blogs4God - a Semi-Definitive List of Christian Blogs Rate this blog




This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

1/10/2003

 

was hitler gay?



who cares.

i'm not sure how what hitler may or may not have done with his penis alters his status as history's greatest villain, but then, they've, uh, probed every other facet of hitler's life (including that creepy thing he had going with his niece) so why not this?

drudge reported yesterday that hbo is filming a documentary based on a controversial biography by a german history professor named lothar machtan who claimed der fuhrer had some unresolved sexual issues. not surprisingly, gay advocacy groups are up in arms about the whole thing. not because they wouldn't want word leaking that The Bad Guy himself may have been gay, of course, but merely out of their deep respect for high academic standards and journalistic integrity:

When NBC's "Today" anchor Matt Lauer interviewed Machtan about the book in October 2001, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation blasted the program for failing to grill the author on the validity of his claims.

GLAAD news media director Cathy Renna has higher hopes for the documentary. "We would welcome a rigorous and fair examination of the book from all different sides, which it didn't get from the mainstream media when it first came out," she said.


right.

anyway, glaad needn't worry too much. the filmmakers who are shooting the documentary are themselves openly gay, so there's little risk of anything damaging, uh, coming out. then again, the filmmaker's choice of subject matter does beg all sorts of questions. first on my list would be "why the hell are you guys doing this?" but since they probably don't read my blog (who does) i'll have to answer for myself based on some comments made by one of machtan's many highly critical reviewers:

One academic who reviewed the book for the Washington Post chastised the author...for coming "perilously close to blaming the entire Holocaust on Hitler's alleged sexuality."

and there you have it. short-sighted reactionaries like this renna woman are howling for blood while in actuality the hbo propagandists/documentarians may be doing them a huge favor. not following me? here's a prediction for you: the documentary will try to advance an argument that hitler's closeted homosexuality filled him with a deep, inner-conflict that caused him to lash out, but if society had just been more tolerant towards homosexuality, then hitler needn't have hidden his true identity and the holocaust needn't have occurred.

you think i'm joking? why else would openly gay filmmakers be so eager to claim hitler as one of their own? they'll probably shy away from my flagrant wording, but i think the "holocaust is homophobia's rather than hitler's fault" theme will be clear nonetheless. and imagine how glad glaad will be once the lunatic fringe of leftists who write your children's textbooks start telling them that history's greatest evil was the offspring of the greatest evil of our age, intolerance.

locdog can't help but wonder if, once hitler's victimhood credentials have been firmly established, he'll be eligable for hero status




 

am i supposed to feel sorry for the giants?



i haven't been able to figure this one out. since last week's upset shocker against the niners, the giants (and their fans) have been whining ad nauseum about a blown call that supposedly cost them the game. now nfl commissioner paul tagliabue has even given them a rules change because heaven forbid we upset the juiciest television market on earth.

this confirms a sneaking suspicion i have long held about new york athletes and their fans: they are a bunch of cry babies. it also confirms a thing or two about new york's strangle-hold on sports leagues.

how the giants or their coaches can pin all their miseries on a single bad call is beyond me. as far as i'm concerned, any team that blows a twenty-four point lead in a single half of a playoff game, then screws up one of football's most fundamental exchanges during an attempt to kick a critical field goal, does not deserve to win. granted, the refs made the wrong decision, and the giants should have gotten another down. if i had a magic wand in my pocket, justice would demand that i reverse time and give them one. but poetic justice, which is infinitely more alluring, would demand that i stay my hand and do precisely what i am doing right now: snickering at the whiny giants who played some of the most disgraceful football yet witnessed and then cried to the whole world as if they were the victims of some league-wide conspiracy. here's a tip for coach fassel: rather than trying to figure out how the refs blew that final call, see if you can figure out how to plug up your leaky defense. if those guys were the hoover dam, we'd have to evacuate half the southwest.

so let's review. big mistakes made by officials: 1. big mistakes made by giants en route to their richly deserved defeat: i called nasa but unfortunately all of their supercomputers are busy.

it's funny. i used to think football was a man's game. guess i was wrong. and that goes double for the girly new york fans.

locdog's $0.02




1/09/2003

 

"no smoking gun"



if there was any doubt left in anyone's mind that hans blix is a joke, it just went out with a bang. er, a gunshot, to be precise.

“We have now been there for some two months and been covering the country in ever wider sweeps and we haven’t found any smoking guns,” Blix said.

blix did allow that saddam's report "failed to answer a great many questions," which is a bit like saying that o.j. has failed to answer a great many questions about the murders of nicole brown simpson and ron goldman.

what's so significant about blix's wording is that it's lifted from the mouths of every dove who's yet spoken in opposition to bush. whenever they use it, they are referring to that missing crucial bit of evidence--the satellite photo of saddam mixing up a pot of anthrax in his back yard. the smoking gun is that which indisputably imputes guilt, and without it, the president's opponents would have us believe, saddam is indisputably innocent, hence war is unjustified. but that's only true if one first presumes hussein's innocence, and i see no reason why we should. indeed, it would be irresponsible to presume that saddam hussein is anything other than a liar, a thief, and a murderer. the fact that blix hasn't found anything--and unless saddam is as big of a fool as blix is, he never will--doesn't prove the non-existence of iraqi WMDs. indeed, you could never prove a negative like "iraq has no WMDs" unless you first dug through every single, solitary ounce of iraqi soil, and even that would only be proof if one first assumes that saddam hasn't hidden his weapons on someone else's turf.

but i digress. blix is playing to the cameras. he's bought into the dovish myth of his own importance rather than seeing himself for what he really is: a completely irrelevant by-product of a presidential political compromise which was fostered primarily on the basis of domestic (not international) political concerns, and who will be taken seriously right up until those same domestic forces free bush from the need of him. that shouldn't be too much longer now, but in the meantime blix is going to thumb his nose at the bush administration in a pitifully small gesture of defiance: a man with more wit might accept his position gracefully, rather than acting like an aging celeb who gets invited to parties out of pity, but still carries on like he's the star of the show.

very well. it was a mistake for bush to ever compromise on these inspections, and in that sense he's getting what he deserves. is blix dumb enough to believe that he can cut the legs out from under the president with jargon like this? doesn't matter. regardless of what blix says--or finds--the united states is going to dispose of hussein, and no one who really matters, that is, the people of iraq, will be sorry to see him go.

locdog certainly won't be





1/08/2003

 

poor man's fight?



yesterday house democrats charles rangel and john conyers called to have the draft reinstated. "why," you may ask. is it perhaps the dangerous prospect of the first two-front war since truman? do they hope to alleviate the burdens of our disgracefully overworked and underpaid servicemen and women? are they riding the wave of nationalistic fervor sweeping the nation?

nope. it's just that there aren't enough rich white boys dying.

"I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve -- and to be placed in harm's way -- there would be more caution and greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq," Rangel said at a news conference.

"It has unfortunately become the duty of someone else's child to go to war and die as the privileged evade the tragic consequences of war," Conyers said in a statement.


the main problem with the armed services, according to rangel and conyers, is that the u.s. government doesn't have enough say in the demographics of death. too poor? too black? too bad, say some: it's an all-volunteer force. but not the democrats. it isn't enough that everyone has an equal right to serve in the armed forces regardless of race, color, or creed; that whites and blacks fight and die together as equals (except, of course, for robert "white nigger" byrd who'd sooner see the american flag trampled into the dirt than fight "with a Negro by my side.") whether or not access is free, fair, and open to all is irrelevant. what really matters is that the outcomes are bureaucratically palatable--and if people's liberties have to get trampled on to ensure that we have dismemberment and decapitations in the proper proportions, well, so be it.

this is classic liberalism: the government always knows better than the people. freedom is a luxury afforded to those who by nature do that which the ruling elite would have them do. for everyone else, it's "fairness" and "responsibility" and "sharing the burden equally". lose the new-speak gibberish and what you are left with is tyranny. not that i'm opposed to the draft, mind you, but i am opposed to the draft as a means of social architecture.

but let's be realistic here. rangel and conyers don't like the draft anymore than i do, and probably a lot less: the bill is unpassable. surely they must know that. it makes no allowances for college or graduate studies, none of the house republicans are interested, and i feel fairly confident that the average american would sooner see government mandated root canals than they would a return to an uneeded draft. so what, i wonder, are the democrats really after? hmm...

in a completely unrelated story of purely coincidental timing, president bush also happened to unveil his new economic proposal yesterday. panic-stricken democrats are forecasting falling skies and seas of boiling blood, punctuated by periodic bouts with hail, locusts, and darkness. according to the democrats, president bush will be demanding the first born sons of all americans in the bottom 50% to be offered up as a sacrifice to his enduring greatness at his forced-labor constructed temple in d.c. those poor americans who are unable to afford the pilgrimage may also hand their sons over to the nearest wealithiest-one-percenter that they may feast on the child's succulent flesh. democrats also warn of details within the plan which will disband free markets and private land ownership in favor of a return to serfdom--as opposed to socialism which is essentially the same thing but which would have democrats calling all the shots. democratic loyalists have been spotted in cities all across america handing out pitchforks and maps to the white house, but so far to no avail. several wealthy democrat contributors are reported to be long on guillotine stocks, but expected gains have yet to materialize.

locdog is struggling to connect the dots, but when he finally puts it all together, you'll be the first to know