Late last week, Virginny Tech held a memorial service on campus for those murdered by resident alien devil Cho Seung-Hui. President Bush was in attendance, and gave a very poignant address to the audience, in which he mentioned God and hinted that the Bible has value beyond its door-stop potential. I'm not a fan of Mr. Bush, as many of you may find yourselves aghast to hear, but he deserves credit where its due. He did well, in an uncharacteristically eloquent speech, and I commend him.
Afterwards, I gritted my teeth through the next few speakers: a Muslim imam, a Buddhist spokesperson, and a couple of Jewish ladies. Topping it off like rat droppings on a wedding cake was a Lutheran minister who sounded more like someone kicked out of Woodstock for being too positive about human nature than a Christian pastor. I'm not interested in refusing them a public forum for their views, but I found myself asking myself: "Self, since the overwhelming majority of Americans profess belief in Christianity, or find more in common with it than any other religion, why am I seeing Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and feel-good weenies take center stage? Is it an attempt at inclusiveness? Does V-Tech have a large, unrepresentative student population of adherents to these religions?" To my chagrin, my Self didn't have a definitive answer to this question.
I'm inclined to believe that it's about inclusiveness--the ill-spawned child of multiculturalism, which posits that all religions, cultures, and philosophical viewpoints are of equal worth and beauty. But the administrators' reach exceeded their grasp, in my opinion. Why do it half-hearted? I resented the absence of Confucianists, Zoroastrians, Taoists, and Hindus. I was outraged that no Satanists, Thuggees, or Wiccans had the floor. Where were the Druids? Where were those swarthy individuals who long for Quetzalcoatl's return? I wanted grove dancers and folks who bask in the radiant glow of crystals. I wanted worshippers of bulbous-headed, gray beings from Zibblezok. I wanted animism, pantheism, and Arianism. I squinted for those who prostrate themselves at the foot of Mount Olympus, and spit Crom's name to the four winds, but they were not there. Once I thought I saw Cthulhu's squamous mass, but it was Hillary mugging for the cameras. I sat close to the tv in hopes of glimpsing a Hare Krishna's chrome dome, but no. Alas, I was deprived of my precious Moonies, Goonies, and Loonies, though in fairness some of the speakers on-site approached the latter.
In the goal of inclusiveness, how dare you draw a line of demarcation!
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Happy Earth Day
I'd like to tell the U.S.A.:
Stop killing off the trees!
Stay out of ANWR with your drills,
If you pretty please.
I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony,
In perfect harmony,
So take Osama by the hand
In childlike bonhomie.
I'd like to teach the world to smoke
From pipes and bowls and bongs.
I'd like to buy the world a toke
And sing these happy songs.
That's the real thing.
Can't ya hear what I say?
What the world needs today
Is the real thing, dude.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The V-Tech Atrocity
There's something chilling and inexplicable about a person whose soul drives him to brutally murder innocent civilians. Even understanding that humanity is a fallen, wretched creation, it's difficult wrapping one's head around the concept.
Cutting right to the chase, we have over 20,000 gun "control" laws in this country; not one of them would have hindered this devil from obtaining a firearm. Not one. Even if the local gun dealer had refused him, acquiring one on the black market would've been a cinch. Guns are easy to come by, in America--and throughout the world, for that matter. The issue is not widespread availability of guns, or too few laws. The problem is sin. Contributing to the enlargement of sin's options is keeping firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Virginia Tech's administrators prided themselves on having zero tolerance for gun possession on campus. This resulted in sixty people shot, over thirty of whom are dead. Since these policies apply only to those inclined to heed them, a situation arose in which mowing down large numbers of people was easier than shearing penned sheep. How many citizens must suffer and die before the utter worthlessness--and, indeed, counterproductivity-- of gun laws is acknowledged?
The most depressing aspect of this situation is that, in all likelihood, no one will learn a thing from it. I expect anti-gun crusaders will utilize this as a tool for more restrictions on those least likely to commit such acts.
A century ago, this spree of wanton destruction wouldn't have happened; not because of technological crudity or evil's rarity, but for a more comforting reason:
When the shooter opened fire, he would've had twenty people shooting back at him.
Cutting right to the chase, we have over 20,000 gun "control" laws in this country; not one of them would have hindered this devil from obtaining a firearm. Not one. Even if the local gun dealer had refused him, acquiring one on the black market would've been a cinch. Guns are easy to come by, in America--and throughout the world, for that matter. The issue is not widespread availability of guns, or too few laws. The problem is sin. Contributing to the enlargement of sin's options is keeping firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Virginia Tech's administrators prided themselves on having zero tolerance for gun possession on campus. This resulted in sixty people shot, over thirty of whom are dead. Since these policies apply only to those inclined to heed them, a situation arose in which mowing down large numbers of people was easier than shearing penned sheep. How many citizens must suffer and die before the utter worthlessness--and, indeed, counterproductivity-- of gun laws is acknowledged?
The most depressing aspect of this situation is that, in all likelihood, no one will learn a thing from it. I expect anti-gun crusaders will utilize this as a tool for more restrictions on those least likely to commit such acts.
A century ago, this spree of wanton destruction wouldn't have happened; not because of technological crudity or evil's rarity, but for a more comforting reason:
When the shooter opened fire, he would've had twenty people shooting back at him.
Monday, April 16, 2007
To Bee or Not to Bee
Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?: Scientists claim radiation from handsets are to blame for mysterious 'colony collapse' of bees.
The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.
Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.
Gives new meaning to the old adage, "You can't go home, again." And how do you like "Colony Collapse Disorder?" Isn't that a British description of the American Revolution? Sounds painful. Who knew bees had their own pathological conditions? Kinda like drunks who suffer from Ambulatorius Interruptus.
In other news, globalgore warming is culling the polar bears, hunters are systematically wiping out Bambi and his friends with glee, Flipper became sushi because of homies playin' dey rap too lowd, and I just killed a singular horsefly specimen with a flyswatter.
Thus another species hovers on the brink of extinction.
The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.
Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.
Gives new meaning to the old adage, "You can't go home, again." And how do you like "Colony Collapse Disorder?" Isn't that a British description of the American Revolution? Sounds painful. Who knew bees had their own pathological conditions? Kinda like drunks who suffer from Ambulatorius Interruptus.
In other news, globalgore warming is culling the polar bears, hunters are systematically wiping out Bambi and his friends with glee, Flipper became sushi because of homies playin' dey rap too lowd, and I just killed a singular horsefly specimen with a flyswatter.
Thus another species hovers on the brink of extinction.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Death Is a Nappy-headed Ho
By now, I'm betting you've heard or read Don Imus' name on every tv channel, radio station, newpaper and magazine in the past week exponentially more times than you'd catch the descriptor for a female dog at a rap recording session. This post constitutes my humble contribution to that burr under your saddle.
Up front, let me say that I think Imus is a left-wing idiot. I have zero use for him or his show, Imus Schmuck in the Morning. That said, his terminal case of foot-in-mouth disease offers an interesting revelation about current realities; realities that cost him his job after forty years on the air.
Imus committed the cardinal sin of kicking sand over the PC line. That's the career equivalent of hara kiri, these days--especially when it involves our precious minority, the Warriors of Infinite Moral Pulchritude and Strength (WIMPS). It's a worse mistake than a nubile young girl seeking a shower at the Bates Motel.
Reptiles in glossy suits--like that greasy character Al $harpton, and his counterpart Je$$e Jack$on--never bat a nictitating membrane when someone of Imus' septic caliber trashes Christians on-air, or smears other racial, political, or religious groups. It's simply a non-issue. But make a remark implying that blacks are anything less than angels of light, and we get hucksters circling the waters, like sharks on the blood-scent.
The bottom line is that it's not about what's appropriate or virtuous behavior in public; it's about the acquisition of power, fame, and viewing the world through racial lenses permanently affixed to the mind's eye. Imus didn't forfeit his career because he's a cad; he lost it because he made the fatal error of deviation from the party line, in public.
Who's the bigger racist: the man who makes an off-color remark on a radio show with a reputation for crass, unkind comments; or the man who attacks this individual for his sin, while ignoring it in those of his own skin pigmentation?
Up front, let me say that I think Imus is a left-wing idiot. I have zero use for him or his show, Imus Schmuck in the Morning. That said, his terminal case of foot-in-mouth disease offers an interesting revelation about current realities; realities that cost him his job after forty years on the air.
Imus committed the cardinal sin of kicking sand over the PC line. That's the career equivalent of hara kiri, these days--especially when it involves our precious minority, the Warriors of Infinite Moral Pulchritude and Strength (WIMPS). It's a worse mistake than a nubile young girl seeking a shower at the Bates Motel.
Reptiles in glossy suits--like that greasy character Al $harpton, and his counterpart Je$$e Jack$on--never bat a nictitating membrane when someone of Imus' septic caliber trashes Christians on-air, or smears other racial, political, or religious groups. It's simply a non-issue. But make a remark implying that blacks are anything less than angels of light, and we get hucksters circling the waters, like sharks on the blood-scent.
The bottom line is that it's not about what's appropriate or virtuous behavior in public; it's about the acquisition of power, fame, and viewing the world through racial lenses permanently affixed to the mind's eye. Imus didn't forfeit his career because he's a cad; he lost it because he made the fatal error of deviation from the party line, in public.
Who's the bigger racist: the man who makes an off-color remark on a radio show with a reputation for crass, unkind comments; or the man who attacks this individual for his sin, while ignoring it in those of his own skin pigmentation?
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Keep on the Sunny Side
A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.
Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.
They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.
Doubtless warmer surface temperatures and simultaneous increased solar activity are unrelated. We know this because Algore tells us that in his upcoming dystopian pseudo-gospel, Hysteria Personified: How I Started the Gaian Cult of Doom. . .and Invented the Internet in the Process.
Even if these findings were accurate, the end result would be humanity's fault. I can hear the econazis now: "Sol's active state indicates a fiery loss of temper, due to humanity's abuse of the edenic planetary organism called Earth. Its justifiable wrath will broil the human contaminant into ashes, like a self-cleaning oven. Thus achieving universal equilibrium, once again."
Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.
They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.
Doubtless warmer surface temperatures and simultaneous increased solar activity are unrelated. We know this because Algore tells us that in his upcoming dystopian pseudo-gospel, Hysteria Personified: How I Started the Gaian Cult of Doom. . .and Invented the Internet in the Process.
Even if these findings were accurate, the end result would be humanity's fault. I can hear the econazis now: "Sol's active state indicates a fiery loss of temper, due to humanity's abuse of the edenic planetary organism called Earth. Its justifiable wrath will broil the human contaminant into ashes, like a self-cleaning oven. Thus achieving universal equilibrium, once again."
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The March of Progress
A commenter named Ivan Poland posted this joke over at Vox's a while back. I enjoyed it so much, I thought I'd share it, here:
Teaching Math In the fifties: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
Teaching Math In the sixties: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
Teaching Math In the seventies: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
Teaching Math In the eighties: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20 Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
Teaching Math In the nineties: A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.)
Teaching Math In 2007: Un ranchero vende una carretera de madera para $100. El cuesto de la produccion era $80. Cuantos tortillas se puede comprar?
Teaching Math In the fifties: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
Teaching Math In the sixties: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
Teaching Math In the seventies: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
Teaching Math In the eighties: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20 Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
Teaching Math In the nineties: A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.)
Teaching Math In 2007: Un ranchero vende una carretera de madera para $100. El cuesto de la produccion era $80. Cuantos tortillas se puede comprar?
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Happy Easter!
For non-Christian celebrants: happy springtime pastoral long-eared rodentlike specimen of the Leporidae family day!
Friday, April 6, 2007
Have a Drink on Me
More reasons to import them by the baker's million:
In 2005, there were 37 alcohol-related crashes caused by Hispanic drivers for every 10,000 Hispanics in the state, according to the UNC Highway Safety Research Center. That is more than three times the rate of alcohol-related crashes among non-Hispanics.
Bobby Dunn, who counsels Spanish-speaking DWI convicts in Johnston and Wilson counties, said his clients are often young men far from home with money in their pockets for the first time. Many were too poor to have cars in Mexico, so they have little experience behind the wheel.
That'll make me feel muy better next time I hear of a drunken Mexican running down a young mother pushing a baby stroller.
They also see drinking as a way of showing their manhood.
"The magic number is 12," Dunn said, or "un doce" in Spanish. "If you can drink 12 beers, you're a man."
Yep, because it takes a real man to pickle himself.
Many Hispanics have not grown up with anti-drunken-driving messages, and it will take time for the ideas to take hold.
Yes, I'm sure the "messages" will sink right into the besotted brains of those who were alcoholics before they clambered out of the Rio Grande. If you're getting blotto every other night, chances are the signals won't reach you through all the haze. All the sympathetic articles in the world can't hide this truth.
In 2005, there were 37 alcohol-related crashes caused by Hispanic drivers for every 10,000 Hispanics in the state, according to the UNC Highway Safety Research Center. That is more than three times the rate of alcohol-related crashes among non-Hispanics.
Bobby Dunn, who counsels Spanish-speaking DWI convicts in Johnston and Wilson counties, said his clients are often young men far from home with money in their pockets for the first time. Many were too poor to have cars in Mexico, so they have little experience behind the wheel.
That'll make me feel muy better next time I hear of a drunken Mexican running down a young mother pushing a baby stroller.
They also see drinking as a way of showing their manhood.
"The magic number is 12," Dunn said, or "un doce" in Spanish. "If you can drink 12 beers, you're a man."
Yep, because it takes a real man to pickle himself.
Many Hispanics have not grown up with anti-drunken-driving messages, and it will take time for the ideas to take hold.
Yes, I'm sure the "messages" will sink right into the besotted brains of those who were alcoholics before they clambered out of the Rio Grande. If you're getting blotto every other night, chances are the signals won't reach you through all the haze. All the sympathetic articles in the world can't hide this truth.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
There's No Fool Like an April Fool
Here are 10 of the top April Fool's Day pranks ever pulled off, as judged by the San Diego-based Museum of Hoaxes for their notoriety, absurdity, and number of people duped.
-- In 1957, a BBC television show announced that thanks to a mild winter and the virtual elimination of the spaghetti weevil, Swiss farmers were enjoying a bumper spaghetti crop. Footage of Swiss farmers pulling strands of spaghetti from trees prompted a barrage of calls from people wanting to know how to grow their own spaghetti at home.
-- In 1985, Sports Illustrated magazine published a story that a rookie baseball pitcher who could reportedly throw a ball at 270 kilometers per hour (168 miles per hour) was set to join the New York Mets. Finch was said to have mastered his skill -- pitching significantly faster than anyone else has ever managed -- in a Tibetan monastery. Mets fans' celebrations were short-lived.
-- Sweden in 1962 had only one television channel, which broadcast in black and white. The station's technical expert appeared on the news to announce that thanks to a newly developed technology, viewers could convert their existing sets to receive color pictures by pulling a nylon stocking over the screen. In fact, they had to wait until 1970.
-- In 1996, American fast-food chain Taco Bell announced that it had bought Philadelphia's Liberty Bell, a historic symbol of American independence, from the federal government and was renaming it the Taco Liberty Bell.
Outraged citizens called to express their anger before Taco Bell revealed the hoax. Then-White House press secretary Mike McCurry was asked about the sale and said the Lincoln Memorial in Washington had also been sold and was to be renamed the Ford Lincoln Mercury Memorial after the automotive giant.
-- In 1977, British newspaper The Guardian published a seven-page supplement for the 10th anniversary of San Serriffe, a small republic located in the Indian Ocean consisting of several semicolon-shaped islands. A series of articles described the geography and culture of the two main islands, named Upper Caisse and Lower Caisse.
-- In 1992, US National Public Radio announced that Richard Nixon was running for president again. His new campaign slogan was, "I didn't do anything wrong, and I won't do it again." They even had clips of Nixon announcing his candidacy. Listeners flooded the show with calls expressing their outrage. Nixon's voice actually turned out to be that of impersonator Rich Little.
-- In 1998, a newsletter titled New Mexicans for Science and Reason carried an article that the state of Alabama had voted to change the value of pi from 3.14159 to the "Biblical value" of 3.0.
-- Burger King, another American fast-food chain, published a full-page advertisement in USA Today in 1998 announcing the introduction of the "Left-Handed Whopper," specially designed for the 32 million left-handed Americans. According to the advertisement, the new burger included the same ingredients as the original, but the condiments were rotated 180 degrees. The chain said it received thousands of requests for the new burger, as well as orders for the original "right-handed" version.
-- Discover Magazine announced in 1995 that a highly respected biologist, Aprile Pazzo (Italian for April Fool), had discovered a new species in Antarctica: the hotheaded naked ice borer. The creatures were described as having bony plates on their heads that became burning hot, allowing the animals to bore through ice at high speed -- a technique they used to hunt penguins.
-- Noted British astronomer Patrick Moore announced on the radio in 1976 that at 9:47 am, a once-in-a-lifetime astronomical event, in which Pluto would pass behind Jupiter, would cause a gravitational alignment that would reduce the Earth's gravity. Moore told listeners that if they jumped in the air at the exact moment of the planetary alignment, they would experience a floating sensation. Hundreds of people called in to report feeling the sensation.
***
They say these are not true, but I swear I used to own one of those Swedish tvs.
-- In 1957, a BBC television show announced that thanks to a mild winter and the virtual elimination of the spaghetti weevil, Swiss farmers were enjoying a bumper spaghetti crop. Footage of Swiss farmers pulling strands of spaghetti from trees prompted a barrage of calls from people wanting to know how to grow their own spaghetti at home.
-- In 1985, Sports Illustrated magazine published a story that a rookie baseball pitcher who could reportedly throw a ball at 270 kilometers per hour (168 miles per hour) was set to join the New York Mets. Finch was said to have mastered his skill -- pitching significantly faster than anyone else has ever managed -- in a Tibetan monastery. Mets fans' celebrations were short-lived.
-- Sweden in 1962 had only one television channel, which broadcast in black and white. The station's technical expert appeared on the news to announce that thanks to a newly developed technology, viewers could convert their existing sets to receive color pictures by pulling a nylon stocking over the screen. In fact, they had to wait until 1970.
-- In 1996, American fast-food chain Taco Bell announced that it had bought Philadelphia's Liberty Bell, a historic symbol of American independence, from the federal government and was renaming it the Taco Liberty Bell.
Outraged citizens called to express their anger before Taco Bell revealed the hoax. Then-White House press secretary Mike McCurry was asked about the sale and said the Lincoln Memorial in Washington had also been sold and was to be renamed the Ford Lincoln Mercury Memorial after the automotive giant.
-- In 1977, British newspaper The Guardian published a seven-page supplement for the 10th anniversary of San Serriffe, a small republic located in the Indian Ocean consisting of several semicolon-shaped islands. A series of articles described the geography and culture of the two main islands, named Upper Caisse and Lower Caisse.
-- In 1992, US National Public Radio announced that Richard Nixon was running for president again. His new campaign slogan was, "I didn't do anything wrong, and I won't do it again." They even had clips of Nixon announcing his candidacy. Listeners flooded the show with calls expressing their outrage. Nixon's voice actually turned out to be that of impersonator Rich Little.
-- In 1998, a newsletter titled New Mexicans for Science and Reason carried an article that the state of Alabama had voted to change the value of pi from 3.14159 to the "Biblical value" of 3.0.
-- Burger King, another American fast-food chain, published a full-page advertisement in USA Today in 1998 announcing the introduction of the "Left-Handed Whopper," specially designed for the 32 million left-handed Americans. According to the advertisement, the new burger included the same ingredients as the original, but the condiments were rotated 180 degrees. The chain said it received thousands of requests for the new burger, as well as orders for the original "right-handed" version.
-- Discover Magazine announced in 1995 that a highly respected biologist, Aprile Pazzo (Italian for April Fool), had discovered a new species in Antarctica: the hotheaded naked ice borer. The creatures were described as having bony plates on their heads that became burning hot, allowing the animals to bore through ice at high speed -- a technique they used to hunt penguins.
-- Noted British astronomer Patrick Moore announced on the radio in 1976 that at 9:47 am, a once-in-a-lifetime astronomical event, in which Pluto would pass behind Jupiter, would cause a gravitational alignment that would reduce the Earth's gravity. Moore told listeners that if they jumped in the air at the exact moment of the planetary alignment, they would experience a floating sensation. Hundreds of people called in to report feeling the sensation.
***
They say these are not true, but I swear I used to own one of those Swedish tvs.
Monday, April 2, 2007
The Big Lie
A letter to the editor found at WorldNetDaily:
[Joseph Farah:] I read with interest your article about the nontheist congressman from California.
Where did you learn your history? The United States was the shining example of a secular constitution and government. Can you show me where God is mentioned in the Constitution? And you may take any angle you like, but most of our Founding Fathers were borderline theists at best. Fact, documented. The Taliban was able to build a theocracy of violent zealots by miseducation and misrepresentation of the origin of Islam. You seem to be taking the same tack yourself.
Would you like to live in a country of zealots out to kill every non-Christian? That certainly is the way it looks from here. Get your god out of Washington; he was never invited!
SL
***
I've noticed that the more ignorant or dishonest a person is, the more willing he becomes to proclaim his ignorance or dishonesty from the highest rooftop. Let's see what we've got: the U.S. government was intended as a secular institution; our Founders were barely theists; Islam is distorted by Al-Killya and Taliban types; and Christianity is an "Amen" away from producing self-detonating Jihadis for Jesus. Before I continue, I'd like to commend the author for being wrong so many times in such a short letter; that requires skill in the art of cluelessness.
The United States government was never intended as a godless body. Our Constitution reveals a thoroughly Christian worldview, and the Declaration of Independence--which the writer ignores as irrelevant to his false argument--does mention God. There's nothing secular about our founding documents, nor our government in its conception. That these documents and institutions may be twisted into secular variants or obtusely misinterpreted says nothing about the original intentions of the people who conceived and/or penned them.
Regarding religious affiliations, the majority of the Founders were Christians, not "borderline theists." We had an atheist or two, and some Unitarian deists and what are known as theistic rationalists, but these latter two groups are a far cry from secularists. Understand, too, that the non-Christian theists of that day were believers in Jesus' moral authority, and in the basic worth of Christian principles. They rejected the specific claims of revelation, such as Christ's godhood; sad as this is, it does not a secular humanist make.
As for Talibanites and Muslim terrorist groups perverting true Islam, I'll just say that history, the Koran, and the Hadith (teachings & sayings of Muhammed) do not bear out this falacious assertion. Further, since Christianity has neither the same roots, nor similar priorities, nor even the same god or basic teachings as Islam, the contention that Christians--fundamentalist, or otherwise--pose a terror threat to the world is ludicrous and, again, not borne out by observable reality. Of course, that doesn't impede the Goebbelsian Big Lie policy on the part of those who have a vested interest in seeing Christianity's influence on this country eroded.
The bottom line is that the notion of Church and State separation as contemporarily understood emanates from a deliberate warping of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, not from the desires of those who founded this once-great nation.
[Joseph Farah:] I read with interest your article about the nontheist congressman from California.
Where did you learn your history? The United States was the shining example of a secular constitution and government. Can you show me where God is mentioned in the Constitution? And you may take any angle you like, but most of our Founding Fathers were borderline theists at best. Fact, documented. The Taliban was able to build a theocracy of violent zealots by miseducation and misrepresentation of the origin of Islam. You seem to be taking the same tack yourself.
Would you like to live in a country of zealots out to kill every non-Christian? That certainly is the way it looks from here. Get your god out of Washington; he was never invited!
SL
***
I've noticed that the more ignorant or dishonest a person is, the more willing he becomes to proclaim his ignorance or dishonesty from the highest rooftop. Let's see what we've got: the U.S. government was intended as a secular institution; our Founders were barely theists; Islam is distorted by Al-Killya and Taliban types; and Christianity is an "Amen" away from producing self-detonating Jihadis for Jesus. Before I continue, I'd like to commend the author for being wrong so many times in such a short letter; that requires skill in the art of cluelessness.
The United States government was never intended as a godless body. Our Constitution reveals a thoroughly Christian worldview, and the Declaration of Independence--which the writer ignores as irrelevant to his false argument--does mention God. There's nothing secular about our founding documents, nor our government in its conception. That these documents and institutions may be twisted into secular variants or obtusely misinterpreted says nothing about the original intentions of the people who conceived and/or penned them.
Regarding religious affiliations, the majority of the Founders were Christians, not "borderline theists." We had an atheist or two, and some Unitarian deists and what are known as theistic rationalists, but these latter two groups are a far cry from secularists. Understand, too, that the non-Christian theists of that day were believers in Jesus' moral authority, and in the basic worth of Christian principles. They rejected the specific claims of revelation, such as Christ's godhood; sad as this is, it does not a secular humanist make.
As for Talibanites and Muslim terrorist groups perverting true Islam, I'll just say that history, the Koran, and the Hadith (teachings & sayings of Muhammed) do not bear out this falacious assertion. Further, since Christianity has neither the same roots, nor similar priorities, nor even the same god or basic teachings as Islam, the contention that Christians--fundamentalist, or otherwise--pose a terror threat to the world is ludicrous and, again, not borne out by observable reality. Of course, that doesn't impede the Goebbelsian Big Lie policy on the part of those who have a vested interest in seeing Christianity's influence on this country eroded.
The bottom line is that the notion of Church and State separation as contemporarily understood emanates from a deliberate warping of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, not from the desires of those who founded this once-great nation.
Friday, March 30, 2007
The Golden Age
I'm reading a book of science fiction short stories titled The Best of John W. Campbell. For those unfamiliar with the genre or its members, Campbell was an important writer and editor. In the latter role, he became known as the most influential editor in the business, and his place at the helm of Astounding magazine (now Analog) ushered in what is recognized as "The Golden Age" of science fiction.
His stories imply that he's a proponent of evolution, which I don't find particularly enjoyable. But one can't accuse him of being a liberal. In his story, "Out of Night," he makes the following observation:
"Man will fight and die for what he has not; woman will fight and die for what she has. Man will sacrifice everything he has for something he hopes for, an ideal; but while woman will fight for an ideal, she will not give up the good she has to gain it."
This is an interesting commentary on human behavior, and agree with it or not, it's a far cry from contemporary political correctness in fiction, of which we're all so familiar. A nice change of pace. This explains, in part, why I read very little current scifi and very much of the older stuff.
His stories imply that he's a proponent of evolution, which I don't find particularly enjoyable. But one can't accuse him of being a liberal. In his story, "Out of Night," he makes the following observation:
"Man will fight and die for what he has not; woman will fight and die for what she has. Man will sacrifice everything he has for something he hopes for, an ideal; but while woman will fight for an ideal, she will not give up the good she has to gain it."
This is an interesting commentary on human behavior, and agree with it or not, it's a far cry from contemporary political correctness in fiction, of which we're all so familiar. A nice change of pace. This explains, in part, why I read very little current scifi and very much of the older stuff.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Flags of Our Fathers
Has anyone else noticed that Clint Eastwood has become more liberal and muddled in his thinking, the older he gets? What a shame.
His new movie illustrates that to a tee. It elaborates on the battle of Iwo Jima and its aftermath--on site, and back in the U.S.
First, the technical problems: the script jumps around like a cricket on a pogo stick, telling the story in a nonlinear fashion. This method of exposition works well in some stories; in others, it's irritating and creates confusion. The latter is what happens, here. Before we know much about the characters, they're launched into the meat grinder of war. Character development--what little there is--comes later, in stateside scenes. The battlefield episodes are chaotic, which is realistic, but it's difficult determining who was just riddled with bullets or blown into steaming gobbets by artillery.
The upside is that the action elements offer some genuinely harrowing or riveting moments, such as a cockpit's-eye-view of U.S. fighter planes attacking Jap entrenchments, or the massive beach landings.
Regarding the acting, it's uniformly competent. However, the only actor who shines is Adam Beach, playing the Indian soldier who becomes perpetually sloshed during and after the war. None of the other characters have enough fleshing-out for stellar performances, though they do their best.
The philosophical problems and worldview are far more problematic and disturbing than the technical quibbles. Nothing in this movie offers any context, or reason to believe that America was in the right in fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. One scene reveals a glimmer of Japanese character, when a missing soldier is found later, tortured to death; even this scene is non-specific. Otherwise, the enemy is a faceless cardboard running target.
None of the men are portrayed as patriots who fight for their country. Sure, they're loyal to each other, as comrades-in-arms, but no ideal exists beyond this. All of the soldiers have cynicism seeping out of their pores. Back home, during a fundraising tour involving three of the surviving members of the flag-raisers on Mt. Suribachi, two express reluctance in their participation. Bureaucrats use them as pawns for a buck--literally--and reveal little or no sympathy for them. They present a phony facade of concern. I'm not saying there's no historical accuracy in this; just that it exemplifies the whole tone of the film.
Most aggravating of all is the constant barrage of epithets endured by the Indian. If the bullets didn't kill him, maybe the slurs would. The white men who encounter him call him chief or redskin or a host of other names, whenever possible. It's as if Eastwood's point--driven home with the gentility of a doublejack--is: "Whitey's racist to the core. He just can't help himself; it's in-bred." After the first ten times, or so, it becomes distracting and ludicrous. Of course, the Indian weathers it all with the grace and Job-like patience we've come to expect from the noble savage, even the 20th century variety.
This movie is about men who go to the killing fileds and die. Those who make it through go back to the world and become propaganda mouthpieces for the selling of war bonds. If you know little about World War II, you'll gain no insight into the whys and wherefores of this conflict. You'll come away puzzled about who our enemy was, why his defeat was important and just, and why the American cause in general was worthwhile.
Eastwood's film is watchable and has some good moments. But given the subject matter, there's no reason why it didn't transcend the mediocre and become a classic.
The men who gave their all deserve better. Hopefully, someday they'll receive it.
His new movie illustrates that to a tee. It elaborates on the battle of Iwo Jima and its aftermath--on site, and back in the U.S.
First, the technical problems: the script jumps around like a cricket on a pogo stick, telling the story in a nonlinear fashion. This method of exposition works well in some stories; in others, it's irritating and creates confusion. The latter is what happens, here. Before we know much about the characters, they're launched into the meat grinder of war. Character development--what little there is--comes later, in stateside scenes. The battlefield episodes are chaotic, which is realistic, but it's difficult determining who was just riddled with bullets or blown into steaming gobbets by artillery.
The upside is that the action elements offer some genuinely harrowing or riveting moments, such as a cockpit's-eye-view of U.S. fighter planes attacking Jap entrenchments, or the massive beach landings.
Regarding the acting, it's uniformly competent. However, the only actor who shines is Adam Beach, playing the Indian soldier who becomes perpetually sloshed during and after the war. None of the other characters have enough fleshing-out for stellar performances, though they do their best.
The philosophical problems and worldview are far more problematic and disturbing than the technical quibbles. Nothing in this movie offers any context, or reason to believe that America was in the right in fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. One scene reveals a glimmer of Japanese character, when a missing soldier is found later, tortured to death; even this scene is non-specific. Otherwise, the enemy is a faceless cardboard running target.
None of the men are portrayed as patriots who fight for their country. Sure, they're loyal to each other, as comrades-in-arms, but no ideal exists beyond this. All of the soldiers have cynicism seeping out of their pores. Back home, during a fundraising tour involving three of the surviving members of the flag-raisers on Mt. Suribachi, two express reluctance in their participation. Bureaucrats use them as pawns for a buck--literally--and reveal little or no sympathy for them. They present a phony facade of concern. I'm not saying there's no historical accuracy in this; just that it exemplifies the whole tone of the film.
Most aggravating of all is the constant barrage of epithets endured by the Indian. If the bullets didn't kill him, maybe the slurs would. The white men who encounter him call him chief or redskin or a host of other names, whenever possible. It's as if Eastwood's point--driven home with the gentility of a doublejack--is: "Whitey's racist to the core. He just can't help himself; it's in-bred." After the first ten times, or so, it becomes distracting and ludicrous. Of course, the Indian weathers it all with the grace and Job-like patience we've come to expect from the noble savage, even the 20th century variety.
This movie is about men who go to the killing fileds and die. Those who make it through go back to the world and become propaganda mouthpieces for the selling of war bonds. If you know little about World War II, you'll gain no insight into the whys and wherefores of this conflict. You'll come away puzzled about who our enemy was, why his defeat was important and just, and why the American cause in general was worthwhile.
Eastwood's film is watchable and has some good moments. But given the subject matter, there's no reason why it didn't transcend the mediocre and become a classic.
The men who gave their all deserve better. Hopefully, someday they'll receive it.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Yuckin' It Up
There was a married couple sleeping and an intruder entered into their house. The intruder put a knife to the neck of the woman and said, "I like to know the names of my victims before I kill them, what is your name?"
"My name is Elizabeth," the woman replied.
The intruder said, "You remind me of my mother who was also named Elizabeth, so I can't kill you."
The intruder then turned to the husband and asked, "What is your name?"
"My name's Phillip, but my friends call me Elizabeth."
****
A couple had been debating the purchase of a new auto for weeks. He wanted a new truck. She wanted a fast little sports-like car so she could zip through traffic around town.
He would probably have settled on any beat-up old truck, but everything she seemed to like was way out of their price range.
"Look!" she said. "I want something that goes from 0 to 200 in 4 seconds or less. And my birthday is coming up. You could surprise me."
For her birthday, he bought her a brand new bathroom scale.
Nobody has seen or heard from him since.
"My name is Elizabeth," the woman replied.
The intruder said, "You remind me of my mother who was also named Elizabeth, so I can't kill you."
The intruder then turned to the husband and asked, "What is your name?"
"My name's Phillip, but my friends call me Elizabeth."
****
A couple had been debating the purchase of a new auto for weeks. He wanted a new truck. She wanted a fast little sports-like car so she could zip through traffic around town.
He would probably have settled on any beat-up old truck, but everything she seemed to like was way out of their price range.
"Look!" she said. "I want something that goes from 0 to 200 in 4 seconds or less. And my birthday is coming up. You could surprise me."
For her birthday, he bought her a brand new bathroom scale.
Nobody has seen or heard from him since.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Second Genesis
Algore's future inauguration speech:
"Earthlings. I stand before you as President of the United States of America for the second time. I was robbed of my opportunity to make the world a greener place once before, but with the Earth Goddess' aid, I have secured my rightful place in history.
Now, we must embark upon a great Crusade--not an imperialistic, genocidal rampage like that of Christians initiated in the 11th Century, but a peaceful, harmonious war against Mother Earth's demise. To that end, I propose the complete eradication of the vile, parasitic colony organism known as humanity. Remember the movie Independence Day? Remember the mile-wide saucers and death rays? Nothing short of that glorious endeavor shall accomplish our arduous task.
I have contacted members of the ruling family on my home planet of Granolar, and they agree that mankind's utter destruction is the only cure for this planet's nigh-terminal ills. A vast fleet outfitted for this purpose is traveling here, as I speak, at hyperlight speed. Only humans afflicted with fungal infestations will be spared. Before corporeal dissolution ensues, I ask that each human bacterium plant a tree or read my new book, The Revelation of St. Albert, the Divine, as a final act of atonement. Those who drive SUVs, vehicles without catalytic convertors, or voted for George W. Bush or participated in the 2000 recount, will summarily be "interrogated" before molecular deconstruction.
Never fear. Your ashes will fertilize the hills and dales, creating a continent-spanning fruited plain unlike any dreamt of in the puny imaginations of men. The Goddess will breathe a sigh of relief, and shout in exultation at the magnificent blooming in the wake of your passing.
Alas, you won't be here to appreciate it."
"Earthlings. I stand before you as President of the United States of America for the second time. I was robbed of my opportunity to make the world a greener place once before, but with the Earth Goddess' aid, I have secured my rightful place in history.
Now, we must embark upon a great Crusade--not an imperialistic, genocidal rampage like that of Christians initiated in the 11th Century, but a peaceful, harmonious war against Mother Earth's demise. To that end, I propose the complete eradication of the vile, parasitic colony organism known as humanity. Remember the movie Independence Day? Remember the mile-wide saucers and death rays? Nothing short of that glorious endeavor shall accomplish our arduous task.
I have contacted members of the ruling family on my home planet of Granolar, and they agree that mankind's utter destruction is the only cure for this planet's nigh-terminal ills. A vast fleet outfitted for this purpose is traveling here, as I speak, at hyperlight speed. Only humans afflicted with fungal infestations will be spared. Before corporeal dissolution ensues, I ask that each human bacterium plant a tree or read my new book, The Revelation of St. Albert, the Divine, as a final act of atonement. Those who drive SUVs, vehicles without catalytic convertors, or voted for George W. Bush or participated in the 2000 recount, will summarily be "interrogated" before molecular deconstruction.
Never fear. Your ashes will fertilize the hills and dales, creating a continent-spanning fruited plain unlike any dreamt of in the puny imaginations of men. The Goddess will breathe a sigh of relief, and shout in exultation at the magnificent blooming in the wake of your passing.
Alas, you won't be here to appreciate it."
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
All the Print That's Fit for News
This just in, Rosie O'Dummell still is as cute as a constipated bulldog. I prefer moats filled with alligators, pools of acid, and booby traps like those found in the Indiana Jones movies, or the old Pitfall Atari game. But that's just one man's opinion.
WorldNetDaily: McCain vows to fix world's view of 'ugly American'
His first effort toward that goal is getting a facelift.
I wonder how many of these serve in elected public offices? Makes me feel beddur 'bout bein' a hi skewel gra-gee-ayte.
With characteristic modesty, Donald Trump claims that he would do a better job as president than Bush.
Good thing he hasn't gone on a permanent ego trip.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
She Gots a Dreem
From a speech given by Hillary Clinton, at the Church of Perpetual Smug Blackness, in Atlanta, Georgia:
Powah ta da peepull! Lemme brake ya off a l'il sum'in sum'in: Lawd, we been tryin' so hahd, fa so lawng, but life fa us ain't been no crystal stair. Da man wanna keep ya down. Kin I git a witness-ah? Da only place whitey wan' us hangin' 'roun' is from a tree in da middle'a town. Kin I git a ay-mayun? He be dissin' brothas an' sistas lef' an' right, an' his po-po be puttin' six warnin' shots in da back'a our haids.
But I'm runnin' aginst all da oppressuhs. I'm innit ta winnit, an' I'm too lajit ta qwit. I'm comin' atcha straight up outta Compton, an' Ize sayin' stan' up to da 5-O! Get out da Bushes an' vote yo conchunce. Fo'git readin' 'ritin' an' 'rithmuhtic. Homey don' play dat. Das' slaver branewarshin', rite dere. An' who needs Eenglish when we gots Ebonics, wit' a lot mo' dynamik vocabbylarry.
My huzbund was da firs' Afferkin-Amurricun prezadent, an' he felt yore pain. He unnuhzstood dat yo chillun needed wellfayuh. He unnuhzstood dat gang-bangin' wuz a cry fo he'p. He reelized dat sellin' drugs wuz jest ta pay da bills an' buy groshrees. He new how ta roll a toke wit' da best uv'em.
Well, I'm jest like'im. I may be vanella on da ou'side, but I'm choklit on da inside. Wit' yo he'p, I'll serv as da furs' Femail Afferkin-Amurricun prezadent. I'll rep-uh-zent yo intrusts, an' stan' up fa yo sivul rites. I'll tell da wurld dat it takes a gangsta ta run a 'hood, an' it takes a 'hood ta raze a childe. If ya ax me, we gonna take it awl da way ta da White Hiz-owse, cuz diss babee gots back, an' she too bootylishus fo ya, babe. Fo shizzle.
So whin my ebony brothas an' sistas stan' up awl ovuh da kuntry an' cry wit' a louwd voyce: "Iz ya iz, or iz ya ain't my nigga?", yu'll see me nod an prowdly anser:
"@!#$%^&* --A, I iz!"
Peece out, y'all. Keep own keepin' it reel.
Powah ta da peepull! Lemme brake ya off a l'il sum'in sum'in: Lawd, we been tryin' so hahd, fa so lawng, but life fa us ain't been no crystal stair. Da man wanna keep ya down. Kin I git a witness-ah? Da only place whitey wan' us hangin' 'roun' is from a tree in da middle'a town. Kin I git a ay-mayun? He be dissin' brothas an' sistas lef' an' right, an' his po-po be puttin' six warnin' shots in da back'a our haids.
But I'm runnin' aginst all da oppressuhs. I'm innit ta winnit, an' I'm too lajit ta qwit. I'm comin' atcha straight up outta Compton, an' Ize sayin' stan' up to da 5-O! Get out da Bushes an' vote yo conchunce. Fo'git readin' 'ritin' an' 'rithmuhtic. Homey don' play dat. Das' slaver branewarshin', rite dere. An' who needs Eenglish when we gots Ebonics, wit' a lot mo' dynamik vocabbylarry.
My huzbund was da firs' Afferkin-Amurricun prezadent, an' he felt yore pain. He unnuhzstood dat yo chillun needed wellfayuh. He unnuhzstood dat gang-bangin' wuz a cry fo he'p. He reelized dat sellin' drugs wuz jest ta pay da bills an' buy groshrees. He new how ta roll a toke wit' da best uv'em.
Well, I'm jest like'im. I may be vanella on da ou'side, but I'm choklit on da inside. Wit' yo he'p, I'll serv as da furs' Femail Afferkin-Amurricun prezadent. I'll rep-uh-zent yo intrusts, an' stan' up fa yo sivul rites. I'll tell da wurld dat it takes a gangsta ta run a 'hood, an' it takes a 'hood ta raze a childe. If ya ax me, we gonna take it awl da way ta da White Hiz-owse, cuz diss babee gots back, an' she too bootylishus fo ya, babe. Fo shizzle.
So whin my ebony brothas an' sistas stan' up awl ovuh da kuntry an' cry wit' a louwd voyce: "Iz ya iz, or iz ya ain't my nigga?", yu'll see me nod an prowdly anser:
"@!#$%^&* --A, I iz!"
Peece out, y'all. Keep own keepin' it reel.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Learnin' 'Em Good
My nine-year-old nephew told me about an incident in his "Guidance" class at school, earlier this year.
The guidance counselor was playing a game with the students--no, it wasn't Doctor--and asked a question of them:
"If a fellow student spits a spitball in your ear, what should you do?"
This preceded five multiple choice options:
1. Turn and say in Arnold Schwarzenneggar's voice: "Do that again, and I'll knock your block off!"
2. Take it out of your ear, and shove it in his eye or mouth.
3. Tell him how you feel about it.
4. Start a scene.
5. Tell the teacher.
After listening to the class answers for a while, the counselor informed everyone that the correct reaction was number 3.
I wonder how many people dutifully send their chillun to skewel, never realizing that their kid is being taught how be an emoting little shrinking violet?
In the real world outside Feelings Elementary, this sort of response will put your child in need of a good set of dentures.
The guidance counselor was playing a game with the students--no, it wasn't Doctor--and asked a question of them:
"If a fellow student spits a spitball in your ear, what should you do?"
This preceded five multiple choice options:
1. Turn and say in Arnold Schwarzenneggar's voice: "Do that again, and I'll knock your block off!"
2. Take it out of your ear, and shove it in his eye or mouth.
3. Tell him how you feel about it.
4. Start a scene.
5. Tell the teacher.
After listening to the class answers for a while, the counselor informed everyone that the correct reaction was number 3.
I wonder how many people dutifully send their chillun to skewel, never realizing that their kid is being taught how be an emoting little shrinking violet?
In the real world outside Feelings Elementary, this sort of response will put your child in need of a good set of dentures.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Lewis on Tyranny
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
--C.S. Lewis
--C.S. Lewis
Friday, March 9, 2007
Coulter Debate: Conclusion
See parts 1, 2, and 3 for the beginning and middle portions of this discussion.
I responded--a final time--to Auster's characterization of my remarks:
Mr. Auster:
I receive many e-mails, and when lot of e-mails come in, and they have many numbered points, and points referring to earlier points, then further e-mails complaining that I haven’t replied to all the earlier points, and those subsequent e-mails also have numbered points, and I’m expected to reply to all of them regardless of how valid they are and all of this takes time and energy, not everything may get replied to.
This is silliness. Making "points referring to other points" is how debate works.You make a point; I agree or disagree; if I disagree, I point out why. If you find this too strenuous, you probably should get out of the blogging business. Furthermore, you keep implying that I've insisted that you address every point I've made. That's a misrepresentation, as you will find no such demand in any communication I've had with you. In fact, in the email you chose not to post, I said:
"As for addressing each point made--obviously you're free to tackle or ignore any or all points; it's your website."
The context is important: I had no real expectation of any response from you regarding my initial 6-point comment. You could have ignored it, and that would've been fine. You could have simply said that you thought I was wrong, and that would've been fine. Instead, you chose insulting, belittling language as your first reaction, without answering comments that revealed inaccuracy in some of your earlier assertions. My first comment to you was polite, though in disagreement with your argument. I believe an honorable person should respond in kind. If you're going to choose the opposite tack, I think it behooves you to provide a detailed explanation, not a general dismissal. We're each responsible for our own words and tone--in person, and in print. You shouldn't get a pass on basic civility, simply because you don't like someone's argument.
I think I did post your e-mail of March 6 at 1:38 a.m. with its six points. Then you complained that I didn’t reply to all of your points. I replied to that complaint as I remember.
Of course you posted it; that was my first email. You're well aware that I know this, since I responded and you posted that, as well. I'm referencing the comment I emailed after your second response to me (my third email, from March 6, 7:01 p.m.). My ISP tells me it was delivered successfully. And please, show me where I complained that you didn't reply to all of my points. More intentional misrepresentation.
(1) I wasn’t just speaking of your arguments, but of this entire approach which many people, not just you, have taken.
Then you should have made that clear. You didn't. And if true, it changes nothing I've said.
(2) I did rebut your argument.
See my comments above.
Your original point three, which you seem to set great store by, was incoherent. . .It is not possible to determine any coherent meaning in all this. That is why I did not reply to it.
If I was unclear, I apologize. My point was a response to part of an earlier comment of yours, in the same thread:
She issues a humiliating insult at a public figure, and then pretends that she didn’t do so.
The point #3 you've referenced was my reasoning why I believed your above comment was inaccurate. Disagreeing is your prerogative. I'd also like to point out the context of the speech Coulter gave: it was filled with jokes and mockery of the Left. The Edwards comment was not a serious jab passed off as a joke in an otherwise somber oratory. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the whole thing, if you get a chance.
So let me suggest this. When writing comments to a discussion, keep it simple. Make one or at most two points at a time. Do not make six points in a busy discussion, with sub-points to your main points, and expect a reply to all of them, and then complain that you’re being treated unfairly if you don’t get a reply to everything you have said.
Multi-point emails is not and never was the issue, and you know it; your discourteous and combative manner of responding, coupled with refusal to address specifics after the fact is. Each point in my original email was self-contained, and all pertained to the discussion. Some were more detailed than others so they wouldn't be rejected as naked assertions. I never expected a reply to all, and your continued insistence that I did ( four times in this most recent comment), either indicates reading comprehension problems on your part, or deceitful intent. You be the judge of which.
Now if you want to write back with a concise statement of why I’m wrong about Coulter, please do so.
Why? So you can answer with insults and further distort the meaning of my words? I think I'll forego that pleasure. Under different circumstances, I would appreciate and even admire the apology you offered above. But your persistent misrepresentation of my words makes it ring hollow.
Wes
After receiving this letter, Auster emailed me, saying:
My gosh, I posted your comment with all your complaints, I replied to it, I apologized for saying "childish," and now you're insulting me, telling me to get out of the blogging business. There's no point in our communicating any more. You are a malcontent who will be angry with me no matter what I do. Goodbye. Do not write to me again.
****
I leave it up to my able readers to draw their own conclusions about this long and admittedly tedious exchange.
I responded--a final time--to Auster's characterization of my remarks:
Mr. Auster:
I receive many e-mails, and when lot of e-mails come in, and they have many numbered points, and points referring to earlier points, then further e-mails complaining that I haven’t replied to all the earlier points, and those subsequent e-mails also have numbered points, and I’m expected to reply to all of them regardless of how valid they are and all of this takes time and energy, not everything may get replied to.
This is silliness. Making "points referring to other points" is how debate works.You make a point; I agree or disagree; if I disagree, I point out why. If you find this too strenuous, you probably should get out of the blogging business. Furthermore, you keep implying that I've insisted that you address every point I've made. That's a misrepresentation, as you will find no such demand in any communication I've had with you. In fact, in the email you chose not to post, I said:
"As for addressing each point made--obviously you're free to tackle or ignore any or all points; it's your website."
The context is important: I had no real expectation of any response from you regarding my initial 6-point comment. You could have ignored it, and that would've been fine. You could have simply said that you thought I was wrong, and that would've been fine. Instead, you chose insulting, belittling language as your first reaction, without answering comments that revealed inaccuracy in some of your earlier assertions. My first comment to you was polite, though in disagreement with your argument. I believe an honorable person should respond in kind. If you're going to choose the opposite tack, I think it behooves you to provide a detailed explanation, not a general dismissal. We're each responsible for our own words and tone--in person, and in print. You shouldn't get a pass on basic civility, simply because you don't like someone's argument.
I think I did post your e-mail of March 6 at 1:38 a.m. with its six points. Then you complained that I didn’t reply to all of your points. I replied to that complaint as I remember.
Of course you posted it; that was my first email. You're well aware that I know this, since I responded and you posted that, as well. I'm referencing the comment I emailed after your second response to me (my third email, from March 6, 7:01 p.m.). My ISP tells me it was delivered successfully. And please, show me where I complained that you didn't reply to all of my points. More intentional misrepresentation.
(1) I wasn’t just speaking of your arguments, but of this entire approach which many people, not just you, have taken.
Then you should have made that clear. You didn't. And if true, it changes nothing I've said.
(2) I did rebut your argument.
See my comments above.
Your original point three, which you seem to set great store by, was incoherent. . .It is not possible to determine any coherent meaning in all this. That is why I did not reply to it.
If I was unclear, I apologize. My point was a response to part of an earlier comment of yours, in the same thread:
She issues a humiliating insult at a public figure, and then pretends that she didn’t do so.
The point #3 you've referenced was my reasoning why I believed your above comment was inaccurate. Disagreeing is your prerogative. I'd also like to point out the context of the speech Coulter gave: it was filled with jokes and mockery of the Left. The Edwards comment was not a serious jab passed off as a joke in an otherwise somber oratory. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the whole thing, if you get a chance.
So let me suggest this. When writing comments to a discussion, keep it simple. Make one or at most two points at a time. Do not make six points in a busy discussion, with sub-points to your main points, and expect a reply to all of them, and then complain that you’re being treated unfairly if you don’t get a reply to everything you have said.
Multi-point emails is not and never was the issue, and you know it; your discourteous and combative manner of responding, coupled with refusal to address specifics after the fact is. Each point in my original email was self-contained, and all pertained to the discussion. Some were more detailed than others so they wouldn't be rejected as naked assertions. I never expected a reply to all, and your continued insistence that I did ( four times in this most recent comment), either indicates reading comprehension problems on your part, or deceitful intent. You be the judge of which.
Now if you want to write back with a concise statement of why I’m wrong about Coulter, please do so.
Why? So you can answer with insults and further distort the meaning of my words? I think I'll forego that pleasure. Under different circumstances, I would appreciate and even admire the apology you offered above. But your persistent misrepresentation of my words makes it ring hollow.
Wes
After receiving this letter, Auster emailed me, saying:
My gosh, I posted your comment with all your complaints, I replied to it, I apologized for saying "childish," and now you're insulting me, telling me to get out of the blogging business. There's no point in our communicating any more. You are a malcontent who will be angry with me no matter what I do. Goodbye. Do not write to me again.
****
I leave it up to my able readers to draw their own conclusions about this long and admittedly tedious exchange.
Coulter Debate: Part 3
See Parts 1 and 2 of for the beginning and middle portions of this discussion.
After Mr. Auster continued in his criticism of Coulter and his omission of my comment from his blog, I fired off this letter to him as a parting shot:
Mr. Auster:
My recent experience discussing with you the matter of Ann Coulter's controversial statement leads me to conclude that you have an underdeveloped sense of fair play.
First, you insult me by dismissing specific, relevant arguments as "childishness"--without rebutting them.
Second, you accuse me of "complaining," when I point out this behavior.
Third, you choose artificially to have the final word on the matter, by refusing to post my last email comment in defense of my remarks, which leaves your most recent response to me standing unchallenged.
And fourth, you continue repeating some of the same arguments I refuted--in the same post--such as when you responded to Kevin O. thusly, in the "Coulter and Edwards" discussion: In America one man does not call another man a faggot unless he is prepared to fight him or to destroy him in the eyes of others. That’s why Coulter’s use of the word was particularly objectionable, since as a woman she can get away with it.
You still haven't refuted--or even addressed, for that matter--my comments regarding this assertion. You know as well as I that character assassinations far worse than this perceived example happen regularly--from man to man--in public forums. Your suggesting otherwise is bizarre, to say the least, and demonstrably wrong. You also seem oblivious to the fact that Coulter hasn't gotten away with it, by any stretch of the imagination. She has met vociferous, public condemnation from the Left and the Right--including the withdrawal of advertisers from her website, and the dropping of her column from at least one newspaper.
I know very little about the slights and attacks you've mentioned receiving from pundits and other columnists, in the past; perhaps you've endured shoddy, unjust treatment. But I do know that if you've engaged them with the same tactics and unrepentant tactlessness exhibited toward me, you've earned their malice.
Sincerely,
Wes
He responded by posting my email on his blog, followed by:
AUSTER: I’m sorry, I receive many e-mails, and when lot of e-mails come in, and they have many numbered points, and points referring to earlier points, then further e-mails complaining that I haven’t replied to all the earlier points, and those subsequent e-mails also have numbered points, and I’m expected to reply to all of them regardless of how valid they are and all of this takes time and energy, not everything may get replied to. I think I did post your e-mail of March 6 at 1:38 a.m. with its six points. Then you complained that I didn’t reply to all of your points. I replied to that complaint as I remember.
I’m sorry for saying that your arguments were childishness. I shouldn’t have done that. However, (1) I wasn’t just speaking of your arguments, but of this entire approach which many people, not just you, have taken. (2) I did rebut your argument. I said: “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.’”
Your original point three, which you seem to set great store by, was incoherent. That is why I did not reply to it. Yet then you wrote again, complaining that I did not reply to your point three. I replied by saying that points three, four and six were not worth replying to. But that wasn’t enough for you. So let’s look at it again:
"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."
First you say she “stood by her point.” Then you point out that she said it was a joke. Then you reference a further joke she made. Then you say she has not retreated.
It is not possible to determine any coherent meaning in all this. That is why I did not reply to it. Do you understand now?
And this is your problem: not only do you send multi-point e-mails, but some of the points, like your point three, consists of several statements which do not fit with each other.
So let me suggest this. When writing comments to a discussion, keep it simple. Make one or at most two points at a time. Do not make six points in a busy discussion, with sub-points to your main points, and expect a reply to all of them, and then complain that you’re being treated unfairly if you don’t get a reply to everything you have said.
Now if you want to write back with a concise statement of why I’m wrong about Coulter, please do so.
(TO BE CONCLUDED)
After Mr. Auster continued in his criticism of Coulter and his omission of my comment from his blog, I fired off this letter to him as a parting shot:
Mr. Auster:
My recent experience discussing with you the matter of Ann Coulter's controversial statement leads me to conclude that you have an underdeveloped sense of fair play.
First, you insult me by dismissing specific, relevant arguments as "childishness"--without rebutting them.
Second, you accuse me of "complaining," when I point out this behavior.
Third, you choose artificially to have the final word on the matter, by refusing to post my last email comment in defense of my remarks, which leaves your most recent response to me standing unchallenged.
And fourth, you continue repeating some of the same arguments I refuted--in the same post--such as when you responded to Kevin O. thusly, in the "Coulter and Edwards" discussion: In America one man does not call another man a faggot unless he is prepared to fight him or to destroy him in the eyes of others. That’s why Coulter’s use of the word was particularly objectionable, since as a woman she can get away with it.
You still haven't refuted--or even addressed, for that matter--my comments regarding this assertion. You know as well as I that character assassinations far worse than this perceived example happen regularly--from man to man--in public forums. Your suggesting otherwise is bizarre, to say the least, and demonstrably wrong. You also seem oblivious to the fact that Coulter hasn't gotten away with it, by any stretch of the imagination. She has met vociferous, public condemnation from the Left and the Right--including the withdrawal of advertisers from her website, and the dropping of her column from at least one newspaper.
I know very little about the slights and attacks you've mentioned receiving from pundits and other columnists, in the past; perhaps you've endured shoddy, unjust treatment. But I do know that if you've engaged them with the same tactics and unrepentant tactlessness exhibited toward me, you've earned their malice.
Sincerely,
Wes
He responded by posting my email on his blog, followed by:
AUSTER: I’m sorry, I receive many e-mails, and when lot of e-mails come in, and they have many numbered points, and points referring to earlier points, then further e-mails complaining that I haven’t replied to all the earlier points, and those subsequent e-mails also have numbered points, and I’m expected to reply to all of them regardless of how valid they are and all of this takes time and energy, not everything may get replied to. I think I did post your e-mail of March 6 at 1:38 a.m. with its six points. Then you complained that I didn’t reply to all of your points. I replied to that complaint as I remember.
I’m sorry for saying that your arguments were childishness. I shouldn’t have done that. However, (1) I wasn’t just speaking of your arguments, but of this entire approach which many people, not just you, have taken. (2) I did rebut your argument. I said: “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.’”
Your original point three, which you seem to set great store by, was incoherent. That is why I did not reply to it. Yet then you wrote again, complaining that I did not reply to your point three. I replied by saying that points three, four and six were not worth replying to. But that wasn’t enough for you. So let’s look at it again:
"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."
First you say she “stood by her point.” Then you point out that she said it was a joke. Then you reference a further joke she made. Then you say she has not retreated.
It is not possible to determine any coherent meaning in all this. That is why I did not reply to it. Do you understand now?
And this is your problem: not only do you send multi-point e-mails, but some of the points, like your point three, consists of several statements which do not fit with each other.
So let me suggest this. When writing comments to a discussion, keep it simple. Make one or at most two points at a time. Do not make six points in a busy discussion, with sub-points to your main points, and expect a reply to all of them, and then complain that you’re being treated unfairly if you don’t get a reply to everything you have said.
Now if you want to write back with a concise statement of why I’m wrong about Coulter, please do so.
(TO BE CONCLUDED)
Coulter Debate: Part 2
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)
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)
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)