Wednesday, August 31, 2005

It's All Bush's Fault

New York (IP) - With the discovery of hot spots on the sun and now on a moon of Saturn, experts are fearing the worst. Global Warming, they warn, is child’s play next to what some scientists are now calling ‘Universal Warming’.
University of California Professor of Astronomy, Ima Nutt, claims the universe is warming at an alarming rate.
“Absolute zero is 273 degrees below zero Celsius. If the average temperature of the universe rises just a couple degrees we could be looking at an apocalyptical disaster. It would then only be -271 degrees for God's sakes!” he stated.
“George Bush and his oil buddies damn well know that their failure to sign the Kyoto treaty is warming the Earth at an unprecedented rate. What they wont tell you, however, is that for every degree the Earth warms, the Universe will warm proportionately as well.”
He and other critics claim it is American’s love of giant SUVs and their irresponsibility to the global and universal community that will in the end be the cause of the destruction of all the known universe.
“We, as Americans, must be more responsible,” claims secretary to the President of the Nevada division of SETI, Robert “Spock” Smith.
“I have personally spoken to some of our friends from the skies, and they make no allusions as to their anger at what we Earthlings are doing. One young mother from Enceladus(the warming moon of Saturn)has confided in me her intent to land just outside Crawford, Texas until the President finally talks to her. She claims he has refused to speak to her after multiple attempts to reach him through the conventional channels at Area 51. Talk to her damn it Mr. President...just talk to her!”
Attempts by this reporter to get an comment from the Bush Administration had until today hit a brick wall.
But earlier today Bush regime spokesman and Halliburton president, Robin Blind, had this to say:
“We deny any and all responsibility for what some misguided scientists are cavalierly calling 'Universal Warming'. In fact, it is instead our belief that the warming of the universe is in actuality the cause of Global Warming. It is this regi...I, uh, mean administration’s view that no such thing really exists in the first place. And for those of you who still look to place blame you can just shove it up Uranus! Get it, ‘Uranus’?”
Because no other respected scientists would speak to this reporter on this most important of subjects, I contacted Pat Robertson and Cindy Sheehan for their thoughts.
“Hell, I saw ‘Alien’, he was one mean mother! And that Predator, what a bad ass.” Robertson stated. “If we could take them out now, I think we should. And don’t let the media lie to you...they don’t hate us because of the whole warming thing, it’s the gays...that’s what it is. Aliens hate the gays!”
“It’s George Bush’s fault, all of it. Now that he has destroyed our standing in the Mideast and in the rest of the world, he wants to take it even further. He wants to start a Universal War for Oil. Why do you think he wants to go to’s just another conquest for his Texas oil buddies. But when the Venusians come down here, at least they can say the met Casey’s mom.” Miss Sheehan added.
With all these great minds in agreement, it is hard to argue that Universal Warming does not indeed exist. It seems that instead of joking and ignoring the problem, the Bush administration should begin now doing everything possible to stop the coming disaster. If they have learned any lesson from their causing of the Katrina hurricane disaster, it should be to act now and ask questions later.

*In two related stories...

Tampa Bay (IP) - Thousands of Jewish Americans were spotted leaving the Mississippi/Louisiana areas prior to the onset of hurricane Katrina.
“It was as if they had been warned.” quipped Muhammad Ashell, Southeastern representative for the Muslim group CARE.
“We have information from very reliable sources that nearly all the Zionists had left the area of the hurricane even before it had hit. And even those who were left behind had spent some weeks prior building a large wooden craft, ostensibly to carry any remaining animals from the New Orleans Zoo.
We want to know what they knew and when they knew it. It is obviously just another in a long line of Neo-Con actions to appease the global banking community.”
Jewish leaders were unable to be reached for comment, but does have a nice discount on Chocolate Chip Challah.

Baton Rouge (IP) - Democratic leaders and the Liberal blogosphere are in an uproar over what is being pegged as ‘The Bourbon Street Memo’.
A water logger manilla envelope was found floating in what is left of the French Quarter earlier today. Effen Crooke found the package at the corner of Toulouse and Chartres.
“I was out looting with the wife and kids when along floats this envelope thing.” Mr Crooke recalled. “I put down the Play Station and opened it. Boy was I surprised by what I found. You see, inside there was this legal looking s**t. That was all talkin’ about the CIA messin’ with some clouds and s**t. I was all, hey bi**h, take a look at this. She handed me Shonte and read it out loud. We knew what we had to do. So we took it right to our neighbor Vito, he’s a Teamster, see...”
From there, apparently ‘The Bourbon Street Memo’ found its way into the hands of Rashawn Utopia, a writer at the Bush Causes Cancer blog. And the rest is history.
When asked, Mr. Utopia had this to say about the memo, “I knew what I had the moment I read it. In the envelope was a copy of an e-mail from Karl Rove’s office directly to the office of CIA director Porter Goss. It was a rather non-veiled threat demanding Goss do something to get the heat off of Rove, claiming this request came directly from the Oval Office. Also, in the envelope was what seemed to be the plan to do just that. You see, according to ‘The Bourbon Street Memo’, the CIA has been seeding clouds in the Gulf of Mexico for weeks now. Thus causing hurricane Katrina and the ensuing disaster. Let’s see that damned Texan squirm out of this one!”
Massachusetts senior senator Ted Kennedy, upon hearing of the memo and its damning contents, squealed like a girl and nearly spilled his vodka martini.
DNC chairman Howard Dean refused at first to comment, but then shouted, “Wait till Cindy hears this!”
The President could not be reached for comment. An aide stated the President was away, but would have a statement upon his return from Roswell, Nevada.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Random Thoughts

-Anyone who follows my blog and knows of my skepticism of what today passes for ‘science’, might find this interesting:
Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false. But even large, well-designed studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the public have to be wary of reported findings...
...Traditionally a study is said to be "statistically significant" if the odds are only 1 in 20 that the result could be pure chance. But in a complicated field where there are many potential hypotheses to sift through - such as whether a particular gene influences a particular disease - it is easy to reach false conclusions using this standard. If you test 20 false hypotheses, one of them is likely to show up as true, on average.
Odds get even worse for studies that are too small, studies that find small effects (for example, a drug that works for only 10% of patients), or studies where the protocol and endpoints are poorly defined, allowing researchers to massage their conclusions after the fact.
Surprisingly, Ioannidis says another predictor of false findings is if a field is "hot", with many teams feeling pressure to beat the others to statistically significant findings.

-Ok, it’s just a matter of time, so let’s just get it over with. George Bush has somehow caused hurricane Katrina. If any reader here can give a logical reason as to how he’s has perpetrated this great evil, I would love to hear it. Leave your theories in the comment section of this post. C’mon Lefties, I know you think it’s true...let’s hear how.

-Here is a free lecture on economics to all(by all I mean 1 or more probably none) my Hawaiian readers...
A company called Widgets R Us makes and sells widgets. Each widget is sold for $10 a piece.
Widgets R Us sells its widgets to the city governments of Chicago and Honolulu. Widgets are in high demand from both cites.
Everything is going along fine until the City of Honolulu decides it will no longer pay $10 per widget and passes an ordinance stating it will pay only $5 per widget.
What happens next?
Well, of course, Widgets R Us then decides it can make much more profit selling all or at least most of its widgets to the City of Chicago.
The City of Honolulu now has a problem. A widget shortage. The people of Honolulu are not happy, as they now must wait in long lines for their widgets. They revolt, killing all the alderman and the mayor. They repeal the widget ordinance and once again pay fair market value for their beloved widgets.

-Here's one for the ladies:
...a study claims that the cleverest people are much more likely to be men than women.
Men are more intelligent than women by about five IQ points on average, making them better suited for “tasks of high complexity”, according to the authors of a paper due to be published in the British Journal of Psychology.

Genetic differences in intelligence between the sexes helped to explain why many more men than women won Nobel Prizes or became chess grandmasters, the study by Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn concluded.

They showed that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rise. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees.

When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.

Dr Irwing, a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University, said that he was uncomfortable with the findings. But he added that the evidence was clear despite the insistence of many academics that there were “no meaningful sex differences” in levels of intelligence.

But don't fret ladies, it is just a scientific study.

Sunday, August 28, 2005

A Dialogue on The Politics of Envy

GBlagg: I have a question...
Sticks and Stones: Very well. Let’s hear it.
GBlagg: With all the armed conflict existing throughout the world at present, I began to wonder...what is the root cause of war?
S&S: Ah, war, there is a monumental issue...
GBlagg: Yes, ok, but what is it that at its most basic level is the cause of military conflict?
S&S: Well, my first thought, my emotion, tells me it is hatred and anger.
GBlagg: That would seem to be true, but are not ‘hatred’ and ‘anger’ secondary qualities? Do they, themselves, not stem from something other?
S&S: Yes, you are correct. They, in fact, do. So there is another step we must take, past these two issues to a deeper issue.
GBlagg: I’m listening...
S&S: First let me ask you a question.
GBlagg: Go on.
S&S: If one country or state is attacked by another and retaliates, is the retaliation the root cause of the war?
GBlagg: Of course not. The root cause must be located in the reasons for the original attack.
S&S: You have some background in history. What in your experience causes one country or state to attack another?
GBlagg: It is almost always for land, or resources, or status.
S&S: Yes. So the root cause then is what?
GBlagg: Ah. The root cause is need, jealousy. No is ‘envy’.
S&S: Yes. Envy. At its most basic of levels, war is mostly fought because of ‘the haves’ and ‘the have nots’.
GBlagg: Yes, I see. It is for the ‘envy’ of territory and resources. But can it not be for the ‘envy’ of people as well?
S&S: Surely. People are a resource in a sense, are they not?
GBlagg: Yes, as slaves or as a work force. And beyond that even as an ideology.
S&S: Yes, the ‘envy’ of the mind. Which leads us to what?
GBlagg: Control. Control of the mind. Possession of the mental resources. Ideas,or opinions, or religion. Control.
S&S: Yes, of course, always control.
GBlagg: This idea of ‘envy’ has me thinking down another line if inquiry...
S&S: Go on.
GBlagg: It is obvious to any who watch the political arena in America that the Left largely deal in ‘the politics of envy’. They pit the rich against the poor. The idle against the productive. As you yourself have stated, “‘the haves’ against the ‘have nots’”.
S&S: Yes, this is obvious.
GBlagg: They preach as to how the rich are all evil. That the only way the wealthy became rich in the first place is off the shoulders of the poor...
S&S: This we call the ‘zero sum’ mentality.
Gblagg: ‘Zero sum’ mentality? Explain.
S&S: It is the theory that one man’s gain must be equally balanced by another man’s loss. That when you add up the total gains of one party and subtract the total losses of the other then they will sum to zero.
GBlagg: Exactly. But this theory ignores the sacrifices of the producer. The sacrifices of time, money, personal life, and a thousand others. And it ignores the benefit the producer adds to society, as well. Through jobs, tax dollars, and investments.
S&S: I did not say that I was in agreement with the theory, only that it exists.
GBlagg: Yes, but I would wish to get back to my point. The left pits ‘the haves’ against ‘the have nots’. Is this not by definition advocating ‘envy’?
S&S: This would seem to be true.
GBlagg: And do we not agree it is ‘envy’ that is the root cause of most war?
S&S: Yes, this is true.
GBlagg: Then there is something I just can’t get my mind around. Are the Left not the party of ‘peace’? Are they not the anti-war party?
S&S: As they are presently constituted, yes.
: So ‘envy’ is the root of war, and the Left preaches ‘envy’. Then when there is war, they preach ‘peace’. That is too funny.
S&S: As you say.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

Saturday, August 27, 2005


What has become of the character of the American people?

It was not that long ago in our history that the Kelo vs. the City of New London decision would have resulted in armed revolt. Now, few Americans are angered and fewer still even aware.
It seems most Americans care little for true freedom. Oh, they care for the freedom to slander and libel their leaders. Or the freedom to have porn pumped through their cable lines.
But what of true freedom? What of the tangible freedom of property? Private property is the fundamental right of every American. The right to keep what he earns. The right to own what he purchases. These rights are tangible. There is no freedom without them. Why so little outrage?
Our Founding Fathers went to war over a Tea Tax for Gods sakes!
Today’s American is taxed when he earns his money. When he spends his money. When he saves his money. When he invests his money. Hell, even when he dies! Worse still, there are those who feel this is not enough.
There is a Chinese curse,"May you live in interesting times." Oh, what we freedom loving Americans must have done to the Chinese...

Again, what has become of the character of the American people?

-When the greatest assault on property rights since the of the Sixteenth Amendment is of less importance to the average American than the identity of Jennifer Aniston’s latest boy toy or the opinions of an anti-American narcissist.
-When the killing of our unborn is termed Progressive.
-When we voluntarily send our children to be indoctrinated into socialism, liberal sexuality, and false self-esteem.
-When we diminish the productive and idolize the indolent.
-When we insult and demean the sacrifice of brave American soldiers.
Attacking the injured and deeming them mercenaries.
-When we refer to evil men who target women and children for death as ‘freedom fighters’.
-When the character building dimension of personal responsibility is replaced by the humanity eroding vision of the ‘nanny state’.
-When a massive invasion at the Southern border is dismissed simply as multiculturalism.
-When the idea that a man should love a woman is seen as homophobic.

Yet there was a time, not so long ago, Americans would have laughed at the absurdity of the issues above. Maybe I was born a little too late. Hell, who is this Conservative to stand in the way of Progress?

Friday, August 26, 2005

Sandy Sherman Returns

Sandy Sherman Returns
August 26, 2005

Skokie Illinois (IP) - Sandy Sherman returned today to resume her self-proclaimed ‘quest for answers’.
She is, as you may recall, the mother of Casey Sherman. The Skokie police officer who was shot and killed in the line of duty in August of 2004. Officer Sherman was on a standard traffic stop, issuing tickets for ‘speeding’ and ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ when the perpetrators opened fire. Officer Sherman was killed instantly.
Mrs. Sherman stated that the family matters that had drawn her away from her vigil, were all now ‘hunky-dorey’.
“I am back. And I am once again demanding answers!” she cried. “Chief Down, you tell me why my son had to die!”
Skokie Police Chief Pat M. Down had only this to say, “I talked to Ms. Sherman when she was here before, and to tell you the truth, she is just a nut case. Nothing can be gained through my meeting with her again. For God sakes, after the last meeting she accused me of making sexual advances at her! Have you seen this woman?”
As one can imagine, Mrs. Sherman was not happy to hear these words from the Chief.
“All I want is for him to tell me the real reason my son had to die. That he died so the City of Skokie and the State of Illinois can gain revenue from writing speeding and uninsured tickets. That he died so that Joe Schmoe wouldn’t have to pay to fix the dent in his bumper with his own comprehensive insurance. That he died so that American citizens would be forced to drive five miles slower...thus increasing gas mileage and enriching the greedy oil barons. You tell me the truth, my son died for money!”
“You want to stop the speeding, Chief? You get rid of speed limits and that will stop the speeding. But that won’t fit into your Zionist agenda, will it? Who will pay for you lox and bagels, then?”
“Am I emotional? Yes, my son was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for a IDOT neo-con agenda to keep property taxes low by using traffic citations as a secondary revenue stream. I know full well that my son, my family, this city and this state were betrayed by Pat Down who was influenced by the Illinois Department of Transportation and their links to Halliburton.”
Mrs. Sherman had yet more to say...
“My son was killed in 2004, so I’m not paying any more tolls. If I get a letter from the IDOT, I’m gonna say, you know what, this toll is illegal; this is why this toll is illegal. This fee is immoral; this is why this fee is immoral. You killed my son for this. I don’t owe you anything. And if I live to be a million, I won’t owe you a penny.
“How can they force us to have insurance? It’s ‘insurance’, damn it...not ‘assurance’! How can they force us to follow speed limits? Limits set by whom, the Founding Fathers? We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances...”
And she went on...
“I can take all of the right wing attacks on me. I have been lied about and to before. Their attacks just show how much I am getting to them and how little truth they have to tell. What really hurts me the most is when people say that I am dishonoring Casey by my protest in Skokie. By wanting our officers to come home alive and well after each shift, that I am somehow not supporting them...For Casey to even join the Police department, let alone being killed in action was the thing that was most uncharacteristic of him.”
Mrs. Sherman claims she will stay camped out in front of the Skokie Police Department’s utility shed until she gets some answers. Or until the media wakes up and ignores her psychotic ramblings.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

Thursday, August 25, 2005

When 'Journalism' and 'Science' Meet

First this...

Fetus May Not Feel Pain Until Third Trimester, Study Finds

Aug. 23 (Bloomberg) -- The human fetus is probably too immature to feel pain in the first 28 weeks of pregnancy and wouldn't benefit from anesthesia during abortions, researchers said in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Fetal pain is unlikely to develop until after the 29th week of a 40-week pregnancy, the researchers at the University of California in San Francisco said in an article published in the journal's Aug. 24 issue. Less than 2 percent of abortions are performed at 21 weeks or later, the researchers said.
...To contact the reporter on this story:
Michelle Fay Cortez in Minneapolis at

Then this...

New report discounting fetal pain stirs debate: Were authors biased?

Five researchers from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) reviewed nearly 2,000 studies on the hotly debated question. They conclude that legislative proposals to allow fetal-pain relief during abortion are not justified by scientific evidence.
Their seven-page report in today's Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has a weakness, though: It does not mention that one author is the director of a clinic that provides abortion services, while the lead author — a medical student — once worked for NARAL Pro-Choice America.

And the next big story ‘journalist’ Cortez is presently working on...

Young Boys Do Feel Pleasure, Study Finds

A study released today claims to cite scientific proof that young boys do indeed enjoy the sexual attentions of an older man.
“Young boys, we have discovered, in fact do feel pleasure. All our experiments seem to point to the fact that pre-teen boys do possess all the neurological systems needed for them to experience enjoyment.” states Professor Ben Dover*, one of the scientists involved in the study.
His partner, Justin Joyet**, references further proof of their findings.
“When one sees little boys tickling each other screaming with glee one must consider, ‘do these children not seem to be enjoying themselves?’. Well, of course they do. Heck, it’s even hard to look away. And surely if they are able to feel pleasure among themselves, an adult male with more tickling experience...well, what do you think?”
The two professors from the University of Berkeley claim their findings come from an intensive private investigation that has spanned most of the last ten years.
“This is not easy work,” stated Prof. Joyet. “Not with the damned FBI and their holier-than-thou attitude. I’m pretty sure it’s that friggin’ Patriot Act that keeps them interfering with our work. Really, what else could it be?”
“Yeah, that and it really is hard trying to find volunteers for the study.” added Prof. Dover.
Both men feel it is important for them to continue their work.
It is ‘for science’, they say in unison, ‘and some boys just need to take one for the team.’

-Due to the blow up over this reporter’s recent story “Fetus May Not Feel Pain Until Third Trimester, Study Finds” and the ensuing controversy over the backgrounds of the studies authors, some information on the professors in the above story is provided.

*Ben Dover is a tenured Professor of Gender Studies at the University of Berkeley in California. He is also the district head of the South Western Division of NAMBLA. He hopes to be released from parole in late December 2006 at which time he will be opening his own 'birthday clown' business.

**Justin Joyet is a tenured Professor of Lifestyles Philosophy at the University of Berkeley in California. A retired Catholic priest, he spends much of his free time volunteering as a coach for the City of San Francisco’s Pee Wee wrestling program.

Monday, August 22, 2005

Science? Where?

Where have all the skeptics gone?
Used to be that any scientist worth his salt beamed with an ample amount of skepticism. A personality trait he would flout more often than his glass framed PhD. Sorrowfully, it seems those days are gone.
This lack is to be expected from we non-scientists. Hell, for most of us the only scientific information we get comes from, at worst, The Daily Show; or at best, the MSM's so called 'journalists'. You know these creatures...quick with a thesaurus but normally ignorant on the issues. And with a Liberal lack of skepticism thrown in just for fun.
But this post is not about the MSM's lack of hard questioning in regards to the Liberal scientific agenda.
It is about scientists, themselves, and their lack of pessimism on any issue they'd ideologically rather take merely on faith.
Issues such as Global Warming. Evolution. Embryonic Stem Cells.
You exhibit any doubt in these arenas at your own personal and professional risk.
It matters little that some believe global warming has more to do with sun spots than SUVs. Or that temperature variations are a natural cyclical part of Earth history. Or that we may in actuality be moving into an ice age. But bring up these points and get ready for the howling...'Global Warming is our fault and you'd just better get damn used to it!'
And just when did Evolution become a religion? Darwinism is untouchable in sacred scientific circles these days. A theory? No more, it is now a faith. Do not dare raise doubt at the altar of the Galapolos. Just ignore the fact that no new species has ever been shown or proven to spring from a existing one. Or that something as universal as the eye is nearly impossible to explain as popping up through natural selection or mutation. Instead, just follow blindly the dogma of the new secular religion.
Next look at the mess that is building in the Embryonic Stem Cell issue. If you dared challenge the morality of the procedure, or even opined that government has no role in the research, you were labeled a red neck Christian hillbilly zealot. Ignore the fact that ASC's have never produced a cure for a single disease. And forget that Adult Stem Cells actually have. As have Placental/Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cells. Yes, just ignore these things, they do not fit the agenda.
It is a sad state of affairs that Liberalism has so ingrained itself in intelligencia that even science is no longer immune. Unfortunately, lock step ideology has replaced skepticism and intellectual honesty has paid the ultimate price.
If we can no longer count on our scientists to question the truth, where on Earth are we to turn...I have an idea, but I must say, I'm skeptical.

Saturday, August 20, 2005

In Her Own Words..Sheehan Meets the President

The President: Ms. Sheehan, good to see you, again.
I understand you have some things you would like to talk to me about...

Sheehan: You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East.

The President: That is just not...

Sheehan: You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism.

The President: Take a deep breath ma’am, your getting emotional...

Sheehan: Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.

The President: Please, let me speak for a moment.
It is just not that simple.
What you and many on the far Left fail to realize Ms. Sheehan is that, in fact, we are all Pacifists. Most all men want peace. It is the human condition to long for a world where our children can grow up safe. Here we are alike. Where we differ, however, is you and your friends are idealists and utopians. Driven there through fear and denial. I, however, am a realist.
There is real evil out there in the world, Ms. Sheehan. There are people and nations who lust for our destruction. Yours. Mine. Our children’s. Deep down I think you know this, but your fear drives you to denial. You see the evil, yet you dismiss it. The evil savagery of Saddam Hussien. Deny. His mass graves. Deny. His vengeful hatred of America. Deny. The horrid things done to women in the Arab world. Deny. The millions upon millions massacred in Africa. Deny. The missing and jailed in Castro’s Cuba. Deny. The pieces of innocent Jews splattered on diner walls. Deny.
But I can not and will not deny these things. I know that evil exists. Unfortunately I am witness to it every day. And I will not dismiss it.
I have no more courage than you, ma’am. In fact, it may be that because I actually face the existence of evil rather than ignore it, that I am impelled to act. Your denial itself buffers you from the responsibility to action. You see, Ms. Sheehan, in the end your fear causes you to deny evil, mine fear demands I face it.

Sheehan: It has been...months since your ignorant and arrogant lack of planning for the peace murdered my oldest child.... your dishonest campaign stole another election…but you all were way more subtle this time than in 2000, weren’t you?

The President: Please, let’s keep this rational.

Sheehan: My son was killed in 2004, so I’m not paying my taxes for 2004. If I get a letter from the IRS, I’m gonna say, you know what, this war is illegal; this is why this war is illegal. This war is immoral; this is why this war is immoral. You killed my son for this. I don’t owe you anything. And if I live to be a million, I won’t owe you a penny. And I want them to come after me, because unlike what you’ve been doing with the war resistance, I want to put this frickin’ war on trial. And I want to say, “You give me my son, and I’ll pay your taxes.

The President: I did say ‘rational’, right?

Sheehan: We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.

The President: My God, woman, take a breath. Let me ask you a question. You are an American, would you fight for your country?

Sheehan: 9/11 was Pearl Harbor for the neo-conservatives’ agenda...
We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances...
America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.

The President: I have been told you don't even think we should be in Afghanistan...

Sheehan: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion...So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we're obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that's who they told us was responsible for 9/11.

Mr. President: But you don't even think...

Sheehan: We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden...

Mr. President: Enough! Ms. Sheehan, I am truly sorry for your loss. And I feel for all the chaos in your life. But I am the Commander-in-Chief, sworn to protect the American people. As bad as it is for you with the loss of your loved one, it is my duty to look at the larger picture. You have your responsibilities to the universe, I have mine to America.

Sheehan: I was just the spark the universe chose for some reason to spark this off, because, like I said, the movement was already there.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

Friday, August 19, 2005

World Opinion

I was speaking to a coworker today and the issue of the Gaza strip was broached. I opined how I feel the withdrawal is a mistake. That it will be viewed by terrorists worldwide as yet more proof that terrorism does in fact work against the West. I stated that the Palestinians will not be pacified by this ceding of territory, but will instead be emboldened by it.
He did not disagree. But he put forward this argument, one that I have heard before. He stated he too was sure the Palestinians would not stay peaceful for long. But that this would not actually be a bad thing. He pointed out that when the Palestinians resumed the suicide attacks and other acts of terror, they will have lost the high moral ground. That the world would then see it was not just the lack of land that made these Arabs hate the Jews, but simply the fact that Israel exists in the first place. And thus, ‘world opinion’ would turn from the Palestinians toward the Jews.
In a world of logic, I could not disagree with this argument. However, we do not live in that world. My friend seemed to think that a Palestinian attack on Israel would somehow change ‘world opinion’. Apparently he feels ‘world opinion’ is somehow based on some high moral standard. That finally the world would see the Palestinians for what they really are. This, however, is where I believe his argument breaks down. If the opinion of the U.N. and Europe were in actuality morally based, they would have seen this already. Yet ‘world opinion’ somehow ignores suicide bombings. It ignores the killing of children and innocents. Ignores the difference between the targeting civilians and the targeting soldiers. If ‘world opinion’ ignores these things, tell me how, then, it will not ignore one more case of Palestinian aggression.
It is my hope that this argument is null and void. That the Palestinians do take the initiative from this gift and from this point forward live in peace with their Jewish neighbors. That is my hope. But it is not my belief. We will have to just wait and see. I do not abide being wrong very well, but I pray in this case I am completely and utterly mistaken.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

For 'carrie' and 'Brooklynkat'

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

John F. Kennedy
Inaugural address, January 20, 1961

There is always inequity in life. Some men are killed in war and some men are wounded, and some men are stationed in the Antarctic and some are stationed in San Francisco. It's very hard in military or personal life to assure complete equality. Life is unfair.

John F. Kennedy

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

John F. Kennedy

If men and women are in chains, anywhere in the world, then freedom is endangered everywhere.

John F. Kennedy

A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's hard core unemployed.

John F. Kennedy

The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.

John F. Kennedy

In giving rights to others which belong to them, we give rights to ourselves and to our country.

John F. Kennedy

A pro-American Democrat patriot? Ah, but you on the Left would want no part of President Kennedy. You have Howard Dean and Michael Moore.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

How Soon the Left Forgets

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

John F. Kennedy
Inaugural Address
January 20, 1961

Just for Fun

Navy Institutes Raft Program

Lt. Admiral Michael O’Shea speaking from the West side YMCA in Washington D.C. today, revealed the Navy’s newest and most environmentally conscious weapon.
“This innovative program was the brainchild of Ensign First Class Aaron Decarte. He brought it to the attention of his superiors, who able to see the unlimited possibilities and obvious innate morale boost, forwarded the idea to the Pentagon, and the rest is history.”
The Lt. Admiral then unveiled the latest in naval technology-The Raft. The Raft, with its balloon-like outer circle and flattened interior made to hold up to six sailors, is being sold as
yet one more step towards insuring American naval superiority.
“When I heard of Esn. Decarte’s idea, I called for him to fly directly to D.C. and meet with me A.S.A.P. A mind like that can not be wasted on mere seamen. After speaking to the young man for just a few minutes, I was sold.” the Lt. Admiral said.
“A raft made from pliable titanium. With no motor, just oars. Hell, it’s environmental...and I know how you press type like that...and it keeps our boys in shape. Decarte was a bit pudgy in that first meeting, but that sold the program that much more. It’s quieter than any of our carriers or destroyers. It can sneak right up on the enemy and as long as our sailors have kept their M-16s dry, they can even shoot the bastards. All without using a single drop of diesel!”
“To tell you the truth, I came up with the idea as a way to lose some weight. My bunk mates were making fun of me and that really hurt. So one moonlit night I was standing deck side eating a double cheeseburger wondering what I could do to trim down. Well, it was then that some sailor on the lower level fell overboard. He started screaming like a girl, and another sailor threw him one of those orange things that you blow up...what do you call those? Oh, never mind. Anyway the sailor crawled inside and started paddling, with his arms over the sides fighting to get back to the ship. Seeing that seamen struggle, it was like a bolt from above. If only there were some oars in that little boat thingey, I could use it to row around and burn some calories. I went to my superior and told him my idea. Well, he basically told me to go scratch. But then I had another idea. I said we could use the boat-a-majig as some kinda weapon. He liked the sound of that. And the rest is history” Decarte stated.
Why titanium, Lt. Admiral?
“Well, hell, it’s defense budget money. What the hell do I care? And we spare no cost for the safety of our seamen. Plus you gotta admit it looks pretty cool shiny like that.”
But it’s just a raft...
“Well, The Raft, to be precise. And son, you seen the price of petrol lately?”
Isn’t the petrol paid for by the defense budget, as well?
“Shut up, you little piss monkey! Anyone else got any questions?”
So what’s with the special outfits the sailors are wearing?
“Well, Decarte assured me that any sailors who entered The Raft program would need special uniforms. Titanium, as well. The Navy employed many of the greatest minds in metallurgy to come up with the special chain mail needed. Sure, it wasn’t cheap, but it doesn’t rust and it matches the raft perfectly. And before you even ask, yes those are real diamond studs on the handles of the oars. Nothing but the best for our sailors!”
What is the end cost, then, of The Raft program?
“That’s top secret, son. But if it saves just one life, isn’t it worth it?”
I’m not quite sure how that applies...
“Next question!”
So this program is in no way connected to the fact that the Navy is well below its spendable budget and if it wants a boost in dollars next year it needs to spend its full budget this year?
“Next question.”
Have you given any thought at all to how the American tax payer will feel about the Navy spending all this money on what in the end is simply a blow up raft?
“I said next question! No more, good. Thank you then. We’re done here.”
With that the Lt. Admiral exited the building.
The metallic raft floating lazily in the pool, surrounded by chain mailed sailors playfully splashing each other and laughing, stands in odd contrast to what one would think a modern navy should represent. But, hey it is awfully shiny and those trim, fit seamen seem to be having such a great time.

Friday, August 12, 2005

The Danger of the Bear or Blind Idealism

If you consider yourself an outdoorsman or an environmentalist and have not heard the name Timothy Treadwell, you surely must have been living in a cave the past few years. A bear cave. Though with a new book-"The Grizzly Maze" by Nick Jans- and movie-"The Grizzly Man"- you most probably will hear of him soon enough.
In the mean time, a little history.
Mr. Treadwell, sometimes known as ‘The Bear Whisperer’ and a self professed guardian of the grizzly, unfortunately suffered the ultimate fate for his ideological beliefs. He spent many years in the Grizzly Maze area of Alaska’s Katmai National Park videotaping and ‘protecting’ the area’s grizzly population. His up close and personal style of relating to ‘his’ bears hooked the interest of ecoconscious groups such as The Sierra Club and the Great Bear Foundation. as well as Hollywood and television news magazines.
He would often film himself within feet of his wild friends, a distance many outdoorsman would consider idiotic and suicidal. He truly believed that the grizzly was misunderstood as a killer. He believed, instead, that man was the problem and saw himself as the bears protector. In his blind idealism he could see the danger to the bear, but not the danger from the bear. To show just how foolish his romanticism was, there is a piece of videotape where his doomed girlfriend, Amie Huguenard, is lying crouched just a few yards from a mother grizzly and her cub.
Mr. Treadwell believed he understood the grizzly, that he knew it on an intimate level. Well, you see, he was wrong. What he understood was his ideal of what this bear represented in his mind. He could easily see the beauty and the charm of the creature, but was blind to its inherent wild nature. He would recognize the danger to the bear but was naively ignorant of the danger from the beast.
And he, along with his companion, paid the ultimate price. In October of 2003 they were fatally mauled by a grizzly who was later shot and killed...Treadwell’s watch still ticking in its belly. The bear, itself, yet another victim of Mr. Treadwell’s skewed view of its nature.
This story has a purpose. It is to illustrate what I will call ‘The Danger of the Bear’.
‘The Danger of the Bear’ will be defined here as the idealizing of an issue where the dangers to the issue blind those invested to the dangers from the issue.
This condition is rampant in the ideology of the Left.
It is obvious in many issues today such as gay marriage, profiling, socialism, and social security, just to name a few.
But let us look closer at some of these issues to see just how it applies.
The Left views any disagreement with gay marriage as obviously coming from a homophobic Christian hillbilly. It has so idealized homosexuality, that to simply question this lifestyle is the ultimate sin against secularism. One is a homophobe or a gay hater for merely wondering about the ultimate influence that gay marriage will have on society. The Left would like us to believe there will be no effect. Only loving people finally gaining equality. They will not even discuss how it will change the way we teach about the family in public schools. Or what influence normalization will have upon our young people. Or what extra rights will have to be given the homosexual for wrongs they have endured in the past. Try to pose these questions in a Liberal environment, but please, don’t forget your Kevlar.
Profiling, too, is a protected ideal. There will be none. It is an attack on a specific race or creed. Do not dare even propose it or you are a racist or Islamophobe. Arab Muslim men must be protected from evil Allah hating Americans. It does not matter that terror is perpetrated by young Arab men. That to profile this group would obviously save lives. These things matter little to the mind of the Left.
Next we have socialism, the ultimate Leftist ideal. Every man and woman finally and fully equal. It is the Liberal Utopia. The secular Eden. It is the ideal. To be argued for and protected. But it is a lie. But a lie they can or will not see. They will not see how socialism kills innovation. How it breaks the morale of the true producers. How it would change America from ‘all men are created equal’ to ‘all men are doomed to be equal’. How it will always end in long lines and low quality. But just try and bring these points up and face denial or elitist vitriol.
And don’t you dare touch my Social Security. You evil Conservatives want to force the elderly into poverty. To take away their comfortable retirement. To destroy the ideal of senior tranquility. The system must be protected at all cost. Never mind it is on a collision course with reality. That our children will be have an impossible burden to bear. Or that the program was never meant to be a person’s sole retirement plan. These points are taboo, never to be spoken aloud.
Timothy Treadwell’s blind idealism finally fell victim to the dangerous reality of ‘his’ bears. There is, however, something to be learned from this young man’s tragedy. And it is simply this, that our ideals when not fully grounded in reality will surely be doomed to ‘The Danger of the Bear’ as well.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Some People...

Overheard in the ABC newsroom...

Assistant: Hey dude, I hear you’re in a bit of hot water...

Producer: You heard, huh?

Assistant: Yeah. What happened.

Producer: It’s kind of a long story...

Assistant: We’re between cycles, let’s hear it.

Producer: Alright. It started last week when I had an interview with a young lady applying for an internship...

Assistant: Go on...

Producer: Well, she seemed OK. You know, smart and with it. I thought the interview went well, and I really thought about offering her the job.

Assistant: But...

Producer: No but...yet. After she left, I talked to my secretary. She said the young lady stopped by her desk and said how nice she thought I was. That she had expected a network news producer to be an arrogant ass, but that I was down to Earth and treated her with respect.

Assistant: Hmmm...doesn't sound so bad.

Producer: This is when it gets good. Two weeks later I got a phone call.

Assistant: What happened?

Producer: The damned girl accused me of sexual harassment! She went over my head and said that I made improper sexual advances during her interview.

Assistant: After she had said what a decent guy you were?

Producer: Yeah, can you believe it? And it gets worse...

Assistant: Geez, go on.

Producer: Then she had the nerve to ask for another interview.

Assistant: With who?

Producer: Me. She wanted me to give her another interview!

Assistant: What a whack job!

Producer: Amen! She’s a f***in’ nutcase!

Assistant: A f***in’ nutcase...

Producer: Unbelievable.

Assistant: Some people are just like that I guess.

Producer: Well, it looks like we’re going on air here in a minute...

Assistant: Yeah, we should get back to work. Hey, by the way, what do you think about the Cindy Sheehan story?

Producer: That damn Bush, what an a**hole!

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Am I an Elitist?

When I look at our culture I am often saddened, and at times even repulsed, by the lack of any interest or value in greatness. Many of the things our society imbues with importance I find at best shallow, and at worst actually dangerous. We need merely look at those we as a society see as heroes to understand this point. They are actors, or pop singers, or air headed sluts. These are the creatures we hold in high esteem. Not the producers, or inventors, or the men of great thought.
That said, I am sure many readers are thinking ‘what an asinine elitist this man is’. And that thought alone illuminates perfectly the true point of this post.
But first, another turn of thought.
I have often struggled with what I’ve felt to be a contradiction in the way I view our society. I am the first one to scream ‘elitist’ when any Liberal implies that the American public is nothing but a bunch of uneducated Christian zealot hillbillies. Yet, I myself in the first paragraph of this post, basically state that this same American public is merely a pack of thoughtless oafs. This had always seem to me somewhat hypocritical. And so the question in my mind had always been, ‘In this way, just how am I any different than the average academia elitist? From Liberals such as John Kerry and Jerry Springer?’
You will be glad to know this meditation was not in vain. I have my answer. And the meaning of this post.
When I speak in a negative way about the actions and values of a particular person or group, there is an inherent meaningful difference from when a Leftist does the same.
I do not believe, as the Leftist does, that the person or group are irreconcilable idiots. That they are unable to do and/or think for themselves. That they were born lower and can never reach a level of ability. That it is my responsibility to rule and run their lives as if they were helpless children or pets.
Thus the Leftist elitist’s hatred of the common comes from the anger he feels when they do not see his obvious superiority.
Instead, when I speak lowly of my fellow man, it is with a sad heart. Because I believe all men have a great potential. That all men have it in their souls to be exceptional. That all men have been instilled with the will to be better. That every human is self-sufficient. That he alone is the ruler of his life, and that is as it should be.
My sadness comes, then, when man does not reach that potential. And, unfortunately, this is quiet often. Do not get me wrong, I am not immune from this most human of ailments.
But I believe in humanity. And, I believe in the human. Its potential for greatness. Its innate ability.
This is what I believe. Just ask your friendly neighborhood Moonbat if he feels the same.

Saturday, August 06, 2005

Six Degrees of Roe vs. Wade

So when do we get our money back? O.K., not all of us, but surely those in California.
University of Pittsburgh researchers have discovered that one type of cell in the human placenta has characteristics that are strikingly similar to embryonic stem cells in their ability to regenerate a wide variety of tissues.
The cells, called amniotic epithelial cells, potentially could be used to produce new liver cells to treat liver failure, or new pancreatic islet cells to cure diabetes or new neurons to treat Parkinson's disease.
Unlike embryonic stem cells, which are obtained only by destroying human embryos, these cells can be extracted from the same placentas that now are routinely discarded after birth. They thus could be a non-controversial alternative to embryonic stem cells.
"We think it would be easier to get these to the clinic than [embryonic stem] cells," said Stephen Strom, an associate professor of pathology at the Pitt medical school.
Not only do amniotic epithelial cells lack the controversy of embryonic stem cells, but they also do not generate the tumors associated with embryonic stem cells, he said. So it may be possible in some cases to simply transplant the amniotic cells to a patient, rather than to first grow the desired specialized cells in the laboratory.

This is the exact reason government should not spend our money on something it knows so little about. Why men like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Illinois House Republican Leader Tom Cross should leave science to the scientists. And government should leave medicine to the doctors and private investors.
But the ethics of proper use of tax dollars are for another post.

In reality, it seems to me, this whole issue has never been about saving lives and curing diseases. If that was the case, funding would have gone to treatments that have not just shown promise, but actually cured something. Treatments like adult stem cells. From Michael Fumento @
A bit of reading will give you more knowledge about these cells than the average doctor possesses. You might learn that ASCs(Adult Stem Cells) are CURRENTLY used in over 250 clinical trials and are treating over 80 different diseases.

Embryonic stem cells to this date have cured NOTHING, they are a gamble. Sure, they hold potential. Not unlike the promised potential of cold fusion. Or solar power. But, should government gamble with our tax dollars on the future potential of ESCs when other avenues, like adult stem cells, are producing cures today?
So why are we so focused on Embryonic stem cells in the first place?
Because curing disease is not what this issue has ever been about.
It is about Pro-Choice.
It is, at its core, simply six degrees of Roe vs. Wade. It is about the devaluing of human life. Devaluing of the human fetus. Until it hs no meaning. Until it is merely a grouping of cells to be poked, tuned, and dissected at the Frankenstienium whims of science. It is about taking away the possibility of a future life in order to give comfort to a present one. How far is that really from ‘a woman’s right to choose’?
It is six degrees of Roe vs. Wade.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes

A Dialogue on Poverty and Anti-Social Behavior

GBlagg: Good morning.

Sticks and Stones: Yes, good morning. Do you have something on your mind?

GBlagg: Yes, it is what I see as the fallacy accepted by mainstream thought that poverty causes anti-social behavior.

S&S: Alright. First let us define our terms. What is it that you consider ‘anti-social behavior’?

GBlagg: Well, in today’s terms obviously terrorism. But historically, crime has been a major part of the definition. But I would say it goes beyond that. It is instead, ‘any behavior that causes a negative impact on society’.

S&S: And ‘poverty’?

GBlagg: Well, poverty is a range of neediness depending on situation and place, but here let us define it as I believe it is commonly understood...’a state of extreme want wherein the individual can not with his income, meet his basic needs’.

S&S: So, in simple terms, one who can not afford the basic necessities of life?

GBlagg: Yes, fine.

S&S: Well, let us get to the point then. Is it your belief then that poverty does not in fact cause anti-social behavior?

GBlagg: It may to some extent. But the in the broader scope, I in fact, believe the opposite to be true.

S&S: Explain.

GBlagg: Though there is no absolute in human behavior, I feel it is instead anti-social behavior that is in actuality the root cause of poverty.

S&S: So is it your position that one should blame the victim?

GBlagg: Well, let me ask you now to define your terms. What is it you mean by ‘victim’?

S&S: I will play along. How is this definition, ‘One who, through no result of their own actions, is subject to mistreatment’?

GBlagg: That is fine. And with that definition, I would say that I do not choose to’ blame the victim’. This leads to my point perfectly, and it is this...That one cannot be a victim of the result of one’s own actions. Or even the result of a wanton lack of action.

S&S: That’s a lot of words, you’ll will have to explain a little better than that.

GBlagg: If I am an anti-social individual...a terrorist or a criminal, let’s say, then the outcome of my actions does not make me a victim. Let us take the career criminal as an example. He is a man whose personal bad choices frequently land him in jail or prison. Thus, he can not keep a steady job. Even if he tries to gain employment between stints in jail, it is merely temporary and mostly low paying. He ends up living in poverty. Who is to blame for this outcome?

S&S: Of course, it is the individual himself.

GBlagg: And the drunkard or addict. In much the same way as the career criminal, even if he is lucky enough to land a decent job, his odds of keeping it for any length of time are infinitesimal. Between jail stints, absenteeism, and tardiness, his chances of prolonged employment are slim. Who is to blame for this outcome?

S&S: Agreed. But what of the larger percentage of impoverished who do not break the law?

GBlagg: Well, this point needs some clarification. Why is it, do you think, your ‘larger percentage of impoverished’ are impoverished at all?

S&S: I would say it is from a lack of education.

GBlagg: And I would agree. But here is where I differ from most others on this subject. Who has the responsibility to educate the individual?

S&S: The common answers would seem to be, ‘the parent’ or ’the government’.

GBlagg: You said, ‘the common answers’. Is this what you believe?

S&S: No. And I am sure I know where you are headed with this. It is in fact the individual’s sole responsibility. The education opportunities are there, it is his responsibility to employ them.

GBlagg: Yes, ‘responsibility’. But more even than that. It is my opinion that an individual who chooses not to educate himself is himself committing an anti-social behavior.

S&S: Explain.

GBlagg: A society is greatest whose people are educated and intelligent, is this not so? You, yourself stated that a lack of education causes poverty.

S&S: Yes.

GBlagg: And poverty has a negative impact on all of society, not just the impoverished. Through higher taxes, a lower standard of living, and yes..crime. So the individual, who through his own choices has a lack of education, has personally caused himself to be poor. In that choice, he has committed an anti-social behavior. His choice... and yes it is a ‘choice’... not to accept the education offered by his society has doomed him to a life of indigence and at the very same time brought down the quality of life for all society as a whole. He is not a victim. He is a perpetrator. Anti-social behavior is again the cause of poverty.

S&S: Interesting. You spoke earlier of ‘terrorism’. How does this fit with you theory?

GBlagg: Many have offered the premise that it is poverty that causes terrorism. Aside from the fact that many of the terrorists of today are affluent and even rich, I feel there are other arguments against this being true.

S&S: And they are?

GBlagg: Well, if poverty alone caused terrorism, why do we not see terrorist in the American Appalachians? In inner cities? In Mexico?

S&S: Yes, why?

GBlagg: Because it is ideology that causes terrorism, not indigence. I am not saying that the anger felt by the poor is not a breeding ground for terror, but the seed is ideology. Without radicalism, terror likely never develop. In fact, it would seem to me, that the very beliefs that abound in the places that breed terror are the main reasons for impoverishment in those areas in the first place.

S&S: You are speaking of Radical Islam?

GBlagg: Yes. Suicide is an ‘anti-social’ act. Like homicide, through its very action, it takes away a portion of society. It is ‘anti-society’, or ‘anti-social’. That said, there is no act more ‘anti-social’ than the killing of oneself and taking innocents lives at the same time.

S&S: As you say.

Monday, August 01, 2005

Islamo-Leftists(Or The March of the Anti-Christ)

It is my belief that the Left in this country is aiding and abetting the Fundamentalist Islamic enemy. In its words and deeds it defends and emboldens the greatest evil that this world presently faces. This is not a novel idea. It has been argued pro and con by wiser men then I. That said, still this is my belief. I also believe few on the Left have put much thought into the obvious outcomes, if in fact, their beloved Wahhabi Muslims actually do gain the upper hand.
In many of my posts here and over at The Wide Awakes, I deal with the inherent problems the Left will face if this outcome does finally come to fruition. You see, these two groups could not be more different. If ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, then hatred of Bush is truly their only connecting factor.
But I am here to alleviate this conundrum. I have an idea. And I’m sure The Honorable Mr. Frist will just love it. Because, you see, it uses science in a most unethical, anti-conservative way. Here is what I suggest...Merge the DNA of Bin Laden and Ted Kennedy. What a creature would then be unleashed upon the Earth. With its powers of persuasion and oration it could bring together these seemingly opposing ideologies to assure a more utopian future, where Progressives and Islamo-Fascists can live together in peace.
But it won’t be easy for Ted Laden, so I am offering the following ideas to ease what will most likely be a very rocky transition....
1) Let us begin with the idea of abortion. Libs surely will not want to give up a ‘woman’s right to choose’. And Muslims will most likely be horrified and enraged at the very idea. So here is my idea. Fetal Suicide Vests. I amaze myself sometimes...hell, everyone’s a winner! The expectant mother who just can’t be bothered by an unwanted parasite will get her wish. The Muslim angry at the woman for not knowing her proper place will get what he wants. And the fetus, of course, gets its 70 virgins. Again, everyone’s a winner!
2) This one might take a little more salesmanship, but I’m sure Ted Laden, born with the Left’s fine honed powers of diplomacy, could make even this idea work. The Fundamentalist Atheist. What greater weapon, he could posit, then one who will gladly blow himself up for absolutely nothing! In fact, with its zealotry for moral relativism and nihilism it becomes the perfect zombie of death. Brain dead through unresolved contradiction, it could be used by either the Left or Islamo-Fascists to destroy any lingering remnants of the infidel Christian ideology.
3) This is where Ted Laden will have to return to his humble beginnings. He will need the help of his scientist parents. He must invent the She-Male. No, not the kind you see on ‘Doctor 90210', but an actual third sex. It will not be female, so it will not have to abide by that section of Sharia Law. But it will not be male, either, so it can still claim victimhood by the patriarchal society. It would be a screaming harpy of a creature that could be editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan and have the balls to do it right.
4) Next we have a matter of simple definition. It could be know as Islamic Euphemism. Ted Laden will have to redefine such terms as ‘tolerance’ and ‘compassion’ in order to make both sides happy. So ‘tolerance’ could then mean-‘tolerant of anything other than Anglo-Saxon Christian pro-Zionist neo-cons’. And ‘compassion’-‘taking all property by force from Anglo-Saxon Christian pro-Zionist neo-cons and distributing it to feed starving children...of Muslims’.
Still, I am sure Ted Laden will have further roadblocks to overcome (such as gay marriage, capital punishment, anything-goes culture, etc.), but as they say ‘Rome wasn’t built in a day’. And I’m just guessing here, neither was Hell.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes