'm gay," as if homosexuality is an illness like the flu or dysentery, contrary to the gay-rights camp's most common argument. (The second most common argument is, "You're wearing those shoes?!)

Wouldn't it be hilarious if a Day Without Gays occurred and nobody noticed? Such an event would cripple cities like San Francisco and Seattle--the entire coffee industry would have to shut down. However, I can't see gays being missed in a locale where people actually work for a living--that is, where the most common occupation isn't student, professor, poet, incense peddler, pet yoga instructor, or blogger.

Also I don't know about you, but nothing makes me want to marginalize a segment of society more than that group constantly demanding that I acknowledge how (the following two words should be read in a high-pitched lisp) super-special they are and I should fall at their immaculately-manicured, Prada-clad feet and thank them for gracing such a nasty and badly color-coordinated planet with their presence. These people don't want acceptance--they want accolades. Being okay with gays isn't enough anymore. Now you have to be enraptured.

This is not solely an anti-gay blog, but our society has become such that coverage of gay publicity stunts is becoming hard to avoid, in much the same way the number-one pin finds a bowling ball hard to avoid.

Censorship in Seattle

The previous post was, of course, in response to this article in the Seattle Times. This situation has the potential to have wide-ranging impact on free speech and civilized discourse on all college campuses, and I hope to see the national media pick it up as they did this story.

The protest organized by UW freshman Kyle Rapinan--Kyle, way to assimilate quickly--is barely worth noting. A newsworthy day on the UW campus would be one in which no one is protesting. The disturbing aspect of the fallout of The Daily's attempt to resurrect journalism in this country and actually present both sides of an issue (an adherence to professional responsibility not displayed by the New York Times since the Reagan administration) is the desire of the UW Graduate and Professional Student Senate (GPSS) to exact retribution through censorship and the gutting of the Daily's editorial staff.

The text of the GPSS' resolution rebuking the Daily can be found here. The Seattle Times reported that the Senate is demanding an apology for John Fay's Nov. 25 article, which is correct. However, the times did not mention that, failing to receive an apology, the GPSS "requests" the resignation of editor-in-chief Sarah Jeglum and opinions editor Natalie Sikavi.

To recap, the UW GPSS wishes to extort contrition from the Daily for printing an article written by a person not on the Daily staff supporting California's gay marriage ban, which included an illustration by someone not the author of the article, showing a cartoon man having his hand nuzzled by a cartoon sheep. The controversial article ran in tandem with an editorial lamenting the passage of Proposition 8, which was accompanied by a cartoon of two same-sex people holding hands.

Again, education and intelligence seem to be mutually exclusive, if not polar opposities. Wondering what course of study could possibly befit a person who could spend 5+ years in "higher learning" and yet claim to be so hurt by viewpoints disagreeing with his own that he could advocate for ouster--a public spanking, really--of its purveyors.

First I was surprised that GPSS President Jake Faleschini, who was first to call for action against "such a bigoted and hateful editorial," and Vice President Dave Iseminger are both law students. Mr. Faleschini is his third year of study toward a degree in international criminal law and his second year toward a Master's in International Studies. Mr. Iseminger (apparently bulky, unpronounceable names a prerequisite for graduate student leadership at UW) is in his fourth year working on a law degree and Master's in public health genetics. Source: GPSS Officer Biographies. What kind of lawyer would a person make who exploits the public's ignorance of the law, launches vendettas against those who offend him, uses his position to advance a personal agenda, and exhibits contempt for the professional ethics and responsibilities of others? Answer: an exemplary one.

Mr. Faleschini and Mr. Iseminger are in a better position than most UW students to understand the legal definition of hate speech, which is speech "intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action" against a targeted group. Did John Fay's article intend to incite violence or prejudicial action? Even if it had, there are laws against violence and policies at UW against prejudice. Did it intimidate supporters of gay marriage? Recent events prove otherwise. Was it intended to degrade opponents of Prop. 8? Reasonable people may argue this. However, Friday's protesters and the sponsors of the GPSS resolution show no evidence they understand that speech which causes you to hate the speaker is not itself hate speech.

Thus the GPSS appears to be engaged in some kind of vendetta against the Daily. Nor are they alone, as responses to editor-in-chief Sarah Jeglum's end-of-quarter letter to readers have called her a "picture of Aryan perfection" (when reason fails, call your opponent a Nazi) and taken exception, often with correct punctuation, to Ms. Jeglum's belief that a student newspaper should be the voice of campus.

As a conservative Christian and 2007 graduate of UW, I have never harbored the illusion that the Daily spoke for me. For all of my college years, it was a bastion of left-wing prejudice, shoddy research, inaccuracy, and utter lack of relevance. For one brief, shining quarter, under Sarah Jeglum's leadership, the Daily came to exhibit actual journalism, an endangered commodity in the freest nation on earth.

Evidently, the GPSS, in their bubble of academia, fear balanced reporting and any argument contrary to a secular-progressive, everybody-do-whatever-you-want worldview. Whether they agree with the speech or not, it is the obligation of journalists to present the truth--even if that truth is that some Americans find homosexuality morally equivalent to bestiality. The leadership of the Daily continues to fulfill their professional responsibility better than any member of the New York Times, or the UW Graduate and Professional Student Senate.

How to Respond to Editorials You Don't Like

Below is the text of a letter I wrote to the Daily of the University of Washington on 7 April, 2007. The editorial which prompted the letter can be found here. http://dailyuw.com/2007/4/5/us-missile-defense-or-fissile-pretense/

Its cute, witty title notwithstanding, Sigma Chang’s editorial on missile defense is a poorly-researched mess of untruths and inaccuracies. It is a perfect example of the ignorance, arrogance, and journalistic incompetence on which the opinion pages of the Daily rely.

Throughout his story, Mr. Chang utterly fails to provide any ghost of a citation for any of his dire and dubious claims. Whether listing the types of missile defense, giving the locations of US defense installations, or stating the weapons capabilities of our enemies, Mr. Chang writes not a word about whether his sources are the Discovery Channel’s Future Weapons, defense department publications, or arrogantuninformedcollegekid.org. Had he attributed any of his claims to sources other than whatever happened to be on the big screen at 1101 during dinner, it might be believable that the slightest bit of serious research contributed to this travesty of an article.

Or maybe not. Mr. Chang claims that only tests of short-range missile defense components have been successful, short-range meaning capable of traveling no farther than 50 miles. This assertion is completely untrue.

According to a press release by defense contractor Lockheed Martin, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) successfully tested their Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system on July 12, 2006. According to this article, which is easily found by a simple web search, THAAD “successfully met all test objectives for the flight test.” This test included the tracking and destruction of a target representing a hostile threat, essentially hitting a flying bullet with another bullet. Mr. Chang’s editorial makes this sound like a highly improbable objective, but the FAQ of the MDA’s website (which, again, is easily found by a simple Internet search), uses the very words “hitting a bullet with a bullet” to describe the kinetic energy method of missile defense. The FAQ goes on to say that this capability “has been successfully demonstrated in test after test.”

The same Lockheed Martin press release to which I alluded earlier states that THAAD is intended to defend against “short- to intermediate range ballistic missiles.” According to the MDA, an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) has a range of 3000 to 5500 kilometers. For those of you without TI-85s at hand, this is a range of roughly 1800 to 3400 miles. This information clashes violently with Mr. Chang’s claim that “ground-based missile defense doesn’t work against anything that could travel more than about 50 miles.”

In the one instance in which he gives numerical data, Mr. Chang alleges that the Raytheon-built Patriot system is effective against “70 percent of missiles in Saudi Arabia and 40 percent in Israel, with an individual accuracy rate of 25-33 percent.” These numbers do not speak well for the Patriot, as a grade of 70 percent usually translates into a C- at the UW. Before I elaborate on Mr. Chang’s statistics, I must point out that these numbers were recorded the last time the US used the MIM-104 Patriot system, which was during Desert Storm. This conflict occurred at a time (1991) when a large portion of the Daily’s demographic was still learning to tie their shoes. Additionally, the Patriot was designed for the purpose of defending against only short-range weapons in theater. It is a completely different system from the missile shield currently being engineered by the MDA. However, this total lack of pertinence does not preclude any of Mr. Chang’s misinformation.

Wikipedia’s entry on the Patriot states that, following the Gulf War, analysts could not agree on how to measure the efficacy of the system. Charles A. Zraket of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and Peter D. Zimmerman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies testified that the disagreement rose from the definitions of success rate and accuracy. They defined success rate as the percentage of missiles rendered harmless, and accuracy as the percentage of Patriots which scored a hit. Because standard practice during the Gulf War was to fire three or four Patriots at each enemy missile, the system could have a 100 percent success rate – that is, it could have destroyed every missile it encountered -- and still have a maximum accuracy of 33 percent.

Mr. Chang also makes dubious claims about the capabilities of weapons currently possessed by North Korea and Iran. From where, oh where, was this information culled? Mr. Chang does not say, and I might discount these assertions for this reason alone. However, as an intern for Boeing last summer, I worked with a team of engineers and scientist from leading defense contractors and national laboratories on the very missile defense system disparaged by Mr. Chang in his editorial. I know for a fact that accurate and current information on the capabilities of both US and foreign ballistic missiles is classified. The sheer number of inaccuracies in Mr. Chang’s article shows that he is not a person who would be privy to classified defense intelligence, and therefore has no basis on which to expound on the level of threat posed by any hostile nation.

Almost as repulsive as the cesspool of misinformation presented in this article is the degree of knowledge its author arrogantly presumes to possess. Mr. Chang claims that, not wanting a missile defense radar, in their backyards, Czech villagers are more informed than our President on the efficacy of the missile defense system currently designed, tested, and built by the best engineering minds in the nation. I have already mentioned that not every bit of information on United States missile defense is available to everyone, including Boeing interns. But, from what I did learn last summer, I am extremely optimistic about this country’s missile defense capabilities. Imagine, then, the intelligence provided to the Commander-in-Chief of this nation. Is he less informed than any citizen, let alone an international studies student who would attach his name to a work showcasing such a woeful lack of research and writing skill?