Archive for July, 2007

Understanding that my readers come here for definitive answers on many of life’s issues, (well, that and pictures of Jennifer Lopez, of which I’ve posted only one, but still seem to get a lot of traffic from the search engines, but I digress) I offer you here the once and forever answer to that eternal question, “Which came first: the chicken, or the egg?

The answer is:  It depends. 

If you are a follower of Evolutionism, then it clearly has to be the egg.  Because under evolutionary theory a transitional species — say some hybrid between a turtle and a duck perhaps — one day grunts out an egg, inside of which rests an embryo whose DNA got just a little bit scrambled when some recessive gene traits lying dormant in the parents were all intertwined in the process of conception, and suddenly, POOF, one day, out pops a proto-CHICKEN instead of turtle or a duck!  So clearly, in the evolutionist worldview, the egg has to have come first.

To a Creationist, however, it is has to be the chicken.  For if you created the egg FIRST, you’d have no creature around to warm and incubate it, nor feed or nurture it upon birth. Thus it is counter-intuitive to create an egg which would, from the get-go, be exceedingly non-viable. So clearly, to the Creationist view, it has to be the chicken first.

However, this doesn’t address the issue of the fact that in most natural settings, an offspring born which radically differs from the source parents pairs, or which is in any way deformed or the “runt” of the litter, is often abandoned, neglected to death, or presumptively killed and/or eaten by the stronger siblings or the dominant brood pairs.  Small wrinkle in the egg first theory.  But hey, after all, it is still just a theory, right?

Now, we all know that in this world, there are just two kinds of people: 1) Those who value the environment, those who understand the danger of global warming and capitalist over-consumption, who understand the felt-needs of the downtrodden and disenfranchised, and are willing to provide whatever entitlements and social programs are necessary, regardless of the drain on the economy, and then of course there are: 2) Earth despoiling christo-fascist hate mongers who wait for a Rapture so that they can escape a raped and despoiled Gaia, leaving the rest of you losers here to burn.

So, to help you self-actualize to the point where you can visualize your chakra into a form which will ensure your ascension to the first category, and not descend into a non-optimized self-awareness such that you become a #2, I, your spiritual guide, mentor, even shaman if you will, have provided the following primer on what to seek as your own personal Progressive Utopian Vision™:

– A highly-centralized form of government responsible for everything from providing universal health care to controlling wide-ranging aspects of our personal lives for our own good, as long as they don’t interfere with our sexuality, except for making gay marriage legal.

– Government schools, in addition to teaching basic facts, are also equally responsible for ensuring the proper socialization and political education of the students.  The worldview presented here supersedes and supplants that provided by other less reliable sources (specifically: parents).  Educational paths outside these schools are viewed as highly suspect and potentially damaging to a child’s well-being.  Remember, parents cannot be trusted with ensuring the emotional well-being of children.  That’s what schools and social workers are for!

– Taxes on individual income are seen as a core resource for the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the “poor.”  The only people allowed to be rich are movie stars, politicians, and other high-profile activists who support our Progressive Utopian Vision™.  These are the “good” rich people, as opposed to the “bad” rich people.

– The government has an equal or greater responsibility for ensuring an individual’s personal welfare than that of the individual themselves.  Clearly you can’t be trusted, or you wouldn’t have gotten yourself into this mess in the first place.

– Homelessness, drug use, and other “crimes” are society’s fault, often stemming from society’s failure to understand an individual’s specific needs and to properly “value” them.  Properly (publicly) funded outreach programs and multi-media presentations are key to overcoming these personal challenges.

– The military is an anachronistic throw-back to our imperialist past, and should be reduced to a purely defensive force.  What constitutes a “defensive” force will, of course, be determined by people who’ve never actually served IN the military.

– Abortion is a core tenet of fundamental human rights, opposition to which is seen as simply another form of support for slavery (for women).  If you don’t support abortion, you might as well have Kunta Kinte and Rosa Parks chained up in the backyard. With a Rottweiler.  A hungry Rottweiler.  In heat.

– The US shouldn’t be the world’s policemen, and we should keep our noses out of other peoples’ business.  As long as we don’t ignore world poverty, world hunger, human rights abuses and AIDS awareness, while paying our dues to the UN, who has peacekeeping forces and advisors in over 34 countries as we speak.

– Children should be rescued from “at-risk” environments where parents attempt to instill values contrary to that established by those who know better, i.e. – the benevolent leaders of the Progressive Utopian Vision™.

– You must embraces an all-inclusive a-theistic, humanist spirituality, but oppose exclusionary mono-theistic beliefs.  Remember, there is no god but, well, you, right?
– Global population should be significantly reduced.  Starting with someone else.

– Vast areas of the planet should be returned to their “pre-human” or “natural” conditions; or more specifically, pre-industrial conditions.  Except of course for the progressive elite, who will be able to buy carbon offsets for their 6,600 sq ft mansions in an otherwise untrammeled national forest.  An agrarian, pacifist economy, but still retaining all the benefits of modern medicines and technology.  Ah, now who wouldn’t want that?

– Those who insist on preserving a unique cultural identity are to be viewed as xenophobic and hegemonical.  We should be open to all social and cultural influences, except those that don’t support the utopian vision presented by the progressive intellectual elite.  Except that elitism is bad, well, unless you’re a Progressive intellectual, in which case it’s okay, because you really DO know better.

– We shouldn’t be burning fossil fuels, because they pollute the environment.  But we shouldn’t use nuclear power, because it could pollute the environment.  However, we should be driving electric cars using nickel-cadmium batteries, and using long-lasting light bulbs with mercury in them.  All of which need to be treated as hazardous materials when being disposed of, otherwise, they’ll poison the environment.  Never mind how expensive that is for people on fixed incomes (you know, those “poor” people you were so worried about?), this is the ENVIRONMENT we are talking about here!

I hope this little Primer of Progressivism© has been helpful to you in your quest for true enlightenment.  I can be contacted by simply closing your eyes and channeling your positive thoughts to me.  My oneness with Gaia will enable me to respond.  Thank you.

~~ Linked at Mitchieville’s “Carnival of the Politically Correct.”  Go Mayor!

AS a follow-up to my previous point, I found this “chat room” where several people lit into Munley over the same ruling back in 2006.  People thought he was a dumbass then, too.  Stop on by, and leave a friendly message (or not so friendly)…

I also find it interesting that in most of the media stories, the Hazelton legislation is billed as an “immigration law.”


The proposed law has nothing to do with immigration.  It does not attempt to enforce, restrict or in any other way affect a person’s ability to immigrate to this country.

 Judge Strikes Down Town’s Immigration Law – New York Times (The New York Times? Surprse, surprise.)

Hazleton Immigration Ordinance Struck Down

Federal Judge Blocks Pa. City From Enforcing Anti-Immigrant Laws

But to hear it spun in the media, it sound like the Mayor and Sheriff of Hazelton are trying to make their own immigration policy.  Well, I guess in a way they are.  They are saying that you can’t immigrate to THEIR TOWN if you are in the country illegally.  But that’s about it.  There seems to be an unfortunate tendency in apologist circles to drop the “illegal” in front of “immigrant” in these stories.

Here’s the link the the Penn.  Anti-Christ Luciferian Union’s webpage from the 2006 case:

Check out the first few sentences of the press release.  You’ll either laugh yourself hoarse, or throw up on your keyboard.

An ordinance that classifies certain immigrants as “illegal,” punishes landlords and employers who do business with those immigrants

Gotta love the scare quotes around “illegal.”

The ordinance also violates business and property owners’ due process rights under the constitution because it is nearly impossible for them ensure compliance.

Whoa, now THERE’S some mental gymnastics for you.  Blocking this law actually usurps business owners’ right to determine with whom they should or should not be allowed to do business.  Keep in mind that this Act has a broad foundation of support within the community (well, except for the “11”.  Hazelton had an estimated population of over 22,000 in 2006).  The actions of the ACLU are actually interfering with the rights of local businessmen, not protecting them.

I always love this one:

The ordinance would also turn Hazleton into an “English-only” community in which city documents and other written communications would not be available in any language but English unless specifically required by federal or state law.

And…?  The problem is, what?  Official documents of the United States, which has spoken English as its native language for over 213 years, shouldn’t be IN ENGLISH?!  Arrrgghhghghghghg!!!!

Judge voids Pa. city’s illegal immigration law

Now, I’m no lawyer, but this has to be one of the single most egregious examples of an out-of-control judiciary that I’ve seen in a long time.

Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued in federal court to overturn the measures, saying they usurp the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration, deprive residents of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, and violate state and federal housing law.

Oh jeez. Where to start?  Illegal immigrants sued in federal court? Bwa…? Huh?  That sounds almost like one of those “World’s Dumbest Criminals” segments, where somebody calls the cops to report that their drug stash has been stolen.

They usurp the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration

The fu…?  Lemme check the map fer a sec, here.  Pennsylvania.  Hmmm.  Kinda far north to be worried about hispanic illegal immigrants.  So, one must assume that the statute in question is dealing with people who are ALREADY THERE.  So how exactly is this infringing on federal immigration policy?  Where does the statute deny citizenship, or entry into the US?  It solely denies USE of city facilities to those who are in the country illegally

deprive residents of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process…

How about deprives LEGAL residents?  Illegal residents HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  Now, before anyone goes all twittery on me, let me state my case.  If you enter the country legally, through an authorized port of entry, you display  your passport, and receive the appropriate entry visa, in effect telling this country that you are here, then YES, you DO enjoy the protection of our laws and rights.  If you sneak in, and hide your presence from the government, how do you then turn around and claim the protections of said government?  If you flout the laws, actively avoid “due process,” how then do you (with a straight face) claim that you are in turn being deprived of due process?  Think I’m wrong?  Let’s quickly review the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The lying, festering suck-weasles behind this case have consciously and premeditatively used ONLY SELECTIVE PORTIONS of this amendment to make their case.  It clearly delineates that the States cannot make any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.  Let’s continue:

…and violate state and federal housing law

You cannot deny housing based on race, gender or physical disability.  Show me ANYWHERE where it places the same restriction on “immigration status.”  I dare you.

“This decision should be a blaring red stoplight for local officials thinking of copying Hazleton’s misguided and unconstitutional law,” said Witold Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which represented the plaintiffs

Of courssssse.  The “Atheist Communist’s Love Unit.” Color me suprised.  And unConstitutional? How?!  You know what’s unConstitional?  The very foundation of this lawsuit.  Shall we review the Tenth Amendment to said Constitution?  We shall!

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

That said, I do not see how a FEDERAL circuit court has the juridiction or authority to summarily set aside a LOCAL township law attempting to restrict access to its buildings, facilities, and LOCAL or STATE services to a specific set of people; i.e. – Legal residents and citizens.  Additionally, nowhere in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does it place any specific restrictions on the States regarding their handling or dealing with illegal aliens.  At its core, this is ultimately a states’ rights issue.

Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton’s measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not,” he added.

Ah ha. I see.  So, no matter WHAT federal laws say, my “feeling” is that the “intent” here is that the Constitution covers anyone on U.S. soil, regardless of their legal status.  Hmmm.  Maybe.  But I doubt it.  Let’s see what the actual preamble to the Constitution has to say about it:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

If you are not a legal immigrant, or one here on a federally approved and issued visa/green card, then you are not a “people OF the United States.”  If you are not a citizen, I’m sorry, but legally, You. Are. Not. Yet. An. American!!

If you (actually) read the text of the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, it states:

 That United States Code Title 8, subsection 1324(a)(1)(A) prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens. The provision of housing to illegal aliens is a fundamental component of harboring


This ordinance seeks to secure to those lawfully present in the United States and this City, whether or not they are citizens of the United States,

This alone negates one of the core tenets of the lawsuit.  It states specifically that legal residents, regardless of citizenship ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS.  It deals only with those in the country illegally. This proposed law agrees very clearly with both State and Federal statutes that it is a crime to harbor a fugitive.  An illegal alien is by definition a fugitive.  By voluntarily harboring a person you know to be in the country illegally, you are in fact committing a federal crime.  So this “Relief Act” is clearly IN COMPLIANCE with federal law.

And yet, this single judge has invalidated it on completely spurious and indefensible grounds.  Oh, and surprise, surprise.  This isn’t the first time.  In a vivid case of Deja Vu, Good ol’ Judge Munley struck down a similar measure back in late 2006.

Judge Munley also ruled in December, 2006, that plaintiffs in the case did not have to disclose either their names or their immigration status. And I quote:

Judge James Munley of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania held that, “plaintiffs may legitimately fear removal from the country and separation from their families

Well NO SHIT!  They are here ILLEGALLY!  They SHOULD be removed from the country: it’s called deportation!

Is it significant that he’s also a Clinton appointee?  No, but I don’t imagine it’s much of a surprise.  Although, truth  be told, given the current administration’s policy on illegal immigration, I can’t say as it probably really matters much.

That’s why I call this a clear-cut case of judicial activism.  The foundation of the suit is completely nonsensical, brought by wanted criminals who want to achieve their goals through fiat by a sympathetic judge, rather than by abiding by the actual laws of this country.

This “gentlemen” should be impeached for willful malfeasance and failure to uphold his Oath of Office:

“I, ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;  that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;  that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;  and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

I received a comment on my last post, the content of which suggested a more, shall we say, “liberal-minded” individual, and so I took the liberty of clickin’ on over to his(her?) site.  Turns out, the guy’s not only a Progressive, but one who figures that people who let Pres. Bush finish his duly-elected term without taking matters into their own hands are getting what they deserve.  People like this guy confuse me.  He’ll be rolling along on a pretty good rant, actually making his case cogently, to the point that I find myself thinking that he might almost have something there, and then in the space of one comma and a preposition, he switches back to spewing the typical BushHitlerChristoFascist all-you-people-are-stupid claptrap.

It’s almost like some sort of Tourette’s syndrome.  Talking along, making headway, laying out a pretty good case, and then BAM, totally blows his credibility by spouting mainstream Prog party propaganda.  Frustrating.

But I digress.

This blogger, like so many others, can’t seem to see the philosophical disconnect between (on the one hand) suggesting that military service members accused of war crimes are prima facie guilty simply because they are in the military, and then on the other hand getting all twitterpated about someone holding much the same view towards a group of Muslim Imams behaving erratically before boarding a US airliner.

He/she also seems to suggest that holding a belief that service members accused of war-crimes or atrocities are entitled to a fair and capable defense in their trials is akin to being an apologist for their actions.  His view seems to be that attempting to provide for the defense of those accused of indefensible actions, equates to endorsing or condoning the actions themselves.

But, as said before, his view is also that these individuals are “CLEARLY” most likely already guilty, so why bother worrying about whether or not they receive a fair trial?  Dare I draw a parallel to the Duke Hockey-rapist case?  Hmmm, perhaps I dare.

To such as these (as a member of the military) my viewpoint about actions in Iraq are inherently suspect, as I’m “one of them,” and am probably incapable of being truly objective since I’m too close to the issue.

But apparently, being a heterosexual, I’m also unqualified to talk about gay issues, and being a male, I’m ill-equipped to opine on feminism.

Yet so many liberal commentators are so quick to assume a disdainful “those people” kind of attitude about the military, handily enabled by never having served themselves.  Of course not.  It would be morally reprehensible to support the Bush junta, and all that. Yada. Yada.

What seems inescapable to me in these cases is the fact that this viewpoint must therefore be based solely on socialization, on a progressive culturalization, as there is little-to-no personal experience on which to base the view.  This is also known as, “talking out your ass.”

You can see this same paradigm at play in the always-popular “church and state” debate.  Allowing religious (read: Christian) organizations equal access to public facilities is somehow equated to the Federal government prejudicially promoting or enabling the Christian worldview; some sort of special dispensation from the radical Christian syncophants who’ve taken over the government (I guess).  Again, in this case, “equal” access is gerrymandered into excluding certain groups, so that “public” and “equal access” applies only to those groups within the accepted milieu.

This is the country he wants to “rebuild” (after of course, tearing down the one we have now)?  I suggest that perhaps he does not want to “rebuild,” but in fact to create something new.  A phoenix from the ashes, asitwer.  I also suggest that this is rather like burning down a house to get rid of your termite problem; standing amidst the smouldering ashes, hands on hips and a proud smile on your face, as you state with a definite air of satisfaction, “THERE!”

You see these types of worldviews so often represented by editorialists and commenters at places like Democratic Underground, DailyKos, and Huffington Post.  Something akin to the idea that the country must be “rescued” from the vicious abuses of the Republicans, an oppressed people to be brought out of the Conservative dark ages into the Progressive’s New Dawn..if they can cure the sheeples of the ills wrought by years of right-wing mind control, making them see the errors of their ways, etc., etc.

As Jeff Goldstein is able to state so eloquently, by establishing yourself as the moral arbiter of what is right and good and true, and then in turn applying the same methods you so profess to hate against those with the temerity to disagree with your positions, you delegitimize your “moral authority,” whether you choose to see it or not.

There is a great divide between presenting a suggested worldview, and defending an acceptable worldview.  By establishing the narrative in the context of an acceptable worldview, you automatically discount any views outside the consensus.  You quickly transition from comparing viewpoints, to requiring conformity with a predetermined worldview — often with dogmatic intransigence.  Any dissent is labeled as radicalism, irrationality, and of course, bigotry, homophobia, et. al.

Is this the country our blogger friend wants to “rebuild?”  A country where conformity to the corporately established meme is rewarded, and viewpoints held outside the approved consensus are viewed as threats to be destroyed?  Wait a minute….isn’t that exactly the sort of thing of which the Progressives accuse the conservatives/Republicans?  Don’t they write about how Bush’s authoritarianism is putting gays and progressive editorialists at risk as He ratchets down on dissent?  You know, the Christo-fascists, “Rethuglicans” (Oooh, ooh.  You’ll love this one I saw on another site –“Rape-publicans.”  Nice.) and jack-booted stormtroopers rounding up the brave Prog underground and shutting down lefty websites wholesale?  You know, like they did with…uh….uh…..uh…

He seems to hold that dissent for dissent’s sake is a noble and encouraged undertaking. Activism for the sake of activism; not so much to seek change, as to express displeasure with the status quo.   Sure, whatever, ok.  Free Speech, and all that.  The problem lies when that activism, that dissent crosses from expressing your view to suppressing other views.  When you come to see your viewpoint as the only morally correct or defensible view, you are that much more likely to feel little compunction about shouting down counter protesters, defacing or destroying competing signage or handouts, or even physically threatening others.

You have gone from presenting your view to purging the marketplace of alternative views.  You have gone from the free exchange of ideas, to intellectual gatekeeping.

Therein lies the crux of my argument.  Progs do not want equanimity for all, but rather, THEY want to be the ones crafting the narrative.  They do not want a level playing field, they want to turn the tables.  On the surface they vilify what they see as conservative methods of thought control, disenfranchisement, and quelling dissent, when in fact, their real disgruntlement is not with the METHODS being used, but rather, that the “wrong” philosophical underpinnings are driving them!

Progs have no problem quelling dissent, and cutting certain “unacceptable” viewpoints out of the public forum, because they see themselves as “protectors” of the social narrative.  There is little room for any type of “dissent” among the progressive elite.  Whether it’s global warming, gay rights, abortion, or any number of other topics, there is an “acceptable” viewpoint, and then there is the “bigoted, hateful, exclusionary” viewpoint.  I think it’s pretty clear which is which.

This, to me, is the fundamental dissonance at play here.  In true Godwin-esque fashion, Progs continue to use the timeworn Nazi analogy to lay all manner of ills at the feet of the conservatives, equating the Patriot act to the burning of the Reichstag, and Homeland Security to the Brown Shirts.  Then, in the same breath, they will suggest that certain groups or religious viewpoints are inherently suspect, that soldiers accused of war crimes are presumptively guilty, and that the marginalization and exclusion of certain worldviews is not only accepted, but required for the preservation of a truly “enlightened” society.

I’m sorry, but I sort of lost track of the distinction between the two in there somewhere.

Somewhere along the line I picked up “The Wink.”  You know, that slight twitch of an eye (mine happens to be the left) when you are passing someone you know in the hallway, and on some subconscious level,  a mere “Hey!” doesn’t seem quite sufficient.  So you maybe add in a subtle head nod, and sometimes, even, yes, a wink.  It’s by no means one of those suggestive winks.  And it doesn’t rise to the level of a knowing wink, or anything that needs to be accompanied by a, “How YOUUUU doin’?!”  I don’t really see myself as a quick wink kind of guy, but there it is.  I’ll call it a “qwink.”  As in:

Did you just WINK at me?!

Why, no. Hardly.  It was merely a qwink.”

Oh, well then. Nevermind.”

  A harmless affectation which (one hopes) doesn’t rise to the level of an idiosyncrasy, and, with any luck, isn’t mistaken for a facial twitch or deformity.


What it is it about some human males that they feel the need to draw a penis on the bathroom stall?  For the last weekend I’ve been working in another building, and forced to use the somewhat substandard toilet facilities therein. The graffiti was without exception vulgar and crude.  The “artistry” was profane and not even fit for Hustler magazine.  I know our culture is all about equanimity and breaking down stereotypes, but I am here to tell you, there ARE classes of people.   Whether through culture, breeding, or simple ignorance, there is a class of people whose idea of making their mark on the world is to scribble threadbare poems we might have learned in 4th grade, unimaginative expletives, and the occasion rendering of genitalia, often accompanied by attempts to portray physically improbable sexual positions, across the interior of a water closet.

For my part, I left a moving Haiku suggesting an essense of eternal questioning, followed by a sudden epiphany about the meaning of french toast, and concluded with a paean to the ecstacy to be found in a well turned-out Aston Martin.  I’m sure I left them properly humbled.  The cretins.


This just in:

Transformer blast rattles Manhattan

A transformer explosion Wednesday caused panic in midtown Manhattan. “We saw hundreds and hundreds of people running down Third Avenue. They were screaming, they were crying,” said witness Adaora Udoji. One person died and at least 16 were injured, New York officials said. full story

Witnesses weren’t sure if it was Megatron or Optimus Prime who exploded.  Developing…


From the, “You should REALLY get that checked out” department:

Squirming Fly Larvae Pulled From Man’s Head



And from the “WTF?!?!?!” Department:

‘The Darkness’ has too many demons

“It’s unrepentantly violent, soaked in obscenity, and stitched to its skin with the occult. Blood goes flying as you summon demons to massacre anyone in your way. To gain power, you devour human hearts. Oh, and did I mention that you also play a Mafia hitman?”

We are circling the drain, people.


On a lighter note, one of Jeff Harrell’s funnier ones:

A not-exactly-brief visit from an unnameable horror from beyond time and space.”

Oh sure, go on, laugh.  You know you want to.  {{mutters incoherently under his breath, sticks pins in Jeff Harrell voodoo doll, drinks himself into a stupor on MadDog’s Raspberry-Green Apple Sorbet.}} 

He is the Mozart to my Salieri.  He must be stopped.   ARRRRRGHGHGHGH!


I’m think I’m done now.  Maybe.