No time for a proper post, but I had to let you all know... I finally spoke to Laura Ingraham this morning, and it was everything I ever hoped it would be.
After 193 attempts to call in and go on-air during my ritual morning commute tune-in, we finally connected... and boy, did we click.
I got to describe - in one word - Pres. Obama's representation of the U.S. at the G20 summit this week in NYC:
"Asinine."
(cue maniacal laughter...)
Pages
▼
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Suck it, Dave Matthews
I could have put that more delicately, but...
Check out the awesomeness that is emanating from Charlottesville, VA
Check out the awesomeness that is emanating from Charlottesville, VA
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
The First Person I'd Like to Meet In Heaven ...
“For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides.
And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival. Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his selfishness, no mortification every imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself….
After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of ourselves, out of the little, dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.”
C.S. Lewis, in a letter to Mr. Mason; quoted in Leanne Payne, The Broken Image (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1981), pp. 91-92.
C.S. Lewis, pray for us!
And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival. Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his selfishness, no mortification every imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself….
After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of ourselves, out of the little, dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.”
C.S. Lewis, in a letter to Mr. Mason; quoted in Leanne Payne, The Broken Image (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1981), pp. 91-92.
C.S. Lewis, pray for us!
Monday, September 14, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Reducing our Carbon Heartbeat
Breaking news: people are - themselves - pollutants. In a shoddy little piece of propaganda issued earlier today, Britain's Daily Telegraph quotes a recent study by the London School of Economics (LSE) titled: Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost. The bottom line? Babies are burdensome... not only to their parents, but to society at large and, indeed, to the entire human race:
"The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended." The Daily Telegraph, 09/09/09
"The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended." The Daily Telegraph, 09/09/09
The spin continues, "If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total."
Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust at the LSE, (yes folks, that actually exists) said: “It’s always been [obvious] that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up.”
In sum, human beings - themselves the supposed authors of climate change - are becoming a bona fide hazard to global health, and if we could only provide adequate family planning resources (read: harmful, cancer-causing contraceptives, condoms which increase risky sexual behaviors, and abortion on demand), maybe... just maybe we can save this planet from ourselves.
This line of reasoning is the very philosophy of the culture of death, masking the grim reality of what is suggested by the utterance of hip buzz words and soothing, pseudo-spiritual platitudes.
What is actually inherent in the equation "More Humans = More Pollution" is the obvious converse: "Fewer Humans = Healthier Planet."
And isn't that what the climate control junkies have been harping after for decades? They don't want to save the world "for the sake of the children" ... They don't want there to be any children. Period. Except for those whom they selectively deign worthy of existence. Healthy ones. Fit ones. Those who fit the socioeconomic designs of their mercenary mothers and fathers.
Perhaps my acerbity is unnecessary, but then, how does one respond to the charge that human beings are trash? That the human person is intrinsically parasitic? Can one be too politically insensitive when answering such a charge? I think not. Maybe it's the mother bear in me, but anyone who purports that curtailing "40% of the world's pregnancies" would solve some pressing issues relating to the utterly unsubstantiated and unproven "epidemic" of global warming has some 'splaining to do. Particularly in light of all the "chatter" surrounding the great health care debate over here in the States.
Yes, by all means, let's make the Pill more readily available for human consumption. That will surely stop the crushing wheels of progress from lurching forward over unsuspecting subspecies and biomes. But then, there's the mounting evidence (as mentioned here and here) that contraceptive sex ain't the panacea it's cracked up to be, particularly from the perspective of environmental impact.
So maybe the Pill's not the ideal solution to curb that nasty, child-producing epidemic know colloquially as "sexual intercourse." Maybe there's an easier way... a "greener" way. Maybe we ought to be looking down the pike for the eventuality of the ultimate rationalization: forced sterilization.
We have licenses to drive. Licenses to wed. Licenses to install plumbing on build sites... shouldn't we, you know, set up some kind of government authorization process whereby individuals can be screened, processed and labelled "fit to breed?"
Don't think it's not coming just because it's terrifying. Twenty years ago, the notion of starving a disabled person to death was terrifying. Forty years ago, there existed no such notion as "consensual sex" between a sixteen-year old boy and a 22-year old college man. Seventy years ago, the specter of gender-selective abortion was terrifying (well, everywhere but in Nazi Germany).
Which brings us to today. And which brings me to the close of my rant. And the following article, which I'd suggest you share with as many people as possible, with the caveat that you prepare in advance to offer a solid rebuttal to the fallacies contained within.
What is actually inherent in the equation "More Humans = More Pollution" is the obvious converse: "Fewer Humans = Healthier Planet."
And isn't that what the climate control junkies have been harping after for decades? They don't want to save the world "for the sake of the children" ... They don't want there to be any children. Period. Except for those whom they selectively deign worthy of existence. Healthy ones. Fit ones. Those who fit the socioeconomic designs of their mercenary mothers and fathers.
Perhaps my acerbity is unnecessary, but then, how does one respond to the charge that human beings are trash? That the human person is intrinsically parasitic? Can one be too politically insensitive when answering such a charge? I think not. Maybe it's the mother bear in me, but anyone who purports that curtailing "40% of the world's pregnancies" would solve some pressing issues relating to the utterly unsubstantiated and unproven "epidemic" of global warming has some 'splaining to do. Particularly in light of all the "chatter" surrounding the great health care debate over here in the States.
Yes, by all means, let's make the Pill more readily available for human consumption. That will surely stop the crushing wheels of progress from lurching forward over unsuspecting subspecies and biomes. But then, there's the mounting evidence (as mentioned here and here) that contraceptive sex ain't the panacea it's cracked up to be, particularly from the perspective of environmental impact.
So maybe the Pill's not the ideal solution to curb that nasty, child-producing epidemic know colloquially as "sexual intercourse." Maybe there's an easier way... a "greener" way. Maybe we ought to be looking down the pike for the eventuality of the ultimate rationalization: forced sterilization.
We have licenses to drive. Licenses to wed. Licenses to install plumbing on build sites... shouldn't we, you know, set up some kind of government authorization process whereby individuals can be screened, processed and labelled "fit to breed?"
Don't think it's not coming just because it's terrifying. Twenty years ago, the notion of starving a disabled person to death was terrifying. Forty years ago, there existed no such notion as "consensual sex" between a sixteen-year old boy and a 22-year old college man. Seventy years ago, the specter of gender-selective abortion was terrifying (well, everywhere but in Nazi Germany).
Which brings us to today. And which brings me to the close of my rant. And the following article, which I'd suggest you share with as many people as possible, with the caveat that you prepare in advance to offer a solid rebuttal to the fallacies contained within.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
When the "Right to Bear," Harms
I was browsing some status updates today on facebook (a dangerous past time, I know) and happened across this little gem from an (alleged) high school classmate: I wonder why we spay and neuter our pets, but don't sterilize humans based on IQ? A little help Obama please.
So this is what we've come to, then. Eugenics.
Not exactly cutting-edge philosophy here, people, but to gaze into the vapid stares of members of my generation, you'd swear they each sincerely believed themselves to be the next P Diddy or Ashton Kutcher.
Come on, guys. You're killing me here. Or at least, you're killing off our chance at a decent future. When will the tiresome platitudes and social justice mantras of the likes of Margaret Sanger finally be laid to rest?
The answer is, I supposed, never... until the dignity of life is reclaimed and proclaimed from the rooftops. As long as we're just "ghosts in the machine," as long as we're spiritual beings trapped briefly in paltry flesh and bone for a brief hiatus in this lifetime... well then, it doesn't really matter what - or who - we do with our bodies.
The crux of the matter probably isn't a deep-seated hatred for the handicapped, (though my friend's status would seem to indicate otherwise) but rather, a worldview incompatible with human dignity regardless of human efficiency.
Put more simply: if you're not producing, you'd better not even think of reproducing.
The obvious and easy answer - for Margaret Sanger, for Adolf Hitler, and for my friend on facebook - is to simply "eliminate" the unsavory members of the human species, thereby purifying the race.
How, you ask?
Don't be silly. By denying them their "right" to breed. The same way we eradicate viruses or uncontrollable insect populations.
And once we've cleared the way for fitter, smarter men and women to inherit the race of men... why not a few tweaks here and there? Can't we selectively abort to avoid Down's Syndrome? Wouldn't it be kinder to deny earthly life to a fetus with Spina Bifida? And what about certain - ahem - populations who are historically prone to maintain the lowest socioeconomic status quo? Couldn't we push a button and "reject" the rejects before they waste a minute of our time?
This is the answer, though, for some who champion affordable health care. This is the answer for some who tout an overpopulation myth, qualifying the value of an immortal person by their lifetime carbon use expectancy.
And this is the logical line of thinking for a generation who've come of age in the era of Playboy and Roe v. Wade, who've lived their whole lives confidant that the body is a tool for pleasure and productivity, and that persons are only loved so deeply as they are wanted. And that absolutely everything - even one's very right to draw breath - is open for negotiation.
So this is what we've come to, then. Eugenics.
Not exactly cutting-edge philosophy here, people, but to gaze into the vapid stares of members of my generation, you'd swear they each sincerely believed themselves to be the next P Diddy or Ashton Kutcher.
Come on, guys. You're killing me here. Or at least, you're killing off our chance at a decent future. When will the tiresome platitudes and social justice mantras of the likes of Margaret Sanger finally be laid to rest?
The answer is, I supposed, never... until the dignity of life is reclaimed and proclaimed from the rooftops. As long as we're just "ghosts in the machine," as long as we're spiritual beings trapped briefly in paltry flesh and bone for a brief hiatus in this lifetime... well then, it doesn't really matter what - or who - we do with our bodies.
The crux of the matter probably isn't a deep-seated hatred for the handicapped, (though my friend's status would seem to indicate otherwise) but rather, a worldview incompatible with human dignity regardless of human efficiency.
Put more simply: if you're not producing, you'd better not even think of reproducing.
The obvious and easy answer - for Margaret Sanger, for Adolf Hitler, and for my friend on facebook - is to simply "eliminate" the unsavory members of the human species, thereby purifying the race.
How, you ask?
Don't be silly. By denying them their "right" to breed. The same way we eradicate viruses or uncontrollable insect populations.
And once we've cleared the way for fitter, smarter men and women to inherit the race of men... why not a few tweaks here and there? Can't we selectively abort to avoid Down's Syndrome? Wouldn't it be kinder to deny earthly life to a fetus with Spina Bifida? And what about certain - ahem - populations who are historically prone to maintain the lowest socioeconomic status quo? Couldn't we push a button and "reject" the rejects before they waste a minute of our time?
This is the answer, though, for some who champion affordable health care. This is the answer for some who tout an overpopulation myth, qualifying the value of an immortal person by their lifetime carbon use expectancy.
And this is the logical line of thinking for a generation who've come of age in the era of Playboy and Roe v. Wade, who've lived their whole lives confidant that the body is a tool for pleasure and productivity, and that persons are only loved so deeply as they are wanted. And that absolutely everything - even one's very right to draw breath - is open for negotiation.