Thursday, May 30, 2013
Oh, well...move along, NOTHING to see here.
MSNBC takes a dive!
That's what you get when you become willfully stupid bottom-feeders, seeking the lowest common denominator. That's what you get when you say stupid shit over and over, calling everyone else stupid in the process.
When all you can do is make excuses for what has become a lawless administration that deserves no better coverage than the Bush administration received, when all you can do is become the bizarro version of conservative "news" television, spouting the same kind of trash, the same vilification, just from the opposite end of the spectrum, then smart viewers give up on it. It's not a totally liberal world after all! I was once a regular viewer but you chased me away. I watched Fox a few times and realized why - you sounded just like them - different content, same message.
Frankly, when all you can do it tell me how gays, African Americans, undocumented immigrants, and welfare recipients are the real Americans while law-abiding gun owners exercising their constitutional rights are terrorists, then you have lost all credibility with a large swath of the nation - and me.
Either we all have a place and all have our rights or we don't.
You have become the bigots you so love to hate.
Welcome to the bottom; how is it to be under Piers Morgan, Rachel?
BTW, from downstairs Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow sound exactly the same. What's up with that?
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Gun murders in Chicago
Truly tragic - a shame that Chicagoans can not or will not take responsibility for their own safety.
It must have been quite a sight, all those guns running around Chicago by themselves, shooting up the neighborhoods! How did they get there - aren't they illegal in Chicago?
And it happens again! I cannot imagine anyone being willing to live in certain part of Chicago - I suppose those that are at street level and do not have a security force provided - without a gun.
If only for a moment...but, no.
Well for a moment I thought perhaps the Pope had been watching me as an adolescent arguing with my "Sunday School" teachers (well, we were apparently Methodists so he would not watch us). I remember it well - parents forcing me to go to Sunday School while they stayed home or played golf, me sitting there with hair down to my shoulders and a beard at 17, trying hard to understand why it was not living a "Christian" life that was important, but saying the magic words about "Accepting Christ as my Lord and Savior" that was paramount. In essence, be an asshole, but espouse belief.
Me: So you mean that if I live a life consistent with Christina values but do not accept Christ as my savior that I will go to hell?
Them: Yes!
Me: But how about all the thieving, whoring, evil people who live a life of greed, deception, and infidelity - and then make a death bed confession and ask for His forgiveness - they go to Heaven?
Them: Yes
Me: Well, shit...that makes no sense. You are saying your God cares nothing for how we live, only that we are sycophants. Fuck over your fellow humans, but say the magic words. I quit.
Then along came the new Pope (I confess I do not follow Popes), telling me that it is not just belief and faith that are important, but a life of good works and that "We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist.’ But do good: We will meet one another there.” I thought - literally - Holy Shit - I think that's what I was saying 40 years ago.
Alas, not so fast - such an approach apparently would kill the business model! The Church (you know, the one the Pope leads) has clarified the "policy" - if you ain't with us, then no Heaven for you!
Sad. I still say that no God who demands worship of us, who demands fealty, but really requires nothing else of us, does not require that we treat each other fairly and with dignity, is worth his weight in - well, whatever Gods are made of. Certainly not worthy of worship.
I think he knows better - this is a human invention!
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Review of Mike Adams "Letters to a Young Progressive"
Thought I would take a look at this book though I am neither young nor a progressive. As someone who finds himself on different ends of the spectrum on different issues and most often sits between two unfathomable extremes, I often seek some cogent expression of conservative principles, absent the proselytizing. I suppose I hoped that there would be some coherent and logical presentation of "conservative" values here given this person purports to be an academician (which need not be synonymous with liberal). Sadly for me that was not the case. In essence this is just as disheartening as reading a tirade from Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, or Melissa Harris-Perry, except the names and terms are changed around.
Quick summary of Adams' book: Dear young student: You're an idiot and this is what you should believe because I do.
Indoctrination just form a different angle.
It really only took reading the fist paragraph of the first letter to realize this was a bad choice for an intelligent read, that looking for some kind of informed and intelligent presentation here was going to be met instead with a ideological tirade that relied on nothing but steadfast belief as supporting data. It was in the first paragraph that Adams noted the cold temperatures in May in Colorado, from where we was supposedly writing, as evidence that the global warming advocates were fools. Damn - doesn't he realize how that sounds? Well, sure he does! There is no reason for this position and the snark it communicates except ideology; there is no logic in dismissing climate change except that it is seen as a liberal cause celeb. No need to point out that a cold day says nothing about climate change to any one with half a brain and that clinging to the notion that snow refutes global warming (instead of climate change) simply makes a person sound ignorant. Why bother? Adams evidences throughout the book that he believes what he believes and that is enough for him; but when someone starts a talk by saying that "The earth is flat" it makes it hard to take anything else they say seriously. It seems clear that he rejects the idea because it is usually espoused by liberals - for no other reason - such a childish way to go about making decisions.
I can understand Adams concerns with the fact that academia is, in most cases, a bastion of liberal thought. But not all of us - I see it all the time, since it is the world I, too, am in. I can understand how one might bemoan the fact that students in such institutions are often taught what to think, not how to think. But, sadly, in the guise of "liberating" his imaginary young progressive, Adams offers nothing but the other side of the same coin - not teaching him critical thinking skills, merely teaching him to criticize and then telling him what to think because Adams is right. No logic, no data, no well thought-out presentation, no intelligent discourse on how a thinker might think about the problems of today's world - he simply offers a diatribe and faith.
Adams' book reads like what it, in all likelihood, is; an invective by someone who is at war with academia in general and his own university in particular - given his court case - a malcontent proclaiming his indignation over how he has been treated, using his "book" more as a cudgel than to really inform that potential progressive reader. This is his finger in the eye to those who would reject him. If you choose to read this, do so with this in mind, with your eyes open (but watch out for that finger) with regard to what his motivations are in writing this book. In the guise of informing or enlightening, he is actually chastising and exacting his revenge. He has no intention to inform, only inflame. Were I a liberal I would be insulted, just as he would want me to be. Instead, as a thinking somewhat conservative who does not see that as synonymous with belief in God, I am simply disappointed that he did not offer me more than this.
If you want a peak into the mind of the conservative counterpart to the radical left liberal we often hear from - the ones who need no facts, just emotion - then this is an informative, if demoralizing, read. It gives one little hope for the future because it is another voice shouting "I'm right" as loudly as possible, a tantrum with much kicking and screaming. Adams and anyone who shares his opinion need not expect that reading this will sway any reader, any young progressive - indeed there is no true evidence that was his intention. This is witnessing and his approach is to merely call them stupid and then assert, based on faith, that he is right. It is brow-beating and is clearly aimed at those who already agree with him. In this, he is the academic equivalent of Ann Coulter - seeking to do no more than shock and berate - insult and no more.
If you, as I, were looking for some cogent presentation of conservative thinking - a logical way to think abut conservative causes that might serve to refute the liberal ideas you are surrounded with, you will not find it here. These are the rantings of someone who is pissed off, and engaging in self-pleasuring. It will make those who already agree with Adams smile, laugh, and have a knee-slapping good time - "You tell 'em, Buddy!" - that's why he was on the NRA Cam and Company (which I listen to) and had made me hope his presentation would be worthwhile. If you already agree with him, then this book will be good "Hell, yeah!" reading for you. It will do little for those he pretends to want to educate or persuade because it takes joy and experiences great pleasure in insulting them. It will do little for those, like me, hoping to read something useful.
Most of us have enough trouble trying to educate those around us who hold strong beliefs - liberal or conservative - to the point of intolerance for anyone else. We have enough issues with those who consider faith some kind of badge of honor, strength of faith as some proof of rectitude. Perhaps Adams, with his obsession with the fallen nature of man (one assumes including himself) should consider that his perception of God's essence might not be accurate. Adam's work does nothing to make that position of faith as barometer of truth more understandable. It is proof that neither side of the current insanity has a monopoly on acting like an asshole. Sadly, those thoughtful who are stuck between the crazy at both ends, as so often happens, get left to ponder what happened to sanity in the world.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Yep - how's that gun-free country working out for you?
Damn shame that, in England, only the police could have shot these POSs and an unarmed soldier on the street pays the consequences. No, its not the whole story and evil is evil, but...
Works out so well when you disarm the public - for those who would do them harm.
Works out so well when you disarm the public - for those who would do them harm.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Bill Maher, Round 2!
An update to last week's post on Bill Maher!
This week on Real Time the discussion once more turned to firearms and the right to keep and bear arms. How could it not? All of a sudden, it was as if Bill had read my previous post - we knew Bill was a self-professed gun owner and he once again acknowledged this, noting that he had two guns - one upstairs and one down and practiced twice per year - and was not going to be giving them up since there had been numerous home invasions in his neighborhood.
When Michael Moore (anti-gun, big surprise - I am sure when he moves, or lumbers, around Flint he has armed personal security) told Bill that he was not likely to be able to defend himself adequately because he did not practice enough and would be startled awake and unprepared, Bill noted that the alternative, getting "mowed down", was not an option. [BTW, twice a year at the range is probably not unheard of among law enforcement officers.]
So Bill - if the government, any government, tells you to turn those guns in, will you? It matters not whether you are keeping and bearing arms to protect against real or imagined tyranny or, like most of us, to protect yourself from home invasion and other crime. It matters only that it provides you an effective and constitutionally-guaranteed means to defend yourself.
BTW - I have always cringed at S.E. Cupp, but she deserves props for her defense of the 2A.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Newsflash: Shit rolls downhill!
Sure sucks to be a mid-level manager in the federal bureaucracy. Sure seems to me that if the head of an organization that size is to be held responsible for its transgressions, then perhaps the man at the top needs to acknowledge his failures, too. Why should the little guy fall on his sword to protect the top?
Lots of "I never heard about it, I didn't know" explanations coming from the top of the hierarchy these days. That didn't fly under the previous administration and should not fly here. At the very least, it suggests that a certain culture has been established - and culture that is not a good one.
You really have to decide - is it ignorance, incompetence or malevolence? None of them is good. Is somebody too busy campaigning for hot agenda items like gun control to keep an eye on his own back yard and those working in it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)