What is it with Colleges and Ignorance these days?
See this article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
"Waukesha - Convinced that American racism played a role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Waukesha County activists are planning a major new effort to promote racial and ethnic harmony."
American racism played a role in the Sept 11 attacks?! American racism?!
" We need to understand the world; we need to accept the world."
- Mary Baer, co-chairwoman of the Waukesha County Diversity Task Force
..or maybe parts of the world need to accept and understand that suckling at our proverbial teat while simultaneously kneeing us in the proverbial groin kinda makes us wonder if they deserve to be "understood."
"The kickoff date: the second anniversary of the day of horror."
Yep. And their three-year mission: to explore strange new ways of blaming America first; to seek out new lies and new civil distractions; to boldly go deeper than any ass-helmet has gone before!
"Organizers say the connection to terrorism is simple: If Americans were more tolerant of racial and ethnic minorities, we would not evoke hostility abroad and would not have been attacked Sept. 11, 2001, by Islamic extremists from the Middle East."
Newsflash for the dim bulbs: Any social, systemic, personal or narrow-minded racism that may exist among Americans has nada to do with the Middle East. Racism has Everything to do with the Middle East.
Can a muslim in America walk down the street with a copy of the Koran?
Yes.
Can a Christian or Jew walk down the street in Saudi Arabia reading the Torah or the Bible?
No.
America stands for Individualism, Numb-lobe. It is not any intolerence on the part of America that caused Sept 11; it was the intolerence FOR American freedoms by the homocidal Islamist terrorists.
"Some of the reasons it happened are our arrogance and our ignorance," said Mary Baer, co-chairwoman of the Waukesha County Diversity Task Force. "We need to understand the world; we need to accept the world."
As a society we do, Mary. We shovel billions of dollars a year into the collective oil-hole of that all-too-common political dinosaur known as Tyrannus Rectus.
The Islamist terrorists who rule and pollute the Middle East don't fear Racism, they practice it. They hate Freedom. It interferes with their utopian goal that all-men-are-muslim-or-they-shall-die. They fear free elections, freedom of expression, freedom of religeon, free exchange of ideas. They are isolationists and tyrants who fear that any influence of Western culture threatens their own influence on their countrymen.
They ban Western music, movies, television, news...
They want nothing more than to keep those Evil influences away from their huddled masses lest an idea as strong as Liberty actually begin to ring true to them, thus loosening the hold the screeching ululators have on Power.
I remember that there was some issue about President Bush calling the 9-11 terrorists "cowards." "Oh, no! They're so brave and selfless to give their lives for Allah! They're not cowards!"
But, they are. Because they pathetically shake themselves to sleep in a cold sweat in fear that free people -- making their own Independent decisions about life and God -- might come to differant conlusions than they have. A True Believer who secretly doubts his own certainty, when certainty is required, would fear and reject anyone and any culture that does not share or promote his beliefs with his own zeal. Funny thing is; these skidmarks on the shorts of humanity want to take it to murderous extremes. Call me "crazy", but I don't think any group hugs are in the offing.
9-11 was caused by some Islamists' hatred and paranoia of "foreign" (i.e. 18th century) influence, not by any racism that may exist in the hearts of some of the diverse and free people of America.
FrankJ doesn't want to be a monkey in the Ecosystem, so link to FrankJ! NOW!!
Well, last night I spent about two hours working on a bad-ass, vitriolic, loaded for bear, no frogs barred disection of the asshatted partisan blather that constitutes that Berkeley "study" on Conservative Cognition. Then I hit the Return by mistake. Then something weird happened. Then I hit Backspace. Then my entire post vanished, never to be returned again. *sob* (I gotta start taking wise men's and women's advice and start posting in Word and copy/pasting the finished post.)
Luckily, thanks to Rachel Lucas, I've learned that Jonah Goldberg did a great job addressing the very same topic! You go read now!
Music downloads are now available!!
Simply go the sidebar headed "Music Downloads", click on this song title: Hard Roll Cafe and download the mp3!!
Neverending thanks to Andrew, a.k.a. Pixy Misa, for guiding me through the excruciating process of learning how to do this!!
Anyway, "Hard Roll Cafe". I wrote and recorded this one dreary rainy day in autumn of 1999. I always meant to re-record it -- as I'm not at all happy with that awful high harmony, and it's basically pretty sloppily done -- but I never did.
So this is the only recording I have of this song, and it was on the first CD a dug
out of my CD box, and I really like it, so here it is!
the lyric:
So many faces I ain't seen in a year
Ever since my Betty died they don't get their coffee here
What I've got coming has never seemed so near
The days are getting shorter, my shadow's getting long
Seems everything I'm holding onto is already gone
Maybe the world's a stage,
and we all got our role to play
and I'm just doin' my part
here at the Hard Roll Cafe
Sometimes I look right through the mirror
as if there's no one there
I'm older, but am I wiser
or just the worse for wear?
Gotta roll with the punches...
that's what the wise men say
Oh, I've learned to take a fall
here at the Hard Roll Cafe
I'd give you all of my love
but I know that it would last for years
It's so easy when you're just beginning
to forget that it'll end in tears
Business ain't been pickin' up
the way I thought it would
I've never closed up early...maybe I should
Silent strangers have taken over my neighborhood
If I'm taken for granted;
does that mean that I'll be missed?
..or am I so transparent that I barely exist?
"takes two to tango--
so I spend my days shadow dancing
here at the Hard Roll Cafe
Common sense is evaporating like alcohol
I just drank a drink without cheer
It's so easy when we're busy living
to forget that it began in tears
Gramma got married at the age of 64
She said "I'll be alone after I'm buried,
not a minute before...
What are your chances if you throw your dice away?"
Well, me and mine, we're both loaded
at the Hard Roll Cafe.
Talk about yer blatant partisanship...
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Ca, actually told Hannity & Colmes that it's not Geo W Bush that should get any credit for the successes in Iraq, but rather Bill Clinton. Huh? Yep.
Addressing the 101st Airborne's elimination of Uday and Qusay Hussein he said:
"When President Clinton put together a magnificent military and handed it over to Bush, that's the person who deserves our credit."
Clinton "put together" our military? The way I remember it, Clinton slashed the defense budget because "the Cold War is over."
Of course the weapon system upgrades gave us an arsenal that is more accurate than the first generation smart-bombs of the Desert Storm era due to technology available to defense contractors, and the recommendations of the Pentagon. Clinton, as any President could reasonably have been expected to, signed off on these upgrades.
But Clinton's most profound legacy is that he decimated the CIA's ability to gather Intelligence by forbidding agents from engaging persons of shady character.
Now, explain to me how we're going to gather information about shady characters without getting involved with shady characters. Why are we relying on British Intel about Saddam's dealings with Niger? Because Bill Clinton handcuffed the CIA for eight years.
All this aside, Brad Sherman's claim that it's Clinton, not Bush, who needs to congratulated on the successes (but, presumably, Bush will be blamed for any set-backs), is, he admits, a purely partisan stance.
He told Sean Hannity that he would give credit to Bush only "if you can show me where you congratulated – or whether Bush congratulated – President Clinton on whatever successes we had, and especially on the magnificent nature of what he turned over to him."
I'd be the first to congratulate Bill Clinton on the military successes of Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, etc if I thought that we had any national interest in the success of those missions. (see: Nixon Doctrine.)
Yep, it's Sunday, and the latest issue of the Lemon is out! Check out the item on the Berkeley study, laugh-out-loud funny as usual!
We stood staring, speechless,
with a rope stretched out between us
and the bell
in that Philidelphia display
and calmly took in the sight and sounds
and the explanations of this hallowed ground
and the time from Then to Now seemed like a day.
Outside bells were soft and heavy
one swing of the hammer for each and every
freedom twisted,
turned into an excuse for subtle violence
Inside we'd stopped to stare
]into a crack that had broken there
and the bell was worshipped in it's regal silence.
but beyond the door the volume was rising
carelessness ringing and uncomproming
tempting talking heads with too much science.
deafening violent pounding
sounded like it was surrounding us
and the bell before us sat in regal silence.
there were bells for toil without vocation
bells of miscommunication
bells of lies and dirty tricks
bells for pawns of politics
bells for the innocent accused
bells for feet that got no shoes
bells for dead and buried slaves
bells for unknown soldiers' graves
bells of darkness without dawn
bells for the many thousand gone
bells for an unlatched caboose frozen in it's tracks
bells for an uptight teenage mother who just cannot relax
bells ringing for the years that we've thrown away
guess I'm doin' better than my neighbor, but I'm not okay
there's a vision in my eyes that's flashing by so fast
there's a bum on his knees only praying for the past
I see kids kids in schoolyards that're too scared to say "no"
and a teacher too frightened of tomorrow to learn anymore...
Then the tolling beyond the hall
began to cease it's sound and quiet down again
and the room was hushed in our confused evaluation.
then we turned to that bell before us
and staring in an opti-chorus
waited for it's response in great anticipation..
Not an inch did it's hammer swing
It didn't seem to do anything
Not one single sound rang out in our Liberty's defense.
With our hands hidden in our pockets
it's mighty iron hull stood solid
and was worshipped in it's regal silence.
Uday and Qusay are dead! They are no more! They have exited their mortal coil! Their membership in the league of the living has expired! They have ceased to Be! They are Ex-people!
Pop a cork and let the party begin!!!!!
(Okay, here's the fun: If, on a particular day, I don't have anything to blog about I'm just gonna post one of my song lyrics. Try and tell the difference...mwheheh...:)
Once upon another time
I woke up in a dream
where wishing things would make them so,
and I was as conscious as a stream.
I pumped my arms to fly
then I was pumping my own gasoline.
I walked into the Money Store with nothing but a dime.
a magpie with a broken wing cut into the line.
I focused all my rage
and locked him in a cage as small as mine.
I was tickling the ivories,
an elephant joined in
beating on a bongo drum made of human skin.
but even stranger, though,
there was a horse who played a bow and violin.
I dreamed I had insomnia,
I had no place to sit.
I felled a tree to the forest floor.
I never heard it hit.
I guess no one will believe you've dug a hole if you leave the dirt in it.
c-2000 SnotSongs
An excellent post - and thread of comments -- over at Misha's about a UN effort underway to register all firearms worldwide(!) reminds me of something I've wanted to say for a long time about how to read the single sentence of the Second Amendment;
"A well-regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As you can see by reading in the second item in my Links list, "know your Rights", an accepted interpretation (at least among those who can decipher plain English) is that "since the State needs a militia for it's security, and the militia is comprised of all able men of a certain age group, the people need a secure right to bear arms."
Of course, as made clear in the "know your Rights" link, the 2nd Amendment does NOT a) restrict that Right to be protected only if the 18th century structure of State militias remains in practice, or b) reserve the Right only to members of a State militia...as many gun-grabbers like to argue. The militia is invoked only as one example of why the Right is protected.
So, anyway, here is my suggested additional interpretation:
"Since the State must, for the sake of it's security, neccessarily have a standing militia, the People also must have a Right to bear arms for the sake of their security."
Read the 2nd Amendment again with that interpretation in mind. You will see, I hope, that it is just as legit. It's just another way of saying "If all firearms were in the hands of the State, then the last means of removing tyranny would be gone."
The rationale that a well-armed Citizenry is the last line of the defense of their Liberty is not only sound, it is consistent with everything we know about the intent of the Founders.
For example, James Madison wrote in Federalist 46:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
Madison was not refering to the ambitions of a foreign State, but of the Federal Government of the United States.
Yes, he's writing about the power of the States, through an armed militia, to secure our Rights. But I insist that the Right of the People to take up arms -- even independent of the States -- against a tyrant is implied.
Wha..? Yes. Because what is being defended are the Rights of the People, not the State.
(People have Rights. States have powers; limited by Law and granted by the Governed.)
Madison compared the prospects of a well-armed American people to securing their Rights with that of the subjects of European tyrants, then and now:
"Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."
Someone once said (I don't remember who. Probably some tyrant...): "I keep my friends close, and my enemies closer."
The principles of Federalism -- the philosophy that authority is best kept as local as possible -- is the best way to ensure that a powerful centralized government wont even be in a position to become a tyranny.
The UN wants us to register our guns with them. If we value our Freedom and our sovereignty, and our ability to secure them, going along with their little plan would be unhealthy, unwise, and, daggummit, unAmerican!
Shamus Young took a two-month break from the Lemon, probably because nobody's reading it anymore. So get there and start laughing it up, people!
I get so filled with anger when I'm as shallow as my skin.
Don't let the children touch me,
You don't want to know where I've been
But I'm smiling...:D
this crazy painted grin
I come to all these parties,
get paid up front in cash
Then I show up more loaded
than the diapers in the trash
The kiddies laugh at me every time that I fall down
aw, I'm just being me; your favorite clown
I could twist some balloons around
or play Pin the Tail on the Ass
or start inhaling helium, then I'll pass the gas
Let's bob for apples... maybe one of us will drown
Oh, I know you wont take me seriously
I'm you favorite clown
I just want to be loved for who I am
But I've been reduced to bad hair and baggy pants
My best moments are when I act the fool
Has this ever happened to you...?
Now I've got whoopie cushions that you can really smell
I've started squirting pepper spray from the flower in my lapel
My cans of exploding snakes are extra tightly wound
just like me... your favorite clown.
This is a test. If this was a real post, you would have been notified.
The Bush Administration has some good intentions, and is pushing an initiative to promote marriage among Welfare recipients as part of an overhaul of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. See a news item here.
The bill would earmark $300 million to do...er...what exactly?
"The Administration is vague about what the money would go for, but says it would help couples that are already interested in marriage, perhaps through financial incentives or by offering counciling."
So, we're going to pay people, with public funds, to get married? Or, perhaps, just council them into it? Hmmm. The obvious question is; "Why would the Federal Government have any business even CARING about who gets married and who doesn't?" The obvious answer is: "Because it spends our money."
This is yet another illustration of how the self-appointed "social engineers" in Government rationalize their ever-more pervasive presence in our lives; Since the Government is paying for it, the Government must regulate anything that effects the bottom line. And that means regulating our Choices.
Since the Government offers to provide a healthcare program, It has the authority -- nay, moral duty -- to levy fines, in the form of taxes, on our personal choices about what we eat, drink, smoke, etc.
Since the Government offers so generously to send the States' they're own money back for the funding of roads and bridges, It has the Power -- nay, moral duty -- to extort the States into writing speed limit laws and "National Drinking Age" laws.
In this case, the Marriage Initiative in the revamped Welfare Reform Act, it's a little more subtle (participation would be, presumably, voluntary for couples already interested in marriage), but the principle at it's core is the same thing: the Fed's assumed Authority to regulate whatever effects It's bottom line.
While touting the initiative's well-intentioned goals, Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa), said, "The fact of the matter is, marriage is very important tool for economic survival."
Of course. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all parents were also spouses! The kids have a family that is whole again! Yes, yes, yes, that's all well and good. But do the keepers of the Public Purse really believe that marrying for money...a more secure financial situation... is something that single mothers and fathers have never thought about before? "Wow, I wont be so broke if I got married? That's amazing insight Mr Government Counsellor! And thanks for the check!"
The extortion, as usual, is directed at the States:
"The Government would spend $300 million per year on programs promoting marriage. That includes $200 million in federal dollars, and $100 million States would have to spend in matching funds."
(((Actually, since I haven't seen the actual text of the bill that passed in the House, I'm having trouble figuring out how the extortion will be enforced.
The "national speed limit" and "national drinking age" are enforced by threatening any State that refuses to write the neccessary laws with requiring that their Highway funds by directed at promotional campaigns against drinking and driving and speeding and thinking. If a State refused to budget for the Marriage Initiative matching funds, would they then have to re-direct their Welfare funds to...er...a promotional campaign tauting the benefits of marriage? I'll have to look into that...)))
There's a very simple Law of Good Intentions; good intentions aren't enough. Throwing our good money into this proposed program -- whose promise of any meaningful success is, it seems to me, anemic -- is a classic example of why our personal and State sovereignty is being co-opted and centralized at the "top"; the Constitution is not respected when it's in the way of "progress".
As Mike Tanner of the Cato Institute said (in a manner dangerously close to sarcastim): "Who can be against marriage?...Especially if you're going to face re-election in a year and a half. You don't want to be on the record against marriage!"
In Politics; poll results are the only results that matter.
^originally posted Fri. July 18 6:06pm
Yummm!!!!
^originally posted Wed. July 16, 2003 10:15pm
