I wonder what they are teaching our children at school; it seems to me that students are learning to not learn.  I was talking to a youngster the other day, and, in the course of things, I found myself dispensing advice on a topic with which I had direct experience.  The actual subject  isn't important, but suffice it to say that experience had taught me a lesson regarding the potential outcomes of such undertakings as this youngster was contemplating.  After relating my experience and the experiences of those I had observed, I issued my judgement as to the favorability of such an endeavor, that is, I told her that I thought it better to place her energies elsewhere.  Immediately she exclaimed, "You hypocrite!  You did it and now you are going to tell me not to do it?  I can't believe you!"
    For the reader unfamiliar with the history of humanity, I shall explain why the accusation leveled at me by the youngster in question, along with scores of other such encounters, leads me to the conclusion I declared at the beginning of this post.  For hundreds of generations the youth of the day looked to those who possessed the knowledge of life that one can only get by years of living and learning, that is:  wisdom.  When one sets out on a path that leads to disaster it is supposed, if one is intelligent and humble, that a lesson will be learned.  A lesson learned is invaluable to the individual that learned it directly, but it can also serve to inform and advise another who is considering a similar adventure.  The counsel of one who has 'been there and done that' is a natural well of information that, if properly weighed and considered, can help the recipient avoid the same cost of knowledge that the more experienced person had to pay. 
    Now hypocrisy is quite another thing.  A hypocrite is one who has learned nothing but to deceive.  This lowly person will pretend to have great wisdom only for his own benefit.  The hypocrite, in common parlance, 'says one thing then does another.'  This is in contradistinction from a wise man, who ' does one thing then says another.'  I think many young people cannot tell the difference, in other words, they have lost the ability to learn from the mistakes of others.  In case the reader is one of these unfortunate souls, I shall illustrate with an example from current news.
    Suppose several buddies and I climb Mt. Hood in December.  While on the mountain, a blizzard hits that stops our progress down from the peak.  Further suppose all of my buddies die and I am nearly killed, it is a tragedy for all involved.  Then one year later I meet a young man who is considering a climb on Mt. Hood in December, and I tell him of my experience and the dangers of a December blizzard.  This is wise advice, and if it has its intended effect it will cause further consideration on the part of the young fellow.  He may still go, but because of my advice he will go better equipped for blizzards, or at least more aware of the price he may pay for lack of such preparation.
    A hypocrite on the other hand, would, without having learned anything, advise such a young man not to go up the mountain just as the wise person did.  Then, he himself would follow the young man up the mountain, showing his lack of wisdom and humility.  The words of the hypocrite are no different, but the actions that follow are as different as night is from day.
    The value of advice from a hypocrite is exceedingly small next to the advice from a wise person, and it is too bad that many today cannot tell the difference.   They are missing out on a source of knowledge that could guide them through the rough waters of life.

    I was thinking the other day about a common argument used by those who support abortion.  The argument is a rather simple one, in fact it goes like this, "Well, it is the woman's body afterall."  I guess we are supposed to fill in the conclusion for ourselves, so let's try.  I think most American's would agree that we don't want a government which tells us what we can and can't do to our own bodies, for if we don't own our bodies, we own nothing and therefore we are slaves.  Since nobody wants to have slaves around, the notion of banning abortion must be abandoned. 
    The conclusion follows from the premises, but is the main premise true?  That is:  Is "it" a woman's body afterall?  We can get at this by defining what we mean by "a body."  For a living thing to have a body, it must at least have a couple of things, namely: it must have unique DNA and a separation between itself and it's environment.  Does an unborn child have it's own unique DNA?  We must answer yes, for even in the womb tests can be performed to identify genetic problems and determine paternal relations.  Does the unborn child have a separation between itself and its environment?  Again we must answer yes.  The child is separated from the mother by the amazing workings of the placenta.  One of the main functions of the placenta is to protect the child from the mother's immune system.  If this protective barrier wasn't in place, the mother's body would attack the developing child and destroy it as it does any foreign invader, such as a bacterial infection.  Reflecting on this last point, why would a mother's body attack itself?  It wouldn't, therefore an unborn child isn't the mother's body afterall.  Since the premise is false, the conclusion does not follow. 
    Now that we know the biology, what are the ethics?  Is it ok for a woman to murder another human being?  I would say no, not under any circumstances.  The fact that the other human being is the most definitive kind of innocent just furthers the point, and the outrage.

    Rosie O'donnell shows her true colors every time she opens her mouth.  Let's look at her comment that 'radical Christians' are just as dangerous as 'radical Muslims.' 
    Starting with the assertion itself, we see the absurdity right away.  Whoever she thinks a radical Christian is, I am certain she has never witnessed one, in the name of Jesus, blowing up a pizza parlor full of children, or beheading a woman for being raped, or rioting in the streets because someone drew a cartoon of Jesus.  Her main argument was that we were bombing innocent people in other countries, and therefore 'radical Christians' are just as dangerous as 'radical Muslims.'  Of course some innocents are killed in all wars.  The problem with her argument is twofold.  First we are not purposefully killing innocents anywhere, the 'radical Muslims' are purposefully killing innocents.  Second, in our fighting we aren't using war in the name of Christianity, the Muslims are fighting in the name of Islam.
    The conclusion she reaches in the case of Christianity is the conclusion she would not reach in the case where it was her personal life that was being protected.  Imagine if someone came up to her and tried to assassinate her, and consequently her security guards shot back at the guy.  Additionally, in the process of him returning fire her security guard shot and killed a woman standing behind the attacker.  Would she really accept the charge that she is no better than the would-be assassin because he was trying to kill an innocent and she did kill an innocent?  I think not.  Now let's say that the attacker was trying to kill her in the name of Jesus.  Would she really accept the charge that her atheism is just as dangerous as the attacker's ideology, because he wanted to kill an innocent, and she did kill an innocent?  I think not.  Would she really accept the charge that the innocent woman was killed in the name of her Atheistic ideology?  I think not.  I only wish she could think clearly, and she wasn't blinded by her faith.

The moral equivalizers are out again, I guess this time of year is a busy season for them.  It really is like a gut reaction for them, blurting out "Tim Mcveigh" whenever there is mention of deadly Islamic Fascism in general, or Osama bin Laden in particular.  For all those who cannot understand, on a philosophical basis, the difference between horrible acts perpetrated by members of Western Culture and those by the ideological Brotherhood of Islamic Murderers, allow me to explain. 
First let's define our criteria, and then we are done.  Because it really is so simple, that the conclusion follows immediately, and hence the reason why those of us who see the difference instinctively cannot believe the magnitude of denial on the part of those who don’t (read liberals).  The criteria are these: 

Let us not judge a system/philosophy/religion ('system' for short) by any acts that certain members/adherents/zealots ('members' for short) may commit.  Instead let us judge based upon:
1.  Whether or not the system tolerates, justifies, or even promotes those acts, by and large, and,
2.  How members who commit such acts are received within the system, by and large.

            Now that we have a means of making a judgment as to the worth of a system, or even the threat posed by the members of a system to those on the outside, we can look at the two cases above.  First let's look at Timothy McVeigh. 
            The systems to which Liberals often claim he belonged are Christianity (McVeigh was raised Catholic) and Middle-America.  It is patently obvious that the Catholic Church cannot be said to support or condone the terrorist act committed by Timothy McVeigh, neither does Middle-America.  Even the most rabid liberal would be hard pressed to come up with any evidence of significant support for McVeigh within these groups.  There were certainly no Catholics celebrating McVeigh’s bombing of Oklahoma, in the streets or in the parishes, nor were there street celebrations in Iowa, Kansas, or wherever else Middle-America may be found.  Neither can it be said that McVeigh was received with great reverence by either system, nor were his acts copy-catted by others in these systems, nor was he heralded as a hero in the churches of America, Middle or elsewhere.  In fact he was tried and put to death by ordinary Americans, this being the ultimate rejection of his act.
Now let's look at Islamic Fascists, in particular let’s look at Osama bin Laden.  The system to which he belongs is Islam, and it only takes a few rhetorical questions, asked in exploration of the criteria above, to find an answer.   Were there Muslims dancing in the streets of Palestine, Cairo, Istanbul and Tehran on Sept. 11, 2001?  Did Osama bin Laden find a large support network?  Does he still have one today?  Is there ample Islamic support for what Osama did, even within the mosques?   Have there been copy-cats following his example?  Did the actions of Osama bin Laden fall in line with those of Islam’s supreme exemplar, Mohammed himself (one might also ask if Timothy McVeigh’s actions fall in line with those of Christianities supreme exemplar, Jesus Christ)?  Is there ample Islamic Scripture which justifies the murder of civilian infidels?  The answer to all of these questions is a resounding, definitive yes, and therein lies the difference.