Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Rodentius Trojanus

Ellen "The Rat" Ratner hands out some typically sage advice on "public health":

Yesterday on "Fox and Friends," Jim Pinkerton and I debated a Fox news poll concerning children and the availability of contraception. Fifty-seven percent said giving contraceptives to children as young as 11 years old "was a nutty idea"; 26 percent said it was a brilliant idea. The most interesting poll result, however, was that a full 83 percent of those polled said that 11-year-olds were having sex.

Hm, I wonder if those folks thought the idea was cuckoo because they don't believe that a response tantamount to endorsement is an intelligent method of solving a problem? Nah, that makes too much sense. By the way, if you believe that giving 11-year-olds contraception is a brilliant idea, chances are you're one of the people they need protection from. Notice that Her Rattiness assumes that children have no self-control, and doesn't even consider self-discipline or moral guidance as a proper course of action. Nope, little boys are walking erections, and little girls are like banks greedily waiting for a deposit. Both are mindless sexual automotons. Heck, why not start handing out condoms in Kindergarten? "Here ya go, Johnny. You and Suzie have safe sex behind the jungle gym; but first, finish coloring your picture of Heather's two mommies."

The Rodent continues in the same insipid vein: Parents who abuse their children, (or parents who do nothing when their children are abused by others – family members, boyfriends etc.), cannot provide quality sex education to their children. These parents should not even be allowed to sign on the dotted line to allow their children to receive health services through the school clinic system, as many of these parents have secrets to hide from the authorities.

As far as I'm concerned, if you abuse your children, or through inaction and disinterest allow the abuse of your children, you forfeit any and all rights to them. It's that simple. Again, she offers no proposal of moral tutelage or zipper control. Just give the little rabbit a rubber.

Many of the people opposed to giving sexually active children contraception though the school system also believe that we should not have needle exchange for those who are addicted to drugs. The argument is the same; if we don't treat it then somehow it won't be as big a problem.

Actually, this isn't the argument at all; it's a deliberate distortion of what opponents say. I've never heard anyone who decried sex education for children dismiss it on an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" basis. They offer counter-solutions, such as abstinence teaching. We just can't have that, though, because abstinence has religious connotations, which are anathema to training up good little lusty drones.

The only overlap The Rat wants with religion is the missionary position.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Ya Don't Say

I noticed this headline on World Net Daily:

Pastor hospitalized after attack by police

The incident occured in China.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but one is given the impression that this somehow is a novel event. Christians are suffering persecution from an atheistic, Communist regime? Say it ain't so, Chairman Mao! It's like the six-o'clock news talking head intoning breathlessly: "This just in; rice is a staple food of the Philippines."

This story is noteworthy only in informing Americans of what really goes on in China, our velly velly most bestest flend and favoled tlading paltnel. Otherwise, it's business as usual. So yes, it's informative. But it probably should be filed under the "No Kidding" heading.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Mental Effluvia

After watching McDonald's commercials over some months, I've concluded that roughly 80 to 90% of the U.S. population is black.

Speaking of TV, Law and Order is nothing but one-sided left-wing propaganda presented as unbiased fact. On this show--and most programs, for that matter--Christians are portrayed as stupid and easily manipulated, evil, insane, or a combination of all three. So if you like your political correctness heavy-handed, I urge you to run out and buy the whole series on DVD, ASAP.

I'm sure that calling a fat Muslim a "porker" is a fatal offense, just like everything else in the Islamic world.

If we ever discover extraterrestrials on American soil, I wonder how long we'll have to wait before Bush proposes giving them "legal" status?

I'm sure it won't be long before J.K. Rowling announces that Voldemort's actions were all expressions of his mindless, religion-driven hatred of homosexuals, perhaps even evidence of his own latent homosexual proclivities.

Why are children of the "Baby-Boom" generation known as "Generation X?" Is it because the powers that be instinctively understand that the world--or the U.S., at least--has little time left, before it's ushered off-stage? Are Y and Z all that's left?

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Newsy Nonsense

Hillary says she'd give up some powers, if corona--um, I mean elected. She says she'd limit her use of the IRS as a hit squad to just her most visible political enemies, create a "five-year plan" for the dissolution of the proletariat and conversion of our form of government from republican to Communist, restrict assassinations of former cronies to two per annum, commit rare High Crimes and Misdemeanors, allow only illegal aliens universal health care, confine her "pro-choice" support to partial-birth abortions, and give each ten-year-old a fighting chance before chasing him down, cracking his bones, and slurping the delectable marrow from within. I feel much better, now.

In a stroke of pure brilliance, Bush gave $500 million to Mexico--one of the most corrupt countries on Earth--to fight a drug war. What's next, handing out crisp $100 bills ta gang-bangin' homies in da hood, so dey can buy "growshrees" fo dey chillun?

Congressional Omniscience

Global warming at least partly responsible for wildfires.

You heard it right here from Harry Reid, expert climatologist.

No doubt he believes Rush Limbaugh causes global warming.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

The War on Christianity

In a recent conversation in blogtopia, a commenter assured me that there's no such thing as a war on Christianity in the U.S., and that such claims are nothing more than media-driven hysteria. Of course, how one uses the word "war" determines whether or not he's correct. If you mean American equivalents of Bergen-Belsen or Auschwitz popping up all over like sinister mushrooms, where Christians are fed feet-first into ovens, or lined up all in a pretty row by government agents and given a taste of the firing squad; or harsh prison sentences for heading underground churches; or serving as human torches for the president's amusement; or wrestling lions for popular entertainment, then he's right: there's no war on Christianity in the U.S.


But if we're speaking symbolically, in terms of an ideological conflict, there most certainly is a war on the Christian way of life. Acknowledging this is minimal observancy of reality; denial is nothing but ignorance or dishonesty.

We're given the impression that secularism is the neutral position, that the onus of explaining why Christianity should be allowed in the public square falls on the Christian's shoulders. Separation of church and state is treated as a sacrosanct ideal. We're told that prayer in schools and other silly religious (i.e., Christian) notions are prohibited by the Constitution. All of these are lies. There is no such thing as ideological neutrality; godlessness is as much a worldview as religiosity. Christian thought and deed is an American historical norm. Separation of church and state is endorsed nowhere in our founding documents, and even where it is found--such as in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists--its meaning is intentionally distorted. The Constitution specifically protects freedom of religion, rather than undermining it.

For those who doubt the existence of an ideological war on Christianity, ask yourself a few questions, and see if you can formulate a coherent answer: when students are told that they cannot bring Bibles to school, or read them during their free time after class, what does this represent? When the Boy Scouts cannot meet after school on campus (while other clubs and organizations suffer no such restriction), due to discrimination against homosexuals for religious reasons, what conclusion should we draw? When valedictorians are censored in their graduation speeches, or punished when they mention Jesus, does this exemplify freedom of religion, or freedom from religion? When school children cannot sing Silent Night--or are ordered to alter the lyrics before singing it--is this more of the phantom war on Christianity? When Nativity scenes are banned from public property, is this a coincidence, or just "following the law?" When displays of the Decalogue are removed from courthouses--some of which have stood in positions of honor in these buildings for decades--is this more delusion on the part of those who see a creeping death to religious freedom in this country? When crosses are torn off war memorials, or excised from roadsides in hopes of not blighting the landscape or offending the sensibilities of atheist motorists, is this an example of the tolerance of which we often hear?

These events are happening, and with greater frequency all the time. They aren't sensationalistic or false claims. They represent legitimate news stories that I've read--numerous times, in some cases. We're not talking "media-driven hysteria." Forty years ago, such stories never made it to the nightly news or the daily papers. Do you know why? Because they didn't exist, or were aberrations. If there is no ideological striving, no conflicting worldviews, why were these situations unheard of ten, twenty, thirty, and forty years ago? Why is it that a country founded primarily by and peopled with Christians is becoming increasingly hostile to open expressions of Christianity?

Remember that persecutions more often than not begin small and increase in severity over time. The Nazis didn't initiate their plans for Jews, Christians, and other undesirables with murder. They demonized beliefs, restricted their expression, and stifled their influence. The death camps and elaborate tortures came later.

I'm not scaremongering, here; I'm not suggesting that such horrors await Americans, in the near future. But the idea that we're not experiencing persecution unless we endure the same plight as Christians under Nero doesn't mean that our constitutionally-enshrined and God-given rights aren't under attack. That's an intellectually vacant position. It's akin to denying one's own reflection in a mirror, or like the child who believes the monster under his bed won't notice him, if he'll just keep the covers over his head.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Harry Potter and the Wizened Fruit

It seems Dumbledore was a bit light in the slippers.

Maybe this is a publicity stunt; maybe it's a revelation of the author's intention from the get-go. Either way, it's pretty sick stuff. In the remaining two movies, I hope he keeps his magic wand to himself.

Monday, October 15, 2007

A No-Brainer

I was listening to the radio, this morning, and I heard a news story in which a sixty-eight-year old grandmother had come up with the idea of a bulletproof backpack for school kids. She said that the growing problem of shootings on school grounds prompted this invention.

When I heard this report, the first idea that popped into my mind was not "What a great idea!" Rather, my initial reaction was:

Why in the world would you send your child to a place where such a device is needed?

If you believe your elementary or high school child faces a serious threat of being gunned down in the hallways of his school, isn't bustling him off to such a "proving" ground an act of neglect on your part? Would you drop your kid off in a high-crime neighborhood, dressed in Kevlar body armor, and wish him a good day?

Sure, the possibility exists that someone might shoot me standing in line at Wal-Mart, while gobbling a Massive Coronary Combo under the Golden Arches, or while reading Bill Clinton's new memoir, Getting it On, at the local library. Total safety is an illusion; I understand that. But I live in a medium-sized, unremarkable community, and every school in the district of which I'm aware has armed guards on campus, and metal detectors. I don't recall passing through metal detectors and seeing armed guards at local department stores and restaurants. This implies a greater security risk at schools than in these other places.

If you're worried about your child getting blown out of his Osh Koshes in the lunchline, there's a very simple and obvious solution:

Pull him out of the war zone.

For most people, home schooling isn't about ability; it's about willpower and desire. So for those wringing their hands, waiting for the next killing spree, ask yourselves a question: What's more important--your convenience and comfort, or your son or daughter's life?

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Heap Big Bias

In an exchange at Vox's blog, the subject of American Indians arose, followed by some very one-sided commentary. This from a poster named Deganawidah:

Slavery, land grabs, starvation, disease, outright slaughter, villages and towns burned to the ground. Whole entire populations of civilizations wiped out.

All for the good ( greed ) of Western Europeans.

The only reason the Indians are still around is due to the need for slaves, the resilience of those who managed to escape, evade and survive, those who where helped by Europeans who understood the atrocities being committed (Roger Williams, Helen Hunt Jackson, John Marshall.. to name but a few.) those who rose up where wiped out.

When there where not enough Indian slaves to fill the European/ American quotas, they where replaced with African and Haitian.

Calling this simplistic and unbalanced doesn't even begin to cover it. First, his initial paragraph mostly applies to the "noble" savages, as well, regarding their treatment of whites. They enslaved, stole land, violated treaties, raped, slaughtered with impunity, and wiped out--or attempted to destroy--entire settlements. Interesting that we hear nary a peep about this uncomfortable fact. Some Indians also practiced ritualistic cannibalism. I remember one lurid story I found in a book about the early colonization of America, in which two missionaries to the Indians (Iroquois) were rewarded for their efforts by being cooked in a giant kettle and eaten. I sure hope they used tenderizer.

As for the greed aspects of the White Devil's behavior, how would you react if someone murdered your wife and children, mutilated their bodies, burned your house to the ground, and stole your livestock? I dare say you wouldn't scamper to sign up for the "Hug an Injun" brigade. The point is that, all too often, greed played zero part in the equation. Sometimes it was simple survival, or revenge, to which all humans have the potential to succumb. Blanket condemnations of whites as greedy is as much a smear as denouncing all Indians as murdering subhumans.

The majority of Indians never lived under conditions of enslavement. I have no idea where the hogwash came from about replacing Indians with Africans when the Indian quotas weren't filled. Africans always served as the principle slaves in this country, having come here with their white masters in the very beginning of the continent's colonization.

This isn't a defense of white-perpetrated atrocities; it's an attempt at balancing the equation with facts. Neither side behaved like Mother Theresa. Both revealed goodness and villainy. Both alternated in comporting themselves with honor and underhanded wretchedness. The truth is nowhere near as stark and simple as some would have you believe.

Deganawidah continued:

This was not a couple of decades and a 90 percent disease wipe out, it was four hundred years of pillaging, raping, war, enslaving and Genocide by Europeans.

I think he's confused about the meaning of "genocide." Here's a definition from Dictionary.com:

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

I'm not aware of any widespread examples of this amongst Indians and whites in the U.S. There is nothing comparable to the Holocaust in American Indian-White Devil relations. Isolated events in which vile individuals introduced disease-ridden blankets into Indian populations were a sad fact; but that's a far cry from meeting the rigid definition above. The white settlers vastly outnumbered the Indian tribes after a certain point in American history. They also harbored much greater technology and a superior culture. Had complete eradication of the Indians been a real goal, vigorously pursued, the pioneers and American military would have accomplished it. Giving people large tracts of land (reservations), upon which they draft their own laws and elect their own rulers, is not an act of the genocidal.

I loathe political correctness and have no interest in denouncing whitey as the Great Satan of human history. I'm sick of it. It's neither true nor fair. I'll take the ugly, discombobulating truth over sugar-coated twaddle any day of the week.

Championing someone because he is an underdog is as morally myopic as "might-makes-right" arguments. Underdog status doesn't automatically confer moral superiority on an individual or group. It's an attitude from which we should distance ourselves. Extended to world politics, it partly explains why the shortsighted laud evil, death-loving cultures like that of the "Palestinians," while villifying much more humane entities--such as the state of Israel--in the loudest and harshest terms possible.

"Bright" as Midnight

Here's a good explanation of how atheists exhibit irrationality and inconsistency in their worldviews. It makes a compelling case in simple language.

It's like not believing in the ocean in which you're drowning.

Monday, October 8, 2007

Religion Is Peace

It seems that Bush knows less about history and comparative religious study than Madonna does Mennonite butter-churning techniques. How surprising.

Speaking with a reporter for Al Arabiyah on Friday, Bush said: "Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren't religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that – we had a person blow up our – blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people.

"And I just simply don't subscribe to the idea that murdering innocent men, women and children – particularly Muslim men, women and children in the Middle East – is an act of somebody who is a religious person."

Translation: Call me a liar, call me edumacationally constipated, but never let it be said that I'm not a shameless panderer.

It's difficult responding to comments that exhibit such willful stupidity. If he's correct, we can all rest easy in the knowledge that those who worship Astarte, Baal, Moloch, Satan, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, Jehovah, their next-door neighbor's trophy wife, or their brand-spankin' new Mercedes Benz all are worshiping the same god. Whew! I'm glad he cleared that up for us. Never mind the complete contradictions in worship practices, expectations, teachings, or values amongst various religions.

As for Islam, it is not now--nor has it ever been--a peaceful religion. Only someone who lacks even rudimentary, childlike knowledge of its history would draw such an absurd conclusion.Yep, when the Koran tells its readers to kill non-Muslims and apostates, and the Hadith demands that Jews be terminated, we realize this is an expression of unvarnished pacifism.

Notice, too, the implied criticism of Christianity, in mentioning McVeigh. It's all part of creedal egalitarianism, baby. That McVeigh acted in total opposition of Christian ethics, that Muhammed's "peaceniks" who kill infidels in Allah's name act in harmony with Islam's teachings and traditions, escapes him with all the ease of a deep thought eluding Paris Hilton's rattly little brain.

I also enjoy his redefinition of the word "religious," making it mean whatever he deems right and proper at a given moment. Reminds me of his pretzelizing of the word "amnesty." "I don't support amnesty for illegals--I just endorse giving them a slap on the wrist (or no punishment at all), providing them with legal status, and ignoring laws on the books addressing their presence in our country. But under no circumstances do I advocate amnesty for undocumented citizens!" Sure, and I have some nice ocean-front property on Mars I'll sell you for red-dirt cheap.

Now "religious" means: worshipers of the One God who practice their beliefs in a peaceful manner. So if you bow to a bloodthirsty deity whom you believe demands the lives of others, sorry, but you don't qualify as a religious person. Even if you believe that your god told you to kill in his name, you still don't qualify. Move along, here's a daffodil, kumbaya to you, brother!

I wonder how Osama bin Laden would respond to the notion that he's not religious? How about the Aztecs?

I hope Bush is keeping track of all his word-reinventions. His first book upon leaving office should be The World According to Dubya. No doubt it'll give Webster's Dictionary a run for its money.

Bush continued: "We are having an Iftaar dinner tonight – I say, 'we' – it's my wife and I," Bush told Nakouzi. "This is the seventh one in the seven years I've been the president. It gives me a chance to say 'Ramadan Mubarak.' The reason I do this is I want people to understand about my country. In other words, I hope this message gets out of America. I want people to understand that one of the great freedoms in America is the right for people to worship any way they see fit. If you're a Muslim, an agnostic, a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, you're equally American."

After which he unrolled his rug, prayed toward Mecca, then beheaded Abe Foxman with one deft flick of his scimitar. When asked for a reaction afterwards, Sean Hannity said: "There is no God but Bush, and Hannity is his Prophet!"

Friday, October 5, 2007

Lying for a Living

I've had half an ear on the dust-up involving Rush Limbaugh, of late. He inadvertantly found himself in the spotlight by talking about "phony soldiers" on his show. The Left, being paragons of virtue and truthfulness, took the story and ran with it, accusing him of characterizing all soldiers critical of the Iraq war as phonies. The one irksome factoid in the situation was that he did no such thing. His mention of phony soldiers involved a man who claimed that the U.S. military committed atrocities in Iraq, and that he was a first-hand witness to these events. Digging a little deeper, it turned out that he never set foot in Iraq, having washed out of basic training. Today, Limbaugh mentioned another Leftist mouthpiece who described himself as a Navy SEAL and a veteran of Iraq combat. Research determined that he was neither. My understanding was that he served one year in the Navy, in a noncombatant role.

Besides the obvious lengths and depths the Left will go to in 1.) trashing Limbaugh, and 2.) smearing our military, I've noticed another seemingly obvious truth that people just gloss over in discussing this subject: if atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers are ubiquitous in Iraq, why can't the Left provide legitimate examples, as opposed to pure fiction? We're all familiar with the Left's absolute contempt for George Bush, the military, and all things perceived as patriotic. So why the desperate lies? Why the deliberate distortions of others' positions and actions?

The conclusion I've drawn is that American atrocities in Iraq are either extremely rare or nonexistent. I think it's a logical belief, given the Left's pathetic and detestable behavior and lack of evidence.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Benefits of "Immigration"

From Michelle Malkin's book, Invasion:

Illegal aliens "have grown so accustomed to our high tolerance for illegal immigration that some are actually suing the United States for not providing water stations on their illegal journeys into our country."

In asylum claims, "a GAO report noted that in early 2002, that investigators found a 90 percent rate of fraud in a preliminary review of five thousand petitions for asylum. A more detailed follow-up review of 1,500 of those petitions could locate only one that was bona fide."

". . .illegal alien day laborers hanging out in front of convenience stores and government offices helped at least seven of the [9/11] hijackers. . .obtain fraudulent state photo identification in Virginia."

After Tennessee legislators facilitated illegal aliens' efforts at acquiring driver's licenses, "tens of thousands of out-of-state illegal immigrants swamped the state's motor vehicle agencies. 'There were waits of five and six hours,' said Dana Keeton, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Department of Safety. The National Guard was even called in to control unruly crowds. Alarmed legislators rushed to amend the law. But the changes, adding a few easily navigated hurdles to establish residency, were nominal. And the illegals kept swarming in from all over the country. After obtaining Tennessee driver's licenses, many easily obtained driver's licenses from other states."

(All emphases mine)