Whitey got moves!
Friday, December 26, 2008
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Yuletide Cheer
A public school teacher in Mississippi marked down an eleven-year-old's Christmas poem assignment and told the boy to rewrite it because he used the word "Jesus," which, the instructor explained, is a name not allowed in school.
Unless used as an expletive, of course. This is what I mean, when I say that political correctness destroys the intellect. Knocking a point off a student's grade and telling him to rewrite his Christmas poem after mentioning Jesus is like jumping down someone's throat when he raises the dread specters of Pilgrims and turkey on Thanksgiving.
If you think writing about Jesus during the Christmas season is controversial, you're a maleducated moron.
As trite as it sounds, JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON. There is no holiday without Him. In fact, the very word "holiday" means "holy day," so I suppose you'll have to drop that offensive moniker, as well, and produce a new, even less galling term:
"Happy Great Ashen Faggot Day, y'all!"
And no, I'm not talking about Elton John after he tumbles down your chimney.
Unless used as an expletive, of course. This is what I mean, when I say that political correctness destroys the intellect. Knocking a point off a student's grade and telling him to rewrite his Christmas poem after mentioning Jesus is like jumping down someone's throat when he raises the dread specters of Pilgrims and turkey on Thanksgiving.
If you think writing about Jesus during the Christmas season is controversial, you're a maleducated moron.
As trite as it sounds, JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON. There is no holiday without Him. In fact, the very word "holiday" means "holy day," so I suppose you'll have to drop that offensive moniker, as well, and produce a new, even less galling term:
"Happy Great Ashen Faggot Day, y'all!"
And no, I'm not talking about Elton John after he tumbles down your chimney.
Kenyan Klam-up
I treasure Orwellian Doublespeak, no matter whence its origin:
The Kenyan government has barred unapproved contacts between the media and President-elect Barack Obama's extended family.
Family members will be required to receive permission from the government before making any public statements about their famous relative, according to the Nairobi Star.
"We are doing this because we want to ensure better flow of information," Athman Said, an under-secretary in the Ministry of Heritage, told the Obama family in Kogelo.
This is like instituting a fee for listening to the radio, in hopes of reaching a wider audience.
The Kenyan government has barred unapproved contacts between the media and President-elect Barack Obama's extended family.
Family members will be required to receive permission from the government before making any public statements about their famous relative, according to the Nairobi Star.
"We are doing this because we want to ensure better flow of information," Athman Said, an under-secretary in the Ministry of Heritage, told the Obama family in Kogelo.
This is like instituting a fee for listening to the radio, in hopes of reaching a wider audience.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
A Paean to Political Lucre
It's the most overpriced time of the year:
With creditors yelling
And Ol' Condi telling us "Be of good cheer!"
It's the most overpriced time of the year.
It's the crap-crappiest season of all:
With those holiday fleecings
and dirty palm-greasings and bailout windfalls.
It's the crap-crappiest season of all.
There'll be orgies of spending;
Mulattoes ascending;
And Dubya kicked out in the snow.
There'll be leftists a-beaming,
While we take a reaming,
As Big Brother spends all our dough.
It's the most covetous time of the year:
There'll be Middle-class scraping
And demagogues raping the whole hemisphere!
It's the most covetous time of the year!
It's the most overpriced time,
It's the crap-crappiest time,
It's the most covetous time,
It's the most lucrative time of the year!
With creditors yelling
And Ol' Condi telling us "Be of good cheer!"
It's the most overpriced time of the year.
It's the crap-crappiest season of all:
With those holiday fleecings
and dirty palm-greasings and bailout windfalls.
It's the crap-crappiest season of all.
There'll be orgies of spending;
Mulattoes ascending;
And Dubya kicked out in the snow.
There'll be leftists a-beaming,
While we take a reaming,
As Big Brother spends all our dough.
It's the most covetous time of the year:
There'll be Middle-class scraping
And demagogues raping the whole hemisphere!
It's the most covetous time of the year!
It's the most overpriced time,
It's the crap-crappiest time,
It's the most covetous time,
It's the most lucrative time of the year!
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Bushism: Part II
See Part I
(2.) I've never seen "scientific proof" of evolution, if by "evolution," we mean that humans all have a common, animalian ancestor. I'm interested in seeing that concrete evidence. What I have seen, however, is evidence that has sundry possible interpretations, and a "scientific" establishment that ignores all these interpretations, save one. If we have two prevailing preceptions, and the second fits the available evidence as well or better than the first, why toss the second and cling to the first? Because it fits your self-constructed paradigm, and brings you emotional satisfaction? Fine, but that isn't science.
It all comes down to faith, in the end.
I covered (3.) earlier, so:
(4.) The idea that all religions worship the same God is universalism. The notion that we have a multitude of pathways to God is universalism. This is a non-Christian concept. One cannot be a true Christian, and a universalist.
Christianity and Judaism: One God, Jehovah.
Islam: One god, Allah, who has a distinct personality from Jehovah.
Buddhism: Sometimes atheistic. Sometimes polytheistic. Depends upon the day of the week. Alas, since nothing is permanent, we can't even be sure of atheism or polytheism.
Hinduism: One god with more manifestations and natures than you can shake a stick at.
This is just a brief sampling. The question is: How do religions with warring views on Heaven, Hell, reincarnation, and other doctrines all point the same direction? How can they worship the same God, when they can't even agree on the number of gods that exist? Even a perfunctory study of comparative religion reveals universalism as an illogical sham.
I'm sure there's a connection between Mr. Bush's biblical non-literalism, his theistic evolutionism, and his universalism.
(2.) I've never seen "scientific proof" of evolution, if by "evolution," we mean that humans all have a common, animalian ancestor. I'm interested in seeing that concrete evidence. What I have seen, however, is evidence that has sundry possible interpretations, and a "scientific" establishment that ignores all these interpretations, save one. If we have two prevailing preceptions, and the second fits the available evidence as well or better than the first, why toss the second and cling to the first? Because it fits your self-constructed paradigm, and brings you emotional satisfaction? Fine, but that isn't science.
It all comes down to faith, in the end.
I covered (3.) earlier, so:
(4.) The idea that all religions worship the same God is universalism. The notion that we have a multitude of pathways to God is universalism. This is a non-Christian concept. One cannot be a true Christian, and a universalist.
Christianity and Judaism: One God, Jehovah.
Islam: One god, Allah, who has a distinct personality from Jehovah.
Buddhism: Sometimes atheistic. Sometimes polytheistic. Depends upon the day of the week. Alas, since nothing is permanent, we can't even be sure of atheism or polytheism.
Hinduism: One god with more manifestations and natures than you can shake a stick at.
This is just a brief sampling. The question is: How do religions with warring views on Heaven, Hell, reincarnation, and other doctrines all point the same direction? How can they worship the same God, when they can't even agree on the number of gods that exist? Even a perfunctory study of comparative religion reveals universalism as an illogical sham.
I'm sure there's a connection between Mr. Bush's biblical non-literalism, his theistic evolutionism, and his universalism.
Bushism: Part I
Our current president once again has shared his garbled religious views with an impatient public. I'll sum up by reiterating his main assertions/admissions in my own words:
1. He is not a biblical literalist.
2. He's a theistic evolutionist who believes there's "scientific proof" of evolution.
3. He believes an important message of the New Testament is that "God sent a son."
4. He believes he prays to the same god as those of different religious beliefs.
He shed no light upon how he defines "literalism," "scientific proof," or "evolution." He also didn't clarify that God sent His One and Only Begotten Son, who was God in the flesh--not just "a" son. In all fairness, perhaps that's what he meant. We don't know, because he provided just enough of an inkling to assure us that he's a confused man--and no more.
(1.) By "literalist," I suppose he's referencing those who take the Bible at face-value, such as fundamentalists. This is what gets me in hot water with various Christians, because I do take scripture at face-value. In other words, if God says something along the lines of, "This is what happened when I created the world," I don't argue with Him. I don't assume He's kidding, and I don't attempt shackling His awesome power with my imagination's limits. I don't gasp and say, "That's impossible! It doesn't fit my preconceived notions of how God works!" Nor do I view such accounts as esoteric symbolism, when nothing within the text indicates such an interpretation.
I've noticed that certain Christians reject fundamentalism because their incredulity toward the miraculous or embrace of theistic evolution impedes their acceptance. I'll just note that this entails understanding scripture according to the predilections or pronouncements of men, not according to the actual words of scripture. "I don't believe in biblical miracle stories because I don't believe in miracles" is circular reasoning.
Worse, how does one call oneself a Christian, while scoffing at the miraculous? Even within the theistic evolution framework, our existence is a miracle of rare device. Why is the story of Jonah difficult to swallow (pardon the pun), if his time in a fish's belly was the working of a God who created the entire universe from nothingness? What could be beyond such a personage as our Creator?
Even more puzzling is how some who self-identify as Christians say, "Talking snakes? Pshaw! Six-day creation? Hyuk! A Worldwide flood? Quit pulling my leg!
"But a man born of a virgin, who walked on water, fed the five thousand, and turned water into wine. . .oh, sure, I believe that. And I also have no trouble believing that he raised the dead, was murdered, buried, and rose from the grave. Oh, and He appeared to numerous people before ascending back to Heaven through the clouds. Yessiree, no problem with that."
Huh? That's a bigger disconnect than you'll find in a Swiss euthanasia center. This is what fundamentalists call "cafeteria-style" Christianity, where one goes down the line, picking and choosing certain sweet items, while tossing aside the "Brussells sprouts" of scripture. How does one laugh at the stories of cherubim with flaming swords, pillars of smoke and fire, and Egyptian plagues, while bowing in reverence to equally outrageous tales of a man who cast out demons, made the lame walk, and the blind see? I find this view far more incredible and inconsistent than general acceptance of biblical miracle stories from the Old and New Testaments.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
1. He is not a biblical literalist.
2. He's a theistic evolutionist who believes there's "scientific proof" of evolution.
3. He believes an important message of the New Testament is that "God sent a son."
4. He believes he prays to the same god as those of different religious beliefs.
He shed no light upon how he defines "literalism," "scientific proof," or "evolution." He also didn't clarify that God sent His One and Only Begotten Son, who was God in the flesh--not just "a" son. In all fairness, perhaps that's what he meant. We don't know, because he provided just enough of an inkling to assure us that he's a confused man--and no more.
(1.) By "literalist," I suppose he's referencing those who take the Bible at face-value, such as fundamentalists. This is what gets me in hot water with various Christians, because I do take scripture at face-value. In other words, if God says something along the lines of, "This is what happened when I created the world," I don't argue with Him. I don't assume He's kidding, and I don't attempt shackling His awesome power with my imagination's limits. I don't gasp and say, "That's impossible! It doesn't fit my preconceived notions of how God works!" Nor do I view such accounts as esoteric symbolism, when nothing within the text indicates such an interpretation.
I've noticed that certain Christians reject fundamentalism because their incredulity toward the miraculous or embrace of theistic evolution impedes their acceptance. I'll just note that this entails understanding scripture according to the predilections or pronouncements of men, not according to the actual words of scripture. "I don't believe in biblical miracle stories because I don't believe in miracles" is circular reasoning.
Worse, how does one call oneself a Christian, while scoffing at the miraculous? Even within the theistic evolution framework, our existence is a miracle of rare device. Why is the story of Jonah difficult to swallow (pardon the pun), if his time in a fish's belly was the working of a God who created the entire universe from nothingness? What could be beyond such a personage as our Creator?
Even more puzzling is how some who self-identify as Christians say, "Talking snakes? Pshaw! Six-day creation? Hyuk! A Worldwide flood? Quit pulling my leg!
"But a man born of a virgin, who walked on water, fed the five thousand, and turned water into wine. . .oh, sure, I believe that. And I also have no trouble believing that he raised the dead, was murdered, buried, and rose from the grave. Oh, and He appeared to numerous people before ascending back to Heaven through the clouds. Yessiree, no problem with that."
Huh? That's a bigger disconnect than you'll find in a Swiss euthanasia center. This is what fundamentalists call "cafeteria-style" Christianity, where one goes down the line, picking and choosing certain sweet items, while tossing aside the "Brussells sprouts" of scripture. How does one laugh at the stories of cherubim with flaming swords, pillars of smoke and fire, and Egyptian plagues, while bowing in reverence to equally outrageous tales of a man who cast out demons, made the lame walk, and the blind see? I find this view far more incredible and inconsistent than general acceptance of biblical miracle stories from the Old and New Testaments.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Another "Con" Job
Condaleewza Rice is on a roll, y'all; she's bound and determined to make herself, President Bush, and the GOP look like simpering morons. She's striving manfully toward convincing the public that there's not a gnat's-hair's worth of difference between the Republican and Democrat Parties. After her insipid "Change Iz Good" speech and glowing remarks about Obama three weeks ago, she's at it, again, taking her stupidity to the streets:
Outgoing US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice predicted Sunday that Hillary Clinton will "do a great job" succeeding her at the State Department because of her love of country and faith in U.S. values.
"She's terrific," Rice told ABC television.
After which she rolled up her sleeve and revealed a tattoo of Hillary's face framed in a red heart on her skinny biceps.
Seriously, now: I can't figure out if this is a form of lesbionic infatuation, or if she's emitting signals into the aether about her imminent flight from the GOP and into the loving arms of the Hillaroid Party--A.K.A., the Democrats.
This woman is going out of her way in heaping praise upon people who, in theory, represent everything her party rejects: big government, decreased freedom in all areas except those of license, and judicial activism. Hillary is "terrific?" And we know she'll be capital as Secretary of State, due to her "faith in U.S. values?" I suppose she's referencing universal, taxpayer-funded healthcare-- you know, like they had in the Soviet Union. Yes, pseudo-communism makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Since no one's holding a gun to her head, since no one's forcing these silly utterances from her yapping mouth, we must ask ourselves the question: why does she continue going around the country, extolling the virtues of those who kicked her party's collectively clueless butt to the curb in November, for the very "virtue" that she embodies so well--a lack of stark distinction between Republican and Democrat offerings?
I have two possible explanations:
1. She's the poster-child for rectal cranium-insertion.
2. There's no significant difference between herself and Hillary, in terms of political philosophy. And she's publicly admitting it, albeit in an indirect fashion.
When George W. Bush first elevated her to the position of Affirmative Action and Public Relations Advisor, we were assured of her brilliance--the likes of which the world hasn't see since, well, Hillary Clinton. Then she became Secretary of State (SOS, as in Help!), and has spent the better portion of her time in that illustrious position producing moral equivalency comparisons between Israel and Satan--I mean, the "Palestinians"--and inventing new methods of PC adherence. What an impressive resume.
If such a profound intellect indeed exists behind that daffy smile, I can only assume that it lies gasping out its last under the fetid muck of political correctness, because I see no evidence of its merest glimmering in her behavior or words. In fact, what I see is a woman who has no wisdom, no loyalty to the party for whom she works, and zero understanding of how our country is supposed to function.
Outgoing US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice predicted Sunday that Hillary Clinton will "do a great job" succeeding her at the State Department because of her love of country and faith in U.S. values.
"She's terrific," Rice told ABC television.
After which she rolled up her sleeve and revealed a tattoo of Hillary's face framed in a red heart on her skinny biceps.
Seriously, now: I can't figure out if this is a form of lesbionic infatuation, or if she's emitting signals into the aether about her imminent flight from the GOP and into the loving arms of the Hillaroid Party--A.K.A., the Democrats.
This woman is going out of her way in heaping praise upon people who, in theory, represent everything her party rejects: big government, decreased freedom in all areas except those of license, and judicial activism. Hillary is "terrific?" And we know she'll be capital as Secretary of State, due to her "faith in U.S. values?" I suppose she's referencing universal, taxpayer-funded healthcare-- you know, like they had in the Soviet Union. Yes, pseudo-communism makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
Since no one's holding a gun to her head, since no one's forcing these silly utterances from her yapping mouth, we must ask ourselves the question: why does she continue going around the country, extolling the virtues of those who kicked her party's collectively clueless butt to the curb in November, for the very "virtue" that she embodies so well--a lack of stark distinction between Republican and Democrat offerings?
I have two possible explanations:
1. She's the poster-child for rectal cranium-insertion.
2. There's no significant difference between herself and Hillary, in terms of political philosophy. And she's publicly admitting it, albeit in an indirect fashion.
When George W. Bush first elevated her to the position of Affirmative Action and Public Relations Advisor, we were assured of her brilliance--the likes of which the world hasn't see since, well, Hillary Clinton. Then she became Secretary of State (SOS, as in Help!), and has spent the better portion of her time in that illustrious position producing moral equivalency comparisons between Israel and Satan--I mean, the "Palestinians"--and inventing new methods of PC adherence. What an impressive resume.
If such a profound intellect indeed exists behind that daffy smile, I can only assume that it lies gasping out its last under the fetid muck of political correctness, because I see no evidence of its merest glimmering in her behavior or words. In fact, what I see is a woman who has no wisdom, no loyalty to the party for whom she works, and zero understanding of how our country is supposed to function.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
Revisionism Set in Marble
A constitutional scholar says the new Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, DC, is an extremely biased and historically inaccurate exhibit that "twists and distorts" the Constitution.
The new $621 million Capitol Visitor Center features an exhibition hall that is dominated by a very large marble wall called "The Wall of Aspirations." Dr. Matthew Spalding of The Heritage Foundation says the exhibit is not about the Constitution's limits on powers delegated to the government, but instead lists aspirations such as unity, freedom, common defense, knowledge, exploration, and general welfare, and then points back to where they are found in the Constitution.
"The job of Congress, according to the exhibit, is to achieve these aspirations. So the old notion that says Article 1, Section 8 [of the Constitution] lists the powers that Congress has -- these are the things that Congress can do. [But] that old notion is set aside," he contends. "In its place we have this kind of open-ended 'aspirations' which Congress is going to define and achieve. And to get there, they do very selective quoting and...mangle many phrases in the Constitution to get them where they want to go."
By "general welfare," I'm sure they mean in the form of checks and public-subsidized housing projects.
Maybe they'll add multiculturalism, secularism, and non-Caucasianism to the list of congressional aspirations. Wouldn't that be nice?
This is my favorite part:
The underground 580,000-square-foot Visitor Center, which opened to the public this week, was completed three years behind schedule and almost $360 million over budget. It is approximately two-thirds the size of the entire Capitol itself.
Now that's bureaucratic efficiency in action!
The new $621 million Capitol Visitor Center features an exhibition hall that is dominated by a very large marble wall called "The Wall of Aspirations." Dr. Matthew Spalding of The Heritage Foundation says the exhibit is not about the Constitution's limits on powers delegated to the government, but instead lists aspirations such as unity, freedom, common defense, knowledge, exploration, and general welfare, and then points back to where they are found in the Constitution.
"The job of Congress, according to the exhibit, is to achieve these aspirations. So the old notion that says Article 1, Section 8 [of the Constitution] lists the powers that Congress has -- these are the things that Congress can do. [But] that old notion is set aside," he contends. "In its place we have this kind of open-ended 'aspirations' which Congress is going to define and achieve. And to get there, they do very selective quoting and...mangle many phrases in the Constitution to get them where they want to go."
By "general welfare," I'm sure they mean in the form of checks and public-subsidized housing projects.
Maybe they'll add multiculturalism, secularism, and non-Caucasianism to the list of congressional aspirations. Wouldn't that be nice?
This is my favorite part:
The underground 580,000-square-foot Visitor Center, which opened to the public this week, was completed three years behind schedule and almost $360 million over budget. It is approximately two-thirds the size of the entire Capitol itself.
Now that's bureaucratic efficiency in action!
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Death for a Bargain
I'm sure you remember this despicable story from "Black" Friday. After seeing these pictures, I now understand how the day received its name.
I know, I know; I'm a racist. You see, racism is pointing out obvious but unpleasant facts surrounding controversial matters. For example, American blacks are far more likely to be criminals than whites, statistically speaking. Such utterances equal vying for the Imperial Wizardship of the KKK.
This is the sort of mindlessness I expect from a herd of cattle in a lightning storm, not from human beings looking for a discount at Wal-Mart. One would think these were starving people in a Soviet bread line. I understand fleeing for one's life--self-preservation, and all that. But the people-in-question weren't escaping danger. They created it.
I've read five separate articles about this incident; and the one factor that leaped out at me was the total callousness of those who participated in the stampede. Out of a crowd of two thousand people, not one stopped and helped the victim. Those who didn't trample him stepped over or around his body and went shopping. The only people who came to his aid were store employees, some of whom sustained injuries for their efforts. They also met with attitude problems from participants in the stampede, when they announced that the business was closing as a result of the fatality. In all the news coverage, I saw no evidence that anyone in the crowd felt remorse or sorrow for the event that had transpired. Alas, I suppose the expectation of respect for human life from a ghetto thug is akin to hoping a treehugger will help you cut firewood.
As John Wayne used to say: "That'll be the day."
I'll leave you with my brother's contrasting experience at our local Wal-Mart on "Black" Friday. At 5:00 A.M., he waded through a crowd so large that people bumped elbows. Strangely, he experienced:
No deaths
No arguments
No fistfights
No stealing from other customers' shopping carts
No pushing
No cursing
No stampeding
No destruction of company or individual property
Incredible, you say. It's nothing short of astonishing that no one died over a discounted toaster, or a half-off pack of bloomers. Somehow, us stupid rednecks made it through a whole day of super-duper savings without a single murder or negligent homicide. Who'dathunkit?
My attitude about these situations is that a crowd's behavior is determined by the caliber of individuals who constitute that crowd. To this extent, we know all we need to know about the brand of individuals who made up that Long Island mob, don't we?
I know, I know; I'm a racist. You see, racism is pointing out obvious but unpleasant facts surrounding controversial matters. For example, American blacks are far more likely to be criminals than whites, statistically speaking. Such utterances equal vying for the Imperial Wizardship of the KKK.
This is the sort of mindlessness I expect from a herd of cattle in a lightning storm, not from human beings looking for a discount at Wal-Mart. One would think these were starving people in a Soviet bread line. I understand fleeing for one's life--self-preservation, and all that. But the people-in-question weren't escaping danger. They created it.
I've read five separate articles about this incident; and the one factor that leaped out at me was the total callousness of those who participated in the stampede. Out of a crowd of two thousand people, not one stopped and helped the victim. Those who didn't trample him stepped over or around his body and went shopping. The only people who came to his aid were store employees, some of whom sustained injuries for their efforts. They also met with attitude problems from participants in the stampede, when they announced that the business was closing as a result of the fatality. In all the news coverage, I saw no evidence that anyone in the crowd felt remorse or sorrow for the event that had transpired. Alas, I suppose the expectation of respect for human life from a ghetto thug is akin to hoping a treehugger will help you cut firewood.
As John Wayne used to say: "That'll be the day."
I'll leave you with my brother's contrasting experience at our local Wal-Mart on "Black" Friday. At 5:00 A.M., he waded through a crowd so large that people bumped elbows. Strangely, he experienced:
No deaths
No arguments
No fistfights
No stealing from other customers' shopping carts
No pushing
No cursing
No stampeding
No destruction of company or individual property
Incredible, you say. It's nothing short of astonishing that no one died over a discounted toaster, or a half-off pack of bloomers. Somehow, us stupid rednecks made it through a whole day of super-duper savings without a single murder or negligent homicide. Who'dathunkit?
My attitude about these situations is that a crowd's behavior is determined by the caliber of individuals who constitute that crowd. To this extent, we know all we need to know about the brand of individuals who made up that Long Island mob, don't we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)