Archive for September, 2005
You know all those “begats” the New Testament begins with?
You know, “Abraham begat Jacob, Jacob began Isaac…”
Jesus kept talking about “My Father.”
Jesus was the son of God.
So you may wonder why the New Testament begins with all those “begats.”
Well, Matthew was aware that Jesus was the son of God Almighty.
But, bless his heart, he also wanted to prove that Jesus was descended from somebody IMPORTANT.
Rocko’s statement is at the end, but I think you will get a sense of what he said from my reply.
Rocko, you are being very unfair to me, but I survived it.
I never said anything remotely approaching the concept that hypocrites calling themselves “Christians” invalidates Christianity. Please, NEVER accuse me of that!
I never even hinted anything of the sort.
Try to understand that I deeply resent “Christians” precisely because I am, or try to be, a Christian. So being told that I am being anti-Christian is not what I want to hear.
As I have said over and over and over and over and over and over, Jesus was not an Old Testament savior any more than Aramic is the holy language. He spoke Aramaic because the people around him would not have understood Hindi or Swedish. He spoke in Old Testament terms because nobody where he was preaching had read the Zoroastrian Avesta (?) or the Eddas.
What language would you EXPECT him to speak? What scriptures would you EXPECT him to cite?
But in the end, he said that the Old Testament was as worthless as pagan myths. He, not Moses, was the way, the truth and the light. The ONLY way. He left not a micro of room for the Old Testament or anything else.
People listened a moment and then went right back to what they always did.
Which is what humans always do.
Jesus didn’t die on the cross because we were WORTH it.
I think Bob and joe rorke have missed a crucial point here, and have adopted a sort of “magical” view of Christianity, that somehow the fact that people have been hypocrites in every era and civilized society somehow shows that Christianity is false. That is very poor reasoning.
The Sermon on the Mount is a sermon against hypocrisy. Jesus constantly condemned the leaders of his day as hypocrites. His most important (at least recorded) sermon is focused on that. As Bob has often said, when he figures something out that makes real sense, he realizes Jesus said it better already.
Jesus said “By their fruit ye shall know them”. It is fine to moan about how bad so many “Christians” are, and condemn the whole thing, if you just ignore the plain teaching that Jesus himself pointed out. Why do you think he kept repeating the point? Obviously He knew it would be a big problem.
joe rorke is right, that the warmonger attitude is not a result of what Jesus taught. How does that invalidate Him? Just because Bob’s spelling is poor, that doesn’t invalidate the English language. It is Bob that is at fault, not the language.
Bob uses a phrase, “Old Testament Christians” to say what Jesus said more simply, that is “hypocrites”. Almost everything Jesus said came straight out of the Old Testament, so does that make him an “Old Testament Savior”?
“He is my brother and my sister who does the will of my Father”, said Christ. There it is again. If they don’t do the will of His Father, then what does that mean? It isn’t complicated.
Shortly after I began to work for Congressman John Ashbrook (NOT ASHCROFT!!!) in the late 1970s, his brother in Ohio was taken out one night by organized crime and strangled to death in a field.
His brother had run up huge, unpayable gambling debts.
Yes, Virginia, these things don’t just happen on the Sopranos.
An adventurous person like John Ashbrook often just loves gambling. On one of the trips to the race track that John took some of us staffers along on he hit his first trisecta, which, as I understand it, is a big payoff when you pick the winning horse in three races.
He took me along when he was in a poker games with enormous stakes. The amount of cash on the table was staggering.
It was a very fun, friendly game all the way through.
But no one at the table was allowed to have a weapon on him. I had no idea where we were going the first time, but as we were ready to go in, John handed me his gun.
There were a couple of his regular older staffers with him from the Ohio office, so I didn’t realize until a few years ago why it was he handed ME the gun.
I was raised with a gun in the pocket of my car. That is called the “glove compartment” by folks whe are not from the South. We didn’t have a lot of use for gloves outside of work, so we ended up calling it the “pocket.” So I sort of assumed that the Ohio guys, being from a largely rural area, would take a gun for granted the way I did.
It was only a few years ago that I finally realized for the first time that John had not given ANYBODY a gun before that. He was kind of proud that he finally had a staffer he could give a gun TO.
The other staffers were civilized people who were not familiar with the practical use of a firearm.
You might say that you could give your pistol to anybody who had been in the armed forces.
That is DEFINITELY untrue. The last thing a person in the armed forces is trained to do is to have a gun on his person with no SPECIFIC rules about how to use it. That is the opposite of what military training is about.
For me being handed a gun in this way was about as shocking as being handed a shovel on a work site. John gave me no instructions.
John knew my background. John Ashbrook was Ranking Republican onthe House Select Intelligence Committee. His access to information on people like me was awesome. A congressman in that position seeking information on a staffer he was hiring was not bound up by the rules that the executive branch must adhere to.
More important, John’s interest in me was PERSONAL. There was nothing routine about the search he did on me. He knew it ALL.
OK, I could handle a gun in an unpredictable situation. So what instructions did he give me?
I was senior staff. I was supposd to know what to do. That’s what he hired me for.
His judgment was confirmed when I changed guns.
The weapon John handed me was a very expensive-looking pistol (“handgun” to you modern folks).
But it was a .32 caliber. FAR too small.
The next time we went to a poker game, I brought my own .45.
I carried a .45 for exactly the reason the .45 was adopted by the army in the first place. In the early 1900s during the fighting in the Phillipines, American soldiers would shoot doped-up guerrilla attackers with their .38′s.
They did kill the attackers with those .38s, but there was a small catch. All too often, by the time the attacker went down, he had killed the American shooting him.
In combat you are usually using your rifle. By the time it gets down to the time you have to reach for your pistol, you are dealing in seconds of precious time.
To put this in the vernacular, when an American soldier in the Phillipines had to reach for his pistol he had lost all interest in adding to the enemy body count. His only obsession was in knocking that sucker DOWN.
Which is why the army adopted the knock-’em-down .45 in the first place.
I did not want a gun that would look good. I wanted one that would protect me and John.
It never occurred to me at the time that I was the first staffer John had ever had who would know little housekeeping hints like that.
Mark ( our commenter, not the Book) says:
“Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls; for My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.” Matt. xi. 29, 30.
I’ve wondered how the church could justify their lust for self sacrifice in light of this scripture.
Mark, the trick is so obvious you miss it.
Fifty or a hundfred thousand years ago some caveman shaman made a wonderful discovery. Instead of speaking for himself, he said he spoke for God. He found that people who would not listen to him would listen to God.
And he discovered that, if you are God’s spokesman, it is just as good as BEING God.
Better. If you are obviously wrong, you can just say you misinterpreted God’s Words. But nobody can get you for that, because you are the only one who can talk to God at all.
When a prince owed them money, a pope would routinely put the prince’s hundred thousand subjects under the interdict. Terrified old people were denied the last sacraments, the sacraments essential to salvation. How could a man who called himself a Christian do this over money?
Very simply. It was not money owed to HIM, it was money the prince owed to GOD.
How many times have you heard a “Christian” pronounce some variant of the following words:
“You can insult me all you want to, but I will not allow you to insult GOD.”
With that simple and age-old dodge, a person can justify ANYTHING. So the parents gave their children up to a life of suffering in a strict monastery or convent for the Sake of God. They give themselves up to misery for the Sake of God.
“…and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
That’s pretty clear. But there is an easy way around it. “Christians” say that Jesus did NOT say, “and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who offend our idea of God.”
So today’s self-styled Christians almost invariably are totally unforgiving, but only inthe name of God and for the Sake of God.
The Temple priests who caused Jesus to be crucified followed that version of Christianity to the letter.
The Temple priests never said they wanted Jesus tortured to death because he had offended THEM. They said exactly what “Christians” have said ever since: They wanted Jesus crucified because he had offended GOD. Jesus was a trouble-maker. Jesus was a danger to the True Religion and would lead others into the Pit of Sheol.
A person who takes responsibilty for his own actions, as Jesus demanded that we do, has definite limits on what he can do to another human being. A person speaking in the Name of God has no such limitations. The crueler he is the more it proves his dedicaton to True Religion.
We have an exact duplication of that thinking among today’s whites who consider it a virtue to hate the white race. What could be more moral, more Christian, than sacrificing one’s own race for the sake of others, for the sake of God?
I quoted a Methodist bishop who said exactly that last sentence in in 1955 as part of his demand for integration. Everybody understood integration meant the end of hte white race, and he said it was a sacrifice we had to be willing to make For The Sake of God.
What could be more holy than to give up every natural feeling of loyalty to your own people for God’s sake?
So if that bishop was right. what could be more holy than violating every other natural feeling?
Look at that last sentence. It comes directly from the thinking behind handing one’s newborn baby over to a monastery in the Middle Ages. What could more holy than to give up every natural feeling and subject your own child to a lifetime of exhaustion, starvation and self-hatred in a monastery FOR GOD’S SAKE?
Look at that last paragraph. What could be more holy than to subject YOURSELF to a lifetime of hunger and exhaustion and deprivation FOR GOD’S SAKE?
All you have to do is put that little twist to The Lord’s Prayer.
Which was exactly the thing that Jesus kept telling people NOT to do.
Which is why people exactly like today’s Old Testament Christians put Jesus on the cross.
There is a very true saying that, “The nearest thing we have to eternal life on earth is a temporary government agency.”
When I was in England back in the 1970s they had a great example of that. A person was still being paid to patrol the coast watching out for an invasion by Napolean’s armed forces.
Actually, I can see why that job was still open. The salary for it was fixed at ten pounds a year. Back in 1814 when Napolean was finally defeated at Waterloo, a young man who volunteered to fight in the war and who was crippled for life received a pension of only one shilling a day for for life.
A poor man could actually live on that back then.
If some hobbling wounded veteran got an extra ten pounts a year by being given the Napolean Watch, it increased his income by over fifty percent. I wouldn’t have had the heart to abolish the job either.
After that, I doubt anybody even thought about abolishing the job.
By the 1970s that ten pounds amounted to exactly two bucks a month. I wonder if the person holding that position even bothered to collect it. But I am sure some elderly Englishman thoroughly enjoyed ambling out to the coast a few times a year and still being the Official Napolean Watch.
In the twentieth century there were a couple of reports by the Napolean Watch of seeing the French invading fleet, but they were discounted because they always happened right after the pubs closed.
They still had a legal closing time for all pubs inthe 1970s (Last orders, please!) So the reports that came in right after that time were discounted.
I think that was too hasty a conclusion. I believe that, being a military genius, Napolean would have attacked exactly at the moment that the maximum number of Englishmen were in no condition to resist.
By now I imagine that the Napolean Watch has either been abolished or allowed to lapse.
So now if the Grand Army pours into England, muzzle-loaders and all, the English will be caught completely off guard.
As a former bureaucrat, all I can say I can is that it serves them right for abolishing a temporary government agency.
I have real trouble getting my message across to most people because they carry two contradictory ideas around in their heads. The first is that success is a matter of “not WHAT you know but WHO you know.”
The other is that we are ruled by a group of Evil Geniuses who have a superhuman plot going.
So when I trace a major part of our problem down to college professors who think they are geniuses and who are being allowed to get away with what any group of human beings in their position would do, I get ignored.
When people start to reas David Duke’s Jewish Supremacism, the last thing they expect to see is a hundred thousand words of common sense and facts they can easily look up.
From the word go, the biggest burden David and I had to bear was the Conspiracy Nuts.
Yes, there are definitely political reasons David’s books are ignored. But there is a common sense reason, too. People assume Jewish Supremacism will be like The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, the discription of a tiny group of master geniuses who direct every move all
the Jews on earth make.
They think of The Bilderberger Conspiracy, where a tiny group of dedicated geniuses already rule the world cloaked by secrecy.
The Conspiracy Nuts have made real revelations based on obvious facts and logic enormously difficult.
If you subscribe to a conspiracy theory you are half beaten already. It makes you feel brave to be taking on the group that runs the whole world. You whole theory is based onthe idea that that tiny group owns and commands the whole world through pure dedication and talent. True, they cheat, but they’re so good at it that they might as well be unbeatable geniuses.
They are great and you are small.
If you believe that, you are, as I say, half way to defeat already.
A giant conspiracy ruled by secret geniuses is not the way the world works.
They are evil, but they are not geniuses and there is nothing secret about them.
A person who gets wealth, power or fame almost always does it with more than just luck. But he has to have luck to get to the top, and lots of it. For every person who makes it to the top in corporations in New York there a dozen people in Minneapolis who are just as talented. They own a huge auto dealership in Minnesota, but the ladder they were climbing had a ceiling.
The man who gets to be head of a national television network doesn’t set out to to do that. He goes into the corporate structure and it becomes part of the group that runs that industry.
Charlie Sheen and Kirk Douglas and Jeff Bridges all produced sons were became major actors. Every one of them had talent, but the obvious fact is that their sons got to show it where other actors were ignored.
They didn’t ride into town on a bus trying to Make It In Hollywood. They knew what was what and who was who from their childhood.
No one will deny that Bill Gates is a genius.
Bill Gates built his fortune on creativeness and savvy, but he used the fact that his mother had enormous contacts in the field that he could use and that his father was already a very wealthy man.
This is a VERY practical matter when it comes to real world politics.
Nobody denies that George Burns had enormous talent. But he pointed out that he got his first break in show business back in the beginning of the twentieth century because the advertisement specified that the Jewish theater owner wanted a Jewish actor.
The great writer Ayn Rand got her big break when she was an extra on the movie lot in the 1930s. Cecil B. DeMille was riding in his chauffeur-driven car and saw her among all the hundreds of actors who would have given anything for a nod from him. He saw an obviously very Jewish girl and stopped and picked her up and talked to her.
Jews are the world’s best “networkers.” They promote each other, which is exactly what the Jewish religion and the Jewish culture has always taught them to do. They are always hungry to find JEWISH talent.
And Jews have a blood grudge against white gentiles which is very openly advocated in every synagogue. In fact, if white gentiles expressed the same “grudge” against Jews that Jews regularly express against gentiles and preach from their pulpits, it would be called “Hate.”
And everybody knows about that Jewish “grudge,” that endless preaching about the persecution of Jews by white gentiles.
Were it not for Political Correctness, this situation would be expressed in plain English:
Jewish culture teaches Jews to hate us. Jewish culture teaches Jews that their overriding goal is to rid the world of white gentiles.
If this is a Secret Jewish Conspiracy then it is the worst-hidden secret in history.
But Conspiracy Nuts have made this common sense look like something out of an insane asylum.
Anti-anti-semites are always frantically denying that liberals or Jews run Hollywood. Ben Stein said, “Of course Jews run Hollywood. You’re just now figuring that out?”
Ben Stein is a Jew and has spent decades as a leading conservative writer. He is NOT a NEO-conservative. He says leftism was wrong from the word go.
Ben Stein attacks the fact that liberals run Hollywood. But, as a Jew, he is proud of the fact that Jews run the place.
Those who write gaint books about giant conspiracies simply don’t understand the basics of how the world works.
Secret Conspiracies are unusual. And they are always very small.
As Ben Franklin said, “Three people can keep a secret, but only if two of them are dead.”
Networking, not secret conspiracy, is how the world works. If you are in any business and you are looking for someone at a high level or for creative work, you don’t put an ad in paper. You call up somebody else who is in your position and say, “I need somebody to run so and so or to do the writing for my new play. Who’s available?”
If this is a secret conpiracy, then the secret has been as poorly kept as that of the Jewish Conspiracy.
Liberals prefer liberals, Jews REALLY prefer Jews. A good American Communist in Hollywood
would not hire anybody BUT another Communist to do his writing or producing or directing for him. Like any other serious group, the Communists demanded that as a duty.
Ask any Communist and he will tell you he takes that for granted.
In the 1950s it appeared that all the talent was in New York City. That was because the people the guys in power in New York knew were in New York.
This is not rocket science.
It is also not a Secret Plot by Evil Geniuses.
I you try to sell the public a Secret Plot, you will have a good time.
But if you explain how the world works, they will not have to read a lot of books to see you are right.
Every now and then I go out on my veranda, take out my false teeth and my glass eye, and sit there with my mayonnaise jar full of white lightening.
Pretty soon I begin my senile cackling over incidents in my past.
I want to recite one I may have told you before.
If you’ve heard this one already, try and stop me.
I was doing the press conference for an anti-busing march. I paid all my own expenses, as always, including the trip to the city where the march was being held, which was not next door. As always, I also joined in the march.
Brave policemen started to beat some of the WOMEN on the march. I walked up to one as if I was going to protest, then jumped under his truncheon and knocked him out cold.
They took me to the station and got a call. Somebody told them they were about to arrest the PUBLICITY MAN for the march for cold-cocking one of their cops who was beating up women.
The newspapers would never report one more incident of police violence against a right-wing demonstration. They often don’t mention such protests at all unless there is a press conference.
At the press conferences, you hand out press releases which means most of their writing has already been done for them. A major demonstration doesn’t matter. But a major protest AND a press conference cannot be completely ignored.
But I could have gotten headlines if they had arrested me that time.
The cops hated letting somebody go who had knocked out a cop. But I understand they got a call from the mayor himself, “Don’t you DARE arrest him! I don’t want any record of this!”
I, of course, would have liked nothing better than to be arrested, even though it might have cost me my Federal job. Fighting is on the few offenses a Federal employee can be fired for, much less hitting a cop.
So there I sat. The cops hated me and I kept grinning at them.
They did NOT offer me a ride home.
In the Middle Ages, parents would routinely obtained the blessings of the Church by bringing a young child in to become a monk or a nun.
If they were truly blessed, their child would spend sixty to eighty years in hunger, exhaustion, self-loathing, physical self-torture, sleep starvation, and humiliation. That was what GOOD monasteries were for.
Usually, in the less perfect convents and monasteries, the child would learn homosexual sex early.
There is one authenticated case, and probably thousands more less well documented, where a boy was delivered to the monastery after his mother died delivering him. In his long life of eighty years he never saw a single female.
That was a GOOD monastery.
In the pagan world they would leave a newborn out in the open to die of exposure in a day or two. For some reason, that was better than actually KILLING the child.
There is an old American country saying, “A man should shoot his own dog.”
In other words, if your dog has to die, you make sure it is done right and painlessly by doing it yourself. To my country mind, if you want to kill a newborn, you should kill it yourself instead of leaving it in hours or days of uncomprehending terror and thirst in the cold and in the sun.
That is the Golden Rule talking. No churchman ever even mentioned that aspect of the matter. The suffering of a newborn doesn’t matter, or we wouldn’t have circumcised hundreds of millions of male babies.
The only thing that mattered to the Church was that the child was exposed and actually killed rather than spending a lifetime suffering. That would been a holy act.
A lot of the sacrifices in pagan days were voluntary. But the Church abhorred that kind of human sacrifice. Human sacrifices in monasteries were usually voluntary, and that makes all the difference.
The difference mystifies me. According to the Golden Rule, you shouldn’t do that to yourself.
The Church disapproved of other forms of suicide.
Political Correctness says that when the Temple Jews convicted Jesus and turned him over to the civil authorities, the Roman, they had no idea he would be executed.
A good conservative can swallow that line, but back on the real earth there were only two alternatives if the Temple Jews convicted a Jew of heresy, stoning by Jews or crucifixion by Romans.
Christianity abandoned the cross when it took over. Instead it used a very slow burning at the stake.
After days or weeks of torture, which the family had to pay for.
When a heretic was burned, the Inquisitors held a celebration feast.
The family paid for that, too.
If they were lucky. Many a person confessed and went to the stake because if they died heretics, everything the family had would be confiscated. They couldn’t pay for anything.
That sort of self-sacrifice was usually futile. The whole family of a heretic was suspected of heresy, so another member was usually arrested later. Eventually the Church would get the whole kaboodle anyway.
My favorite professor made himself a human sacrifice. He and a friend were in a boat when the lake was suddenly flooded and the boat overturned. He was to shore, but his friend couldn’t swim well, so he went back, though exhausted, to try to save him. He drowned trying to save his friend.
He was no Christian, but he died to do something for another person. He died according to the Golden Rule, as Christ did.
That is ONLY reason for human sacrifice, even if the person being sacrificed is you.
I like it when people appreciate my humor. So I’m not COMplaining, I am EXplaining
Some time back I wrote a piece about how I wished America had a Great Northern Neighbor the way Mexico does. All of the commenters thought it was a joke.
Do the math.
Mexico is trying desperately to bring itself into the year 1900. Its Great Northern Neighbor is, technologically, wel over a century ahead of Mexico.
What if we had a Great Northern Neighbor who offered us the tecnolgy of 2100 AD today?
Mexicans seem to HATE that.
If a Mexican can steal his way across the border of Mexico’s Great Northern Neighbor, he can increase his income TEN TIMES.
So if I were an entry-level American worker and I could steal across the porous borders of MY Great Northern Neighbor, my minimum wage would be forty dollars an hour!
If there is a threat, like Communism, my Great Northern Neighbor would protect me from it.
If there is a disaster here, my Great Northern Neighbor would pour in help beyond my wildest dreams.
Consider this: That Great Northern Neighbor would be a century ahead of us in medicine. Think of the diseases the average Mexican contends with today. Think of how it would be if they did not have American and white discoveries in medicine.
Then do the math.
What would OUR health be like if WE had Great Northern Neighbor which lived in the next century in medical advances?
Oh, goodness gracious, but this Great Northern Neighbor, who were Nordic as the snow compared to us, would LOOK DOWN on us!!!
Oh, the pain, the humiliation!
This Great Northern neighbor would EXPLOIT us by sending us industries that paid only five or six times the wages we could normally get.
Oh, the pain, the humiliation!
That’s what the average Mexican thinks about.
I am NOT the average Mexican.
I want a Great Northern neighbor.
I REALLY do.
In a recent article National Review talked about how liberals fought for righteous causes until about the middle 1960s. National review was saying that National Review was wrong to fight liberalism for the first ten years of the existence of that publication.
National Review says that National Review should not have been founded in 1955 as an opponent of glorious liberalism. National Review says that the people who founded National Review were on the wrong side.
In the 1950s all of us redneck segregationists were saying that integration, which is now The Holy Grail of conservatism, was wrong and would lead to disaster.
No respectable conservative today would dare even hint a suggestion that integration, the final solution to the race problem, which means the final solution to the white problem, is anything less than holy.
When a white country becomes dedicated to the proposition that the white race must go, it is a very sick society.
Everything we predicted for integration came true. But nobody who wants to be on the national media could even allow that fact to cross his mind if he wants to keep his job.
So everybody in the spokeman business agrees that integration was glorious, progressive, inarguable and holy.
How do they explain that every single disaster that us rednecks and most of the founders of National review predicted is now a fact of life?
They say the only thing they CAN say:
“All that progressivism was right and wonderful and us old reactionaries were just evil. We right until about 1970 Then all of a sudden, something went WRONG with liberalism.”
That is the doctrine of neoconservatism. Neoconservatives say were right when they were liberals and they are right now. National Review agrees.
I say liberalism did not GO wrong. It is obnvious to me that all those “progrssive ideas” went on to their natural conclusion.
Which is the natural conclusion I was predicting as a teenager.
Once the Holy Grail of Integration and the other ideas liberalism fought for were estalished by 1968, we were headed for the disasters we are experiencing right now.
Nothing suddenly “went wrong.” Progressive policy just went on to its natural conclusions, the ones we predicted, with uncanny accuracy, fifty years ago.
This realization is critical. This is the sine qua non (without which nothing) of a sane society.
If we are to recover, we must reject the insanity entirely and go back to basics. We must get “simplistic.”
If you are totally involved in today’s latest revelation about Iraq or Bush’s foot odor, you can miss this overriding, critical historic fact.
A lot of people are wrapped up in the realization that the official spokesmen for neoconservatives, the people National Review worships, are Jews.
That is true, and that is important in the present war for Israel we are fighting in Iraq. But in the long run, that is not the essense, the real meaning, of the neoconservatism today’s entire conservative establishment adheres to and worships.
I just wanted to remind of you of what, in the sweep of history, neoconservatism really means.
You may now return to frantically e-mailing each other about Iraq.
Our established religion of Political Correctess has a docrtine of infallible that makes Papal Infallible look like minor league stuff.
Liberals have stopped talking about many of their silliest declarations, but they NEVER admit that thoss doctrines were dead wrong. They just don’t discuss them any more, and any conservative who wants to be on national media never reminds them of their nuttsiest statements.
A conservative who remembers what liberals once required people to believe to get a college profesaorship. Liberal dogma that could not be denied on campus has been quietly forgotten.
If liberals were reminded of their track record they would laughed off the public airways.
So any conservative who reminds liberals of their track record loses his respectability and his livelihood.
A professor who does that loses his livelihood. The token conservatives on campus are as carefully respectable as media conservative spokemen.
One example of PS Doctrinal Infallibilty appears inteh New York Times and then in all the local newspapers belonging to national syndicates regularly. It goes like this:
“Crime has dropped dramatically, BUT the prison population keeps rising.”
This shows that the idea that punishment is a cure for crime is wrong.
What if New York Times in 1950 said, “Deaths from infectious diseases have dropped dramatically, BUT the use of pennicilin keep rising.”
Even a lot of the brain-dead reader/worshippers of the New York Times would have laughed at that.
No respectable conservative would have, of course.
Obviously the growing rate of incarceration is the REASON crime is dropping.
Years ago some of us noticed that most crimes were committed by career criminals. When a store was robbed or a child murdered, the news story would recite the violent acts the perpetrator had commited previously.
So we said, “Lock the career criminals up and throw away the key.”
Liberals denounced locing them away and throwing away the key as “simplistic.” They said that the only way to reduce crime was “to get at the root causes of crime.” They said that the cure for crime was the same one Political Correctness has for ALL social problems” more expensive programs planned by professors.
Professors recommended this so the New York Times accepted it without question. “Getting to the root causes of crime” was the doctrine, and any professor who disagreed put his job in danger.
But there is on consistent theme here. Political Correctness, as backed solidly by professors, ALWAYS demands that the policy adopted be the produce of professors and give power to the professors.
So the New York Times and all its little mental satelites insist that if you “get to the root causes of crime,” both crime and the number of prisoners will decrease. The fact that you dealing with crime by punishment obviously WORKS means nothing to them
As the Pope said about Galileo, heretics CANNOT be right, no matter what the facts are.
This is exactly like an
When I asked if you are reading this, five commenters charged forth and said they did.
You better believe I appreciate it!
I feel GOOD!
The service provider has changed he address of this blog, and I have not ogtten a single comment since?
Is anybody reading this?
If you’re female, sometimes discussing something, even in prayer, with a man/male
presence, can be intimidating.
In real life, sometimes the best way to get through to a male VIP is to go
through his secretary, his wife — or Mama. (This may be an alien concept
to those of you not fortunate enough to be Southerners!)
One things I’ve noticed since my first visit to a Catholic church is that
not having a female presence (Mary) tends to result in a feminized Jesus.
Any orthodox (doctrinally-correct) Catholic church has at least one image
of the Holy Family, which could be considered an earthly Trinity. After all,
Jesus was part of a FAMILY, while He was present in flesh on Earth.
Elizabeth, since I was forunate enough to be raised a Southerner, I used the hell out of it on Capitol Hill.
I would often be put on hold while trying to reach a congressman. Since I was big deal on the Hill, the woman putting me on hold would explain why the congressman could not talk to me. That gave me a chance to ask who SHE was.
“She” was often the office manager for the congressman. All my fellow staffers informed me that “office manager” was just a word invented to make a secretary feel good. If you took a look at her salary you would be disabused of that myth right quick.
Nobody looked at their salary but me.
It is public record, but I was he only person I knew who could look it up.
That “glorifed secretary,” I discovered, was theone I really wanted to talk to.
If I had talked to the congressman, and if I were successful, he would go to his office manager and tell her to remind him of the commitment he had made to me.
IF I was lucky. We had a list of the congressmen who were too drunk to keep commitments after lunch, so my confidence in speaking to The Great One Himself was somewhat limited.
So while other staffers fumed at being forced to talk to “the secretary” I would more often than not get my business done directly with her. I did not need to talk to His Majesty Himself.
The office managers thought I was great.
This is the big leagues, gang, and nobody got to be an office manager on Capitol Hill unless she really enjoyed taking the responsibility herself.
She would get to the congressman in a way I could never do.
And she LIKED it.
After some years on Capitol Hill I discovered that my genius in dealing with “secretaries” was just part of a plot of concocted by the Evil Genius Whitaker.
One day we were dividing up calls to be made and someone said, “Have Whitaker get in touch with her. he’s been cultivating secretaries for years.”
So do you think I said, “No way. What I did was common sense.”
If they thought I was a genius, who was Ole Bob to disagree?
With my background I am impressed by watching American soldiers who are thoroughly trained.
You have to give a real pro credit.
American troops move into position at neither a run nor a walk.
I would hate to be on the other side.
Those troops are like the Roman legions, a whole new phenomenon in their time. They constitute a single unit moving inexorably forward. Each soldier’s firepower is staggering but he is never overconfident about it.
Each man is an arsenal by any earlier standards of warfare, but each arsenal moves in a dance, always in the direction of their goal.
Nobody seems to notice the artistry of it.
If you are someone like me, who has been the objective of firepower, it gives you a cold chill.
Repeat: I would hate to be on the other side.
There used to be a saying, “One barbarian can beat one regular soldier. But a million barbarians cannot beat a legion.”
If you want to beat American soldiers you must wear a woman’s clothes and carry a bomb.
In World War II American soldiers were a joke. If it were not for the Italians, Americans trying to be soldiers would have been the laughing stock of the war.
Today nobody can come close to American soldiers.
I never say anything to flatter anybody. I despise everything those soldiers are doing for Israel.
But Lord Almighty, they are GOOD at what they do!