In the Houston area, the Salvation Army will come to your house and pick up your donated clothes and such. Just call 713-425-8721 to see when they’ll be in your neighborhood.
I wish I had known this the last few times we’ve moved! That would have saved many trips of loading the van and going to Goodwill.
Salvation Army is a terrific charity to support.
Only this time, the consequences were easy to predict. But the Democrats ignored them.
Congratulations, Congressional Democrats: you’ve managed to soak the working poor again.
Bank of America will start charging debit-card users $5 a month to pay for purchases. The move comes as the cards increasingly replace cash and as banks look for ways to offset the loss of revenue from a new rule that will limit how much they can collect from merchants.
via Bank of America, CARD Act, Dodd-Frank, and soaking the poor. | RedState.
This will hurt the poor the most. Dodd, Frank et al thought they could magically take money from corporations and give it to people. Guess what? The corporations found a fast and easy way around the new regulations? Who could have predicted that?
Answer: Anyone but Congressional Democrats
Alternate title: “Can a media personality say something more stupid than this? Probably not.”
A tautology is an essentially meaningless statement where all instances are true, such as, “It will rain today or it won’t.” I say without exaggeration that Janeane Garofalo’s version is that Republicans are racist for voting against a (half) black man (Obama) and they are racist for supporting Herman Cain.
It is obvious who the real racist is: Garofalo. She is so cynical that she’ll play the race card to manipulate people even though she has no evidence that Tea Partiers are racist for supporting Cain.
In an appearance on Wednesday night’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on Current TV, Garofalo explained her theory.
“Herman Cain is probably well-liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican Party, conservative movement and tea party movement,” Garofalo said.
“People like Karl Rove like to keep the racism very covert and so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity so he can say, ‘Look: This is not a racist anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look: We have a black man.’ And look he’s polling well and he won a straw poll.”
Note to Janeane: Please meditate on these facts . . .
- Abortion rates in the black community are 3x that of whites. Liberals want taxpayer-funded abortions, which will only increase that ratio. Republicans oppose this. How does that fit in with your “Republicans are racist and Democrats are not” meme?
- Democrats have had virtual monopolies on inner-city politics and education for over 50 years. How is that working out for black people?
- Black unemployment has gone up dramatically under President Obama. Will another half-trillion of political payoffs help reduce that?
Via Garofalo: Cain’s rise in support proves Republican racism, or something « Hot Air.
Via The jaw-dropping brilliance of evolutionary psychology: Darwin explains wife-beating:
From Wendy Zukerman, “Domestic violence gets evolutionary explanation” (New Scientist September 2011):
Each year more than 500,000 women in the US alone report to the police violent attacks by current or former male partners. There is a reason why domestic violence is so widespread, says David Buss, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Texas in Austin: it carries a selective advantage, tied with reproductive success. In other words, men who are violent are trying to make sure that their partner has his child and not another man’s.
Does that also explain men who violently force their wives to abort their own children, that they know are theirs?
This is one of the problems of those clinging to the Darwinian worldview. Everything they find has to be caused by evolution — including my conversion from atheism to Christianity based on my trust in the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
But their foolishness knows no bounds. They “know” why men beat their wives (evolution!) and why they don’t beat their wives (evolution — what else?!).
Great theory, eh? I’m sure that study was peer-reviewed, so you know it is legit!
I’ve got a better answer, backed up daily by roughly seven billion people, not to mention everyone who previously lived*: Original sin.
* Except one
Just wondering . . . why does Michelle Obama have a record number of attendants (60% more than Laura Bush) at the same time that America has a record number of people on welfare?
And why is she compounding this by pretending to be a regular person shopping at Target? See Isn’t This Precious…FLOTUS Michelle Antoinette Pretends to be One of the Common Folk.
Here’s the most insulting thing: She is pretending to be incognito, what with her “plain” outfit (which probably cost over $1,000), hat and glasses. But if this was so undercover, why was there a professional photographer standing there? Did anyone notice the Secret Service people? They obviously have contempt for their supporters, otherwise they would never plan such a thing. Anyone thinking this wasn’t staged shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Of course, the Houston Chronicle ran this photo in a fluff piece this morning.
And why isn’t the media raging about this waste and hypocrisy?
Answer: The media died in 2008.
It is only fitting. Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie apparently could never land a full-time gig as a real pastor, even though he was a wildly liberal (read: fake) pastor in a highly liberal denomination in a highly liberal city. But the Jesus Seminar false teachers like him! See “Rev. Chuck Currie Named Associate Director Of The Westar Institute”:
I’m excited to share the news that I’ve been named the new Associate Director of The Westar Institute, one of our nation’s most important academic bodies focusing on the critical study of religion. For many, the work undertaken by the Westar Institute is a is a beacon of hope to anyone wishing to embrace a spiritual life that has more intellectual integrity. The Westar Institute is best known as the home of the Jesus Seminar.
Oh, Chuck is all about intellectual integrity! Except when he’s being a serial, unrepentant liar. Or taking his 6 yr. old girls to gay pride parades as props to show how tolerant and inclusive he is (I wonder if Portland’s celebrations are as diverse as San Francisco’s?). Or when he accuses those who disagree with him of being racist, including a black pastor (who Chuck didn’t know was black). (It reminds of when he dismissed Stand To Reason for the racist reason that they are white guys. Besides it being an example of the genetic fallacy, Chuck didn’t realize that by his own logic we should ignore him. After all, Chuck is a white guy. You can’t make this stuff up!)
“Rev. Currie will help us to become better equipped to bring into the public forum the considered views of biblical scholars whenever the Bible is invoked on behalf of this or that cause.”
That is so comical. Remember, Chuck is the heretic who thinks that the Gospel of John was written in AD 130 and that the “gospel” of Thomas is more authoritative. He taught an entire sermon on John 14:6 yet concluded that Jesus was not the only way to salvation. Chuck, the “scholar” and PhD candidate, didn’t know there were at least 100 other passages pointing to Jesus’ exclusivity for salvation. He says that Christians have as much to learn from other religions as they do from us, but what do they have to teach us about Jesus? And you can’t even skim the Old Testament without seeing that the Israelites #1 problem was worshiping other gods.
Chuck quotes Matthew 25 over and over, taking it out of context, of course, but always refers to the “least of these.” Yet he is pro-legalized abortion and pro-taxpayer funded abortion. Apparently killing 3,000 innocent but unwanted human beings — who surely meet the definition of “least of these” — isn’t enough for Chuck. He wants there to be more abortions.
Chuck holds those false views and more, yet they named him Associate Director?! Of course, because they are as transparently false as he is.
This will be fun! I say without exaggeration that I have yet to see Chuck get a Bible verse right. He’ll grab one from Isaiah, or wherever, because he thinks it makes his point, but if you examine the passage it is easy to see how wildly off the mark he is. I am looking forward to analyzing his “critical studies.”
See One Long Bluff: A Review of Richard Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show on Earth” for a thorough dissection of Dawkins’ bad logic and philosophy. Here’s the summary, but I encourage you to read it all. Dawkins’ book is already outdated, for example, by his claim that the design of the eye is poor. You’d think they’d get tired of being embarrassed about the “bad design” claim after being proved wrong on not-so-vestigial organs, “junk” DNA and the like.
Conclusion: Does Richard Dawkins have the goods?
Richard Dawkins continues in the same vein throughout his book. One favourable review of Dawkins’ new book, published in The Guardian, commented that while The Greatest Show on Earth “demonstrates once again [Dawkins’] consummate skill as an explainer,” the science covered by the book mostly rehashed “pretty standard stuff.” The book fails to address the growing problems of biological information, the origin of life, how natural selection coupled with chance mutations can account for the origin of irreducibly complex systems, which continue to defy the Darwinism he preaches. Darwin called The Origin of Species ‘one long argument’ for his theory, but Richard Dawkins has given us one long bluff. The Greatest Show on Earth seeks to defend neo-Darwinism by appealing to theological arguments, by attempting to explain away the challenge of the Cambrian explosion by means of invoking ad-hoc conjectures, by exaggerating the evidence for the potentiality of natural selection, by misrepresenting design arguments, casting down ‘straw-men’, and by avoiding mention of the most sinister threats to the neo-Darwinian model of origins.
Another point which is worth mentioning is that one should not be so taken with the evidence that is consistent with evolution that we think we can ignore the evidence that contradicts it. And this isn’t a balancing act — weighing whether there is more evidence for or against the theory. We know from common experience that even a small amount of clearly contradictory evidence outweighs a large body of consistent evidence. A common thread running throughout Richard Dawkins’ book (The Greatest Show on Earth) is the analogy of weighing up incriminating evidence in a court of law. But in a court of law, no matter how much evidence appears to incriminate someone, it would be entirely outweighed by a reliable alibi that the accused was in a totally different location at the time of the crime. The same is true of science. Even a small amount of attestable data that clearly contradicts evolution is sufficient to demonstrate that it is false, despite a much larger body of evidence that is consistent with it.
The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record and cell biology are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution. Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, the data used to prop up neo-Darwinism is weak. We know today that there are multiple critical facts which strike hard blows at the conventional understanding of the theory. These are not merely trivial problems or anomalies that are likely to be solved, but fundamental matters that appear to be without prospect of solution.