Saturday, May 31, 2008
SUSAN SARANDON, who appeared in three films last year and won kudos for her TV movie "Bernard and Doris," is still not a contented soul. She says if John McCain gets elected, she will move to Italy or Canada. She adds, "It's a critical time, but I have faith in the American people."
Promise, dear Susie? And will you take that big, dumb, gangly, scarecrow shack-up partner of yours along, as well? The one who’s large on acting talent and teeny tiny on intelligence quotient? Pretty please, with sugar on top? Heck, I’d consider voting for McAmnesty twice, if you’ll sail right off the edge of the world.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
U.S. soldiers stationed at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo may be stunned to find three wooden crosses stripped from the exterior grounds of their chapel in coming weeks – and many never saw it coming.
Several high-ranking officers have met behind closed doors to discuss plans for the crosses. They have decided to remove, and perhaps destroy, the Christian symbols located outside Peacekeeper's Chapel in the name of free exercise of religion.
It takes a singularly warped mentality to believe that repressing the prevailing religion’s symbols is acting in the name of free religious exercise.
Lt. Col. William Jenkins, 35th Infantry Division's Kosovo Force 9 command chaplain, told WND, "The removal of the crosses … is bringing the chapel into line with long-standing regulations and policies that apply to every U.S. Army chapel around the world and that are supported by all faith groups in the U.S. Army."
Jenkins cited the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as validation for the cross removal, saying it guarantees every American the right to the free exercise of religion.
I understand. After all, if a cross looms over a doorway, it catches and dissipates all Islamic prayers to Allah, New Age pleas to the crystalloids of Alpha Centauri, and Buddhist conversations with vaunted ancestors. It’s amazing what a couple of wooden crossbars can do. I’d like to ask Lt. Col. William “Witless” Jenkins how one’s freedom of religion is nullified by an inanimate object standing in a chapel-yard. Our military’s in trouble, if this is the kind of idiot it’s entrenching in the position of Lt. Col. He’s a perfect example of how political correctness not only destroys liberty, but also the intellect.
One person stationed in Kosovo became concerned about freedom of religious expression in the military after WND reported the Army deliberately shut down a chaplain's Baptist service at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in Iraq. The soldier expressed agitation at a perceived double standard after an American sniper accused of shooting a Quran for target practice faced disciplinary action and removal from Iraq for desecrating the religious property.
"It is very discouraging as a Christian soldier to see our Army punish him for destroying a Quran, but then it pays a private company to destroy some crosses," the soldier said. "I feel it is a slap in the face to me, my Lord and my freedom."
Unfortunately, the new American model for religious freedom entails tolerating, appeasing, and debasing onself before every religious tradition, except the one upon which Western civilization was built.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Those of you who saw “V” may know where I’m going with this. I assume that those who have never heard of it live in mountain caves, venturing to town only to use the internet.
“V” is about aliens who superficially look like humans, but in fact are bipedal reptilian creatures wearing disguises. These beings invade in massive numbers, first claiming that they come in peace, but later dispensing with the charade and enslaving humanity. A resistance network hits back, and most of the series centers around its efforts at defeating the “Visitors.”
Imagine Nazis from space, and you have the gist of it.
It’s interesting that Vox dubs Hillaroid Clinton “The Lizard Queen,” because it parallels this series, whether intentionally or not. One of the extraterrestrial lizard-leaders goes by the name Diana. She’s portrayed as murderous, uber-ambitious, and completely ruthless. Rewatching the series after so many years, I turned to my wife and said with a laugh: “You know, she’s Hillaroid Clinton! Literally!”
So if you ever want to see how a power-mad reptile looks and acts, watch this prescient show. I assume Hillaroid uses it as a blueprint for world domination.
Which also explains her penchant for menu dainties like kiddie a la mode and rare rodent.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
I think the idea presents ethical and practical problems that Rush can’t see, since his massive ego blots out the light of Reason.
Take the ethical issue: shouldn’t Demonrats choose their own candidate, rather than having one artificially shut out, and another empowered by people who have zero intention of voting Demonrat in the general election? Is that ethical? Is it honest? Furthermore, I wonder how Rush would take liberals pulling the same stunt in GOP primaries? Somehow, I don’t think he’d be grinning and shrugging it off, or crowing about the crafty nature of his ideological enemies’ tactics. In fact, I think he’d denounce it as another in an unending line of dirty, below-the-belt tricks in which the leftist party reliably indulges.
As for his plan’s practicality: assuming that a significant percentage of Rush’s listening audience follows his advice and votes for Hillaroid, the possibility arises of her winning the nomination—which in turn increases her chances of becoming president. After all, Rush’s dittoheads will have aided her in hurdling the Obama obstacle to her ambitions. If Rush gives himself credit for keeping her in the race and lengthening the Demonrat nomination process, then he also must accept blame if, Heaven forbid, Hillaroid ascends to the presidency. He can’t pat himself on the back for hurting the liberals, while giving himself a pass, if she wins.
I believe that his “Operation: Chaos” has a high probability of backfiring and becoming “Operation: Shoot Yourself in the Foot.” In fact, I find the idea so questionable and fraught with problems that I’ve asked myself if it’s a deliberate stealth attempt at electing Hillaroid. I’m not a grassy knoll type, but the wanton idiocy of Rush’s Master Plan makes me wonder.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
I’m sure you’ve heard about the rampant persecutions of Jews during the Crusades, that these armed pilgrimages were anti-Semitic ventures, in practice, if not in proclamation. This is a common misconception; the truth is somewhat more complex than the current notion that Christian history is one long orgy of hate and violence.
When Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade, commoners and lords gathered into large bands and armies as they prepared for the long journey to the Holy Land. Some of these had ulterior motives for joining the grand spectacle, and one such desire was utilizing the Crusade as an excuse to attack Jews. However, it’s important to keep several pertinent facts in mind when assessing these events:
1. The primary purposes of the Crusade were the liberation of the Holy Land, aiding the Byzantines, and hopefully reuniting the Eastern and Western churches. Killing, robbing, or roughing up Jews never was part of the equation.
2. The bands that mistreated Jews were rogue elements within the Crusade movement, no more representative of the Crusade’s intentions than white supremacists are spokesmen for American domestic social policy (Robert Byrd being an exception who proves the rule, of course).
3. The Pope offered explicit and public condemnation of those who persecuted Jews. He even sent emissaries to the groups-in-question, in an attempt at dissuading them from their nefarious deeds. Furthermore, he excommunicated some of the ringleaders.
4. Many local bishops in areas under attack opened their homes and took the Jews in, protecting and hiding them. Sometimes this worked; just as often, their pursuers discovered their locations, raided the sanctuaries, and dragged them out into the streets, where they enacted the robberies and murders with which we’re so familiar.
Given the above information, the First Crusade (1095-1099) hardly sounds like a genocidal undertaking. No organized, widespread attempt at eradicating Jews on the part of Europeans ever occurred in the Crusades.
As for Jerusalem, many popular treatments of the subject inform us that the Crusaders came to the city and “liberated” it by slaughtering its citizenry, including innocent Jews. Two points bear mentioning, here:
First, imaginative authors have exaggerated the number killed in the slaughter, even going so far as stating that the streets ran with blood to the depths of horses’ bridles. This is patent nonsense; such “rivers of blood” would have required the deaths of everyone living in the entire region, much less the population of Jerusalem, itself. The slaughter happened, but not on the scale depicted by anti-Western, anti-Christian, or sensationalistic authors.
Second, viewing past events through a modern prism becomes problematic for someone interested in historical accuracy. In the Medieval world of warfare, besieged cities that surrendered early in the fighting, having inflicted light casualties, received merciful treatment once the gates opened. Conversely, cities that put up a stiff resistance and made the siege costly for the conquering army were considered fair game by the besiegers, once the walls were breached. The prevalent attitude was that everything in the city belonged to the victors—including the people, themselves. Our modern sensibilities cringe from such perceived barbarity, but our feelings hold little relevance when discussing the minds of people far removed from us in time. Whether or not you find the outlook morally virtuous or repugnant, it was an accepted convention of the time and place.
What does this have to do with the Jews? It’s simple really: the Crusaders saw them as combatants, since they aided in the city’s defense. To them, people who manned the walls and used anti-siege tactics against them, who took up arms and killed their soldiers, were far from innocent. What percentage of the Jews took part in the defense remains unknown to us, but historical sources suggest that a significant number participated. They received treatment equal to that of the city’s Muslim defenders. It’s also worth noting that some Jews escaped, or were ransomed; the slaughter was far from total.
None of the above should be taken as excusing or dismissing evil behavior. Rather, it is an explanation of what actually happened, with an emphasis on truth, not myth.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Most of us know why theists cling so pathetically to their incorrect definition of the word "atheism". And the clinging truly is pathetic-- the atheists on this group state in plain English that they simply lack a belief in God like they lack a belief in other fictional characters. Theists know that when the burden of proof is shifted where it belongs--on them, for making the outrageous assertions in question--they are thoroughly fucked. Since they realize they cannot carry out a debate honestly--and let's be honest with ourselves, none of them can--they cling to this strawman like a beloved childhood toy they can't bear to part with.
If this particular atheist looked up “Projection” in the dictionary, he’d see a picture of his own goofy face as an accompanying illustration. Of course, that’s assuming he owns a dictionary and understands how to use it—a highly dubious proposition, given the mountainous evidence to the contrary. Apparently, accusing others of one’s personal faults relieves guilt. I’ve participated in countless discussions with atheists online, and, without exception, they distorted the definitions of words, twisting them right out of their conventional meanings. They made Bill Clinton resemble George Washington during the cherry tree incident. It’s as if dissemblance is an inherent trait in the atheist personality. Sure, one can be a liar without being an atheist, but it seems one can’t manage acceptance of atheism without a toxic dose of dishonesty. “Lying is OK, as long as I’m doing the lying,” is not a proven method for winning friends or building respect. Conversely, it guarantees that people despise you as a hypocrite. It’s just more of that typical hubris so prevalent amongst the godless.
As I’ve said before, and will no doubt say again, atheism goes beyond mere unbelief. It’s a positive assertion of a negative: There is no God. The reason why we have words like “atheist” and “agnostic” is not that we love linguistic variety; these words are not synonymous. Rather, we need different words describing distinct philosophical outlooks. An atheist is not the same animal as an agnostic, as a brief perusal of Webster’s will attest. If you use these words interchangeably, you demonstrate your own ignorance or willingness to move goalposts at the drop of a hat, in service to your agenda.
If atheists want to influence their surrounding society for the better, they first must stop griping about the motes in others’ eyes, while tripping over the planks jutting from theirs. It’s worth noting that following this advice means shedding that armor of prevarication, which puts one squarely on the road to recovery from atheism. So your choices seem clear: discard atheism, or continue in your role in most people’s minds as Rat Fink of the Century. You decide.
Monday, May 5, 2008
In da war ‘ginst paleface.
Ahm fightin' da U.S.A. of K.K.K.
Diss mah repartee?
Ah’ll bussacap in yo A.
Kin I git a witness
To da fitness
Uv a yung blood frum da hood?
Ize throwin’ down like Earp
On da streets uv Deadwood.
My Ebonics Iz clear;
I won’t be misundazstood.
I’m aimin’ fo’ Wormwood
Like Robin uv Shuhwood.
I be leadin’ da priesthood,
So check yo’sef, peckerwood.
Ahm da hip-hop pastuh.
A white man’s disastuh.
I hate ya if yo skin iz alabastuh.
An’ my mind’s as lethal as a
I’m Wright’s yung crony.
I luv macaroni,
Won’ tuch a calzone, or
But like mos’ mah homies,
I call “Phony baloney!”
On dat silly instatushun
I lissen ta Ice Cube,
Not da Byootiful Danube.
Fo’git about Bach.
Ah’ll settle fo Tupac.
Ahm Publik Enema Numbah Wun,
An’ ahm comin’ aftah Whitey wit’ a loded gun!
Thursday, May 1, 2008
"When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education – which should include abstinence education and teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals.
“But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
That final line is one of the most vomitous statements I’ve heard gush from a politician’s mouth. It tells you everything you need to know about Osama’s moral center, which is a black hole (no pun intended).
The last I checked, be-bopping into the car’s backseat with your boyfriend so he can demonstrate the suspension’s springiness isn’t a “mistake.” “Hooking up” after the all-night kegger, while your parents think you’re sleeping over at Molly’s house isn’t an “oops” moment. The sexual act is just that—an act. And a conscious one, to boot. It requires forethought and effort. I’m so tired of the deconstruction of language. Deliberate acts are mistakes, and mistakes are intentional acts. Uh-huh. Babies don’t mysteriously fall out of the sky and land in teenage girls’ stomachs; there is no stork flapping overhead, waiting to bomb teen twits with screaming infants: I don’t care what mommy told you when you were five. Personal responsibility lies in the same grave as the T-rex and the dodo, it seems. A mistake is tripping over my own feet, as I make my way to the bathroom in the dark, in the middle of the night. Or mashing my thumb with a hammer as I drive a stake into Hillary’s cold, shriveled heart. Those are legitimate and unintentional errors. Getting it on after the prom because it’s the “in” thing to do extends somewhat beyond the category of “Yikes! Didn’t mean to do that!”
As for Osama’s perverse definition of punishment, babies are punishments in the same sense that strawberries are dire consequences for the vines from which they sprang. Is the logical outcome of your actions a punishment? Calling his statement asinine is unfair to asinine idiots everywhere. God isn’t sitting up in Heaven on a cloud, saying: “I smite thee, oh Betsy Jones, with a howling infant of your own.” That’s not how it works. Rather, God created a biological mechanism by which children are brought into this world. It’s called “procreation.” Look it up. I understand that the sex act isn’t just about producing children, but it’s inextricably intertwined with the pleasure aspects. If you don’t understand this simple, demonstrable fact, I have three words for you: keep it zipped. And pray that someday, someone will come along and help you with your rectal-cranium-insertion problem.
What Osama really means is this: “If my daughters reach puberty and do something stupid and irresponsible, I don’t think they should suffer the consequences of their actions—even if this means an innocent child loses his life. Instead, I think they should live in an artificial world that exists nowhere outside our house, where actions have no reactions, and causes have no effects.”
How’s that for family values?