Merry Christmas!

This is the official Christmas post in which I send a most sincere wish for a Merry and Blessed Holiday Season to all who visit here.  Remember He who was born to us this day, even if He might not really have been born on this exact date.  I don't really care about that debate.  I don't really care if the date was chosen to help transition pagans to Christianity.  What I care about most is that...

"...I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round--apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that--as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys."

That seems to be the one truth that connects us all on this Day of Days, regardless of whether one is Christian or Jew, believer or non, and I can't help but think that might please Him.  In one way or another, there is Joy to the World, the Herald Angels will sing, and Merry Gentlemen rest without dismay.  Thus, I'm totally with Fred...

"...I believe it HAS done me good, and WILL do me good; and I say, God bless it!" 

A Chance to Breathe

I am in my second month of a new job. It has consumed my time as I often do twelve hours or more per day. This past week has slowed a bit due to the upcoming holidays, but overall I have a difficult time paying attention to what's going on in the world. More to the point, I have a difficult time getting into any one issue deeply enough to then do a post about it. That's life. I have a chance to recover from my long period of no better than part-time work in a way that my job of the previous nine months did not provide. So, it's basically work, sleep, work and then take care of personal issues on that part of the weekend through which I'm not sleeping.

Fortunately, I am now entering a four-day weekend, as this company regards Christmas Eve as a holiday also. Thus, we are given Friday off for Christmas Eve being on Saturday, and Monday off for Christmas being on Sunday. Pretty cool. Unfortunately, they also have a policy of a ninety day probationary period during which candidates for employment do not receive holiday pay. All told, I'll be out a week's pay having begun this gig on Nov. 7.

But, I'll take the time off. Always. The best part about being unemployed was the free time. I just love free time. Ever notice that with free time you can work if you want to, but if you have a job all you can do is work? Doesn't seem right.

Another downside to this gig is that I'm on a flex schedule. That's like being on call. Pretty much every day I get a call and have to be at work within two hours. The drive is forty-five minutes. I'm usually sleeping when the call comes in. Because the start time changes, I have no regular sleep pattern developing. I sometimes wake up in four or five hours for no apparent reason and will feel relatively rested. Then, if it seems like it's too early, I'll go back to sleep and when I get up to go to work, feel tired all day long. It's exhausting. And when you're pulling doubles 117 miles at five in the bloody AM, you don't want to be nodding.

Anyways, I've got this four day weekend, and then I'll work four shortened days and have a three day weekend and the work will supposedly be kinda slow for about a month or so. Yet, I'll be making more than my previous job paid. I'm not sure if I want to stay with this company for long. I may have no choice in the matter, but I'm still quite open to other opportunities, should they arise. In the meantime, I'm finally making average dough again, and the hours I'm getting mean I'm bringing home more than I've brought home before. So I've got that going for me.

But for now I have the holiday break and hope I can enjoy them AND recharge as well. Posting might still be lean (though I visit other blogs---it's easier right now), but I've got an idea for posts that will carry me, so stay tuned.

The following was intended as an addendum to the last comment (comment 115 at this writing) of the previous blog post. I feel it is better as a post of its own in order to set a guideline for future posts that focus on really any issue, but specifically on the issue discussed in that previous thread.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One more thing: It seems to me that in a discussion such as this, where the subject is whether or not a particular behavior is truly sinful or not, it is rather presumptuous to insist that one side adhere to the etiquette policies implemented by the other while the issue of sinfulness is yet unresolved between the two sides.

By that I mean that the two sides continue to hold opposing points of view. My position is that homosexual behavior, regardless of the context in which it takes place, is always sinful and forbidden by God, not to mention deviant and abnormal behavior regardless of God's existence. This is a fact and one that is easily established and confirmed by an honest and objective review of all available data.

Those who believe otherwise demand that those like myself adhere to their rules of engagement in discussing the subject, as well as in planning legislation that affects all. Simply on their insistence, we are to regard those who engage in this behavior in a particular manner that is sacrosanct, such as which words we use in reference to them. This is childishly selfish and a true example of one side forcing their morality on the other. It assumes that their position is correct and that mine is not, so therefor, I must act and speak in a manner that meets with their approval, "tolerance" being a one-way street, the direction of which is dictated by them. I must use their definitions, I must abide their standards of morality, I must consider their sensitivities without any reciprocal regard whatsoever.

Note that nowhere in any of my posts or comments do I say anything derogatory about homosexuals in general, much less any specific individuals unless, again, one takes the attitude of those described above, that any opposing viewpoint is by definition derogatory and hateful, ugly bias.

So, henceforth, rather than waste time chastising me for that which is not the least bit criminal, and worse, for shamefully trying to shame others into compliance on such a shameful proposition, I would encourage such people as Dan to take their false piety, hypocritical sense of graciousness and weak and unsupportable interpretations of Scripture elsewhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no problem debating any issue. I have no problem with anyone putting forth an opinion. I have absolutely no problem with anyone disagreeing with me at any time. What I do have a problem with is anyone seeking to dictate terms of engagement here as if theirs is the last word on manners and etiquette. Am I to adjust for every visitor to this blog? Assuming it's even possible, it ain't gonna happen. Indeed, it doesn't happen by those who so insist I do.

Taking the Baton---Kinda

I involved myself in a couple of discussions over at Stan's blog (Winging It) and came up again against Dan, who doesn't always get his comment published over there. In two different posts, I posted a comment that drew a response from Dan. Not believing it certain that Stan would publish Dan's responses, Dan decided to post them on the previous post at this blog. Since I've activated comment moderation, they've been staged until now.

What I've decided to do, since there are now two, is to post Dan's comments in the comments section under this post. To get the full effect of the conversation that led to these comments, interested readers can find the earlier of the two here. I will handle this one first. Then, the second one comes from here, and you'll find Dan's comment will suggest he's got his undies in a bunch. Reading the links will help understand if the comments don't make sense by themselves. Plus, Stan's perspectives are worth a read anyway. In any case, enjoy.

My Veteran's Day Post

While there are still a couple of hours left of Veteran's Day, I've decided to write something. So here it is.

I wasn't going to write anything. It's not that I don't share the general sentiment most rational people hold regarding thankfulness for the risks taken and sacrifices made by those of our fellow citizens who serve in the military. Of course I do. But somehow a blog post seems cheap.

This is not to say that I have any issues with others who post something to honor soldiers, sailors and pilots. I've read, over the years, many fine tributes that humble. But nothing humbles more than the military man himself, merely by his presence, for his presence represents so much.

Part of what such people represent is the fact that I never served. It is among the few true regrets I have thus far in my life. Now at an age when I don't believe I could even get a waiver, nor pass a physical in a manner that meets their standards (at least I hope those standards are still that high), I have an appreciation for what serving and having served represents.

I shouldn't say I never appreciated those things. Indeed, I always had respect for the military. When I was in high school, Viet Nam was still a major concern for teens approaching draft age. Personally, I was not down with all the facts of the war being far too busy getting faced and enjoying the residual vibes of the Woodstock generation. I didn't understand what was going on, and though I was not among those worms that "loathed" the military or thought your average Marine was a savage scumbag awaiting his own My Lai opportunity, I was impacted by the distorted tales of Viet Nam and the conflict there and, in particular, what it meant for the average draftee. Too many uncertainties made it clear that I hadn't enough info to simply await my number being called as if was today's Lotto.

As it turned out, the year I came of age was the year the draft ended. I was spared the anxiety of learning that Uncle Sam wanted me. Within the next couple of years, one friend joined the Navy and another the Air Force. I was still engaged in the serious business of good times and personal pleasure and could not see the upside of enlisting. Strangely, I actually had a problem with the idea of doing so for personal gain. It somehow seemed wrong to enlist without serving my country as the main reason. And since we were no longer fighting in View Nam at this point, I didn't feel I'd be really serving anyway, just playing soldier. I wasn't really a big picture guy back then.

Now, and ever since 9/11 specifically, I feel I have very little right to make any kind of public showing of "SALUTING OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN THE MILITARY!!!!!!" I don't feel worthy. This feeling hit home a year ago and returned again this morning when I read the paper. There on the front page was a story of a girl from my church who lost her young husband in Afghanistan. It happened on 11/10/10 and I remembered going to the funeral. More than ever I felt that I had no right to bitch and moan. This kid gave his life. What have I done that measures up to that?

Yeah. I'm grateful. Absolutely. And definitely humbled and not a little bit ashamed for letting others do what I should have done, and certainly could have done, even though there was no fighting going on at the time. Sure, it's easy to say now, and I don't much care who does or does not find my words credible. But it's how I feel. I owe. Who doesn't?

Had To Do It

I regret to inform all of you that I have activated comment moderation here at Marshall Art's. I fought the urge to do so for as long as I could, feeling that it was a bit of drag to post a comment and not see it published immediately. At least it is for me.

I'm sure you can all guess the reason, who it was that provoked this move. Yes. It was the sorry little troll-boy, Parklife, who has visited with the single purpose of exposing himself for the jackass he apparently is. His comments, for lack of a better word, have continued to be no more than a collection of baseless accusations, unsubstantiated opinions and horribly unfunny attempts at cleverness.

It was so sad to see and the worst part of it was his unjustified belief that he was somehow making any kind of point, together with how self-satisfied he seemed to be with making a fool of himself. This clinical idiot never gets the reality of his impotence, and his lame shots have all the impact of a bad smell, like a fading fart that lingers in a closed room. There's nothing really there, but that smell annoys.

His last published example of stupidity afforded me the opportunity to truly describe to him his vast shortcomings, which should give any person of average intelligence some guidance in what constitutes a comment of substance. I've no doubt my efforts were wasted, as I've offered this advice many times in the past. He is devoid of clues.

He submitted two attempts since I've activated comment moderation. Naturally, I've deleted them and he won't again have the satisfaction of having his drivel show up for even the brief time it has taken me to notice and then delete them. I have the feeling that he may never make another attempt as a result. Thus, moderation is unnecessary, but of course, deactivating it will likely draw him to comment again and back and forth I would go. Not going to happen.

What will happen however, though I'm certain he will not take full advantage of it, is that I will continue to welcome an actual serious, mature and thoughtful comment on whatever issue provokes one. I continue to be interested in what drives his nasty opinions if he would only have taken the risk we all do when expressing ourselves honestly and comprehensively. He was too cowardly for that.

Say a prayer for Parkie. He is among those who are truly in need of one. Or a hundred.

UPDATE--UPDATE--UPDATE

It's been over a week and there's been no sign of Parkie. This move to activate comment moderation has served to drive him off. It is now proven that he had no desire to engage in meaningful discussion, but to only mock. Too bad he sucked at it so badly. Can't imagine any legitimate comments would have been any better, but we'll never know. That is, unless he feels the urge, in which case his comment would be posted like any other. To hold one's breath is not advised.

Site Added

This is to announce the addition of a new site under the "Right Ones" heading. It's called "Sifting Reality" and it's a great blog. Check it out.

Poor Girl

I just saw that "Chaz" Bono was voted off of Dancing With The Stars. I don't watch the show, so I don't know if she was any good. The few times curiosity has compelled me to check out YouTube clips of performances, I have been struck by how "un-natural" the celebrities seem regardless of the steps and moves they've mastered. (By comparison, I offer Steve Martin in "Pennies From Heaven". He made himself a dancer.) At the same time, I'm impressed that they've done as well as they have.

But this isn't really about the show. It's about "Chaz". She stated, after being bounced, that she was glad she had the opportunity to show the world a different kind of man. Like that's what the world needs. There's only one Man we need to emulate and one needn't be a man to do so.

Unfortunately, she isn't a man. She's a woman who went through incredible effort to appear to be a man, so that she can pretend to be a man, because she has the emotional/psychological dysfunction of thinking she is a man. She's not. She never was and never will be. It's a most elaborate disguise and nothing more.

Her mother, the idiotic Cher, of course supports her 100%. But not really. Is it really support for a parent to sit back while the child does something so goofy? Wouldn't it be a better sign of support if she urged and provided counseling to deal with the dysfunction? Libs today wouldn't agree, but that's why we are suffering from the moral decline now ongoing.

People like Chastity Bono need our prayers. They need so much more, but that's the best WE can do.

More On The "Staffer"

In this installment, I’d like to focus on the, uh, “less than conservative” statements Lofren makes throughout his diatribe. Some of them were covered last time, and it is difficult to really know where to begin, considering just how many there are to find. But by highlighting them, one can easily see why I am suspicious of assuming this guy is a real conservative, as opposed to some guy just working for Republicans. Here we go:

”Ever since Republicans captured the majority in a number of state legislatures last November, they have systematically attempted to make it more difficult to vote: by onerous voter ID requirements (in Wisconsin, Republicans have legislated photo IDs while simultaneously shutting Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in Democratic constituencies while at the same time lengthening the hours of operation of DMV offices in GOP constituencies); by narrowing registration periods; and by residency requirements that may disenfranchise university students.”

The key phrase used above is “onerous voter ID requirements”. Apparently, having an ID when voting is what is onerous to goofballs like Lofgren. But the Wisconsin law merely limits the requirements to a few forms of ID, while still considering one or two more. Presently, it requires forms of ID such as state driver’s license, state ID, military ID. I’m sorry. But anyone not carrying at least one of these into a polling place not only needs to be prevented from voting, but publicly ridiculed by all those who understand the gravity of the situation.

But to the left, this simple, common sense requirement is a slap in the face to every lazy, half-assed creature that doesn’t have the self-respect to comport himself like a responsible citizen when going to perform a most important civic duty. Boo-freakin’-hoo.

As to the devious and diabolical conspiracy of GOP chicanery, it’s not difficult to research a few details of the proposed DMV closings to find there’s no one that will be denied access to getting an ID well before the next election takes place (see Bloomberg Businessweek for 7/22/11---I couldn't get the link to work). They don’t happen every two days, ya know. If one can’t get an ID within two years before the next election, they simply don’t care. And only a lib would suggest the cost of a state ID is a burden. All this Lofgren calls a “legislative assault” which is ”moving in a diametrically opposed direction to 200 years of American history, when the arrow of progress pointed toward more political participation by more citizens.” Apparently, to Lofgren, like as to libs, enforcing standards is an assault on those who would prefer no standards whatsoever. This isn’t the talk of a conservative.

His true colors begin to show more brilliantly when he goes on to say this:

”But domestically, they don't want those people voting.”

OH, NO, MIKEY! DON’T GO THERE!!! But he does…

”You can probably guess who those people are. Above all, anyone not likely to vote Republican. As Sarah Palin would imply, the people who are not Real Americans. Racial minorities. Immigrants. Muslims. Gays. Intellectuals. Basically, anyone who doesn't look, think, or talk like the GOP base.”

No wonder the lefties are eating this stuff up! I wonder if Lofgren is aware, unlike the other lefties, that racial minorities, immigrants, muslims, homosexuals and even intellectuals are often called upon to show legal IDs for any one of hundreds of possible encounters in everyday life. They could all use those same legal IDs to vote! Isn’t that swell?

But of course the concern isn’t for the voting rights of any of those people. Uh, uh. This is a typical lefty use of the B&I card. The bigotry and intolerance card. Because it is easier to cast aspersions than it is to defend the notion that a responsible adult can’t obtain a legal picture ID for the purpose of proving his identity before punching a ballot. But Lofren’s not done with unsubstantiated accusations:

”This must account, at least to some degree, for their extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of President Obama. I have joked in the past that the main administration policy that Republicans object to is Obama's policy of being black.”

First of all, what accounted for the extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of GW Bush? There is no hatred for Obama that is common amongst the right-wing. This is a common lib lie. There is plenty in his policies and positions to hate, but that is not the same as hating the man. We just want him to be an ex-president at the earliest possible date so as to end the push for those damaging and incompetent policies and positions. BUT, that this low-life would joke that the main GOP objection to Obama is his color is probably the one main piece of evidence that this guy is not a conservative or a Republican. This crap screams out for names to substantiate the charge. HE apparently has a problem with the color of the president. But if this turd has any knowledge of any Republican of note wishing to unseat Obama purely on racial grounds, it demands Lofgren get a spine and call the guy out. Until he does, I’m calling this guy a lying liberal.
Here’s a final lie for today’s review of Lofgren’s drivel, and it’s one that Ronny really likes:

”Among the GOP base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some "other," who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. Fags. Feminazis. The list may change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a scapegoat to hate and fear.”

This is a massive overstatement of the truth. While the right has its share of “out there” people, the base is pretty sharp as to what’s going on in the world and in our government. Most of the groups he listed in the above quote are really the same people. I have been bold in stating that what difference there is between a center-left individual and a total fascist is only a matter of degrees, where within those extremes we find the socialist and communist. And certainly we don’t normally find secular humanists and feminists anywhere right of center, with but a few exceptions if at all.

As to what this guy means by “ragheads” is anyone’s guess, but if he is implying that the right has concerns about islamofascism, they are indeed warranted and anyone not parking his head up his own hindquarters is well aware of the threat.

And the push by homosexuals and radical feminists has already harmed the culture and will continue to do so. This, too, is a legitimate and measurable threat, though of a different kind. Lefties won’t see it. It’s not that they can’t, they just refuse out of abject stupidity and moral bankruptcy.

As to holding up blacks as a source of our woes, it is clear that we are solidly opposed to the liberal and socialist types of “black leaders” who have done little to benefit the black community or the culture at large, but continue to annoy with their nonsense.

Thus far, we can plainly see that this Lofgren dude is no more than another liberal regardless of whatever job he worked during the past thirty years. He’s touched on all the same stupid accusations that have been debated here since the blog’s inception. But I’ve been way too detailed in my shredding of this character’s idiocy. With the next and final installment, I’ll get right to his final three highlighted points. This dude is no conservative.

Still Bored

I am still quite amazed at the support for the Democratic Party by the majority of the black community. How big that majority is these days I have no idea, but it is still regarded as common knowledge that such a majority exists. The question is still, "Why?".

It is said, by some, that the GOP doesn't care about minorities. This is a blatant misconception, if not an outright lie. But as Andrew Klavan suggests in a recent discussion with Bill Whittle on PJTV, the right-wing is at a disadvantage. With the difference between the two ideologies being that one promises to do everything (the wacky left), and the other doesn't (the righteous right), it isn't hard to understand why one might be tempted to support the party making all the promises to do everything. After all, it's so much easier when someone else will do all the heavy lifting.

But the truth, as any honest person can plainly see, is that the right does not suggest it will do nothing, per se. It merely suggests that it will not interfere with each individual's attempts to find success. For those who are "self-starters", this is ideal and in fact, it is an ideal by which this country rose to greatness in the world.

But if one is raised to believe no effort is required, or that there is no possibility of success without the help or intervention of others, then it is easy to see why so many who are in need might be swayed by the promises made by those who are not in a position to keep them. But the promises are not kept yet the support continues.

As I did in the last post on this topic, I draw on black speakers for insights into this phenomena. I offer Thomas Sowell and Star Parker. These two are among the voices to whom black community should be listening. Best of all, the message they send is equally valid to all people regardless of race, as is true of the basic conservative philosophy, where dividing people along racial lines has never been common or even desired.

A COOL Electric Car?

This article shows a new Tesla electric car that is supposed to out perform a Porsche. The body design is better than decent, and if the performance is as advertised, perhaps what we've been waiting for has arrived. Unfortunately, at $50K, it won't show up in my garage any time soon.

Even more of a concern to me, and I've not yet seen this addressed at all, is how long such a vehicle maintains it's advertised performance before the charge runs down. To be sure, I'm only comparing this to electric devices with which I'm familiar, and it isn't uncommon for those to begin to lose power as it, well, loses power. With the typical internal combustion vehicle, it'll run the same way regardless of how much fuel is in the tank, as long as fuel IS in the tank.

But do electric cars run in this manner? That is, at the end of the day, will this Tesla still do 0-60 in under 5 seconds, or will it take 30 seconds to reach 45mph because it doesn't have the charge necessary to get to 60? I simply don't know as I have not heard this addressed. Maybe someone knows how this is supposed to work. If this is simply not an issue with these cars, then we may be seeing the dawn of a new era.

Another question is, how did this company find financing to create this vehicle? Are they gov't funded or private? There is a demand for such cars, and knowing that, venture capitalists would only need to see a good plan to kick in. I really hope this was done privately. And I really hope the cars will perform as advertised, as well as with the same expectations we now take for granted of our current vehicles.

Republican Staffer? Sure.

As I visit the lefty blogs on my blogroll every now and then, I am often distracted from posting here, so involved as I might get with whatever topic is at hand, and having little time at the start. But once in a while such a visit provides a topic for me upon which to opine. Such is the case with today’s topic. I checked out “A Conscious Outpost” and found Ron all a twitter over an essay entitled “Goodbye To All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left The Cult” by some guy named, Mike Lofgren, a so-called congressional budget staffer for the GOP. I haven’t been able to find anything that spells out what his duties were exactly, and that could mean that he got coffee and donuts for those doing the real work, handed out towels in the bathroom or did some serious filing. Who knows? Perhaps someone can find that out. All I found on Google was a plethora of lib sites equally impressed with his essay as was Ron.

But as I read the piece, very little of what he wrote, sounded like a conservative wrote it. That’s not to say that a conservative couldn’t be fed up with the Republican Party. Indeed, most are. But the gripes sound so very…lib-like. So could this “Republican staffer” have actually been a liberal, or a supporter of Democrat policy?

Like a lib, I saw a lot of accusations, but very little in the way of documentation and evidence. Certainly no arguments as to why what he saw as problems were actually problems, or even real events.

But let’s look at a few, if I can hold it to that.

”Both parties are captives to corporate loot.”

This is a common charge, and a favorite of Ron’s. But like Ron, he really gives no solid examples of a party or politician really being controlled by any corporate entity or lobbyist. This is not to say that such examples can’t be found, as there have been stories of such catering to donor interests. It’s just that he doesn’t provide any.

But of course, the GOP is the worse of the two, which he then fails to truly demonstrate outside of charges that are almost cliché.

”But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.”

It would be nice if he would give an example of lunacy by any of them. Frankly, each of the GOP candidates have said one thing or another that I’d prefer to see clarified. But “lunacy”? Such rhetoric demands explanation.

”…but I could see as early as last November that the Republican Party would use the debt limit vote, an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87 times since the end of World War II, in order to concoct an entirely artificial fiscal crisis.”

Excuse me, but as I saw events unfold, it was the an artificial crisis being put forth to justify raising of the debt limit. Remember? Social security payments, soldiers pay, and other such things could not be guaranteed should that fateful date arrive without raising the limit in order to meet our obligations. The opposition party, the Republicans, insisted that no such crisis was at hand, that we could meet our obligations for at least several months and beyond with cuts to spending. The “crisis” was manufactured by the left.

”Then, they would use that fiscal crisis to get what they wanted, by literally holding the US and global economies as hostages.”

Funny how when the prez ain’t getting’ his way, it’s the right who are holding anyone hostage. What of their inflexibility?

”Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican filibuster.”

Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation, and just about everything else the left is pushing is worthy of a forceful blockade. This whining about what may be no more than elected representatives looking out for the best interests of their constituents and the country leads to a common lefty gripe that shows up in Lofgren’s footnotes.

”But already in 2009, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, declared that his greatest legislative priority was - jobs for Americans? Rescuing the financial system? Solving the housing collapse? - no, none of those things. His top priority was to ensure that Obama should be a one-term president. Evidently Senator McConnell hates Obama more than he loves his country.”

I can’t speak for McConnell, but by insuring Obama is not re-elected, one can improve one’s chances of solving all those issues. The fear, and a legitimate fear at that, is that by a second Obama term, those problems will surely worsen. Obama is seen as the biggest impediment to improving that national situation. So, focusing on removing the biggest impediment is indeed the adult option.

Get a load of this:

” A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.”

This is hardly representative of honest reporting. Such anecdotal evidence adds little to the credibility of the author and screams for names in order to prove the allegation. As it stands, it is patent crap. He calls it a cynical tactic, but not as cynical as suggesting it happened at all, or that the tactic is actually one that is actually employed. It has all the tone of your basic conspiracy theory. A few lines later he says this:

” These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard."”

…apparently forgetting that he said this:

”Both parties are captives to corporate loot.”
Pot, meet kettle.

This is getting lengthy and I’ve barely scratched the surface. I’ll have to hit this in at least one more post. But read the piece and you’ll see what I mean about Lofgren’s likely true political leanings.

Damn Bearss!

What a drag! After a fine showing in Week 1 against the Falcons, da Bearss drop one to the Saints. And they did so in just the manner I feared: O-line collapses. Cutler got hammered big time, as he did all last year. He was sacked, I think, six times, but was hit about 800 times. The death watch is on again. Will he survive another year without protection? A second starting lineman went down with an injury and that, as well as Cutler's questionable leadership skills does not bode well for the season. We've got the Pack next week and I know they're droolin' with anticipation as I type. In the meantime, all other division teams won, and da Bullss might not be seen for quite a while. Jeez! Cubs sucked all year. Sox tanked in the end. Chicago sports is very depressing right now.

I'm Bored With This Card

Every now and then, I come upon several articles and/or posts that are all touching on the same subject. This compels me to post on the subject. Recent events in the news have also had that effect, so I today I offer the following:

US Congressman Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana, recently stated that members of the Tea Party would love to see black Americans hanging on a tree.

US Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a Democrat from California, recently state that as far as she's concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell.

Ed Schultz, MSNBC blowhard, purposely chopped a speech by Rick Perry in order to use Perry's "black cloud" comment to accuse him of racism. Al Sharpton, another MSNBC braindead commentator and professional race-baiter, was said to have referred to that portion of the Perry speech in the same manner and with the same deceitful purpose as Schultz.

And not so long ago, we recall the group of people, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, making their way through a crowd of Tea Party people, and later saying they were victims of racial epithets hurled their way. Of course, even after Andrew Breitbart offered big bucks to anyone with proof of this, no proof was found.

*sigh*

The sad part is that this stuff is not new, has been going on for, like, ever, and there seems little reason to believe the left will dispense with such nonsense. Alphonzo Rachel has his own round up in the video below (but I don't know why it won't show the whole screen--should anyone have a tip, email me and I'll adjust it accordingly---in the meantime, you'll get his point just fine):





The real question is, why do black Americans fall for this? You can hear the supporters in the audience just diggin' the rhetoric. But it doesn't make any sense. As Zo indicates, these people speaking in this manner are the very same people who are responsible for the suffering of the black population in the first place. They are continually supported by the black community without that community ever benefiting by giving that support. The worst part is how stupid most of these black "leaders" are. Does anyone remember how in July of '03, US Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, stated that "All racial groups should be represented." in the naming of hurricanes. Really? Is this something that troubles the black community? If so, does it trouble them more than having an idiot like Lee, Waters, or Carson represent them?

It's enough to make one wonder if black people really do need the government to take care of them! If it's really true, and I'd like to believe it isn't, then perhaps the government should make sure they understand a few simple truths, such as which party has really been deserving of their support. This article, by Robert Rohlfing, posted at IntellectualConservative.com, should help to inform them.

There was supposed to be a change once Barry O'Babble was elected. The change to which I refer had to do with the whole racism issue. Here was an almost black guy elected to the most important position in the world, President of these United States of America, and it would show once and for all that we are truly united. But it hasn't worked out that way. People like those mentioned above, and even Obummer himself, have continued to play that race card. As this article, by Doug Edelman, and also posted at IntellectualConservative.com (because really, not all conservatives can be called intellectuals, but there are NO intellectual liberals, or they'd be conservative) illustrates nicely, to oppose Barry is to be a racist. No matter how stupid his policies or proposals might be, only racism is the reason he is opposed at all.

It seems clear that whatever racial divide still exists in this country is maintained by those who claim they want to see it bridged. Why those who seek true equality would continue to support such people defies explanation.

A Post For Parkie the Troll

These days when people ask someone, "How was your vacation?" the common response is so often, "Too short."

Well, Parkie's been posting comments again after an absence that has indeed been WAY too short. Naturally, he's been posting the usual pathetic, pitiful and woefully non-clever comments so typical for him and why we must continue to keep him in our prayers, and naturally I've been deleting them. BUT!! THIS comment, posted at the thread below the last was just so incredibly perfect in illustrating how far gone he is that I reprint it here in it's entirety:

""we hate"

Most honest comment of the year from MA..."

Ed Schultz would be proud, nay, envious for just how out of context the quote was and how Parkie used it to imply something completely false, as in, he's a freaking liar.

Maybe he thinks he's being funny. That would be sad and another example of the pathetic, pitiful and non-clever nature of the poor boy (or girl, as the case may be).

In the future, should anyone have the unfortunate experience of actually reading his drivel before I've had a chance to delete it, my advice would be to cut and paste it into your comment and respond that way. I'm gonna continue deleting his worthless drool until he decides to put on his big-boy pants and actually risk by posting a comment of substance that attempts to put seriously his own thoughts (such as they may be) on whatever topic is being discussed. I don't expect he has it in him, so don't hold your breath. The poor little troll.

Agenda Lies 3: No Slippery Slopes

I really hadn't intended on doing only Agenda Lies posts, but this came up on a local radio show, and I couldn't let it go without comment.

Those who push the "agenda that doesn't exist" have long insisted that concerns about a slippery slope are an overblown concern without merit. Rick Santorum, not so many years ago, got all sorts of heat for daring to suggest a relationship between homosexuality and other sexual sins and misbehaviors, that tolerating one leads to tolerating all. "Complete hysterical nonsense!" they cried, implying that only disordered homophobia could cause anyone to suggest such a thing.

Yet, what Santorum and others like him have so easily seen is coming to pass. We already have witnessed the beginnings of the push to legitimize polygamous marriages. As predicted (as if a special supernatural gift of prophecy was required to do so), the exact same arguments are being used to make the case that loving, committed varying numbers of people should be allowed to have their unions recognized and sanctioned by the state. How dare anyone judge them wrongly? How dare anyone try to force their religion down their throats?

Yeah.

Right.

Now we have the above linked article describing something very familiar, but far more onerous than what has already come to pass. Just as we saw back in the early '70s, where pressure from homosexual activists led to removal of homosexuality from the APA's list of mental disorders, we now have pressure from child molesters working to do the same for pedophilia. Can bestiality be far behind? It's becoming less and less unreasonable to suppose that it isn't.

You'll note in the linked article that it all sounds so very familiar. The story is true. Only the deviancy has been changed to protect the "rights" of a different set of perverts.

How did we come to this? It's not hard to understand. It's the result of a complete abdication of resolve in upholding traditional standards of morality and virtue. It is not uncommon, even among conservatives, to hear that we need to set aside concern for social matters in our politics. Seems pretty damned clear that we've been doing exactly that for far too long. Did homosexuals cause this? No. Of course not. But the activists pushing the agenda that doesn't exist is a distinctly combustible log on the fire of moral decline in our nation, begun with the "free love" jokers of the 1960s and the Hugh Hefners that encouraged it. The door between a virtuous nation and a totally depraved one was never cast-iron. It was never more than a screen door with no lock. And those jokers and Hefners ripped it off its hinges and cast it aside in some self-gratifying but false notion of personal freedom.

And now children are at risk. Recently, two fellow bloggers spoke on the notion of "slippery slopes" and whether that term is accurate in how it is used. One suggested it is really a cliff off of which we have voluntarily jumped. Doesn't matter. The decline is speedy either way. And another Agenda Lie is exposed.

Agenda Lies 2: Hatred and Bigotry

As I tried to put across in the inaugural post on the lies of the agenda that doesn't exist, there are many levels of lies and dishonesty that are utilized by proponents of the agenda. Some are blatant and others are not so much. Today's lie is supported by pointing to fringe groups such as the Fred Phelps crowd, who incorrectly insist that "God hates fags". Of course, this is as untrue and as much of a distortion of Biblical teaching as anything the activists and their enablers say to promote their sinful cause. God loves us all and desires that none of us should perish. Unfortunately, many of us will.

But the activists use "hate" and "bigotry" to demonize those of us who stand firmly with the truth of the Bible and God's intention for human sexuality and do not mitigate the sinfulness of behaviors He prohibits, even when we ourselves succumb to temptations. We understand that there is absolutely no support for the ridiculous and laughable contention that Scripture only prohibits "some forms" of homosexuality and shake our heads at the completely transparent childishness of the notion.

To the activists, being unwilling to tolerate lame arguments regarding the "normalcy" and/or the moral quality of the behavior is rank bigotry, as if acknowledging reality is itself sinful. I mean, imagine being called a bigot because you acknowledge that someone who feels compelled to eat mud is abnormal. Imagine being called a hater because you acknowledge someone who stole your car has committed a sin.

But this is the level of dishonesty they must employ to gain the victimhood status on which they rely to muster sympathy for their cause. Rather than rely on facts that support their contention that their behavior is as normal as heterosexual relations (between a man and woman married to each other) and as morally equal to heterosexual relations (between a man and woman married to each other), because they can't, they take the deceitful road of demonizing the righteous side of the debate as haters and bigots out to get them.

The fact of the matter is this: intolerance of bad behavior is a virtue, not a sin. To deny the immorality of behavior that God prohibits is not really a choice faith allows. But it isn't anywhere near the same as how one feels about the person who engages in the prohibited behavior. Should we hate a liar? No. But we can hate that he lies. Should we hate the thief? No. But we can hate that he steals. Do we hate the homosexual? Not at all. But we hate how the activist will lie in order to persuade the culture that their desire and willingness to engage in deviancy should be accepted as normal and equal to normal sexual behavior that is not immoral (that is, that which takes place between a man and a woman who are married to each other).

What's more, it seems fairly obvious that the activists and their enablers are demonstrating quite a bit of hatred and bigotry toward those who disagree with them.

Debt Ceiling Victory?

There have been all kinds of reports and analyses regarding this debt ceiling deal. The right-wing is divided over this agreement. Hard core conservatives are saying nothing was done and others on the right claim victory.

I can see both sides. If we consider the message of the last mid-term elections, this deal was a total failure. Runaway spending and liberal fiscal policy (if you can call it a policy) was the major reason so many Tea Party candidates did so well and the shift in the House to a Republican majority took place. This deal does very little (if anything) that should sit well with supporters of those candidates. And when you put that together with the fact that this "crisis" was totally manufactured by Barry O & Co., so that they could institute even more burdensome and economically destructive policies upon this country, it's hard not to agree with the elements of the hard-core conservatives. Especially since I count myself among them.

But the other side of the right-wing does have a point that must be accepted as true. The deal, and the debate that led to it, has indeed shifted the overall discussion in Washington from how and where to raise taxes (the left now calls it "raising revenues" so as to deceive---typical) to a focus on spending cuts, where it should have been for a long, long time. This is a good thing and a small but significant first step toward fiscal sanity and the important work of fixing our debt situation.

But it is ONLY a small step and alone accomplishes nothing whatsoever. From this point, the efforts must be doubled to get busy eliminating all that is completely unnecessary in terms of federal responsibility, which of course would include this disaster of a health care plan known as "Obamacare".

As anyone with a lick of sense and internet access can see, our issue isn't revenues, except as they have been obstructed by Obama's lame moves. The Bush tax cuts, like all similar tax cuts by three previous presidents have shown, raise revenues and are more stimulating to the economy than anything the left has offered, or have the brains to imagine. As Marco Rubio has stated so well, our problem isn't taxes, but tax payers. We need more of them and too many people are still out of work, or working for far less than they used to, and it is from people working where revenues come.

Put that together with sensible spending cuts and the result is prosperity once again. It might involve some pain, but we're in pain now as it is. An increase in pain in order to soon be pain-free is a worthy endeavor.

More Than Words

Getting back to that Barry Rosner column, I could almost use it for the next Agenda Lies installment, due to the underlying falseness that forms its premise. That falseness can be found in his words here:

"But never, seemingly, is there an actual discussion about the words themselves and why they are hurtful.

The focus is always on the act, the criticism and the contrition."

That falseness is in believing the focus does NOT belong on the act, or that words used in that act are of any true significance. It is indeed the act of name-calling where the real sin is committed, not in the name used to inflict the harm. One gets the sense that had Ozzie Guillen called the writer a horse's ass, not only would there have been no story, but not one sports writer would opine on the distress experienced by horses everywhere.

No. Rozner's column is simply a not-so-veiled defense of deviant sexual behavior and the people who engage in it. He starts from the unsupportable position that states that homosexual behavior is morally benign or morally equal to heterosexual behavior between a man and a woman married to each other. To him, as to other self-deceived people, it is not wrong.

OK. Let's suppose for a moment that it is not wrong. If that's the case, then what's the problem? As I said in the previous post, if someone calls me a "polack", I can't and don't take offense because I don't find being Polish to be anything to regret in the least. If I'm called a "Jesus freak", the same applies.

AH! they will respond. But you haven't been subject to the same evil persecution as homosexuals have! Really? There was a time when polack jokes were all the rage. Along with it came the condescension that would follow being caught in the act of making the average human mistake. "What a polack!"

Not good enough? Doesn't compare to physical attacks suffered by some homosexuals? Perhaps not. But Christians in many parts of the Middle East are still attacked and killed because of their beliefs. I haven't been attacked physically, but I'm attacked often on this here blog for expressing traditional and orthodox (not what Alan, Dan, Geoffrey and Feodor regard as orthodox, but ACTUAL orthodoxy) opinions. That makes me a victim in the same way most homosexuals are victims these days. A victim of mere name calling. I can't tell you how much sleep I've lost over such attacks. OK, I can tell you: none.

But that's all really besides the point. The point is that what Guillen has done is shown a great lack of self-control and poor judgement. And that would be poor judgement in publicly calling another person ANYTHING that isn't both a truthful description as well as pertinent to whatever discussion was ongoing at the time.

I don't think Guillen really had the writer's sexual orientation in mind when he called him a faggot. I don't think Kobe Bryant had the referee's orientation in mind when Kobe called him a fag. I don't think Joakim Noah had the fan's sexual orientation in mind when he called him a fag. I doubt any of these guys is even aware of the sexual orientation of any of their "victims".

Rozner sees these situations as opportunities lost for not using them to begin public edification on the horrors of using "anti-gay" slurs. But again, if the behavior is not wrong, then those engaging in it aren't wrong in their engagements, and using the term can't be offensive. Go ahead. Call me handsome in a manner meant to disparage me. See how offended I get. Call me a Jesus freak or a polack. I know the terms are meant to be negative and hurtful, but they aren't if I see nothing wrong with being handsome, Christian or Polish. What I do feel is confusion and a level of pity for the one calling me those names. It's like trying to kill me with a rub-down and a warm bath. It just won't hurt me. Nor can it.

What bothers those like Rozner is that people still understand that homosexual behavior is wrong and abnormal. They don't like people to believe that. And they want people to STOP believing that regardless of whether that belief is truthful or not.

This pants wetting over the use of homosexual related slurs is not much different than the manner in which bullying is being addressed these days. The attention is neither on the bullying or the name-calling, but rather who is being bullied and what slurs are being hurled about. Bullying and harrassments in schools have been going on since there have been schools, but the bullying of homosexual kids (or those believed to be homosexual, or kids who think they're homosexuals, or kids who are told by adults who should know better that it is OK to accept their homosexual urges as normal). Athletes and coaches have been yelling at refs, fans and sports writers since there have been sports, but somehow it's not that they lose their self-control that's the issue, but how their lack of self-control manifests itself.

Why is this? It's simple. Because those who are so corrupted as to believe that homosexual behavior is something worthy of defense are doing what they demand the rest of us never so much as dare think of doing. They are trying to force their morality down the throat of America.

I guess if Barry Rozner believes that homosexual behavior is worthy of defense, his column is one he had to write. But here's the real reason why one shouldn't hurl "anti-gay" slurs at people: if the person isn't a homosexual, you're making a horrible slanderous remark. It's like calling someone a thief if he's never stolen anything in his life. It's like calling an honest person a liar. It's like calling a hard working guy lazy. However, if you call a person a thief because he steals things, you're simply stating a fact, whether you use the actual word "thief" or any slang alternative. There's nothing wrong with stating the obvious.

It's Only Words, and Words Are All I Have...

This article can easily be used for another Agenda Lies post. Lies are at the heart of the position espoused by Barry Rozner. But instead I have a different point to make.

And I believe I've made it before in some past post. That would be the old "sticks and stones" issue. Why would anyone get so bent out of shape over being called things? The only rational reason revolves around the implications the epithet provokes.

Imagine if you are a thief. To be widely known as a thief would put a serious cramp in your business as to be known as a thief would make you an object of constant scrutiny as well as to be considered one that cannot be trusted. To be regarded as a thief unjustly, however, brings about the same conditions. No one wants to be regarded as a thief whether one is or isn't an actual thief. Why is that?

Because being a thief is a bad thing. If someone was to regard me as a thief, I would be hurt because the fact is that I am not. It would hurt in the sense that it was untrue and I would be suffering that scrutiny without legitimate cause.

There are other words that imply the same thing. "Robber", or "burglar" also mean that one so labeled helps himself to the possessions of others without consent of the owners. "Klepper" is another, although it is derived from the psychological condition of one who steals for no reason. I wonder if kleptomaniacs are offended to be called a klepper or if they hear someone using the term as an epithet toward another.

Part of the point I am trying to make has to do with the word being hurled my way and whether or not it is accurate of me in any way, and whether if it is accurate, if it is something of which I would be proud, or at least not something by which I could find offense.

If I am called a polack, I can't be offended because I am of Polish decent. Though the term is supposedly a slur, what it means is not a great deal different from merely calling me Polish. Neither do I find to be offensive because to be Polish is not something I can help, nor does it have anything to do with the quality of my character. (Of course, I am an American first and foremost as far as nationality goes--the origins of my ancestors is entirely irrelevant.)

Imagine if you were actually perfect. Would there be any alternative word for that which could be hurtful? Being perfect is, well, perfect and perfection is that unattainable something to which most people aspire as closely as humanly possible. What would being marginalized for being perfect mean? Would it be a slight against you, or would it mean an issue for those who shun you? Obviously, the latter. Those who shun you have the issue for not being able to bear the thought that you are automatically "better" in everything. Not "better" or more worthy as a person, but better in terms of ability.

So where's the problem with being called any slur? Is the slur just a slang term for an otherwise accurate label?

Some nitwits who visit here have chastised me as a homophobe for my use of the contraction "homo". Boo-hoo. I am neither irrationally afraid of either mankind in general or homosexuals, whichever the mean by the term. They will call me "bigot" for my use of the term. But obviously, I am no bigot simply for using a contraction.

But it is hurtful, they will say? Why would or should it be if there is nothing wrong with being a homo? What the hell is wrong with them for taking offense at being something they proclaim to be morally benign?

I can be referred to as a "Bible-thumper" or a "Jesus freak" or a "fundie" and be marginalized as a result. That's OK. There are plenty of like-minded people with whom I can associate, as well as more rational "non-religious" people who can deal with our differences. And politically, I've been called an "asshole Republican" and I merely consider the source.

Recently, there has been legislation proposed, and I think adopted, by some states and possibly on the federal level, that would alter legal documents and laws that use the term "mentally retarded" or any of its forms. I bring this up because it is also irrational to me. It used to be an acceptable term, but because it's been used as an epithet, it is no longer acceptable. What seems to be lost on those well intentioned supporters of such changes is that whatever term or word is used to replace that which has become an epithet, the replacement will be used in the exact same manner in due course. The term was meant to attack those who have shown a lack of intelligence by their actions or mistakes regardless of their true level of intelligence. For the mentally retarded, to called a retard is merely a statement of fact. Change it to "challenged" and what do you think will happen? Do something stupid and someone will eventually call you "mentally challenged".

The real issue here is two-fold.

1) For the pitcher, it doesn't matter what words one uses to attack another person. The issue is the attack itself. The attitude that one is trying to insult and hurt another is the sin, not the method or word used.

2) For the catcher, this also has two components of note.
a) If the label is accurate or not, why let it hurt? Why give it the power intended by the pitcher? Get a spine.
b) If the label is accurate or not, what difference if it is a slang term or not?

Agenda Lies

Welcome to a new feature here at Marshall Art's. This is something I've been wanting to begin for some time, but just couldn't decide on the format. I vacillated between a variety of options. It was after I saw this video that I decided to just jump in and do it. As you can see by clicking the link, the video is entitled "Name the poison". Another way to say this is, "call evil by its name". It's what is so desperately needed in this country these days, lest we suffer the consequences that befall those where good men have done nothing. (The video itself does not relate to this new feature, but is worth a visit, as is the blog that posted it.)

So here it is and I intend to present as the Spirit so moves me the lies that are put forth to sway public opinion toward a far greater moral decline than our nation as thus far suffered. They will be presented in no particular order regarding importance or potential for damage, as I believe them to be equal in their insidious effects. Blatant lies or slight twists of the facts. There's no difference.

Some lies are sincerely held as truths, though claims of sincerity also raise suspicion. Some of these lies are simply what some so desperately want to believe that they then lie to themselves about just how sincerely they believe them.

So the agenda to which I refer in the title is that of the homosexual agenda. Therein lies the first lie I will cover in this series: "There is no agenda."

I could point to the book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's" by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, but the liars will pretend that the opinions of two homosexuals does not an agenda make. But it's not as if they are the be all and end all of the agenda and the movement that seeks to implement it.

It's really far simpler than that. Every homosexual wishes their desires and behaviors would be tolerated and accepted as normal and equal to heterosexual behaviors. THAT constitutes an agenda.

Of course that would not include those homosexuals who do NOT put their urges above reason and righteousness. Not all men allow their desires to consume them to the point of demanding others accept them. I have no doubt some homosexuals insist on rising above letting their desires rule their sense of right and wrong. We call such people "MEN", or "MATURE ADULTS".

But to insist there is no agenda is an outright and obvious lie. It doesn't matter if a particular homosexual spends no time actively pursuing the goals of the agenda. But to pretend an agenda doesn't exist, or that that same particular homosexual dares to insist one doesn't exist is a lie. The danger of this lie is in the attitude it hopes to encourage. It is the same as saying there is no real danger of Islamofascism to our way of life. The level of danger and how that impact might be felt at any given moment is irrelevant. But as more people begin to believe that there is no danger, that there is no agenda, the easier it is for that danger/agenda to metastasize and become commonplace in our culture, to infect it and lower our standards of behavior and morality.

End the War?

Recently, there was a report about a host of "world leaders" who came together to call for an end to the "War On Drugs" because of what a failure it supposedly has been. There are those who feel that since efforts to lower drug use have failed (despite reports of fewer people using--not saying they're accurate, only that they exist), well we should just throw in the towel and not waste the money fighting this losing battle. Mostly left-wingers support this move.

At the same time, there are those on the right who speak disparagingly about the "War On Poverty". They feel the money spent on this struggle is also a waste.

There are other such wars, such as wars on "obesity" and "illiteracy". In each case, there are those who feel that we are losing or that we are wasting the money. In short, they want to quit. Give up. Wave the white flag.

The pattern here is evident in real war. Since Viet Nam (though the attitude has always existed to some extent throughout history), there are those for whom the costs of engagement rise to a level of great discomfort.

How did this happen? At what point did our national spine weaken so badly that no struggle is worth the effort to overcome? Was it the same time rules of engagement have changed so much as to make any effort almost futile?

Let's set aside real war and speak of those metaphorical wars mentioned first. Take the war on drugs. Without getting into whether or not any or all drugs should be legalized or de-criminalized, how should we respond to any call to end such a "war"? Seems to me that such calls are misguided. The drugs in question are illegal. They cause harm. The people who manufacture and market them cause even greater harm. The industry syphons money from the economy and puts it in the hands of very bad people, leaving behind fewer dollars to fix the problems caused by the use of the drugs. Ending the war will only alter the dynamic slightly. The bad guys will still engage in illegal activity in order to earn their living. That's what they do. The drug users will still use drugs, but do it more openly and likely more often. In short, there will be no tangible improvement of life in the country due to withdrawing our forces from the battlefield.

But the attitude that's behind this call is what is most troubling. QUIT! That's what is being suggested. Quit because it's hard! People are going to do drugs anyway, they say. There's nothing we can do about it.

Well. Here's another war that's hard! The "War On Crime". We've been waging this war for centuries. It has not abated. Let's call it a draw and go home. People will engage in criminal acts anyway. What's the use? We could use that money spent on law enforcement elsewhere.

Obviously, just as in real wars, the trouble is not the cause, but how we go about fighting. Generally speaking, recreational drugs are harmful, dangerous and a threat to the well being of our citizenry, especially children. The war must go on until victory is achieved. For victory is the only exit strategy worth mentioning. How to we measure victory? Just as in real war, when the enemy is defeated, totally, unconditionally and with extreme prejudice.

Pride in Weakness

As some of you may know, June is the month our idiot-in-chief designated "Gay Pride Month". It's the one month of the year when the sexually confused and/or corrupted can celebrate their giving in to their deviant desires.

The rest of us are supposed to celebrate "diversity" and whatever contributions such people have made to society. Aside from adding to the general moral decline by forcing their perversion on the culture, demanding that good people pretend along with them that how they choose to get their sexual jollies should be viewed as morally benign and equal to that which takes place within the context of a real marriage, I don't see how their proclivities matter in any other contributions any of them may have made. Ellen DeGeneres is funny regardless of the fact that she is a lesbian. Her "coming out" is only an unnecessary distraction and frankly, I never needed to know it.

Few did. Those struggling with their own urges have not been served well by her coming out, or by any other celebrity doing so, as they now have a bad role model held up as a good one, so that they feel validated by giving in as well. It's no different than a favorite movie star being exposed as a smoker, or a favorite athlete know to cuss, or a rock star doing drugs or groupies. The fans will follow suit either in practice or approval. Those who already feel compelled toward such behaviors will feel there is no social objection to their own jump in the swamp.

So maybe we need a month to celebrate other bad behaviors as well. After all, liars have impacted our culture, haven't they? (Think liberals) So many lie as if compelled to. They were likely born that way. Greedy people have built empires that employ millions and the power hungry have held public office. Do they not also count toward our "rich diversity", as if diversity is a plus?

My state, the Pathetic People's Republic of Illinois, just passed a civil union law. Happy homos and lesbos have lined up to get their faux-marriage certified by the state because you know, there was no other possible way in which to change hospital policies and inheritance laws. Gov. Quinn knows how to celebrate Sexual Pervsion Pride Month.

So get out there and decorate your homes with rainbow banners and adorn you GLBT Tree with ornaments of the season. The United States of America now celebrates deviancy every year. What a country!

Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead!

In the Wizard of Oz, the Munchkins rejoiced when Dorothy's house fell on the Wicked Witch. Their suffering was ended, so they they were jubilant. Last week we got the news that Osama bin Laden took one in the head, and there was great rejoicing outside the White House, with chants of "USA! USA! USA!" as if the US Water Polo Team just beat Lithuania.

As a result of this celebration, all sorts of analysis has been going on, as this AP story illustrates. Such reflection suggests there is something wrong with whooping it up after a scumbag like bin Laden gets his. Dennis Prager ran a clip of some goofy psychologist worrying about the signals it sends to children. Prager, being a sharp dude, rightly understands that children are relieved when monsters are destroyed. The fact is, so are adults. There is a marked difference in the comfort level of people in general to find a really bad person was executed as opposed to merely locked up, where, despite the level of probability, a chance at escape or release exists. Sure, a cretin might be locked in a maximum security prison, but that just doesn't feel the same as the cretin being dead and totally unable to cause any further harm. Ever.

So is it wrong to celebrate? Hell no. The death of bin Laden insures his evil intent will never again manifest. It's the ultimate closure for the survivors of his horrors and for those who fear what he might do next. By now, he's shark poop being fed upon by lower life forms at the bottom of the sea. What a perfect ending for one so evil.

But is that attitude unChristian? Well, of course, no one should celebrate the death of another. Back when John Wayne Gacy finally was put to death for his heinous crimes, a Chicago talk radio host (unfortunately a right-winger) wanted to host a party outside the prison where he would meet his end. That's wrong.

But at the same time, justice being served is worthy of celebration. It's not such bastards being put to death that should provoke rejoicing, but what their deaths mean that deserves rejoicing. Justice served and evil stopped. Fear alleviated and a message sent. Those are good things. The worse the criminal, the greater the celebration. So hoist one and throw the glass to the hearth! The witch is dead!

More Hypocrisy

As this article illustrates nicely, hypocrisy is routine amongst supporters of abnormal sexual practice. Note the nasty things the author of the Gawker piece says about those with whom he disagrees.

Now, I understand the urge to mock those with different views. I'm not beyond that myself. But when the mockery comes from those who criticize those who mock them, it's hypocrisy. Worse, the mockery they lament is framed as hatred and bigotry, the worst thing in the world, and even God is guilty if what some Christians say is true about the Biblical prohibition against all forms and manifestations of their favored sexual practices.

At the same time, what choice to they have? They have no legitimate defense of their position. Pretending the other side is evil, stupid or backward and mocking them for it is about all they can do, short of acknowledging their problem and/or ignoring the truth.

Hypocrisy at its best

As this Americans for Truth article points out, groups like GLAAD aren't all that concerned about hate speech and bigotry after all.

After a recent incident on the court, wherein Kobe Bryant hurled a slur at a ref after the ref made a call with which Kobe disagreed, the skies darkened, the earth shook, and GLAAD and other pro-homo activists shrieked in dismay that Kobe would dare utter an eptithet they consider to be THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD!!!! How dare he? He needs a beating and severe psychological re-formatting!

So the Lakers and church groups (most likely liberally-leaning church groups) and GLAAD has gotten together to fight against such awful things.

Yet, as we see from the linked article, they don't much care about hate speech and bigotry really. What they care about is their idea of hate speech and bigotry, that anything that is opposed to their agenda be considered hateful and bigoted. It isn't hate speech that bothers them, but to whom the speech is directed and from whom it is spoken.

This is a typically leftist situation. At another blog I visit, I'm often warned against incivility, but recently compadres of the host have been given carte blanche to open fire upon me. (Don't worry---I can take it---no one there is clever enough in the art of insult to do more than make fools of themselves by attempting any)

GLAAD honoring such a scumbag as they have proves the point I'm making here. Because the left, and homo-enabling outfits like GLAAD, have decided that homosexuality is normal and equal morally to heterosexuality, they spend a lot of effort trying to convince the world that the least opposition to their cause is tantamount to hate. When such sad and pathetic people can successfully demonize those who are the right side of the issue being debated, it scares off the weaker among us from standing for truth and honesty, and makes their lame arguments and evidences easier to swallow. Well, not so much easier, but people have pretend it doesn't taste so bad.

Well, some of us know their nonsense is poisonous to our culture and are not content to simply let them take control of the debate without a fight. Their position is based on lies and lies must be opposed.

Continue to fight. Continue to pray for their repentence. Continue to provide avenues to address their condition so that they may learn to deal with their temptations like adults are supposed to. They're still people despite how corrupted they are and they need help.

How Many???

From the recent issue if National Review that arrived today

"An ABC/Washington Post poll found that 53 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage. But don't believe it. For one thing, respondents seem to tell interviewers that they favor same-sex marriage because they think it's what they are supposed to say. Their answers are more negative when voting or responding to robo-calls. The question was also flawed: "Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?" Of course nobody is proposing to throw same-sex couples in jail for getting a friendly Unitarian minister to hold a ceremony for them, or for calling themselves married is social settings. We do not think that this behavior should be "illegal" or, to use another misleading word bandied about in this debate, "banned". What we oppose is official recognition of these unions, since such recognition would undermine the core purpose of marriage law, which is to link procreation to stable households. The poll is not evidence that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. It is, however, evidence that its supporters have succeeded in setting the terms of debate."

...or as I like to say, they've succeeding in using their dishonesty to influence public opinion. Not a surprise since there is little that is honest that is used to support the agenda that doesn't exist.

Poor Doggy!

Recently on Facebook, a plea was posted on behalf of an abused dog. This animal was found in a dumpster at the bottom of some building's garbage chute. It was suffering from lack of nourishment and barely alive. The person who had posted this sad story had begun a petition seeking justice for the animal through some action against the abuser, should he be found. Naturally, it was expected that readers sign the petition. The Facebook friend that posted this story was not the originator of the story, but was only passing it along. She says she is an animal activist and expressed her dismay and disgust at the animal's condition, as well as toward the person responsible.

Then things got a little dicey.

I offered my comment that I could not in good conscience sign the petition. Despite the fact that I oppose animal abuse, I do not believe the perpetrators of such behavior should be treated like they beat the crap out of another human being. Indeed, such behavior, as awful as it is for the animal, should provoke some level of concern, if not compassion, for the abuser. Such a person is obviously in need of help. But the person who started the petition wants revenge on behalf of the dog.

To me that's sick. It's just as sick as the person who did the abusing. It's a twisted and corrupted sense of compassion.

It's not an uncommon sentiment...it even showed up in a Lethal Weapon movie (I think the third one). Riggs is confronted with a snarling guard dog and is encouraged to shoot it. He won't, saying in not so many words, "Naw...I love dogs. It's people I hate." Funny stuff (sorta), but in reality a terrible attitude even if only mildly held.

The usual scenario: A burning building. You look up and see two windows and in each is a face hoping for rescue. In the left, a sorrowful and desperate puppy with it's sad, puppy eyes (which it has because it's a freakin' puppy) and in the other, homosexual cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer, who abused animals in his youth before turning to meatier victims. There's only time to save one, by golly! Who do you save? The answer is clear and simple: Dahmer. The poor little puppy dies. To let Dahmer burn is unconscionable. In fact, it's tantamount to murder. Not so if the puppy dies. Not even close.

Later in the conversation, I referred to a public service announcement with Sarah Mc-somebody (I can't remember how to spell her last name) begging for support for abused and neglected cats and dogs. I indicated my belief that the producers go out of their way to insure the animals look as pathetic as possible. I took a little heat for that, too. But in fact, I believe the same is done when seeking donations for ANY cause, even hungry kids. Here's the thing: While there are hungry kids, and abused kids, and aborted kids, I couldn't care less about the plight of animals. I don't think my God would like it.

Animals are great. I love 'em. Have one myself. Have had animals in my house for the last twenty-five years or more. But they're animals. Nothing more. Their deaths were sad due to the impact on my wife and kids. It's easy to get a new one. Do I miss any of 'em? A bit. But no sleep was ever lost. I'm tired right now, in fact.

Animals are a resource. They're like oil, gold, water. They're here for our personal use. They're fun, often a pain, but can be a friend and an emergency meal when things are really bad (except for whippets).

What they aren't is people. They should not be regarded as such. No. They should not be abused for any reason, except for grilling or making coats. But barring that, they should not be tortured for pleasure or if kept for any reason, neglected. Pets do deserve to be taken care of if one chooses to have one. I do not much care for the idea of getting a pet and then giving it away when one gets tired of having one. (Well, except for maybe the first time---but only once. Then, don't ever get another.)

But let's not get carried away. Keep it in perspective. They are, after all, only animals.

Well, Call Me Pappy!!

Woke about fifteen minutes ago to the ringing phone, followed by giddy voices from down the hall. Turns out at 7:02AM, a six pound six ounce eighteen inch granddaughter arrived for the wife! She's still doing the granny dance as I type. The child's name is yet to be determined and remains a deep concern considering some that have been bandied about, but we have hopes that nothing Star Wars related will prevail.

So apparently the kid couldn't wait its appointed time, which was about two weeks hence. This only adds to Mom's joy. She was about ready to reach in and pull the child out herself. Only five hours of labor.

Happiness and joy abound as mother and child are healthy. God's blessings to them now and onward. Glorious day!

Choose Life

A great speech that too many won't hear, and that too many others will hear and ignore.

NEW ADDITIONS TO "RIGHT ONES" LIST

Please direct your attention to the "Right Ones" blogroll list. There you will find a new addition called, "Not A Drive-By Blog". The host of this site contacted me after reading some of my posts and asked if I'd check out his blog and then perhaps link to it. I have done both. He's new, conservative (which is nice) and so far, seems to be mainly political. A look at his profile will show he's just a regular guy with the desire to express his opinions on what's going on and he does so in a concise and even tone. I encourage all to give him a visit and check him out over the next few weeks to see how he does. He invites comments and guest posting, which you don't see every day, so that's kinda unique. Check it out.

ALSO:

I almost forgot! I've added "Tug's Blog" to the list as well. Tugboatcapn has been out of the loop for a little while and fortunately decided to return to the Land of Blog. He's commented here a time or two and also gave me personal insights into the trucking world, so I would be remiss if I did not also alert readers to his commentary as well.

WE THE TERM LIMITS

Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Barack Obama. The mere mention of names like these is all the argument one should need for term limits. Who could argue against term limits when these names are brought up?

Me.

I recently received a few emails that were, for the most part, a list of proposals most of which I could easily support. Among these were:

* Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
* Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%
* Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
* Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

...as well as a few others. These all sound great and I have no issue with any of them. It would belong past due to enact them immediately.

But along with these fine suggestions was the call for term limits for Congressional members. I can't get behind this one. Sure. I'd like to see Barney Frank out of politics. Harry Reid, too. There's a host of senators and congressmen who have long ago worn out their welcome and whose continued presence does little to serve the best interests of the United States of America.

But here's the thing: somebody wanted them. They didn't get re-elected by accident (though in some cases it can be argued some won by fraud). But if these poor choices were termed out, so too would be those who are good in their roles as representatives of the people.

Now, I don't know with any certainty just who in the House or Senate are absolute crooks, saints or something in between. I can't say who entered with the right attitude and before the end of their first term became corrupted to a degree that affects his votes on whatever. I can't say just who entered with the intention of fattening their own bank accounts, seeing public service as a sure-fire way to financial freedom rather than as a rare privilege to serve the public interest.

But hey! THAT'S part of the problem. The reason we have so many losers in Congress is due to our own lack of interest in our own interests. If we as a self-governing people took the time, or at least SOME time, to pay attention, the losers could not keep their sweet gigs. Look again at that list above and tell me who would have voted for people who would exempt themselves from the laws they pass on the rest of us? If you knew that up front, would you even dare tell others of your support for them?

So the issue is not that these buffoons are left to run wild for term after term without hindrance. The issue is why have we let them? Where were we? We were going about our business under the assumption that all would work out because we elected people about whom we knew little to nothing.

"They're all crooks, anyway!" it is said. Nonsense and a cop-out spewed by the lazy who have just enough energy to whine and complain when things go south. (Indeed, this is spoken mostly by those who whine and complain and never vote in the first place. Their nerve in daring to utter a word on the subject entitles them to the greatest scorn for making the bed in which we all toss and turn.)

WE THE PEOPLE are all the term limits we need or should have. It is our responsibility as citizens to stay abreast of the actions and behaviors of our elected officials. If we can't know with certainty the character of a given candidate, we can surely know how he voted on proposals and bills and bounce him out at the next possible election. But if a guy keeps making all the right moves, I want him to stay as long as he is moved to serve.

Some like to say that our founders envisioned a citizen politician who would serve his term and then return home to live under the laws he helped pass. But if they meant for that to be the rule, then they would have instituted it as such. I can't help but think that they, too, left room for he who served well, offered to serve again and was the chosen one of the people. Some actually sacrifice better gigs in the private sector to serve their country. If they continue to do so well and honorably, why would I want to force them out?

There's also the problem of what term limits would solve. I can't see that it would solve anything but cause the problems to which I alluded above. The same dynamic would exist. People would have even less incentive to pay attention figuring that their stupid selection would only destroy so much until he is termed out. Term limits would NOT induce the electorate to be more responsible in selecting leaders and representatives. The only thing term limits would do would be to throw out the good with the bad. How does that help?

If there's any downside to my position, it is one that already exists. Our ability to persuade those with whom we disagree. It is a well known fact that among the left leaning portion of our society there exists some of the most stupid, self-centered and fantasy-land inhabitants one could imagine. They have too much sway over the well-meaning but poorly informed balance of their population. It's difficult to get them to see the world as it is, so they vote according to what they think it ought to be. It obviously doesn't work that way. One must be grounded in reality and vote according to how best to navigate the world as it is for the benefit of the most people. The right wing understands this but has failed to spread this understanding to our left leaning friends. That's why a Barney Frank can serve for as long as he has. But if we term Barney out, will his constituents then see clearly? Not likely. They'll only vote for Barney Frank II, then III, then IV.

WE THE PEOPLE are the only term limits we need or should have. That's the way it was meant to be. Let's not abdicate our responsibilities for convenience. If someone sucks, vote him out and get others to vote him out as well. If someone serves well, support him for another term.

UPDATE!!!

Regarding the email itself (there were actually two, both pretty much the same), it should be noted that much of it is not entirely true. My focus always fell on the call for term limits, which I strongly oppose. To the rest of the emails I gave little attention, and what little attention I paid it met with no disagreement. How could it? It all sounds so good. But so much that floats around the world wide web is faulty, so I checked out a few things.

*Congress has been paying into Social Security since 1984.
*Congress passed an amendment in '89 allowing for automatic pay increases unless lawmakers specifically vote to reject it. They have rejected it before. (I would change this to NO automatic pay increase ever, but that's how it works now.)
*The Congress Accountability Act of 1994 mandates that Congress abide by any law they pass.

These a but a few. The point aligns with what I have been saying about term limits. If we pay attention, if we do OUR due diligence as much as we can, these kinds of things can't be put over on us any more than bad politicians be put over on us. It's what self-governance is all about.

It's Official!!!!

I got word today that all hurdles have been, uh, hurdled, and the full time gig of which I spoke has been officially offered and subsequently accepted by yours truly. I then walked into the office of my lovely boss (she really is lovely) and tendered my resignation from the woefully poor paying part-time position that only slowed the rate of retirement fund raiding that took place before I got the gig. My new job, which will begin on the 3rd of February, will provide an income beyond that of any previous job of my past.

Debt elimination (reduction isn't good enough) and savings replenishment is the order of the day. The car will last for now, especially since I can afford repairs that may arise. Will resist unnecessary projects of great expense and focus only on hole-in-the-roof type necessities. The one extravagance that will have any priority is a sparkler for the fetching Mrs. Marshall Art. At such time as I have confidence that I'm in like Flynn with the gig, hopefully within the first month, we shall retire to the nearest "Jewelries Are Us" store and pick out something suitable.

Once the fiduciary ship has been righted, I will be pleased to again contribute to causes near and dear on a more regular basis. This pleases to no end.

So, happy days are here again it seems and I can't wait to get started. It is my hope that this will be the last job I ever have before I retire.

God is good.

Some Positive News---for a change.

Two items for which I am grateful.

1. My computer is fixed. It had a virus. All my files survived, but my unnecessarily long list of favorites did not. That's OK. I can deal with that just fine, even allowing for those few items I was really hoping to use when the computer got fixed. It was quite a drag using the back-up computer upstairs, as it is incredibly slow compared to that which I had become accustomed. I was given a laptop to use, but that also crashed coincidentally.

But now all is well again and that means posting again. I've had some ideas, but throughout the holiday season (beginning around Thanksgiving), I haven't had much spirit for doing so. With the computer fixed, I'm a bit more up for it.

2. This one I wasn't going to mention until it became official, but it's the best bit of circumstances that's come my way in a while. It appears that my job search has come to an end. A company for whom I interviewed recently ended up hiring someone who worked for a competitor of theirs. I was told that if something opened up in December or January I'd be called. I wasn't sure if it was actually and legitimately likely, or if it was just a consolation speech. A few days ago the contact called and asked if I was still interested. Needless to say...

At this point, it's really a matter of the job being mine to lose. I have to do another road test in a straight truck (I'm driving a B-class vehicle now, part time), then a physical, and then depending on whether or not my current employee really needs two weeks notice, I should be gainfully employed full-time by the end of this month. My wife is so happy. Even better, there will be more than forty hours per week far more often than not, so I'll be taking home far more than the job that laid me off two years ago. So I'll be able to recover from that woeful event more quickly and return once more to life as we once knew it. Praise God for this wonderful turn of events, and may He protect me from anything that might blow this opportunity. WOO_HOO!