At 11:00 PM EST, December 8, my grandfather went home to be with the Lord. He was just over eighty years old.
He'd endured a rare form of bone cancer over the past two-and-a-half to three years, going through ups and downs in his health and spirits during that time.
When the end came, it was in his own home, surrounded by family. He slipped into unconsciousness and became unresponsive, his breathing shallow. Shortly thereafter, he passed away peacefully and without suffering.
He was a wonderful man--perhaps the best man I've ever known. He would give the shirt off his back to help a person in need. He was self-made, too, with no formal education beyond the eighth grade; yet through hard, unrelenting work and perseverance, he achieved financial success and retired from his job at ALCOA Aluminum Company, debt-free and with a good pension.
But even more importantly, he was a success as a human being. Friends and acquaintances respected him. His family admired and loved him. He raised four children who grew into fine adults.
He saw heavy combat action in the Army in World War II, in the European theater. He witnessed the deaths of many friends in those days, and even in his later years, had difficulty speaking about those times. He went on to serve in the Air Force during the Korean War.
And he loved Jesus. He provided a fine Christian example to all who knew him, and served as a deacon in his local church for about twenty years. He was never ashamed of that name above names.
I know now that he rests in the bosom of our Savior, and theirein is no suffering or sorrow any more. He is far, far better off than you or I, and that is the one consolation I've gained from his passing. He is in the presence of the Father, and one day, I'll see him again.
It's difficult for me to write these words, but I wanted to share with my readers a brief glimpse of this extraordinary man's life, to honor him with these few feeble sentences strung together with memories. I also wanted to share that blessed assurance we each have in Christ. He does not discriminate against those who search him out earnestly. Seek, and you shall find Him. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
Now my grandmother must pick up the pieces of her life and figure out how to cope with losing her husband of fifty-three years. She, too, has Christ in her heart. I'm sure He'll carry her through her grief. I don't often make prayer requests, but I humbly ask that those who are willing, pray for her strengthening and recovery from this awful loss. And remember the family in your prayers. I would appreciate that more than words can say.
Sometimes death is seen coming, far down the road, giving us time for preparations. Others, it swoops in upon us suddenly, without notice. Yesterday in the early evening, there was no indication that this was my grandfather's final day on earth. And yet he is gone from us, now.
Hold your children and grandchildren and siblings and spouses and parents close. If you haven't said "I love you" lately, say it now. There may not be a chance tomorrow.
I love you Granddad. I'm glad you're home. The rest of us will be on in a little while.
Friday, December 9, 2005
Thursday, December 8, 2005
"Kill Me! I Dare You!"
Saddam Hussein told the judge at his trial Monday that "I am not afraid of execution" during an unruly session in which the first witness took the stand and testified that the former president's agents carried out random arrests, torture and killings.
Of course he's not afraid. He has lots of experience with execution.
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
Remember Pearl Harbor
December 7, 1941.
God bless those Americans who died that day, in their nation's service.
God bless their families.
And may God bless and keep those who survived that harrowing ordeal.
Amen.
God bless those Americans who died that day, in their nation's service.
God bless their families.
And may God bless and keep those who survived that harrowing ordeal.
Amen.
China Is No One's Friend
Remember our red, rotund friend in the east? You know, the one with most favored nation trading status; the one that loathes Christianity and hates with a passion every ideal that we take for granted? The one that revels in stamping out liberty in size fifteen steel-toed boots?
Yep, that one. Well, here's what's going on in good ol' China, these days:
The communist Chinese government bulldozed a Catholic Church building in Xi'an city, wounding 16 nuns.
The U.S.-based China Aid Association, citing "reliable sources," said about 30 uniformed young men rushed into the church with wooden sticks in their hands at about 6 p.m. Nov. 22.
Two hours later, a bulldozer started tearing down the place of worship.
China Aid said officials from the government's religious affairs bureau came to the site, and the destruction was halted until the next evening.
Then, about 40 uniformed young men armed with sticks started beating the nuns, who were defending the church building, China Aid said.
Sixteen nuns suffered severe wounds, including eye injuries and broken legs.
China Aid described the attackers as "government-hired gangsters."
All Protestant and Catholic churches in China are required to be under control of the government, and groups that do not register – the vast majority – are labeled "illegal cults."
If that's not enough, here's some more:
A United Nations rights investigator has said that torture was still widespread in China and accused authorities of trying to obstruct his work on a historic 12-day fact-finding mission.
Torture methods cited in a press release at the end of his trip included use of electric shock batons, cigarette burns, submersion in pits of water or sewage and exposure to conditions of extreme heat or cold.
Some techniques were apparently so widespread that they had generated a special terminology, such as "exhausting an eagle", where prisoners are forced to stand on a tall stool and beaten to the point of exhaustion.
Police in Tibet and Xinjiang have engaged in long-standing crackdowns on separatists, and human rights groups regularly report widespread abuse of detainees there.
Consider this: If the UN--perhaps the most corrupt and inefficient organization on planet earth--has made this determination and is concerned about these abuses, how deep and pervasive must the problem actually be?
Keep these stories in mind, the next time you hear someone imply that China is our friend. If we are known by the company we keep, the United States should distance itself from this wretched hellhole as much as possible.
Yep, that one. Well, here's what's going on in good ol' China, these days:
The communist Chinese government bulldozed a Catholic Church building in Xi'an city, wounding 16 nuns.
The U.S.-based China Aid Association, citing "reliable sources," said about 30 uniformed young men rushed into the church with wooden sticks in their hands at about 6 p.m. Nov. 22.
Two hours later, a bulldozer started tearing down the place of worship.
China Aid said officials from the government's religious affairs bureau came to the site, and the destruction was halted until the next evening.
Then, about 40 uniformed young men armed with sticks started beating the nuns, who were defending the church building, China Aid said.
Sixteen nuns suffered severe wounds, including eye injuries and broken legs.
China Aid described the attackers as "government-hired gangsters."
All Protestant and Catholic churches in China are required to be under control of the government, and groups that do not register – the vast majority – are labeled "illegal cults."
If that's not enough, here's some more:
A United Nations rights investigator has said that torture was still widespread in China and accused authorities of trying to obstruct his work on a historic 12-day fact-finding mission.
Torture methods cited in a press release at the end of his trip included use of electric shock batons, cigarette burns, submersion in pits of water or sewage and exposure to conditions of extreme heat or cold.
Some techniques were apparently so widespread that they had generated a special terminology, such as "exhausting an eagle", where prisoners are forced to stand on a tall stool and beaten to the point of exhaustion.
Police in Tibet and Xinjiang have engaged in long-standing crackdowns on separatists, and human rights groups regularly report widespread abuse of detainees there.
Consider this: If the UN--perhaps the most corrupt and inefficient organization on planet earth--has made this determination and is concerned about these abuses, how deep and pervasive must the problem actually be?
Keep these stories in mind, the next time you hear someone imply that China is our friend. If we are known by the company we keep, the United States should distance itself from this wretched hellhole as much as possible.
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
The Chronicles of Narnia's Christian Foundation
From an AP article in my local newspaper:
But many regard them as Christian allegories and the heroic lion, Aslan, as a symbol of Jesus. . .Douglas Gresham (C.S. Lewis' stepson), wanting no part of America's culture wars, says some characters and events could be interpreted as Christian symbols. But Lewis didn't regard The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as a Christian book, though his beliefs influenced the story--as they did everything he wrote.
From The Sunday Times Online (Britain):
An unpublished letter from the novelist C S Lewis has provided conclusive proof of the Christian message in his Narnia children’s books.
In the letter, sent to a child fan in 1961, Lewis writes: “The whole Narnian story is about Christ.” It has been found by Walter Hooper, literary adviser to the Lewis estate.
Douglas Gresham, Lewis’s stepson, said recently: “Churches in Britain and America are promoting the film as a Christian film, but it’s not . . . and the Narnia books aren’t Christian novels.”
The letter, written from Magdalene College, Cambridge, where Lewis was a don, contradicts this. “Supposing there really was a world like Narnia . . . and supposing Christ wanted to go into that world and save it (as He did ours) what might have happened?” he wrote.
“The stories are my answer. Since Narnia is a world of talking beasts, I thought he would become a talking beast there as he became a man here. I pictured him becoming a lion there because a) the lion is supposed to be the king of beasts; b) Christ is called ‘the lion of Judah’ in the Bible.”
I'm sure this is old hat for all you Narnia fans. Isn't it astounding, though, that secularists will go to such lengths and depths to deny Christ, even in a book of fiction? I love the AP article quote: "But many regard them as Christian allegories. . ." The word "regard" implies that it's debatable; it's not. All one has to do is read the books--particularly the final novel--and the answer is irrefutable. Suggesting otherwise simply is a lie.
And Gresham; what a class-act he is: He honors his stepfather's memory by planting seeds of doubt about the intentions behind the books, when there is no doubt at all. The AP article mentions as an aside that he once had a "spiritual epiphany," and now works with his wife in an ecumenical ministry. Of course, his epiphany is not defined in the article. For all we know, he believes Irish potatoes have devine qualities, and should be objects of adoration and worship. Or perhaps he practices Druidic rites, naked under a full moon.
This is just a bit of extrapolation on my part, but I suspect that he didn't share Lewis' religious views, so admitting the overt Christian message behind the books irks him to no end. So just as with Tolkien's works, we have people scrambling out of the woodwork in droves, denying or questioning the Christian principles behind the stories. After all, we can't designate two of the greatest creations in modern literature as Christian in their origins. The mere thought is horrible beyond words.
What's next? Maybe Quo Vadis? and Ben-Hur had no relation to Christianity, either?
I know the Bible isn't fiction, but it is the world's bestselling book. Pretty soon we'll have folks smiling and shaking their heads in condescension, informing us in all their wisdom that scripture isn't Christian; it was a great book of adventure written by rabid secularists.
But many regard them as Christian allegories and the heroic lion, Aslan, as a symbol of Jesus. . .Douglas Gresham (C.S. Lewis' stepson), wanting no part of America's culture wars, says some characters and events could be interpreted as Christian symbols. But Lewis didn't regard The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as a Christian book, though his beliefs influenced the story--as they did everything he wrote.
From The Sunday Times Online (Britain):
An unpublished letter from the novelist C S Lewis has provided conclusive proof of the Christian message in his Narnia children’s books.
In the letter, sent to a child fan in 1961, Lewis writes: “The whole Narnian story is about Christ.” It has been found by Walter Hooper, literary adviser to the Lewis estate.
Douglas Gresham, Lewis’s stepson, said recently: “Churches in Britain and America are promoting the film as a Christian film, but it’s not . . . and the Narnia books aren’t Christian novels.”
The letter, written from Magdalene College, Cambridge, where Lewis was a don, contradicts this. “Supposing there really was a world like Narnia . . . and supposing Christ wanted to go into that world and save it (as He did ours) what might have happened?” he wrote.
“The stories are my answer. Since Narnia is a world of talking beasts, I thought he would become a talking beast there as he became a man here. I pictured him becoming a lion there because a) the lion is supposed to be the king of beasts; b) Christ is called ‘the lion of Judah’ in the Bible.”
I'm sure this is old hat for all you Narnia fans. Isn't it astounding, though, that secularists will go to such lengths and depths to deny Christ, even in a book of fiction? I love the AP article quote: "But many regard them as Christian allegories. . ." The word "regard" implies that it's debatable; it's not. All one has to do is read the books--particularly the final novel--and the answer is irrefutable. Suggesting otherwise simply is a lie.
And Gresham; what a class-act he is: He honors his stepfather's memory by planting seeds of doubt about the intentions behind the books, when there is no doubt at all. The AP article mentions as an aside that he once had a "spiritual epiphany," and now works with his wife in an ecumenical ministry. Of course, his epiphany is not defined in the article. For all we know, he believes Irish potatoes have devine qualities, and should be objects of adoration and worship. Or perhaps he practices Druidic rites, naked under a full moon.
This is just a bit of extrapolation on my part, but I suspect that he didn't share Lewis' religious views, so admitting the overt Christian message behind the books irks him to no end. So just as with Tolkien's works, we have people scrambling out of the woodwork in droves, denying or questioning the Christian principles behind the stories. After all, we can't designate two of the greatest creations in modern literature as Christian in their origins. The mere thought is horrible beyond words.
What's next? Maybe Quo Vadis? and Ben-Hur had no relation to Christianity, either?
I know the Bible isn't fiction, but it is the world's bestselling book. Pretty soon we'll have folks smiling and shaking their heads in condescension, informing us in all their wisdom that scripture isn't Christian; it was a great book of adventure written by rabid secularists.
Monday, December 5, 2005
Rear View
When the Amish take to technological innovation, they do so reluctantly.A whole car is only fifty years away.
Californy Ain't No Paradise
Recently released crime statistics show the homicide rate in California is 265 percent higher than the death rate suffered by U.S. and British military personnel in Iraq.
According to the report "Crime in California 2004," compiled by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, there were 2,394 reported homicides in the Golden State last year. That compares with 905 deaths of coalition forces in Iraq, chiefly Americans and Brits, during the same time period.
Such comparisons have been made by defenders of the action in Iraq, who say the number of casualties for a war of this length are extraordinarily low.
This is a fair point that helps us keep things in their proper perspective. I wonder why folks like Red Kennedy, Lurch Kerry, and I, Gorebot aren't calling for a withdrawal from the west coast? With two-and-a-half times as many deaths in the Golden state as in Iraq within the same time-frame, it's pretty obvious that the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Democrat Party over the Iraq War is just heavy-handed politics. Nothing more.
According to the report "Crime in California 2004," compiled by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, there were 2,394 reported homicides in the Golden State last year. That compares with 905 deaths of coalition forces in Iraq, chiefly Americans and Brits, during the same time period.
Such comparisons have been made by defenders of the action in Iraq, who say the number of casualties for a war of this length are extraordinarily low.
This is a fair point that helps us keep things in their proper perspective. I wonder why folks like Red Kennedy, Lurch Kerry, and I, Gorebot aren't calling for a withdrawal from the west coast? With two-and-a-half times as many deaths in the Golden state as in Iraq within the same time-frame, it's pretty obvious that the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Democrat Party over the Iraq War is just heavy-handed politics. Nothing more.
Sunday, December 4, 2005
Too Offensive
"Each year, we gather here to celebrate the season of hope and joy – and to remember the story of one humble life that lifted the sights of humanity. Santa, thanks for coming. Glad you made it. I know you've got a lot of commitments this time of year. By the way, we have a lot of chimneys at the White House if you're looking for something to do." --George W. Bush, joking at the National Christmas Tree lighting ceremony, December 1.
Sadly, I expect nothing better than this from our president. He found the time and opportunity for mentioning Santa and making a joke, but just as there was no room in the inn, there was no room for an overt mention of Jesus in his remarks. I suppose that might've offended some wild-eyed jihadi lurking on the fringes of his audience.
We wouldn't want that.
Sadly, I expect nothing better than this from our president. He found the time and opportunity for mentioning Santa and making a joke, but just as there was no room in the inn, there was no room for an overt mention of Jesus in his remarks. I suppose that might've offended some wild-eyed jihadi lurking on the fringes of his audience.
We wouldn't want that.
Thursday, December 1, 2005
Tear it All Down with a Ho Ho Ho!
The secularizers are gearing up for another year of kicking baby Jesus out into the cold, dark streets. Even as I type this, I see a Rambo-like montage playing in my head: of atheists and their fellow travellers donning their Che Guevara sweatshirts, pulling on their Santa suits, gripping their baseball bats tightly, and using photos of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and other zealots of the "Christian Right" as target practice. Then these thugs and enemies of religious freedom goose-step into the back alleys and steal their way down Main Street, U.S.A., breaking crosses, smashing creches, and wishing everyone "Happy Holidays!" at the tops of their whiny voices. The red Santa coats are fit for the occasion, since the color represents that of their ideological ancestors, those whom they adore. And when they have finished leeching every conceivable drop of joy or relevance from this time of year, they dust off their hands and return to their communes and the rocks from under which they crawled, happy in the knowledge that they've been about the good work of dismantling liberty, never wondering what will rear its head in the New World Order displacing the old.
Just today, I heard a story from Florida, in which a mayor allowed a menorah on public property, while refusing the installation of a nativity scene.
They're just getting warmed up.
I realize some of my godly readers don't celebrate Christmas, and I respect that. I think the Redeemed can have honest, amicable disagreements on this issue. But make no mistake; the war on Christmas simply is one front in a wider conflict: the all-out assault on religious freedom, and Christianity in particular. We should take this seriously; our evil enemy certainly does.
I love the old rabid leftist canard: "We won't allow manger scenes, because we're afraid they might offend someone." Of course, this is patent nonsense, and it doesn't take much candle power to see through the lie. First, no one has a right not to be offended. How would one even begin securing such an intangible? Second--and more importantly--if minimizing offense really was the goal in these situations, these people would behave in a fashion diametrically opposite their current reaction. We live in a country in which 85% of the population is either Christian, or associates itself with Christianity. For any arithmetically-challenged atheists who've accidentally stumbled on this website in abject horror, that's well over three-fourths of Americans. So where does the likelihood of offense lie? In the aforementioned 85%, or in the remaining 15%, which consists all other religions; i.e., Judaism, Killslam, etc. The short of it is that far more people are outraged by this behavior than otherwise would be if a baby Jesus was swaddled on the front lawn of every public building in the nation, 365 days a year.
Though the ultimate end of all this is the eradication of free religious expression, they're zeroing in on Christianity first. The reasoning is simple: they hate American ideals; Christianity is interwoven in this nation's founding and history; therefore, there is a connection between the two in reality and in the minds of the destroyers. Damaging one helps undermine the other. Their sappers are hard at work burrowing under our fortifications.
And Satan himself is their general, watching over the battlefield with a smirk.
Just today, I heard a story from Florida, in which a mayor allowed a menorah on public property, while refusing the installation of a nativity scene.
They're just getting warmed up.
I realize some of my godly readers don't celebrate Christmas, and I respect that. I think the Redeemed can have honest, amicable disagreements on this issue. But make no mistake; the war on Christmas simply is one front in a wider conflict: the all-out assault on religious freedom, and Christianity in particular. We should take this seriously; our evil enemy certainly does.
I love the old rabid leftist canard: "We won't allow manger scenes, because we're afraid they might offend someone." Of course, this is patent nonsense, and it doesn't take much candle power to see through the lie. First, no one has a right not to be offended. How would one even begin securing such an intangible? Second--and more importantly--if minimizing offense really was the goal in these situations, these people would behave in a fashion diametrically opposite their current reaction. We live in a country in which 85% of the population is either Christian, or associates itself with Christianity. For any arithmetically-challenged atheists who've accidentally stumbled on this website in abject horror, that's well over three-fourths of Americans. So where does the likelihood of offense lie? In the aforementioned 85%, or in the remaining 15%, which consists all other religions; i.e., Judaism, Killslam, etc. The short of it is that far more people are outraged by this behavior than otherwise would be if a baby Jesus was swaddled on the front lawn of every public building in the nation, 365 days a year.
Though the ultimate end of all this is the eradication of free religious expression, they're zeroing in on Christianity first. The reasoning is simple: they hate American ideals; Christianity is interwoven in this nation's founding and history; therefore, there is a connection between the two in reality and in the minds of the destroyers. Damaging one helps undermine the other. Their sappers are hard at work burrowing under our fortifications.
And Satan himself is their general, watching over the battlefield with a smirk.
Big McTrouble
"Officers, I don't care what Ringling Brothers told you! Their treatment of clowns is abominable and barbaric! I just had to bring that big-top down!"
A Miracle?
A 12-year-old girl who was abducted and beaten by men trying to force her into a marriage was found being guarded by three lions who apparently had chased off her captors, a policeman said Tuesday.
The girl, missing for a week, had been taken by seven men who wanted to force her to marry one of them, said Sgt. Wondimu Wedajo, speaking by telephone from the provincial capital of Bita Genet, about 350 miles southwest of Addis Ababa.
She was beaten repeatedly before she was found June 9 by police and relatives on the outskirts of Bita Genet, Wondimu said. She had been guarded by the lions for about half a day, he said. "They stood guard until we found her and then they just left her like a gift and went back into the forest," Wondimu said.
"If the lions had not come to her rescue, then it could have been much worse. Often these young girls are raped and severely beaten to force them to accept the marriage," he said.
Kidnapping young girls has long been part of the marriage custom in Ethiopia. The United Nations estimates that more than 70 percent of marriages in Ethiopia are by abduction, practiced in rural areas where most of the country's 71 million people live.
I know this report is from a few months back, but I'm just now hearing about it, and I couldn't pass up saying a few words. I often hear Christians lament that miracles don't happen anymore. "Why doesn't God perform miraculous acts, today, like He did in biblical times?" I've been asked this question on several occasions, to which I usually respond:
"Who says He doesn't?"
I'm not suggesting rock-solid certainty that this story exemplifies divine intervention; but who am I to say that it's not an act of God?
The girl, missing for a week, had been taken by seven men who wanted to force her to marry one of them, said Sgt. Wondimu Wedajo, speaking by telephone from the provincial capital of Bita Genet, about 350 miles southwest of Addis Ababa.
She was beaten repeatedly before she was found June 9 by police and relatives on the outskirts of Bita Genet, Wondimu said. She had been guarded by the lions for about half a day, he said. "They stood guard until we found her and then they just left her like a gift and went back into the forest," Wondimu said.
"If the lions had not come to her rescue, then it could have been much worse. Often these young girls are raped and severely beaten to force them to accept the marriage," he said.
Kidnapping young girls has long been part of the marriage custom in Ethiopia. The United Nations estimates that more than 70 percent of marriages in Ethiopia are by abduction, practiced in rural areas where most of the country's 71 million people live.
I know this report is from a few months back, but I'm just now hearing about it, and I couldn't pass up saying a few words. I often hear Christians lament that miracles don't happen anymore. "Why doesn't God perform miraculous acts, today, like He did in biblical times?" I've been asked this question on several occasions, to which I usually respond:
"Who says He doesn't?"
I'm not suggesting rock-solid certainty that this story exemplifies divine intervention; but who am I to say that it's not an act of God?
Monday, November 28, 2005
Step Away from the Chalupa
After Pedro lost his endorsement deal with Taco Bell, he spiraled into a life of drug addiction.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Just Trying to Make a Living
Assaults on U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Tucson and Yuma sectors averaged about one a day in the past year, and the number of attacks there more than doubled compared with the previous year.
Nationwide, the number of assaults nearly doubled, with attacks on agents based in Arizona making up more than half the incidents.
From Oct. 1, 2004, to Sept. 30, the Border Patrol registered 687 assaults on its agents, up from 349 during the same period along the Southwest and Canadian borders. All but one of the attacks occurred on the Southwest border, officials said.
In Tucson and Yuma, there were 365 assaults during the past fiscal year, up from 179 the year before. The increase reflects the growing influence of organized criminal syndicates in border trafficking, officials said, and the higher profits involved in smuggling migrants across the border for as much as $2,000 per trip.
Federal law enforcement officials told Congress last week that drug cartels from Mexico have gotten much more aggressive in smuggling drugs and people across the border, hiring local gangs on both sides of the international line and arming members with assault rifles, grenades and other weapons.
Agents say they frequently are subjected to grapefruit-size rocks being thrown at their trucks from the Mexican side of the border. Trucks carrying drugs or migrants have tried to ram Border Patrol vehicles when the agents attempt to stop the vehicles. And shootings are becoming more frequent, with 45 in the Tucson and Yuma sectors in fiscal year 2005, up from 15 in 2004.
But, but, waitaminute! I thought all those crossing our borders were just good, decent, docile poor folks who wanted jobs? That's what the newspapers, tv networks, and politicians tell me.
You mean they're lying? I'm stunned!
Nationwide, the number of assaults nearly doubled, with attacks on agents based in Arizona making up more than half the incidents.
From Oct. 1, 2004, to Sept. 30, the Border Patrol registered 687 assaults on its agents, up from 349 during the same period along the Southwest and Canadian borders. All but one of the attacks occurred on the Southwest border, officials said.
In Tucson and Yuma, there were 365 assaults during the past fiscal year, up from 179 the year before. The increase reflects the growing influence of organized criminal syndicates in border trafficking, officials said, and the higher profits involved in smuggling migrants across the border for as much as $2,000 per trip.
Federal law enforcement officials told Congress last week that drug cartels from Mexico have gotten much more aggressive in smuggling drugs and people across the border, hiring local gangs on both sides of the international line and arming members with assault rifles, grenades and other weapons.
Agents say they frequently are subjected to grapefruit-size rocks being thrown at their trucks from the Mexican side of the border. Trucks carrying drugs or migrants have tried to ram Border Patrol vehicles when the agents attempt to stop the vehicles. And shootings are becoming more frequent, with 45 in the Tucson and Yuma sectors in fiscal year 2005, up from 15 in 2004.
But, but, waitaminute! I thought all those crossing our borders were just good, decent, docile poor folks who wanted jobs? That's what the newspapers, tv networks, and politicians tell me.
You mean they're lying? I'm stunned!
Supply and Demand
It seems American companies will stoop to any low in catering to wetbacks. I hope that poor child on the label wasn't the guinea pig.I wouldn't wanna change those Huggies.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
A PETA Moment
Let us offer a moment of silence for all the turkeys that have gone to that big poultry paradise in the sky, this Thanksgiving.
I know I did more gobbling than they.
I know I did more gobbling than they.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Gobble Gobble
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! I think we all should count our many blessings. Would that each of us made every day a time of thanksgiving to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for our salvation and a future home in Heaven at his side. I'm grateful for many, many things--not the least of which are my good friends in the blogosphere, especially my readers and commenters. May God bless and watch over each one of you, during this holiday weekend. Have fun!
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Views on the Iraq War, Part II
Continuing where I left off, I'll address a couple of different outlooks on the war. So strap on your helmets, grip your Dubya dolls tightly, and away we go!
It seems there are two schools of thought. The first goes something like this: Saddumb Husinsane was a threat to our national security. He had WMDs and had used them in the past against the Kurds and Iranians. He made an attempt on the life of George H.W. Bush (thanks to CZJA for reminding me of this). He openly called for jihad and terrorism against the United States on Iraq's government-controlled television. He had ties to Al-Killya, though we're unsure how deep those roots went. He had a long history of contention with us, and he repeatedly violated the cease-fire with the U.S. that ended the first Gulf War. He had the ability and the means for aiding and abetting terrorist strikes against Americans. Finally, he was a destabilizer in an already unstable region where American interests were at stake. The fruition of his pan-Arab ambitions would have constituted further chaos in the Middle East. Thus an invasion of the country and his subsequent overthrow was justified completely.
Now for the second perspective: Saddumb was a brutal, demonic dictator who raped, plundered, and tortured his people for decades. He was a monster of the worst sort, and Iraqis lived under a brutal yoke of oppression during his rule. The Iraqis deserved freedom just like that of Americans. They deserved a representative form of government, and the rule of law--not life under the maniacal whims of a hitlerian devil. Active involvement in the liberation of enslaved peoples is the United States' moral duty. Iraqis needed our help, and they were entitled to it. Thus deposing Saddumb and instituting a republican government in Iraq was justified and honorable.
Some subscribe to one or the other of these views, while some believe they overlap. As for me, I find no fault with the first line of logic. In fact, I supported early phases of the current Iraq war for these very reasons. I believe overthrowing Saddumb and his murderous sons and regime was a good thing, and I'm proud the United States took him out. I believe his political demise makes us safer. As a brief digression, I also agree with the Afghanistan campaign, finding it just and moral.
But those arguing in the war's favor lose me when they launch into the second approach detailed above. Here's my rationale:
1. I'm not convinced Iraqis deserve freedom. Perhaps that sounds cruel; I'm just being honest. Since Saddumb first exerted power, I've seen little evidence that Iraqis have a genuine hunger for liberty. This was not a situation reminiscent of Revolutionary America, in which the colonists rose up and demanded that the British "Bugger off!" No, this was a scenario in which the United States did all of the dirty work. We didn't aid in a rebellion; there was no rebellion. If not for us, Iraq still would languish in misery, and no one would care. Which brings me to my next point.
2. Islam. Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it lies in the heart of a region with no history of liberty. Primarily, this is a corollary of Islam. A prevailing characteristic of this warped religion is intolerance. Freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of action and religion and association--these concepts have no meaning within sharia law. None whatsoever. Liberty and Islam have the same compatibility as oil and water, or Bill Clinton and a chastity belt. So take a geographical realm with no historical conception of freedom, add to that a religion that is the antithesis of the very idea, and you have astronomical odds working against you, in terms of the construction of a stable and successful representative government within that framework.
3. Given the odds of success, I believe the sacrifice of American soldiers' lives in this endeavor is unconscionable. Even if I thought we'd triumph in the long term, Iraqi freedom is not worth the deaths of my fellow countrymen. Not to me.
4. I do not accept the argumentation that America is duty-bound in divesting other countries of their demigod totalitarians. I don't see it as our moral obligation or constitutional mandate. Nor do I think this worldview is representative of our Founding Fathers' outlook. How does one harmonize such a perspective with scripture? Jesus Christ, Himself, did not liberate humanity from temporal slavery and burdensome governments, though he held untold power and influence in the palm of His hand. Certainly, He could have done this. Yet He did not. So a condemnation of America for turning from this primrose path requires criticism of almighty God's own actions. The short of it is this: if He did not choose this tack, why should we assume that He expects it of us?
5. If liberating Iraq and rebuilding the country for its people's betterment was necessary and wonderful--since Husinsane abused his people--then someone please clear things up for me: why single out Saddumb for toppling, and why stop with him? We see evils perpetrated against innocents all over the world, today. Government-sponsored murder and terror is neither unique to Iraq nor the Middle East. We find it in China, Vietnam, North Korea, the Sudan, and Somalia, just as we witness it in Iran, Syria, and any number of other Islamic dystopias. So following this train of logic, consistency demands that we invade and crush the wicked governing bodies of all these countries, and more. If you're rolling your eyes by this point, rest assured that I'm just filling in the plot others have outlined.
The focus has shifted from overthrowing a madman who was a direct threat to our national security, to rebuilding Iraq and providing its people with freedom in abundance--theoretically, at least. The first was a great idea; the second is far more problematic and inconsistent in its investiture.
It seems there are two schools of thought. The first goes something like this: Saddumb Husinsane was a threat to our national security. He had WMDs and had used them in the past against the Kurds and Iranians. He made an attempt on the life of George H.W. Bush (thanks to CZJA for reminding me of this). He openly called for jihad and terrorism against the United States on Iraq's government-controlled television. He had ties to Al-Killya, though we're unsure how deep those roots went. He had a long history of contention with us, and he repeatedly violated the cease-fire with the U.S. that ended the first Gulf War. He had the ability and the means for aiding and abetting terrorist strikes against Americans. Finally, he was a destabilizer in an already unstable region where American interests were at stake. The fruition of his pan-Arab ambitions would have constituted further chaos in the Middle East. Thus an invasion of the country and his subsequent overthrow was justified completely.
Now for the second perspective: Saddumb was a brutal, demonic dictator who raped, plundered, and tortured his people for decades. He was a monster of the worst sort, and Iraqis lived under a brutal yoke of oppression during his rule. The Iraqis deserved freedom just like that of Americans. They deserved a representative form of government, and the rule of law--not life under the maniacal whims of a hitlerian devil. Active involvement in the liberation of enslaved peoples is the United States' moral duty. Iraqis needed our help, and they were entitled to it. Thus deposing Saddumb and instituting a republican government in Iraq was justified and honorable.
Some subscribe to one or the other of these views, while some believe they overlap. As for me, I find no fault with the first line of logic. In fact, I supported early phases of the current Iraq war for these very reasons. I believe overthrowing Saddumb and his murderous sons and regime was a good thing, and I'm proud the United States took him out. I believe his political demise makes us safer. As a brief digression, I also agree with the Afghanistan campaign, finding it just and moral.
But those arguing in the war's favor lose me when they launch into the second approach detailed above. Here's my rationale:
1. I'm not convinced Iraqis deserve freedom. Perhaps that sounds cruel; I'm just being honest. Since Saddumb first exerted power, I've seen little evidence that Iraqis have a genuine hunger for liberty. This was not a situation reminiscent of Revolutionary America, in which the colonists rose up and demanded that the British "Bugger off!" No, this was a scenario in which the United States did all of the dirty work. We didn't aid in a rebellion; there was no rebellion. If not for us, Iraq still would languish in misery, and no one would care. Which brings me to my next point.
2. Islam. Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it lies in the heart of a region with no history of liberty. Primarily, this is a corollary of Islam. A prevailing characteristic of this warped religion is intolerance. Freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of action and religion and association--these concepts have no meaning within sharia law. None whatsoever. Liberty and Islam have the same compatibility as oil and water, or Bill Clinton and a chastity belt. So take a geographical realm with no historical conception of freedom, add to that a religion that is the antithesis of the very idea, and you have astronomical odds working against you, in terms of the construction of a stable and successful representative government within that framework.
3. Given the odds of success, I believe the sacrifice of American soldiers' lives in this endeavor is unconscionable. Even if I thought we'd triumph in the long term, Iraqi freedom is not worth the deaths of my fellow countrymen. Not to me.
4. I do not accept the argumentation that America is duty-bound in divesting other countries of their demigod totalitarians. I don't see it as our moral obligation or constitutional mandate. Nor do I think this worldview is representative of our Founding Fathers' outlook. How does one harmonize such a perspective with scripture? Jesus Christ, Himself, did not liberate humanity from temporal slavery and burdensome governments, though he held untold power and influence in the palm of His hand. Certainly, He could have done this. Yet He did not. So a condemnation of America for turning from this primrose path requires criticism of almighty God's own actions. The short of it is this: if He did not choose this tack, why should we assume that He expects it of us?
5. If liberating Iraq and rebuilding the country for its people's betterment was necessary and wonderful--since Husinsane abused his people--then someone please clear things up for me: why single out Saddumb for toppling, and why stop with him? We see evils perpetrated against innocents all over the world, today. Government-sponsored murder and terror is neither unique to Iraq nor the Middle East. We find it in China, Vietnam, North Korea, the Sudan, and Somalia, just as we witness it in Iran, Syria, and any number of other Islamic dystopias. So following this train of logic, consistency demands that we invade and crush the wicked governing bodies of all these countries, and more. If you're rolling your eyes by this point, rest assured that I'm just filling in the plot others have outlined.
The focus has shifted from overthrowing a madman who was a direct threat to our national security, to rebuilding Iraq and providing its people with freedom in abundance--theoretically, at least. The first was a great idea; the second is far more problematic and inconsistent in its investiture.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Views on the Iraq War, Part I
I haven't spoken of the Iraq war in a while, so I thought I'd bore you cross-eyed with the topic, yet again.
I'm a proud member of the dwindling minority who still thinks Saddumb Husinsane actually harbored weapons of mass destruction. Why? Two reasons: One, he used them, and more than once. Two, he admitted that he possessed them to the U.N weapons inspectors (AKA the "Look Busy" club), but claimed he destroyed them. Interestingly, he refused to divulge the location of their dismantlement.
I also believe he had them as recently as the eve of the second invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces. A sizeable number of people have come forward in interviews and claimed the Iraqis shipped out unknown materials in large quantities in freight truck convoys, just days before the first troops poured into the region. The U.S. government has other intelligence confirming this. The vehicles made a beeline for the Bekaa Valley in Syria, a country run by (surprise, surprise) Ba'athists, which is Saddumb's political party. I accept the possibility of presumptuousness, on my part, but I don't think this was Husinsane's personal teddy bear collection.
He had the opportunity and the time for spiriting such weapons away, hiding them, or destroying them, which would explain why American soldiers weren't tripping over nook-yuh-luhr warheads while searching hovels and spider holes throughout Baghdad.
Finally, WMDs were found in Iraq, just not in massive quantities. The media deserves credit for keeping this swept in a nice, tidy pile, under the rug.
As someone who did not vote for Bush in the last election, I can honestly say the accusations against him regarding WMDs are some of the most reckless, cynical, and thoroughly dishonest examples of political opportunism I've ever encountered. We have a country full of politicians who were totally convinced Iraq had WMDs. Miraculously, those same officials became skeptical of their existence at the precise moment that George Bush decided in favor of an invasion of the country. Labelling this a coincidence is pure generosity. Politicians--particularly Demonscats--who once preached the dangers of Saddumb's regime flip-flopped faster than froglegs in a skittle and accused Bush of misleading us and, in some cases, outright lying to the American people. Let me just remind everyone that before the invasion, everyone believed Iraq had WMDs. Everyone, across the board. In fact, so certain were they of this fact, some jabbering heads on tv actually used it as an excuse for not invading Iraq, out of fear of what Husinsane might do.
This one example shows me that the Demonscats comprise the party of political whoredom, and nothing else.
I'm a proud member of the dwindling minority who still thinks Saddumb Husinsane actually harbored weapons of mass destruction. Why? Two reasons: One, he used them, and more than once. Two, he admitted that he possessed them to the U.N weapons inspectors (AKA the "Look Busy" club), but claimed he destroyed them. Interestingly, he refused to divulge the location of their dismantlement.
I also believe he had them as recently as the eve of the second invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces. A sizeable number of people have come forward in interviews and claimed the Iraqis shipped out unknown materials in large quantities in freight truck convoys, just days before the first troops poured into the region. The U.S. government has other intelligence confirming this. The vehicles made a beeline for the Bekaa Valley in Syria, a country run by (surprise, surprise) Ba'athists, which is Saddumb's political party. I accept the possibility of presumptuousness, on my part, but I don't think this was Husinsane's personal teddy bear collection.
He had the opportunity and the time for spiriting such weapons away, hiding them, or destroying them, which would explain why American soldiers weren't tripping over nook-yuh-luhr warheads while searching hovels and spider holes throughout Baghdad.
Finally, WMDs were found in Iraq, just not in massive quantities. The media deserves credit for keeping this swept in a nice, tidy pile, under the rug.
As someone who did not vote for Bush in the last election, I can honestly say the accusations against him regarding WMDs are some of the most reckless, cynical, and thoroughly dishonest examples of political opportunism I've ever encountered. We have a country full of politicians who were totally convinced Iraq had WMDs. Miraculously, those same officials became skeptical of their existence at the precise moment that George Bush decided in favor of an invasion of the country. Labelling this a coincidence is pure generosity. Politicians--particularly Demonscats--who once preached the dangers of Saddumb's regime flip-flopped faster than froglegs in a skittle and accused Bush of misleading us and, in some cases, outright lying to the American people. Let me just remind everyone that before the invasion, everyone believed Iraq had WMDs. Everyone, across the board. In fact, so certain were they of this fact, some jabbering heads on tv actually used it as an excuse for not invading Iraq, out of fear of what Husinsane might do.
This one example shows me that the Demonscats comprise the party of political whoredom, and nothing else.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Friday, November 18, 2005
The Scariest Movie of All Time
"Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the commune. . ."
No wonder Norman Bates was such a twisted feller.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Gun-Grabbers United
San Francisco voters this week passed what could become the nation's strictest gun ban when they outlawed not only the sale of guns in the city, but required almost everyone who is not a cop, security guard or member of the military to surrender their handguns to police by April 1.
Supporters of Proposition H say that with 76-gun related homicides this year and 90 last year, taking away people's firearms will help fight crime.
Excellent idea! Gun control never works, thus the solution is tighter restriction on legal gun ownership. Makes perfect sense.
There's a term for nations where only government officials have guns; they're called police states.
And how exactly does banning guns within San Francisco fight crime? Most criminals do not obtain firearms through legal channels; most law-abiding citizens do. I'd love to hear an explanation how targeting those who obey the law for the actions of criminal thugs aids in decreasing crime. Criminals, by definition, flout the law. Telling them that owning a gun is illegal is worse than pointless.
Turning law-abiding citizens into criminals over night with the stroke of a pen doesn't strike me as a very imaginative or intelligent solution. Whether the voters came out in droves in favor of this proposition or not, it's unconstitutional, and a clear infringement on the rights of those who own firearms.
Of course, in leftist dystopias, results don't matter. Neither do personal rights, unless they contribute to the cause. Only intentions and putting on airs are of importance.
Supporters of Proposition H say that with 76-gun related homicides this year and 90 last year, taking away people's firearms will help fight crime.
Excellent idea! Gun control never works, thus the solution is tighter restriction on legal gun ownership. Makes perfect sense.
There's a term for nations where only government officials have guns; they're called police states.
And how exactly does banning guns within San Francisco fight crime? Most criminals do not obtain firearms through legal channels; most law-abiding citizens do. I'd love to hear an explanation how targeting those who obey the law for the actions of criminal thugs aids in decreasing crime. Criminals, by definition, flout the law. Telling them that owning a gun is illegal is worse than pointless.
Turning law-abiding citizens into criminals over night with the stroke of a pen doesn't strike me as a very imaginative or intelligent solution. Whether the voters came out in droves in favor of this proposition or not, it's unconstitutional, and a clear infringement on the rights of those who own firearms.
Of course, in leftist dystopias, results don't matter. Neither do personal rights, unless they contribute to the cause. Only intentions and putting on airs are of importance.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Sugarcoating the Status Quo
Michael Chertoff, Homeland Insecurity Secretary, says deportation of illegals isn't practical:
"The cost of identifying all of those people and sending them back would be stupendous. It would be billions and billions of dollars," Chertoff told Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity & Colmes" last night.
Asked the talk-show host: "Why don't we say, no, you're here illegally, you didn't respect our laws, you ought to go home?"
Chertoff again appealed to the issue of cost, saying, " Sean, you know, it's really an issue of practicality. I mean, as a practical matter, we've got to identify these people and pull them out of the shadows."
A couple of points. First, why is it that the government cares not a whit for how much something costs, except in cases involving illegal immigration? The pricetag on any number of other problems is a non-issue; but suddenly, when faced with deporting illegal aliens, well, it just isn't cost-effective. Since when is the government known for its frugality?
Second, Chertoff's being deceptive, here. Will deporting illegals cost a fortune? Yes. Will it cost more than they're leeching from us already with their presence in this country, as we speak? I don't see how. Free medical care, drastically reduced tuition fees, lost jobs Americans should be working, incarceration costs--these are just a few of the problems we're contending with, due to illegal immigration. And what of property damage, rapes, robberies, murders, and all the associated strains both material and emotional for those affected? The list goes on.
Setting aside the monetary aspect, you can't put a pricetag on many of the effects of crime and cultural dilution.
"… What this would let us do is acknowledge the reality that we've got hundreds and thousands of employers all over this country who are employing illegal aliens. Sometimes, individual citizens employing people in their home."
Which is against the law, last time I checked. It's obvious that the nonexistent or selective enforcement of immigration laws is a contributing factor in the rampant employment of illegal aliens. The government is at fault for this problem, yet it uses the situation as an excuse for doing nothing.
Not having mass deportations is spitting on the law, shrugging off national security, and laughing in the faces of those who have enough respect for our laws that they stand in line for ages, jumping through all the necessary hoops put before them, on the path to America.
It's a disgrace, and it's costing us. We'll keep right on paying for it, too.
"The cost of identifying all of those people and sending them back would be stupendous. It would be billions and billions of dollars," Chertoff told Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity & Colmes" last night.
Asked the talk-show host: "Why don't we say, no, you're here illegally, you didn't respect our laws, you ought to go home?"
Chertoff again appealed to the issue of cost, saying, " Sean, you know, it's really an issue of practicality. I mean, as a practical matter, we've got to identify these people and pull them out of the shadows."
A couple of points. First, why is it that the government cares not a whit for how much something costs, except in cases involving illegal immigration? The pricetag on any number of other problems is a non-issue; but suddenly, when faced with deporting illegal aliens, well, it just isn't cost-effective. Since when is the government known for its frugality?
Second, Chertoff's being deceptive, here. Will deporting illegals cost a fortune? Yes. Will it cost more than they're leeching from us already with their presence in this country, as we speak? I don't see how. Free medical care, drastically reduced tuition fees, lost jobs Americans should be working, incarceration costs--these are just a few of the problems we're contending with, due to illegal immigration. And what of property damage, rapes, robberies, murders, and all the associated strains both material and emotional for those affected? The list goes on.
Setting aside the monetary aspect, you can't put a pricetag on many of the effects of crime and cultural dilution.
"… What this would let us do is acknowledge the reality that we've got hundreds and thousands of employers all over this country who are employing illegal aliens. Sometimes, individual citizens employing people in their home."
Which is against the law, last time I checked. It's obvious that the nonexistent or selective enforcement of immigration laws is a contributing factor in the rampant employment of illegal aliens. The government is at fault for this problem, yet it uses the situation as an excuse for doing nothing.
Not having mass deportations is spitting on the law, shrugging off national security, and laughing in the faces of those who have enough respect for our laws that they stand in line for ages, jumping through all the necessary hoops put before them, on the path to America.
It's a disgrace, and it's costing us. We'll keep right on paying for it, too.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Bizarre Celebrity Children Names
As if you needed additional proof, most celebrities are nuts. Here are a few names entertainers graciously have bestowed upon their children, bringing them (the celebrity parents, not their children) much pleasure in the process.
Moon Unit
Dweezil
Ahmed Emuukha Rodan
Diva Muffin
All the above are Frank Zappa's children.
Apple: Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter.
Heavenly Hirani Tiger Lily: Michael Hutchence's daughter.
Prince Michael and Prince Michael II: Michael Jackson's children.
Elijah Bob Patricius Guggi Q: Bono's offspring.
Zowie Bowie: David Bowie's child.
I'm not sure if a "Diva Muffin" is Whitney Houston's favorite breakfast food, or her best-loved drug. Paltrow's kid probably will be the butt of many unpleasant jokes for her entire life. I just hope she doesn't grow up to be a bad Apple, as a result, and rotten to the core. And I wonder what kind of magic mushrooms Frank Zappa ingested, just before scribbling those atrocities on their respective birth certificates? Who knew that Hutchence brought a Peter Pan character into the world? Seems like he spent way too much time in Never Land. Speaking of Never Land, I didn't know Michael Jackson was royalty. Oh, yeah, he's the king of pop. Never mind.
Asked once why he gave his children such unusual names, Zappa reputedly said simply: "Because I wanted to."
That kinda says it all, doesn't it?
I think I'll name my first child John Smith, just to balance the scales a bit.
Moon Unit
Dweezil
Ahmed Emuukha Rodan
Diva Muffin
All the above are Frank Zappa's children.
Apple: Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter.
Heavenly Hirani Tiger Lily: Michael Hutchence's daughter.
Prince Michael and Prince Michael II: Michael Jackson's children.
Elijah Bob Patricius Guggi Q: Bono's offspring.
Zowie Bowie: David Bowie's child.
I'm not sure if a "Diva Muffin" is Whitney Houston's favorite breakfast food, or her best-loved drug. Paltrow's kid probably will be the butt of many unpleasant jokes for her entire life. I just hope she doesn't grow up to be a bad Apple, as a result, and rotten to the core. And I wonder what kind of magic mushrooms Frank Zappa ingested, just before scribbling those atrocities on their respective birth certificates? Who knew that Hutchence brought a Peter Pan character into the world? Seems like he spent way too much time in Never Land. Speaking of Never Land, I didn't know Michael Jackson was royalty. Oh, yeah, he's the king of pop. Never mind.
Asked once why he gave his children such unusual names, Zappa reputedly said simply: "Because I wanted to."
That kinda says it all, doesn't it?
I think I'll name my first child John Smith, just to balance the scales a bit.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Can't Stop Thinking About Sex
It seems the 9th Circle of Hell Court has decided that there is "no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."
The three-judge panel of the full court further ruled that parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."
Six parents sued the Palmdale, Calif., School District after finding out their kids had been asked a series of sexual questions in class. They included asking the children about the frequency of:
Touching my private parts too much
Thinking about having sex
Thinking about touching other people's private parts
Thinking about sex when I don't want to
Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside
Not trusting people because they might want sex
Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
Having sex feelings in my body
Can't stop thinking about sex
Getting upset when people talk about sex
Most of you know what I think about the public skewels. This is just another in a loooooong list of reasons why my children never will step foot in those hives of hedonism. Sending your kid to one of these "institutions" is voluntarily surrendering parental discretion and authority, which I think is a terrible idea.
That said, this kangaroo court may have nothing in the way of wholesome values, but it makes up for this lacking in unmitigated gall. Taxpayer funding keeps the public "schools" from foundering. The parents who send their children there are taxpayers. Of course they should have a say-so in what is taught. That's Common Decency 101.
Sexuality and all its ramifications is tied irrevocably to morality. So in essence the court's ruling is: parents have no rights as exclusive arbiters of moral teachings for their children. The government-run "schools" may teach a counter-message, if they choose. If so, parents have no recourse. In other words, grin and bear it.
This is an attack against parents and an assault against the family. The interesting side-note is that much of these curricula are spirited in under the radar, outside parental awareness. Moms and dads aren't given the facts for debating at school-board meetings. They simply have no idea what's going on, until too late. How anyone could believe that the government has no agenda in direct conflict with that of most parents is beyond me. And these corrosive intentions become less subtle by the day.
One final open question: If parents have no rights as exclusive providers of information on sex, where does one draw the line over the rights they do have?
The three-judge panel of the full court further ruled that parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."
Six parents sued the Palmdale, Calif., School District after finding out their kids had been asked a series of sexual questions in class. They included asking the children about the frequency of:
Touching my private parts too much
Thinking about having sex
Thinking about touching other people's private parts
Thinking about sex when I don't want to
Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside
Not trusting people because they might want sex
Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
Having sex feelings in my body
Can't stop thinking about sex
Getting upset when people talk about sex
Most of you know what I think about the public skewels. This is just another in a loooooong list of reasons why my children never will step foot in those hives of hedonism. Sending your kid to one of these "institutions" is voluntarily surrendering parental discretion and authority, which I think is a terrible idea.
That said, this kangaroo court may have nothing in the way of wholesome values, but it makes up for this lacking in unmitigated gall. Taxpayer funding keeps the public "schools" from foundering. The parents who send their children there are taxpayers. Of course they should have a say-so in what is taught. That's Common Decency 101.
Sexuality and all its ramifications is tied irrevocably to morality. So in essence the court's ruling is: parents have no rights as exclusive arbiters of moral teachings for their children. The government-run "schools" may teach a counter-message, if they choose. If so, parents have no recourse. In other words, grin and bear it.
This is an attack against parents and an assault against the family. The interesting side-note is that much of these curricula are spirited in under the radar, outside parental awareness. Moms and dads aren't given the facts for debating at school-board meetings. They simply have no idea what's going on, until too late. How anyone could believe that the government has no agenda in direct conflict with that of most parents is beyond me. And these corrosive intentions become less subtle by the day.
One final open question: If parents have no rights as exclusive providers of information on sex, where does one draw the line over the rights they do have?
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Disappearing Act
I know I haven't had much of a presence in the blogosphere, the last couple of weeks. I've been pretty busy with work and family, and I've barely made time for my own blog, much less those of others. I'm writing this just so everyone will know I'm not abandoning my blog buddies, or suddenly finding their spaces unworthy of commenting. Hopefully, things'll wind down a bit, come the first of December; then I'll be back to my regular routine of posting and commenting on other blogs. Until then I'll keep updating, here, every day, or maybe every other day.
In short, I'm not pulling a Harry Houdini on ya.
God bless you all.
In short, I'm not pulling a Harry Houdini on ya.
God bless you all.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Embrace the Dark Side
Just one question, my friends:Does this picture surprise anyone?
I mean, really.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
A Little Knowledge. . .
In much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.--Ecclesiastes 1:18
It always amazes me that some people believe the Bible is just a weighty tome filled with fairy tales. Yet it's verses like this one that belie this belief. I know from personal experience that this verse is the gospel truth (no pun intended). Over the years, as I learn more about the world and how it works, I'm more saddened at the evil of Man. There's a perceived invincibility inherent in youth. Of course, a cold slap of reality awaits just down the road, when sickness or infirmity comes, or when loved ones die of illness, accidents, or old age. I once believed politics was a fairly straightforward process, in which one party was bad, and the other was good. Voting for the "good " party candidate was the obvious choice. With time came the unpleasant realization that it's largely a corruption-riddled machine for propping up the elite, with few "good" guys embroiled in the concoction, on either side. A numbness sets in at the thought that most people will reject God and spend eternity separated from Him and their loved ones, in self-inflicted everlasting punishment.
Without Christ, information becomes more difficult to process; knowledge works against one's happiness and security; the world seems a place filled with shadows and pools of ever-spreading darkness.
Our hope is found in Jesus, and nowhere else. What a marvelous thought that one day, all the darkness will be gone; all the shadows will flee; the Deceiver will be cast into the Lake of Fire with his angels.
Imagine a time when wisdom will not be a burden, and knowledge will not cause pain.
That time is coming!
It always amazes me that some people believe the Bible is just a weighty tome filled with fairy tales. Yet it's verses like this one that belie this belief. I know from personal experience that this verse is the gospel truth (no pun intended). Over the years, as I learn more about the world and how it works, I'm more saddened at the evil of Man. There's a perceived invincibility inherent in youth. Of course, a cold slap of reality awaits just down the road, when sickness or infirmity comes, or when loved ones die of illness, accidents, or old age. I once believed politics was a fairly straightforward process, in which one party was bad, and the other was good. Voting for the "good " party candidate was the obvious choice. With time came the unpleasant realization that it's largely a corruption-riddled machine for propping up the elite, with few "good" guys embroiled in the concoction, on either side. A numbness sets in at the thought that most people will reject God and spend eternity separated from Him and their loved ones, in self-inflicted everlasting punishment.
Without Christ, information becomes more difficult to process; knowledge works against one's happiness and security; the world seems a place filled with shadows and pools of ever-spreading darkness.
Our hope is found in Jesus, and nowhere else. What a marvelous thought that one day, all the darkness will be gone; all the shadows will flee; the Deceiver will be cast into the Lake of Fire with his angels.
Imagine a time when wisdom will not be a burden, and knowledge will not cause pain.
That time is coming!
Tuesday, November 8, 2005
Sunday, November 6, 2005
A-Rioting We Will Go
Youths armed with gasoline bombs fanned out from Paris' poor, troubled suburbs to shatter the tranquility of resort cities on the Mediterranean, torching scores of vehicles, nursery schools and other targets during a 10th straight night of arson attacks.
Standing operating procedure for Muhammed's Peaceniks: attack and obliterate the helpless and innocent--or symbols thereof, such as nursery schools. It's difficult fathoming how family conversations go, after Ahmad Jihad gets back home to his wives and 37 kids, after a night of pillage and rapine.
Ahmad (coming in the front door): "Wife, where's my supper? I've worked up an appetite. Allah may be merciful, but he never had to work on an empty stomach."
Submissive Wife: "My dearest and most revered husband"--
Ahmad: "Most revered?! Most revered?! You mean you have more than one husband whom you honor? Where's the other one? Hiding in the closet? Bring my food, while I find my machete."
Submissive Wife: "Please, Lord, I just wanted to know how your night went with Habib and the poor boys!"
Ahmad (relaxing and sagging onto his divan): "Ah, changing the subject, I see. I'll humor you, until after I've had my repast. Everything went fine. We beat a few infidels cross-eyed, cried and gnashed our teeth for the media cameras, and torched a few nursery schools. The last brought particular satisfaction, since the children of Shaitan offered fierce resistance. But the mighty fist of Allah struck them down in the street, and they toddled away in their rubber pants and Pampers in terror. It was quite a rout."
Submissive Wife: "Allahu Ackbar!" What a sublime victory!"
Ahmad: "Indeed. But do not presume your praise has made me forget your adulterous escapade. Honor demands that I decapitate and drag your worthless carcass into the street. The harem scarcely will miss you, though I bid your Arabian Stallion Stew a fond adieu. Farewell, my desert flower."
Thunk!
Pretty far-removed from Father Knows Best, eh?
Standing operating procedure for Muhammed's Peaceniks: attack and obliterate the helpless and innocent--or symbols thereof, such as nursery schools. It's difficult fathoming how family conversations go, after Ahmad Jihad gets back home to his wives and 37 kids, after a night of pillage and rapine.
Ahmad (coming in the front door): "Wife, where's my supper? I've worked up an appetite. Allah may be merciful, but he never had to work on an empty stomach."
Submissive Wife: "My dearest and most revered husband"--
Ahmad: "Most revered?! Most revered?! You mean you have more than one husband whom you honor? Where's the other one? Hiding in the closet? Bring my food, while I find my machete."
Submissive Wife: "Please, Lord, I just wanted to know how your night went with Habib and the poor boys!"
Ahmad (relaxing and sagging onto his divan): "Ah, changing the subject, I see. I'll humor you, until after I've had my repast. Everything went fine. We beat a few infidels cross-eyed, cried and gnashed our teeth for the media cameras, and torched a few nursery schools. The last brought particular satisfaction, since the children of Shaitan offered fierce resistance. But the mighty fist of Allah struck them down in the street, and they toddled away in their rubber pants and Pampers in terror. It was quite a rout."
Submissive Wife: "Allahu Ackbar!" What a sublime victory!"
Ahmad: "Indeed. But do not presume your praise has made me forget your adulterous escapade. Honor demands that I decapitate and drag your worthless carcass into the street. The harem scarcely will miss you, though I bid your Arabian Stallion Stew a fond adieu. Farewell, my desert flower."
Thunk!
Pretty far-removed from Father Knows Best, eh?
Saturday, November 5, 2005
Through a Glass, Darkly
Now we see as through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.--1 Corinthians 13:12
This is one of the more interesting verses in the New Testament, and it's one of my favorites. Isn't it nice to know that the murk of knowledge and understanding we have, today, is a pale comparison to the clarity we'll acquire, in Heaven? I don't know if the Lord will answer all our questions; but I know we'll see Him, unrestricted, and undimmed in all His glory. I long for that day.
Sometimes I'm impatient about it. I suppose the waiting will make it all the sweeter.
This is one of the more interesting verses in the New Testament, and it's one of my favorites. Isn't it nice to know that the murk of knowledge and understanding we have, today, is a pale comparison to the clarity we'll acquire, in Heaven? I don't know if the Lord will answer all our questions; but I know we'll see Him, unrestricted, and undimmed in all His glory. I long for that day.
Sometimes I'm impatient about it. I suppose the waiting will make it all the sweeter.
Thursday, November 3, 2005
Post-Halloween Traumatic Stress Disorder. . .
. . .or just indigestion, after devouring too much candy & too many trick-or-treaters?
Aw, who cares? I just like the picture, since it describes my take on the so-called holiday to a tee.
They really are worth a thousand words.
Wednesday, November 2, 2005
Defying Conventions
A Bible symposium at Florida's Southern College yields some disgusting results:
James L. Crenshaw, professor of Old Testament at Duke Divinity School, questioned Scripture's authority to govern matters of sexuality – the Old Testament text, he argued, was written over 12 centuries under a variety of shifting circumstances. It is the reader, he argued, that determines the text's meaning.
One of the more bizarre situations in this world is when an apostate gravitates toward becoming a professor of Old Testament. What draws such people toward this profession? Perhaps it offers a doorway into religious validation of their degenerate views? If the reader determines the text's meaning, then the text, in effect, has no meaning. This is what happens when we mix moral relativism with Christianity. These folks put the "moron" in oxymoronic.
Crenshaw cited divorce, easily obtained in early Hebrew society but discouraged in later prophetic and rabbinic writings, to illustrate what he described as the Bible's shifting standards. Likewise, in the Song of Songs, "the lovers defy convention in the way lovers have always done."
First off, divorce was nowhere near as rampant or as trivial in its details in early Hebrew society as it is, today. And even if it was every bit as common, what in the world does that have to do with the Bible's "shifting standards?" This is pure, unadulterated nonsense.
Given the lack of a cohesive approach to sexuality in the Bible, Crenshaw argued "those who practice alternative sexual lifestyles" should not be condemned.
Think of how carefree must be one's life, when morals, common sense, or the acceptance of a text's plain meaning is absent. Here are the Bible's "shifting standards," regarding homosexuality:
And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.--I Kings 14:24
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as womankind: it is abomination.--Leviticus 18:22
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.--Leviticus 20:13
Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.--Romans 1: 26 & 27
There is more, and none of it is vacillating, contradictory, or waffling in its standards. "Alternative" lifestyles categorically are condemned, in scripture. Reaching any other conclusion requires the complete abrogation of biblical authority. We don't have to like it; we just have to accept it as fact. Nor does this mean that there is no salvation from these lifestyles, or that God is unforgiving of those who repent.
"We must reject at the outset any notion of the supreme authority of scripture. ...
Then in what should we place supreme authority? The shifting opinions of Man? No thanks.
"Is God more interested in our sex lives than in our integrity, our good deeds and our chaste thoughts?"
Gibberish lovingly wrapped in non sequitur. One is an outgrowth of the other. If our sexual lives are fraught with perversion and moral corrosion, does this not affect our integrity? Are we more or less likely to be filled with good deeds and chaste thoughts, if our sexual lives are corrupt? The man acts as if there is no link between the two. There is.
Defying conventions isn't always evil. But when the Word of our Lord and Savior unequivocally condemns certain acts, we should perk up and pay attention. He does not make these demands without cause. Attempted warping of His words does not change the nature of sin.
James L. Crenshaw, professor of Old Testament at Duke Divinity School, questioned Scripture's authority to govern matters of sexuality – the Old Testament text, he argued, was written over 12 centuries under a variety of shifting circumstances. It is the reader, he argued, that determines the text's meaning.
One of the more bizarre situations in this world is when an apostate gravitates toward becoming a professor of Old Testament. What draws such people toward this profession? Perhaps it offers a doorway into religious validation of their degenerate views? If the reader determines the text's meaning, then the text, in effect, has no meaning. This is what happens when we mix moral relativism with Christianity. These folks put the "moron" in oxymoronic.
Crenshaw cited divorce, easily obtained in early Hebrew society but discouraged in later prophetic and rabbinic writings, to illustrate what he described as the Bible's shifting standards. Likewise, in the Song of Songs, "the lovers defy convention in the way lovers have always done."
First off, divorce was nowhere near as rampant or as trivial in its details in early Hebrew society as it is, today. And even if it was every bit as common, what in the world does that have to do with the Bible's "shifting standards?" This is pure, unadulterated nonsense.
Given the lack of a cohesive approach to sexuality in the Bible, Crenshaw argued "those who practice alternative sexual lifestyles" should not be condemned.
Think of how carefree must be one's life, when morals, common sense, or the acceptance of a text's plain meaning is absent. Here are the Bible's "shifting standards," regarding homosexuality:
And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.--I Kings 14:24
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as womankind: it is abomination.--Leviticus 18:22
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.--Leviticus 20:13
Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.--Romans 1: 26 & 27
There is more, and none of it is vacillating, contradictory, or waffling in its standards. "Alternative" lifestyles categorically are condemned, in scripture. Reaching any other conclusion requires the complete abrogation of biblical authority. We don't have to like it; we just have to accept it as fact. Nor does this mean that there is no salvation from these lifestyles, or that God is unforgiving of those who repent.
"We must reject at the outset any notion of the supreme authority of scripture. ...
Then in what should we place supreme authority? The shifting opinions of Man? No thanks.
"Is God more interested in our sex lives than in our integrity, our good deeds and our chaste thoughts?"
Gibberish lovingly wrapped in non sequitur. One is an outgrowth of the other. If our sexual lives are fraught with perversion and moral corrosion, does this not affect our integrity? Are we more or less likely to be filled with good deeds and chaste thoughts, if our sexual lives are corrupt? The man acts as if there is no link between the two. There is.
Defying conventions isn't always evil. But when the Word of our Lord and Savior unequivocally condemns certain acts, we should perk up and pay attention. He does not make these demands without cause. Attempted warping of His words does not change the nature of sin.
Tuesday, November 1, 2005
"Help Us Help You"
Sick of Allah not getting his due?
Tired of the Zionist entity's parasitic leeching of the Holy Land's resources?
Disappointed about hit-or-miss jihad forays?
Does the use of Gentile blood in Jewish matzo have you feeling blue?
Want to exorcise the "Great Satan?"
Well. . . .
Paradise Operators are standing by. . .
Tired of the Zionist entity's parasitic leeching of the Holy Land's resources?
Disappointed about hit-or-miss jihad forays?
Does the use of Gentile blood in Jewish matzo have you feeling blue?
Want to exorcise the "Great Satan?"
Well. . . .
Paradise Operators are standing by. . .
Monday, October 31, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
To Kill, or Not to Kill
I've always been a diehard pro-capital punishment kind of guy--at least, until recently. It seems as I grow older, I become more torn between what I know is morally acceptable, and what actually works in the real world. Let me explain:
I consider the death penalty a biblical institution and wholly just when applied in the correct manner. Not for the sake of vengeance or deterrence do I hold this view, but rather because it was ordained by God. If man is made in the image of God, murder is one of the ugliest sins imaginable. True justice cannot be served, unless the murderer's life is forfeit. Society must send this message to evil-doers, loud and clear. Any deterrent effect is just an added bonus.
So in short, I have no moral qualms about the death penalty as an institution. Nor will I lose sleep when a child molester or killer is executed.
But then I turn and see the utter decomposition of our judicial (none dare call it "justice" with a straight face) system. Time and time again, I read about the horrors of pervasive, systemic corruption in our courts, both in small matters, and those of great import. I drew the conclusion quite some time ago that the system as it functions, currently, is just a money-making racket and a complete sham.
So the questions arise: Do we place the power of life and death in dirty hands? Do we continue investing such control in people who have proven disinterested in--or downright hostile to--the notion of justice? Is making an impartial and factual determination of guilt or innocence within the scope of our courts' abilities, as they stand? If not, how do we resolve this painful dilemma?
I consider failure in executing a murderer a breach of justice; but an even greater injustice, in my opinion, is putting to death a person who is blameless.
The only solution I see, for the nonce, is limiting capital punishment's use to cases in which the perpetrator's guilt is not in question. For example, he is caught in the act by the authorities, or several parties can attest to having witnessed his barbarities, or the criminal demonstrably confesses his crime without compulsion. Another option is a complete overhaul and slash-and-burn policy within our judicial system, with built-in accountability. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening, any time soon.
I realize these scenarios aren't foolproof, and as I said, I'm torn. My opinion isn't set in stone, on this matter.
I welcome your comments.
I consider the death penalty a biblical institution and wholly just when applied in the correct manner. Not for the sake of vengeance or deterrence do I hold this view, but rather because it was ordained by God. If man is made in the image of God, murder is one of the ugliest sins imaginable. True justice cannot be served, unless the murderer's life is forfeit. Society must send this message to evil-doers, loud and clear. Any deterrent effect is just an added bonus.
So in short, I have no moral qualms about the death penalty as an institution. Nor will I lose sleep when a child molester or killer is executed.
But then I turn and see the utter decomposition of our judicial (none dare call it "justice" with a straight face) system. Time and time again, I read about the horrors of pervasive, systemic corruption in our courts, both in small matters, and those of great import. I drew the conclusion quite some time ago that the system as it functions, currently, is just a money-making racket and a complete sham.
So the questions arise: Do we place the power of life and death in dirty hands? Do we continue investing such control in people who have proven disinterested in--or downright hostile to--the notion of justice? Is making an impartial and factual determination of guilt or innocence within the scope of our courts' abilities, as they stand? If not, how do we resolve this painful dilemma?
I consider failure in executing a murderer a breach of justice; but an even greater injustice, in my opinion, is putting to death a person who is blameless.
The only solution I see, for the nonce, is limiting capital punishment's use to cases in which the perpetrator's guilt is not in question. For example, he is caught in the act by the authorities, or several parties can attest to having witnessed his barbarities, or the criminal demonstrably confesses his crime without compulsion. Another option is a complete overhaul and slash-and-burn policy within our judicial system, with built-in accountability. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening, any time soon.
I realize these scenarios aren't foolproof, and as I said, I'm torn. My opinion isn't set in stone, on this matter.
I welcome your comments.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Sick of Skewel
My mother sent this to me in an email. Supposedly, these are actual parental explanations for their childrens' absence from skewel.
NO PARENTS LEFT BEHIND
(Spellings have been left intact.)
NO PARENTS LEFT BEHIND
(Spellings have been left intact.)
1-- MY SON IS UNDER A DOCTOR'S CARE AND SHOULD NOT TAKE PE TODAY. PLEASE EXECUTE HIM.
2-- PLEASE EXKUCE LISA FOR BEING ABSENT SHE WAS SICK AND I HAD HER SHOT.
3-- DEAR SCHOOL: PLEASE ECSC's JOHN BEING ABSENT ON JAN. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 AND ALSO 33.
4-- PLEASE EXCUSE GLORIA FROM JIM TODAY. SHE IS ADMINISTRATING.
5-- PLEASE EXCUSE ROLAND FROM P.E. FOR A FEW DAYS. YESTERDAY HE
FELL OUT OF A TREE AND MISPLACED HIS HIP.
6-- JOHN HAS BEEN ABSENT BECAUSE HE HAD TWO TEETH TAKEN OUT OF HIS FACE.
7-- CARLOS WAS ABSENT YESTERDAY BECAUSE HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL. HE WAS HURT IN THE GROWING PART.
8-- MEGAN COULD NOT COME TO SCHOOL TODAY BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN
BOTHERED BY VERY CLOSE VEINS.
9-- CHRIS WILL NOT BE IN SCHOOL CUS HE HAS AN ACRE IN HIS SIDE.
10-- PLEASE EXCUSE RAY FRIDAY FROM SCHOOL. HE HAS VERY
LOOSE VOWELS.
11-- PLEASE EXCUSE PEDRO FROM BEING ABSENT YESTERDAY. HE HAD
(DIAHRE, DYREA, DIREATHE), THE SH**S. NOTE: [WORDS IN ( *)'s WERE CROSSED OUT].
12-- PLEASE EXCUSE TOMMY FOR BEING ABSENT YESTERDAY. HE HAD DIARRHEA, AND HIS BOOTS LEAK.
13-- IRVING WAS ABSENT YESTERDAY BECAUSE HE MISSED HIS BUST.
14-- PLEASE EXCUSE JIMMY FOR BEING. IT WAS HIS FATHER'S FAULT.
15 -- I KEPT BILLIE HOME BECAUSE SHE HAD TO GO CHRISTMAS SHOPPING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT SIZE SHE WEAR.
16-- PLEASE EXCUSE JENNIFER FOR MISSING SCHOOL YESTERDAY. WE FORGOT TO GET THE SUNDAY PAPER OFF THE PORCH, AND WHEN WE FOUND IT MONDAY. WE THOUGHT IT WAS SUNDAY.
17-- SALLY WON'T BE IN SCHOOL A WEEK FROM FRIDAY. WE HAVE TO ATTEND HER FUNERAL.
18-- MY DAUGHTER WAS ABSENT YESTERDAY BECAUSE SHE WAS TIRED. SHE SPENT A WEEKEND WITH THE MARINES.
19-- PLEASE EXCUSE JASON FOR BEING ABSENT YESTERDAY. HE HAD A COLD AND COULD NOT BREED WELL.
20-- PLEASE EXCUSE MARY FOR BEING ABSENT YESTERDAY. SHE WAS IN BED WITH GRAMPS.
21-- GLORIA WAS ABSENT YESTERDAY AS SHE WAS HAVING A GANGOVER.
22-- PLEASE EXCUSE BRENDA. SHE HAS BEEN SICK AND UNDER THE DOCTOR.
23-- MARYANN WAS ABSENT DECEMBER 11-16, BECAUSE SHE HAD A FEVER, SORE THROAT, HEADACHE AND UPSET STOMACH. HER SISTER WAS ALSO SICK, FEVER AN SORE THROAT, HER BROTHER HAD A LOW GRADE FEVER AND ACHED ALL OVER. I WASN'T THE BEST EITHER, SORE THROAT AND FEVER. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING GOING AROUND, HER FATHER EVEN GOT HOT LAST NIGHT.
You might want to skip the public schools, if you truly want your chillun to get a real education. On the other hand, if you want them to grow up to be semi-literate drones, clearly the public schools are accomplishing this with flying colors.
PSA
I WANT YOU!!!!!. . .. . .for the new Iraqi woodchipper team.
Benefits include: hearing the melodic screams of the dying, experience in the art of torture, general wallowing in human misery and gore, and a robust medical/dental plan.
Contact your local recruiting office for more details.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Of Paradoxes and Polecats
Bane wrote an interesting and thought-provoking meme, over at his blog, and challenged his readers to answer the proffered questions. What is a meme, you may ask? I have no idea, I may answer. But he wrote one, and I'm responding to it.
If you could have one person on the planet killed, right now, with no consequence to yourself, who would you choose, and why?
Osama bin Laden, because it would be justice served, and few alive deserve it more.
If you could have wild, wanton sex with the person of your choice, them your willing slave, for an entire weekend, at the place of your choosing, who would it be, why, and where?
Wayul, whut kinda question is that? I reckon I'll answer: My wife, because I love her and am committed to her, and probably in some mountain retreat, beside a nice, roaring fire, with Osama's head mounted just above the mantle. How's that for romantic?
In the entire known history of mankind, if you could go back and put a bullet into their head, with no consequence to yourself, or your lineage, who would it be? Why? If no one, why?
This one's a toss-up, for me: Either Charles Darwin--for popularizing the theory of evolution; Muhammed, for being a murderous, mangy sand-flea; or the guy who invented the DVD player. You wouldn't believe what it's cost me to make the transition from VHS tapes to discs.
If there was one mammalian species you had to choose, right now, to become extinct, which would it be?
Another toss-up: Either the leftist moonbat, or the polecat (that's Southron for skunk).
Assuming God exists, and he handed you a button that, if pushed, would destroy Him, Jesus, the Kingdom of Heaven, and the entire Heavenly Host, would you push it, and why? Or why not?
And extinguish the only light in this dark universe? Are you kidding?
Assuming the universe still exists after that last question, if God handed you a button that, if pushed, would erase humanity from existence, would you push it, and why? Or why not?
If I really had this option, I might give it a few moments of sincere pondering. Aren't y'all delighted that I'm not God? I wouldn't do it because--for all their faults and evils--there are many good people who spread love and hope throughout the world. And for some reason, God chooses not to do just that. Who am I to question His wisdom? Now, if you limited this to certain sections of the population, I might consider it further. Again, aren't y'all thrilled that I'm not the Creator?
Assuming humanity still exists, after that last question, if God handed you a button that would erase one race from existence, would you push it, who would you choose, and why?
Get behind me, Satan! You sorely tempt me. The Arab race has vexed the last 1,400 years of history, so I'd likely go with them, if I pushed the button. But I don't see the world through racial lenses, and even the Arabs deserve the chance to seek Christ's redemption. No human being should have such arbitrary power.
Aside from all the other questions, and apart (and I wish you would consider each one of them separately) if you could go back in your own timeline, anywhere, and change any one event, knowing that your present would utterly disappear, altered forever......would you? And, if yes, which one.
Nope. There's too much about my present life that I love, too many people who have entered it, only to brighten the drab curtains and splash rainbow colors on the walls. No change in my past is worth the loss of even one of these cherished ones.
If you could have one person on the planet killed, right now, with no consequence to yourself, who would you choose, and why?
Osama bin Laden, because it would be justice served, and few alive deserve it more.
If you could have wild, wanton sex with the person of your choice, them your willing slave, for an entire weekend, at the place of your choosing, who would it be, why, and where?
Wayul, whut kinda question is that? I reckon I'll answer: My wife, because I love her and am committed to her, and probably in some mountain retreat, beside a nice, roaring fire, with Osama's head mounted just above the mantle. How's that for romantic?
In the entire known history of mankind, if you could go back and put a bullet into their head, with no consequence to yourself, or your lineage, who would it be? Why? If no one, why?
This one's a toss-up, for me: Either Charles Darwin--for popularizing the theory of evolution; Muhammed, for being a murderous, mangy sand-flea; or the guy who invented the DVD player. You wouldn't believe what it's cost me to make the transition from VHS tapes to discs.
If there was one mammalian species you had to choose, right now, to become extinct, which would it be?
Another toss-up: Either the leftist moonbat, or the polecat (that's Southron for skunk).
Assuming God exists, and he handed you a button that, if pushed, would destroy Him, Jesus, the Kingdom of Heaven, and the entire Heavenly Host, would you push it, and why? Or why not?
And extinguish the only light in this dark universe? Are you kidding?
Assuming the universe still exists after that last question, if God handed you a button that, if pushed, would erase humanity from existence, would you push it, and why? Or why not?
If I really had this option, I might give it a few moments of sincere pondering. Aren't y'all delighted that I'm not God? I wouldn't do it because--for all their faults and evils--there are many good people who spread love and hope throughout the world. And for some reason, God chooses not to do just that. Who am I to question His wisdom? Now, if you limited this to certain sections of the population, I might consider it further. Again, aren't y'all thrilled that I'm not the Creator?
Assuming humanity still exists, after that last question, if God handed you a button that would erase one race from existence, would you push it, who would you choose, and why?
Get behind me, Satan! You sorely tempt me. The Arab race has vexed the last 1,400 years of history, so I'd likely go with them, if I pushed the button. But I don't see the world through racial lenses, and even the Arabs deserve the chance to seek Christ's redemption. No human being should have such arbitrary power.
Aside from all the other questions, and apart (and I wish you would consider each one of them separately) if you could go back in your own timeline, anywhere, and change any one event, knowing that your present would utterly disappear, altered forever......would you? And, if yes, which one.
Nope. There's too much about my present life that I love, too many people who have entered it, only to brighten the drab curtains and splash rainbow colors on the walls. No change in my past is worth the loss of even one of these cherished ones.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
"Coming Out" for Your Children
A Maryland high school is observing "National Coming Out Week" with events organized by the campus Gay/Straight Alliance, prompting protests from parents.
The observance, which began Monday, encourages homosexuals to admit their sexual preference to others and encourages heterosexuals to show support.
If the other 1, 999, 567, 763 reasons to keep your kids out of the public indoctrination centers didn't convince you, well, here's reason # 1, 999, 567, 764.
The observance, which began Monday, encourages homosexuals to admit their sexual preference to others and encourages heterosexuals to show support.
If the other 1, 999, 567, 763 reasons to keep your kids out of the public indoctrination centers didn't convince you, well, here's reason # 1, 999, 567, 764.
Bye-Bye Birdy
The U.N. calls for bold moves in restraining lethal bird flu:
EVERY country, including Britain, should appoint a Cabinet-level minister within the next two months to co-ordinate their response to avian flu, the United Nations’ most senior bird flu expert said yesterday.
So, just as communist countries need the services of a Minister of Propaganda, and Islamic countries value ministers of Chaos and Destruction and ministers of Self-Immolation, the whole world now suffers from a dearth of Flu ministers.
With a name like "Flu Minister," I almost expect a person who hands out little vials of Bottled Death standing at the head of a long line, proffering his wares to the citizens with a smile and a wink and a pat on the back before sending them off to the thanatoriums.
EVERY country, including Britain, should appoint a Cabinet-level minister within the next two months to co-ordinate their response to avian flu, the United Nations’ most senior bird flu expert said yesterday.
So, just as communist countries need the services of a Minister of Propaganda, and Islamic countries value ministers of Chaos and Destruction and ministers of Self-Immolation, the whole world now suffers from a dearth of Flu ministers.
With a name like "Flu Minister," I almost expect a person who hands out little vials of Bottled Death standing at the head of a long line, proffering his wares to the citizens with a smile and a wink and a pat on the back before sending them off to the thanatoriums.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Dubya's Backup
In the event that Harriet Miers' nomination falls flatter than a drunken wookie, Dubya has chosen a second pick for the position.He even comes with his own black robe.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Take-Your-Raghead-to-School Day
A public skewel dabbles in Islamic brainwashing:
The Thomas More Law Center says that for three weeks, "impressionable 12-year-old students" were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups; took Islamic names; wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the star and crescent moon; handed materials that instructed them to 'Remember Allah always so that you may prosper'; completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting; and memorized and recited the 'Bismillah' or 'In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,' which students also wrote on banners hung on the classroom walls.
Students also played "jihad games" during the course, which was part of the school's world history and geography program.
If this isn't a brazen attempt at indoctrination, then what the heck is it?
In her 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton determined Excelsior was not indoctrinating students about Islam when it required them to adopt Muslim names and pray to Allah, but rather was just teaching them about the Muslim religion.
The lawsuit also alleges students were encouraged to use such phrases in their speech as "Allah Akbar," which is Arabic for "God is great," and were required to fast during lunch period to simulate fasting during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
Nevertheless, Judge Hamilton ruled the program was devoid of "any devotional or religious intent" and was, therefore, educational, not religious in nature.
Hm, I wonder how much they were taught about the bloody, ruthless aspects of the "Religion of Peace?" I wonder if there was any mention of Muhammed's pedophile tendencies, or his beheading of over 300 Jews in a single day? I imagine they learned all about the Muslim definition of tolerance: "Submit, convert, or die." When a story has two clear sides, and one is presented while the other is ignored, this does not fit the meaning of the word "education." Let's call it what it is: programming.
Not only is the judge a dishonest moron, but the irony of the situation isn't lost on me: let's present a deceitful, rosy portrait of a religion whose practitioners would gleefully kill us all--if given half the chance--and wipe our civilization from the face of the Earth. That includes the skewel's administrators, and the multicultist judge who presided over the case.
The Thomas More Law Center says that for three weeks, "impressionable 12-year-old students" were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups; took Islamic names; wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the star and crescent moon; handed materials that instructed them to 'Remember Allah always so that you may prosper'; completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting; and memorized and recited the 'Bismillah' or 'In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,' which students also wrote on banners hung on the classroom walls.
Students also played "jihad games" during the course, which was part of the school's world history and geography program.
If this isn't a brazen attempt at indoctrination, then what the heck is it?
In her 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton determined Excelsior was not indoctrinating students about Islam when it required them to adopt Muslim names and pray to Allah, but rather was just teaching them about the Muslim religion.
The lawsuit also alleges students were encouraged to use such phrases in their speech as "Allah Akbar," which is Arabic for "God is great," and were required to fast during lunch period to simulate fasting during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
Nevertheless, Judge Hamilton ruled the program was devoid of "any devotional or religious intent" and was, therefore, educational, not religious in nature.
Hm, I wonder how much they were taught about the bloody, ruthless aspects of the "Religion of Peace?" I wonder if there was any mention of Muhammed's pedophile tendencies, or his beheading of over 300 Jews in a single day? I imagine they learned all about the Muslim definition of tolerance: "Submit, convert, or die." When a story has two clear sides, and one is presented while the other is ignored, this does not fit the meaning of the word "education." Let's call it what it is: programming.
Not only is the judge a dishonest moron, but the irony of the situation isn't lost on me: let's present a deceitful, rosy portrait of a religion whose practitioners would gleefully kill us all--if given half the chance--and wipe our civilization from the face of the Earth. That includes the skewel's administrators, and the multicultist judge who presided over the case.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
"Subversive and Dangerous"
A Bible printing press was confiscated in Cuba:
After calling for reinforcements, a truck arrived with 12 armed, uniformed police who seized the gospels and the printing press. Cuban officials called the materials "subversive and dangerous."
The Ministry of Religion called the confiscated printing press "very dangerous."
A Cuban "Ministry of Religion," run by an atheist? Now I've heard everything. It's kinda like the Clinton administration setting up a "Ministry of Ethics." Please. Pure oxymoronics.
As for the Gospels being dangerous writings, you'd better believe it. Nothing ticks off el jefe like a book insisting that he's full of el crappo.
Elsewhere in Cuba, threats of demolition of house churches have never been so high. Recently, the government outlawed them and plans to hunt them down and close them. Many house churches have had equipment such as pews, homemade benches, musical instruments, Christian literature and anything else confiscated by police.
Remember this the next time some soulless Hollywhacked vice merchant ( like Oliver Stoned, for example) grovels on his face before Castro, and comes back to capitalist hell with his eyes shining with joy at the unbridled bliss found only in the People's Paradise of Kooba.
After calling for reinforcements, a truck arrived with 12 armed, uniformed police who seized the gospels and the printing press. Cuban officials called the materials "subversive and dangerous."
The Ministry of Religion called the confiscated printing press "very dangerous."
A Cuban "Ministry of Religion," run by an atheist? Now I've heard everything. It's kinda like the Clinton administration setting up a "Ministry of Ethics." Please. Pure oxymoronics.
As for the Gospels being dangerous writings, you'd better believe it. Nothing ticks off el jefe like a book insisting that he's full of el crappo.
Elsewhere in Cuba, threats of demolition of house churches have never been so high. Recently, the government outlawed them and plans to hunt them down and close them. Many house churches have had equipment such as pews, homemade benches, musical instruments, Christian literature and anything else confiscated by police.
Remember this the next time some soulless Hollywhacked vice merchant ( like Oliver Stoned, for example) grovels on his face before Castro, and comes back to capitalist hell with his eyes shining with joy at the unbridled bliss found only in the People's Paradise of Kooba.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
"Just Trust Me"
I'm constantly reading criticisms of the Miers nomination on the grounds that she is not--and has not been--a constitutional attorney or a judge. Since the Constitution does not require the holding of these positions as qualifications for a Supreme Court justice, I don't find these arguments very compelling. Since judges predictably prove themselves constitutional babes in the woods--or worse, brazen enemies of the document--with regularity, I'm not particularly impressed by such a resume. I'd much prefer a sanitation engineer with a firm grasp of constitutional principles over a judge with 30 years experience legislating from the bench, any day of the week.
To me, a far more important criterion is: Has the candidate provided demonstrations of understanding the Constitution? In this regard, we have nothing but a large question mark for an answer. What information I've gleaned from news articles either has been inconclusive, or contradictory of other stories.
Even more problematic is the sad truth that--try as I might--I can find no reason for her nomination, beyond the fact that she's a personal friend of the president, and that she is of the female persuasion. I don't think I'm clutching at the stars, when I establish a more rigorous set of expectations than "Wayul, I like 'er, an' she's got lotsa estrogen."
To me, a far more important criterion is: Has the candidate provided demonstrations of understanding the Constitution? In this regard, we have nothing but a large question mark for an answer. What information I've gleaned from news articles either has been inconclusive, or contradictory of other stories.
Even more problematic is the sad truth that--try as I might--I can find no reason for her nomination, beyond the fact that she's a personal friend of the president, and that she is of the female persuasion. I don't think I'm clutching at the stars, when I establish a more rigorous set of expectations than "Wayul, I like 'er, an' she's got lotsa estrogen."
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
At Least He Tried
Red Kennedy tries but fails in a water rescue attempt:
Well, that's not entirely accurate. The real rescuers used him as a flotation device, so he did make a contribution.
Well, that's not entirely accurate. The real rescuers used him as a flotation device, so he did make a contribution.
Monday, October 17, 2005
50 Million on the Richter Scale
Western governments rushed to step up their pledges for the earthquake relief effort after their initial response to the disaster was condemned as slow-moving and financially inadequate.
The United States, which was under pressure to increase a pledge of $500,000 (£280,000) considered almost derisory by many Pakistanis when it was made over the weekend, announced it intended to give $50m in emergency aid.
Imagine this in the context of the Good Samaritan parable: A man is robbed, beaten, and left for dead by the roadside. After being passed and ignored by several people, a Samaritan man comes along and finds him. The traveler feels compassion for the victim--caring for his wounds, giving him water, and taking him to a place where he'll receive further aid. He even pays for the stranger's treatment and lodging.
As the Samaritan is about to leave the injured man in the hands of those who will nurse him back to health, the fellow struggles up in bed, coughing and barely supporting himself on one bruised and torn elbow, and screeches:
"Where in the heck were you, six hours ago, when I first got my butt kicked? Thanks for nothing!"
I'm sure at this point, the Samaritan wishes he'd left the man in the ditch, and perhaps given him a good swift kick as he lay there, before offering him the dust of his heels as balm for his sorry state.
The United States, which was under pressure to increase a pledge of $500,000 (£280,000) considered almost derisory by many Pakistanis when it was made over the weekend, announced it intended to give $50m in emergency aid.
Imagine this in the context of the Good Samaritan parable: A man is robbed, beaten, and left for dead by the roadside. After being passed and ignored by several people, a Samaritan man comes along and finds him. The traveler feels compassion for the victim--caring for his wounds, giving him water, and taking him to a place where he'll receive further aid. He even pays for the stranger's treatment and lodging.
As the Samaritan is about to leave the injured man in the hands of those who will nurse him back to health, the fellow struggles up in bed, coughing and barely supporting himself on one bruised and torn elbow, and screeches:
"Where in the heck were you, six hours ago, when I first got my butt kicked? Thanks for nothing!"
I'm sure at this point, the Samaritan wishes he'd left the man in the ditch, and perhaps given him a good swift kick as he lay there, before offering him the dust of his heels as balm for his sorry state.
Nazis in the Heartland
"Whew! I just finished a long day at the rally with the guys, and boy, are my arms tired!"
Sunday, October 16, 2005
The Long Kiss Good Night
New face on dollar bill: Geena Davis
When first I saw this headline on World Net Daily, I shuddered and nearly swooned, wondering if the world as we know it truly had come to an end. Sure, she was ok in Beetlejuice, but would she make a good commandette-in-chief?
Then I realized it was just part of a tv show.
Still, after the last thirteen years, it makes me wonder.
When first I saw this headline on World Net Daily, I shuddered and nearly swooned, wondering if the world as we know it truly had come to an end. Sure, she was ok in Beetlejuice, but would she make a good commandette-in-chief?
Then I realized it was just part of a tv show.
Still, after the last thirteen years, it makes me wonder.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Funny Pictures
I hope you get a laugh out of these. I know I did:
Rainbow's End
Upgrade
Taken for a Ride
Bike Trip
Lock 'n Load
Rainbow's End
Upgrade
Taken for a Ride
Bike Trip
Lock 'n Load
Thursday, October 13, 2005
The Grave of the Future
Grand opening: Swiss euthanasia clinic in Britain
I can almost hear the radio ads:
Tired of that old curmudgeon uncle?
Sick of Granny's dementia?
Disgusted with the last election's results?
Fed-up with Wallace and Gromit reruns?
Well, come on down, and let Dignitas dispose of your unwanted corpus!
Dignitas--where life is but a dream!
I can almost hear the radio ads:
Tired of that old curmudgeon uncle?
Sick of Granny's dementia?
Disgusted with the last election's results?
Fed-up with Wallace and Gromit reruns?
Well, come on down, and let Dignitas dispose of your unwanted corpus!
Dignitas--where life is but a dream!
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Illegal Update
As I was sifting through WorldNetDaily and munching on my Border-Jumper combo from Taco Bell, I came across several interesting news items:
Arnold Schwarzeneggar vetoes bill providing driver's licenses to illegals.
When asked for a comment, the Governor said: "I tuhminated it with my pen. But don't worry; it'll be bahck."
Sign posted by U-Haul: "Please do not hire illegal laborers. We have had numerous reports of injuries, thefts and damages to personal belongings. It is a federal crime to employ or pick up illegal day laborers, punishable by a $5,000 fine."
Idiot response quote: "The tack they're taking is a particularly troubling one," Wilson said. "They're painting illegal day workers as criminals, making generalizations about a group of people."
Illegals? Criminals? Perish the thought. God bless U-Haul.
Sheriff gets armored car for patrolling the border:
The $18,000, nine-ton, six-wheeled vehicle is needed because of increased attacks against deputies and U.S. Border Patrol agents by drug and migrant smugglers, sheriff's and patrol officials said. The agencies frequently work together.
Law enforcement officers in the border region are increasingly subject to rock throwing, gunfire and being rammed by fleeing vehicles.
That's really unfair. All these "undocumented workers" just want employment, such as picking apples and pockets, and dealing used cars and drugs. We need them, after all! Americans are the stupidest, laziest people on the face of the earth! Just ask anyone from La Raza. They'll set ya straight.
A south Georgia mayor said Friday he will continue flying a Mexican flag at city hall for the six immigrant farmworkers slain in robberies - despite complaints from residents.
When questioned about his methods, he said: "Well, I could only think of one way to honor these decent people: insult my fellow countrymen. Seemed like a good plan at the time, and it still does."
Many of those engaged in the huge cleanup and reconstruction effort here (Nawleuhns)-- nobody has an exact count -- are immigrants, both legal and illegal, from Mexico and Central America.
Meanwhile, as many as 80,000 New Orleanians sit idle in shelters around the country. They are out of work, homeless and destitute.
Mayor Ray Nagin added his voice to the chorus this week, telling local business people: "How do I ensure that New Orleans is not overrun by Mexican workers?"
I ain't sure, Ray. But I guar-own-tee that this inundation is all Bush's fault--jest like global warming.
Arnold Schwarzeneggar vetoes bill providing driver's licenses to illegals.
When asked for a comment, the Governor said: "I tuhminated it with my pen. But don't worry; it'll be bahck."
Sign posted by U-Haul: "Please do not hire illegal laborers. We have had numerous reports of injuries, thefts and damages to personal belongings. It is a federal crime to employ or pick up illegal day laborers, punishable by a $5,000 fine."
Idiot response quote: "The tack they're taking is a particularly troubling one," Wilson said. "They're painting illegal day workers as criminals, making generalizations about a group of people."
Illegals? Criminals? Perish the thought. God bless U-Haul.
Sheriff gets armored car for patrolling the border:
The $18,000, nine-ton, six-wheeled vehicle is needed because of increased attacks against deputies and U.S. Border Patrol agents by drug and migrant smugglers, sheriff's and patrol officials said. The agencies frequently work together.
Law enforcement officers in the border region are increasingly subject to rock throwing, gunfire and being rammed by fleeing vehicles.
That's really unfair. All these "undocumented workers" just want employment, such as picking apples and pockets, and dealing used cars and drugs. We need them, after all! Americans are the stupidest, laziest people on the face of the earth! Just ask anyone from La Raza. They'll set ya straight.
A south Georgia mayor said Friday he will continue flying a Mexican flag at city hall for the six immigrant farmworkers slain in robberies - despite complaints from residents.
When questioned about his methods, he said: "Well, I could only think of one way to honor these decent people: insult my fellow countrymen. Seemed like a good plan at the time, and it still does."
Many of those engaged in the huge cleanup and reconstruction effort here (Nawleuhns)-- nobody has an exact count -- are immigrants, both legal and illegal, from Mexico and Central America.
Meanwhile, as many as 80,000 New Orleanians sit idle in shelters around the country. They are out of work, homeless and destitute.
Mayor Ray Nagin added his voice to the chorus this week, telling local business people: "How do I ensure that New Orleans is not overrun by Mexican workers?"
I ain't sure, Ray. But I guar-own-tee that this inundation is all Bush's fault--jest like global warming.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Blogging Techniques
Gee, Wes, could you possibly be more wild-eyed and spraying spittle all over the monitor? You musta been talking to Nate. Remember, the proper pose when typing something of this sort is to hunch over the keyboard, elbows akimbo, pounding furiously while glancing around furtively.
In what I can only describe as superior remote viewing capabilities, Bill has characterized my blogging posture to a tee. I would only add that I wear a bib to minimize drool spillage, and I have a slight tic in my right eye. Often, I'll titter in a high voice like a witch at a black mass, for no discernible reason. Well, that's not quite true. It always elicits a look of quiet unease from the Man in Black crouching in the corner.
Now if y'all will excuse me, I have some furious pounding to catch up on.
In what I can only describe as superior remote viewing capabilities, Bill has characterized my blogging posture to a tee. I would only add that I wear a bib to minimize drool spillage, and I have a slight tic in my right eye. Often, I'll titter in a high voice like a witch at a black mass, for no discernible reason. Well, that's not quite true. It always elicits a look of quiet unease from the Man in Black crouching in the corner.
Now if y'all will excuse me, I have some furious pounding to catch up on.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Martial Law
JenE posed an interesting question, recently: Is Martial Law constitutional, and is it legal? This is my attempt at answering her question more fully.
First off, let's define a few terms for those who aren't familiar with the subject matter.
From Dictionary.com--
Martial Law: Temporary rule by military authorities, imposed on a civilian population especially in time of war or when civil authority has broken down.
Habeas Corpus: 1. One of a variety of writs that may be issued to bring a party before a court or judge, having as its function the release of the party from unlawful restraint. 2. The right of a citizen to obtain such a writ.
Posse Comitatus Act: (my own elaboration) An 1878 document stating that--without an official act of Congress--the military is prohibited from performing in a law-enforcement capacity, within the United States.
Here's my take: Since Martial Law entails the military ruling civilians, I don't see how it's in harmony with our founding document. The Constitution calls for self-government--in other words, government by the people. Clearly, a militaristic rule is outside the scope of what our Founders intended--especially considering that many--if not most--of the Founders were against having a standing army.
The Constitution allows the temporary halting of Habeas Corpus writs, but only during times of rebellion or invasion (Article I, Section 9). (Thanks to Salt for reminding me of this). Just to reiterate, this is a suspension of Habeas Corpus, not a termination. When it speaks of "invasion," I assume it means something along the lines of events that transpired in the War of 1812, for example, when the British literally invaded Washington, D.C. The "rebellion" aspect is trickier. I don't consider the confederacy's actions as a rebellion, in the strictest sense. The South desired a complete separation from the North into its own nation, not just the creation of chaos within the United States. Perhaps The Federalist Papers better define and elucidate our Founders' thoughts on the concept of rebellion.
I think it's clear that suspending Habeas Corpus and instituting Martial Law are not synonymous. The Constitution makes provision for the first, and none for the latter. I think it's worth mentioning, too, that the Constitution only allows the federal government powers specifically enumerated in the document, while all other powers belong to the states. But we all know how well that section is followed, don't we? If an argument is to be made in its favor, it must come at state--not federal--levels.
In addition, Martial Law violates the Posse Comitatus Act, mentioned above.
As for legalities: that deemed legal certainly does not equate to that which is constitutional. Is it possible that a judge might rule in favor of Martial Law, or that Congress might vote it into existence?
These days, you'd better believe it.
First off, let's define a few terms for those who aren't familiar with the subject matter.
From Dictionary.com--
Martial Law: Temporary rule by military authorities, imposed on a civilian population especially in time of war or when civil authority has broken down.
Habeas Corpus: 1. One of a variety of writs that may be issued to bring a party before a court or judge, having as its function the release of the party from unlawful restraint. 2. The right of a citizen to obtain such a writ.
Posse Comitatus Act: (my own elaboration) An 1878 document stating that--without an official act of Congress--the military is prohibited from performing in a law-enforcement capacity, within the United States.
Here's my take: Since Martial Law entails the military ruling civilians, I don't see how it's in harmony with our founding document. The Constitution calls for self-government--in other words, government by the people. Clearly, a militaristic rule is outside the scope of what our Founders intended--especially considering that many--if not most--of the Founders were against having a standing army.
The Constitution allows the temporary halting of Habeas Corpus writs, but only during times of rebellion or invasion (Article I, Section 9). (Thanks to Salt for reminding me of this). Just to reiterate, this is a suspension of Habeas Corpus, not a termination. When it speaks of "invasion," I assume it means something along the lines of events that transpired in the War of 1812, for example, when the British literally invaded Washington, D.C. The "rebellion" aspect is trickier. I don't consider the confederacy's actions as a rebellion, in the strictest sense. The South desired a complete separation from the North into its own nation, not just the creation of chaos within the United States. Perhaps The Federalist Papers better define and elucidate our Founders' thoughts on the concept of rebellion.
I think it's clear that suspending Habeas Corpus and instituting Martial Law are not synonymous. The Constitution makes provision for the first, and none for the latter. I think it's worth mentioning, too, that the Constitution only allows the federal government powers specifically enumerated in the document, while all other powers belong to the states. But we all know how well that section is followed, don't we? If an argument is to be made in its favor, it must come at state--not federal--levels.
In addition, Martial Law violates the Posse Comitatus Act, mentioned above.
As for legalities: that deemed legal certainly does not equate to that which is constitutional. Is it possible that a judge might rule in favor of Martial Law, or that Congress might vote it into existence?
These days, you'd better believe it.
Saturday, October 8, 2005
For the Birds
I'm sure you've all heard about the potential avian flu pandemic in the making. In an article I first read over at Vox's, the President expressed his wish to use the military in quarantining the virus:
He said the military, and perhaps the National Guard, might be needed to take such a role if the feared H5N1 bird flu virus changes enough to cause widespread human infection.
"If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country? And how do you, then, enforce a quarantine?" Bush asked at a news conference.
Bird flu has killed more than 60 people in four Asian nations since late 2003 and has been found in birds in Russia and Europe.
Experts fear that the H5N1 bird flu virus, which appears to be highly fatal when it infects people, will develop the ability to pass easily from person to person and would cause a pandemic that would kill millions.
I'm all for cautionary measures, but isn't this borderline hysteria? Sixty people in four nations in two years? Like I said in the comments over at Vox's, more people probably died in boating accidents in those places in the same timeframe. I realize that a pandemic or a regional epidemic can occur, but I haven't seen actual evidence that it will, in this case. All I've heard or read is so-called "experts" spouting off in the newspapers and on tv. I'm willing to bet that these are the same know-it-alls who claimed SARS would be a world-shattering disease, running rampant through the countryside and hopping from one continent to another like fire in a street of crowded tenements. It never even came close to the picture of devastation they painted.
As for the President's request, it bothers me that he's grasping at this kind of power. The Posse Comitatus Act bans the use of active duty military in a law enforcement capacity. I think this is a usurpation of state powers, another nick in the shield of federalism--particularly if the National Guard is involved in such operations.
Two other points: This appears to be an attempt on President Bush's part to make up for perceived federal failures in the aftermaths of Hurricanes Kakillya and Rita. This further blemishes his request, because these "failures" are no such things. The federal government involved itself in those cleanup efforts far more than is constitutionally mandated or acceptable. Also, why on earth would anyone believe the feds can handle quarantining procedures better than local governments? Upon what facts is this opinion based? The federal government works like King Midas in reverse--everything it touches turns to crap. Are we to believe that the current scenario is an exception to this otherwise well-proven rule?
He said the military, and perhaps the National Guard, might be needed to take such a role if the feared H5N1 bird flu virus changes enough to cause widespread human infection.
"If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country? And how do you, then, enforce a quarantine?" Bush asked at a news conference.
Bird flu has killed more than 60 people in four Asian nations since late 2003 and has been found in birds in Russia and Europe.
Experts fear that the H5N1 bird flu virus, which appears to be highly fatal when it infects people, will develop the ability to pass easily from person to person and would cause a pandemic that would kill millions.
I'm all for cautionary measures, but isn't this borderline hysteria? Sixty people in four nations in two years? Like I said in the comments over at Vox's, more people probably died in boating accidents in those places in the same timeframe. I realize that a pandemic or a regional epidemic can occur, but I haven't seen actual evidence that it will, in this case. All I've heard or read is so-called "experts" spouting off in the newspapers and on tv. I'm willing to bet that these are the same know-it-alls who claimed SARS would be a world-shattering disease, running rampant through the countryside and hopping from one continent to another like fire in a street of crowded tenements. It never even came close to the picture of devastation they painted.
As for the President's request, it bothers me that he's grasping at this kind of power. The Posse Comitatus Act bans the use of active duty military in a law enforcement capacity. I think this is a usurpation of state powers, another nick in the shield of federalism--particularly if the National Guard is involved in such operations.
Two other points: This appears to be an attempt on President Bush's part to make up for perceived federal failures in the aftermaths of Hurricanes Kakillya and Rita. This further blemishes his request, because these "failures" are no such things. The federal government involved itself in those cleanup efforts far more than is constitutionally mandated or acceptable. Also, why on earth would anyone believe the feds can handle quarantining procedures better than local governments? Upon what facts is this opinion based? The federal government works like King Midas in reverse--everything it touches turns to crap. Are we to believe that the current scenario is an exception to this otherwise well-proven rule?
Thursday, October 6, 2005
The Bible: A Wonderful Work of Fiction
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
I suppose this is the inevitable outcome of subordinating scriptural truth to cherished tradition. When the words of men matter more than the Word of God, such a conclusion comes as no surprise.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
The linked article is a slanted, dishonest screed. It's instructional, though, about how much of the world views Christian history and teaching. Galileo was not branded a heretic for shunning a belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible. It's a complete crock. Galileo was a devout follower of Christ who never wavered in his beliefs. He was castigated because he challenged the absolute authority of the Catholic Church. That, and he was a pretty combative guy, to boot.
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
It's hilarious how the definition of "tolerance" has been degraded. It used to entail the allowance of diverging viewpoints. Now, apparently, it means the embracing of all views as equally valid. All views, that is, except that which insists on biblical inerrancy.
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
I would think the similarity of Genesis to the creation accounts of other cultures bolsters its historical credibility, not vice versa. I've never understood the concept of picking and choosing which passages to believe, and which to reject. How does one make that distinction?
Here are a couple of passage-examples now considered untrue by these "scholars and theologians:"
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Exodus xx,1-17
The Ten Commandments
Matthew v,7
The Sermon on the Mount
Luke i
The Virgin Birth
John xx,28
Proof of bodily resurrection
If these aren't true, why not be forthright and just state your actual position: the Bible is bunk, from cover to cover!
UPDATE!
It seems I made a boo-boo, folks. Perhaps I should work on my reading comprehension. A word of advice: don't blog angry. I usually try to be careful about getting my facts straight.
Turns out, all the scripture examples I gave at the end of the post--except for the first one--fell under the TRUE column, not the UNTRUE one. So, the situation isn't quite as bad as it might be. But I stand by the rest of this post, and I think my points are valid.
Rejecting scripture in favor of Man's pontifications is a dangerous, foolish thing. The description of Galileo's run-in with the Catholic Church still is just as wrong.
Much appreciation goes to TOTAL 1087 for catching my error.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
I suppose this is the inevitable outcome of subordinating scriptural truth to cherished tradition. When the words of men matter more than the Word of God, such a conclusion comes as no surprise.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
The linked article is a slanted, dishonest screed. It's instructional, though, about how much of the world views Christian history and teaching. Galileo was not branded a heretic for shunning a belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible. It's a complete crock. Galileo was a devout follower of Christ who never wavered in his beliefs. He was castigated because he challenged the absolute authority of the Catholic Church. That, and he was a pretty combative guy, to boot.
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
It's hilarious how the definition of "tolerance" has been degraded. It used to entail the allowance of diverging viewpoints. Now, apparently, it means the embracing of all views as equally valid. All views, that is, except that which insists on biblical inerrancy.
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
I would think the similarity of Genesis to the creation accounts of other cultures bolsters its historical credibility, not vice versa. I've never understood the concept of picking and choosing which passages to believe, and which to reject. How does one make that distinction?
Here are a couple of passage-examples now considered untrue by these "scholars and theologians:"
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Exodus xx,1-17
The Ten Commandments
Matthew v,7
The Sermon on the Mount
Luke i
The Virgin Birth
John xx,28
Proof of bodily resurrection
If these aren't true, why not be forthright and just state your actual position: the Bible is bunk, from cover to cover!
UPDATE!
It seems I made a boo-boo, folks. Perhaps I should work on my reading comprehension. A word of advice: don't blog angry. I usually try to be careful about getting my facts straight.
Turns out, all the scripture examples I gave at the end of the post--except for the first one--fell under the TRUE column, not the UNTRUE one. So, the situation isn't quite as bad as it might be. But I stand by the rest of this post, and I think my points are valid.
Rejecting scripture in favor of Man's pontifications is a dangerous, foolish thing. The description of Galileo's run-in with the Catholic Church still is just as wrong.
Much appreciation goes to TOTAL 1087 for catching my error.
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
Being Inoffensive
British officials are worried that the English flag might offend some Muslims:
Prison officials in Britain are concerned that tie pins worn by officers featuring the St. George's Cross – the symbol on England's flag – could offend Muslims who might associate it with the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries.
The red cross is an insensitive reminder of the Crusades, said Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding.
Doyle thinks England needs to find a new flag and patron saint "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."
"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.
What an idiot. Who cares what they think? Are we supposed to coddle them in their ignorance? I have no sympathy for someone who is too lazy and/or stupid to study up on Islam's clash with Western civilization. A lot of Muslims and Arabs also believe that Islam should dominate the entire planet. Does that mean we should bare our throats and let them grind their heels in our necks, while we cower in the dirt?
Everything offends somebody, somewhere. At what point do we finally break down and say: "You're offended? Guess what? That's too bad. You have no right to be offended. Your people were waging unprovoked war against ours for over 460 years, before our people finally counterattacked. If that offends you, you know what you can do with your bruised sensibilities. I'm so fed up with this pc drivel about Islam and Muslims. This is the most bloodthirsty, demonic, violent religion on the face of the earth. Its adherents are owed an apology by nobody.
Prison officials in Britain are concerned that tie pins worn by officers featuring the St. George's Cross – the symbol on England's flag – could offend Muslims who might associate it with the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries.
The red cross is an insensitive reminder of the Crusades, said Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding.
Doyle thinks England needs to find a new flag and patron saint "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."
"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.
What an idiot. Who cares what they think? Are we supposed to coddle them in their ignorance? I have no sympathy for someone who is too lazy and/or stupid to study up on Islam's clash with Western civilization. A lot of Muslims and Arabs also believe that Islam should dominate the entire planet. Does that mean we should bare our throats and let them grind their heels in our necks, while we cower in the dirt?
Everything offends somebody, somewhere. At what point do we finally break down and say: "You're offended? Guess what? That's too bad. You have no right to be offended. Your people were waging unprovoked war against ours for over 460 years, before our people finally counterattacked. If that offends you, you know what you can do with your bruised sensibilities. I'm so fed up with this pc drivel about Islam and Muslims. This is the most bloodthirsty, demonic, violent religion on the face of the earth. Its adherents are owed an apology by nobody.
Poverty and Crime
Earlier this evening, I spent about five minutes watching The O'Reilly Factor. I never noticed before, but the show has emetic properties. Is it just me, or does O'Reilly move further left, incrementally, every week or so? Tonight, he made a point of hammering home the ridiculous notion that poverty causes crime, with all the subtlety of a bull on skates in a china shop. This absurd conclusion needs cauterizing immediately, before what passes as intellectual discourse in this country hemmorhages to death.
His "thought process" went something like this: Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, given their numbers. Most blacks are poor. Ergo, poverty cultivates crime like hippies breed lice. This is a familiar, shoddy mentality utilized by self-styled black "leaders" in their explanations of the high rate of black incarcerations. Disproportionate numbers of blacks languish in prison or jail, therefore, honkeys hate homeys. Besides the explicit assumption in this viewpoint that white=racist (a racist proposition, in and of itself), it is assumed that the mere presence of large numbers of blacks in prison is proof of whitey's racist tendencies. No further evidence required; pass the bong, please.
The facts--always unwelcome intruders in the politically correct realm--remain. During the Great Depression--a time of staggering poverty shared by all subcultures, skin colors, and political stripes--petty crime rates stayed low, relatively speaking. People chose gainful employment of almost any type over pillage and rapine, even at abysmal wages. Presently, most people who fall under the "poor" heading in the United States are not criminals. If poverty breeds crime, shouldn't the opposite be true? Here's another twist of the knife: If poverty elicits criminal behavior, shouldn't wealth instill virtue--or at the very least, legal adherence? Logical consistency demands that the answer is "Yes." But that's not the reality of the situation. Look at the number of movie stars, pro sports figures, musicians, corporate executives, and other celebrities who never balk at the odd illegal foray. It's far from a rare occurence. Examples include Wynonna Rider, Robert Downey, Jr., Mike "I'm Hungry" Tyson, O.J. Simpson, and an accompanying host of scoundrels.
So if poverty doesn't breed crime, you ask, then what does?
I'm glad you popped that question. I think crime stems from viewpoints, mentalities, cultural problems, worldviews--call them what you will. It also emanates from humankind's fallen nature. Sticking with our example above, take black folks. What do you think is more likely--that poverty causes crime, or that the absence of a father--usually the disciplinarian and restraining force within the family--is a common fact of life in the black community? The problem is less extreme but no less real among whites. I think this one factor alone is a horrific strike against a person. Add to this the flames of racial tension, stoked by the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the liberal elite, and you've got yourself a conflagration of misery.
These are cultural problems, not outcomes of one's skin color.
When I said "worldviews, viewpoints, mentalities," etc., I meant our beliefs. Is God real, or just a cardboard cut-out figure in the sky? Does he have expectations for us? Are whites evil racists, or not? Was Jesus' example one we should follow, or shun? Is supporting oneself a government obligation, or an individual responsibility? How one answers these and other questions goes a long way in determining one's future criminal-mindedness.
As for a sinful nature, it is one of the few things we all have in common. This is why crime will never be eradicated fully. If the blight of poverty were scoured from the earth, tomorrow, and every human being plopped down in the lap of luxury, crime still would rear its ugly visage. The reason for this is as heartbreaking as it is simple: When choosing between right and wrong is an option, there always will be those who choose wrong. So even the best circumstances cannot ensure goodness, though they do help.
The notion that poverty opens the door to a criminal life requires a rejection of the biblical characterization of poverty and human nature, in my view. I think I'll stick with scripture over the pontifications of fallible men--particularly when the views-in-question are so easily disproven.
His "thought process" went something like this: Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, given their numbers. Most blacks are poor. Ergo, poverty cultivates crime like hippies breed lice. This is a familiar, shoddy mentality utilized by self-styled black "leaders" in their explanations of the high rate of black incarcerations. Disproportionate numbers of blacks languish in prison or jail, therefore, honkeys hate homeys. Besides the explicit assumption in this viewpoint that white=racist (a racist proposition, in and of itself), it is assumed that the mere presence of large numbers of blacks in prison is proof of whitey's racist tendencies. No further evidence required; pass the bong, please.
The facts--always unwelcome intruders in the politically correct realm--remain. During the Great Depression--a time of staggering poverty shared by all subcultures, skin colors, and political stripes--petty crime rates stayed low, relatively speaking. People chose gainful employment of almost any type over pillage and rapine, even at abysmal wages. Presently, most people who fall under the "poor" heading in the United States are not criminals. If poverty breeds crime, shouldn't the opposite be true? Here's another twist of the knife: If poverty elicits criminal behavior, shouldn't wealth instill virtue--or at the very least, legal adherence? Logical consistency demands that the answer is "Yes." But that's not the reality of the situation. Look at the number of movie stars, pro sports figures, musicians, corporate executives, and other celebrities who never balk at the odd illegal foray. It's far from a rare occurence. Examples include Wynonna Rider, Robert Downey, Jr., Mike "I'm Hungry" Tyson, O.J. Simpson, and an accompanying host of scoundrels.
So if poverty doesn't breed crime, you ask, then what does?
I'm glad you popped that question. I think crime stems from viewpoints, mentalities, cultural problems, worldviews--call them what you will. It also emanates from humankind's fallen nature. Sticking with our example above, take black folks. What do you think is more likely--that poverty causes crime, or that the absence of a father--usually the disciplinarian and restraining force within the family--is a common fact of life in the black community? The problem is less extreme but no less real among whites. I think this one factor alone is a horrific strike against a person. Add to this the flames of racial tension, stoked by the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the liberal elite, and you've got yourself a conflagration of misery.
These are cultural problems, not outcomes of one's skin color.
When I said "worldviews, viewpoints, mentalities," etc., I meant our beliefs. Is God real, or just a cardboard cut-out figure in the sky? Does he have expectations for us? Are whites evil racists, or not? Was Jesus' example one we should follow, or shun? Is supporting oneself a government obligation, or an individual responsibility? How one answers these and other questions goes a long way in determining one's future criminal-mindedness.
As for a sinful nature, it is one of the few things we all have in common. This is why crime will never be eradicated fully. If the blight of poverty were scoured from the earth, tomorrow, and every human being plopped down in the lap of luxury, crime still would rear its ugly visage. The reason for this is as heartbreaking as it is simple: When choosing between right and wrong is an option, there always will be those who choose wrong. So even the best circumstances cannot ensure goodness, though they do help.
The notion that poverty opens the door to a criminal life requires a rejection of the biblical characterization of poverty and human nature, in my view. I think I'll stick with scripture over the pontifications of fallible men--particularly when the views-in-question are so easily disproven.
Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Swearin' About the Swearin'-in
It's official. John Roberts was sworn in as the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Rushing in and providing confusion where only clarity once reigned, President Bush said: "All Americans can be confident that the 17th chief justice of the United States will be prudent in exercising judicial power, firm in defending judicial independence and above all a faithful guardian of the Constitution."
A "faithful guardian of the Constitution?" Please. How can he play that role, when he's already made it clear that he'll be a faithful guardian of Roe v. Wade?
Asked how his Catholic beliefs would influence decisions, he replied, "My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role."
Whew! That's a relief. I was worried that we had a gen-u-ine theocrat on our hands. Now I can simmer down and bask in the rays of enlightened secularism.
Rushing in and providing confusion where only clarity once reigned, President Bush said: "All Americans can be confident that the 17th chief justice of the United States will be prudent in exercising judicial power, firm in defending judicial independence and above all a faithful guardian of the Constitution."
A "faithful guardian of the Constitution?" Please. How can he play that role, when he's already made it clear that he'll be a faithful guardian of Roe v. Wade?
Asked how his Catholic beliefs would influence decisions, he replied, "My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role."
Whew! That's a relief. I was worried that we had a gen-u-ine theocrat on our hands. Now I can simmer down and bask in the rays of enlightened secularism.
Monday, October 3, 2005
Positively Presidential
**I wrote this post yesterday, before I learned about Bush's new SCOTUS nominee, so it's a little dated. Now I have to go and learn about her, so I can find out how much of this is prophetic, and how much is pure bilge. Enjoy!
With John Roberts' position as Chief Justice secured, when asked how he'd go about the process of selecting his new nominee for the Supreme Court, President George Bush waxed eloquent:
"Wal, I believe the only way to be correct--politically speaking--is to be politically correct. Ahm a firm believer in pc values. Jest look at my reaction to the Terri Schiavo case. That's really all ya need to know. And diversity plays a large part in political correctness. As we all know, this is a catch-word for every kind of superficial distinction imaginable. I think it's important, though, to understand that diversity does not--under any circumstances--mean variety in modes of thought, ideas, or perspectives. Many good folks get downright discomblobupated on this point.
"Now, having said all that, I think our next Supreme Court Justice should be a woman. But not jest any woman. Unh-uh. She needs to be a compassionate conservative, like me. Heh heh. She needs to feel the pain of tsunami victims and Hurricane Kakillya looters all across Nawleuhns. It's best if she's a black woman. Who spent at least five years on welfare. Whose son was killed in a driveby shooting. Who received at least one abortion. Who has at least two silver teeth that are visible when she smiles. Now that's diverse. Furthermore, I strongly believe she should have a little Messycin ancestralness. Preferably of illegal immigrant--Oops! Sorry, I meant undocumented--status. See there? Ya almost caught me being politically incorrect. I apologize. I reckon I've been watching too much Fox News, lately. They're awful nice to the House of Saud, ya know.
"Anyhoo, back to diversity. It would be prudent--like my ol' daddy used to say--if she were also a lesbian. Not jest any lesbian, neither. I want a big, old hulking brute, the likes of which would make Bull Connor's thugs piddle in their knickers. And she better have a tattoo, dadgummit. A big ol' tattoo of Karl Marx, etched across her bulging bicep. That'll do the trick. Oh, and she'd best be a practitioner of the Religion of Peace. Even communists love those guys. One more thing: I want a cripple in that office. I want her to have to crutch her way up the steps to work every day, like Tiny Tim in a Darth Vader robe. If she needs a wheelchair, we'll put in a ramp at taxpayer suspense. An eyepatch would also carry a lot of charm. Remember Long John Silver? That's what I'm talking 'bout.
As far as ideology goes, I want her to give great respect to Charmin bathroom tissue. That stuff jest don't chafe like the Constitution. I learned that from experience. And what a court said five years ago is far more important than what the Constitution says. Who cares about the outmoded views of some dead white slaver, anyway? YaknowwhatImean? I want her to be sensitive to euthanasia--that's a continent by the way--and accept the dictates of the UN and international law. I also want her to love Jesus, like I do. Don't worry, there ain't no conflict between Him and Allah. He's a big believer in diversity, too. Christianity's important, y'all. Jest as long as you keep it locked up tighter'n a nun's habit, in a little box in the back of a deep closet, at home. But on the bench, she needs to be a stern advocate of godlessness. I mean I expect the kind of secularism that would make Lenin click his heels and sing the Revolution's anthem out of pure joy.
"One last prerekasnit: Her pronuncilation of the word must be "nook-yuh-luhr." I won't except no stubstistustions. Ain't nobuddy one-upping my elocrouton."
With John Roberts' position as Chief Justice secured, when asked how he'd go about the process of selecting his new nominee for the Supreme Court, President George Bush waxed eloquent:
"Wal, I believe the only way to be correct--politically speaking--is to be politically correct. Ahm a firm believer in pc values. Jest look at my reaction to the Terri Schiavo case. That's really all ya need to know. And diversity plays a large part in political correctness. As we all know, this is a catch-word for every kind of superficial distinction imaginable. I think it's important, though, to understand that diversity does not--under any circumstances--mean variety in modes of thought, ideas, or perspectives. Many good folks get downright discomblobupated on this point.
"Now, having said all that, I think our next Supreme Court Justice should be a woman. But not jest any woman. Unh-uh. She needs to be a compassionate conservative, like me. Heh heh. She needs to feel the pain of tsunami victims and Hurricane Kakillya looters all across Nawleuhns. It's best if she's a black woman. Who spent at least five years on welfare. Whose son was killed in a driveby shooting. Who received at least one abortion. Who has at least two silver teeth that are visible when she smiles. Now that's diverse. Furthermore, I strongly believe she should have a little Messycin ancestralness. Preferably of illegal immigrant--Oops! Sorry, I meant undocumented--status. See there? Ya almost caught me being politically incorrect. I apologize. I reckon I've been watching too much Fox News, lately. They're awful nice to the House of Saud, ya know.
"Anyhoo, back to diversity. It would be prudent--like my ol' daddy used to say--if she were also a lesbian. Not jest any lesbian, neither. I want a big, old hulking brute, the likes of which would make Bull Connor's thugs piddle in their knickers. And she better have a tattoo, dadgummit. A big ol' tattoo of Karl Marx, etched across her bulging bicep. That'll do the trick. Oh, and she'd best be a practitioner of the Religion of Peace. Even communists love those guys. One more thing: I want a cripple in that office. I want her to have to crutch her way up the steps to work every day, like Tiny Tim in a Darth Vader robe. If she needs a wheelchair, we'll put in a ramp at taxpayer suspense. An eyepatch would also carry a lot of charm. Remember Long John Silver? That's what I'm talking 'bout.
As far as ideology goes, I want her to give great respect to Charmin bathroom tissue. That stuff jest don't chafe like the Constitution. I learned that from experience. And what a court said five years ago is far more important than what the Constitution says. Who cares about the outmoded views of some dead white slaver, anyway? YaknowwhatImean? I want her to be sensitive to euthanasia--that's a continent by the way--and accept the dictates of the UN and international law. I also want her to love Jesus, like I do. Don't worry, there ain't no conflict between Him and Allah. He's a big believer in diversity, too. Christianity's important, y'all. Jest as long as you keep it locked up tighter'n a nun's habit, in a little box in the back of a deep closet, at home. But on the bench, she needs to be a stern advocate of godlessness. I mean I expect the kind of secularism that would make Lenin click his heels and sing the Revolution's anthem out of pure joy.
"One last prerekasnit: Her pronuncilation of the word must be "nook-yuh-luhr." I won't except no stubstistustions. Ain't nobuddy one-upping my elocrouton."
Sunday, October 2, 2005
Patriotism Quotes
A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.--George William Curtis
Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.--Sydney J. Harris
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.--Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.--Sydney J. Harris
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.--Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)