I'm reading a book of science fiction short stories titled The Best of John W. Campbell. For those unfamiliar with the genre or its members, Campbell was an important writer and editor. In the latter role, he became known as the most influential editor in the business, and his place at the helm of Astounding magazine (now Analog) ushered in what is recognized as "The Golden Age" of science fiction.
His stories imply that he's a proponent of evolution, which I don't find particularly enjoyable. But one can't accuse him of being a liberal. In his story, "Out of Night," he makes the following observation:
"Man will fight and die for what he has not; woman will fight and die for what she has. Man will sacrifice everything he has for something he hopes for, an ideal; but while woman will fight for an ideal, she will not give up the good she has to gain it."
This is an interesting commentary on human behavior, and agree with it or not, it's a far cry from contemporary political correctness in fiction, of which we're all so familiar. A nice change of pace. This explains, in part, why I read very little current scifi and very much of the older stuff.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Flags of Our Fathers
Has anyone else noticed that Clint Eastwood has become more liberal and muddled in his thinking, the older he gets? What a shame.
His new movie illustrates that to a tee. It elaborates on the battle of Iwo Jima and its aftermath--on site, and back in the U.S.
First, the technical problems: the script jumps around like a cricket on a pogo stick, telling the story in a nonlinear fashion. This method of exposition works well in some stories; in others, it's irritating and creates confusion. The latter is what happens, here. Before we know much about the characters, they're launched into the meat grinder of war. Character development--what little there is--comes later, in stateside scenes. The battlefield episodes are chaotic, which is realistic, but it's difficult determining who was just riddled with bullets or blown into steaming gobbets by artillery.
The upside is that the action elements offer some genuinely harrowing or riveting moments, such as a cockpit's-eye-view of U.S. fighter planes attacking Jap entrenchments, or the massive beach landings.
Regarding the acting, it's uniformly competent. However, the only actor who shines is Adam Beach, playing the Indian soldier who becomes perpetually sloshed during and after the war. None of the other characters have enough fleshing-out for stellar performances, though they do their best.
The philosophical problems and worldview are far more problematic and disturbing than the technical quibbles. Nothing in this movie offers any context, or reason to believe that America was in the right in fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. One scene reveals a glimmer of Japanese character, when a missing soldier is found later, tortured to death; even this scene is non-specific. Otherwise, the enemy is a faceless cardboard running target.
None of the men are portrayed as patriots who fight for their country. Sure, they're loyal to each other, as comrades-in-arms, but no ideal exists beyond this. All of the soldiers have cynicism seeping out of their pores. Back home, during a fundraising tour involving three of the surviving members of the flag-raisers on Mt. Suribachi, two express reluctance in their participation. Bureaucrats use them as pawns for a buck--literally--and reveal little or no sympathy for them. They present a phony facade of concern. I'm not saying there's no historical accuracy in this; just that it exemplifies the whole tone of the film.
Most aggravating of all is the constant barrage of epithets endured by the Indian. If the bullets didn't kill him, maybe the slurs would. The white men who encounter him call him chief or redskin or a host of other names, whenever possible. It's as if Eastwood's point--driven home with the gentility of a doublejack--is: "Whitey's racist to the core. He just can't help himself; it's in-bred." After the first ten times, or so, it becomes distracting and ludicrous. Of course, the Indian weathers it all with the grace and Job-like patience we've come to expect from the noble savage, even the 20th century variety.
This movie is about men who go to the killing fileds and die. Those who make it through go back to the world and become propaganda mouthpieces for the selling of war bonds. If you know little about World War II, you'll gain no insight into the whys and wherefores of this conflict. You'll come away puzzled about who our enemy was, why his defeat was important and just, and why the American cause in general was worthwhile.
Eastwood's film is watchable and has some good moments. But given the subject matter, there's no reason why it didn't transcend the mediocre and become a classic.
The men who gave their all deserve better. Hopefully, someday they'll receive it.
His new movie illustrates that to a tee. It elaborates on the battle of Iwo Jima and its aftermath--on site, and back in the U.S.
First, the technical problems: the script jumps around like a cricket on a pogo stick, telling the story in a nonlinear fashion. This method of exposition works well in some stories; in others, it's irritating and creates confusion. The latter is what happens, here. Before we know much about the characters, they're launched into the meat grinder of war. Character development--what little there is--comes later, in stateside scenes. The battlefield episodes are chaotic, which is realistic, but it's difficult determining who was just riddled with bullets or blown into steaming gobbets by artillery.
The upside is that the action elements offer some genuinely harrowing or riveting moments, such as a cockpit's-eye-view of U.S. fighter planes attacking Jap entrenchments, or the massive beach landings.
Regarding the acting, it's uniformly competent. However, the only actor who shines is Adam Beach, playing the Indian soldier who becomes perpetually sloshed during and after the war. None of the other characters have enough fleshing-out for stellar performances, though they do their best.
The philosophical problems and worldview are far more problematic and disturbing than the technical quibbles. Nothing in this movie offers any context, or reason to believe that America was in the right in fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. One scene reveals a glimmer of Japanese character, when a missing soldier is found later, tortured to death; even this scene is non-specific. Otherwise, the enemy is a faceless cardboard running target.
None of the men are portrayed as patriots who fight for their country. Sure, they're loyal to each other, as comrades-in-arms, but no ideal exists beyond this. All of the soldiers have cynicism seeping out of their pores. Back home, during a fundraising tour involving three of the surviving members of the flag-raisers on Mt. Suribachi, two express reluctance in their participation. Bureaucrats use them as pawns for a buck--literally--and reveal little or no sympathy for them. They present a phony facade of concern. I'm not saying there's no historical accuracy in this; just that it exemplifies the whole tone of the film.
Most aggravating of all is the constant barrage of epithets endured by the Indian. If the bullets didn't kill him, maybe the slurs would. The white men who encounter him call him chief or redskin or a host of other names, whenever possible. It's as if Eastwood's point--driven home with the gentility of a doublejack--is: "Whitey's racist to the core. He just can't help himself; it's in-bred." After the first ten times, or so, it becomes distracting and ludicrous. Of course, the Indian weathers it all with the grace and Job-like patience we've come to expect from the noble savage, even the 20th century variety.
This movie is about men who go to the killing fileds and die. Those who make it through go back to the world and become propaganda mouthpieces for the selling of war bonds. If you know little about World War II, you'll gain no insight into the whys and wherefores of this conflict. You'll come away puzzled about who our enemy was, why his defeat was important and just, and why the American cause in general was worthwhile.
Eastwood's film is watchable and has some good moments. But given the subject matter, there's no reason why it didn't transcend the mediocre and become a classic.
The men who gave their all deserve better. Hopefully, someday they'll receive it.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Yuckin' It Up
There was a married couple sleeping and an intruder entered into their house. The intruder put a knife to the neck of the woman and said, "I like to know the names of my victims before I kill them, what is your name?"
"My name is Elizabeth," the woman replied.
The intruder said, "You remind me of my mother who was also named Elizabeth, so I can't kill you."
The intruder then turned to the husband and asked, "What is your name?"
"My name's Phillip, but my friends call me Elizabeth."
****
A couple had been debating the purchase of a new auto for weeks. He wanted a new truck. She wanted a fast little sports-like car so she could zip through traffic around town.
He would probably have settled on any beat-up old truck, but everything she seemed to like was way out of their price range.
"Look!" she said. "I want something that goes from 0 to 200 in 4 seconds or less. And my birthday is coming up. You could surprise me."
For her birthday, he bought her a brand new bathroom scale.
Nobody has seen or heard from him since.
"My name is Elizabeth," the woman replied.
The intruder said, "You remind me of my mother who was also named Elizabeth, so I can't kill you."
The intruder then turned to the husband and asked, "What is your name?"
"My name's Phillip, but my friends call me Elizabeth."
****
A couple had been debating the purchase of a new auto for weeks. He wanted a new truck. She wanted a fast little sports-like car so she could zip through traffic around town.
He would probably have settled on any beat-up old truck, but everything she seemed to like was way out of their price range.
"Look!" she said. "I want something that goes from 0 to 200 in 4 seconds or less. And my birthday is coming up. You could surprise me."
For her birthday, he bought her a brand new bathroom scale.
Nobody has seen or heard from him since.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Second Genesis
Algore's future inauguration speech:
"Earthlings. I stand before you as President of the United States of America for the second time. I was robbed of my opportunity to make the world a greener place once before, but with the Earth Goddess' aid, I have secured my rightful place in history.
Now, we must embark upon a great Crusade--not an imperialistic, genocidal rampage like that of Christians initiated in the 11th Century, but a peaceful, harmonious war against Mother Earth's demise. To that end, I propose the complete eradication of the vile, parasitic colony organism known as humanity. Remember the movie Independence Day? Remember the mile-wide saucers and death rays? Nothing short of that glorious endeavor shall accomplish our arduous task.
I have contacted members of the ruling family on my home planet of Granolar, and they agree that mankind's utter destruction is the only cure for this planet's nigh-terminal ills. A vast fleet outfitted for this purpose is traveling here, as I speak, at hyperlight speed. Only humans afflicted with fungal infestations will be spared. Before corporeal dissolution ensues, I ask that each human bacterium plant a tree or read my new book, The Revelation of St. Albert, the Divine, as a final act of atonement. Those who drive SUVs, vehicles without catalytic convertors, or voted for George W. Bush or participated in the 2000 recount, will summarily be "interrogated" before molecular deconstruction.
Never fear. Your ashes will fertilize the hills and dales, creating a continent-spanning fruited plain unlike any dreamt of in the puny imaginations of men. The Goddess will breathe a sigh of relief, and shout in exultation at the magnificent blooming in the wake of your passing.
Alas, you won't be here to appreciate it."
"Earthlings. I stand before you as President of the United States of America for the second time. I was robbed of my opportunity to make the world a greener place once before, but with the Earth Goddess' aid, I have secured my rightful place in history.
Now, we must embark upon a great Crusade--not an imperialistic, genocidal rampage like that of Christians initiated in the 11th Century, but a peaceful, harmonious war against Mother Earth's demise. To that end, I propose the complete eradication of the vile, parasitic colony organism known as humanity. Remember the movie Independence Day? Remember the mile-wide saucers and death rays? Nothing short of that glorious endeavor shall accomplish our arduous task.
I have contacted members of the ruling family on my home planet of Granolar, and they agree that mankind's utter destruction is the only cure for this planet's nigh-terminal ills. A vast fleet outfitted for this purpose is traveling here, as I speak, at hyperlight speed. Only humans afflicted with fungal infestations will be spared. Before corporeal dissolution ensues, I ask that each human bacterium plant a tree or read my new book, The Revelation of St. Albert, the Divine, as a final act of atonement. Those who drive SUVs, vehicles without catalytic convertors, or voted for George W. Bush or participated in the 2000 recount, will summarily be "interrogated" before molecular deconstruction.
Never fear. Your ashes will fertilize the hills and dales, creating a continent-spanning fruited plain unlike any dreamt of in the puny imaginations of men. The Goddess will breathe a sigh of relief, and shout in exultation at the magnificent blooming in the wake of your passing.
Alas, you won't be here to appreciate it."
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
All the Print That's Fit for News
This just in, Rosie O'Dummell still is as cute as a constipated bulldog. I prefer moats filled with alligators, pools of acid, and booby traps like those found in the Indiana Jones movies, or the old Pitfall Atari game. But that's just one man's opinion.
WorldNetDaily: McCain vows to fix world's view of 'ugly American'
His first effort toward that goal is getting a facelift.
I wonder how many of these serve in elected public offices? Makes me feel beddur 'bout bein' a hi skewel gra-gee-ayte.
With characteristic modesty, Donald Trump claims that he would do a better job as president than Bush.
Good thing he hasn't gone on a permanent ego trip.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
She Gots a Dreem
From a speech given by Hillary Clinton, at the Church of Perpetual Smug Blackness, in Atlanta, Georgia:
Powah ta da peepull! Lemme brake ya off a l'il sum'in sum'in: Lawd, we been tryin' so hahd, fa so lawng, but life fa us ain't been no crystal stair. Da man wanna keep ya down. Kin I git a witness-ah? Da only place whitey wan' us hangin' 'roun' is from a tree in da middle'a town. Kin I git a ay-mayun? He be dissin' brothas an' sistas lef' an' right, an' his po-po be puttin' six warnin' shots in da back'a our haids.
But I'm runnin' aginst all da oppressuhs. I'm innit ta winnit, an' I'm too lajit ta qwit. I'm comin' atcha straight up outta Compton, an' Ize sayin' stan' up to da 5-O! Get out da Bushes an' vote yo conchunce. Fo'git readin' 'ritin' an' 'rithmuhtic. Homey don' play dat. Das' slaver branewarshin', rite dere. An' who needs Eenglish when we gots Ebonics, wit' a lot mo' dynamik vocabbylarry.
My huzbund was da firs' Afferkin-Amurricun prezadent, an' he felt yore pain. He unnuhzstood dat yo chillun needed wellfayuh. He unnuhzstood dat gang-bangin' wuz a cry fo he'p. He reelized dat sellin' drugs wuz jest ta pay da bills an' buy groshrees. He new how ta roll a toke wit' da best uv'em.
Well, I'm jest like'im. I may be vanella on da ou'side, but I'm choklit on da inside. Wit' yo he'p, I'll serv as da furs' Femail Afferkin-Amurricun prezadent. I'll rep-uh-zent yo intrusts, an' stan' up fa yo sivul rites. I'll tell da wurld dat it takes a gangsta ta run a 'hood, an' it takes a 'hood ta raze a childe. If ya ax me, we gonna take it awl da way ta da White Hiz-owse, cuz diss babee gots back, an' she too bootylishus fo ya, babe. Fo shizzle.
So whin my ebony brothas an' sistas stan' up awl ovuh da kuntry an' cry wit' a louwd voyce: "Iz ya iz, or iz ya ain't my nigga?", yu'll see me nod an prowdly anser:
"@!#$%^&* --A, I iz!"
Peece out, y'all. Keep own keepin' it reel.
Powah ta da peepull! Lemme brake ya off a l'il sum'in sum'in: Lawd, we been tryin' so hahd, fa so lawng, but life fa us ain't been no crystal stair. Da man wanna keep ya down. Kin I git a witness-ah? Da only place whitey wan' us hangin' 'roun' is from a tree in da middle'a town. Kin I git a ay-mayun? He be dissin' brothas an' sistas lef' an' right, an' his po-po be puttin' six warnin' shots in da back'a our haids.
But I'm runnin' aginst all da oppressuhs. I'm innit ta winnit, an' I'm too lajit ta qwit. I'm comin' atcha straight up outta Compton, an' Ize sayin' stan' up to da 5-O! Get out da Bushes an' vote yo conchunce. Fo'git readin' 'ritin' an' 'rithmuhtic. Homey don' play dat. Das' slaver branewarshin', rite dere. An' who needs Eenglish when we gots Ebonics, wit' a lot mo' dynamik vocabbylarry.
My huzbund was da firs' Afferkin-Amurricun prezadent, an' he felt yore pain. He unnuhzstood dat yo chillun needed wellfayuh. He unnuhzstood dat gang-bangin' wuz a cry fo he'p. He reelized dat sellin' drugs wuz jest ta pay da bills an' buy groshrees. He new how ta roll a toke wit' da best uv'em.
Well, I'm jest like'im. I may be vanella on da ou'side, but I'm choklit on da inside. Wit' yo he'p, I'll serv as da furs' Femail Afferkin-Amurricun prezadent. I'll rep-uh-zent yo intrusts, an' stan' up fa yo sivul rites. I'll tell da wurld dat it takes a gangsta ta run a 'hood, an' it takes a 'hood ta raze a childe. If ya ax me, we gonna take it awl da way ta da White Hiz-owse, cuz diss babee gots back, an' she too bootylishus fo ya, babe. Fo shizzle.
So whin my ebony brothas an' sistas stan' up awl ovuh da kuntry an' cry wit' a louwd voyce: "Iz ya iz, or iz ya ain't my nigga?", yu'll see me nod an prowdly anser:
"@!#$%^&* --A, I iz!"
Peece out, y'all. Keep own keepin' it reel.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Learnin' 'Em Good
My nine-year-old nephew told me about an incident in his "Guidance" class at school, earlier this year.
The guidance counselor was playing a game with the students--no, it wasn't Doctor--and asked a question of them:
"If a fellow student spits a spitball in your ear, what should you do?"
This preceded five multiple choice options:
1. Turn and say in Arnold Schwarzenneggar's voice: "Do that again, and I'll knock your block off!"
2. Take it out of your ear, and shove it in his eye or mouth.
3. Tell him how you feel about it.
4. Start a scene.
5. Tell the teacher.
After listening to the class answers for a while, the counselor informed everyone that the correct reaction was number 3.
I wonder how many people dutifully send their chillun to skewel, never realizing that their kid is being taught how be an emoting little shrinking violet?
In the real world outside Feelings Elementary, this sort of response will put your child in need of a good set of dentures.
The guidance counselor was playing a game with the students--no, it wasn't Doctor--and asked a question of them:
"If a fellow student spits a spitball in your ear, what should you do?"
This preceded five multiple choice options:
1. Turn and say in Arnold Schwarzenneggar's voice: "Do that again, and I'll knock your block off!"
2. Take it out of your ear, and shove it in his eye or mouth.
3. Tell him how you feel about it.
4. Start a scene.
5. Tell the teacher.
After listening to the class answers for a while, the counselor informed everyone that the correct reaction was number 3.
I wonder how many people dutifully send their chillun to skewel, never realizing that their kid is being taught how be an emoting little shrinking violet?
In the real world outside Feelings Elementary, this sort of response will put your child in need of a good set of dentures.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Lewis on Tyranny
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
--C.S. Lewis
--C.S. Lewis
Friday, March 9, 2007
Coulter Debate: Conclusion
See parts 1, 2, and 3 for the beginning and middle portions of this discussion.
I responded--a final time--to Auster's characterization of my remarks:
Mr. Auster:
I receive many e-mails, and when lot of e-mails come in, and they have many numbered points, and points referring to earlier points, then further e-mails complaining that I haven’t replied to all the earlier points, and those subsequent e-mails also have numbered points, and I’m expected to reply to all of them regardless of how valid they are and all of this takes time and energy, not everything may get replied to.
This is silliness. Making "points referring to other points" is how debate works.You make a point; I agree or disagree; if I disagree, I point out why. If you find this too strenuous, you probably should get out of the blogging business. Furthermore, you keep implying that I've insisted that you address every point I've made. That's a misrepresentation, as you will find no such demand in any communication I've had with you. In fact, in the email you chose not to post, I said:
"As for addressing each point made--obviously you're free to tackle or ignore any or all points; it's your website."
The context is important: I had no real expectation of any response from you regarding my initial 6-point comment. You could have ignored it, and that would've been fine. You could have simply said that you thought I was wrong, and that would've been fine. Instead, you chose insulting, belittling language as your first reaction, without answering comments that revealed inaccuracy in some of your earlier assertions. My first comment to you was polite, though in disagreement with your argument. I believe an honorable person should respond in kind. If you're going to choose the opposite tack, I think it behooves you to provide a detailed explanation, not a general dismissal. We're each responsible for our own words and tone--in person, and in print. You shouldn't get a pass on basic civility, simply because you don't like someone's argument.
I think I did post your e-mail of March 6 at 1:38 a.m. with its six points. Then you complained that I didn’t reply to all of your points. I replied to that complaint as I remember.
Of course you posted it; that was my first email. You're well aware that I know this, since I responded and you posted that, as well. I'm referencing the comment I emailed after your second response to me (my third email, from March 6, 7:01 p.m.). My ISP tells me it was delivered successfully. And please, show me where I complained that you didn't reply to all of my points. More intentional misrepresentation.
(1) I wasn’t just speaking of your arguments, but of this entire approach which many people, not just you, have taken.
Then you should have made that clear. You didn't. And if true, it changes nothing I've said.
(2) I did rebut your argument.
See my comments above.
Your original point three, which you seem to set great store by, was incoherent. . .It is not possible to determine any coherent meaning in all this. That is why I did not reply to it.
If I was unclear, I apologize. My point was a response to part of an earlier comment of yours, in the same thread:
She issues a humiliating insult at a public figure, and then pretends that she didn’t do so.
The point #3 you've referenced was my reasoning why I believed your above comment was inaccurate. Disagreeing is your prerogative. I'd also like to point out the context of the speech Coulter gave: it was filled with jokes and mockery of the Left. The Edwards comment was not a serious jab passed off as a joke in an otherwise somber oratory. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the whole thing, if you get a chance.
So let me suggest this. When writing comments to a discussion, keep it simple. Make one or at most two points at a time. Do not make six points in a busy discussion, with sub-points to your main points, and expect a reply to all of them, and then complain that you’re being treated unfairly if you don’t get a reply to everything you have said.
Multi-point emails is not and never was the issue, and you know it; your discourteous and combative manner of responding, coupled with refusal to address specifics after the fact is. Each point in my original email was self-contained, and all pertained to the discussion. Some were more detailed than others so they wouldn't be rejected as naked assertions. I never expected a reply to all, and your continued insistence that I did ( four times in this most recent comment), either indicates reading comprehension problems on your part, or deceitful intent. You be the judge of which.
Now if you want to write back with a concise statement of why I’m wrong about Coulter, please do so.
Why? So you can answer with insults and further distort the meaning of my words? I think I'll forego that pleasure. Under different circumstances, I would appreciate and even admire the apology you offered above. But your persistent misrepresentation of my words makes it ring hollow.
Wes
After receiving this letter, Auster emailed me, saying:
My gosh, I posted your comment with all your complaints, I replied to it, I apologized for saying "childish," and now you're insulting me, telling me to get out of the blogging business. There's no point in our communicating any more. You are a malcontent who will be angry with me no matter what I do. Goodbye. Do not write to me again.
****
I leave it up to my able readers to draw their own conclusions about this long and admittedly tedious exchange.
I responded--a final time--to Auster's characterization of my remarks:
Mr. Auster:
I receive many e-mails, and when lot of e-mails come in, and they have many numbered points, and points referring to earlier points, then further e-mails complaining that I haven’t replied to all the earlier points, and those subsequent e-mails also have numbered points, and I’m expected to reply to all of them regardless of how valid they are and all of this takes time and energy, not everything may get replied to.
This is silliness. Making "points referring to other points" is how debate works.You make a point; I agree or disagree; if I disagree, I point out why. If you find this too strenuous, you probably should get out of the blogging business. Furthermore, you keep implying that I've insisted that you address every point I've made. That's a misrepresentation, as you will find no such demand in any communication I've had with you. In fact, in the email you chose not to post, I said:
"As for addressing each point made--obviously you're free to tackle or ignore any or all points; it's your website."
The context is important: I had no real expectation of any response from you regarding my initial 6-point comment. You could have ignored it, and that would've been fine. You could have simply said that you thought I was wrong, and that would've been fine. Instead, you chose insulting, belittling language as your first reaction, without answering comments that revealed inaccuracy in some of your earlier assertions. My first comment to you was polite, though in disagreement with your argument. I believe an honorable person should respond in kind. If you're going to choose the opposite tack, I think it behooves you to provide a detailed explanation, not a general dismissal. We're each responsible for our own words and tone--in person, and in print. You shouldn't get a pass on basic civility, simply because you don't like someone's argument.
I think I did post your e-mail of March 6 at 1:38 a.m. with its six points. Then you complained that I didn’t reply to all of your points. I replied to that complaint as I remember.
Of course you posted it; that was my first email. You're well aware that I know this, since I responded and you posted that, as well. I'm referencing the comment I emailed after your second response to me (my third email, from March 6, 7:01 p.m.). My ISP tells me it was delivered successfully. And please, show me where I complained that you didn't reply to all of my points. More intentional misrepresentation.
(1) I wasn’t just speaking of your arguments, but of this entire approach which many people, not just you, have taken.
Then you should have made that clear. You didn't. And if true, it changes nothing I've said.
(2) I did rebut your argument.
See my comments above.
Your original point three, which you seem to set great store by, was incoherent. . .It is not possible to determine any coherent meaning in all this. That is why I did not reply to it.
If I was unclear, I apologize. My point was a response to part of an earlier comment of yours, in the same thread:
She issues a humiliating insult at a public figure, and then pretends that she didn’t do so.
The point #3 you've referenced was my reasoning why I believed your above comment was inaccurate. Disagreeing is your prerogative. I'd also like to point out the context of the speech Coulter gave: it was filled with jokes and mockery of the Left. The Edwards comment was not a serious jab passed off as a joke in an otherwise somber oratory. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the whole thing, if you get a chance.
So let me suggest this. When writing comments to a discussion, keep it simple. Make one or at most two points at a time. Do not make six points in a busy discussion, with sub-points to your main points, and expect a reply to all of them, and then complain that you’re being treated unfairly if you don’t get a reply to everything you have said.
Multi-point emails is not and never was the issue, and you know it; your discourteous and combative manner of responding, coupled with refusal to address specifics after the fact is. Each point in my original email was self-contained, and all pertained to the discussion. Some were more detailed than others so they wouldn't be rejected as naked assertions. I never expected a reply to all, and your continued insistence that I did ( four times in this most recent comment), either indicates reading comprehension problems on your part, or deceitful intent. You be the judge of which.
Now if you want to write back with a concise statement of why I’m wrong about Coulter, please do so.
Why? So you can answer with insults and further distort the meaning of my words? I think I'll forego that pleasure. Under different circumstances, I would appreciate and even admire the apology you offered above. But your persistent misrepresentation of my words makes it ring hollow.
Wes
After receiving this letter, Auster emailed me, saying:
My gosh, I posted your comment with all your complaints, I replied to it, I apologized for saying "childish," and now you're insulting me, telling me to get out of the blogging business. There's no point in our communicating any more. You are a malcontent who will be angry with me no matter what I do. Goodbye. Do not write to me again.
****
I leave it up to my able readers to draw their own conclusions about this long and admittedly tedious exchange.
Coulter Debate: Part 3
See Parts 1 and 2 of for the beginning and middle portions of this discussion.
After Mr. Auster continued in his criticism of Coulter and his omission of my comment from his blog, I fired off this letter to him as a parting shot:
Mr. Auster:
My recent experience discussing with you the matter of Ann Coulter's controversial statement leads me to conclude that you have an underdeveloped sense of fair play.
First, you insult me by dismissing specific, relevant arguments as "childishness"--without rebutting them.
Second, you accuse me of "complaining," when I point out this behavior.
Third, you choose artificially to have the final word on the matter, by refusing to post my last email comment in defense of my remarks, which leaves your most recent response to me standing unchallenged.
And fourth, you continue repeating some of the same arguments I refuted--in the same post--such as when you responded to Kevin O. thusly, in the "Coulter and Edwards" discussion: In America one man does not call another man a faggot unless he is prepared to fight him or to destroy him in the eyes of others. That’s why Coulter’s use of the word was particularly objectionable, since as a woman she can get away with it.
You still haven't refuted--or even addressed, for that matter--my comments regarding this assertion. You know as well as I that character assassinations far worse than this perceived example happen regularly--from man to man--in public forums. Your suggesting otherwise is bizarre, to say the least, and demonstrably wrong. You also seem oblivious to the fact that Coulter hasn't gotten away with it, by any stretch of the imagination. She has met vociferous, public condemnation from the Left and the Right--including the withdrawal of advertisers from her website, and the dropping of her column from at least one newspaper.
I know very little about the slights and attacks you've mentioned receiving from pundits and other columnists, in the past; perhaps you've endured shoddy, unjust treatment. But I do know that if you've engaged them with the same tactics and unrepentant tactlessness exhibited toward me, you've earned their malice.
Sincerely,
Wes
He responded by posting my email on his blog, followed by:
AUSTER: I’m sorry, I receive many e-mails, and when lot of e-mails come in, and they have many numbered points, and points referring to earlier points, then further e-mails complaining that I haven’t replied to all the earlier points, and those subsequent e-mails also have numbered points, and I’m expected to reply to all of them regardless of how valid they are and all of this takes time and energy, not everything may get replied to. I think I did post your e-mail of March 6 at 1:38 a.m. with its six points. Then you complained that I didn’t reply to all of your points. I replied to that complaint as I remember.
I’m sorry for saying that your arguments were childishness. I shouldn’t have done that. However, (1) I wasn’t just speaking of your arguments, but of this entire approach which many people, not just you, have taken. (2) I did rebut your argument. I said: “The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats ‘faggots.’”
Your original point three, which you seem to set great store by, was incoherent. That is why I did not reply to it. Yet then you wrote again, complaining that I did not reply to your point three. I replied by saying that points three, four and six were not worth replying to. But that wasn’t enough for you. So let’s look at it again:
"3. Coulter stood by her comment. In an exchange with Adam Nagourney from the NYT:
Nagourney: The three Republican presidential contenders denouncing you….Do you want to do any response?
Coulter: C’mon it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean. Did any of these guys say anything after I made the same remark about Al Gore last summer? Why not? What were they trying to say about Al Gore with their silence?
On the front page of her blog is this headline: AMBULANCE CHASER GETS REAR-ENDED BY ANN COULTER—I’m so ashamed, I can’t stop laughing!
Not what I’d consider a retreat."
First you say she “stood by her point.” Then you point out that she said it was a joke. Then you reference a further joke she made. Then you say she has not retreated.
It is not possible to determine any coherent meaning in all this. That is why I did not reply to it. Do you understand now?
And this is your problem: not only do you send multi-point e-mails, but some of the points, like your point three, consists of several statements which do not fit with each other.
So let me suggest this. When writing comments to a discussion, keep it simple. Make one or at most two points at a time. Do not make six points in a busy discussion, with sub-points to your main points, and expect a reply to all of them, and then complain that you’re being treated unfairly if you don’t get a reply to everything you have said.
Now if you want to write back with a concise statement of why I’m wrong about Coulter, please do so.
(TO BE CONCLUDED)
After Mr. Auster continued in his criticism of Coulter and his omission of my comment from his blog, I fired off this letter to him as a parting shot:
Mr. Auster:
My recent experience discussing with you the matter of Ann Coulter's controversial statement leads me to conclude that you have an underdeveloped sense of fair play.
First, you insult me by dismissing specific, relevant arguments as "childishness"--without rebutting them.
Second, you accuse me of "complaining," when I point out this behavior.
Third, you choose artificially to have the final word on the matter, by refusing to post my last email comment in defense of my remarks, which leaves your most recent response to me standing unchallenged.
And fourth, you continue repeating some of the same arguments I refuted--in the same post--such as when you responded to Kevin O. thusly, in the "Coulter and Edwards" discussion: In America one man does not call another man a faggot unless he is prepared to fight him or to destroy him in the eyes of others. That’s why Coulter’s use of the word was particularly objectionable, since as a woman she can get away with it.
You still haven't refuted--or even addressed, for that matter--my comments regarding this assertion. You know as well as I that character assassinations far worse than this perceived example happen regularly--from man to man--in public forums. Your suggesting otherwise is bizarre, to say the least, and demonstrably wrong. You also seem oblivious to the fact that Coulter hasn't gotten away with it, by any stretch of the imagination. She has met vociferous, public condemnation from the Left and the Right--including the withdrawal of advertisers from her website, and the dropping of her column from at least one newspaper.
I know very little about the slights and attacks you've mentioned receiving from pundits and other columnists, in the past; perhaps you've endured shoddy, unjust treatment. But I do know that if you've engaged them with the same tactics and unrepentant tactlessness exhibited toward me, you've earned their malice.
Sincerely,
Wes
He responded by posting my email on his blog, followed by:
AUSTER: I’m sorry, I receive many e-mails, and when lot of e-mails come in, and they have many numbered points, and points referring to earlier points, then further e-mails complaining that I haven’t replied to all the earlier points, and those subsequent e-mails also have numbered points, and I’m expected to reply to all of them regardless of how valid they are and all of this takes time and energy, not everything may get replied to. I think I did post your e-mail of March 6 at 1:38 a.m. with its six points. Then you complained that I didn’t reply to all of your points. I replied to that complaint as I remember.
I’m sorry for saying that your arguments were childishness. I shouldn’t have done that. However, (1) I wasn’t just speaking of your arguments, but of this entire approach which many people, not just you, have taken. (2) I did rebut your argument. I said: “The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats ‘faggots.’”
Your original point three, which you seem to set great store by, was incoherent. That is why I did not reply to it. Yet then you wrote again, complaining that I did not reply to your point three. I replied by saying that points three, four and six were not worth replying to. But that wasn’t enough for you. So let’s look at it again:
"3. Coulter stood by her comment. In an exchange with Adam Nagourney from the NYT:
Nagourney: The three Republican presidential contenders denouncing you….Do you want to do any response?
Coulter: C’mon it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean. Did any of these guys say anything after I made the same remark about Al Gore last summer? Why not? What were they trying to say about Al Gore with their silence?
On the front page of her blog is this headline: AMBULANCE CHASER GETS REAR-ENDED BY ANN COULTER—I’m so ashamed, I can’t stop laughing!
Not what I’d consider a retreat."
First you say she “stood by her point.” Then you point out that she said it was a joke. Then you reference a further joke she made. Then you say she has not retreated.
It is not possible to determine any coherent meaning in all this. That is why I did not reply to it. Do you understand now?
And this is your problem: not only do you send multi-point e-mails, but some of the points, like your point three, consists of several statements which do not fit with each other.
So let me suggest this. When writing comments to a discussion, keep it simple. Make one or at most two points at a time. Do not make six points in a busy discussion, with sub-points to your main points, and expect a reply to all of them, and then complain that you’re being treated unfairly if you don’t get a reply to everything you have said.
Now if you want to write back with a concise statement of why I’m wrong about Coulter, please do so.
(TO BE CONCLUDED)
Coulter Debate: Part 2
See Part 1 for the beginning of this discussion.
Mr. Auster countered:
AUSTER: These are not serious or grown-up arguments. They are childishness. The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats “faggots.”
All that this adds up to is the same thing I’ve been criticizing through this decade, that conservatives and Republicans have become mere reactors against the left. They don’t stand for anything except for opposing the left. It’s the death of politics, the death of the intellect, the death of decency.
I responded:
WES: Being antagonistic isn’t my goal, here, and if I’ve come across in this fashion, I apologize; I just disagree with your take on this. I see eye-to-eye with you far more often than not. I would like to comment on a couple of things you said, though.
The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats “faggots.”
It’s difficult for me to understand how you drew this conclusion, when the first point I made was that I would not have called Edwards this name. Nor did I ever use the term “Democrat” in describing these people. I said Leftist. I’m not a Republican, or a GOP supporter. This is not a Democrat/GOP issue, for me. I’m a traditionalist who believes we should return to constitutionalism and the intentions of our Founders. I think it’s also worth pointing out that the term is considered a pejorative because the Left has chosen to characterize it so. There was a time—and not very long ago—when this would have been a far less significant issue than it is, now. I think the whole situation sheds light on the normalization of destructive political correctness more than anything else.
These are not serious or grown-up arguments. They are childishness.
I think it’s interesting that you say this, while not addressing points 3,4, and 6—the first two of which were attempted specific refutations of your earlier comments.
AUSTER: Frankly, points 3, 4, and 6 were either irrelevant or off-base and not worth replying to. It’s really too much when people send multi-point e-mails and then complain when they don’t get a reply to every point.* I was responding to the main point, which was that the left is very nasty and destructive, and therefore there’s nothing wrong with Coulter’s language.
Also, I did comment either in this thread or elsewhere about Coulter’s passing this off as a joke, and said how wrong that was.
* In my recent discussion with Mladen from Israel (whose family is from the Soviet Union) about Giuliani, in the interests of keeping the posted exchange interesting I left out a side-point of his that we had already gone over sufficiently and then he wrote to me telling me I was behaving like a Soviet commissar suppressing debate. Another recent commenter, Henry A., wrote to me in an inquisitorial manner questioning the sincerity of my religious beliefs, all because I had made a mistake about what the Bible says about resurrection. This is the kind of behavior I open myself to by having discussions at this site.
[I took issue with the above, but for some inexplicable reason, Mr. Auster chose not to post my comment on his blog. However, the discussion progressed without my input, in which Mr. Auster continued making assertions I had addressed. Here's the part he kept from seeing the light of day at his website (Mr. Auster moderates his forum by allowing comments only via email)]:
WES: It's obvious to me that we'll not agree on this issue, so I won't take it further after this email.
I don't consider points 3 or 4 irrelevant or off-base. They specifically addressed comments you made earlier in this thread, in the formulation of your argument against Coulter. You said:
She issues a humiliating insult at a public figure, and then pretends that she didn’t do so.
My third point took issue with this, with a direct quote that indicates--in my view--that Coulter is not guilty of this accusation. You may disagree, but I'd hardly call it irrelevant to the discussion.
Number four, again, was a specific rebuttal of something you said earlier in this thread:
"and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight."
How do you harmonize this claim with the very real name-calling--of a much worse nature, I might add--that emanates from the Left on a regular basis, through the broadcast media? Being dubbed a racist or murderer is far worse than having one's sexual orientation questioned or joked about. Are you contending that leftist males don't engage in this behavior regularly against other males on the opposite end of the political spectrum?
As for addressing each point made--obviously you're free to tackle or ignore any or all points; it's your website. But I see it as something of a cheap shot to dismiss specific arguments as mere "childishness," without answering them, then to accuse the person who made them of "complaining" when they point this out.
And for the record, I'm not suggesting that you're suppressing debate, or questioning your honesty in what you believe about Coulter.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Mr. Auster countered:
AUSTER: These are not serious or grown-up arguments. They are childishness. The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats “faggots.”
All that this adds up to is the same thing I’ve been criticizing through this decade, that conservatives and Republicans have become mere reactors against the left. They don’t stand for anything except for opposing the left. It’s the death of politics, the death of the intellect, the death of decency.
I responded:
WES: Being antagonistic isn’t my goal, here, and if I’ve come across in this fashion, I apologize; I just disagree with your take on this. I see eye-to-eye with you far more often than not. I would like to comment on a couple of things you said, though.
The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats “faggots.”
It’s difficult for me to understand how you drew this conclusion, when the first point I made was that I would not have called Edwards this name. Nor did I ever use the term “Democrat” in describing these people. I said Leftist. I’m not a Republican, or a GOP supporter. This is not a Democrat/GOP issue, for me. I’m a traditionalist who believes we should return to constitutionalism and the intentions of our Founders. I think it’s also worth pointing out that the term is considered a pejorative because the Left has chosen to characterize it so. There was a time—and not very long ago—when this would have been a far less significant issue than it is, now. I think the whole situation sheds light on the normalization of destructive political correctness more than anything else.
These are not serious or grown-up arguments. They are childishness.
I think it’s interesting that you say this, while not addressing points 3,4, and 6—the first two of which were attempted specific refutations of your earlier comments.
AUSTER: Frankly, points 3, 4, and 6 were either irrelevant or off-base and not worth replying to. It’s really too much when people send multi-point e-mails and then complain when they don’t get a reply to every point.* I was responding to the main point, which was that the left is very nasty and destructive, and therefore there’s nothing wrong with Coulter’s language.
Also, I did comment either in this thread or elsewhere about Coulter’s passing this off as a joke, and said how wrong that was.
* In my recent discussion with Mladen from Israel (whose family is from the Soviet Union) about Giuliani, in the interests of keeping the posted exchange interesting I left out a side-point of his that we had already gone over sufficiently and then he wrote to me telling me I was behaving like a Soviet commissar suppressing debate. Another recent commenter, Henry A., wrote to me in an inquisitorial manner questioning the sincerity of my religious beliefs, all because I had made a mistake about what the Bible says about resurrection. This is the kind of behavior I open myself to by having discussions at this site.
[I took issue with the above, but for some inexplicable reason, Mr. Auster chose not to post my comment on his blog. However, the discussion progressed without my input, in which Mr. Auster continued making assertions I had addressed. Here's the part he kept from seeing the light of day at his website (Mr. Auster moderates his forum by allowing comments only via email)]:
WES: It's obvious to me that we'll not agree on this issue, so I won't take it further after this email.
I don't consider points 3 or 4 irrelevant or off-base. They specifically addressed comments you made earlier in this thread, in the formulation of your argument against Coulter. You said:
She issues a humiliating insult at a public figure, and then pretends that she didn’t do so.
My third point took issue with this, with a direct quote that indicates--in my view--that Coulter is not guilty of this accusation. You may disagree, but I'd hardly call it irrelevant to the discussion.
Number four, again, was a specific rebuttal of something you said earlier in this thread:
"and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight."
How do you harmonize this claim with the very real name-calling--of a much worse nature, I might add--that emanates from the Left on a regular basis, through the broadcast media? Being dubbed a racist or murderer is far worse than having one's sexual orientation questioned or joked about. Are you contending that leftist males don't engage in this behavior regularly against other males on the opposite end of the political spectrum?
As for addressing each point made--obviously you're free to tackle or ignore any or all points; it's your website. But I see it as something of a cheap shot to dismiss specific arguments as mere "childishness," without answering them, then to accuse the person who made them of "complaining" when they point this out.
And for the record, I'm not suggesting that you're suppressing debate, or questioning your honesty in what you believe about Coulter.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Coulter Debate: Part 1
I'm sure most of you are familiar with the recent controversy over Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards, so I won't go into the event itself. Instead, here is an exchange I had with Lawrence Auster of View from the Right, over the past few days. Auster resides on the same side of the political spectrum as I do, for those unfamiliar with him. If you have the time or inclination, I suggest reading the entire discussion; if not, I offer the most pertinent elements, here. I'm interested in my readers' takes on the arguments used, and in comparing the tones. Here's the setup:
AUSTER: There is no excuse for using language like that. Coulter was speaking at a political conference and used language that would be fighting language used by one man against another. She dragged down a political conference to the level of a low dive, and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight. Coulter’s vulgarity is indefensible. The conservative movement drags itself down by accommodating her and it.
I think it’s despicable for Coulter to insult a man like that on national television and then say it’s a joke. This is like a leftist professor at Duke University in the early ‘90s who called the National Association of Scholars “racist,” and then defended himself (I think it was in a letter to NR) by saying that he was just using “rhetoric.” So he gets to call people racist, and gets to deny that he’s done it. It’s like Oliver Stone producing “JFK,” a movie that made millions of people believe that there had been a vast conspiracy in the U.S. government including Lyndon Johnson to kill President Kennedy, and then, when he was challenged, saying at a press conference that it was just a fiction. So Stone got to have it both ways: he got to spread evil lies into millions of minds, lies that he made them believe were the truth, and he got to deny what he had done. It’s the same with Coulter. She issues a humiliating insult at a public figure, and then pretends that she didn’t do so. No matter how bright Coulter may be, she is a low person, and a conservative movement that makes an icon of her diminishes itself.
As I’ve said, Edwards is a risible figure, and there are all kinds of things you can legitimately say about him to make fun of him or even ridicule him. But to use an insult like “faggot” in American public life, and then, worse, to approve of it and normalize it, degrades all of us.
Now on to my response:
WES: Hi, Mr. Auster. I hope you don’t mind a few comments from a fairly new reader:
1. I would not have used the term “faggot” in a public forum speech—if for no other reason, because it draws attention away from any legitimate point in the making, as the current reaction proves.
2. Ms. Coulter technically didn’t call him this name; she alluded to it, yes, but it was not a direct claim.
3. Coulter stood by her comment. In an exchange with Adam Nagourney from the NYT:
Nagourney: The three Republican presidential contenders denouncing you….Do you want to do any response?
Coulter: C’mon it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean. Did any of these guys say anything after I made the same remark about Al Gore last summer? Why not? What were they trying to say about Al Gore with their silence?
On the front page of her blog is this headline: AMBULANCE CHASER GETS REAR-ENDED BY ANN COULTER—I’m so ashamed, I can’t stop laughing!
Not what I’d consider a retreat.
4. “and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight.”
Perhaps face-to-face, but not through broadcast media. How many times have leftist males impugned other males on the Right with accusations of racism, “homophobia,” sexism, mindless jingoism, or a cornucopia of other smears?
5. Coulter understands that the Left wants to deconstruct our society and destroy its moral foundation and heritage, while ushering in something far worse to fill that vaccuum. Thus the contempt she shows its more visible components. I believe this website’s author understands this, as well, which is one reason why I’m a reader.
6. The Left assures us one and all that homosexuality is not only normal, but beautiful; so why is dubbing Edwards a “faggot” insulting? One either accepts this claim, or not. The Left can’t have it both ways.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
AUSTER: There is no excuse for using language like that. Coulter was speaking at a political conference and used language that would be fighting language used by one man against another. She dragged down a political conference to the level of a low dive, and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight. Coulter’s vulgarity is indefensible. The conservative movement drags itself down by accommodating her and it.
I think it’s despicable for Coulter to insult a man like that on national television and then say it’s a joke. This is like a leftist professor at Duke University in the early ‘90s who called the National Association of Scholars “racist,” and then defended himself (I think it was in a letter to NR) by saying that he was just using “rhetoric.” So he gets to call people racist, and gets to deny that he’s done it. It’s like Oliver Stone producing “JFK,” a movie that made millions of people believe that there had been a vast conspiracy in the U.S. government including Lyndon Johnson to kill President Kennedy, and then, when he was challenged, saying at a press conference that it was just a fiction. So Stone got to have it both ways: he got to spread evil lies into millions of minds, lies that he made them believe were the truth, and he got to deny what he had done. It’s the same with Coulter. She issues a humiliating insult at a public figure, and then pretends that she didn’t do so. No matter how bright Coulter may be, she is a low person, and a conservative movement that makes an icon of her diminishes itself.
As I’ve said, Edwards is a risible figure, and there are all kinds of things you can legitimately say about him to make fun of him or even ridicule him. But to use an insult like “faggot” in American public life, and then, worse, to approve of it and normalize it, degrades all of us.
Now on to my response:
WES: Hi, Mr. Auster. I hope you don’t mind a few comments from a fairly new reader:
1. I would not have used the term “faggot” in a public forum speech—if for no other reason, because it draws attention away from any legitimate point in the making, as the current reaction proves.
2. Ms. Coulter technically didn’t call him this name; she alluded to it, yes, but it was not a direct claim.
3. Coulter stood by her comment. In an exchange with Adam Nagourney from the NYT:
Nagourney: The three Republican presidential contenders denouncing you….Do you want to do any response?
Coulter: C’mon it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean. Did any of these guys say anything after I made the same remark about Al Gore last summer? Why not? What were they trying to say about Al Gore with their silence?
On the front page of her blog is this headline: AMBULANCE CHASER GETS REAR-ENDED BY ANN COULTER—I’m so ashamed, I can’t stop laughing!
Not what I’d consider a retreat.
4. “and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight.”
Perhaps face-to-face, but not through broadcast media. How many times have leftist males impugned other males on the Right with accusations of racism, “homophobia,” sexism, mindless jingoism, or a cornucopia of other smears?
5. Coulter understands that the Left wants to deconstruct our society and destroy its moral foundation and heritage, while ushering in something far worse to fill that vaccuum. Thus the contempt she shows its more visible components. I believe this website’s author understands this, as well, which is one reason why I’m a reader.
6. The Left assures us one and all that homosexuality is not only normal, but beautiful; so why is dubbing Edwards a “faggot” insulting? One either accepts this claim, or not. The Left can’t have it both ways.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
The Devil's Undoing
Somewhere in abyssal blackness, a sinuous beast flops in a depthless subterranean pool. Limestone-softened waters enfold its serpentine coils as they writhe in contentment. Baleful slit-eyes glare like foglamps into the gloom. The creature glides through its tarn and lumbers up onto the rock bank.
A man strides forth out of the darkness, his fly unzipped. In his arms is a squalling infant, which he tosses into the air. The cave denizen flicks out a razor talon and spears it deftly, popping the morsel into its gaping maw with a slurping sound. It tosses its head from side to side in relish and makes a chortling sound.
"Thankssssssss, Billlll," it says.
"No problem, baby. There's a lot more where that came from. Just remember that I have exclusive access to the Lincoln bedroom, with lotsa video cameras, when ya win the eternal matriarchy--I mean, presidency. And in turn, I'll keep 'em comin' fresh and fiesty, just like ya love 'em."
The creature eyes a forlorn skeleton lying on the bank. "Billll, hand me one of Rick Lazzzzzzzio's bonessss, pleasssssse. Preferably a rib. There'sssss a bit of newborn ssssstuck in my teeth."
"Sure thing, honey." The man grants the request and watches the behemoth sink back into the waters, tail swishing, lost in pondering machinations intelligible only to those of frigid blood and impenetrable scales.
He ascends out of the grotto and into blinding light of day. He pulls a crumpled, deteriorating parchment out of his pocket and unrolls it. The meaning of the words written thereon baffles him to no end. Though he's unsure why, he knows that it is the bane of the lurker in the earth, its veritable nemesis. So on rare occasions when the clouds of hedonism break in his mind, he recalls it and draws it close unto himself, realizing it is the beast's one Achilles' Heel. Like Medusa's gaze, the very sight of it is death for the monster. So he keeps it, philosophizing that it is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
He sets off in search of one particularly delectable former intern, but gives the script heading a final glance before driving away:
WE THE PEOPLE, it begins.
A man strides forth out of the darkness, his fly unzipped. In his arms is a squalling infant, which he tosses into the air. The cave denizen flicks out a razor talon and spears it deftly, popping the morsel into its gaping maw with a slurping sound. It tosses its head from side to side in relish and makes a chortling sound.
"Thankssssssss, Billlll," it says.
"No problem, baby. There's a lot more where that came from. Just remember that I have exclusive access to the Lincoln bedroom, with lotsa video cameras, when ya win the eternal matriarchy--I mean, presidency. And in turn, I'll keep 'em comin' fresh and fiesty, just like ya love 'em."
The creature eyes a forlorn skeleton lying on the bank. "Billll, hand me one of Rick Lazzzzzzzio's bonessss, pleasssssse. Preferably a rib. There'sssss a bit of newborn ssssstuck in my teeth."
"Sure thing, honey." The man grants the request and watches the behemoth sink back into the waters, tail swishing, lost in pondering machinations intelligible only to those of frigid blood and impenetrable scales.
He ascends out of the grotto and into blinding light of day. He pulls a crumpled, deteriorating parchment out of his pocket and unrolls it. The meaning of the words written thereon baffles him to no end. Though he's unsure why, he knows that it is the bane of the lurker in the earth, its veritable nemesis. So on rare occasions when the clouds of hedonism break in his mind, he recalls it and draws it close unto himself, realizing it is the beast's one Achilles' Heel. Like Medusa's gaze, the very sight of it is death for the monster. So he keeps it, philosophizing that it is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
He sets off in search of one particularly delectable former intern, but gives the script heading a final glance before driving away:
WE THE PEOPLE, it begins.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
A Nation of "Faith"
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who says he prays daily and has a personal relationship with God, rejects the notion that America is "a Christian nation."
"There's a lot of America that's Christian. I would not describe us, though, on the whole, as a Christian nation," he told the Web site Beliefnet. "I guess the word 'Christian' is what bothers me, even though I'm a Christian. I think that America is a nation of faith."
"My faith informs everything I think and do," he said, but he added that he strongly believes in the separation of church and state.
Dubbing this a "nation of faith" is insipid garbage. It's akin to saying: "We're a nation of belief." No kidding. Everyone believes something.
He falls on his face at the altar of church and state separation, but our Founders did not; otherwise, they would have enshrined it in the Constitution.
So what makes a nation Christian? Here are a few points for pondering:
1. U.S. Census estimates the Christian population of the United States at 79.8%, in the most recent (2001) statistics. The next highest affiliation is Non-religious/Secular at 15%. All other religions combined come to 5.2%. Assuming these figures are roughly correct, this means that Christians outnumber secularists by a more than 5-to-1 margin; and all other religions by more than 15-to-1. Even taking into consideration the nominal Christianity of many respondents, Christians still constitute the vast majority in the U.S.
2. The majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians, notwithstanding revisionist "history."
3. Christianity heavily informed the formulation of this nation. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence--our two most important founding documents--express a Christian worldview and understanding of man's sinful nature, and of his God-given right to liberty.
I contend that the United States of America is a Christian nation--to the extent that any nation may be labeled such. And to the degree that this heritage has eroded and decayed over time, becoming a shadow of its former self, we have people like John Edwards to thank for that.
"There's a lot of America that's Christian. I would not describe us, though, on the whole, as a Christian nation," he told the Web site Beliefnet. "I guess the word 'Christian' is what bothers me, even though I'm a Christian. I think that America is a nation of faith."
"My faith informs everything I think and do," he said, but he added that he strongly believes in the separation of church and state.
Dubbing this a "nation of faith" is insipid garbage. It's akin to saying: "We're a nation of belief." No kidding. Everyone believes something.
He falls on his face at the altar of church and state separation, but our Founders did not; otherwise, they would have enshrined it in the Constitution.
So what makes a nation Christian? Here are a few points for pondering:
1. U.S. Census estimates the Christian population of the United States at 79.8%, in the most recent (2001) statistics. The next highest affiliation is Non-religious/Secular at 15%. All other religions combined come to 5.2%. Assuming these figures are roughly correct, this means that Christians outnumber secularists by a more than 5-to-1 margin; and all other religions by more than 15-to-1. Even taking into consideration the nominal Christianity of many respondents, Christians still constitute the vast majority in the U.S.
2. The majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians, notwithstanding revisionist "history."
3. Christianity heavily informed the formulation of this nation. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence--our two most important founding documents--express a Christian worldview and understanding of man's sinful nature, and of his God-given right to liberty.
I contend that the United States of America is a Christian nation--to the extent that any nation may be labeled such. And to the degree that this heritage has eroded and decayed over time, becoming a shadow of its former self, we have people like John Edwards to thank for that.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
"Honest Injun, We're Sorry."
RICHMOND, Va. (Feb. 25) - Meeting on the grounds of the former Confederate Capitol, the Virginia General Assembly voted unanimously Saturday to express "profound regret" for the state's role in slavery.
Hm, I wonder how that worked. Something like this, perhaps?:
"Resolution:
Whereas slavery is a unique and malignant expression of the white race;
Whereas the black race never participated in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, nor enslaved members of its own group;
Whereas many in the Antebellum South had never laid eyes on a black person;
Whereas slavery generally was an indulgence of the rich, and the majority of Virginians did not and do not qualify as such;
Whereas no living American blacks languish in a state of enslavement within these borders, nor do their masters still draw breath;
Whereas involuntary servitude ceased as an institution one hundred forty-two years ago;
We solemnly do resolve that an official apology of great profundity is warranted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. We hearby offer such at our collective shame and regret for oppressing those blessed with enhanced skin pigmentation and hoop skillz.
In the year of a non-existent, mythological deity, 2007"
The measure also expressed regret for "the exploitation of Native Americans."
Are they referencing those tree-hugging, earth-worshipping, goddess-communing, environmentally-conscious, recycling individuals who practiced slavery of all races and creeds, with no discrimination whatsoever? Who went on the warpath and murdered innocent women and children? Who tortured and mutilated helpless prisoners? Who sometimes practiced ritual cannibalism? Who violated non-aggression treaties? Nah. Dances with Wolves set us straight on that malarkey.
Among those voting for the measure was Delegate Frank D. Hargrove, an 80-year-old Republican who infuriated black leaders last month by saying "black citizens should get over" slavery.
After enduring a barrage of criticism, Hargrove successfully co-sponsored a resolution calling on Virginia to celebrate "Juneteenth," a holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States.
I'm sure there was nothing self-serving in this sacrificial act of contrition. Nosirree.
Hm, I wonder how that worked. Something like this, perhaps?:
"Resolution:
Whereas slavery is a unique and malignant expression of the white race;
Whereas the black race never participated in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, nor enslaved members of its own group;
Whereas many in the Antebellum South had never laid eyes on a black person;
Whereas slavery generally was an indulgence of the rich, and the majority of Virginians did not and do not qualify as such;
Whereas no living American blacks languish in a state of enslavement within these borders, nor do their masters still draw breath;
Whereas involuntary servitude ceased as an institution one hundred forty-two years ago;
We solemnly do resolve that an official apology of great profundity is warranted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. We hearby offer such at our collective shame and regret for oppressing those blessed with enhanced skin pigmentation and hoop skillz.
In the year of a non-existent, mythological deity, 2007"
The measure also expressed regret for "the exploitation of Native Americans."
Are they referencing those tree-hugging, earth-worshipping, goddess-communing, environmentally-conscious, recycling individuals who practiced slavery of all races and creeds, with no discrimination whatsoever? Who went on the warpath and murdered innocent women and children? Who tortured and mutilated helpless prisoners? Who sometimes practiced ritual cannibalism? Who violated non-aggression treaties? Nah. Dances with Wolves set us straight on that malarkey.
Among those voting for the measure was Delegate Frank D. Hargrove, an 80-year-old Republican who infuriated black leaders last month by saying "black citizens should get over" slavery.
After enduring a barrage of criticism, Hargrove successfully co-sponsored a resolution calling on Virginia to celebrate "Juneteenth," a holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States.
I'm sure there was nothing self-serving in this sacrificial act of contrition. Nosirree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)