Is anyone else bothered by the historic parallels?

Recently, Sir Ian McKellen states how, upon finding the Holy Bible in a hotel room, he proceeds to deface it.  He tears out those sections, such as Leviticus, that have some unflattering things to say about homosexuality.

Well, good for him.  Way to demonstrate that tolerance that the gay movement expects-- no demands-- from people who think homosexuality is a sin.

My mother put it perfectly years ago:  "I don't care what choice you make, but stop trying to convince me it's normal."

And that's just it.  It is not normal.  It is not normal sexual behavior.  It's simple mathematics.  Ninety percent of the country is straight, 10% is gay.  So who cares!

Well, the gay movement does.  See, it's not enough simply to be accepted, they also must be validated.  By everybody!  Talk about insecurity!

And if Sir McKellen wishes to rips the pages out of his own bibles, that's his right.  But to deface hotel property?  Well, I hope he leaves a deposit with them, so they can replace the Bible after his stay.  You know, so the next occupant or occupants of the room can read those sections of Leviticus if they want to.

The article's author, Zennie62, says this:
As one who's straight and Christian, but one who believes in civil rights for all - in fact that it's even a conversation is really annoying to me - there are parts of the Bible I elect to skip, like that one. So Sir Ian McKellen's doing a favor for me by taking out a part of the hotel version Good Book I skip anyway.

Me-me-me!  These are the same self-absorbed class of people who tell us if we don't want to look at pictures of scantily-clad men and women at the newstand, then don't look.  And they're right!  Don't look at those pictures if they offend you, and don't read those passages of the Bible if they offend you!

Seriously, what's next?  Legislation mandating such offensive passages are removed from the book prior to publishing?  Destruction of the existing books?

Wait a minute, I think that's happened before:

Who to believe? Me or your lying eyes?

Liberals should sell logic pretzels at the State Fair.  They could be sitting on a gold mine.

Yesterday, I observed vaunted liberal tolerance in action as ANSWER protesters smacked a couple of anti-amnesty Tea Party folks for the high crime of snapping pictures and taking video of the crowd.  One presumes the Partiers were taking pictures of the signs carried by the ANSWER folks.  So despicable, those Tea Partiers exercising their First Amendment rights to document the activities of rival protesters on public property.

Not exactly, according to several YouTube commenters who think the Huffington Post is an authoritative and unbiased source on the matter.  What we can't see, according to the commenters, is how the Partiers were intruding on ANSWER's police-designated protest site.

Really, looked like a couple of guys taking some photos and/or video.  Looked like some words were exchanged.  Then looked like an ANSWER protester felt he wasn't getting his message across clearly through words and opted for a cruder approach.

A self-identified Southerner tries to excuse the outburst of violence, saying:

zenhammer

Listen up Sport,

As a Southerner let me tell you that if you get in someone's face down here, you had better be ready to back your words up with action.

These guys ran their mouth and got a knuckle sandwich for their troubles. If these crying bed-wetters cann't handle it, then they should have stayed on their side of the street.

Well, I'm from the South too, and I'm a firm believer in the notion of the first guy to throw a punch is the one who loses the argument.  Neither zenhammer or I know what was said between the Partier and ANSWER fellows.  It's possible he could have mouthed off to the ANSWER folks to provoke them.  Then again, it's equally possible that the ANSWER folks told the Partier to get lost, and he politely reminded them that he too has Constitutional rights.  The point is we don't know.  Even if we did, it's irrelevant!  Did an entire generation age without hearing the adage "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"?  Shameful if that's the case.

We'll use zenhammer's logic for a moment:  Since, statistically speaking, a majority of gun-owners tend to be center-right, and name-calling and other forms of verbal abuse now justify violence, I predict a quiet street filled with the blood of ANSWER activists who mouthed off to the wrong Tea Partier.  Every heated political dispute devolves into a modern-day recreation of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome:  "Two go in, one comes out."

Thankfully, Kennedy and Khruschev, Nixon and Brezhnev, and Reagan and Gorbachev, to name a few, showed a little more restraint in the biggest conflict of ideologies so far, or that particular street corner in Fort Lauderdale might be a little more quiet today.  Deathly quiet, in fact.

Roman senators brawled on the floor of the Roman Senate.  I would hope we're a little more civilized.

Tolerance

Some liberals just don't like criticism.

Two examples:
 Tea Parties Against Amnesty & Illegal Immigration shows two anti-amnesty folks attacked for the crime of documenting the pro-amnesty protest.

Some words are exchanged, and the pro-amnesty folks starting swinging their signs as weapons.  The conflict spills onto a busy street.  It stops as soon as police and fire sirens are heard.  End result?  "Racists go home" is the chant by the smug ANSWER folks as the anti-amnesty people walk away.  Yes, friends, ANSWER has elevated the discourse to name-calling.

Second was when I posted a video to Facebook, a montage of how other world leaders greeted Emperor Akihito with a handshake while Mr. Obama bows deeply.  A couple of liberals and former colleagues of mine let loose with the snark.  The names have been redacted to protect the idiots:

Did you see what happened there?  First off, commenter #1 tried to frame the context in which I had posted the video, as though I was some sort of anti-Obama birther nut.  I'll say this plainly:   Truthers and birthers both have screws loose.  Commenter #1, whom I've known for years, tried to draw attention away from the fact that a sitting president of the United States had bowed before another foreign dignitary, and refocus on my motives for posting the video.  When faced with inconvenient facts, devoted lefties will attack the messenger.  By casting me as a nut, he hopes to minimize the damage by getting people to ignore my voice and what I have to say.  I deflect the attempt by writing off the incident as nothing sinister, just another example of a foreign policy neophyte stumbling his way through on-the-job training and apparently not listening to the advice of his advisors.  Well, I hope his advisors told him not to bow.  Otherwise, nobody in his administration is competent.

Commenter #2 follows up with a predictable alternative strategy:  Minimize it in terms of what George W. Bush did in office.  At this point, it's been ten months, and that's all the left can do when the right points out an Obama foible:  Compare it to Bush.  It assumes that the criticism would not exist if Bush had been the one bowing.  Classic hit-and-run tactic, intended to take focus off Obama and onto my defense of Bush.  I won't bite.  I don't need to defend Bush because he's not in office any longer.  However, by recognizing the tactic  and identifying it, I've kept commenter #2 from distracting from the criticism.  Pointing out the clear disparity between my grievance and his is a way to return the serve.  Lathering my response in sarcasm is just icing on the cake.

This is what happens when the Left enters into the argument with preconceived notions as to how the Right formulates its arguments.  Some common tactics are:

• Attack: Claim the opponent is just parroting what they heard on Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, etc.  Accuse him/her of not thinking for his or her self.  
• Defense:  "Oh, Limbaugh said that too?  I didn't know that.  Sounds like he's pretty smart."
• Attack:  Impugn the opponent's humanity.  Mis-characterize or over-simplify the opponent's position as part of the question, like "Why are you so against people having access to affordable health care?"
• Defense:  "Who said I was?  I mean, besides you, right now?"
• Attack:   Lament that things are the way they are through mistakes made by your opponent's party.  "This is where eight years of failed economic policies have gotten us."
• Defense:  Stick to your principles.  "You're absolutely right.  We should stop interfering with the free market."
• Attack:  Expose the hypocrisy of your opponent.  "If you support the war, then you should enlist and head overseas."
• Defense:  Point out the absurdity of the comment.  "And if you support abortion, you should work in a Planned Parenthood clinic."
• Attack:  Diminish your opponent through name-calling.  Try to communicate exasperation and that having a rational debate is impossible because of your opponent's partisanship.  "Great, another right-wing zombie!  Why do I bother?"
• Defense:   Communicate that you're exasperated because of the name-calling.  "I was just thinking the same thing.  You're clearly more interested in name-calling than rational debate.  When you feel like acting like a grown-up, I'll be here."
  

We see this a lot:  Shift the focus of debate, particularly to somewhere where your opponent is at a disadvantage.  The only way to defend yourself is to call them on it.  Let them know you're onto their game, and use it to keep them on topic.  Above all, avoid their commonly-laid traps.  When they engage in personal attacks, treat them with pity, not anger.

In the past, I've debated a few lefties with inferiority complexes. They mask their own insecurities by bragging excessively about how much more money they make than you, or how much smarter they are.  Such people can only maintain the illusion of having a superior logical argument for a short while before their insecurities get the best of them.  The more you refute their logic, the more frequently their derision will seep through, and the cruder their attacks will become.  Many of them seem to exhibit this belief that conservatives are just a bunch of racist redneck high-school dropouts who can't spell or reason through their political beliefs.  That's fine, let them underestimate us.  And be sure to point out all of their spelling and grammar mistakes when they take that track.

It's all in how you word it...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/michele-bachmann-president-sarah-palin

Bachmann, at 53, is a darling of the so-called Tea Party movement, which has campaigned vociferously against healthcare reform, the economic stimulus package and legislation to combat climate change. Her followers have been behind mass rallies in Washington and smaller ones all over the country. She has emerged as one of the most visible politicians in America, frequently appearing on the conservative Fox News channel, whose hosts often champion her causes.

The Guardian has a long and proud tradition of being the Pravda of the UK, and this propaganda piece is no exception.  The Tea Party movement campaigned against healthcare reform?  That's subjective.  If the Guardian's reporters and columnists were up on their journalistic standards, they would avoid editorializing the facts.  Proponents of the "public option" or "single-payer" would characterize the Tea Partiers as being against "reform", but the Partiers would describe it instead as taking a stand against partial or total nationalization of an industry contributing to about one-sixth of the nation's economy.  And economic stimulus package?  That's what the Bush and Obama administrations have called it, but there are a great many people who see it as reckless spending and attempts to prop up businesses that are "too big to fail."  And this columnist, Paul Harris, shows his bias again by seeing the Tea Partiers as opposing "legislation to combat climate change" without acknowledging that:

• The science on anthroprogenic climate change (previously called "Global Warming" until surface temperatures just wouldn't cooperate) is not settled.
• Cap and trade legislation seeks to impose heavy fines on industries the government deems to be "polluting" the planet with carbon dioxide.
• The Kyoto treaty has been an utter failure, seeking to regulate the emissions of western industrialized nations while giving the rapidly-growing industries of the Chinese and Indian governments a pass.  Never mind that all of the nations that signed Kyoto have failed to meet their reduction targets.

Harris would be doing his readers a service if he acknowledged the Partiers' position:  The legislation stifles growth during a recession, prolonging it and endangering the economy to collapse into a Depression.

"Conservative Fox News channel"?  Talk about painting with a broad brush!  Once again, lefties see the bias in FNC, but not in ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, etc.  And is it the channel that's conservative, or is it hosts, specifically the hosts anchoring the news desk?  Because opinion programming is by it's very nature biased, and I will allow that FNC has Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'reilly, to name a few conservative/populist news analysts.  But they also have Greta Van Sustern, Shepard Smith, and Geraldo Rivera.  They have a diversity of opinions.  With the departure of Lou Dobbs, CNN has lost its last host with conservative leanings.  Anderson Cooper?  Wolf Blitzer?  Jack Cafferty?  MSNBC's line-up is even more skewed, with news anchors such as Contessa Brewer.  News analysts?  MSNBC's stars are Keith "I went to the agricultural school at Cornell, so technically I'm an Ivy League graduate" Olbermann and Rachel "The Constitution doesn't have a Preamble" Maddow.  Conservative opinion?  Occasionally from Joe Scarborough. 

The reality is that FNC does much better in the cable TV ratings, not just because of the star power of O'reilly, Hannity, and Beck, but because of the diversity of viewpoints.  Hannity's "Great American Panels" have a diverse, balanced ideological make-up.  O'reilly continually has Al Sharpton and Juan Williams as guests on his show.  Here are the results from a recent poll:

• 40% conservative
• 35% moderate
• 21% liberal

The same poll found this breakdown by party:

• 36% Democratic
• 28% Republican
• 37% Independent
  

If the barrage of polls are to be believed, there are more self-identified Democrats than Republicans in the country.  Now, if FNC is such a hopelessly biased channel that, as Anita Dunn and the White House recently stated, it is undeserving of the designation as a news channel, why the strong ratings?  If it's the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, and Democrats outnumber Republicans, how can it be in the lead?  If it's a conservative news channel, why are so many of the other 60% of Americans watching it?

The generalizations collapse in the face of simple arithmetic.

Family secrets...

No, not mine.  My girlfriend's brother, whom I've previously named Fernando, has tied the knot.  He and his new bride were married by a Justice of the Peace inside the same building where his sister works as a law clerk.  As his sister's loyal boyfriend, I apprised her of this tidbit of information.  She contacted her mother, only to find out that, unlike when news of the engagement was made on Facebook, the mother already knew, but didn't say anything because she wanted Fernando to have the honor of making the announcement to my girlfriend, whom I'll call Tawny for simplicity's sake.  So Tawny is the last to find out.  Fernando's new wife, whom I'll name Shayla, is a nice girl whom, according to Facebook, has declared a mixture of "atheism" and "misanthropism" as her religion.  It's no wonder these two formed a permanent hookup.

By contrast, my family is much better at keeping secrets.  For the first dozen years of my life, I never could figure out why my sisters called our father "Bob" instead of "Dad".  I just assumed it was something that older children were allowed to do.  Then my dad explained to me that he was only my dad, and that he was their step-dad.  Over the years, little tidbits of information have eeked out that have completed the picture.  While in college, my godmother filled in me in on some of it.  I was saddened to hear that she died this year.  I was maddened to hear that it happened in June, and my parents & I found out about it with Google in October.  Some members of her family are apparently good at keeping secrets too.

Lou Dobbs

It's a shame that Lou Dobbs is leaving CNN.  I think his reputation was keeping CNN's ratings from going completely into the gutter.  Over the past year, he's become vocal regarding illegal immigration, making an enemy out of "organizations" (since they advocate for violating immigration law, I think the proper term should be "criminal enterprises") such as La Raza.  The New York Times, the much-vaunted "newspaper of record", characterized his views in the opening paragraphs as "anti-immigration."  Dammit, it's anti-illegal-immigration.  How hard is it to get that right?  And while we're on the subject, why the hell are there pro- and anti- sides to a lawbreaking exercise?

A quick glance over the comments explains why the Times' stock is in the crapper:  The people writing the comments made their minds up over Dobbs without bothering to inform themselves.  I saw the word xenophobe more than once.

OK, you nitwits, I'll explain it to you one more time:  It's not about xenophobia.  It's not about racism.  I don't get a shit if a person is brown, black, or purple, but if they're working in this country illegally, that irritates me.  I would be just as irritated if a bunch of Canadians were hanging out by the area Home Depot parking lots, waiting for a unscrupulous, lazy, cheap bastard to come along and offer them sub-minimum wage work for the day.  It perpetuates the economic exploitation of a class of people.  Gee, that hasn't happened before in this country, has it?  I think they called it "slavery."  That class of individuals have subsequently discovered they can get state-sponsored handouts if they agree to vote for specific individuals, trading physical slavery for economic dependence, but that's a topic for another discussion.

This is a message to the citizens of the Republic of Mexico from the citizens of the United States of America.  Fix your country.  Eliminate or minimize the corruption in your government.  Revolt if you have to, to effect some change. 

Second message is the to the government of the Republic of Mexico:  Clean yourselves up.  Stop solving your economic problems by relocating them to our country. 

Third message is to the citizens of this country whom have decided to foster lawbreaking by exploiting day-laborers:  Cut your own damn lawn.  Do your own gardening, you cheap bastards.  It is possible.  I have worked 50-60 work weeks and still found time to get out and run the lawn mower over my little piece of heaven.  So can you. Yes, you sacrifice leisure time.  Get used to it.

One need look at the Roman Empire or pre-1860s Southern U.S. to clue us into where we're heading fast.  Both used slaves extensively.  Guess what?  Jobs were scarce because slaves were cheaper than paying someone a fair wage.

Unemployment is now at 10.2% and could go higher.  There are few or no unskilled labor jobs available for the displaced workforce because of rampant illegal immigration.  When times are tough, it's even more criminal to favor non-citizens over citizens for employment.

There's also the crime and committed by, and government benefits given to, illegal immigrants, but that's a topic for another time.

It ain't over yet

Newsflash to all the media types and liberals who wished otherwise:  Conservatism is not dead.  In fact, smarter politicians know that conservatism, specifically economic conservatism, is the key to victory.  By moving to the right during a recession, by running on a platform of the sound fiscal policies of reduced spending, lower taxes, and less regulation, right-leaning politicos can stand out from the disastrous and undisciplined spending of the Obama administration.  And libertarians can hold their nose while pulling the lever for economically conservative politicos whom might also be running on a socially conservative platform.