I've been meaning to address this for sometime. It's no secret that I was a longtime poster at Charles Johnson's blog site, Little Green Footballs, and as many of you know, I was subsequently banned for using abusive and uncalled for language towards Charles. I will admit when I'm wrong, as do most real men, and I was. My outbursts were uncalled for and vitriolic. As a practicing Christian ( although one that needs to still work on his language ), I crossed a line, and for that I offer a sincere apology to Charles. To do otherwise would be the height of hypocrisy.
Now, I'm not going to write one of those I apologize but... pieces. My apology has no strings attached; just a simple mea culpa. I would, however, like to take an opportunity to explain why I think I was driven over the edge, and why many of us who left the site recently were ( the majority of us being people of faith).
There has been an ongoing argument for a few months at LGF concerning a visceral hatred by many of the bloggers there, as well as Charles, pinpointed at the creationists ( actually if we use the "racist" moniker, creationists would be an incorrect syntax - that would mean hater of creation) OK...pro-creation proponents' "intelligent design" theories. There were, and are, pro-Darwin advocates there who were, and still are, obsessed with making these believers in an alternate origin look as heinous, as backwards, and as stupid as they possibly could. They justify their actions by citing stories where the pro-ID lobby had introduced state legislation requiring intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinism. Now, folks, I've been known to have been called a "hysterical shrieker" a time or two, but even I am not so emotional to think that this kind of legislation would not pass the US Circuit Court's "smell test", much less the US Supreme Court! Come on folks! This is the same kind of ravenous fear mongering that forced the Quakers to leave Europe to flee persecution. I imagine The Crown thought they were just as justified in vilifying them because they had a different idea of Christianity. Only here we have laws CREATED BY US, not The Crown, and so far that very same law has bent over backward to make damn sure that ALL traces of religion are sterilized from the government sector - especially schools! Why would intelligent design be any different?
I am not, I repeat, NOT a proponent of intelligent design. As a matter of fact, I'm one of those strange folks who believes that God might just like to do things in stages; that He just might like things to simmer before they're done. Oh! You don't believe in God? Well, I'm sorry that you're silly that way, but this is not where I want to address your problem. That needs to be done one on one.
This, my friends, was not my fight. I thought it was stupid and a distraction; a divisive issue that drove a wedge between the faithful and the secular, and made us take our eyes off the goal...fighting Islamism. Way to go folks!! You're trying to prove the addage "divided we fall". Many of you fell for this, as I think this was a ruse to draw attention to the blog and increase hits. Everybody loves in-fighting. It's bound to drive those vaunted numbers up, wouldn't it? Beautiful, and all at the expense of a unified front against Islamism. I don't know of many people of faith capable of that kind of vitriolic hatred.
The thing that irritated me so much about this infighting was the one-sided nature of it. The appalling comparisons of IDers to Islamists (damn "ist" suffix); to white supremacists; to Apartheid! And when anyone tried to ask, cajole, or demand that the carnage be stopped, they were either banned, their comments deleted, or they were belittled. But when those of no faith started to ramp up the attacks with statements like calling the Ten Commandments , "those ten stupid idiotic rules", and others just as nasty, there was not one peep from the moderator. Not very moderate, is it?
Oh, I know that there were a few people of faith who said that it wasn't an attack on other faithful; that is was just "heated debate". That was one faithful's opinion, and of course we all know by now the particulars about opinions. Obviously, those opinions were not shared by the myriads of faithful Judeo-Christians who left in disgust at the mean-spirited blog site that LGF had become. Some of it have dubbed this exodus the Diaspora v.2.0.
Finally, I am not going to go through the wasted notion of sharing my faith and beliefs on those who will not be moved one iota. I will not cast my pearls on swine. I do want to share this with you. Those "crazy IDers" that you love to malign so much, have donated MILLIONS of dollars of their own money (you see, many of those fundamentalist nuts you're so afraid of run organizations that are pro-Israel) to keeping the Chosen people - God's people alive and in their homeland. And fighting to destroy those who support Israel is kind of like saying you support the troops, then refusing to fund them! Are you folks really sure which side you're on?
Monday, July 28, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The Irony of It All
So, I'm sitting at home with the Mrs. and one of my three college-aged daughters, enjoying the return of one of our brood to the empty nest for what college kids crave most - free laundry service and a free meal.
As I and my youngest conversed over a game of Scrabble, her asking me pointed questions about the upcoming presidential election, and something hit me like a brick right between the eyes. I was dazed for a moment, never having been smacked by irony before. So I picked up the irony (my daughter had already whipped my butt twice in Scrabble, so I was ready to bow out gracefully) and I started looking at it carefully. It was really amazing; I mean the convoluted, multifaceted nature of it boggled the mind. Here we have the presumed Republican nominee, a twenty plus year veteran of the Senate; a man who has spent considerable time crafting his "maverick" image while totally pissing conservatives off, just to make sure he has enough face time. It's an easy trail to follow that every time the camera dimmed on the man, he was looking for the next opportunity to get his face out there at the expense of the core of his own party. And please, I know he was a POW, and I'm proud that he did at least one thing noble in his career. Of course, it was probably the result of his mediocre flying skills that almost got him booted out of Pensacola NAS until the admiral pulled some strings to graduate him; but I digress. That is another story for another time.
So McCain has been a shameless self-promoter who'll even slap the elephant on the butt for a photo op. This kind of ego serving led him to hitch his wagon to Russ Feingold's star. Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democratic Senator, who in his fifteen year Senate tenure has never ONCE voted against the party line on ANY issue. If ever there was a party hack who would mindlessly follow whatever his party's is - Feingold's your man. So John McCain pimps out the party line, and goes to the dark side in the much ballyhooed McCain / Feingold legislation, laughingly called Campaign Finance Reform. This little nation-altering jewel has allowed the flourishing of the influx of soft money into politics and creation of mega 503C organizations of which Move On.org is probably the biggest behemoth. Move On.org is financed by none other than the rich-beyond-belief George Soros, who, after a failed attempt to get the inventor of the internet, Al Gore elected, has created a hand crafted, " I am all things to all people" pretty boy from a junior Senator with almost no background, who, at the time of his metamorphesis, was only in the Senate 150 days.
One thing we have learned about the secretive heir-apparent to the Democratic nomination, is that he has ties to more than a few dubious anti-American characters in this charade he's playing. The most noteworthy of them is of course Frank Marshall Davis, the beloved "Frank" in Obama's book, Dreams From My Father. What Barry forgot to mention about Frank in his book was that while Frank was mentoring the young Obama in Honolulu, he was a card carrying communist in the American Communist party, which was known to get its money and its marching orders directly from Moscow. Frank was just the first in a long line of dubious anti-American types, so you can't tell me that he was not influenced by his youthful indoctrination into Marxism. Of course, Hussein won't talk about Frank Marshall Davis, but one can bet it helped shaped his political leanings quite a bit left of center. Who knows? Only Obama, but if McCarthy were alive, he'd have a field day with this guy!
So, John McCain is brutally tortured by the VC, and forced against his will to say humiliating things about his country. The playboy comes home a hero, and lands a windfall in the Washington "all eyes on me" club. In his search for an ego massage, he makes a deal with the devil in McCain / Feingold, which creates the Soros machine, which in turn molds the angelic Barack Obama, communist collaborator, who is now beating the ex-POW naval war hero by almost eight points in the polls so far.
If John were here, I'd tell him that his shortsidedness created this monster. McCain almost single-handedly created the phenomenon that is Barack Hussein Obama, who may very well sit in the Oval office. I'd tell him that, John, your narrow vision, shortsidedness, and search for personal fame may have single-handedly handed over the White House to the very same mindset that held you captive in Vietnam. I'd finish the conversation by telling him lack of vision like that is a type of stupidity; and we know from almost sixteen years personal experience that stupidity has no place in the Oval office.
I hope the irony of it all is not lost in the clutter of history. It may be our undoing.
As I and my youngest conversed over a game of Scrabble, her asking me pointed questions about the upcoming presidential election, and something hit me like a brick right between the eyes. I was dazed for a moment, never having been smacked by irony before. So I picked up the irony (my daughter had already whipped my butt twice in Scrabble, so I was ready to bow out gracefully) and I started looking at it carefully. It was really amazing; I mean the convoluted, multifaceted nature of it boggled the mind. Here we have the presumed Republican nominee, a twenty plus year veteran of the Senate; a man who has spent considerable time crafting his "maverick" image while totally pissing conservatives off, just to make sure he has enough face time. It's an easy trail to follow that every time the camera dimmed on the man, he was looking for the next opportunity to get his face out there at the expense of the core of his own party. And please, I know he was a POW, and I'm proud that he did at least one thing noble in his career. Of course, it was probably the result of his mediocre flying skills that almost got him booted out of Pensacola NAS until the admiral pulled some strings to graduate him; but I digress. That is another story for another time.
So McCain has been a shameless self-promoter who'll even slap the elephant on the butt for a photo op. This kind of ego serving led him to hitch his wagon to Russ Feingold's star. Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democratic Senator, who in his fifteen year Senate tenure has never ONCE voted against the party line on ANY issue. If ever there was a party hack who would mindlessly follow whatever his party's is - Feingold's your man. So John McCain pimps out the party line, and goes to the dark side in the much ballyhooed McCain / Feingold legislation, laughingly called Campaign Finance Reform. This little nation-altering jewel has allowed the flourishing of the influx of soft money into politics and creation of mega 503C organizations of which Move On.org is probably the biggest behemoth. Move On.org is financed by none other than the rich-beyond-belief George Soros, who, after a failed attempt to get the inventor of the internet, Al Gore elected, has created a hand crafted, " I am all things to all people" pretty boy from a junior Senator with almost no background, who, at the time of his metamorphesis, was only in the Senate 150 days.
One thing we have learned about the secretive heir-apparent to the Democratic nomination, is that he has ties to more than a few dubious anti-American characters in this charade he's playing. The most noteworthy of them is of course Frank Marshall Davis, the beloved "Frank" in Obama's book, Dreams From My Father. What Barry forgot to mention about Frank in his book was that while Frank was mentoring the young Obama in Honolulu, he was a card carrying communist in the American Communist party, which was known to get its money and its marching orders directly from Moscow. Frank was just the first in a long line of dubious anti-American types, so you can't tell me that he was not influenced by his youthful indoctrination into Marxism. Of course, Hussein won't talk about Frank Marshall Davis, but one can bet it helped shaped his political leanings quite a bit left of center. Who knows? Only Obama, but if McCarthy were alive, he'd have a field day with this guy!
So, John McCain is brutally tortured by the VC, and forced against his will to say humiliating things about his country. The playboy comes home a hero, and lands a windfall in the Washington "all eyes on me" club. In his search for an ego massage, he makes a deal with the devil in McCain / Feingold, which creates the Soros machine, which in turn molds the angelic Barack Obama, communist collaborator, who is now beating the ex-POW naval war hero by almost eight points in the polls so far.
If John were here, I'd tell him that his shortsidedness created this monster. McCain almost single-handedly created the phenomenon that is Barack Hussein Obama, who may very well sit in the Oval office. I'd tell him that, John, your narrow vision, shortsidedness, and search for personal fame may have single-handedly handed over the White House to the very same mindset that held you captive in Vietnam. I'd finish the conversation by telling him lack of vision like that is a type of stupidity; and we know from almost sixteen years personal experience that stupidity has no place in the Oval office.
I hope the irony of it all is not lost in the clutter of history. It may be our undoing.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
My intro and a thought to the Wordsmiths of the world
Some of you may recognize my name. That may have been what brought you to my site. If you are unfamiliar with me, I have been an avid blogger for many years on many sites. I have made many controversial comments. Some I am proud of; some I’m embarrassed about. Oh well. Such is the human condition.
Over time I hope to at least weekly address issues that are of importance to regular Americans, and for that matter, level-headed people throughout the blogosphere. Now, I’m not going to present news stories. There are a million people better at that than I am, and I don’t want to be a witty pseudo-intellectual pseudo-journalist. I think that horse has been ridden quite enough. What I would like to accomplish with my prose is to give the world a view of itself through the eyes of someone who is no one special. That’s me; no one special to you. I’m special enough to my God, Mrs. Pax, my children, my dog and my cat (Ok. Maybe I’m just hired help to the cat.) that I am secure in myself without the exterior validation. It is my sincere hope that once all of us Baby Boomers are gone, that someone will look back and find at least some snippets of wisdom to allow the country that I love so very much to continue.
With the pleasantries now dispensed, I’d like to address some of the incendiary phrases or words that adversaries have used (incorrectly, I might add) to pigeon hole me and others like me into the perceived lunatic fringe. Many of you have probably had these words hurled at you in either the verbal or written form at one time or another. I’d like to answer each one individually, and offer some instruction to those who like to fling these linguistic “Molotov cocktails” willy nilly…..
Racist. This is probably the most brain-disengaged, mouth-opened inflammatory word used in the English or any other language. Screaming it aloud or dropping it like a bomb in a sentence is used strategically to close the minds of the witless to the merits of what the person was trying to purvey. It is meant to label myself and others as a narrow person, who hates another person solely based upon the amount of melanin in someone’s skin, or other specific characteristic. I found its use amusing, as the perpetrator of the noxious condiment had no idea that I have a black brother-in-law that I dearly love, and who cares for me as well. The term “racist” contains of course the word race, and the almost never correctly used suffix “ist”. This word should actually be defined as, “one who hates racing”, or “one who hates Nascar”. Well, you get the idea. If one is trying to portray another as a person who hates another just because of the color of that person’s skin, then shouldn’t the correct term be “melaninist”? And what about people who hate Semites because of their purported big noses? Shouldn’t they be called, “physiologists?” If that’s the case, then The AMA had better start recredentialing doctors now! It’s that blasted suffix “ist” folks! It’s confusing. I’ve been called a creationist (even though I’m not) which I now have to surmise means “one who hates creation.” Likewise, a Darwinist would be a person who hates Darwinism. I have made public my disdain for Islam and all it stands for, and have been labeled a racist on more than one occasion. Islam is a race now? Who knew? These geniuses need to call me by what I am – a “theist”; a person who abhors a theological line of thought. By the way, word flingers, please, even though I have no racial hatred for anyone, please refer to me as a melaninist. You’ll sound just as silly, but at least you’ll be closer to your own presupposed ideas about me.
Homophobe. Until recently there was actually no such word, even though it is incorrectly used to indicate a person who has a phobia against homosexuality. Homophobia would technically be defined as, “an irrational fear of one’s self”. Actually, the gay community might just want to stick with “gay” because in this context a homosexual is a person who has sex with them self, which conjures up uncomfortable mental images. But then, we already know that you who are gay are confused…at least genetically…don’t we? You can’t call me “homoloathic” because I don’t hate myself. I love me. Besides, a phobia is an irrational fear. I don’t know of one person who is against the gay agenda that is afraid of gays. Embarrassed, ashamed, or appalled maybe, but never afraid. Do me a favor, just call me intolerant, or a gay basher, or some other incendiary term that actually exists. Just remember, if you’re gay, I’m praying for you.
Which brings me to my final two words: intolerant and bigot. Intolerant is used way too much. It means unwilling to tolerate or endure. I guess my questions to those linguistic terrorists and wordsmiths out there is this: at exactly what point did it become ALL bad to be intolerant? My dog is intolerant of baths. She still gets them, but I’m not going to shoot her in the head or send her to the pound because she is intolerant of them. A zookeeper doesn’t feed the penguins to the lions just because they are intolerant of the heat. So exactly, just what is your point for slinging this word about? You have no tolerance for me (well, some of you smart people reading do). Aren’t you “intolerant” of me? Actually, for being so intolerant, I have never touched a hair on a leftist-liberal-loony-amoral-socialists head. To me that sounds rather…tolerant.
And of course the word bigot. It rolls off the tongue with such venom nowadays, that the purveyor can be a total lying whack-job and it’s too late- the damage has been done. A bigot is defined as “one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics, and is intolerant of those who differ”. Hmmmm. So let’s say I’m a green person walking towards two crowds; one purple and one green. I have to go to one. I know that if I choose the purple crowd, then I’m just being PC; a poser; a token. But, by this very definition, if I go with my natural gravitation towards my own kind, I have actually shunned the purple-folk, thus deserving the moniker, “you leaf-skinned bigot!” being hurled at me. Do you see how silly that is? Let me give you another example; If I want mandatory punishment for pedophiles, I am a bigot against pedophilia. I have no tolerance for it. Is that a bad thing? Now I’m not saying that there aren’t true bigots out there, but that some of you word terrorists have watered down its use quite a bit to the point that its use is shrugable at best.
So, before you linguistic rock-throwers start hurling your poorly crafted, ill-defined descriptive adjectives and phrases in the comments section, could you do me a favor? Could you please include a legend of exactly what you are trying to convey with the use of any of the aforementioned words, because your conflicting meanings are confusing this poor little homowhateveric-melaninist-intolerant-bigotted-theist.
Thanks in advance.
Pax
Over time I hope to at least weekly address issues that are of importance to regular Americans, and for that matter, level-headed people throughout the blogosphere. Now, I’m not going to present news stories. There are a million people better at that than I am, and I don’t want to be a witty pseudo-intellectual pseudo-journalist. I think that horse has been ridden quite enough. What I would like to accomplish with my prose is to give the world a view of itself through the eyes of someone who is no one special. That’s me; no one special to you. I’m special enough to my God, Mrs. Pax, my children, my dog and my cat (Ok. Maybe I’m just hired help to the cat.) that I am secure in myself without the exterior validation. It is my sincere hope that once all of us Baby Boomers are gone, that someone will look back and find at least some snippets of wisdom to allow the country that I love so very much to continue.
With the pleasantries now dispensed, I’d like to address some of the incendiary phrases or words that adversaries have used (incorrectly, I might add) to pigeon hole me and others like me into the perceived lunatic fringe. Many of you have probably had these words hurled at you in either the verbal or written form at one time or another. I’d like to answer each one individually, and offer some instruction to those who like to fling these linguistic “Molotov cocktails” willy nilly…..
Racist. This is probably the most brain-disengaged, mouth-opened inflammatory word used in the English or any other language. Screaming it aloud or dropping it like a bomb in a sentence is used strategically to close the minds of the witless to the merits of what the person was trying to purvey. It is meant to label myself and others as a narrow person, who hates another person solely based upon the amount of melanin in someone’s skin, or other specific characteristic. I found its use amusing, as the perpetrator of the noxious condiment had no idea that I have a black brother-in-law that I dearly love, and who cares for me as well. The term “racist” contains of course the word race, and the almost never correctly used suffix “ist”. This word should actually be defined as, “one who hates racing”, or “one who hates Nascar”. Well, you get the idea. If one is trying to portray another as a person who hates another just because of the color of that person’s skin, then shouldn’t the correct term be “melaninist”? And what about people who hate Semites because of their purported big noses? Shouldn’t they be called, “physiologists?” If that’s the case, then The AMA had better start recredentialing doctors now! It’s that blasted suffix “ist” folks! It’s confusing. I’ve been called a creationist (even though I’m not) which I now have to surmise means “one who hates creation.” Likewise, a Darwinist would be a person who hates Darwinism. I have made public my disdain for Islam and all it stands for, and have been labeled a racist on more than one occasion. Islam is a race now? Who knew? These geniuses need to call me by what I am – a “theist”; a person who abhors a theological line of thought. By the way, word flingers, please, even though I have no racial hatred for anyone, please refer to me as a melaninist. You’ll sound just as silly, but at least you’ll be closer to your own presupposed ideas about me.
Homophobe. Until recently there was actually no such word, even though it is incorrectly used to indicate a person who has a phobia against homosexuality. Homophobia would technically be defined as, “an irrational fear of one’s self”. Actually, the gay community might just want to stick with “gay” because in this context a homosexual is a person who has sex with them self, which conjures up uncomfortable mental images. But then, we already know that you who are gay are confused…at least genetically…don’t we? You can’t call me “homoloathic” because I don’t hate myself. I love me. Besides, a phobia is an irrational fear. I don’t know of one person who is against the gay agenda that is afraid of gays. Embarrassed, ashamed, or appalled maybe, but never afraid. Do me a favor, just call me intolerant, or a gay basher, or some other incendiary term that actually exists. Just remember, if you’re gay, I’m praying for you.
Which brings me to my final two words: intolerant and bigot. Intolerant is used way too much. It means unwilling to tolerate or endure. I guess my questions to those linguistic terrorists and wordsmiths out there is this: at exactly what point did it become ALL bad to be intolerant? My dog is intolerant of baths. She still gets them, but I’m not going to shoot her in the head or send her to the pound because she is intolerant of them. A zookeeper doesn’t feed the penguins to the lions just because they are intolerant of the heat. So exactly, just what is your point for slinging this word about? You have no tolerance for me (well, some of you smart people reading do). Aren’t you “intolerant” of me? Actually, for being so intolerant, I have never touched a hair on a leftist-liberal-loony-amoral-socialists head. To me that sounds rather…tolerant.
And of course the word bigot. It rolls off the tongue with such venom nowadays, that the purveyor can be a total lying whack-job and it’s too late- the damage has been done. A bigot is defined as “one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics, and is intolerant of those who differ”. Hmmmm. So let’s say I’m a green person walking towards two crowds; one purple and one green. I have to go to one. I know that if I choose the purple crowd, then I’m just being PC; a poser; a token. But, by this very definition, if I go with my natural gravitation towards my own kind, I have actually shunned the purple-folk, thus deserving the moniker, “you leaf-skinned bigot!” being hurled at me. Do you see how silly that is? Let me give you another example; If I want mandatory punishment for pedophiles, I am a bigot against pedophilia. I have no tolerance for it. Is that a bad thing? Now I’m not saying that there aren’t true bigots out there, but that some of you word terrorists have watered down its use quite a bit to the point that its use is shrugable at best.
So, before you linguistic rock-throwers start hurling your poorly crafted, ill-defined descriptive adjectives and phrases in the comments section, could you do me a favor? Could you please include a legend of exactly what you are trying to convey with the use of any of the aforementioned words, because your conflicting meanings are confusing this poor little homowhateveric-melaninist-intolerant-bigotted-theist.
Thanks in advance.
Pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
