Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Wolf: "Defensive back Adam 'Pacman' Jones, recently signed by the Cowboys. Here's a guy suspended all of 2007 following a shooting in a Vegas night club."
Imus: "Well, stuff happens. You're in a night club, for God's sake. What do you thinks gonna happen in a night club? People are drinking and doing drugs, there are women there, and people have guns. So, there, go ahead."
Wolf: "He's also been arrested six times since being drafted by Tennessee in 2005."
Imus: "What color is he?"
Wolf: "He's African-American."
Imus: "Well, there you go. Now we know."
The attack on Imus is wrong on several levels. Since Imus's crack about "nappy headed hoes" last year, Imus went on Al Sharpton's radio show and apologized profusely. He apologized to the the girls basketball team at Rutgers personally. Last fall, Imus got a new radio show on WABC in New York. Imus hired a new staff, including many black people in high paying jobs, for the production of his radio show. On his new show, Imus talked about issues concerning blacks in a typical liberal fashion, portraying blacks as victims in a racist society. He has talked about how police racially profile blacks for harassment and arrest. In other words, Don Imus went out of his way to appease the black activists that he knew were listening to his every word, waiting for a chance to pounce on him for racism. Imus has been walking on eggshells since the Rutgers incident in an effort to appease Al Sharpton and other race-baiters.
The comment Imus made was clearly an attempt at sarcasm, in order to illustrate that Pacman Jones was being harassed and profiled by police because he was black. Of course I don't believe that the police profiled Pacman Jones. Pacman has an extensive criminal history for drugs and violence leading back to his high school and college years in addition to his six arrests since he has been in the NFL. He has been arrested for brawls in strip clubs and violence against women. Don Imus was trying to portray Pacman as a victim of police profiling and also to appease the likes of Al Sharpton.
The greater problem is that Pacman Jones is embraced by so many fans who celebrate the gangster culture that he demonstrates in his personal life. Just like the gangster culture has taken over hip-hop music and the clothing industry, the gangster culture has now become mainstream in professional sports. Many professional athletes have multiple children with different women. They are lauded as "players". They sport hip-hop hair styles and wear gangster like clothing. Look at clothing that men are wearing these days. They are either wearing a sports outfit, often with the name and number of athletes who act like low-lifes off the field, or they are dressing like hip-hop gang-bangers, or they wear a black tee-shirt that displays a negative image and the unsavory name of a band. All three groups are proving to be negative role models.
The celebration of evil in our society is being hastened by the media, arts, sports and clothing industry who are catering to the lowest common denominator in our society. Don Imus is part of the problem. Not because he is a racist, but because he embraces the gangster culture. Imus was trying to be cool, and "hip-hop like" when he used the phrase "nappy headed hoes" to describe girls on the Rutgers basketball team over a year ago. Unfortunately, it is hard for a sixty-eight year old white man in a cowboy hat, to pull this off and still be believable. Had these remarks come from a younger man with baggy pants and tattoos on his neck, notice would not have been taken. In this recent incident, Imus embraces and sympathizes with a criminal football hero who he falsely depicts as a victim of unfair police racial profiling. In both instances (Rutgers' girls and Pacman), Imus was embracing today's twisted popular culture and it was misunderstood as racism.
After the first incident, Sharpton staged token protests against record labels that promote rap and hip-hop music that contain lyrics that encourage drugs, violence and demeaning of women. If Al Sharpton and his ilk truly want to help the downtrodden, they would condemn Pacman Jones and the fans that worship him for his extracurricular activities. They call it "street cred", and it helps celebrities gain popularity. Instead of being rewarded for "street cred", these "bad-boy celebrities" should be condemned and run out of the business. Perhaps that would send a positive message, but that is not likely to happen because the sports industry, entertainment industry and clothing industry, use these misguided celebrities as "cash cows" ready to be milked. There should be rage against what Don Imus said, but the rage is misdirected. Imus should be condemned for coming to the defense of the criminal celebrity, Pacman Jones.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The high school provides day care for their babies so they can remain in school. The problem with liberal policies is that they usually encourage the behavior that they are trying to discourage. Due to the "sex education" classes and encouraging pregnant teens to remain in school by providing "day care", they are normalizing and encouraging teenage sex and pregnancy. I have been a lone voice in saying that stigma and shame needs to be used to discourage teenage pregnancy. Instead the opposite is true, it is considered "cool" to be a pregnant teen these days. Tonight, for the first time, I heard a commentator on a cable news show, echo my sentiments. By providing day care and sex education, they are sending the kids a signal that it is OK to have sex and get pregnant in high school.
As I have written in previous articles, the movie "Juno" normalizes and minimizes teen pregnancy as just a small bump in the road of a cool teenager's life. The publicity that teen actress, Jamie Lynn Spears got after she got pregnant, also helped glamorize and make teenage pregnancy acceptable and even desirable to many teens. Government social programs also encourage this behavior with many programs that are designed to help pregnant teens, but actually encourage and enable teenage sex and pregnancy. Their parents won't mind so much because the baby food, doctors visits, diapers and babysitting will be paid for by government programs. I wonder if the parents of these girls were as nonchalant about their situation as the parents of Juno in the movie.
Click hear to read the article entitled "Pregnancy Boom at Gloucester High"
Monday, June 16, 2008
The news media reported that 20% of Iowa's corn crop will be wiped out this year. Also, when I was in South Dakota, they were urging farmers to delay planting their corn due to very wet weather. I guess the result will be even higher food prices later in the year. I haven't heard any news reports blaming this unusual weather and related disasters to global warming yet, but I am sure they will soon follow.
Reports say that this was the biggest flood on the Cedar River in Iowa's history. However, the greatest weather related disaster in the U.S. occurred in the 30s, when the Midwest was turned into "the great dust-bowl". A ten year drought, coupled with poor farming techniques, caused massive black clouds of dust to blow as far as the east coast, striping soil from 5 Midwestern states and making them un-farmable due to the dessert like conditions. Over a million people were displaced in that weather related disaster which lasted a decade in the aftermath of the great depression.
Anyhow, I got sidetracked, the main point that I wanted to make is about sandbagging. Today I saw a news-clip of Barack Obama helping fill sand bags in an effort to stave off the flood waters in Cedar Falls, Iowa. The question that comes to mind is: Do sandbags actually hold back flood waters? Sand is not waterproof. The bags are not waterproof. When you pile up the bags to make a damn, the damn cannot possibly be watertight. There are spaces between the bags and the bags are permeable to water.
Today I heard on the news that over 15 million sandbags were filled and placed in Iowa in an effort to save property. The news showed the flood-waters in residential neighborhoods that was waist deep and covered hundreds of blocks. I would like to know if any property was saved by sandbags. I did not see a lone house or business that was in the middle of the flooded area that was kept dry because of sandbags. No matter how good of a job they could do surrounding a house with sandbags, the water would surely leak in over the course of the hours and days, until the flood waters recede. Maybe, just maybe there was one house on the outskirts of Cedar Rapids, at the periphery of the flood waters, where the rising water had touched a sandbag just as the flood waters crested and the flood-waters began to recede. But I have not even seen that kind of an image on TV. Out of the 15 million sandbags filled and deployed, I have not heard of 1 success story where sandbagging saved a property.
The next question that comes to mind is: Why do people organize and fill and place sandbags during every flood, even though sandbagging has never saved a property? The TV news likes to show people working hard in the process of sandbagging, but I have never seen them show a positive result from the sandbagging. Quite to the contrary, they show people in rowboats navigating the streets, but you never see a dry area protected by sandbags. Maybe they do it for the same reason as Barack Obama did during his photo-op today. Maybe they want to demonstrate how hard they are willing to work and how much they care. Maybe, they can't sit idly by and watch their homes and community get flooded, so sand-bagging is used as an occupational therapy that keeps their minds and body occupied, rather than dwelling on the coming devastation. If they feel that they are doing everything possible to save their property, they wont feel so bad if it is lost to the flood. It doesn't matter if sandbagging has never been an effective method of saving property from being overcome by floodwater. The effort is noble regardless of the inevitable result.
Come to think of it, sandbagging is like many well intentioned liberal ideas. It looks and sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't work in practice. The idea is never condemned as a failure, because the intentions were so noble. This type of thinking can be compared to giving single moms welfare, day-care, job-training, food stamps and many other givaway programs. That is a very noble cause, but it has unintended consequences. By giving single moms welfare, we are rewarding bad behavior and encouraging dead-beat dads, un-wed mothers and subsistence living which is dependent on government. Records show that when more welfare is given out, higher numbers of people require welfare. But to liberals, the results are unimportant, the liberals feel good because they are giving money (not their own) to needy people. The un-intended consequences are irrelevant. It doesn't have to work to be considered a noble idea.
Or, maybe sandbagging is designed to make people feel good about themselves because they are working hard in an effort to help the community. Even though the idea of sandbagging has never helped any community anywhere to my knowledge. This reason is similar to people who "walk" for a cause, in order to raise money. Lets say they are having an "AIDS WALK" to raise money for AIDS research. The participants must get sponsors to pledge a certain amount of money for each mile that they walk in this event. For example, a student might have her boss pledge ten dollars for each mile she walks. If the walk was 5 miles long, the boss will be asked for a 50 dollar donation. When the girl walks the 5 miles she feels good about herself because her physical effort has raised money for AIDS research.
For argument sake, let us say that the girl got sick on the day of the AIDS walk and wasn't able to participate. Would her boss refuse to donate the 50 dollars that he pledged because she didn't keep her part of the bargain and walk? I doubt it. The walking has nothing to do with the charitable donations. In reality, they actually raised the money before the walk even took place, because that is when they recruited their sponsors and secured their pledges. The collection of the pledged donations is not dependant on the actual walk itself, but on the good hearts of the sponsors. Usually the sponsors actually donate more than they had pledged. But the walk makes the walker feel better about herself because she exerted physical effort for her cause.
Thank you for reading my disjointed comments that came to mind because of the recent disasters caused by the weather.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Television, Computers, MP3 Players, Video Games, Cell Phones, the Breakdown of Morals, and the End of Our Society
I have been watching a lot of old TV shows on cable TV lately. Sit-coms like the Beverly Hillbillies, Sanford and Son, Mash, Mary Tyler Moore (my favorite), Home Improvement, The Jeffersons, Good times, Happy Days, Leave it to Beaver, The Brady Bunch, All in the Family, Star Trek, Hogan's Heroes and Andy Griffith. These shows were mostly made in the 60's and 70's when I was growing up. I didn't notice it when I originally watched these shows back in the 60s and 70s, but now I notice that all of these shows are sending out subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) liberal messages. As the years go by, the messages became more liberal and less subtle. When I was a kid, a big part of my view of the world was based on what I watched on TV. I probably watched 2 hours of TV per day. I remember wondering how my parents could have possibly existed without TV because there was no TV available when they grew up. My parents generation is know as "the greatest generation", because they sacrificed for their children, fought WWII and paved the way for today's prosperity and peace.
It is no accident that the sexual revolution, the feminist movement, the increase in divorce, the increase and acceptance of single mothers, the increase of blended families, the celebration of the working mother, frivolous student protests, the growth of social programs, divisiveness based on wealth and race, the growth of atheism, the pacifist movement, disrespect for the police and the military and the blind acceptance and celebration of everything weird and unusual have all become mainstream, as a result of the messages of these early TV shows and rock and roll music. Many of today's youths, have it so easy, that they never learn the hard truth about life, they learn from TV, movies and music. Others, who have grown up without a "normal family", or in an inner city ghetto, get the message that they are victims and entitled to sympathy and special treatment.
Studies show that today's average teen/tween spends 6 hours per day watching TV, playing video games, on the computer, listening to music and/or talking or text messaging on the cell phone. However, the messages that are sent out on today's media are very strong, blunt, explicit, disrespectful, inconsiderate, violent, sexual, homosexual, outright satanic and immoral. The view that today's youth have of the world is shaped by the messages offered by these medias, just like my generation's views were influenced by TV. But the messages that are sent out today are much stronger and are reinforced by the public schools, the universities, the news media and even by parents who grew up in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. The brainwashing that my generation got from watching Mash, Mary Tyler Moore, Happy Days, and "rock and roll" music, lead to the more blunt and extreme messages that are being disbursed by today's perverted media and education system.
Unfortunately, there is no turning back now. I wish we could go back to newspapers snail mail and the land-line, but we can't put the Jeanie back in the bottle. We are on on downward spiral toward a complete breakdown in morality. Widespread corruption and anarchy will surely follow. When the collapse in our society eventually comes, people will not work together, instead they will act like a mob fighting over the scraps of a once great civilization. They will undoubtedly blame the conservatives, the Christians, and anyone who has retained their moral compass as the cause of the subsequent breakdown of law and order. This will lead to real suffering and wholesale deaths in our country. Sorry if my forecast sounds extreme, and bleak, but I see no other outcome after we suffer a complete moral breakdown coupled with hard times from an economic disaster or an actual physical attack from a foreign or domestic source. Without a strong moral foundation we will be ultra-vulnerable to threats and hard times.
Do you think that I am completely nuts and over-reacting? Do you think that I have everything exactly 180 degrees out of kilter and liberalism will usher in a new era of universal love and peace? Or do you think we will just continue on the path of prosperity and individual freedoms?
Sunday, June 1, 2008
It is obvious that the California constitution does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have wording that prohibits this referendum. They claim that prohibiting homosexuals from marrying is discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation. Homosexuals are clearly not being discriminated against because they too have the right to marry. Marriage is defined as "the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, which becomes the foundation for a home and family". Homosexuals clearly have the right to marry or choose not to marry under current law. What homosexual activists are trying to do, is to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. By the same logic, the court can legitimize polygamy, incest, pedophilia and bestiality, with the same interpretation, if the participants are willing and if the court was so inclined. Those rulings would be just as outrageous as giving legitimacy to homosexual marriage.
I was unbelievably surprised to find that the definition of marriage has been changed in most dictionaries in order to fit the homosexual agenda and to include all possibilities, no matter how bizarre to the American culture. The definition that I printed above, is my understanding of marriage. However that definition was the fifteenth definition in a long list of seventeen definitions of marriage that I found on the web.
I will reprint them here. Definitions of marriage on the Web:
- the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
- two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
- the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
- a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
- A marriage is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition, usually intimate and sexual, and often created as a contract.The most frequently occurring form of marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife. ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
- In Conflict of Laws, the issue of marriage has assumed increasing public policy significance in a world of increasing multi-ethnic, multi-cultural community existence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage (conflict)
- the ceremony of union of man and wife was a sacrament of the churchwww.medievalwriting.50megs.com/churchglossary/glossaryi.htm
- Age-specific first marriage rates For men (or women), the age-specific first marriages rates are obtained by dividing the number of first marriages of men (or women) of a given age by the number of never married men (or women) in the same age at June 30.www.aifs.gov.au/institute/info/charts/glossary.html
- Socially-approved sexual and economic union, usually of a male and a female, that is assumed to be more or less permanent.www.killgrove.org/ANT220/cultanthdef.html
- An alternative name for the Beatitude, the fourth stage of the after-life, conceived of as the symbolic marriage of the Spirit and the Celestial Body.www.yeatsvision.com/Terminology.html
- 1) Holy Matrimony or Marriage is the solemn contract based on a loving relationship between a man and a woman in which they publicly promise to live together ‘for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health until death do them part’. ...www.easterncathedrals.org.uk/glossary/retrieve.php
- He married the author Anne Morrow Lindbergh in 1929. He taught her how to fly and did much of the exploring and charting of air-routes together with her. The two had six children: Charles Augustus Jr. (born 1930), Jon (1932), Land (1937), Anne (1940), Scott (1942) and Reeve (1945).www.usairnet.com/encyclopedia/Charles_Lindbergh.html
- Three definitions of Marriage:www.anglican.ca/faith/ethics/hsrg/terminology.htm
- as a feudal term, was the lord's right of giving his ward in marriage to whom he pleased—in other words, of receiving a money payment for liberty to wed her.www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp
- the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, which becomes the foundation for a home and family.www.ebible.com/dict/NNIBD/marriage
- (1923), a blank-verse monologue of nearly 300 lines, blends quotations, allusions, and ironies. Observations (1924), which won the annual Dial Award, shows a marked increase in free verse among the new poems, for instance, in "Silence," "Bowls," and "An Octopus. ...www.bookrags.com/biography/marianne-moore/
- includes a void marriage.law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm
Like I said, I am surprised to find that the dictionary has confused the meaning of marriage to the point where it is unrecognizable. I was truly surprised to find this. If you have any old dictionaries, I would very much like to know how marriage is defined in them. See if you can find some dictionaries that are 10 years old or older, and see how they define marriage.
The fact is that homosexuals are not discriminated against because they are allowed to marry, under the law, just as heterosexual people are. It is their choice not to marry someone of the opposite sex. No-one is withholding that right from them. Everyone has the right to marry as it used to be defined (before they confused the definition).
Now let me get to the crux of the matter. Let me ask this question: Do homosexuals want the right to marry or do they just want to "raise a ruckus" and seek attention and mock religion and marriage? The obvious answer is the latter.
I have written many articles about how today's popular culture, celebrates that which is bad, evil and abnormal, and mocks that which is good, righteous and normal. I have given examples of how today's youth often put grotesque jewelry through piercings on their lips, nose, eyebrows, tongue, cheeks, nipples, bellybuttons and sex organs. They often use foul language and the boys often dress like and emulate gangsters, and the girls often dress like sleazy seductresses. They often wear clothing and tattoos that depict satanic symbols and symbols of evil. These symbols may include skull and crossbones (symbol of death, poison, and pirates), the iron cross (Nazi war medal), devils, serpents, flames of hell, weapons, barbed wire bracelets, spider webs, symbols of witchcraft and the occult. Often they try to out-do each other with bizarre haircuts and hair colorings, etc. Often they install giant speakers and powerful amplifiers that blast the most obscene music from their cars. They justify this outrageous behavior as freedom of expression, but if you try to "express" your feelings to them about this negative imagery and behavior, they will hurl the most vulgar insults at you, in an effort to silence you. It is clear that they are not interested in positive expressions, but only negative, shocking and offensive expressions. It is clear to me that this bizarre behavior is a scream for attention from kids who know that something is wrong. Our society has become so upside down that the youth are making up the rules and their parents are afraid to offend them by setting guidelines and insisting on moral, respectful and considerate behavior. Ironically, it is guidelines and boundaries that the children are screaming for with their outrageous, offensive behavior. They just feel more enraged because their parents and teachers don't care enough about them to set guidelines and insist on moral, respectful and considerate behavior. Our youth craves guidance. Instead parents, teachers and other adults encourage these bizarre cries for help, which just infuriates the youth even more, and drives them to become more offensive and more bizarre.
I feel that homosexual activists and sympathizers are acting in a similar way, by insisting that we accommodate them with the bizarre concept of gay marriage. The activists are screaming for attention in a way that is sure to offend and shock normal, decent, family oriented and religious people. The homosexual activists revel in the attention that they are getting on this matter and the outrage that they are stirring up. I do not believe that most homosexuals give a hoot about homosexual marriage. I believe that the activists are raising a ruckus in an effort to get attention, mock religion, blur the line between normal and abnormal behavior and to mock that which is good. They are screaming for attention because they know something is wrong, just as many of today's youth are screaming for attention with their popular culture.
About ten years ago, I asked a homosexual friend if he was in favor of homosexual marriage. At the time, he said he was not. However, after ten years of the activists, media and public schools normalizing homosexuality and the activists pushing for homosexual marriage and raising a ruckus about it, I am not sure how he feels today.
Civil unions or legal contracts would give homosexual couples the same legal rights as married couples, yet the activists insist on using the word marriage. They have succeeded in changing the definition of the word marriage in the dictionary and on the web. They have convinced republican judges in California that marriage between same sex couples is a "right" that "should" be in the constitution. They have convinced nearly half of all Americans that they are entitled to use the word marriage and the homosexual union be equivalent to heterosexual unions. Of course this is preposterous, because no children can come from this union. Homosexuals already have the right to adopt children. There can be no reason for them insisting on this "right" other that seeking attention and mocking marriage, religion, and that which is good and normal.
About 20 years ago, a lesbian co-worker was taking the day off of work to attend a homosexual rally. When I asked her the purpose of the rally, she laughed and said "to raise a ruckus". Today's homosexual activists are succeeding in raising a ruckus. The old mantra "we're here, we're queer, and we're in your face" is the true purpose of the gay activists when they push for homosexual marriage, when they hold "gay pride parades", and when they have bizarre public exhibitions such as the Folsom Street Fair, in San Fransisco.
The exact same reasoning applies to those who oppose the military because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Many universities have kicked ROTC off of their campuses. They claim the reason to be because that the military discriminates against homosexuals. People who are fervently against the military and all that it does and stands for, are the ones protesting for homosexuals to openly be allowed in the services. These people are disingenuous because they resent the military and everything it stands for, and just use the homosexual issue as a way of attacking the military and making problems for the military. The same logic applies to those who are insisting on homosexual marriage. They resent religion and the institution of marriage and by calling for homosexual marriage they are mocking and weakening those institutions that they feel resentment toward. Marriage and family is the foundation of our society. They are too nearsighted to see that when society falls apart, they too will go down with the ship.
Unfortunately, the institutions of marriage, religion and the "intact family" have already been weakened in today's America. The Family is the foundation that our society was built on. This foundation is being removed before my very eyes. Nearly thirty percent of today's women give birth without the benefit of marriage. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Families that do stay together, often have two working parents, which often leave their children unsupervised. The results are clear to see in today's popular culture, but more importantly, I see a lack of integrity in our political leaders that I have never seen before. Our Congress have found legal ways of being corrupt and undermining our country, while entrenching themselves in power and becoming richer. This is done in plain sight of the public, but the public is so confused, they can no longer tell right from wrong, truth from lies or good from evil. While the public is distracted with this nonsense about homosexual marriage, our freedoms, our wealth, our strength and our sovereignty is being taken away before our very eyes. But that is a topic for another day.