It's Funny About Good Works!

Celebrities have a platform that is granted to them by their fans and their popularity.  Their fame provides them with a great deal of power and responsibility.  What they do with that platform can be for good or for bad.  The choice is to be made by those that follow their careers.  A case in point is Bill Maher and the late Paul Newman.  Both are considered liberals. Both of these men were pretty outspoken about their points of view.  Yet, the legacy that they leave will only be seen in future days.  Two articles for your consideration.  A review from Variety about Bill Maher's latest movie.  Most consider him a comedian.  But there are those that find his latest contribution less than funny.

Religulous Movie Review From The Toronto Film Festival

The second offering is about the legacy of the late Paul Newman.  Or as some younger fans remember him, "Doc Hudson."

In Memoriam: Paul Newman’s Philanthropic Legacy

One can only wonder about the difference between the "childish" and the "child-like."

It is What It is.

Did John Wilkes Booth Live in Texas?

I found this article and thought it was more than interesting. There's a ton of great information in it. Just some things to think about.

Did John Wilkes Booth Live In Texas?

by C. F. Eckhardt

Wherever and whenever John Wilkes Booth, assassin of Abraham Lincoln, died, it's pretty much a sure bet it wasn't in a burning barn in Virginia. Booth had coal-black hair and a clear complexion. When he made the leap from the Presidential box to the stage of Ford's Theater, he landed on his left foot and broke his left ankle. The man who assisted Booth in mounting behind the theater testified that he couldn't put weight on his left foot. Dr. Samuel Mudd testified that he splinted Booth's left ankle. Testimony from eyewitnesses to the shooting of Booth in the barn described a man with sandy hair and freckles. His right ankle was broken. There are a number of other circumstances to indicate the man shot in Virginia wasn't John Wilkes Booth, but these two alone are sufficient to cast more than reasonable doubt on the identification.

Five years after the Lincoln assassination a young, very handsome, black-haired man with a clear complexion turned up in the tiny town of Glen Rose, Texas. He gave his name as John St. Helen. Although he didn't drink himself, he worked as a bartender. He also acted in amateur theatrical productions in Glen Rose. He had tremendous stage presence, excellent diction and delivery, and was obviously at home on the stage. He also had an almost encyclopedic mastery of the plays of William Shakespeare.

John St. Helen remained in Glen Rose a little less than a year. A local politicianís daughter was to be married. Included on the guest list were a number of US Army officers and the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Texas. St. Helen got word of the guest list and promptly vanished.

He turned up about a year later in Granbury. His closest local friend, a lawyer named Finis L. Bates, noticed something. While St. Helen drank not a drop 364 days a year, on one specific day he drank himself into a stupor. That day was April 14, the anniversary of the Lincoln assassination.

St. Helen fell gravely ill while in Granbury. He was told he would probably die of the illness. Local doctors did all they could, but without apparent effect. St. Helen summoned Bates to his bedside and made what he obviously believed was a deathbed statement. "My name," he said, "is not John St. Helen. I am John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of Abraham Lincoln."

For a deathbed statement to be admissible in court, three conditions must be fulfilled. The person must believe he is dying. The statement must be made voluntarily. The person making the statement must then die within a reasonable period.

John St. Helen certainly believed he was dying. He made the statement entirely voluntarily. However, he recovered. He never retracted the statement. Instead, he disappeared from Granbury, leaving no forwarding address. Upon searching St. Helenís rented room after his departure, Bates found a Colt single-shot pocket pistol of a type first manufactured in 1866. It was wrapped in the front page of a Washington, DC newspaper dated April 15, 1865. Bates never heard from St. Helen again.

In 1906 a drunken derelict who used the name David George died in Enid, Oklahoma. On his deathbed he claimed to be John Wilkes Booth. Bates went to Enid to examine the corpse. In the bloated, alcohol-ruined face and body of the man called David George he believed he recognized his old friend, John St. Helen. He claimed the body and had it embalmed-- mummified is perhaps a better description-- and tried to interest the government in it. There was no interest.

Bates kept the body in storage for a number of years. Then, somehow, it passed out of his possession. From the 1920s through the early 1960s it was a sideshow attraction at various carnivals and circuses as The Corpse of John Wilkes Booth, the Assassin of Abraham Lincoln. An X-ray of the body revealed that, many years before, the man's left ankle had been broken and was never properly set.

John Wilkes Booth was known to be fond of cryptograms. The name 'John St. Helen' could easily be a cryptogram. The first name is, of course, Boothís own, but also one of the most common given names for men, then and now. 'St. Helen' could very well be merely the anglicized version of Bonaparte's second isle of exile, Ste. Helena. Is the name saying 'John the Exile?' Booth certainly was an exile--from society, from his family, from the theater he loved.

How about 'David George?' David Herrold and George Atzerodt were two of Boothís known co-conspirators. Was John St. Helen/David George, if they were in fact the same person, actually John Wilkes Booth?

At this point in time there is no way to prove-- or disprove-- that. The mummy, which was a traveling exhibit with circuses and carnivals for over 40 years, has disappeared. No one has seen it in nearly a half-century, though photographs of it exist, the skin turned almost coal black from the preservation process. Booth family heirs have refused permission for the corpse of the man shot in Virginia to be exhumed for DNA testing. Did John Wilkes Booth live in Glen Rose and Granbury, Texas, in the 1870s and die in Enid, Oklahoma, in 1906? In that fine old southwestern phrase, 'quien sabe?'

Did John Wilkes Booth Live in Texas?

© C. F. Eckhardt
"Charley Eckhardt's Texas"
June 30, 2007 column

I thought Eckhardt's article raised some very good questions. Was John Wilkes Booth killed in Virginia? Or was that simply a case of mistaken identity? Could it be just coincidence that John St. Helen

and David George both claimed to be Booth? Were they the same person? Why did St. Helen leave his life in Glen Rose because of a bride's list of guests? Or was the timing just a coincidence, too?

Just food for thought. Whether or not John Wilkes Booth died in Virginia, or later in Oklahoma, the answer may never be known for sure. Either way, it's an interesting piece of history. What you believe about it is up to you.

It is what it is.

Does the Media Have an Agenda?

The following is a video clip concerning the Presidential campaign and its media coverage.



It is what it is.

Babies: People or Punishment?

A video clip of Presidential Candidate Barack Obama.

It seems to me that it would be inappropriate to compare a  baby to an STD. There is a significant difference between the two. While of course both are-- or can be --the result of being sexually active, and both can be 'unwanted' as it were, to say that a baby is a punishment for having sex (or punishment for "making a mistake", as Obama says) is a rather poor choice of words.

However, given the context--talking about teaching sex education and abstinence education, as well as values and morals-- he could mean that he doesn't want his daughters to get pregnant because of a lack of education.

Whatever he meant, it seems that I'm not the only one trying to figure out what I think it means. Either way, what was said has been said.

It is what it is.

Further Reading:

• Opinion Blog - "Obama's 'punished with a baby' Remark"
• CBN News - "Obama Says He Doesn't Want His Daughters Punished with a Baby"
• Catholic News Agency - "Obama's 'punished with a baby' Comment Sparks Protests"

Eres Lo Que Lees

Again, another 'not necessarily new' story has caught my interest. It all started while I was on Facebook. Yes, I admit, not always the highest standard of 'fact-gathering forum' that there is, but nevertheless. I happened to notice that one of my friends had joined a group called "STOP THIS "ARTIST" FROM KILLING ANOTHER DOG", which definitely already had me reacting.

Upon first glance, reading the group information, and giving the whole thing a brief check, I found myself to be just as outraged as anyone else in the group and quickly followed links to sign a petition to keep this artist, a Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, from returning to another art gallery with the same sort of 'art', as it were.

Besides generally feeling disgusted at the whole affair, what else could I do?

What I should have done is more research before throwing myself in with all the fuss. Never venture out uninformed. If you find yourself trying to argue the case, you'll usually wind up tasting your shoe. No one likes to put their foot in their mouth. The best way to do that is to actually know what you're talking about.

So in that spirit, now that I have a better idea of what I'm talking about, here's what I learned. 

"Back in October 2007 Costa Rican artist Guillermo Habacuc Vargas captured a stray dog and chained it in a gallery without food and water with a big sign on the back wall made of dog biscuist stating "Eres Lo Que Lees" ("You Are What You Read"). According to the story, people watched the dog called Natividad perish in the gallery from lack of food and water.

Only, while it was intended that the gallery-goers believe that the dog subsequently died from being tied up and starved, this never happened. 

The Human Society of the United States states that, "According to local animal welfare organizations, the dog was in a state of starvation when he was captured from the street for display in the exhibit. We have also been informed that the dog spent one day in the exhibit and later escaped the gallery."

Juanita Bermúdez, the art gallery director, commented, "It was untied all the time except for the three hours the exhibition laster and it was fed regularly with dog food Habacuc himself brought in."

It would seem that the information, while more than readily available to anyone seeking it out, isn't getting around to the people (myself included) who spared no more than a second of their time before making a judgement. Suffice it to say that being informed is always important, especially when making the decision to jump on a bandwagon. Or to let it pass by, as the situation dictates. As soon as I joined the Facebook group I was urged to sign a petition to keep Habacuc from (as I understand it) doing a similar exhibit at another art gallery. 

I think that people who are initially upset probably have good intentions. I don't think they're stupid or over dramatic. But I do feel --and this is a lesson I myself re-learned from this-- that they are reacting based on emotion without making sure to fully understand the situation. An article I found while I was checking around summed it up better than I could:

"With the unlimited access to information comes the heavy responsibility of critical thinking. It’s not always easy to tell what is real and what is fabrication, and until someone invents bullshit-detecting glasses, everyone has to learn to do due diligence and research what they find on the internet thoroughly before starting wide reaching campaigns to ruin other people’s lives.

I'm happy to take that advice and hopefully react in a more rational way in the future. So what do we know? Guillermo Vargas Habacuc is, according to some, a cruel 'artist' who has no shame. To others, he is merely a man trying to make a point. Just something to mull over.

It is what it is.

-"Starving Dog as Art - Don't Believe Everything You Read". April 2008, Mad Morten. Copyright © Dabbler.ca

-"Outrage at 'Starvation' of a Stray Dog for Art". March 2008. The Observer. Copyright © guardian.co.uk

-"Is It True That a Central American Artist Used a Starving Dog in an Art Exhibit?" Humane Society International. Copyright © The Humane Society of the United States

Obama is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever

I was made aware of this is an article by a friend and I find it to be very interesting. For that reason, I'm sharing it with you. Like it or lump it, it's up to you. 

"Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede --as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

"Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

In 2004 U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill.

State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at the Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 200 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.

"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived induced labor abortion.

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."

"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statue."

That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.

That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted no.

In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.

A year later, when Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal lever there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."

In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.

I think that this is important information to have, especially now - while Obama is on his campaign. Know your candidates, know where they stand. Especially on issues that are important to you. Don't be ignorant. Take this for what you will. See it as another puzzle piece, part of a bigger picture. Take anything you already know about Obama and add this to it because actions speak louder than words, and whatever he's saying in his speeches and rallies may be all well and good - but regardless, this information, these "actions" if you will, still stand.

Whether you're Pro-Life or Pro-Choice is absolutely up to you. I know where I stand, but this article isn't about me asking you to change your own opinion. For or against, this is about giving you information you may not have known so that you can plug it in to what you've got. So that you can factor it in.

It is what it is.

-Terence P. Jeffery, CNSNews.com Editor in Chief. All original CNSNews.com material. Copyright © 1998-2007 Cybercast News Service.

To see the article at the CNSNews.com, please visit this website.

Going Green? Preaching vs. Practice

I'll preface this by saying that this isn't necessarily 'new' or 'breaking' news, but it is something to think about. Or at least mull over. Again, in the interest of putting more pieces into the puzzle.

So here we go.

Look over the descriptions of the following two houses and see if you can tell which belongs to an environmentalist.

House #1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In one month alone this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household does in an entire year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not a northern or Midwetern "snow belt" house, either. It's in the South.

House #2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current come construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

So which of these houses do you think belongs to an environmentalist?

House #1: (the 20-room energy guzzling mansion)

This house is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

House #2: (the model eco-friendly house)

This house is son a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House", it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly 'an inconvenient truth.'

This I find to be pretty interesting, as it seems Al Gore has taken it upon himself to be the poster child for Global Warming. I also think it's worth noting that, in this case, the man who certainly developed a name for himself concerning this very issue is NOT the one who (again, in this case) is practicing what he's preaching. On the other hand, President Bush, who hasn't beaten "going green" into the ground actually has a very environmentally friendly home.

Anyway, just think about it.

It is what it is.

 

-Barbara and David P. Mikkelson. Urban Legends Reference Pages. Copyright © 1995-2008.

For more information - origin, sources, etc. - please visit this website.