jump to navigation

The Left is not what it says it is March 31, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Blogging, Cultural Pessimism, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mechanistic Relativism, Politics.
add a comment

There are so many sacred cows to the MoonBat left.

-We represent tolerance and freedom of speech.

-We represent fully equal rights

-The Other people (the Wingnuts they like to call us) are for suppression of freedoms

-The Other people are essentially fascists, and if left to their own devices, would brutally suppress all opposition.

-The Other people hold to senseless faith points.

And yet, if one looks hard at each of these cows, one finds that they can be turned on their heads.

-We represent tolerance and freedom of speech. Tolerance. Like here? What about here, where Pharyngula host PZ Myers refers to Ben Domenech as a scumbag? Or perhaps when liberal blogger icon Kos refers to Bill Bennett as a "moralizing buffoon"?

Here are his exact words:

You know, I can't be nice to these people. I don't care how "nice" they might be. When I did CNN's Reliable Sources this past Sunday, I met Bill Bennett in the Green Room (and they say Michael Moore is fat?). He said nice things about this site, said it was the only liberal site he read, and seemed pleasent enough. He and Bill Press chatted it up amiably in the Green Room before they did battle on camera. But regardless, I can't get past the fact that the moralizing buffoon (Hi Bill) is helping destroy my beloved country.

I try not to be rude. But I can't cross the line into "friendly" with that crowd. Of course, I am "friendly" with Mike Krempasky. So maybe I'm just full of shit.

Well, at least you're being honest, Kos, in admitting that you can't live up to your tolerant stanards. And since you mention it, if the shoe fits, you might as well wear it.

You are full of sh!t.

We could go on for DAYS, but in the end, can we find committed liberals that live up to their standards of decency? No way. The difference between them and the "wingnuts?" Us 'Nuts at least admit that we don't always make it. 'Bats claim they are tolerant, beark that standard CONSTANTLY, then make no excuses. They both live the standard and totally disregard it at every waking moment. For them, the standard of decency doesn't even have the benefit of being a goal to strive for. It's reduced to a cliche.

Oh, and as for the freedom of speech bit: If I were to get up on a soapbox in downtown Frisco and proclaim active homosexuality as morally disordered, I will have elected officials from the 'Bat side calling for the suppression of my First Amendment rights. This gets even worse if I am a landlord and don't wish to allow sexual activity in my property by unmarried people. Laws passed by the "tolerant Left."


-We represent fully equal rights. So long as those rights don't infringe on the rights of women, gays or minorities. Once those come into conflict, the above groups win out. Especially if the aggrieved party is unborn, white, religious or old.

To paraphrase Orwell: "All rights are equal. But some rights are more equal than others."


-The Other people (the Wingnuts they like to call us) are for suppression of freedoms

-The Other people are essentially fascists, and if left to their own devices, would brutally suppress all opposition.

Without question these are my favorites. Do you really think that if Bush were the second coming of Hitler, that he would allow the presence of these ignorant nattering magpies to continue blathering as they do? Lincoln, universally admired by 'Nuts and 'Bats alike, suspended habeas corpus in the United States, not only at places like Gitmo. And the threat we face from radical Islamofascism is much greater than that presented by the South. If Bush and his fellow 'Nuts were really as intolerant as the 'Bats say, they would all be in prison.

And do you really think we would be having these immigration issues if Bush and the right were real fascists?

No, the real fascists here are from the Left. Imagine what will happen to free speech if the Clintonistas and their fellow Moonbats get Blight House back.

We will see a wave of repression against conservatives and evangelicals as has not been seen in an English speaking country since the time of Guy Fawkes.
Call me doomcrier? So be it.


-The Other people hold to senseless faith points.
Now, this one requires its own post which I intend to write with spring break (FINALLY) upon us.

It is the only one of the Left's accusations that holds any water on the face of it. But even then when one digs just a bit, it too collapses from its own lack of internal consistency.

Where does the left get its definitions of sensible and senseless? Of right and wrong? Truth and falsehood? Essentially from two sources; one's own impulses of the moment, and from empirical data (at least amongst the atheistic of the moonbats). The problems with the first are myriad, and also deserving of its own post. Suffice to say for now that if the world is full of 6 billion relativists all determining their own sense of right at the moment, you end up having 6 billion different notions of truth, and from there you rapidly proceed to anarchy and the disintegration of human society.

The second is explored here. Again, suffice it to say that there are ways to the truth that extend beyond empirical data points. To enslave oneself to empiricism as the lone means of obtaining objective truth seriously hampers one in fully examining -in the words of Douglas Adams- Life, the Universe and Everything. It is a barren world that the MRT lives in.

A perpetual state of wonder is brought about anytime one contemplates the Left and its matter-of-fact hypocrisy.

Then they wield the hypocrisy wand at the Right. . .but at least the Right struggles to be good.


From the “Individual is greater than God” Files. . . March 28, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Catholicism, Cultural Pessimism, Mechanistic Relativism.
add a comment

. . .we have former Washington governor Booth Gardner, a man noted for his remarkably cranky exterior when he was the Evergreen State’s governor in the ’90s, has now been diagnosted with Parkinson’s and become a vociferous advocate for legalized suicide.

He says he wants “to be in the position where — on a Sunday afternoon, in the summertime; this is the ideal — I’m with my kids and grandkids and I say to them, ‘Come here, I’ve got to talk to you.'”And they come and I say: ‘Friday’s my day. That’s when I want to leave. Let’s spend the rest of the week hanging by each other.’

“That’s dignity.”

“I have the right to make the last decision.”

Yes indeed. We from the MRT Central Command reserve all rights normally attributed to God for ourselves. When others start life, and when they (espcially I) may end them.

I wonder how Booth would feel if he have a brand new car with a poor electrical system to his son, and his son decided that instead of working with it and using it as valid transport, he simply decided to drive it into the nearest tree and be done with it, how he would feel?

Am I oversimplifying? Maybe. Is his position logical? In a materialist culture that in the end is one of the most pessimistic worldviews ever conceived by man, well, yes. But is it life giving? Is it optimistic? Is it LOGICAL?

Emphatically, no.

Those “Tolerant” San Franciscans March 28, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Catholicism, Cultural Pessimism, Mechanistic Relativism, Politics.
add a comment

Seems an evangelical teen group marched in SF, and was met not only by counter-protestors, but was censured by a local Assemblyman who claimed they are hate freaks who need to be driven out of the city with cattle prods.

"Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who told counterprotesters at City Hall on Friday that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

Yep. More of that old-time, tolerant Liberalism down in gay Frisco.

Full article

Test March 26, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Blogging.
add a comment

Considering a move over here from Blogger, reasons for not excluding the ability to CATEGORIZE posts!!!!

Michael Schiavo March 25, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Family, Politics.
add a comment



Is a fricking monster.


Michael Admits Book on Terri Schiavo to "Settle Score" With Her Family
Email this article
Printer friendly page

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
March 23, 2006

New York, NY (LifeNews.com) — In a startling revelation, Terri Schaivo's ex-husband Michael admitted in an interview that his new book “Terri: The Truth” was written to "settle some scores" with Terri's family rather than honor the memory of the woman at the center of a national euthanasia battle.

Schiavo made the admission in an interview with NBC News scheduled to be broadcast on "Dateline" on March 26.

Host Matter Lauer told Schiavo, "I guess you could've written a book to honor Terri. After reading it, it's not really the book you wrote."

"This is a book that in some ways settles some scores, doesn't it?" Lauer asked him.

Michael Schiavo eagerly replied, "Oh yes it does."

Though Schiavo wrote the book with goals of retribution in mind, he said he thought "many times" of writing a book to honor the memory of the woman he painfully starved to death over a thirteen day period.

That Michael's book is more about scoring political points that honoring Terri Schiavo's life comes as no surprise to some observers.

The book was written for Michael by military history author Michael Hirsh, who offered Michael his services after becoming angry that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed into law a measure approved by the Florida legislature allowing him to stop Terri's euthanasia death.

Responding to allegations that he may have physically abused Terri, leading to her collapse, Michael told NBC News, "They're wrong. I heard the thud. Ran to Terri. Called after that little gasp, I mean, it was within a minute I was on the phone with 911. They can think whatever."

Terri's initial collapse was blamed on a potassium imbalance, but an autopsy concluded that was not the case. A bone scan performed after Terri's collapse found evidence of possible trauma and friends later revealed the couple go into a heated argument on the day Terri collapsed.

Matt Lauer asked Michael why he didn't divorce Terri and decided to marry his longtime girlfriend Jodi Centonze, with whom he had an affair and two children while married to Terri.

Schiavo responded, "Why do I have to divorce Terri? Terri wasn't like a football — an inanimate object you pass back and forth. She was my wife. You mean because your wife gets sick, do you give her back?"

Terri's parents repeatedly ask Michael to divorce Terri so they could take care of their daughter. He refused because he would have lost the remainder of a $1.5 million medical malpractice judgment the Schiavo estate received.

Michael also told NBC News about his decision to prevent Terri's brother Michael from seeing her just minutes before she died.

Lauer asked Michael: "You're walking into the room. Did you stop and think, “What would Terri want?” Would she want her brother or sister?"

He refused to respond to directly to the question, only saying Terri would want her family to get along.

Michael concludes his interview with what the Schindler family will likely say is a slap in the face to Terri. He tells Lauer of the woman he euthanized, "She's up there praising me right now … and saying thank you."

She's up there praising him right now? Is she happy with how he is spending the rest of that malpractice settlement? Did Matt Lauer ever ask him how he is using the remainder of that settlement?

Can you say the word, "delusional"?

Fr. Frank Pavone has issued a blistering indictment of Mr. Schiavo in the linked letter here.

Another illustration of the inconsistency and moral bankruptcy of the Left March 24, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Mechanistic Relativism, Politics.
add a comment

From an older post on Pharyngula:

When moral absolutists try to apply simple-minded, black-and-white reasoning to a complex situation (and defining a human being is certainly a complex problem), you get criminal travesties like this one:

A sailor's wife was pregnant with an anencephalic child, whose probability of surviving or of ever being conscious was zero. She, reasonably, wanted an abortion.
But the Congress had decided — that no federal funds should be used to pay for abortions except where the life of the mother was at stake. As a result, Tricare (formerly CHAMPUS) the agency that covers military families, refused to pay the $3000 the abortion would cost.
The family sued, and a federal court ordered Tricare to pay, and the abortion went forward.
Then the Justice Department (with John Ashcroft as Attorney General) sued the family to recover the $3000, out of the sailor's pay of less than $20,000 a year.
The Justice Department just won. A panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that, under a 1980 Supreme Court precedent upholding the Hyde Amendment — a parallel provision to the one in question, but applying to Medicaid recipients rather than to military families — the law was valid and the government didn't have to pay for the abortion. Consequently, the family has to pay the money back.

Our guardians of purity have magnified the pain of this family and willfully and vindictively punished them for the 'crime' of a biological imperfection. I call that evil, pure and simple. There should have been no question in this case that an abortion was necessary.

But then later in the article, the author of this disaster (PZ Myers) says this:

People with severe spina bifida can be intellectually and socially capable, fully human, but a young family with limited resources ought to have the privilege of making a choice about whether to shoulder the responsibility before the fetus has acquired those mental capacities. I presume we now have a government that will force families to take on that burden, but will refuse to pay any part of the price.

Well, the author seems to be contradicting himself. He IS willing to pay for abortions, so that "sub-humans" -according to his reductionist definition- might be eliminated, but to actually care for these creatures, even when "fully human" -such as in the case of spina bifida patients- is something he is NOT willing to pay for.

Well, as anyone can see, he IS being consistent; consistently evil in his application. He is reducing children to economic computations. Children that might contribute to society, OK. Children that may contribute but in the end will cost society more -spina bifida patients- have to go. And as for anencephalic patients who can never contribute, get rid of them immedietely. Because they are not human to being with, they must be eliminated.

He's down on the right side of my sidebar. A well-learned, profoundly misguided man.

So, Ben Domenech goes down. . . March 24, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Blogging.
add a comment

in a blaze of ignominy because he plagiarized PJ O'Rourke's best stuff.

Should he have resigned? You betcha. Can't hope to have any journalistic street cred if you're cribbing from others.

But I want to focus on the reactions from the blogosphere.

From Michelle Malkin:

The bottom line is: I know it when I see it. And, painfully, Domenech's detractors, are right. He should own up to it and step down. Then, the Left should cease its sick gloating and leave him and his family alone.

From RightWingNutHouse:

If we conservatives have any claims to promoting honesty and decency, there will be more calls on the right for Mr. Domenech to do the honorable thing and save himself and his employer the embarrassment of being fired by resigning immediately. Little can be gained from his continuing to blog at the Washington Post as I for one never plan on linking to anything he writes and would hope that other conservatives would join me in such a boycott.

Ben Domenech is not the kind of writer we want representing the conservative viewpoint at the Washington Post or anywhere else. With so many eloquent and able conservative writers, I’m sure the Post will have no problem finding someone else to take over a blog that should be espousing honesty and decency as the principles by which we on the right live by.

Anything short of that just won’t do.

And. . .from the left:

Daily Kos:

Howard Kurtz started the Post's walk-back on Domenech in today's edition, mentioning that the appointment of Domenech had "touched off an online furor," and then finally, in his 9th paragraph, getting around to mentioning "what appeared to be instances of plagiarism from Domenech's writing at the William & Mary student paper." Kurtz' seemed to suggest that Domenech's serial plagiarism is just a sideshow to the "on the one hand/on the other" disagreement on his political beliefs.

Expect to see Kurtz' approach adopted by the wingers. They'll argue that it was the merits of his arguments that upset progressives, and that it was unfortunate that the liberal Washington Post chose a weak candidate to represent conservative views when there were so many more deserving candidates.

"Sadly no Comment" (you have to go and see for yourself. Lots of glee, four-letter adjectives used liberally in place of coherent criticism. . .the usual.

Let us note the the vitriol . . . and conspiracy theories. . .are emanating from the Left on this. Perhaps that is no surprise. Domenech was regarded as something of a hero on the Right for infiltrating the halls of the notoriously lefty WaPo. His almost immediate fall from grace is a bit breathtaking. . .and certainly exhilirating for the MoonBats. In some ways. . .ONLY SOME. . .you can't blame them for a bit of existential crowing.

Now, I have searched for some comparison articles on Malkin to see if she treated Jayson Blair with as much dripping contempt as the MoonBats are for Domenech right now. . .and all I was able to find was more LEFTY ranting on the evils of the blogosphere. People like Brokaw claiming that bloggers are out of control. How this related to Blair's perfidy I cannot tell.

But still, with Domenech, the ranting is coming from the Left. With Blair, (based on my decidedly limited research) the ranting ALSO came from the Left.

One of these days, I will do an involved post on the entrenched hypocrisy of the Left; if they are all about openness and loving, why do we see SO MANY instances of their unadulterated hate speech all over the blogosphere?

And the Sheen Moonbat legacy continues March 22, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Politics.
add a comment

I'm not sure when Charlie Sheen fell off the map for me. Was it the constant drugging? Or acting so stupid as to cause a woman like Denise Richards to dump him?

Naw. It's this latest deranged rant that did it for me.

Grumpy lately? March 21, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Personal.
add a comment

I note that my last few posts have been on the grumpy/curmedgeonly side, lately. So have the Anchoress's. Is it winter?

Erly mid-life crisis?

Or, once again, has the Anchoress nailed it with this spot-on ramble. Check it out.

Bad Craziness March 20, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Personal.
add a comment

Y'know, it's bad enough digging out of the morass of foolishness surrounding my life lately. . .and it got even sillier when the choral director's daughter did infact get the role of Dorothy. . .that really smells.

But then I go over to Mark Shea's Catholic and Enjoying It blog, and today he churned out about 8 different links that just totally discouraged me.

I'm not gonna reproduce them here. Go on over and take a look for yourself. Marked "March 20th, 2006." If you're anything like me, you'll find the links easily enough. If you aren't and don't agree with Mark on the horrors these various tidbits foretell. . .well, bad cess to you.

I swear, between Oz, berserk parents at my school, Shea's and Suicide of the West's alarming posts, I'd have more than enough reason to feed myself headfirst into the nearest meat grinder if it weren't for the following:

-My health
-The reality and health of my seven children
-And the reality and health of my lovely wife.

And thank God for them!!!!