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!
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Monday, May 09, 2011
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!
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!
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, April 08, 2011
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.
"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.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)