Sunday, May 29, 2005
Particularly I send out a big "HUA" to the US Army and an "OOO-RAH" to our United States Marine Corps.
You guys and gals are doing the heavy lifting while the rest of us sit safe in our homes.
No one likes war...but we train to fight because no one else will. No one wants to die for their country, but we know that freedom sometimes demands a price from the dauntless and the diligent.
The liberal main stream media has lost power in our society. They abused the power we gave them, and now we have taken it away. Quran flushing misreporting, Texas Air National Guard reports from fraudulent sources, and NYT's Jason Blair all showed us a biased media not honorable enough to take responsibility for the mistakes they make.
How did they get their initial power? Expert Power can be defined as: knowlege or skill that you possess and which is needed by others. Using Expert Power, you can convince people to follow your instructions. They will comply since you are the "expert". The expert is respected and so the average person follows and adopts the views of that person. But there are False Experts out there. And, an anchorman, someone who merely reads what is written and seems authoritative, gains Expert Power, but only in the minds of "sheeple".
Intellectual laziness typifies the behavior of sheeple.
Another form of power is Referent power, or the attractive power brought by fame or fortune. Hollywood actors who testify before Congress regarding specific issues they hold dear are allowed to do so because of Referent Power. They are not Experts; even if they play experts on TV.
The sheeple don't realize that any simpleton can effectively gather facts...but each person might see something different in those facts. It is the conclusions drawn from those facts that demonstrate either wisdom, stupidity, or the hidden agenda.
Further, it takes substantial investigative ardor to determine if those facts are real or created for individual purposes (propaganda, notoriety, etc.)
On the internet you will find a picture of a man standing on top of the World Trade Center while one of the doomed aircraft is in the background and just 300-400 yards away from striking. How many sheeple believed that photo was real?
Four years ago, how many more would have believed it if Dan Rather had told them it was real?
Thankfully, in the span of a few short years, thanks to entities like Fox News, the American people have begun to question the malevolent twisting of the truth by those with a political motive.
Rather, Moyers, and their ilk....They were the ones who questioned authority during the 1960's, now they are dying by their own swords.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Some may have wished the Republican majority had rubbed Democrats' noses in the crap they themselves created through their extra-Constitutional judicial filibusters. I did not. The Senate has always been characterized by comity. Senators were intended to be the wizened old men (or women) who thoughtfully debated ideology. The fact that Democrats broke this tradition through actions more emblematic of the vigorous House of Representative should not compel Republicans to sink to the same level of acrimonious self-indulgence.
The Ends of the Spectrum
Many on both ends of the political spectrum are not happy with the Senate compromise. To them I would say, let time be the judge. If judicial nominees are filibustered, the Majority Party may still implement the "option previously known as nuclear". What have Republicans lost? Nothing.
The real bitching, moaning, groaning, whining, and complaining will be heard from the Far Left Wing Groups (FLWGs, see previous post: The Real Right Wing) when 99% of GW's nominees are approved by the Senate. Teddy Kennedy will, no doubt, be frothing at the mouth over some of these nominees, Barbara Boxer will used her limited fluency in the language of Logic to defame good people, and Harry Reid will slowly turn lighter shades of gray (like an outdated black and white movie) as his power to control actions of the Senate fades from the Senatorial "big screen".
This compromise is akin to a covert Special Ops mission to destroy a critical blockade. If it doesn't lead to victory, bigger weapons are still positioned for immediate deployment.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Here's an interesting link for you:
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Life is remarkable. Even more remarkable are the processes that begin that life; the first microcosmic mechanisms triggered when an egg is fertilized.
At the atomic level, the elements of Life are quite unremarkable...ordinary...common. But the way these atoms are arranged into molecules, molecules that contain potentiality beyond our understanding, constitutes a mystery we cannot yet duplicate.
Cloning is Man's simplistic mimicking of God, like a monkey mimics Man by wearing clothes at a carnival sideshow. The monkey doesn't understand the purpose of wearing the clothes; he's been trained to do it, so he does it. Similarly, the scientist doesn't know the mechanics of the stem cell, but he's been trained to experiment, so he does it.
The Stem Cell's Function
The initial, virtually undetectable spark of Life, when the embryo begins to divide, may result in the next Einstein, Salk, or Newton. It is at this time that a human's struggle begins. The embryonic human strives for viability. All energy is directed toward the creation of skin, brain, heart, lungs.
Stem cells, those cells that can form into any cell needed by the body, begin their work of building the human being. But how do they know when to stop? Why don't stem cells build four hearts or five livers during gestation? This is the most pertinent question surrounding the function of stem cells.
For all the hype around embryonic stem cells absolutely no successful therapies have been found using these cells. In fact, The New England Journal of Medicine published a study where the use of embryonic stem cells in Parkinson's patients resulted in uncontrolled twitching and jerking. The stem cells that have resulted in successful therapies are stem cells from adults and cord blood http://www.stemcellresearch.org/.
The uneducated will state that no embryonic stem cell research is being conducted in the U.S. -- wrong. Embryonic stem cells have constantly been explored, in this country and others.
Ideologues will shrilly squeal that the federal ban on embryonic stem cell research has stopped all research -- if you believe them, that is your fault. Try searching the internet. The federal government simply bans federal funding of new embryonic lines and experimentation (sorry all you John Kerry fans, he lied to you during the 2004 Presidential campaign -- and not only about this issue: he still hasn't signed the SF 180). Instead of demagoguing the issue, maybe politicians should tell you what we know and what we don't.
We don't know what triggers embryonic stem cells to stop producing hearts, and refocuses that energy to building skin or liver? We do know that energy in stem cells drops off over time (http://www.regenmd.com/condtreat_aging.htm). There is some signal, some cue given at the microscopic level that causes stem cells to stop producing redundant organs and, instead, focus on the other needs of the developing human being. Afterall, we have stem cells in our body throughout our life. If they exhibited the same energy level as at the beginning of gestation, we would live forever, constantly being repaired.
I believe we will find that embryonic stem cells are too "hot" for therapeutic use. Stem cells from umbilical cord blood, however, have completed their superordinate growth cycle and are therefore more malleable in their function. The "cooler" cord blood and adult stem cells more readily accept the task of "adding to" incomplete organs. Conducting repairs is not the same as transubstantiation. Completing repairs only requires the augmentation of existing organs and cells, not wholesale creation.
The necessarily increased activity of nascent embryonic cells are likely good for only one thing -- building new life. For this reason, I believe, the embryonic cells injected into Parkinson's patients caused an overload of neuronal construction -- making far too many connections in the brain than that of a simple repair. Those embryonic cells may have been trying to build an entirely new brain, lacking only the additional "cooler" cells to complete the task. Could we have had a real "man with two brains" if the necessary construction material had been present in these patients?
What we know:
Adult stem cells are credited with successful treatments.
Cord blood stem cells are credited with successful therapies.
Embryonic stem cells have cured nothing.
Considering what we already know, why stride toward an ethical precipice? Why create human embryos simply to destroy them in experimentation? There exist embryonic lines undergoing experimentation right now. Isn't that sufficient?
Garner what information we can from these lines and stop pitching ourselves headlong into a moral morass -- one where Life is just another commodity.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
In an historic attempt at restoring the letter and intent of the Constitution of the United States of America the Republican majority in the Senate will soon launch a thermo-nuclear, heat-seeking moisture missile directly up the collective arses of Democrats.
How did it come to this?
It came to this when, three years ago, a minority of Senators (see synonyms : DEMOCRAT PARTY; MINORITY PARTY; LOSERS) took the outrageous action of filibustering Presidential nominees to the bench. This unprecedented and extra-Constitutional action helped drive Tom Daschle out of the Senate. Daschle's role as Chief Obstructionist was the main argument that led to his 2004 ouster. He became the poster-boy for the lack of civility infusing the Senate. He lost his Senate seat and Republicans gained an even greater majority. Democrats didn't learn this lesson.
DO YOU BELIEVE?
In my previous posts I pasted the pertinent Constitutional excerpt for your viewing. I also queried whether you believe that less than one-half of one House of Congress should be able to override the Executive. I believe it is exceedingly clear that the Democrats are the ones violating the concepts of co-equal governmental branches and commodious civility. Special Interests, (specifically NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and MoveOn.org [see synonym: MorOns.org]) have convinced the Senate minority to filibuster Presidential nominees.
Fearing a loss of political support and campaign contributions, the Democrats have agreed to perform a political death spiral. Meanwhile, they will continually cry that they are doing the work of the People...don't fall for it, they are doing the work of their personal interests for political power.
You may find them convincing at times, but like a con man trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, their promises are empty; their souls already belong to others. Educate yourself on the issues...learn what the Democrats are really up to.
Our elections have consequences. If your party is voted out of the majority, your voice is rightly lessened. Perhaps the Democrats haven't figured this out yet. In 2006 we should try to add five more Republican Senators until the Democrats understand that they must mirror the will of the people, not their special interests.
Follow this link for more insight: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010495.php
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Steve Ludwig, who has children attending Garfield, defended the vote by saying that PTSA's have a right to ban organizations who undertake "illegal" activity. The obtuse Mr Ludwig defined the "illegal" activity as "torture" and "aggressive war".
Hey Steve, let me give you a hand with your definitions...here's one:
1. To subject (a person or an animal) to torture.
2. To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See Synonyms at afflict.
3. To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case.
Using the third definition, we can see that Mr Ludwig is in fact torturing the definition of "torture". Steve "The Torturer" Ludwig should explain the parallels between (1) dipping people in acid baths with (2) taking naked photos of them. Maybe his explanation will give us a better idea of what he considers torture.
Steve The Torturer also tortures the entire US military by claiming our sons and daughters are an illegal organization when a few immature soldiers humiliate known rapists and insurgents. While sipping his Starbuck's, he conveniently ignores the noteworthy fact that the US military is the organization that uncovered this abuse (not torture) and is prosecuting those involved.
But, let's stay with Steve's idea that the whole is responsible for the actions of a few. Did Mr Ludwig take any Psychology classes during his own schooling? He should access the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org ) if he'd reeeeallly like to understand the pathology that forms in a prison environment. The website has been updated to consider the Abu Ghraib situation. I guarantee you cannot view the entire slide show without being disturbed at this experiment. After viewing this can Mr Ludwig still brand the entire military as lawless?
If so, Steve The Torturer should initiate his own branch of philosophy. His first aesthetic precept would be called Ludwig's Logic of Comparative Circumstance and Lazy Broad Brushed Thinking. His initial, biting apophthegm can claim that the entire United States is an illegal entity because there are people that commit crimes all across this country, each and every day. When one member of a group acts improperly, all in that group are "illegal." Ridiculous.
IN his defense, we should not blame Mr Ludwig for his sophistry...he is only reiterating the "sterling" reportage of the national media and the convenient omission of facts so prevalent in today's tabloid journalism.
As far as his terming "aggressive war" as illegal, please tell us which war was not "aggressive"? Perhaps Kosovo? I'm fairly sure that Steve The Torturer did not vote for Bush, but likely voted for Clinton. So what does former-President Clinton say about Iraq? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050518/ap_on_re_mi_ea/clinton_iraq_1
He would be better served noting the positive changes occuring throughout the Middle East. After millenia of war and stalemate, finally there is a move toward resolving serious issues that have festered throughout recorded history.
The war on terrorism is not for the weak and irresolute -- it is undoubtedly better that the offspring of Steve The Torturer not enter the military. After having this man as a model, they can only weaken our nation.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
LOS ANGELES (Agence Presse-France). Pam Anderson, the artifically enhanced starlet best known for her sexually explicit home videos and recent spats with J Lo and P Diddy (http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/anderson%20blasts%20jlo%20and%20diddy%20over%20fur%20coats), has declared a boycott against all museums of natural history. It seems Ms Anderson is upset at the museums' displays of cavemen. It is not the actual cavemen that distress her, it's that the cavemen wear fur in almost all of the exhibits.
Fur is Dead
"Fur is dead", proclaimed the buxom harpy. "There's no way cavemen would have worn fur when we all know that Adam and Eve really wore fig leaves."
She continued, "I have studied this subject quite thoroughly and I know there were plenty of options for cavemen; elephant grass for guys like Tommy Lee and crab grass for the ..umm, smaller fellas, like Kid Rock. My studies in anthropology lead me to believe that cavemen would never wear fur."
Ms Anderson plans to study brain surgery and rocket science next.
Editor's Note: It's not remarkable to find that the SUBJECTIVE truths of the Left lead to internecine struggles between liberals. Pam v JLo, David Geffen versus the State of California.
Since they harbor no OBJECTIVE beliefs, only what they feeel is right, it is inevitable that liberal will eat liberal at some point.
DISCLAIMER: any similarity between persons cited in this webblog and persons real or deceased is purely coincidental.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
He must think the entirety of the American people are as country-bumpkin dumb as his constituency. He defies the Constitution, pulling the filibuster into the Executive calendar of the Senate...why? Simply because his party is out of power. In fact, their seats in the Senate are successively declining and he...just...can't...stand...it!
His intransigence will bring the use of the Constitutional option (known as the nuclear option to Liberals). His pouting persona predilects the choice of the Constitutional power over the special interests that poor, poor Chucky represents.
Do you believe that less than ONE HALF of ONE House of Congress should be empowered to deny the Executive their choice of judges? No? Neither did the framers. That's why a supermajority vote is not required in Article II, clause 2 of the Constitution..here read it for yourself:
Clause 2: He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The supermajority is clearly reserved for treaties, but not for appointments.
Someone send Chucky some Valium to settle him down or more money than the special interests are providing to make him less beholden to the lobbyists.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Like the far left-wing, far right-wing groups (FRWGs) are not tied to religion at all. FRWGs are the hedonistic raiders of corporations and other people's money. Their spoils are used to benefit them and only them. They seek only personal wealth and power.
Compare this to the far left-wing groups (FLWGs) who raid corporations through extortion or threatened boycotts and want to steal other people's money by imposing obscene levels of taxation on the most productive of our society. Ostensibly the groups differ in that the FLWGs want to give their spoils to those too lazy to learn a new trade or too proud to work at blue-collar occupations.
To clarify this point, think of the farthest right-wing groups in recent history: the Nazi Party under Hitler, the Communist Party of Stalin, and Chinese Communism. Now you might think that these were left-wing socialist groups, and for the masses, that is how these governments painted themselves. Pure socialist systems tend to collapse under their own weight since the socialist model is so completely flawed and contrary to Expectancy Theory.
More important to remember, each of these small fascist dictatorships eschewed religion -- outlawing it as a force counter-productive to their goals. They disguised their movements as a "people's" revolution, but we know that only a very few really benefited from the labor of millions. The people had no right to worship or benefit from their own work. In these two points, the FRWGs and the FLWGs are the same.
Neither groups view religion as helpful to their cause. FWRGs outlaw religion. FLWGs wished they could outlaw religion. The FLWGs view religion as mere superstition and unhelpful to passing their "inclusive" societal vision.
Both want to appropriate the labor of millions for their own political agenda. The FRWGs usurp that power to elevate themselves; the FLWGs infringe upon that labor to bolster those whom they consider "underprivileged." How interesting.
On a piece of paper draw a continuum of political ideology where the FLW is on one end and the FRW populates the other. In the middle write the words "The Power of the People". Now bend (not fold) that piece of paper until the two ends meet. Where the paper meets we find agreement between the groups. The paper represents how these groups view society -- as a source of effort sufficient to form the world in their image. As Life is sometimes called a "circle", so the ideologies of these groups form a circle. They both want to use the power of the people to mold a world they view as the most desirable to them. Both ends attempt to draw power to their end of the spectrum.
Now look at the part of the paper that is farthest from where these two ideologies meet -- who resides at that point of the paper? If you said moderates, you are incorrect. The "moderates" are much more akin to the liberal FLWGs. "Moderate" is a euphemistic appellation for groups that are liberal on either social or economic issues. They may or may not attend church/synagogue/mosque. They view donations to charity as a way to assuage their conscience.
No, those who reside at the center are conservatives; those salt-of-the-Earth folks who personify the agrarian work ethic and respect for the traditions of their culture. They attend church on Sunday, they work hard to support their families, they donate to charities as a obligation given to them from their God, they don't believe that paying a man to NOT work is an effective way to improve a man's life, and they call aberrant behavior by its name.
Are they really "right-wing"? Far from it. The are the center that binds all things together. They are the foundation that allowed the greatest country in the history of this planet to spring up from a revolution of colonists.
Still, they are portrayed as extremists by the media arm of the secular Left. Just as did FWRGs, the FLWGs view them as a threat. The media is just now beginning to understand the results of the last few elections. PBS is seeking more balance in their broadcasts; the New York Times has vowed to remove liberal bias from their News page and leave in the editorials where it belongs. Democrats have suddenly begun to speak of God.
The power of the people is pulling the edges of the continuum back to the center.
The Church of Nihilistic Secularism (CONS) founded when the progenitors of Man first stepped from the primordial ooze (or from under the Tree of Knowledge) increased in popularity in the 1960's. Yes, though the nihilists have always been part of the human experience (though continually and presently only a small proportion), they mainstreamed their ideas from 1965 - 1974. They are easily identified through the behaviors of constantly bitching, moaning, groaning, crying, whining, and complaining.
Each day the nihilistic sacraments of unapologetic self-aggrandizement, "free" love, and babbling contrarianism are celebrated upon their consecrated altars of Subjectivism as the CONS adherents rise to greet the world.
The Life of a Young Acolyte
Rising before dawn, they break their fast on tofu, bean sprouts and green tea. Then it's time to call a homosexual friend (just to brag that they have some.)
Shortly after, they slip into their F*CK BUSH T-shirts, non-leather sandals, and hemp fiber jackets, and head off to the nearest protest rally. If no protest rallies are scheduled, burning a condominium construction site or vandalizing an SUV dealership will do. All this hard work is taxing and they soon head back home to watch 6-7 hours of TV while firing up some BC Bud. When feeling down, a good read of Noam Chomsky is in order.
Before they know it, night has arrived. Time to disrupt speeches by conservative speakers.
"Hmmm..." they eloquently ponder..."Shall we throw a pie at Pat Buchanan...maybe William Crystal, or perhaps we should just launch a few choice vulgarities at Ann Coulter? Make sure kids are in the audience so they can experience the depth of our passion!!
Having inevitably missed the target of their pie-throwing (since the males throw like girls and the girls don't know how to bake pies for throwing), it's soon time to return to the roost with any one of several partners they met at the speech.
A little anonymous sex settles them down for the night. So what if the girl gets pregnant from this encounter...the male will invariably abandon her and she can simply abort the inconvenient child. After all, no one should be held accountable for their actions by an outdated sense of responsibility.
Laying in bed, finishing the last of the afternoon weed, it's time to plan another successful day of "raging against the machine."
The Life of the CONS Clergy
There are several levels of CONS clergy to which one might ascend. The entry level positions is, of course, Rhymin' Reverend.
Apply yourself and you might make it to CEO of a non-profit political organization.
If you have broad appeal you can expect to run for elective office.
At each level one must remember the Golden Rule: "None Must be Held Accountable for Their Actions, for We are All God's Children."
Rhymin' Reverends practice the cliched mantras that proclaim society as unfair, holding down the poor and underprivileged. Rhymin' Reverends aid the CONS' effort by igniting passions in the undereducated and threatening boycotts if their extortive demands are not met. Some companies actually fall for this, not realizing that the folks who would likely boycott don't have a job (ergo the money) to buy their products anyway.
CEOs of non-profit political organizations are the proxy cash cows. They will pressure real corporations into funding "social justice" and the "right" candidates in the "struggle". Their constituency is slightly more able to produce an impactful boycott, but most of their effort is directed at funding 527 advertisements during political campaigns.
The Archmagus (the HOLY elected)
No religion could survive without a guiding force. For the CONS it is the Archmagus. Sometimes these persons are disguised as Representatives, Senators, or even Presidents. The general population doesn't pay enough attention to discern their position in the CONS; the people just know that the Archmagus' soothing words and touchy-feely politics make them feeeeeel as if they really are helping the disadvantaged.
The Archmagus' greatest weapon is the ability to remove reason from the political environment. Adages like "give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and feed him for life" are anathema to the Archmagus. Instead of each person being individually responsible for helping their neighbor, the Archmagus removes your personal responsibility by insisting that only government bureaucracy can help.
Do you believe that a bloated bureaucracy is more efficient than community churches and charities? If so, you are susceptible to the tranquil, liquid enchantment of the Archmagus. Counter-intuitive thoughts are planted in your mind..you believe them. Skewed statistics are presented..you devour them. They state their opposition to all alternatives but their own...you rally to their side. They bellow that only THEY know how to solve your problems...you pray for their success. Reason is supplanted with emotion..you are now reduced to an animal.
I believe in separation of Church and State. Let the CONS rule the ignorant...not you.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
New Yorkers have been driven insane by their pace of life. Nothing else can explain their choice of Senators.
Chucky Schumer and Hillary Clinton have got to be the least charismatic, most demagogic, and least substantive of the present sitting Senate.
Chucky, fearing an even greater loss of personal power than that of being in the minority, set forth to bolster his case for continuing an un-Constitutional filibuster of judicial nominees. Chucky used the argument that Republican Senators represent only 21% of the American public because Republican states are less populous. There are just a few problems with his defense:
-- Let's imagine that Republicans were in the minority. According to Chucky, they could filibuster judicial nominees though they would only represent 16% of the population (15.65 percent pro-rated at current ratios.)
-- Since the purpose of the Senate was always to give each state an equal voice...population doesn't matter. Population is calculated only in the House of Representatives.
-- Stating that a MINORITY party should be permitted to thwart the wishes of the elected Executive Branch thoroughly imbalances the "co-equal branches of government" model that has lasted over 229 years. You no longer need a one house of Congress to countermand the Executive; less than one half of one house will do....
The Senate has two calendars: the legislative and the executive. During the Legislative calendar, Senators can and should exercise the filibuster when appropriate. When 100 Senators create legislation, all should be heard and be able to stop a creation of that body.
The Executive calendar is not the time nor the place to use a MINORITY from ONE House of Congress to imbalance our system of government. The confirmation of judges is not an internal squabble between sides...it is a method to give the entire Senate a look (and only a look, no inappropriate touching please) at the nominees.
People of New York please take a deep breath and give careful scrutiny to the bums you place in Congress.