John Derbyshire apparently thinks he has made compelling arguments against Christianity and religion in general. Surprise, he hasn’t. I now understand why I never became a regular reader.
In a post on “The Corner” at National Review Online, he first quotes Michael Novak: "It is not credible for atheists to say believers don’t care about evidence."
He then responds: Yes it is, Michael. The Christian religion is founded on the belief that an invisible spirit impregnated a human woman. Not only is there no evidence for that, it is hard to see how there could be any! If I tackle a believer on this point, he invariably says: "You just gotta believe" — i.e. not care about the absence of evidence, or the absence of even the possibility of evidence. QED. Of course, if Michael has a different answer, I'd be glad to hear it.
First, this is a strawman argument; Derbyshire characterizes Christianity in a fashion that sounds asinine, then charges in for an attack on that wobbling dummy. This is an illegitimate form of argumentation, because it can be utilized in making everything known to Man seem absurd. Just once, I’d enjoy seeing an atheist pit his dogmatic disbelief against a strong Christian apologetic, rather than a moronic caricature. And if wishes were horses. . .
Derbyshire also reveals that he’s the type of atheist who believes in one brand of evidence: the scientific variety. All other forms need not apply; not only are they not convincing—they aren’t evidence at all. Documentary evidence? Pshaw. Personal testimony? Flush. It’s funny that atheists cling to “scientific” evidence, anyway, since such evidence no more supports their position than that of Christians.
And what in the world is wrong with having faith? Every human being on planet Earth—and even the handful who reside offworld—exercises faith in his acceptance of certain aspects of reality. Furthermore, if you’re an evolutionist, you’re faith’s bosom buddy. This is the unspoken demand that atheists make when mocking our faith: “You mustn’t have faith in God; everything else is fair game.” If you have faith that mommy loves you, that’s OK. If you have faith that Attila the Hun isn’t the figment of an ancient troubadour’s imagination, that’s acceptable, too. If you have faith that we’re more than just animated pixels in a cosmic video game, that’s just peachy. And if you have faith that you evolved from an apelike ancestor, that life arose from inanimate matter, you’re a well-adjusted, sensible individual.
However, the man who exercises faith in God is a delusional, easily-manipulated idiot.
The humorous part is that many atheists think this is an intellectually consistent, reasonable outlook.
Christianity encompasses far more than "an invisible spirit impregnated a human woman," and Derbyshire know this, if he's ever taken the time to evaluate what Christians believe.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Reasons to Vote for Barelyblack Odumma
1. He’s black. Except he isn’t; he’s half-black. Hence: “Barelyblack.” Oh, well, he’s black enough for you, and that’s what matters most, yes? I mean, having the first “black” person in the Oval Office is far more important than silly questions of character, oath-keeping, or support for policies that don’t do violence to liberty. This is an historic occasion. Sheesh, homies, let’s have a little perspective.
2. You’re a leftist. Karl Marx had it right. Red Uncle Joe was slandered and vilified. Communism worked just fine on paper—improper implementation marred its success in practice; and as our teachers told us, “practice makes perfect.” Big Brother does it better. Yes, you have the T-shirt. The only good fetus is one that has ceased its irksome kicking. The State knows best how to spend your money, and will take it at gunpoint and demonstrate its charitable demeanor. Each night, you whisper a prayer to Saint Hillary. “All power to the worker Soviet!”
3. You’re a knee-jerk Demonrat. Your great-granddaddy voted Demonrat. Your granddaddy voted Demonrat. Your daddy voted Demonrat. You survived the abortion, so now that you’re all grown up, there’s nothing left for you to do but vote Demonrat. It’s a family tradition, and you’ll do your darnedest to carry the torch to the next generation--if it survives long enough to procure a voter registration card.
4. You’re ignorant. You don’t know the difference between the Constitution and constipation. You think that exercising your right to bear arms means wearing a tank-top. The Declaration of Independence was the day you stood up from the dinner table and told your momma that you weren’t about to eat those Brussels sprouts. What you don’t know spans the breadth and depth of eternity, but you see no reason why this should serve as an obstacle to your voting. After all, pulling that lever is the culmination of a popularity contest, and Barelyblack talked a better game. At least, that’s what Oprah told you.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Truth
I saw a bumper-sticker, today, that said:
"If Hillary Clinton is the answer, then it must have been a stupid question."
"If Hillary Clinton is the answer, then it must have been a stupid question."
Where's My Shovel?
Why should Democrats be buried 100 feet down?
****
Because deep down, they really are good people.
****
Because deep down, they really are good people.
Friday, September 12, 2008
@#$!%^&**^$@!#%&
Recently, I was at a local fast food restaurant getting a quick bite to eat with my wife, when we witnessed a strange event.
A woman came in and ordered a cup of coffee. She waited at the counter, and when the employee gave her the cup, she paid and turned to leave. As she walked toward the door, she spilled some of the coffee. At this point, she sat the cup down on a nearby table and said:
"G-- - da---- son of a b----!"
She said this in an angry tone loud enough for everyone in the place to catch. Luckily, only one other customer was present, besides my wife and myself.
When the woman finished cleaning up the mess, she stalked over to the counter and spat:
"The next time you fix my coffee like that, you'll die!"
I don't know if the young man behind the counter heard her, but she left immediately after making her little threat.
Maybe the woman was mentally ill. I recognize that ever-increasing possibility, these days. But the more likely scenario was that she was just revealing her Class Z Jackass status with her little temper-tantrum.
I suppose the bigger picture is that I believe public decorum has gone straight down the tubes, flushed faster than a crackhouse toilet during a police raid. I hear open cursing in public often, these days. Such occurences were rare, when I was growing up--not unheard of, but not common, either. Now I hear people shamelessly spewing profanity and other filth in public, unconcerned about a little child or a gentle church lady overhearing their unpleasantness. They don't seem to care that most people view their behavior as cretinous and low-bred.
I don't see the transition from Southern hospitality to Southern vulgarity as a positive change in my neck of the woods.
A woman came in and ordered a cup of coffee. She waited at the counter, and when the employee gave her the cup, she paid and turned to leave. As she walked toward the door, she spilled some of the coffee. At this point, she sat the cup down on a nearby table and said:
"G-- - da---- son of a b----!"
She said this in an angry tone loud enough for everyone in the place to catch. Luckily, only one other customer was present, besides my wife and myself.
When the woman finished cleaning up the mess, she stalked over to the counter and spat:
"The next time you fix my coffee like that, you'll die!"
I don't know if the young man behind the counter heard her, but she left immediately after making her little threat.
Maybe the woman was mentally ill. I recognize that ever-increasing possibility, these days. But the more likely scenario was that she was just revealing her Class Z Jackass status with her little temper-tantrum.
I suppose the bigger picture is that I believe public decorum has gone straight down the tubes, flushed faster than a crackhouse toilet during a police raid. I hear open cursing in public often, these days. Such occurences were rare, when I was growing up--not unheard of, but not common, either. Now I hear people shamelessly spewing profanity and other filth in public, unconcerned about a little child or a gentle church lady overhearing their unpleasantness. They don't seem to care that most people view their behavior as cretinous and low-bred.
I don't see the transition from Southern hospitality to Southern vulgarity as a positive change in my neck of the woods.
Uh-Huh
This is one reason why I don't take the "War on Terror" seriously:
The U.S. is planning to issue a letter guaranteeing the country will back agreements reached during current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at creating a Palestinian state before President Bush leaves office in January, WND has learned.
So, we're in a global war against terrorists (culture, ideology, and religion withheld to protect the guilty, as per the PC Code of Ethics), and as a demonstration of our resolve, our government wholeheartedly supports the formation of a terrorist state on Israeli soil, headed by the Palestinian Authority, which is nothing more than a gang of terrorist thugs masquerading as statesmen.
The "Palestinians" are individuals who are enamored with destruction and chaos. They are not a distinct people, but a death cult. They raise their children from toddlerhood instilled with a visceral hatred of Jews. The deliberate targeting of innocent civilians for murder is their standard operating procedure. They are Janus-faced in their approach to propaganda, telling the western media one story, and the Arab media an altogether different one. They have no honor, and not a whit of decency or compassion. They deserve nothing but contempt. They've earned the kind of terrible justice that would send most men quailing in fear.
Regardless your view of the modern nation of Israel--secular Middle Eastern state, or "the Promised Land to the Jews"--you should shun the championing of people who wallow in moral debasement.
The "Palestinians" offer nothing to this world but lies and murder, served up under the guise of righteous indignation. I shake my head in shame that my government finds their "cause" worthy of support. This offers a great deal of insight into the trustworthiness of those at the reins of power in the U.S.A.
The U.S. is planning to issue a letter guaranteeing the country will back agreements reached during current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations aimed at creating a Palestinian state before President Bush leaves office in January, WND has learned.
So, we're in a global war against terrorists (culture, ideology, and religion withheld to protect the guilty, as per the PC Code of Ethics), and as a demonstration of our resolve, our government wholeheartedly supports the formation of a terrorist state on Israeli soil, headed by the Palestinian Authority, which is nothing more than a gang of terrorist thugs masquerading as statesmen.
The "Palestinians" are individuals who are enamored with destruction and chaos. They are not a distinct people, but a death cult. They raise their children from toddlerhood instilled with a visceral hatred of Jews. The deliberate targeting of innocent civilians for murder is their standard operating procedure. They are Janus-faced in their approach to propaganda, telling the western media one story, and the Arab media an altogether different one. They have no honor, and not a whit of decency or compassion. They deserve nothing but contempt. They've earned the kind of terrible justice that would send most men quailing in fear.
Regardless your view of the modern nation of Israel--secular Middle Eastern state, or "the Promised Land to the Jews"--you should shun the championing of people who wallow in moral debasement.
The "Palestinians" offer nothing to this world but lies and murder, served up under the guise of righteous indignation. I shake my head in shame that my government finds their "cause" worthy of support. This offers a great deal of insight into the trustworthiness of those at the reins of power in the U.S.A.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Get Your Hands Off My Buns!
The profits from families who buy Happy Meals for their children have been used to pay for 56 McDonald's staff members to meet in San Diego to strategize about promoting homosexuality within the company, according to the organizer of a boycott of the fast-food chain.
Ronald is a gay old clown;
A gay old clown is he.
He dons a wig
Dances a jig.
Wears his shoes a little big.
I've heard he's quite the devotee
Of unrestricted sodomy.
Under the golden arches,
With Grimace in cahoots,
He'll make you squeal;
Two-for-one deal.
The new prize in your Happy Meal
Is a big side-order of fruits.
Ronald is a gay old clown;
A gay old clown is he.
He dons a wig
Dances a jig.
Wears his shoes a little big.
I've heard he's quite the devotee
Of unrestricted sodomy.
Under the golden arches,
With Grimace in cahoots,
He'll make you squeal;
Two-for-one deal.
The new prize in your Happy Meal
Is a big side-order of fruits.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Give 'Em a Hand!
The largest single-workplace immigration raid in U.S. history has caused panic among Hispanic families in this Mississippi town, where federal agents rounded up nearly 600 plant workers suspected of being in the country illegally.
I know this story happened several days ago, but I think it deserves special mention. Here's some food for thought: If immigration authorities managed a haul of 600 illegal aliens working at one plant in a small Mississippi town, what does this tell us about the sheer number of these people sneaking into our country?
Here's the best part of the story:
One worker caught in Monday's sweep at the Howard Industries transformer plant said fellow workers applauded as immigrants were taken into custody.
Heck, they should've had a hoedown, afterwards.
I know this story happened several days ago, but I think it deserves special mention. Here's some food for thought: If immigration authorities managed a haul of 600 illegal aliens working at one plant in a small Mississippi town, what does this tell us about the sheer number of these people sneaking into our country?
Here's the best part of the story:
One worker caught in Monday's sweep at the Howard Industries transformer plant said fellow workers applauded as immigrants were taken into custody.
Heck, they should've had a hoedown, afterwards.
Friday, August 29, 2008
FYI
I enjoy receiving emails with subject titles like:
"Lose Up to Fifty Pounds with Pomegranate Cleanse"
These idiot spambots have no idea that my strawberry kiwi mango flush works just fine, thankyouverymuch.
I think they should try selling Firehose Colonics in Washington, D.C., though. I can think of nothing more fitting. Or necessary.
"Lose Up to Fifty Pounds with Pomegranate Cleanse"
These idiot spambots have no idea that my strawberry kiwi mango flush works just fine, thankyouverymuch.
I think they should try selling Firehose Colonics in Washington, D.C., though. I can think of nothing more fitting. Or necessary.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Bipartisanship
How many times have you seen this ugly word rear its head?
"Let's set aside partisan politics and come together in the unity of bipartisanship. . ."
"In a bipartisan move, today. . ."
Blah blah blah.
This is just another word for unity or oneness. The implied assumption in such statements is that coming together is a good thing. Without exception or condition.
Is unity a good, in and of itself? Or is the worth of oneness determined by the moral virtue or constitutional adherence of the principle upon which we find ourselves unified? I contend the latter's truth.
For example, let’s suppose that we pick up tomorrow’s newspaper. On the front page, we read the day’s leading story:
"In a stunning bipartisan initiative yesterday, both houses of Congress passed legislation bestowing blanket amnesty and citizenship on every illegal alien in the country. Building upon the edifice of bipartisanship erected by the House and Senate, the Grand Enchilada, himself--President Jorge W. Bushandez--signed the new legislation into law. Afterwards, President Bushandez was seen at a pinata party, throwing back shots of tequila and striking a papier-mache George Washington effigy with a broomstick. Hillary Clinton also made a brief appearance before procuring the broomstick and flying home for the evening. . ."
Here we have universal bipartisanship and treason, in unison.
"Bipartisanship" is political jargon designed toward one end: to make you stop thinking, and start emoting. "Oh, well, they came together, after all. It's the sole relevant factor in judging that steepened confiscatory tax rate."
If a Crip and a Blood join forces in robbing you blind, should your focus lie on their making nice, or should it zero in on the fact that they just carted your big-screen tv out the front door?
"Let's set aside partisan politics and come together in the unity of bipartisanship. . ."
"In a bipartisan move, today. . ."
Blah blah blah.
This is just another word for unity or oneness. The implied assumption in such statements is that coming together is a good thing. Without exception or condition.
Is unity a good, in and of itself? Or is the worth of oneness determined by the moral virtue or constitutional adherence of the principle upon which we find ourselves unified? I contend the latter's truth.
For example, let’s suppose that we pick up tomorrow’s newspaper. On the front page, we read the day’s leading story:
"In a stunning bipartisan initiative yesterday, both houses of Congress passed legislation bestowing blanket amnesty and citizenship on every illegal alien in the country. Building upon the edifice of bipartisanship erected by the House and Senate, the Grand Enchilada, himself--President Jorge W. Bushandez--signed the new legislation into law. Afterwards, President Bushandez was seen at a pinata party, throwing back shots of tequila and striking a papier-mache George Washington effigy with a broomstick. Hillary Clinton also made a brief appearance before procuring the broomstick and flying home for the evening. . ."
Here we have universal bipartisanship and treason, in unison.
"Bipartisanship" is political jargon designed toward one end: to make you stop thinking, and start emoting. "Oh, well, they came together, after all. It's the sole relevant factor in judging that steepened confiscatory tax rate."
If a Crip and a Blood join forces in robbing you blind, should your focus lie on their making nice, or should it zero in on the fact that they just carted your big-screen tv out the front door?
Friday, August 22, 2008
Sick and Twisted
A website sponsored by Planned Parenthood, the biggest player in America's billion dollar abortion industry, is promoting oral sex and casual encounters in the name of encouraging the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, critics say.
This is like telling the morbidly obese that a great weight-loss success method entails devouring a dozen donuts daily.
The organization specifically cited a video that appears to have a black youth performing oral sex on a white youth, under the supervision of a white guidance counselor.
A review of the promotional videos created by Planned Parenthood show the following scenarios:
--A girl who appears only from the waist up appears to drop her slacks to the floor, then asks a second girl, a third girl, and a boy, "Do you see anything down there?" The counselor advises her to get a test for STDs.
--Two girls, a guy and the counselor talk about what HPV means. The teens' guess is a reference to a sex organ.
--A white youth appears only from the waist up, then a black youth suddenly stands up in front of him, and the white youth says, "I didn't spew."
--A girl says, "I like me. I like spending time with me. It's not like I can get me pregnant or give me diseases."
--The theme song gives the message, "Whatever you call it, you've got to know how to take care of it."
The Texas-based pro-life group Life Dynamics previously conducted an extensive undercover project in which an adult volunteer posing as a 13-year-old called every Planned Parenthood clinic in the U.S., saying she was pregnant by a 22-year-old boyfriend. Almost without exception, the clinics advised her to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge and told her how to protect her boyfriend, who would be guilty in any state of statutory rape.
This isn't being "pro-choice," which theoretically is a disinterested position, as long as the mother/killer has control over when or if her baby's life is snuffed out. This is active promotion of abortion and the undermining of parents, as well as criminal cover-ups, in some instances. Premeditated non-Parenthood is a pro-death organization; we should characterize it as nothing less.
This is like telling the morbidly obese that a great weight-loss success method entails devouring a dozen donuts daily.
The organization specifically cited a video that appears to have a black youth performing oral sex on a white youth, under the supervision of a white guidance counselor.
A review of the promotional videos created by Planned Parenthood show the following scenarios:
--A girl who appears only from the waist up appears to drop her slacks to the floor, then asks a second girl, a third girl, and a boy, "Do you see anything down there?" The counselor advises her to get a test for STDs.
--Two girls, a guy and the counselor talk about what HPV means. The teens' guess is a reference to a sex organ.
--A white youth appears only from the waist up, then a black youth suddenly stands up in front of him, and the white youth says, "I didn't spew."
--A girl says, "I like me. I like spending time with me. It's not like I can get me pregnant or give me diseases."
--The theme song gives the message, "Whatever you call it, you've got to know how to take care of it."
The Texas-based pro-life group Life Dynamics previously conducted an extensive undercover project in which an adult volunteer posing as a 13-year-old called every Planned Parenthood clinic in the U.S., saying she was pregnant by a 22-year-old boyfriend. Almost without exception, the clinics advised her to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge and told her how to protect her boyfriend, who would be guilty in any state of statutory rape.
This isn't being "pro-choice," which theoretically is a disinterested position, as long as the mother/killer has control over when or if her baby's life is snuffed out. This is active promotion of abortion and the undermining of parents, as well as criminal cover-ups, in some instances. Premeditated non-Parenthood is a pro-death organization; we should characterize it as nothing less.
Love, Adam and Steve
Most states don't recognize gay marriage -- but now Hallmark does.
The nation's largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards -- featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. "Two hearts. One promise," one says.
Awwww, isn't that precious?
"It's our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can," Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Gronberg Kolell said.
I'll bet this made NAMBLA's day.
Not to mention that of Habib and his pet goat.
The nation's largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards -- featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. "Two hearts. One promise," one says.
Awwww, isn't that precious?
"It's our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can," Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Gronberg Kolell said.
I'll bet this made NAMBLA's day.
Not to mention that of Habib and his pet goat.
Building a Reputation
Today's story makes the second time in less than a month that Knoxville has made national headlines regarding violent crimes.
First was the Unitarian church shooting, and now this.
First was the Unitarian church shooting, and now this.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Religious Fundamentalism
Chris Hedges has written a new book titled I Don't Believe in Atheists, in which he criticizes the New Atheists for their agenda. I agree with his criticism, as it is well-earned, but I've noticed some problems with Hedges' ideas, in an extensive interview with him conducted by John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute. In the interview--which serves more as an opportunity for Hedges to sound-off than anything else--Hedges takes the monolithic view of religious fundamentalism. This is an issue that crops up in Dinesh D'Souza's book, What's So great About Christianity?, as well.
It seems that both men, and most politicians and members of the media, see religious fundamentalism as one big zealous family unit, working hard in the good fight against human progress in all its guises. This opinion holds true most visibly in the sciences. My concern with this approach is its basis in either willful ignorance, or conscious deceit. Ignored is the simple truth that "religious fundamentalists" often hail from drastically different walks of life, and vary greatly in worldviews, values, and behaviors.
When one begins a study of comparative religion, one finds little in common between Christian and Islamic fundamentalism, with the exception that both embrace religion on serious terms.
The Christian fundamentalist believes in scriptural authority and inerrancy, taking each book of the Bible at face-value. He believes in sharing the Good News and helping his fellow man, in Christ. He thinks our society should be tailored after Christian principles, since those selfsame principles brought Western civilization to heights undreamed by the rest of the planet.
The Islamic fundamentalist, on the other hand, holds a tribalistic view of the world around him. He engages in--or offers moral or material support of--jihad against the infidel. His reality lies broken in two halves: the House of Islam, and the House of War. Enlarging the House of Islam until it incorporates the House of War into its dominion is his goal. Killing in the name of his god is not only defensible, but commendable. It is an expression of his love for Allah, and falls well within the dictates of his god's will.
One who lumps all religious fundamentalists into a single category exhibits intellectual laziness and an incuriosity about the chasmic distinctions between religions and cultures. He shuns history and clutches at a contemporary fad.
One of the reasons why I believe in the correctness of a fundamental approach to Christianity is the irrational, dishonest, and nigh-universal revilement it receives outside fundamentalist circles--in the realm of politics, from the sundry media, the scientific establishment, secular institutions and figures, and even from other self-professing Christians.
It seems that both men, and most politicians and members of the media, see religious fundamentalism as one big zealous family unit, working hard in the good fight against human progress in all its guises. This opinion holds true most visibly in the sciences. My concern with this approach is its basis in either willful ignorance, or conscious deceit. Ignored is the simple truth that "religious fundamentalists" often hail from drastically different walks of life, and vary greatly in worldviews, values, and behaviors.
When one begins a study of comparative religion, one finds little in common between Christian and Islamic fundamentalism, with the exception that both embrace religion on serious terms.
The Christian fundamentalist believes in scriptural authority and inerrancy, taking each book of the Bible at face-value. He believes in sharing the Good News and helping his fellow man, in Christ. He thinks our society should be tailored after Christian principles, since those selfsame principles brought Western civilization to heights undreamed by the rest of the planet.
The Islamic fundamentalist, on the other hand, holds a tribalistic view of the world around him. He engages in--or offers moral or material support of--jihad against the infidel. His reality lies broken in two halves: the House of Islam, and the House of War. Enlarging the House of Islam until it incorporates the House of War into its dominion is his goal. Killing in the name of his god is not only defensible, but commendable. It is an expression of his love for Allah, and falls well within the dictates of his god's will.
One who lumps all religious fundamentalists into a single category exhibits intellectual laziness and an incuriosity about the chasmic distinctions between religions and cultures. He shuns history and clutches at a contemporary fad.
One of the reasons why I believe in the correctness of a fundamental approach to Christianity is the irrational, dishonest, and nigh-universal revilement it receives outside fundamentalist circles--in the realm of politics, from the sundry media, the scientific establishment, secular institutions and figures, and even from other self-professing Christians.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
A Blank Check for AIDS
I receive a monthly newsletter from U.S. Senator Bob Corker, who represents my state in Washington, D.C. In the August 2008 edition, this jumped out at me:
Combating HIV/AIDS is one of the most critical long-term health and national security issues facing the developing world, which is why I recently supported legislation to reauthorize funding for U.S. global HIV/AIDS programs. During trips to Haiti and South Africa over the past year, I’ve had the privilege of talking with individuals that, because of the generosity of the American people, are accessing prevention programs, receiving anti-retroviral medications, and learning skills to improve their quality of life with AIDS. I also met with individuals that have not been so lucky and recognize that more can and should be done to reach these people in need. I was disappointed that the Senate did not pass a couple of amendments that would have further increased accountability so that in the future we can better ensure U.S. programs and contributions are going to fight this disease in the most effective way. Overall, I am pleased to have had a role in shaping the bill, and I hope it brings us closer to meeting the needs of HIV/AIDS patients globally.
First, I'd like Mr. Corker to explain to the good people of Tennessee why dealing with AIDS in Haiti and South Africa is their responsibility. I'd also enjoy watching him shred the Constitution as he searches in vain for that clause giving him authority to fight diseases in Can'tKeepItZipped-world countries. I won't hold my breath waiting for his explanation. He's far too busy emoting for such inanities.
because of the generosity of the American people. . .
This is politician-speak for "that good ol' boy didn't run me down and bash my head in, when I mugged him. Whatta guy!" I think the American people's record on giving selflessly dwarfs that of all other countries, but I see a difference between charity--which is voluntary, by definition--and having my money confiscated without my input.
Suppose I'm walking down the street with you, when I see a drunken bum lying on the sidewalk. I turn and remove your wallet from your pants pocket, peel out a five-dollar-bill, and proffer it to Ned the Wino. Then I look at you, smile, and say: "Thanks for your generosity to the less fortunate; you're a real inspiration, bub."
That about sums up Mr. Corker's attitude, whether he realizes it or not.
As for utopian tripe like "meeting the needs of HIV/AIDS patients globally," I have a little idea of my own that I'd like Mr. Corker to remember:
As you open your heart, keep your hand out of my wallet. Nobility on someone else's dime is nothing more than robbery committed in knight's garb.
Combating HIV/AIDS is one of the most critical long-term health and national security issues facing the developing world, which is why I recently supported legislation to reauthorize funding for U.S. global HIV/AIDS programs. During trips to Haiti and South Africa over the past year, I’ve had the privilege of talking with individuals that, because of the generosity of the American people, are accessing prevention programs, receiving anti-retroviral medications, and learning skills to improve their quality of life with AIDS. I also met with individuals that have not been so lucky and recognize that more can and should be done to reach these people in need. I was disappointed that the Senate did not pass a couple of amendments that would have further increased accountability so that in the future we can better ensure U.S. programs and contributions are going to fight this disease in the most effective way. Overall, I am pleased to have had a role in shaping the bill, and I hope it brings us closer to meeting the needs of HIV/AIDS patients globally.
First, I'd like Mr. Corker to explain to the good people of Tennessee why dealing with AIDS in Haiti and South Africa is their responsibility. I'd also enjoy watching him shred the Constitution as he searches in vain for that clause giving him authority to fight diseases in Can'tKeepItZipped-world countries. I won't hold my breath waiting for his explanation. He's far too busy emoting for such inanities.
because of the generosity of the American people. . .
This is politician-speak for "that good ol' boy didn't run me down and bash my head in, when I mugged him. Whatta guy!" I think the American people's record on giving selflessly dwarfs that of all other countries, but I see a difference between charity--which is voluntary, by definition--and having my money confiscated without my input.
Suppose I'm walking down the street with you, when I see a drunken bum lying on the sidewalk. I turn and remove your wallet from your pants pocket, peel out a five-dollar-bill, and proffer it to Ned the Wino. Then I look at you, smile, and say: "Thanks for your generosity to the less fortunate; you're a real inspiration, bub."
That about sums up Mr. Corker's attitude, whether he realizes it or not.
As for utopian tripe like "meeting the needs of HIV/AIDS patients globally," I have a little idea of my own that I'd like Mr. Corker to remember:
As you open your heart, keep your hand out of my wallet. Nobility on someone else's dime is nothing more than robbery committed in knight's garb.
"We Don' Need No Steenkeeng Border!"
Mexican soldiers have made yet another incursion into U.S. territory:
TUCSON, Ariz. — Four Mexican soldiers crossed into Arizona and held a U.S. Border Patrol agent at gunpoint before realizing where they were and returning to Mexico, federal authorities said Wednesday.
The confrontation occurred early Sunday on the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation, about 85 miles southwest of Tucson, in an area fenced only with barbed wire, said Dove Crawford, a spokeswoman for the Border Patrol.
The soldiers, outfitted in desert camouflage, pointed their rifles at the agent and shouted at him not to move, Crawford said. They lowered their weapons after about four minutes when the agent convinced them of who he was and where they were, she said. The soldiers then retreated into Mexico.
And now for the U.S. government's reaction:
State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos in Washington said the encounter "stemmed from a momentary misunderstanding as to the exact location of the U.S.-Mexican border."
What interests me is two aspects of stories like this: first, the frequency with which these supposed goofs occur; and second, the automatic, identical response from the Bush Administration in each instance. It seems that the federal government's standard policy entails downplaying these "accidents" and playing defense for the Mexican nationals who ended up on American turf with guns drawn. In at least one case, Mexican weaponry included a jeep-mounted .50-caliber machine gun.
How many of these violations must we endure, before the feds come to the understanding that so-called mistakes of this nature actually are messages to the effect that "you can stick your border where the sun don't shine, gringo."?
TUCSON, Ariz. — Four Mexican soldiers crossed into Arizona and held a U.S. Border Patrol agent at gunpoint before realizing where they were and returning to Mexico, federal authorities said Wednesday.
The confrontation occurred early Sunday on the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation, about 85 miles southwest of Tucson, in an area fenced only with barbed wire, said Dove Crawford, a spokeswoman for the Border Patrol.
The soldiers, outfitted in desert camouflage, pointed their rifles at the agent and shouted at him not to move, Crawford said. They lowered their weapons after about four minutes when the agent convinced them of who he was and where they were, she said. The soldiers then retreated into Mexico.
And now for the U.S. government's reaction:
State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos in Washington said the encounter "stemmed from a momentary misunderstanding as to the exact location of the U.S.-Mexican border."
What interests me is two aspects of stories like this: first, the frequency with which these supposed goofs occur; and second, the automatic, identical response from the Bush Administration in each instance. It seems that the federal government's standard policy entails downplaying these "accidents" and playing defense for the Mexican nationals who ended up on American turf with guns drawn. In at least one case, Mexican weaponry included a jeep-mounted .50-caliber machine gun.
How many of these violations must we endure, before the feds come to the understanding that so-called mistakes of this nature actually are messages to the effect that "you can stick your border where the sun don't shine, gringo."?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)