Category: Uncategorized

Let’s face it, there isn’t another nation on Earth that regularly does this sort of thing. I suppose maybe the Australians would, if they weren’t so busy drinking. The best part is the bit of text at the end:

“I’ve tried searching through the weapons laws and could not find anything specifically mentioning a flame thrower….”

Homeschooling moms, here’s a project sure to interest your young boys.

I have been remiss in not linking to Fred’s excellent post on media mendacity. As it happens, one example he cites is quite appropos in light of the fears of a few regarding homeschooling:

The hemorrhaging circulation of the paleomedia gratifies me better than bubblegum. Lord I love it. The tube worms of the network suites have discovered that lo! Fewer of the citizenry sit nightly before the flickering propaganda modem. The readership of newspapers yet falls. This dereliction they ascribe to declining literacy, the lack of public spirit, and indeed anything but their own uselessness….

I suggest that the reasons for the loss are otherwise and several. Permit me a few thoughts:

What are the topics of most fascination in the United States? Of most importance? Certainly among them are race, sex in the social sense, crime, and immigration. Now, let’s see whether we can name four subjects about which the media speak with calculated mendacity obvious to everyone one. How about…oh, say…race, sex in the social sense, crime, and immigration?

Race, for example:

A story on the site of ABC News led with the lurid headline, “Young Singers Spread Racist Hate.” Now, if young singers have ABC’s bowels in a racial uproar, you can be sure that the singers are white. We all understand that hate is what white people do. Thus it was. A pair of very young girls, calling themselves Prussian Blue, say that they want to maintain the purity of the white race. (Why this is precisely hate eludes me.) Various authorities are quoted as to the effect that they are shocked, appalled, disappointed, and so on.

At about the same time, I found the account of a black man, one Dr. (of what, I wonder?) Kamau Kambon , who while speaking to a panel at the law school of Howard University (a black school in Washington, DC) said that the white race should be exterminated.

This is not my interpretation but rather his explicit, repeated statement. I quote: white people “have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks and they’re monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that, in my estimation, is the only conclusion I have come to. [sic] We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.” He wants to kill me, my daughters, and my friends.

This produced from the media…near silence. From Howard University…silence. From professional blacks…silence.

As Fred has hammered home the media point with all the force of mighty Mjolnir, I shall content myself with highlighting the irony of people who worry about a woman teaching her pretty blonde daughters that she would like them to continue the line of pretty blonde people – and I must say, the world would be a sadder and uglier place without pretty blondes – whereas these same people remain completely unconcerned that a Professional Educator teaching other people’s children that the white race must be exterminated, even though they are paying for him to do so.

As it has been affirmed by numerous courts that the expenditure of taxpayer money on behalf of an educational institution is evidence of a government establishment, the fact that the nominally private institution received $182,348,000 in federal funds in 1996 suggests that the extermination of the white race is a federal government-approved policy.

Therefore, it is clear that the concerns of the Prussian Blue mother regarding the survival of her race, however overwrought, are not entirely unfounded. Upon second thought, irony does not suffice to describe the position of those who suggest that she should be forcibly prevented from teaching her children by the very institution which pays 65 percent of Professor Kambon’s salary to teach genocide.

UPDATE: Apparently Fred confused the venue for the job as Professor Kambon actually teaches at NC State. Neverthless, the point remains. (For those who can’t read, the institution referred to in the paragraph above is the federal government, not the professor’s employer.) Instead of $1.20, most Americans are only contributing $.046 to the pool that pays the professor’s salary, although North Carolina taxpayers are on the hook for $10.82 more.

In which Scott Adams – THE Scott Adams – informs one of my occasional critics that she’s completely full of equine ejectus:

This blogger, who calls himself PZ, is evidently a highly educated scientist, extremely informed on the topic of evolution, and quite passionate. But for reasons that fascinate the trained hypnotist in me, that brilliance doesn’t extend to comprehending The Dilbert Blog….

When people misrepresent the views of their opposition, and attack the misrepresentation, they lose all credibility with me. Both sides in the evolution debate do that with gusto. Why would I believe people who prove to me they are either dishonest or biased or worse?

PZ’s misrepresentations of my views are incredibly clever. (He’s a smart guy.) And he uses quotes from my writing to make it seem impossible that he’s misinterpreting me. Here are just a few examples.

I said it’s POSSIBLE for scientists to have herd mentality. PZ interprets that as if I’m saying scientists DO. Then he attacks the misrepresentation. (How much credibility can you have if you argue it’s not POSSIBLE for scientists to have herd instinct on this issue?)

Now, I could have told Scott that Pharyngula, or as I prefer to think of her, Pharyngurl, was a run-of-the-mill, intellectually dishonest, little left-wing academic at a sub-par state school. But it’s so much more enjoyable to watch him discover this for himself.

However, the funniest thing with regards to this episode, yet, is how it has led Orac to conclude that Scott Adams is a “wingnut”, that favored term of disapprobation meant to indicate wild extremism among the lunatic, bed-wetting left. At this rate, within thirty years, the meaning of the term “extremist” will be reversed, not unlike that of the word “liberal”, and will serve to indicate an individual whose views are shared by at least 75 percent of the populace.

German politicians steer for the iceberg:

Germany’s plan to cure its self-confessed economic failure by doing exactly the opposite to what modern economics would suggest is certainly a bold and novel idea. Jim O’Neill, the chief international economist of Goldman Sachs, remarked on television last week that German politicians are acting as if they had never seen an economics textbook, much less understood one.

Accordingly, the new German Government has decided to impose one of the biggest tax increases in postwar history and to target the extra taxes on the weakest and most sensitive parts of the economy: consumption, which will suffer a three percentage point increase in VAT, and housing, which will lose tax incentives for first-time buyers. In addition, to fend off accusations that the new consumption taxes will bear unfairly on poorer consumers, the Government will hit the rich as well, increasing the top rate of income tax from 42 per cent to 45 per cent.

This is lunacy, it is so fundamentally insane that it goes beyond mere idiocy in much the same way that Pluto’s orbit goes beyond Mercury’s. It is a fantastic exposition of the great myth of socialism, namely, that the government can do anything – ANYTHING – based on reason, let alone more efficiently and effectively than a free market.

I’ve made a nice bit of change being long dollar this year, but I was wondering how the Elliot Wavers could possibly be correct in anticipating Euro-Dollar equivalency. Now, I understand. If the economically suicidal Teutons keep this up, we may well see the return of the .88 EUR/USD before too long.

FilmGal takes some umbrage:

Why do so many Christians use the word “pagan” as a pejorative? Why is it so necessary to demonize us and single us out for scorn and ridicule for the benefit of your fellow followers of Christ?

My first answer would be because pagans have historically hated, feared and lethally persecuted Christians since the very beginning of Christianity. Second, I must point out that I was not demonizing pagans as the usage here is not pejorative, it is instead both descriptively and metaphorically accurate given the overly anti-christian aspect of the otherwise religion-friendly secular schools and the fact that Moloch was, in fact, a pagan god.

There is no insult inherent to the word pagan itself. The perceived insult lies in the accurate understanding of the Christian’s rejection of one’s religious beliefs. Also, your use of the term “demonization” is rather ironic here, considering that Christians regard pagans as being devoted to the worship of literal demons.

Thank you so much for telling the truth about what the whole education system has become in America. I pulled all three of my children out of the system 5 years ago and the truth about what they were indoctrinated in is evident today. They all were tainted with stinking thinking that I battle against everyday. They will all be required to read and discuss with me your commentary. Thank you for our greatest lesson in ” school ” today. I need all the encouragement I can get as I am doing this alone, being the only Christian in a large family that regards me as a freak.

My daily prayer is that my children will be educated and have great discernment to not accept the world’s lies so they can make a difference for Christ wherever God places them in life.

If your choice is to be a freak or to be a fool, I’d go with the freak option every single time. Don’t worry about what those around you think; the vast majority of the time they hold opinions unpolluted by information.

Bob Novak writes on Townhall:

Last Wednesday, leaders of conservative and moderate factions in the House Republican conference sat down to discuss a joint call for new leadership elections. No agreement was reached, and the events of the next 24 hours destroyed the budding coalition while exposing the ineffectiveness of current leaders. Abandonment of oil drilling in the Arctic failed to appease the moderate bloc, and the leaders pulled down the budget-cutting bill late Thursday.

Demands for new leaders are aimed at Rep. Roy Blunt, the elected House majority whip and acting majority leader. But critics who want Blunt replaced by Rep. John Boehner concede they have no solution for a malady that afflicts the Republican Party in the Senate as well as in the House. At the very hour that a handful of House Republican moderates torpedoed the budget bill, one Senate moderate stalled tax legislation in the Senate Finance Committee.

Actually, the Republican Party never has been so united ideologically, but the tiny moderate faction can provide the balance of power in the House and to a lesser extent the Senate. To frustrated conservatives, moderates look like the tail wagging the Republican dog. The events last Thursday suggest the folly of seeking ephemeral legislative victories by sacrificing principle.

This is why principle matters. Political pragmatism is ultimately not pragmatic at all. It is always the principled on both sides, the Ronald Reagans, Margaret Thatchers and the Hillary Rodhams, who are successful in effecting change. The pragmatists have the ability to take the reins of power, but once there, they have no ability to drive the horses anywhere.

It is not enough to win an election. If you don’t have any reason for winning it, your victory will be hollow, pointless and ultimately self-defeating.

QWERTY, we have a difference of definitions here. In my opinion, someone who supports abortion only in the case of rape and incest cannot possibly be considered “pro-choice” and the pro-abortion forces rightly consider that to be a predominantly pro-life position.

Since you clearly see things differently, then allow me to clarify my statement and say that no poll has ever shown majority support for unrestricted access to abortion.

Anti-abortion laws are regularly – if futilely – passed by state legislatures, and if my memory serves me correctly, every politician targeted by Emily’s List won in the last round of elections. The overwhelming majority of Americans rightly see the pro-abortion forces as the extremists, not the pro-lifers, with the exception of the two or three individuals who have shot abortion doctors or bombed abortion clinics.

As one NROnik wisely noted today, the idea that social conservatives hurt Republican electoral performance is a media theme repeated every four-year election cycle and an untrue one. In truth, it is usually when the Rockefeller Republicans/moderates/neoconservatives/pragmatists gain the upper hand that Republican popularity begins to recede.

From the London Times:

Yet it is hard not to feel that something serious is happening. Paris, Amsterdam, New Orleans and Birmingham are not the Balkans or the Middle East. If violence is in the air in the citadels of liberal democracy, alarms should be ringing…. Then there is the collapse of the concept of national belonging, the feeling that we are all in this together and that the distress of some of us is a matter for all of us. Far from being a means of integration, multiculturalism has become a path to segregation. There are fewer mixed neighbourhoods, more urban and suburban ghettos. The ties that bind grow ever weaker. The forces that divide become stronger year by year….

There is no shortcut that allows us to bypass the long, slow task of society-building; integrating minorities, creating a shared sense of history and destiny and cultivating a national conversation in which each of us has a voice. Otherwise the prospects are dark. When conversation ends, violence begins.

The rabbi is mistaken only in thinking that the state has a positive role to play in society. In fact, the two are inherently at odds, hence the need for society’s limits on the state. Once the state slips its restraints, it immediately begins destroying society. This is why all state involvement on societal organizations must be destroyed and those who further it removed from power and positions of influence.

The state is like an immune system. Kept to its proper place and performing its proper function, it can defend society against those who would destroy it. But once it begins attacking society’s vital organs, it is like a lethal leukemia that must be eradicated before it fatally weakens the victim.

Elements such as distributive entitlements, the public schools, women’s “rights”, paper currency, open immigration and progressive taxation can all be seen as “cancer-causing” factors that structurally weaken society. The elite are foolish to ride this tiger; it seems the fatal lessons of past utopian tyrants have been completely lost on them.