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

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



change is good

i felt like it was time for a change. let me know what you think of the new design.

locdog hopes you like it



hello, liberal? it's me, reality.

i've been surfing the wake churned up by janet jackson's big splash last night, and i've got to tell you, it's a hoot. you liberals out there are really losing it. i understand you're mad about having to vote for john kerry instead of howard dean or, dare i say it, hillary, but is janet's boob worth all this?

"what do you mean, locdog? you conservatives are the ones reconvening the inquisition over a little harmless nudity."

that's the first gasser. according to a lib, whenever someone does something completely inappropriate and incurs the wrath of normal, everyday americans, the normal, everyday americans are the ones acting inappropriately. (see tim robbins, the dixie chicks, cbs circa the reagans, etc.) i think liberals must learn this tactic on their first day of boot camp, or, as some people call it, public school. it allows them to make themselves the victim in any situation thereby putting the real victims on the defensive. the upper hand thus obtained, they begin trotting out their hoary old shibboleths.

the one i've seen most often is janet-jackson's-nudity-as-excuse-to-grind-axes-over-"puritanical"-american-society.


this must be the society where conservatives control the mainstream media, Christian fundamentalists control the schools, and rightwing crusaders run the courts. it's also the society where superman is a bad guy and spock has a pointy little beard.

anyway, "puritanical." puritanical in comparison to what, sodom? i offer as prima facie evidence of the liberal's utter moral degeneracy the assertion that parents aghast at their children being exposed to a metaphorical rape complete with R-rated nudity are just being "puritanical."

"don't foist your sexual hang-ups on me, goodman locdog. i don't believe in teaching children that sex is evil and nudity is something to be ashamed of," comes gasser number two.

well neither do i, and neither do most parents. does that mean they have to be slapped in the face with it on national television? do the parents get any say in the development of their own kids? that's why we have what few decency laws still remain, you know, so that television will be aired in a predictable manner allowing parents to filter content based on their understanding of what's good for their brood. recognize that not everyone, dear liberal, thinks as you do. not everyone thinks that no child is too young, no psyche too fragile, to be assaulted with graphic sexuality. see, normal people understand that sex is a good thing, but that a good thing at a bad time is a bad thing. you know, people who don't think like children themselves.

"then who decides what's appropriate and what's not? elvis shaking his hips was considered controversial once."

in other words, until two strangers copulating in a gutter like common dogs don't draw even the slightest frown from passersby, a liberal's work will never be done.

this is a trick question. you can philosophize over it until the cows come home, but why play their game? in practical terms, no one even asks it unless they want to replace existing standards with some of their own devising. put another way, when a liberal asks you "who says what's right and wrong," it's understood that they're answering their own question with an implied "i do."

"no i'm not, but i don't see why we should cling to a bunch of moldy old mores just because a few fundamentalist lunatics say we have to."

now we're getting somewhere. you can't establish your rules unless you rip up the ones that already exist. the best way for a liberal to do this is to challenge the legitimacy of the existing rules so fiercely that you never have time to wonder what, exactly, gives the lib the right to make up his own. for a liberal, it's a forgone conclusion that the status quo is bad. change for its own sake, always, and without explanation! ask for one and you're crazy!

in case you're wondering what does give liberals the same right they're trying to take from you, the answer, of course, is that they do. liberals are smarter, better people than you. they know more about your kids than you do. if you don't think your children should be exposed to oversexed performers shaking their money-makers in front of their mile-wide, five-year-old eyes, it's because you haven't got your mind right. you're a kook, a wacko, a puritan, an extremist, a monster with no right to poison the minds of impressionable children with your dangerous beliefs, and, that being the case, libs see it as their right, nay, obligation, to help themselves.

to wit: "what's so harmful about someone's breast, anyway?"

this question is so dumb that i feel as though i'm soiling myself by answering it, but i'll soldier on: don't be stupid, lib. don't tell me that if tomorrow we learned of a frat-house-era george w. bush doing exactly what justin timberlake did last night, you wouldn't go digging the wooden stake and tinder box out of the garage. don't tell me that if a guy you were dancing with at a club did the exact same thing to you, you wouldn't be calling the cops. don't tell me that that dirty little slut janet was asking for it. who's the puritan now? what's the message we want to send here, pinkos, if this is all so wholesome and positive for kids? that it's ok for little boys to take what they want whenever they want it? don't make me laugh. you liberal hypocrites have established a society that the puritans themselves would sneer at, where a guy can't tell a coworker what a lovely dress she's wearing without getting slapped by fifty million in punitive damages, and i'm supposed to believe that justin and janet's little morality play was just peachy in your books? please.

for the record, it's you liberals who've screwed up nudity and sex. it's you liberals who've turned the human body into a pleasure machine, a mere biological vibrator, instead of the artistic masterpiece God created it to be. it's you liberals who've drug human sexuality down to the level of the beasts--who've robbed it of its inherently spiritual nature and its sublime expression of supreme love. it's you liberals who see it as something dirty and cheap, fodder for hack writers on crass sitcoms, anonymous barroom hookups, and, thanks to cbs, super bowl halftime shows. there is no more worthy understanding of sex than to see it for what it was made to be: a gift from God Himself to mankind, to be enjoyed as the physical manifestation of true love, true love being perhaps the only thing you people understand less than sex.

anyway, thanks for the laughs.

locdog can really use them after four hours of phil simms' inane blather