And Its Palin!

In a brilliant move, McCain managed to appoint someone that the left fears (and rightly so)and that I can gladly get behind. Most of the smears from the left thus far have been feeble, and reveal just how much they got nuthin', and are willing to alienate women in an attempt to get somethin'. Get your popcorn ready. This is going to be fun.

Delusion This Powerful Never Leaves The Building...It Lingers Like a Particularly Nasty Airbiscuit Floated Quietly by a Now-Absent Offender

From today's Politico story on the tensions between the Obama and Clinton Camps:

Paul Begala, a former operative who has spoken to both Clintons in recent weeks, agreed. He said the former president, whatever mixed feelings remain from the primaries, will work to elect Obama because, “It’s killing him to watch what has happened over the past eight years. It’s been torture to watch the slow unraveling of so much of what his administration achieved.”

And what, pray tell, did his administration achieve?

Why the Self-Appointed Cognoscenti Aren't

Audacious, breath-taking arrogance isn't just the Hallmark of the Obama campaign. It has infected the fourth estate and their Obama supporters also. Case in point? This article in Slate, which brings up the elephant in the room without demonstrating any understanding of its significance. There is something fundamentally wrong with a column like this under this category heading...I think we can call it Cognoscenti FAIL!:

the big idea: The thinking behind the news.
If Obama Loses
Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Saturday, Aug. 23, 2008, at 12:02 AM ET

What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

What gives is that the more the public gets to see Barack Obama being Barack Obama and how he responds to the world around him and the difficultly of unscripted commentary, the more they recognize that the bag boy at the local Safeway can muster a more coherent and logical response to the topical questions on the minds of many Americans at any given time.

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

That very comment tells so much about why the analysis of such self-appointed experts has come to mean so very little in this day and age. The Clinton sulkiness isn't a cause for concern as much as is Clinton ire. Just ask...oh, that's right. You can't. As for his slowness, yes, I think you could just keep it confined to that word, then apply it to every aspect of the campaign, but a concern that he is too handsome, brilliant and cool to be elected President? This may be the concern of modern journalism, in which everyone is concerned with how they look, because they want to shine in their 15 minutes on the TV, but none of these traits has ever been on my list of qualities for President of the United States. I'd rather have someone who is intelligent, candid, and sufficiently clear to make himself unmistakably understood when a crisis flares up. As for the charge of racism, I only ever hear the term stated or implied from the mouth of Obama and his supporters, who recognize that the rest of us have let cancer of political correctness advance to the degree that the accusation of racism, made forcefully by the purported victim, is enough to trump the absence of any supporting evidence of the charge, at least in the minds of the doctrine's most ardent adherents.

Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Maybe the time has come to once again have an honest discussion about race in this country once again. Now that we are nearing a point 40 years from the civil rights movement of the 1960's, and we have had a few generations reared in the shadow of remedial measures such as desegregation, affirmative action...in its several variations, and their bastard child, diversity. However, a productive conversation on the topic will be impossible unless or until the purported 'victim classes' are willing to shed their victim status baggage at the door and come to the table unburdened by a sense of entitlement and warped belief that 'diversity' trumps merit.

Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American. And that's what Democrats in a Northeastern(ish) state admit openly. The responses in Ohio and even New Jersey were dispiritingly similar.

Mark Twain was right, figures don't lie, but liars can figure. Putting aside the notorious inaccuracy of exits polls (President Gore, call the White House), this assertion neatly demonstrates the point I made above. Racism isn't what the measure says it is, it is what the 'victims' and their flag-waivers think it is. This is why an honest discussion is so difficult. One side of the debate has taken racism as such a deep-rooted effect, that a result contrary to the one they so ardently desire is automatically caused by the character flaws of others and never that of their candidate.

Such prejudice usually comes coded in distortions about Obama and his background. To the willfully ignorant, he is a secret Muslim married to a black-power radical. Or—thank you, Geraldine Ferraro—he only got where he is because of the special treatment accorded those lucky enough to be born with African blood. Some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel in the way they assume other black politicians to be. To some white voters (14 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll), Obama is someone who, as president, would favor blacks over whites. Or he is an "elitist" who cannot understand ordinary (read: white) people because he isn't one of them. Or he is charged with playing the race card, or of accusing his opponents of racism, when he has strenuously avoided doing anything of the sort. We're just not comfortable with, you know, a Hawaiian.

Wow, what nuance! However, it underscores the fundamental misunderstanding of many in this country by Obama and his acolytes. The issue isn't that anyone seriously believes that Obama is a "secret muslim", it is the fact that he is so guarded about such subjects and tries so had to keep any meaningful detail that could quell such concerns from coming to light. He could put this to bed with simple acts of candid honesty, like allowing his Birth Certificate to be examined by all. And his 'black power' wife would not be a liability if she wouldn't keep opening her trap and talking about how she has never been proud of this country until he empty-suit husband ran for President. Words tumbling from the lips of a person who the country has been so good to tends to rub people the wrong way. When she continues to paint a picture of a country irretrievably broken and diseased that only her sainted husband can save it, it tends to rub people the wrong way. And when the candidate speaks to Iowa farmers about the price of arugula, and insults voters he is incapable of spellbinding as "bitterly clinging to their religion and guns", he presents the very picture of arrogance and elitism. As for Geraldine Ferraro, she committed the unforgivable sin of suggesting that his ability to read a speech and the color of his skin were enough to overcome a shameful lack of real world experience in anything of consequence or and understanding of the soul of the nation that he would seek to lead. She was right. A white man with the same paper-thin resume could not hope to be considered, even momentarily for such an office. By speaking this truth out loud, Geraldine Ferraro discovered that not all 'victim statuses' are equal, and stands as a shining example of the 'tolerance' of the left, and the pecking order of their 'rainbow coalition'. Isreal's concern couldn't possible have anything to do with Hamas's endorsement of Obama, could it? I mean, when your sworn enemy endorses a candidate for the leadership of your staunchest ally in the world, you wouldn't find yourself concerned about that, would you? As for the poll data about a black President favoring blacks over whites, well, it isn't what one expects in a nation where all are supposedly equal, nor is it what one expects from someone who cites Dr. King as an inspiration. And despite your silly assertion to the contrary, Obama has played the race card...again, and again, with statements implying the motives of any who dare oppose him, while never getting his hands dirty by speaking directly in such terms.

Then there's the overt stuff. In May, Pat Buchanan, who writes books about the European-Americans losing control of their country, ranted on MSNBC in defense of white West Virginians voting on the basis of racial solidarity. The No. 1 best-seller in America, Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., leeringly notes that Obama's white mother always preferred that her "mate" be "a man of color." John McCain has yet to get around to denouncing this vile book.

Such an interesting contrast, and an example of the left only seeing what it wants to. First, ascribe your own sins to your opponent, and then use the acts of persons not the candidate to paint the portrait of the candidate. Many of the conservatives I know and associate with wrote of Reichsfuhrer Buchanan a few years ago and have expressed their disgust with his recent attempts to rehabilitate Hitler and his legacies. As for the Corsi book, the only proper response to the implication that a candidate has to denounce books unfavorable to opponents is "You first." While such statements do not enable a debate on the issues that matter, Corsi has researched the book very carefully, and it does contain other allegations, rooted in fact, that are far more damaging, and are the real reason for the caterwauling emanating from the usual suspects about the tome.

Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

And now we come to the real reason why race matters to the left so much in this campaign. They believe that atonement for America's past is still necessary, and that electing a candidate who is half-black (their distinction, not mine) is the only thing to complete this process, and put the unpleasant facts of out shared history "in the rearview mirror." As for the rest of Mr. Weisberg's analysis, it is simply flawed at its core.

I was born in 1971. I grew up watching episodes of the Original Star Trek. Exposure to the idea of race equality is central to the show's premise...a multiracial bridge crew, the first on-screen interracial kiss, and episodes focusing on the silliness of racial hatred and discrimination (Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, for any critic too lazy to look it up). And before the true believers among you say "Yeah, of course, because the captain was white!", you should know that I have never lost my love for the franchise, or the new shows. For the record, my favorite Captian is Sisko...not because he is black, but because he demonstrated the characterisics I most admired. He walked softly and carried a big stick. He was the EF Hutton of Starfleet. When he spoke, people listened. He didn't abuse this status. And he always carried a spiritual touch to everything he did. I grew up exposed to black politicians and interracial couples. I saw the trend of persons of color to self-segregate, with "black proms" and the like, and society only too eager to comply, because it was a demand of the "victim class", thus vitiating any reasonable or logical conclusion that such a demand flew in the face of the very movement that made such a demand possible. I earned my undergraduate degree at the inner city campus of a major university, where I saw firsthand the destructive effect of diversity, and how it fostered academic disdain for free speech when it was used to actively question the inviolable concept of diversity, and how cries of racism are used to shout down otherwise valid topics of inquiry. I witnessed first hand how the misconception that ensuring that the all voices had a seat at the table became more important than what the voices were saying, or if they had proved that they even understood the discussion. I'm sorry, Mr. Weisberg. As a child of the post-civil rights era, I never had any occasion to question equality of opportunity. If anything, I witnessed a society and academic world that went out of its way to guarantee diversity, to the detriment of other things, and therefore, by its mandates, created an equality of opportunity that refuses to recognize that equality of opportunity does not automatically equal equality of ability. If I could recognize this as a child, then I think that perhaps your breathless assertion that a failure to elect Barack Obama to the Presidency is a denial of every child's birthright is both a hyperbole that sells these children short, and a demonstration again of the sense of entitlement that is part and parcel of the doctrine of diversity; a belief that all cultures are equal and entitled to the same achievements, even if they have to be forced on the rest of us. The stubborn commitment to this view, and the dominance of entitlement over merit demonstrates that the country has lost its mind and favors feel-good agendas over the advancement of merit and excellence. I advocate McCain for President because, sadly, I can see he is the most qualified of the candidates for the job; you advocate Obama because you believe his election will finally absolve you of race-guilt that you fail to see has been absolved by the years of non-hyphenated American bloodshed in the American Civil War, and the social upheaval imposed by court-mandated remedial measures instituted during the civil rights movement. You believe that remediation for the sake of remediation, not for the sake of excellence, will banish the vestigial remnants of racism in this nation. I know that if we elect someone who is not the best qualified primarily because of the color of his skin, we set the candidate up for failure, and the potential to do more damage to concept of diversity than the election might otherwise present.

Choosing John McCain, in particular, would herald the construction of a bridge to the 20th century—and not necessarily the last part of it, either. McCain represents a Cold War style of nationalism that doesn't get the shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics, the centrality of soft power in a multipolar world, or the transformative nature of digital technology. This is a matter of attitude as much as age. A lot of 71-year-olds are still learning and evolving. But in 2008, being flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer, seems like a deal-breaker. At this hinge moment in human history, McCain's approach to our gravest problems is hawkish denial. I like and respect the man, but the maverick has become an ostrich: He wants to deal with the global energy crisis by drilling and our debt crisis by cutting taxes, and he responds to security challenges from Georgia to Iran with Bush-like belligerence and pique.

I am continually astonished how one can have the tea leaves in front of him, and yet do such a miserable job of reading them. Energy will be key to the new world. The Russians understand this, and they are doing all they can to establish a monopoly because that is where real power will reside, at least in the near future. The recent crisis in Georgia demonstrates this. Most of Europe, knowing who is keeping the lights on, resisted even really condemning an act of naked aggression clearly meant to intimidate and destroy the sovereignty of one of their brothers, so recently freed from the yoke of communist oppression. Obama's answer? A call for discussions, despite all indications that the invasion was the result of lenghty premeditation and preparation. No amount of 'discussion' alone, will dissuade such activity, but Obama, and the U.N. are of course free to continue flogging that chestnut. Maybe decades of continued failure will finally yield real results.

How best to counter this growing threat? Drill here. Drill now. Use coal. Use nuclear. Not only will this help to grow our economy and increase our independence on foreign sources of energy, but if done properly, we can export energy ourselves, and allow other nations the right to choose for themselves, or remain dependent on others. Your digital technology will do nothing for you if you can't buy the electricity to run it, and can't afford the latest goodies. As for McCain and the personal computer? I am not aware if he knows how to use one, nor do I care. I don't expect my President to type his own press releases, and if he is surfing the net, then he is likely taking time away from his many duties. Oh, and the tax cuts? Two words: Laffer. Curve. Look it up.

You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.

A serious attempt to deal with these issues? They are nothing of the sort. What they are is a misunderstanding of what the problems are coupled with solutions that have brought nothing but failure where ever they have been tried. The health care system is not broken. Our health care system has produced and continues to produce the most striking innovations in the world, whether it is technological advances allowing for better and earlier diagnosis of conditions, better treatment through pharmaceutical advances, and some of the best practitioners in the business. How is this excellence possible? The free market system. It provides the incentive for all of it. Does this mean that not everyone can afford it? Yes. Is this sad? Certainly. However, when insurance becomes a burden because trial lawyers have convinced juries that mistakes, large and small, entitle the victim to a payday, which the lawyer enjoys to a degree sometimes greater than the vicitm, then the costs rise for everyone. Universal healthcare is not the answer, because cost-benefit analysis serves to deny quality coverage and treatment to even more people, people who might otherwise be allowed to decide that their own money spent on their treatment is more beneficial than being told no, for any variety of reasons.

Oil dependency is not cured by limiting the supply with higher prices. It merely hampers economic growth. It will do more damage to the economy and incomes, but when you are a wealthy politician who has already got your part of the American dream, forcing less on the rest of us with the Politics of Lowered Expectations(TM) is simply implimenting policy. As for climate change, the lies perpetuated by Al Gore as part of his global ponzie scheme continue to unravel with the continuing emergence of inconvenient facts, revealing to more and more people how big a fraud he is, no matter how hard he sticks his fingers in his ears and sings. Finally, the concern over what the world might say about our legacy if we choose not to elect Obama says volumes about your failure to understand what our legacy, and history really is. The greatness of this nation is dependent, at least in part on the fact that we did not seek the the approval of other nations for our action, and we have never looked at them to define us. Do you ask those who do not like you, for what ever reason, to tell you what you're about? This is no different, but should be expected in a country where we mistook form for substance when we bought into the concept of diversity. I only hope we can save ourselves before we commit suicide.

So I Took Heir No. One To The Movies Last Weekend

It was hot outside. Cool in the theatre, and he and I think the Clone Troopers rock like Elvis when he was young and cool.

If you simply take it for what it is, that is to say, a cartoon, it is fun. The guy in the center, he's Captain Rex. I took a real shine to Captain Rex. In addition to being Anakin Skywalker's right hand man, he was a professional through and through. Never whining, never complaining. When the odds were bad, and his troops were getting their asses kicked, he simply manned up, and kept shooting. When Skywalker and his padawan had to bail on him, leaving him out numbered and facing annihilation, his response to the bad news? "I understand sir. The mission comes first." Out-freaking-standing. I made sure the Heir caught that.

The Anointed One and His Has-Been Freinds

The video is much like the campaign lipservice. Take the answers that failed so many times before, dust 'em off, polish them off, and serve 'em up again...much like the 'celebrities' in the video. Tell me again how this helps The Anointed One Himself (TM)?

Weekends with Muzzy, Part 2

Actually, I come here for three reasons:

A) It’s genuinely enlightening to interact with people who hold views so diametrically opposed to my own.
B) It’s the only place I know where I’m guaranteed to get a good argument.
C) I’m secretly in love with B.C.

Well, you would be correct on the second. As to the first, I generally find that "interacting with people who hold views so diametrically opposed to my own", generally leads to the wear of shoe leather as I traverse the pretzel logic path inhabited by those with such views and generally being shouted down in lieu of anything them engaging in anything representing a debate or even 'heated discourse', but not being in Europe, I can concede that leftists there may have a very different playbook than leftists here. As for the third, I could have gone the rest of my life without knowing that. However, I'm sure he'll be...uuumm, flattered.

Also, wouldn’t the equivalent of intellectual vomit be, y’know, actual vomit? That’s a little harsh. I mean, hey, we disagree on a lot of stuff but so far you’ve never made me regurgitate anything more than talking points

What? You regurgitate talking points? No, I have to give you more credit than that, because you frequently expand on them, something the typical leftist is unwilling or incapable of doing. It still doesn't bring you to the point of being right, but let no one say that I do not give credit where credit is due.

They recognized that the STATE could not establish a religion if the grand experiment were to succeed, but there never was an intent exile God or religion from daily social or political discourse.

I agree with this as well. The controversy over “expressions of religion” in public spaces concerns the fact that they can be also interpreted as expressions of governmental preference for one religion, and it’s adherents, over another. People object to the display of religious paraphernalia in public spaces because it suggests state sponsorship of that religion. A Muslim walking into a courthouse only to be confronted with a giant stone carving of the Ten Commandments can reasonably worry that his own religious affiliation may work against him in court. Moreover, he could reasonably object to his tax money being used to promulgate a religion that is not his own. If all faiths were allowed to express their religions in a similar manner, this would be less of a problem. However, that would lead to further problems because, as I said above, one man’s devotional is another man’s blasphemous idol.

There are a few flaws with this argument, the first of which being is that judeo-christian beliefs are the starting point of law in this society, and it is not a secret. Even with that being the case, the law, even with such influences, does not mandate a negative result against any person in court. The ideal is that all men are equal before the law. Sometimes the execution does not achieve this desired result, but it is still superior to the alternative, and having read many, many cases, I am not familiar with any modern ruling by any court in this country where a person subject to its jurisdiction was discriminated against in the result on the basis of their religion alone. Secondly, the argument about having tax dollars supporting the promulgation of religion is an example largely without merit. Many such fixed displays would have been placed in public buildings, especially courthouses, decades ago, at a time when such recognitions of the nation's common heritage and beliefs were not a source of controversy. Being fixed displays, no funds would be expended on keeping them where placed, so the current objector's tax dollars 'promulgated' nothing; in fact, the use of tax dollars to remove such displays, because someone's personal offense trumped the recognition of the role of such things in our history and culture is more of a 'promulgation' of a religion...that of secularism. (Yes, I know you still disagree, and I'll address that further down.)

This holds true within Christianity itself. How would you feel if you found out your tax money was being spent on the construction of dozens of ten foot tall statues of the Virgin Mary, to be placed in front of every high school in your district? How would the Catholics feel if you objected? Allowing free expressions of all religions in public spaces, especially when funded by tax-payers of all faiths, just opens a massive can of worms. Better to just keep those spaces free from expressions of all religion.

Whoa! Commonality FAIL! I know you are well-read, so I'll toss this out there for you. If such a thing were to happen, then you have an example that finally makes sense. However, I do not know of such an event ever coming to pass. Again, when we talk about public displays of Christianity, they usually focus on commonalities, not specifics. The Ten Commandments, a Nativity Scene, or a cross would be common to nearly every sect of Christianity that I am aware of; statues of the Virgin Mary are not.

After all, in a way, this works out better. Have you ever wondered why Christianity has flourished in America but has become stagnant and anaemic in England? It isn’t because of the influx of other faiths. It’s because in England, Christianity actually is the state sponsored religion. In America, competition forced preachers to devise more and more effective ways of disseminating their message in order to build congregations. Essentially, the spread of Christianity became subject to market forces and grew all the more tenacious for it. If Christianity was relieved of the pressure of market forces, it may very well lose its teeth.

Now this is an interesting assertion, and your example conjures a question that has vexed me for some time now. England's state religion is a Christian denomination. The crown, which is still ostensibly the head of state, is charged with being the Defender of the Faith, and yet, you have member of this clergy and of your own government that openly consider allowing people who came to your country, to have their own court system, rooted in religious beliefs not just different but contrary to those of your own state sponsored religion. And then you pass laws regarding "hate speech" which allow these same immigrants to bully and intimidate those who object to the absurdity of such things. I am truly interested in hearing your perspective on this. As for the idea that Christianity's success in the US is due to market forces is interesting, but incomplete.

Historically speaking, churches filled pews on Sunday because the residents of the towns and villages were Christian. And for a long long time, there may have only been one church in smaller communities. Today, yes, there are "mega-churches", where congregations number in the thousands, and such churches may have any number of smaller ministries offering the congregations many different ways to participate and/or get something fulfilling from the experience. However, the faith as a whole in this nation has many small congregations as well, absent of any 'innovative ' methods of disseminating their message; preaching from the pulpit being the same method of doing God's work, as much as it would have been in England prior to the puritans, and the migration of Christians who left for America. So while Christianity has made use of technology, it hasn't changed the message, and as it has always been, people in this country are free to choose from the particular stripe of Christianity that they choose to subscribe to, be it formal and ritualistic, or more informal and free of many rituals, as many mega-churches are. You argue that the success is in the marketing; I submit that it is in the degree of choice to begin with, and the fact that no particular choice among the general category underpinning the legal and moral traditions of the country enjoys an advantage to the the imprimatur of the state.

And the idea that religion has been excluded from daily social and political discourse is frankly ridiculous. America is 93% Christian, 45% Creationist. More people believe in Satan than evolution. You’re a few months away from electing your 44th Christian President, and it is common knowledge that a non-Christian Presidential candidate wouldn’t stand a chance of attaining that particular office. Tens of millions of people make weekly donations to a slew of televangelists. People wear God T-shirts, own God bumper stickers, have God screensavers and read books about God on their lunch break. In some parts of America, you can hardly throw a stone in any direction without hitting a Church. President Bush mentions God every chance he gets. You have God radio stations, God TV channels, Christian retreats, even Christian telephone companies who promise to donate a percentage of their profits to spreading The Word and put a little crucifix on your quarterly bills. All this, to say nothing of the frankly disconcerting role that Christianity plays in determining public policy. It is, for me at least, a small issue, but there is no denying that the laws prohibiting Gay marriage and civil unions are entirely faith based.

Many of the activities you quote here are as much personal acts as they are components of political and social discourse, and in many ways are the expressions left to Christians, who in many ways have been hounded away from so many expressions once so commonplace in this nation by a vocal minority empowered by a silly and excessive interpretation of the establishment clause that propounds a separation of church and state so very extreme that it is doubtful that many daily events would not be recognizable to the Founding Fathers who held "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". At the same time, while a prayer by a valedictorian at commencement, or a prayer at a football game is strictly verboten, schools in California, under the guise of teaching how others live, can require all students to dress like Muslims and pray toward Mecca, without allowing Christians to opt out, imposing a similar object lesson in Christian beliefs. Public invocation of God or Christ by a public official is treated as an opportunity for ridicule and belittlement, as so many on the left have pursued such taunts of W throughout his tenure in office. Belief in the delineation between right and wrong, and the rejection of nuanced, modern viewpoints that exist in contravention to the teachings of traditional Christianity subject the believers to the derision of a Presidential candidate who wants them marginalized as bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles. This same candidate is the darling of those who have constantly and consistently used the second tenant of the faith of secularism, THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED, as grounds to push the exercise or acknowledgment of Christian Faith for forums where it has always dwelled. Having television shows, and radio shows, and bumper stickers is an expression, but it is what Christians are being left with.

Yes, I do have religious objections to gay marriage, but I have non-religious ones as well, that have yet to be suitably answered by the proponents. Primarily, that we are seeing fit to confer a protected status on what amounts to a lifestyle choice, rather than an immutable characteristic, such as race or gender. Yes, I’m familiar with the arguement that gays don’t choose to be that way, but in the absence of any discernable proof, I’m going to decline the opportunity to buy into that particular bill of goods. I can see where that primrose path will lead us, and I’ll leave it for the more nuanced and enlightned peoples of the world to skip along it merrily. When we accept Neal and Bob as husband and husband today on the basis that they can’t help being that way, and that they want to have the same thing everyone else has (although it isn’t the same, because they are different), then it will be harder to deny Neal 20 years from now when he comes to us and says he really likes his German Shepard and wants to marry it, or when Neal’s sister who is 30, wants to marry Steve, who is 12, because hey, they really like each other, and they want what everyone else has. It can’t happen, you say? No one could possibly think that this would be OK, you say? Yeah, that is really only possible when there is a common frame moral reference that is recognized by those who make the laws. As God is continually pushed from the venues where he once dwelled, this common reference continues to fade, and weak arguments based on personal preferences suddenly become justification for conferring rights where none should exist. In the meantime, those who were, at least at one time most deserving of such potections should be the most insulted, but being self-absorbed in protecting the doctrine of diversity, which ensures status to those who might not otherwise attain it if they had to rely on merit alone, they embrace the new ones to the fold, conferring an undeserved legitimacy to their claims.

The Ten Commandments is as much a part of the law of Western Civilization as the Magna Carta or Bill of Rights, because it is a codification of conduct deliniating what society will and will not deem acceptable from its citizens.

I’ve heard this a lot and it always makes me wonder: If you are so supportive of overt displays of the Ten Commandments in schools and courthouses, how enthusiastic would you be to see the Biblically mandated punishments for breaking them displayed in a similar fashion. Do you know, for instance, what God intended to be the punishment for adultery? It just happens to be death. The punishment for working on the Sabbath? Death again. The punishment for smartmouthing one’s parents? Hey, you’re catching on. If the Ten Commandments are as much a part of the law of Western civilisation as the Bill of Rights, surely the punishments ought to be to, right?

I know that this has already been answered to some degree, so I'll keep it brief. The New Testament brought a change to the extremity of punishment as Jesus took the burden of all man's sin as his own. That wouldn't waive the offense, but the punishment has been taken by another. Spiritually saying, this isn't a license to go forth and sin some more, but being imperfect beings, it is the grace of another that grants at least spiritual salvation to all who accept the gift as offered. The catch is that acceptance of the gift charges one with the knowledge of sin and the understanding that doing so again subjects one to the consequences. Some consequences are for the state to impose, some will naturally accrue sooner or later. Its been years since I have read any portion of the Code of Hammurabi, but I'm willing to bet that a careful read would also yield an offense and punishment which some would consider unacceptable, that none would impose in this day and age.

Moreover, I don’t think much of the Ten Commandments as a legal code. They’re deeply flawed and could be improved extremely easily, even by a schmuck like me. This is rather a grand statement, considering that they’re the only thing in the Bible that God felt it necessary to dictate personally, but it’s absolutely true. Consider the second commandment. No graven images? Does that really strike you as the second most important rule available for the successful governing of human social interactions? I submit that we could replace the second commandment with a blanket prohibition against slavery, the third with a categorical injunction against rape, and the fourth with a stinging condemnation of child molestation, and the Ten Commandments would be a far more moral and relevant document than it is now. We’ll deal with the avalanche of social problems caused by the proliferation of graven images as and when they arise.

You are free to think of them however you like; their inclusion in the body of law of western civilization is not a partisan act on my part. Being an officer of the court, I have had occasion to study the works of jurists much smarter than myself, and such a designation is generally considered to be a fact of history.

The Progressive or secular movement in the early twentieth century strove to upend the core beliefs of this society for a variety of reasons, and found many willing acolytes because the idea of a world without God, or his rules freed them from any sense of accountability or shame for going their own way and doing whatever they pleased, even if it was damaging to the society that had been so successful under the rules and mores of God.

I would dispute this, too. Secularism is more about allowing individuals to worship privately than about stamping out God altogether. There have been, believe it or not, numerous occasions when the much vilified ACLU has defended Christians who feel that they have been unfairly persecuted for their religious beliefs. See here for more details. You seem to be conflating secularism with atheism, which is a category error. A true secularist would be just as uncomfortable living in an atheistic society where private religious observance was prohibited, as he would in a theocracy.

We can agree to disagree. Secularism as practiced here is a practice not neutral to other religions, but hostile to them. You can't talk about God, or acknowledge his existence, at least not on the local levels. Even in places where Christianity is common to all residents, groups such as the ACLU see fit to sue to prevent towns from allowing a nativity in the city park, or prayers before sporting events, not even because a non-christian or atheist was present or complained, but to continue to force God out of the public discourse. Some such cases succeed, others do not, but they keep coming, the very potential is wielded like a sword of Damocles, to be dangled about the heads of small town councils as a threat that can bankrupt them, win or lose.

You have stated that secularism is not a religion. I submit to you that secularism is indeed a religion, and the most dangerous one that any society seeking to avoid anarchy can be presented with. Even muslims, who violently react to any perceived slight or disrespect of their beliefs, and are therefore considered backwards savages by most thinking people who long ago learned that violence is one of the last resorts rather than the first, surpass the secularists in terms of preserving a society, because the common core of beliefs remain relatively unchanged, and believers acknowledge an accountablity to something outside of themselves.

Secularism is not, and indeed cannot, be accurately termed a ‘religion’ without robbing the word of all meaning. Secularism has no scriptures, no prophets, and no metaphysical baggage of any sort. How could secularism possibly be a religion in the commonly understood sense of the term?

Piffle. Secularism, like atheism, recognizes no authority other than the primacy of man. Any meaningful recognition of a higher authority must be railed against, because to allow such recognition to stand unmolested might allow the concept of shame (not ostracism imposed on those who run afoul of the doctrine of PC) to be a force in society today, and the "If it feels good, do it" mentality that continues to shape the direction of this country would be seriously called into question, as it should be.

And are you really saying that you would prefer to live in Muslim Iran than secular Finland?

Whether you realize it or not, this is really the nub of the argument. I prefer neither. Unlike Muslims, I have no expectation of moving to a country founded on principals so opposed to those of my own that nearly every aspect of the culture and society is foreign to me, and expect them to conform to my way of doing things. I guess I'm just funny that way. As for secular Finland, if I wanted to live in a mediocracy, I could move to Canada or Europe. The single greatest lie that Western Civilization has bought into is that all cultures are equal. Its why the west in general continues to defer to the offense of the newcomers rather than deftly, but firmly reminding them that the reason they came here is that it is not there, and they can adapt, or they can leave. If we are sufficiently advanced that migrating here is more attractive then living there, then I can only conclude that it is because we do something right. We need to quit apologizing for it and instead expect it to be perpetuated.

Political Correctness is so poisonous to society because it first would take away the ability to engage in honest discourse about matters of import to society. It chills speech. Many find themselves afraid to speak up about pursuits and directions that have no redeeming social values for the very fear that some person or group that voluntarily chooses to identify themselves by a condition, race, ethnicity, or lifestyle choice might be offended and use that offense to squeal, cry, stomp its feet and shout until others come to their aid and sanction the offender for the crime of not recognizing the primacy of that identification and the person’s right to be free from offense, the central right of the church of secular humanism, from which all other doctrines and tenants flow.

I both agree and disagree (how’s that for contrarian ). On the one hand, I do agree that there are people out there whose lives are so empty that they have nothing better to do than amble around looking for things to be offended over. It is also true that, occasionally, this bullshit gets out of hand. Take the immigration issue, for example. This is an issue which should be discussed solely in economic and pragmatic terms. Hurling accusations of racism at those who are opposed to immigration for economic reasons does nothing but widen the divide between those on both sides. Also, I confess I bear a deep emnity toward the term “African American”. It’s a pet peeve of mine. Charlize Theron is as white as a ghost, but being born in Johannesburg, she is technically an “African American”. People shouldn’t be embarrassed to use words like “White” or “Black” when referring to their own ethnicity or that of others.

On the other hand, political correctness has raised awareness of terms and attitudes which are genuinely offensive. It has made people more reluctant to stereotype, and more willing, when considering others, to discount their ethnic baggage and focus on their merits.

I disagree. We have been forced to make the offense the focus rather than the exchange of ideas. We cannot have a discussion on the merits because problems require solutions. When one is entitled to THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED, the problem is always the fact that someone else might want to discuss your behavior and how it might be changed to solve the problem. This is then cause for BEING OFFENDED, and therefore, rather than discussing the problem, your offense becomes the issue. Demonstrated neatly by recent news stories regarding the flap in the city council meeting in Texas where in a discussion about parking tickets disappearing in a city office, a white city councilman mentioned that the office was a "black hole". Invoking the right not to be offended, a black councilman demonstrated that sensitivity trumps intellect and immeadiately responded, yelling "Excuse me??? Excuse me??? You mean a White Hole!!!" No explaination that he was using a scientific term to make a point was acceptable; he had committed the cardinal sin of using a word without permission of the POTENTIALLY OFFENDED CLASS. One example of many that can be used to demonstrate the point. Real conversations grow increadingly difficult in any venue here, and merit is not generally a component of the discussion.

What the nice gentleman in the film was trying to tell those of us who care is that there is still time to reverse this trend before the bloodshed that this trend places us on an inevitable collision course with.

And I’m not saying he didn’t have a point, just that commingling religion and the state is counterproductive.

Missing the point that removing it from where it used to be has had a corrosive effect. If the reason for the law can no longer be discussed, then there is no understanding of why it is the way it is, and there will be no apparent reason for not changing it to suit the whims of who ever wants it changed. Law divorced from reason will become mob rule, and the darkness that rests in the heart of a mob, answerable only to itself, would eclipse all logic or socially desirable result.

And the Neck Bone's Connected to the Head Bone...

I posted this comment this morning at the Rott, in response to the blockquoted comment within, made in response to the same video in the post below this one. For those of you who aren't regulars at the Rott, "Muzzy" is the closest thing the Rott has to a regular troll. His comments originate in the UK, although I don't know what citizenship he holds. I fully expect a vehement response from him in which he will use generalities to marginalize everything said, but his remarks, like so many comments there, helped me to better put into words my thoughts on these matters.

Muzzy,
I have to admit, you are something of a cypher to me. Sometimes, I read your comments, and I conclude that you choose to come here and leave the equivalent of intellectual vomit for the sole purpose of being contrarian, and then you say things like you have today which make me believe that you fundamentally misunderstand so many things about this nation that are necessary components of our historical core beliefs. I’m not surprised about this, and it saddens me to say that many young people in this country no longer understand it either since the teaching of history and government in our schools took a back seat to building esteem and taking over the various parenting roles that the boomers abandoned in their never ending quest for ‘personal fulfillment’.

“Separation of Church and State, yes. Separation of God from public life? Never intended by your Founding Fathers”

Doesn’t the former, rather entail the latter? And what, I wonder, would be this guy’s response to a burgeoning (hypothetical) movement to interpret “God” as “Allah”? It’s easy to advocate tainting the public discourse with religious metaphysics when it’s your God everybody’s talking about. Someone else’s? Not so much.

No, the former does not entail the latter. The nation and its government were established by a people who had attained a certain degree of religious homogeneity, that is to say, were overwhelmingly of a “Christian” extraction, and therefore possessed a common morality and code of conduct, yet many were not so far removed from recent experiences where only a certain stripe of Christianity was considered to be the approved brand by the state in which they dwelled, and the rest were relegated to a status less privileged than the rest. They recognized that the STATE could not establish a religion if the grand experiment were to succeed, but there never was an intent exile God or religion from daily social or political discourse. You are free to dispute this is much as you wish, in fact, I would likely be disappointed if you didn’t. It doesn’t change the facts that are evident for all who read. The founding fathers were “mindful of him” in the texts of the very first documents. Every word was labored over, every phrase is deliberate. No single word was intended to be superfluous or ‘dicta’. The tenants of christianity were understood to be the starting point for the laws that we would all live under, and even those who did not subscribe to christianity itself understood that the intellectual underpinnings of our law were rooted in common judeo-christian beliefs, and accepted this as necessary for the society to function. The Ten Commandments is as much a part of the law of Western Civilization as the Magna Carta or Bill of Rights, because it is a codification of conduct delineating what society will and will not deem acceptable from its citizens. Later waves of immigrants with different religious backgrounds still came, at least implicitly understanding that our society worked and our nation was the destination of choice, because despite varied backgrounds, histories, and beliefs, we had accepted and lived by a common set of principals and morals that allowed predictability, intellectual and societal advancement based on the diligence and intellect of the individual, not a person’s lineage and race.

The Progressive or secular movement in the early twentieth century strove to upend the core beliefs of this society for a variety of reasons, and found many willing acolytes because the idea of a world without God, or his rules freed them from any sense of accountability or shame for going their own way and doing whatever they pleased, even if it was damaging to the society that had been so successful under the rules and mores of God. You have stated that secularism is not a religion. I submit to you that secularism is indeed a religion, and the most dangerous one that any society seeking to avoid anarchy can be presented with. Even muslims, who violently react to any perceived slight or disrespect of their beliefs, and are therefore considered backwards savages by most thinking people who long ago learned that violence is one of the last resorts rather than the first, surpass the secularists in terms of preserving a society, because the common core of beliefs remain relatively unchanged, and believers acknowledge an accountability to something outside of themselves. Secular humanists believe only in the primacy of man, which means that they can only believe in themselves. God is removed as authority, and each Secular acolyte usurps that throne for himself. There is no predicable result and no common belief. There is no anchor for the boat called society; by banishing a common belief in God, that boat is going out to sea on a rising tide.

We have ourselves to blame. This attitude could not have gained the upper hand in today’s society without a generation or two that believed that the desire and pleasure of the individual was more important than discipline, sacrifice, and the preservation of this nation’s finest legacies for the generations coming after them. This dovetailed nicely with “Progressive” agendas, and it allowed for the perversion of the legal and political traditions that had helped this country grow and prosper. Constant legal action and decades of subversion in academia allowed for the transformation of not having a state religion to the vigorous and zealous pursuit of what is still acknowledged to be the dominant religious view in this country from the public and political discourse; the ascendancy of the cult of self allowed made an individual’s desire to reject moral authority more important than the common religous heritage of the nation. And the cult of self busied itself with its own commandments and edicts, many of which are gathered under the diaphanous aegis innocuously titled “Political Correctness”.

Political Correctness is so poisonous to society because it first would take away the ability to engage in honest discourse about matters of import to society. It chills speech. Many find themselves afraid to speak up about pursuits and directions that have no redeeming social values for the very fear that some person or group that voluntarily chooses to identify themselves by a condition, race, ethnicity, or lifestyle choice might be offended and use that offense to squeal, cry, stomp its feet and shout until others come to their aid and sanction the offender for the crime of not recognizing the primacy of that identification and the person’s right to be free from offense, the central right of the church of secular humanism, from which all other doctrines and tenants flow.

As a result, we cannot refer to anything and anyone by commonly understood terms because those people and things did not get to name themselves. This has lead to a condition of low-grade anarchy which continues to this day and is a distraction from any attempt to actually address any matter of national or societal import as we are daily presented with a new list of words that cannot be uttered, or may only tumble from the lips of certain people and are strictly forbidden to be used by others, and only certain people are allowed to determine what words, topics, or opinions are to be allowed. No predictability, other than the secular religious expression of offense, for “crimes” that change daily, and are decided by individuals and not the body politic.

Lincoln was right, a house divided against itself cannot stand. The genius of the American Experiment was neatly summed up in E Purblis Unum. From many, one. By banishing God, and yes Muzzy, I mean the Christian God, as he is common to Western Civilization, and by constant chiseling, his rules, from the public square and public discourse, we have glided to a precipice whereby we now allow newcomers to dictate their rules to us, and 30 years of indoctrination to the tenant of diversity in our schools, colleges, and universities, which by its very nature sanctions continuing to be separate rather than assimilating, we are morphing in to “From Many, Many”, which invites continuing division, mediocrity, and eventually, death as a society. What the nice gentleman in the film was trying to tell those of us who care is that there is still time to reverse this trend before the bloodshed that this trend places us on an inevitable collision course with.

I was right. They are ashamed of us.

Embracing Wrongheadedness

When society's gatekeepers don't just embrace hyphenated Americanism, but jump in with both feet, it is in the interest of everyone who believes in the preservation of the Union to sit up and take interest. Case in point? This gem I received in today's mail from the Washington State Bar Association:

Dear Member:

The Washington State Bar Association would like to take this opportunity to let you know about the opportunities that exist for getting involved with the many Minority Bar Associations in Washington State. Below is a list of minority bar associations, along with a brief description of the organizations' purposes and goals. [Gee, thanks for that.]

We understand that you are busy with your own practice and commitments and would like to assist you in making contact with the minority bar associations. [Ignoring the fact that if was important to me, I was perfectly capable of going to the state bar website and looking the pertinent information all by my lonesome.] To that end, if you would like to make your contact information available to a minority bar association so they may contact you,please complete the enclosed form and return it to the WSBA, and we will provide the bar association(s) you choose with the information on your behalf. We of course also encourage you to contact the various bar associations directly if you prefer.[Of course you do. That's why you sent me this pleasant letter.]

The minority bar associations are an invaluable source of information and opportunity, and we encourage you to become involved. We look forward to hearing from you. [umm, Excuse me, but if they are invaluable sources of information and opportunity, then why aren't they simply the Bar Association as a whole, so we can ALL benefit from them?]

The letter proceeds with a list of each association, and a blurb about them. For the sake of brevity, I'll simply name each one, and only add their blurb if something really made my eyebrows shoot up.

*Asian Bar Association
*Cardozo Society
*GBLT Bar Association of Washington (QLaw)
*Korean American Bar Association [Why the Asian Bar Association wasn't sufficient to meet their needs was not adequately explained.]
*Latina/o Bar Association
*Loren Miller Bar Association-The Loren Miller Bar Association (LMBA) is an affiliate member of the National Bar Association whose purpose is the advancement of the social and economic well-being of its largely African-American membership. [OK. Now I am offended. Really. Unlike many of these others that have stated purposes of addressing the legal issues of their various target member groups, something that still rankles me, but I can understand, they seem to want to segregate social and economic well-being to their own membership? Why can't these benefits be available to all WSBA members?]*Middle Eastern Bar Association
*Mother Attorneys Mentoring Association of Seattle (MAMAS)
*Northwest Indian Bar Association [Now this one actually makes the most sense to me. When they are considered sovereign nations and have their own court system, a separate bar association might not be a bad idea.]
*Pierce County Minority Bar Association
*South Asian Bar Association Of Washington
*Vietnamese American Bar Association of Washington
*Washington Association of Attorneys with Disabilities
*Washington Women Lawyers

You'll notice that there is no bar association for conservative white male lawyers, which I find surprising, because I'm fairly certain we are a minority in this state.
All snark aside, this gets under my skin for a number of reasons.

First, membership in the WSBA is mandatory. I do not get to opt out when they do things I do not agree with, and they have the duty to regulate the legal profession. I pay them annual dues. I submit to their authority. And when they advocate political positions I do not agree with, I can complain, and they will acknowledge my complaint.

Second, I find it hypocritical that I am expected to continue to present the concept of equality under the law to clients and the public at large when our state bar association sanctions the existence of so many subgroups dedicated to the special interests of various minority groups, which I find seem to have goals strangely similar to various political positions advocated by the State Bar in resolutions and articles published in state bar publication.

Third, it is UnAmerican. There. I said it. The genius of America is and always has been the concept of a melting pot. The dream of acceptance and assimilation into mainstream society has been slower to come for some people, and sadly, it required the shedding of blood on several occasions (the Civil War, and the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's come to mind). Many of the most vocal proponents often cite Dr. King's I have a dream speech. And well they should. It plainly stated the optimum aspiration of this nation..."Where a man is not judged by the color of his skin, but the content of his character." So why are many of these groups rooted in the color of skin or national origin? I will concede, grudgingly, that at one time, certain measures such as quotas or affirmative action might have been necessary as a remedial nature, to bring various citizens into roles and places that they and their kin had previously been excluded from. Unfortunately, like so many government mandated entitlements, these have become enshrined in society. The concept of diversity took hold, nurtured by academics and public figures, who could gain a measure of absolution for the failures of the past by stridently insisting that every walk of society must be diverse, and any subgroup or classification that did not meet a certain percentage of minority representation/participation/membership, then it was inherently racist and must have diversity forced upon it, even at the cost of merit. Merit was the engine that drove the excellence that this nation used to exhibit on so many levels. Now the benchmark is not excellence, but the demonstration of diversity. As a result, we are increasingly met with a divisive influence that we continue to foster. Minority groups increasingly betray the ideals and sacrifice that the civil rights pioneers of the 1960s made to become one of the club, so to speak, by now insisting on their own separate groups. When we become a body politic consisting of numerous subgroups laboring to advance their own agendas rather than uniting for the common benefit of all, then we have failed the legacy that so many brilliant and courageous people of all races and genders have labored long and hard to leave us. And the best result that we can agree on is mediocrity, because any aspiration of the whole must take such great care not to prick over-developed sensitivities, finely attuned to the most minimal perceived slight, as an opportunity to wield the club of 'moral outrage' to denounce and punish the alleged offender.

It is the embrace of this hyphenated-Americanism by a professional organization that contributes more to what is wrong with the nation today than what is right. And I fear that soon, I may have to decide if I can continue to support behavior so blatantly against the better interests of my nation and my profession. But for now, I think it is enough to stand up, and call attention to it. If the only responses are yawns, then maybe we really do deserve the state of affairs we currently find ourselves in.

The Myth Of World Opinion and International Law

So I was talking to a grumpy ex-blogger from Texas who I know today, and we were discussing how difficult it seems to be to write these days. I confessed that I have being trying to do a post on the farce of "world opinion" and "international law" for several weeks now. I had great examples, the right amount of snark, and some "Oh yeah..." moments, but I was not happy at all with my results thus far. I think I finally got something that works today in a comment at another site, so I think I will simply expand on and edit those remarks for effect. These remarks were made in relation to the recent Russian attack on Georgia.

Recent events illustrate too well something that I have been thinking for a long time now, which is basically “Screw World Opinion! It means exactly nothing!"

Consider this:

If we had invaded Mexico’s northern states, in retaliation for their clear provocation in sending paramilitaries into our territory to shoot and murder our citizens, duel with law enforcement, and conduct an ongoing invasion for the specific purpose of returning our states back to their control by default, “world leaders”, including the Useless Nitwits and Moscow would be in front of cameras 30 seconds later bitching about our aggressive stance and belligerent behavior. Every turd world nation would be expressing its outrage and burning Bush in effigy by nightfall. Our ‘allies’ in Europe would be wagging their fingers at us by day two and “condemning US activities in the strongest terms”, and by day three, the usual suspects in our own ‘entertainment community’ would be blathering into the nearest microphone about how ashamed they are to be Americans, how the President’s actions are shameful, and how we are killing the innocent brown people, etc.

The silence from Europe is deafening. The former satellite nations are not going to speak up for fear of becoming the next target, and as long as Putin has Europe by the gas tank, the only action we can rely on will be some lukewarm lip service.

There are two standards for international conduct. The one we are held to, and the one the rest of the world has to live by. When we act on resolutions from "World Bodies", such as the Useless Nitwits, we are "acting without authority" and "conducting illegal wars". When the Russians invade a sovereign neighbor with premeditation on the basis of coming to the aid of a breakaway state, the crickets chirp, and the world shrugs its collective shoulders, even though Russia seemed to believe it had the right to use force against its own breakaway state of Chechnya. I guess what's good for the big bear is not so good for the little bears. No matter. Double standards are the order of the day, and I am tired of it. I am willing to utterly marginalize and ostracize those within our borders who are too eager to buy into and advocate this fractured world view at every turn, by pretending to think deep thoughts and demonstrate their wondrous lack of understanding of how the real world, not Celebrityland(TM) works, by pissing all over the country that made their incredible wealth and insulated lifestyles, not to mention their inflated egos, possible.

Either we start doing what is in our best interest without regard to the chastisement of the nuanced, enlightened America-Lasters, or we may as well lay down and die now, because it is suicide to let others continue to call the tune.

Next time you have a bad day at the office, remember it could be worse...

H/T Brendan at The Rott

I have had this song playing all day in my head...

And if you go there, then you have to go here, too.

???

I know. I haven't posted lately. Actually had too many irritations to blog about, and more than enough work to do.

Examples:

The Chi-Com Olympics Coming-Out Party
Planned Parenthood's websegments "Taking Care Down There", discussing all sorts of sexual topics with teenagers ( in a sometimes creepy fashion ).
The election cycle
John Edwards screwing around on his sick wife
The Russian-Georgian conflict.

The fact of the matter is that with an absence of real leadership and a country that traded its will for self-indulgence, I really think things are gonna have to get a whole lot worse before they will get better.

The Chinese will score a huge propaganda coup with the Olympics.

Planned Parenthood will continue to promote sex so it can kill children.

We still won't have a top-drawer choice for President.

Edwards will get a very public rehabilitation and still be rich and famous.

The Russians, emboldened by the world's unwillingness to do anything, will continue to gobble up other nations, until one of Europe's Old Guard strays on to the Bear's dinner plate, and then there will be a mess...three guesses who will have to expend blood and treasure to set that right.

It is a bad time to be a conservative. It would be easier to be surprised by all of this.

And Now, Something for the Lefties...

H/T to Nice Deb

Happy Friday

Today is a two-fer. I used to love the show Twin Peaks, and here you get Lara Flynn Boyle and Sherlynn Fenn from that time period. Yum. Oh, and I suppose James Marshall should be considered a gift to the female readers. Enjoy.

A Funny For Friday

NOT SAFE FOR WORK!

H/T Muslihoon *rubs eyes in disbelief* via the Hostages

More Blog Housekeepery

First, Innocent Bystanders. The branch from which The Hostages are fruit. I think.

Second, Nice Deb, who is a Hostage, but I think she is also a Bystander. Think of good political stuff without the nastiness of some other sites...hence the name. Nice Deb.

Because Mrs. BiW Asked Me To...

Watch, scroll down to the discussion of arrogance below, andthen watch again. tell your freinds. Anyone voting for this clownshoe is a prime candidate for a brainectomy. They obviously aren't using theirs anyway.

Once Again, The Anointed One Himself(TM) Opens Mouth And Inserts Foot.

“America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.”

Easiest question he could get asked, and he can't get through the damn sentence without "Uhhh" twice! And the answer itself? Is this the best he can do? I know! He was just thinking how sad that the girl's parents were "punished" with a "typical white baby". And he is a serious candidate. God help us all.

More Housekeepingery

Time to fiddle with the blog roll again...and will probably have some more additions in a few days.

First, Dick's Better Half. Yes, Kelly has returned to the world of blogging. If she can convince the grumpy old man she married to do it also, my morning reading would be decidedly more fun.

Second, FAILblog. I don't care who you are, most of the postings here are laugh out loud funny.

Third, Darth Scoundrel. A fellow LC and IB in the Rottie Empire, and an interesting read, which is more than I can say for my own work most of the time.

Stop by and check 'em out. I find them to be worthwhile.

Finally, with sadness, I delink The Barista. T, if you read this, drop me an email or give me a call to let me know that you didn't drop off the face of the planet.

Lefty Hyperbole Reaches New Heights

Yeah, I had to watch it twice, before I finally decided that they were serious. Using former child actors to make your...*snort*...p...*guffaw*...Point...bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Sorry, I couldn't type it without laughing. Anyway, when you use former child actors to give voice to your silliness, and they portray inanition in such a serious way, well, we can hardly be held accountable for taking it as satire, now then can we?

I have to give the left some credit, however they finally moved beyond this:


(Sorry, I can't even watch this any longer...a scowling, mouthy kid in a hoodie taking me to task for not abandoning my way of life and buying into the myth of global warming only raises my blood pressure and tempts me to take this presumptuous little twerp over my knee and give him something to scowl about.)

...and decided to make me laugh instead. If I live to be 100, I doubt I will ever understand what it is they think being serious confers the status of being right upon them.

H/T Anna

More Fun and Games with My Favorite Obama Apologist

Once again, I have to ring the bell, because school is back in session for DJ due to his mind-numbing defense of Obama at the Rott.

The thread was about Obama's less than sly implication that anyone who doesn't vote for him is just a dirty racist. My first comment was:

I don’t hate him because he’s, you know, Blackeautiful(tm). I hate him because he is an arrogant, self-inflated, sub-retarded mouthpiece for all the factions on the Left who hate this country, and who will not stop until they have their way and you hate it too.

I am more qualified then this this strutting, messianic popinjay…but then I have had a real job for a much longer…

Of course, Deej felt compelled to respond:

Dammit… I shouldn’t have looked. Now I have to respond to:

BisW @ 24:

I hate him because he is an arrogant, self-inflated, sub-retarded mouthpiece for all the factions on the Left who hate this country, and who will not stop until they have their way and you hate it too. [Emphasis mine]

I notice the word of the day is “Arrogant“. Maybe you should read what John Ridley had to say about it.

Okay NOW I am done. Gotta drive to Portland in six hours.

Which compelled me to respond as follows:

Crimney Jicket, Deej. All the postings that actually deserved a response from you, and this is what you choose to comment on???

I read the link. I can’t speak for Karl. There are too many moonbats being perpetually jerked around like puppets on strings by his EVIL ROVIAN MINDCONTROL RAYS ™ who are more than happy to presume to speak for him, and provide comic relief in doing so.

However, I found the article predictable. A criticism, one justified by observable behavior and words tumbling from the lips of the Anointed One Himself(TM) is automatically equated with racism (and yes, that is a fair conclusion when it is one of the tags that that the guy put on the article by Mr. Ridley himself). And oh yeah, I have to accept that this very different of the word than that I intended, simply because that is the perception by a person of color? Two words: PISS.OFF.

You see Deej, I make my living with words. I get paid to be precise, and I always endeavor to use the right word to convey the meaning or gist of the idea I am trying to express, because words have meaning and names have power. An imprecise word, one that is close, but not quite right, can keep you from swaying a jury, or allow an alternate interpretation of a contract, which might mean that even though my client is right, they lose.

I think that “Arrogant” is fairly descriptive. But don’t take my word for it. There is a reason we have dictionaries.

from the Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language:

ar-ro-gant (ae’e gent), adj. 1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearing; assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.
2. characterized or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.
-syn. 1. presumptuous, haughty, imperious, brazen. See proud. -ant. 1. meek. 2. modest, humble.

In this instance, I have to ask, how do you refer to a first-term junior senator who has barely worked at a real job, but has written two books, (one about himself), who, before he even has his party’s nomination, let alone the Presidency, attempts to speak at a venue made famous for speeches of incredible political significance by two Presidents of enormous stature[making pretensions to superior importance certainly comes to mind]? Who is constantly talking down to the same people who would be his constituency, telling them everything they can’t do or expect for themselves because we didn’t get the world’s permission to act that way or to have those things[overbearing and brazen-check]? And who puts his wife on the campaign trail to stump for him, but gets outraged and declares her immune from criticism for the things she says when she is taken to task for it[imperious seems to get it done]?

Arrogant, as is defined by the Dictionary, and not by a columnist clearly toting a chip on his shoulder, is the exact word.

Surprisingly, the same word seems to be appropriate for Mr. Ridley, keeping in mind the assumption he makes about the meaning of the word when it is applied Mr. Obama. Funny how that works.

You may wonder about this response. I’ll keep the explanation simple. I refuse to let leftist malcontents and the perpetually outraged keep trying to redefine words the words we use so they no longer have the meanings that they have been given, simply because they understand that by controlling the meaning of words, they control the dialogue. Not here. Not on my watch. Mr. Obama’s entire candidacy is a national tragedy. Instead of being offered a candidate of extraordinary character, wisdom, experience, and judgment, the Democrats will select a very young, very inexperienced, very clueless individual, who wouldn’t even be a blip on the radar if he were a white man. A candidate who knows how to invoke race guilt in people silly enough to believe that they should suffer from it, all the while implying racism leveled against him. The very picture of a dangerous man.

Yeah, I know it isn't something specifically written for here, but frankly, it needs to be said and bears repeating. So sue me.