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.