Bomb Throwing Pacifist
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Campus Health Hijacked
When it comes to sexual health, every college student knows the basics: get tested for sexually transmitted diseases and always use condoms.
This is of course assuming that the student in question is a well-rounded, fully educated individual whose academic portfolio has included at least a basic health and wellbeing class, and not a functionally illiterate home-schooled fuckwad whose sexual education was limited to Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction at Superbowl XXXVIII.
But the things campus health services don't talk about can pose serious risks to students' physical and mental health.
Last Friday, Dr. Miriam Grossman visited the National Press Club in Washington , D.C. to discuss her new book, Unprotected. You probably haven't heard of it.
When you have an industry which pretty much employs an army of moneys armed with typewriters to church out semi-coherent sentences interspersed with the words "liberals," "conservatives," and "banana," what more do you expect? Five bucks says you'll be able to get it for 99 cents in the discount bin by this time next month as well, I'll wager.
Grossman, a psychiatrist at UCLA's student health clinic, says her profession has been "hijacked" by radical politics.
Well, its good to see a medical professional take their responsibility to do no harm so seriously. At least its not like she's been able to turn a buck or two off peddling the "OMG!! colleg iz full of liburhuls who wants to make sexxy tim with yur darling babbies!!11!!1!" meme. Just sayin'.
Unprotected reveals how campus health professionals often risk students' well-being in order to promote feminism, androgyny, and "anything goes" liberalism. The consequences can be devastating.
As devastating as having a person in a position of trust and confidentiality writing a tell-all novel in which she details the filth and perversion of today's college students who no doubt would be devastated to learn that their deepest, darkest emotional struggles have been laid bare with all the detailed cover of a pseudonym? Time will tell.
Keep in mind that Grossman is not a political or religious ideologue.
Of course not. She just happens to hate "political correctness" and the non-judgemental "freedom to be yourself" mentality it encourages, like any other patriotic America. It's not like the book's subtitle (A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student) could be considered alarmist or anything.
And as an aside, I somehow feel that there are much more dangerous and depressing catalysts which might lead a disturbed, hurting teenager to commit suicide or engage in risky behavior...like the sense of betrayal they would no doubt feel if it turned out that their story was featured in a book their counselor was writing about the dangers of liberalism and multiculturalism. There! And I'm not even a psychiatrist. Where's my freaking book deal? Get Soros on the phone right away.
She's a psychiatrist whose clinic has treated thousands of patients, many of them self-destructive or even suicidal. And yet, despite the epidemics of eating disorders, self-mutilation, and sexually transmitted diseases among college students, many of Grossman's colleagues refuse to offer advice or treatment that obstructs their personal social agendas.
In other words, to shut the fuck up and stop being faggy homo gay fag-fags. If they weren't so perverted, then maybe they wouldn't have these kinds of problems. Good lord.
But then again, that's typical of conservative "freedom of conscience" morality and traditional pop-psychology to conflate the symptoms with the actual disorder. If a kid cuts himself because he's depressed over being gay, the solution is not to 1) tell him to "snap out of it" or 2) convince him that there is something intrinsically wrong with him that needs to change. No, the solution is 3), convince the kid that it is okay to be gay, that it's a normal part of life, that he is not alone, and that he should channel his feelings into something positive and creative instead of self-destructive, such as focusing on a sport or hobby, or joining a Gay-Straight Alliance or something of that nature.
Likewise, if a girl is depressed because she feels bad over her sexual escapades and and guilty about it, the answer is not to tell her to stop having sex or condemn her for being "wrong," but rather to address the root of the issue, discuss the reasons why she feels guilty, assuage her guilt as much as possible by reminder her that all people make mistakes and that sex can be a fun and enjoyable activity, and giving her advice on how to make better choices in the future and avoid potentially negative situations.
But then again, that's the politically correct answer. In the Bible, you just stone them.
According to Grossman, many campus health professionals' first priority is to never make moral judgments about students' behavior.
Indeed. I though campus health professionals' first priority was to help the student cope with trauma or sickness, be it physical or psychological, not sit around and pass judgment on people. An example (albeit anectdotal) of this involved my time working for the police department.
A woman had been raped but because she was embarrassed and confused and frightened, she didn't tell anyone for 24 hours, at which point her friend immediately called the police. A police officer came over and offered to drive her to the hospital for tests and treatment, which she accepted. However, upon arriving at the hospital and being admitted, the duty nurse clucked and muttered at the victim, saying things along the lines of "Well of course any potential sample is going to be ruined now. Maybe the next time you're raped you shouldn't wait 24 hours before coming to the hospital." Needless to say, that nurse never, ever spoke to a rape victim that way ever again (at least, not in the presence of the local police officers).
Point is, it is not the job or duty of health care professionals to pass judgment on their patients, but to help them out as best they can, period.
There is tacit approval of casual sex: student health services pass out free condoms and instruct students on their use.
The idea of course being that as fully rational adult human beings living in a close-knit, densely populated community, the first task of the health center is not to judge students when they engage in sex, but rather to ensure that they do so safely.
Or, more succinctly: "I have this runny sore on my dick and I'm kinda worried about it, but if I go to the student health center, they'll laugh and/or give me shit. So I guess I'll just wait and see how it plays out."
But they won't mention the psychological health risks of promiscuity -- which Grossman says is a major cause of emotional disturbance among her female patients.
Because while I am unaware of any literature suggesting that promiscuity carries certain psychological health risks (aside from the expected social and psycho social component), there is ample evidence to suggest that unnaturally high levels of promiscuity are symptomatic, rather than causal, of psychological distress.
Being gay is not a medical precursor to depression, although gays do have depression at a much higher rate than the straight population. Being an athlete does not make you abuse performance enhancing drugs, but they are related. Whether this is due to a biological component or a social, judgmental climate, I'll leave for you to decide (translation, cram that up your politically incorrect pipe and smoke it, Grossman).
When Dr. Grossman sees a patient reporting depression or excessive self-criticism, she often discovers, with a little prodding, that the cause is a casual relationship that has produced unreciprocated attachment. Her claims are supported by neurobiological research, which reveals that women are hard-wired to attach to sexual partners.
Oxytocin is to blame. [...]Thanks to biology, a woman who allows an endless parade of men through her bedroom is putting her mental health at risk.
Hmm, hmm, hmm. Let's see what the science has to say...
What really irks Schmitt is that many people interpret this finding to mean that women are designed to be faithful but men are predestined to be promiscuous. That's not what the evidence shows. Instead, both women and men are fully equipped for one-night stands and lifelong relationships.
Just because men and women are programmed for promiscuity doesn't make it impossible -- or unnatural -- to have faithful, monogamous, long-term relationships.
"I tell people to honor their values," Williams says. "If you honor fidelity as important to you and your relationship, it is a matter of your own integrity to honor that.SOURCES: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, July 2003. David P. Schmitt, PhD, founding director, International Sexuality Description Project, and associate professor, Bradley University, Peoria, Ill. Helen E. Fisher, PhD, Center for Human Evolutionary Studies and Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. George Williams, PhD, marital and sex therapist, Atlanta.
This fact is largely unknown to college women, who have grown up with the feminist myth that women respond to casual sex the same way men do.
Feminist myth? Let's look at that again.
That's not what the evidence shows. Instead, both women and men are fully equipped for one-night stands and lifelong relationships.
Bad news woman. But because of the biologically proven fact that women have on average 20% less brain capacity than men, I'll let it slide.
Students' physical health is also put at risk by politically correct--but medically inaccurate--information campaigns about sexually transmitted diseases.
Speaking of which...
HIV is fraudulently presented as an equal-opportunity infection, creating unnecessary panic among low-risk groups. In fact, HIV is spread almost exclusively by anal sex, intravenous drug use, or a partner who does those things.
Almost exclusively by anal sex and intravenous drug use? Ashley, 13.2 MILLION African women would like a word with you.
And, despite the obsessive focus on "safe sex," most women remain unaware of an easy way to protect themselves from STDs. They aren't told about the cervical transformation zone, a ring of cells that is vulnerable to infection. The transformation zone is large in a teenage girl, but shrinks as she gets older. In addition to condom use, a woman can reduce her risk of contracting an STD simply by waiting a few years to become sexually active.
In short if you have it, you're a filthy slut who probably deserved it.
Grossman's arguments against the campus "hook-up culture" are medical, not moral.
And yet for some reason she felt the need to publish her findings in a popular psychological text already making its way about the right wing talk circuit as a cautionary tale against the evils of political correctness and liberalism. Besides everyone knows, peer-reviewed journals are for faggy gay homo fag-fags.
'Til next time! :)
Red State Update
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Ancient naked man-wrestling...
In pondering the question of whether it was appropriate to present children with frightening images, C.S. Lewis answered:
"Since it is so likely that they will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker."He could have just as easily have said "Yes, and I also think that we should teach them about sex at an early age so that they might be prepared to make informed decisions when then time comes," but I can see why Jack might want to steer away from that particular bit of Screwtape wisdom.
Lewis understood something that the political left decidedly does not: young people, males especially, need worthy role models.
Role models like Jack Abrahmoff, Tom Delay, George Allen, Claude Allen, Duke Cunningham, Scooter Libby, and Bob Ney: oily, glistening turds who have two redeeming characteristics: their utter contempt for the legal system and their innovative free-market approach to political action.
The few masculine heroes the left serves up – Mumia, Che, Leonard Peltier – are murderous thugs masquerading as martyrs, incapable of being emulated by the comfortable minions who admire them.
I was particularly fond of Mao "freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun" Tse-Tung myself, but personally he was a bit too much of a Republican for me. I'm not a big fan of the NRA.
Especially since I suspect Jack's idea of a "masculine hero" is a cut, chisselled white guy who likes to engage in all kinds of manly-man activities with his comrades in the defense of western civilization from the great unwashed hordes when not beating his wife, chewing tobacco, worshiping God, or burning powder at the firing range. Just a guess.
For the rank and file, progressive opinion shapers glorify passivity, petulance, self-absorption and sexual ambiguity.
When they're not busy being faggoty gay homo fag-fags, that is.
The young guys on the left try to fashion themselves thusly, but their innate and undisciplined sense of aggression inevitably seeks an outlet.Seriously, did he just use "thusly" in a sentence? Looks like the meanies on The Left(tm) aren't the only ones with sexual ambiguity issues.
From what I can see, that outlet takes the form of vile language – a recent survey showed "Daily Kos" to have 20 times more profanity to the page than "Free Republic" – and self mutilation through multiple piercings and tattoos.
Well, call me a petulant, petty leftist, but personally, I find the word "fuck" much less offensive or obscene than, oh I dunno, this:
Now THAT is fucking obscene (whoops, did it again. What a pottymouth I am!).
The young males who recreate themselves in this image can't feel very good about themselves. Neither can their "partners" of whatever gender.
Oh I don't know about that. I've felt pretty damn good in a number of ways with a number of different people in my time, and I think it's safe to say the feeling's been pretty mutual. I don't have to look at the image above and try to justify it in my mind and rationalize it away so that I can sleep at night. But then again, I doubt people like you even have trouble consciences at all, much less guilty ones.
These opinion shapers can sustain the worth of this image only because they monopolize the visual media. And when that monopoly is threatened, there is hell to pay.
I'd be pissed as hell too if MTV suddenly decided that in order to conform to the desires of the FCC and Brent Bozell, they moved their Spring Break program to Northern Waziristan and replaced all the dancing bikini-clad coeds with toothless 36 year olds in Burkhas. Just sayin'.
This I discovered by happenstance.
"We can’t bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don’t go anywhere -- like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you’d say."
Unaware of the controversy to come, I used the excuse of an overcast sky to duck out of yard work and into my neighborhood cinema for a Saturday matinee of the movie "300."
It's nice to see that not everyone has to work on Saturday. At least not when you're on wingnut welfare.
Directed by Zack Snyder and based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller, the movie tells the well-known story of Spartan King Leonidas and the battle at Thermopylae and does so in great visual style.
I went for no better reason than the previews intrigued me.
And for the totally arousing prospect of seeing totally not-gay, buff white guys slaughtering the dusky hordes in the name of the west. And maybe some boobies.
At this point I was kinda hoping for a Pee Wee Herman angle to develop, but alas, nothing came of it. If indeed Mr. Cashill's trousersnake came out of it's den during the climatcic confrontations and the gallons of middle eastern blood being spilled on screen, we will never hear the tale.
The theater was about 2/3 full. Something was going on here.
That something has the critical community in a snit. "It's not so much the body count or even the blood lust that's disturbing," opined CNN's Tom Charity two days before the opening. "It's that the film, with its macho militarism, seems out of step in a war-weary time."
Out of step were CNN's critic and his colleagues.Ooooo, Charity. Someone just got pwned Hoplite-style!
The film grossed a stunning $71 million opening weekend, a figure twice as high as even optimistic projections, higher than the next nine films combined, a figure that defied the critics' best effort to cripple the movie at the starting gate.
And that $71 million is just the beginning.Because we all know the proof of a movie's worth as a valuable artistic expression and addition to the artform is by the amount of money it makes (the Incredible Hulk anyone? *Shudder*).
Wrote one liberal blogger in summarizing the critical response, "I mean, even normally well-heeled mainstream film reviewers are really, really disgusted with the brazen orientalism, homophobia, sexism, racism and testosterone-heavy jingoism."
Had the audience known the film had so much added value – orientalism? – the opening weekend might have topped $100 million.
Now he's just throwing words out. C'mon Jack, you couldn't give me a working definition of Orientalism if I gave you a copy of Said and two weeks to read it in.
A man who loves The Passion of the Christ but hates Kill Bill and South Park. Pot, meet kettle. Still, the blogger's summary was not off the mark. A.O. Scott of the New York Times began his review thusly: "'300' is about as violent as 'Apocalypto' and twice as stupid." It's not that Scott opposes violence. He found some of the images in Quentin Tarantino's "astonishingly violent" "Kill Bill" "rather thrilling." It is just that Scott opposes violence that serves a noble purpose like that in "300" or in any Mel Gibson movie.
Still, the blogger's summary was not off the mark. A.O. Scott of the New York Times began his review thusly: "'300' is about as violent as 'Apocalypto' and twice as stupid."
It's not that Scott opposes violence. He found some of the images in Quentin Tarantino's "astonishingly violent" "Kill Bill" "rather thrilling." It is just that Scott opposes violence that serves a noble purpose like that in "300" or in any Mel Gibson movie.
Also note that Cashill still hasn't told us what this "noble purpose" is. In the light of this revelation, I still stand by my chiseled white guy assertion.
At Newsday meanwhile, after debating whether the American military mission mirrored the Spartans' or Persians', the self-deluding Gene Seymour opined that it didn't matter because the movie is "too darned silly to withstand any ideological theorizing."
No, what upsets Seymour and Scott and their fellow cinematic travelers is that "300" is neither silly nor stupid.
These critics know the film will have a powerful effect on the audience. They know what that effect is, and they don't like it at all precisely because "300" is ideological to the core.
Likewise, critics also panned the deeply moving and powerful film The Hulk because they knew the audiences sympathized with Bruce Banner and were afraid that they might suddenly be overwhelmed by an army of giant green movie-goers if they gave the movie positive reviews. Genius!
In the film, rather than appease "the thousand nations of the Persian empire," Leonidas and 300 of his best special forces ops take pre-emptive action against this imminent third-world threat.
Did he just call the "thousand nations of the Persian empire" a third world threat? An empire hundreds of years old that stretched from Afghanistan to Cairo? The empire that had about as much trouble with the Hebrews and the Jewish god as they had picking their noses? When compared to a group of dirt-eating cavedwellers barely evolved enough to hold spears and shields? No, no my friend. Sparta is the "third world threat" as you so aptly put it.
But don't think too hard about that. Because if Sparta was the third world threat, then that would make them the modern equivalent of the Taliban. Following that train of logic, that would mean that the mighty world superpower that conquered most of the globe was the ancient equivalent of...erm...uh, let's just leave it at that.
While the 300 journey afar to confront the multicultural Persian hordes, the lovely and loyal Queen Gorgo tries to rouse a divided and even treacherous congress back home.
(Read: liberal backstabbers in bed with the enemy)
"We are at war, gentlemen," she reminds them. She then argues for a massive troop surge in the hope that the efforts of "a king and his men have not been wasted to the pages of history."
The parallels are uncanny. Though of course in order to be truly analogous, President Bush would have to be slinging a ruck and carrying an M-16 on patrol in Baghdad. Not like, you know, sitting at home and trying to figure out how best to ignore his father's plan to get him out of his mess without pissing anybody off.
As is obvious to the viewer, these congressmen are no more "war-weary" than the film critics at CNN. They have sacrificed nothing and suffered nothing.
Point taken, Jack. While we're on the subject of the media and pundits who have sacrificed nothing but cheer from the sidelines, when's your next tour?
The queen exhorts them nonetheless to send reinforcements "for the preservation of liberty ... for justice ... for law and order ... for reason." Only a progressive film critic could mistake her unambiguous and unapologetic pro-Western message.
Or somebody as utterly ignorant of ancient history as Jack Cashill is. Sparta was a viscious, aggresive, expansionist monarchy built on a solid foundation of slavery, and was universally reviled as the most oppressive, backwards, primitive city state in all Greece. Christ, it wasn't even a DEMOCRACY! The faggotty homo gay fag-fag Athenians, on the other hand...
To be sure, the film is a bit over the top. The well-ripped Spartans could pass for the Chippendales in designer battle gear[...]
Nor are the Spartans ideal role models for American troops. They have been bred to near perfection by a program of infanticide that even the critics find troubling – the Spartans had yet to invent the conscience salve of partial-birth abortion–and they take no prisoners, real or figurative.
Not to mention the fact that they're pagans and fight with spears. And have homosexual liaisons. And of course, seem to have a more advanced concept of genetics and evolution than the average American citizen.
That much said, the film presents an attractive image of disciplined male camaraderie that the left is incapable of even imagining.
The left will have a particularly hard time figuring out the naked man-on-man wrestling and will no doubt try to give it some kind of homoerotic connotation. But what's a little drunken groping between comrades?
Early on, in fact, Leonidas distinguishes the mission of his men from that of the "boy-lovers" of Athens (and did that line send the critics howling!).
A line taken straight from the comic book, and historically innacurate. In fact, you might even say that it was
God, I missed that graphic.
"A new age has begun," the king tells his troops, "an age of freedom, and all will know that 300 Spartans gave their last breath to defend it." Although the sets are virtual, the emotions are real and raw.
Unlike so many critically cherished Hollywood films, the violence in "300" is not purposeless. There is nothing camp or ironic about it.
"If critics think that '300' reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny," writes classicist Victor Davis Hanson, "they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch and Diodorus."
Entirely unbiased and fact-based historical sources, one and all. But considering how they had a tendency to label anyone was didn't speak their language and share their culture "barbarians," I think the issue will be lost on most people. But then again, this is the same Victor David Hanson who maintains that Iraq is a modern success story and continues to hilight the unique and unconquerable benefits of the western way of warfare, well...I think his record speaks for itself.
The U.S. Marines have never had a better recruiting film. The young males who dominate the audience will leave the theater not so much eager to behead a Persian as to examine their own, dare I say it, manliness.
Ok, now I'm sure Jack's trousersnake left it's den at some point during this movie.
The progressive media moguls, who have so dominated what these young men see and hear, can offer them no such visions "of brave knights and heroic courage."
They are losing constituents with every showing of "300," and they are howling mad about it.
Because nothing hurts Hollywood moguls more than a film grossing 70 million dollars in its opening weekend. That's all folks!
UPDATE: This is what Jack Cashill's bio says: Jack Cashill is an Emmy Award-winning American author and journalist best known for his investigative reporting on American government and politics. Cashill is a weekly contributor to the online journal WorldNetDaily, and executive editor of Ingram's Magazine in Kansas City, Missouri. Jack has co-written with James Sanders the groundbreaking exposé First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America on the mysterious crash of TWA Flight 800 in July of 1996.
Interestingly enough, neither the Primetime nor the Daytime search engine available online have any listing of a Jack Cashill ever having won an Emmy, nor is the context of his Emmy actually ever given. Well, I mean maybe his mom was named Emmy and she gave him an award or something at some point, but one was or another, I smell a rat.
March 12, 2007
The things that have been taking place in the courts of this nation regarding the raising and educating of our children are increasingly disturbing.
Because, as Helen Lovejoy might say, "Won't somebody please think of the children??"
In some of the news articles I've run across in recent weeks, I've seen things such as this — which has the backing of Walter Cronkite:
*Durk durk whoop!* White anglophone Christian conservatives are the most disenfranchised and persecuted minority of all! *Yoink whoop awooga!*
Similarly in the state of Massachusetts, we have this recent development:
The development in question of course being a court ruling that since homosexual unions are legal in the state of Massachusetts, schools have an obligation to teach the students about them in order to ensure that they are well-rounded and informed members of society and all that. Lord knows how dangerous a little information can be...
In something I wrote about myself some time ago, there was also this piece of judicial tyranny handed down by the Ninth "Circus" Court of Appeals:
These block quotes are getting kind of tedious. In any case, as Herring obviously feels that his ninth "Circus" court of appeals joke is the funniest thing since his decision a few years back to go to the Renew America Haloween party dressed like a fish and insists on repeating it as often as he can, I'll just cut to the chase. All you need to know is that he doesn't like it.
The case involves the Palmdale School District in California, which notified parents of its intentions to conduct an assessment of children ages seven to ten in order to 'establish a community baseline measure of children's exposure to early trauma (for example, violence).' What the letter to parents did not convey was that ten of the 79 questions on the survey would ask the children about the frequency of 'touching my private parts,' 'thinking about having sex,' 'having sex feelings in my body,' and 'can't stop thinking about sex.'
Oh my God! Liberals have deployed teh sexay! Our Judeochristian magick is useless against it! Hide the women and kids, lest they ask them a clinically relevant question too!
Either that of the school district was trying to gauge the number of kids out there who were suffering from sexual abuse in the household. Don't know why Herring would be upset about that, but anyway, let's move on...
There is more going on than just an effort to silence the voice of Christians in this nation. On a Christian radio station in the town where I live, I recently heard an eleven year old talking about global warming. In a voice that was cold and venomous, this child was literally threatening adults that when his generation aren't kids anymore, they are going to pay us back for all the trouble we've stored up for their generation through our mismanagement of the world.
Damn. Kid's got cohones. Oddly enough, I can't tell what horrifies Joshua more, the fact that the kid believes in global warming, or that those who have fucked up the globe are going to be held accountable for it someday. The fact that Joshua also felt threatened by the "cold and venemous" voice of a well-educated 11-year-old says something about his intestinal fortitude as well.
Who says the youth of the nation are ruined and worthless?
Someone needs to do something with that child, and while we're at it, I would welcome a debate with the Cronkite and the Interfaith Alliance anytime and anywhere.
Damn dude, now you're the one showing cohones there, Joshua. Please come and wrap your big muscles around me, and tell me everything will be ok.
While echoing the mantra "First Amendment First," they have no idea what the First Amendment really stands for, and I for one would love to treat them to a history lesson drawn from unimpeachable sources.
Because no matter what crazy liberals might have told you in school, what the first amendment really stands for is "shut the fuck up and obey."
And while we're on it...what the fuck does this have to do with anything?
The falsely conceived doctrine of Separation of Church and State is the modern Supreme Court's distorted interpretation of a First Amendment that was in truth formed on the founding doctrine of "disestablishment" — meaning, forbidding the establishment of an official national church, of the sort common in Europe.
Huh. And I thought it had something to do with Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter.
The members of the Supreme Court of the founding generation and the members of the Court in early generations of Americans that followed would absolutely flip their lid if they saw what the Court has done with the First Amendment today.
Not to mention that whole freeing of the slaves thing or giving women the right to vote. Come to think of it, I can see why Josh is so keen on these old, dead white guys.
Ah well, this thing goes on a lot longer, and basically revolves around block quote, block quote, and block quote. As such, I will leave you with an amusing picture and bid you adieu until next time.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
My Very Own Conservapedia entry (Part II)
Man, Conservapedia is the gift that keeps on giving...
Let's take a look at their entry on Judicial Activism.
There are two major types of judicial activism practiced in the United States' court system:
1. Liberal judges striking down laws that uphold core conservative American values
2. Liberal judges refusing to strike down laws that subvert core conservative American values
[Ed: In other words, when judges do something we don't like, and when judges don't do something we do like]
The most famous example of this is Roe v. Wade. Other examples include Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia which stripped state control over education and marriage, respectively, putting it in the hands of the federal government; McCreary County v. ACLU in which judges stripped free speech and religious freedom from McCreary County; Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court sided with terrorists over the protection of the United States of America. and Schiavo v. Schiavo, in which judges ordered the death of an innocent handicapped woman against the wishes of her parents and many pro-life supporters.
In other words, examples of the "Judicial Activism" of liberal judges include the right to privacy, desegregation and the striking down of racial marriage laws. Classic.
My very own Conservapedia entry!
Since so many people have already raked over Conservapedia ("a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia[;] an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America") looking for wonderful little nuggest of information such as the existence of Unicorns, the immorality of Bonobos, and the meaning of racism, its only fair that I add my own find to the mix.
Fascism is a political form of government that believes that the nation is more important then any individual. A dictator rules the nation and imposes economic and social regimentation. It is often an autocratic system that has a militarized government. A symbol, like the swastika, is often used for mind control. Special salutes to the dictator are also common. Equally common in Fascist societies is strict information control, such as the "people's radio" in Nazi Germany which delivered only one channel of propaganda, 24/7. Allowing only information which supports the far-left state is a common means of fascist control. This is especially pertinant in websites such as Wikipedia which allow liberal-only information through.
Fascism is the opposite of communism. Fascist and Communist countries were mortal enemies. Communism sought to unite the entire world and abolish national identity, while fascism promoted great pride and dedication to one's country. Communism represents the extreme left of the political spectrum, while Fascism represents the extreme right.
The name "fascism" derives from an ancient Roman symbol, the fasces, a group of birch rods bundled together with an axe. It symbolizes strength in unity; the rods are weak by themselves but strong when bundled together. Although the symbol was adopted by the Fascists, it does not in itself signify fascism. In the United States House of Representatives, a fasces symbol appears on each side of the American flag, and old U. S. dimes, with a picture of the god Mercury on the front, have a design including a fasces on the back. [Emphasis added]
Well then, that clears that up.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Fix that Caption!
This week's edition of "Fix that Caption" comes to us by way of a Faithmouse link. The drivel goes by the name of "Hey Harry" and is in the words of the author: "a family friendly, clean, single panel weekly comic drawn by yours truly, Thomas Ebert. Where the cartoon character "Harry" can range from bird, fish, guy, girl and so on, all cartoons in a uniquely funny situation and enjoyable for all ages kids to adults."
Assuming of course that the kids and adults in question are locked away in a mental institution and have had their frontal lobes severed via the magic of a transorbital lobotomy and thorazine. Anyway, here goes.
Because, honey, one nightmare a night is quite enough as it is, thanks.
Up a certain creek without a certain instrument?
I'll say! Never seen a stream quite that powerful before in my life!
And a predisposition to narcolepsy. As you may or may not know, it tends to run in families.
And on the day of your psychiatrist's appointment too!
And so the ancient sport of Siamese twin tag-team wrestling made its way to American shores.
Rocket haybales. The first, last, and only Amish line of defense.
And so the next chapter of the Lovecraft horror mythos was born...
She says if I keep this up, maybe I can get a job working for Halliburton!
And I told you that low-flying Stuka wasn't a cropduster either, hun.
No honey, of course not. I will, however, need some of your skin.
Don't see why not. You're obviously renting your "wife."
And now that I've recieved my special haircut, I'm ready to go "ride the lightning." Whatever that means.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Meanwhile on the tee vee...
Let's start with the kids. While the one most visible to the viewer in the foreground to the right looks suitably horrified, the same does not hold true for the rest of the kids. Oddly enough, the one in the middle seems to be stuck in deep concentration on the goings-on on the tv screen, and the one on the far left has a look on her face which can only be interpreted as "Yay! Barnyard Sluts 9! I wonder which scene Old McDonald is in..."
Not to mention their choice of a spokesman. Pat Boone? If anyone knows anything about victims of auditory rape and the pollution of the home, it's him.
The prosecution rests.
In other news...
Today's summaries come from One News Now, complete with catchy (if slightly redundant) subtitle: The One Site for your News Right Now. Let's have a look at some of the headlines.
Title: Senate GOP leader says Democrats divided on Iraq
Opening Sentence: The top Senate Republican [Mitch Mcconnel] testifies to an internal fight among Democrats about whether to cut funding to U.S. troops serving in Iraq.
Snarky Comment: I know a lot of us get all hot and bothered every time we hear the words "Republican" and "testifies" used in the same sentence as anything other than an item in a list of things which would never happen, but don't worry. All he's doing is pointing out that the democrats are hopelessly divided and stuff and will never be able to block any kind of powerful Bush surge, newfound majority or not. And also, the new GOP is totally gnna kick ass in '08.
The Kicker: President Bush will be in Louisville on Friday for a campaign event on behalf of McConnell.
Title: Conservative group predicts passage of 'hate crimes' bill, ENDA
Opening Sentence: Concerned Women for America fears Democrats will succeed in passing a so-called "hate crimes" bill in Congress.
Snarky Comment: Because nothing says give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free quite like putting a set of air quotes around a 'so-called "Hate Crimes" bill.'
The Kicker: As he believes about HR 254, Barber fears that once the ENDA measure is introduced it will pass the Democratic-controlled Congress -- much to the delight of homosexual activists. [It's not the passage of the bill that really bothers me so much, but do they really have to be so freaking happy about it?]
Title: Feds asked to investigate 'obscenity' in school curriculum
Opening Sentence: A pro-family group in Howell, Michigan says the local school district is exposing students to obscene material, including a book that graphically describes the rape of an 11-year-old girl by her father.
Snarky Comment: If you think they're referring to the Bible, you'd be way off. It's actually a reference to "The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison.
The Kicker: Fyke admits she is "a little angry" that the school board did not see fit to fix the process that failed to screen out these books with their graphic content. The school officials know the system is broken, she insists, and yet "they didn’t see fit to keep these kids protected from material like that.” [In other news, the Howell School district has postponed a planned visit to the art museum in light of the controversy, insisting that the curators either put some clothes on those statues, or hire themselves a damned good lawyer.]
Title: 'Crazy' views of Weather Channel climatologist assailed
Opening Sentence: A growing number of meteorologists are publicly countering the claims of environmental activists who argue manmade global warming threatens the planet's existence.
Snarky Comment: After all, if there's one group who has the authority to speak authoritatively on the issue of climate change, it's the guy who stands with a microphone out in the hurricane and informs the anchors that "it's a little windy out" as an abandoned schoolbus comes skidding on by.
The Kicker: Last week a panel of veteran Cleveland TV meteorologists said global warming should not be considered a scientific fact. [Thus adding their weight to the debate along with that of Rupert Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch's wife, all of Rupert Murdoch's wife's friends, all of Rupert Murdoch's associates and employees, and some guy I met on the metro named Bernard.]
Title: Vets to counter anti-war march
Opening Sentence: A POW-MIA group will be heading to Washington later this month to voice support for the U.S. military operation in Iraq and to prevent anti-war activists from desecrating veterans memorials in the nation's capital.
Snarky Comment: Well if they are indeed legitimate POW-MIAs, its so nice to see that their captors will let them have the day off to go hold a counter-protest. Makes you wonder why they even want to leave, really.
The Kicker: And in further reference to anti-war activities of celebrity status, [Pro-war protestor] Muller adds: "All the movie stars in Hollywood would not have the money they do, if it were not for the veterans of this country." [Because nothing else spells out "instant Hollywood Blockbuster" like catering to veterans. Just look at "Tears of the Sun," "The Marine," and "Home of the Brave," for instance.]