Saturday, April 30, 2005

Brave New World or Nightmare of the Future?

RightWingNuthouse has a very thoughtful and incisive article on the ethics of human and animal cross-genetics, especially as it relates to the "harvesting" of organs for transplants. Definitely worth a read.

A Question fer The Masses

If the Founding Fathers very deliberately (and wisely) did not set up a theocracy here when they had the chance, why the sudden shrill rhetoric suggesting that's what the evil reactionary bible-thumpers Republicans are trying to do now?

Another thought:

If, according to the Loonie Left, appointing Judges who profess a Christian morality is tatamount to establishing a theocracy, and this is being opposed as a "very bad thing," then by this standard, does it follow that anyone of devout Christian faith is therefore ineligible for a seat on The Bench?

Here's the dictionary definition of "theocracy":
theocracy
n 1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided) 2: the belief in government by divine guidance
So then, is it the position of the current critics of the Republicans' theocratic opposition to the filibuster, that by allowing these judges' nominations to go through unfettered we will empanel judges who make decisions solely on the basis of their personal ideology, without regard for the rule of law or the will of the people? That some voice from on high will lead them to set aside the laws they are entrusted to enforce?

So, what do we call it when a Judge in San Fransisco authorizes gay marriages in direct contravention to a state referendum whereby the "will of the people" resounding opposed such marriages? And who has yet to be impeached for it? Where does that fit into the liberal & Democrat outrage over Republican "tactics?"

If the liberals do it, it's "enlightened" and "progressive." If conservatives do it, it's "reactionary" and "theocratic."

It's all about the hypocrisy, baby.

Friday, April 29, 2005

The THIRD Funniest Damn Thing I've Ever Read

"Steve, Don't Eat It! Vol. 1" Here's a teaser:
For all those times I wondered what it would be like to gnaw on my grandmother's thigh, I was about to find out.

You gotta check this out. I give it two "BWAAHAA's" up.

h/t to Two Dogs (Mean Ol' Meany) for the link.

UPDATE:

I just finished reading more of the posts. It is without a doubt, the FIRST AND THE LAST, The Alpha and Omega of Funniest Damn Things I've Ever Read. Hall of Fame kind of stuff.

Which gives you a disturbing insight into my sense of humor.

Thursday, April 28, 2005

A gentle fisking

I originally posted this in the comments section of my Rambling Flotsam and Jetsam post, wherein I had asked for some concrete evidence of the Bible-thumpin' Right's attempt to turn this country into a Christian theocracy by stacking the judiciary with rabid evangelicals hell-bent on rewriting every law on the books to conform to their own funamentalist ways.
Kel was nice enough to post several links. Unfortunately, they are mostly to The Nation, the Washington Post, and Maureen Dowd, whom I take about as seriously as Ann Coulter.

Anyway. Having finally coaxed kel into posting on my site, kind of like nursing a shy mole out of its burrow with bread crumbs, I don't want to turn around and whack 'er on the nose with the garden rake. So, I'm going to try to avoid any hint of shrillness or rabid incoherence. I hope.

So here goes.
--------------------
Here's a comment from Jesse Jackson:
Will it remain a country where the freedom to practice religion is protected by law -- a law enforced by an independent judiciary?*
Is this the same independent judiciary that is requiring states to remove religious phrases from their state seals, upholds ACLU lawsuits against schools that provide rooms for after-school bible studies, and supports hate-crimes legislation for Christians who oppose homosexuality or abortions?

I guess my question is this: If it is a "right-wing assault on the courts" to nominate judges with more conservative tendencies, what was it then when Clinton nominated a slue of judges with a liberal bent? Was that a "left-wing assault on the courts?"
The lies are compounded by the arrogance of their claim to be vessels of God's will.*
Who is claiming this? Come on. One direct quote, that's is all I ask.
Religious groups and Democrats said Frist should have played no role in the heavily promoted broadcast which they say inappropriately brought religion into a political debate. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York said the move, "Clearly argues that people of one viewpoint have God on their side and all others are faithless."*
The point I keep trying to make is that you can't paint yourself as defenders of religious freedom by opposing nominees because you don't agree with their personal beliefs! The Democrat Filibusterers are the ones making this a religious issue.

A judge's job is to make rulings in accordance with the actually existing law, not his or her personal opinions, faith-based or otherwise, as to what the law should be.*
You mean like Roe v. Wade? Someone site for me the "law" that supports that decision.

That Mohler believes that his faith is the true path to redemption is unexceptional. That he believes that any effort to stop judges who want to turn their faith into the law of the land is discriminatory and should be rectified by eliminating procedural restraints is exceptional.*
So, by implication, a Christian judge is not only incapable of being objective, but will without restraint and with great abandon seek to radically alter existing laws and judicial precendent based solely on his faith? Whereas an atheist judge would not. Got it. Should we maybe take a look at the last few rulings of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

Nearly half of Republicans surveyed in the poll were against any rule changes*
"Nearly half" is also "less than half," depending on how you chose to word it. That's called a "leading statistic," which is used farther down in the article to show how Bush is failing in the polls. Nope. No bias there. Also, here's an indepth analysis of the referenced polling sample on PowerLine.

And the way to do so is by reaching out to the rational Republicans in the Senate*
As opposed to the irrational ones?

And in my opinion, you don't do yourself any favors linking to Dowd. Her articles are usually rambling, misdirected screeds.

"...his [Bolton's] raging-bull temperament.."*
You mean when he put his hands on his hips and spoke sternly? Whew! What a firecracker!

"Who doesn't want to see Old Yeller chasing the Syrian ambassador down the hall, throwing a stapler at his head and biting at his ankles?"*
That is Dowd's definition of reasoned discourse.

"...after they torqued up intelligence to fit the White House's theological beliefs."*
Oh for the love of...
"'He (Bolton) spoke of the U.N. as being the enemy,' Vreeland added"*
And the problem is what? By what I've read, Vreeland MIGHT be qualified to speak, although he only served as ambassador for one year. Kind of unusual. Someone needs to be asking why Vreeland was only on the job for one year, and now, strangely enough, serves as Chairman of the Board for the "leading supplier of solar energy" in the country to which he was ambassor. Additionally, Vreelands "expertise" on the matter stems from working with Bolton 14 years ago. How does that speak to his CURRENT fitness for the job?

Anyway. The gist of this whole thing is that this is an ideological conflict between the agenda the Demos want to impose, and that which the Repubs are trying to maintain. This is not about the sanctity of the filibuster process, etc. The Democrats aren't opposing these nominees simply because they are influenced by their ideology, but because they are influenced by the "wrong" ideology, which the Dems KNOW stands a good change of coming into direct conflict with the humanist, progressive-socialist bill of goods(ideology) they are trying to peddle.

Can't have that. Then they might actually be called upon to justify some of the wacked out social programs they've managed to get on the books through their OWN judicial activism.

[/fisk]

UPDATE:
Darth Misha over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler has a great post that says the same thing, only different. Great read.

And it couldn't happen to a nicer guy

Supremacist and Church Bomber Stoner Dies
Unrepentant White Supremacist J.B. Stoner Dies at 81; Was Convicted of 1958 Church Bombing

And he died of pneumonia, drowning in his own phlegm. YES!

I know I'm not supposed to rejoice in the suffering of others, but some people just make it so EASY.

Good riddance.

Abortion Rights Apparently Trump State Law

Teen's abortion dispute draws new lines in life debate

This article handily sideseteps the numerous studies which discuss the emotional trauma children this age experience by HAVING an abortion. Living every day of their life from 13 onwards with the knowledge, somewhere buried down inside, that you had a child you'll never know. The physical aspects are damaging as well. There are studies showing a convincing link between early abortions and breast and uterine cancer. And not one world, not a single syllable about the miserable son-of-a-bitch that got a 13-year old girl pregnant.

Just ramblings on and on about how preventing her from having an abortion is cruel and inhumane, "because every day is another day of emotional torment for this child...", and "It is unspeakable cruelty to force a 13-year-old to carry a pregnancy to term".

What about the unspeakable cruelty of getting a 13-yr-old pregnant? That is not only statutory rape, but borders on child abuse and peodophilia! 13-yr old is in sixth or seventh grade!

To forestall any shrill how-dare-I-tell-a-woman-what-to-do-with-her-body-rants, first off, this is not a woman. Society has determined that a child of 13 cannot drive a car, vote, or have a job other than babysitting without violating child labor laws. Children of this age cannot see certain kinds of movies, ie- PG-13 ratings.

And yet, we are to believe that they can make an informed, "adult" decision about destroying the life within them. Huh.

And this of course, is the capper of all time:

DCF spokeswoman Marilyn Munoz said a state statute prohibits the department from consenting to an abortion for a minor in state care.

But that rule cannot trump the girl's constitutional right to decide to terminate her pregnancy, according to child advocates and the girl's attorneys.

I think my head just exploded.

Soooo, once again, the, uhm "rules" (such a nasty, divisive word, isn't it?) can be set aside if we, well, feel like it? If we feel really strongly that she should get to have an abortion, then we don't need to abide by state law, right?

So, if I feel really strongly that I want to have sex with a 13-year old, then I bet a "by" on the whole statutory rape thing, right? If I feel really strongly that I want my neighbor's TV set, then I should just help myself, right?

And I just have to double-highlight this phrase:

"girl's constitutional right to decide to terminate her pregnancy"
WHICH "RIGHT" WAS THAT AGAIN? Which article is that in!?! I'm must have missed that the last 13 or 14 times I read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For those who are confused on this issue, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION. Anywhere. In the Constitution. At all. Period.

As a final caveat, let me just add that I don't know the right answer here. I don't know the story behind how she got pregnant. I know this is not an easy situation, and abortion may seem like the only answer. But it's not.

As a ward of the state, she has access to state-funded medical care that could safely carry her through delivery. And her child could then be given up for adoption via the very same system that, uhm, "cares" for her. (This is "state care?") There are options.

And let me reiterate. Based solely on what you read in the article, WHAT THE CHILD'S "ADVOCATES" ARE TRYING TO DO IS ILLEGAL UNDER STATE LAW. Florida's parental consent law (or lack of one) does not apply in this situation, since the child is a ward of the state, and under state law, the State, as guardian, cannot authrize an abortion. Case closed. Thank you. Have a nice day.

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Hitting the big time

Awesome! Everytime I check my webpage, I notice that there's another hit on my web counter. Woo-hoo!

UPDATE:

I begin to think the subtle humor of this post might be too, well, subtle for some of you.

Think about it, I check my page, one more hit, wonder where that hit came from...

Damn, I hate having to explain stuff like this.

Well, if finally happened.

I either have to start buying bigger pants, or start drinking lite beer.



Damnit.

Air America - The "People's Radio". No {snicker} really. We mean it.

Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing mouthpiece for the conservative agenda. Got it. Check. Roger.

So when Rhandi Rhodes suggests shooting the President over his Social Security plans, does that make her a "mouthpiece" for the liberal agenda?

Extremist Conservatives: Divisive and Hateful

Extremist Liberals: A voice for tolerance and understanding, except of course for the whole, "let's shoot the President" thing.

That sounds like a job for:

"You Might Be a Liberal Loonie IF:"

You think jokes about putting four rounds into the Presdient of the United States are "funny."

UPDATE:

Well, by my earlier definition, apparently Rhandi isn't a Liberal Loonie, because she now admits her skit "wasn't funny." She's also apparently "Really SorryTM."

I guess staring down the barrel of 18 months in the pokey for communicating a threat against the President tends to dry up the dripping sarcasm a bit.

{As a caveat to this update, if ever there were a Loonie Liberal, Rhodes certainly fits the bill}.

Feminism Joke

I posted this over at Brenda's blog, and decided it was just so damn witty and charming, that I had to post it here, too.

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Right! Like I’m going to penetrate the sacred vaginal orifice of the light socket with that degenerate phallic representation of male domination. Oh Suuuure. You’d just love for me to “screw” that lightbulb in, wouldn’t you? That’s all women are to you, right? Just receptacles for your oppressive male “light bulb.” Me, I’m goint to light a candle. Setting fire to the tip of the phallic obelisk fills me with such empowerment!

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Rambling flotsam and jetsam

I was listening to NPR (that's Nationlistica Peoplizas Radiosco or "Radio of the New People's Revolutionary Front") this morning, and apparently the Democrats who are filibustering Pres. Bush's nominees are heroic defenders of liberty and judicial process, and the Republicans seeking to end the endless filibusters are neo-totalitarian fascists seeking to usurp the process of checks and balances to promote their own ideological agenda.

Got it.

Nevermind that the primary reasons for Dem's opposition to the nominations are ideological. They feel that Bush's choices are "too conservative" and so will not represent the "will of the nation." They have, as yet, failed to provide any actual evidence of this, however.

And they oppose Bolton's nomination to the U.N. because, apparently, "he's kind of testy at times." That's right. We want a milquetoast wet noodle as our ambassador to the UN, one who will quietly knuckle under to anything the U.N. throws at us. No agenda there at all.
-------
According to one liberal commentator, speaking with great bile about the stealing of the political process by right-wing fundies, :
"invoking Christianity as an instrument to advance a political agenda or to vanquish a political opponent is divisive, demagogic and beyond the pale in American politics."
Okay, so then what is blocking a judicial nominee because of his or religious background?
----
I also find it interesting how in many editorials and news articles, authors throw in the "born again" catch phrase when describing Christian conservatives. As in "Born-Again Christian Conservatives {eat puppies, hate gays, want a theocracy, whatever}..."

As opposed to what? The non-born-again Christians? Is "born again" supposed to invoke images of greater fundamentalism than your average "cultural Christian," who is a "christian" because they go to church two or three times a year?
Are we then led to believe that the cultural christians are more amenable to liberal causes, whereas the "born-again" kind with an actual personal conversion experience are more apt to adhere to Biblical fundamentals?

I guess I can live with that.

Sunday, April 24, 2005

If this doesn't touch your heart, you don't have one.

Abortion staff ignores baby boy born alive? (www.WorldNetDaily.com)

At first glance, I'd say this was some sort of urban legend, since it sounds so utterly, appallingly ridiculous on any number of levels.

I consider WorldNetDaily a pretty reputable source, although they've been taken for a ride before.

If true, it kind of puts the lie to the idea that legal abortions save women from back alley hack-jobs. This was in a supposedly "reputable" clinic, and yet it sounds like some sort of vile assembly line.

I also find it nearly incomprehensible that the staff there have so completely divorced themselves from their humanity as to treat the woman and her mass of tissue baby that way. In all fairness to objectivity, I have to consider that some of her narrative is likely colored by post-abortion remorse/guilt, and making the staff out to be heartless monsters is a way to mitigate some of your own inner angst.

Still, if even half of what she said is true...

You might be a Liberal IF:

In the vein of Jeff Foxworthy's classic works of scial commentary which usually begin with the now-common-vernacular of "If you've ever ... {{insert unfortunate social mannerism here}}..., then you might be a Redneck," I intend to begin my own series entitled, "You might be a Liberal Loonie IF:"

And with that, let us plunge ever so deeply into the waiting receptacle of Liberal idiocy:

You Might Be A Liberal Loonie IF:"

- You believe that global warming will be responsible for ushering in the next ice age.

- You praise 30 million abortions since 1973 as a victory for a woman's right to choose, and in the next breath wonder why it doesn't seem like there are enough 20-30 year old wage earners paying into Social Security to keep it solvent?

- You believe that embracing diversity means keeping your opinions to yourself.

- You believe that a hetrosexual Christian Federal Judge can't be objective when adjudicating social issues, but a homosexual atheist Federal Judge is beyond reproach.

- You strongly suspect that high-ranking Jews are involved in a Vast Zionist ConspiracyTM to control the governments of the world, but you've got a real hard time accepting that the Valiant Palestinian Freedom Fighters of HamasTM might be tied into a globabl inter-network of terrorists organizations.

ACLU Defending "Free" Speech again...sort of.

"T-shirt forces dress code change.
ACLU aids school senior's free speech
"

One wonders what the outcome would have been had the young man's shirt said "Adam & Eve, Not Adam & Steve"?

Isn't that slogan divisive and insensitive? Ahhh, but it's okay to bash white, hetro, Republicans. Got it.

Friday, April 22, 2005

Things I hate (lemming style)

Well, since Ace (language warning) and Carin have both validated the Leftwingers' and MSMs' assertions about Bloggers being all hateful and divisive, and, since I don't have an original thought in my head (likely never have), I thought that I, too, would launch into a rambling, vitriolic screed about The Five Things I Hate, because, well, I'm a lemming:

  1. Whale Tails. You know what they are. That ridiculous "fashion" trend that has rhinestone encrusted ass décolletage staring you in the face like prettied-up plumber's crack every time you turn around. As an unfortunate side-effect of the "pants-which-don't-actually-reach-my-hip-bones," more and more young women seem to find it necessary to advertise why kind of underwear they have on. Ooohh-aaah. Folks, there's sexy, alluring, risque', and then there's just plain trashy. I call this redneck fashion. It's like girls' answer to the boxer short as an accessory item that has so many of our young men looking like they wandered off the little yellow bus and can't dress themselves without proper adult supervision. I'm all for a flash of lace here and there, but if you're showing your hygiene habits every time you bend over, it's time to rethink your wardrobe.
  2. The F-bomb, B-52 style. In the general trend towards the loss of civility in our culture, there has been an unfortunate embracing of the guttural thrill of tossing off the F-word like it was another form of punctuation. Now, I understand that there are certain stylistic uses for the word, and that sometimes there just doesn't seem to be a better, more effective way to make your point that a well-timed expletive. Heck, I'm no virgin when it comes to lobbing the ol' F-grenade out there ever now and then myself. But I tuned into the HBO series "Deadwood" the other night, and lasted about 5 minutes. I'm all for "sylistic renderings of the genre," but this was just mind-numbing. A nearly unbroken string of profanity, scattalogical references, and every other kinds of gutter filth pouring from the characters' mouths to the point where I figured it was some sort of documentary on Tourrette's Syndrome in the old west.
    This unfortunate trend also has hit the blogs, as well. I'm all for editorial license and sylistic freedom, and yes, I'm always free to "change the channel," but I guess I don't understand the need for an otherwise erudite and cogent author to resort to Eminem and Tupak-esque gutter street-lingo. If you can't make your point without resorting to the F-bomb every third word, then you probably need to find a new line of work.
  3. Door Dings. What do I really need to say here? A door ding says one thing, and one thing only: "I'M TOO DAMN LAZY, RUDE, AND INCONSIDERATE TO OPEN MY DOOR SLOWLY ENOUGH TO MISS THE SIDE OF YOUR CAR. I'M CLEARLY IN A HURRY, SO WHY SHOULD I CARE ABOUT YOU!"
    "And, when I DO crease your friggin' door, sharing some paint in the process, heaven forbid I put a note on your windshield with the name of my insurance company so you can arrange to fix the $300 F**'in dollars worth of damage I just did to your door panel."
    There is a special place in Hell for serial door dingers.
  4. The Cell Phone Bubble. It's that magical "cone of silence" which some cell-phone users seem to think surrounds them the moment they hit "send" on their cell phones. You know who you are. No topic is taboo, no subject too personal, no revelation too shocking to be discussed in the middle of Starbucks while waiting for your skinny half-calf with an extra shot of chai. I've listened to a lesbian discuss how she just didn't "feel in love" with her current partner, all while I'm in the middle of my breakfast at Denny's. One can only assume she was setting up the next lucky "gal" in line. Like I care either way, but thanks for sharing the intimate details of your personal life with me, a total stranger.
    It just amazes me how some people can tune out the rest of the world, and assume the world is doing the same for them. Hey. Get a clue. WE CAN STILL HEARRRRR YOOOOUUUU.
  5. And this last one may sound a little, well, pissy, but one of my top five "Things I Hatetm" is: Guys Who Don't Lift The F**king Toilet Seat!"
    Now, let me state up front that I'm a guy. But, like many guys, I do occasionally need to sit down on a toilet rather than just play target practice with the cigarette butts in the urinal. Let me just say what a god-awful infuriating urge-to-tear-someone's-effin'-throat-out kind of experience it is to rush in pinching back the worst kind of cramp-inducing major BM, only to be faced with quite the little piddle pattern all over the damn toilet seat. Ladies, on this one, I feel your pain.
    Guys, come one. Work with me here. Step up to the plate, be a man, and if you ain't gonna be sitting down, LIFT THE DAMN SEAT! You may think that your aim "is just that good," but you and I both know that little Mr. Winky sometimes has ideas of his own, and all that urinical discharge doesn't always go exactly where we want it to, yes?
    Sure, you may say, "Eww, I ain't touching that thing. Guys have had their hairy butts all over it." While true, there is a little thing to your left, yes, there, on the wall, about waist height. It's called a TP dispenser. Pull off a few sheets and use them as a "glove" to protect your widdle fingery wingeries as you lift the seat. There, isn't that better?
Now that I have shared the depths of my angst, I'm sure there will be a sweeping groundswell of change as illumination bursts upon the formerly clueless individuals guilty of the aforementioned crimes against humanity. No, really, I can see it happening. Any second now...any second....

Hmmm. "Survivor" must be on or something.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

This just in - Ghandi may very well have been a Hindu

Hot on the heals of the shocking revelation that the newly chosen head of the Catholic Church is, well Catholic, muckracking investigative media watchdogs have uncovered a string of what appear to be related instances of religous nepotism among spiritual leaders.

"This clearly smacks of conspiracy, I must say," opinied New York Times reporter Ima Haque. "If not a full blown conspiracy, then at least something disturbingly suggestive of a 'good ol' boy network' among past and present religious leaders. One can only imagine how far back this trend reaches!"

After an exhaustive search of ancient manuscripts, religious writings, census records, and back copies of Ms. Magazine, it has been revealed that not only is the Pope Catholic, but Joseph Smith was almost certainly "a Mormon," Mahatma Ghadi was in most people's estimation a "Hindu," and Ariel Sharon is, by most accounts, "probably Jewish." Also considered to be incontrovertible fact is the Prophet Mohammed's place as "The Revered Father of Most Holy Islam, Allah Be Praised!"

Other investigative journalists from such stalwart presses as the Washington Post, Slate magazine, and The Nation have postulated that further research will reveal that Hitler was German, Emperor Hirohito was "probably a Jap," and that a large percentage of African's brought to American during the slave years were "predominantly black."

The jury is still out as to whether Sen. Jim Jeffords is a Republican or a Democrat.

More as this story develops...

The SECOND funniest damn thing I've ever read

Bush Raped Andrea Dworkin. Make sure to click on the "More" link as well.

It's one of those that will have your co-workers looking at you funny, due to the strangled, choked-back giggles as you try to hide the fact that you are reading a hilarious blog posting rather than working on the funding proposal that was due yesterday.

Blame Bush! has thus earned itself a much-coveted though seldom-achieved spot on my blog roll, or as I like to call it, the Partisan Walk of Fame.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

MSM Beside Itself About the Pope

Ace of Spades has a great blarticle on the MSM's frothing, slavering, chest-beating dismay at the selection of a {{shocked gasps, swooning, etc}} "fundamentalist" Pope. Holy Frickin' Shiite, the man apparently actually believes in the Canons of his own faith. Madness!

Somehow, all this nonplussedness doesn't surprise me. The act of actually taking a position, and remaining true to a foundational set of beliefs, does seem to be incomprehensible to your average progressive. "He's {{stutter, choke}} exclusionary, a reactionary throwback {{arms flail, pulling hair, gnashing of teeth}} stuck in an archaic adherence to {{drool, slobber, twitch}} Dark Age witch hunts and inquisitions. And if he doesn't embrace diversity, we'll...we'll...we'll hold our breath till we pass out!"

Bring it.

Ace says it better than I, well, okay, maybe as good as, well, okay, a close second, to what I would say, so I'll save myself the Papal Tunnel syndrome and just link to him. A good read.

As I'm not Catholic, the selection of the Pope interests me about as much as who will get voted off the island this week on "Survivor"; i.e. - I could really care less, since I don't watch Survivor, either. However, as a Christian I find it deeply affirming that the head of perhaps the single most influential Christian body on the face of the planet has, it would appear, a firm devotion to the fundamentals of holy Scripture. It will be interesting to see what he does with this stewardship over the coming years.

Update:

Lileks has another great description of why the widespread shock and dismay among the Loonie Left at the new Pope's "conservative tendencies" is a great deal of misplaced angst.

One might as well expect Betty Frieden to strap on an apron and start whippin' up cookies for the Beav's next PTA bake sale, as expect the Pope to suddenly authorize gay marriages, man-boy love, and abortions for all by holy writ.

Come on folks. I realize that you're liberals and all, but TRY and infuse a little rationality into your frenzied desk-pounding. You'd think Bush got elected over Kerry, or something...

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Virgin Mary sighting in Water Stain

As your average, run-o-the-mill Protestant, I guess I've never really understod the fervor some people put into devotion towards Mary, the mother of Jesus. I don't even get calling her the Virgin Mary, since, well, by all accounts, she isn't a virgin anymore.

Let me state up front that I consider myself a devout Christian, so please don't think I'm being flippant here, but what's the big deal? Mary wasn't divine. She was chosen, and honored above all women, but she wasn't Divinity, right?

So when people flock to see a water stain on an overpass which may or may not bear an interesting resemblance towards someone who might be construed to be a woman of middle-eastern descent in an attitude of prayer, and get all breathless about it, I'm a little stumped.

Jesus Christ himself is our intercessor. The curtain of the tabernacle was torn from top to bottom that we might all enter into the presence of God. Why, then, do I need to seek the intercession of Mary, or any of the other Saints, if I can talk directly with God himself?

And another thing. Why the devotional frenzy over condensation on windows, discolored paint, cinnamon rolls that look like Mother Thereasa, french toast with the face of Jesus, or whatever? Our God is the God of wonder and majesty, of pillars of fire, and parting the Reed sea. Plagues and locusts and spinning entire universes together out of nothing. I guess I figure if God is gonna send a sign, it's probably going to be something more like feeding 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes, not a paint spill on my driveway that looks somewhat sorta-kinda maybe like the Virgin herself.

Seek the Giver, not the gift. A pre-occupation with imagery, icons, and totems seems to be to be an opening for idolotry and spiritual deception, if one is not very careful.

Monday, April 18, 2005

Things You Wish You Didn't Know

I just checked online, and apparently, there are four Level I (the lowest level) registered sex offenders within a half mile of my house.

Is it just me, or is that a disturbingly high percentage for such a small area?

Level I offenders are not considered a threat, and are not expected to re-offend, but still!

Lock yer doors and windows, boys and girls.

A point of clarification

Illegal Aliens do not have Constitutional Rights, as they are not citizens.
Illegal Aliens are not "entitled" to any public benefits, as they are not citizens.
Illegal Aliens are not merely "undocumented immigrants" as they have not immigrated, so naturally, there will not be any documentation. They infiltrated.
Illegal Aliens are, by definition, criminals as they have have entered this country, what's the word...ILLEGALLY.


Any questions? Good. Didn't think so.

The funniest damn thing I've ever read.

Red pills found behind the sofa cushion.


But then, I have a wacked sense of humor.

Thanks to Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom.

Sunday, April 17, 2005

CBS Hiring Terrorists - Making Bombs, Making News

A snippet at the very end of a CNN article on the death of an anti-war humanitarian activist had this to say:
The U.S. military reported Saturday that a CBS News stringer detained after a gunbattle between U.S. forces and insurgents this month "tested positive for explosive residue." "Multinational forces continue to investigate potential collaboration between the stringer and terrorists, and allegations the stringer had knowledge of future terrorist attacks," said Sgt. John Franzen of Task Force Freedom in Mosul.
It seems this particular photographer somehow "just happened to be" in a perfect position to take live-action, pulitzer-winning-type photos of four different car-bomb attacks...as they occurred. No tired old pictures of the aftermath for him. Real-time fireball kind of stuff.

Hmm. Funny that. Given how fast these things happen, it's is truly strange that he was already there, a safe distance away, but close enough for a great shot, with the camera aimed and focused at the precise location of the detonation. Hmmm. Or, as CNN puts it:
All had been shot in a manner that suggested the cameraman had prior knowledge of the attacks and had scouted a shooting location in sight of the target.
Oh, and as mentioned above, he had explosive residue on his hands. Hmmm.

How is it that a credentialed CBS stringer gets caught with explosives on his hands after successfully filming four separate attacks, and there is no, what's the word, OUTRAGE? Doesn't this make the whole Dan Rather/Forged Documents thing seem a tad inconsequential by comparison.

CBS uses a credentialed journalist who supports the insurgent cause against American and freedom...and then fires him after a scandal over forged documents and hires another one in Iraq.

Will wonders never cease?

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Creative Taxation 101

The "public servants" in our government have stumbled on yet another way to increase the tax burden of the American People.

Reaching back to an archaic and twice repealed statute created in, wait for it, 1898 to tax phone calls, the Usurous Pussbags in the IRS (and Treasury Department) now want to begin taxing every internet connection.

So, instead of turning off the 2 Billion dollar annual payments to Israel and Egypt, instead of cutting back on the funding for the National Endowment for the ProfaneArts, instead of spending their time working to institute some sound fiscal accountability on a bureacracy run amok, this den of thieves want to stick it to Joseph Q. Tachspaeyer once again.

Come to think of it, have you every actually looked at the fine print on your phone bill? The reason it costs the better part of $45 a month just to own a land line is due to all the taxes and fees. Between that and the $0.30 a gallon you already pay in taxes on gas, one really has to wonder where the HELL all the money is going?

Considering the state of our roads, it ain't being used to fill potholes. The IRS is NOT your friend. But you knew that.

Kudos to Sen. George Allen for his efforts to squash this end-run tax hike. Hero of the Week. Shockingly, a Democrat (Sen. Ron Wyden) is backing the bill, too. Maybe there is hope for the Dems yet.

The IRS has about outlived its usefulness. Tea. Harbor. 'Nuf said.

Saturday, April 09, 2005

This just in...

In a clear condemnation of Pres. Bush's failed policies in Iraq, a large crowd of protestors marked the anniversary of the fall of Baghdad to coalition forces by voicing their concerns openly in public, even to the point of directly questioning the policies of the governing authorities.

No tanks crushed anyone. No Republican Guard forces executed anyone. No shots were fired by military forces. No one was killed or assaulted by jack-booted thugs. No arrests were made. Protesters' families were not rounded up, their houses searched, and property confiscated because of their statements. Apparently the only deaths resulted from attacks by other "Iraqis" by those who would like to see such open displays of opinion and activism curtailed (that would be the "insurgents.")

The oppressive occupying usurpers (US military forces) watched from a distance. Well-trained and equipped (by the US) Iraqi police forces searched arriving protestors for weapons, and then let them go on their way.

They were protesting. Openly. Against authority. They had grievances. They shared them. They acted out in emotional, yet non-destructive ways. They did so feeling safe from retribution.

Where I come from, we call that, "Freedom."