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




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

3/01/2003

 

i hope someone asks shaikh mohammed about this



this is so wrong, but i just can't help myself...

My friend, if you ever had any doubt that Masturbation, Violence and Liberalism are the inseparable causes of the current Assault on America, the e-mails below will change your mind One Hundred Percent!

MASTURBATION EQUALS VIOLENCE! How can any honest person believe otherwise in the face of the overwhelming evidence presented here? The one thing that the authors of these messages have in common, other than the fact that they are all seething powderkegs of homicidal fury, is that they all MASTURBATE!

LIBERALISM EQUALS VIOLENCE! Note well the Liberal political philosophies parroted by so many of these diatribes! This proves more than ever that ALL Liberal political movements, including Feminism, Communism, Nazism, Vegetarianism, the Democratic Party and the current "Peace" movement, are nothing but violent death cults fueled by the evil hatred that comes from Chronic Masturbation! Can anything be more chilling than a warning that you are on a list of victims to be "killed by people with open minds and accepting personalities?"


for more go here and here. be warned that the "overwhelming evidence" the writer cites above is included in the first link, and contains some rather spicy language as you may well imagine. the second link is to the "americans for purity" home page itself, and includes such gems as masturbation myths debunked ("Myth: But everyone's doing it! Reality: Surveys have repeatedly shown that up to 5% of Americans don't Masturbate."), proposed solutions to the "REAL Number One Public Health Problem" ("If we outlaw dildos and require that all sausages, cucumbers and carrots be sold pre-sliced, we will make it much easier for the women among us to resist the temptation to Masturbate."), and data which reveals the shocking link between crime and masturbation:

be part of the solution!

consider this a public service announcement from your friendly neighborhood locdog





 

if mohammed won't come to the mountain...



pakistani officials have captured khalid shaikh mohammed, al qaeda second in command and 9/11 mastermind. it isn't yet clear to what extend american authorities were involved in the arrest, but one thing is clear: for the moment, george w. bush is invincible.

one of the most persistent tactics of democratic opponents to bush's iraq policy has been the attempt to portray war in iraq as a cover-up for american failures in the real war, the one on terror. the wily bin laden has eluded our agents and frustrated an otherwise unassailable president, while hussein sits easily within our reach. bush pulls off a geo-political bait'n'switch, he's a conquering hero, and there's nothing but fair winds and following seas into the '04 elections...to which bush's obvious response has been that the war on terror is proceeding even if it's failed to produce many big name bad guys. al qaeda is routed and disorganized, the whitehouse insists, and indeed, for better than a year now they've been unable to mount anything close to a substantive counter-attack, at least, not on american soil they haven't. further, bush has argued, a war against iraq is part of the war on terror. saddam may not be quite as chummy with al qaeda as the saudis or iranians, but they share a common enemy, and saddam would be more than willing to give them a vial of clean, untraceable contagion for use within these fruited plains.

playing to the forced skepticism of a partisan media and cynical world audience, democrats have snorted at the link between iraq and al qaeda. and since there is no meaningful connection, they say, can we afford to waste our precious resources pursuing a democratic iraq while al qaeda goes free?

yes, we can.

whether you believe war against saddam is war against terror or not is now irrelevant. with shaikh mohammed's blood hussein's death warrant has been signed. his capture is good news for the president and republicans in general, the american people, and peace loving peoples the world over...pretty much everyone but the democrats. if the economy improves, they'll really be in a bad way. sad, isn't it, that a once proud party has pinned its hopes to our failures in the war on terror and the continuance of the clinton recession?

the best bet for a democratic whitehouse come '04 is another major terror attack.

one more reason locdog hopes they don't get it





 

an iraq war game! bush...or clinton?



hi! i'm wink wanker and welcome to...

(audience shouts in unison) "BUSH! --OR! --CLINTON!"

that's right, it's the name game where we quote presidential proclamations on iraq and its despot saddam hussein, and our contestants have to figure out who said them: bush...or clinton!

(canned applause)

here's how we play the game. i'll read you a quote and you'll tell me if it was said by our 42nd president, william jefferson clinton, or our 43rd president, george walker bush. scores will be tallied at the end and the winner will receive a...uh...bush or clinton hat, or something. ready? let's play:

1. bush or clinton: "Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

2. bush or clinton: "Saddam Hussein is not a good man by our definition. There's no question...he has significant stocks of chemical and biological agents."

3. bush or clinton: "Along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning."

4. bush or clinton: "Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3,100 people on September 11. Osama bin Laden did, and as far as we know he's still alive."

5. bush or clinton: "Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors."

6. bush or clinton: "we might do more good for American security in the short run at far less cost by beefing up our efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere to flush out the entire network."

7. bush or clinton: "If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will."

8. bush or clinton: "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

9. bush or clinton: "you want to run the world of the 21st century or do you want to lead the world? There's a big difference."

10. bush or clinton: "the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

***********

locdog, er, wink will post the answers in his comments below. try to figure it out on your own first, and no googling!





2/28/2003

 

response to amy welborn



as if amy welborn knew or cared who i was, i will now offer a response to her post on iraq. thanks to fellow blogger sean gallagher (see "nota bene" permalinked in my blogroll) for bringing amy's post to my attention.

you can find the post on welborn's blog, but she doesn't offer permalinks to individual posts, so you may have to hunt for her wednesday, february 26th offering. it's worth the search, and the time it takes to read the longish post. welborn is an excellent writer who argues her points with style. i'll just sort of meander through those points in my response, though, because systematic, point by point rebuttals aren't what i want to do with my friday. my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

she begins by presenting a hypothetical scenario in which the pope commands tony blair and bush to war, then asks pro-war readers if that's what they want. as a pro-war reader and a protestant i feel no particular inclination to care what the pope thinks one way or the other. i do not consider anything the man says to be infallible, or even particularly noteworthy, except inasmuch as what he says matters a great deal to millions of people all over the world. welborn insists that this is somehow insignificant, that what's really important is that pope is taking the "Long View" of the situation, and that's why his opinions matter. a lot of people share the pope's Long View, amy, but most of them do not live in the vatican, wear a pointy hat, and own the loyalties of fanatical hordes the world over. note this does not include all catholics, but if welborn wants to point to "the indifference of many Western Catholics to what the Pope says" as if it's somehow a representative view of catholicism world-over, well, she's got a lot more convincing to do.

I’m just saying – if it’s fair to push antiwar thinkers (and non-thinkers) on what realistic alternatives they might propose to actions they’re criticizing, it’s perfectly fair to ask the same question of those who seem to want the Pope to do an Urban II on Iraq.


speaking for myself, i'd be willing to settle for not having another pius XII. as welborn herself admits, the pope has placed virtually all responsibility for saddam's dalliances with inspectors or post-war atrocities on the united states or united nations: "I admit that Vatican diplomacy is a complete mystery to me, and a matter of great frustration." in evaluating this statement, i have two options. one the one hand i can believe that a respected writer and thinker like amy welborn is truly naive enough not to recognize the pope's rudimentary diplomatic gestures for what they are, or, i can believe she doesn't want to recognize the same. i'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume the former:

the pope puts the pressure on the u.s. and the u.n. because iraq could care less what he thinks, he knows it, and he doesn't want to look like an ineffectual fool.

diplomats always, always, always capitulate to or ignore tyranny, because diplomats are completely ineffective in its face. saddam hussein understands one thing, and one thing only, and it ain't the niceties of state. the pope's actions today are consistent with the pattern established by pius XII, neville chamberlain, and the current united nations security council. diplomats cower in the face of tyranny because they have to. the pope's anti-war statements are thus motivated firstly by simple self-interest, and besides, he can cash in on european and latin anti-american sentiments as he offers them--places where people aren't so indifferent to what the pope says.

getting back to the pope's aforementioned "Long View," it would seem it extends little further than the first few falling bombs, at least according to welborn:

War is a horror, war spirals out of control, war, ultimately wrecks countries and lives, war ravages and scorches. It sees wars begun in good intentions and explode into the reality of batches of young men shoved into front lines, slaughtered, and replaced with more batches of young men, countrysides and lives left bare, burned and ruined, the foundations laid in that scorching for the next war, to the next batches of young men slaughtered, and finally to civilians incinerated into less than dust. Is there any other way short of this?


no, there isn't. and while you look for one, and have been looking for better than a decade now, saddam grows stronger and his people continue to suffer and die. and for goodness' sake, does anyone really think an iraqi war is going to "spiral out of control"? welborn is shouting "quagmire!" and we haven't even fired a shot yet. i'm not exactly sure what she bases her claims on, given that iraqi troops in the last war were surrendering to t.v. news crews at one point, and that current iraqi morale is somewhere around that of post-waterloo france, and that the soldiers forced to fight in the iraqi army would gleefully turn their arms on hussein given the slightest hint of an opportunity. further, i'm not exactly sure why welborn hasn't yet entered twenty-first century, but the grueling trench war she envisions doesn't exist anymore, at least not when the united states is involved. if this war lasts more than a couple of months, i'll be amazed. finally, we no longer "ravage and scorch". there will be no carpet bombing, no blasted infrastructure, no ruined factories, no helicopter raid massacres of villages set to flight of the valkyries or, if there are, they will be the result of an american goof, which, let's face it, is inevitable. that said, modern technology makes the human costs of a war to remove hussein remarkably low (and hysterical predictions of millions of dead civilians be damned). the united states intends to liberate and rebuild iraq. it is not in our interests to cripple it. many of these same dour forecasts were heard preceding the liberation of afghanistan, and yet the civilian toll was less than five thousand dead. that's a slow day in saddam's iraq.

the Long View is shockingly short and one-sided. it will increase terrorism, threatens welborn. they said the same thing before afghanistan. it will lead to another vietnam, threatens welborn. they said the same thing before afghanistan. it will be a propaganda coup for the arab world, threatens welborn. they said the same thing before afghanistan. i love that last one, by the way. some peacenik progenitor back in the forties was probably hand-wringing that kicking hitler out of poland would be a propaganda coup for the nazis. funny, though, how the self-proclaimed telescopically-endowed only seem to see the potential evils. i suppose a view through a tunnel could be pretty long, but shouldn't at least some considerations be given to the benefits of establishing an arab democracy in the middle-east, of the potential for saving human life (both iraqi and american), of the cost of an approach to saddam employing anything less than all out war? i would think the Long View ought to be a bit more than an ultra-pessimistic, glass is 100% empty portrayal of the immediate future, but what do i know.

in brief, her other points.

I cannot stop asking myself: Why Hussein? Why now?

It sounds noble and right to gather ourselves to rid the region and the world of a ruthless dictator like Hussein. We are told that the majority of Iraqis are but waiting for our forceful presence in order to reach down deep and join us, even from the ranks of their own military. On its own, that sounds okay…(not in line with just war thinking yet, though…but from a humanitarian standpoint – I’ll give it to you).

Yes, it all sounds fine until you (or at least I) step back and consider the global situation, and in particular our stance towards other nations who a)also are controlled by freedom-hating regimes and b)are more directly tied to terror.


emphasis hers. why is it, by the way, that those who stage the de facto defense of tyrants feel the most compelled to smear them?

"the north koreans have nukes, the saudis and iranians are cozier in bed with bin laden, etc., etc.," say iraq doves. yes, yes, we've heard. "is hussein the worst this, or is hussein the only that," welborn asks. some valid points, all of which are conceded. but i have a question for you, amy: can you name for me one other currently-ruling dictator who consumed one of his neighbors, was booted out by the world, was ordered to disarm, has failed to eliminate his WMD stockpiles and production programs through ten years and 17 (or is it 18 or 19?) u.n. resolutions, has forgone hundreds of billions of dollars in oil revenue to keep inspectors out so that he could maintain said weapons and programs, has attempted to assassinate a former president of the united states, has continually brutalized and slaughtered his people in ways that would have done pol pot proud, trains terrorists within his own borders and shares a common enemy with them (boy, does he ever), is believed to have armed said terrorists with one of the deadliest poisons yet conceived, and who couches his imperialistic ambitions in the crux of the most explosive region on the face of the earth?

i won't bother waiting. and as to why now, will there ever be a time when the people of the united states, and of the world in general, will be more willing to go to war against saddam? if war it must be, then war it must be now. moving along:

Of course, the second justification for war is those WMDs. The morality of a pre-emptive strike has been widely debated. All I wonder is…doesn’t the advent of a full scale war increase the chances of their use?


yes, it does. it increases the chances of their use against american soldiers, you know, the people who have been specifically trained and equipped to face such threats since they volunteered to do so. it immeasurably decreases the chances of their use in the mall of america or disney world.

Finally, there’s militant, anti-Western, anti-Israel Islam. There is a desperate need to temper this tendency, and I’m sensing that the thinking seems to be that by establishing a US-backed state in Iraq, a base will be established for this – a base for moderation, for openness to the West, for the beginnings of tolerance of Israel. I’m thinking that’s what Bush is going to address tonight when he speaks at the AEI. Which is great. But…war?


yes, war. whence cometh this new-found catholic fear of war as if it were the chiefest of evils, rather than a weapon wielded for just or unjust purposes, and in just or unjust fashions? if war is what it takes to establish a democracy in the middle-east, democracy being the greatest weapon of earthly origin against militant islam, then we go to war. i would have thought three thousand slain americans and a smoldering pentagon would have driven that point home for most. it certainly got the attention of the saudis and the iranians. they have as many reasons to hate iraq as we do, if not more, and yet they fear this war. why? because they fear democracy more. let's bring it to them. a blow to despotic iraq is a blow to saudi arabia, iran, even the palestinians, and a boon to free peoples the world over--including those yearning to live free from islamic rule.

in locdog's view, wistful, wishful is-war-really-necessary-and-gee-wouldn't-peace-be-better rhetoric isn't principled, it's the absence of principle




2/27/2003

 

death of a legend



today, fred rogers died. there probably hasn't been a child born since 1967 that doesn't know the theme song by heart, or that wouldn't recognize that red, zip-up cardigan. where other programs clamored for the attention of children, rogers murmered, smiled, and pondered. as i reflect on mr. roger's neighborhood, perhaps what stands out the most was how real he felt. sort of like another grandfather, one who was seperated by the infinite distance of an impersonal medium and yet remained as genuine as anyone i ever knew. i outgrew other children's programs, but even now if i see mr. rogers on the tube, i'll pause and watch. funny how you appreciate him more with age.

locdog will miss him




2/25/2003

 

busy, busy, busy



i've been swamped lately but i hope to be able to post again soon. when i don't have time to post on a dan rather saddam hussein interview, you know i'm busy.

locdog is really bummed about letting that one slip by