The Bachelorette: DeAnna and Jesse visit Ohio. Jason Mesnick says he was forbidden from talking to the other bachelors. Jeremy Anderson is dating Chelsea, the Bachelor finalist Matt Grant rejected.
The Bachelor: New York Post’s Page Six reports that Shayne Lamas has dumped Matt Grant over the telephone.
Top Chef: Bravo may create a Top Chef: Masters.
Project Runway: Is Bravo trying not to promote Project Runway on purpose? A profile on Season Five designer Korto. Now Bravo wants to create a similar reality show called Fashion House. A nice write-up on Jerry Tam, the first designer sent home last week, and why he was the unlikely choice to be sent home first. Heidi Klum says she’s not distracted by the move to Lifetime. What’s up with the former winners of Project Runway?
The Biggest Loser: A family edition of the show premieres Sept. 16.
America’s Next Top Model: The show returns on Sept. 3. Women in Tallahassee audition for the show.
The Hills: Was Lauren’s house investigated for code violations?
Real Housewives of Atlanta: The show will debut Sept. 16.
The Mole: Clay left after getting the lowest score on a quiz.
Random bits: Sarah Jessica Parker’s production company wants to create a reality show about…art? Bailey from Legally Blonde on MTV is dating Dave from Real World. Janice Dickinson reality show to premiere this August.
Today so many western countries have tightened their borders and don’t allow citizens of other countries to enter their country so easily. This is due to either political,racial, security or national reasons. They have also made it harder to get a visa to enter their country especially for Asians. There is also a high demand for traveling to those western countries and starting a better life and having a good future. So it is safe to say that having a second citizenship from a wealthy and high ranked country will guarantee you entry to all western and European countries. It also gives you the opportunity to enjoy full citizenship benefits.
College Gameday was located in Provo Utah today, home of the big game between BYU and TCU. This game is the only matchup today pitting two teams against each other that are both ranked in the top 25 of the BCS standings, and it should be a good one. This game is actually going to be on the Versus network and not an ESPN affiliated network, and ESPN deserves a lot of credit for doing the show at Provo. Usually they are on site at one of the larger games that ESPN has each week in order to help promote, but today they went a different route.
First, I have to give a lot of love and credit to the BYU fans. I wasn’t sure how a Provo crowd would be, but they impressed me and might have had the best/rowdiest/loudest Gameday crowd all year. However, I will say that it was kind of odd seeing all those “I Love My Mom/Mommy/Dad/Daddy” signs. It seemed like I saw 10 of them…did anyone else find that odd or is it just me?
Three other Gameday observations: 1) I think I’ve seen at least two Washington State flags on Gameday every week of the season so far. 2) Unfortunately there was no Jenn Brown this week. 3) The celebrity guest picker this week was former BYU football coach (and stadium namesake) Lavelle Edwards.
On to the best signs of the day. At least they have something to brag about:
BYU may be #16 in football, but we are #1 in Accounting!
After Palladia was approved this past June, it was difficult to find much information about personal experiences with the drug. However, veterinary oncologists met at the Veterinary Cancer Society meeting recently in Austin, Texas and some are starting to write about it. Here’s one vet’s take on the discussion of Palladia treatment and side effects experienced. Hopefully, we will hear from more vets. If anyone has received additional information from their oncologist who has attended the meeting, please write a comment to share information with those seeking information regarding mast cell treatment and Palladia.
http://oncodvm.blogspot.com/2009/10/palladia-experience.html
By Gary DeMar
Why do generally conservative people support liberal causes like homosexuality? Consider Ted Olson, the 42nd United States Solicitor General under George W. Bush, noted conservative, critic of Bill Clinton, and the attorney who delivered Bush’s oral argument before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore that settled the 2000 election. Olson has joined with David Boies to file a lawsuit in U.S. federal court to force federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Boise is the attorney who had represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore.
Homosexuality makes strange bedfellows. (Can I say that?) “This is a federal question,” Olson said. “This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized.” He said that he and Boies “wanted to be a symbol of the fact that this not a conservative or a liberal issue. We want to send a signal that this is an important constitutional issue involving equal rights for all Americans.”
Olson is begging the question, asserting what he must prove. There are all kinds of behaviors that stigmatize people but are not protected by the law. Given Olson’s logic, there is no difference between homosexuality and bestiality. I heard a lawyer who is supporting Olson’s efforts maintain that prohibiting homosexual marriage is identical to when blacks could not marry whites. Nonsense. The physical equipment for sexual activity is the same for all races. Homosexuality is a particular kind of sexual behavior that never can result in the birth of a child. Homosexuality is the attempt to put a square peg in a very dirty round hole.
Why would Olson take this pro-homosexual marriage case after a long and distinguished career in the conservative movement? It’s baffling. But maybe not. I have a theory. If it can be maintained that homosexual behavior is “unjudgeable,” then other sexual practices—adultery, pre-marital sex, womanizing, having babies out of wedlock—become just as “unjudgeable.” The point is to get along so you can get ahead. People matter more than God. Status before men is more important than standing before God. Here’s a story you may have missed. In 1989, Senator John Tower of Texas was nominated to be Secretary of Defense under George H. Bush. The Senator was an admitted boozer and womanizer, but many Republicans dismissed the behavior as unrelated to politics. Paul Weyrich led the opposition to Tower’s nomination. Mr. Republican Barry Goldwater supported Tower:
“Yeah, he drank; I’ve had a few with him,” Goldwater said, according to a press report. “That he chased women? I don’t give a damn whether he did or not. If everyone in this town connected with politics had to leave town because of that, and drinking, you’d have no government.”
Weyrich was right. Goldwater was wrong. These politicians could get away with their immoral behavior as long as they did not snitch on the immoral behavior of their political compatriots. Debased behavior leads to a debasement in government. It’s happening right before our eyes as we see our currency debased and the culture with it (Isa. 1:21–25).
Today’s defenders of homosexual behavior have, in the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “defined deviancy down”[1] so that what was morally shocking twenty years ago is acceptable, or at least tolerated, behavior today. Robert Bork, explains the phenomenon:
Emile Durkheim, a founder of sociology, posited that there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can “afford to recognize.” As behavior worsens, the community adjusts its standards so that conduct once thought reprehensible is no longer deemed so.”[2]
What’s true in politics is doubly true in the entertainment business that includes its share of homosexuals, serial polygamists, cohabitationists, drug users and addicts, and an assortment of gypsies, tramps, and thieves. To get ahead, like in politics, there is only one commandment to follow: “If you won’t judge me, I won’t judge you.”
In 1922 The Sins of Hollywood was a sensational exposé of the burgeoning film industry that author Ed Roberts, a former editor of Photoplay magazine, claimed “had free play” that “made the scarlet sins of Sodom and Babylon, of Rome and Pompeii fade into a pale, pale yellow.” Consider this from the author:
Not so long ago a certain popular young actress returned from a trip. She had been away for ten days. Her friends felt that there ought to be a special welcome awaiting her. Rostrand [Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle], a famous comedian, decided to stage another of his unusual affairs. He rented ten rooms on the top floor of a large exclusive hotel and only guests who had the proper invitations were admitted.
After all of the guests—male and female—were seated, a female dog was led out into the middle of the largest room. Then a male dog was brought in. A dignified man in clerical garb stepped forward and with all due solemnity performed a marriage ceremony for the dogs.
It was a decided hit. The guests laughed and applauded heartily and the comedian was called a genius. Which fact pleased him immensely. But the “best” was yet to come.
The dogs were unleashed. There before the assembled and unblushing young girls and their male escorts was enacted an unspeakable scene. Even truth cannot justify the publication of such details.
The book was determined by a court to be “too scurrilous” to be sent through the United States Post Office. There were suspicions that the Hollywood studios had something to do with suppressing the book because it revealed too much about the operation of their business. Roberts suggests as much:
Any publication that attempted to reveal the real conditions—to cleanse the festering sores—was quickly pounced upon as an “enemy of the industry”—A subsidized trade press helped in this work! Any attempt to bring about reform was called “hurting the industry.” It was the lapses and laxities of the producer that precipitated the censorship agitation—that led a nauseated nation, determined to cleanse the Augean stables of the screen, into the dangerous notion of censorship—almost fatally imperiling two sacred principles of democracy—freedom of speech and freedom of the press!
What was done behind closed doors and kept hidden by the studios is now done in public for the world to see. Entire magazines are devoted to the sins of Hollywood, except they are now considered to be virtues to be emulated. There are conservatives in Hollywood, but they are few and far between. There are lesser knowns who won’t come out of the conservative closet for fear of being forever blacklisted.
Country singer Reba McEntire was recently interviewed in a homosexual publication about her views of homosexuality. “I just try not to judge,” Reba said. “Don’t judge me, and I won’t judge you. And that’s what it says in the Bible—‘Don’t judge.’”
So if McEntire’s husband ran off with another man or woman, would she be permitted to judge him based on her view of the Bible? If her accountant stole from her, could he be judged? Paul Copan writes in “True For You, But Not True For Me,” “It’s been said that the most frequently quoted Bible verse is no longer John 3:16 but Matthew 7:1: ‘Do not judge, or you too will be judged.’” Actually, it’s the most quoted out-of-context verse in the Bible:
We cannot glibly quote this, though, without understanding what Jesus meant. When Jesus condemned judging, he wasn’t at all implying we should never make judgments about anyone. After all, a few verses later, Jesus himself calls certain people “pigs” and “dogs” (Matt. 7:6) and “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (7:15)! Any act of church discipline (1 Cor. 5:5) and rebuking false prophets (1 John 4:1) requires judgment.[3]
Jesus said “Do not judge lest you be judged” (Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37). But He also said, “Judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24; see Deut. 16:18). These are not contradictory statements since the context of Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:1 tells us what He means by “not judging” and what it means to judge with “righteous judgment.” Jesus was condemning those who judge using two standards of morality, one standard for the judge and another for the accused. You know, like politicians who created a healthcare bill that requires everyone to participate but exempts them. The Bible maintains—in both the Old and New Testaments—that the standard of judgment must be equal for both parties (Num. 15:16). “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it shall be measured to you” (Matt. 7:2). God doesn’t take verses out of context. Our nation is being judged because we have violated His laws. It is beyond comprehension that someone like Ted Olson would defend behavior that is a culture killer (Rom. 1:18–32). It’s one thing for people to sin behind closed doors; it’s something else to use the power and authority of the courts to impose such wickedness on a nation. Reba McEntire should know better. She is more concerned about getting some of the homosexual market than being faithful to the Bible she claims is her guide. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised since she believes in reincarnation. Can’t she just shut up and sing! It’s so embarrassing listening to such nonsense.
Endnotes:
[1] Daniel Patrick Moyniham, “Defining Deviancy Down,” American Scholar (Winter 1993).
[2] Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline (New York: Regan Books, 1996), 3.
[3] Paul Copan, “True For You, But Not For Me”: Deflating the Slogans that Leave Christians Speechless (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany, 1998), 32.
The private sector can be demonized and investigated. Enron and Worldcomm, we can investigate. Jeff Skilling, Bernie Ebbers, Ken Lay were sentenced to prison (and rightly so).
BUT FannieMae / FreddieMac, which is run by the U.S. government, and have donated heavily to Democrat politicians, well…
National Post (CA): David Frum on the demise of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by Marni Soupcoff and David Frum
The two institutions have long been run not by bankers but by retired political figures, predominantly Democrats. From 1991 to 1998, Fannie Mae was headed by James Johnson, a longtime aide to former Democratic vice president Walter Mondale. Johnson’s successor, Franklin Raines, had served as budget director to Bill Clinton. Jamie Gorelick, vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003, served as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration.
Remember Jamie Gorelick? The last time we heard of Gorelick, she was unwittingly facilitating the tragedy of 9/11 with her involvement in separating the FBI and CIA in their roles in investigating terrorism.
In 1995, Jamie Gorelick wrote a memo in which the Justice Department reinforced and heightened “the wall” inhibiting communication between the criminal investigation and intelligence officers investigating terrorists. The idea of “the wall” originally followed the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The deputy attorney general’s memo raised the wall higher than the law required. The wall impeded our law enforcement and intelligence agents from sharing vital information that might have led them to the hijackers before the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Knowing this, one might wonder how Jamie Gorelick could fairly serve on the [9/11] Commission. The answer was simple: her memo was classified. Few people knew that Jamie Gorelick had actually caused information not to be shared between intelligence and law enforcement agents.
– John Ashcroft, former Attorney General, Never Again, p. 236-237.
So Gorelick facilitated the attack of the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and possibly the White House (or the Capital) and the murder 3,000 innocent Americans.
John Ashcroft testified at the sham 9/11 Commission in April 2004, at one point making reference to Gorelick’s presence on the Commission:
When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI Headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.
At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote Headquarters, quote, “Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems’. Let’s hope the National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decision then, especially since the biggest threat to us, UBL, is getting the most protection.”
FBI Headquarters responded, quote: “We are all frustrated with this issue . . . These are the rules. NSLU does not make them up.”
But somebody did make these rules. Someone built this wall.
The basic architecture for the wall in the 1995 Guidelines was contained in a classified memorandum entitled “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations.” The memorandum ordered FBI Director Louis Freeh and others, quote: “We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.”
This memorandum established a wall separating the criminal and intelligence investigations following the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the largest international terrorism attack on American soil prior to September 11. Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the Commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this Commission.
Was Gorelick thrown out of town? No! Was she investigated? No! Gorelick was promoted to a position in which she had zero experience.
“[Gorelick] had no previous training nor experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed Vice Chairman of FNMA [Fannie Mae] from 1997 to 2003. She served alongside former Clinton Administration official Franklin Raines, and earned over 26 million during her six years there.”
Later, Gorelick was promoted to the 9/11 Commission, the very Stalinist show trial put together to investigate the events of 9/11. “Conflict of interest” anyone?
If Jamie Gorelick were a Republican, you can be sure our colleagues in the Fourth Estate would be leading the chorus of complaint that the Commission’s objectivity has been fatally compromised by a member who was also one of the key personalities behind the failed antiterror policy that the Commission has under scrutiny.
And to complete this disaster, Gorelick was on the wrong side of things again this year when she was hired in the Duke Lacrosse rape case. Did Gorelick defend the young men who were falsely accused of rape by a wackjob stripper? Oh nooo. She defended Duke University!
Frum and Soupcoff continue:
These figures have paid themselves impressive private-sector salaries. Johnson earned US$21-million in just his last year at Fannie Mae. Raines earned US$90-million for five years’ work at Fannie Mae. Gorelick got US$26-million.
Yet the companies never had to meet the discipline of the private marketplace. They paid no taxes, and they had access to a line of credit at the Treasury department. More ominously for today’s crisis: They were not required to provide anything like the level of information about their internal operations expected of a privately owned company.
This non-transparency allowed Fannie Mae to engage in serious accounting fraud, overstating its earnings by more than US$6-billion over the Raines years — overstatements that incidentally justified the company’s lavish compensation packages.
[Emphasis added]
Jim Johnson, by the way, was a close advisor to Barack Obama:
Jim Johnson, a senior advisor for the Barack Obama campaign, has resigned from Obama’s Veep vetting team and can now join the not-so-distinguished Obama Campaign Bus Tire Track Club.
Seems Mr. Johnson was caught up in some very dirty politics regarding the recent loan mortgage crisis.
Johnson also “had been advising presidential candidate Barack Obama on the selection of a running mate. . .”
The American Spectator notes that Franklin Raines is still an advisor to Barack Obama.
Meanwhile, this media focuses on who Palin fired while an Alaska governor.
Will the media insist on the investigation of Johnson, Raines, and Gorelick? Will Congress, controlled by Democrats, lift a finger about the fall of these government run companies? Or does the law only apply to the private sector, to Enron and Worldcomm, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and Bernie Ebbers?
Jamie Gorelick’s ties to Fannie Mae and What She’s Doing Now by Jim Lindgren
Okay, you can’t say you weren’t warned. This post is about soccer. I need to rave about three soccer-related events right now: the Seattle Sounders FC qualified for the MLS playoffs, baby; the U.S. men’s soccer team qualified for the FIFA World Cup, which means I finally have a legitimate reason to post a topless photo of Landon Donovan; and a new movie about a former coach of Leeds United (a British soccer team, or really, an English football team) is opening in Seattle this weekend.
We are big-time soccer nuts here at our house and let me tell you that this is an outstanding time to be a soccer nut. Did you see that Seattle Sounders/Kansas City Wizards game on Saturday? What a roller coaster. My boy Freddie Ljunberg was THE MAN. He got two assists and was his usual Tasmanian devil out there on the field. He is the one who makes it all happen — offensively, defensively, and emotionally. His generosity is unbelievable. His vision and tenacity are awe-inspiring. He’s like a moving tree trunk out there — when players run into him while he’s dribbling or try to mow him down he remains upright, defying physics. My only gripe is his need to get up in the ref’s grill so often. Maybe it’s a psychological thing he needs to do, to pump himself up and psych out the players, but I always worry that he’s going to pick up more cards in the process and get booted from the game.
The Sounders could have very easily lost that match on Saturday. Even though they were up 1-0 fairly early on, I was nervous. I told Andy, “this feels like a 3-1 loss to me, with the Sounders losing.” And, sure enough, the Sounders were down 2-1 before too long and Freddy Montero was choking like crazy. He missed two dead-easy gimme shots that had me screaming like a maniac at the TV, “Take him out of the game, Sigi! Pull him now!” And, I’d like to thank you now, Coach Schmid, for listening to me and yanking Montero out of the game because that turned the game around. Roger Levesque came in, focused, and ready to score, thanks to an assist from Ljunberg. Then, Nate Jaqua scored, again thanks to an assist from Ljunberg, and the Sounders ended up beating the Wizards, in Kansas City, 3-2. That makes the Sounders the second MLS team ever to qualify for the playoffs in their first year as a team. What a beautiful season this has been. Thank you, Sounders.
Thanks to a 3-2 win over Honduras on Oct. 19, the U.S. men’s team is now guaranteed a spot in the next World Cup tournament, to be held in South Africa next June. We had dreamed of going there in person, but have decided to stay here and watch it on TV instead. Early notice to all of our soccer friends — we’ll be watching as many matches as possible that month and you are welcome to join us here, at all hours. Thank you, Landon Donovan, for scoring that third goal to clinch the U.S. team’s spot in the World Cup and for giving me a good reason to include this photo of you.
And, finally, Andy and I hope we get a chance to go see The Damned United this weekend. I’ve read that it doesn’t feature a lot of actual soccer playing, but it’s an excellent behind the scenes look at Leeds United and British football at a specific time (late 60s, early 70s). In other words, during the soccer scenes, the shorts will be very short.
Just ended a long catchin up session with Alvin, Eric Yong & Ian Pang.. as usual, hearty conversation!
Eric is a mischevious, 38 year old family man in our team. This afternoon, he shared something that kinda touched my heart.
Story goes.. once upon a time, he went on a vacation trip to Australia with his guy friends. During the trip, he was attracted to a fellow tour mate, a 22 or 23 year old beautiful, charming young lady named Jo. She was a fresh NTU graduate then while Eric was a junior clerk in a finance firm..
Eric pursued his attraction.. not long after, Jo agreed to be his girlfriend! He stressed that he wasn’t a degree holder yet Jo was willinging to accept him.. The lovey-dovey went through the relationship cycle like any other couples..honeymoon to fights to test & trials to planning future together..She stayed with him all the way through his career stages. From clerk to junior trader to senior trader.. Finally, headhunted to a US firm where he received a substantial increase in his income. Immediately proposed to her. She was in tears. That tear drop marked the start of their marriage…
Currently, they have two lovely children…little boy named kevin, aged 5 and a 4 months old baby girl, Jessie.
Eric highlighted something about a woman’s love, “If she loves you because you have money, then what happens if you’re suddenly out of job?”
Love the fact that Eric appreciates his wife for loving who he is, and not what he has.
How to know if you love him/her for who he/she is or has?
I guess you have to ask yoursef, ”If he/she loses that something you like about, will you still be in the relationship?”
“If he is broke or bankrupt, will you still marry him?”
“If she is badly disfigured due to a tragic accident, will you still marry her?”
“If he/she falls critically ill, will you work harder or even loan money to pay for the medical fees so that he/she will live on?”
As the ROM vow mentioned, be there for him/her through thick and thins.
