Method to the Madness

It seems Andrea Yates has escaped judgment and justice, at least for the nonce. After this case first came to light, I gave quite a bit of thought to the concept of insanity. Without expertise in this area, I've reached a few conclusions, to the best of my ability.

Insanity generally is defined as an impairment in discerning the difference between right and wrong. My personal opinion is that such a condition is rare: I believe the vast majority of people are sane. I also think such a state entails physiological damage or deformity of the brain. Short of miraculous intervention or new-fangled surgical techniques, I don't see how a medicinal cure is possible.

If one sees no difference between right and wrong, wouldn't one's potential for acts society considers great good equal that of horrific evil? I think the answer is "yes," yet we never see insanity associated with benign or positive actions, only catastrophically disturbing ones. It's interesting that every behavior considered insane today once was categorized as evil. Speaking of good and evil--both are great motivators in an individual's behavior. So I find it doubtful that someone who cannot recognize or delineate between them would summon much motivation or determination toward a specific goal, beyond the satisfaction of basic necessities, such as food, water, clothing, and shelter.

In Yates' case, she has proven herself beyond doubt a danger to society; after all, if you'll kill your own children, no one is safe from you. Perpetual detainment and observation is the only proper course of action in dealing with her. Anything less is a crime against the populace, and a gross abrogation of the government's duty to protect its citizens. So even if she's nutty as a fruitcake, locking her up and throwing away the key is the minimum obligation.

I see no reason to accept that Yates is insane, however. The facts of the case do not point toward this diagnosis. I know it's awful, and it pains me just thinking about it, but leading one's children individually into a bathroom and drowning them in the tub is methodical and requires presence of mind and purposefulness. As does pursuing one of the fleeing children and dragging him back to his fate, after a struggle. Consider, too, that she waited until her husband was off the premises, before sweeping into action; and let's not forget that she called the police and turned herself in, after finishing her grisly tasks. None of these are exhibitions of insanity.

Incomprehensible actions do not equal insanity, else the world always has peopled itself with numerous maniacs--from the Fall, until today. I don't understand the deeds of Nazis or the various communist "revolutions" throughout the 20th Century. I don't understand how or why they consumed lives like fires gobble up kindling; yet they did just that. Should I conclude that their party members and adherents all were insane?

The good news in all this sorrow is that justice will stand, if not in this life, then certainly in the next one. The likelihood is that those five precious children never reached the age of accountability--which means that, as I type these words, they are in the arms of our Savior, basking in His all-encompassing, eternal love, a love they never received from their earthly mother.

Anything for Good PR

Why is Condoleewza Rice giving this Holocaust-denying, terrorist-loving lowlife the time of day?

Fatah is a terrorist organization. The "Palestinian" Authority is a terrorist group. Calling Abbas a terrrorist-sympathizer is a generous appellation.

Treating those who gleefully murder innocent men, women, and children like statesmen is part of the West's problem in dealing with the Middle East. To wit, burying one's head in the sand as a nuclear bomb falls from above. Clintwit revelled in this sort of moral equivocation, and the Bush Administration is following suit, yet again, by sending Cowabungaleeza Rice as an envoy to Abbas. Diplomacy with this ilk is worse than useless. It gives stature to those who deserve nothing more than a shallow grave in the local landfill. How does one engage in productive peace negotiations with people whose entire lives revolve around the eradication of Israel?

This waste of time scores no points for us in Europe, earns further disgust at our gullibility from the Islamic world, accomplishes zilch on Israel's behalf, and has less chance of success than coaxing Christina Stripmebarea into a nunnery--so why go through the motions? It's like playing charades with people who caress their AK-47s, watching you pantomime imbecilic gestures as they wait for your grand finale so they can blow your head off.

If Only He Believed

Here's an interesting quote I thought I'd share from Thomas Huxley, one of history's preeminent proponents of evolution.


“If the Gospels truly report that which an incarnation of the God of Truth communicated to the world, then it surely is absurd to attend to any other evidence touching matters about which he made any clear statement, or the truth of which is distinctly implied by his words. If the exact historical truth of the Gospels is an axiom of Christianity, it is as just and right for a Christian to say, Let us ‘close our ears against suggestions’ of scientific critics, as it is for the man of science to refuse to waste his time upon circle-squarers and flat-earth fanatics.”

– Thomas H. Huxley, Science And Hebrew Tradition Essays, p. 230, 1897.

In Defense of Israel

It seems there are two camps overlooking Israel: one supports her right to exist and defend herself, and the other wishes she would shrivel up into a fetal ball and die. I fall in with the former. The latter, I'm afraid, just cannot get a few lucid points through its adamantine skull, regarding the current situation:

1. Israel was attacked, not vice-versa.

2. Israel's enemies--Hezbollah, the "Palestinians", Hamas, etc.--care less about the lives of innocents than we do about the mating habits of slugs scraping along a forgotten river-bottom in Papua New Guinea. This is an important point, so I'll take a few moments and elaborate a bit. These people do not care whom they kill. As evidence I offer the past week as Exhibit A. Therein, Hezbollah launched somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 to 1,000 missiles--perhaps more-- into Israeli territory. These launches were indiscriminate in their targets. Those at the controls were unconcerned if their bombardments annihilated hospitals, nursing homes, ambulances in transit, private residences, preschools, synagogues, or even children at play in their backyard sandboxes. In fact, this execrable group considers the entire Jewish population of Israel its enemy; and as such, makes no distinction whatsoever between military target objectives and the local pizzeria. The more chaos, destruction, and death, the better.

Further, they don't view civilians as flesh-and-blood people--with feelings, lives, hopes, asperations, and families--but as tools for their agenda's implementation. The innocents surrounding them exist as bargaining chips, cannon fodder for striking fear into the hearts of their perceived enemies, or human shields.

Considering all this, I become puzzled and disgusted when gibbering heads make their rounds on the news shows, decrying Israel's "disproportionate" response; I feel my supper back-up as I see footage of mindless crowds chanting slogans of condemnation against Israel; and I shake my head in wonderment at the thought that, somewhere, some moral smurf is rattling out his next column on the horror of Israel's Nazilike methods.

For clarity's sake, let me express that I believe Israel should take strong measures in ensuring that innocent civilians survive this onslaught into Lebanon--to the extent that such an endeavor is feasible. But understand that the Jews are dealing with people who hide in private homes and public buildings, commandeering personal properties as launch platforms, terrorist quarters, and training facilities. So those insisting that Israel not harm civilians demand the impossible. Such a requisite is tantamount to requiring Israel's complete and unconditional surrender to her enemies, since defending herself isn't an option under such a restriction.

I believe that those castigating Israel over civilian casualties are dishonest about their true motivation: a desire for the total dissolution of Israel as a nation. After all, if concern for the innocent is the inspiration for people working up a froth over the issue, where is all the outrage toward Hezbollah, which intentionally victimizes civilians? Why is the criticism relegated to Israel, while terrorists commit wholesale murder with little or no comment from the ranks of the offended?

Intellectually honest people may debate the efficacy of Israel's present tactics. But if your ire over civilian deaths is selective, favoring terrorists and cursing Israel, you've revealed more about yourself than I possibly could hope to in this post.

Middle Eastern Logic

About an hour ago, Fox News reported that Lebanon's government is threatening resistance if Israel mounts a ground assault across its borders. Let's think about the progression of this situation for a moment:

1. Hezbollah kidnaps Israeli soldiers and holds them captive, then attacks Israel's towns and cities with missles with impunity from the safety of Lebanon.

2. The Lebanese government takes no action against Hezbollah's assaults on Israel--either because it is incapable, or unwilling.

3. Israel retaliates against Hezbollah and considers the possibility of injecting infantry into Lebanon.

4. Representatives of the Lebanese government assure the world that an invasion from Israel will face opposition from Lebanon's military.

So here's my question: Why should Israel draw a distinction between this behavior and open support of terrorism? Utilizing the notion "If you're not with us, you're against us," that the Bush Administration set forth post-9/11, it seems the assumption that Lebanon is just one more enemy in a veritable sea of enemies is a reasonable approach. This prompts a second question: Why does the Bush Administration deem support of Lebanon's government necessary, when it seemingly deserves pulverization into rubble?

A Plague of Hitlers

We've all heard or read about comparisons between Hitler and contemporary madmen, such as Hussein, bin Laden, etc. Many scoff at similarities and roll their eyes at such notions. Silly sounding or not, I believe merit lies in this claim.

Hitler was evil and on a power trip, and he loathed the Jews. Exactly how are the "Palestinians" or bin Laden different, in that regard? Or Hezbollah? Put another way, if the "Palestinians" had the power to kill every Jewish man, woman, and child in Israel, would they do so, or hold their heads high, and say "We are above such wanton murder."

I don't think so. They do not because they cannot. Not because they are less evil or disinclined toward subjugating certain peoples. If Hussein had harbored a modern equivalent to Hitler's war machine, the first Gulf War might've dragged on far longer, with much more dire consequences.

Can anyone deny that Saddam Hussein is one of the most evil men who ever lived? Dictators and terrorists such as these are moral first cousins of Hitler and share his absolute and unreasoning revulsion toward the Jews. What they lack is the Nazi leader's hypnotic charisma, his cunning and intelligence, and his country's brute capabilities in waging war.

Thank God, sometimes evil is hindered by its own weaknesses, not by less venom in its delusions of grandeur.

Munich

Steven Schlemielberg has created a film that some have hailed as his masterpiece. I call it his tour-de-farce.

Munich details the early-1970s murder of eleven Israeli Olympic atheletes by "Palestinian" terrorists, better known as Muhammed's Peaceniks. After this atrocity, the Israeli government sends a group of ex-Mossad agents to execute those involved in the plot. Bravo for justice, I say, though you'll be hard put in finding this message in the movie. Instead, Schlemielberg lets us wade around for a couple of hours in a moral morass, in which no clear good guy emerges, and no moral clarity is allowed. He makes no distinction whatsoever between murdering innocent civilians, and targeted assassinations of terrorists. He shows us the constant state of agony and uncertainty of these agents of justice, as if the better part of their time is spent brooding over their actions. Israel's government is portrayed as cold and unsympathetic, essentially hanging its people out to dry. And he goes to great lengths at humanizing the terrorists.

For most of the film, Schlemielberg attempts an evenhanded approach; he builds empathy for--and reveals the warts of--both sides. But in one or two scenes, he ceases his waffling just long enough to side with the "Palestinians." In several key moments, discussions occur in which Israel's right of existence is never defended as eloquently as the "Palestinian Struggle" (trademarked). Nor is a representative of Israel ever allowed the last word in these tit-for-tats.

This could've been a great film, an important testimony to Israel's determination; instead, it's an exercise in moral equivocation. It acts as a flashing neon sign that says: "LOOK! I'M A SELF-HATING JEW!"

Indeed, the most remarkable aspect of this film is that a Jew made it. He lovingly constructed this vacillation out of anti-Zionism, with a liberal dash of relativism thrown in for good measure. It's sad, because the people whose actions he refuses to condemn would blow his brains out at the first opportunity, if given half a chance, and parade his mutilated body through their streets.

Sure, there's good acting and cinematography, and the director's eye shows us a realistic portrait of the time and events. Unfortunately, if you want a strong stance taken against evil, you won't find it here.

The Old Lady and the Sea

In October 1829, the schooner Mermaid, Captain Samuel Nolbrow, master, and 18 men aboard left Sydney, Australia, from Raffles Bay. In Torres Strait, a stretch of water alive with reefs and shallows, between Australia and New Guinea, the ship struck a coral reef and foundered. The crew scrambled to a rock above and there spent three days waiting to be rescued. They were taken aboard the by bark Swiftsure which happened to pass by. Two days later the Swiftsure was ran ashore and wrecked. Eighteen men of the Mermaid and 14 crew members of the Swiftsure swam ashore and were stranded till the schooner Governor Ready with 32 aboard hove into view. The castaways were taken off and its ship was on its way to Papua when disaster struck for the third time. The Governor Ready caught fire and was a total loss within a few hours. Three sets of survivors now numbering 64 took to the longboats and drifted in the open Pacific. A new ship came to their rescue. It was the government cutter Comet which took the shipwrecked men aboard. But not for long. The Comet's end came in a sudden storm and the long suffering company, now enhanced by 21 men of the Comet, was cast adrift again on the immensity of the Pacific. The clung to the latest wreckage for an agonizing 18 hours until they were sighted by the Jupiter bound for West Australia with 38 men of her own. There must have been some dark murmuring aboard the Jupiter about jinxes and jonahs but the 85 men were picked up and rescued. They had hardly settled down when the Jupiter in turn ran on a reef and stove a hole in her keel. There were 123 castaways now with their five separate sets of captains and officers. The huddled miserably upon a slippery rock in the ocean until a sixth and final ship delivered them. This time it was the City of Leeds, a passenger schooner with 100 passengers aboard.

Passengers and crew were goggle-eyed with astonishment at the experiences of the survivors. Dr. Thomas Sparks of the City of Leeds walked awhile among the saved men, listening to the hubbub of their voices. Suddenly he spoke:

"Are there any Yorkshiremen among you?"

There was no answer and the doctor continued: "I require a Yorkshireman about 35 years of age. I need him to prolong the life of a very sick old lady. She is unconscious and calls for her son whom she has not seen in ten years. Unless we can find someone to impersonate the lad, we may soon have to bury her at sea."

One of the rescued deck hands, a survivor of the Mermaid, spoke up: "There are Yorkshiremen and Yorkshiremen.What part of Yorkshire does the old lady come from?"

"She is from Whitby."

"Then I think I can be of service. I am from Whitby, myself."

"How old are you, son?"

"I am 34, sir."

"You'll do perfectly. Come with me now."

"What is the name I am to take, sir?"

"Peter Richardson. Repeat the name a few times so that you will not forget it."

"No need of that," was the hushed reply. "I am Peter Richardson."

Peter Richardson saw his mother and her joy was so great that she recovered and lived 18 years longer. It was as if the hand of Providence had arranged five shipwrecks in succession--without the loss of a single human life--in the most treacherous waters in the world--so that a seafaring son could meet his dying mother.

This story--unbelievable as it sounds--can be verified in the archives of the Maritime Office of the Australian Commonwealth in Canberra.


--from Ripley's Believe It Or Not!: 4th Series (1954)

Viva la Invasion!

I always enjoy my trips to Wal-Mart. Not only are they loads of fun--what with the long waits in line as I stare at the numerous vacant cash registers and being jostled by the dull-minded crowds--but they're educational, as well.

For example, as I walked the aisles, tonight, I learned that we have a new, specially set-aside DVD section in the Spanish language. Ditto for CDs. These sure are godsends, here in Hillbilly Holler, where we all speak fluent Spanish. We also have ball caps with the word "MEXICO" printed boldly across the fronts, topped by a Mexican flag. I remember asking for one of those for Cinco de Mayo, last year, but nobody remembered. Now I can purchase my very own. Also, they sport a new Hispanic section in the grocery. I love it! I've wondered for years what Brach's tequila-worm candy and Chihuahua kabobs taste like, and now I have the opportunity to find out. One precious memory I'll cherish forever harkens back to the renovation job Wal-Mart finished a couple of months ago. I found an aisle newly stocked with Catholic candles--you know the ones, with saints and the virgin Mary painted on them--with a little sign taped above that said "CANDLES--MEXICAN EMPHASIS." That's subtlety for you. But the best part is the roving knots of Mexicans wandering about the store, brazenly speaking Spanish. I saw ten or twelve, just tonight, and not one spoke English. It has become impossible to make a foray to Wal-Mart without running across several. That this is worthy of mention becomes apparent, given that such a thing was unheard of, five short years ago. I'm often tempted to screech "INS!" at the top of my voice, and watch them flee the premises like rats deserting a sinking ship.

I suppose my discombobulation is a sign that I'm geting old. I'm just not down with the Mexican colonial project currently underway in my home state, aided and abetted by our treasonous government, in tandem with good old American businesses like Wal-Mart, who would sell soul, body, and country for a buck.

Ahnold Is Sooo Fabulous!

I just realized I had this post waiting. I'd forgotten about it, so it's a little late:


Governor Termineggar will speak at homosexual fundraiser:

Can you imagine his speech?:


"It's ok if you'uh gurly-men. It's nobody's business. Who cares if you flounce and watch teah-jehkeh movies? Who ceahs if you hang out at bath-houses and cetch AIDS? It's nod impouhtant. We'uh all Americans. We'uh all Cah-lee-fouhnians. Dat's all dat matters.

You must crosh youh critics, see them driven befouh you, and hear de lamendations of deah wimmin.

And don't worry. Aftah I'm reelected, I'll be bahk."

The New World

I saw this film tonight, starring Colin Farrel, Christopher Plummer, and Christian Bale.

First, let me just mention the high points of the movie: The acting was good, especially on the part of the girl who played Pocahontas. The cinematography was amazing and lovingly done, and the musical score was perfect. Also the look was authentic--from the tools people used, to their dwellings and costumes, right down to their weapons. On this latter point, the director went all-out.

Now for the negative aspects, and given the subject matter, you know they await in battalions. With the exceptions of John Smith, John Rolfe, Captain Newport (the head of the colony), and a kindly peasant lady who helps Pocahontas acclimate herself to life at the fort, every other white person in the movie is portrayed as deranged, evil, treacherous, deceitful, jealous, greedy, or a combination of all these traits. In terms of personal behavior, they are even more barbaric than the Indians whom they contact.

As for the painted noble savages, it does the director some credit that he doesn't characterize them as pacifists; he assures us that they're capable of great violence--but only if backed into a corner. Otherwise, they are loving and peaceful. Not one indigenous person in the movie is revealed to us as possessing any capacity for evil. Not one.

Another interesting observation I made as I watched the film was the lack of perspective offered regarding whitey's appearance in the New World. A few mumbled platitudes from Newport are all we receive, in terms of illumination upon that subject.

It is obvious to me that the director's sympathies lie with the Indians. For all his talent in bringing this story to life, it was clear that he sees the white man's encroachment on American soil through the lenses of a typical "progressive" revisionist, who is a product of our modern era, where truth is turned on its head, and evenhandedness is a dirty word.

An Observation

For all of you free-lovin', tree-huggin', eco-nut global warming activists, I just thought I'd mention that we're experiencing the mildest summer this part of East Tennessee has seen in the last decade. Just a few evenings ago, I sat outside and watched the local fireworks in total comfort, with a nice cool breeze blowing. Typically this time of year, even the nights are muggy and hot. So if we're experiencing the Baking of the Earth, it must've skipped this little part of heaven.

Put that in your bong and smoke it.

Under the Weather

Sorry for the delays in posting, folks. I've had some sort of bug, perhaps a tetch of the flu, for the last thirty-six hours, or so. I feel a little better, right now, but only time will tell if I'm over the worst of it. I sure hope so.

Gawn Campin'

I'm going on a little camping trip on Monday. Not to worry, though; I'll be back Wednesday.

I considered asking Instapundit to guest-blog for me, while I'm away; but I realized such a request would be akin to Jim Carrey's predicament in Bruce Almighty, so I relented from that idea.

Anyway, I'll see y'all real soon. Catch a few rays, fluster a few liberals, and stay safe, until then.

God bless.

Learnin' 'Em Good!

Actual answers given by students on a test at a Catholic elementary school:


ADAM AND EVE WERE CREATED FROM AN APPLE TREE. NOAH'S WIFE WAS JOAN OF ARK. NOAH BUILT AND ARK AND THE ANIMALS CAME ON IN PEARS.

LOTS WIFE WAS A PILLAR OF SALT DURING THE DAY, BUT A BALL OF FIRE DURING THE NIGHT.

THE JEWS WERE A PROUD PEOPLE AND THROUGHOUT HISTORY THEY HAD TROUBLE WITH UNSYMPATHETIC GENITALS

SAMPSON WAS A STRONGMAN WHO LET HIMSELF BE LED ASTRAY BY A JEZEBEL LIKE DELILAH.

SAMSON SLAYED THE PHILISTINES WITH THE AXE OF THE APOSTLES.

THE FIRST COMMANDMENTS WAS WHEN EVE TOLD ADAM TO EAT THE APPLE.

THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT IS THOU SHALT NOT ADMIT ADULTERY.

MOSES DIED BEFORE HE EVER REACHED CANADA. THEN JOSHUA LED THE HEBREWS IN THE BATTLE OF GERITOL.

THE GREATEST MIRICLE IN THE BIBLE IS WHEN JOSHUA TOLD HIS SON TO STAND STILL AND HE OBEYED HIM.

WHEN MARY HEARD SHE WAS THE MOTHER OF JESUS, SHE SANG THE MAGNA CARTA.

JESUS WAS BORN BECAUSE MARY HAD AN IMMACULATE CONTRAPTION.

IT WAS A MIRICLE WHEN JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD AND MANAGED TO GET THE TOMBSTONE OFF THE ENTRANCE.

THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOWED THE LORD WERE CALLED THE 12 DECIBELS.

THE EPISTELS WERE THE WIVES OF THE APOSTLES.

ONE OF THE OPPOSSUMS WAS ST. MATTHEW WHO WAS ALSO A TAXIMAN.

ST. PAUL CAVORTED TO CHRISTIANITY, HE PREACHED HOLY ACRIMONY WHICH IS ANOTHER NAME FOR MARRAIGE.

CHRISTIANS HAVE ONLY ONE SPOUSE. THIS IS CALLED MONOTONY.

You're A Redneck If. . .

Someone sent me this in an email:


1. You take your dog for a walk and you both use the same tree.

2. You can entertain yourself for more than 15 minutes with a fly swatter.

3. Your boat has not left the driveway in 15 years.

4. You burn your yard rather than mow it.

5. You think the "nutcracker" is something you do off the high dive.

6. The salvation army declines your furniture.

7. You have the local taxidermist on speed dial.

8. You come back from the dump with more than you took.

9. Your wife can climb a tree faster than your cat.

10. Your grandmother has "ammo" on her Christmas list.

11. You keep flea and tick soap in the shower.

12. You've been involved in a custody fight over a hunting dog.

13. You have a rag for a gas cap.

14. Your house doesn't have curtains, but your truck does.

15. You consider your license plate personalized because your father made it.

16. A tornado hits your neighborhood and does a $100,000 worth of improvements.

17. You missed your 5th grade graduation because you were on jury duty.

18. You think fast food is hitting a deer at 65.