Monday, October 31, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
To Kill, or Not to Kill
I've always been a diehard pro-capital punishment kind of guy--at least, until recently. It seems as I grow older, I become more torn between what I know is morally acceptable, and what actually works in the real world. Let me explain:
I consider the death penalty a biblical institution and wholly just when applied in the correct manner. Not for the sake of vengeance or deterrence do I hold this view, but rather because it was ordained by God. If man is made in the image of God, murder is one of the ugliest sins imaginable. True justice cannot be served, unless the murderer's life is forfeit. Society must send this message to evil-doers, loud and clear. Any deterrent effect is just an added bonus.
So in short, I have no moral qualms about the death penalty as an institution. Nor will I lose sleep when a child molester or killer is executed.
But then I turn and see the utter decomposition of our judicial (none dare call it "justice" with a straight face) system. Time and time again, I read about the horrors of pervasive, systemic corruption in our courts, both in small matters, and those of great import. I drew the conclusion quite some time ago that the system as it functions, currently, is just a money-making racket and a complete sham.
So the questions arise: Do we place the power of life and death in dirty hands? Do we continue investing such control in people who have proven disinterested in--or downright hostile to--the notion of justice? Is making an impartial and factual determination of guilt or innocence within the scope of our courts' abilities, as they stand? If not, how do we resolve this painful dilemma?
I consider failure in executing a murderer a breach of justice; but an even greater injustice, in my opinion, is putting to death a person who is blameless.
The only solution I see, for the nonce, is limiting capital punishment's use to cases in which the perpetrator's guilt is not in question. For example, he is caught in the act by the authorities, or several parties can attest to having witnessed his barbarities, or the criminal demonstrably confesses his crime without compulsion. Another option is a complete overhaul and slash-and-burn policy within our judicial system, with built-in accountability. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening, any time soon.
I realize these scenarios aren't foolproof, and as I said, I'm torn. My opinion isn't set in stone, on this matter.
I welcome your comments.
I consider the death penalty a biblical institution and wholly just when applied in the correct manner. Not for the sake of vengeance or deterrence do I hold this view, but rather because it was ordained by God. If man is made in the image of God, murder is one of the ugliest sins imaginable. True justice cannot be served, unless the murderer's life is forfeit. Society must send this message to evil-doers, loud and clear. Any deterrent effect is just an added bonus.
So in short, I have no moral qualms about the death penalty as an institution. Nor will I lose sleep when a child molester or killer is executed.
But then I turn and see the utter decomposition of our judicial (none dare call it "justice" with a straight face) system. Time and time again, I read about the horrors of pervasive, systemic corruption in our courts, both in small matters, and those of great import. I drew the conclusion quite some time ago that the system as it functions, currently, is just a money-making racket and a complete sham.
So the questions arise: Do we place the power of life and death in dirty hands? Do we continue investing such control in people who have proven disinterested in--or downright hostile to--the notion of justice? Is making an impartial and factual determination of guilt or innocence within the scope of our courts' abilities, as they stand? If not, how do we resolve this painful dilemma?
I consider failure in executing a murderer a breach of justice; but an even greater injustice, in my opinion, is putting to death a person who is blameless.
The only solution I see, for the nonce, is limiting capital punishment's use to cases in which the perpetrator's guilt is not in question. For example, he is caught in the act by the authorities, or several parties can attest to having witnessed his barbarities, or the criminal demonstrably confesses his crime without compulsion. Another option is a complete overhaul and slash-and-burn policy within our judicial system, with built-in accountability. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening, any time soon.
I realize these scenarios aren't foolproof, and as I said, I'm torn. My opinion isn't set in stone, on this matter.
I welcome your comments.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Sick of Skewel
My mother sent this to me in an email. Supposedly, these are actual parental explanations for their childrens' absence from skewel.
NO PARENTS LEFT BEHIND
(Spellings have been left intact.)
NO PARENTS LEFT BEHIND
(Spellings have been left intact.)
1-- MY SON IS UNDER A DOCTOR'S CARE AND SHOULD NOT TAKE PE TODAY. PLEASE EXECUTE HIM.
2-- PLEASE EXKUCE LISA FOR BEING ABSENT SHE WAS SICK AND I HAD HER SHOT.
3-- DEAR SCHOOL: PLEASE ECSC's JOHN BEING ABSENT ON JAN. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 AND ALSO 33.
4-- PLEASE EXCUSE GLORIA FROM JIM TODAY. SHE IS ADMINISTRATING.
5-- PLEASE EXCUSE ROLAND FROM P.E. FOR A FEW DAYS. YESTERDAY HE
FELL OUT OF A TREE AND MISPLACED HIS HIP.
6-- JOHN HAS BEEN ABSENT BECAUSE HE HAD TWO TEETH TAKEN OUT OF HIS FACE.
7-- CARLOS WAS ABSENT YESTERDAY BECAUSE HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL. HE WAS HURT IN THE GROWING PART.
8-- MEGAN COULD NOT COME TO SCHOOL TODAY BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN
BOTHERED BY VERY CLOSE VEINS.
9-- CHRIS WILL NOT BE IN SCHOOL CUS HE HAS AN ACRE IN HIS SIDE.
10-- PLEASE EXCUSE RAY FRIDAY FROM SCHOOL. HE HAS VERY
LOOSE VOWELS.
11-- PLEASE EXCUSE PEDRO FROM BEING ABSENT YESTERDAY. HE HAD
(DIAHRE, DYREA, DIREATHE), THE SH**S. NOTE: [WORDS IN ( *)'s WERE CROSSED OUT].
12-- PLEASE EXCUSE TOMMY FOR BEING ABSENT YESTERDAY. HE HAD DIARRHEA, AND HIS BOOTS LEAK.
13-- IRVING WAS ABSENT YESTERDAY BECAUSE HE MISSED HIS BUST.
14-- PLEASE EXCUSE JIMMY FOR BEING. IT WAS HIS FATHER'S FAULT.
15 -- I KEPT BILLIE HOME BECAUSE SHE HAD TO GO CHRISTMAS SHOPPING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT SIZE SHE WEAR.
16-- PLEASE EXCUSE JENNIFER FOR MISSING SCHOOL YESTERDAY. WE FORGOT TO GET THE SUNDAY PAPER OFF THE PORCH, AND WHEN WE FOUND IT MONDAY. WE THOUGHT IT WAS SUNDAY.
17-- SALLY WON'T BE IN SCHOOL A WEEK FROM FRIDAY. WE HAVE TO ATTEND HER FUNERAL.
18-- MY DAUGHTER WAS ABSENT YESTERDAY BECAUSE SHE WAS TIRED. SHE SPENT A WEEKEND WITH THE MARINES.
19-- PLEASE EXCUSE JASON FOR BEING ABSENT YESTERDAY. HE HAD A COLD AND COULD NOT BREED WELL.
20-- PLEASE EXCUSE MARY FOR BEING ABSENT YESTERDAY. SHE WAS IN BED WITH GRAMPS.
21-- GLORIA WAS ABSENT YESTERDAY AS SHE WAS HAVING A GANGOVER.
22-- PLEASE EXCUSE BRENDA. SHE HAS BEEN SICK AND UNDER THE DOCTOR.
23-- MARYANN WAS ABSENT DECEMBER 11-16, BECAUSE SHE HAD A FEVER, SORE THROAT, HEADACHE AND UPSET STOMACH. HER SISTER WAS ALSO SICK, FEVER AN SORE THROAT, HER BROTHER HAD A LOW GRADE FEVER AND ACHED ALL OVER. I WASN'T THE BEST EITHER, SORE THROAT AND FEVER. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING GOING AROUND, HER FATHER EVEN GOT HOT LAST NIGHT.
You might want to skip the public schools, if you truly want your chillun to get a real education. On the other hand, if you want them to grow up to be semi-literate drones, clearly the public schools are accomplishing this with flying colors.
PSA
I WANT YOU!!!!!. . .. . .for the new Iraqi woodchipper team.
Benefits include: hearing the melodic screams of the dying, experience in the art of torture, general wallowing in human misery and gore, and a robust medical/dental plan.
Contact your local recruiting office for more details.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Of Paradoxes and Polecats
Bane wrote an interesting and thought-provoking meme, over at his blog, and challenged his readers to answer the proffered questions. What is a meme, you may ask? I have no idea, I may answer. But he wrote one, and I'm responding to it.
If you could have one person on the planet killed, right now, with no consequence to yourself, who would you choose, and why?
Osama bin Laden, because it would be justice served, and few alive deserve it more.
If you could have wild, wanton sex with the person of your choice, them your willing slave, for an entire weekend, at the place of your choosing, who would it be, why, and where?
Wayul, whut kinda question is that? I reckon I'll answer: My wife, because I love her and am committed to her, and probably in some mountain retreat, beside a nice, roaring fire, with Osama's head mounted just above the mantle. How's that for romantic?
In the entire known history of mankind, if you could go back and put a bullet into their head, with no consequence to yourself, or your lineage, who would it be? Why? If no one, why?
This one's a toss-up, for me: Either Charles Darwin--for popularizing the theory of evolution; Muhammed, for being a murderous, mangy sand-flea; or the guy who invented the DVD player. You wouldn't believe what it's cost me to make the transition from VHS tapes to discs.
If there was one mammalian species you had to choose, right now, to become extinct, which would it be?
Another toss-up: Either the leftist moonbat, or the polecat (that's Southron for skunk).
Assuming God exists, and he handed you a button that, if pushed, would destroy Him, Jesus, the Kingdom of Heaven, and the entire Heavenly Host, would you push it, and why? Or why not?
And extinguish the only light in this dark universe? Are you kidding?
Assuming the universe still exists after that last question, if God handed you a button that, if pushed, would erase humanity from existence, would you push it, and why? Or why not?
If I really had this option, I might give it a few moments of sincere pondering. Aren't y'all delighted that I'm not God? I wouldn't do it because--for all their faults and evils--there are many good people who spread love and hope throughout the world. And for some reason, God chooses not to do just that. Who am I to question His wisdom? Now, if you limited this to certain sections of the population, I might consider it further. Again, aren't y'all thrilled that I'm not the Creator?
Assuming humanity still exists, after that last question, if God handed you a button that would erase one race from existence, would you push it, who would you choose, and why?
Get behind me, Satan! You sorely tempt me. The Arab race has vexed the last 1,400 years of history, so I'd likely go with them, if I pushed the button. But I don't see the world through racial lenses, and even the Arabs deserve the chance to seek Christ's redemption. No human being should have such arbitrary power.
Aside from all the other questions, and apart (and I wish you would consider each one of them separately) if you could go back in your own timeline, anywhere, and change any one event, knowing that your present would utterly disappear, altered forever......would you? And, if yes, which one.
Nope. There's too much about my present life that I love, too many people who have entered it, only to brighten the drab curtains and splash rainbow colors on the walls. No change in my past is worth the loss of even one of these cherished ones.
If you could have one person on the planet killed, right now, with no consequence to yourself, who would you choose, and why?
Osama bin Laden, because it would be justice served, and few alive deserve it more.
If you could have wild, wanton sex with the person of your choice, them your willing slave, for an entire weekend, at the place of your choosing, who would it be, why, and where?
Wayul, whut kinda question is that? I reckon I'll answer: My wife, because I love her and am committed to her, and probably in some mountain retreat, beside a nice, roaring fire, with Osama's head mounted just above the mantle. How's that for romantic?
In the entire known history of mankind, if you could go back and put a bullet into their head, with no consequence to yourself, or your lineage, who would it be? Why? If no one, why?
This one's a toss-up, for me: Either Charles Darwin--for popularizing the theory of evolution; Muhammed, for being a murderous, mangy sand-flea; or the guy who invented the DVD player. You wouldn't believe what it's cost me to make the transition from VHS tapes to discs.
If there was one mammalian species you had to choose, right now, to become extinct, which would it be?
Another toss-up: Either the leftist moonbat, or the polecat (that's Southron for skunk).
Assuming God exists, and he handed you a button that, if pushed, would destroy Him, Jesus, the Kingdom of Heaven, and the entire Heavenly Host, would you push it, and why? Or why not?
And extinguish the only light in this dark universe? Are you kidding?
Assuming the universe still exists after that last question, if God handed you a button that, if pushed, would erase humanity from existence, would you push it, and why? Or why not?
If I really had this option, I might give it a few moments of sincere pondering. Aren't y'all delighted that I'm not God? I wouldn't do it because--for all their faults and evils--there are many good people who spread love and hope throughout the world. And for some reason, God chooses not to do just that. Who am I to question His wisdom? Now, if you limited this to certain sections of the population, I might consider it further. Again, aren't y'all thrilled that I'm not the Creator?
Assuming humanity still exists, after that last question, if God handed you a button that would erase one race from existence, would you push it, who would you choose, and why?
Get behind me, Satan! You sorely tempt me. The Arab race has vexed the last 1,400 years of history, so I'd likely go with them, if I pushed the button. But I don't see the world through racial lenses, and even the Arabs deserve the chance to seek Christ's redemption. No human being should have such arbitrary power.
Aside from all the other questions, and apart (and I wish you would consider each one of them separately) if you could go back in your own timeline, anywhere, and change any one event, knowing that your present would utterly disappear, altered forever......would you? And, if yes, which one.
Nope. There's too much about my present life that I love, too many people who have entered it, only to brighten the drab curtains and splash rainbow colors on the walls. No change in my past is worth the loss of even one of these cherished ones.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
"Coming Out" for Your Children
A Maryland high school is observing "National Coming Out Week" with events organized by the campus Gay/Straight Alliance, prompting protests from parents.
The observance, which began Monday, encourages homosexuals to admit their sexual preference to others and encourages heterosexuals to show support.
If the other 1, 999, 567, 763 reasons to keep your kids out of the public indoctrination centers didn't convince you, well, here's reason # 1, 999, 567, 764.
The observance, which began Monday, encourages homosexuals to admit their sexual preference to others and encourages heterosexuals to show support.
If the other 1, 999, 567, 763 reasons to keep your kids out of the public indoctrination centers didn't convince you, well, here's reason # 1, 999, 567, 764.
Bye-Bye Birdy
The U.N. calls for bold moves in restraining lethal bird flu:
EVERY country, including Britain, should appoint a Cabinet-level minister within the next two months to co-ordinate their response to avian flu, the United Nations’ most senior bird flu expert said yesterday.
So, just as communist countries need the services of a Minister of Propaganda, and Islamic countries value ministers of Chaos and Destruction and ministers of Self-Immolation, the whole world now suffers from a dearth of Flu ministers.
With a name like "Flu Minister," I almost expect a person who hands out little vials of Bottled Death standing at the head of a long line, proffering his wares to the citizens with a smile and a wink and a pat on the back before sending them off to the thanatoriums.
EVERY country, including Britain, should appoint a Cabinet-level minister within the next two months to co-ordinate their response to avian flu, the United Nations’ most senior bird flu expert said yesterday.
So, just as communist countries need the services of a Minister of Propaganda, and Islamic countries value ministers of Chaos and Destruction and ministers of Self-Immolation, the whole world now suffers from a dearth of Flu ministers.
With a name like "Flu Minister," I almost expect a person who hands out little vials of Bottled Death standing at the head of a long line, proffering his wares to the citizens with a smile and a wink and a pat on the back before sending them off to the thanatoriums.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Dubya's Backup
In the event that Harriet Miers' nomination falls flatter than a drunken wookie, Dubya has chosen a second pick for the position.He even comes with his own black robe.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Take-Your-Raghead-to-School Day
A public skewel dabbles in Islamic brainwashing:
The Thomas More Law Center says that for three weeks, "impressionable 12-year-old students" were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups; took Islamic names; wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the star and crescent moon; handed materials that instructed them to 'Remember Allah always so that you may prosper'; completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting; and memorized and recited the 'Bismillah' or 'In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,' which students also wrote on banners hung on the classroom walls.
Students also played "jihad games" during the course, which was part of the school's world history and geography program.
If this isn't a brazen attempt at indoctrination, then what the heck is it?
In her 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton determined Excelsior was not indoctrinating students about Islam when it required them to adopt Muslim names and pray to Allah, but rather was just teaching them about the Muslim religion.
The lawsuit also alleges students were encouraged to use such phrases in their speech as "Allah Akbar," which is Arabic for "God is great," and were required to fast during lunch period to simulate fasting during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
Nevertheless, Judge Hamilton ruled the program was devoid of "any devotional or religious intent" and was, therefore, educational, not religious in nature.
Hm, I wonder how much they were taught about the bloody, ruthless aspects of the "Religion of Peace?" I wonder if there was any mention of Muhammed's pedophile tendencies, or his beheading of over 300 Jews in a single day? I imagine they learned all about the Muslim definition of tolerance: "Submit, convert, or die." When a story has two clear sides, and one is presented while the other is ignored, this does not fit the meaning of the word "education." Let's call it what it is: programming.
Not only is the judge a dishonest moron, but the irony of the situation isn't lost on me: let's present a deceitful, rosy portrait of a religion whose practitioners would gleefully kill us all--if given half the chance--and wipe our civilization from the face of the Earth. That includes the skewel's administrators, and the multicultist judge who presided over the case.
The Thomas More Law Center says that for three weeks, "impressionable 12-year-old students" were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups; took Islamic names; wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the star and crescent moon; handed materials that instructed them to 'Remember Allah always so that you may prosper'; completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting; and memorized and recited the 'Bismillah' or 'In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,' which students also wrote on banners hung on the classroom walls.
Students also played "jihad games" during the course, which was part of the school's world history and geography program.
If this isn't a brazen attempt at indoctrination, then what the heck is it?
In her 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton determined Excelsior was not indoctrinating students about Islam when it required them to adopt Muslim names and pray to Allah, but rather was just teaching them about the Muslim religion.
The lawsuit also alleges students were encouraged to use such phrases in their speech as "Allah Akbar," which is Arabic for "God is great," and were required to fast during lunch period to simulate fasting during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
Nevertheless, Judge Hamilton ruled the program was devoid of "any devotional or religious intent" and was, therefore, educational, not religious in nature.
Hm, I wonder how much they were taught about the bloody, ruthless aspects of the "Religion of Peace?" I wonder if there was any mention of Muhammed's pedophile tendencies, or his beheading of over 300 Jews in a single day? I imagine they learned all about the Muslim definition of tolerance: "Submit, convert, or die." When a story has two clear sides, and one is presented while the other is ignored, this does not fit the meaning of the word "education." Let's call it what it is: programming.
Not only is the judge a dishonest moron, but the irony of the situation isn't lost on me: let's present a deceitful, rosy portrait of a religion whose practitioners would gleefully kill us all--if given half the chance--and wipe our civilization from the face of the Earth. That includes the skewel's administrators, and the multicultist judge who presided over the case.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
"Subversive and Dangerous"
A Bible printing press was confiscated in Cuba:
After calling for reinforcements, a truck arrived with 12 armed, uniformed police who seized the gospels and the printing press. Cuban officials called the materials "subversive and dangerous."
The Ministry of Religion called the confiscated printing press "very dangerous."
A Cuban "Ministry of Religion," run by an atheist? Now I've heard everything. It's kinda like the Clinton administration setting up a "Ministry of Ethics." Please. Pure oxymoronics.
As for the Gospels being dangerous writings, you'd better believe it. Nothing ticks off el jefe like a book insisting that he's full of el crappo.
Elsewhere in Cuba, threats of demolition of house churches have never been so high. Recently, the government outlawed them and plans to hunt them down and close them. Many house churches have had equipment such as pews, homemade benches, musical instruments, Christian literature and anything else confiscated by police.
Remember this the next time some soulless Hollywhacked vice merchant ( like Oliver Stoned, for example) grovels on his face before Castro, and comes back to capitalist hell with his eyes shining with joy at the unbridled bliss found only in the People's Paradise of Kooba.
After calling for reinforcements, a truck arrived with 12 armed, uniformed police who seized the gospels and the printing press. Cuban officials called the materials "subversive and dangerous."
The Ministry of Religion called the confiscated printing press "very dangerous."
A Cuban "Ministry of Religion," run by an atheist? Now I've heard everything. It's kinda like the Clinton administration setting up a "Ministry of Ethics." Please. Pure oxymoronics.
As for the Gospels being dangerous writings, you'd better believe it. Nothing ticks off el jefe like a book insisting that he's full of el crappo.
Elsewhere in Cuba, threats of demolition of house churches have never been so high. Recently, the government outlawed them and plans to hunt them down and close them. Many house churches have had equipment such as pews, homemade benches, musical instruments, Christian literature and anything else confiscated by police.
Remember this the next time some soulless Hollywhacked vice merchant ( like Oliver Stoned, for example) grovels on his face before Castro, and comes back to capitalist hell with his eyes shining with joy at the unbridled bliss found only in the People's Paradise of Kooba.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
"Just Trust Me"
I'm constantly reading criticisms of the Miers nomination on the grounds that she is not--and has not been--a constitutional attorney or a judge. Since the Constitution does not require the holding of these positions as qualifications for a Supreme Court justice, I don't find these arguments very compelling. Since judges predictably prove themselves constitutional babes in the woods--or worse, brazen enemies of the document--with regularity, I'm not particularly impressed by such a resume. I'd much prefer a sanitation engineer with a firm grasp of constitutional principles over a judge with 30 years experience legislating from the bench, any day of the week.
To me, a far more important criterion is: Has the candidate provided demonstrations of understanding the Constitution? In this regard, we have nothing but a large question mark for an answer. What information I've gleaned from news articles either has been inconclusive, or contradictory of other stories.
Even more problematic is the sad truth that--try as I might--I can find no reason for her nomination, beyond the fact that she's a personal friend of the president, and that she is of the female persuasion. I don't think I'm clutching at the stars, when I establish a more rigorous set of expectations than "Wayul, I like 'er, an' she's got lotsa estrogen."
To me, a far more important criterion is: Has the candidate provided demonstrations of understanding the Constitution? In this regard, we have nothing but a large question mark for an answer. What information I've gleaned from news articles either has been inconclusive, or contradictory of other stories.
Even more problematic is the sad truth that--try as I might--I can find no reason for her nomination, beyond the fact that she's a personal friend of the president, and that she is of the female persuasion. I don't think I'm clutching at the stars, when I establish a more rigorous set of expectations than "Wayul, I like 'er, an' she's got lotsa estrogen."
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
At Least He Tried
Red Kennedy tries but fails in a water rescue attempt:
Well, that's not entirely accurate. The real rescuers used him as a flotation device, so he did make a contribution.
Well, that's not entirely accurate. The real rescuers used him as a flotation device, so he did make a contribution.
Monday, October 17, 2005
50 Million on the Richter Scale
Western governments rushed to step up their pledges for the earthquake relief effort after their initial response to the disaster was condemned as slow-moving and financially inadequate.
The United States, which was under pressure to increase a pledge of $500,000 (£280,000) considered almost derisory by many Pakistanis when it was made over the weekend, announced it intended to give $50m in emergency aid.
Imagine this in the context of the Good Samaritan parable: A man is robbed, beaten, and left for dead by the roadside. After being passed and ignored by several people, a Samaritan man comes along and finds him. The traveler feels compassion for the victim--caring for his wounds, giving him water, and taking him to a place where he'll receive further aid. He even pays for the stranger's treatment and lodging.
As the Samaritan is about to leave the injured man in the hands of those who will nurse him back to health, the fellow struggles up in bed, coughing and barely supporting himself on one bruised and torn elbow, and screeches:
"Where in the heck were you, six hours ago, when I first got my butt kicked? Thanks for nothing!"
I'm sure at this point, the Samaritan wishes he'd left the man in the ditch, and perhaps given him a good swift kick as he lay there, before offering him the dust of his heels as balm for his sorry state.
The United States, which was under pressure to increase a pledge of $500,000 (£280,000) considered almost derisory by many Pakistanis when it was made over the weekend, announced it intended to give $50m in emergency aid.
Imagine this in the context of the Good Samaritan parable: A man is robbed, beaten, and left for dead by the roadside. After being passed and ignored by several people, a Samaritan man comes along and finds him. The traveler feels compassion for the victim--caring for his wounds, giving him water, and taking him to a place where he'll receive further aid. He even pays for the stranger's treatment and lodging.
As the Samaritan is about to leave the injured man in the hands of those who will nurse him back to health, the fellow struggles up in bed, coughing and barely supporting himself on one bruised and torn elbow, and screeches:
"Where in the heck were you, six hours ago, when I first got my butt kicked? Thanks for nothing!"
I'm sure at this point, the Samaritan wishes he'd left the man in the ditch, and perhaps given him a good swift kick as he lay there, before offering him the dust of his heels as balm for his sorry state.
Nazis in the Heartland
"Whew! I just finished a long day at the rally with the guys, and boy, are my arms tired!"
Sunday, October 16, 2005
The Long Kiss Good Night
New face on dollar bill: Geena Davis
When first I saw this headline on World Net Daily, I shuddered and nearly swooned, wondering if the world as we know it truly had come to an end. Sure, she was ok in Beetlejuice, but would she make a good commandette-in-chief?
Then I realized it was just part of a tv show.
Still, after the last thirteen years, it makes me wonder.
When first I saw this headline on World Net Daily, I shuddered and nearly swooned, wondering if the world as we know it truly had come to an end. Sure, she was ok in Beetlejuice, but would she make a good commandette-in-chief?
Then I realized it was just part of a tv show.
Still, after the last thirteen years, it makes me wonder.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Funny Pictures
I hope you get a laugh out of these. I know I did:
Rainbow's End
Upgrade
Taken for a Ride
Bike Trip
Lock 'n Load
Rainbow's End
Upgrade
Taken for a Ride
Bike Trip
Lock 'n Load
Thursday, October 13, 2005
The Grave of the Future
Grand opening: Swiss euthanasia clinic in Britain
I can almost hear the radio ads:
Tired of that old curmudgeon uncle?
Sick of Granny's dementia?
Disgusted with the last election's results?
Fed-up with Wallace and Gromit reruns?
Well, come on down, and let Dignitas dispose of your unwanted corpus!
Dignitas--where life is but a dream!
I can almost hear the radio ads:
Tired of that old curmudgeon uncle?
Sick of Granny's dementia?
Disgusted with the last election's results?
Fed-up with Wallace and Gromit reruns?
Well, come on down, and let Dignitas dispose of your unwanted corpus!
Dignitas--where life is but a dream!
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Illegal Update
As I was sifting through WorldNetDaily and munching on my Border-Jumper combo from Taco Bell, I came across several interesting news items:
Arnold Schwarzeneggar vetoes bill providing driver's licenses to illegals.
When asked for a comment, the Governor said: "I tuhminated it with my pen. But don't worry; it'll be bahck."
Sign posted by U-Haul: "Please do not hire illegal laborers. We have had numerous reports of injuries, thefts and damages to personal belongings. It is a federal crime to employ or pick up illegal day laborers, punishable by a $5,000 fine."
Idiot response quote: "The tack they're taking is a particularly troubling one," Wilson said. "They're painting illegal day workers as criminals, making generalizations about a group of people."
Illegals? Criminals? Perish the thought. God bless U-Haul.
Sheriff gets armored car for patrolling the border:
The $18,000, nine-ton, six-wheeled vehicle is needed because of increased attacks against deputies and U.S. Border Patrol agents by drug and migrant smugglers, sheriff's and patrol officials said. The agencies frequently work together.
Law enforcement officers in the border region are increasingly subject to rock throwing, gunfire and being rammed by fleeing vehicles.
That's really unfair. All these "undocumented workers" just want employment, such as picking apples and pockets, and dealing used cars and drugs. We need them, after all! Americans are the stupidest, laziest people on the face of the earth! Just ask anyone from La Raza. They'll set ya straight.
A south Georgia mayor said Friday he will continue flying a Mexican flag at city hall for the six immigrant farmworkers slain in robberies - despite complaints from residents.
When questioned about his methods, he said: "Well, I could only think of one way to honor these decent people: insult my fellow countrymen. Seemed like a good plan at the time, and it still does."
Many of those engaged in the huge cleanup and reconstruction effort here (Nawleuhns)-- nobody has an exact count -- are immigrants, both legal and illegal, from Mexico and Central America.
Meanwhile, as many as 80,000 New Orleanians sit idle in shelters around the country. They are out of work, homeless and destitute.
Mayor Ray Nagin added his voice to the chorus this week, telling local business people: "How do I ensure that New Orleans is not overrun by Mexican workers?"
I ain't sure, Ray. But I guar-own-tee that this inundation is all Bush's fault--jest like global warming.
Arnold Schwarzeneggar vetoes bill providing driver's licenses to illegals.
When asked for a comment, the Governor said: "I tuhminated it with my pen. But don't worry; it'll be bahck."
Sign posted by U-Haul: "Please do not hire illegal laborers. We have had numerous reports of injuries, thefts and damages to personal belongings. It is a federal crime to employ or pick up illegal day laborers, punishable by a $5,000 fine."
Idiot response quote: "The tack they're taking is a particularly troubling one," Wilson said. "They're painting illegal day workers as criminals, making generalizations about a group of people."
Illegals? Criminals? Perish the thought. God bless U-Haul.
Sheriff gets armored car for patrolling the border:
The $18,000, nine-ton, six-wheeled vehicle is needed because of increased attacks against deputies and U.S. Border Patrol agents by drug and migrant smugglers, sheriff's and patrol officials said. The agencies frequently work together.
Law enforcement officers in the border region are increasingly subject to rock throwing, gunfire and being rammed by fleeing vehicles.
That's really unfair. All these "undocumented workers" just want employment, such as picking apples and pockets, and dealing used cars and drugs. We need them, after all! Americans are the stupidest, laziest people on the face of the earth! Just ask anyone from La Raza. They'll set ya straight.
A south Georgia mayor said Friday he will continue flying a Mexican flag at city hall for the six immigrant farmworkers slain in robberies - despite complaints from residents.
When questioned about his methods, he said: "Well, I could only think of one way to honor these decent people: insult my fellow countrymen. Seemed like a good plan at the time, and it still does."
Many of those engaged in the huge cleanup and reconstruction effort here (Nawleuhns)-- nobody has an exact count -- are immigrants, both legal and illegal, from Mexico and Central America.
Meanwhile, as many as 80,000 New Orleanians sit idle in shelters around the country. They are out of work, homeless and destitute.
Mayor Ray Nagin added his voice to the chorus this week, telling local business people: "How do I ensure that New Orleans is not overrun by Mexican workers?"
I ain't sure, Ray. But I guar-own-tee that this inundation is all Bush's fault--jest like global warming.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Blogging Techniques
Gee, Wes, could you possibly be more wild-eyed and spraying spittle all over the monitor? You musta been talking to Nate. Remember, the proper pose when typing something of this sort is to hunch over the keyboard, elbows akimbo, pounding furiously while glancing around furtively.
In what I can only describe as superior remote viewing capabilities, Bill has characterized my blogging posture to a tee. I would only add that I wear a bib to minimize drool spillage, and I have a slight tic in my right eye. Often, I'll titter in a high voice like a witch at a black mass, for no discernible reason. Well, that's not quite true. It always elicits a look of quiet unease from the Man in Black crouching in the corner.
Now if y'all will excuse me, I have some furious pounding to catch up on.
In what I can only describe as superior remote viewing capabilities, Bill has characterized my blogging posture to a tee. I would only add that I wear a bib to minimize drool spillage, and I have a slight tic in my right eye. Often, I'll titter in a high voice like a witch at a black mass, for no discernible reason. Well, that's not quite true. It always elicits a look of quiet unease from the Man in Black crouching in the corner.
Now if y'all will excuse me, I have some furious pounding to catch up on.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Martial Law
JenE posed an interesting question, recently: Is Martial Law constitutional, and is it legal? This is my attempt at answering her question more fully.
First off, let's define a few terms for those who aren't familiar with the subject matter.
From Dictionary.com--
Martial Law: Temporary rule by military authorities, imposed on a civilian population especially in time of war or when civil authority has broken down.
Habeas Corpus: 1. One of a variety of writs that may be issued to bring a party before a court or judge, having as its function the release of the party from unlawful restraint. 2. The right of a citizen to obtain such a writ.
Posse Comitatus Act: (my own elaboration) An 1878 document stating that--without an official act of Congress--the military is prohibited from performing in a law-enforcement capacity, within the United States.
Here's my take: Since Martial Law entails the military ruling civilians, I don't see how it's in harmony with our founding document. The Constitution calls for self-government--in other words, government by the people. Clearly, a militaristic rule is outside the scope of what our Founders intended--especially considering that many--if not most--of the Founders were against having a standing army.
The Constitution allows the temporary halting of Habeas Corpus writs, but only during times of rebellion or invasion (Article I, Section 9). (Thanks to Salt for reminding me of this). Just to reiterate, this is a suspension of Habeas Corpus, not a termination. When it speaks of "invasion," I assume it means something along the lines of events that transpired in the War of 1812, for example, when the British literally invaded Washington, D.C. The "rebellion" aspect is trickier. I don't consider the confederacy's actions as a rebellion, in the strictest sense. The South desired a complete separation from the North into its own nation, not just the creation of chaos within the United States. Perhaps The Federalist Papers better define and elucidate our Founders' thoughts on the concept of rebellion.
I think it's clear that suspending Habeas Corpus and instituting Martial Law are not synonymous. The Constitution makes provision for the first, and none for the latter. I think it's worth mentioning, too, that the Constitution only allows the federal government powers specifically enumerated in the document, while all other powers belong to the states. But we all know how well that section is followed, don't we? If an argument is to be made in its favor, it must come at state--not federal--levels.
In addition, Martial Law violates the Posse Comitatus Act, mentioned above.
As for legalities: that deemed legal certainly does not equate to that which is constitutional. Is it possible that a judge might rule in favor of Martial Law, or that Congress might vote it into existence?
These days, you'd better believe it.
First off, let's define a few terms for those who aren't familiar with the subject matter.
From Dictionary.com--
Martial Law: Temporary rule by military authorities, imposed on a civilian population especially in time of war or when civil authority has broken down.
Habeas Corpus: 1. One of a variety of writs that may be issued to bring a party before a court or judge, having as its function the release of the party from unlawful restraint. 2. The right of a citizen to obtain such a writ.
Posse Comitatus Act: (my own elaboration) An 1878 document stating that--without an official act of Congress--the military is prohibited from performing in a law-enforcement capacity, within the United States.
Here's my take: Since Martial Law entails the military ruling civilians, I don't see how it's in harmony with our founding document. The Constitution calls for self-government--in other words, government by the people. Clearly, a militaristic rule is outside the scope of what our Founders intended--especially considering that many--if not most--of the Founders were against having a standing army.
The Constitution allows the temporary halting of Habeas Corpus writs, but only during times of rebellion or invasion (Article I, Section 9). (Thanks to Salt for reminding me of this). Just to reiterate, this is a suspension of Habeas Corpus, not a termination. When it speaks of "invasion," I assume it means something along the lines of events that transpired in the War of 1812, for example, when the British literally invaded Washington, D.C. The "rebellion" aspect is trickier. I don't consider the confederacy's actions as a rebellion, in the strictest sense. The South desired a complete separation from the North into its own nation, not just the creation of chaos within the United States. Perhaps The Federalist Papers better define and elucidate our Founders' thoughts on the concept of rebellion.
I think it's clear that suspending Habeas Corpus and instituting Martial Law are not synonymous. The Constitution makes provision for the first, and none for the latter. I think it's worth mentioning, too, that the Constitution only allows the federal government powers specifically enumerated in the document, while all other powers belong to the states. But we all know how well that section is followed, don't we? If an argument is to be made in its favor, it must come at state--not federal--levels.
In addition, Martial Law violates the Posse Comitatus Act, mentioned above.
As for legalities: that deemed legal certainly does not equate to that which is constitutional. Is it possible that a judge might rule in favor of Martial Law, or that Congress might vote it into existence?
These days, you'd better believe it.
Saturday, October 8, 2005
For the Birds
I'm sure you've all heard about the potential avian flu pandemic in the making. In an article I first read over at Vox's, the President expressed his wish to use the military in quarantining the virus:
He said the military, and perhaps the National Guard, might be needed to take such a role if the feared H5N1 bird flu virus changes enough to cause widespread human infection.
"If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country? And how do you, then, enforce a quarantine?" Bush asked at a news conference.
Bird flu has killed more than 60 people in four Asian nations since late 2003 and has been found in birds in Russia and Europe.
Experts fear that the H5N1 bird flu virus, which appears to be highly fatal when it infects people, will develop the ability to pass easily from person to person and would cause a pandemic that would kill millions.
I'm all for cautionary measures, but isn't this borderline hysteria? Sixty people in four nations in two years? Like I said in the comments over at Vox's, more people probably died in boating accidents in those places in the same timeframe. I realize that a pandemic or a regional epidemic can occur, but I haven't seen actual evidence that it will, in this case. All I've heard or read is so-called "experts" spouting off in the newspapers and on tv. I'm willing to bet that these are the same know-it-alls who claimed SARS would be a world-shattering disease, running rampant through the countryside and hopping from one continent to another like fire in a street of crowded tenements. It never even came close to the picture of devastation they painted.
As for the President's request, it bothers me that he's grasping at this kind of power. The Posse Comitatus Act bans the use of active duty military in a law enforcement capacity. I think this is a usurpation of state powers, another nick in the shield of federalism--particularly if the National Guard is involved in such operations.
Two other points: This appears to be an attempt on President Bush's part to make up for perceived federal failures in the aftermaths of Hurricanes Kakillya and Rita. This further blemishes his request, because these "failures" are no such things. The federal government involved itself in those cleanup efforts far more than is constitutionally mandated or acceptable. Also, why on earth would anyone believe the feds can handle quarantining procedures better than local governments? Upon what facts is this opinion based? The federal government works like King Midas in reverse--everything it touches turns to crap. Are we to believe that the current scenario is an exception to this otherwise well-proven rule?
He said the military, and perhaps the National Guard, might be needed to take such a role if the feared H5N1 bird flu virus changes enough to cause widespread human infection.
"If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country? And how do you, then, enforce a quarantine?" Bush asked at a news conference.
Bird flu has killed more than 60 people in four Asian nations since late 2003 and has been found in birds in Russia and Europe.
Experts fear that the H5N1 bird flu virus, which appears to be highly fatal when it infects people, will develop the ability to pass easily from person to person and would cause a pandemic that would kill millions.
I'm all for cautionary measures, but isn't this borderline hysteria? Sixty people in four nations in two years? Like I said in the comments over at Vox's, more people probably died in boating accidents in those places in the same timeframe. I realize that a pandemic or a regional epidemic can occur, but I haven't seen actual evidence that it will, in this case. All I've heard or read is so-called "experts" spouting off in the newspapers and on tv. I'm willing to bet that these are the same know-it-alls who claimed SARS would be a world-shattering disease, running rampant through the countryside and hopping from one continent to another like fire in a street of crowded tenements. It never even came close to the picture of devastation they painted.
As for the President's request, it bothers me that he's grasping at this kind of power. The Posse Comitatus Act bans the use of active duty military in a law enforcement capacity. I think this is a usurpation of state powers, another nick in the shield of federalism--particularly if the National Guard is involved in such operations.
Two other points: This appears to be an attempt on President Bush's part to make up for perceived federal failures in the aftermaths of Hurricanes Kakillya and Rita. This further blemishes his request, because these "failures" are no such things. The federal government involved itself in those cleanup efforts far more than is constitutionally mandated or acceptable. Also, why on earth would anyone believe the feds can handle quarantining procedures better than local governments? Upon what facts is this opinion based? The federal government works like King Midas in reverse--everything it touches turns to crap. Are we to believe that the current scenario is an exception to this otherwise well-proven rule?
Thursday, October 6, 2005
The Bible: A Wonderful Work of Fiction
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
I suppose this is the inevitable outcome of subordinating scriptural truth to cherished tradition. When the words of men matter more than the Word of God, such a conclusion comes as no surprise.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
The linked article is a slanted, dishonest screed. It's instructional, though, about how much of the world views Christian history and teaching. Galileo was not branded a heretic for shunning a belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible. It's a complete crock. Galileo was a devout follower of Christ who never wavered in his beliefs. He was castigated because he challenged the absolute authority of the Catholic Church. That, and he was a pretty combative guy, to boot.
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
It's hilarious how the definition of "tolerance" has been degraded. It used to entail the allowance of diverging viewpoints. Now, apparently, it means the embracing of all views as equally valid. All views, that is, except that which insists on biblical inerrancy.
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
I would think the similarity of Genesis to the creation accounts of other cultures bolsters its historical credibility, not vice versa. I've never understood the concept of picking and choosing which passages to believe, and which to reject. How does one make that distinction?
Here are a couple of passage-examples now considered untrue by these "scholars and theologians:"
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Exodus xx,1-17
The Ten Commandments
Matthew v,7
The Sermon on the Mount
Luke i
The Virgin Birth
John xx,28
Proof of bodily resurrection
If these aren't true, why not be forthright and just state your actual position: the Bible is bunk, from cover to cover!
UPDATE!
It seems I made a boo-boo, folks. Perhaps I should work on my reading comprehension. A word of advice: don't blog angry. I usually try to be careful about getting my facts straight.
Turns out, all the scripture examples I gave at the end of the post--except for the first one--fell under the TRUE column, not the UNTRUE one. So, the situation isn't quite as bad as it might be. But I stand by the rest of this post, and I think my points are valid.
Rejecting scripture in favor of Man's pontifications is a dangerous, foolish thing. The description of Galileo's run-in with the Catholic Church still is just as wrong.
Much appreciation goes to TOTAL 1087 for catching my error.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
I suppose this is the inevitable outcome of subordinating scriptural truth to cherished tradition. When the words of men matter more than the Word of God, such a conclusion comes as no surprise.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
The linked article is a slanted, dishonest screed. It's instructional, though, about how much of the world views Christian history and teaching. Galileo was not branded a heretic for shunning a belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible. It's a complete crock. Galileo was a devout follower of Christ who never wavered in his beliefs. He was castigated because he challenged the absolute authority of the Catholic Church. That, and he was a pretty combative guy, to boot.
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
It's hilarious how the definition of "tolerance" has been degraded. It used to entail the allowance of diverging viewpoints. Now, apparently, it means the embracing of all views as equally valid. All views, that is, except that which insists on biblical inerrancy.
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
I would think the similarity of Genesis to the creation accounts of other cultures bolsters its historical credibility, not vice versa. I've never understood the concept of picking and choosing which passages to believe, and which to reject. How does one make that distinction?
Here are a couple of passage-examples now considered untrue by these "scholars and theologians:"
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Exodus xx,1-17
The Ten Commandments
Matthew v,7
The Sermon on the Mount
Luke i
The Virgin Birth
John xx,28
Proof of bodily resurrection
If these aren't true, why not be forthright and just state your actual position: the Bible is bunk, from cover to cover!
UPDATE!
It seems I made a boo-boo, folks. Perhaps I should work on my reading comprehension. A word of advice: don't blog angry. I usually try to be careful about getting my facts straight.
Turns out, all the scripture examples I gave at the end of the post--except for the first one--fell under the TRUE column, not the UNTRUE one. So, the situation isn't quite as bad as it might be. But I stand by the rest of this post, and I think my points are valid.
Rejecting scripture in favor of Man's pontifications is a dangerous, foolish thing. The description of Galileo's run-in with the Catholic Church still is just as wrong.
Much appreciation goes to TOTAL 1087 for catching my error.
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
Being Inoffensive
British officials are worried that the English flag might offend some Muslims:
Prison officials in Britain are concerned that tie pins worn by officers featuring the St. George's Cross – the symbol on England's flag – could offend Muslims who might associate it with the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries.
The red cross is an insensitive reminder of the Crusades, said Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding.
Doyle thinks England needs to find a new flag and patron saint "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."
"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.
What an idiot. Who cares what they think? Are we supposed to coddle them in their ignorance? I have no sympathy for someone who is too lazy and/or stupid to study up on Islam's clash with Western civilization. A lot of Muslims and Arabs also believe that Islam should dominate the entire planet. Does that mean we should bare our throats and let them grind their heels in our necks, while we cower in the dirt?
Everything offends somebody, somewhere. At what point do we finally break down and say: "You're offended? Guess what? That's too bad. You have no right to be offended. Your people were waging unprovoked war against ours for over 460 years, before our people finally counterattacked. If that offends you, you know what you can do with your bruised sensibilities. I'm so fed up with this pc drivel about Islam and Muslims. This is the most bloodthirsty, demonic, violent religion on the face of the earth. Its adherents are owed an apology by nobody.
Prison officials in Britain are concerned that tie pins worn by officers featuring the St. George's Cross – the symbol on England's flag – could offend Muslims who might associate it with the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries.
The red cross is an insensitive reminder of the Crusades, said Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding.
Doyle thinks England needs to find a new flag and patron saint "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."
"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.
What an idiot. Who cares what they think? Are we supposed to coddle them in their ignorance? I have no sympathy for someone who is too lazy and/or stupid to study up on Islam's clash with Western civilization. A lot of Muslims and Arabs also believe that Islam should dominate the entire planet. Does that mean we should bare our throats and let them grind their heels in our necks, while we cower in the dirt?
Everything offends somebody, somewhere. At what point do we finally break down and say: "You're offended? Guess what? That's too bad. You have no right to be offended. Your people were waging unprovoked war against ours for over 460 years, before our people finally counterattacked. If that offends you, you know what you can do with your bruised sensibilities. I'm so fed up with this pc drivel about Islam and Muslims. This is the most bloodthirsty, demonic, violent religion on the face of the earth. Its adherents are owed an apology by nobody.
Poverty and Crime
Earlier this evening, I spent about five minutes watching The O'Reilly Factor. I never noticed before, but the show has emetic properties. Is it just me, or does O'Reilly move further left, incrementally, every week or so? Tonight, he made a point of hammering home the ridiculous notion that poverty causes crime, with all the subtlety of a bull on skates in a china shop. This absurd conclusion needs cauterizing immediately, before what passes as intellectual discourse in this country hemmorhages to death.
His "thought process" went something like this: Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, given their numbers. Most blacks are poor. Ergo, poverty cultivates crime like hippies breed lice. This is a familiar, shoddy mentality utilized by self-styled black "leaders" in their explanations of the high rate of black incarcerations. Disproportionate numbers of blacks languish in prison or jail, therefore, honkeys hate homeys. Besides the explicit assumption in this viewpoint that white=racist (a racist proposition, in and of itself), it is assumed that the mere presence of large numbers of blacks in prison is proof of whitey's racist tendencies. No further evidence required; pass the bong, please.
The facts--always unwelcome intruders in the politically correct realm--remain. During the Great Depression--a time of staggering poverty shared by all subcultures, skin colors, and political stripes--petty crime rates stayed low, relatively speaking. People chose gainful employment of almost any type over pillage and rapine, even at abysmal wages. Presently, most people who fall under the "poor" heading in the United States are not criminals. If poverty breeds crime, shouldn't the opposite be true? Here's another twist of the knife: If poverty elicits criminal behavior, shouldn't wealth instill virtue--or at the very least, legal adherence? Logical consistency demands that the answer is "Yes." But that's not the reality of the situation. Look at the number of movie stars, pro sports figures, musicians, corporate executives, and other celebrities who never balk at the odd illegal foray. It's far from a rare occurence. Examples include Wynonna Rider, Robert Downey, Jr., Mike "I'm Hungry" Tyson, O.J. Simpson, and an accompanying host of scoundrels.
So if poverty doesn't breed crime, you ask, then what does?
I'm glad you popped that question. I think crime stems from viewpoints, mentalities, cultural problems, worldviews--call them what you will. It also emanates from humankind's fallen nature. Sticking with our example above, take black folks. What do you think is more likely--that poverty causes crime, or that the absence of a father--usually the disciplinarian and restraining force within the family--is a common fact of life in the black community? The problem is less extreme but no less real among whites. I think this one factor alone is a horrific strike against a person. Add to this the flames of racial tension, stoked by the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the liberal elite, and you've got yourself a conflagration of misery.
These are cultural problems, not outcomes of one's skin color.
When I said "worldviews, viewpoints, mentalities," etc., I meant our beliefs. Is God real, or just a cardboard cut-out figure in the sky? Does he have expectations for us? Are whites evil racists, or not? Was Jesus' example one we should follow, or shun? Is supporting oneself a government obligation, or an individual responsibility? How one answers these and other questions goes a long way in determining one's future criminal-mindedness.
As for a sinful nature, it is one of the few things we all have in common. This is why crime will never be eradicated fully. If the blight of poverty were scoured from the earth, tomorrow, and every human being plopped down in the lap of luxury, crime still would rear its ugly visage. The reason for this is as heartbreaking as it is simple: When choosing between right and wrong is an option, there always will be those who choose wrong. So even the best circumstances cannot ensure goodness, though they do help.
The notion that poverty opens the door to a criminal life requires a rejection of the biblical characterization of poverty and human nature, in my view. I think I'll stick with scripture over the pontifications of fallible men--particularly when the views-in-question are so easily disproven.
His "thought process" went something like this: Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, given their numbers. Most blacks are poor. Ergo, poverty cultivates crime like hippies breed lice. This is a familiar, shoddy mentality utilized by self-styled black "leaders" in their explanations of the high rate of black incarcerations. Disproportionate numbers of blacks languish in prison or jail, therefore, honkeys hate homeys. Besides the explicit assumption in this viewpoint that white=racist (a racist proposition, in and of itself), it is assumed that the mere presence of large numbers of blacks in prison is proof of whitey's racist tendencies. No further evidence required; pass the bong, please.
The facts--always unwelcome intruders in the politically correct realm--remain. During the Great Depression--a time of staggering poverty shared by all subcultures, skin colors, and political stripes--petty crime rates stayed low, relatively speaking. People chose gainful employment of almost any type over pillage and rapine, even at abysmal wages. Presently, most people who fall under the "poor" heading in the United States are not criminals. If poverty breeds crime, shouldn't the opposite be true? Here's another twist of the knife: If poverty elicits criminal behavior, shouldn't wealth instill virtue--or at the very least, legal adherence? Logical consistency demands that the answer is "Yes." But that's not the reality of the situation. Look at the number of movie stars, pro sports figures, musicians, corporate executives, and other celebrities who never balk at the odd illegal foray. It's far from a rare occurence. Examples include Wynonna Rider, Robert Downey, Jr., Mike "I'm Hungry" Tyson, O.J. Simpson, and an accompanying host of scoundrels.
So if poverty doesn't breed crime, you ask, then what does?
I'm glad you popped that question. I think crime stems from viewpoints, mentalities, cultural problems, worldviews--call them what you will. It also emanates from humankind's fallen nature. Sticking with our example above, take black folks. What do you think is more likely--that poverty causes crime, or that the absence of a father--usually the disciplinarian and restraining force within the family--is a common fact of life in the black community? The problem is less extreme but no less real among whites. I think this one factor alone is a horrific strike against a person. Add to this the flames of racial tension, stoked by the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the liberal elite, and you've got yourself a conflagration of misery.
These are cultural problems, not outcomes of one's skin color.
When I said "worldviews, viewpoints, mentalities," etc., I meant our beliefs. Is God real, or just a cardboard cut-out figure in the sky? Does he have expectations for us? Are whites evil racists, or not? Was Jesus' example one we should follow, or shun? Is supporting oneself a government obligation, or an individual responsibility? How one answers these and other questions goes a long way in determining one's future criminal-mindedness.
As for a sinful nature, it is one of the few things we all have in common. This is why crime will never be eradicated fully. If the blight of poverty were scoured from the earth, tomorrow, and every human being plopped down in the lap of luxury, crime still would rear its ugly visage. The reason for this is as heartbreaking as it is simple: When choosing between right and wrong is an option, there always will be those who choose wrong. So even the best circumstances cannot ensure goodness, though they do help.
The notion that poverty opens the door to a criminal life requires a rejection of the biblical characterization of poverty and human nature, in my view. I think I'll stick with scripture over the pontifications of fallible men--particularly when the views-in-question are so easily disproven.
Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Swearin' About the Swearin'-in
It's official. John Roberts was sworn in as the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Rushing in and providing confusion where only clarity once reigned, President Bush said: "All Americans can be confident that the 17th chief justice of the United States will be prudent in exercising judicial power, firm in defending judicial independence and above all a faithful guardian of the Constitution."
A "faithful guardian of the Constitution?" Please. How can he play that role, when he's already made it clear that he'll be a faithful guardian of Roe v. Wade?
Asked how his Catholic beliefs would influence decisions, he replied, "My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role."
Whew! That's a relief. I was worried that we had a gen-u-ine theocrat on our hands. Now I can simmer down and bask in the rays of enlightened secularism.
Rushing in and providing confusion where only clarity once reigned, President Bush said: "All Americans can be confident that the 17th chief justice of the United States will be prudent in exercising judicial power, firm in defending judicial independence and above all a faithful guardian of the Constitution."
A "faithful guardian of the Constitution?" Please. How can he play that role, when he's already made it clear that he'll be a faithful guardian of Roe v. Wade?
Asked how his Catholic beliefs would influence decisions, he replied, "My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role."
Whew! That's a relief. I was worried that we had a gen-u-ine theocrat on our hands. Now I can simmer down and bask in the rays of enlightened secularism.
Monday, October 3, 2005
Positively Presidential
**I wrote this post yesterday, before I learned about Bush's new SCOTUS nominee, so it's a little dated. Now I have to go and learn about her, so I can find out how much of this is prophetic, and how much is pure bilge. Enjoy!
With John Roberts' position as Chief Justice secured, when asked how he'd go about the process of selecting his new nominee for the Supreme Court, President George Bush waxed eloquent:
"Wal, I believe the only way to be correct--politically speaking--is to be politically correct. Ahm a firm believer in pc values. Jest look at my reaction to the Terri Schiavo case. That's really all ya need to know. And diversity plays a large part in political correctness. As we all know, this is a catch-word for every kind of superficial distinction imaginable. I think it's important, though, to understand that diversity does not--under any circumstances--mean variety in modes of thought, ideas, or perspectives. Many good folks get downright discomblobupated on this point.
"Now, having said all that, I think our next Supreme Court Justice should be a woman. But not jest any woman. Unh-uh. She needs to be a compassionate conservative, like me. Heh heh. She needs to feel the pain of tsunami victims and Hurricane Kakillya looters all across Nawleuhns. It's best if she's a black woman. Who spent at least five years on welfare. Whose son was killed in a driveby shooting. Who received at least one abortion. Who has at least two silver teeth that are visible when she smiles. Now that's diverse. Furthermore, I strongly believe she should have a little Messycin ancestralness. Preferably of illegal immigrant--Oops! Sorry, I meant undocumented--status. See there? Ya almost caught me being politically incorrect. I apologize. I reckon I've been watching too much Fox News, lately. They're awful nice to the House of Saud, ya know.
"Anyhoo, back to diversity. It would be prudent--like my ol' daddy used to say--if she were also a lesbian. Not jest any lesbian, neither. I want a big, old hulking brute, the likes of which would make Bull Connor's thugs piddle in their knickers. And she better have a tattoo, dadgummit. A big ol' tattoo of Karl Marx, etched across her bulging bicep. That'll do the trick. Oh, and she'd best be a practitioner of the Religion of Peace. Even communists love those guys. One more thing: I want a cripple in that office. I want her to have to crutch her way up the steps to work every day, like Tiny Tim in a Darth Vader robe. If she needs a wheelchair, we'll put in a ramp at taxpayer suspense. An eyepatch would also carry a lot of charm. Remember Long John Silver? That's what I'm talking 'bout.
As far as ideology goes, I want her to give great respect to Charmin bathroom tissue. That stuff jest don't chafe like the Constitution. I learned that from experience. And what a court said five years ago is far more important than what the Constitution says. Who cares about the outmoded views of some dead white slaver, anyway? YaknowwhatImean? I want her to be sensitive to euthanasia--that's a continent by the way--and accept the dictates of the UN and international law. I also want her to love Jesus, like I do. Don't worry, there ain't no conflict between Him and Allah. He's a big believer in diversity, too. Christianity's important, y'all. Jest as long as you keep it locked up tighter'n a nun's habit, in a little box in the back of a deep closet, at home. But on the bench, she needs to be a stern advocate of godlessness. I mean I expect the kind of secularism that would make Lenin click his heels and sing the Revolution's anthem out of pure joy.
"One last prerekasnit: Her pronuncilation of the word must be "nook-yuh-luhr." I won't except no stubstistustions. Ain't nobuddy one-upping my elocrouton."
With John Roberts' position as Chief Justice secured, when asked how he'd go about the process of selecting his new nominee for the Supreme Court, President George Bush waxed eloquent:
"Wal, I believe the only way to be correct--politically speaking--is to be politically correct. Ahm a firm believer in pc values. Jest look at my reaction to the Terri Schiavo case. That's really all ya need to know. And diversity plays a large part in political correctness. As we all know, this is a catch-word for every kind of superficial distinction imaginable. I think it's important, though, to understand that diversity does not--under any circumstances--mean variety in modes of thought, ideas, or perspectives. Many good folks get downright discomblobupated on this point.
"Now, having said all that, I think our next Supreme Court Justice should be a woman. But not jest any woman. Unh-uh. She needs to be a compassionate conservative, like me. Heh heh. She needs to feel the pain of tsunami victims and Hurricane Kakillya looters all across Nawleuhns. It's best if she's a black woman. Who spent at least five years on welfare. Whose son was killed in a driveby shooting. Who received at least one abortion. Who has at least two silver teeth that are visible when she smiles. Now that's diverse. Furthermore, I strongly believe she should have a little Messycin ancestralness. Preferably of illegal immigrant--Oops! Sorry, I meant undocumented--status. See there? Ya almost caught me being politically incorrect. I apologize. I reckon I've been watching too much Fox News, lately. They're awful nice to the House of Saud, ya know.
"Anyhoo, back to diversity. It would be prudent--like my ol' daddy used to say--if she were also a lesbian. Not jest any lesbian, neither. I want a big, old hulking brute, the likes of which would make Bull Connor's thugs piddle in their knickers. And she better have a tattoo, dadgummit. A big ol' tattoo of Karl Marx, etched across her bulging bicep. That'll do the trick. Oh, and she'd best be a practitioner of the Religion of Peace. Even communists love those guys. One more thing: I want a cripple in that office. I want her to have to crutch her way up the steps to work every day, like Tiny Tim in a Darth Vader robe. If she needs a wheelchair, we'll put in a ramp at taxpayer suspense. An eyepatch would also carry a lot of charm. Remember Long John Silver? That's what I'm talking 'bout.
As far as ideology goes, I want her to give great respect to Charmin bathroom tissue. That stuff jest don't chafe like the Constitution. I learned that from experience. And what a court said five years ago is far more important than what the Constitution says. Who cares about the outmoded views of some dead white slaver, anyway? YaknowwhatImean? I want her to be sensitive to euthanasia--that's a continent by the way--and accept the dictates of the UN and international law. I also want her to love Jesus, like I do. Don't worry, there ain't no conflict between Him and Allah. He's a big believer in diversity, too. Christianity's important, y'all. Jest as long as you keep it locked up tighter'n a nun's habit, in a little box in the back of a deep closet, at home. But on the bench, she needs to be a stern advocate of godlessness. I mean I expect the kind of secularism that would make Lenin click his heels and sing the Revolution's anthem out of pure joy.
"One last prerekasnit: Her pronuncilation of the word must be "nook-yuh-luhr." I won't except no stubstistustions. Ain't nobuddy one-upping my elocrouton."
Sunday, October 2, 2005
Patriotism Quotes
A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.--George William Curtis
Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.--Sydney J. Harris
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.--Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.--Sydney J. Harris
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.--Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)