Silly Republocrats

Jim Drinkard of the AP wrote,

"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate," Falwell said at a breakfast session Friday in Washington. "I hope she's the candidate, because nothing will energize my (constituency) like Hillary Clinton," he said. "If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."
Clinton press secretary Philippe Reines said Sunday, "Working for someone who believes in the Golden Rule, we're not going to engage in such vitriolic discourse, but it seems that a new low has been reached in demonizing political opponents."
…The Rev. Barry Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, "I don't know why Jerry Falwell always has to drag politics into the gutter."

So? This is a news story? A conservative makes a half-joking, but realistic observation, and liberals start name calling. You might as well run a headline declaring, "Dog Bites Man."

I don’t know much about Jerry Falwell, and I suspect I don’t want to, but what did he say that was so bad? He didn’t say Clinton is Lucifer (even if she might be). Change a couple of names and see how ridiculous Reines and Lynn are being: "I certainly hope that James Dobson is the Republican candidate," Jesse Jackson said. "I hope he’s the candidate, because nothing will energize Democratic voters like James Dobson. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."

My response would be, "Duh." It's like they're getting all offended because someone called a clear sky blue. Democrats act like rebellious little children doing the exact opposite of whatever their parents say, and Republicans are like horrified parents over-reacting and getting out the belt at any little excuse. Or maybe it’s the other way around. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

A pox on both their petty little houses.

Vote, Schmote

Mark Call:

This quote from Sam Adams seems apropos: “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

…I would point out that our Founding Document posits that government is based on the “consent of the governed”. Before there were violent protests, or even petitions for redress of grievance, there was a recognition, by a small plurality at least, that what King George was doing was NOT being done in their name, or with their consent, active or tacit.

I contend that the same cannot be said by any other than a much smaller minority today.

Do you call yourself a “US citizen” and ask for permission (licenses) to marry, drive, buy a gun, assemble in public, or do any of a thousand other things that Real Men like the “sons of liberty” knew were Rights from God, not concessions from Massa? Do you deal in dishonest weights and measures and think you’re paying with “money”, or that debts can be discharged with debt? Do you call yourself a “Christian” but submit to a “church” which submits to Caesar, expects a 501c3 blessing from him, and agrees to preach the PC Line in order to stay in its master’s good graces? Do you send “your” children off to master’s indoctrination centers, and lick his boots for stealing from your neighbor so you could do so for “free”? Do you think that Congressmen who lie, commit treason, and violate their oaths somehow “represent” you?

Do you vote? And silently lend credibility to the whole sordid lie?

Sam Adams was right.

Step One: Withdraw consent. “Come out of her, my people”!

Jay Carper:

I’ve heard two good but opposing arguments on whether or not a God fearing man should vote in modern America. The first argument says that regardless of whether or not our votes are heard or counted by other men, there is still a spiritual effect in simply making our will known, in standing up and saying, “This is what we should do and this is how we should behave.” It doesn’t matter that the people we vote for won’t actually do what they say; it is more important that we voice our agreement to their words even if we condemn their actions. If Washington isn’t listening, Somebody Else is. The second argument says that by voting we are giving our consent to the very system that seeks to enslave us, and we should withdraw our consent and cooperation wherever possible.

I think both arguments are good. But I am leaning toward Mark’s. I might vote on specific propositions, but I refuse to vote for thieves and murderers, regardless of how much they speak peace and love. By voting for them, we aren’t just consenting to their words. We know who and what they are, and that is what we are really choosing with our ballots.

No, thank you. There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and the third parties will not be allowed to win. I don’t need a ballot to stand up right here and proclaim right and wrong.

Mark Call:

I'll add a bit more fuel to the fire, Jay.

I contend that the issue is not even so much the simple choice of lesser evils... but whether we acknowledge the god of this world by submitting to the process he says is our only valid option.

Don't forget that you must "register" and declare yourself "under the jurisdiction thereof" in order to be allowed the privilege of "voting" for anything, whether or not you later decide to refrain for exercising said franchise in the Molech vs Satan matchup, or even the local Ahab vs. Rehoboam contest.

An thought experiment I heard some time ago is instructive:

Suppose we go to dinner, and I unexpectedly jump up and announce to the other diners, "My friend here will buy dinner for ALL of us; all we have to do in this democratic land is vote for him to do so! All in favor, raise your right hand." After the sea of hands is noted, I look for the votes of those opposed.

Question: Is your case enhanced more by sheepishly raising your hand in opposition, or announcing that you will not consent to the farce and leaving?

Summarized metaphorically, I'd still have to argue that, "Come out of her, My people...be not a partaker of her plagues" doesn't mean vote for funding disease studies…

Egregious Confessions

Recently someone sent me a link to the most depressing and irritating web sites I have ever seen: True Wife Confessions. It's just hundreds of women complaining about their husbands or bragging about how they lied and cheated and got away with it. It sounds like some of them are really in bad situations. Their husbands are rats, and they've tried everything they can think of to make things better, but nothing has worked. Most of them are just whining incompetents who are just as much to blame as their husbands, trying to play the usual childish canards of "you should have known" or "it's not what I say; it's how I say it!"

Their number one problem? They never said anything, or they never said it in a way that made sense to him.

703, it's not your fault that his breath stinks, but it's your fault that you never said anything.

701, you're beautiful!

706, you should have listened to your grandmother and kept your pants zipped until you were married. That one is totally your fault.

707, it sounds like your husband and 725 deserve each other.

601, you want to continue subjecting your kids to an abusive, perverted, awful man every day of the week for the next ten or more years, because you don't want them to be around him for the occassional weekend? What!?? Trust me. If he's as bad as you say, then he won't want to spend that much time with them.

604, you need to tell him exactly what's going on. If you trick him into something, he will hate you and maybe even your "accident." You need to find a way to convince him how important this is to you.

596, maybe he was a jerk about it, but what does your laziness have to do with his hair loss?

600, you had better tell him! Don't you dare surprise him with that!

590, you are lower than a snake. Respect is the first thing you owe your husband. If you can't even act like you respect him (even if you don't) then what good are you?

574, it seems like such a tiny thing, doesn't it. Snacks aren't the only things you hide, are they? Why is it so hard to speak up about such a little thing? They will only get bigger.

568, you don't love your husband. Living with him for so long, some of it should have rubbed off by now.

527, why in the world would he want another chance with you? I'd be afraid to touch you for the diseases you probably carry! Did it ever even occur to you to talk to your husband or try counseling before you bedded half the Internet?

354, you're beautiful too!

349, please ask him to do something about it.

332, say it, already! Tell him how you feel.

325, yes you do.

320, instead of belly dancing lessons, try an English grammar refresher. Then maybe look for a class on honesty and integrity.

285, you really should tell him that. I think he'll understand.

114, it won't be pleasant, but you have to talk to him about it. You're right. He has to grow up, but a child has to be taught. They don't learn proper behavior on their own. However, you aren't the one to teach him. You're just the one to point out the need in as tactful a manner as possible.

116, you're not in love. You're a selfish little brat who didn't get nearly enough beatings as a child.

109, please, sugar face, honey bunch...won't you just say something to the only man in the world who actually cares? Your husband?

91, I'd like to remind you that we can't punish someone for something they didn't do...but I think I understand.

81, if he's snoring away, that probably means he's asleep. Has it occurred to you that you can't blame him for something he doesn't even know about?

51, get over it. Really.

57, I know you probably think he should just understand that instinctively, but he's not a woman. Most men are different. Just tell him what you need, because he'll never be able to figure it out otherwise.

21, why do you let him go through all that work when you know you won't appreciate it. Instead of being such an unintentional leach, why don't you tell him what you would really like?

19, you'd get a hell of a lot more if you just told him so.

20, why do you even care if your husband means the words that some total stranger actually wrote? Why don't you ask him for a hand-made card. It might seem childish to him while he's doing it, but he'll mean everything it says, and he'll keep doing it if you reward him right.

3. Coward.

6, you're beautiful too.

7, don't be such a twit. If you want something you have to say it. He's not telepathic and neither are you, so don't expect him to suddenly become a mind reader even after 50 years.

Here's my confession: I have the same problem. By the time I figured out that I had to actually tell my wife what I wanted, the things I wanted had become too numerous and too big for her to do anything about them.

C for Could Have Been Great

...but their aim was off. V for Vendetta has a lot of things going for it, but a lot wrong with it too. I have never read the comic books, so understand that my comments refer only to the movie.

Violence. Vendetta is a violent movie. Violence, of itself, isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it's necessary. Our very civilization is in part built on the idea that some problems must be solved with violence. The police and military carry weapons for that reason, as do many private citizens. Most of us do not see that as a problem so long as those weapons are not abused. Unfortunately, those who intend to abuse their weapons usually do disagree, which is why the German government disarmed its people years before the extent of their depravity became obvious to everyone. It is also why corrupt politicians still use fear to manipulate their people into willingly surrender their weapons today.

The character of V is violent and brutally so. Somewhere in the course of his sufferings, he lost all normal compunctions against the use of violence to accomplish a goal. He is consumed by his hatred and bitterness. Destruction, sadism, and killing are their fruit. In his defense, I must say that brutality sometimes calls for brutality in return. The film-makers don't appear to intend to promote violence, however much they use it to attract viewers. In that, they are simply catering to a market, giving people what they will pay to see.

Terrorism. Terrorism has been defined as the use of violence to induce fear in order to accomplish a goal. Unfortunately, that's a near meaningless definition. All politics is terrorism by that standard. If you don't want your city taking your house to build a shopping mall, there really isn't anything you can do about it anymore. If you try, then men with guns will stop you. They don't really want to shoot you, and probably won't as long as you are fearful enough to stop short of using your own gun. They are, therefore, terrorists. They use violence or the threat of violence to induce fear and compliance in you.

However, there is a fundamental difference between the "terrorism" of V and the terrorism of Hezbollah. V never once targets children or innocent bystanders. He kills soldiers, thugs, and corrupt politicians, all legitimate war-time targets by almost any standards. Hezbollah, on the other hand, deliberately targets the most innocent and unsuspecting people they can find. Even in the special features, the film-makers continuously refer to V as a terrorist, but they are terribly mistaken.

Religion. Religion is portrayed as the rallying cry of the totalitarian government. As a religious man, that rubs me the wrong way a little. But only a little. It is a fact that religion has very often been used as the excuse of power-seekers to root out and persecute dissenters and to rally support for one cause or another. They seldom actually believe their own lies; religion is only their tool. That seemed to be the case here, too. It would have been nice, however, if one or two of the protaganists had displayed an appreciation for true religion.

Homosexuality. There are so many more deserving groups of people the writers could have chosen to champion. Unlike the movie's violence, it was overwhelmingly obvious that the homosexual content was meant to be promotional. It seemed that at every turn homosexuals were lifted up as a persecuted nobility. The writers condemned the preaching of one kind of morality, while serving up their own, which actually runs counter to what has been held by the majority of people in our own society, and indeed throughout the entire world and all its history.

There is nothing noble about homosexuality or its practitioners. Don't get me wrong. I am certain there are some very good people, even noble people, who also happen to be homosexuals. But it is not what they do in bed that makes them noble, and neither does standing up to torture and death for their right to commit sodomy. That just makes them terribly misguided and a poor heroic focus for a film.

I would love to say that V for Vendetta is a great movie, but it's not. It could have been if they had chosen to elevate a persecuted minority whom I could respect. Fahrenheit 451 is great. V for Vendetta is such a disappointment. In fact, because it promotes behavior that my God says should be punished by death, I cannot even allow it into my house again.

The Sins of the Father

I wrote this last year, but it fits today better....

The Sins of the Father
December 7, 2005

Today I sent a letter to my father,
Hoping his disappointment was misplaced.
Every line that I crossed was farther.
Since I left his house I've raced
In every direction to find my own.
Now here, now there, ever challenging
Social convention and his shadow-cone.
Orbiting, none-the-less, still following,
Falling in the shadow: his long life of love.
There is little else that I could ask for.
His approval, though, I'm still short of.
Every day I thank God as He keeps score,
For those small things that we do right
All eclipse our greater wickedness,
That in His mercy and His might,
His curse goes down just four or less.
Every blessing, though, goes through a thousand.
Remember, son, your father's works, less sin.