"Don't Get Stuck On Stupid!"

Fun While It Lasted

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 02:12:00 +0000

Well, I had thoughts of making this blog into something. I was really kind of taken with the title more than anything else.

However, I'm suffering from Blog Burnout. Mostly, I don't have the time to really commit to it, or to fix the template over here.

So, that being said, I'm going back to being Partisan Pundit. That's how I cut my teeth in this blog world, and it's who I'm the most comfortable being.

I've also realized that I've had the wrong focus. I saw myself as something of a crusader, trying to change people's minds by showing them the truth, as well as I was able. But you know what I realized? A great many people aren't interested in the truth. Changing minds is difficult when emotion is so wrapped up in a worldview that reason can't penetrate the folds. I'm sure I suffer to some degree from this problem, but hey.

Any way. Blogging stopped being fun, so I've had to take a hard look at why, and the answer is this: because I was doing it wrong.

So, I'm going back to doing what I want to do. Posting what I want, not what I feel like I should. Some silly stuff, some serious. Some tongue in cheek, some scathing and intolerant. If you like it, read it. If you don't, read it anyway, and maybe a post a response. Or don't.

Anyway. I'll be posting exclusively back at http://partisan-pundit.blogspot.com from now on. I'll transfer over some of my better DigSauce posts from here, leave this up for a few weeks, then blast it.

That's it for now. See you back at the barn.

School Answering Machine

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:37:00 +0000

Reposted from an email. I'm sure it's one of those urban legends, but it's still really funny.
===========================

This is the message that the Pacific Palisades High School (California) Staff voted unanimously to record on their school telephone answering machine. This came about because they implemented a policy requiring students and parents to be responsible for their children's absences and missing homework.

The school and teachers are being sued by parents who want their children's failing grades changed to passing grades even though those children were absent 15-30 times during the semester and did not complete enough school work to pass their classes.

This is the actual answering machine message for the school:

"Hello! You have reached the automated answering service of your school. In order to assist you in connecting to the right staff member, please listen to all your options before making a selection:

"To lie about why your child is absent - Press 1

"To make excuses for why your child did not do his work- Press 2

"To complain about what we do - Press 3

"To swear at staff members - Press 4

"To ask why you didn't get information that was already enclosed in your newsletter and several flyers mailed to you - Press 5

"If you want us to raise your child - Press 6

"If you want to reach out and touch, slap or hit someone - Press 7

"To request another teacher for the third time this year- Press 8

"To complain about bus transportation - Press 9

"To complain about school lunches - Press 0

"If you realize this is the real world and your child must be accountable and responsible for his/her own behavior, class work, homework, and that it's not the teachers' fault for your child's lack of effort: Hang up and have a nice day!"

If you can read this, thank a teacher.

If you are reading it in English, thank a veteran.
===========================

Update: Confirmed Urban Legend. Still funny, though.

In Case You're Curious...

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:57:00 +0000

This is me.

Also me...

Not agaaaain.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:46:00 +0000

The Therapist is currently over on aisle Five, next to the pickled eggs and "ethnic" foods, having a complete hissy fit. He's thrown himself on the floor and is kicking his spindly legs while furiously pounding the ground with his soft, girlish fists. It's really quite a spectacle.

I'm thinking the only way to make him stop is:
a) Give him the damn sucker candy already.
b) Promise him a trip to Toys R Us if he will just please Please PLEASE stop, okay? Please? Honey? For mommy? Okay?
or...
c) Send him some frickin' traffic.

Listen, I know what a burden that hit counter can be. Much like the proverbial millstone around one's neck. It's that Monkey on Your Back, your arch nemesis, that co-depenent girlfriend you hate but just can't bear to leave.

Although, I remember the day I got over 11 hits in one 24 hour period, and it was like Fourth of July and Christmas all rolled into one, so I'm not really sure what Mister 160,467 hits has got his BVD's all in a twist about.

So go. Now. Then hit "refresh" multiple times. Delete your cookies, then visit again so he get's more "unique" visits. Then, create a post where you link him multiple times so that he gets boosted up to something like a Megalithic Japaneese Monster in the TLB ecosystem.

Then, and only then, send him a care package with some peppermint tea, some cool, scented towels for his forehead, and several free samples of Lexapro you kiped from the free clinic. Hopefully this will assuage his frazzled noives and convince him to quit stamping his pretty little foot, and switch his banner back around.

I really enjoy his writing, and hope he unlocks his bedroom door and comes out to play before too much longer.

Yo, TT. Love ya man. But....you had it comin'.

Heh.

Whyizzit?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:36:00 +0000

Whyizzit I’m supposed to respect the beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, gays, new-agers and every ethnic minority or majority, but in movies and on the streets my Savior is given all sorts of middle names I know he never had, His name used as casual profanity. And I’m just supposed to deal with it, get a thicker skin? Salman Rushdie writes Satanic Verses and gets a death sentence. I can go to jail for opposing homosexual curriculums in my son's kidnergarten. Yet I'm supposed to suffer through garbage like "Dogma," "Saved" and "The Last Temptation of Christ" without so much as a raised eyebrow?

Whyizzit I can’t talk about salvation by grace in a school after hours, but I can learn about homosexuality in social studies?

Whyizzit my child will get suspended from school if his drawing in art class is about violent death, but the school nurse can refer my daughter to a clinic where her unborn child will suffer a violent death?

Whyizzit we want to ban Tom Sawyer and Huck Fin because they contain racial slurs, but Grand Theft Auto II and Gansta Rap are protected speech?

Whyizzit a college professor who supports intelligent design becomes the laughing stock of his department, while another college professor suggests that victims of terrorism “had it coming” and becomes a rallying point for academic freedom?

Whyizzit the “right to privacy” apparently protects sodomy and abortion, but we can’t seem to do anything about the swarms of paparazzi who make the lives of popular actors a living hell?

Whizzit the media keeps talking about the just ratified "US-backed Constitution" in Iraq, thus perpetuating the viewpoint that the new Parliment is nothing more than a puppet-government?
Whizzit one parent complaining can stop a coach from praying with his teammates before a game, but another parent complaining can't restart it?

Whizzit that Child Protective Services get more money the more children they take away from their families?
The new law provides states with cash incentives to find permanent homes for children in foster care. A state will receive $4,000 in federal funds for each foster child adoption which exceeds a base number of foster care adoptions in a fiscal year, and an additional $2,000 for special needs adoptions. In fiscal 1998, the base number will be the average of adoptions in the previous 3 fiscal years. In succeeding years, through 2002, the base is the number of adoptions of the preceding fiscal year. States are to use the federal funds to provide post-adoption services to children and families.
Whizzit this world seems to have gone completely friggin' crazy?

Linked at Mudville Gazette, Stop The ACLU, California Conservative, and Cafe Oregano

Help wanted: 4,900 Virgins

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:44:00 +0000

Apparently, US air strikes killed upwards of 70 terrorists in two separate strikes yesterday.

Bad day to be a bad guy. Heh.

Damn quagmire.

Linked at Political Teen

Expression vs. Oppression: Free Speech vs. Class

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 04:58:00 +0000

There has been some humorous kerfuffling around the blogosphere regarding the woman (I certainly won't describe her as a "lady") who was apparently kicked off an Southwest Airlines flight because she refused to cover up or remove a profane political t-shirt slogan which made a play on the movie title "Meet the Fockers"...save for one crucial vowel.

She then goes off on some sheehan-esque rant about how soldiers are dying in Iraq for Freedom (okay, well, Sheehan would never admit the "...for freedom" part), and yet she has to (horror of horrors!) cover up a shirt that says "F*ckers" on it while riding on crowded public transportation. OPPRESSION!!

Chick, this ain't about soldiers dying for freedom. It's not about freedom of speech. You're a middle-aged lefty feminazi living in the lap of luxury compared to the people in Iraq. This isn’t about being oppressed; it’s about showing a little focking class.

Picture this. I'm boarding the plane, walking up the aisle with my eight-year old son in tow. You are already in your seat, brandishing your scathing rhetorical wit proudly emblazoned across your sagging thirty-somethings. My eight-year old son can read. He glances over at your shirt, and then quickly glances back, his face turning a little red from embarrassment.

A few minutes later, as we sit in our seats, my son leans over and whispers, "Uh, dad? Why did that lady's shirt say the f-word?"

What should my response be? "Well, son. You see, it’s her Constitutionally protected right to express herself in any way she see’s fit, even if it uses the kinds of words that I would wash your mouth out with soap if I heard at the dinner table.”

Or maybe, Option B: “Well, son, you see, she’s a clueless twat.”

Me, I’m liking Option B.

Then of course, the Anti-Christ's Luciferian Utopia has to join the fray. How's this for a quote:

Allen Lichtenstein, lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union in Nevada, said Heasley's T-shirt is "protected" political speech under the Constitution. The real issue, he said, is that the airline allowed her to wear the shirt onboard and then objected only when people complained.

...Wait for it....

"That they changed rules in the middle of a flight simply because someone didn't like it and it might be problematic," he said.
Wha...? Splutter...? Beg pardon? Is this NOT just the clearest statement of ACLU general policy you've every seen? Let one disgruntled parent complain and now we've got a spring festival instead of an Easter pageant. The ACLU is all about stifling free speech as soon as one person complains. Why, then, are they suddenly so interested in this injustice? What mind-numbing hypocrisy.

And for a parting comment?

"I have always flown Southwest everywhere I go," Heasley said. "I will never fly with them again. They can disrespect somebody else."
Yeah. The close-minded bastards. Disrespecting people is vewy bad, isn't it? Like, oh say, putting some politicians' pictures on your shirt and calling them "f*ckers," for example? Or strutting profanity where old folks and children can drink it in, whether they want to or not?

Lorrie Heasley, you are definitely Stuck on Stupid.

Linked at Mudville Gazette, Basil's Blog, and Outside the Beltway

A beautiful slice-and-dice on ID v. Darwinism

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:33:00 +0000

Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win

(H/t to RightWingSparklyThing for the link.)

As superior intellects strive to understand the metaphysics of information, they will find the information-oriented arguments of ID increasingly sensible and appealing. ID will fit nicely into the emerging worldview of tomorrow's intellectual elite

...and this...

The only remaining question is whether Darwinism will exit gracefully, or whether it will go down biting, screaming, censoring, and denouncing to the bitter end. Rightly or wrongly, the future belongs to ID.
Go. Read It. Now. Use it to ClueBat^TM your frothing liberal Darwinist friends. Yes, both of them.

What?! ME pray for a Muslim!?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:56:00 +0000

Damn straight.

Been watching the Pakistan earthquake news. It tears my heart out to watch. Worse than New Orleans by an order of magnitude. In many ways, worse than the Indonesia tusnami. By one account, more than 70% of the buildings in the affected area were destroyed. Many of those were schools and apartment buildings, trapping and/or killing hundreds. Pictures of grade school children, silent, unmoving, glimpsed through gaps in the rubble.

Dammit dammit DAMMIT!!! You feel helpless. You know there's nothing you can do, and just praying seems an awful lot like a tear in a rainstrom, but if it's all you've got, I guess it's what you do. And donate to the International Red Cross.

Then there is the grimly cynical part of my mind wonders what all the frothing mullahs who called the Nawlins Hurricane the wrath of Allah have to say about 30,000 Muslims crushed beneath chunks of concrete in Pakistan. Allah seems to be pissed at pretty much everybody these days.

And then I have to remember, a snake oil salesman by the name of Robertson is dragging MY faith through the same rhetorical muck by spewing his brimstone and bile. I just have to wonder how long it will be before he weighs in with another "God smote the living shineola outta you cuz you were bad." I mean, even if your really believe that, the time and place to spout it is certainly NOT when people are still sifting through the wreckage looking for loved ones.

I wonder if there is some sort of syndrome or condition called "grief overload" where after a while, you just sort of ignore crap like this in favor of preserving your sanity.

I just can't imagine losing 10 or 15 members of your extended family in one awful moment.

My prayers are with thee.

Hooray for MSN! Post #1

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:18:00 +0000

In the proud tradition of Mean ol' Meany, I submit THIS for your edufication:

I mean, I'm Number #4 on the list! WOO-HOO!

Caption contest

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:07:00 +0000

This foto, found on FoxNews, just cries out for a Caption Contest. Give it yer best shot!

9th Circuit Court Sets Feminism Back 20 Years

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:06:00 +0000

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Californica has passed down a “landmark” ruling, in which it has apparently determined that,
Screaming and yelling by men at work may now be sex-based discrimination if women at work find the behavior more intimidating than men do.”*
If that’s the case, better than half the bosses I’ve worked for were raging nymphomaniacs and misogynist man haters. Woman haters. Whatever.

“This decision is a significant extension of the law of gender-based discrimination…”
There’s a blinding statement of the headsmackingly obvious.

“If the abusive behavior will be actually and reasonably perceived as disadvantageous by women, the behavior may be discrimination”

So, now you are guilty based on how your actions are PERCEIVED, not whether there was intent.

So, does this take “manslaughter” off the table as far as killing someone? Under this law, there are no more “accidents.” "I didn’t MEAN to kill him!" Doesn’t matter. Murder One; you get the chair.
“There is no theoretical reason why the standard set in this case could not be further extended to race or other forms of discrimination.”

And there it is, folks; the legal “precedent,” the swift kick down the slippery slope into the pool of politcally correct piranhas.
“Because women found the behavior subjectively more intimidating than men did, and reasonable women would do so, the conduct treats women differently. That it may not have been the director’s intent to treat women differently does not matter...”

So despite the much-promoted feminist mantra of gender equality, all that hard work to convince us as a society that “women are just like men” has been undone in one fell swoop by those ever-progressive Jurists of the Ephemeral 9th Circuit Court of Holistic Enlightenment and Wonder.

Now, let’s say I have a platoon of Marines, one of whom happens to be a woman, and I yell out, “Git yer asses up that hill, Marines!!” Do I then have to turn to the one female and ask her ever so politely to “please proceed at yer best pace to the top of this here hill, if it isn’t too much trouble, please,” on the off chance that she might find the reference to “asses” overtly sexual, and my tone inimitably hostile?

Apparently, then, instead of treating women equally, I’m supposed to give special consideration to their gentler nature and weaker emotional disposition. Sounds rather noble and 50’s-ish, eh? So the old “Anything boys can do, I can do better” needs to be amended with “as long as you don’t yell at me?”

How’s that saying go…? “Perception is 9/10 of reality?”

While this ruling may fly in the face of feminist ideology, it inadvertently conforms to basic sociological norms. The actual existential reality of it all is that yes, in fact, women DO react differently to stimuli than men. They DO have a different response to verbal hostility, especially from a male authority figure. However, in today’s hypersensitive feminist-driven PC culture, we aren’t allowed to actually SAY that anymore.

Unless of course, we’re the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Go figure.

Linked at Stop the ACLU, Basil's Blog, and Mudville Gazette

Random anti-stuckonstupid thought...

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:02:00 +0000

For those who continue to insist that they heard loud explosions just prior to the massive flooding of New Orleans, and so assume that someone "blew" the levees to drown black people to save white people, here's a thought:

Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, the sudden catastrophic failure of a thirty-foot thick wall of rock and clay, along with the subsequent rush of millions of tons of water through the narrow gap might -- and I say again MIGHT -- just maybe be accompanied by a loud, rumbling "BOOM" sound?

I mean, I'm just askin'....

Al Qeada Strikes Blow Against Tourism in Bali

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:37:00 +0000

In a bold move of strategic brilliance, terrorists allied with Al Qeada struck a decisive blow against the tourism industry in Bali. A valiant martyr for The Cause braved the swarming masses of unarmed retirees and harried waiters to bring low the ranks of bronzed Infidels. Weaving through a dangerous metaphorical minefield of tables and deck chairs, this noble freedom fighter blew himself and 26 other scantily clad non-combatant sunbathers into an infidel slurry.

An anonymous spokesman for Al Qeada, in a recorded statement broadcast on Al Jazeera, had this to say:

Today, the forces of Allah, have struck a mighty blow against the oppressive forces of tourism in Bali. No longer shall our Muslim brothers suffer under the yoke of floral print wearing goombas, while working in sweatshops to grind out “authentic” native beadery and tie-dye sarongs for the rich capitalist oppressors.

Today we have shown that we are not afraid to face down our Enemy. Well-to-do foreign tourists and teens on Spring Break will no longer grind our freedoms into the well-manicured sand while sipping over-priced, watered-down Mai Tais as they lounge oppressively in a bamboo cabana. Fear shall water the bowels of octogenarians who use their retirement money to further the capitalist cause among our oppressed brethren. Old men, women, and children shall feel the wrath of our mighty warriors as we courageously walk unopposed among them, using their tolerance and compassion as a springboard to launch our unprovoked and unjustified attacks.

Today, we stand victorious on a heap of shattered cocktail glasses and scorched kitschy mood lighting. No longer shall such out of the way vacation spots be free from our Jihad.

Allah be praised.

Postings on Al Qeada’s website promises further courageous attacks against other strategically significant locations symbolic of western capitalist oppression such as retirement homes, homeless shelters, landfills, and Salvation Army donation sites. Security has also been increased around sensitive military targets such as RV parks, highway tollbooths, and children’s playgrounds.

More as the story develops…

Linked at Mudville Gazette.

Christopher Hitchens at Slate says the same thing, only different. (h/t to RightWingSparkle)

Just a politcally incorrect thought...

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 00:21:00 +0000

Getting the icky willies at the thought of two hairy men going to town on each other's exit onlys, or getting queasy at the site of two guys playing tonsil hockey on a public park bench doesn't make me intolerant or homophobic.

It makes me heterosexual.

More clear evidence of Bush’s failed environmental policies

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:45:00 +0000

When will the madness end?

In his five short years as President, George Walker Bush has failed to address the cankerous, puss-filled sore that is global warming to such a willfully negligent degree that our planet is being ravaged by a spate of marauding cataclysms the likes of which we have not seen in recorded history!! He MUST be held accountable for his (in)actions! For example:

Flash Flooding in Kansas Strands Residents

A storm dumped up to a foot of rain over parts of northeast Kansas early Sunday, sparking flash flooding that left people stranded in their homes and cars,
emergency officials said.*

* By way of comparison: Belgium Flooding 1998
California floods (Uh, Clinton Presidency)

Two Farmers Buried by El Salvador Volcano

A volcano in western El Salvador erupted on Saturday, sending a column of ash 50,000 feet into the air and killing two farmers buried by chunks of earth and boiling water that tumbled down the slopes.

Oh, the inhumanity!!

Authorities ordered the evacuation of three communities in the shadow of the Ilamatepec volcano, which towers near Santa Ana, the country's second largest city, 40 miles from San Salvador, the capital.

Many wonder why FEMA didn’t do more to help.

* By way of comparison: Volcanoes
April 5, 1815 - Mount Tambora, Indonesia
Killed 92,000 and caused disastrous crop failures and summer snowfalls as far away as North America.
August 26, 1883 - Krakatoa, Indonesia; 36,500 killed
August 30, 1902 - Mount Pelee, Martinique; 29,000 killed
Nov. 13, 1985 - Nevada del Ruiz, Columbia; 23,000 killed
1792 - Unzen, Japan; 14,000 killed

Tropical Storm Stan Makes Landfall

This is the fourth-busiest Atlantic hurricane season since record-keeping started in 1851. The record for tropical storms in one year is 21, set in 1933.

Oops. Please ignore that last sentence.

Scores of Homes Saved From L.A. Wildfires

A break in dry, windy weather and a speedy, pinpoint response by thousands of firefighters combined to spare scores of homes that stood in the path of the flames, officials said.

The dry, desert winds that fanned the fire were pushed out Thursday by a stream of moist ocean air.

Damnit! Nature self-corrected. Please disregard as it does not support my thesis. Thank you.

CLIMATE PATTERN CHANGES

“The 1999-2002 national drought was one of the three most extensive droughts in the last 40 years.”
“April through July of 1999 was the driest four-month stretch in 105 years of record-keeping in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Rhode Island.”

(This, after 8 years of William Jefferson Clinton’s “enlightened” approach to environmentalism)

Otis Causes Mexico Floods

The outer bands of Hurricane Otis lashed the coast of western Mexico Saturday as the storm crawled toward the Baja California peninsula, forcing hundreds of families to evacuate their homes and flooding roads in this resort city.

Otis was the 15th Pacific storm of the season. Unlike powerful Atlantic storms such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Pacific hurricanes tend to do less damage because they make landfall less frequently.*

*By way of comparison:
Mexico flood victims mourn dead, plead for help, October 10, 1999

“Authorities around the country reported at least 300 people were killed and at least 200,000 were left homeless by flood waters that swept over nine of Mexico's 31 states. “

(Hello? Clinton Presidency again).

2001 WORST YEAR ON RECORD FOR TYPHOONS IN TAIWAN
Okay, Bush only had about a year to make this happen, but STILL!!

28 Militants Killed in Iraq Offensive

Al Qaeda in Iraq and other groups in the Sunni-led insurgency have launched a wave of violence to wreck the vote, killing more than 200 people over the past week. So, uh, the BAD GUYS (that’s “insurgents” to you), killed 200 people (read: unarmed men, women, and children).

At least 28 militants were killed in fighting Sunday, Davis said, bringing the two-day toll among insurgents to 36. There have been no serious U.S. casualties in the operation, he said.

Elsewhere, Shiite militiamen freed the brother of Iraq's interior minister from kidnappers who snatched him from his car a day earlier...

Whoa. Sorry. Not sure how that one got in there. Haven’t you heard? It’s a QUAGMIRE! And we’re LOSING!!

Linked at Mudville Gazette and Point Five

Just a thought...

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 04:48:00 +0000

Would it be, you know, racist of me to suggest the possibility that some (many?) of those who refused to evacuate from New Orleans in the face of an impending hurricane did so specifically because they fully intended to capitalize on the ensuing choas for their own criminal designs?

Decidedly NOT Stuck on Stupid

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:52:00 +0000

Jeff Harrell over at Shape of Days has a bullseye, right-on-the-mark article about negotiation versus capitulation with terrorists.

The annoyance of misinterpretation

The “let’s beat them by negotiating with them” school of thought can be thoroughly and definitely disarmed by reducing the question to a simple analogy. If I blew up a federal reserve bank because I wanted the government to spend more money on public schools, would you expect Congress to send a delegation to my house to hear me out?
Let’s try an even simpler one: If your two-year-old son murdered the family cat because he wanted a new Playstation, would the correct response be to drive immediately to the Toys ’R’ Us?
The solution to terrorism is not for us to negotiate with them. It’s for them to put down their weapons, turn away from violence as a political tactic, and negotiate with us.
Either that, or we can kill them all. Whichever comes first!

Stating the obvious like its cool.

And you wonder why we call them the Loonie Left?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:29:00 +0000

I just had to post this photo of a protestor's sign at the "big" San Francisco rally earlier this week(courtesy of ZombieTime).

This sign, more than any other I've seen, highlights the frustration that the rational debater has in trying to engage a Lefty moonbat in any kind of meaningful dialogue.

In the same breath that they shake their collective fists in, what's the word, uh, ANGER, crying for Pres. Bush's blood, and suggesting all manner of violent insurrectionist solutions to getting rid of the "Bush Cabal" and the "lunatic right," they then wrap it all up with a cry of, "Learn Compassion!!" All the while remaining completely intellectually blind to the screaming hypocrisy of it all.

Their signs and slogans cry, "We Want The TRUTH!" Which is kinda of funny, because what they really mean is, "We only want the 'truth' which fits into our neatly packaged 'Hate Bush' worldview!"

If you do manage to somehow wade through their vitriol, parse down their virulent language, and scale the rhetorical bulwarks to the point where you can lay actual, no-kidding facts (read: Truth) right before their eyes, the conversation almost always immediately devolves into something akin to, "Of COURSE you'd say that, you're a CONSERVATIVE! Ptooie!" Ad Hominem attacks are the last recourse of the intellectually stunted.

A perusal through the ZombieTime Anti-war photos shows you a group of individuals reveling in the unrestrained joy of the very same freedom of speech that they seem so intent on denying to the conservative voice. Suggesting that "Bush Is Satan" and "Decapitate Bush" is apparently "vocal activism," not hate speech. Yet, what if I were to replace "Bush" with "Cindy Sheehan" or "Muslims" or "homosexuals;" imagine the resultant frenzy! Veins would throb, tears would flow, cries of hate crime would fill the air! Where I come from, we call that "intellectually dishonest" or a double standard.

That is a concept which seems to escape the "Progressive" mind. Suggesting that you SHOULDN'T be saying something does not equate to saying that you should not be allowed to say something. Criticism of an idea does not mean revocation of your right to present that idea in the public forum, however distasteful it may be. Censure, does not mean censor.

The Progressive faction would have us believe that criticizing a sexual preference, a religious culture, or a political ideology constitutes "hate speech," yet strangely, that same standard does not seem to apply to them in their virulent condemnations of the "Christian fundamentalists," "heteronormatives," "right wing rethuglicans," etc, etc, ad nauseum.

And so we watch in bemused wonder as the Melting Pot of Diversity and Tolerance (*snurk*) swirls about the streets of San Francisco, all the while understanding all too clearly how "acceptable" it would be to this same lot of "activists" if the slogans and signs bore equally abhorrent rhetoric, but from a far right-wing perspective.

How do you debate with people who are so rapturously intoxicated with their own mercurial brew of emotional endorphins that they are essentially unreachable on any kind of intellectual level?

They aren't just stuck on stupid; they have become addicted to it.

Linked at Mudville Gazette's Open Post and Basil's Blog

It's all about "context"

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:18:00 +0000

A caption isn't really required, is it?

(Thanks to River Rat...you hilariously sick pup!)

Defending the Indefensible - Partial Birth Abortion

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:27:00 +0000

I was reading a legal brief dealing with partial birth ~~abortion~~ infanticide over at Patterico's blog, and was reminded that the description of one type of this procedure includes, "puncturing the cranium and evacuating the brain" in order to collapse the skull, thus facilitating "extraction" of the, uh, "fetus."

People can debate when life begin, is it the zygote, blastocyst, when the heart first starts beating, when there's a spine and nerves. Whatever. Debate all you want, but what I want to know is, in all the hulabaloo about when life begins, sentience, etc., how do get to "puncture the cranium and REMOVE.THE.BRAIN", and then continue to defend this procedure with a straight face?

"Brain," people. A beating heart, and an active brain.

Try this one on for size: "In the news today, reports are coming in from the Superdome in New Orleans in that a suspected psychopath is stabbing people in the skull and removing their brains." AAuughh! The horror!!

Maybe the Weekly World News: "Aliens Attack Nation's Children! Puncture skulls and suck out brains!" Run for your LIVES!!

Crazy, right? And yet this legal brief carries on in the driest, most dispassionate terms about which of these types of procedures is "safer."

How do you get up in front of a podium and, with your composure intact, carry on about how it's important to preserve PBI because it's a woman's "right"? Paying a "doctor" to perforate and deflate your unborn child's skull is a RIGHT?!

I'm sorry, but if you can't see how this is plainly the most inhumane form of butchery, then you are seriously Stuck on Stupid.

Shut up and stay repressed. Or else!

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:08:00 +0000

Froggy Ruminations has a scathing yet insightful post about the institutional disdain show by the Left towards blacks and the poor; to include the way the media plays right into it. Here's a teaser:
Since these stories already fit nicely into the worldview and mindset of elite liberals and victim-identity hustlers, they are reported as a matter of fact without compunction or remorse. The theme that black people are incapable of acting humanely to each other under stressful conditions is not an actual news story, it is a script written long ago by patronizing liberals who sought to tame and care for these “unfortunate savages”. Treating blacks like animals in a Zoo is actually a perfect analogy to what liberal elites think of them. In a Zoo, animals are fed, housed, and protected from each other and more importantly the visitors, by benevolent zookeepers so that they can be observed and studied in an artificial habitat.
Definitely worth the time to read the whole thing.

H/T to Mudville Gazette for the link.

Hamas Lied, People Died.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 01:32:00 +0000

Schools close as rockets fly
Palestinian attacks show vulnerability of towns near Gaza
Responding to a barrage of Qassam rockets fired at his town, the mayor of a large Israeli Negev community yesterday closed all schools, highlighting growing concerns Jewish neighborhoods near the Gaza border are vulnerable to ongoing Palestinian attack.
And this comes as a surprise to whom? You mean, giving the Palestinians the Gaza strip like they wanted not only didn’t stop the rocket attacks, but actually increased their frequency? Hmm. Whoda’ thunk it?

During the Six-Day war in 1967, Israel defeated a coalition of Egypt, Jordan and Syria as they strove to strangle Israel, and in the process Israel captured the strategically vital areas the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. (Wikipedia)

WHY were these areas “strategically vital?” Because they had traditionally been staging areas for attacks against Israel by its many enemies. The area comprising the "Gaza Strip" was owned by Egypt, and was used as an avenue of attack during the Six-Day war. The Golan Heights has a commanding overview of Israel, and was used to lauch artillery attacks deep into Israeli territory.

There are many who would argue (and do) that modern methods of warfare, as well as the changing face of middle-eastern poltics nullifies some of the historical strategic imperitives of these regions:

The global and regional changes which have taken place over the past decade have significantly reduced the both the likelihood and the destructive potential of a broad land-based attack against Israel by an eastern Arab coalition. The potential magnitude of this threat has diminished because of the relative weakening of Syria, Iraq and Jordan. Syria and Jordan have both failed to locate funding for the revitalization of their armed forces, while Iraq's military force was severely damaged during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and the sanctions in place since then have prevented it from rehabilitating and re-equipping its armed forces. It is fair to assume that Jordan and Syria will continue to suffer from weak economies, preventing them from growing in military strength on the basis of their own resources*

I beg to differ. Long-range bombardment can be used to attrit forces, break down an enemy’s will to fight, or strike specific strategically significant targets. However, no force or country can be considered “defeated” until a ground force moves in and takes the territory in hand.

We have seen in Iraq the consequences of failing to control your borders. Terrorist infiltrators can wreak havoc upon civilian populations. Kill one, another sneaks in to fill his or her place. The Israeli’s wall proved to be an effective barrier against such incursions, reducing bus bombings and other suicide bomber attacks to almost zero. The very necessity of this wall lay in the close proximity of a group of people (the Palestinians) who have made no secret of the fact that they will accept nothing short of the complete destruction of Israel. In the words of a previous Hama leader,

"The main aim of the intifada [uprising] is the liberation of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, and nothing more. We haven't the force to liberate all our land," Mr Rantissi told the BBC in 2002. (My emphasis)

Read that again, “...liberate all our land.” This clearly includes a great deal more than "the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem." It’s every square inch of dirt that Israel claims as its own.

By ceding the Gaza strip to the Palestinians, Israel has enabled them to launch their attacks that much closer to the heart of the country and reach more communities (read: innocent victims) than they could before.

Areas such as the Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and West Bank were seized by right of conquest against historical blood enemies, and they were captured for a very specific and logical reason; to control potential staging areas and avenues of approach in order to prevent further attacks.

Ceding these areas back to your sworn enemies in the name of capitulationst politics is just plain stupid. Stuck.On.Stupid.

And believing that the Palestinians will ever, ever, EVER really put down their arms? Well, that’s just plain ignorant.

Linked at Mudville Gazette

Pres. Bush Hitting the Sauce Again?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:51:00 +0000

Well, consider the source.

The supposed lurid accusation comes from none other than that bastion of multiple layers of fact checking, the National Enquirer. According to a Dr. Justin Frank, Bush is likely hitting the bottle again. This is backed up with several quotes from “other sources” and “family sources.”

Shocking. Tragic. But wait. What say, in the interests of journalistic fidelity, that we take a little closer look at this article, shall we?

For starters, there is not a single named source for these accusations, save for that of Dr. Frank. Every other quote, assertion, accusation or suggestion is attributed to the amorphous “other sources,” "insiders," and "family sources."

"When the levees broke in New Orleans, it apparently made him reach for a shot," said one insider.
An insider who of course could not be named, I’m sure out of fear of recrimination.

Let’s think about this for a second. What Bush “family member” in their right mind would say anything at all to the National Enquirer?

And what about that one named source that they do throw in for “credibility?” Dr. Justin Frank, author of “Bush On The Couch: Inside The Mind Of The President.” (read the review). As referenced on Media Matters For America website,

"According to the book's official website, 'At once a compelling portrait of George W. Bush and a damning indictment of his policies, Bush on the Couch sheds startling new light on an administration whose record of violence and cruelty seems increasingly dependent on the unstable psyche of the man at its center.'”
But wait, there’s more. Media Matters is, “dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Hmm. I’m sensing a trend.

So what ELSE does the good Doctor have to say?

Prominent DC Shrink Diagnoses Bush to be a Paranoid, Sadistic Meglomaniac

Dr. Frank's expert recommendation? "Our sole treatment option -- for his benefit and for ours -- is to remove President Bush from office . . . before it is too late." (Capitol Hill Blue)

Ahh, like you didn’t see THAT coming.

So what about some personal information on Dr. Frank, you ask?

“A Democrat, he once headed the Washington Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility”,

whose mission is:
“Recognizing that new dangers now threaten us, PSR has expanded its mission to include environmental health, addressing issues such as global climate change, proliferation of toxics, and pollution. Facing an epidemic of gun violence that kills 28,000 Americans a year, PSR also works to address firearms as a major public health menace."
Hmm. So, let’s recap. We’ve got unsubstantiated reporting from a scurrilous journal widely famous for stories like “Alien With Two Heads Ate My Grandmother,” incorporating several unnamed sources. The one ringer they do bring in to add weight to their allegations is a liberal Democrat with strong ties to a social “progressive” activist organization dedicated to opposing global warming, gun violence, and weapons proliferation. And his solution to this looming specter of Bush’s impending alcoholic rage episodes? Remove Bush from office. How handy THAT would be for the Lefties, eh?

And yet the lefty blogs parrot this nonsense like it’s gospel. If you take such blithering at face value, you ARE stuck on stupid.

UPDATE:

Michelle Malkin has a piece slamming lefty gutter-mouthBILL MAHER for running with the story, and Crooks and Liars has the video.

Linked at Mudville Gazette, and Basil's Trackback Potluck.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve B) — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:50:00 +0000

Sen. Clinton Will Vote 'No' on Roberts

Why, you ask? Is it because he’s incompetent? Lack of experience? Nope.

In her words:
“I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf…”
In other words, I didn’t hear exactly what I wanted to hear, so rather than giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll vote against you just in case you might someday make a ruling I don’t like.

"My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills," she concluded.
In other words, "like the liberal that I am, I am going to let emotion trump logic." Read the words carefully here. What Sen. Clinton is unequivocally saying is that while Roberts is clearly intelligent, honest, and qualified, she has doubts that he will further the social engineering agenda “progressives” have worked so hard to implement.

This is a clear reflection of the Progressive mantra. Statements such as these codify the worldview of the Left which states that -- rather than serve as a watchdog, an interpreter and applier of constitutional principles -- the Supreme Court is instead an activist organization with a mandate to further social(ist) causes. Not to interpret law, but to create policy.

“That uncertainly(sic) means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service."
Once again, she laments that despite his clear qualifications, her “conscience” will not let her vote to confirm him.

The five Democrats voting against the nomination were Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois” uh…and Sen. Hillary Clinton.
If ever there was a better endorsement for a candidate, it’s to be opposed by the likes of these.

This whole process highlights to a glaring degree that these nominations are not about selecting the most qualified candidate for the position, but in determining who will best support an ideological position. Neutrality is not required or desired. Objectivity is not a factor. You MUST TELL ME WHAT I WANT TO HEAR.

Time and again his inquisitors tried to pin Roberts down with “Well, what if's”. And time and again, Judge Roberts replied with something akin to, “I can’t answer that without seeing the specifics of a particular case.” They wanted hypotheticals, he insisted on dealing with objective facts. They wanted to hear that, no matter what, he would rule in defense of a particular social agenda (theirs), not with respect to the rule of law. And not receiving such assurances, they felt “conscience-bound” to vote against him.

It’s clear that the Democrats, in the person of Sen. Feinbidennedyschurblinton, don’t want a dispassionate analysis of the facts, a cogent, solid ruling based on established legal precedents. They want someone who will further their social agenda.

To me, this is the single most dangerous aspect of the Progressive worldview: “I don’t care what the facts say, I know what I feel in my heart.” “Right” becomes not what the law says it is; it’s what you feel, at that particular moment, is the way things ought to be.

Jurisprudence based on mood swings. What a great foundation for a Republic. But then again, I think it’s becoming increasingly clear that the liberal Progressives don’t want a Representative Republic – the want a socialist pseudo-democracy ruled by the fickleness of social whimsy and swirling currents of the politically correct mores of the moment.

You, Senator Clinton, are Stuck on Stupid.

Linked at Mudville Gazette