Thursday, June 29, 2006

"Free Speech"

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have agreed to represent a high school senior whose microphone was unplugged by school officials after she began to speak about her Christian beliefs during her valedictory address. When Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb began reading a speech that contained Bible verses and references to God and her faith in Jesus Christ during her commencement speech on June 15, 2006, officials with the Clark County School District unplugged the microphone. Institute attorneys plan to file a First Amendment lawsuit against the school district for having violated Brittany's constitutional right to free speech and equal protection under the law.

This past spring, graduating senior Brittany McComb was chosen to give the valedictory speech at Foothill High School in Henderson, Nevada. After composing her remarks, she submitted them to school administrators according to standard district policy. School administrators, upon the advice of their district legal counsel, proceeded to censor her speech, deleting all three Bible references, several references to "the Lord" and the only mention of the word "Christ." However, according to the official religious free speech policy of the Clark County School Board, "Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression...that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content."

On Thursday, June 15, 2006, Brittany, who graduated with a 4.7 GPA, prepared to deliver her commencement address to her fellow students, families and staff. Believing that the district's censorship of her speech amounted to a violation of her right to free speech, she proceeded to share her personal beliefs about the role that her Christian beliefs played in her success. When school officials found her to be straying from the approved text, they unplugged her microphone, fearing that her remarks could be construed as a school endorsement of her Christian views, despite the "appropriate, neutral disclaimers" provision of the religious speech policy. Brittany claims that she was not preaching or proselytizing but merely stating her thoughts and beliefs upon graduation, as she was invited to do.

This sounds like something out of Soviet Russia or red China, the only difference being that she wasn't marched off to the gulag archipelago, prison, or shoved against a nice brick wall for an appointment with the firing squad. We've not come quite that far, yet; but hey, give us a little time. Rome wasn't built in a day. Nor was the proletariat "freed" in a day. Have patience, folks. We're coming along nicely.

Poor Brittany. Did she not understand that the proper speech requisite should've included extolling the virtues of Big Brother and der schtaat? Had she waxed eloquent about the matriarchy behind the world's success, the loathsome--nay, demonic--origins of Christianity, or the sublimity of her Sexual Fulfillment 101 class, we wouldn't be having this little conversation right now.

Let's walk through this, shall we? Ms. McComb is the school valedictorian. Through hard work and perseverance, she earned the right to speak to her fellow classmates. What is the purpose behind this? It gives insight into what motivated her in her quest for excellence, and it offers inspiration to the other students. There is no other logical explanation for a valedictorian or salutatorian's speech-making.

Naturally, the school took the totalitarian view: "Sure, say whatever you like, as long as it passes muster with our censors, doesn't offend our perceptions, and darlin', make sure the religious references are so amorphous, they're indistinguishable from atheism. Got it? OK, write your little heart out."

Some might accuse Ms. McComb of violating the rules. Some might suggest she was underhanded, and went against the school's authority knowing full-well what she was doing. And some would be wrong.

Her thesis was that she excelled with God's help. She doesn't believe in Muhammed or Zeus or Gaia, but the God of the Bible. Removing these references renders her speech more meaningless than the babbling of Howard Dean with a cleft palate. If one is not allowed free reign in describing one's motivations, what is the point in standing before the graduating class and giving a speech? Why even construct the rickety facade in the first place? Without truth, it becomes a sham of empty phrases.

That the school was concerned about association with a particular creed or religion holds no water, since the speech embodied Ms. McComb's personal observations and beliefs; she was/is not a representative of the school, such as a board member.

Had she stood and spoken in soft wonder about Allah jihadding her through the tough times, Buddha's prodigious belly bouncing her right along, or Kabbala's mysticism imparting knowledge unto her, I doubt we'd've ever heard of Ms. McComb.

Our Socialist Constitution

A law that requires Medicaid beneficiaries to prove their citizenship before obtaining health benefits is unconstitutional and should not be allowed to take effect July 1, according to a class-action lawsuit filed Wednesday.

Congress passed legislation earlier this year designed to ensure that only citizens or qualified legal immigrants gain access to Medicaid, which is the state-federal health insurance program for the poor. More than 50 million people get health care through the program.

Sometimes I marvel at the privilege of living in the Age of Absurdity. First came the Enlightenment, proceeded by the Benightment. Do these people sit around with coffee and donuts all day, in brainstorming sessions, sweating up new ideas that challenge such quaint notions as up is up, and down is down?

As most of you know, it's debatable whether or not anyone should receive Medicaid health care, since it requires robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak. But how could any reading of the Constitution lead one to the bizarre conclusion that not extending this courtesy to those of illegal status is a violation of our founding document? These people have no legal footing in our country; they are not citizens.

When determining the constitutionality of a course of action, perhaps the courts should consult the U.S. Constitution, not that of socialist France.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

How Embarrassing

Now that Rush Limbaugh's been caught with Viagra without a prescription, does that mean he'll be performing tomorrow's show with half his libido tied behind his back, just to make it fair?

Take the Power Back

I believe we Evil White Devils should load up our demon spawn and go back to Europe. After all, we are monstrous usurpers who have stolen an entire continent from the Mexicans. Remember when Columbus landed on San Salvador and traded whacks on a pinata with the Mexican peasants? How 'bout when Louis Jolliet and Jacques Marquette plied the waters of the Mississippi with their Mexican interpreter, in the 1600s? Without him, they never would've communicated productively with the Indian tribes of the region--all of whom were Mexicans in warbonnets and spoke Spanish. And I believe I recall the Jesuits setting up a mission to the Mexicans of Quebec. True, they spoke French, but they were as Mexican as Tijuana. Of course, let's not forget that the Russians parted with Alaska due to a plethora of taco stands; they wanted a greater variety in food; and the Mexicans, Santa Anna bless 'em, gave them death by burrito indigestion. Tennessee has a long history of being populated with Mexicans--going all the way back to the Revolution, in which my granddaddy eight times removed fought in the Fifth Chalupa Brigade against those Lobsterback Blanco Devils. Even Jorge Washington, the father of our country, was a bona fide Mexican.

So change your dastardly ways, gringos. Pack 'em up and ship 'em out. Do the right thing, for a change, and stop swiping continents from the peaceful, enlightened peoples of the Western hemisphere. Quit bein' the personification of evil.

And stay away from Antarctica, too; Mexico's already claimed it.

Viva la Raza!

Friday, June 23, 2006

Please Stay Tuned

I was watching "Who's Line Is It, Anyway?" on ABC Family channel earlier tonight with my wife. After the end credits, another show came on, but not before the screen went blank, and an ominous message appeared:

"The following broadcast does not represent the views of ABC Family."

Hmm, I thought. What might this be? A show with one of Muhammed's peaceniks doing a step-by-step on turning one's family into walking pipe bombs? Programming on the trials and tribulations of Chippendales strippers? A new reality show shot on location in the Sierra Nevadas, titled "The Donner Party Two"?

Nope. Even worse. A more dire affront:

"The 700 Club."

I kid you not. Am I the only one who finds this strange? Some of this channel's upcoming programming includes The Waterbong and Big Daddy with Adam Sandler, "Gilmore Girls," which basically is one long, yammering feminist gripe session, and a titillating new bit of eye candy called "Falcon Beach," which just as easily could go by the moniker "Who's Boffing Who?" But I'm sure these pose no concerns, as I've never noticed a singling out of this nature for any other show on the station. I'm not a big fan of ABC Family, but I've watched it enough for this incongruity to leap out at me.

So let's sum up: Playing an infantile imbecile in a movie targeting the lowest common denominator of society and having it clapping in its drool is awesome. Check. A movie on how not to raise a child, in which we are educated on the Zen art of public urination, is a delight for the kiddies. Check. PC twaddle straight out of Betty Friedan's book The Subhuman Male doesn't bother us, nosiree. Gotcha. And a place where the sun is hot, the people are wet, and the only squares are the ones not rolling in the sheets with a different buff bod every Saturday night at 9:00 PM EST--8:00 CST--is where all the cool cats are hanging. No problemo.

But give us a show with a Christian take on reality, one with inspirational stories of miracles and people overcoming Herculean obstacles in bettering themselves physically and/or spiritually, in which the dreaded words "Jesus" and "Christ" are uttered outside the sacred confines of profanity, and Houston, We Have A Problem.

You see, those Christians--you know, the ones who founded this great nation and saw to it that freedom wasn't just a pretty concept in a tome of fairy tales--those people are out of their gourds.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.


Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.

Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual.

"I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.

"Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."

I know this news is a few days old, now. Still, it's deserving of further comment.

In this woman's deranged and twisted mind, homosexuality is a "gift," a mechanism for giving "joy" and "blessing the world." She must advocate free love, since the vast majority of homosexuals give rabbits a run for their money in terms of promiscuity. We should believe this lifestyle fraught with the peril of disease and early death is a marvelous thing on the basis of her proclamation alone, I suppose.

I love the audacity of her naked assertion that people are born this way. No evidence needed, her word is law, move along. It goes without saying that this belief is controversial and debatable; but why let facts get in the way of this new agenda for the Episcopal Church?

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with 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

Good thing God was just kidding, isn’t it? This policy is a logical outcome of ignoring scripture, or assuming that it means something other than what it says.

Monday, June 19, 2006

The "Impossible" Dream

It is neither wise, nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border.--President George "Pancho" Bush, May 15, 2006.

I bet that makes all the drug runners, welfare heroes, and La Raza revolutionaries breathe deep sighs of relief, as they work dilligently toward the complete social ruination of the U.S.A.

Bush supporters suggest that deporting 12 million illegal aliens is impossible, or at least somewhat more implausible than stumbling over the Holy Grail in a local landfill, right next to Hillary's most recent book. Some equate the two finds, but I digress.

In a moment of unusual rhetorical grandiloquence, the president assured us that "There are those here in Washington who say, 'Why don't we just find the folks and send them home.' That ain't gonna work." (June 8, 2006)

Vox Day--euphemistically known as "Herr Vox" in the blog world, these days--has made recent lucid comments demonstrating the silliness of these assertions, as most of you know.

Removing incentives for aliens to remain--such as free medical care, lower tuition costs, food stamps, or employment--probably makes more sense than mass deportations, at least in the short term; I'm all for these attempts, and have been writing to that effect for quite some time.

But the idea that deporting 12 million invaders is "impossible," or more unrealistic than The DaVinci Code defies common sense. A country capable of landing men on the Moon and bringing them back home safely not once but several times can find a humane way. Americans defeated Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire in WWII, and held the imperialistic Soviet Union at bay for over forty years. Is removing 12 million undesirables beyond us? Curiously, rebuilding a barbarian haven like Iraq from the rubble up is considered doable, as is the securing of its borders and the insertion of an alien form of governance into its body politic, while removing massive numbers of illegal aliens from our soil is beyond the ken of mortal men. This notion strikes me as absurd.

I think the truth of the matter is that the supposed futility of mass deportation is a smokescreen. The reality we face is that our--ahem--"leaders" have zero interest in even attempting the task. I'm not naive; I understand the difficulty in facilitating such a goal. Imagine, if you will, Sir Edmund Hillary standing at the base of Everest, gazing up at its lofty peak, and pronouncing in oratorical rhapsody: "'Tis better not to try at all, than to fail in the attempt. Forget conquering the mountain; I cannot conquer myself;" after which he trudges away, face downcast, weeping on Tenzing Norgay's shoulder like a spurned prom queen. Even this analogy does injustice to the idea-in-question, for removing our problem source would not pose so monumental a task as scaling the highest mountain on Earth. As others have pointed out, initiating a deportation program, in conjunction with the removal of incentives for illegal immigration, would bring about self-deportation. As good parents understand, people respond to those who mean business far differently than to those they know fall prey to manipulation and vacillation. A strong stand on the issue teaches by example that we're not kidding around.

Am I concerned about fatalities along the way? Not really. Air conditioned buses pale in comparison to arduous treks across the Mojave, with little more than gila monsters and the hellish glare of the sun for company. The concern is a valid one, and as I suggested, we should treat these people with care and preserve their human rights. However, I'm convinced the point is raised more as an excuse for inaction than a legitimate worry for the health of Mexican border-jumping-beans. At least among those who deem giving them water jugs and maps en route an appropriate response.

How many hundreds have died cooped up in shipping containers, in the backs of sealed moving vans, braving the Rio Grande's currents, or gasping from dehydration on a desert trail? These folks are accustomed to far worse than deportation brainstorm measures instituted by a multiculturally-sensitive federal government, I assure you.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Happy Father's Day, Belated

I hope all you dads out there ( you know who you are) had a great day. I'm sorry I haven't been around much in the last week. It's really annoying when life intervenes and rudely interrupts blogging, isn't it?

May God bless each one of you fathers. Raise your children in His light. It's one of the most important accomplishments you ever can make.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Fairly Unbalanced

A discussion about protests by an anti-homosexual church at the funerals of fallen American soldiers turned into an astounding shoutfest on national television this weekend, with Fox News host Julie Banderas calling a fire-and-brimstone Christian preacher "the devil" and apparently condemning her to hell.

"You are the devil!" Banderas exclaimed to Shirley Phelps-Roper. "If you believe in the Bible, miss, you're going to hell!"

Phelps-Roper, who believes America's sinful behavior has resulted in God's cursings rather than blessings, was appearing on "The Big Story" last night to talk about why members of her Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., protest at funerals for slain U.S. troops with slogans such as "Thank God for 9-11," "Thank God for IEDs (improvised explosive devices)," and "God Hates Fags."

Banderas engaged in a heated, rapid-fire, name-calling exchange with Phelps-Roper, which included:

Banderas: "The Bible says 'the fear of the Lord is hatred of evil,' [from the Book of] Proverbs. 'Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.' Perverted speech like yours: 'God hates fags.' You are preaching absolute B.-., and you know the final letter."

Phelps-Roper: "If you don't tell them that this nation is full of idolatry, full of adulteries ...

Banderas: "Full of insane people like yourself, ma'am."

Phelps-Roper: "You're proud. You're proud of your sins. You can't do enough sinning. You think 'gay' pride, bimbo. You have sinned away your day of grace."

Banderas: "OK, you are an abomination."

Phelps-Roper: "America is doomed. America is doomed. ... Before your eyes, missy, you're gonna see the destruction of America."

Banderas: "If America is doomed, then why don't you get out? Why are you in this country? Why are you an American? Are you an American?"

Phelps-Roper: "I am exactly where my God put me to tell you plainly, that you are going to hell, and there's nothing you can do about it."

Banderas: "Why don't you take your church to another country, then, ma'am? Thank you so much. You should not be proud to be an American, and thank you. Good-bye."

Now don't get me wrong; I like a good cat fight between two psychotic women as much as the next feller. But this is over the top, sensationalistic nonsense, even by tv standards.

First, let's take the Church of Fag-Haters, or whatever they dub themselves: apparently, idiots exert their own form of powerful gravitational waves and attract each other like project tenants to welfare checks. How else do you explain these folks? Besides their dishonorable and repulsive "demonstrations" at military funerals, their outlook is warped, and they aren't making friends by using these offensive methods. Sure, I may buy that the U.S.A. is experiencing judgement from God, right now, or even deserves such a reckoning in the future; a cogent case might be made for that. But why in the world would one celebrate such a tragedy with such glee as that manifest in their picketing signs? Remember Jeremiah's behavior before, during, and after the Children of Israels' deportation into exile? I don't remember him dancing a jig in the streets and clicking his heels like he'd just found a Golden Ticket from Willy Wonka's chocolate factory in his candy wrapper. Quite to the contrary; one of the books he authored is called Lamentations, and I assure you, it's aptly titled. The demise of America--for its citizens and the world at large--will be one of the most woeful events in human history.

So there's no question in my mind that this "church" is a congregation of counter-productive kooks (say that ten times real fast).

Now on to Fox News: Is this channel anti-Christian, or just shilling for ratings? Given that all of the top news shows are found on its airwaves, the latter defies belief. First we have Julie Banderas screeching that a belief in the Bible=a free, all-expenses-paid one-way trip to Hell; but we have the greater story, itself, for questioning. Why is Fox airing an item about these fringe lunatics? The antics of this group are old news. Without proper context, they give all Christians a bad name. This is exactly what the Left lives and breathes for, though these people are no more representative of true Christian teaching or sentiment than Timothy McVeigh is of those who dislike intrusive big government.

Either Ms. Banderas is off her meds, and is in desperate need of her next dose, or she's a flagrant secularist of the most extreme sort. It's not often that someone publicly claims a sincere acceptance of scripture receives an "'Atta boy!" from Satan.

Or in this case: "You go, girl!"

Monday, June 12, 2006

Gun Grabber Ethics

From John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime, regarding attacks on his thesis and research:

One of the more interesting experiences occurred when I asked Susan Glick, of the Violence Policy Center, to participate (in commenting on his work). Glick, whom I called during June 1996, was one of the last people that I approached. She was unwilling to comment on my talk at Cato because she didn't want to "help give any publicity to the paper." Glick said that her appearance might help bring media attention to the paper that it otherwise wouldn't have gotten. When I pointed out that C-SPAN was likely to cover the event, she said she didn't care because "we can get good media whenever we want." When I asked her if I could at least send her a copy of the paper because I would appreciate any comments that she might have, she said, "Forget it, there is no way that I am going to look at it. Don't send it."

However, when the publicity broke on the story with an article in U.S.A. Today on August 2, she was among the many people who left telephone messages immediately asking for a copy of the paper. In her case, the media were calling, and she "need[ed] [my] paper to be able to criticize it." Because of all the commotion that day, I was unable to get back to her right away. ABC National Television News was doing a story on my study for that day, and when at around 3:00 P.M. the ABC reporter doing the story, Barry Serafin, called saying that certain objections had been raised about my paper, he mentioned that one of those who had criticized it was Ms. Glick. After talking to Mr. Serafin, I gave Glick a call to ask her if she still wanted a copy of my paper. She said that she wanted it sent to her right away and wondered if I could fax it to her. I then noted that her request seemed strange because I had just gotten off the telephone with Mr. Serafin at ABC News, who had told me that she had been very critical of the study, saying that it was "flawed." I asked how she could have said that there were flaws in the paper without even having looked at it yet. At that point Ms. Glick hung up the telephone.

I think this is an important revelation about the mindset of those within the gun control movement. It shows the singleminded determination in seeing their goals implemented, that the agenda is paramount, even at the expense of facts that diminish their case for governmental regulations. It also illustrates how conscious dishonesty isn't morally problematic for those on the road to achieving victory in this arena. My contention is that this goes far beyond wrongheadedness. It represents a desire for power over the lives of others, not an innocent interest in seeing crime rates plummet.

Many believe that most people basically are decent folks who, even if ignorant of the facts, can be shepherded out of the hills of illogic and into the pastures of reason with sound, calm arguments. What they discount is the sad reality that some people not only do not know the truth, but don't want to know the truth. In fact, they despise and actively wage war against it.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

We Love You, Ann

Hear all the shouts of outrage? The suspended breaths of horror? The gasps and thuds as bodies swoon to the floor? That's just the Left and a few limp-wristed moderates overreacting to Ann Coulter's new book, Godless. It's ultimate destination for bestseller-dom--in an ever-growing line of bestsellers--has weenies everywhere working themselves into a tizzy.

As I said over at Voxy's blog, this is much ado about nothing. A question for the frothers: have you read any of Ann's books? No? How 'bout her columns? Nope? What a surprise. Guess what: the current kerfuffle is nothing new for Ann. She's been raking liberals all over their lawns for years now, with biting wit, scathing satire, and dagger-pointed sarcasm. Where have you idiots been hiding, under a statue of Lenin? What an amazing coincidence that your most strident criticism manifests itself just as she's touring the country and promoting her book--you know, the one that reveals the fanaticism behind your atheistic religion and the dogma that makes the most benighted Mohammadan seem open-minded. That's the one, and I suppose it causes all manner of discomfort in your narrow minds, without surcease, as you go about your days, caught up in the attempted propagandizing of the American people to your cause.

Part of the ruckus is that Ann challenges the notion that certain members of the Left are sacrosanct, unassailable and immune to challenge. Implied is the idea that when they spew the rhetorical equivalent of sewage, we should bow to it as if it were the wisdom of Solomon; and when they break wind, it is the exotic exhalation of a rare flower that caresses our nostrils.

I have some bad news for you: that you lost spouses or other relatives in terrorist attacks, though awful, in no wise makes you sound commentators on political and social policies. Nor does fracturing my pinky toe gift me with rare insights into orthopedic medicine.

I don't always agree with Ann; her loyalty to the Republican Party puzzles me. And yes, she sometimes makes statements that seem over the top, at first listen or glance. But I see her as one who is far more dedicated to the truth than she is to niceties; and in an era of touchy-feely political correctness run amok, where the truth is tiptoed around but rarely ushered out into the light, her blunt directness is a beautiful thing.

A final point worth mentioning is that--unlike drive-by character assassins on the Left, such as Moore, and not-so Franken--Ann supports her sometimes outrageous words with many, many tiny foot-noted inconveniences: those pesky little entities called FACTS.

Whenever O'Reilly et. al. get their blood-pressures back down to a more manageable level, they'd do well to remember that.

Thursday, June 8, 2006

Taking Out the Trash

Next to oil, terrorism is the most significant export of Islamic countries, so I don't see this news as earth-shattering or a major blow to the popularity of murdering the innocent in the Middle East; but isn't it pleasant when a fellow cashes in his chips and gets exactly what he earned?

In this case, it's a pine box and a worm's-eye view.

Utopian Decalogue

1. Thou shalt have no gods before Almighty Big Brother.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it be in the likeness of our hallowed precursors, Charles Darwin and Karl Marx, our beloved Saint Hillary of Little-Rock-on-the-Hudson, or the first black president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

3. Thou shalt not speak the name of Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon--in vain, or otherwise.

4. Remember Earth Day, to keep it holy.

5. Honor thy father and thy father, or thy mother and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which thy benefactors in seats of power giveth thee.

6. Thou shalt not kill, unless thy victim be in utero.

7. Thou shalt not commit monogamy.

8. Thou shalt not steal outside the aegis of elected office.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor without prior compensation.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor his wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's; for there is no need in equality; from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

For the State giveth, and the State taketh away; blessed be the name of the State.

Wednesday, June 7, 2006

Problem? What Problem?

Mayors from more than 200 U.S. cities urged President Bush and Congress on Monday to pass comprehensive immigration reform, including a guest worker program, but they could not agree on a proposal to build a 300-mile fence along the border.

Critics said the fence would harm relations between the U.S. and Mexico.

Yes, because our relations with Mexico are so cozy, at present. Reminds me of prostitution, with American businesses in the role of selling themselves.

Virginia Beach, Va., Mayor Meyera Oberndorf said the fence would be "un-American."

"We've always had open borders between Mexico and Canada, and we think that's just where it ought to stay," Oberndorf said at the group's meeting in Las Vegas.

The stupidity of this makes me laugh. "Un-American?" As opposed to what?; the deliberate dilution of our cultural mores by people who don't share or even understand our values, who have no interest in assimilation? Does that constitute "American?" The mayor would have displayed much more honesty if he'd simply declared: "I have no opinion on this matter, due to my cluelessness. In short, I'm an idiot."

I think what astounds me most about this issue is the contrast between the common sense exhibited by average Americans every day, on talk radio and in print, and the lack thereof manifest by those elected to represent us. When common folk grasp the crux of the matter better than our mayors, governors, Congress, and president, expect solutions from anywhere except our government.

Fortune Cookie Finance

Believing that thirty years of large and ceaseless bills is a great idea, I and my wife recently were discussing taking out a loan for the purposes of building a house. We were batting this idea back and forth over chow-chow soup at the local hillbilly Chinese restaurant. At the end of our meal, I cracked my fortune cookie and read the wisdom from within:

You shouldn't overspend at the moment. Frugality is important.

Of course, I subscribe to Longfellow's assertion:

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;

So I pshaw! in Confucius' general direction. Bring on the debt!

Saturday, June 3, 2006


Saying Mexico is "not the enemy," presidential press secretary Tony Snow today rejected the characterization of the constant flow of illegal aliens over the U.S. border as an "invasion."

At today's White House press briefing, WND asked the spokesman: "Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution says, 'The United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them from foreign invasion.' My question is, does the president believe this foreign invasion means only armed invasion, or doesn't this also mean the invasion of millions of illegal immigrants?"

Responded Snow: "I think what you are doing is you're attaching a martial connotation to something that does not have martial consequences. …

"What the president has said – if you were talking about an invasion, he's made it clear that Mexico is not the enemy."

Hm, seems Bush's new Minister of Propaganda--uh, I mean "Press Secretary"--is coming along beautifully in his new job. A little smoke and mirrors, a little sleight-of-hand, and voila!: a response without an answer. defines invasion in this fashion:
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
3. An intrusion or encroachment.

All of these fit the bill, in my opinion. Current accepted estimates suggest that we have 12 million illegal aliens within our borders; thes are conservative estimates. Some sources go as high as 30 million. Even 12 million is the population of a small country, and many of these invaders want to retake the southwestern U.S. and steal land that never belonged to Mexico. Others find contentment in swamping the medical and welfare systems. Still others make armed forays across our borders into U.S. territory.

So Mr. Snow, stop shoveling this steaming load, put down the shovel, and answer the question: If it's not an invasion, then what, pray tell, is it?

The Analects of Cyberspace

I lifted these from the internet:

Man who run in front of car get tired.

Man with one chopstick go hungry.

Man who eat many prunes get good run for money.

War does not determine who is right, war determine who is left.

Wife who put husband in doghouse soon find him in cat house.

Man who drive like hell, bound to get there.

Man who live in glass house should change clothes in basement.

Thursday, June 1, 2006

Trading Sense for Sensationalism

On Monday, I caught a few minutes of Neal Boortz' radio show. It astounds me how some people are clear-minded and logical in one area, while intellectually vacuous lightweights in others. Let me elaborate.

Boortz brought up Da Vinci's painting, The Last Supper (15th Century), and insisted the figure sitting just on Jesus' left is Mary Magdalene, not one of the disciples. Let's consider his assertion. Historically, art historians have identified this person as John. Tradition suggests that John was the youngest of Jesus' disciples, and artists of Da Vinci's time portrayed youthful men with effeminate features. Leonardo indulged in this fad in other paintings, as well. I find this practice rather odd, but I don't judge or explain 15th Century behavior in such matters through a 21st Century prism.

Of course, since the painting manifests Jesus and twelve others, Mary Magdalene's presence at the table would preclude that of one disciple. Which one? Perhaps Judas, since he stormed out early? Maybe, but this is playing "What-If?" without facts or history supporting the question.

Zero in on Boortz' naked assertion--not only is the figure female, but he knows her identity!: Mary Magdalene. Given that Dan Brown utilizes this fanciful idea in his heretical treatise, The Da Vinci Code, doesn't Boortz' claim imply that--on some level--he has bought into the heresy? I think the answer is yes. After all, the Gospels associate many more women with Jesus than Mary Magdalene: his own mother, Mary and Martha, Lazarus' sisters, Elizabeth, Salome, Joanna, various unnamed women at the cross, His tomb, or who followed Him throughout His ministry. It seems the assumption that this is Mary Magdalene exhibits ardor for sensationalism, relish for the tawdry aspects of this relationship, since the two supposedly had a fling. Or at least, according to such scholarly luminaries as Dan Brown.

As I understand it, much of Brown's novel is based on The Templar Revelation, published in 1997. Remember the old saying: revisionists of a feather flock together. Apparently, Boortz is flapping their way.