Tuesday, July 31, 2007

"For the Wetback, Everything; for the American, Nothing!"

Indeed, Barack Obama is one heck of an enlightened "person of color," as is illustrated in his recent praise of a court decision that castrates Hazelton, Pennsylvania's "Illegal Immigration Relief Act." A slight digression: is a "person of color" who is half-white more aptly described as a "person of diluted color?"

Either way, Obama called the judge's ruling "a victory for all Americans." This "victory" entailed halting efforts to stop landlords from renting to known illegal aliens. In what utopian plane of existence or topsy turvy dimensional offshoot is this a win for Americans? Since illegal aliens are more likely to commit crimes and carry diseases than citizens, how is deterring them from entering or staying in one's city a negative? And shouldn't states and cities with popular support in these matters have the right to decide for themselves?

"Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not," Munley (the judge) wrote.

This is a cute, legalistic way of saying: "I suggest we ignore problems associated with illegal migration." At stake here is whether or not states or cities should have the right of handling illegal immigrants, when the federal government shirks its duty in addressing the issue. In this judge's opinion, the answer is no. Furthermore, I'd like an elaboration on how one's mere presence in this country can be a crime, yet the criminal-in-question has a constitutional right to become a tenant on a particular tract of land within our borders. This judge has the same grasp of logic and our Constitution that Porky Pig has of crisp elocution.

Munley also wrote that Hazleton's law was at odds with current federal immigration policy, which he said avoids "excessive enforcement" against illegals so as not to jeopardize foreign relations. Hazleton, he said, failed to consider "the implications of the ordinances on foreign policy."

More garbage. Federal "immigration policy" in a nutshell is "Let's make them all Americans," which solves nothing and creates a host of new obstacles. Apparently, anything less than citizenship, full constitutional rights, and a voter's registration card and driver's license is "excessive." And since when does the U.S. allow foreign opinion dictation rights on policy? That's certainly not the approach the executive has taken in Iraq or Afghanistan. I suppose we should make an exception when it comes to Mexico's role in determining who should and shouldn't be an American.

Obama, addressing the National Council of La Raza's annual convention in Miami Beach last week, called the debate that defeated the Senate immigration bill "both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights" and pointed to his marching in the May 2006 immigration rallies in his appeal for the group's support.

This is one of the more hilarious things I've read in a long time. The irony of dubbing opponents of the failed amnesty bill racists at a La Raza meeting doesn't escape me (La Raza means "The Race," and the group's motto is "for The Race, everything, for those outside The Race, nothing!"). You know all you need to know about someone who would sully himself in a public speaking engagement with these people. In his accusation of nativism leveled toward those who don't embrace amnesty, he stands on the same side of the Rio Grande as G.W. Bush.

Obama continued: "Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year," he said. "Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk – because I walked.

That depends on where the rally took place. If it happened at the border, chances are, you had to run to keep up.

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Stunned by the Obvious

For weeks, commentators and analysts in the Muslim world have been grappling with the implications that a Muslim doctor and engineer, at the pinnacle of their society, may have been behind the failed car bombings in London and Glasgow last month.

The question being asked in many educated and official circles is this: how could such acts be committed by people who have supposedly dedicated their lives to scientific rationalism and to helping others?

The answer, some scientists and analysts say, may lie in the way that a growing movement of fervent Muslims use science as reinforcement of religious belief, rather than as a means for questioning and exploring the foundations of the natural world.

Muslim scientists are among the most politicized groups in the region, and the Muslim approach to the scientific method, in the most extreme cases, can squelch the freewheeling curiosity at the heart of scientific discovery.

"Fundamentalist-type attitudes are relatively common among people in applied science in the Muslim world," Edis said. "The conception has been that modern science is developed outside, and we need to bring it into our societies without it corrupting our culture."

In other words, science is a tool for furthering an ideology rather than a means of examining core beliefs.

"Wherever you go in the Muslim world, those who are most violent and most extremist are the ones who have the most scientific tendencies," Abu Hanieh said. "One could even argue that sciences might contribute to increasing one's radical thinking if the radical finds justifications to his philosophy through science," he said.


First off, the idea that someone is rational in his outlook simply because he makes his living in a scientific or technical profession is a non sequitur, as Vox Day and others have demonstrated many times. When one delves into the "scientific" explanations for life on Earth in its current form, it becomes clear that scientists are as susceptible to ideology and faith-based conclusions as the poor benighted masses they look down upon from the lofty heights of Mt. Elitism.

As for Islam, it has a long history of utilizing science in furtherance or support of its tenets, not in finding the truth. This is neither a new development, nor an "extreme" one. I notice the consistent use of labels like "extreme" and "radical" in describing normal behaviors of Muslims that constitute logical extensions of their beliefs.

Apparently, some "moderates" (Muslims who can't afford bombvests) in the Islamic world have excavated the lie that others unearthed a long time ago: that poverty or ignorance causes spontaneous Muslim combustion. In reality, ideas do.

Friday, July 27, 2007

I Got Your "Healing" Right Here

Disgraced former prosecutor Mike Nifong acknowledged Thursday there is "no credible evidence" that three Duke lacrosse players committed any of the crimes he accused them of more than a year ago, offering for the first time a complete and unqualified apology.

Wow, Sherlock, you're a day late and a dollar short on that brilliant deduction. I wonder why you couldn't see this while you were ramming the case home like a stiletto in the back?

"We all need to heal," Nifong said. "It is my hope we can start this process today."

Any time you hear someone utter nonsense like this in public, just go ahead and assume he has an invisible tattoo across his forehead that says: LIBERAL TWIT. Yes, I'm sure you have a long and arduous healing process ahead of you, Dingdong, after doing your level best to assassinate the characters of those three innocent lacrosse players. I'm sure it expended a great deal of energy. What an idiot.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Two-steppin' Toward Disaster

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney lashed out at his top Democratic rivals Wednesday, saying their liberal views are out of step with the nation.

Given the GOP's "damn the citizenry, full-speed ahead" tactic regarding amnesty for illegal migrants--despite overwhelming American contempt for the idea--as well as prosecuting a war that becomes more unpopular by the day--I don't think Romney is in a position to lecture the Demonrats about being in or out of step with the nation. I can think of no better reason to skip voting for him than this absurd observation.

When you're dancing like a drunk on stilts, don't expect to be taken seriously by anyone in your criticism of how others cut a rug.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Harry Potter and the Murky Moral Worldview

I saw the new Harry Potter movie over the weekend. I thought it was the weakest entry in the series, but that's not the point of this post. I want to address the mindset of these movies. Each depicts adults as either evil, superfluous, kindly but ineffectual, or obtuse to the point of mental retardation. Have you noticed this trend? Those who harbor the keenest understanding are children, for the most part. They are more observant, empathetic, and sensitive to the realities around them. They are more reliable in a fix than anyone else.

Another problem with the storyline is its rebelliousness, and its manipulation of the audience into embracing persistent disobedience as reasonable. Adult rules all to often are portrayed as stifling, moronic, or counterintuitive. Since this is the case, Harry and his friends consistently violate them at every available opportunity; rules are made to be broken. Often, they have no choice but to smash the barriers set before them. This theme runs throughout the movies, starting with the first one.

The cinematic preoccupation with enlightened children in a world of stupid grownups is one that began in the 1980s, I believe, with movies like E.T. It thrives today in the Harry Potter series.

I find the films mildly diverting, with their fantastic special effects and interesting creatures. But I've never understood the popularity of the movies or books. I've read literally dozens of novels and short stories that offer a much grander and more coherent basis for moviemaking, and viewpoints with moral clarity, not mixed or detrimental messages.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Line of Demarkation

Recently, a commenter insinuated that there's no moral difference between abortion and capital punishment. I thought I'd take the opportunity to address this bizarre notion at more length.

As I've said elsewhere, the distinction between the two is the same as the difference between my going next door and shooting my neighbor in the head as he watches tv, versus shooting the man who just broke into my house and attempted to rape my wife and kill us both. In other words, the incongruity between them is stark. They are separated by the line drawn between innocence and guilt. With the unborn child, we're talking about someone who is innocent--whose innocence isn't even in question. There's no moral equivalency, here. Capital punishment occurs after a suspect has been accused of a crime and tried in front of a jury of his peers with representation. He has been found guilty and sentenced. He has exhausted the appeals process. So unless you believe that all human life is of equal value--from Mao-tse-Tung to Mother Theresa--with no exceptions whatsoever, following the logic shouldn't prove difficult. If you understand the distinction between innocence and guilt, the difference between abortion and capital punishment becomes apparent. If you don't comprehend the difference, I cannot imagine what a bewildering series of conundrums life must present for you.

Besides moral confusion explaining this mindset, the other possibility is intellectual dishonesty: the person making the argument knows, subconsciously at least, that his conflation of these two is nonsensical; but he remains adamant, due to his devotion to the pro-abortion agenda--an agenda which often questions the consistency of those who support the death penalty, but decry baby killing. Of course, as I have illustrated, no inconsistency exists. It also strikes me as a form of macabre humor that someone who believes women should have the legal right to butcher their unborn children would take members of the pro-life movement to task on morality--whether consistent, or otherwise.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Headline Headaches

From Word Net Daily: "Feinstein to Bush: Free Border Agents"

Bush to Feinstein: "Nah, I reserve amnesty only for illegal Messicans."


From Breitbart.com: "Report Says al-Qaida Seeks to Attack U.S."

Wow, that's like saying, "Clouds are billowy and white, except when they are storm clouds, in which case they are dark and thundery."


Elizabeth Edwards: "Hillary behaves like a man."

Big deal; so does her husband. They're both faking it.


U.S. Eyes Direct Talks with Iran

Sure, I can see it now:

U.S.: "Howdy, Iranians."

Iran: "Die, Great Satan!"

U.S.: "Hey, we're makin' progress! They called us 'Great!'"


Senate Democrats refused to flinch Tuesday as the chamber moved toward a rare, all-night session of debate on legislation to bring troops home this fall.

They called for sleeping cots to be rolled into a room off the Senate floor and told members to prepare for repeated votes throughout the evening.

C'mon, we know the real reason behind the slumber party: so Ted Kennedy could sleep off the popskull, and some others could get to know their interns better.

Biased Neutrality

"I am a proud Christian. My beliefs are strong and dearly held. However, I believe religion is a private matter, so you can rest assured that my beliefs won't enter into my decision-making process, as I address issues important to the American people."

Have you ever heard a politician running for public office utter these words, or a variation thereof? I know I have, more than once. Such statements reveal all you need to know about the person declaring them: he's a liar, has weak, malleable beliefs, or will say anything to coax a vote out of you; maybe a combination of the three.

My question is: if your beliefs are sincere and powerful, how can you possibly avoid their informing every word, thought, or deed formulated in your mind? The answer is that you can't. Furthermore, if your views are legitimate, who would you want to bar them from your assessment of a situation? That's irrational. There is no such thing as total neutrality, folks. Nature abhors a vacuum, and all that. If you remove one worldview, another will take its place. Especially when dealing with "issues" important to your fellow countrymen, such as immigration, abortion, the sanctity of marriage, taxes, etc. These are not matters of simple practicality, but have moral dimensions, as well. If this frightens you, I suggest staying at home in the playpen with the other kiddies and refraining from venturing out into the big bad world of adults. Your "beliefs" may make a nice selling point for those who sleepwalk through life; otherwise, they're insipid to the point of uselessness.

Politicians and commentators love framing matters as religious vs. neutral; but that's a false dichotomy. As I said, there is no neutral, only warring worldviews. For example, is it neutral when schools exclude discussion of Intelligent Design or Creationism, while simultaneously promoting a secularistic evolutionary view of origins? Of course not. Secularism is as much a worldview as Creationism. When you remove God, the sole possible replacement for Him--godlessness--usurps His throne. This is as relevant to politics as it is to education.

If a man leaves his religious convictions at the door, what yardstick or criterion does he utilize in making decisions or choosing sides? Feelings, nothing but feeeelings? Don't be fooled into believing that irreligiosity means a nonpartisan approach; it just means running with an opposing standard.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

The Devil Made Me Do It

A man serving a 20-year sentence for murder has been rebuffed so far in his effort to sue God for breach of contract by failing to protect him from evil and turning him over to Satan who encouraged him to kill.

Pavel Mircea, 40, filed his lawsuit in the western Romanian town of Timisoara, charging God with failure to fulfill an agreement Micera alleged was made at his baptism.

"He was supposed to protect me from all evils and instead he gave me to Satan who encouraged me to kill," he charged.

A man serving a 20-year sentence for murder has been rebuffed so far in his effort to sue God for breach of contract by failing to protect him from evil and turning him over to Satan who encouraged him to kill.

Pavel Mircea, 40, filed his lawsuit in the western Romanian town of Timisoara, charging God with failure to fulfill an agreement Micera alleged was made at his baptism.

"He was supposed to protect me from all evils and instead he gave me to Satan who encouraged me to kill," he charged.

Thus far, Micera is not getting an answer to his prayer to the court for relief, either.

The Timisoara public prosecutor rejected the case, saying God is not a person in the eyes of the law and does not have a legal address where he could be served with court papers.

Too bad Daniel Webster or Clarence Darrow isn't around to represent him. It bears repeating: truly we live in the Age of Asininity.

Monday, July 9, 2007

Palestine Pacifism

I sometimes wonder what tv and school is like in the "Palestinian" territories, within the Zionist entity's borders. Maybe a possible tv commerical goes like this:

I'm a martyr
She's a martyr.
He's a martyr.
We's a martyr.
Wouldn't ya like to be a martyr, too?

Or a school cheer:

We gonna drive ya right on out!
We gonna drive ya right on out!
We gonna punch ya, smack ya, gut ya, cut ya!
Drive ya to (clap clap) the sea!

Or a mother's lullabye:

Hush, little jihadi, don't say a word.
Allah's gonna buy you a new goat herd.
And if that new goat herd gets et,
Allah's gonna buy you a minaret.
And if you make polite request,
Allah's gonna buy you a new bomb-vest.
And if that bomb-vest serves you well,
There might be one less infidel.
And while his soul's consumed in Hell,
Allah's gonna give you a demoiselle;
Seventy in all, to be precise,
Long on looks and short on lice.
You'll have an everlasting bash,
And your good deed will bring us cash.
So off to sleep; don't you deplore.
If you get killed, I'll make ten more.

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

More than a Fairy Tale

Following are some quotes mentioning Jesus gleaned from extra-biblical sources:

Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today.--Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter Three, Part Three, early 2nd century A.D.

From the same book: ...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned...--Book 20, Chapter Nine, Part One


Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.--Tacitus, Annals: Book XV, A.D. 109


He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.--Seutonius (A.D. 69-140), Lives of the Caesars, sec. 25.


The link at the top of the page lists other references to early Christianity, as well.

Return of the Living Post

It seems the "Fundamental Truth" post from June 13 still has legs. Rather than move the whole thing to the top of the page, I'll just provide this handy little link, instead.