Bomb Throwing Pacifist

If you took that happy, smiling guy from the box of Quaker Oats, handed him a bottle of gin and a rifle, and pissed him off to a point where he decided he wasn't going to take it anymore, you'd get a little something like this.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Play somethin' about Zion, Sam. I need some bud.

After our regular week-long hiatus, we are now back to regular posting and have something especially juice to share with you all. Normall I don't spend too too much time poking about WorldNetDaily as it really just isn't worth my time (too much mundane, boring, semi-sane stuff to bother with), but today they feature a particularly hilarious column about how you can be anti-Israeli and not anti-Semitic...sort of. Yeah, I was just kidding too.

Explaining Jews, Part 7: Why anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism

By: Dennis Prager

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Imagine someone saying that he seeks the destruction of Italy because he regards Italian national identity as racist. Further, imagine that this person constantly denies being anti-Italian, because he does not hate all Italians, only Italy and all those who believe Italy should exist.

So in other words those still living in the pre-1870 world. Or Sicilian separatist groups. Or Sardinian separatist groups. Or that crazy Northern League. In any case, as you can clearly see, such ideas are preposterous. (Note to author: next time, pick a better example for when you make your strawman).

Now substitute "Jewish" for "Italian" and "Israel" for "Italy" and you understand the absurdity of the argument that one can be anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish.

Sigh. See above. In the meantime, I think I'll do something more productive with my time. Like maybe pick my nose or something.

Among the many lies that permeate the modern world, none is greater – or easier to refute – than the claim that Zionism is not an integral part of Judaism or the claim that anti-Zionism is unrelated to anti-Semitism.

Well, I don’t know about that. After all, one would think that some of the easier lies to refute in this modern world would be the doozies about Saddam having WMD. Or Saddam being behind 9/11. Or that no one could have anticipated the levees breaching. Or- oh, why do I even bother. It’s too easy. Professor. Teufelhosen Kertoffelfopf, department chair of Mad Science and Political Theory at MIT chimes in with his analysis:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

If only zere vas a vay to tap into zis stupidity. Ve vould have a veapon of almost limitless destruktif capabilities! Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...meing gott...ha

Thank, Prof. On with the show!

To understand why, it is first necessary to explain Zionism and anti-Zionism.
Preferrably using English words of only one syllable. Because you know, like, looking in a dictionary or an encyclopedia might cause you to stray off-message and perhaps draw your own conclusions. Plus, you might learn something, and we don’t want you to skip out on the next 37 installments of my serial.

A modern secular movement called Zionism was founded in the 19th century, but the belief that Jews belong in Zion (the biblical term for Jerusalem) is as old as the Jewish people. See Part 1 of this series, "Explaining Jews," for a discussion of why Jews are a people and not only a religion.
Ok kids. Although there was a historical, secular, non-religious movement starting in the 19th century which agitated for a Jewish homeland within the British Empire (specifically in Palestine), the idea that Jews deserve their own home goes back thousands of years. As a side note, guess which one is responsible for the creation of the state of Israel in 1947? (I’ll give you a hint. None of the MPs debating the idea of a Jewish homeland had the name Moses ben Pharaoh).

Starting in 586 B.C., with the destruction of the first Jewish state, Jews were already Zionists in that they fervently prayed to return to Zion.
Likewise, Americans traveling overseas are known as Yanks, no matter where they may actually be from. So suck it, Toby Keith, you Yankee bastard!

While the movement known by the specific name "Zionism" is modern, the movement of Jews returning to Zion is more than 2,500 years old. That is why the claim that Zionism – the return of the Jewish people to Zion – is not part of Judaism is a theological and historical lie.
I think I understand what Prager is trying to say. Basically, the problem is this: Israel is a modern country that was created by a diktat of the United Kingdom and the U.N. However, we need to find a way to equate the modern state of Israel with all those old stories about desert tribesmen trying to follow their prophets to their mythical Holy land. So how do we resolve this discrepancy? Listen closely because if you blink, you might just miss it-or at least recognize just how retaradilicious this entire premise is (it's synapse-lickin' good!).

Although the movement which essentially created the modern state of Israel was secular and only goes back about 125 years, the fact that Israel now exists does not change the fact that the idea that Jews belong in Jerusalem is very old. As such, which the two movements are very different from each other, they both kinda had the same goals, and as such are more or less inseparable. Got it.
Judaism has always consisted of three components: God, Torah and Israel, roughly translated as faith, practice and peoplehood. And this Jewish people was conceived of as living in the Jewish country called Israel.
Or alternatively, God, holy texts, and worshippers. Now while this God did supposedly relate to his worshippers through prophets, this is primarily recorded in these holy texts. In these pages, we can see references to God making Abraham’s descendants as numerous as the stars and promising them a land flowing with milk and honey. It should however, be noted, that “this Jewish people” were conceived of living in a land where the Lord led them for his own reasons. As such, claiming that the modern nation of Israel has a divine mandate based off of biblical pretexts is somewhat absurd. After all, if “Israel” means “peoplehood” as your superpose, then the area in which they are a people is somewhat irrelevant except in terms of historical sentimentality. After all, God could command through the prophets to abandon Palestine and migrate to Australian outback en masse. They would not be leaving Israel behind, but would be setting up Israel in its new location, no?

Granted, all this above logic is based on the presupposition that there really was a God and he really did choose a people and that he really did lead them to a specific land for them to call home and gave them an infinite, divinely-stamped mandate over it. Because despite the undeniable existence of a greater Jewish people and the sense of a Jewish diaspora, if this whole notion is built on the creation myths of an ancient, desert-dwelling tribe of sheperds, well now you do have yourself quite the geopolitical conundrum now, don’t you?

One can argue that the modern state of Israel was founded at the expense of Arabs living in the geographic area known as Palestine (there was never a country or a nation called Palestine); but that in no way negates the indisputable fact that Zionism is an integral part of Judaism.
I think what he’s trying to say here is that even though a lot of Arabs got screwed over when Israel was founded, it’s ok because there was no ancient land called Palestine, and as such it must have been a pretty shitty place to begin with, so presumably the Arabs living there wouldn’t have minded.

On another note, there actually WAS an ancient land called Palestine. For you see, the name Palestine comes from the word Phillistine, who were the ancient inhabitants of the near east and the Land that was to become Israel. You know? The same people who along with the Canaanites, Arameans, and other related peoples were kinda living in the holy land when the Israelites showed up with the Ark and decided that this was where their God wanted them to settle. So likewise, just as lots of Arabs got screwed when Israel was established in 1947, a lot of ancient peoples got screwed in the 1100s AD when the Holy Land became holy. Just the same though, that doesn’t change the fact that this is an integral part of Judaism and if you criticize it, you’re and anti-semite.

Nor does the fact that some Jews who have abandoned Judaism are opposed to Zionism, nor that a tiny sect of ultra-Orthodox Jews (Neturei Karta) believe that only the Messiah can found a Jewish state in Israel.
When anti-Israel Muslim students demonstrate on campus chanting, "Yes to Judaism, no to Zionism," they are inventing a new Judaism out of their hatred for Israel. It would be as if anti-Muslims marched around chanting, "Yes to Allah, no to the Quran." Just as Allah, Muhammad and the Quran are inextricable components of Islam, so God, Torah and Israel are of Judaism.
In other words, while they are showing that they bear no animosity towards the Jewish faith and people, those anti-Zionist protestors are trying to separate the modern state of Israel from the ancient biblical concept of Israel and in so doing trying to criticize the country without criticizing it’s inhabitants. And damn it, that’s Prager’s job!

But, one might argue, even if Zionism is as much a part of Judaism as any other part of the Hebrew Bible, the modern Jewish state of Israel has no right to exist because it displaced many indigenous Arabs, known later as Palestinians.
Well, I do believe that most people would support the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East, but only if it did things like retreat to its 1947 borders, stop forcibly evicting Palestinians and colonizing Palestinian land, and recognized that the territory it acquired in 1948 and 1968 through military force does not rightfully belong to it.

Before responding to this, it is crucial to understand that this argument – that Israel's founding was illegitimate – is completely unrelated to anti-Zionism. An intellectually honest person who believes Israel's founding is illegitimate would still have to acknowledge that Zionism is an inseparable part of Judaism.
Well, if by Zionism you mean the sense of a greater Jewish people, nation, and identity, then yes. However, if by Zionism you mean the armed annexation and colonization of any area originally considered part of the Biblical Israel with no regards for the rights or feelings of the people living there…

But the argument that Israel is illegitimate because its founding led to 600,000 to 700,000 Arab refugees is as anti-Jewish as is anti-Zionism. Virtually every country in the world was founded by displacing some of the people who had lived there, and many of those countries did far worse to far more people than Israel did. Therefore, anyone who calls only for Israel's destruction had better explain why, of all the states on earth whose founding was accompanied by the displacement of others, only the Jewish state is illegitimate.
In other words, the Arabs should quit bitching about losing their homes, families, and loved ones as the result of a unilaterally imposed decision by foreign powers. After all, at least they should be happy that more of them weren’t killed in the process. I mean, do you have any idea how much of a bloodbath it takes to start a country these days? Honestly. If the Palestinians want their own damn country, then they’re going to have to stop bellyaching about being oppressed and retake their homes by force. After all, that’s how every other nation is built and if the Israelis can’t handle the fact that longing for a Palestinian homeland is an integral part of Palestinianism and the Free-Palestine movement and keep critising the actions of people for whom Palestine is an integral part of their identity, well then they’re being…oh…wait…I see where this is going.

Take Pakistan, for example. Unlike the Jewish state of Israel, which had existed twice before in history, there was never a country called Pakistan, nor was there ever any other independent Muslim country in the part of India that was carved out to create Pakistan.
Technically, you are correct, Mr. Prager. However, it should be noted that Pakistan is an acronym for Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Balochistan, the traditional muslim regions of the area which was annexed by the British and later called “India.” However, being forced to correct your basic historical incompetence is becoming tiring. Screw up one more time, and I’m afraid I will have to crown you with the Helmet of Stupidity, lest other wingnuts drift towards your siren song of teh stoopid and find themselves crushed on the rocks of reality below.

Moreover, if the Jewish state of Israel is illegitimate because it created 700,000 Arab refugees, why isn't the Muslim state of Pakistan, which created more than 8 million Hindu refugees, illegitimate?
Oops. Too late. Even as we speak, millions of members of the Pakistani diaspora are percolating towards their promised land from all corners of the globe and, backed with a nearly limitless arsenal of weapons and bottomless pits of cash from sympathetic western countries are returning home. “Never again shall Karachi fall” is their battle cry.

However, once again, Mr. Prager has made a stoopid. Instead of using the much more apt and historically appropriate reference to Kashmir (a majority-muslim area ruled by the Indian military and a continual flashpoint of potential nuclear confrontation), he had to go the 1940 Lahore Resolution “Two Nation” route. No one argues that Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh should ever be united into one country again (and seeing how India was essentially a colonial construct, this is for the better). However, what people DO argue about is whether Kashmir should be part of India, Pakistan, China, or its own country. Likewise, very few sane people argue with the notion of whether or not Israel should exist. However, what they DO argue about is wether its really ok for Israel to have gobbled up the 1947-mandated, U.N.-approved Palestine and then gone out of its way to reabsorb these lands into part of a great nation-state. Tricky, tricky. In any case, here is your helm, my leige. Wear it with pride!

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

dur, dur dur dur durrr....

The answer is obvious. When people isolate the one Jewish state in the world for sanctions, opprobrium and delegitimizing, they are doing so because it is the Jewish state. And that, quite simply, is why anti-Zionism is simply another form of Jew-hatred.

Which is of course totally different from when a white cop is caught beating the crap out of a minority suspect and then is accused of being a racist. Not only is he not being a racist (after all, he probably had a good reason for kicking the crap out of his suspect), but you’re being a reverse-racist jerk for assuming that he is a racist just because he’s a white guy beating down a non-white prisoner. So shut up, ya racist jerk!

You can criticize Israel all you want. That does not make you an anti-Semite. But if you are an anti-Zionist or advocate the destruction of the Jewish state, then let's be clear: You are an enemy of the Jews and of Judaism, and the word for such a person is anti-Semite.

You can criticize Israel all you want without being anti-Semitic. That is your right. But you have to understand that the nation of Israel is divinely mandated and a central part of the Jewish faith. Therefore, if you criticize Israel as a concept, or anything it does in the name of a greater Jewish hegemony, or say things along the lines of “well maybe they shouldn’t really have dropped those bombs and killed all those civilians in their attempts to get the bad guys,” then you are criticizing the Jewish right to self-defense, and therefore existence and therefore calling for the destruction of Israel. And therefore you, sir, are an anti-Semite. I rest my case.

Marc with a C, 4:14 PM | link | 1 comments |

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

How to be a conservative in a few easy steps

Today you get a column from RenewAmerica. I was going to find one from Townhall, but they were all boring and tended to focus on the same themes we've heard a million times before out of that fever swamp: Liberals want to get rid of God, Liberals and Gays are going to force you to get a gay marriage, Liberals and immigrants want to force you to speak Spanish, Liberals have no agenda, Liberals will make us lose the war in Iraq (even though it's actually going, like, totally great) and Liberals either will not take control of the house in '06 (and that's a good thing) or will take control of the house in '06 (and that's a good thing).

While it will be interesting to see how these various issues play out in the long run, I have at some point or other happily devoured, chewed up, and spat out examples of each and every one of these columns at some point or other and as such am just not in the mood to refute another round of GOP talking points. As such, today I have decided that we will crawl deep down into the bile black gullet of the Republican corpus and see what it is that really drives them to such a frenzy over such important issues as wether some liberal professor at some campus somewhere said something they might not like, and if in fact there is a chance that deep down in thier own subconcious and repressed sexuality that they might actually be gay. As such courtesy of, we bring you Robert Meyer in a little number we like to call...

Why I'm a conservative

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

The question of why someone should be a Conservative, is one that may be addressed in differing ways. Much is made out of the traditional dictionary definitions of what constitutes a Liberal or Conservative, but these types of discussions tend to obfuscate the real issue in dispute.

And besides, the way the dictionary phrased it, it made it sound like us conservative types were all a bunch of low-tax loving, minority-baiting, bible-thumping, yokels who only care about money, the upper classes, and racial majorities. And that is just plain offensive. Furthermore, I would like to point out, sir, that I for one am no Yokel.

So much of the current loathing over conservatives, is based on an entirely specious foundation as to what being conservative is all about. It might be better to start this discussion by defining just what conservatism is not.

So hopefully, by the time I have finished describing all that is well, good, and righteous in the world, there will be plenty of good words left to describe us. I suggest you start with the Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Beirce and Dante's Inferno.

First of all, a Conservative is not one who lacks compassion. A conservative sees compassion as doing what is in the best interest of the individual or corporate body at large, over the long haul.

After all, the last seven letters of the words compassion are "p-a-s-s-i-o-n," and if there's one thing we conservatives are, it's passionate. We're passionate about a whole range of things, such as lowering taxes, scrapping environmental regulations, slapping heavy fines on recreational and non-reproductive sex, and sticking American flags and yellow ribbons on our SUVs.

We know that if you give a man a fish he has food for a day, but teaching him how to fish, gives him food for a life time. Both teaching and giving have implications on what true compassion really is about. One who gives, but never instructs, fosters an ugly sort of dependence, which leaves the recipient in the lurch once the giving ends. The teacher, on the other hand, leaves a lasting empowerment and inspiration with his/her charges. Which then is greater compassion long term?

Because if you just give someone a life jacket or inflatable rubber raft when they fall overboard, all you're going them is making them dependant upon you for their own survival. No, if you teach them to swim, not only do you no longer have to go through the hassle of swooping to the rescue and wasting a perfectly good (and expensive!) life preserver on some bum, but the fact that he can doggy paddle means that he will have at least a few minutes to make his final peace with God before he drowns.

A Conservative believes that the best charity is a boost to someone who eventually won't need that help, but that out of gratefulness, will render the same help to someone in his former position. A conservative doesn't see charity as a life-long dependency on government agencies, or a new program from a politician who is investing in his perpetual incumbency — he instead calls this a condition of bondage.

No. The best kind of charity is the kind in which you teach that unfortunate person how to make something of themselves, training them, and giving them the ambition necessary to live the American dream; preferrably by offering them a position working 12 hour days 6 days a week on a benefits-free employment plan at your enterprise. That way, if they ever forget their gratitude to you and start agitating for a raise or basic human rights, you can fire their asses and no longer waste your time on the lazy puke.

A Conservative is not opposed to all taxation, but rather sees taxes as a necessary evil, and therefore wants to encourage only the level of taxation that will support the necessities of limited civil government. Tax policy shouldn't be used as a means to punish economic social classes that have benefitted from the America Dream[...]

Presumably the same American Dream in which you are born into a position of wealth and privilege, get a job at your family's multi-million dollar company earning big bucks to do nothing, and then inhereting the whole shebang on the death of your dad, all the while extolling the benefits of working hard and rising on your own merits (while at the same time pushing for tax breaks and special privileges that will help ensure your family's permanent place in the landed aristocracy of this supposed meritocratic utopia).

Economic egalitarianism is an evil that creates more unfairness and disparity than it corrects. Some level of poverty will be with us always, and not everyone will achieve the same results, nor should we expect it to be so. Needs ought to be met through personal philanthropy and a conscience of obligation toward one's fellow man, but not through state coercion.

Some people will always be poor. In some cases there will exist an economic model in which a tiny percentage at the top of society control the vast majority of a society's resources and power. Believe it or not, there are some crazy radicals out there who maintain that this is actually a bad thing and hurts society as a whole. While I applaud the individual works of charity and philanthropic acts embraced by my upper-class bretheren, I wish them to know that I continue to stand resolutely by their side against all enemies- especially those who would engage in such revolting and discriminatory practices such as taxing rich people more heavily than the rest of society in order to ensure that all people have access to the basic necessities of life.

Conservatives aren't moral relativists. They find such a system of belief is self-contradictory. They thus believe in a transcendent truth and moral absolutes.

Which is why we believe that killing is always wrong and as such are completely opposed to abortion, war and the death penalty. This is also why we loathe armed conflict and the cynical, casual ways in which other nations use wars to advance their own geopolitical agenda. Except when a situation arises in which it is necessary to deny communism a safe haven in southeast Asia and spread democracy in the middle east.

Conservatives aren't Neanderthals caught up in the past. They simply understand that approval of immorality isn't tantamount to being "progressive." Progress in technology doesn't impact the principles that are at the foundations of traditional mores.

In fact by challenging long-established mores, norms, and values and by debating and engaging the status quo, progressives prove that THEY are the real neanderthals, determined to impose their weird ideas of equality on us.

Conservatives do not revel in state hegemony, or believe government has all the answers, or that they should do everything. The government has a limited function to provide national defense, law enforcement, and enhance "general welfare" (not hand-outs, but universal rather than specific welfare).

In fact, most recently, the "general welfare" of society has best been enhanced when the government has stopped trying to engage in specific welfare like universal healthcare coverage, regulating environmental waste, protecting endangered species, maintaining parks and national preserves, trying to find a cure for a host of various diseases, and has instead focused on more useful, generally beneficial programs such as cutting the tax burden of big corporations, allowing companies to relocate jobs overseas, and spending so many of those precious, precious tax dollars on bigg and better guns.

Conservatives generally don't see religious faith as a sham to control people, nor do they think that man created God, but rather that he is sovereign. They don't try to claim, that God, out of necessity, is on their side. They pray for the wisdom, understanding and humility to be on God's side — for God has preferences in the conduct of human affairs.

Because when you get right down to it, all you need to do if you want to find out which side God is on is get on the phone with Tel Aviv and ask the Knesset what's on their agenda for theupcoming year. That and take careful note of when and where God chooses to manifest His terrible vengeance (all those bible-belt tornadoes, forest fires and hurricanes be damned...we're looking at YOU, Dover, PA! God's gonna get you for thta evolution ruling!).

These are some of the reasons why I'm a Conservative.

You're a cold, bitter, angry old fool who has never gotten over the fact that people you disapprove of (Gays, Lesbians, minorities, poor people, non-Christians, immigrants, foreigners) are now not only tolerated, but acutally enjoy a fairly high profile, a fair amount of political clout, and seem to be getting some traction . Thanks for clearing that up. Till next time!

Marc with a C, 1:35 PM | link | 0 comments |

Friday, May 19, 2006

Who'd have thunk it?

A few weeks back I came across an article in the French magazine "L'expresse," which my family reads in order to keep up our language skillz. The article caught my eye because it concerned a topic I am keenly interested in: that of religion in France. The article was about a group calling itself "The Legionnaires of Christ," an uber-conservative Catholic reactionary group founded in 1949 by a right-wing Mexican priest. It was very interesting as not only did the article provide a lot of interesting information on this group, but served to hilight a shadowy, rarely-exposed aspect of the Catholic church: specifically, the emergence of ultra-rightist groups similar to those which permeated the Church in the late 1800's and in such places as Fascist Spain and 1930s Ireland.

Part of the problem with such right-wing groups isn't so much the fact that they exist in the first place. After all, the world is home to all sorts of kooky, wacky groups such as the United Nuwabian Nation of Moors, Heaven's Gate, the Aryan Nations, the World Chruch of the Creator, the Branch Dividians, and so on. And I for one take freedom of religion and freedome of speech very seriously, irregardless of a group or individual's beliefs. As such, if the Nuwabians choose to believe that their leader is a member of a space-faring Afro-Egyptian extraterrestrial civilization or if the Aryan Nations spend their time talking about the great upcoming race war, that is none of my business, provided no laws are violated (such as civil rights violations, stockpiling illegal weaponry, and group member abuse). It may be boorish, uncivilized and downright barbaric to talk about the extermination of a various group of people based on their religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or beliefs, but such speech is protected and rightly so.

However, while these views are repugnant and horrific, it can come as at least a small comfort to the world at large that these are tiny splinter groups whose views are wacky and rightfully deserving of condemnation. The problem is that these rather odd views are not confined to minority factions and splinter groups. All too often in these modern times various aspects of a particular religion have been used to justify all manner of abuses, yet the proximity of such groups to a well-respected and large group have served to insulate them from risk.

After all, it's one thing to call a random group of UFO worshipers wierdos, but its much harder to do so with Mormon splinter groups who are still into the whole Polygamy thing. I for one do, however, take it personally. No matter how quickly and easily dismissed these groups (such as the Legionnaires of Christ) may be, let us never forget one crucial fact: were it not for the secularist reforms of the renaissance and the enlightenment (and for that matter the early modern period), these are the same people who would be torturing and burning in the name of their God. Don't let the fact that they have no real legal power over you obscure that little factoid right there, boys and girls. If they had their way, canon law would still be legall binding and you would be burned for lapses of orthodoxy. Sleep tight kids.

And on another note...from

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) -- The Vatican said Friday it had disciplined the Mexican founder of an influential Catholic religious order who has been accused of sexual abuse, instructing him to retire to a life of "prayer and penitence."

Maciel, who lives in Mexico, has been accused by some former seminarians of sexual abuses dating back to the 1940s and 1950s, when they were boys as young as 10.

Too bad he didn't have to face any real consequences for his actions. Like going to prison, say 50 or 60 years ago. But hey, that's about par for course.
Marc with a C, 3:29 PM | link | 0 comments |

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Back to the Grind

So it's been a while since we last strapped on our thigh-high rubber boots, slid on our air filters, checked our vacination charts and stepped into the foetid swamp that is the world of wingnut column destruction. The time off has done me some good and as such I finally feel well enough to tackle this one again. In all honesty, this is not a new new Renew America column, as current carbon dating places it as having been born on or about May 5th, 2006 (so in blogospheric terms we should probably be giving the Smithsonia a buzz and asking them to send over a crack team of expert paleontologists, stat). However, an opportunity to watch a morbidly obese, 60-something winger dissect the horror that is planned parenting was just too good to pass up. And so, without further ado, we bring you

Rely on normal people, not experts
by Jim Sedlack

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

And that, my friends, is the new face of terror. He is about to give you all a lecture on the evils of sexual education and planned parenthood. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I was giving a talk in Rapid City, South Dakota the other night. During the talk, I asked the audience to take a look at a book that I carry around with me. The book is being pushed for use by children age 10 and up.

The O'Reilly Factor for Kids: A Survival Guide for America's Families? I'm not sure about the marketing age, but that sounds about right.

As people thumbed through the book, the reaction was the same as I had received at numerous talks over the last 10 years. There were gasps of disbelief. There were some who quickly put the book down in disgust. And others who couldn't believe that anyone would think the book would be distributed to teens, much less 10-year-olds.

Hmm...I don't know about you, but I'm still thinking the O'Reilly factor for kids. If anything, the shocked reactions and horrified disbelief of the audience reinforces that impression. I'd hate to see Bill O'Reilly demonstrate the more "outside the box" approach to using a falafel and a loofah to anyone, much less a 10 year old.

We've found that the gut reaction of regular people is one of the best ways to determine if something is worthwhile or just trash.

Damn. It's just that- damn...And I thought that I was such a good judge of cultural taste myself. Now it's all clear: I will never be a successful cultural critic in this country. I'd apologize, but what can I say really? I stopped watching Wrestlemania on the teevee back in the early 1990s. If only I'd paid more attention to the tastes and whims of regular people instead of wasting all that dough (in Euros, no less) on the complete works of W. A. Mozart.

In community after community across the country the reaction to this particular book has been universal. Normal people hate it. Normal people can't believe anyone would give this book to a child. Normal people want to walk away from it.

Normal people wonder with trepidation if they can find the book on and order a copy for themselves so they can fully absorb the brand of smutty, smutty filth being marketed at kids nowadays. That and to better understand why their significant other has been developing all those weird lesions on their genetalia of late.

One police officer in one community even commented to me, "You know, if I found you down at the park showing this book to 10-year-old children, I would probably arrest you. The least I would do is to make sure you didn't have any access to the children while I was there."

Um dude, I hate to break it to you, but if I was a cop and saw Jim Sedlack talking to kids in a park, I would probably arrest him too. I mean, no offense, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if an elderly white male is busy showing a book about sex to 10-year-old strangers in the park, odds are heavily stacked against him being a child welfare officer conducting a training exercise with his undercover agents. Not to mention that Jim Sedlack has that creepy sort of pedophile vibe about him. I mean, just look at that quirkly little smirk on his face. That's a pedosmile if I've ever seen one.

That's how horrible this book is. Normal people just know that.

Everyone knows that — everyone except the "experts." We seem to have become a nation of so-called experts. Before we do anything we want to know what the experts think about it. Even if something is blatantly outrageous, when we are told the "experts" believe it is great, we slink back into our holes and let the experts have free reign.

Those damn expert elitists! Just who the hell do they think they are? Coming around and lending their "expertise" in areas in which they are supposedly "experts." Damn it, this is America, and if I want to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world in seven 24-hour days just like my holy book says, well then I will. I don't need no stinking experts coming around with their elitists facts and figures and trying to impose their cold scientific will on me. I mean, is that really what the founding fathers would have wanted when they built this nation? I didn't think so!

Nowhere, it seems, do we do this more than when it comes to our children. Somehow many parents have been convinced that they are not smart enough to raise their children. So, if the school says such-and-such is okay, we believe the school. If psychologists say that children need freedom to do this or detailed education on that, we go along. Surely, we exclaim, the experts know what they are doing!

Well, guess what. We should trust the natural instincts of a parent trying to do the best for her children over any so-called expert.

In some places in the animal (and human) kingdom, parents crush their young and then devour them. Now while we can assure you that any child crushing and consumption on the part of Jim Sedlack was purely accidental (I mean hey, it's not his fault the damn thing looked like a stray Mcnugget lying in his bed), if those instincts were to come to him naturally, then by God, he would do it, experts be damned! That's the American way!

Take the book discussed above. The title is: It's Perfectly Normal. It is one of those sex education books trumpeted by the experts as being just what our children need. Never mind that it contains all kinds of graphic illustrations. Never mind that it tells our children that it's okay to engage in all kinds of sexual activity. Never mind the fact that any normal person can just look at its contents and tell immediately it's kiddie porn.

We have been fighting against this book since it was first published in 1994. Recently, American Life League ran a full page ad in the Washington Times (and elsewhere) condemning this book and accusing Planned Parenthood, which endorses the book, of promoting kiddie porn. Why did we do it? Because that's what normal people all across the nation think of this book.

Well you know, if you're going to rail against this clearly purient work of pornography whose only goal it is is to lure kids into thinking that sex can be an enjoyable, pleasureable, safe experience if properly done, you might as well try to give us some evidence that this is in fact pornoraphic other than the fact that "normal" people tend to think so (-and as an aside, I would very carefully frame my request within a framework which allows for the fact that anyone who attends a Jim Sedlack lecture on sex is probably far from normal).

On another side note, if it is true that this book came out in 1994, it means that Jim has been agitating against this kind of filth for close to 12 years now. While I do have to give the man points for tenacity, you'd think that these 10 year olds 22 year olds who read the book when it first came out would all be institutionalized by now, clawing at their eyes and trying desperately to purge all thoughts of sex from their brains. While I don't know anyone who fits that description, Jim may want to have a chat with our own dear friend, the Virgin Ben Shapiro. It would be a fascinating blow in support of causal theory if his mom did give him a copy of this book all those years ago. It might explain a lot.

Planned Parenthood's reaction to our ad has been very enlightening. You see, this ad was one of four we ran that week. In addition to accusing Planned Parenthood of spreading kiddie porn in this ad, the others accused Planned Parenthood of protecting rapists, contributing to teenage suicide, and having a racist agenda.

Now if Jim had accused them of eating babies and worshiping Cthulu, then it'd have been a done deal.

Of the four ads, this is the only one Planned Parenthood saw fit to comment on. It leapt to the defense of the book. How could anyone, this purveyor of teen sex, birth control and abortion whined, be against such a wonderful book?

Dude, you're accusing Planned Parenthood of distributing child pornography, encourage kids to commit suicide, violating racial minority's civil rights, conspiring to give Saddam Husein access to Vorgon Battlecruises, and publishing a book, and yet when they respond to this criticism they're "whining?" Get a grip, man!

In its web site defense, Planned Parenthood called American Life League's ad "a blatant act of deception and distortion." It then wrote "It's Perfectly Normal, written for children age 10 and up, centers on puberty and also addresses a wide range of sexual and reproductive health topics, including reproduction, gender, birth control, and HIV. The book has won praise and awards from such highly regarded institutions as the American Library Association, Booklist, Child Magazine, The New York Times, and Publishers' Weekly, among others."

In other words, the "experts" think this book is wonderful, so the rest of us, including parents, should just shut up and go home.

No, Jim. In other words, you're a fat peice of crap who gets off on calling Planned Parenthood racist, sexist, murderous, and rapacious, yet suddenly develops a thin skin when people call you out on your lies. That alone should be enough to convince you to go home and shut your gob.

The ad raised fury because Planned Parenthood's future depends on its ability to sexualize our children. It is an organization that exists on its income from birth control products and abortion. If children decide to live chaste lives, Planned Parenthood loses.

This is so important to Planned Parenthood that it not only distributes the book in English, but many of its affiliates, including the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, target the Latino community with the Spanish edition of the book.

In order to control my rage, I have decided to respond to this particular section in a short, easy to follow format which will help maintain the paragraph's structural coherency while at the same time allowing me to express myself accurately.

1) You are a moron.

2) You are a moron.

3) PP does not sexualize your children. Their brains do that on the own. People did have sex before the 1950s.

4) Planned Parenthood gives away condoms and pamphlets for free, thus impeding its ability to make a profit.

5) If your children in particular choose to live chaste lives, everyone, including PP will be a winner.

6) You are a moron.

It makes no difference whether you are a longtime citizen or a newly arrived immigrant; Planned Parenthood is after your children. Its promotion of this offensive book is just one of the many ways that Planned Parenthood tries to convince our children to ignore the traditional values of their families and adopt the "modern" values as espoused by Planned Parenthood.

There would of course be non-traditional values like birth control, recreational sex, antibiotics, sexual education, and post-adolescent childbearing. You know, the kind of things that defined the last three quarters of the 20th century.

In the early 1970s, I was considering moving with my family to a southern city. In checking things out, I asked the local police if there was a drug problem at the local schools. They told me, "We do not really have a problem. If we find there are drug dealers operating near the schools, we let the parents know and they take care of the problem."

Well, parents, there is an organization targeting your children. It is trying to lead them into a sexual lifestyle that will result in millions of dollars of income for Planned Parenthood. It is time for you to act. It is time to use peaceful and prayerful means to protect your children and drive Planned Parenthood out of town.

Parents, I must tell you something. There is an organization- a non-profit organization, no less- which seeks to make millions of dollars off of sexualizing your innocent little dearies. Before you know it, if they have their way, your daughters will lose interest in their needlework and instead start wearing makeup. Boys will show an interest in slow dancing with your little darlings and, before you know it, you will have to dust off the old shotgun and drive over to the church, county beau in tow, wedding ring in your hand, in order to ensure your daughter's purity. And to think, it all could have been avoided if you had run those Planned Parenthood crooks out on a rail before it was too late. Till next time!

Marc with a C, 12:14 PM | link | 0 comments |

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

BTP tries his hand at "Shorter"

Today, kids, we are going to try something new. Well, new to us. Not new to the left blogosphere. Today we are going to try our hand at the delicious little meme which is known in the liberal blogging circles as "Shorter(s)." The object of the game is simple: take a standard, garden-variety wingnut column, skim it, and then come up with an article subtitle which is both 1) outrageously funny and 2) actually gives the reader a fairly accurate pciture of the author's main points and arguements. For your convenience, I will reproduce some recent ones from Sadly, No here.

Shorter Star Parker: It's ok to rape strippers.

Shorter Jennifer Roback Morse: Wouldn't it be great if everyone behaved in a manner consistent with my beliefs?

Shorter Jeff Jacoby: If only there was some kind of record of the bad things communist regimes did.

As you can see, while it looks easy, the task is actually quite challenging. Not only must the subtitle be funny, but it must also accurately reflect the contents inside. Conservative bloggers have tried this in the past, always with disasterous results. While studies to explain the phenomenon of why "Shorters" are almost exclusively liberal exercises, we will in the meantime bring you the first ever Bomb-Throwing Pacifist installment of Shorter TOWNHALL!!

Shorter Dennis Prager: In all my years studying totalitarianism, never have I encountered a darker and more sinister foe than that of the anti-smoking lobby.

Shorter David Limbaugh: Only by expanding the Bush tax cuts can we ever hope to recapture the unprecedented prosperity of the Reagan years.

Shorter Rebecca Hagelin: If only the mainstream media was less paranoid, then we'd hear a lot less about those silly global warming fears and focus more on what's really scarey: non-christians.

Shorter Bruce Bartlett: By picking Tony Snow as press secretary, the White House has reaffirmed Fox New's journalistic and ethical integrity.

Shorter Cal Thomas: The GOP's $100 gas rebate is proof of how far is has fallen from Reagan's small-government utopia.

Shorter Megan Basham: Casual acquaintances of mine still disagree that Bush is the best president ever. Clearly, United 93 has not been as effective as we hoped.

Shorter Phyllis Schlafly: Your taxes are high because of judicial tyrants. Kill them.

Shorter Jack Kemp: The attempt on the part of the GOP to pander to poor people is disgusting. If they're too stupid to study economics, then we probably don't want them voting for us.

Shorter Paul Greenburg: Unlike Nebraska, newspapers will never be obsolete.

There. I hope you enjoyed it. I know I did. Until next time!
Marc with a C, 2:00 PM | link | 0 comments |

Monday, May 01, 2006

And now for something completely different

As things are kind of crazy with my life right now, normal posting has taken a hiatus. However, do not fear: regular posting will resume shortly (*groans, followed by the cracking of whips*)

You know, for all the bas press the "Mainstream Media" or MSM gets in the blogosphere, I find that more often than not, bloggers often belabour the point. Sure, there are myriad problems with the MSM, some of which are easily remedied (the fairness doctrine), some much less so (massive corporate media ownership). However, I find that all too often these debates and issues are framed within the larger thematic narrative ("Does the MSM give too much credence to widely discredited notions, such as intelligent design or the idea that global warming is a natural, non-human influenced event" and so on). Every once in a while though, the MSM realy comes through and comes up with headlines, memes, and topics so laughably poor and badly written that it really just makes our lives easier. Today's example comes from To whit, the following headline on their front page (screencap to follow if i can figure out the teknologi):

Puerto Rico runs out of money

Yes America. May 2st, 2006. The day the blade of grass replaced half an egg as the lowest form of currency in Puerto Rico.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Senor Gonzales goes to make a mortage payment on his house
Marc with a C, 1:10 PM | link | 0 comments |