20 January 2010

Coffee Bowl Browsing

Historic! Unprecedented! So, let us be clear:  Happy Anniversary, B.O.  Can you hear us now?

Brown's win is Bush's fault.  Of course it is!

Retire or be retired:  Moe Lane lays out the options for vulnerable Dem's.  Not pretty.

Apparently, according to Hoyer (D), voters in MA were so upset with GOP obstructionism in Congress that they pitched a collective fit and elected another Republican.  Wow.  Now that's spin, folks.

Coakley campaign charges voter fraud. . .a day before the election.  Guess it's always good to be prepared, just in case.

A little cold water on Brown's win:  he's pro-choice & pro- SSM.

A report on the State of the Sermon in the U.K.  Very interesting.

Rabbi reports that the second volume of BXVI's Jesus books is finished.

Remote control Zombies won't remain controlled for long. . .

Exit Mundi:  end of the world scenarios.  Yes, the Coming Zombie Apocalypse is included.

Follow HancAquam ------------>


  1. Regarding whether Brown is pro-SSM:

    From Brown's site:
    I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people's will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.

    However, you are correct that Brown is pro-choice.

  2. Given that he was running in Massachusetts, where no pro-life candidate will ever have a chance this side of the Parousia, I think he's the best that they can hope for.

  3. Anonymous1:41 PM

    I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area,...

    Sounds to me like he's "personally opposed" to SSM. Yippee.


  4. Anonymous4:39 PM

    I blame Bush.

    If he hadn't been actively screwing the pooch (the economy and health care) Marcia would have won. Without Bush in the WH, MA dems could elect a pork sausage vs. any GOP nominee.

    Oh, wait! Bush left 365 days ago? Obama gets credit for a GOP senator from MA.


  5. Max Wiesmann (great philospher that he is) left a message in my blog's combox that merits extensive citation:

    "Max Weismann said...
    A right is either inalienable or it is not--you cannot have it both ways.

    What is being denied by the negative statement that certain rights are not alienable? Human beings living in organized societies under civil government have many rights that are conferred upon them by the laws of the state, and sometimes by its constitution. These are usually called civil rights, legal rights, or constitutional rights. This indicates their source. It also indicates that these rights, which are conferred by constitutional provisions or by the positive enactment of man-made laws, can be revoked or nullified by the same power or authority that instituted them in the first place. They are alienable rights. The giver can take them away.

    What the state does not give, it cannot take away. If human rights are natural rights, as opposed to those that are civil, constitutional, or legal, then their being rights by natural endowment makes them inalienable in the sense just indicated.

    Their existence as natural endowments gives them moral authority even when they lack legal force or legal sanctions. Their moral authority imposes moral obligations, which may or may not be respected or fulfilled.

  6. Saw this great quote on a prison ministry site:

    Saint Anthony Mary Claret:
    " Since we cannot send missionaries everywhere, let us send good books, which are able to do as much good as the missionaries themselves."

  7. Your heading about Scott Brown is misleading. I received an email from the National Organization for Marriage titled "Huge Marriage Victory" which stated that "while in the Massachusetts legislature, Scott Brown was one of the courageous few to stand for marriage, voting yes on the Massachusetts Marriage Amendment in 2007". In Massachusetts that was courageous indeed!

  8. RE: Brown on SSM...

    The problem with Brown's solution is that by leaving SSM up to the states, we invite a Sup. Crt. intervention forcing all states to recognize legal marriage in any other, i.e. the current practice with marriage. Without a constitutional amendment that specifically excludes SSM as an option, activists judges will force it on us.