Tuesday, March 31, 2009

The Trolls Take A Break

An interesting phenomenon is taking place right now, and it will soon pass.

Several sites have linked an article by Andrew Breitbart of
Breitbart.com where he addresses the tactics of Leftist Trolls, and the supposed refusal of most Right leaning readers to engage in such tactics on the basis of not wanting to “stoop to their level”. However, the real “red meat” of this story is in the comments of these various sites, and not the actual article itself. (Note: I have only linked Gateway Pundit as it had, in my opinion, the most interesting dialogue…)

The oddity is that the Trolls have removed their “Game Faces” and are discussing their motivations for “trolling” with rational, cohesive, and (in most cases) respectful language. Their rationale can certainly be called into question, but for the moment they are being honest about their dishonesty in the daily grind of blogging and commenting.

Here is one sample of a Troll “coming out”…

“I admit to being a 9-year troll on sites like FreeRepublic, but you must understand, politics is like war.

If you're so Pollyanna-ish (or cynical) as to believe that anyone engaged in politics and political activism from the Right is practicing "Judeo-Christian values" (lol), then the politics game is not for you.

Politics and activism requires everyone to get down and dirty once in a while. Every great political activist knows it is better to transform and shape a movement from within rather than from the outside.

And hey, if I'm making thousands of conservatives see why it is good to be tolerant of all people and supportive of higher wages, I've been practicing Judeo-Christian values in the end anyway.
sunny 03.30.09 - 12:20 pm ”

“Sunny”’s interesting take on Judeo-Christian values aside, she is being honest about her dishonesty in this comment:

“Sure I may tell a couple lies to get there, but I am an atheist and don't believe in heaven or hell. But the people I talk to on the site are almost all committed Christians.

So if I approach the issues of wage protection, labor organizing, and tolerance in a Christian perspective and tell them I am a Christian, that is a highly effective way to hold the audience captive and keep their minds wide open.

In the end, that is the goal: to change perspectives in the goal to attaining a more perfect union.”

Support for the reversal of these tactics is given by an alleged Right-wing supporter:

I could care less what weak conservatives unwilling to confront the enemy on their terms think.

The Obamonkey stole the election with an army of ACORN crack whores and criminals - and he isn't even elegible to be President. He is an usurper.

I firmly believe that, and I will express my beliefs every opportunity I get.

The right has become to sensitive to political correctness. Imagine if there was a video of the Bush twins or a Palin child snorting cocaine. It would be news 24/7 for months.

Ashley Biden says 'hi' to the camera while stuffing her nose full of cocaine and the media is too afraid to report on it. Hot Air tells us we shouldn't even discuss the issue.

Screw that. The majority of Americans are too lazy to search for the truth and too stupid to understand it when they do find it.

America gets it's Democrat propaganda from the MSM and Hollywood and they don't even consider alternatives to their spoon fed helpings of liberal tripe.

Face the facts - 8 years of Bush smears worked, no matter what the truth was.

Ignoring that lesson will only further diminish the Republican party.
Capital G 03.30.09 - 11:38 am

The fact that everyone has, in effect, called “time-out” and sat down to discuss this is fascinating to me. I have written before about the
Ego Puppets on the Internet, but this is an example of an self-admitted intentionally misleading and dishonest attack on another person’s point of view.

A reaction to a perceived threat is not a new concept, but the open admission of such tactics is new to me, and my (so far) brief time of being involved in the blog-sphere of politics. I’m not naïve, I understand the concept of Trolls and have for a while. I just never thought I’d see everyone take off their masks and have the Internet version of a coffee break together.

If we can relate to each other without the use of subversion, why bother to use it?

Perhaps it is my “Pollyanna-ish” wishful thinking, but I almost see a grudging respect between some of the tense and terse discussions in the comments section. Just the admission alone seems to have sparked something constructive and even positive in the tone of the (for the moment, fairly rational) discussion between these otherwise sworn enemies.

Perhaps under different circumstances, or even a continued “truce”, some debates might actually accomplish something in the way of agreements and reconciliation.

I suspect however, that tomorrow, we will be back to “Game On”, and everyone will revert to their preordained positions of proponent and opponent respectively.

What a shame…

Thursday, March 26, 2009

A Shameless Plug (for a friend...)

My friend who has previously been identified as "Bob" here on this site, is really named "Rob".

See what I did there?

He operates a movie review site, and in the spirit of frugality (because we are all broke), I have suggested that he write reviews on movies about to out on DVD. Trust me when I say that he is eminently qualified to do so. His knowledge of all things film grows with his every waking hour.

He is still ironing out the bugs and so forth, but I highly recommend him to you especially if you are in the mood for something different, something original, or something that will provide a good dose of escapism from the drudgery that threatens us all.

He's Hollywood, he's Foreign, he's Grindhouse, he's Rob!

Check him out at Big Monster Cinema. (or failing the link thingy... http://bigmonstercinema.blogspot.com/ )

There Rob, don't say I never did nothin' for 'ya!

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

An Abomination Of Tolerance

I am not opposed to homosexuality in the sense of accepting it as a normal facet of modern life. I am not speaking on behalf of many of my fellow Republicans in saying this, but I believe that "crimes against man" should by decided by man, and "crimes against God" will be handled by God. My stances on two homosexual hot-button issues are here and here.

That having been said, this story is a train wreck of rampantly misguided “Tolerance”.

As reported to me by
Moonbattery, the following:

“A Spanish man is set to become the first in the world to give birth to twins.
Transsexual Ruben Noe Coronado, 25, is due to become a dad at the end of September.
Ruben, born a woman called Stephanie, will bring the boys up with partner Esperanza Ruiz, 43. The pair plan to marry before they become parents. Bearded American Thomas Beattie made headlines round the world after giving birth to daughter Susan Juliette last June.
The 35-year-old, born Tracy Lagondino, is expecting a second child with wife Nancy this summer. Like Beattie, Ruben is officially a man but retained his female reproductive organs. I've gone public with this so people start to see transsexual pregnancy as normal.”

First off, to simply lay the claim that you are something that you are not is ridiculous at best. This woman is officially recognized by the country of Spain as a man based solely on her declaration of such. Before anyone says anything in regards to the cosmetic alteration of voluntary mastectomies, I would like to point out the thousands of women in this country alone who must have the procedure performed to survive the scourge of breast cancer.

They would assure you that they are no less a woman for having to do it.

To lose the first recognizable physical self-assurance of womanhood to a disease is tragic, and cannot be equated with the loss of femininity by anyone with half an ounce of sense or decency.

That having been established, would I be a thrice recognized minority for a sudden declaration of being a Black-American woman? Being married to a White woman, I would then be a champion of gay marriage, I would be a woman, and I would be Black, right? That’s three minorities I could claim just on my word alone. In addition to the idea being a gross misrepresentation, it is also preposterous.

Second, I will not speak for the feminists as I patently despise having words shoved into my mouth by others, but I will question the acceptance of this travesty by someone who claims to fight against the “hetero-normative patriarchy”.

Mostly due to the fact that this woman just joined it.

Explain to me how a woman who is now a man by law and married to a woman is not now a heterosexual in orientation. Acceptance of these things would dictate that we follow the idea to its logical conclusion, yes? Well…?

Elucidate as well the fact that she will be a “father” to these boys, and not be a patriarchal archetype. Please, I would love to hear the rational reasoning behind it.

Third, who among you would not be disgusted and revolted by hearing of an experiment that involves children that begins at birth and warps their perceived reality to study the mental development of the human mind? We could all arm ourselves with pitchforks and torches and storm the offending laboratory in righteous indignation at the idea, and yet this is supposedly a glowing example of a loving and nurturing childhood environment.

I realize that of all three points, this may be the most logically unstable as the analogy is rather hyperbolic, but there I go showing my Conservatism again…

To counter the slip, I will say this:

If you are a woman attracted solely to another woman, you are a lesbian and I will accept you.

Vice-versa for a man? You are gay and I will accept you.

Attracted to both? You are a bisexual and guess what? I will accept you.

I will go out on a limb here and admit that if you have had surgeries, take hormones, and go out of your way to be something that you were not when you where born, I will accept you as what you identify yourself as.

I am not God, neither is anyone else I know, and He can take care of everything in the afterlife. In the mean time, I will follow the teachings of his Son, Jesus Christ and love you as I would myself.

This case however, I must decry as an abomination to logic, reason, and common sense.

Be a lesbian who has children, or be a woman who “switched” to marry a woman, but don’t attempt to have your ideological cake and eat it too.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Politics And Ego Puppets

I have a friend. We’ll call him Bob. Bob is a Liberal. He is also my best friend. Bob and I have weekly debates at his place that sometimes end in heated but amiable disagreement. We understand each other, we know where the other one is coming from, and we (most importantly) respect each other.

Sometimes we come to conclusions and a general consensus in regards to current events, politics, and social trends. It is fairly easy to do when you apply basic human decency and conduct yourself in a manner that promotes a mutually beneficial outcome.

Recently, we formulated a theory that would help to explain the increased divisiveness of the country over politics.

Assuming that our initial analysis is correct, and the country is becoming more divided as opposed to an increase in the perception of such, we agreed that the culprit is in fact a very real and growing presence in our lives as Americans:

The Internet.

When you are on the Internet, you assume a pseudonym, a fake name to disguise who you are. This is (or was initially) for your protection, as you do not want to be posting your personal information for all to see. We came to the idea eventually that what you create in the Internet to represent yourself is basically an “Ego Puppet”, a creation that is no more the real you than a sock puppet or any other construct that acts as your proxy.

When dealing with people on the Internet, you aren’t dealing with a real person. You are not speaking to a quiet mother of four who lives in New Jersey, and cares greatly about her kids, her husband, and the general well-being of her fellow mankind, you are arguing with “jerseymom1622”, an Ego Puppet that is easily offended and lashes out at any perceived threat with vicious aplomb (any reference to a real “jerseymom1622” is not intended, but feel free to leave a comment…).

Eventually, you begin to make a “name brand” of sorts for yourself, and soon the shy, withdrawn, and unassuming real life persona has an outlet for frustrations, pent up anger, and a strong desire to be heard. We are all becoming a nation of ego-driven Internet Super Heroes. We finally have as a race the means to exercise our own personal Walter Mitty Complex.

In commenting on various sites, I have seen some arguments that take on a truly vile and disturbing edge in no time at all. You have seen it too, I’m sure. The post thread that takes on a life of its own and spawns some of the most hateful rhetoric you have ever witnessed.

All thanks in no small part to anonymity, or the perception thereof.

Sometimes it becomes truly silly and just plain ludicrous. Surely you’ve seen the threats of physical violence against someone who may be in another state or even country? How about the requests to “Come here and say that”? Or the ever popular “Why don’t you give your name, you coward”? Commenters using the name of “Guest” or “Anonymous” are usually given grief or “lose legitimacy” for not giving a fake name, and yet they may be considered more honest than those who give fanciful monikers to identify themselves.

Examining these outbreaks of verbal violence, I am struck with one very solid thought:

You wouldn’t say these things to a real person face-to-face. Not if you wanted to retain your present facial features, or in some cases your legal right to remain at-large.

I think that we all need to realize that on the other end of this glowing box thingy is a real person with feelings and beliefs that may differ from your own. Someone who, if you truly just sat down with them, might be much more reasonable and human.

Ignoring the folks who are bored and enjoy seeing the ire stirred up by one tasteless comment, or the occasional “Troll” who exists solely to smear the other visitors would go a long way towards making the Internet a better place for real debate that may actually bear fruit in the way of results.

I realize that my naïveté is showing, but you get the picture.

Hide yourself from harm and ID theft sure, but bear in mind that an Ego Puppet is not a license to “check your humanity at the door” and act like an egregious posterior to your fellow Human Beings.

“Each person has inside a basic decency and goodness. If he listens to it and acts on it, he is giving a great deal of what it is the world needs most. It is not complicated but it takes courage…to listen to his own goodness.” ~ Pablo Casals

Thursday, March 19, 2009

National Civilian Community Corps Program

Recently, a flap about this has been circling the internet, specifically among the more right leaning sites. Some say that it will lead to an American "Brown Shirt" style of organization. While my particular jury is still out on that assessment, I offer you the summary of H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE).

According to the Congressional Research Service (via GovTrack):

"Includes among eligible AmeriCorps programs: (1) an Education Corps to address unmet educational needs; (2) a Healthy Futures Corps to address unmet health needs; (3) a Clean Energy Corps to address unmet environmental needs; and (4) a Veterans Corps to address the unmet needs of veterans and their families.

Creates AmeriCorps Opportunity Corps programs that include certain existing programs and new programs to: (1) increase community access to technology; (2) engage citizens in public safety, health, and emergency preparedness services; (3) mentor youth; (4) reduce recidivism by re-engaging court-involved youth; and (5) support the needs of veterans or active duty service members and their families.

Establishes an Education Awards Only program authorizing the Corporation for National and Community Service (Corporation) to provide fixed-amount grants to programs that have approved national service positions, but no AmeriCorps funding.

Sets the National Service educational awards for full-time AmeriCorps, NCCC, and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) participants at a level equal to the maximum available Pell Grant available to students under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Includes among needs to be met under the NCCC program, disaster relief, infrastructure improvement, environmental and energy conservation, and urban and rural development.
Requires states to develop comprehensive plans for volunteer and paid service by Baby Boomers and older adults."

The words "disadvantaged youth" and are there as well. They would probably form the bulk of the members. Keep in mind that the resolution defines this as:

DISADVANTAGED YOUTH- The term ‘disadvantaged youth’ includes those youth who are economically disadvantaged and one or more of the following:
(A) Who are out-of-school youth, including out-of-school youth who are unemployed.
(B) Who are in or aging out of foster care.
(C) Who have limited English proficiency.
(D) Who are homeless or who have run away from home.
(E) Who are at-risk to leave school without a diploma.
(F) Who are former juvenile offenders or at risk of delinquency.
(G) Who are individuals with a disability.

Questions within the wording of this measure ask:

"Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds." ~ H.R. 1388 (6104 [b][6])

This among other points in such a law are suspect however, I still question whether this is an "under the table" approach to bringing about the "Obama Youth".
It does sound radical, and in my eyes, it is, but there is a gaping loophole here:

This is an opportunity for Conservatism.

We as Conservatives have for many years (or pretty much as long as there have been Conservatives) complained about the kids on our lawns, the baggy pants around their knees, the staying out at all hours, the flagrant disregard for authority, the disrespect to their elders, the lack of cohesive communication skills, etc. These are those kids. We will happily tell them to go away, but will we offer them better choices for their lives?

If we simply sit back and complain about such programs and not offer our experience as competent and moral Conservatives to these youths who may very well be "drafted" (probably by court order in some cases) into it, then we will have no one but ourselves to blame if it breeds a mass of young ideology-driven Liberals.

An infusion of Conservative values to these "disadvantaged" youths would be the best thing for them, and by the same measure, for America. They are already in situations and environments where Liberalism appears to be the only feasible answer. We need to show them that there are two sides to every story. That the tenets of good American civil-mindedness (questioning authority and holding them accountable, help others in need, independent thought, freedom from oppression, etc.) are values to be embraced and lived by.

I have witnessed first hand Liberals at colleges decry the Military without ever considering joining it to change it into something more, well, Liberal. As a college graduate, they would be in a position to become officers, and therefore truly bring about whatever changes they saw fit to implement. Volunteering for such a thing is not their style as you may have realized, but it is ours. We have gladly joined the ranks of the Military for generations to defend what we hold dear. This is simply taking all that experience and giving it to tomorrow's young Americans.

They're going to need it.

As a disabled Vet (who had his issues with the law, Conservatism, and society in general) I believe that I am eminently qualified to mentor these kids. I suspect that most of you are too.

Blind opposition without real action is Obstructionism. Taking a program that may very well have been conceived to strengthen the Liberal base, and turning it into a springboard for tomorrow's Conservatives is how you counteract these things.

Never forget the Law of Unintended Consequences, because I assure you, they have.

“Do not worry if you have built your castles in the air. They are where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.” ~ Henry David Thoreau

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party

I touched on this in my last post, but I will make a more concerted effort here to let you all know about this event.

The website for the Tea Party is here.

If the link does not work, cut and paste the following into your browser's address bar:


Look up the nearest city to you and join in the effort to let Washington DC know that we do in fact pay attention to their actions.

If you are happy with what is happening in this country and where it is headed, first off, I have no conceivable idea why you are reading my blog, and second, I wish you well.

If you are less than enthused about recent political developments, then you owe it to your country, and your offspring (and theirs too in all probability...) to stand up and be heard.

Please note that this is not an obstructionist revolt.

I would be very disappointed with the event if it were, but the reports from other Tea Parties around the country are saying that all sorts of people are attending. Republicans, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Federalists, etc. Even the occasional Democrat has sallied forth to take up the effort.

True, the majority may be Republican or Libertarian, but the fact remains that the actions of the White House, Congress, and the Senate effect us all equally.

Please lend us your help or simply your attendance in whatever city you call home.

I will be attending (I missed the most recent one here in Cincinnati, I'm ashamed to say...) and taking photographs of such if I am not more involved with the organization itself. I have offered my services as event security, and barring that possibility, I have begun to notify local churches as well as the VA, the VFW, the American Legion, and the local Disabled American Veterans offices.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." ~ Abraham Lincoln

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

The Final Straw

After the likes of this story, I simply can no longer keep my head in the political sand and "hope" that the new administration will work out.

Neither can I accept any further pleas to give Obama more time. The placating argument that he has only just gained the Office is a null and void point. His many detrimental actions in such a short amount of time do not allow for a quiet "waiting game" to be played.

Now that he is openly going after American disabled Veterans by seeking to send us (yes, I am one) to private insurers instead of the VA administration we currently use, I have had it.

Service-related injuries fall under the "Acts of War" clause in many insurers pre-existing conditions fine print. Even if he tries to remove this clause so that we can be accepted into the "broken" system that he was so vehemently against in his campaign, we will end up paying out-of-pocket costs for that which is currently free for those of us who qualify.

The going amount on many sites for the cost of our medical care through the VA?


The amount we just sent to Palestine to help them rebuild after the recent Israel/Gaza dust up?


Oh, and we'll throw in some American college scholarships for them too.

Great. Send money to a terrorist state, but refuse your Military their medical benefits:

"The American Legion Commander, David K. Rehbein said, 'He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.'" ~ via This Ain't Hell

This and other such acts (photos of the War Dead Silent Flight, Stance on the War on Terror, etc.), will ultimately lower recruitment and retention of experience within our Military's ranks and force Congress to re-institute the draft, thereby infusing it with liberals and "balancing" the conservative voter bloc it represents. Prepare to see more stop-loss too.

Even if he backs off of this, I will not forget that he attempted to seriously vet this as a "legitimate" means of saving the government money...

...while rapidly working his way towards spending more money (on mostly liberal pork) than any other human being in the history of humanity.

I have always tried to be fair with this man, but it is becoming more difficult with each passing day not to succumb to Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party
website. I'll be attending here in lovely Cincinnati...

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Charles Darwin, Liberalism's Fair-Weather Friend

Ask any Liberal, and they will tell you that Charles Darwin and his Theory of Evolution are great boons to scientific understanding. His conclusions regarding the Survival of the Fittest are held in the highest of esteem.

Until it comes into contact with Humanity.

Noted paleontologist Robert Bakker described the introduction of the Utahraptor into North America from Asia as a disaster for the indigenous ecosystem in his work of semi-fiction, Raptor Red. The creature apparently "out-predatored" the locals and wreaked havoc on the prey. Fossil records have shown us that extinction is nothing new as all life continually competes with itself for domination and survival. Assuming that evolution exists, we find that lifeforms have been putting each other "out of business" since life began eons ago.

When discussed with your average Liberal, these observations bring nods of approval and a general exclamation of, "That's just Nature's way".

The proposed origins of man-kind have us falling out of trees and discovering that our hind legs support our weight quite well. We are supposedly monkeys who can use tools and talk. Nothing special, just a more intelligent animal.

Now, combine the two and suddenly, we lose our simple animal status and we assume a mental visage of pure evil. A veritable Odegra, Destroyer of Worlds are we. Mother Nature has been throwing species together for millions of years to distill a greater form of life, but now that we are on the scene, all that Natural Goodness must stop. Momma must have goofed, I guess.

The inevitable answer to the question of why should we care about the pandas and the polar bears?

Morals. That which separates us from the animals. Regardless of all previous statements to the contrary regarding our animal status, as soon as our interaction with the environment comes up, we cease to be "just smart monkeys", and take on a glowing image of protector and custodian of all life.

It is at this point that I ask, "If Humanity is 'evolving' past the need for the archaic superstitions of religion, don't you think that all the beneficial side-effects of that source will dry up as well?"

Morals are derived from religion, as are their officially adopted brethren, Laws. I am not sure as to the religious nature of Hammurabi's Code, but I am quite sure that the Ten Commandments are fairly well seated in "religious superstition". So too in varying degrees is our Constitution, Shari'a Law, the Magna Carta, and so forth.

Religion is connected to evolution. It's what gave us the will to live through the times that everything was out to get us. It is how we understood the incomprehensible, the mind-boggling, and the awesome. It granted us resolution and reconciliation with the other forms of life that killed us as we killed them in our turn. Yet now that we have arrived at the top of the food chain, we are expected by some to discard as useless the very thing that made it possible for us to achieve such greatness?

No respect for old friends, I guess.

Regardless of religion and morals, it would seem that Humanity is above the Laws of Nature when it is convenient to the argument. We are simply animals ourselves, descended from hominids in a discourse on evolution, we have a moral obligation to the ecosystem and all other forms of life on the subject of environmentalism, and we have no further use for religion when discussing philosophy.

Complicated little critters, ain't we?

I'll leave it to you to choose as to whether any of these things presents a conflict of interest, or constitutes cognitive dissonance.

One last aspect to cover I guess. A rather cold and dispassionate look at evolution within Humanity itself.

Consider the Aboriginal Americans (aka American Indians). It has been said in no small amount of veracity that the original pioneers of the Americas stopped their social and technological progress somewhere after the stone age. This is not a racist statement. This is the truth. While some cultures could work raw elemental forms of gold and silver and such, metallurgy was a largely unknown science to them as were most other forms of higher living.

The introduction of the European to the New World was an event on par with Armageddon. Whole cultures vanished almost overnight upon contact with the more civilized and technologically advanced intruder. I will not concede by the way, that the indigenous cultures were as civilized as their eastern cousins. I am speaking in terms of Ages of Civilization, by which the European had the Indian beat by many lengths.

The Aboriginal Americans were decimated within a few generations, and today in North America, they constitute a small fraction of the population. Some would argue that they had no choice, but I would point out that choices are always there to be made. Adaptation and assimilation are tools of any society to survive.

Look at the Japanese. Early Chinese and Korean records say that the islanders were living in holes in the ground when first encountered. They soon adopted the customs of their neighbors and became a local power. When encountering Europeans for the first time, they had the sense to expel them forcibly, and attempted an isolationist stance. When it was made apparent that this could not work, they officially adopted the western ways during the Meiji Era. Swords were exchanged for guns, kimonos for suits and dresses, and English was taught in schools. Today, they exist as a rather major player on the World Stage.

They bucked the odds and survived primarily because they could evolve into a competitive society that was not afraid to change or adapt, albeit with a strength of will that made outside influences their own in time.

Am I wrong for thinking that the Indian just refused to change to the point of genetic suicide? Is it preferential to admire the history of the Japanese and their adaptive culture? What would Darwin say about the comparison?

I realize that I have been "all over the place" with this post, but I believe that regardless of my rambling prose, these questions and ideas are still valid.

Ponder and judge as you will.

"All evolution in thought and conduct must at first appear as heresy and misconduct." ~ George Bernard Shaw

Monday, March 9, 2009

Rush Vs. Steele

The title, if removed from what you may know about it, sounds much more epic than it really is. The truth is, this is just a pathetic, disappointing, and wholly unnecessary power struggle.

Rush first made his career from opposing Clinton, then spent eight years complaining that no one listened to him, and Bush was too moderate. Now he's back, thanks to President Obama, and he finds that he has something to do again.

Michael Steele came to be the first Black American RNC Chairman, a feat that was greatly heralded, and he started out well with calls for the party to increase it's technical know-how, and get it's message out into the open.

Mr. Limbaugh has been carefully crafting his provocative statements to render them as perfect as possible for the daily 2.5 second soundbite. His most recent and famous offering to the public being "I want him to fail!" This statement, when taken in context (yes, I've read the transcript), actually makes sense. He wants the Obama policies to fail. Not America, not Democracy, not the Economy, not your prized bong or M1911A-1 respectively. Just the policies. Oddly enough, this is what we heard for the last eight years from the Left, so kindly replace the flag on it's pole, and dry your eyes. It's politics, Faintheart, America's first and last bloodsport.

Mr. Limbaugh's self-professed profession is one of "entertainer". So why then when he said something to the effect of being in charge of the Republican Party, did anyone take him seriously? Why was Steele's reaction not a tactful version of, "That's nice, now ante up a donation"? Why are people still blogging about this, even after they have stated that they will no longer lend any more credence to such rampant silliness?

You might have noticed by now that I am not siting anything here. This is intentional. I have no desire to start a flamewar, take sides on a ridiculous issue, or dignify such drivel by perpetuating the cycle of ill-advised behavior. Besides, regardless of your political lean, I am sure that you know enough about this exercise in abject futility already. If not, go to any one of the blogs listed to the left of your screen. They will explain it all in painful detail.

So, I say to both the players, "A plague on both your houses", I stand with the party, properly represented or not.

Mr. Steele, kindly return to your assigned tasks of raising money and awareness, restructuring a fractured party, vetting new prospects for the House and the Senate for 2010, and finding a suitable candidate for 2012. Don't worry about who's in charge. We already said that you were. We had a vote and everything. It's official. Just do your job.

Mr. Limbaugh, I will not deny you your place in the party as a voice, but to claim that you are the de facto leader (or to allow your staff to imply such), is reminiscent of Howard Stern's claim to being the "King of all Media". It smacks of silly hype and empty bluster. Analyze, ponder, posit, and profess, even deft criticisms of either party when warranted are welcome, but leave the inner workings to those whose job it is. The leadership position is taken and it doesn't pay as well as yours does.

Not to mention the allegations that the situation has been magnified by the Obama Administration (or by the same's unofficial staff) for the purposes of a distraction, should convince the both of you to stop acting like unruly children and put an end to this unpleasant matter.

This will be, barring any catastrophic developments, the last post I will devote solely to this issue.

To draw some twisted reason from Rahm Emanuel's notorious "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste":

Gentlemen, this should be neither serious, nor a crisis. Now get your acts together, and stop wasting our time.

Sunday, March 8, 2009

My View On Guns

In my mind, there are three arguments for responsible gun ownership that are firmly based on well grounded logic:

1. Human responsibility should be placed on the human responsible.
2. Do not assign moral values to an inanimate object.
3. Removal of one outlet of human nature will ensure a replacement of said outlet.

When speaking of responsibility, it is easy in today's American society to "consider the circumstances", and begin to "understand" a criminal's background, childhood, motivations, etc. As such, it has also been popular to hoist the anti-gun flag every time a high profile incident comes along that involves some human acting in an inhumane fashion and utilizing a gun to do so. I will not belabor the point by describing how many people have come to be successful in spite of their less than stellar backgrounds, childhoods, or motivations, I will simply say that if you act in a criminal fashion, expect to be treated as one.

Guns are inanimate objects. They do not feel, think, consider, plot, devise, move, load themselves, walk, stretch, yawn, play rugby (or wii), scratch themselves inappropriately, speak, yell, scream, or otherwise act independently of outside influence or manipulation. They are not autonomous entities of malignant hatred. An electroencephalograph (EEG) would demonstrate my point admirably by doing nothing, thus confirming the absolutely brain-dead existence of a collection of fitted metal, plastic, and/or wooden parts that have constituted every firearm since their inception. The idea that they infuse your being with a malevolent desire to do harm to others is fairly ludicrous when you consider the fact that they just plain can't do such a thing. It's scientifically impossible. Ask any scientist. Whatever you feel about doing to another human being was inherently there prior to the presence of the weapon in question. Now put down the gun and go see a shrink.

Take away guns from law-abiding citizens, and you will have defenseless law-abiding citizens. The criminals will not surrender their guns in the spirit of fair play. Furthermore, if you succeed in removing the vast majority of guns from the American public (law-abiding or otherwise...), you will witness a facet of human nature:

We don't need guns to kill each other.

After a widespread ban on guns in the UK, knife-related homicides have increased dramatically. Legislators are considering a ban on edged weapons now, and cricket bat manufacturers are salivating in anticipation...

Please realize that while you may criminalize wrongful acts of human nature, you cannot proactively legislate human nature itself. Even if someone threatens to take a life, you must still wait for that act to occur before you take action against it. The sad fact of life is that we all get the chance to do either the right thing or the wrong thing, and some of us don't do decisions real well.

Lumping everyone together and assuming that the removal of a gun from the equation is going to heal the aspects of our emotional and mental makeups that permit us to act in so evil a fashion towards others is intellectually sophomoric at best. I for one, am insulted every time a blanket law is passed that punishes everyone for the actions of a few individuals who represent the genetic equivalent of canine excrement.

But then some people highly cherish the tenet of evil thinking that fuels racism, sexism, and other assorted social maladies:

"The actions of the few dictate the treatment of the many."

H/T: BBC News