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




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

7/23/2004

 

cautiously optimistic on 9/11 report



there are a lot of reasons to be dismissive of the 9/11 report, which i have not read and may or may not read in the future.  it's supposed to be dry as dirt.

conservatives like me were put off by richard benveniste's ultra-partisan theatrics and the fact that jamie gorelick, one of the principle architects of the wall of separation between CIA and FBI that the commission has devoted the bulk of its energies to decrying, was hearing testimony rather than giving it herself.

i also sympathize with the broader criticism that, regardless of who was on the thing, the commission's conclusions were watered down in an effort to advance the findings unanimously.  the sort of bold thinking we need in the war on terror (a phrase the commission attacked but which remains a perfectly serviceable sketch of what should continue on as our national focus) was slaughtered as a paean to group-think.

then you have the liberals who weren't about to settle for anything less than a full-blown jeremiad on george w. hitler by which they might catapult kerry into the white house, or the conservatives who have blamed clinton for 9/11 from day one and had expected the commission to as well.

it will come as no small surprise to many, then, that this thing is evidentially chock full of good ideas.  the republican commission members have spoken of the need to carry the fight to the enemy, that passive defense alone cannot keep us safe.  democrats have talked about a cabinet-level intelligence secretary to bring harmony to the anarchic, petty, disjointed world of intel/enforcement agencies.  lots of ideas big and small which, if implemented, would make our homeland tangibly safer.

it's not that these ideas are necessarily new--smarty jones looks like a long shot next to the prospects of congressmen lining up to say that they were the first to call for this commission recommendation or that--but now they've got a real chance of being implemented.

the 9/11 commission report is, for the moment at least, the infallible Holy Scriptures of the War on Terror.  none dare defy its unassailable truths, and if they do, then convene the inquisition because there's going to be a stake-fry in d.c. tonight.  maybe we did only get half a loaf, but it's half a loaf worth of meaningful improvements that either of our two potential presidents should have little trouble getting through congress.  better still, much of it can be enacted quickly through executive order without the usual anti-monarchist rants from the other side.

a hypothetical whole-loaf report would have contained all the rich, creamy goodness of the real one, plus gobs of fluffy frosting and a cherry on top.  it also would have been a disaster, its pages little more than musket wadding for partisan snipers who would inevitably drown its shouts of truth in louder-still barrages of canon fire.  oddly enough, a whisper has a better chance of being heard.

locdog has good cause to believe we'll listen






7/21/2004

 

dems really are girly men



as if you hadn't heard by now, here's the obligatory link to ahnold's "girly men" remark, and--oh what the heck, i'll just paste the quote:

If [state democrats] don't have the guts to come up here in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you, I want to represent those special interests, the unions, the trial lawyers' ... if they don't have the guts, I call them girlie men.


and if you hadn't heard that, then you are probably amish and, as such, unaware that schwarzenegger was referencing an eighties-renaissance era SNL skit featuring dana carvey and kevin nealon as two pompous austrian body builders who idolize schwarzenegger and despise weak, flabby "girly men."

the argument against schwarzenegger's remarks is the stock he's-offending-women-and-homosexuals, but--God bless google--i've come across incontrovertible proof that the bulbous brothers are in fact icons of lesbianism.  who knew?

certainly not ahnold, who popped in for a peck-rippling cameo on the skit back in '88, assaulting h&f's physique, dialect (har har), and, apparently, sexual orientation by turning their trademark epithet against them.  that's right: the g-word.

i guess you can't fault democratic legislators in the heat of a bitter budget battle for employing every ounce of verbal jujitsu they know.  ahnold's kung-fu grip on the legislature's throat comes at about a thousand pounds per square inch these days, and if "blatant homophobia" is the best counter they've got, God bless 'em.  but if credible allegations of sexual harassment couldn't derail ahnold, it's hard to see how ludicrous ones could.

i think it goes without saying that ahnold meant no offense to anyone, and that anyone who took it anyway had probably been lying in ambush since he won the state.  still, it's possible there's a nugget of sincere indignation buried deep within the showy self-righteousness and hammy displays of moral outrage.

one of the fundamental delusions of liberalism, after all, is the supposed sameness of men and women.  shucks, just banging that last sentence out on my keyboard brings a grin to my face as i contemplate the bile it will surely bring to the throats of liberal readers everywhere: "ARE YOU CHALLENGING EQUAL RIGHTS BETWEEN THE SEXES?"

no, and that's exactly my point: there's a difference between equality under the law and sameness.  men and women aren't the same.  aren't even close to being the same.  i remember not too many years ago, time magazine published this big-deal story on how--surprise!--men and women are different.  this, they thought, was news.

think about that, folks.  they thought it would be news.  when every sense we have working in conjunction with the combined experience of the whole human race attests to the embarrassingly obvious truth, they pumped out millions of time magazine exclusives on how water is wet, fire burns things, and yes, virginia, men and women really are different.

we think differently.  it's not just that we have different attitudes and values--although that's true too--but our brains operate in different ways at the foundational levels.  not surprisingly, one is better suited to tasks generally associated with motherhood, and the other to tasks generally associated with fatherhood.  i don't want to spoil the shocking finale, so you'll just have to find a copy on ebay or see if you can figure out which was which on your own.

to this day it remains tough for the left to swallow the idea that we're not a race of androgynous gene roddenberry creations, but that's nothing compared to lynch mob you're apt to whip up if you dare suggest that it's somehow fitting or appropriate for members of each gender to conform to their biologically predetermined roles.  and heaven forbid we bring God into it, as in "maybe God really wants men to act like men."

gender might be real, but the left will be damned if they'll let that stand in the way pink-shirted pony-tail boys prancing from bath and body works to their 3 p.m. pedicure--and i'm talking about heterosexuals here.  unless the villiage people horribly miscalculated, the homosexuals are yearning for real men as much as the rest of our emasculated culture.

am i saying women should stay home making babies while the men go out and club wild animals into hamburger?  no, but in the name of all that is holy and just, ladies, shave your legs, put on a little lipstick, and would it kill you to leave the moldy jeans at home for a day kick it old school in a skirt?  and fellahs, fellahs.  fellahs, we don't buy just for men haircare products from our stylist.  ideally, we're going to barbers with deer heads on the walls and soldier of fortune on the tables, and we let our wives buy us the cheapest shampoo they can find.  we don't drink coors light.  we don't associate with non-females who drink coors light.  we scoff at the very notion that coors light is beer, or even a reasonable facsimile thereof.  we do pushups in the morning, we hold our heads up and our shoulders back, we give firm handshakes and look everyone in the eye, and we do not, under any circumstances, wear pink.

the left has slid this screwy suggestion into pop culture that "being a real man" means not being afraid to cry while watching steel magnolias and having the courage to tweeze your body hair, i.e., to be a real man, you have to act like a woman.

wrong.

feminism in twenty-first century america has come to stand for a ferocious and unwavering hatred of anything even remotely feminine, i.e., to be a real woman, you have to act like a man.

wrong.

ahnold may have sparked a new skirmish in the battle of the sexes (which is now being fought with the men on the ladies' side and the ladies' on the mens') but he did it innocently.  innocently not because ahnold is, aside from the physical, a perfect man, but because he's probably at a genuine loss to understand why outing a bunch of quintessential sensitive sissy boys for the girly men they are should be in any way controversial.  he's right to be confused.

locdog does have a couple of hawaiian shirts that he bought in hawaii--but other than that, he's all man





7/20/2004

 

bergergate!


 
"oh THERE are those top secret terror after-action reports!  how EVER did they get into my briefcase like that?  and look--they just slipped into my paper shredder.  woops!  gosh darn it, that sure was sloppy of me..."

i'll tell you, i'm almost sad it was a democrat.  no shots of tom daschle striding the senate floor in full glory, pleading through tears of holy rage for the restoration of integrity (vis a vis a special prosecutor to investigate possible white house connections, of course), no indignant new york times editorials decrying not the theft of a pantload of national secrets, but of our national honor, no endless fields of hippy protesters wearing bush masks and carrying signs like "first he stole the election, then he stole the iraqi oil, now he stole THE TRUTH!" or "our national security is as AWOL as bush's war record!"

the republicans just aren't any good at this sort of thing.  no sense of spectacle.

i suppose the real shame of it all, though, is that it was completely unnecessary.  hasn't sandy read bill's book for pete's sake?  he was a part of the toughest anti-terror administration in american history!  what could there possibly be to hide...

...unless...

unless berger really is in the employ of the white house!  no, think about it.  no other alternative makes sense.  after all, we know there couldn't have been anything bad for the democrats in those documents.  bill said so.  therefore, the only person who could possibly have anything to fear would have to be bush. 

i think it's pretty obvious what's going on here.  those documents showed a president who was so committed to fighting terror, so dedicated to protecting the homeland he loved, so single-mindedly focused on the destruction of al qaeda, that bush would necessarily suffer by comparison.  but who was he going to send?  condi rice?  no, he had to send someone who the democrats would never suspect, so he bought berger off--probably by pooling his enron kick-backs with dicky's halliburton money--and off the republicans went to burgle watergate a second time.

locdog can only hope our conservative-dominated media will have the intellectual honesty to share the truth






7/19/2004

 

liberal girls are easy, conservative men are hard


 
my conservative brothers, how many times has some liberal interlocutor, consternated by your superior intellect, sense of humor, and grasp of the english language, resorted to shallow ad hominem smears when they sensed the battle was lost?  if you're like me, thousands.  and i wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that many, perhaps most of these smears had something to do with your sex life.
 
according to liberals, the fundamental conservative hang-up is sex.  we were all married as virgins right out of high school, reluctantly did it on our wedding nights, knocked the wife up, then spent every evening since cleaning our assault rifles, finishing our manifestos, or doing pushups until our ungodly urges passed.  if we just got lucky once in a while, we'd realize what a bunch of sick, twisted freaks we truly are and the world would be a better place.

now it's always struck me as odd that the ones who've supposedly got all the sexual issues are the ones who aren't obsessing over sex their every waking moment, but whatever.  i've been content to ignore the celibacy allegations because, however ill-founded they may be, they're harmless--and hey, we conservative men got nothing to prove if ya know what i mean.

well it seems that we might have been given a reason to start paying attention after all.


Believe it or not, even the most seemingly deeply rooted right-wing ideologue can be manipulated by sex. As we all know, the sex drive is a powerful beast that has the potential to change people. People lie for sex, they cheat for sex, they even kill for sex - and you can be sure that they will change the way they think (and therefore vote) for sex. All you need to be armed with are your sexy progressive values, a razor-sharp wit, your genitalia, and a mindset that doesn't mind taking one for the team.

At F*** The Vote we provide a Pledge Sheet that can be used conveniently before becoming physically intimate with a conservative, The Pledge Sheet asks the signee to make a promise to vote for anyone but George Bush in the November election.


 
if there's one thing we conservatives know, it's an opportunity for profit, and www.fthevote.com (***WARNING*** GRAPHIC CONTENT) is, ah, virgin territory.

now the beauty of my plan, besides being utterly foolproof, is that we will be using nothing but the highest conservative and liberal principles throughout.  here's what you do.

allow some fortunate fthevote hippy chick to successfully solicit your services (may i suggest bringing lots of soap, lysol, chlorine bleach, and any other household disinfectant you have handy along.  i'm sure you'll need it.)  this you will do in honorable conservative fashion, displaying a proper work ethic and compassion for the needs of others at all times--but don't worry, you'll still get to vote for bush.

you see, the lessons of the nineties were not lost on us, and if we learned anything, we learned that violating an oath is perfectly acceptable as long as "it's all about sex."  so you get to score, get to show a liberal girl what she's been missing and quite possibly convert her, and you still get to vote for bush!  and you've conducted yourself completely beyond reproach!

but, if you, like me, hold yourself to a higher standard than even the best liberal, you might be a bit squeamish at the thought of knowingly and willfully smashing an oath--even one that's only about sex.  not a problem.  just carry out the initial part of the plan as before, except this time, instead of going to the polls and voting for bush anyway, you go home and explain what happened to your wife.  don't worry.  she'll be cool with it.  as we all know, conservative wives are docile, submissive, and as sexually frustrated as we are.  they're practically panting for the chance to be turned into your sex-slave concubine, so why not give it to 'em, so to speak?  your wife, good conservative that she is, should be just chomping at the bit to get you pledged back to the light side.  and if you should happen to get switched back by an fthevote siren once more, then simply wash, rinse, and repeat as necessary.  for, as john kerry has shown us, there is great courage, nobility even, in the flip-flop.  it's only the most recent pledge that matters.  so if you start now, and really apply yourself, you could probably put three, four thousand notches on the ol' gunbelt before november.

locdog will give the liberal ladies of the fray first dibs, so get those pledge sheets ready