I wonder how many of these would have been possible, or granted, before the USA PATRIOT Act.

Argentina is apparently quite stubborn. Even after loosing a war over them, they are still insisting that the Falkland Islands are theirs.

In science news today:

• “‘Extinct’ woodpecker found alive” because scientists are obviously oh so accurate.
• “Global warming ‘proof’ detected” so accurate that their computer models can replace having data.

I wonder how long until the bill mentioned in “House passes bill making it illegal to take minors across state lines for abortions” is overturned?

Yesterday I neglected to mention this story. It appears the Federal government decided to grant us *some* ability to filter unnecessary and inappropriate material out of DVDs we buy. But only at run time with a device, not by editing the DVD itself, or by paying someone to edit it for us.

This development in California is rather disturbing. Any bill to legalize homosexual “marriage” is disturbing of course, but this one is beyond that. This one really does show the extent that these activists will go to force us to accept their immorality. According to the article, the California state constitution does not allow the legislature to modify statues that were passed by referendum. In 2000, just the sort of definition of a marriage as being between a man and a woman that other states have made constitutional amendments was passed by sixty-one percent of the California electorate. So this new bill allowing homosexual “marriages” is rather blatantly unconstitutional.

“Your Money Under More Scrutiny” looks at a little publicized aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act. From the description, this really does, as Ars notes, this really does not sound like it is something truly aimed primarily against terrorists or money launderers. This sounds like something aimed at you and me. The potential for headache here is astronomical, especially if, like me, you have an (annoying) tendency to be somewhat random.

Paul Greenberg gets just about everything wrong. He strongly implies that Pope John Paul II was not in charge towards the end of his pontificate, as he grew more and more frail. Apparently Mr. Greenberg does not credit the reports to the contrary, or the prolific output our Holy Father had in his final months. Just look at the Vatican’s online archives. 7 Pontifical Messages, 4 speeches to different bodies, 14 Letters and 6 audiences are up for reading. Sure, he wasn’t able to read his own speech much of the time, but that is Parkinson’s Disease for you. The evidence is firmly in support of the control and authority Pope John Paul II continued to exercise right up to his final days.

Mr. Greenberg thinks that Pope Benedict XVI will not reach out. Our new Holy Father has barely even started his pontificate, and already, in his homilies, he is reaching out in ways even the New York Times has noticed (reference previous posts here). Mr. Greenberg suggests we are entering a “holding pattern,” while the Pope is talking about attempting to revive the faith world wide. Mr. Greenberg thinks that this Pope is too old, while the youth even before his election cheered him, stood in the rain to meet with him (I have lost the reference for this statement ☹).

And lastly, Mr. Greenberg thinks that in recent decades the Church has been “the health of freedom, of the West, of learning and of tolerance, all of which a renewed church championed.” I can only ask where he has been? Certainly not Earth. The Church has not tolerated the push for the acceptance of depravity and death. The Church changed no doctrine, and angered many who hoped to use Vatican II as an excuse to introduce the Modernist heresy into the Church. Further, looking here at the United States alone, we have seen slower growth, growth mostly from immigration in fact. We have seen those who claim to be Catholic in open opposition to the Church’s teaching. How is that “health” Mr. Greenberg? Unless you actually want to see the Church flounder.

George Will thinks that the decline in newspaper circulation is “ominous.” Other than the obvious conflict of interest, I really don’t see any reason why he thinks this is the case. When did the print media last do anything particularly useful?

Something is wrong in this country when one in every 138 U.S. residents was in prison or jail.