Friday, June 29, 2007


I'll be out of town until Monday. I hope everyone has a great weekend.

Y'all take care until I return.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Refried Brain

I think Bush should ask for a tv spot and provide a little clarity to all the nativists and hate-mongers, out there:

"Folks, let me clear something up. The reason why we have so much contusion about amnesty is because your pewny, non-globalist minds have misunderestimated that the word means whatever I say it means. Sure, this is subject to change, depending on my mood, sobrietaryness, whether or not I just finished listening to Los Lobos, or the day of the week, but what is being el presidente of these Estados Unidos all about if not telling everyone else to shove it, including those who authored our dictionaries? Just as I have bestowed amnesty on all the subequatorial sub-literati, so, too, will I diversificate your bigotary prejudicialness, with a rendemption of Richie Valens singing his most famousest song:

Para bailar la bamba
Para bailar la bamba
Se necesita una poca de gracia
Una poca de gracia pa'mí y pa' ti
Ay Arriba y arriba
Ay arriba y arriba por ti seré
Por ti seré
Por ti seré
Yo no soy marinero,
Yo no soy marinero
Soy capitan
Soy capitan
Soy capitan
Bamba, BambaBamba,
Bamba, BambaBamba

Monday, June 25, 2007

A Muddled Heart

In a recent film, A Mighty Heart, Angelina Jolie takes time off from preening for the media and plays the role of Mariane Pearl, the wife of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl. In his review of the movie, Roger Ebert can't help bestowing his incisive political views upon the hoi polloi:

We reflect that the majority of Muslims do not approve of the behavior of Islamic terrorists, just as the majority of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq.

Ah, ok, I get it, you sneaky devil. Average American = average Muslim; Islamic terrorists = Americans who support the Iraq war effort. That's an astute observation, Rog. Did you glean this from that perennial sage, Michael Moore? Perhaps from his new autobiographical film, Sicko? I think you should quit your trivial day job as a reviewer and put your talents to better use writing hard "news" pieces for The New York Times. As for what the "majority of Muslims believe," we have a fairly good handle on that: most support Jihad, either materially or philosophically, or express zero moral qualms about it. Where is the nigh unanimous public outrage, in the Islamic world? Where's the vocal criticism? Where's the inherent conflict between Islamic fundamentalist behavior, and Muslim teaching and Islamic texts? Maybe all of the above reside in Neverland, because they darned sure aren't facets of our reality. This is an integral point, for we know "moderates" have a platform at their pleasure, given all the strenuous efforts at convincing the citizenry that Muslim men are day traders in turbans, even as their women are soccer moms in burkhas. Yet we hear only a few lone voices, buried under avalanches of fatwas, or whispering apologetically in the relative safety of the West. Poll after poll reveals massive support for Jihad in Middle Eastern nations. After the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in its history, we watched, horrified, as Muslims danced jigs of joy in the streets, handing out candy like indulgent neighbors on Halloween.

Even if a silent moderate majority of Muslims exists--and I contend that this assertion is the worst form of deceit and ignorance--it is irrelevant. Irrelevant because it holds no power, makes no decisions, and retains zero influence over those who do. Good ol' Rog might want to allow this a little consideration, the next time he embarks upon giving monsters a pass, while besmirching his fellow citizens.

Continuing in this morally relativistic vein, Ebert writes:

The Americans who complain about "negative" news are the ideological cousins of those who shoot at CNN crews. The news is the news, good or bad, and those who resent being informed of it are pitiful. More Americans are well-informed about current sports and autoracing statistics, I sometimes think, than anything else.

It seems Rog spends inordinate amounts of time condemning his countrymen as stupid or evil, again, while handling the truly malevolent with kid gloves. Whereas I agree with his final sentence, most people don't like negative news reports because they are one-sided, more often than not. This especially is true regarding the Iraq conflict, of which the MSM has nothing positive to say. The meeting of goals, aid given, or anything remotely beneficial is ignored, while body counts and mahem are treated in excruciating detail. Whether one supports the Iraq effort or not, reports from the MSM offer no context or well-rounded portrayal of the events-in-question. Even if folks dislike negativity in reporting for more mundane reasons, such as the truth being a bitter pill, that's a normal response, and a far cry from ideological kinship to terrorists.

So thanks, Rog, for your heavy-handed approach and moral turpitude. If I wanted clueless political rhetoric, I'd tune in to NPR, or read the text of a Bush speech. The good news is, if I want to read about the symbolic similarities between a War of the Worlds-type conquest and America careening across the Middle East like a blind colossus on stilts, I know who to call.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Twisting the Knife with a Smile

President Bush was so buoyed by the warm reception he was given in Albania that he immediately gave all 3 million Albanians American citizenship, provided they learn Spanish. The offer was withdrawn when Bush found out most Albanians haven't broken any U.S. laws.

And people wonder why I love Ann Coulter.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

The Reliability of Broken Watches

Stop the presses! Dig out the smelling salts, and mark this day on your calendars! President Bush actually did something with which I agree:

Bush announced no new federal dollars for stem cell research, which supporters say holds the promise of disease cures, and his order would not allow researchers to do anything they couldn't do under existing restrictions.

His executive order encourages scientists to work with the government to add other kinds of stem cell research to the list of projects eligible for federal funding - so long as it does not create, harm or destroy human embryos.

A tip of the hat, folks, for this may not pass our way, again.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Compassionate Cretinism

From Rasmussen Reports:

Only 20 percent of American voters want to revive the controversial federal immigration bill that has the backing of business groups, Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, President Bush and Democratic Senate leadership.

Fifty-one percent of respondents said they prefer smaller steps than the comprehensive approach taken in the proposal. Another 16 percent want the immigration plan put off until next year.

Rasmussen polling reports also found that 69 percent of voters would favor an approach to the issue focused on enforcement and security approach rather than on legalizing undocumented immigrants.


Further proving that political blindness shadows only his open contempt for the average American citizen, Bush continued his phantasmagorical immigration balderdash at a National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast (rice and refried beans on the menu, I'm sure, with a Tancredo pinata, afterwards):

“Isn’t it a fabulous country where a migrant grandfather can come and have a dream and work hard, and there’s his grandson talking about the promise of America in front of the president of the Untied (sic) States and his classmates,” Bush said. “That’s the beauty of America.”

“We must meet our moral obligation to treat newcomers with decency and show compassion to the vulnerable and exploited,” Bush said at the prayer breakfast, “because we’re called to answer both the demands of justice and the call for mercy.”

This is like pouring syrup on a dungheap, then screeching "Dessert!", while handing out spoons to all the kiddies. It might look nice at first glance, but stinks to high heaven on closer inspection. It's interesting that our illustrious president utters these and similar remarks at a time when the immigration problem--particularly the illegal facet--is the most contentious issue in our country. The man's more out of touch with the reality in front of him than Patsy Cline in a mosh pit. Poll after condemning poll lists the same results; Americans are fed up with third worlders breaking into their country, taking their jobs, diluting their culture, and violating their laws (and their women) with impunity. Bush responds with his "Amnesty By Any Other Name" solution, AKA the "No American Left Unshafted" Act. The president's rose-colored speeches lack substance. Notice that he makes no mention of a legal immigrant grandfather, but a "migrant" one. How touching. And the anchor-baby grandson, man, his story brings a tear to my eye. I had no idea that the "beauty of America" meant benevolence toward those who make raspberries at our just laws. When Bush speaks of "moral obligation," he means amnesty; when he talks about "decency and compassion," he means evicting Americans from jobs they just won't do, so southern sub-literates can take their places; and when he glowingly gushes about "justice and mercy," he means an undeserved, cheater's path to citizenship.

I don't speak Spanish; nor do I speak B.S., but I can translate it, with a little work.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Happy Father's Day!

To all the fathers out there who've stuck with their children through thick and thin, who love them with all their hearts, and who present them with a godly example.

This one's for you.

And to my own father, who's still with us after suffering a debilitating stroke. He grows stronger every day, with the good Lord's help. I have no doubt he'll be his old self again, someday in the near future.

God bless you all.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Interpreting My Own Se'f

This is a small clarification of the last post. If anyone took my words as a personal attack or as hatred toward a select group of believers, they were not intended as such. I'm passionate on the topic of biblical truth and accuracy, and I take it very seriously. I don't consider a literal interpretation of Genesis a salvational necessity, but I do consider it an important subject. The further we move away from acceptance of scripture, the more we open ourselves to worldly or even satanic influence, in my opinion. That bothers me, which hopefully explains my tone a little more. Don't mistake this for backpedaling; I stand by everything I said.

We're all friends, here. Perhaps I should use the term compadres, given the increasing third world attributes of my home country. I may disagree, or shake my head in bewilderment at something you've said. I might even laugh at you, sometimes. But I'll not call you names or run you off or put a voodoo hex on you. I like the discussions that evolve from posts, and I even appreciate the comments that challenge my own. Butter sharpens iron, ya know.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Fundamental Truth

I consider myself a Christian fundamentalist. What this means is that I believe the Holy Bible is more than a book of fairy tales. I believe that it is God's Word for the ages, significant to all men, in all times and places. I reject the notion that He uplifted Man out of the muck and slime from the world's basement, ushering him through a slow, painstaking process of molecule to mold to wriggling worm to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal to human. Embracing such means rejecting scripture, for it's clear that the Word teaches no such thing. Genesis tells us that God created Man in His image, that he was fashioned in this way from the beginning. You either believe that, or not. Don't tell me, however, that the Bible doesn't lead one to this conclusion; it allows no other conclusion, if one is honest with himself in his studies. The lengths some people go to in ridiculing and denying the Genesis creation story sadden and confound me. I especially find mystifying the idea that "Adam and Eve weren't real people. The Earth wasn't created in six days. God used symbolism in these passages in revealing truths to us about Himself." Really? That sounds like something a hippie might've stuttered at Woodstock, after holing up in his VW van with a bong for a few hours. If the Genesis account doesn't mean what it says, pray tell how we determine what it does mean? Should I consult a palantir, or perhaps John Travolta? Maybe Richard Dawkins can sell me a clue. The Bible is reliable because it means what it says. If it's open to individual interpretation, then it means nothing at all. We rightly consider people who utilize this tactic in discussing the Constitution of the United States as ignorant or dishonest; yet many accept the same when addressing the Bible. Genesis tells us that death is a direct result of Man's fall from grace, part of a curse on the creation. How do we harmonize this with the evolutionary insistence that Man is a product of eons of birth, propagation, and death in a vicious cycle of misery, which culminated in monkey boy gaining an intellectual edge over the other beasts of the field? You cannot believe this and accept scripture at face-value. Isn't it logically inconsistent when someone says: "I believe the Bible is God's Holy Word, except for the parts I consider unmitigated crap."? Jesus believed in Adam, Noah, and Jonah. Paul believed in Adam, as well. Jesus' geneology assumes Adam was more than a figment of some kooky desert nomad's imagination. Who are we to question our Creator and Savior? Was Jesus confused, when he spoke of them as flesh-and-blood people?

I think much of today's attitude about scripture may be attributed to the "higher criticism" movement, which began in the "Enlightenment" (there's a misnomer, if I ever saw one). This trend attempted a deconstruction and neutering of scripture, sapping it into irrelevance for some, and removing the threatening and insensitive aspects for others. The goal was--and still is--calling into question the Bible's validity, from both historical and spiritual perspectives. Our world has never recovered from it. Whole churches have sprung up in its shadow. And so now we have so-called Christians making comments such as: "I don't believe a big ol' fishy swallered a feller named Jonah. That's bunk." It's always characterized in the most asinine terms imaginable. My question is whyever not? You don't deny that God crafted the universe, shaped the Earth, and breathed life into Man--and created all of the above out of nothing--but you find His preserving a man's life in a fish's belly for three days beyond ridiculous? I wish you could hear yourselves. You don't even realize how remarkably absurd that sounds.

Scripture is our primary method of understanding God. It is our best insight into His nature. I reject that it's a convoluted mess of symbols, allegories, and nifty little stories that have no basis in reality. A God who would commission such a tome is one I have no interest in meeting. He is a God without substance, lighter than a whim, and just as phony.

I would write more, but being a good little fundamentalist, I'm off to blast someone who doesn't think in lock-step with me straight to kingdom come. Hey, I'm just doing my part in perpetuating the stereotype.

Monday, June 11, 2007

The Islamic Connection

This past weekend, a commenter at Vox's suggested that the commonplace terrorist acts and violence in Israel find little or no motivation in Islam. I asked him some pointed questions, which he responded to without answering. I'll elaborate on those questions, here, as food for thought.

If Islam plays no significant role in this chaos, then why is it that:

1. "Palestinian" Arab Christians--who are like their Muslim brethren of the region in every regard save their religious beliefs--are not targeting and murdering innocent civilians, utilizing suicide bombings as the method of carrying this out?

2. The terrorist organizations responsible, and those individuals and their family members who make up their foot soldiers, characterize everything they do in religious terms.

3. We find similarities between suicide bombings and the long tradition within the Islamic world of dying for one's religion while simultaneously committing acts of violence against infidels.

Until someone can answer these questions in a coherent fashion that doesn't require besmirching Jews for humanity's ills, I'll continue believing as I have for years: that Islam not only plays a part, but an integral one.

Saturday, June 9, 2007

Pirates of the Caribbean: Logic's End

Even checking your brain at the door won't help this movie make sense.

I greatly enjoyed the first installment in the series. The sequel didn't hold up to the first; still, it was a good movie. The third is a complete joke. It's as if the screenwriters got together, with one half-wit declaring: "I have an idea! Let's make this film insane! Let's cut out the heroism, goodness, and logical progression and replace it with mind-numbing action and inexplicable behavior from the protagonists! Whaddaya say, fellas?" The others grin and nod until their heads rattle, then set about creating a movie as reasonable as shouting "Full steam ahead!" in an iceberg field.

The story offers us no heroes with whom we can relate, only a gaggle of back-stabbing idiots who all deserve to kick their last beneath a gallow's pole. I would've paid extra for that. Johnny Depp's character is demoted to the role of comic relief, hovering about the periphery and acting the fool for most of the running time. Orlando Bloom's Will Turner has the onscreen presence of a doorstop. And Keira Knightly's Elizabeth has made an incredible transformation: from frilly, feminine lady in the first film, to Amazonian she-panther in the third. With her smouldering expressions and delicate beauty, she's all woman--from the neck up. Otherwise, she's built like an undernourished ten-year-old schoolboy. I'm sorry, but I cannot take seriously a girl-child who weighs, at most, 110 pounds in lead boots thrashing the living daylights out of burly pirates who pick their teeth with dirks all day and call keel-hauling "good sport." Female buccaneers existed in the heyday of piracy, but they were far from common. The rare few who survived long enough to forge a name for themselves weren't stick-thin imps with fencing skills that would send Errol Flynn fleeing into his cups in terror. But in the PC movie realm, women can bodyslam the likes of Andre the Giant, and can out-fight, out-spit, out-chew, and out-cuss the most venomous devil in the bunch. Imagine if Stallone's movie, Over the Top, were remade, today. His nemesis would be a woman.

When the final credits rolled, I saw people quietly filing out, with looks on their faces as if to say: "What the !@#$%^&* did I just see?"

Considering the good acting and fantastic special effects, the movie has some value. I also can understand the desire to see it for the sake of completion, after having viewed the first two films. But don't expect a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy. You won't find it on this sinking ship.

Thursday, June 7, 2007

A Myth Debunked

For everyone's edification:

. . .a thorough review of open-source material demonstrates conclusive and widespread cooperation between former members of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime and terrorists from the Iraqi al-Qaida network.

Dozens of former Saddam Hussein loyalists captured by U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq were found to be working with al-Qaida or linked to their operations.

While the Bush administration contended there was evidence of a Saddam Hussein/al-Qaida connection before the war, those assertions have come under heavy criticism, especially from Democrats who contend they and others were deceived about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. However, as WND reported last year, pre-war documents posted online by the Pentagon included a letter from a member of Saddam's intelligence apparatus indicating al-Qaida and the Taliban had a relationship with the regime prior to the 9/11 attacks.

The article provides a plethora of evidence backing the above contention. So what we have is a case of the media lying and obfuscating for years--or indulging in an uninformed smear-campaign, at best. Of course, lies and ignorance emanating from the MSM come as less of a surprise than George Bush hoisting a sign at a La Raza demonstration. What is surprising, and disheartening, is that people believed--and continue believing--what the MSM says. I wonder how many pundits and politicians who have spent years attacking the president and America itself on this issue will admit their error and apologize? Probably no more than the number of women who would feel safe stranded on a desert island with Bill Clinton and a crate of Viagra.

Monday, June 4, 2007

A Load of McCrap

Proving that he can lie with the best of them, John "Bueno Gringo" McCain said this about U.S. immigration policy at a golf course speech: "The old rules are not workable and enforceable. We've certainly proved that over the last 20 years.''

Man, that's hilarious. The government has spent twenty years doing nothing about immigration, except creating more incentives for illegal aliens to hop the border, and ignoring or making excuses for the ones already here. That's the only fact verified in the last two decades. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

Congress "failed you,'' McCain said. "We passed a law in 1986 that said we'd give amnesty to some people and now we have 12 million more,'' illegal immigrants.

So the solution is adding insult to injury, as well as worsening the initial injury? This is like saying that the only way to mend a hairline fracture is with a compound fracture. That's brilliant, John. Presidential, even.

In response to a question from the audience about deportations, McCain said: "In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France. They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America.''

Of course, he neglected mentioning that those poor, downtrodden ghettoized folks in France are mostly self-segregating Muslims, who are little more than fifth columnists desirous of transforming France into a sharia state. Setting this inconvenient tidbit aside, his argument still holds no water. The government created and exacerbated the immigrant problem in the U.S. That tending to it poses difficulties is not surprising news, nor does it provide Congress and the president a pass on addressing these issues. No one expects a cakewalk. His comments amount to: "We screwed up and shirked our duties. We held our countrymen's views on mass immigration in contempt. Now fixing the situation we tailored means getting our hands dirty. How dare you ask or expect us to decrease our comfort level." He also blithely sidesteps the discomfiting reality that these folks are causing us problems right now--in terms of economic drain, assimilation, and crime. One final note: had those holding the reins of power in France protected their country's borders and practiced a little discernment about who was allowed within, they wouldn't be dealing with uprisings and large-scale violence and car-burnings, would they?

France has a lesson for us, all right; just not the one McCain suggests.


Just thought I'd pass along this link detailing some of France's recent responses to illegal immigration.

Saturday, June 2, 2007

Rove-ing Toward Gomorrah

Published reports indicate that Karl Rove is an atheist or agnostic--certainly not a Christian, by any stretch of the word. I've seen no refutation of this assertion from Rove or the White House, so I assume it's true.

Taking this as an accurate characterization, I find myself asking the question: If George W. Bush is a devout Christian--as he has portrayed himself--why in the world would he choose a nonbeliever as his chief advisor? Does this decision make any sense to my readers? Was there no better candidate available in the United States of America?

I think this calls into question just how seriously Bush takes Christianity, and makes dubious his claim of being a follower of Jesus. As a Christian, it is inconceivable to me that I would appoint as my special advisor one who disagrees with me on so fundamental an issue as God's existence.

If you're a Christian, would you entrust yourself to the advice of an atheist or agnostic in making decisions that affect the lives of millions?