Harry Potter and the Wizened Fruit

It seems Dumbledore was a bit light in the slippers.

Maybe this is a publicity stunt; maybe it's a revelation of the author's intention from the get-go. Either way, it's pretty sick stuff. In the remaining two movies, I hope he keeps his magic wand to himself.

A No-Brainer

I was listening to the radio, this morning, and I heard a news story in which a sixty-eight-year old grandmother had come up with the idea of a bulletproof backpack for school kids. She said that the growing problem of shootings on school grounds prompted this invention.

When I heard this report, the first idea that popped into my mind was not "What a great idea!" Rather, my initial reaction was:

Why in the world would you send your child to a place where such a device is needed?

If you believe your elementary or high school child faces a serious threat of being gunned down in the hallways of his school, isn't bustling him off to such a "proving" ground an act of neglect on your part? Would you drop your kid off in a high-crime neighborhood, dressed in Kevlar body armor, and wish him a good day?

Sure, the possibility exists that someone might shoot me standing in line at Wal-Mart, while gobbling a Massive Coronary Combo under the Golden Arches, or while reading Bill Clinton's new memoir, Getting it On, at the local library. Total safety is an illusion; I understand that. But I live in a medium-sized, unremarkable community, and every school in the district of which I'm aware has armed guards on campus, and metal detectors. I don't recall passing through metal detectors and seeing armed guards at local department stores and restaurants. This implies a greater security risk at schools than in these other places.

If you're worried about your child getting blown out of his Osh Koshes in the lunchline, there's a very simple and obvious solution:

Pull him out of the war zone.

For most people, home schooling isn't about ability; it's about willpower and desire. So for those wringing their hands, waiting for the next killing spree, ask yourselves a question: What's more important--your convenience and comfort, or your son or daughter's life?

Heap Big Bias

In an exchange at Vox's blog, the subject of American Indians arose, followed by some very one-sided commentary. This from a poster named Deganawidah:


Slavery, land grabs, starvation, disease, outright slaughter, villages and towns burned to the ground. Whole entire populations of civilizations wiped out.

All for the good ( greed ) of Western Europeans.

The only reason the Indians are still around is due to the need for slaves, the resilience of those who managed to escape, evade and survive, those who where helped by Europeans who understood the atrocities being committed (Roger Williams, Helen Hunt Jackson, John Marshall.. to name but a few.) those who rose up where wiped out.

When there where not enough Indian slaves to fill the European/ American quotas, they where replaced with African and Haitian.


Calling this simplistic and unbalanced doesn't even begin to cover it. First, his initial paragraph mostly applies to the "noble" savages, as well, regarding their treatment of whites. They enslaved, stole land, violated treaties, raped, slaughtered with impunity, and wiped out--or attempted to destroy--entire settlements. Interesting that we hear nary a peep about this uncomfortable fact. Some Indians also practiced ritualistic cannibalism. I remember one lurid story I found in a book about the early colonization of America, in which two missionaries to the Indians (Iroquois) were rewarded for their efforts by being cooked in a giant kettle and eaten. I sure hope they used tenderizer.

As for the greed aspects of the White Devil's behavior, how would you react if someone murdered your wife and children, mutilated their bodies, burned your house to the ground, and stole your livestock? I dare say you wouldn't scamper to sign up for the "Hug an Injun" brigade. The point is that, all too often, greed played zero part in the equation. Sometimes it was simple survival, or revenge, to which all humans have the potential to succumb. Blanket condemnations of whites as greedy is as much a smear as denouncing all Indians as murdering subhumans.

The majority of Indians never lived under conditions of enslavement. I have no idea where the hogwash came from about replacing Indians with Africans when the Indian quotas weren't filled. Africans always served as the principle slaves in this country, having come here with their white masters in the very beginning of the continent's colonization.

This isn't a defense of white-perpetrated atrocities; it's an attempt at balancing the equation with facts. Neither side behaved like Mother Theresa. Both revealed goodness and villainy. Both alternated in comporting themselves with honor and underhanded wretchedness. The truth is nowhere near as stark and simple as some would have you believe.

Deganawidah continued:


This was not a couple of decades and a 90 percent disease wipe out, it was four hundred years of pillaging, raping, war, enslaving and Genocide by Europeans.


I think he's confused about the meaning of "genocide." Here's a definition from Dictionary.com:


the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.


I'm not aware of any widespread examples of this amongst Indians and whites in the U.S. There is nothing comparable to the Holocaust in American Indian-White Devil relations. Isolated events in which vile individuals introduced disease-ridden blankets into Indian populations were a sad fact; but that's a far cry from meeting the rigid definition above. The white settlers vastly outnumbered the Indian tribes after a certain point in American history. They also harbored much greater technology and a superior culture. Had complete eradication of the Indians been a real goal, vigorously pursued, the pioneers and American military would have accomplished it. Giving people large tracts of land (reservations), upon which they draft their own laws and elect their own rulers, is not an act of the genocidal.

I loathe political correctness and have no interest in denouncing whitey as the Great Satan of human history. I'm sick of it. It's neither true nor fair. I'll take the ugly, discombobulating truth over sugar-coated twaddle any day of the week.

Championing someone because he is an underdog is as morally myopic as "might-makes-right" arguments. Underdog status doesn't automatically confer moral superiority on an individual or group. It's an attitude from which we should distance ourselves. Extended to world politics, it partly explains why the shortsighted laud evil, death-loving cultures like that of the "Palestinians," while villifying much more humane entities--such as the state of Israel--in the loudest and harshest terms possible.

"Bright" as Midnight

Here's a good explanation of how atheists exhibit irrationality and inconsistency in their worldviews. It makes a compelling case in simple language.

It's like not believing in the ocean in which you're drowning.

Religion Is Peace

It seems that Bush knows less about history and comparative religious study than Madonna does Mennonite butter-churning techniques. How surprising.

Speaking with a reporter for Al Arabiyah on Friday, Bush said: "Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren't religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that – we had a person blow up our – blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people.

"And I just simply don't subscribe to the idea that murdering innocent men, women and children – particularly Muslim men, women and children in the Middle East – is an act of somebody who is a religious person."

Translation: Call me a liar, call me edumacationally constipated, but never let it be said that I'm not a shameless panderer.

It's difficult responding to comments that exhibit such willful stupidity. If he's correct, we can all rest easy in the knowledge that those who worship Astarte, Baal, Moloch, Satan, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, Jehovah, their next-door neighbor's trophy wife, or their brand-spankin' new Mercedes Benz all are worshiping the same god. Whew! I'm glad he cleared that up for us. Never mind the complete contradictions in worship practices, expectations, teachings, or values amongst various religions.

As for Islam, it is not now--nor has it ever been--a peaceful religion. Only someone who lacks even rudimentary, childlike knowledge of its history would draw such an absurd conclusion.Yep, when the Koran tells its readers to kill non-Muslims and apostates, and the Hadith demands that Jews be terminated, we realize this is an expression of unvarnished pacifism.

Notice, too, the implied criticism of Christianity, in mentioning McVeigh. It's all part of creedal egalitarianism, baby. That McVeigh acted in total opposition of Christian ethics, that Muhammed's "peaceniks" who kill infidels in Allah's name act in harmony with Islam's teachings and traditions, escapes him with all the ease of a deep thought eluding Paris Hilton's rattly little brain.

I also enjoy his redefinition of the word "religious," making it mean whatever he deems right and proper at a given moment. Reminds me of his pretzelizing of the word "amnesty." "I don't support amnesty for illegals--I just endorse giving them a slap on the wrist (or no punishment at all), providing them with legal status, and ignoring laws on the books addressing their presence in our country. But under no circumstances do I advocate amnesty for undocumented citizens!" Sure, and I have some nice ocean-front property on Mars I'll sell you for red-dirt cheap.

Now "religious" means: worshipers of the One God who practice their beliefs in a peaceful manner. So if you bow to a bloodthirsty deity whom you believe demands the lives of others, sorry, but you don't qualify as a religious person. Even if you believe that your god told you to kill in his name, you still don't qualify. Move along, here's a daffodil, kumbaya to you, brother!

I wonder how Osama bin Laden would respond to the notion that he's not religious? How about the Aztecs?

I hope Bush is keeping track of all his word-reinventions. His first book upon leaving office should be The World According to Dubya. No doubt it'll give Webster's Dictionary a run for its money.

Bush continued: "We are having an Iftaar dinner tonight – I say, 'we' – it's my wife and I," Bush told Nakouzi. "This is the seventh one in the seven years I've been the president. It gives me a chance to say 'Ramadan Mubarak.' The reason I do this is I want people to understand about my country. In other words, I hope this message gets out of America. I want people to understand that one of the great freedoms in America is the right for people to worship any way they see fit. If you're a Muslim, an agnostic, a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, you're equally American."

After which he unrolled his rug, prayed toward Mecca, then beheaded Abe Foxman with one deft flick of his scimitar. When asked for a reaction afterwards, Sean Hannity said: "There is no God but Bush, and Hannity is his Prophet!"

Lying for a Living

I've had half an ear on the dust-up involving Rush Limbaugh, of late. He inadvertantly found himself in the spotlight by talking about "phony soldiers" on his show. The Left, being paragons of virtue and truthfulness, took the story and ran with it, accusing him of characterizing all soldiers critical of the Iraq war as phonies. The one irksome factoid in the situation was that he did no such thing. His mention of phony soldiers involved a man who claimed that the U.S. military committed atrocities in Iraq, and that he was a first-hand witness to these events. Digging a little deeper, it turned out that he never set foot in Iraq, having washed out of basic training. Today, Limbaugh mentioned another Leftist mouthpiece who described himself as a Navy SEAL and a veteran of Iraq combat. Research determined that he was neither. My understanding was that he served one year in the Navy, in a noncombatant role.

Besides the obvious lengths and depths the Left will go to in 1.) trashing Limbaugh, and 2.) smearing our military, I've noticed another seemingly obvious truth that people just gloss over in discussing this subject: if atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers are ubiquitous in Iraq, why can't the Left provide legitimate examples, as opposed to pure fiction? We're all familiar with the Left's absolute contempt for George Bush, the military, and all things perceived as patriotic. So why the desperate lies? Why the deliberate distortions of others' positions and actions?

The conclusion I've drawn is that American atrocities in Iraq are either extremely rare or nonexistent. I think it's a logical belief, given the Left's pathetic and detestable behavior and lack of evidence.

Benefits of "Immigration"

From Michelle Malkin's book, Invasion:


Illegal aliens "have grown so accustomed to our high tolerance for illegal immigration that some are actually suing the United States for not providing water stations on their illegal journeys into our country."


In asylum claims, "a GAO report noted that in early 2002, that investigators found a 90 percent rate of fraud in a preliminary review of five thousand petitions for asylum. A more detailed follow-up review of 1,500 of those petitions could locate only one that was bona fide."

". . .illegal alien day laborers hanging out in front of convenience stores and government offices helped at least seven of the [9/11] hijackers. . .obtain fraudulent state photo identification in Virginia."


After Tennessee legislators facilitated illegal aliens' efforts at acquiring driver's licenses, "tens of thousands of out-of-state illegal immigrants swamped the state's motor vehicle agencies. 'There were waits of five and six hours,' said Dana Keeton, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Department of Safety. The National Guard was even called in to control unruly crowds. Alarmed legislators rushed to amend the law. But the changes, adding a few easily navigated hurdles to establish residency, were nominal. And the illegals kept swarming in from all over the country. After obtaining Tennessee driver's licenses, many easily obtained driver's licenses from other states."

(All emphases mine)

Free Propaganda

I thought I'd add my half-cent's-worth on Columbia University's invitation of Mudmood Ahmuddungjihad to a speaking engagement on campus. I keep hearing talk of free speech. I think I'll engage in a little free speech, myself, in labeling this cop-out as a steaming pile of horse hockey. Free speech has absolutely nothing to do with it; moral relativism, on the other hand, is an integral facet of the decision. Foreign despots have no right whatsoever to speak at a podium on an American university campus. Having free speech means having the right to speak unimpeded, not having the forum of your choice provided on a silver platter. Not even American citizens have this right. Heck, even illegal aliens don't retain this privilege; and we all know that they are a special class of faultless individuals superior to the common citizenry. Just ask el segundo Bush. The issue of free speech is hilarious for another reason, as well: the speaker's religious beliefs demand the squelching of free speech at every conceivable opportunity, and the government of his home country practices this as an art form. I wonder if Columbia U.'s administrators would be screeching about unhampered expression if the guest speaker were Ann Coulter, or the dean of Bob Jones University?

Other than a trumpet for propagandizing the world on Iran's behalf, what possible value could be derived from a speech by Ahmuddungjihad? He hates Israel, hates America, and denies the Holocaust ever took place. What a peach he is. As I suggested over at Vox's, that someone would actually invite this swine to appear says far more about the moral perversity of the school's administrators than anything else. Would they request that Uncle Joe Stalin take a few moments out of his busy schedule of purging imaginary enemies and bleeding the proletariat and spare them a word or two, were he still kicking around, today? I'm sure they'd bask in his lecturing tone about the excesses of capitalism, and the philosophical purity of communism.

Arguments of freedom of association hold no water with me on this particular matter. We're talking about a self-described enemy of the United States. If that's not a disqualifying factor, I don't know what is.

Championing the Wrong Cause

Scott Hatfield writes on his blog:

Consider the following claim: "Genesis is a literal account of how the world was created by a supernatural being, Yahweh." This turns out to be really difficult for science to directly investigate. The clause ‘supernatural being’ is, in essence, a conceptual ‘poison pill’ for the scientist who defines the natural world as the subject of scientific investigation. No matter what evidence the scientist adduces that contradicts the first part of the claim (‘Genesis is a literal account of how the world was created’), the believer has an ‘out’: Yahweh’s supernatural, and so Yahweh’s actions don’t have to follow natural law, and so evidence from the natural world can’t be used to ‘disprove’ either Yahweh’s existence or action. The claim has the curious property of being immune to disproof based on any evidence a scientist could present!

I think this is a strange characterization. The concept of a supernatural being shouldn't pose a problem for scientists; the notion offered no dilemma for Isaac Newton or a veritable host of other past scientists. Interesting that it stirs up so much concern, these days. Where current scientists see an obstacle to be overcome, others not bogged down in a secular or evolutionary mindset find a doorway that leads them into inquiries about the creation.

As for the natural world being the subject of scientific investigation, well, no kidding. Science is unequipped for the investigation of anything else. Science deals in observation, experimentation, and drawing conclusions from the former. Since the supernatural cannot be observed in a test tube or on a slide under a microscope, since it's not subject to repetition, it falls outside science's purview.

I would love seeing the supposed cornucopia of evidence against a literal six-day creation emptied of its contents, so that we might sift through these proofs and gain understanding. Instead, I see castles of speculation erected upon mounds of presumption, and opinion paraded about as a seige tower of impregnable facts. I don't suggest that I have all knowledge at my disposal, but what I have seen repeatedly are statements of fact that, when delved into with a fine-toothed comb, turn out to be something other than facts, or even convincing fiction. Of course, this doesn't deter "scientists" from demanding that we, the poor benighted masses, accept their judgment as final; those who demur are fools or flat-earthers. Alas, if we'd only attend university for eight or ten years of natural humanistic indoctrination, why, then we'd come into the light.

Why is it that scientists go out of their way in excavating unbridgeable gulfs between religion and science, while demanding that religion be held to scientific standards? As we have been assured so many times from on high by the brights of our age, religion is not science. If we accept this, then why subject religion to scientific criteria? Atheists and those who embrace Man's explanations of reality as loftier than God's can't have their cake and eat it, too. If religion isn't science, then the devout have no obligation to provide falsifiable theories in a neat little gift-wrapped package.

Speaking of falsifiability, we're tsk-tsked that religion presents a non-falsifiable face to the world. But a thought always pops into my mind, when I hear this talking point regurgitated by contemporary illuminists: perhaps a belief in God is non-falsifiable because it is not false. We may not have the power or knowledge to demonstrate God's existence beyond doubt; but disproving Him is impossible, if He empirically exists.

But what about the alleged consequences of that claim? If the Genesis account is held to be literally true, then a host of consequences should follow, consequences in the natural world that are subject to scientific inquiry. And the fact is, a host of alleged consequences of this particular claim have been falsified.

Given that scripture speaks of the pre-Flood world's annihilation and obscuration, the completeness of our evidentiary puzzle is debatable. That said, we have evidence--admittedly inconclusive--of a young Earth. Observed rapid fossilization, a fossil record that speaks of catastrophe befitting the biblical Deluge, not accumulation over eons, etc.; plus scriptural evidences, such as meticulous geneologies and Jesus' interpretation of Genesis as describing literal events. This subject requires a whole series of posts, to do it justice, so I'll not go further.

Plants didn’t appear on the third day, and then the stars on the fourth day.

See, Mr. Hatfield was present, at the time, so his word is law. I hope he'll allow me a pleasure jaunt in his time machine.

Seriously, this is a specious argument, if, indeed, it can be called an argument. Mr. Hatfield dubs himself a Christian. Apparently, he takes no issue with God creating the heavens and Earth. However, temporary preservation of plants without the sun's presence was beyond His creative powers. How else can we characterize this, except as forcing scripture into harmony with a particular worldview?

Most importantly, overwhelming evidence contradicts the claim of a 6-day creation.

Evidence which remains unprovided in the post. Why is it that six-day creationists must provide footnoted documentation of every aspect of their beliefs, while evolutionists give themselves a pass on meeting the same criterion?

Now, does this demonstrate that there is no supernatural being, Yahweh? Not at all, but it does demonstrate that the world revealed by scientific investigation is not consistent with the consequences of the claim of Genesis being ‘a literal account of how the world was created.’ Given sufficient evidence contra the consequences, an intelligent person is free to reject the claim on the absence of any positive evidence in behalf of the claim.

This is falsehood. Ignored evidence is not the same as nonexistent evidence. Again, we have demands for Genesis 1 to meet scientific rules; ignored is the inconvenient fact that those selfsame rules have inherent biases and foundational assumptions.

Besides, science can verify that the realm in which it operates actually exists: religion can hardly do the same.

What a bizarre claim from a believer. It's accurate, so long as religion is judged within scientific parameters. Utilizing its own metric, religion most certainly can demonstrate that the supernatural exists. As a professing Christian who presumably experienced a salvational transformation at some point in his life, Mr. Hatfield should know this well.


Update

Just to clarify, if you reject a literal six-day creation event for reasons of non-falsifiability, you also should disclaim religion itself, for the same reason. God's existence isn't subject to falsifiability any more than a face-value reading of Genesis 1, assuming that you hold a similar view as that of Mr. Hatfield.

Temporary Separation

Much scripture offers comfort in times of suffering or sadness, but some of my favorite verses are found in I Thessalonians 4. Verses 13 through 18 say:


But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Wherefore comfort one another with these words.


This is an important passage because it reminds us that our loved ones who passed away in Christ haven't ceased to exist, or winked out like candles and faded into oblivion. They are with the Lord, all suffering removed, and they will see resurrection and restoration, some day, as will all who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. I have many loved ones who have gone on to be with the Lord, so I need this reminder, now and again. It makes me feel much better knowing that our separation is a temporary one.

Expectations

Because of a shortage of maids, the minister's wife advertised for a manservant. The next morning a nicely dressed young man came to the front door. "Can you start the breakfast by seven o'clock?" asked the minister.

"I guess so," answered the man.

"Can you polish all the silver, wash all the dishes, do the laundry, take care of the lawn, wash windows, iron clothes and keep the house neat and tidy?"

"Say, preacher," said the young fellow rather meekly, "I came here to see about getting married but if it's going to be as much work as all that, you can count me out right now."

Dire Straits

"They come here to work."

How many times have you heard someone say this, in defense of illegal aliens sneaking into our country? I don't use the word "defense" lightly, but I see no better way to characterize the observation. It's a bizarre notion that we should allow an invasion's continuance because the invaders want a job.

If someone breaks into your house, helps himself to the contents of your fridge, your children's piggy-bank, and your wallet, then beds down in the living room and demands that you make him part of the family, determining his reasons for doing so won't appear high on your priority list. When he insists on free medical care and education, your response most likely will be: "Just a sec, while I get my gun."

Interesting how people ignore problems on a national level that they'd find intolerable on an individual scale. The man who shrugs and laughs at illegal aliens running amok about the countryside would bodily remove a home invader--piece by piece, if necessary. The person who says, "They just want a job," is like the man who sees the intruder in his home and tells himself, "He just wants a snack." It's a stupid comment that reveals more about the person uttering it than the actual dilemma at hand.

When I hear, "They just want to find work," my initial response is: "So what? How is this relevant?"

The reasons for their presence interest me far less than the time and method of their speedy departure. If a stranger enters your house uninvited, which is uppermost in your mind: the "why?" of his "visit," or his prompt and efficient removal?

I dispute the assertion that they all come here seeking work. It's a simpleminded half-truth. But even if one concedes this dubious claim, the point has less value than chopsticks in a soup-kettle. These people are criminals. They respect neither U.S. sovereignty, nor U.S. law. Good impressions aren't formed in violating the law of the land as one's first act upon entering a country's borders.

Worse, the problem isn't a handful of people. It's double-digit millions. The U.S. government estimates that over a million illegal aliens enter our country annually. So we're not fumbling around a static or sporadic issue, but an ongoing and growing one.

We've entered dire straits as a nation. We're facing a problem more massive than at any other time in our history. It looms over the silly sideshow in Iraq, or the antics of al-Killya and other Islamic murder, inc. groups. We're facing a choice: the preservation of America and our way of life, or the transformation of this great country into something far different--and far inferior--to what we've retained in the past and present. With a rejection of Christianity and government's ever-reaching grasp, it rounds out the top three American issues of our time.

Making Mistakes

My wife sent me this in an email:


A minister and lawyer were chatting at a party.

"What do you do if you make a mistake on a case?" the minister asked.

"Try to fix it if it's big; ignore it if it's insignificant," replied the lawyer. "What do you do?"

The minister replied "Oh, more or less the same. Let me give you an example. The other day I meant to say 'the devil is the father of liars,' but instead I said 'the devil is the father of lawyers,' so I let it go."

Not exactly PC

While publicizing the 1974 film, Deathwish, Charles Bronson was questioned by Johnny Carson on how a magazine could quote him saying he would commit murder to avenge his family.

Bronson looked at him and said: "Because the quote is accurate. I really could, and would."


Now I remember why I liked him so much.

The Value of Reading

Having blogged about the large number of people who read little or not at all, I thought I'd elaborate on the importance of reading.

Reading fires one's imagination; it expands and strengthens a person's vocabulary; it opens the mind to possibilities, and facilitates an educational process. It's one of our primary ways of obtaining knowledge. Illiterates still have the guiding hand of experience, yes, and the efforts of others to help them along. But a person who reads has a much higher potential for the acquisition of knowledge than someone who doesn't. It's that simple. Scrutinize your stored knowledge. How much of it came from reading on your own? I'm betting a significant portion.

As for the value of nonfiction versus fiction, I'm of the opinion that nonfiction is more important. But that's not to suggest that fiction is unimportant--especially if one sticks to serious literature, like the classics. Fiction opens a window into cultures and times and places, creating an added dimension that goes hand-in-hand with nonfiction. For example, suppose you read Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, or Xenophon's Anabasis. OK. Now suppose you read Ben-Hur and The Illiad, or some other novel about the ancient Greeks. If these latter works pay careful attention to historical detail, you not only can learn from them, but you can look through a window into these worlds, as it were. I see nonfiction as essential, with fiction playing an important supplementary role.

As worthwhile fiction, I'm not including the filth that often passes for literature in today's market. "Her heaving bosoms split the seams of her brassiere as his swollen member bored into her with all the force of a jackhammer" might make for interesting reading, given the proper mood and combination of drugs, but it's not lasting literature, nor will it elevate your mind above gutter-level. I also include material that subverts traditional values or denies God with the rest of the trash. With these few exceptions, I think reading has far more of benefit than detriment about it.

I don't think it's coincidental that the most learned people I've ever known were also voracious readers.

"Do Unto Others. . ."

I've been watching the lying and distortions of viewpoints that goes on over at Vox's on a regular basis. Someone will sniff the air for signs of an opportunity to attack Vox, then go straight for the jugular. Invariably, these people fail, and end up looking like idiots, as a special bonus. With few exceptions, the "brights" who engage in this sort of debating tactic are secular-minded individuals. In my admittedly limited experience, the more secular someone is, the less problematic he finds outright dishonesty. I've dealt with it first-hand in the blogosphere, and I've witnessed others enduring the same nonsense.

My blogging philosophy is pretty simple: allow people freedom to express their views, even if they diverge widely from my own. I don't ban people or censor their ideas for the atrocity of disagreeing with me.

If you come here and behave in a respectful manner, and at least make an attempt at understanding what I'm saying, we'll have no trouble getting along. On the other hand, my pet peeve is when someone lies or deliberately misrepresents my viewpoint. I've been cursed at, lied to, called names, had my views twisted beyond recognition, and mocked; somehow, I've yet to banish anyone. However, I also don't treat people who sink this low with kid gloves.

In the end, it's all about common courtesy. How you treat people in the "real" world is how you should behave online. Those words typed in little comment boxes that pop up on your screen came from flesh-and-blood people, not ghosts in the machine.

My belief is that those who carry the biggest chip on their shoulders online are the most docile creatures in person. Either that, or they're the ones who sport the most scars.

Idiocy Enshrined

This is what happens when inmates run the asylum:

MESA, Arizona — Officials at an Arizona school suspended a 13-year-old boy for sketching what looked like a gun, saying the action posed a threat to his classmates.

Administrators of Payne Junior High in nearby Chandler suspended the boy on Monday for five days but later reduced it to three days.

Chandler district spokesman Terry Locke said the crude sketch was "absolutely considered a threat," and that threatening words or pictures are punishable.

Isn't it dumbfounding? If the above picture is offensive, then I submit that watching Bugs Bunny is the equivalent of viewing a snuff film.

In a morally confused society, wanton evil is explained away and tolerated, while benign actions are condemned like witches in seventeenth century Salem. This also reveals how foolish, ethically infantile people like this Terry Locke character become school district spokesmen.

I see this as a sign of the feminist agenda's nihilistic touch. The child received punishment not for committing an egregious act, but for being a normal teenage boy. What young male has not drawn pictures of guns, or played cowboys and Indians? Heaven forfend that he owns a gun and fires it on occasion. This is the same mindset that transforms little boys into drooling dullards (courtesy of Ritalin) for daring to fidget in their seats after hours of sitting in a classroom, listening to a "teacher" drone on and on about global warming's destruction of the speckled howler monkey's untainted ecosystem.

When I was thirteen, my parents bought me a single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. Though it vexed me so, I somehow made it to adulthood without killing anyone, or even maiming them just a little bit.

Functionally Illiterate

What a sad and pathetic commentary of the state of our country:

One in four adults say they read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday. Of those who did read, women and seniors were most avid, and religious works and popular fiction were the top choices.

"I just get sleepy when I read," said Richard Bustos of Dallas, a habit with which millions of Americans can doubtless identify. Bustos, a 34-year-old project manager for a telecommunications company, said he had not read any books in the last year and would rather spend time in his backyard pool.

Wow, that's deep. Pun intended.

The Bible and religious works were read by two-thirds in the survey, more than all other categories.

At least this is a good sign that many have their priorities straight, when it comes to reading material.

A Master of Vo-cab-lee-ary

A few days ago, Vox posted about Houghton Mifflin's "100 words every collectivist drone should know," or some such thing. I thought I'd take a crack at defining a few:



bowdlerize: crushing w/ a very large rock.



ziggurat: a rodent that runs in zigzagging patterns.



chicanery: another term for the feminist movement.



enfranchise: opening a McDonald's restaurant.



equinox: when everyone has a hard-knock life.



evanescent: when you smell just like Evan.



fatuous: obese.



hegemony: a garden kingdom.



homogeneous: an exceptionally intelligent "gay" person.



hypotenuse: an uneducated guess.



impeach: the act of peppering someone with fruit.



incontrovertible: a non-ragtop automobile.



irony: metallic taste.



jejune: month that comes after memay.



kowtow: ancient bovine martial art.



paradigm: twenty cents.



photosynthesis: feng shui hanging of framed photographs.



supercilious: when Superman has a bout of the giggles.



taxonomy: what the government would like to pass more legislation favoring.



vacuous: the newest Dirt Devil model.



winnow: a minnow whose husband died.





See, publik skewel learnt me gud!

Something Like an Admission

Yesterday, Bush met with Larry and Curly of Canada and Mexico in Quebec on the matter of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which some believe is a precursor to a North American Union. Notice how the government invents happy names for questionable policies. Congress could pass a law tomorrow, demanding that all Christians be rounded up and put into concentration camps; no doubt it would be dubbed the "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" Act.

At a news conference after the meeting, a Fox News reporter asked them some direct questions:

"As you three leaders meet here, there are a growing number of people in each of your countries who have expressed concern about the Security and Prosperity Partnership. This is addressed to all three of you. Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union? Are there plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all three countries? And do you believe all of these theories about a possible erosion of national identity stem from a lack of transparency from this partnership?"

Bush offered a three-paragraph response without answering the questions put to him:

"We represent three great nations. We each respect each other's sovereignty. You know, there are some who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples. I just believe they're wrong. I believe it's in our interest to trade; I believe it's in our interest to dialogue; I believe it's in our interest to work out common problems for the good of our people.

"And I'm amused by some of the speculation, some of the old – you can call them political scare tactics. If you've been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate. I'm here representing my nation. I feel strongly that the United States is a force for good, and I feel strongly that by working with our neighbors we can (sic) a stronger force for good.

"So I appreciate that question. I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and what some are trying to say takes place. It's quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about."

There's nothing of substance in his entire retort. We have dripping arrogance, yes; we have ridicule; we have a misrepresentation of the reporter's questions; we have false accusations. What we do not have is a straightforward answer. Mr. Bush, no one said relations are harmful. No one said they were against trade. No one laid out a conspiracy. No one asked you to "prove" anything. You had a chance to nip uncertainties in the bud, if this amalgamation isn't moving forward; instead, you opted for BS artistry. Imagine my surprise.

When you're asked a question--a question voicing concerns with facts backing them--you have an obligation to answer it for the sake of those who put you in office--those you supposedly represent. If we wanted a haughty, elitist snot in the White House, we'd've written Hillary's name on the ballot long ago.