After Pedro lost his endorsement deal with Taco Bell, he spiraled into a life of drug addiction.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Step Away from the Chalupa
After Pedro lost his endorsement deal with Taco Bell, he spiraled into a life of drug addiction.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Just Trying to Make a Living
Assaults on U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Tucson and Yuma sectors averaged about one a day in the past year, and the number of attacks there more than doubled compared with the previous year.
Nationwide, the number of assaults nearly doubled, with attacks on agents based in Arizona making up more than half the incidents.
From Oct. 1, 2004, to Sept. 30, the Border Patrol registered 687 assaults on its agents, up from 349 during the same period along the Southwest and Canadian borders. All but one of the attacks occurred on the Southwest border, officials said.
In Tucson and Yuma, there were 365 assaults during the past fiscal year, up from 179 the year before. The increase reflects the growing influence of organized criminal syndicates in border trafficking, officials said, and the higher profits involved in smuggling migrants across the border for as much as $2,000 per trip.
Federal law enforcement officials told Congress last week that drug cartels from Mexico have gotten much more aggressive in smuggling drugs and people across the border, hiring local gangs on both sides of the international line and arming members with assault rifles, grenades and other weapons.
Agents say they frequently are subjected to grapefruit-size rocks being thrown at their trucks from the Mexican side of the border. Trucks carrying drugs or migrants have tried to ram Border Patrol vehicles when the agents attempt to stop the vehicles. And shootings are becoming more frequent, with 45 in the Tucson and Yuma sectors in fiscal year 2005, up from 15 in 2004.
But, but, waitaminute! I thought all those crossing our borders were just good, decent, docile poor folks who wanted jobs? That's what the newspapers, tv networks, and politicians tell me.
You mean they're lying? I'm stunned!
Nationwide, the number of assaults nearly doubled, with attacks on agents based in Arizona making up more than half the incidents.
From Oct. 1, 2004, to Sept. 30, the Border Patrol registered 687 assaults on its agents, up from 349 during the same period along the Southwest and Canadian borders. All but one of the attacks occurred on the Southwest border, officials said.
In Tucson and Yuma, there were 365 assaults during the past fiscal year, up from 179 the year before. The increase reflects the growing influence of organized criminal syndicates in border trafficking, officials said, and the higher profits involved in smuggling migrants across the border for as much as $2,000 per trip.
Federal law enforcement officials told Congress last week that drug cartels from Mexico have gotten much more aggressive in smuggling drugs and people across the border, hiring local gangs on both sides of the international line and arming members with assault rifles, grenades and other weapons.
Agents say they frequently are subjected to grapefruit-size rocks being thrown at their trucks from the Mexican side of the border. Trucks carrying drugs or migrants have tried to ram Border Patrol vehicles when the agents attempt to stop the vehicles. And shootings are becoming more frequent, with 45 in the Tucson and Yuma sectors in fiscal year 2005, up from 15 in 2004.
But, but, waitaminute! I thought all those crossing our borders were just good, decent, docile poor folks who wanted jobs? That's what the newspapers, tv networks, and politicians tell me.
You mean they're lying? I'm stunned!
Supply and Demand
It seems American companies will stoop to any low in catering to wetbacks. I hope that poor child on the label wasn't the guinea pig.I wouldn't wanna change those Huggies.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
A PETA Moment
Let us offer a moment of silence for all the turkeys that have gone to that big poultry paradise in the sky, this Thanksgiving.
I know I did more gobbling than they.
I know I did more gobbling than they.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Gobble Gobble
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! I think we all should count our many blessings. Would that each of us made every day a time of thanksgiving to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for our salvation and a future home in Heaven at his side. I'm grateful for many, many things--not the least of which are my good friends in the blogosphere, especially my readers and commenters. May God bless and watch over each one of you, during this holiday weekend. Have fun!
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Views on the Iraq War, Part II
Continuing where I left off, I'll address a couple of different outlooks on the war. So strap on your helmets, grip your Dubya dolls tightly, and away we go!
It seems there are two schools of thought. The first goes something like this: Saddumb Husinsane was a threat to our national security. He had WMDs and had used them in the past against the Kurds and Iranians. He made an attempt on the life of George H.W. Bush (thanks to CZJA for reminding me of this). He openly called for jihad and terrorism against the United States on Iraq's government-controlled television. He had ties to Al-Killya, though we're unsure how deep those roots went. He had a long history of contention with us, and he repeatedly violated the cease-fire with the U.S. that ended the first Gulf War. He had the ability and the means for aiding and abetting terrorist strikes against Americans. Finally, he was a destabilizer in an already unstable region where American interests were at stake. The fruition of his pan-Arab ambitions would have constituted further chaos in the Middle East. Thus an invasion of the country and his subsequent overthrow was justified completely.
Now for the second perspective: Saddumb was a brutal, demonic dictator who raped, plundered, and tortured his people for decades. He was a monster of the worst sort, and Iraqis lived under a brutal yoke of oppression during his rule. The Iraqis deserved freedom just like that of Americans. They deserved a representative form of government, and the rule of law--not life under the maniacal whims of a hitlerian devil. Active involvement in the liberation of enslaved peoples is the United States' moral duty. Iraqis needed our help, and they were entitled to it. Thus deposing Saddumb and instituting a republican government in Iraq was justified and honorable.
Some subscribe to one or the other of these views, while some believe they overlap. As for me, I find no fault with the first line of logic. In fact, I supported early phases of the current Iraq war for these very reasons. I believe overthrowing Saddumb and his murderous sons and regime was a good thing, and I'm proud the United States took him out. I believe his political demise makes us safer. As a brief digression, I also agree with the Afghanistan campaign, finding it just and moral.
But those arguing in the war's favor lose me when they launch into the second approach detailed above. Here's my rationale:
1. I'm not convinced Iraqis deserve freedom. Perhaps that sounds cruel; I'm just being honest. Since Saddumb first exerted power, I've seen little evidence that Iraqis have a genuine hunger for liberty. This was not a situation reminiscent of Revolutionary America, in which the colonists rose up and demanded that the British "Bugger off!" No, this was a scenario in which the United States did all of the dirty work. We didn't aid in a rebellion; there was no rebellion. If not for us, Iraq still would languish in misery, and no one would care. Which brings me to my next point.
2. Islam. Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it lies in the heart of a region with no history of liberty. Primarily, this is a corollary of Islam. A prevailing characteristic of this warped religion is intolerance. Freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of action and religion and association--these concepts have no meaning within sharia law. None whatsoever. Liberty and Islam have the same compatibility as oil and water, or Bill Clinton and a chastity belt. So take a geographical realm with no historical conception of freedom, add to that a religion that is the antithesis of the very idea, and you have astronomical odds working against you, in terms of the construction of a stable and successful representative government within that framework.
3. Given the odds of success, I believe the sacrifice of American soldiers' lives in this endeavor is unconscionable. Even if I thought we'd triumph in the long term, Iraqi freedom is not worth the deaths of my fellow countrymen. Not to me.
4. I do not accept the argumentation that America is duty-bound in divesting other countries of their demigod totalitarians. I don't see it as our moral obligation or constitutional mandate. Nor do I think this worldview is representative of our Founding Fathers' outlook. How does one harmonize such a perspective with scripture? Jesus Christ, Himself, did not liberate humanity from temporal slavery and burdensome governments, though he held untold power and influence in the palm of His hand. Certainly, He could have done this. Yet He did not. So a condemnation of America for turning from this primrose path requires criticism of almighty God's own actions. The short of it is this: if He did not choose this tack, why should we assume that He expects it of us?
5. If liberating Iraq and rebuilding the country for its people's betterment was necessary and wonderful--since Husinsane abused his people--then someone please clear things up for me: why single out Saddumb for toppling, and why stop with him? We see evils perpetrated against innocents all over the world, today. Government-sponsored murder and terror is neither unique to Iraq nor the Middle East. We find it in China, Vietnam, North Korea, the Sudan, and Somalia, just as we witness it in Iran, Syria, and any number of other Islamic dystopias. So following this train of logic, consistency demands that we invade and crush the wicked governing bodies of all these countries, and more. If you're rolling your eyes by this point, rest assured that I'm just filling in the plot others have outlined.
The focus has shifted from overthrowing a madman who was a direct threat to our national security, to rebuilding Iraq and providing its people with freedom in abundance--theoretically, at least. The first was a great idea; the second is far more problematic and inconsistent in its investiture.
It seems there are two schools of thought. The first goes something like this: Saddumb Husinsane was a threat to our national security. He had WMDs and had used them in the past against the Kurds and Iranians. He made an attempt on the life of George H.W. Bush (thanks to CZJA for reminding me of this). He openly called for jihad and terrorism against the United States on Iraq's government-controlled television. He had ties to Al-Killya, though we're unsure how deep those roots went. He had a long history of contention with us, and he repeatedly violated the cease-fire with the U.S. that ended the first Gulf War. He had the ability and the means for aiding and abetting terrorist strikes against Americans. Finally, he was a destabilizer in an already unstable region where American interests were at stake. The fruition of his pan-Arab ambitions would have constituted further chaos in the Middle East. Thus an invasion of the country and his subsequent overthrow was justified completely.
Now for the second perspective: Saddumb was a brutal, demonic dictator who raped, plundered, and tortured his people for decades. He was a monster of the worst sort, and Iraqis lived under a brutal yoke of oppression during his rule. The Iraqis deserved freedom just like that of Americans. They deserved a representative form of government, and the rule of law--not life under the maniacal whims of a hitlerian devil. Active involvement in the liberation of enslaved peoples is the United States' moral duty. Iraqis needed our help, and they were entitled to it. Thus deposing Saddumb and instituting a republican government in Iraq was justified and honorable.
Some subscribe to one or the other of these views, while some believe they overlap. As for me, I find no fault with the first line of logic. In fact, I supported early phases of the current Iraq war for these very reasons. I believe overthrowing Saddumb and his murderous sons and regime was a good thing, and I'm proud the United States took him out. I believe his political demise makes us safer. As a brief digression, I also agree with the Afghanistan campaign, finding it just and moral.
But those arguing in the war's favor lose me when they launch into the second approach detailed above. Here's my rationale:
1. I'm not convinced Iraqis deserve freedom. Perhaps that sounds cruel; I'm just being honest. Since Saddumb first exerted power, I've seen little evidence that Iraqis have a genuine hunger for liberty. This was not a situation reminiscent of Revolutionary America, in which the colonists rose up and demanded that the British "Bugger off!" No, this was a scenario in which the United States did all of the dirty work. We didn't aid in a rebellion; there was no rebellion. If not for us, Iraq still would languish in misery, and no one would care. Which brings me to my next point.
2. Islam. Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it lies in the heart of a region with no history of liberty. Primarily, this is a corollary of Islam. A prevailing characteristic of this warped religion is intolerance. Freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of action and religion and association--these concepts have no meaning within sharia law. None whatsoever. Liberty and Islam have the same compatibility as oil and water, or Bill Clinton and a chastity belt. So take a geographical realm with no historical conception of freedom, add to that a religion that is the antithesis of the very idea, and you have astronomical odds working against you, in terms of the construction of a stable and successful representative government within that framework.
3. Given the odds of success, I believe the sacrifice of American soldiers' lives in this endeavor is unconscionable. Even if I thought we'd triumph in the long term, Iraqi freedom is not worth the deaths of my fellow countrymen. Not to me.
4. I do not accept the argumentation that America is duty-bound in divesting other countries of their demigod totalitarians. I don't see it as our moral obligation or constitutional mandate. Nor do I think this worldview is representative of our Founding Fathers' outlook. How does one harmonize such a perspective with scripture? Jesus Christ, Himself, did not liberate humanity from temporal slavery and burdensome governments, though he held untold power and influence in the palm of His hand. Certainly, He could have done this. Yet He did not. So a condemnation of America for turning from this primrose path requires criticism of almighty God's own actions. The short of it is this: if He did not choose this tack, why should we assume that He expects it of us?
5. If liberating Iraq and rebuilding the country for its people's betterment was necessary and wonderful--since Husinsane abused his people--then someone please clear things up for me: why single out Saddumb for toppling, and why stop with him? We see evils perpetrated against innocents all over the world, today. Government-sponsored murder and terror is neither unique to Iraq nor the Middle East. We find it in China, Vietnam, North Korea, the Sudan, and Somalia, just as we witness it in Iran, Syria, and any number of other Islamic dystopias. So following this train of logic, consistency demands that we invade and crush the wicked governing bodies of all these countries, and more. If you're rolling your eyes by this point, rest assured that I'm just filling in the plot others have outlined.
The focus has shifted from overthrowing a madman who was a direct threat to our national security, to rebuilding Iraq and providing its people with freedom in abundance--theoretically, at least. The first was a great idea; the second is far more problematic and inconsistent in its investiture.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Views on the Iraq War, Part I
I haven't spoken of the Iraq war in a while, so I thought I'd bore you cross-eyed with the topic, yet again.
I'm a proud member of the dwindling minority who still thinks Saddumb Husinsane actually harbored weapons of mass destruction. Why? Two reasons: One, he used them, and more than once. Two, he admitted that he possessed them to the U.N weapons inspectors (AKA the "Look Busy" club), but claimed he destroyed them. Interestingly, he refused to divulge the location of their dismantlement.
I also believe he had them as recently as the eve of the second invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces. A sizeable number of people have come forward in interviews and claimed the Iraqis shipped out unknown materials in large quantities in freight truck convoys, just days before the first troops poured into the region. The U.S. government has other intelligence confirming this. The vehicles made a beeline for the Bekaa Valley in Syria, a country run by (surprise, surprise) Ba'athists, which is Saddumb's political party. I accept the possibility of presumptuousness, on my part, but I don't think this was Husinsane's personal teddy bear collection.
He had the opportunity and the time for spiriting such weapons away, hiding them, or destroying them, which would explain why American soldiers weren't tripping over nook-yuh-luhr warheads while searching hovels and spider holes throughout Baghdad.
Finally, WMDs were found in Iraq, just not in massive quantities. The media deserves credit for keeping this swept in a nice, tidy pile, under the rug.
As someone who did not vote for Bush in the last election, I can honestly say the accusations against him regarding WMDs are some of the most reckless, cynical, and thoroughly dishonest examples of political opportunism I've ever encountered. We have a country full of politicians who were totally convinced Iraq had WMDs. Miraculously, those same officials became skeptical of their existence at the precise moment that George Bush decided in favor of an invasion of the country. Labelling this a coincidence is pure generosity. Politicians--particularly Demonscats--who once preached the dangers of Saddumb's regime flip-flopped faster than froglegs in a skittle and accused Bush of misleading us and, in some cases, outright lying to the American people. Let me just remind everyone that before the invasion, everyone believed Iraq had WMDs. Everyone, across the board. In fact, so certain were they of this fact, some jabbering heads on tv actually used it as an excuse for not invading Iraq, out of fear of what Husinsane might do.
This one example shows me that the Demonscats comprise the party of political whoredom, and nothing else.
I'm a proud member of the dwindling minority who still thinks Saddumb Husinsane actually harbored weapons of mass destruction. Why? Two reasons: One, he used them, and more than once. Two, he admitted that he possessed them to the U.N weapons inspectors (AKA the "Look Busy" club), but claimed he destroyed them. Interestingly, he refused to divulge the location of their dismantlement.
I also believe he had them as recently as the eve of the second invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces. A sizeable number of people have come forward in interviews and claimed the Iraqis shipped out unknown materials in large quantities in freight truck convoys, just days before the first troops poured into the region. The U.S. government has other intelligence confirming this. The vehicles made a beeline for the Bekaa Valley in Syria, a country run by (surprise, surprise) Ba'athists, which is Saddumb's political party. I accept the possibility of presumptuousness, on my part, but I don't think this was Husinsane's personal teddy bear collection.
He had the opportunity and the time for spiriting such weapons away, hiding them, or destroying them, which would explain why American soldiers weren't tripping over nook-yuh-luhr warheads while searching hovels and spider holes throughout Baghdad.
Finally, WMDs were found in Iraq, just not in massive quantities. The media deserves credit for keeping this swept in a nice, tidy pile, under the rug.
As someone who did not vote for Bush in the last election, I can honestly say the accusations against him regarding WMDs are some of the most reckless, cynical, and thoroughly dishonest examples of political opportunism I've ever encountered. We have a country full of politicians who were totally convinced Iraq had WMDs. Miraculously, those same officials became skeptical of their existence at the precise moment that George Bush decided in favor of an invasion of the country. Labelling this a coincidence is pure generosity. Politicians--particularly Demonscats--who once preached the dangers of Saddumb's regime flip-flopped faster than froglegs in a skittle and accused Bush of misleading us and, in some cases, outright lying to the American people. Let me just remind everyone that before the invasion, everyone believed Iraq had WMDs. Everyone, across the board. In fact, so certain were they of this fact, some jabbering heads on tv actually used it as an excuse for not invading Iraq, out of fear of what Husinsane might do.
This one example shows me that the Demonscats comprise the party of political whoredom, and nothing else.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Friday, November 18, 2005
The Scariest Movie of All Time
"Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the commune. . ."
No wonder Norman Bates was such a twisted feller.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Gun-Grabbers United
San Francisco voters this week passed what could become the nation's strictest gun ban when they outlawed not only the sale of guns in the city, but required almost everyone who is not a cop, security guard or member of the military to surrender their handguns to police by April 1.
Supporters of Proposition H say that with 76-gun related homicides this year and 90 last year, taking away people's firearms will help fight crime.
Excellent idea! Gun control never works, thus the solution is tighter restriction on legal gun ownership. Makes perfect sense.
There's a term for nations where only government officials have guns; they're called police states.
And how exactly does banning guns within San Francisco fight crime? Most criminals do not obtain firearms through legal channels; most law-abiding citizens do. I'd love to hear an explanation how targeting those who obey the law for the actions of criminal thugs aids in decreasing crime. Criminals, by definition, flout the law. Telling them that owning a gun is illegal is worse than pointless.
Turning law-abiding citizens into criminals over night with the stroke of a pen doesn't strike me as a very imaginative or intelligent solution. Whether the voters came out in droves in favor of this proposition or not, it's unconstitutional, and a clear infringement on the rights of those who own firearms.
Of course, in leftist dystopias, results don't matter. Neither do personal rights, unless they contribute to the cause. Only intentions and putting on airs are of importance.
Supporters of Proposition H say that with 76-gun related homicides this year and 90 last year, taking away people's firearms will help fight crime.
Excellent idea! Gun control never works, thus the solution is tighter restriction on legal gun ownership. Makes perfect sense.
There's a term for nations where only government officials have guns; they're called police states.
And how exactly does banning guns within San Francisco fight crime? Most criminals do not obtain firearms through legal channels; most law-abiding citizens do. I'd love to hear an explanation how targeting those who obey the law for the actions of criminal thugs aids in decreasing crime. Criminals, by definition, flout the law. Telling them that owning a gun is illegal is worse than pointless.
Turning law-abiding citizens into criminals over night with the stroke of a pen doesn't strike me as a very imaginative or intelligent solution. Whether the voters came out in droves in favor of this proposition or not, it's unconstitutional, and a clear infringement on the rights of those who own firearms.
Of course, in leftist dystopias, results don't matter. Neither do personal rights, unless they contribute to the cause. Only intentions and putting on airs are of importance.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Sugarcoating the Status Quo
Michael Chertoff, Homeland Insecurity Secretary, says deportation of illegals isn't practical:
"The cost of identifying all of those people and sending them back would be stupendous. It would be billions and billions of dollars," Chertoff told Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity & Colmes" last night.
Asked the talk-show host: "Why don't we say, no, you're here illegally, you didn't respect our laws, you ought to go home?"
Chertoff again appealed to the issue of cost, saying, " Sean, you know, it's really an issue of practicality. I mean, as a practical matter, we've got to identify these people and pull them out of the shadows."
A couple of points. First, why is it that the government cares not a whit for how much something costs, except in cases involving illegal immigration? The pricetag on any number of other problems is a non-issue; but suddenly, when faced with deporting illegal aliens, well, it just isn't cost-effective. Since when is the government known for its frugality?
Second, Chertoff's being deceptive, here. Will deporting illegals cost a fortune? Yes. Will it cost more than they're leeching from us already with their presence in this country, as we speak? I don't see how. Free medical care, drastically reduced tuition fees, lost jobs Americans should be working, incarceration costs--these are just a few of the problems we're contending with, due to illegal immigration. And what of property damage, rapes, robberies, murders, and all the associated strains both material and emotional for those affected? The list goes on.
Setting aside the monetary aspect, you can't put a pricetag on many of the effects of crime and cultural dilution.
"… What this would let us do is acknowledge the reality that we've got hundreds and thousands of employers all over this country who are employing illegal aliens. Sometimes, individual citizens employing people in their home."
Which is against the law, last time I checked. It's obvious that the nonexistent or selective enforcement of immigration laws is a contributing factor in the rampant employment of illegal aliens. The government is at fault for this problem, yet it uses the situation as an excuse for doing nothing.
Not having mass deportations is spitting on the law, shrugging off national security, and laughing in the faces of those who have enough respect for our laws that they stand in line for ages, jumping through all the necessary hoops put before them, on the path to America.
It's a disgrace, and it's costing us. We'll keep right on paying for it, too.
"The cost of identifying all of those people and sending them back would be stupendous. It would be billions and billions of dollars," Chertoff told Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity & Colmes" last night.
Asked the talk-show host: "Why don't we say, no, you're here illegally, you didn't respect our laws, you ought to go home?"
Chertoff again appealed to the issue of cost, saying, " Sean, you know, it's really an issue of practicality. I mean, as a practical matter, we've got to identify these people and pull them out of the shadows."
A couple of points. First, why is it that the government cares not a whit for how much something costs, except in cases involving illegal immigration? The pricetag on any number of other problems is a non-issue; but suddenly, when faced with deporting illegal aliens, well, it just isn't cost-effective. Since when is the government known for its frugality?
Second, Chertoff's being deceptive, here. Will deporting illegals cost a fortune? Yes. Will it cost more than they're leeching from us already with their presence in this country, as we speak? I don't see how. Free medical care, drastically reduced tuition fees, lost jobs Americans should be working, incarceration costs--these are just a few of the problems we're contending with, due to illegal immigration. And what of property damage, rapes, robberies, murders, and all the associated strains both material and emotional for those affected? The list goes on.
Setting aside the monetary aspect, you can't put a pricetag on many of the effects of crime and cultural dilution.
"… What this would let us do is acknowledge the reality that we've got hundreds and thousands of employers all over this country who are employing illegal aliens. Sometimes, individual citizens employing people in their home."
Which is against the law, last time I checked. It's obvious that the nonexistent or selective enforcement of immigration laws is a contributing factor in the rampant employment of illegal aliens. The government is at fault for this problem, yet it uses the situation as an excuse for doing nothing.
Not having mass deportations is spitting on the law, shrugging off national security, and laughing in the faces of those who have enough respect for our laws that they stand in line for ages, jumping through all the necessary hoops put before them, on the path to America.
It's a disgrace, and it's costing us. We'll keep right on paying for it, too.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Bizarre Celebrity Children Names
As if you needed additional proof, most celebrities are nuts. Here are a few names entertainers graciously have bestowed upon their children, bringing them (the celebrity parents, not their children) much pleasure in the process.
Moon Unit
Dweezil
Ahmed Emuukha Rodan
Diva Muffin
All the above are Frank Zappa's children.
Apple: Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter.
Heavenly Hirani Tiger Lily: Michael Hutchence's daughter.
Prince Michael and Prince Michael II: Michael Jackson's children.
Elijah Bob Patricius Guggi Q: Bono's offspring.
Zowie Bowie: David Bowie's child.
I'm not sure if a "Diva Muffin" is Whitney Houston's favorite breakfast food, or her best-loved drug. Paltrow's kid probably will be the butt of many unpleasant jokes for her entire life. I just hope she doesn't grow up to be a bad Apple, as a result, and rotten to the core. And I wonder what kind of magic mushrooms Frank Zappa ingested, just before scribbling those atrocities on their respective birth certificates? Who knew that Hutchence brought a Peter Pan character into the world? Seems like he spent way too much time in Never Land. Speaking of Never Land, I didn't know Michael Jackson was royalty. Oh, yeah, he's the king of pop. Never mind.
Asked once why he gave his children such unusual names, Zappa reputedly said simply: "Because I wanted to."
That kinda says it all, doesn't it?
I think I'll name my first child John Smith, just to balance the scales a bit.
Moon Unit
Dweezil
Ahmed Emuukha Rodan
Diva Muffin
All the above are Frank Zappa's children.
Apple: Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter.
Heavenly Hirani Tiger Lily: Michael Hutchence's daughter.
Prince Michael and Prince Michael II: Michael Jackson's children.
Elijah Bob Patricius Guggi Q: Bono's offspring.
Zowie Bowie: David Bowie's child.
I'm not sure if a "Diva Muffin" is Whitney Houston's favorite breakfast food, or her best-loved drug. Paltrow's kid probably will be the butt of many unpleasant jokes for her entire life. I just hope she doesn't grow up to be a bad Apple, as a result, and rotten to the core. And I wonder what kind of magic mushrooms Frank Zappa ingested, just before scribbling those atrocities on their respective birth certificates? Who knew that Hutchence brought a Peter Pan character into the world? Seems like he spent way too much time in Never Land. Speaking of Never Land, I didn't know Michael Jackson was royalty. Oh, yeah, he's the king of pop. Never mind.
Asked once why he gave his children such unusual names, Zappa reputedly said simply: "Because I wanted to."
That kinda says it all, doesn't it?
I think I'll name my first child John Smith, just to balance the scales a bit.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Can't Stop Thinking About Sex
It seems the 9th Circle of Hell Court has decided that there is "no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."
The three-judge panel of the full court further ruled that parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."
Six parents sued the Palmdale, Calif., School District after finding out their kids had been asked a series of sexual questions in class. They included asking the children about the frequency of:
Touching my private parts too much
Thinking about having sex
Thinking about touching other people's private parts
Thinking about sex when I don't want to
Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside
Not trusting people because they might want sex
Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
Having sex feelings in my body
Can't stop thinking about sex
Getting upset when people talk about sex
Most of you know what I think about the public skewels. This is just another in a loooooong list of reasons why my children never will step foot in those hives of hedonism. Sending your kid to one of these "institutions" is voluntarily surrendering parental discretion and authority, which I think is a terrible idea.
That said, this kangaroo court may have nothing in the way of wholesome values, but it makes up for this lacking in unmitigated gall. Taxpayer funding keeps the public "schools" from foundering. The parents who send their children there are taxpayers. Of course they should have a say-so in what is taught. That's Common Decency 101.
Sexuality and all its ramifications is tied irrevocably to morality. So in essence the court's ruling is: parents have no rights as exclusive arbiters of moral teachings for their children. The government-run "schools" may teach a counter-message, if they choose. If so, parents have no recourse. In other words, grin and bear it.
This is an attack against parents and an assault against the family. The interesting side-note is that much of these curricula are spirited in under the radar, outside parental awareness. Moms and dads aren't given the facts for debating at school-board meetings. They simply have no idea what's going on, until too late. How anyone could believe that the government has no agenda in direct conflict with that of most parents is beyond me. And these corrosive intentions become less subtle by the day.
One final open question: If parents have no rights as exclusive providers of information on sex, where does one draw the line over the rights they do have?
The three-judge panel of the full court further ruled that parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."
Six parents sued the Palmdale, Calif., School District after finding out their kids had been asked a series of sexual questions in class. They included asking the children about the frequency of:
Touching my private parts too much
Thinking about having sex
Thinking about touching other people's private parts
Thinking about sex when I don't want to
Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside
Not trusting people because they might want sex
Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
Having sex feelings in my body
Can't stop thinking about sex
Getting upset when people talk about sex
Most of you know what I think about the public skewels. This is just another in a loooooong list of reasons why my children never will step foot in those hives of hedonism. Sending your kid to one of these "institutions" is voluntarily surrendering parental discretion and authority, which I think is a terrible idea.
That said, this kangaroo court may have nothing in the way of wholesome values, but it makes up for this lacking in unmitigated gall. Taxpayer funding keeps the public "schools" from foundering. The parents who send their children there are taxpayers. Of course they should have a say-so in what is taught. That's Common Decency 101.
Sexuality and all its ramifications is tied irrevocably to morality. So in essence the court's ruling is: parents have no rights as exclusive arbiters of moral teachings for their children. The government-run "schools" may teach a counter-message, if they choose. If so, parents have no recourse. In other words, grin and bear it.
This is an attack against parents and an assault against the family. The interesting side-note is that much of these curricula are spirited in under the radar, outside parental awareness. Moms and dads aren't given the facts for debating at school-board meetings. They simply have no idea what's going on, until too late. How anyone could believe that the government has no agenda in direct conflict with that of most parents is beyond me. And these corrosive intentions become less subtle by the day.
One final open question: If parents have no rights as exclusive providers of information on sex, where does one draw the line over the rights they do have?
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Disappearing Act
I know I haven't had much of a presence in the blogosphere, the last couple of weeks. I've been pretty busy with work and family, and I've barely made time for my own blog, much less those of others. I'm writing this just so everyone will know I'm not abandoning my blog buddies, or suddenly finding their spaces unworthy of commenting. Hopefully, things'll wind down a bit, come the first of December; then I'll be back to my regular routine of posting and commenting on other blogs. Until then I'll keep updating, here, every day, or maybe every other day.
In short, I'm not pulling a Harry Houdini on ya.
God bless you all.
In short, I'm not pulling a Harry Houdini on ya.
God bless you all.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Embrace the Dark Side
Just one question, my friends:Does this picture surprise anyone?
I mean, really.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
A Little Knowledge. . .
In much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.--Ecclesiastes 1:18
It always amazes me that some people believe the Bible is just a weighty tome filled with fairy tales. Yet it's verses like this one that belie this belief. I know from personal experience that this verse is the gospel truth (no pun intended). Over the years, as I learn more about the world and how it works, I'm more saddened at the evil of Man. There's a perceived invincibility inherent in youth. Of course, a cold slap of reality awaits just down the road, when sickness or infirmity comes, or when loved ones die of illness, accidents, or old age. I once believed politics was a fairly straightforward process, in which one party was bad, and the other was good. Voting for the "good " party candidate was the obvious choice. With time came the unpleasant realization that it's largely a corruption-riddled machine for propping up the elite, with few "good" guys embroiled in the concoction, on either side. A numbness sets in at the thought that most people will reject God and spend eternity separated from Him and their loved ones, in self-inflicted everlasting punishment.
Without Christ, information becomes more difficult to process; knowledge works against one's happiness and security; the world seems a place filled with shadows and pools of ever-spreading darkness.
Our hope is found in Jesus, and nowhere else. What a marvelous thought that one day, all the darkness will be gone; all the shadows will flee; the Deceiver will be cast into the Lake of Fire with his angels.
Imagine a time when wisdom will not be a burden, and knowledge will not cause pain.
That time is coming!
It always amazes me that some people believe the Bible is just a weighty tome filled with fairy tales. Yet it's verses like this one that belie this belief. I know from personal experience that this verse is the gospel truth (no pun intended). Over the years, as I learn more about the world and how it works, I'm more saddened at the evil of Man. There's a perceived invincibility inherent in youth. Of course, a cold slap of reality awaits just down the road, when sickness or infirmity comes, or when loved ones die of illness, accidents, or old age. I once believed politics was a fairly straightforward process, in which one party was bad, and the other was good. Voting for the "good " party candidate was the obvious choice. With time came the unpleasant realization that it's largely a corruption-riddled machine for propping up the elite, with few "good" guys embroiled in the concoction, on either side. A numbness sets in at the thought that most people will reject God and spend eternity separated from Him and their loved ones, in self-inflicted everlasting punishment.
Without Christ, information becomes more difficult to process; knowledge works against one's happiness and security; the world seems a place filled with shadows and pools of ever-spreading darkness.
Our hope is found in Jesus, and nowhere else. What a marvelous thought that one day, all the darkness will be gone; all the shadows will flee; the Deceiver will be cast into the Lake of Fire with his angels.
Imagine a time when wisdom will not be a burden, and knowledge will not cause pain.
That time is coming!
Tuesday, November 8, 2005
Sunday, November 6, 2005
A-Rioting We Will Go
Youths armed with gasoline bombs fanned out from Paris' poor, troubled suburbs to shatter the tranquility of resort cities on the Mediterranean, torching scores of vehicles, nursery schools and other targets during a 10th straight night of arson attacks.
Standing operating procedure for Muhammed's Peaceniks: attack and obliterate the helpless and innocent--or symbols thereof, such as nursery schools. It's difficult fathoming how family conversations go, after Ahmad Jihad gets back home to his wives and 37 kids, after a night of pillage and rapine.
Ahmad (coming in the front door): "Wife, where's my supper? I've worked up an appetite. Allah may be merciful, but he never had to work on an empty stomach."
Submissive Wife: "My dearest and most revered husband"--
Ahmad: "Most revered?! Most revered?! You mean you have more than one husband whom you honor? Where's the other one? Hiding in the closet? Bring my food, while I find my machete."
Submissive Wife: "Please, Lord, I just wanted to know how your night went with Habib and the poor boys!"
Ahmad (relaxing and sagging onto his divan): "Ah, changing the subject, I see. I'll humor you, until after I've had my repast. Everything went fine. We beat a few infidels cross-eyed, cried and gnashed our teeth for the media cameras, and torched a few nursery schools. The last brought particular satisfaction, since the children of Shaitan offered fierce resistance. But the mighty fist of Allah struck them down in the street, and they toddled away in their rubber pants and Pampers in terror. It was quite a rout."
Submissive Wife: "Allahu Ackbar!" What a sublime victory!"
Ahmad: "Indeed. But do not presume your praise has made me forget your adulterous escapade. Honor demands that I decapitate and drag your worthless carcass into the street. The harem scarcely will miss you, though I bid your Arabian Stallion Stew a fond adieu. Farewell, my desert flower."
Thunk!
Pretty far-removed from Father Knows Best, eh?
Standing operating procedure for Muhammed's Peaceniks: attack and obliterate the helpless and innocent--or symbols thereof, such as nursery schools. It's difficult fathoming how family conversations go, after Ahmad Jihad gets back home to his wives and 37 kids, after a night of pillage and rapine.
Ahmad (coming in the front door): "Wife, where's my supper? I've worked up an appetite. Allah may be merciful, but he never had to work on an empty stomach."
Submissive Wife: "My dearest and most revered husband"--
Ahmad: "Most revered?! Most revered?! You mean you have more than one husband whom you honor? Where's the other one? Hiding in the closet? Bring my food, while I find my machete."
Submissive Wife: "Please, Lord, I just wanted to know how your night went with Habib and the poor boys!"
Ahmad (relaxing and sagging onto his divan): "Ah, changing the subject, I see. I'll humor you, until after I've had my repast. Everything went fine. We beat a few infidels cross-eyed, cried and gnashed our teeth for the media cameras, and torched a few nursery schools. The last brought particular satisfaction, since the children of Shaitan offered fierce resistance. But the mighty fist of Allah struck them down in the street, and they toddled away in their rubber pants and Pampers in terror. It was quite a rout."
Submissive Wife: "Allahu Ackbar!" What a sublime victory!"
Ahmad: "Indeed. But do not presume your praise has made me forget your adulterous escapade. Honor demands that I decapitate and drag your worthless carcass into the street. The harem scarcely will miss you, though I bid your Arabian Stallion Stew a fond adieu. Farewell, my desert flower."
Thunk!
Pretty far-removed from Father Knows Best, eh?
Saturday, November 5, 2005
Through a Glass, Darkly
Now we see as through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.--1 Corinthians 13:12
This is one of the more interesting verses in the New Testament, and it's one of my favorites. Isn't it nice to know that the murk of knowledge and understanding we have, today, is a pale comparison to the clarity we'll acquire, in Heaven? I don't know if the Lord will answer all our questions; but I know we'll see Him, unrestricted, and undimmed in all His glory. I long for that day.
Sometimes I'm impatient about it. I suppose the waiting will make it all the sweeter.
This is one of the more interesting verses in the New Testament, and it's one of my favorites. Isn't it nice to know that the murk of knowledge and understanding we have, today, is a pale comparison to the clarity we'll acquire, in Heaven? I don't know if the Lord will answer all our questions; but I know we'll see Him, unrestricted, and undimmed in all His glory. I long for that day.
Sometimes I'm impatient about it. I suppose the waiting will make it all the sweeter.
Thursday, November 3, 2005
Post-Halloween Traumatic Stress Disorder. . .
. . .or just indigestion, after devouring too much candy & too many trick-or-treaters?
Aw, who cares? I just like the picture, since it describes my take on the so-called holiday to a tee.
They really are worth a thousand words.
Wednesday, November 2, 2005
Defying Conventions
A Bible symposium at Florida's Southern College yields some disgusting results:
James L. Crenshaw, professor of Old Testament at Duke Divinity School, questioned Scripture's authority to govern matters of sexuality – the Old Testament text, he argued, was written over 12 centuries under a variety of shifting circumstances. It is the reader, he argued, that determines the text's meaning.
One of the more bizarre situations in this world is when an apostate gravitates toward becoming a professor of Old Testament. What draws such people toward this profession? Perhaps it offers a doorway into religious validation of their degenerate views? If the reader determines the text's meaning, then the text, in effect, has no meaning. This is what happens when we mix moral relativism with Christianity. These folks put the "moron" in oxymoronic.
Crenshaw cited divorce, easily obtained in early Hebrew society but discouraged in later prophetic and rabbinic writings, to illustrate what he described as the Bible's shifting standards. Likewise, in the Song of Songs, "the lovers defy convention in the way lovers have always done."
First off, divorce was nowhere near as rampant or as trivial in its details in early Hebrew society as it is, today. And even if it was every bit as common, what in the world does that have to do with the Bible's "shifting standards?" This is pure, unadulterated nonsense.
Given the lack of a cohesive approach to sexuality in the Bible, Crenshaw argued "those who practice alternative sexual lifestyles" should not be condemned.
Think of how carefree must be one's life, when morals, common sense, or the acceptance of a text's plain meaning is absent. Here are the Bible's "shifting standards," regarding homosexuality:
And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.--I Kings 14:24
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as womankind: it is abomination.--Leviticus 18:22
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.--Leviticus 20:13
Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.--Romans 1: 26 & 27
There is more, and none of it is vacillating, contradictory, or waffling in its standards. "Alternative" lifestyles categorically are condemned, in scripture. Reaching any other conclusion requires the complete abrogation of biblical authority. We don't have to like it; we just have to accept it as fact. Nor does this mean that there is no salvation from these lifestyles, or that God is unforgiving of those who repent.
"We must reject at the outset any notion of the supreme authority of scripture. ...
Then in what should we place supreme authority? The shifting opinions of Man? No thanks.
"Is God more interested in our sex lives than in our integrity, our good deeds and our chaste thoughts?"
Gibberish lovingly wrapped in non sequitur. One is an outgrowth of the other. If our sexual lives are fraught with perversion and moral corrosion, does this not affect our integrity? Are we more or less likely to be filled with good deeds and chaste thoughts, if our sexual lives are corrupt? The man acts as if there is no link between the two. There is.
Defying conventions isn't always evil. But when the Word of our Lord and Savior unequivocally condemns certain acts, we should perk up and pay attention. He does not make these demands without cause. Attempted warping of His words does not change the nature of sin.
James L. Crenshaw, professor of Old Testament at Duke Divinity School, questioned Scripture's authority to govern matters of sexuality – the Old Testament text, he argued, was written over 12 centuries under a variety of shifting circumstances. It is the reader, he argued, that determines the text's meaning.
One of the more bizarre situations in this world is when an apostate gravitates toward becoming a professor of Old Testament. What draws such people toward this profession? Perhaps it offers a doorway into religious validation of their degenerate views? If the reader determines the text's meaning, then the text, in effect, has no meaning. This is what happens when we mix moral relativism with Christianity. These folks put the "moron" in oxymoronic.
Crenshaw cited divorce, easily obtained in early Hebrew society but discouraged in later prophetic and rabbinic writings, to illustrate what he described as the Bible's shifting standards. Likewise, in the Song of Songs, "the lovers defy convention in the way lovers have always done."
First off, divorce was nowhere near as rampant or as trivial in its details in early Hebrew society as it is, today. And even if it was every bit as common, what in the world does that have to do with the Bible's "shifting standards?" This is pure, unadulterated nonsense.
Given the lack of a cohesive approach to sexuality in the Bible, Crenshaw argued "those who practice alternative sexual lifestyles" should not be condemned.
Think of how carefree must be one's life, when morals, common sense, or the acceptance of a text's plain meaning is absent. Here are the Bible's "shifting standards," regarding homosexuality:
And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.--I Kings 14:24
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as womankind: it is abomination.--Leviticus 18:22
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.--Leviticus 20:13
Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.--Romans 1: 26 & 27
There is more, and none of it is vacillating, contradictory, or waffling in its standards. "Alternative" lifestyles categorically are condemned, in scripture. Reaching any other conclusion requires the complete abrogation of biblical authority. We don't have to like it; we just have to accept it as fact. Nor does this mean that there is no salvation from these lifestyles, or that God is unforgiving of those who repent.
"We must reject at the outset any notion of the supreme authority of scripture. ...
Then in what should we place supreme authority? The shifting opinions of Man? No thanks.
"Is God more interested in our sex lives than in our integrity, our good deeds and our chaste thoughts?"
Gibberish lovingly wrapped in non sequitur. One is an outgrowth of the other. If our sexual lives are fraught with perversion and moral corrosion, does this not affect our integrity? Are we more or less likely to be filled with good deeds and chaste thoughts, if our sexual lives are corrupt? The man acts as if there is no link between the two. There is.
Defying conventions isn't always evil. But when the Word of our Lord and Savior unequivocally condemns certain acts, we should perk up and pay attention. He does not make these demands without cause. Attempted warping of His words does not change the nature of sin.
Tuesday, November 1, 2005
"Help Us Help You"
Sick of Allah not getting his due?
Tired of the Zionist entity's parasitic leeching of the Holy Land's resources?
Disappointed about hit-or-miss jihad forays?
Does the use of Gentile blood in Jewish matzo have you feeling blue?
Want to exorcise the "Great Satan?"
Well. . . .
Paradise Operators are standing by. . .
Tired of the Zionist entity's parasitic leeching of the Holy Land's resources?
Disappointed about hit-or-miss jihad forays?
Does the use of Gentile blood in Jewish matzo have you feeling blue?
Want to exorcise the "Great Satan?"
Well. . . .
Paradise Operators are standing by. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)