We have a rancher friend who lives in the middle of nowhere [Wyoming]. Upon his arrival at the ranch last night, he was contacted by a neighbor informing him of a man [in gender only] standing alongside the road near his buildings at 7:30 in the morning dressed in nothing but net stockings and a g-string, displayed in all his glory for the passing of the school bus. Can anyone else see the intrinsic value and the common sense approach of doing what you can with what you have, a staple of American ingenuity. With the impending cut-backs coming in education, here we have a public service provided by one of our most revered citizenry of late saving the taxpayers the expense of a field trip or of providing the usual in-class presentation. It just goes to show that we can't be outdone here in the wild west.
We can be every bit as progressive as our urban neighbors. Thank goodness for our ever so endearing pliability and willingness to change. Obama rules!
As it was once said, "When the left is right, look for the sun to rise in the west." (An excerpt from ancient Gordonian Literature)
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
About a Minute ---- ?
Do you ever wonder why you bother reading letters to the editor in the paper? I 'm always amazed to find out what a hateful ignorant racist I am. It's surprising, considering I've yet to engage. I confess my sloth doth hinder my reluctance to response as does the more obvious absence of reasonable argument to contend with. Still, one should make attempts despite the seemingly abundance of evidence of a reprobate mind. I know that sounds extremely judgemental, but the vitriolic rhetoric spewed, devoid of any semblance of truth, or rational progression of thought, leans towards what I consider to be the saddest state of all confirmed with outstanding consistency.
Today I read all about filthy republicans enraged by their inability to pass legislation to murder abortionists now responding with legislation to destroy womanhood. [I have to state right now that the her definition of womanhood would hardly be within a stones throw from mine.] It takes about a minute to see how stupid that is. Just kidding! It doesn't. What response could be presented that would draw any less blatant distortion or condemnation? None I suspect. Why would one respond except perhaps to draw more attention to the denigration of a mind inundated by a steady diet of godless morally bereft liberal left wing drivel. I really think they're their own worst enemies. I doubt very much that I could make a better case for their moral degradation by anything more than to let them be their own billboard. The lady in question, in her attempt to defile anothers image, paints a far more revealing portrait of herself. I can conjure up little more than pity for her condition and her insistence of portraying it to the rest of the world. I know I sound condescending ---- so here it comes --- a confession. I used to run around saying you can't legislate morality. I still can't believe anything that dumb ever came out of my mouth but I am after all, a lapsed liberal. Yes, It takes about a minute to see how stupid that is. Just kidding! It doesn't.
I read another letter expounding a woman's right to choose, after all our country was founded on freedom of choice. It takes about a minute to see how stupid that is! Just kidding! It doesn't. I am by far not as well read as I should be, but in all the historical accounts that I have read, I've yet to find one based on everyones right to choose what they want to do. They always want to apply a precept such as "freedom of religion" one of many principles our country was founded on, and liberally misrepresenting it, likening it to butter or jelly smothering the bread beyond recognition. I have read enough of the founding fathers to say with confidence that you're not going to find one that would not be repulsed at the killing of the unborn let alone the the idea that they implied any inherent rights to do so. They did overwhelmingly adhere to the idea that freedom of choice was restricted by biblical scrutiny and biblical truth trumped man's law. You were free to do good, period, as the bible states. I realize they forget to teach that now, but omission doesn't change the reality of what was. Now I'm going to readily admit that while I would be opposed to a woman aborting her body I am adamantly opposed to her aborting someone elses body. I like to reason these things out. You start with a common sense test like the following.
If a woman is raped, who should pay?
1. The woman
2. The taxpayer
3. The rapist
4. The baby
If a couple has sexual relations outside of marriage resulting in pregnancy, who should pay?
1. The couple
2. The taxpayer
3. The baby
The baby is the obvious fiend and punishment should be quick. Surely, if the little fiend can't be pulled apart in the womb then the job can easily be finished outside of it quickly enough or not. Payment for his or her crime can be made by way of research or by way of ingredient in a multitude of useful products.
It takes about a minute to see how sick this is! Just kidding! It doesn't.
Today I read all about filthy republicans enraged by their inability to pass legislation to murder abortionists now responding with legislation to destroy womanhood. [I have to state right now that the her definition of womanhood would hardly be within a stones throw from mine.] It takes about a minute to see how stupid that is. Just kidding! It doesn't. What response could be presented that would draw any less blatant distortion or condemnation? None I suspect. Why would one respond except perhaps to draw more attention to the denigration of a mind inundated by a steady diet of godless morally bereft liberal left wing drivel. I really think they're their own worst enemies. I doubt very much that I could make a better case for their moral degradation by anything more than to let them be their own billboard. The lady in question, in her attempt to defile anothers image, paints a far more revealing portrait of herself. I can conjure up little more than pity for her condition and her insistence of portraying it to the rest of the world. I know I sound condescending ---- so here it comes --- a confession. I used to run around saying you can't legislate morality. I still can't believe anything that dumb ever came out of my mouth but I am after all, a lapsed liberal. Yes, It takes about a minute to see how stupid that is. Just kidding! It doesn't.
I read another letter expounding a woman's right to choose, after all our country was founded on freedom of choice. It takes about a minute to see how stupid that is! Just kidding! It doesn't. I am by far not as well read as I should be, but in all the historical accounts that I have read, I've yet to find one based on everyones right to choose what they want to do. They always want to apply a precept such as "freedom of religion" one of many principles our country was founded on, and liberally misrepresenting it, likening it to butter or jelly smothering the bread beyond recognition. I have read enough of the founding fathers to say with confidence that you're not going to find one that would not be repulsed at the killing of the unborn let alone the the idea that they implied any inherent rights to do so. They did overwhelmingly adhere to the idea that freedom of choice was restricted by biblical scrutiny and biblical truth trumped man's law. You were free to do good, period, as the bible states. I realize they forget to teach that now, but omission doesn't change the reality of what was. Now I'm going to readily admit that while I would be opposed to a woman aborting her body I am adamantly opposed to her aborting someone elses body. I like to reason these things out. You start with a common sense test like the following.
If a woman is raped, who should pay?
1. The woman
2. The taxpayer
3. The rapist
4. The baby
If a couple has sexual relations outside of marriage resulting in pregnancy, who should pay?
1. The couple
2. The taxpayer
3. The baby
The baby is the obvious fiend and punishment should be quick. Surely, if the little fiend can't be pulled apart in the womb then the job can easily be finished outside of it quickly enough or not. Payment for his or her crime can be made by way of research or by way of ingredient in a multitude of useful products.
It takes about a minute to see how sick this is! Just kidding! It doesn't.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Collective Sand Party - Everybody's Invited
I don't mind going to a party, as in celebrating a birthday or the like, but always disliked going when coerced. You have to go! What will people think if you don't show up? It's not going to hurt you one bit to go! Well, sometimes, I admit it's not always as bad as I thought it would be, but this collective sand party is one where they'll be dragging me kicking and screaming. Before I start pleading my case though, I will concede, reluctantly, that while a little collective sand is inevitable and unavoidable, I reserve the right to hose down, re-groom and withdraw to my own little hobble. You see, I grew up and the allure of the beach parties with their sand castles disappeared when the tide of reality came rolling in. You see, I listened to a friend who talked some about sand and about a rock. No one wants to talk about the Rock anymore --- everyone wants to talk about the sand, and if we use all the sand, we'll be able to build this incredible castle. All you have to do is forget about the tide and that silly old Rock.
I suppose everyone's wise to me now. This is going to be another cheap shot at my " Deluded Dreamers". I really can't afford to do much else and as people start waking up they'll realize the same. This is usually when a good "DD" will remind me that we're all in this together, and I agree. As Lewis acknowledged in his fleet of ships analogy, most people will agree that the ship needs to be seaworthy. Secondly, that for the safety of the other ships, rules of the sea must be observed. Thirdly, the one that causes all the conflict and confusion, is agreement on the destination. I must be blind at this point not to see the obvious innuendos of a socialistic unity as the only way to achieve the obvious goals. Well, what's the cost of membership going to be? Oh, and what exactly is a member? What kind of a unit --- oops! I mean member am I? I mean we are all like the grains of sand, united in our quest to build our super, fantastical sand castle. Oh! I almost forgot, who gets to be the architect? As you probably suspected I have a few thoughts of my own. Shoot, I just broke one of those membership rules ---- private thoughts and or opinions are strictly prohibited and unnecessary and will be supplied by the state. Obviously, this is one of those silly blunders I always seem to make. I hope someone has the good sense to respond and give me a good name-calling. That's the best way to deal with people who are too stupid to change. Sorry! I'm too stupid to learn my lesson so I'll continue.
It's time for a quote. "...the modern notion that children should call their parents by their Christian names is so perverse. For this is an effort to ignore the difference in kind, which makes for real organic unity. They are trying to inoculate the child with the preposterous view that one's mother is simply a fellow citizen like everyone else, to make it ignorant of what all men know and insensible to what all men feel. They are trying to drag the featureless repetitions of the collective into the fuller and more concrete world of the family. A convict has a number instead of a name. That is the collective idea carried to its extreme." C.S. Lewis
Well, I am a firm believer in membership, one that acknowledges how unique we all are and the awesome way in which we compliment the body, one that bestows abundant honor on members perceived to be less honorable, one that suffers when another suffers and rejoices when another is honored. I hear an objection coming ---- Why can't I see how truly collective this is? I'm not going to disagree. This is true unity! I hate to gig your bum now by bringing up that silly old Rock again. He told me that this little grain of a person that I am shouldn't be yoked to you forgetful little grains regardless of the fact that at some point He may require me to lay down my life for one of you. You know, grains that are prone to huge exaggerations, denying the Rock, doing despicable things like dismembering little unborn grains and throwing them in the trash while reaping huge profits, and let's not forget the less discreet grains engaged in their nasty little perversions with anything that walks or just about walks, oh, and the grains that worship little made-up rocks while telling little fibbers about them all being the same. Gosh, after all, things have always been going on the same way forever what with all this evolving and constant mastering of concepts like relativity and subjectivism.
I know that last sentence didn't make sense [being the same and changing --- mastering the constantly revised], but some people are determined to preach it as the gospel, and we shouldn't be surprised. 2 Peter 3 tells us that in the last days scoffers walking after their own lusts would say all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation [uniformitarianism]. They would be purposely ignorant of the flood and creation. All you have to do is believe reason evolved from chaos and blind chance against insurmountable odds, that reason is an unintended by-product of a mindless process, and your mind is a product of the irrational. This is the foundation of their sandcastle and the reasoning they base the plausibility of their fairy-tale on. Sounds reasonable if reason would somehow become reasonable. I wonder if that's why chapter 3:5 says they'll be dumb on purpose. What were they thinking? Doesn't matter if thinking's just an accident like they say.
I've got a theory ---- and it conforms partially to what they're saying. Things aren't changing much. What we're seeing is part of a revolution [as in revolving, like one of those doors]. Society goes corrupt and immoral and guess what? All sorts of things start falling out the closet just like history has shown us over and over again until the show's over and the tide comes in one more time. The sandcastles will be gone but the Rock will prevail with all His little tiny rocks that clung to the only reasonable recourse, the absolute and unchanging, the beginning and end.
I suppose everyone's wise to me now. This is going to be another cheap shot at my " Deluded Dreamers". I really can't afford to do much else and as people start waking up they'll realize the same. This is usually when a good "DD" will remind me that we're all in this together, and I agree. As Lewis acknowledged in his fleet of ships analogy, most people will agree that the ship needs to be seaworthy. Secondly, that for the safety of the other ships, rules of the sea must be observed. Thirdly, the one that causes all the conflict and confusion, is agreement on the destination. I must be blind at this point not to see the obvious innuendos of a socialistic unity as the only way to achieve the obvious goals. Well, what's the cost of membership going to be? Oh, and what exactly is a member? What kind of a unit --- oops! I mean member am I? I mean we are all like the grains of sand, united in our quest to build our super, fantastical sand castle. Oh! I almost forgot, who gets to be the architect? As you probably suspected I have a few thoughts of my own. Shoot, I just broke one of those membership rules ---- private thoughts and or opinions are strictly prohibited and unnecessary and will be supplied by the state. Obviously, this is one of those silly blunders I always seem to make. I hope someone has the good sense to respond and give me a good name-calling. That's the best way to deal with people who are too stupid to change. Sorry! I'm too stupid to learn my lesson so I'll continue.
It's time for a quote. "...the modern notion that children should call their parents by their Christian names is so perverse. For this is an effort to ignore the difference in kind, which makes for real organic unity. They are trying to inoculate the child with the preposterous view that one's mother is simply a fellow citizen like everyone else, to make it ignorant of what all men know and insensible to what all men feel. They are trying to drag the featureless repetitions of the collective into the fuller and more concrete world of the family. A convict has a number instead of a name. That is the collective idea carried to its extreme." C.S. Lewis
Well, I am a firm believer in membership, one that acknowledges how unique we all are and the awesome way in which we compliment the body, one that bestows abundant honor on members perceived to be less honorable, one that suffers when another suffers and rejoices when another is honored. I hear an objection coming ---- Why can't I see how truly collective this is? I'm not going to disagree. This is true unity! I hate to gig your bum now by bringing up that silly old Rock again. He told me that this little grain of a person that I am shouldn't be yoked to you forgetful little grains regardless of the fact that at some point He may require me to lay down my life for one of you. You know, grains that are prone to huge exaggerations, denying the Rock, doing despicable things like dismembering little unborn grains and throwing them in the trash while reaping huge profits, and let's not forget the less discreet grains engaged in their nasty little perversions with anything that walks or just about walks, oh, and the grains that worship little made-up rocks while telling little fibbers about them all being the same. Gosh, after all, things have always been going on the same way forever what with all this evolving and constant mastering of concepts like relativity and subjectivism.
I know that last sentence didn't make sense [being the same and changing --- mastering the constantly revised], but some people are determined to preach it as the gospel, and we shouldn't be surprised. 2 Peter 3 tells us that in the last days scoffers walking after their own lusts would say all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation [uniformitarianism]. They would be purposely ignorant of the flood and creation. All you have to do is believe reason evolved from chaos and blind chance against insurmountable odds, that reason is an unintended by-product of a mindless process, and your mind is a product of the irrational. This is the foundation of their sandcastle and the reasoning they base the plausibility of their fairy-tale on. Sounds reasonable if reason would somehow become reasonable. I wonder if that's why chapter 3:5 says they'll be dumb on purpose. What were they thinking? Doesn't matter if thinking's just an accident like they say.
I've got a theory ---- and it conforms partially to what they're saying. Things aren't changing much. What we're seeing is part of a revolution [as in revolving, like one of those doors]. Society goes corrupt and immoral and guess what? All sorts of things start falling out the closet just like history has shown us over and over again until the show's over and the tide comes in one more time. The sandcastles will be gone but the Rock will prevail with all His little tiny rocks that clung to the only reasonable recourse, the absolute and unchanging, the beginning and end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)