See Part 1 for the beginning of this discussion.
Mr. Auster countered:
AUSTER: These are not serious or grown-up arguments. They are childishness. The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats “faggots.”
All that this adds up to is the same thing I’ve been criticizing through this decade, that conservatives and Republicans have become mere reactors against the left. They don’t stand for anything except for opposing the left. It’s the death of politics, the death of the intellect, the death of decency.
I responded:
WES: Being antagonistic isn’t my goal, here, and if I’ve come across in this fashion, I apologize; I just disagree with your take on this. I see eye-to-eye with you far more often than not. I would like to comment on a couple of things you said, though.
The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats “faggots.”
It’s difficult for me to understand how you drew this conclusion, when the first point I made was that I would not have called Edwards this name. Nor did I ever use the term “Democrat” in describing these people. I said Leftist. I’m not a Republican, or a GOP supporter. This is not a Democrat/GOP issue, for me. I’m a traditionalist who believes we should return to constitutionalism and the intentions of our Founders. I think it’s also worth pointing out that the term is considered a pejorative because the Left has chosen to characterize it so. There was a time—and not very long ago—when this would have been a far less significant issue than it is, now. I think the whole situation sheds light on the normalization of destructive political correctness more than anything else.
These are not serious or grown-up arguments. They are childishness.
I think it’s interesting that you say this, while not addressing points 3,4, and 6—the first two of which were attempted specific refutations of your earlier comments.
AUSTER: Frankly, points 3, 4, and 6 were either irrelevant or off-base and not worth replying to. It’s really too much when people send multi-point e-mails and then complain when they don’t get a reply to every point.* I was responding to the main point, which was that the left is very nasty and destructive, and therefore there’s nothing wrong with Coulter’s language.
Also, I did comment either in this thread or elsewhere about Coulter’s passing this off as a joke, and said how wrong that was.
* In my recent discussion with Mladen from Israel (whose family is from the Soviet Union) about Giuliani, in the interests of keeping the posted exchange interesting I left out a side-point of his that we had already gone over sufficiently and then he wrote to me telling me I was behaving like a Soviet commissar suppressing debate. Another recent commenter, Henry A., wrote to me in an inquisitorial manner questioning the sincerity of my religious beliefs, all because I had made a mistake about what the Bible says about resurrection. This is the kind of behavior I open myself to by having discussions at this site.
[I took issue with the above, but for some inexplicable reason, Mr. Auster chose not to post my comment on his blog. However, the discussion progressed without my input, in which Mr. Auster continued making assertions I had addressed. Here's the part he kept from seeing the light of day at his website (Mr. Auster moderates his forum by allowing comments only via email)]:
WES: It's obvious to me that we'll not agree on this issue, so I won't take it further after this email.
I don't consider points 3 or 4 irrelevant or off-base. They specifically addressed comments you made earlier in this thread, in the formulation of your argument against Coulter. You said:
She issues a humiliating insult at a public figure, and then pretends that she didn’t do so.
My third point took issue with this, with a direct quote that indicates--in my view--that Coulter is not guilty of this accusation. You may disagree, but I'd hardly call it irrelevant to the discussion.
Number four, again, was a specific rebuttal of something you said earlier in this thread:
"and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight."
How do you harmonize this claim with the very real name-calling--of a much worse nature, I might add--that emanates from the Left on a regular basis, through the broadcast media? Being dubbed a racist or murderer is far worse than having one's sexual orientation questioned or joked about. Are you contending that leftist males don't engage in this behavior regularly against other males on the opposite end of the political spectrum?
As for addressing each point made--obviously you're free to tackle or ignore any or all points; it's your website. But I see it as something of a cheap shot to dismiss specific arguments as mere "childishness," without answering them, then to accuse the person who made them of "complaining" when they point this out.
And for the record, I'm not suggesting that you're suppressing debate, or questioning your honesty in what you believe about Coulter.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Friday, March 9, 2007
Coulter Debate: Part 1
I'm sure most of you are familiar with the recent controversy over Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards, so I won't go into the event itself. Instead, here is an exchange I had with Lawrence Auster of View from the Right, over the past few days. Auster resides on the same side of the political spectrum as I do, for those unfamiliar with him. If you have the time or inclination, I suggest reading the entire discussion; if not, I offer the most pertinent elements, here. I'm interested in my readers' takes on the arguments used, and in comparing the tones. Here's the setup:
AUSTER: There is no excuse for using language like that. Coulter was speaking at a political conference and used language that would be fighting language used by one man against another. She dragged down a political conference to the level of a low dive, and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight. Coulter’s vulgarity is indefensible. The conservative movement drags itself down by accommodating her and it.
I think it’s despicable for Coulter to insult a man like that on national television and then say it’s a joke. This is like a leftist professor at Duke University in the early ‘90s who called the National Association of Scholars “racist,” and then defended himself (I think it was in a letter to NR) by saying that he was just using “rhetoric.” So he gets to call people racist, and gets to deny that he’s done it. It’s like Oliver Stone producing “JFK,” a movie that made millions of people believe that there had been a vast conspiracy in the U.S. government including Lyndon Johnson to kill President Kennedy, and then, when he was challenged, saying at a press conference that it was just a fiction. So Stone got to have it both ways: he got to spread evil lies into millions of minds, lies that he made them believe were the truth, and he got to deny what he had done. It’s the same with Coulter. She issues a humiliating insult at a public figure, and then pretends that she didn’t do so. No matter how bright Coulter may be, she is a low person, and a conservative movement that makes an icon of her diminishes itself.
As I’ve said, Edwards is a risible figure, and there are all kinds of things you can legitimately say about him to make fun of him or even ridicule him. But to use an insult like “faggot” in American public life, and then, worse, to approve of it and normalize it, degrades all of us.
Now on to my response:
WES: Hi, Mr. Auster. I hope you don’t mind a few comments from a fairly new reader:
1. I would not have used the term “faggot” in a public forum speech—if for no other reason, because it draws attention away from any legitimate point in the making, as the current reaction proves.
2. Ms. Coulter technically didn’t call him this name; she alluded to it, yes, but it was not a direct claim.
3. Coulter stood by her comment. In an exchange with Adam Nagourney from the NYT:
Nagourney: The three Republican presidential contenders denouncing you….Do you want to do any response?
Coulter: C’mon it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean. Did any of these guys say anything after I made the same remark about Al Gore last summer? Why not? What were they trying to say about Al Gore with their silence?
On the front page of her blog is this headline: AMBULANCE CHASER GETS REAR-ENDED BY ANN COULTER—I’m so ashamed, I can’t stop laughing!
Not what I’d consider a retreat.
4. “and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight.”
Perhaps face-to-face, but not through broadcast media. How many times have leftist males impugned other males on the Right with accusations of racism, “homophobia,” sexism, mindless jingoism, or a cornucopia of other smears?
5. Coulter understands that the Left wants to deconstruct our society and destroy its moral foundation and heritage, while ushering in something far worse to fill that vaccuum. Thus the contempt she shows its more visible components. I believe this website’s author understands this, as well, which is one reason why I’m a reader.
6. The Left assures us one and all that homosexuality is not only normal, but beautiful; so why is dubbing Edwards a “faggot” insulting? One either accepts this claim, or not. The Left can’t have it both ways.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
AUSTER: There is no excuse for using language like that. Coulter was speaking at a political conference and used language that would be fighting language used by one man against another. She dragged down a political conference to the level of a low dive, and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight. Coulter’s vulgarity is indefensible. The conservative movement drags itself down by accommodating her and it.
I think it’s despicable for Coulter to insult a man like that on national television and then say it’s a joke. This is like a leftist professor at Duke University in the early ‘90s who called the National Association of Scholars “racist,” and then defended himself (I think it was in a letter to NR) by saying that he was just using “rhetoric.” So he gets to call people racist, and gets to deny that he’s done it. It’s like Oliver Stone producing “JFK,” a movie that made millions of people believe that there had been a vast conspiracy in the U.S. government including Lyndon Johnson to kill President Kennedy, and then, when he was challenged, saying at a press conference that it was just a fiction. So Stone got to have it both ways: he got to spread evil lies into millions of minds, lies that he made them believe were the truth, and he got to deny what he had done. It’s the same with Coulter. She issues a humiliating insult at a public figure, and then pretends that she didn’t do so. No matter how bright Coulter may be, she is a low person, and a conservative movement that makes an icon of her diminishes itself.
As I’ve said, Edwards is a risible figure, and there are all kinds of things you can legitimately say about him to make fun of him or even ridicule him. But to use an insult like “faggot” in American public life, and then, worse, to approve of it and normalize it, degrades all of us.
Now on to my response:
WES: Hi, Mr. Auster. I hope you don’t mind a few comments from a fairly new reader:
1. I would not have used the term “faggot” in a public forum speech—if for no other reason, because it draws attention away from any legitimate point in the making, as the current reaction proves.
2. Ms. Coulter technically didn’t call him this name; she alluded to it, yes, but it was not a direct claim.
3. Coulter stood by her comment. In an exchange with Adam Nagourney from the NYT:
Nagourney: The three Republican presidential contenders denouncing you….Do you want to do any response?
Coulter: C’mon it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean. Did any of these guys say anything after I made the same remark about Al Gore last summer? Why not? What were they trying to say about Al Gore with their silence?
On the front page of her blog is this headline: AMBULANCE CHASER GETS REAR-ENDED BY ANN COULTER—I’m so ashamed, I can’t stop laughing!
Not what I’d consider a retreat.
4. “and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight.”
Perhaps face-to-face, but not through broadcast media. How many times have leftist males impugned other males on the Right with accusations of racism, “homophobia,” sexism, mindless jingoism, or a cornucopia of other smears?
5. Coulter understands that the Left wants to deconstruct our society and destroy its moral foundation and heritage, while ushering in something far worse to fill that vaccuum. Thus the contempt she shows its more visible components. I believe this website’s author understands this, as well, which is one reason why I’m a reader.
6. The Left assures us one and all that homosexuality is not only normal, but beautiful; so why is dubbing Edwards a “faggot” insulting? One either accepts this claim, or not. The Left can’t have it both ways.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
The Devil's Undoing
Somewhere in abyssal blackness, a sinuous beast flops in a depthless subterranean pool. Limestone-softened waters enfold its serpentine coils as they writhe in contentment. Baleful slit-eyes glare like foglamps into the gloom. The creature glides through its tarn and lumbers up onto the rock bank.
A man strides forth out of the darkness, his fly unzipped. In his arms is a squalling infant, which he tosses into the air. The cave denizen flicks out a razor talon and spears it deftly, popping the morsel into its gaping maw with a slurping sound. It tosses its head from side to side in relish and makes a chortling sound.
"Thankssssssss, Billlll," it says.
"No problem, baby. There's a lot more where that came from. Just remember that I have exclusive access to the Lincoln bedroom, with lotsa video cameras, when ya win the eternal matriarchy--I mean, presidency. And in turn, I'll keep 'em comin' fresh and fiesty, just like ya love 'em."
The creature eyes a forlorn skeleton lying on the bank. "Billll, hand me one of Rick Lazzzzzzzio's bonessss, pleasssssse. Preferably a rib. There'sssss a bit of newborn ssssstuck in my teeth."
"Sure thing, honey." The man grants the request and watches the behemoth sink back into the waters, tail swishing, lost in pondering machinations intelligible only to those of frigid blood and impenetrable scales.
He ascends out of the grotto and into blinding light of day. He pulls a crumpled, deteriorating parchment out of his pocket and unrolls it. The meaning of the words written thereon baffles him to no end. Though he's unsure why, he knows that it is the bane of the lurker in the earth, its veritable nemesis. So on rare occasions when the clouds of hedonism break in his mind, he recalls it and draws it close unto himself, realizing it is the beast's one Achilles' Heel. Like Medusa's gaze, the very sight of it is death for the monster. So he keeps it, philosophizing that it is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
He sets off in search of one particularly delectable former intern, but gives the script heading a final glance before driving away:
WE THE PEOPLE, it begins.
A man strides forth out of the darkness, his fly unzipped. In his arms is a squalling infant, which he tosses into the air. The cave denizen flicks out a razor talon and spears it deftly, popping the morsel into its gaping maw with a slurping sound. It tosses its head from side to side in relish and makes a chortling sound.
"Thankssssssss, Billlll," it says.
"No problem, baby. There's a lot more where that came from. Just remember that I have exclusive access to the Lincoln bedroom, with lotsa video cameras, when ya win the eternal matriarchy--I mean, presidency. And in turn, I'll keep 'em comin' fresh and fiesty, just like ya love 'em."
The creature eyes a forlorn skeleton lying on the bank. "Billll, hand me one of Rick Lazzzzzzzio's bonessss, pleasssssse. Preferably a rib. There'sssss a bit of newborn ssssstuck in my teeth."
"Sure thing, honey." The man grants the request and watches the behemoth sink back into the waters, tail swishing, lost in pondering machinations intelligible only to those of frigid blood and impenetrable scales.
He ascends out of the grotto and into blinding light of day. He pulls a crumpled, deteriorating parchment out of his pocket and unrolls it. The meaning of the words written thereon baffles him to no end. Though he's unsure why, he knows that it is the bane of the lurker in the earth, its veritable nemesis. So on rare occasions when the clouds of hedonism break in his mind, he recalls it and draws it close unto himself, realizing it is the beast's one Achilles' Heel. Like Medusa's gaze, the very sight of it is death for the monster. So he keeps it, philosophizing that it is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
He sets off in search of one particularly delectable former intern, but gives the script heading a final glance before driving away:
WE THE PEOPLE, it begins.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
A Nation of "Faith"
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who says he prays daily and has a personal relationship with God, rejects the notion that America is "a Christian nation."
"There's a lot of America that's Christian. I would not describe us, though, on the whole, as a Christian nation," he told the Web site Beliefnet. "I guess the word 'Christian' is what bothers me, even though I'm a Christian. I think that America is a nation of faith."
"My faith informs everything I think and do," he said, but he added that he strongly believes in the separation of church and state.
Dubbing this a "nation of faith" is insipid garbage. It's akin to saying: "We're a nation of belief." No kidding. Everyone believes something.
He falls on his face at the altar of church and state separation, but our Founders did not; otherwise, they would have enshrined it in the Constitution.
So what makes a nation Christian? Here are a few points for pondering:
1. U.S. Census estimates the Christian population of the United States at 79.8%, in the most recent (2001) statistics. The next highest affiliation is Non-religious/Secular at 15%. All other religions combined come to 5.2%. Assuming these figures are roughly correct, this means that Christians outnumber secularists by a more than 5-to-1 margin; and all other religions by more than 15-to-1. Even taking into consideration the nominal Christianity of many respondents, Christians still constitute the vast majority in the U.S.
2. The majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians, notwithstanding revisionist "history."
3. Christianity heavily informed the formulation of this nation. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence--our two most important founding documents--express a Christian worldview and understanding of man's sinful nature, and of his God-given right to liberty.
I contend that the United States of America is a Christian nation--to the extent that any nation may be labeled such. And to the degree that this heritage has eroded and decayed over time, becoming a shadow of its former self, we have people like John Edwards to thank for that.
"There's a lot of America that's Christian. I would not describe us, though, on the whole, as a Christian nation," he told the Web site Beliefnet. "I guess the word 'Christian' is what bothers me, even though I'm a Christian. I think that America is a nation of faith."
"My faith informs everything I think and do," he said, but he added that he strongly believes in the separation of church and state.
Dubbing this a "nation of faith" is insipid garbage. It's akin to saying: "We're a nation of belief." No kidding. Everyone believes something.
He falls on his face at the altar of church and state separation, but our Founders did not; otherwise, they would have enshrined it in the Constitution.
So what makes a nation Christian? Here are a few points for pondering:
1. U.S. Census estimates the Christian population of the United States at 79.8%, in the most recent (2001) statistics. The next highest affiliation is Non-religious/Secular at 15%. All other religions combined come to 5.2%. Assuming these figures are roughly correct, this means that Christians outnumber secularists by a more than 5-to-1 margin; and all other religions by more than 15-to-1. Even taking into consideration the nominal Christianity of many respondents, Christians still constitute the vast majority in the U.S.
2. The majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians, notwithstanding revisionist "history."
3. Christianity heavily informed the formulation of this nation. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence--our two most important founding documents--express a Christian worldview and understanding of man's sinful nature, and of his God-given right to liberty.
I contend that the United States of America is a Christian nation--to the extent that any nation may be labeled such. And to the degree that this heritage has eroded and decayed over time, becoming a shadow of its former self, we have people like John Edwards to thank for that.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
"Honest Injun, We're Sorry."
RICHMOND, Va. (Feb. 25) - Meeting on the grounds of the former Confederate Capitol, the Virginia General Assembly voted unanimously Saturday to express "profound regret" for the state's role in slavery.
Hm, I wonder how that worked. Something like this, perhaps?:
"Resolution:
Whereas slavery is a unique and malignant expression of the white race;
Whereas the black race never participated in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, nor enslaved members of its own group;
Whereas many in the Antebellum South had never laid eyes on a black person;
Whereas slavery generally was an indulgence of the rich, and the majority of Virginians did not and do not qualify as such;
Whereas no living American blacks languish in a state of enslavement within these borders, nor do their masters still draw breath;
Whereas involuntary servitude ceased as an institution one hundred forty-two years ago;
We solemnly do resolve that an official apology of great profundity is warranted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. We hearby offer such at our collective shame and regret for oppressing those blessed with enhanced skin pigmentation and hoop skillz.
In the year of a non-existent, mythological deity, 2007"
The measure also expressed regret for "the exploitation of Native Americans."
Are they referencing those tree-hugging, earth-worshipping, goddess-communing, environmentally-conscious, recycling individuals who practiced slavery of all races and creeds, with no discrimination whatsoever? Who went on the warpath and murdered innocent women and children? Who tortured and mutilated helpless prisoners? Who sometimes practiced ritual cannibalism? Who violated non-aggression treaties? Nah. Dances with Wolves set us straight on that malarkey.
Among those voting for the measure was Delegate Frank D. Hargrove, an 80-year-old Republican who infuriated black leaders last month by saying "black citizens should get over" slavery.
After enduring a barrage of criticism, Hargrove successfully co-sponsored a resolution calling on Virginia to celebrate "Juneteenth," a holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States.
I'm sure there was nothing self-serving in this sacrificial act of contrition. Nosirree.
Hm, I wonder how that worked. Something like this, perhaps?:
"Resolution:
Whereas slavery is a unique and malignant expression of the white race;
Whereas the black race never participated in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, nor enslaved members of its own group;
Whereas many in the Antebellum South had never laid eyes on a black person;
Whereas slavery generally was an indulgence of the rich, and the majority of Virginians did not and do not qualify as such;
Whereas no living American blacks languish in a state of enslavement within these borders, nor do their masters still draw breath;
Whereas involuntary servitude ceased as an institution one hundred forty-two years ago;
We solemnly do resolve that an official apology of great profundity is warranted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. We hearby offer such at our collective shame and regret for oppressing those blessed with enhanced skin pigmentation and hoop skillz.
In the year of a non-existent, mythological deity, 2007"
The measure also expressed regret for "the exploitation of Native Americans."
Are they referencing those tree-hugging, earth-worshipping, goddess-communing, environmentally-conscious, recycling individuals who practiced slavery of all races and creeds, with no discrimination whatsoever? Who went on the warpath and murdered innocent women and children? Who tortured and mutilated helpless prisoners? Who sometimes practiced ritual cannibalism? Who violated non-aggression treaties? Nah. Dances with Wolves set us straight on that malarkey.
Among those voting for the measure was Delegate Frank D. Hargrove, an 80-year-old Republican who infuriated black leaders last month by saying "black citizens should get over" slavery.
After enduring a barrage of criticism, Hargrove successfully co-sponsored a resolution calling on Virginia to celebrate "Juneteenth," a holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States.
I'm sure there was nothing self-serving in this sacrificial act of contrition. Nosirree.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Cameron's Titanic Folly
"The Lost Tomb of Christ," which the Discovery Channel will run on March 4, argues that 10 ancient ossuaries _ small caskets used to store bones _ discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980 may have contained the bones of Jesus and his family, according to a press release issued by the Discovery Channel.
Other bloggers have made astute and timely comments on the issue of James Cameron's new documentary, but I think it's too important a topic for me not to chime in. We live in an era in which mocking or belittling Christ is fashionable, with virtually no consequences. It is unfortunate for those who scorn Him that an eternity of consequence awaits beyond this ephemeral world.
Sensationalism lies at the heart of this claim, without a doubt. The very subject matter will lure the gullible and the curious and the skeptical.
The claim that Jesus' bones rest in an ossuary defies scripture, in at least two important ways: 1. The New Testament reveals that my Lord came back to life and ascended into Heaven, after brief appearances to His followers. 2. The Gospels say His body was wrapped in linen and interred in a cave like tomb, with a stone rolled in place for a door. Given these scriptural declarations, what is the basis for believing Jesus' final resting place has been discovered in the aforementioned location?
One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son.
How sad that this is what passes for evidence, these days. This proves nothing, unless one can demonstrate adequately that no one but Christ went by the name "Jesus" in the region.
Consider this yet another pathetic attempt at "deconstructing" Christianity in a 2,000-year-long list. The funny thing is that what these people see as a wrecking ball, the rest of us call dust in the wind.
Nor has it escaped me that we're discussing a man who directed a film called True Lies. How fitting.
Other bloggers have made astute and timely comments on the issue of James Cameron's new documentary, but I think it's too important a topic for me not to chime in. We live in an era in which mocking or belittling Christ is fashionable, with virtually no consequences. It is unfortunate for those who scorn Him that an eternity of consequence awaits beyond this ephemeral world.
Sensationalism lies at the heart of this claim, without a doubt. The very subject matter will lure the gullible and the curious and the skeptical.
The claim that Jesus' bones rest in an ossuary defies scripture, in at least two important ways: 1. The New Testament reveals that my Lord came back to life and ascended into Heaven, after brief appearances to His followers. 2. The Gospels say His body was wrapped in linen and interred in a cave like tomb, with a stone rolled in place for a door. Given these scriptural declarations, what is the basis for believing Jesus' final resting place has been discovered in the aforementioned location?
One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son.
How sad that this is what passes for evidence, these days. This proves nothing, unless one can demonstrate adequately that no one but Christ went by the name "Jesus" in the region.
Consider this yet another pathetic attempt at "deconstructing" Christianity in a 2,000-year-long list. The funny thing is that what these people see as a wrecking ball, the rest of us call dust in the wind.
Nor has it escaped me that we're discussing a man who directed a film called True Lies. How fitting.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Civilizational Cesspool
Hitler reaches out from beyond the grave:
German authorities who sent 15 uniformed police officers to take custody of a 15-year-old girl who committed the crime of being homeschooled now have suggested a solution that, in their minds, would "resolve" the situation: the parents should give up custody of their other five children.
Practical Homeschool Magazine noted one of the first acts by Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools, and school-related issues.
In 1937, the dictator said, "The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."
German authorities who sent 15 uniformed police officers to take custody of a 15-year-old girl who committed the crime of being homeschooled now have suggested a solution that, in their minds, would "resolve" the situation: the parents should give up custody of their other five children.
Practical Homeschool Magazine noted one of the first acts by Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools, and school-related issues.
In 1937, the dictator said, "The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."
What a great solution--for der schtaat, that is. The German government obviously has a warped understanding of liberty's definition.
****
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the "gay" agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be "engaged and productive citizens."
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.
Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…"
This is some of the sickest filth I've ever read; just sullying my eyes with this "judge's" ruling makes me long to claw them out. In no sense of the word can such an institution be called a "school;" it's a brainwashing center. Let's call it by its rightful name. His last comment is lifted straight out of Karl Marx and the Communist playbook, thus the red highlighting. It's literally in diametric opposition to everything the United States of America upholds as worthwhile and wholesome.
We have two choices: remove totalitarian swine such as this from positions of power, or say goodbye to any semblance of the America we know. There's no third option.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Inimitable Chesterton
"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."
"Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere."
"By a curious confusion, many modern critics have passed from the proposition that a masterpiece may be unpopular to the other proposition that unless it is unpopular it cannot be a masterpiece."
"Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."
"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists."
"Man seems to be capable of great virtues but not of small virtues; capable of defying his torturer but not of keeping his temper."
"The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people."
"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."
"You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it."
"The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums."
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Hoodwinking the Masses
"We've gotta fight 'em over there, so we ain't gotta fight 'em over here."
How many times have you heard President Bush, one of his administrative puppets, or some grinning pundit make this statement? I'm betting dozens of times. We're assured that Mr. Bush has national--particularly domestic--security at the top of his priority list.
This is nothing but rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Here's why:
On 9-11-01, we witnessed the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history. Nineteen terrorists perpetrated this atrocity. Fifteen hailed from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Lebanon, and one from Egypt. Guess how many came from Iraq?
Zero.
People have made this point before, but follow it to its logical conclusion: if none of these devils came from Iraq, then basing the number of troops in Iraq on 9-11-01 that we have there, today, would have changed nothing; nor would it have slowed them down.
Furthermore, every resource I've delved into suggests that a portion of our enemies in Iraq are Iranians who have snuck into the country, while U.S. troops are stationed there. High-powered Iranian weapons are in use against our troops, weapons capable of penetrating vehicular armor.
Positioning soldiers in Iraq cannot stop terrorists originating from Saudi Arabia or other countries throughout the Middle East, nor has it hindered Iranian terrorists from entering Iraq's borders.
So having computed this information, how in the world can anyone say with a straight face that fighting murderous scum in Iraq keeps them out of the U.S.?
It gets worse. Our borders stand wide open for all who possess a notion of sashaying in. Yes, the administration provides well-paid propagandists to assure us that illegal immigration is under control, and decreasing. But we know that these people lie and play games of dizzying verbal gymnastics, or provide unsatisfactory and incomplete information.
Additionally, current estimates of Muslims in America range from 1.1 to 8 million, depending upon the source, with thousands more immigrating to the U.S., each year.
Considering his station, I find it impossible that President Bush is unaware of this situation. He tells us that fighting them in the sandbox keeps them out of our vegetable garden, which is unmitigated hogwash. He shows us his concern for national security by allowing the importation of thousands of our enemies, while throwing wide the gates that hold them at bay.
Imagine that a dog owner has a pet with a bad flea infestation. He tells his wife: "Honey, I've gotta do something about these fleas. We have to fight them in the yard, so we don't have to deal with them in the house." After saying this, he opens the front and back doors and leaves them standing wide, while ushering the dog into the house (sans flea-collar), where it plops down on the living room couch. Then, with a spring in his step, its owner bravely sallies forth to battle the fleas on the lawn.
This behavior offers two possible conclusions:
1. The man's skull contains a black hole that not even thought can escape.
2. He's lying through his teeth about his interest in ridding his house of fleas.
In either scenario, he's not someone you'd call on when dealing with a pest problem.
How many times have you heard President Bush, one of his administrative puppets, or some grinning pundit make this statement? I'm betting dozens of times. We're assured that Mr. Bush has national--particularly domestic--security at the top of his priority list.
This is nothing but rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Here's why:
On 9-11-01, we witnessed the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history. Nineteen terrorists perpetrated this atrocity. Fifteen hailed from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Lebanon, and one from Egypt. Guess how many came from Iraq?
Zero.
People have made this point before, but follow it to its logical conclusion: if none of these devils came from Iraq, then basing the number of troops in Iraq on 9-11-01 that we have there, today, would have changed nothing; nor would it have slowed them down.
Furthermore, every resource I've delved into suggests that a portion of our enemies in Iraq are Iranians who have snuck into the country, while U.S. troops are stationed there. High-powered Iranian weapons are in use against our troops, weapons capable of penetrating vehicular armor.
Positioning soldiers in Iraq cannot stop terrorists originating from Saudi Arabia or other countries throughout the Middle East, nor has it hindered Iranian terrorists from entering Iraq's borders.
So having computed this information, how in the world can anyone say with a straight face that fighting murderous scum in Iraq keeps them out of the U.S.?
It gets worse. Our borders stand wide open for all who possess a notion of sashaying in. Yes, the administration provides well-paid propagandists to assure us that illegal immigration is under control, and decreasing. But we know that these people lie and play games of dizzying verbal gymnastics, or provide unsatisfactory and incomplete information.
Additionally, current estimates of Muslims in America range from 1.1 to 8 million, depending upon the source, with thousands more immigrating to the U.S., each year.
Considering his station, I find it impossible that President Bush is unaware of this situation. He tells us that fighting them in the sandbox keeps them out of our vegetable garden, which is unmitigated hogwash. He shows us his concern for national security by allowing the importation of thousands of our enemies, while throwing wide the gates that hold them at bay.
Imagine that a dog owner has a pet with a bad flea infestation. He tells his wife: "Honey, I've gotta do something about these fleas. We have to fight them in the yard, so we don't have to deal with them in the house." After saying this, he opens the front and back doors and leaves them standing wide, while ushering the dog into the house (sans flea-collar), where it plops down on the living room couch. Then, with a spring in his step, its owner bravely sallies forth to battle the fleas on the lawn.
This behavior offers two possible conclusions:
1. The man's skull contains a black hole that not even thought can escape.
2. He's lying through his teeth about his interest in ridding his house of fleas.
In either scenario, he's not someone you'd call on when dealing with a pest problem.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Seer of the Blogosphere
Yesterday, I looked into my crystal ball and made this prediction at Vox's:
I'm sure O'Reilly will regale us all about the sordid details of Britney's new depilated trollop look, tomorrow evening. I wait w/ bated breath. Wes Homepage 02.19.07 - 1:16 am #
This evening, O'Reilly devoted segments to this crucial topic on his tv and radio shows. It seems that Britney shaving her head means she's "unhinged." I won't jump to conclusions; perhaps it was all part of a good delousing. Seeing that her fame is 98% good looks and 2% talent (1% for writhing ability, and 1% for having functional vocal cords), going Kojak appears an odd carreer choice. I don't remember Playboy or Victoria's Secret catalogues producing chrome-dome editions; but what do I know?--I only pay attention to the articles.
Anyway, being a prognosticator of demonstrated ability, I'll gladly read the entrails and answer such heady questions as "What does Fido want for breakfast, next Tuesday?" or "When will Con-ya-leewza Rice don a burkha?" for a modest fee. Financing available.
I'm sure O'Reilly will regale us all about the sordid details of Britney's new depilated trollop look, tomorrow evening. I wait w/ bated breath. Wes Homepage 02.19.07 - 1:16 am #
This evening, O'Reilly devoted segments to this crucial topic on his tv and radio shows. It seems that Britney shaving her head means she's "unhinged." I won't jump to conclusions; perhaps it was all part of a good delousing. Seeing that her fame is 98% good looks and 2% talent (1% for writhing ability, and 1% for having functional vocal cords), going Kojak appears an odd carreer choice. I don't remember Playboy or Victoria's Secret catalogues producing chrome-dome editions; but what do I know?--I only pay attention to the articles.
Anyway, being a prognosticator of demonstrated ability, I'll gladly read the entrails and answer such heady questions as "What does Fido want for breakfast, next Tuesday?" or "When will Con-ya-leewza Rice don a burkha?" for a modest fee. Financing available.
Distinction without Difference
MEXICO CITY - Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Friday that immigration reform would let U.S. law enforcement focus on catching criminals instead of migrants seeking better economic prospects.
You really gotta hand it to Chertoff. When he shovels it, he uses a snowplow. I think it's precious that he made this remark in Mexico City. While parsing words, he forgets that everyone who enters the U.S. illegally is--by definition--a criminal. As for "migrants," what number is acceptable? Ten million? Fifty million? Five hundred? A billion? At what point do we draw the line and say: "We cannot save the entire world from its stupidity, nor do we have any such obligation. We do, however, have a duty to protect ourselves and enforce the laws of this country, for its preservation."
The 6,000 National Guard troops providing logistical support to the Border Patrol since May have dramatically deterred people from crossing the 2,000-mile frontier, he said. Arrests along the border are down, and fewer people have been seen gathering to cross on the Mexican side.
Perhaps the presence of National Guard troops hamstrung by mountains of bureaucratic buffoonery has a positive effect. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. Decreased arrests, on the other hand, prove nothing more than Chertoff's efficacy in spewing propaganda. We're not told if the decrease is due to a lack of border jumpers crossing over, or halfhearted enforcement. Without further elaboration from him on this point, it's nothing more or less than twaddle.
"Every time a Border Patrol officer is transporting a load of future housekeepers and landscapers to someplace to be returned, he's not looking for drug dealers or drug loads," Chertoff said.
Translation from B.S. into the vernacular: "Illegal immigration is 100% beneficial--and never detrimental to U.S. citizens--unless the illegal immigrant-in-question is a drug dealer, rapist, or murderer. We'll concede that's a slight problem."
It's nonsense for another reason, as well. Our government's attempts at hampering Border Patrol efforts belies his words, as the case of Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos illustrates, reported upon copiously by WorldNetDaily. Their situation reveals that the federal government looks upon pursuing illegal-alien drug smugglers with disfavor, nor does it have patience with agents shooting criminals they believe are armed. I urge anyone unfamiliar with this case to drop by WND and become educated on how our "leaders'" interest in securing our borders or apprehending invading criminals falls somewhere below absolute zero.
You really gotta hand it to Chertoff. When he shovels it, he uses a snowplow. I think it's precious that he made this remark in Mexico City. While parsing words, he forgets that everyone who enters the U.S. illegally is--by definition--a criminal. As for "migrants," what number is acceptable? Ten million? Fifty million? Five hundred? A billion? At what point do we draw the line and say: "We cannot save the entire world from its stupidity, nor do we have any such obligation. We do, however, have a duty to protect ourselves and enforce the laws of this country, for its preservation."
The 6,000 National Guard troops providing logistical support to the Border Patrol since May have dramatically deterred people from crossing the 2,000-mile frontier, he said. Arrests along the border are down, and fewer people have been seen gathering to cross on the Mexican side.
Perhaps the presence of National Guard troops hamstrung by mountains of bureaucratic buffoonery has a positive effect. I'm skeptical, but it's possible. Decreased arrests, on the other hand, prove nothing more than Chertoff's efficacy in spewing propaganda. We're not told if the decrease is due to a lack of border jumpers crossing over, or halfhearted enforcement. Without further elaboration from him on this point, it's nothing more or less than twaddle.
"Every time a Border Patrol officer is transporting a load of future housekeepers and landscapers to someplace to be returned, he's not looking for drug dealers or drug loads," Chertoff said.
Translation from B.S. into the vernacular: "Illegal immigration is 100% beneficial--and never detrimental to U.S. citizens--unless the illegal immigrant-in-question is a drug dealer, rapist, or murderer. We'll concede that's a slight problem."
It's nonsense for another reason, as well. Our government's attempts at hampering Border Patrol efforts belies his words, as the case of Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos illustrates, reported upon copiously by WorldNetDaily. Their situation reveals that the federal government looks upon pursuing illegal-alien drug smugglers with disfavor, nor does it have patience with agents shooting criminals they believe are armed. I urge anyone unfamiliar with this case to drop by WND and become educated on how our "leaders'" interest in securing our borders or apprehending invading criminals falls somewhere below absolute zero.
Friday, February 16, 2007
High on Power
A legal dispute is raging over a controversial "crack tax" that requires drug dealers in Tennessee to pay duties on illegal substances such as heroin.
The law requires anyone involved in the sale, manufacture or illegal distribution of controlled drugs and illicit alcohol to pay special taxes at a rate of, for example, $3.50 (£1.80) per gram of marijuana or $50 per gram of cocaine. They are then given tax stamps to fix to their stash as proof of payment.
The process of buying tax stamps comes with anonymity guaranteed. None of the information provided to Tennessee's Department of Revenue during the transaction may be passed to police or used in a criminal prosecution.
But anyone found in possession of unstamped substances can be fined up to 10 times the amount the tax would have cost him, which is where the bulk of the law's income is generated.
"We have to provide people with a means to comply with the law, which is why the stamps are available. But, like any other tax, if you have not paid you will be penalised," said Emily Richard, spokesman for the Tennessee Department of Revenue.
Objections focus on the fact that the state does not need to prove guilt, or secure a criminal conviction, before making the owner of the drugs pay up.
"It's like trying to force somebody to buy a permit before they drive drunk," said Gregory P. Isaacs, a lawyer in Knoxsville.
"People are being deprived of their constitutional right to due process. The state can seize your home, your bank account, your property, before you have had a chance to prove your innocence."
The tax was struck down as unconstitutional by a district judge last year, on the basis that it violated a defendant's right to due process. But the state has appealed and currently continues to collect the tax.
Isn't this the pinnacle of logic and constitutional scholarship? If you buy it, you're breaking the law. If you possess it, you're breaking the law. If you sell it, you're breaking the law. But please, if you're going to break the law, pay your taxes on the illegal products in question. Otherwise, you're. . .
. . .breaking the law.
This made a big splash in Tennessee recently. Here's an excerpt from a local newspaper:
A Blount County couple has filed suit in Chancery Court asking that the Tennessee Unauthorized Substance Tax Act be declared unconstitutional.
According to the suit, the couple's son, Brian, was in a vehicle stopped and searched May 24, 2006, by agents of the 5th Judicial District Drug Task Force. The officers found 100 pounds of marijuana in the vehicle and then searched a shed "on Mr. Harmon's grandmother's property" where they found eight more pounds of marijuana.
The suit said officers then obtained a search warrant for Tim and Tina Harmon's property and notified the Department of Revenue of the 108 pounds of marijuana seized.
An "Unauthorized Substance Officer" arrived at the scene to observe the search that resulted in the discovery of approximately 170 pounds of marijuana in a trailer located on the property line between Tim and Tina Harmon's property and Tim Harmon's father's property.
When the marijuana was found in the trailer, the Unauthorized Substance Officer presented Tina Harmon and her father-in-law with a notice of assessment and demand for payment of $283,387.19 in taxes, penalties and interest.
According to the suit, when Tina Harmon failed to pay the tax immediately upon receipt of the notice, the Unauthorized Substance Officer seized property belonging to the Harmons including two semi-tractors, a semi-trailer, a motorcycle, a camping trailer, two four-wheelers, a car, two mini motorcycle scooters, a pickup truck, two television sets, a coffee table and two end tables.
The Harmons were notified the items were scheduled for sale at public auction on June 27, one month and two days after the items were seized. The couple requested an informal conference with the commissioner of revenue, the recourse provided in the law. The request temporarily stopped the sale of the property.
An information telephone conference was scheduled on Nov. 13, and Tina Harmon spoke with an administrative hearing officer that day.
On Dec. 1, the Harmons received a letter indicating the assessment was upheld, and the property would be sold at auction Jan. 19.
On Dec. 11, federal charges of "conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana" were filed against Tim Harmon, Tina Harmon and Brian Harmon. No hearing has been scheduled on the criminal charges.
In conjunction with the lawsuit filed Jan. 17, attorneys for the Harmons requested and received a temporary restraining order preventing the sale of their property pending further court action.
***
This story lays out a strong defense in favor of those who decry the "War on Drugs." In fact, it's the best case against it I've seen. I realize these people aren't angels, and it's likely that they knew the drugs were on the premises, having intent to sell them. But that's not the point. This is a violation of basic constitutional rights, in one of the most absurd and counterintuitive manners imaginable.
That the officials involved don't hang their heads in shame and remorse for this travesty of justice concerns us all. A government with the power of constitutional circumvention is one on the road to openly declaring that document null and void, altogether.
The law requires anyone involved in the sale, manufacture or illegal distribution of controlled drugs and illicit alcohol to pay special taxes at a rate of, for example, $3.50 (£1.80) per gram of marijuana or $50 per gram of cocaine. They are then given tax stamps to fix to their stash as proof of payment.
The process of buying tax stamps comes with anonymity guaranteed. None of the information provided to Tennessee's Department of Revenue during the transaction may be passed to police or used in a criminal prosecution.
But anyone found in possession of unstamped substances can be fined up to 10 times the amount the tax would have cost him, which is where the bulk of the law's income is generated.
"We have to provide people with a means to comply with the law, which is why the stamps are available. But, like any other tax, if you have not paid you will be penalised," said Emily Richard, spokesman for the Tennessee Department of Revenue.
Objections focus on the fact that the state does not need to prove guilt, or secure a criminal conviction, before making the owner of the drugs pay up.
"It's like trying to force somebody to buy a permit before they drive drunk," said Gregory P. Isaacs, a lawyer in Knoxsville.
"People are being deprived of their constitutional right to due process. The state can seize your home, your bank account, your property, before you have had a chance to prove your innocence."
The tax was struck down as unconstitutional by a district judge last year, on the basis that it violated a defendant's right to due process. But the state has appealed and currently continues to collect the tax.
Isn't this the pinnacle of logic and constitutional scholarship? If you buy it, you're breaking the law. If you possess it, you're breaking the law. If you sell it, you're breaking the law. But please, if you're going to break the law, pay your taxes on the illegal products in question. Otherwise, you're. . .
. . .breaking the law.
This made a big splash in Tennessee recently. Here's an excerpt from a local newspaper:
A Blount County couple has filed suit in Chancery Court asking that the Tennessee Unauthorized Substance Tax Act be declared unconstitutional.
According to the suit, the couple's son, Brian, was in a vehicle stopped and searched May 24, 2006, by agents of the 5th Judicial District Drug Task Force. The officers found 100 pounds of marijuana in the vehicle and then searched a shed "on Mr. Harmon's grandmother's property" where they found eight more pounds of marijuana.
The suit said officers then obtained a search warrant for Tim and Tina Harmon's property and notified the Department of Revenue of the 108 pounds of marijuana seized.
An "Unauthorized Substance Officer" arrived at the scene to observe the search that resulted in the discovery of approximately 170 pounds of marijuana in a trailer located on the property line between Tim and Tina Harmon's property and Tim Harmon's father's property.
When the marijuana was found in the trailer, the Unauthorized Substance Officer presented Tina Harmon and her father-in-law with a notice of assessment and demand for payment of $283,387.19 in taxes, penalties and interest.
According to the suit, when Tina Harmon failed to pay the tax immediately upon receipt of the notice, the Unauthorized Substance Officer seized property belonging to the Harmons including two semi-tractors, a semi-trailer, a motorcycle, a camping trailer, two four-wheelers, a car, two mini motorcycle scooters, a pickup truck, two television sets, a coffee table and two end tables.
The Harmons were notified the items were scheduled for sale at public auction on June 27, one month and two days after the items were seized. The couple requested an informal conference with the commissioner of revenue, the recourse provided in the law. The request temporarily stopped the sale of the property.
An information telephone conference was scheduled on Nov. 13, and Tina Harmon spoke with an administrative hearing officer that day.
On Dec. 1, the Harmons received a letter indicating the assessment was upheld, and the property would be sold at auction Jan. 19.
On Dec. 11, federal charges of "conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana" were filed against Tim Harmon, Tina Harmon and Brian Harmon. No hearing has been scheduled on the criminal charges.
In conjunction with the lawsuit filed Jan. 17, attorneys for the Harmons requested and received a temporary restraining order preventing the sale of their property pending further court action.
***
This story lays out a strong defense in favor of those who decry the "War on Drugs." In fact, it's the best case against it I've seen. I realize these people aren't angels, and it's likely that they knew the drugs were on the premises, having intent to sell them. But that's not the point. This is a violation of basic constitutional rights, in one of the most absurd and counterintuitive manners imaginable.
That the officials involved don't hang their heads in shame and remorse for this travesty of justice concerns us all. A government with the power of constitutional circumvention is one on the road to openly declaring that document null and void, altogether.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A Random Act of Peace
The 18-year-old gunman who killed five people in a crowded Utah shopping mall was a Bosnian Muslim refugee who was prepared to kill many more, say investigators.
And I'm sure it had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or Islam, right? Nah.
A friend said Talovic was from the war-torn country of Bosnia and that the trauma he experienced while growing up may have led to him snapping for some reason.
Yes, because we all know that adherents of the Religion of Peaceniks never, ever kill out of obedience to Muhammed's teachings or their god's commands.
Every time a story like this pops up, we're told it isn't terrorism; it's just a fluke; a momentary lapse of reason, just like the jihad that began in the 600s A.D., and--like the Energizer Bunny--keeps going and going and going. . .
And I'm sure it had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or Islam, right? Nah.
A friend said Talovic was from the war-torn country of Bosnia and that the trauma he experienced while growing up may have led to him snapping for some reason.
Yes, because we all know that adherents of the Religion of Peaceniks never, ever kill out of obedience to Muhammed's teachings or their god's commands.
Every time a story like this pops up, we're told it isn't terrorism; it's just a fluke; a momentary lapse of reason, just like the jihad that began in the 600s A.D., and--like the Energizer Bunny--keeps going and going and going. . .
Friday, February 9, 2007
Suffer the Intellectual Children
A recent exchange at Vox's dealt with suffrage, and what limitations or lack thereof should be put upon it. I posed a simple question there, and now here:
If someone knows little or nothing about civics, economics, how the political process should work, our Founders' intentions for this country, American history, or the Constitution, how is allowing such an individual voting "rights" beneficial to him, or the populace?
Some might argue about the legitimacy of voting, period. Let's save that discussion for another time. Assume that voting isn't simply a scam for keeping the peasants diverted from what goes on behind the magic curtain, for our present purposes.
I've never seen a satisfactory answer to the above question. I contend that it's not only of no benefit, but is a detriment to our nation. If you have no idea what an amendment is, you should stay as far away from the voting precincts as possible. The same is true if you draw a blank on naming the first five presidents, think the Declaration of Independence is a feminist manifesto, believe socialism is having lots of friends, and capitalism is utilizing upper-case letters in a sentence.
I suspect our criteria for voting should entail more than having reached one's eighteenth birthday with a detectable pulse. I propose something old and new. Bring back the institution of landowners-only voting. And not just any landowners, but those who earned their acreage by the sweat of their labors. In addition, let's have a universal test in voter qualification: a demonstration that one has a fundamental understanding of the aforementioned items. The growing problem of illiteracy won't pose a concern--not with oral examinations.
One might demur with: "Sure, but voting results affect everyone, not just those who meet the qualifications for voting."
But this already is the case; felons and children can't vote. Furthermore, if voting is so important that literally everyone over a certain age should have the power to indulge in it, then isn't becoming a well-informed voter equally important? If not, why not?
I think Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments on The Tonight Show serve a useful purpose in highlighting the rampancy of gross cluelessness. I remember seeing an instance in which he randomly selected people passing on a street-corner, and showed them a framed photograph of Algore. This was while Gore was the sitting vice president. The question was "Who is this man?" People guessed he was a relative of Jay's, or a movie star, or a low-ranking politician. Nobody knew who he was. Some might consider this a blessing, given "Gaia" Gore's penchant for lunacy, I realize. However, this point does not detract from the reality that these folks were uninformed adults and voters. This is one of numerous examples available from such segments. Massive obliviousness isn't just a real phenomenon, but a common one.
Taking for granted that voting is worthwhile, then the importance of knowing heads from tails cannot be overstated. We require driver's licenses for tooling around town in a car. We require medical certificates for nurses and doctors. We insist upon licensing construction contractors. You cannot carry a concealed weapon without a little slip of paper that shows you've attended a course and ponied up an exhorbitant fee. Yet many have no problem with millions of people pushing that button or pulling that lever or punching that chad, who cannot discern the difference between competition and collectivism.
In North Korea, ignorance is understandable, given that the entire country is a peninsular prison; but in the United States, ignorance is a choice. A consequence of this choice should necessitate a loss in voting "rights."
If someone knows little or nothing about civics, economics, how the political process should work, our Founders' intentions for this country, American history, or the Constitution, how is allowing such an individual voting "rights" beneficial to him, or the populace?
Some might argue about the legitimacy of voting, period. Let's save that discussion for another time. Assume that voting isn't simply a scam for keeping the peasants diverted from what goes on behind the magic curtain, for our present purposes.
I've never seen a satisfactory answer to the above question. I contend that it's not only of no benefit, but is a detriment to our nation. If you have no idea what an amendment is, you should stay as far away from the voting precincts as possible. The same is true if you draw a blank on naming the first five presidents, think the Declaration of Independence is a feminist manifesto, believe socialism is having lots of friends, and capitalism is utilizing upper-case letters in a sentence.
I suspect our criteria for voting should entail more than having reached one's eighteenth birthday with a detectable pulse. I propose something old and new. Bring back the institution of landowners-only voting. And not just any landowners, but those who earned their acreage by the sweat of their labors. In addition, let's have a universal test in voter qualification: a demonstration that one has a fundamental understanding of the aforementioned items. The growing problem of illiteracy won't pose a concern--not with oral examinations.
One might demur with: "Sure, but voting results affect everyone, not just those who meet the qualifications for voting."
But this already is the case; felons and children can't vote. Furthermore, if voting is so important that literally everyone over a certain age should have the power to indulge in it, then isn't becoming a well-informed voter equally important? If not, why not?
I think Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments on The Tonight Show serve a useful purpose in highlighting the rampancy of gross cluelessness. I remember seeing an instance in which he randomly selected people passing on a street-corner, and showed them a framed photograph of Algore. This was while Gore was the sitting vice president. The question was "Who is this man?" People guessed he was a relative of Jay's, or a movie star, or a low-ranking politician. Nobody knew who he was. Some might consider this a blessing, given "Gaia" Gore's penchant for lunacy, I realize. However, this point does not detract from the reality that these folks were uninformed adults and voters. This is one of numerous examples available from such segments. Massive obliviousness isn't just a real phenomenon, but a common one.
Taking for granted that voting is worthwhile, then the importance of knowing heads from tails cannot be overstated. We require driver's licenses for tooling around town in a car. We require medical certificates for nurses and doctors. We insist upon licensing construction contractors. You cannot carry a concealed weapon without a little slip of paper that shows you've attended a course and ponied up an exhorbitant fee. Yet many have no problem with millions of people pushing that button or pulling that lever or punching that chad, who cannot discern the difference between competition and collectivism.
In North Korea, ignorance is understandable, given that the entire country is a peninsular prison; but in the United States, ignorance is a choice. A consequence of this choice should necessitate a loss in voting "rights."
Ouch
New Delhi: Three nomads of Banchola village in Rajasthan are suspected to have been killed by a meteorite. Four others are reported to have been injured in the incident which occurred around 0930 hrs on Thursday.
Eye witnesses said that the victims — who used to sell utensils in exchange of old clothes— were sitting in a field when an unknown flying object hit them. A crater was formed due to a blast-like situation.
If the meteorite theory is accurate, then Chicken Little had a point. If not, Bill Clinton still must have control of U.S. military missiles.
Eye witnesses said that the victims — who used to sell utensils in exchange of old clothes— were sitting in a field when an unknown flying object hit them. A crater was formed due to a blast-like situation.
If the meteorite theory is accurate, then Chicken Little had a point. If not, Bill Clinton still must have control of U.S. military missiles.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Longing for Lies
I've often heard the atheist argument that humans are hard-wired for belief in a nonexistent deity as a survival mechanism. Sam "The Brain" Harris was on C-Span the other night, and he implied as much in a conversation with Reza Aslan (no relation to Narnia's storied King).
I find this proposition downright silly; it illustrates the grasping at straws that occurs whenever someone denies God. After all, if nature has the capacity for such a bizarre, abstract idea, why not call nature God? Because it nullifies the original assertion that there is no God, and we can't let logic or common sense stand obstacles on the road to enlightened atheism.
But it gets worse. Simple observation of the world around us leads to a conclusion diametrically opposite the first. Would anyone argue that dogs and cats, elephants and ants, or pigs and cockroaches believe in God, or understand who or what He is? I doubt it. Yet they not only survive, but thrive, and have done so for millennia. The animal kingdom has made it to this point in history without the necessity of a make-believe Creator, so why is such a concept required for the survival of humans--the most advanced organism on Earth?
In terms of logic, which strikes you as more plausible: that humans come prepackaged with a need for God because God is real, or that insentient nature instills this false belief as a mechanism for human benefit?
I think the answer is obvious to anyone free of the preconceived belief that God is a phony, and the nonexistent Devil take the evidence.
One final observation: It's funny how "logical" atheists indulge in wanton speculation, while mocking and belittling Christians for doing the same. At least the Christian can point to scripture and basic observation as a support for his outlook. The atheist cannot.
I find this proposition downright silly; it illustrates the grasping at straws that occurs whenever someone denies God. After all, if nature has the capacity for such a bizarre, abstract idea, why not call nature God? Because it nullifies the original assertion that there is no God, and we can't let logic or common sense stand obstacles on the road to enlightened atheism.
But it gets worse. Simple observation of the world around us leads to a conclusion diametrically opposite the first. Would anyone argue that dogs and cats, elephants and ants, or pigs and cockroaches believe in God, or understand who or what He is? I doubt it. Yet they not only survive, but thrive, and have done so for millennia. The animal kingdom has made it to this point in history without the necessity of a make-believe Creator, so why is such a concept required for the survival of humans--the most advanced organism on Earth?
In terms of logic, which strikes you as more plausible: that humans come prepackaged with a need for God because God is real, or that insentient nature instills this false belief as a mechanism for human benefit?
I think the answer is obvious to anyone free of the preconceived belief that God is a phony, and the nonexistent Devil take the evidence.
One final observation: It's funny how "logical" atheists indulge in wanton speculation, while mocking and belittling Christians for doing the same. At least the Christian can point to scripture and basic observation as a support for his outlook. The atheist cannot.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Stupid Is As Stupid Does
Here's a revelatory comment in an interview between George Looney and Newsweek:
Newsweek: You spend a great deal of time traveling internationally. Does being an expat give you a different perspective on U.S. foreign policy?
Looney: [Growing up,] I was taught to look at the United States not from the inside out but from the outside in. The signs you see are very disheartening. It is probably the worst time ever for us internationally. When you go to Europe, for the most part, they just hate us. Not individually, but they think we are just like these big bullies—and quite honestly, we have acted like that. That has been the most unusual twist in the last few years, having to defend being an American.
Hm, perhaps this explains your consistent liberal, anti-American stance on almost every subject you're vocal about? Could there be a correlation here?
As for European hate, maybe they don't hate Americans in general. Maybe they just hate you, George. I doubt you achieve much in curtailing their hate. See, defending "being an American" isn't your strong suit.
Newsweek: You spend a great deal of time traveling internationally. Does being an expat give you a different perspective on U.S. foreign policy?
Looney: [Growing up,] I was taught to look at the United States not from the inside out but from the outside in. The signs you see are very disheartening. It is probably the worst time ever for us internationally. When you go to Europe, for the most part, they just hate us. Not individually, but they think we are just like these big bullies—and quite honestly, we have acted like that. That has been the most unusual twist in the last few years, having to defend being an American.
Hm, perhaps this explains your consistent liberal, anti-American stance on almost every subject you're vocal about? Could there be a correlation here?
As for European hate, maybe they don't hate Americans in general. Maybe they just hate you, George. I doubt you achieve much in curtailing their hate. See, defending "being an American" isn't your strong suit.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
A Muslim Prayer
Oh, most Mighty Allah, leader of the faithful and ruler of the righteous, please send our valiant offspring against those who look not upon a beast of burden with fondness. May you shrivel their manhoods, of Lord, and kill them in their tennis courts and malls and Burger Kings and movie theaters and bath houses and strip clubs and roller rinks. May you annihilate all apostates and wreak havoc upon the Zionist entity and its oppressive minions. May you gouge out their eyeballs with a rusty spoon, oh Merciful One. May you run a drill bit through their ears and clear out the influence of Shaitan. May their female infants tumble from the womb in burkhas, and may future generations stand barren in the fields against us. May Dar-al-Islam first conquer planet Earth, then the neighboring infidel planets, and spread out with thy message to the infinite stars. May the evils of alien technology falter in the face of the mujahedin. May our youth find martyrdom in Sirius and Alpha Centauri, Wolf 359 and Andromeda. May the indigenous sea monkeys of Shazbot fall upon their fins and proclaim that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammed is his Prophet. May the sloe-eyed houris forever remain perpetual virgins in thy Garden, oh Master of Chastity. May the Black Stone crush all opposition to thy Will. May the Kaaba become a grave stone for the rebellious, oh Giver of Life. May thy vaunted djinn urinate upon the heads of the subhuman monkeys and pigs called Jews, oh Sender of Rain. Lo, even as our harems overflow with willing wives, oh Shaper of Monogamy, make our cup of vengeance brim against thine enemies. May the Great Shaitan and her putrid puppets writhe on skewers in Gehenna until the heavens and Earth pass away. Make the stench of their burning rise up until the end of Time, oh Fanner of Flames, oh Extender of Forgiveness, oh Preparer of Kebabs. In the name of the everlasting peace brought about by eternal Jihad, Amen.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Um, Did I say Demonrat?
In a recent speech, Bush apologized for a momentary slip in PC term adherence:
President Bush said Monday he wasn't trying to disparage the party now running Congress by referring to it as the "Democrat majority" _ as opposed to the "Democratic majority" _ in his State of the Union speech.
"That was an oversight," Bush said in an interview with National Public Radio. "I mean, I'm not trying to needle."
Bush's dropping of the "ic" at the end of the word prompted grumbling by Democrats that he purposely got their name wrong.
Yes, the Democrat Party is "democratic," sure. Just like Communists embrace capitalism, and Muhammad didn't gaze upon his pet camel with ardor.
Pretty pathetic when our president regrets such a "mistake."
Later, Bush said: "I'm not that good at pronouncing words anyway."
Wow, I nominate this admission for the "First Annual Misunderstatement Award."
When it comes to the English language, Bush uses the nook-yuh-luhr option.
President Bush said Monday he wasn't trying to disparage the party now running Congress by referring to it as the "Democrat majority" _ as opposed to the "Democratic majority" _ in his State of the Union speech.
"That was an oversight," Bush said in an interview with National Public Radio. "I mean, I'm not trying to needle."
Bush's dropping of the "ic" at the end of the word prompted grumbling by Democrats that he purposely got their name wrong.
Yes, the Democrat Party is "democratic," sure. Just like Communists embrace capitalism, and Muhammad didn't gaze upon his pet camel with ardor.
Pretty pathetic when our president regrets such a "mistake."
Later, Bush said: "I'm not that good at pronouncing words anyway."
Wow, I nominate this admission for the "First Annual Misunderstatement Award."
When it comes to the English language, Bush uses the nook-yuh-luhr option.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
The Ant Bully
My wife and I watched this animated movie last night. It's hard not to be entertained by it, I must admit. The pros are: very good animation, excellent voice casting, and an interesting story with lots of action.
However (admit it, you saw it coming), I took issue with three aspects of the project:
1. Notwithstanding the "PG" rating, this was targeted to kids; yet it offers three or four crude episodes for your child's edification. It's amazing; we once had films that attained classic status, like Pinocchio and Snow White, with nary a flatulence joke, lovingly detailed vomit scene, or zoom-in shot of a brat digging in his nose with a grimy finger. But Walt Disney had nothing on the new breed of kiddie producer. Now, if a cartoon doesn't depict someone falling face-first into a cowpie, it's just not living up to its true potential. These modern filmmakers seem physically and psychologically incapable of omitting such references. We've come a long way, baby.
2. A major theme is the "animals are people, too," mantra we expect at PETA rallies or at Brahmin's Vegetarian Grocery. A kid in the flick is bullied by a neighborhood punk. The victim, in turn, tortures ants and destroys their nests. The two acts are portrayed as synonymous in nature and degree, which is absurd. In reality, ants are mindless, instinctively-driven organisms.
3. Now we've come to the worst part. Two characters compare and contrast human society with that of the ants. This is not a throwaway aside, but a major scene in the movie. The message conveyed is that ant society is superior to that of humans, and is something to which we should aspire.
Why is this problematic? It's disturbing because the ant civilization is a communistic one, with a bright, sunny face painted on it. In fact, the only facet that differs markedly from Communism is the ants' belief in a deity--who is, of course, a goddess. In every other respect, we have a sanitized, bowdlerized vision that would make Karl Marx cheer, in his best impression of Will Smith:
"Now, dass whut I'm tawkin' 'bout!"
However (admit it, you saw it coming), I took issue with three aspects of the project:
1. Notwithstanding the "PG" rating, this was targeted to kids; yet it offers three or four crude episodes for your child's edification. It's amazing; we once had films that attained classic status, like Pinocchio and Snow White, with nary a flatulence joke, lovingly detailed vomit scene, or zoom-in shot of a brat digging in his nose with a grimy finger. But Walt Disney had nothing on the new breed of kiddie producer. Now, if a cartoon doesn't depict someone falling face-first into a cowpie, it's just not living up to its true potential. These modern filmmakers seem physically and psychologically incapable of omitting such references. We've come a long way, baby.
2. A major theme is the "animals are people, too," mantra we expect at PETA rallies or at Brahmin's Vegetarian Grocery. A kid in the flick is bullied by a neighborhood punk. The victim, in turn, tortures ants and destroys their nests. The two acts are portrayed as synonymous in nature and degree, which is absurd. In reality, ants are mindless, instinctively-driven organisms.
3. Now we've come to the worst part. Two characters compare and contrast human society with that of the ants. This is not a throwaway aside, but a major scene in the movie. The message conveyed is that ant society is superior to that of humans, and is something to which we should aspire.
Why is this problematic? It's disturbing because the ant civilization is a communistic one, with a bright, sunny face painted on it. In fact, the only facet that differs markedly from Communism is the ants' belief in a deity--who is, of course, a goddess. In every other respect, we have a sanitized, bowdlerized vision that would make Karl Marx cheer, in his best impression of Will Smith:
"Now, dass whut I'm tawkin' 'bout!"
Sunday, January 28, 2007
The Hebrew Shuffle
As most probably know, Jimmy Carter had a recent falling out with a long-time supporter over the thesis of his new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Found in the book's preface, perhaps this poem sheds some illumination on the disagreement:
Too many Jews.
Too many Jews.
Too many Jews on Earth.
Too many Jews.
Right there in the news.
Why can't we have a dearth?
We find 'em in synagogues--
In Israel, too.
They infest the land of my birth.
They crash Bar Mitzvahs,
And Bat Mitzvahs, too.
Ya see 'em from Fresno to Perth.
We slice 'em and dice 'em
And grill 'em and kill 'em,
And give 'em the old bushwhack.
We punch 'em and crunch 'em
And bug 'em and slug 'em,
But still, they keep coming back.
They pillage the Mideast,
Turn peace into war.
For this, we send 'em some cash.
They harry the Gentiles
And drink Ayrab blood,
And the Pope cows under their lash.
They spread their contagion
Wherever they go.
They breed like house cats or fleas.
I jest can't wait till
Good Yahweh above
Sends us the cure for their disease.
They make all the movies
And show lots of boobies.
Bush is their marionette.
Each one should pass on
Like Marat or Saddam,
Or be thrown down a rank oubliette.
You may not approve,
But you dance to their tune.
The whole world is their dark demesne.
Let's fight 'em and spite 'em
And take to the streets.
Viva la bright guillotine!
Too many Jews.
Too many Jews.
Too many Jews on Earth.
Too many Jews.
Right there in the news.
Why can't we have a dearth?
We find 'em in synagogues--
In Israel, too.
They infest the land of my birth.
They crash Bar Mitzvahs,
And Bat Mitzvahs, too.
Ya see 'em from Fresno to Perth.
We slice 'em and dice 'em
And grill 'em and kill 'em,
And give 'em the old bushwhack.
We punch 'em and crunch 'em
And bug 'em and slug 'em,
But still, they keep coming back.
They pillage the Mideast,
Turn peace into war.
For this, we send 'em some cash.
They harry the Gentiles
And drink Ayrab blood,
And the Pope cows under their lash.
They spread their contagion
Wherever they go.
They breed like house cats or fleas.
I jest can't wait till
Good Yahweh above
Sends us the cure for their disease.
They make all the movies
And show lots of boobies.
Bush is their marionette.
Each one should pass on
Like Marat or Saddam,
Or be thrown down a rank oubliette.
You may not approve,
But you dance to their tune.
The whole world is their dark demesne.
Let's fight 'em and spite 'em
And take to the streets.
Viva la bright guillotine!
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Our Government Has Gone Insane
Soon we all can consider the Minutemen a domestic terror group:
An Arizona lawmaker has introduced a bill to revise the state's statutes on organized crime and fraud by defining "domestic terrorism" in such a way that members of the Minuteman Project or other border-patrol groups could be prosecuted and forced to serve a minimum six-month jail term.
The article includes a picture of the illustrious Arizona "lawmaker," and reveals that, though she may have the looks, someone else got the brains in the family.
Now, Sinema is targeting border-security groups like the Minutemen with new legislation that would define anyone not formally affiliated with law enforcement, who patrolled in search of illegal activity while armed, as a domestic terrorist. If it becomes law, the bill would impose a mandatory minimum jail sentence, even if prosecutors recommend probation.
HB 2286 reads:
Sec. 2. Title 13, chapter 23, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-2320, to read:
13-2320. Domestic terrorism; classification
A. An individual or group of individuals commits domestic terrorism if the individual or group of individuals are not affiliated with a local, state or federal law enforcement entity and associate with another individual or group of individuals as an organization, group, corporation or company for the purpose of patrolling to detect alleged illegal activity or to individually patrol for the purpose of detecting alleged illegal activity and if the individual or group of individuals is armed with a firearm or other weapon. . .
"I've been monitoring the Minutemen for a year now," Sinema told vigilantewatch.org at the time, "and they're just scary."
"Race-based tactics always lead to violence," she insisted. "Remember, the Ku Klux Klan was the first-ever group to patrol the border between the U.S. and Mexico back in the '70s."
Which race do the Minutemen hate, Little Miss Clueless? Mexicans? Is "Mexican" a racial group? This is the typical "If you don't like illegal invasion of your country, you're a racist" argument. I don't know what scares me more: that some people are this stupid, or that American citizens are dumb enough to vote this bubblehead into office.
Here we have a complete redefinition of terms to fit a narrow agenda: that of making allowances for illegal immigration. Now people who love their country and want to protect it are terrorists. It's akin to saying right is left, up is down, black is white.
By the way, I hope none of my readers participate in Neighborhood Watch programs. If so, you fall under the classification of "domestic terrorist."
****
In other lunacy masquerading as news, Palestinkians have named a street in the "West Bank" after good ol' Saddumb--funded by the U.S. of A.
WND confirmed with local leaders the Yaabid street currently bears Saddam's name.
The Palestinian daily Al-Hayat al-Jadida stated the street's dedication was meant to emphasize the "values of Arabness and Jihad, which [Saddam] represented."
But USAID held a ceremony in July 2005 marking its contributions of $402,000 for paving the Yaabid municipality's main street – now named after Saddam – as well nearly two miles of inner streets. The American agency also contributed to the reconstruction of the city's main entrance.
Zacharias Zubeidi, leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Yaabid, told WND the city changed the name on the U.S.-funded street to show "Saddam Hussein is still alive."
"We will honor his memory until the American and Zionist occupation is driven from our land," Zubeidi said.
Saddam was considered a hero to most Palestinians. His final words prior to his hanging reportedly included "Palestine is Arab."
Celebrating the values of Arabness and Jihad: that's what America's all about. That these moral degenerates receive one red cent from American coffers is an atrocity. But what's worse is the government's indifference and that it's nothing new.
Maybe the next time someone mentions the Arab Street, they'll be referencing Saddumb Avenue.
An Arizona lawmaker has introduced a bill to revise the state's statutes on organized crime and fraud by defining "domestic terrorism" in such a way that members of the Minuteman Project or other border-patrol groups could be prosecuted and forced to serve a minimum six-month jail term.
The article includes a picture of the illustrious Arizona "lawmaker," and reveals that, though she may have the looks, someone else got the brains in the family.
Now, Sinema is targeting border-security groups like the Minutemen with new legislation that would define anyone not formally affiliated with law enforcement, who patrolled in search of illegal activity while armed, as a domestic terrorist. If it becomes law, the bill would impose a mandatory minimum jail sentence, even if prosecutors recommend probation.
HB 2286 reads:
Sec. 2. Title 13, chapter 23, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-2320, to read:
13-2320. Domestic terrorism; classification
A. An individual or group of individuals commits domestic terrorism if the individual or group of individuals are not affiliated with a local, state or federal law enforcement entity and associate with another individual or group of individuals as an organization, group, corporation or company for the purpose of patrolling to detect alleged illegal activity or to individually patrol for the purpose of detecting alleged illegal activity and if the individual or group of individuals is armed with a firearm or other weapon. . .
"I've been monitoring the Minutemen for a year now," Sinema told vigilantewatch.org at the time, "and they're just scary."
"Race-based tactics always lead to violence," she insisted. "Remember, the Ku Klux Klan was the first-ever group to patrol the border between the U.S. and Mexico back in the '70s."
Which race do the Minutemen hate, Little Miss Clueless? Mexicans? Is "Mexican" a racial group? This is the typical "If you don't like illegal invasion of your country, you're a racist" argument. I don't know what scares me more: that some people are this stupid, or that American citizens are dumb enough to vote this bubblehead into office.
Here we have a complete redefinition of terms to fit a narrow agenda: that of making allowances for illegal immigration. Now people who love their country and want to protect it are terrorists. It's akin to saying right is left, up is down, black is white.
By the way, I hope none of my readers participate in Neighborhood Watch programs. If so, you fall under the classification of "domestic terrorist."
****
In other lunacy masquerading as news, Palestinkians have named a street in the "West Bank" after good ol' Saddumb--funded by the U.S. of A.
WND confirmed with local leaders the Yaabid street currently bears Saddam's name.
The Palestinian daily Al-Hayat al-Jadida stated the street's dedication was meant to emphasize the "values of Arabness and Jihad, which [Saddam] represented."
But USAID held a ceremony in July 2005 marking its contributions of $402,000 for paving the Yaabid municipality's main street – now named after Saddam – as well nearly two miles of inner streets. The American agency also contributed to the reconstruction of the city's main entrance.
Zacharias Zubeidi, leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Yaabid, told WND the city changed the name on the U.S.-funded street to show "Saddam Hussein is still alive."
"We will honor his memory until the American and Zionist occupation is driven from our land," Zubeidi said.
Saddam was considered a hero to most Palestinians. His final words prior to his hanging reportedly included "Palestine is Arab."
Celebrating the values of Arabness and Jihad: that's what America's all about. That these moral degenerates receive one red cent from American coffers is an atrocity. But what's worse is the government's indifference and that it's nothing new.
Maybe the next time someone mentions the Arab Street, they'll be referencing Saddumb Avenue.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Play it Again
Having posted his little poem at Vox's, and still not quite liberated from his latest bout of narcissism, he scurried over to his own blog and tacked it up for all to read and admire. With a sigh, he shook his head in amazement at his wit, realizing that, were she alive today, Emily Dickinson would be nagging him for lessons in the fine art of stringing rhymes together.
He forthwith shut down his old pc and headed off to the acceptance dinner, where he graciously hoisted on high the trophy given him by the National Library of Poetry.
Pull that handle.
Rock the vote.
All aboard
the ferryboat.
Charon grins
and plies the Styx.
Say "Huzzah!"
for politics.
The only cure
for Adam's fall:
Vote GOP,
dear little thrall.
I'm tired of excess mental exertion.
Time for cranial rectum insertion.
He forthwith shut down his old pc and headed off to the acceptance dinner, where he graciously hoisted on high the trophy given him by the National Library of Poetry.
Pull that handle.
Rock the vote.
All aboard
the ferryboat.
Charon grins
and plies the Styx.
Say "Huzzah!"
for politics.
The only cure
for Adam's fall:
Vote GOP,
dear little thrall.
I'm tired of excess mental exertion.
Time for cranial rectum insertion.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Necktie-Party Etiquette
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that executions of Saddam Hussein and two others were mishandled and said she hoped that those responsible for making cell phone videos of Saddam's execution will be punished.
"We were disappointed there was not greater dignity given to the accused under these circumstances," Rice said during a news conference with her Egyptian counterpart.
Is this a joke? Saddumb received approximately 1000% more dignity than any of his victims. How about the Kurds who choked on their own tongues and asphyxiated after a little gas treatment? Were their ends dignified? Or those who were beaten and tortured to death in his prisons? How about those lucky individuals blindfolded and tossed off roofs, to lie broken or dead on the pavement below? The epitome of dignity, huh? I wonder if Conyaleewza thinks the mass rapes--followed by discarding used-up women in holes in the ground--were proper terminations of life on Earth? Saddumb's execution was polite and genteel in comparison.
Rice also said the executions were Iraqi government decisions, not those of the United States.
"Let me just say that the decision concerning the execution of Saddam Hussein and the two defendants today were made according to Iraqi process and Iraqi law," she said.
I thought that was the whole point, Conyaleewza. All the bloodshed is for the benefit of the Iraqis, so they can rein in their people and govern as an independent country. Yet you use this very goal as a tool for criticizing Iraq and distancing the American government from the executions. Are we attempting to coalesce a post-Saddumb country that can take care of its own business without us, or not? Make up your mind.
"We were disappointed there was not greater dignity given to the accused under these circumstances," Rice said during a news conference with her Egyptian counterpart.
Is this a joke? Saddumb received approximately 1000% more dignity than any of his victims. How about the Kurds who choked on their own tongues and asphyxiated after a little gas treatment? Were their ends dignified? Or those who were beaten and tortured to death in his prisons? How about those lucky individuals blindfolded and tossed off roofs, to lie broken or dead on the pavement below? The epitome of dignity, huh? I wonder if Conyaleewza thinks the mass rapes--followed by discarding used-up women in holes in the ground--were proper terminations of life on Earth? Saddumb's execution was polite and genteel in comparison.
Rice also said the executions were Iraqi government decisions, not those of the United States.
"Let me just say that the decision concerning the execution of Saddam Hussein and the two defendants today were made according to Iraqi process and Iraqi law," she said.
I thought that was the whole point, Conyaleewza. All the bloodshed is for the benefit of the Iraqis, so they can rein in their people and govern as an independent country. Yet you use this very goal as a tool for criticizing Iraq and distancing the American government from the executions. Are we attempting to coalesce a post-Saddumb country that can take care of its own business without us, or not? Make up your mind.
Yowza!
Happy post-Martin Luther King, Junior's birthday!
I duly performed my obligations, this year. First, I made sure that any time I walked near a colorful person, I hung my head in shame at the audacity of being born pigmentally-challenged.
Next, I attended a "No Justice, No Peace" rally with Al Sharpton. It seems the local Dunkin' Donuts had a history of serving a disproportionate number of white powdered sugar donuts. That's a no-no, these days, and we put a stop to it, lickety-split. They may lose patronage, but it's chocolate all the way, bubba.
Afterwards, I gave a contribution to Je$$e Jack$on'$ new "Co$mic Injustice" program. The first proceeds go to the people of Darfur. I was disgusted at my demonic race when I learned that these downtrodden Africans are using guns to off each other manufactured by white people. And we've reserved additional funds for the Martian microbial families decimated in the orignal Viking landing. But only the black ones.
Finally, I publicly denounced my next-door neighbor as the local Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. Of course, he really isn't; but he once told me a black joke, and that amounts to the same.
All in all, it was a great day.
I duly performed my obligations, this year. First, I made sure that any time I walked near a colorful person, I hung my head in shame at the audacity of being born pigmentally-challenged.
Next, I attended a "No Justice, No Peace" rally with Al Sharpton. It seems the local Dunkin' Donuts had a history of serving a disproportionate number of white powdered sugar donuts. That's a no-no, these days, and we put a stop to it, lickety-split. They may lose patronage, but it's chocolate all the way, bubba.
Afterwards, I gave a contribution to Je$$e Jack$on'$ new "Co$mic Injustice" program. The first proceeds go to the people of Darfur. I was disgusted at my demonic race when I learned that these downtrodden Africans are using guns to off each other manufactured by white people. And we've reserved additional funds for the Martian microbial families decimated in the orignal Viking landing. But only the black ones.
Finally, I publicly denounced my next-door neighbor as the local Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. Of course, he really isn't; but he once told me a black joke, and that amounts to the same.
All in all, it was a great day.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
South American Gulag
President Hugo Chavez's announcement at this week's innaugaral ceremony of plans to create a network of "socialist cities" run by "people power" in Venezuela's unsettled interior has some critics concerned he is moving his country toward a Pol Pot-type system.
The anti-American leader told the Venezuelan national assembly that large tracts, each 38.6 square miles in size, would be developed as new egalitarian communities run without mayors or municipal governments.
"I invoke and summon the constituent power, the people's power, the real fuel, so that the engines I am talking about may lead us to a better future," he said at the swearing-in ceremony where he declared "the new era on the road to socialism."
"Those of you who want to know what type of socialism I have planned for Venezuela should read Marx and Lenin," he said.
Wow, who knew he'd be so open and direct about his murderous intentions? Subtle as a bullet in the brainpan. Marx advocated state control of business and the abolition of private property. Lenin put this delicate philosophy into practice in the October Revolution of 1917. Untold thousands died in the beginning, and the end of his policies resulted in the direct execution, starvation, or unjust imprisonment of literally millions of people.
Communism has never held any status but that of abysmal failure. It denotes moral and intellectual annihilation, standing in opposition to everything God wants for us.
Which speaks volumes about Venezuela's dictator-in-chief.
The anti-American leader told the Venezuelan national assembly that large tracts, each 38.6 square miles in size, would be developed as new egalitarian communities run without mayors or municipal governments.
"I invoke and summon the constituent power, the people's power, the real fuel, so that the engines I am talking about may lead us to a better future," he said at the swearing-in ceremony where he declared "the new era on the road to socialism."
"Those of you who want to know what type of socialism I have planned for Venezuela should read Marx and Lenin," he said.
Wow, who knew he'd be so open and direct about his murderous intentions? Subtle as a bullet in the brainpan. Marx advocated state control of business and the abolition of private property. Lenin put this delicate philosophy into practice in the October Revolution of 1917. Untold thousands died in the beginning, and the end of his policies resulted in the direct execution, starvation, or unjust imprisonment of literally millions of people.
Communism has never held any status but that of abysmal failure. It denotes moral and intellectual annihilation, standing in opposition to everything God wants for us.
Which speaks volumes about Venezuela's dictator-in-chief.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Do Not Flush Commode with Head in Bowl
The people who write product warning labels must have great senses of humor. Either that, or they assume that the average American is a cross-eyed, drooling moron. Here are a few examples of actual labels:
1. Label on a front-end loading washing machine: "DO NOT put any person in this washer."
2. On a personal watercraft: "Never use a lit match or open flame to check fuel level."
3. On a Super Lotto ticket: "Do not iron."
4. Useful cell phone warning: "Don't try to dry your phone in a microwave oven."
5. Found on a telephone book: "Please do not use this directory while operating a moving vehicle."
***
What's next? "Please recycle. Do not eat," on plastic soda bottles? "Do not breathe underwater," posted at local swimming pools? Or how about a warning label on every handgun purchased--right alongside the voice/fingerprint/moon-cycle activated trigger lock, of course--which states, "Do not load, point at forehead, and depress trigger."
Better yet, why not just tattoo each newborn infink in the hospital nursery with bold red letters on its bouncing bottom: "Not a football. Do not kick."
1. Label on a front-end loading washing machine: "DO NOT put any person in this washer."
2. On a personal watercraft: "Never use a lit match or open flame to check fuel level."
3. On a Super Lotto ticket: "Do not iron."
4. Useful cell phone warning: "Don't try to dry your phone in a microwave oven."
5. Found on a telephone book: "Please do not use this directory while operating a moving vehicle."
***
What's next? "Please recycle. Do not eat," on plastic soda bottles? "Do not breathe underwater," posted at local swimming pools? Or how about a warning label on every handgun purchased--right alongside the voice/fingerprint/moon-cycle activated trigger lock, of course--which states, "Do not load, point at forehead, and depress trigger."
Better yet, why not just tattoo each newborn infink in the hospital nursery with bold red letters on its bouncing bottom: "Not a football. Do not kick."
Friday, January 5, 2007
Does My Rucksack Clash with These Fatigues?
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Clinton says the nation has "evolved" enough so that openly homosexual men and women should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military now.
"The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has," he said, noting 24 other nations including allies in the fight against terrorism let homosexuals serve openly.
What a great idea. Destroying morale by sacrificing our soldiers for Iraqis unwilling to take up arms for their own country and freedom isn't good enough. You see, just as simian beasts once clambered down out of the trees and used lightning-originated fires to bake grubs on a stick, so, too, has the United States moved from barbarism to civilized behavior, from primitivism to enlightenment. Now we openly can embrace those who define themselves not as men and women, as patriots, or even (perish the thought) Americans, but as same-sex connoiseurs. This will redefine esprit de corps for a new era, and open whole new worlds of possibilities in barracks life.
And isn't it nifty how these social reengineering projects and outlooks that damage our culture find a basis in the actions and philosophies of other nations? Forget our heritage or our passe Constitution. Why worry about such ephemera when we have such giants of progress as France and Germany to emulate?
"The question before us now is whether enough time has gone by to give this policy serious reconsideration. Much evidence suggests that it has," he said, noting 24 other nations including allies in the fight against terrorism let homosexuals serve openly.
What a great idea. Destroying morale by sacrificing our soldiers for Iraqis unwilling to take up arms for their own country and freedom isn't good enough. You see, just as simian beasts once clambered down out of the trees and used lightning-originated fires to bake grubs on a stick, so, too, has the United States moved from barbarism to civilized behavior, from primitivism to enlightenment. Now we openly can embrace those who define themselves not as men and women, as patriots, or even (perish the thought) Americans, but as same-sex connoiseurs. This will redefine esprit de corps for a new era, and open whole new worlds of possibilities in barracks life.
And isn't it nifty how these social reengineering projects and outlooks that damage our culture find a basis in the actions and philosophies of other nations? Forget our heritage or our passe Constitution. Why worry about such ephemera when we have such giants of progress as France and Germany to emulate?
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Happy New Year!
I hope everyone enjoyed the keg parties, the late-night drunken staggers out to the car, the bleary-eyed drives home straddling both lanes, and the gentle caresses of the toilet bowls against your temples as you retched away the dregs of the old year.
And kudos to all of you who spent New Year's Eve in a more intelligent if not productive manner. I'm a teetotaller myself, so I spent a quiet evening at home with my wife. I must admit that Christmas is of far greater import to me than New Year's. I always feel a bit melancholy, this time, every December-January. I suppose it's because of all the buildup for Christmas, and then it's over so fast. Of course, another year has been relegated to the dustbin of history, and that's never a sunny thought. 2006 passed faster than the Roadrunner on amphetamines, and we're already into 2007.
I truly hope the new year treats everyone well, with no mishaps and lots of blessings.
And if you ever start feeling a little blue, just sit back and think about how Saddam Hussein ended the old year, and remember that things could be a lot less peachy.
And kudos to all of you who spent New Year's Eve in a more intelligent if not productive manner. I'm a teetotaller myself, so I spent a quiet evening at home with my wife. I must admit that Christmas is of far greater import to me than New Year's. I always feel a bit melancholy, this time, every December-January. I suppose it's because of all the buildup for Christmas, and then it's over so fast. Of course, another year has been relegated to the dustbin of history, and that's never a sunny thought. 2006 passed faster than the Roadrunner on amphetamines, and we're already into 2007.
I truly hope the new year treats everyone well, with no mishaps and lots of blessings.
And if you ever start feeling a little blue, just sit back and think about how Saddam Hussein ended the old year, and remember that things could be a lot less peachy.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Fitting End
He made the leap and danced on air
With all the grace of Robespierre.
He crossed the Styx; the farm is bought;
And all his railing's come to naught.
Yes, as a pendulum he swings,
While all the happy birdies sing.
The poor ol' Butcher of Baghdad
Has quite become a hanging chad.
His rule is but a sad footnote,
A terrifying anecdote.
And all the justice he denied
Was given him, for homicide.
Remember all the graves he filled,
And all the innocents he killed;
The smiles he stopped; the dreams he crushed;
The hearts he broke; the laughs he hushed.
If gallows humor's not your style,
Just tell the Kurds, and watch them smile.
With all the grace of Robespierre.
He crossed the Styx; the farm is bought;
And all his railing's come to naught.
Yes, as a pendulum he swings,
While all the happy birdies sing.
The poor ol' Butcher of Baghdad
Has quite become a hanging chad.
His rule is but a sad footnote,
A terrifying anecdote.
And all the justice he denied
Was given him, for homicide.
Remember all the graves he filled,
And all the innocents he killed;
The smiles he stopped; the dreams he crushed;
The hearts he broke; the laughs he hushed.
If gallows humor's not your style,
Just tell the Kurds, and watch them smile.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Gerald R. Ford, R.I.P.
The 38th president died tuesday at age 93, I assume from natural causes. Either that or the sweltering evil of global warming. I must admit to little knowledge of the man or the intricacies of his presidency; but from what I do know, he seemed a decent, respectable fellow. Certainly he comported himself with class and vigor, keeping active while refraining from mugging for the cameras at every conceivable opportunity. Compare his out-of-office behavior to that of Jimmy "The Expert" Carter, for example. Carter styles himself a fount of wisdom on such items as foreign policy (hyuk), American values (snort), and discovering the fine, microscopic distinctions between Israel and Nazi Germany (guffaw). Yes, Mr. Carter, you've done good work for Habitat for Humanity, but this doesn't provide an all-expenses-paid pass for public jackassery. Putting it mildly, you don't know peanuts about most of the subjects upon which you expound liberally--pun intended. Nor does writing tomes of such gravity as Palestinian Peace, Jewish Terror, I Trust Mahdi Ahmadinejad, or Crucify Him: My Take on the Bush Presidency mean that you have any more knowledge of these matters than the typical North Korean. Actually, it means you're a self-important and self-deluded idiot who should shun the public realm and keep within the confines of the Hindsight Is 20/20 Club.
I keep hearing radio talk-show hosts and pundimwits on tv say that Carter is out of control, then qualify this with. . ."and he's eighty-two years old." I'm sorry, how is this relevant? Our dearly-departed President Ford was much older than that, without any of the attendant moronics. Nor did Ronald Reagan dash to and fro, in his later years, screeching that jihadis just want understanding. This is an insult to those of great age and clear moral wisdom. Unless he's under the duress of dotage-induced senility, then bringing up his octogenarianism is an evasion of the real issue: that Carter's problem has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with being a relativist ass.
I keep hearing radio talk-show hosts and pundimwits on tv say that Carter is out of control, then qualify this with. . ."and he's eighty-two years old." I'm sorry, how is this relevant? Our dearly-departed President Ford was much older than that, without any of the attendant moronics. Nor did Ronald Reagan dash to and fro, in his later years, screeching that jihadis just want understanding. This is an insult to those of great age and clear moral wisdom. Unless he's under the duress of dotage-induced senility, then bringing up his octogenarianism is an evasion of the real issue: that Carter's problem has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with being a relativist ass.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Merry Christmas!
To all my loyal and longsuffering readers, I wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy new year, filled with a new lease on life, and even more prosperity than ever before--especially prosperity of a spiritual nature. I'm fond of every one of you, and I truly wish you all the best.
I hope that each of us keeps the true meaning of this season in our hearts; for without Christ, Christmas is a meaningless observance. Whether or not you believe Christ was born on December 25 isn't important. What is important is that He was born, grew to manhood, and died for the salvation of us all. The inimitable sacrifice He made was not possible without first being born and walking the Earth as a human being, in fulfillment of prophecy. So I believe a celebration of His birth is in order, whether in the chill of December, or the sun-kissed days of May.
If you've not invited him into you heart and life, yet, I gently urge you to do so.
He's the best thing that ever happened to me.
God bless our great nation, our troops overseas in harm's way, and each of you. Merry Christmas!
I hope that each of us keeps the true meaning of this season in our hearts; for without Christ, Christmas is a meaningless observance. Whether or not you believe Christ was born on December 25 isn't important. What is important is that He was born, grew to manhood, and died for the salvation of us all. The inimitable sacrifice He made was not possible without first being born and walking the Earth as a human being, in fulfillment of prophecy. So I believe a celebration of His birth is in order, whether in the chill of December, or the sun-kissed days of May.
If you've not invited him into you heart and life, yet, I gently urge you to do so.
He's the best thing that ever happened to me.
God bless our great nation, our troops overseas in harm's way, and each of you. Merry Christmas!
Dear Peacemongers. . .
How do you say "Season's Greetings" to an enemy combatant being held at Guantanamo Bay? It's only a guess, but maybe the cheerful holiday cards go like this:
Dear Avowed Enemy of America: Merry Christmas.
Dear I Yearn to Be a Martyr and Hook Up With 72 Virgins in Heaven: Happy Hanukkah.
Dear Friend of Usama Bin Laden: Happy New Year.
It's a well-established tradition for Americans at home to deliver Christmas cheer to U.S. soldiers stationed around the world, but it turns out that prisoners held in the War on Terror are getting good tidings of their own, too.
The 400 or so detainees at Joint Task Force detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have received approximately 500 holiday greeting cards, said Army Col. Lora Tucker, a spokeswoman for the prison.
This tickled my funnybone. It also made me wonder how bad the Guantanamo detainees have it, since they are allowed the receipt of mail. Sounds just shy of water-boarding.
I have one of my own. Dear Murderers. May our Lord illuminate your hearts in this Christmas season, and lead you away from darkness into perpetual light. Amen.
Dear Avowed Enemy of America: Merry Christmas.
Dear I Yearn to Be a Martyr and Hook Up With 72 Virgins in Heaven: Happy Hanukkah.
Dear Friend of Usama Bin Laden: Happy New Year.
It's a well-established tradition for Americans at home to deliver Christmas cheer to U.S. soldiers stationed around the world, but it turns out that prisoners held in the War on Terror are getting good tidings of their own, too.
The 400 or so detainees at Joint Task Force detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have received approximately 500 holiday greeting cards, said Army Col. Lora Tucker, a spokeswoman for the prison.
This tickled my funnybone. It also made me wonder how bad the Guantanamo detainees have it, since they are allowed the receipt of mail. Sounds just shy of water-boarding.
I have one of my own. Dear Murderers. May our Lord illuminate your hearts in this Christmas season, and lead you away from darkness into perpetual light. Amen.
Friday, December 22, 2006
A Seasonal Revision
You better watch out.
Give him no crap.
Better convert
Or you'll take a dirt nap.
Jihad Claus is coming to town.
He's making a list
And checking it thrice;
He's gonna put the
Great Satan on ice.
Jihad Claus is coming to town.
He knows if you've been praying
At least five times a day.
He knows that you've been bad not good,
So he must blow you away.
O! You better watch out!
You wear a bull's-eye.
Better just run;
I'm telling you why.
Jihad Claus is coming to town.
He knows you're in compliance,
Like those in free Baghdad,
If you say "Allahu Akbar!"
And the old wife's burkha-clad.
He won't say it twice.
Don't think him rude:
Your choices are death
Or dhimmitude.
Jihad Claus is coming to town!
Give him no crap.
Better convert
Or you'll take a dirt nap.
Jihad Claus is coming to town.
He's making a list
And checking it thrice;
He's gonna put the
Great Satan on ice.
Jihad Claus is coming to town.
He knows if you've been praying
At least five times a day.
He knows that you've been bad not good,
So he must blow you away.
O! You better watch out!
You wear a bull's-eye.
Better just run;
I'm telling you why.
Jihad Claus is coming to town.
He knows you're in compliance,
Like those in free Baghdad,
If you say "Allahu Akbar!"
And the old wife's burkha-clad.
He won't say it twice.
Don't think him rude:
Your choices are death
Or dhimmitude.
Jihad Claus is coming to town!
Thursday, December 21, 2006
A Visit from the Man
'Twas the eve of next Woodstock, when all through the house
not a hippie was stirring, not even a louse.
The peace pipes were laid on the table with care,
in hopes that some choice herb soon would be there.
The free-lovers nestled all snug in their beds
While visions of water bongs danced in their heads.
My unwashed old lady with natty dreadlocks
Slept with a deathgrip on her little pillbox.
When out on the porch there arose such a clatter
I jumped up in the buff to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash
With fog in my brain from a toke of bad hash.
The moon blinded me, and I started to flail
Like a hopped-up Ms. Keller reading her Braille.
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear
But the whole police force and their cold riot gear.
With a big megaphone, so lively and quick,
Their chief called us out, each stoned Bolshevik.
More rapid than sour-mash goes through my spare frame
He whistled and shouted, and called us by name:
"Now Moon-Unit! Dweezil!
And Sweet Passion Flower!
And anyone else
With scant mental power!
From the top of the porch!
To the cramped jail cell!
Right after the firehose
Saves us from your smell!"
not a hippie was stirring, not even a louse.
The peace pipes were laid on the table with care,
in hopes that some choice herb soon would be there.
The free-lovers nestled all snug in their beds
While visions of water bongs danced in their heads.
My unwashed old lady with natty dreadlocks
Slept with a deathgrip on her little pillbox.
When out on the porch there arose such a clatter
I jumped up in the buff to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash
With fog in my brain from a toke of bad hash.
The moon blinded me, and I started to flail
Like a hopped-up Ms. Keller reading her Braille.
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear
But the whole police force and their cold riot gear.
With a big megaphone, so lively and quick,
Their chief called us out, each stoned Bolshevik.
More rapid than sour-mash goes through my spare frame
He whistled and shouted, and called us by name:
"Now Moon-Unit! Dweezil!
And Sweet Passion Flower!
And anyone else
With scant mental power!
From the top of the porch!
To the cramped jail cell!
Right after the firehose
Saves us from your smell!"
Septic Origin
I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
No, this is not my personal creed, nor is it an impassioned excerpt from George Clooney's diary, though it parallels the latter, no doubt. Guess who said it.
If you assumed Karl Marx--or even Hillary "Clinton" Rodham--you'd be wrong.
Roger Baldwin made this remark in an article titled "Freedom in the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R." Who is this Baldwin character? Why, he's none other than one of the founders of that august civil rights group, the ACLU, serving as its executive director until 1950. Such an auspicious beginning; such a hallowed birth. The question is, why would anyone in his right mind associate himself with an organization dedicated to the propagation of communism or its milder brother, socialism?
The next time you learn that a friend or family member is a loyal drone, fill them in on this little historical tidbit. I expect two possible reactions to the revelation: either they'll clap for joy and screech out a song about the downtrodden workers, or their eyes will grow as large as dinner plates in sheer horror.
Regardless, it'll be a Kodak moment.
No, this is not my personal creed, nor is it an impassioned excerpt from George Clooney's diary, though it parallels the latter, no doubt. Guess who said it.
If you assumed Karl Marx--or even Hillary "Clinton" Rodham--you'd be wrong.
Roger Baldwin made this remark in an article titled "Freedom in the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R." Who is this Baldwin character? Why, he's none other than one of the founders of that august civil rights group, the ACLU, serving as its executive director until 1950. Such an auspicious beginning; such a hallowed birth. The question is, why would anyone in his right mind associate himself with an organization dedicated to the propagation of communism or its milder brother, socialism?
The next time you learn that a friend or family member is a loyal drone, fill them in on this little historical tidbit. I expect two possible reactions to the revelation: either they'll clap for joy and screech out a song about the downtrodden workers, or their eyes will grow as large as dinner plates in sheer horror.
Regardless, it'll be a Kodak moment.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
A Dialogue
Here's a conversation I had with an atheist at Vox's blog over the past couple of days. I thought it might interest some of you, so I've posted it below without comment:
Commenter: You believe that the Jews are God's chosen people? Why? Because their early writers said so? If you step back and take a long look look at this "God chose us" claim made by the Jews, it exposes itself as the self-serving nonsense it really is.
Me: I believe for two reasons: One, I accept that the Holy Bible is God's inspired Word. Therein, it is made clear that they are His chosen ones. My second reason blends w/ the first. No other group of people has experienced such sustained & methodical persecution as the Jews. Yet they manage surviving & flourishing wherever they find themselves. I see this as evidence of the Bible's validity.
Commenter: It's a handy tool the Jews have used from day one to justify whatever they have wanted to do as an identifiable group of people, from the mass slaughter of the Canaanites to the ejecting of Palestinians from their homes.
Me: Really? Tell that to the many, many Americans & Israelis who publicly & vociferently identify as Jews, while distancing themselves from religious connotations as much as possible. The ADL is but one example. And your comment about the Palestinians indicates moral ambiguity.
Commenter: To believe that your god, or the Jews god, or any god for that matter, would OK this sort of conduct is to be sucked in by a crude--but obvioulsy effective--con job.
Me: Now you're being silly; I made no claim that God approves every action from the Jews. It's a red herring. Being God's chosen people does not suggest a state of moral perfection, nor is that the traditional Christian understanding of their status.
Commenter: If God (big G) really exists, it is the God that has created us all, a God that would not pick out a single human soul amongst the sum total us all to elevate and glorify, much the less so for any particular group of humans. Perhaps God's one and only half-human son could be the exception, but certainly no other person, or group of people, whatever they may claim to the contrary.
Me: I agree that He created us all. As for the rest, setting a group apart as special purveyors of His Word to the rest of the world does not equal "glorification." In truth, such a position entailed great hardship & villification.
BTW, haven't you identified yourself as an atheist or agnostic in other threads on this blog? Correct me if I'm wrong. If so, why should I take your presumptions about a supposedly nonexistent God's thought processes seriously?
Commenter: One may actually think it's totally logical to believe in such blatant discrimination by God, and the chain of logic may be flawless and unarguable, but the logic is based on a false premise, a premise that has to include the idea that God is subject to human emotions. That would not be God. That would be a man-made god, custom designed to support any particular desire or need one can imagine, a convienient god, a comfortable god, and, IMO, a completely rejectable god.
Me: Again, more presumptuousness from a professed unbeliever. Scripture makes it clear that God displays emotions similar to ours, such as anger, sadness, love, & pleasure. The difference is that His aren't marred by a sinful framework, but come from spiritual & moral perfection.
The Christian understanding is that God created a good world that fell into ruin due to sin. So our emotions are a pale & sin-wracked imitation of His, not vice-versa.
Scripture depicts God as having emotions, w/out being a comfortable, convenient, wish-granting God. In fact, He's the diametric opposite of all three.
I suggest you find a Bible & read it, w/ a sincere effort at comprehension. You say that I labor under a false premise, yet you provide zero evidence for this beyond your own opinion about how God would do things, alas, if He only existed. Congratulations on the superlative hubris.
Commenter: Wes, You appear to believe in a god made in man's image, complete with--as you say-- anger, sadness, love and pleasure. That's no god, that's just a human contruct designed to make you feel better.
What is so hard about realizing--regardless of what you've been taught to believe--that a real God would have no human emotions? That they would be fatal weaknesses for an all-powerful being?
It is emotions that make us lose self-control, to explode in anger, to lash out, and if we had unlimited power--like the power to create a universe--one temper fit and it would be all over for everybody, everything, everywhere.
So, the fact that the universe exists today demonstrates to me that either God is not subject to human emotions, or that God is in reality a man-made fantasy.
I absolutey believe you cannot have it both ways.
One other thing: You actually believe that God's anger comes from spiritual and moral perfection? You have GOT to be joking!
Me: I believe in the Bible's representation of God. The brief picture I painted is the biblical one.
As I said earlier, our emotions are a poor reflection of His, not the other way around. Our emotions are problematic because they are steeped in a sinful nature. Imagine emotion w/out this burden.
A real god w/out emotions would be a divinity incapable--by definition--of caring about its creation. How would a god indifferent to its creatures ever muster the motivation for the act of creating? That concept is no more appealing than the emotional God you decry.
As for God's anger, have you ever heard of the concept of righteous anger? Is wrath always wrong, & always improperly expressed? I'm betting you don't think so.
If you take nothing else away from my remarks, understand that I'm saying yes, God has emotions, but His feelings are not hampered by the sin nature of mankind. This is a major difference between the two.
Commenter: Hmmm.
Look around the world, take a good objective nose-out-of-the-bible look, and then tell me you see signs of emotional and caring God.
"Righteous Anger"? Bah. No different in concept than righteous rape, or righteous lying, or righteous stealing.
You people just can't get the human out of your god.
That is real hubris.
Me: I know of plentiful evidence. How about compassionate people who risk their lives to help or rescue total strangers from death? WWII is replete w/ such examples, & many, many of those who made these sacrifices were Christians, led by their beliefs to act on them. How about answered prayers? I know, I know, answered prayers are coincidences, & sympathetic Christians are just people. I see God behind all of it, & I'm fully aware that I can't prove His existence beyond doubt. I acknowledge the need for faith.
So are you suggesting that anger is inherently immoral? Assuming you believe rape, lying, & stealing are wrong, it's the only conclusion I can draw from your comment.
It's only hubris if it's wrong. You've not demonstrated that.
Commenter: You believe that the Jews are God's chosen people? Why? Because their early writers said so? If you step back and take a long look look at this "God chose us" claim made by the Jews, it exposes itself as the self-serving nonsense it really is.
Me: I believe for two reasons: One, I accept that the Holy Bible is God's inspired Word. Therein, it is made clear that they are His chosen ones. My second reason blends w/ the first. No other group of people has experienced such sustained & methodical persecution as the Jews. Yet they manage surviving & flourishing wherever they find themselves. I see this as evidence of the Bible's validity.
Commenter: It's a handy tool the Jews have used from day one to justify whatever they have wanted to do as an identifiable group of people, from the mass slaughter of the Canaanites to the ejecting of Palestinians from their homes.
Me: Really? Tell that to the many, many Americans & Israelis who publicly & vociferently identify as Jews, while distancing themselves from religious connotations as much as possible. The ADL is but one example. And your comment about the Palestinians indicates moral ambiguity.
Commenter: To believe that your god, or the Jews god, or any god for that matter, would OK this sort of conduct is to be sucked in by a crude--but obvioulsy effective--con job.
Me: Now you're being silly; I made no claim that God approves every action from the Jews. It's a red herring. Being God's chosen people does not suggest a state of moral perfection, nor is that the traditional Christian understanding of their status.
Commenter: If God (big G) really exists, it is the God that has created us all, a God that would not pick out a single human soul amongst the sum total us all to elevate and glorify, much the less so for any particular group of humans. Perhaps God's one and only half-human son could be the exception, but certainly no other person, or group of people, whatever they may claim to the contrary.
Me: I agree that He created us all. As for the rest, setting a group apart as special purveyors of His Word to the rest of the world does not equal "glorification." In truth, such a position entailed great hardship & villification.
BTW, haven't you identified yourself as an atheist or agnostic in other threads on this blog? Correct me if I'm wrong. If so, why should I take your presumptions about a supposedly nonexistent God's thought processes seriously?
Commenter: One may actually think it's totally logical to believe in such blatant discrimination by God, and the chain of logic may be flawless and unarguable, but the logic is based on a false premise, a premise that has to include the idea that God is subject to human emotions. That would not be God. That would be a man-made god, custom designed to support any particular desire or need one can imagine, a convienient god, a comfortable god, and, IMO, a completely rejectable god.
Me: Again, more presumptuousness from a professed unbeliever. Scripture makes it clear that God displays emotions similar to ours, such as anger, sadness, love, & pleasure. The difference is that His aren't marred by a sinful framework, but come from spiritual & moral perfection.
The Christian understanding is that God created a good world that fell into ruin due to sin. So our emotions are a pale & sin-wracked imitation of His, not vice-versa.
Scripture depicts God as having emotions, w/out being a comfortable, convenient, wish-granting God. In fact, He's the diametric opposite of all three.
I suggest you find a Bible & read it, w/ a sincere effort at comprehension. You say that I labor under a false premise, yet you provide zero evidence for this beyond your own opinion about how God would do things, alas, if He only existed. Congratulations on the superlative hubris.
Commenter: Wes, You appear to believe in a god made in man's image, complete with--as you say-- anger, sadness, love and pleasure. That's no god, that's just a human contruct designed to make you feel better.
What is so hard about realizing--regardless of what you've been taught to believe--that a real God would have no human emotions? That they would be fatal weaknesses for an all-powerful being?
It is emotions that make us lose self-control, to explode in anger, to lash out, and if we had unlimited power--like the power to create a universe--one temper fit and it would be all over for everybody, everything, everywhere.
So, the fact that the universe exists today demonstrates to me that either God is not subject to human emotions, or that God is in reality a man-made fantasy.
I absolutey believe you cannot have it both ways.
One other thing: You actually believe that God's anger comes from spiritual and moral perfection? You have GOT to be joking!
Me: I believe in the Bible's representation of God. The brief picture I painted is the biblical one.
As I said earlier, our emotions are a poor reflection of His, not the other way around. Our emotions are problematic because they are steeped in a sinful nature. Imagine emotion w/out this burden.
A real god w/out emotions would be a divinity incapable--by definition--of caring about its creation. How would a god indifferent to its creatures ever muster the motivation for the act of creating? That concept is no more appealing than the emotional God you decry.
As for God's anger, have you ever heard of the concept of righteous anger? Is wrath always wrong, & always improperly expressed? I'm betting you don't think so.
If you take nothing else away from my remarks, understand that I'm saying yes, God has emotions, but His feelings are not hampered by the sin nature of mankind. This is a major difference between the two.
Commenter: Hmmm.
Look around the world, take a good objective nose-out-of-the-bible look, and then tell me you see signs of emotional and caring God.
"Righteous Anger"? Bah. No different in concept than righteous rape, or righteous lying, or righteous stealing.
You people just can't get the human out of your god.
That is real hubris.
Me: I know of plentiful evidence. How about compassionate people who risk their lives to help or rescue total strangers from death? WWII is replete w/ such examples, & many, many of those who made these sacrifices were Christians, led by their beliefs to act on them. How about answered prayers? I know, I know, answered prayers are coincidences, & sympathetic Christians are just people. I see God behind all of it, & I'm fully aware that I can't prove His existence beyond doubt. I acknowledge the need for faith.
So are you suggesting that anger is inherently immoral? Assuming you believe rape, lying, & stealing are wrong, it's the only conclusion I can draw from your comment.
It's only hubris if it's wrong. You've not demonstrated that.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Drain of Consciousness
Notorious internment camps where Japanese-Americans were kept behind barbed wire during World War II will be preserved as stark reminders of how the United States turned on some of its citizens in a time of fear.
Don't worry, folks. This is not a wasteful or illogical act. We may have need of them again. This country is lousy with undesirables, such as Catholics, federalists, libertarians, cultural preservers, WASPs, heterosexuals, etc.
***
An Israeli think tank with strong links to the military released videos and testimony Tuesday it said proved Hezbollah guerrillas used civilians as human shields during last summer's war in Lebanon.
Stop the presses!! You mean the media misled us, and Hezbollah actually isn't a gang of pacifistic communal hippies? File this under "No Kidding."
***
Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter is reportedly pregnant.
The Washington Post said 37-year-old Mary Cheney, the openly gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney and wife Lynne, is due in late spring. The paper reported she and longtime partner Heather Poe, 45, are "ecstatic." Poe and Cheney have been together for 15 years, according to the Post.
Old news, but here's a slightly different spin on it. Hm, let's see: her name is Mary. Check. She's become pregnant without the aid of a man. Check. Why, it's almost like a biblical story come to life. Maybe this is how the Antichrist will come into the world.
***
Does water STILL flow on Mars?
More importantly, should we care? Of course we should. Imagine all the money Evian can make after bottling, importing, and selling this product to the thirsty masses. Spring water from Mars. Only the Red Label guarantees quality. I propose we allocate 160 billion dollars in voluntary taxpayer "donations" to the study of discovering if, definitively, water flows on Mars, and where we can install the tap.
***
A giant black hole displaying horrifying table manners has been caught in the act of guzzling a star in a galaxy 4 billion light-years away, scientists using an orbiting NASA telescope said on Tuesday.
For those who just can't wrap their minds around the implications of this dizzying concept, let me explain it in layman's terms: Imagine that the black hole is the federal government. Now imagine that you are the star.
Don't worry, folks. This is not a wasteful or illogical act. We may have need of them again. This country is lousy with undesirables, such as Catholics, federalists, libertarians, cultural preservers, WASPs, heterosexuals, etc.
***
An Israeli think tank with strong links to the military released videos and testimony Tuesday it said proved Hezbollah guerrillas used civilians as human shields during last summer's war in Lebanon.
Stop the presses!! You mean the media misled us, and Hezbollah actually isn't a gang of pacifistic communal hippies? File this under "No Kidding."
***
Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter is reportedly pregnant.
The Washington Post said 37-year-old Mary Cheney, the openly gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney and wife Lynne, is due in late spring. The paper reported she and longtime partner Heather Poe, 45, are "ecstatic." Poe and Cheney have been together for 15 years, according to the Post.
Old news, but here's a slightly different spin on it. Hm, let's see: her name is Mary. Check. She's become pregnant without the aid of a man. Check. Why, it's almost like a biblical story come to life. Maybe this is how the Antichrist will come into the world.
***
Does water STILL flow on Mars?
More importantly, should we care? Of course we should. Imagine all the money Evian can make after bottling, importing, and selling this product to the thirsty masses. Spring water from Mars. Only the Red Label guarantees quality. I propose we allocate 160 billion dollars in voluntary taxpayer "donations" to the study of discovering if, definitively, water flows on Mars, and where we can install the tap.
***
A giant black hole displaying horrifying table manners has been caught in the act of guzzling a star in a galaxy 4 billion light-years away, scientists using an orbiting NASA telescope said on Tuesday.
For those who just can't wrap their minds around the implications of this dizzying concept, let me explain it in layman's terms: Imagine that the black hole is the federal government. Now imagine that you are the star.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Some Christmas Cheer
Over the river and through the woods
Over the river and through the woods
To our stolen lands we go.
The guide knows the way through Rio Grande spray
To dodge the old gringo.
Over the river and through the woods,
We'll find a better life.
We might kill a few and drink us some brew
And even bed your wife.
Over the river and through the woods
Our offspring anchor us.
Yes, we make the green, while racists get mean
And spit and yell and cuss.
Over the river and through the woods
Our coyote leads us on.
From melting pot to chamber pot
While your so-called leaders yawn.
Over the river and through the woods
And straight through the backyard door.
We only speak Spanish. Your rights will vanish.
Adios conquistador.
Over the river and through the woods
Your prisons overflow.
Your granny will die. Forget apple pie.
Hurray for the old taco!
Over the river and through the woods
To our stolen lands we go.
The guide knows the way through Rio Grande spray
To dodge the old gringo.
Over the river and through the woods,
We'll find a better life.
We might kill a few and drink us some brew
And even bed your wife.
Over the river and through the woods
Our offspring anchor us.
Yes, we make the green, while racists get mean
And spit and yell and cuss.
Over the river and through the woods
Our coyote leads us on.
From melting pot to chamber pot
While your so-called leaders yawn.
Over the river and through the woods
And straight through the backyard door.
We only speak Spanish. Your rights will vanish.
Adios conquistador.
Over the river and through the woods
Your prisons overflow.
Your granny will die. Forget apple pie.
Hurray for the old taco!
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Burning the Olive Branch
More gushy goodness from Muhammed's Peaceniks:
MOGADISHU, Somalia — Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an official said Wednesday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days.
Gives new meaning to the term "severed from reality." Gosh, just reading this makes me long for a galactic caliphate, as I polish my scimitar with relish, and think of all the neat Christmas decorations I can make with those grinning human skulls.
***
TWO Muslim students have been expelled from an Islamic school in Melbourne for urinating and spitting on a Bible and setting it on fire.
Why is this worthy of a headline? I mean, when you gotta go, you gotta go. And what is the most logical place for a Muscum to drop filthy robe and relieve himself, but on a Bible? As for burning it, I'm sure they did so to mask the unpleasant odoriferous emanations of their waste products. Spitting on it was natural when the fire became unmanageable and had to be extinguished.
MOGADISHU, Somalia — Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an official said Wednesday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days.
Gives new meaning to the term "severed from reality." Gosh, just reading this makes me long for a galactic caliphate, as I polish my scimitar with relish, and think of all the neat Christmas decorations I can make with those grinning human skulls.
***
TWO Muslim students have been expelled from an Islamic school in Melbourne for urinating and spitting on a Bible and setting it on fire.
Why is this worthy of a headline? I mean, when you gotta go, you gotta go. And what is the most logical place for a Muscum to drop filthy robe and relieve himself, but on a Bible? As for burning it, I'm sure they did so to mask the unpleasant odoriferous emanations of their waste products. Spitting on it was natural when the fire became unmanageable and had to be extinguished.
"Go North, Young Manuel"
One in seven Mexican workers have left their country and are working in the United States, an immigration study said on Tuesday.
Up to 9.4 percent of the all persons born in Mexico were living in the United States in 2005, according to the report. In the same year, 14 percent of Mexican workers had jobs on U.S. soil, compared to 2.5 percent of Canadians.
Based on data from the Census Bureau's 2006 Current Population Survey, Batalova found that Mexicans accounted for nearly one-third of the 22.6 million foreign-born workers in the United States, or almost 5 percent of the total civilian labor force.
And yet I can't find a good Dubya effigy pinata. Ah, well. Just as Rome wasn't built in a day, Aztlan won't be constructed in a day, either. But with our politicians sitting on their thumbs and whistling the Mexican National Anthem, the project is well under way.
Up to 9.4 percent of the all persons born in Mexico were living in the United States in 2005, according to the report. In the same year, 14 percent of Mexican workers had jobs on U.S. soil, compared to 2.5 percent of Canadians.
Based on data from the Census Bureau's 2006 Current Population Survey, Batalova found that Mexicans accounted for nearly one-third of the 22.6 million foreign-born workers in the United States, or almost 5 percent of the total civilian labor force.
And yet I can't find a good Dubya effigy pinata. Ah, well. Just as Rome wasn't built in a day, Aztlan won't be constructed in a day, either. But with our politicians sitting on their thumbs and whistling the Mexican National Anthem, the project is well under way.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Fun at Wal-Mart
Mr. and Mrs. Fenton are retired. Mrs. Fenton insists that he go with her to Wal-Mart. He gets bored with all the shopping. He prefers to get in and get out, but Mrs. Fenton loves to browse. Here's a letter sent to her from the store:
Dear Mrs. Fenton,
Over the past six months, your husband has been causing quite a commotion in our store. We cannot tolerate this behavior and may ban both of you from our stores. We have documented all incidents on our video surveillance equipment. All complaints against Mr. Fenton are listed below.
Things Mr. Bill Fenton has done while his spouse was shopping inWal-Mart:
1. June 15: Took 24 boxes of condoms and randomly put them in people's carts when they weren't looking.
2. July 2: Set all the alarm clocks in House wares to go off at 5-minute intervals.
3. July 7: Made a trail of tomato juice on the floor leading to the restrooms.
4. July 19: Walked up to an employee and told her in an official tone, 'Code 3' in house wares. . . and watched what happened.
5. Aug 4: Went to the Service Desk and asked to put a bag of M&M's on layaway.
6. Sept 14: Moved a 'CAUTION - WET FLOOR' sign to a carpeted area.
7. Sept 15: Set up a tent in the camping department and told other shoppers he'd invite them in if they'll bring pillows from the bedding department.
8. When a sales clerk asked if she could help him, he began to cry and asks, 'Why can't you people just leave me alone?'
9. Oct 4: Looked right into the security camera; used it as a mirror, and picked his nose.
10. Nov 10: While handling guns in the hunting department, asked the clerk if he knows where to find the antidepressants.
11. Dec 3: Darted around the store suspiciously loudly humming the "Mission Impossible" theme .
12. Dec 6: In the auto department, practiced his "Madonna look" usingdifferent size funnels.
13. Dec 18: Hid in a clothing rack and when people browse through, yelled "PICK ME! PICK ME!"
14. Dec 21: When an announcement came over the loud speaker, he assumes the fetal position and screams "NO! NO! It's those voices again!!!!" And last, but not least ...
15. Dec 23: Went into a fitting room, shut the door waited awhile, then yelled very loudly, "There is no toilet paper in here!"
Dear Mrs. Fenton,
Over the past six months, your husband has been causing quite a commotion in our store. We cannot tolerate this behavior and may ban both of you from our stores. We have documented all incidents on our video surveillance equipment. All complaints against Mr. Fenton are listed below.
Things Mr. Bill Fenton has done while his spouse was shopping inWal-Mart:
1. June 15: Took 24 boxes of condoms and randomly put them in people's carts when they weren't looking.
2. July 2: Set all the alarm clocks in House wares to go off at 5-minute intervals.
3. July 7: Made a trail of tomato juice on the floor leading to the restrooms.
4. July 19: Walked up to an employee and told her in an official tone, 'Code 3' in house wares. . . and watched what happened.
5. Aug 4: Went to the Service Desk and asked to put a bag of M&M's on layaway.
6. Sept 14: Moved a 'CAUTION - WET FLOOR' sign to a carpeted area.
7. Sept 15: Set up a tent in the camping department and told other shoppers he'd invite them in if they'll bring pillows from the bedding department.
8. When a sales clerk asked if she could help him, he began to cry and asks, 'Why can't you people just leave me alone?'
9. Oct 4: Looked right into the security camera; used it as a mirror, and picked his nose.
10. Nov 10: While handling guns in the hunting department, asked the clerk if he knows where to find the antidepressants.
11. Dec 3: Darted around the store suspiciously loudly humming the "Mission Impossible" theme .
12. Dec 6: In the auto department, practiced his "Madonna look" usingdifferent size funnels.
13. Dec 18: Hid in a clothing rack and when people browse through, yelled "PICK ME! PICK ME!"
14. Dec 21: When an announcement came over the loud speaker, he assumes the fetal position and screams "NO! NO! It's those voices again!!!!" And last, but not least ...
15. Dec 23: Went into a fitting room, shut the door waited awhile, then yelled very loudly, "There is no toilet paper in here!"
Sunday, December 3, 2006
Hating Christians. . .One Lie at a Time
The so-called war on Christmas has been reignited with an ironic decision by the city of Chicago to ban advertisements for "The Nativity Story" movie from a local Christmas festival, fearing they might offend non-Christians.
Of course, offending Christians in the process of this non-offensiveness is a non-issue, and is in fact the preferred modus operandi.
Chicago officials maintain the city doesn't wish to appear to endorse one religion over another.
A likely lie, but it's a Christmas festival, people. Get it? A Christmas-oriented movie trailer at a Christmas festival. If the mention of Jesus gives you the drippy drawers, then call it a pagan winter bacchanal, or something.
"Our guidance was that this very prominently placed advertisement would not only be insensitive to the many people of different faiths who come to enjoy the market for its food and unique gifts, but also it would be contrary to acceptable advertising standards suggested to the many festivals holding events on Daley Plaza," Jim Law, executive director of the office, said in a statement.
Ever notice how statements like this are never based on known quantities, but rather on what "might" happen? It's ridiculous and demonstrative of the dishonesty inherent in such an outlook. Here's an equivalent: "I'll never drive my car again, for I someday might be in an accident." Utterly stupid. We cannot have an outward display of Christianity, because some cretin might get offended. If this is a criterion that must needs be met, how do these buffoons remain unparalyzed and functional on planet Earth, on a day-to-day basis? Everything you say or do has the potential to irk someone, somewhere. So what is the solution? Voluntary euthanasia? Someone, please, take your Constitution out of Polly's birdcage liner and show me where it states that you have a right never to be offended. "The American people being a whiny, hyper-sensitive lot, the subjective right not to have one's feelings hurt shall not be infringed." I know, I know. When you can't find this particular amendment, you'll just notify me that it was there, in the beginning, but it hurt George Washington's wittle feelings, so they removed it.
Of course, offending Christians in the process of this non-offensiveness is a non-issue, and is in fact the preferred modus operandi.
Chicago officials maintain the city doesn't wish to appear to endorse one religion over another.
A likely lie, but it's a Christmas festival, people. Get it? A Christmas-oriented movie trailer at a Christmas festival. If the mention of Jesus gives you the drippy drawers, then call it a pagan winter bacchanal, or something.
"Our guidance was that this very prominently placed advertisement would not only be insensitive to the many people of different faiths who come to enjoy the market for its food and unique gifts, but also it would be contrary to acceptable advertising standards suggested to the many festivals holding events on Daley Plaza," Jim Law, executive director of the office, said in a statement.
Ever notice how statements like this are never based on known quantities, but rather on what "might" happen? It's ridiculous and demonstrative of the dishonesty inherent in such an outlook. Here's an equivalent: "I'll never drive my car again, for I someday might be in an accident." Utterly stupid. We cannot have an outward display of Christianity, because some cretin might get offended. If this is a criterion that must needs be met, how do these buffoons remain unparalyzed and functional on planet Earth, on a day-to-day basis? Everything you say or do has the potential to irk someone, somewhere. So what is the solution? Voluntary euthanasia? Someone, please, take your Constitution out of Polly's birdcage liner and show me where it states that you have a right never to be offended. "The American people being a whiny, hyper-sensitive lot, the subjective right not to have one's feelings hurt shall not be infringed." I know, I know. When you can't find this particular amendment, you'll just notify me that it was there, in the beginning, but it hurt George Washington's wittle feelings, so they removed it.
Saturday, December 2, 2006
Family Values Advocates
Our president and various others insist that aliens of the legal and illegal varieties are wonderful, hard-working, neighborly people--the kind you might find lining the streets, smiling and waving, in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. And I'm sure that's true, when they're not:
Aiding the Taliban
Toilet flotsam from terrorist-sponsoring hellholes
In addition, I'm sure that they're pretty swell, when not engaged in selling drugs on our soil. My local newspaper ran a story in the last couple of days about three men of Mexican extraction who were caught with large quantities of marijuana; and we're not talking about their private smoking stash, either. So far, their legal status has yet to be determined, but I'll wager a chihuahua chalupa that they're wet behind the ears.
I walked into a pizza joint tonight for supper, and found to my delight that fully half its employees were Mexicans, freely clucking Spanish to each other, and el Diablo take the blanco devils' befuddlement. Just more of those jobs Americans won't do--you know, like construction, agriculture, all facets of the restaurant industry, janitorial work, stocking shelves at department stores (Wetback-Mart, I'm lookin' at you), landscaping, the presidency, etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. When I first arrived, half the patrons were Mexican, as well.
Apparently, Americans don't work at all any more. They just sit home on their cellulite-ridden backsides, glued to the La-Z-Boy getting carpal tunnel syndrome from clicking the tv remote. I wonder how all the poor and downtrodden make ends meet? How do high school kids make a few bucks to buy Trojan's newest experimental flavor? How do those with only twelfth-grade educations get by? Everywhere I look, I see Mexicans doing jobs that Americans did enthusiastically less than five years ago. In some cases, two years ago. So what happened? Which is more plausible--that vast numbers of American citizens pay their bills and feed their kids while happily unemployed, or that the government, alien lobbyists, and greedy, unpatriotic businesses lie through their teeth when exclaiming that Americans just won't do these jobs? I say it's the latter.
I'm sick of watching my country being torn down around my ears by people who smile and pat us on our heads, and tell us how it's all for our betterment, and tsk-tsk at our lack of discernment and--in the warm glow of tolerance and diversity--reveal that Hell is, indeed, a better place than Heaven, if everyone there is polychromatic.
"Diversity" is just a fancy term for cultural suicide. I may offend some, but at this point, I don't care any more: If you believe that allowing millions of legal or illegal immigrants into your country who do not share your cultural worldview, your language, and refuse assimilation is a good thing, you're an idiot. This is one of those rare instances where it really is that simple.
Aiding the Taliban
Toilet flotsam from terrorist-sponsoring hellholes
In addition, I'm sure that they're pretty swell, when not engaged in selling drugs on our soil. My local newspaper ran a story in the last couple of days about three men of Mexican extraction who were caught with large quantities of marijuana; and we're not talking about their private smoking stash, either. So far, their legal status has yet to be determined, but I'll wager a chihuahua chalupa that they're wet behind the ears.
I walked into a pizza joint tonight for supper, and found to my delight that fully half its employees were Mexicans, freely clucking Spanish to each other, and el Diablo take the blanco devils' befuddlement. Just more of those jobs Americans won't do--you know, like construction, agriculture, all facets of the restaurant industry, janitorial work, stocking shelves at department stores (Wetback-Mart, I'm lookin' at you), landscaping, the presidency, etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. When I first arrived, half the patrons were Mexican, as well.
Apparently, Americans don't work at all any more. They just sit home on their cellulite-ridden backsides, glued to the La-Z-Boy getting carpal tunnel syndrome from clicking the tv remote. I wonder how all the poor and downtrodden make ends meet? How do high school kids make a few bucks to buy Trojan's newest experimental flavor? How do those with only twelfth-grade educations get by? Everywhere I look, I see Mexicans doing jobs that Americans did enthusiastically less than five years ago. In some cases, two years ago. So what happened? Which is more plausible--that vast numbers of American citizens pay their bills and feed their kids while happily unemployed, or that the government, alien lobbyists, and greedy, unpatriotic businesses lie through their teeth when exclaiming that Americans just won't do these jobs? I say it's the latter.
I'm sick of watching my country being torn down around my ears by people who smile and pat us on our heads, and tell us how it's all for our betterment, and tsk-tsk at our lack of discernment and--in the warm glow of tolerance and diversity--reveal that Hell is, indeed, a better place than Heaven, if everyone there is polychromatic.
"Diversity" is just a fancy term for cultural suicide. I may offend some, but at this point, I don't care any more: If you believe that allowing millions of legal or illegal immigrants into your country who do not share your cultural worldview, your language, and refuse assimilation is a good thing, you're an idiot. This is one of those rare instances where it really is that simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)