It seems that Norwegian public officials have far too much time on their hands:
The trigger for the explosion of opinion? A decision in the local district that schoolboys must sit on toilet seats when urinating, not stand.
I don't know if the local janitorial guild held a protest, but this is the inevitable destination of massive government intervention into its citizens' personal lives.
Other matters of great import on the agenda: The question of which hand to wipe with, and how many jiggles constitute an appropriate number before zipping the fly.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
A Progressive Glossary I
Tolerance: Belief that all left-wing views deserve respect.
Diversity: Belief that skin pigmentation is the prevailing factor in determining the nature of a person's character.
Multiculturalism: Belief that all cultures are of equal value, with the exceptions of Western--particularly American--culture, or any culture in which Christianity plays a significant role.
Greed: Disdain for confiscatory taxation and the welfare state.
Rush Limbaugh: The secular equivalent of the Anti-Christ.
George W. Bush: The stupidist man alive.
Christianity: A radical, extreme, anti-social religion whose practitioners believe in such absurdities as the existence of God, Jesus, biblical concepts of marriage, theocracy, and the non-acceptance of perversion as normal. Its adherents are commonly known as "hatemongers" in modern parlance.
Homosexuals: A harshly persecuted minority group harboring virtue superior to the majority.
Heterosexuals: Breeders. A majority group on planet Earth, engaged in merciless, unwaranted persecution of homosexuals.
Islam: A religion of peace, love, and tolerance. Closely related to Hippieism.
Jihad: A derogatory falsehood invented by evil Crusaders.
The Crusades: A vile series of unprovoked wars, in which benighted Christian Europe foisted its imperialistic expansion goals on the pacifistic indigenous Muslim peoples of the Middle East. The most wicked period in history.
Diversity: Belief that skin pigmentation is the prevailing factor in determining the nature of a person's character.
Multiculturalism: Belief that all cultures are of equal value, with the exceptions of Western--particularly American--culture, or any culture in which Christianity plays a significant role.
Greed: Disdain for confiscatory taxation and the welfare state.
Rush Limbaugh: The secular equivalent of the Anti-Christ.
George W. Bush: The stupidist man alive.
Christianity: A radical, extreme, anti-social religion whose practitioners believe in such absurdities as the existence of God, Jesus, biblical concepts of marriage, theocracy, and the non-acceptance of perversion as normal. Its adherents are commonly known as "hatemongers" in modern parlance.
Homosexuals: A harshly persecuted minority group harboring virtue superior to the majority.
Heterosexuals: Breeders. A majority group on planet Earth, engaged in merciless, unwaranted persecution of homosexuals.
Islam: A religion of peace, love, and tolerance. Closely related to Hippieism.
Jihad: A derogatory falsehood invented by evil Crusaders.
The Crusades: A vile series of unprovoked wars, in which benighted Christian Europe foisted its imperialistic expansion goals on the pacifistic indigenous Muslim peoples of the Middle East. The most wicked period in history.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Pulling a Bill
Apparently feeling a bit froggy from a Viagra high, Bill Clintoon became defensive in an interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:
"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."
Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"'
He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000, and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke.
Wallace said Sunday he was surprised by Clinton's "conspiratorial view" of "a very non-confrontational question, 'Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?"'
"All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job," Wallace said in a telephone interview.
He told Wallace, "And you got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever, but I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."
I think the former president's reaction to this benign question says far more about him and his guilty conscience than it does about Wallace or his "conservative" hit-man proclivities. As for Wallace's smirk, it's a perpetual fixture on his face; I've never seen him without it, and I dare say his own wife wouldn't recognize him sans smirk. It's laughable and pathetic that Clintoon brought up Bush's eight months, in which he could've blasted bin Laden to smithereens. Please, Bill. You had eight years, and never managed the task, or even manifest all that much interest in it. I realize that killing terrorists while simultaneously tripping over one's dropped trousers is daunting, even for a president.
Going off on somewhat of a tangent later on, Clintoon said: "It's not just that there's an unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict. Osama Bin Laden and Dr. al-Zawahiri can convince young Sunni Arab men, who have - and some women - who have despairing conditions in their lives, that they get a one-way ticket to heaven in a hurry if they kill a lot of innocent people who don't share their reality."
Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri don't have to do all that much explaining. As I've said a bajillion times before, killing "infidels" in the name of Allah has a time-honored tradition in Islam--going all the way back to Muhammed. Regarding "despairing conditions"--a sizeable number of terrorists come from well-to-do families and educated backgrounds, not poverty-ridden cesspools of hopelessness. So calling his reasoning simplistic is a generosity. It is their religious beliefs that spur them on, not pulling subpar wages at Mahdi's falafel stand. This is just more of the same tired rhetoric we hear from both sides of the political aisle--that Islamic terrorists and their mentors represent an extreme, twisted form of Islam, not mainstream Muslim thought and practice over 1,400 years.
Believing that poverty or squalid conditions cause terrorism is the same as accepting the notion that poverty instigates crime. For those convinced that the truth of these statements is axiomatic, here's a question: During the Great Depression, how common was the self-detonation of American citizens on the White House lawn or in the breadlines?
"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."
Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"'
He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000, and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke.
Wallace said Sunday he was surprised by Clinton's "conspiratorial view" of "a very non-confrontational question, 'Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?"'
"All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job," Wallace said in a telephone interview.
He told Wallace, "And you got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever, but I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."
I think the former president's reaction to this benign question says far more about him and his guilty conscience than it does about Wallace or his "conservative" hit-man proclivities. As for Wallace's smirk, it's a perpetual fixture on his face; I've never seen him without it, and I dare say his own wife wouldn't recognize him sans smirk. It's laughable and pathetic that Clintoon brought up Bush's eight months, in which he could've blasted bin Laden to smithereens. Please, Bill. You had eight years, and never managed the task, or even manifest all that much interest in it. I realize that killing terrorists while simultaneously tripping over one's dropped trousers is daunting, even for a president.
Going off on somewhat of a tangent later on, Clintoon said: "It's not just that there's an unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict. Osama Bin Laden and Dr. al-Zawahiri can convince young Sunni Arab men, who have - and some women - who have despairing conditions in their lives, that they get a one-way ticket to heaven in a hurry if they kill a lot of innocent people who don't share their reality."
Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri don't have to do all that much explaining. As I've said a bajillion times before, killing "infidels" in the name of Allah has a time-honored tradition in Islam--going all the way back to Muhammed. Regarding "despairing conditions"--a sizeable number of terrorists come from well-to-do families and educated backgrounds, not poverty-ridden cesspools of hopelessness. So calling his reasoning simplistic is a generosity. It is their religious beliefs that spur them on, not pulling subpar wages at Mahdi's falafel stand. This is just more of the same tired rhetoric we hear from both sides of the political aisle--that Islamic terrorists and their mentors represent an extreme, twisted form of Islam, not mainstream Muslim thought and practice over 1,400 years.
Believing that poverty or squalid conditions cause terrorism is the same as accepting the notion that poverty instigates crime. For those convinced that the truth of these statements is axiomatic, here's a question: During the Great Depression, how common was the self-detonation of American citizens on the White House lawn or in the breadlines?
Saturday, September 23, 2006
National IDs and Voting
In the comments section of my last post, GlennT made a good point that deserves a little elaboration. I have a voter registration card. Most of you probably do, as well. Since only citizens are issued these cards, it seems that presenting one at the local voting precinct ensures that the person casting his vote is a citizen of the U.S., and not an illegal alien invested in influencing an election.
I think that identifying oneself at the polls is more important than many imagine. With an illegal alien population somewhere between eleven and thirty million--depending on whose statistics you accept--we're talking about the populace of a small country within our borders. A "nation within a nation." Clearly a group of people this size has the clout to alter an election's outcome, should its members become interested in voter fraud. So concern over the issue has legitimacy to anyone serious about not letting Manuel from Guadalajara decide who sits in the ovoid office.
Enter the national ID card issue. Many champion this "papers, please" policy, and use the voting situation as an excuse for its institution. I abhor it, and for obvious reasons. For one, if we embark upon such a policy, I suspect our government won't consider it elective. Everyone will be issued one, and being caught without it will entail punishment under the law. Worse, and in a more general sense, it places excess and unjustifiable power in the hands of government. I also question the validity of arguments in its favor, since so many constitutionally sound deterrents of illegal immigration aren't even attempted--such as enthusiastic border control, deportations, removal of welfare benefits from non-citizens, prosecution of employers willfully hiring illegals, etc. Even discussing a national ID card in this context denotes questionable motives on the part of its proponents.
The contrast between a national ID and voter ID becomes stark. If I show up at the polls without my voter registration card, the worst possible outcome is that I'm refused the opportunity to vote. On the other hand, in the event that a national ID card is written into law, a real possibility exists that appearing in public without it will mean fines or jail time. Or worse.
I think that identifying oneself at the polls is more important than many imagine. With an illegal alien population somewhere between eleven and thirty million--depending on whose statistics you accept--we're talking about the populace of a small country within our borders. A "nation within a nation." Clearly a group of people this size has the clout to alter an election's outcome, should its members become interested in voter fraud. So concern over the issue has legitimacy to anyone serious about not letting Manuel from Guadalajara decide who sits in the ovoid office.
Enter the national ID card issue. Many champion this "papers, please" policy, and use the voting situation as an excuse for its institution. I abhor it, and for obvious reasons. For one, if we embark upon such a policy, I suspect our government won't consider it elective. Everyone will be issued one, and being caught without it will entail punishment under the law. Worse, and in a more general sense, it places excess and unjustifiable power in the hands of government. I also question the validity of arguments in its favor, since so many constitutionally sound deterrents of illegal immigration aren't even attempted--such as enthusiastic border control, deportations, removal of welfare benefits from non-citizens, prosecution of employers willfully hiring illegals, etc. Even discussing a national ID card in this context denotes questionable motives on the part of its proponents.
The contrast between a national ID and voter ID becomes stark. If I show up at the polls without my voter registration card, the worst possible outcome is that I'm refused the opportunity to vote. On the other hand, in the event that a national ID card is written into law, a real possibility exists that appearing in public without it will mean fines or jail time. Or worse.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Voting "No!" to Common Sense
In a move to crack down against illegal immigrants voting in U.S. elections, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to require Americans to provide proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in federal elections.
The bill would require voters to present a photo identification to vote in federal elections in 2008. By 2010 the photo identification would also have to show the voter is a U.S. citizen.
You can imagine the left-wing reaction to this. How horribly unfair! You mean illegal aliens and terrorists can't vote in our elections? Thus dies freedom in Aztlanistan.
Democrats said the bill's requirements would hurt the poor, the elderly and others unable to easily obtain the documents required. They argued that obtaining required documents can be expensive and that there was no evidence to suggest voter fraud is widespread.
Since buying cigarettes, beer, opening a checking account, or even paying for merchandise with a check all require proof of identification, my contention is this: if you as an American are incapable of providing I.D. at the polls, chances are you're incapable of making it to the polls to vote. Since illegal aliens are persons most likely not to have I.D., this reasonable precaution makes perfect sense. But when it comes to those on the left, they demonstrate their arithmetical and logical genius by adding 2+2, and proudly displaying the answer of 5.
The bill would require voters to present a photo identification to vote in federal elections in 2008. By 2010 the photo identification would also have to show the voter is a U.S. citizen.
You can imagine the left-wing reaction to this. How horribly unfair! You mean illegal aliens and terrorists can't vote in our elections? Thus dies freedom in Aztlanistan.
Democrats said the bill's requirements would hurt the poor, the elderly and others unable to easily obtain the documents required. They argued that obtaining required documents can be expensive and that there was no evidence to suggest voter fraud is widespread.
Since buying cigarettes, beer, opening a checking account, or even paying for merchandise with a check all require proof of identification, my contention is this: if you as an American are incapable of providing I.D. at the polls, chances are you're incapable of making it to the polls to vote. Since illegal aliens are persons most likely not to have I.D., this reasonable precaution makes perfect sense. But when it comes to those on the left, they demonstrate their arithmetical and logical genius by adding 2+2, and proudly displaying the answer of 5.
On "Greed"
If greed is defined as making money, then any era of prosperity is an era of greed, by definition, and any especially prosperous classes of people are especially greedy. But surely, in the ordinary sense of the word, someone who murders a store owner for the small amount of money in his cash register is greedy--perhaps more greedy than someone who makes millions in legitimate work. The sums of money involved cannot be the touchstone of greed. What is remarkable, however, is how utterly undefined this widely used term remains--and yet how fervently asserted. If the term has any concrete meaning, then there might be some way to test empirically, for example, whether or not the 1980s were indeed a "decade of greed" as so often claimed by the anointed.
Once we abandon the notion that the sums of money earned are a measure of "greed," then perhaps the disposition of that money might offer a clue. The 1980s in fact saw a rise of philanthropy to unprecedented levels, not only absolutely but as a percentage of income. Much of this philanthropy was directed toward academia, one of the severest critics of "greed"--and perhaps a candidate for the title itself, as both tuition and professors' salaries rose faster than the rate of inflation nine years in a row during that decade.
Among the many other questions raised by the nebulous concept of "greed" is why it is a term applied almost exclusively to those who want to earn more money or to keep what they have already earned--never to those wanting to take other people's money in taxes or to those wishing to live on the largess dispensed from such taxation. No amount of taxation is ever described by the anointed as "greed" on the part of the government or the clientele of government.
--from The Vision of the Anointed, by Thomas Sowell, 1995
Once we abandon the notion that the sums of money earned are a measure of "greed," then perhaps the disposition of that money might offer a clue. The 1980s in fact saw a rise of philanthropy to unprecedented levels, not only absolutely but as a percentage of income. Much of this philanthropy was directed toward academia, one of the severest critics of "greed"--and perhaps a candidate for the title itself, as both tuition and professors' salaries rose faster than the rate of inflation nine years in a row during that decade.
Among the many other questions raised by the nebulous concept of "greed" is why it is a term applied almost exclusively to those who want to earn more money or to keep what they have already earned--never to those wanting to take other people's money in taxes or to those wishing to live on the largess dispensed from such taxation. No amount of taxation is ever described by the anointed as "greed" on the part of the government or the clientele of government.
--from The Vision of the Anointed, by Thomas Sowell, 1995
Monday, September 18, 2006
Ozzie and Harriet
Brad Pitt: "I'll Marry When Everyone Can." Brad Pitt, ever the social activist, says he won't be marrying Angelina Jolie until the restrictions on who can marry whom are dropped.
Isn't he dreamy, gals? I totally understand why y'all love him so. What a guy! Just imagine: he's willing to forego marital bliss with Lara Croft, until Biff and Spike can tie the knot, as well.
"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," the 42-year-old actor reveals in Esquire magazine's October issue, on newsstands Sept. 19.
Nope, no marriage here. Just shacking up and having kids. With their first child Shiloh already here, it's only a matter of time until Antietam arrives.
As for "everyone else in the country," does that mean if one man wants to marry five women, Brad says go for it? How 'bout three women marrying three other women? Or Timmy tying the leash with Lassie? Or ten-year-olds trading candy sucker rings and writing vows in crayon on construction paper? Yasee, it's all good in Mr. Pitt's world, where fantasy blurs right into reality, and none can tell them apart.
I wonder why Lara Croft hasn't roundhouse-kicked his rattling skull from his shoulders, already? After all, I'm sure she's wondering just how head-over-heels he is for her, given his rather impossible set of prerequisites. Heck, why not throw in world peace, while you're at it? Or disarmament of planet Earth? "I will get married on that blissful day, when every heart is brimming with rainbows and sunshine, and every sword is beaten into a ploughshare."
A veritable fount of parental wisdom, he went on to say: "I try not to stifle them (his kids) in any way," he says. "If it's not hurting anyone, I want them to be able to explore. Sometimes that means they're quite rambunctious."
And with this attitude, I'm sure "rambunctious" will metamorphose into "pregnant" or "in a drug-addled stupor" in time.
Isn't he dreamy, gals? I totally understand why y'all love him so. What a guy! Just imagine: he's willing to forego marital bliss with Lara Croft, until Biff and Spike can tie the knot, as well.
"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able," the 42-year-old actor reveals in Esquire magazine's October issue, on newsstands Sept. 19.
Nope, no marriage here. Just shacking up and having kids. With their first child Shiloh already here, it's only a matter of time until Antietam arrives.
As for "everyone else in the country," does that mean if one man wants to marry five women, Brad says go for it? How 'bout three women marrying three other women? Or Timmy tying the leash with Lassie? Or ten-year-olds trading candy sucker rings and writing vows in crayon on construction paper? Yasee, it's all good in Mr. Pitt's world, where fantasy blurs right into reality, and none can tell them apart.
I wonder why Lara Croft hasn't roundhouse-kicked his rattling skull from his shoulders, already? After all, I'm sure she's wondering just how head-over-heels he is for her, given his rather impossible set of prerequisites. Heck, why not throw in world peace, while you're at it? Or disarmament of planet Earth? "I will get married on that blissful day, when every heart is brimming with rainbows and sunshine, and every sword is beaten into a ploughshare."
A veritable fount of parental wisdom, he went on to say: "I try not to stifle them (his kids) in any way," he says. "If it's not hurting anyone, I want them to be able to explore. Sometimes that means they're quite rambunctious."
And with this attitude, I'm sure "rambunctious" will metamorphose into "pregnant" or "in a drug-addled stupor" in time.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Word
In a recent post, I implied that I loathe rap music. After mulling this over a while, I felt a little guilty for giving it such short shrift. So I've penned my very own rap lyrics, just to prove that I don't hold this musical genre in complete disdain. I hope it brings a little sunshine into your day. You provide the tune.
Vic-tum-ized
Whitey hate mah guts cuz mah skin is black.
He hate me when I sells his l'il chillun' crack.
He think pimpin' hoes is really whack.
Whitey diss me hard cuz mah skin is black.
Honkey hate mah guts cuz mah skin ain't white.
He hate it when ah does a drive-by at night.
He hate me cuz ahm a peaceful Wahhabite.
Honkey diss me hard cuz mah skin ain't white.
Crackuh hate mah guts cuz ah speaks Ebonics,
An' drops killah rimes whiles I smokes da Chronic.
Mah bling-bling leave da homies catatonic.
Crackuh diss me hard cuz ah cain't spell fonix.
Da Man hate mah guts; he ain' cool wit' rap;
He don' wanna hear Al or Jesse's crap.
But like Booker T., ah give 'im a slap,
Pull out mah nine an' straight bust a cap!
Vic-tum-ized
Whitey hate mah guts cuz mah skin is black.
He hate me when I sells his l'il chillun' crack.
He think pimpin' hoes is really whack.
Whitey diss me hard cuz mah skin is black.
Honkey hate mah guts cuz mah skin ain't white.
He hate it when ah does a drive-by at night.
He hate me cuz ahm a peaceful Wahhabite.
Honkey diss me hard cuz mah skin ain't white.
Crackuh hate mah guts cuz ah speaks Ebonics,
An' drops killah rimes whiles I smokes da Chronic.
Mah bling-bling leave da homies catatonic.
Crackuh diss me hard cuz ah cain't spell fonix.
Da Man hate mah guts; he ain' cool wit' rap;
He don' wanna hear Al or Jesse's crap.
But like Booker T., ah give 'im a slap,
Pull out mah nine an' straight bust a cap!
Lord of the Lies
If Algore wrote a fantasy novel--I mean another one, in addition to Sanity in the Balance--perhaps he'd preface it this way:
"One issue to rule them all, One fear to find them,
One threat to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Gaia where the truth dies."
It doesn't border on plagiarism. After all, he invented the Internet. How do you know that "J.R.R. Tolkien" wasn't his pseudonym?
"One issue to rule them all, One fear to find them,
One threat to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Gaia where the truth dies."
It doesn't border on plagiarism. After all, he invented the Internet. How do you know that "J.R.R. Tolkien" wasn't his pseudonym?
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Hollywood Expertise II
Political savant Sean Penn recently stated this about George W. Bush at a film festival: "he's Beelzebub -- and a dumb one."
In a brilliant self-marketing move after recent album sales slumps, eloquent orator Natalie Maines of the Dippie Chicks had this to say about Bush, in response to his remarks in an interview with Tom Brokaw: ''What a dumb f---.'' She then looks into the camera, as if addressing Bush, and reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''
Now I'm no raving fan of Bush, as most of you know, but I have a question: How do people this stupid become so rich?
In a brilliant self-marketing move after recent album sales slumps, eloquent orator Natalie Maines of the Dippie Chicks had this to say about Bush, in response to his remarks in an interview with Tom Brokaw: ''What a dumb f---.'' She then looks into the camera, as if addressing Bush, and reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''
Now I'm no raving fan of Bush, as most of you know, but I have a question: How do people this stupid become so rich?
Hollywood Expertise
Rosie O'Donnell says "radical" Christians in America are just as much of a threat as the followers of radical Islam who piloted hijacked jetliners into New York's Twin Towers and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state."
Regardless one's view of the "War on Fright," These statements by Rosie O'Dummell exhibit total cluelessness about Islam and Christianity. This moral equivalency argument doesn't wash, as anyone who studies history knows. For those who may doubt this, ask yourself these questions: When was the last time that terrorism and violence the world over in Christianity's name was commonplace? When did Christendom wage holy war against the rest of humanity, with an "us or them" mentality? Where in the holy scriptures--and in the Gospels, in particular--are Christians exhorted to kill the infidel, or fight him until he submits to the will of God as a slave or a convert? Why did the freest nation in human history begin with the strong influence of Christianity--an influence far more prevalent in the early days of the U.S., when liberty was at its peak? Please answer these questions, Ms. O'Dummell. Enlighten me; I'll listen.
"Iraq and Afghanistan never threatened to kill us," O'Donnell said.
Poppycock. Saddumb Insane publicly called for jihad against Americans on his state-run t.v. networks. I'm against the Iraq war, and believe our troops should be brought home, but the belief that Saddumb never threatened to kill us is factually wrong. As for Afghanistan, she's right. The Afghanis never threatened to kill us; they just knowingly harbored the ones who did, thumbed their noses at us, and provided Al-Killya a launch platform for further attacks.
I'm endlessly fascinated by these blithering idiots on t.v. and in print, who know far less about reality than the average American citizen. They sit in their enclaves and wax eloquent, reveling in unmitigated ignorance. And the only reason they have these forums is because their names and faces are famous. Otherwise, they'd stand mocked and ignored on a street corner, in Nowhere, U.S.A.
In the realm of celebrity, everyone's an expert.
"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state."
Regardless one's view of the "War on Fright," These statements by Rosie O'Dummell exhibit total cluelessness about Islam and Christianity. This moral equivalency argument doesn't wash, as anyone who studies history knows. For those who may doubt this, ask yourself these questions: When was the last time that terrorism and violence the world over in Christianity's name was commonplace? When did Christendom wage holy war against the rest of humanity, with an "us or them" mentality? Where in the holy scriptures--and in the Gospels, in particular--are Christians exhorted to kill the infidel, or fight him until he submits to the will of God as a slave or a convert? Why did the freest nation in human history begin with the strong influence of Christianity--an influence far more prevalent in the early days of the U.S., when liberty was at its peak? Please answer these questions, Ms. O'Dummell. Enlighten me; I'll listen.
"Iraq and Afghanistan never threatened to kill us," O'Donnell said.
Poppycock. Saddumb Insane publicly called for jihad against Americans on his state-run t.v. networks. I'm against the Iraq war, and believe our troops should be brought home, but the belief that Saddumb never threatened to kill us is factually wrong. As for Afghanistan, she's right. The Afghanis never threatened to kill us; they just knowingly harbored the ones who did, thumbed their noses at us, and provided Al-Killya a launch platform for further attacks.
I'm endlessly fascinated by these blithering idiots on t.v. and in print, who know far less about reality than the average American citizen. They sit in their enclaves and wax eloquent, reveling in unmitigated ignorance. And the only reason they have these forums is because their names and faces are famous. Otherwise, they'd stand mocked and ignored on a street corner, in Nowhere, U.S.A.
In the realm of celebrity, everyone's an expert.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Three Wishes
Three guys -- a Canadian farmer, Osama bin Laden, and an American engineer-- are working together one day. They come across a lantern and a Genie pops out of it.
"I will give each of you one wish, which is three wishes total," says the Genie.
The Canadian says, "I am a farmer, my dad was a farmer, and my son will also be a farmer. I want the land to be forever fertile in Canada."
Pooooof! With the blink of the Genie's eye, the land in Canada was forever made fertile for farming.
Osama bin Ladin was amazed, so he said, "I want a wall around Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran so that no infidels, Jews or Americans can come into our precious state."
Pooooof! Again, with the blink of the Genie's eye, there was a huge wall around those countries.
The American engineer says, "I am very curious. Please tell me more about this wall."
The Genie explains, "Well, it's about 5000 feet high, 500 feet thick and completely surrounds the country. Nothing can get in our out -- it's virtually impenetrable."
The American engineer says, "Fill it with water."
Perhaps Mr. Bush should consult the authors of joke books for tactics in the "War on Fright," or whatever they're calling it, these days.
"I will give each of you one wish, which is three wishes total," says the Genie.
The Canadian says, "I am a farmer, my dad was a farmer, and my son will also be a farmer. I want the land to be forever fertile in Canada."
Pooooof! With the blink of the Genie's eye, the land in Canada was forever made fertile for farming.
Osama bin Ladin was amazed, so he said, "I want a wall around Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran so that no infidels, Jews or Americans can come into our precious state."
Pooooof! Again, with the blink of the Genie's eye, there was a huge wall around those countries.
The American engineer says, "I am very curious. Please tell me more about this wall."
The Genie explains, "Well, it's about 5000 feet high, 500 feet thick and completely surrounds the country. Nothing can get in our out -- it's virtually impenetrable."
The American engineer says, "Fill it with water."
Perhaps Mr. Bush should consult the authors of joke books for tactics in the "War on Fright," or whatever they're calling it, these days.
Attempt at Clarification
I'm sure everyone is familiar with the recent Billy Graham controversy, in which he was accused of promoting religious universalism. I receive a monthly newsletter from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association; in the September edition, he addresses people's concerns:
Several people have written and asked me two personal questions. First: Do I believe in the inspiration of scripture? And I say a resounding YES! "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
The second is: Do I believe that Jesus and His death on the cross, and resurrection, are the only way of personal salvation? Again, I say YES! I have traveled all over the world proclaiming this message and have not changed my convictions.
This is heartening news, and I hope he means what he says. After his making this supplement, I see only two possible explanations: either he was misrepresented or misunderstood (perhaps the latter was even his own fault), or he's guilty, and is now backpedaling and lying. I hope it's the former, and without further access to information discrediting him, I'll take him at his word.
Several people have written and asked me two personal questions. First: Do I believe in the inspiration of scripture? And I say a resounding YES! "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).
The second is: Do I believe that Jesus and His death on the cross, and resurrection, are the only way of personal salvation? Again, I say YES! I have traveled all over the world proclaiming this message and have not changed my convictions.
This is heartening news, and I hope he means what he says. After his making this supplement, I see only two possible explanations: either he was misrepresented or misunderstood (perhaps the latter was even his own fault), or he's guilty, and is now backpedaling and lying. I hope it's the former, and without further access to information discrediting him, I'll take him at his word.
Thursday, September 7, 2006
I for Immoral
If you enjoy pro-homosexual propaganda, empathy with terrorists, and anti-Christian messages with all the subtlety of Ebola symptoms, then I highly recommend that you go out and rent V for Vendetta, tonight.
This is the story of a wicked, totalitarian government warred against by a dashing terrorist. Played by Hugo Weaving--who does his usual fantastic job of acting--the character reveals understandable and, in some instances, virtuous motivations for his actions. Unfortunately, his tactics are just plain evil. He does not care if innocents die in the pursuit of his goals--or at least, no such intimation is made. The nutshell message, here, is the typical relativist canard: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
In addition, the film pounds home the view that homosexuals are normal folks like everyone else, who just happen to find the opposite sex attractive. Three or more scenes imply this. The enemies of said lifestyle are not just portrayed as bigots, but as murderous devils.
The lowest point of the movie is its treatment of its supposed Christian characters. Only three individuals could be construed as having Christian beliefs in the story: one is the pseudo-theocracy's tyrannical leader; another is a professional propagandist for the government, known as "the voice of London"; and the third is a Catholic bishop, whom the dialogue strongly hints is a pedophile, and certainly in direct violation of his vows. Each of these people is a vile caricature, a loathsome representative of the worst anti-Christian perceptions. Not one person in the film with Christian tendencies is anything less than a villain.
I found this one of the most blatant counter-cultural movies I've ever seen--which is a shame, since the acting is good, the dialogue engaging, and the action scenes well-executed. A typical Hollywhacked outing--beginning with promise, and quickly plummeting into the moral sewers.
This is the story of a wicked, totalitarian government warred against by a dashing terrorist. Played by Hugo Weaving--who does his usual fantastic job of acting--the character reveals understandable and, in some instances, virtuous motivations for his actions. Unfortunately, his tactics are just plain evil. He does not care if innocents die in the pursuit of his goals--or at least, no such intimation is made. The nutshell message, here, is the typical relativist canard: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
In addition, the film pounds home the view that homosexuals are normal folks like everyone else, who just happen to find the opposite sex attractive. Three or more scenes imply this. The enemies of said lifestyle are not just portrayed as bigots, but as murderous devils.
The lowest point of the movie is its treatment of its supposed Christian characters. Only three individuals could be construed as having Christian beliefs in the story: one is the pseudo-theocracy's tyrannical leader; another is a professional propagandist for the government, known as "the voice of London"; and the third is a Catholic bishop, whom the dialogue strongly hints is a pedophile, and certainly in direct violation of his vows. Each of these people is a vile caricature, a loathsome representative of the worst anti-Christian perceptions. Not one person in the film with Christian tendencies is anything less than a villain.
I found this one of the most blatant counter-cultural movies I've ever seen--which is a shame, since the acting is good, the dialogue engaging, and the action scenes well-executed. A typical Hollywhacked outing--beginning with promise, and quickly plummeting into the moral sewers.
Short'n Sweet
"The GOP may be Reaganite in its tax policy, but it is Wilsonian in its foreign policy, FDR in its trade policy, and LBJ all the way in its spending policies. Pragmatism is the order of the day. The Republican summary might be summarized thus: "To hell with principle; what matters is power, and that we have it, and that they do not."--Pat Buchanan, Where the Right Went Wrong, 2004
Sunday, September 3, 2006
The War on Truth
It seems every time President Bush opens his mouth on the subject of Islam, the "War on Terror," or matters tangentially related to them, he exhibits cluelessness, at best, or conscious dishonesty, at worst.
For example, here are a few snippets from his recent speech:
“The terrorist movement multiplied in strength, and resentment that had simmered for years boiled over into violence across the world.”
Elsewhere: “Instead, the lack of freedom in the Middle East made the region an incubator for terrorist movements.”
More: “And the unifying feature of this movement, the link that spans sectarian divisions and local grievances, is the rigid conviction that free societies are a threat to their twisted view of Islam.”
On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation -- the right of all people to speak, and worship, and live in liberty. And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism -- the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest.
We see a day when people across the Middle East have governments that honor their dignity, unleash their creativity, and count their votes. We see a day when leaders across the Middle East reject terror and protect freedom. We see a day when the nations of the Middle East are allies in the cause of peace. The path to that day will be uphill and uneven, but we can be confident of the outcome, because we know that the direction of history leads toward freedom.
Putting it gently, all the above is crap. I'll take them one at a time. 1. Islamic terrorism is not caused by resentment, nor a hatred of freedom; its catalyst isn't greed directed toward fat rich westerners. 2. A lack of liberty in the Middle East does not cause terrorism. 3. Jihadis do not harbor a "twisted" view of Islam or the Koran. 4. Those who murder in Allah's name, for the greater glory of Islam and its propagation, are not "extremists," nor are they "radicals," or any other descriptor denoting froth-mouthed zealotry. 5. In 1,400 years of Islamic ascendancy in the Middle East, we have never seen a time when honoring the populace's dignity, removing the strictures of creativity, or giving serious weight to voting ever held relevance. How can one reject terror, when it plays a pivotal role in the spread of one's religion? According to Muhammed's teachings, the "cause of peace" is the cause of Islam. And "the direction of history leads toward freedom?" What utter nonsense. Try telling that to the people of Vietnam, Russians on the cusp of the October Revolution, the French during the Reign of Terror, and the vast territory once controlled by Christendom, now crushed under the overlord's thumb of sharia. Whatever this guy's smoking, it's killing brain cells faster than primetime MTV.
So if this steady diet of pap fed to us by the president, his administration, and the media is a facade, what is the real truth? I'm glad you asked.
The reality is that Islamic terrorism--strangely enough--stems from Islam. This is a religion born in blood, and on this red tide it has washed away countless millions over the centuries. From the earliest days of Muhammed to the present, Islamic history has proven one long, vicious wallow in the lifesblood of its victims. Killing the infidel is a joy, an obedience to their sanguinary god. The concept of religious domination not extended by Islam is intolerable; loss of territory once occupied by Muslims the worst affront imaginable. None of this is extreme, by Islamic standards. Quite the contrary, moderate Muslims--of which there are fewer than you might suspect--are the true extremists. Their lives are in direct conflict with the "holy" books and traditions to which they profess loyalty. It is inescapable that the more seriously one takes Muhammed's teachings, the more violent of purpose one becomes--by necessity. If this view is "twisted," that's news to Muhammed, all of his successors, and the empires that came afterwards--such as the Ummayads, Abbasids, Mamluks, Seljuks, and the Ottomans--leading up to World War I.
A glorious death on the paths of Allah while waging war against the unbelievers, followed by immediate entry into Paradise as a reward, is not a recent innovation or a novel idea. It's a basic assertion or guarantee made by Muhammed himself. Christianity has no corresponding belief, and I tell you it isn't a coincidence that Muslim "Palestinians"--not Christians--are blowing themselves to kingdom come. Listen to what these people say. Do a little research on letters they leave behind, or home-made video tapes. In every case, the rhetoric is steeped in traditional Islamic views of the world, and a desire to please Allah.
Those of you familiar with this blog know I don't make a habit of being politically correct, nor will I start now. Islam is the problem. Not extremism; not greed; not loathing toward freedom; not resentment. Islam. But don't take my word for it. Read biographical information on Muhammed. Study the Koran and Hadith. Research Islamic history as a whole. You won't have to forge your way very far into these subjects before you reach the same unpleasant and unpopular conclusion. It is one I reached before the words September 11 had any special significance; and speaking of that atrocity, if Muhammed had never lived, the New York skyline wouldn't be marred, today, and many would spend this evening with loved ones long since lowered into the earth.
For example, here are a few snippets from his recent speech:
“The terrorist movement multiplied in strength, and resentment that had simmered for years boiled over into violence across the world.”
Elsewhere: “Instead, the lack of freedom in the Middle East made the region an incubator for terrorist movements.”
More: “And the unifying feature of this movement, the link that spans sectarian divisions and local grievances, is the rigid conviction that free societies are a threat to their twisted view of Islam.”
On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation -- the right of all people to speak, and worship, and live in liberty. And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism -- the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest.
We see a day when people across the Middle East have governments that honor their dignity, unleash their creativity, and count their votes. We see a day when leaders across the Middle East reject terror and protect freedom. We see a day when the nations of the Middle East are allies in the cause of peace. The path to that day will be uphill and uneven, but we can be confident of the outcome, because we know that the direction of history leads toward freedom.
Putting it gently, all the above is crap. I'll take them one at a time. 1. Islamic terrorism is not caused by resentment, nor a hatred of freedom; its catalyst isn't greed directed toward fat rich westerners. 2. A lack of liberty in the Middle East does not cause terrorism. 3. Jihadis do not harbor a "twisted" view of Islam or the Koran. 4. Those who murder in Allah's name, for the greater glory of Islam and its propagation, are not "extremists," nor are they "radicals," or any other descriptor denoting froth-mouthed zealotry. 5. In 1,400 years of Islamic ascendancy in the Middle East, we have never seen a time when honoring the populace's dignity, removing the strictures of creativity, or giving serious weight to voting ever held relevance. How can one reject terror, when it plays a pivotal role in the spread of one's religion? According to Muhammed's teachings, the "cause of peace" is the cause of Islam. And "the direction of history leads toward freedom?" What utter nonsense. Try telling that to the people of Vietnam, Russians on the cusp of the October Revolution, the French during the Reign of Terror, and the vast territory once controlled by Christendom, now crushed under the overlord's thumb of sharia. Whatever this guy's smoking, it's killing brain cells faster than primetime MTV.
So if this steady diet of pap fed to us by the president, his administration, and the media is a facade, what is the real truth? I'm glad you asked.
The reality is that Islamic terrorism--strangely enough--stems from Islam. This is a religion born in blood, and on this red tide it has washed away countless millions over the centuries. From the earliest days of Muhammed to the present, Islamic history has proven one long, vicious wallow in the lifesblood of its victims. Killing the infidel is a joy, an obedience to their sanguinary god. The concept of religious domination not extended by Islam is intolerable; loss of territory once occupied by Muslims the worst affront imaginable. None of this is extreme, by Islamic standards. Quite the contrary, moderate Muslims--of which there are fewer than you might suspect--are the true extremists. Their lives are in direct conflict with the "holy" books and traditions to which they profess loyalty. It is inescapable that the more seriously one takes Muhammed's teachings, the more violent of purpose one becomes--by necessity. If this view is "twisted," that's news to Muhammed, all of his successors, and the empires that came afterwards--such as the Ummayads, Abbasids, Mamluks, Seljuks, and the Ottomans--leading up to World War I.
A glorious death on the paths of Allah while waging war against the unbelievers, followed by immediate entry into Paradise as a reward, is not a recent innovation or a novel idea. It's a basic assertion or guarantee made by Muhammed himself. Christianity has no corresponding belief, and I tell you it isn't a coincidence that Muslim "Palestinians"--not Christians--are blowing themselves to kingdom come. Listen to what these people say. Do a little research on letters they leave behind, or home-made video tapes. In every case, the rhetoric is steeped in traditional Islamic views of the world, and a desire to please Allah.
Those of you familiar with this blog know I don't make a habit of being politically correct, nor will I start now. Islam is the problem. Not extremism; not greed; not loathing toward freedom; not resentment. Islam. But don't take my word for it. Read biographical information on Muhammed. Study the Koran and Hadith. Research Islamic history as a whole. You won't have to forge your way very far into these subjects before you reach the same unpleasant and unpopular conclusion. It is one I reached before the words September 11 had any special significance; and speaking of that atrocity, if Muhammed had never lived, the New York skyline wouldn't be marred, today, and many would spend this evening with loved ones long since lowered into the earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)