Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That’s no offense; it’s a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God’s name is prohibited by the state.
We’re allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They’ve outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the ‘unwed daddy,’ our Senior King.
It’s “inappropriate” to teach right from wrong,
We’re taught that such “judgments” do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It’s scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school’s a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen
Would it play out that way in every case? No, but in big districts, if there's particularly damaging information out there, a Googlebomb could have the potential to sway hundreds of voters.
So, what’s to be done? Well, in my opinion, we should simply fight fire with fire. That’s why I put together a list of key races for Republican blogs to Googlebomb. How do you do that? Simply view source, grab the HTML below, and post it on your blog or in a forum that you frequent. Then, once Google picks it up, the links on these candidates should rocket up charts and help even the playing field for the GOP in the key races.There are several ways to end up being what I call an obligatory atheist. Like every other human capacity--from math to music to hitting a baseball--the ability to intuit the divine runs along a continuum. Frankly, there are a few people for whom the realm of the sacred really does seem to be a closed book, but I actually focus a lot of my writing on trying to give these good folks a hand up, a way to "get" religion. On the other hand, a larger percentage of atheists have been traumatized or repulsed by a dysfunctional version of religion as a child. They are the ones who can get more angry, obnoxious and militant. (sounds like most that i know - hih)
Another segment of the atheist population consists of the “not smart enough” who are nevertheless extremely proud of their intellect. This in itself is a contradiction, for they have great faith in the intellect’s ability to know reality, and yet, place an arbitrary limit on what the intellect may know. The placement of this limit is not a result of logic or reason. It is actually more of a religious inclination, for it is an absolute statement about what the human mind may or may not know. And once you are in the realm of the absolute, you are reflecting one of the attributes of the divine mind.
I do not know the first thing about wine. And yet, I know that I do not know, and I also know full well that there are enologists who do know what I don’t. In fact, I am one hundred percent certain both of my ignorance and their expertise in this area. But since I am ignorant, how do I know this? Among other reasons, I know it because it would be absurd to deny the testimony of thousands of enologists who have trained themselves to make subtle discriminations in the realm of wine. If I were to object and tell them that they are fooling themselves and that there is no empirical proof that one wine is any better than another, they would properly regard me as a gustatory moron with a boorish and cretinous palate.
While numbers aren’t everything, needless to say, the numbers are on my side, in that billions of human beings have personally experienced the Divine, whereas atheism is an absurdity that makes no sense to all but a few eccentrics and misfits. More importantly, there are any number spiritual geniuses who have left maps of the domain of spirit that are every bit as subtle and detailed as the maps of science. I have been guided by these maps, so I know the territory they describe is ontologically real.
Despite 36 straight months of expansion, an unemployment rate of 4.6%, and inflation at an annual projected rate of 2.4%, the media still can't bring themselves to report on a Republican economy honestly. Business & Media Institute found that TV networks gave twice as much airtime to negative stories as positive ones (62% - 31%). Bad news was twice as likely to get full-length treatment as well. The people interviewed by the network were three times more likely to relate negative anecdotes. To no one's surprise, CBS took the lead in negative coverage, committing 80% of its economic coverage to bad news in the middle of a huge economic expansion.to summarize: no news is good news.
No industry can be that incompetent by accident. There has been a deliberate attempt to deceive people through anecdotal coverage in a period where all of the economic indicators have shown remarkable and broad growth.
Even if these purported scapegoats (for previous missteps in the Iraq war) have been accurately portrayed, and their mistakes account for the current pessimistic Iraqi prognosis — neither of which I grant — what are we to say about those currently in charge? Even critics of the war have praised the Middle Eastern Ambassador Khalizad, the savvy Gen. Petraeus, the Arab-speaking Gen. Abizaid, and the best and the brightest fighters in the field, such as a Lt. Col. Kurilla or a Col. McMaster. All of these players are not only in, or about to be back in, Iraq, but are pivotal in crafting and adapting American tactics and strategy there.
Many wars metamorphize into something they were not supposed to be. Few imagined that the Poland war of 1939 would within two years evolve into a war of annihilation involving the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, Germany, Japan, and Italy. So too with the third Iraqi war of 2003 (following the first 1991 Gulf War, and the second, subsequent 12-year no-fly zone stand-off) that has now become a fight against jihadists for the future course of the entire Middle East.
What matters now is not so much what the war was or should have been, but only what it is — and whether we have learned from our mistakes and can still win. The answer to both questions is yes. We have the right strategy — birthing (through three elections already) an autonomous democracy; training an army subject to a civil government; and pledging support until it can protect its own constitutional government.
Few American officers are talking about perpetual occupation or even the need for more troops, but rather about the need for a lighter footprint, bolstered by teams of Special Forces and air support, to ensure Iraqi responsibility for their own future,. And the key to success — a diplomatic squeeze on the Sunnis to suppress terrorists in Nineveh and Anbar provinces in exchange for Shiite guarantees of more government inclusion — is now the acknowledged goal of both the Iraqi and American governments.
Thousands in Iraq accept that they have crossed the Rubicon, and they must either make their own democracy work or suffer a fate worse than that of the boat people and the butchered in Southeast Asia when the Americans left...
The odd thing is that, for all the gloom and furor, and real blunders, nevertheless, by the historical standards of most wars, we have done well enough to win in Iraq, and still have a good shot of doing the impossible in seeing this government survive. More importantly still, worldwide we are beating the Islamic fundamentalists and their autocratic supporters. Iranian-style theocracy has not spread. For all the talk of losing Afghanistan, the Taliban are still dispersed or in hiding — so is al Qaeda. Europe is galvanizing against Islamism in a way unimaginable just three years ago. The world is finally focusing on Iran. Hezbollah did not win the last war, but lost both prestige and billions of dollars in infrastructure, despite a lackluster effort by Israel. Elections have embarrassed a Hamas that, the global community sees, destroys most of what it touches and now must publicly confess that it will never recognize Israel. Countries like Libya are turning, and Syria is more isolated. If we keep the pressure up in Iraq and Afghanistan and work with our allies, Islamism and its facilitators will be proven bankrupt.
If you ask me, the entire philosophy of the animal-rights movement boils down (45 minutes at high heat, add many grains of salt) to "Animals, unlike men, do not wage war," granting the critters the sort of moral standing they would never bestow upon humans — except, of course, themselves.
"...all sorts of great stories about what a dork Bush is, and you can tell me how you don't like so-and-so in Congress, and you can tell me how you don't like this or that legislation, but you can't tell me how the Democrats are going to make it anything but worse."read the rest
Wackademia: Where parodies of truth are disseminated by parodies of scholarship to a slackjawed but diverse flock of sheep. For the academic left, time stands still no less than it does for the Islamists, except that it is always 1967 instead of 1267.Despite the lightness of that line, the rest of the article is quite deep and worth reading in its entirety.
Modern scientific reason says that the universe is governed by rules through and through; indeed, it is the aim of modern reason to disclose and reveal these laws through scientific inquiry. Yet, as Schopenhauer asks, where did this notion of a law-governed universe come from? No scientist can possibly argue that science has proven the universe to be rule-governed throughout all of space and all of time. As Kant argued in his Critique of Judgment, scientists must begin by assuming that nature is rational through and through: It is a necessary hypothesis for doing science at all. But where did this hypothesis, so vital to science, come from?The rational universe, with laws that govern reality and keep everything spinning in its proper place (from electrons to planets), is fundamental to science. Lately there are those who argue that the rationality on which science so fundamentally depends comes from Intelligent Design. This is an interesting conundrum, since science itself has argued, using the concept of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics that things move from order to disorder, not the other way around. So where did all of this order, these working laws and limits that allow both a rational universe and the science to apprehend it come from, if not externally, from a designer?
North Korea's nuclear capability has been tacitly assumed for a few years, and learning they actually set one off is a bit like hearing Paris Hilton appeared unsteady as she left a club. Still, an actual nuclear explosion does focus the mind, and makes you wonder what comes next. Let history be our guide:
First we had the Clinton talks, in which North Korea promised to be good. They were given some lovely parting gifts, including much-needed heating oil to warm the officer barracks in the death camps. Then came the six-way talks, which were interrupted briefly for three-way talks over two-way radios; then the my-way-or-die-way talks we're now experiencing. Along the way North Korea broke the seals, restarted its Secret Bomb Program, enriched nuclear fuel and fortified it with vitamins, lobbed missiles hither and yon, and behaved exactly like the sociopathic criminal state everyone knows it to be. The West's most forceful reaction was a puppet movie that made fun of Kim Jong Il. As we speak, the U.N. Security Council is studying the feasibility of a sequel; debate hinges on a French demand to call the puppets "marionettes."
A plan is in place to censure and impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Orchestrated and organized by the radical Left and Congressman John Conyers, Jr., this plan is ready to go should the Democratic Party take control of the House of Representatives in November.I know the Republicans have strayed way too far towards big government, have done a poor job of explaining progress in the poorly-named 'war on terror', and - despite their focus on national security - have left both our northern and southern borders terribly porous. But if the dhimmicrats get control, each and every one of those problems would be magnified a hundred-fold, their amoral minority agenda will be strengthened, America's enemies will be appeased, the 'war on terror' will be fought daily in battles on American soil, and quite possibly there won't be an America for us to reclaim.
The plan is the ultimate manifestation of left-wing hatred for George W. Bush rooted in the contentious election of 2000. Since failing to defeat Bush in 2004, the Left has focused its efforts on destroying his presidency by assembling a list of charges aimed at impeaching him.
Here are some telltale signs of the sort of person who would vote (or not vote) to cause the election of a party that would act to defeat every value and interest he holds dear (merely because the party that will at least try to advance most of those issues has not done as well as he might have hoped):This current conservative petulance -- if it actually occurs on Nov. 7 -- will increase the chances of electing Hillary, or worse (if such a thing is possible) in 2008. There is no rational policy or political basis for conservatives not voting. I'm not sure the country can take the current Democratic mob in power for long.
- When offered by a car dealer 25 percent off on a car, he insists on paying the full factory-recommended retail sticker price -- because he is damned if he will accept 25 percent when he deserves 30 percent off.
- When the prettiest cheerleader asks the nerd to take her to the prom, he turns her down -- just because he can.
- When stopped for doing 70 in a 65 zone, he tells the trooper that's not possible because he had the cruise control set on 90 -- he just resents being falsely charged.
- When diagnosed with a serious illness, he promptly cancels his medical insurance -- in order to save the cost of premium payments to help pay for the upcoming hospital stay.
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. - Marcus Tullius CiceroNot sure, but that just might have some relevance these days... (more or less)
It's a disgraceful and pathetic scene, but despite professions of shock from everybody in the sportsworld whom I've seen or heard comment on it, I don't think anyone is really surprised. Big time college sports programs recruit semi-literate, semi-articulate non-students because they have the physical talent to win football and basketball games. No one should be surprised that out of every fifty such athletes a half dozen or so are genuine thugs.
With the passing of former Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA), I was disappointed to see that the Foley mess was... brought up yet again. After all, Studds' own sexual escapades with pages were often brought back up as a point of comparison for Foley's Folly.
The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that it was a pretty weak comparison. Both were certainly reprehensible, but they had far more in common with other scandals than with each other.
For example, let's look at what Gerry Studds did:Toss in a black beret and a cigar, and you have the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal in a nutshell.
- Had sexual relations with someone nominally his subordinate
- Went to great lengths to conceal the relations
- Denied the relationship right up until confronted with proof
- When unable to deny it any longer, fully acknowledged it had happened
- Was fiercely defended by his fellow party members
- Ended up even more popular than ever, even lionized for his courage
- Almost certainly broke the law, either during the relationship or in trying to conceal it
- Retired "honorably," and was still highly regarded years after leaving office
- Was a highly regarded Democrat
Now, as regards to the Foley mess:That sounded (familiar, then) it hit me: Mark Foley is the new Bob Packwood.
- Most-publicized offense was very clumsy sexual come-ons, not actual sexual congress
- Did not violate any existing laws, or at least skirted them
- Rapidly became a laughingstock and punchline to jokes
- Resigned in disgrace after being abandoned by his party
- Became a pariah
- Instead of either embracing the offense or admitting it as a personal failing, fell back on excuses such as alcoholism to "explain" the misconduct
- Backed many laws that helped greatly those he allegedly victimized
while taxes, education, free speech, etc. (are) important, the survival of this nation is more so. The number one issue in this election should be Islamic terrorism. YES, taxes are important, and yes, they are too bloody high. Yes, the GOP has made some dumb decisions when it comes to, say, McCain-Feingold, immigration, and, indeed, the war...read the rest.
But do tell how casting an ineffectual or flat-out silly vote for, oh, Carl Levin is going to help. Really. Yes, the GOP deserves a slap, but this IS NOT the way to do it. Do I deserve to be punished? Do YOU? Your parents? Your kids? Our soldiers?!??! Hello?
There is no victory in losing. Pull your heads out of the sand. Does anyone remember the Clinton era? Anyone? If I recall, that was a vindictive, "we'll show them!" vote from the Republican and conservative base, too. Brilliant. Worked out beautifully, eh? Yes, that kind of ruling will protect us from what we face.
Furthermore, we really shouldn't be voting a straight elephant or donkey ticket. We should be looking at this: Who is bold enough, principled enough, and smart enough to see what is coming and defend us against it? Joe Liberman is a liberal through and through, but unlike some Republicans, he gets it concerning the coming storm. Rick Santorum, Republican from Pennsylvania, is the same. There are others.
Right now, we don't need to vote for some idiot who says he won't raise your taxes, or will raise the minimum wage, or outlaw abortion, or take all of our guns (interestingly, Charlie Rangel has taken all of these positions just in the last few months). We DO need to vote for the one - R, D, I, or L - who is not afraid to say, "You know what? We're in trouble. There are Islamic fascists intent on destroying us and our way of life, and we have GOT to stop them. The time for political correctness and 'tolerance' is over, because if we're not strong, there will no longer be an America. The fate that will fall on us if we do nothing, if we bow to the cries of the relativists, is horrible to contemplate; therefore, we must fight to save not only our nation, but Western civilization." Because that is quite truly what we face, Americans. If you don't think so, or you think getting your taxes reduced are more important, I seriously question your sanity.
A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore and PBS newsman Bill Moyers, for his October 11th global warming edition of “Moyers on America” titled “Is God Green?” have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming. Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”In response, some quotes leap to mind - some from commentors, some from earlier sources:
There was Streisand, enduring a smattering of very loud jeers as she and "George Bush" _ a celebrity impersonator _ muddled through a skit that portrayed the president as a bumbling idiot.So, Ms. Streisand, you admit that the hecklers are true artists since they "disturb" you so much, you ignorant talentless swine? I'm an artist too, yankee pig-dog! I blow my nose at you, so-called flabby babs, you and all your silly yankee sssssssssycophants. I don't wanna hear your whiny yelps no more, you elephant-nosed animal food trough wiper! Your mother was a rabid squid and your father sniffs athletic socks! Now go away or I shall disturb you a second time, you intolerant pimple-brained hyena! Bwahahahaaaa!!!
Though most of the crowd offered polite applause during the slightly humorous routine, it got a bit too long, especially for a few in the audience who just wanted to hear Streisand sing like she had been doing for the past hour.
"Come on, be polite!" the well-known liberal implored during the sketch as she and "Bush" exchanged zingers. But one heckler wouldn't let up. And finally, Streisand let him have it.
"Shut the f*** up!" Streisand bellowed, drawing wild applause. "Shut up if you can't take a joke!"
With that one F-word, the jeers ended. And the message was delivered - no one gets away with trying to upstage Barbra Streisand, especially not in her hometown.
Once the outburst was over, Streisand noted that "the artist's role is to disturb," and delivered a message of tolerance...
Wendy's subsidiary, Cafe Express, had quite a few illegal aliens working for them. But that was OK; the aliens were enrolled in a program to become legal. But the law firm handling the matter dropped the ball and never filed the paperwork. When Wendy's found out that its illegal aliens were not covered by the program, it did the only thing it could: it fired them.
And, naturally, now they're suing.
I see a simple solution to this: The next time there's a hearing, meeting, deposition, anything official, Wendy's attorneys show up with immigration officials. The instant the plaintiffs admit that they are illegal aliens, they are arrested and deported on the spot. End of lawsuit, end of problem.
"There are two factions battling for control of the US government.
One group stifles free speech by manipulating the media and Internet and by outright threats of violence against those who publish opinions with which they disagree, srpeads lies and disinformation, and incites racist mobs to violent action.
The other group is the Republican Party."
Despite this centuries-long, consistent expression of jiahdist doctrine, many in the West continue to dismiss it as an aberration or a deformation of Islam, and to look for other economic or political causes. Just as Sovietophiles during the Cold War dismissed Soviet expansionism as an understandable response to Western aggression or a traditional Russian anxiety over its long western border, so too today jihadist aggression is waved away as a natural reaction to neo-colonialist sins or autocrats at home or lack of economic development or even sexual frustration — indeed, anything and everything except what the jihadists plainly tell us is motivating them, and what millions of Muslims around the world who support the jihadists clearly understand to be the spiritual imperatives for jihadist violence.read the rest.
Conquest shrewdly links to Freudianism this strange Western habit of thinking that people are incapable of knowing their own minds and saying what they mean. Like Marxism, this materialist explanation for behavior dismissed conscious motives as so much camouflage or rationalizations for deeper, unconscious causes. “And both doctrines provided,” Conquest writes, “separately or together, that built-in proof that disagreement was due to prejudices predictably embedded in the opponent’s mind by forces understood by the elect.” Likewise with many of today’s commentators who ignore conscious motives: these “elect” know that such spiritual beliefs are mere illusions masking some deeper psychic dysfunction or compensating for some environmental cause. And they display the same elitist disdain for those who prefer to take seriously what the jihadists tell us, scorning them instead as intellectually unsophisticated or in thrall to various neuroses such as bigotry.
Other parallels between Cold War Sovietophiles and today’s rationalizers for jihad present themselves. The academic establishment for most of the Cold War was predisposed to leftist ideology, and so seemed “notably prejudiced against realities and persuaded by smoke and mirrors,” as Conquest puts it. A wave of revisionism in the eighties attempted to explain away the horrors of Soviet communism, a change noted with approval in Moscow. As late as 1990, at the Soviet Union’s last hour, a Soviet professor could write in Pravda, “Anti-Sovietism has begun to disappear from the works of contemporary Sovietologists.”
So too today, when some of the most blatant apologizers for jihad are found among the academic ranks of the Middle Eastern Studies Association. Their perspective can be gleaned from the titles of the talks at their upcoming annual conference: "Anxious for Armageddon: Christian Zionism and U.S. Policy in the Middle East"; "Bad Fences for Bad Neighbors: The Divisive Process of the Israel-Palestine Border"; "A Tale of Two Walled Cities: Jerusalem and Johannesburg." You get the picture: terrorism is all about Western sins, particularly those of Israel, and has nothing to do with spiritual motives — unless those are the neurotic ravings of "Christian" fundamentalists.
As it turns out, although the young man in question was indeed a Page, was indeed befriended by Congressman Foley and did have sexual discussions with him. But it seems everything was perfectly legal, if nevertheless repellant to many, including a good chunk of the GOP base whose turnout is vital in the forthcoming election. As a signatory of a Bill outlawing Internet sex between adults and minors, Foley was perfectly aware of the legal boundaries and seems to have taken great care to not cross that fine line until the young man became a legal adult.and the takedown:
While angry values voters fulminate over Hastert’s failure to do something before the IMs came to light, all I can remember is the Democrats’ mantra.So... what do we end up with?
- That the troglodyte Republicans were obsessed by sex between consenting adults.
- That homosexuals in close working relationships with young people, especially young men, is a good and healthy thing.
- That some forms of sex, aren’t sex.
- That what two consenting adults do or say behind closed doors is their business.
- That intercepting and reading electronic communications between anyone in the US, especially those between two citizens, is never to be tolerated.
- And most of all, never be judgmental.
- A pedophile that wasn’t.
- A child that was actually an adult.
- The disclosure of personal electronic communications of a highly personal nature between two consenting adults revealed.
- A sex scandal between a couple who never had sex.
- That Democrat Congressmen can have sex with 17 year olds and get re-elected, but Republicans that talk about sex are forced to resign.
The Dems have shown themselves to be perfectly willing to use homophobia to win when they have no saleable platform or issues; the Republican base is charged up and once again Soros turned his gold into Dem dross.Again, this is in no way a defense of Foley's filthy actions. It is to attack the scum who manufacture false scandal for political gain, and to point out the sheer hypocrisy of the Democratic party for saying anything against perversion among the members of Congress.
Foley will become a living example of the Dems’ willingness to smear a homosexual for gain and will write a book, go on Oprah and make a mint. He will be this year’s wronged victim. Mark my words: A fit ending to a sordid smear.
"The only Korans I saw, or even heard about, being placed in toilets, torn, or thrown onto the tier were done by detainees. The guards and medical staff never even touched the Koran if at all possible. We always called for an interpreter (a Muslim one, not all were) or the camp librarian to handle any Koran. The only times I witnessed a guard touch a Koran was during a search for contraband where there was probable cause that some would be found. Those were witnessed by an interpreter or the Cultural Advisor. Even when a detainee threw their Koran onto the tier, it stayed until we could get an appropriate person to collect it. We were always cautioned to be exceptionally careful about Korans because of the previous (and subsequently disproved) accusations."
"Sometimes it just makes me giddy to contemplate the miracles that blind, random processes like natural selection and genetic mutation can accomplish. I also stand in awe of the enormous credulity displayed by those who believe that such systems as Hunter describes could have evolved solely from such processes without any intelligent input. It's just astonishing what one can make oneself believe if only one tries hard enough. Would that we all had such faith."at least we both pegged the snark-o-meter...
Everything liberal politicians do is based on this simple principle. Tell the people that are given to hating the most, that they are the ones who are hated. Tell the people who expect the most, that they deserve more. Tell blacks to hate whites. Tell women to hate men. Tell the lazy to hate the motivated. Tell the poor that only conservatives are rich, and then be sure to tell them to hate them for it.
Class warfare, race baiting, name calling and man-hating—all with a singular goal: to get themselves in power by promoting and exploiting divisiveness. Of course, once this divisiveness turns into frenzy, these same people suddenly act as if they actually want to solve a problem that didn’t even exist before they did everything they possibly could to create it.
To liberals, every issue, every situation is an opportunity to divide. History, religion, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the death of a soldier, a political debate, the hurricane which devastated New Orleans. Every tragedy exploited to divide. Every victory belittled to divide. Every incident, every word, every distorted statistic, every holiday—you name it, they will find some way to divide it...
And what do these kinds of people view as the solution to this imaginary injustice? Why special rights, privileges and opportunities for themselves, of course. Level the playing field. Get something for nothing. Take from the rich, the white, the male dominated, homophobic society that has already given them everything. Take what they have, what they built, what they earned—whether it be money, property, liberty or opportunity—and find some way, some justification, some cause or some guise to redistribute it to the people who have done nothing to earn it. To people who refuse to compete on merit. To people who insist on taking more out of society than what they put in to it. To people who don’t give a damn that their inclusion comes only at the expense of someone else’s exclusion. The strategy is simple, really—promote divisiveness and then exploit it for your own benefit.
Liberals should thank God every day for differences between people because without them, liberalism would be dead in the water. Without them, the country might have some stability. Without them, it might have a chance to survive. Without them, the problems between those who want and those who have might actually be manageable in some meaningful or productive way. But differences have given liberals the perfect opportunity to stop any rational discussion dead in its tracks. Differences have led to polarization. Differences have led to countries within a country. Differences have led to the dreaded xist-ism-monger-phobia. Differences have allowed liberals to add any of these four sounds to the end of any word they choose, virtually guaranteeing that they can get away with anything they want.
Left-wing blog The Daily Kos and its readership are in a righteous stew over Mark Foley's "despicable" behavior. This has led me to wonder what it is, exactly, that they find despicable in Mr. Foley's pederast fantasies.and Ben Stein takes a harsher tone:
Are they outraged that Mr. Foley is a homosexual? That can't be it, of course, because they're deeply commited to the liberal doctrine of moral equivalence between homo- and hetero- sexuality.
Are they incensed that his lubricious attractions are directed at subordinates? That can't be it either since they weren't upset at all about Bill Clinton's similar attractions for his subordinates.
Perhaps they're furious because the boys Mr. Foley was instant messaging were only sixteen years old. Indeed, this is the high ground liberals on the talk shows are trying to occupy, but I don't think it works. Attraction to young boys is a common aspect of gay culture. If the Kos Kids are upset about that then they're essentially rebuking or renouncing the Left's entire history of facilitating and championing sexual deviancy and libertinism.
Not every liberal, of course, supports laws that would make it easier for adult men to have sexual liaisons with adolescent boys, such as lowering the age of sexual consent (which, by the way, is sixteen in Washington, D.C.). Even so, virtually everyone who does favor them is on the political Left and everyone who strenuously opposes them is on the political Right. Sexual freedom and the abolition of laws limiting sexual expression are Left-wing issues, so it's a little unusual to see Lefties condemning the very behavior they or their ideological allies think should be legal.
Maybe their moral "outrage" is simply a convenient ploy to try to make political hay against the Republicans whom they hate, in part because Republicans stand in the way of the emergence of the kind of society in which laws against sex with minors would be a thing of the past.
The Representative Foley "scandal" is really worthy of a whole book on hypocrisy. On the one hand, we have a poor misguided Republican man who had a romantic thing for young boys. He sent them suggestive e-mail. I agree, that's not great. On the other hand, we have a Democratic party that worships (not likes, WORSHIPS) a man named Bill Clinton who did not send suggestive e-mails as far as we know, but who had a barely legal intern give him ***bleep*** kneeling under his desk in the Oval Office while he talked on the phone to a Congressional Committee Chairman, took great pleasure in ***bleep***, and having her ***bleep*** when in the sacred seat of power of the world's leading Republic. And the Democrats cheer themselves hoarse for him.JustOneMinute smells a rat too...
