Skip to comments.What's the Rush?
Posted on 07/01/2007 3:27:40 AM PDT by 8mmMauserEdited on 07/02/2007 4:50:59 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
click here to read article
I am hoping this Sunday finds you in a more jolly and less sensitive mode. Realizing you are new, a visitor as such, and not necessarily familiar with the depth of our topic coverage, I can see you now taking offense with T’wit’s tag line including visitors. First it was the beer and now this.
I hope you take a breath and relax a little. We deal with a very heavy and disturbing topic and take to a little banter now and then as relief from the weight of the topic.
Visitors to which we refer are the actual trolls, lefties, and assorted antagonists who come here with the express purpose of detracting, derailing, and disrupting our threads. They do so because of the topic and they are on the other side. I expect this does not apply to you, so urge you not to think yourself one of them.
Who lost a parrot?
I use many taglines. Perhaps this one is more to your liking.
I didn't time to ask it :-) I just had a peek in Google images and the green parrots tend to be green all over, sometimes with daubs of bright yellow or red. The one I saw had a white breast and a deep blue-green splash, probably at its wingtips. Not a parakeet -- much bigger.
This looks pretty close:
For those who are Latin challenged and in keeping in tune with the Motu Proprio of the Pope, I pass this on: It appears in the Gospel of St. Luke, Chapter 6:21.
“Blessed are ye that hunger now: for you shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for you shall laugh.” This is the Douay Rheims translation of the passage you quoted which appears in the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome.
Wow, you are really getting into the spirit of things with the return of the Latin Mass for many (pro multis, as they may say in Rome, or may not).
I am shocked, shocked, I tell you. I think you just may have spotted one of the Norwegian Parrots of British fame. Did he look peaceful, sort of like taking a nap?
I have a good friend who has a parrot. The damn thing bites people all the time, makes a mess and never shuts up.
You should switch back to the Nazi tagline.
>>I have a good friend who has a parrot. The damn thing bites people all the time, makes a mess and never shuts up.
I bet I know how it votes!!!
Parrots are like loud, flying rodents.
beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt lutefiskiam quoniam ipsi saturabuntur
That is what a Norwegian Parrot would say, no laugh...
We had a whole flock of those things fly away during the bug zapper thread. What a racket they made! Judging from the noises they made, I think they all must have been owned by depraved pirates and hippies and streetwalkers.
Psst. Nobody misses them!
Oh. You have... a Norwegian blue parrot? Does it... talk?
Jim Botts was in his late 40s, his St. Petersburg hair salon was thriving, and there were clients and inventory and a thousand other details to worry about. The question of who would take over his business if he couldn't was in the back seat.
And then he got sick.
"Can it become ugly and drawn out?" asked Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge George Greer, who specializes in probate cases. "If it's a dysfunctional family, yes.
"But if you get a good lawyer beforehand who knows what he or she is doing, that person can lead you through this."
Greer, who presided over the Terri Schiavo case, said many probate cases involving succession come about not because the owner was ill and later died, but because of a sudden death, such as a auto accident or plane crash. Or the owner develops a disease like Alzheimer's that renders him or her incapable of decision-making."
So what do we have here? Gratuitous George W. Bush looking like an idiot (that's hard), personal leg surgery, an Oregon land fill, a family argument, a guy going to Iraq for plumbing work, cardboard bale making, a garbage compactor, gratuitous 25,000+ e-mails, gratutitous "Michael Moore" threat, a "Star Wars" crawl with music of "pre-existing" conditions that will deny people health care, a woman who died from a brain tumor her insurnace company said she didn't have, a yeast infection, an insurance "hitman," potential racism, testimony before Congress, grautitous Richard Nixon, a warning to Hillary Clinton, gratuitous right wing Republican scumbags Bob Dole, Dick Armey, Phil Gramm, Pat Buchannon, gratuitous Ronald Reagan, marshmallow peep appreciation, buying US Congress, gratuitous "mother love," gratutitous big, fat Denny Hastert, grautitous "I've Got a Golden Ticket!," gratuitous Canadians, a Canadian NASCAR fan, lying to the border patrol, gratuitous Bill O'Reilly, Michael Moore driving a golf cart, an American pulling his shoulder out in Britain, gratuitous British doctor, Kaiser Permanente "bashing," gratuitous Great Britain, gratuitous France, doctor house calls, an ass injection, Fench child day care, a sand collection, doing laundry, dropping off an old woman in the middle of Los Angeles because she couldn't pay to stay at the hospital anymore, George Pataki looking like an asshole (which is one of the best bits in the movie), Don Rumsfeld, gratuitous Bill Frist (who should lose his medical license for diagnosing Terry Schiavo via videotape), gratuitous Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, gratutitous Cuba, a Homeland Security warning, new teeth, new inhalers, and the guy that runs an anti-Michael Moore website getting help from Michael Moore.
Thank for the ping, Coleus.
Should laws against assisted suicide be rescinded as "paternalistic?" Should assisted suicide be transformed from what is now a crime (in most places) into a sacred "right to die"? Should assisted suicide be redefined from a form of homicide into a legitimate "medical treatment" readily available to all persistently suffering people, including to the mentally ill? According to Brown University professor Jacob M. Appel, the answer to all three of these questions is an unequivocal yes. Writing in the May-June 2007 Hastings Center Report ("A Suicide Right for the Mentally Ill?"), Appel argues in that assisted suicide should not only be available to the terminally ill, but also to people with "purely psychological disease" such as victims "of repeated bouts of severe depression," if the suicidal person "rationally might prefer dignified death over future suffering."
Ping to above in case you have not yet seen it.
In 2002, the Australian free-lance historian and journalist, Keith Windschuttle, published a book that created a controversy that has still not died down. Entitled The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, it sets out to destroy the idea that there had been a genocide of Tasmanian aborigines carried out by the early European settlers of the island.
For about the previous quarter century, it was more or less an historical orthodoxy that there had been such a genocide. Robert Hughes accepted the idea in his best-selling history of early Australia, The Fatal Shore. I accepted it myself, because when I first visited Australia in 1982 I read several books on the subject by professors of history at reputable universities, and rather naively supposed that their work must have been founded on painstaking and honest research, and that they had not misrepresented their original sources.
Windschuttle argued in his book that they had fabricated much of their evidence, and that, contrary to what they claimed, there had been no deliberate policy on the part of the colonial authorities or the local population either to extirpate or kill very large numbers of aborigines. He showed that the historians reading of the obscure source materials was either misleading or mendacious.
After the book was published, there were furious challenges to Windschuttle. Slurs were cast upon him: he was, for example, the Australian equivalent of the holocaust deniers. A book of essays in refutation of his point of view was published; a refutation of the refutation was also published. He appeared all round the country in debates with some of his detractors. As far as I understand it, the massed ranks of the professional historians were unable seriously to dent his argument. A few small errors (which he acknowledged) were found in his book, but not such as to undermine his thesis; in any case, they were very minor by comparison with the wholesale errors of his opponents. He had been much more scrupulous than they.
What struck me at the time about the controversy was the evident fact that a large and influential part of the Australian academy and intelligentsia actually wanted there to have been a genocide. They reacted to Windschuttles book like a child who has had a toy snatched from its hand by its elder sibling. You would have thought that a man who discovered that his country had not been founded, as had previously been thought and taught, on genocide would be treated as a national hero. On the contrary, he was held up to execration.
This is the link with the story,
And here is the series of links:
We won't miss them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.