Weeding Out the Truth

                There is a new ad campaign encouraging adults to consume marijuana, albeit responsibly and in states where it is legal. To that end, there is a billboard in Denver, Colorado that states “Don’t let a candy bar ruin your vacation. With edibles, start low and go slow.” Below the message is “consume responsibly.org” who apparently sponsored the billboard or at least was partly responsible for this ‘public-service’ message. Notice that the message isn’t “Don’t smoke pot/do drugs/put toxins into your body/lungs” etc. (Many people have gotten sick from ingesting pot-infused candybars and other "foodstuffs").

                Can you imagine if this campaign were for regular old tobacco… cigarettes? Let’s say there were billboards in North Carolina stating “Don’t let a carton ruin your vacation. With cigarettes start low and go slow.” And then “Consume responsibly.org”. (Hilariously or tragically, depending on your perspective, many of the same people who bash cigarettes and cigarette smoking are okay with smoking pot. Incredibly, a few who advocate banning the sale of cigarettes lobby for the legalization of marijuana. Beam me up, Scotty).

                Would the response to the ads be any different? Or should I say, would there be a response… to the cigarette ad? You know there would be… an absolute outcry. (‘Big tobacco’ would be massacred for starters). Both are bad, but marijuana is an order of magnitude worse whether we are talking about toxins absorbed by the users body or long-term affects on the brain- and ambition- of said user. I never smoked it, but a few friends did when I was growing up. They spent many fruitful hours on the couch several summers watching soap operas for hours at a time. (They used to like to fish and water-ski and just be physically active and alive).

                How does one “consume cigarettes responsibly” let alone marijuana? Dude, I don’t know.

                Go ask Mary. When she’s ten feet tall.

              

Invasive Species Out, Illegal Aliens In!

               There is yet another incredible inconsistency/hypocrisy of thought among liberals that has gone unnoticed in recent years. They champion “diversity” over all other “virtues”. We need all races, creeds, religions, sexual orientations (57 varieties now on Facebook! Claim one now while they’re hot!), fetishes, etc., etc. to be complete they shout. Gay marriage, abortion, legalized pot, it’s all good, bro! Tolerance is everything!

And yet, there are  two things liberals will not tolerate. First, if one disagrees with their positions (see also ‘global warming/climate change’)  that is heresy, not diversity of opinion… and will get one banned from speaking at a college or university…and perhaps threatened with jail time. Theirs is the only orthodoxy they will accept.

                Second, liberals, as the eco-fascists they are, think Invasive Species are going to be the death of us all- if climate change doesn’t get us first- and believe we have to expend whatever effort and resources it takes to prevent them from taking hold in our pristine ecosystem.

                That’s right, Purple Loosestrife, Zebra Mussels, Eurasian Milfoil, Bighead Carp, Round Gobies, etc., etc. will crowd out all our native species and make our lives a living hell if we don’t spend billions of dollars to try to keep them in check…and spare no effort to keep any/all other obnoxious foreign flora and fauna back where they damn well belong.

                Yet, liberals claim that every man, woman and child, of any stripe and character, that comes across our border is a font of enrichment for our nation and is warmly to be welcomed into our culture, workforce and hearts. They will be good for the economy and teach us about other cultures and belief systems. Why, we can learn so very much from them, it is a privilege for us to have them around, whether they came here illegally or not.

                In sum, diversity is not just good but mandatory in all things, except thought- if you think differently than they do. That kind of diversity is dangerous. (The Founders would be so proud). Oh, and  every living thing, plant and animal alike, that hails from parts unknown  is dangerous to our ecosystem and way of life- except for human beings, who are universally a blessing bestowed upon us from any and every country on the planet.

                They do tolerate their own hypocrisy and illogic.

               

              

               

Stork Busters

                “Stork Busted As Suspected Spy In Egypt” read the headline from the August 31^st Daily News  (among many other media outlets). Egyptian authorities “detained” the stork, literally putting it behind bars in a jail after a citizen brought the bird in and pointed out what he thought appeared to be an eavesdropping device of some kind attached to the bird’s neck. Of course, this was a tracking device, to aid in discovering the extent of the bird’s migration, where these birds winter and how long they may stay in one place, etc. This device would’ve been placed on the stork by a European naturalist, not an Israeli agent… with the intent of gathering intelligence on… the stork…not Egypt.

                The Bush administration doesn’t look quite so paranoid now, does it?

                When you detain a large bird- in a prison- for days at a time on suspicion of being a Zionist spy, you may want to consider a twelve-step program.

                Just sayin’.

The Real War On Women

                The Republicans “War on Women” appears not to have prevented them from making substantial gains with the female voter in this past election. In fact, many Republican women won their races, including Mia Love, a woman ‘of color’ in Utah…Utah, of all places! This is great to see. She is the first Haitian-American, and first black female Republican, ever elected to congress. Republican Joni Ernst was elected as a Senator from Iowa.  Two female Republican governors were re-elected,  Nikki Haley in South Carolina and Susana Martinez in New Mexico. Of course there isn’t and never was a Republican “War on Women”. Quite the contrary. Republican values are more in line with women’s values than the Democrats are on most issues. (Single females who want someone else to pay for their birth control and want absolutely unfettered access to abortion would be the only notable exception).

                Republicans desire to limit taxation and provide an economic climate that values and promotes business and- therefore job growth- obviously helps all working women. Policies that do not foster broken families and do help prevent crime are important to women as well. Moreover, policies and actions that protect them- and all of us-  from terror attacks and  keep the country strong and safe  (and their kids as well) resonate with women as well as men. As does getting rid of Obamacare. Stopping or limiting mass illegal immigration doesn’t hurt the Republican’s standing with the ladies either.

                As for mothers,  I never really understood why universal contraception coverage and abortion rights would benefit motherhood. But, that’s just me.

                Newsflash: there is, however, a War on Women in parts of this world. Unlike in the U.S., where more females than males attend college, 85% of all purchases are made by women, etc., etc.

                In some Muslim countries women can’t work, drive, travel freely without a male chaperon or even leave the house whenever they please. In Iran recently, it was recently revealed, that people who buy, sell or walk a dog can be fined or subjected to 74 lashes. A woman had acid thrown on her because she had a bad HiJab. Another was hung for killing her rapist.

                And yet another woman received a year in jail for attending a volleyball game.

                Many Western women like to highlight or show off their bodies in various ways. This may make them feel attractive and wanted, or perhaps they are just proud of- or happy- with what they were blessed with and enjoy the difference between the sexes. In Iran and other Muslim countries women have to wear a Hijab to cover their face and chest when around adult males not in their immediate family. Failure to dress modestly enough (i.e. covered from head to toe) leads to shaming and serious consequences. Sometimes dire consequences. One Iranian cleric says that earthquakes are caused by immodestly attired women.

                This all sounds to me more like a real War on Women, or at least outrageous discrimination.

                True to form, the Democrats will be ramping up the rhetoric now that Republicans have control of both the House and Senate. They will claim that Republicans are bad for “women’s rights”.

                Oddly, they won’t address “women’s rights” in Iran. In fact, they’ve tried to coddle, ingratiate and apologize to Iran- and most of the Muslim world- for years now.

                Women have the right to think for themselves, yet liberals go crazy when they do. It’s the same with African-Americans (and other minorities). That should tell us all something about real intolerance. Mia Love is both female and black. She won in Utah. Thank you, Mia. Thank you, Utah. Ladies, you may be free at last. Welcome home.

                Godspeed Mia. Well done ladies. Well done indeed.

      

              

"Adorable" Science

                Well, so much for the vaunted ethos of “scientific detachment and objectivity.” The headline (in many, many major newspapers, on-line, etc.) of an article about a newly discovered animal species recently read, “Adorable New Mammal Species Found ‘In Plain Sight’.” The article stated that the discovery of a new species was a rarity ( as opposed to how many are disappearing do to man’s evil ways). It went on to state that this new species eats fruit and weighs about two pounds, lives in Ecuador and Columbia and swings through trees at night. Oh, and it has a “teddy bear” face.

                When a legitimately significant scientific finding such as this is announced, the first word in the headline of an article reporting the finding shouldn’t be “Adorable.” The dictionary meaning of the word adorable is: “very attractive or delightful; charming; worthy of being adored.” So let’s go now to the Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary definition of adore: to regard with the utmost esteem, love and respect; honor; to pay divine honor to; worship. No subjectivity here! No feelings or bias!

                Are we logically to consider this animal “charming” when we’ve just discovered him/her? Does it speak French, say we’re beautiful and buy us a drink? And worship? Many of the intelligentsia, the enlightened, don’t worship God anymore, but the newly presented- and “adorable”- Olinguito is worthy of our divine approbation?

                I don’t recall scientific findings being presented like this in the past. I thought they were to be conveyed in a sober, clinical, factual manner.

                Upon inventing the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell did not say (during the first ever “call”) to his assistant “Mr. Watson…come here…I want you and your cute little chubby cheeks to see my amazing invention. It’s way cool!”

                Perhaps I missed the headline stating “Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Gives Scientists Confirmation of One Hell of a Sexy Big Bang… Creating Universe.”

                I don’t think “discovery” of the buffalo in 1804 prompted headlines such as “Adorable , Fuzzy, New Wild Oxen Species Discovered on Plains…’in Plain Sight’.”

                Oh, well. At least I can finish this post with a peerlessly reasoned, clinical statement of fact born of the strictest scientific methodology and purest motives: “Unprecedented Man-Caused Climate Change  To Kill Us All!”

How Many Putins Does It Take?

                Putins, Putins everywhere? According to a report by the Russian-language newspaper “Trust” (but verify?) a female Russian lawmaker has introduced to the State Duma a bill that proposes to extend the greatness of Russia via it’s female citizens having access to the sperm of Vladimir Putin.

                “The essence of my proposition is simple”, said the Chairwoman of  the Parlaimentary Commission on Women’s Affairs (!), Children and Family, Yelena Borisovna Mizoulina. “Each female citizen of Russia will be able to receive by mail the genetic material of the President, get pregnant from him and have a baby. These mothers will be receiving special allowances from the government.”

                Sounds like they already would have!

                Vladimir might be busy for awhile.

                Ms. Mizoulina went on to describe what would happen after President Putin’s babies were born, presuming that they will be male. “And after the birth of the child, he will have to be given to be raised into the special institutions that resemble Souvorov Schools with the aim that he will be loyal to the Motherland and personally to the President of the Russian Federation.” A Souvorov School is akin to a military boarding school. (How long after the births she didn’t say).

                 She continued, “children born from the Russian President in the future will form the military and political elite of the State.” Nothing chilling there! (And, assuming they don’t abort the girl babies, what happens when these throngs of Putin kids are of age to be married? Confusing? “Ivan, meet my father…”).

                The “Putin Youth” will literally be… Putin’s.

                A pregnant idea, to be sure, but there aren’t enough countries in the world for all these future Putins to annex!

                And we thought the U.S. congress had some crazy ideas.

                (They wouldn’t dream of putting forward a bill like this! They wouldn’t, would they? Ms. Pelosi?!? Why is President Obama smiling??!).

                __________________________________________________________________________

*Mz. Mizoulina’s quotes and some other info were gleaned from an on-line piece from the New York Observer (Nov. 6^th, 2014). They believe they were the first to translate this ‘proposal’ into English. (It is not likely this proposal will pass).

*Any/all ‘emphases’ mine

          

Bible Belted

                The United States government must make a formal apology to secure the freedom of two Americans who remain imprisoned in North Korea, North Korean legal experts (try to say that without laughing) said Thursday, October 23^rd. Earlier that week North Korea released erstwhile American prisoner Jeffrey Fowle. Fowle, who had not yet been tried in a court, was flown out of North Korea on a U.S. military jet on Tuesday, October 21^st, after being detained for six months for leaving a Bible in a nightclub in the city of Chongjin, where he was visiting with a foreign tour group.

                Getting Matthew Miller and Kenneth Bae out of prison, however, will likely require an official statement of apology and formal request for their release from Washington, according to the two North Korean law experts. Though nothing is known for sure, there is speculation that Miller and Bae were also detained for carrying Bibles and engaging in activity potentially detrimental to the officially atheist state.

                Two main points must be brought up here. One: consider what the reaction of former presidents might have been if Americans abroad were detained- let alone imprisoned for 6 months- for the “crime” of carrying a Bible/believing in Christianity? Teddy Roosevelt? Harry Truman? JFK? Ronald Reagan?

                Point number two: truth be told, we may soon be imprisoning our own citizens for carrying a Bible or leaving one in a nightclub…and almost surely for “proselytizing.” Already any clergy member that dares cite a Biblical reference that isn’t pro homosexuality, for example,  is risking censure…or worse. In Canada these “wayward” priests or pastors can be banned from their pulpits and actually face criminal charges.

                Yes, Pyongyang is demanding Washington, D.C. apologize.

                What would (our first president, the “Father of Our Country”) Washington, the man, have replied?

               

Gender Blender

The public schools of Lincoln, Nebraska, have instructed their teachers not to use the “offensive” phrase “boys and girls.” Or “ladies and gentlemen” and/or any other gender-specific term. The district foisted a training document on its middle-school teachers that tells them that even hearing the “offensive” phrase could seriously harm students who are “transgender.”  The document instructs the instructors to use such “gender inclusive” classroom names as “campers, readers, athletes and purple penguins” instead.

That is comically absurd. And pathetic. And, as God is my witness (those of you who’ve followed my blog from its early days know I have rarely- if ever- used that phrase before), one of the saddest and most destructive and dangerous things I’ve ever heard.

The “document” also “warns” teachers not to ask students to “line up as boys or girls” , and suggests asking them to line up by whether they prefer “skateboards or bikes/ milk or juice/ dogs or cats/ summer or winter/ talking or listening.”

It also tells teachers that they should intervene if they ever hear the students themselves talk about gender in terms of “boys and girls” and, basically, tell them to knock it off.

This is really about gender neutrality, the “concept” that there is no difference whatsoever between male and female human beings. If that were the case, I’d like to be dead tomorrow, but it isn’t of course, as none of us would ever have been born.

And without life, there could be no “concepts” whatsoever. No thought, no music, no poetry, no passion, no literature, no love, hope or faith.  If there are no sex or “gender-specific” traits, there could be no meaningful  sex, and would be no life, no…anything.

An info-graphic produced by a website used by  Lincoln schools replaces the traditional “Gingerbread man” with a Genderbread person.” The description of the image reads “Gender is one of those things everyone thinks they understand, but most people don’t.”

No. Gender is one of those things that almost everyone intuitively understands, except for a few wildly intolerant “progressives.”

The graphic has been placed in the form of a handout to kids and continues by stating that “It’s not either/or, in many cases it’s both/and. A bit of this, a dash of that.” It encourages the reader to define their gender based on how much they align with “what you understand to be the options for gender” such as “two-spirit” and “gender/queer.” If you’re not either male or female to begin with, how could you know if you’re queer?? Moreover, how the hell are we going to know who to blame for sexual assaults on campus anymore? It used to be the guy was just automatically blamed. Now what? "Well, the twin-spirited entity sought to couple with the gender-queer being...at least that's what the Trans*Female  (gender-questioning) witness said..."

Elsewhere in the weighty documents used by teachers in Lincoln is a handout that defines “gender identity” as simply “a psychological quality…it can’t be observed or measured, only reported by the individual… it consists of more than two categories, including those who identify as a third gender, two-spirit (both), or agender (neither).”

Lincoln Public Schools Superintendent Steve Joel defended the materials, stating that, “…we have kids coming to us from so many different backgrounds, and some of those are confusing to the students themselves, to other students, and to some of our staff.” That the kids can be both genders, no gender, or some undetermined “third gender” is going to make it less confusing to all?!?!!

Many of the best, most beautiful, meaningful, spiritual, powerful and life-changing moments of the vast majority of people’s lives revolve specifically around there being two sexes. I don’t believe the majority of the transgender students are  “seriously harmed” by hearing the terms “boy” or “girl.” That’s patently absurd. I give them more credit as human beings than that. In much the same manner as most heterosexual “boys” and “girls” aren’t “seriously harmed” by hearing the term “transgender.” Transgenders are 1% of any student body at most. Heteros 99%. Who are we trying to harm?

Boys and girls. Ladies and gentlemen. Man and woman. Husband and wife. She and I. Are there many more profound and pregnant words… in any language? Leather and Lace, metal and magnet.

There are many on the progressive side who no longer want us to recognize “truth” and who don’t believe in “good” and “evil.” Now they want to do away with “male” and “female.”

Odd. These are all core concepts from the Bible and the main drivers of human history. They are all clearly understood, even by those that reject them. Yet, the “myriad” of gender options leftists propose (after male or female) are said to be “fluid” or “transitory” or “either/both/neither/don’t know” and such like.

It’s hard to define what doesn’t exist.

               

               

Dark Ages Redux

                 The West, at least as exemplified by Europe, is in trouble. This is not a controversial statement. Most pundits and regular folks alike agree on that. Neither is it a stretch to  state that the trouble is almost entirely self-inflicted. Whether it’s dealing with massive immigration and Islamic extremism/terrorism on the one hand or hyper-secularism on the other, there clearly exists a crisis of confidence. A nearly omnipotent and virulent strain of political-correctness smothers free speech and independent thought, and, consequently, the ability to recognize and state the truth. This, and a general lack of fortitude- and belief in their own institutions- has resulted in a nearly total inability to  protect or preserve this, the most historic of continents.

                Now, however, it appears parts  of  the continent will literally go dark in the near future. As winter temperatures take hold of much of Europe, brownouts may too. This is because the higher the percentage of ‘renewable’- or ‘green’- energy, the more difficult it is to manage power-transmission grids. Europe is phasing out its coal-fired power stations, closing down nuclear power plants, and deeply averse to ‘fracking’, instead banking heavily on wind farms and solar installations to take up the slack. So far, this approach isn’t working.

                Moreover, utilities have reduced output from natural-gas-fired plants in response to Europe’s economic slowdown, and the region’s aging thermal generators are being retired from service, according to Bloomberg News. As it stands now, thirty percent of Europe’s gas comes from Russia, half of that through the Ukraine.  (Another comforting statistic for a continent that loves repeating its past mistakes of willful blindness and irresolution. Napoleon? Nah, nothing to worry about. Hitler? Let him have the Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia, Austria, etc., that’s logical…and all he wants, I’m sure! He said so himself! Uncle Joe Stalin? He’s earned the Baltic states and eastern Europe…so many Soviets died in WWII, let him have it. What’s the worst that could happen…he was our ally for crying out loud?!!).

               

                And the United States under its current “leadership” isn’t far behind.

                Welcome to the “Dark Ages- Part 2”. ( The first one lasted 524 years).

                Settle in for a long, cold, dark, winter.

Blinded Me With "Science"

                What other “scientific method” (theory) is allowed the leeway that’s granted to “Climate Change?” From junior high school one’s taught that you come up with a hypothesis, test it, and go where the facts/results take you. Period. That is called “the Scientific Method.” What other scientific area allows observable data to be chronicled, touted and then changed in midstream when results don’t buttress the theory?

                Take the infamous hockey stick graph…please. That “old trope” is now in the process of being proven wrong. Temperatures aren’t continually rising. And the rate of increase of the rate of increase in the global temperature is certainly not increasing, either. But those who originated that graph and its predictions can’t be wrong. Therefore global warming certainty becomes…climate change certainty. Viola’! Yet, instead of being chastised, questioned, tossed-out or re-evaluated, these folks and their theories just get an absolute free pass. Remarkable.

                Let’s posit a theory here by way of example, using a hockey stick, in fact. All hockey sticks used to have straight, flat, blades. Let’s say we were proposing the curved blade. Radically different! We hypothesize that the curved blade will increase goal-scoring as it will lead to faster shots and more movement of the puck after the shot is released. We are surprised and chagrined to find that scoring didn’t go up, and in fact may have decreased a bit, because it is more difficult to corral and control the puck with a curved blade. Well, we don’t want to look like fools, so…we either find the exact time range where the results did look like they conformed to our hypothesis (“look at this 10-game stretch or these 3 teams only”, etc.). Or…

                We just claim that we didn’t mean that scoring would go up per se’, we just meant that the curved sticks would change scoring  or…something!  It could’ve been the reverse. It doesn’t matter, if the facts don’t matter. Say our theory was scoring would go down, but it actually stayed the same or went up. If our theory doesn’t fit the observable facts, we just claim we knew something(s) would change and that the altered stick blades were responsible for this/these change(s).

                 Yes, since everything had forever stayed the same before we trotted out our precious theory!