Republican stereotype David Frum had this to say about the future of the GOP:
So the question for the GOP is: Will it pursue them? To do so will involve painful change, on issues ranging from the environment to abortion. And it will involve potentially even more painful changes of style and tone: toward a future that is less overtly religious, less negligent with policy, and less polarizing on social issues. That’s a future that leaves little room for Sarah Palin – but the only hope for a Republican recovery.
Yeah, that's right. Abandon your last great set of principles, and all will come to you like the whore you are. After all, don't amoral tramps get all the guys at the party?
Less religion? The GOP would not have had 8 years if not for church-goers. The pro-life, traditional morality message is all that the GOP has left going for it. It lost because its candidate was a wishy-washy moderate who could not even utter "pro-life" without shivering down his spine. Obama-lite would never have defeated Obama.
Proposition 8, the one banning gay marriage, was carried in large part by the black and Hispanic vote that went for Obama.
If the GOP listens to this idiot Frum, then it deserves to go the way of the Whigs.
Oh, and Palin 2012. :)
Friday, November 7, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Going the Way of the Dinosaurs
Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain and a lot of other cool novels, has died of cancer.
He was that rare soul who made science come to life in ways years of staid research never could. He proved that science, like most other important establishments in life, needed story-tellers.
May he be pleasantly surprised to find himself in long conversations with the Maker of the dinosaurs and Author of the universe.
Requiscat in Pace.
He was that rare soul who made science come to life in ways years of staid research never could. He proved that science, like most other important establishments in life, needed story-tellers.
May he be pleasantly surprised to find himself in long conversations with the Maker of the dinosaurs and Author of the universe.
Requiscat in Pace.
Obama Wins
I've known this since yesterday afternoon, but was wondering what to say. I don't like Obama. I think he's every bit as dumb as they made G.W. Bush out to be, but with an inclination towards something very evil right from the start. (At least, the Bush Administration did not begin stumping for torture until push came to shove.)
But at least, it is a tribute to the US that a man who could have been a slave seven generations ago can now be elected President. That is part of why the US is now the greatest nation on Earth. So, congratulations to African Americans on the election of a black (mulatto?) man as president.
I just wish they chose another black man.
So, what are pro-lifers to do now that the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in US history has been elected?
Whatever the new strategy is, sign me up for the Rebel Alliance. With Obama as president, people like Lagman are going to get a lot of foreign money to promote their acrid proposals in this country.
On the bright side, its not all bad news coming out of the US.
Prop. 8 in California passed.
Same sex marriage goes down in California! Who would've thought it possible?
Sweet. :D
Most of the state's highest-profile political leaders -- including both U.S. senators and the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles -- along with the editorial pages of most major newspapers, opposed the measure. PG&E, Apple and other companies contributed money to fight the proposition, and the heads of Silicon Valley companies including Google and Yahoo took out a newspaper ad opposing it.
On the other side were an array of conservative organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and the American Family Assn., along with tens of thousands of small donors, including many who responded to urging from Mormon, Catholic and evangelical clergy.
So, with Prop. 8. it was the big dogs vs. the little guys. And the tiny Rebel Alliance won. I think Joao would call this a "punk moment". (Oh, and screw you, Steve Jobs. I'm a PC.)
I'll end with that note.
But at least, it is a tribute to the US that a man who could have been a slave seven generations ago can now be elected President. That is part of why the US is now the greatest nation on Earth. So, congratulations to African Americans on the election of a black (mulatto?) man as president.
I just wish they chose another black man.
So, what are pro-lifers to do now that the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in US history has been elected?
Whatever the new strategy is, sign me up for the Rebel Alliance. With Obama as president, people like Lagman are going to get a lot of foreign money to promote their acrid proposals in this country.
On the bright side, its not all bad news coming out of the US.
Prop. 8 in California passed.
Same sex marriage goes down in California! Who would've thought it possible?
Sweet. :D
Most of the state's highest-profile political leaders -- including both U.S. senators and the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles -- along with the editorial pages of most major newspapers, opposed the measure. PG&E, Apple and other companies contributed money to fight the proposition, and the heads of Silicon Valley companies including Google and Yahoo took out a newspaper ad opposing it.
On the other side were an array of conservative organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and the American Family Assn., along with tens of thousands of small donors, including many who responded to urging from Mormon, Catholic and evangelical clergy.
So, with Prop. 8. it was the big dogs vs. the little guys. And the tiny Rebel Alliance won. I think Joao would call this a "punk moment". (Oh, and screw you, Steve Jobs. I'm a PC.)
I'll end with that note.
Quantum of Solace
| Rating: | ★★★★ |
| Category: | Movies |
| Genre: | Action & Adventure |
James Bond continues shedding years of camp in this second installment of a revamped 007. While not as coherent and action-packed as "Casino Royale", the movie serves well as a middle movie bridging the ground-breaking first movie and what ought to be an all-out blockbuster third.
Very little of the old formula remained. The only recognizable element from the previous James Bonds were the intricate drink and the two Bond Girls (one of which is doomed to die). The gadgets are practically gone (Casino Royale still had some.). The villains are no longer theatrical. The traps...were there any traps?
The result is a more human James Bond. And the James Bond of Quantum of Solace is the most human of all. He has little suave, and his raging sexuality is surprisingly tame. He beds a grand total of one girl. This James Bond is all business, and for once he's not out to make other guys jealous of the spy lifestyle.
On the other hand, this Bond also lacks subtlety. Bond seems to be playing Grand Theft Auto. His body count is upped from the last movie.
The performances were good, but nothing really spectacular. Daniel Craig's Bond was his usual brooding self. Probably the best Bond this side of Sean Connery. Judi Dench was a presence to be reckoned with onscreen, though her time was limited. Olga Kurylenko was so wooden, Keanu Reeves is gonna feel the urge to cross-pollinate, while Gemma Arterton was smoking.
The vistas were breathtaking, from the Adriatic Coast to the Andes Mountains. Unfortunately, the quirky camera work sometimes interferes with the travelogue feel of some of the locations.
Overall, the movie did what it was supposed to do: whet everybody's appetite for the third installment of the reconstructed James Bond.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
When NAMbLA met PETA...
William Saletan of Slate chronicles the rise of a another brand of sexual perversion / alternative lifestyle: zoophiles.
Zoo what?
"Zoophile" is the new "acceptable" code name for people who love animals. And I mean people who LOVE animals.
The main intellectual brain thrust for this budding movement is long-time "Philosopher of Ethics" and university household nut Peter Singer, who most recently wrote on the topic via an essay called, and I kid you not, "Heavy Petting".
If his arguments sound familiar, it is because of they are the same arguments used for the acceptance of homosexuality. Who said slippery slopes were always fallacy?
The first argument is that since we accept the premise for homosexuality, namely the validity of purposefully non-procreative sex, then there can be no objection to any non-procreative sex. Bestiality would fall under that category.
Coincidentally, this first argument did not originate with the homosexual movement. It originated with artificial contraception. So, to my fellow Filipinos, this argument will be coming to a government clinic near you, if useful idiot Edsel Lagman has his way.
The second argument is that it is not "unnatural", since cross-specie sexual activity is documented in nature. The Ass, for example, is a cross-bred donkey horse. And, if we accept the Darwinian premise that man is just another animal, we ought to abandon our "specieist" superiority complex and accept other animals as equals and potential mating partners.
That, in a nutshell, is the entire philosophical-moral argument for Bestiality. It is also the entire philosophical-moral argument (and no, sentiments are not arguments so keep that "we love each other" crap to yourself) for homosexuality. If we are to allow homosexuality, then we are to allow bestiality. Looks like the gay movement is going to get a new bed-partner.
Notice the language used by some "zoophiles" as noted in Saletan's article:
"I'm the first out-of-the-closet 'zoo' to be attacked because of my sexual orientation,"
"I'd like my significant other to attend by my side if possible as she was present in the house during the attack, though not an eyewitness to it, thank goodness," Buble wrote. "I've been informed your personal permission is needed given that my wife is not human."
The "zoos" are already using the language of the gay movement! Viva la Revolucion!
Saletan, ever the good liberal, tries to stave off this eventual partnership. He points to a philosophical principle that he says is well-defined and consistently applicable in creating a barrier between homosexuality and bestiality. That principle is the principle of consent.
After all, says Saletan, if we have statutory rape laws because we cannot recognize the consent of children, we ought to have laws against bestiality because we cannot recognize the consent of animals. Saletan then proceeds to call it game, set and match for his ideology. Liberalism for the win!
He has a problem though. As NAMbLA well knows, age-limits are coming under siege for their arbitrary nature. (Without a metaphysical foundation, it is arbitrary. And we've been chucking metaphysical foundations out the window since Voltaire and Descartes. Or in this case, since Heather had two mommies and one of them an out-and-proud teen.) Furthermore, if the Middle Ages can have functioning wives at 14 years of age, who is to say that age-limits are written in stone? NAMbLA and PETA, sitting in a tree...
But that is the weaker argument against it. The stronger argument against Saletan's position is a question he already asked earlier in his article while mocking conservative objections to vegetarianism and bestiality: if man can kill and eat a cow, why can't he rape it?
In effect, one could ask, if we do not obtain the consent of a cow before we eat it, why do we need its consent to rape it?
There is a ontological difference between children and animals. We never eat our children. And, we certainly will not ask a cow's permission before turning it into beef. These are two beings on opposite ends of the rational, personal spectrum. The Darwinian insistence of man's equality to animals is a fallacy that must be shed before this is understood, or we will start treating our children as animals and animals as our children. It is this, and not "consent", that is the ultimate argument against bestiality.
The thing is, it is a metaphysical argument. And when we adopt sound metaphysical arguments to prevent the rapacious monsters within us from rationalizing themselves, we will have to abjure this silly notion that purposeful non-procreative sex is a valid, licit, moral act. The "ontological shield" will save us from bestiality, but it will not save us from necrophilia, pedophilia, polygamy and other sexual perversions. Neither will the "consent shield", as age-limits do not have power if they do not have sound metaphysical reasoning behind them.
Ultimately, the best defense, and the most consistent argument, against sexual perversion is not, as Saletan claims, "consent", but the traditional preservation of procreative sex within a stable union as the only valid, licit and moral form of sex.
Zoo what?
"Zoophile" is the new "acceptable" code name for people who love animals. And I mean people who LOVE animals.
The main intellectual brain thrust for this budding movement is long-time "Philosopher of Ethics" and university household nut Peter Singer, who most recently wrote on the topic via an essay called, and I kid you not, "Heavy Petting".
If his arguments sound familiar, it is because of they are the same arguments used for the acceptance of homosexuality. Who said slippery slopes were always fallacy?
The first argument is that since we accept the premise for homosexuality, namely the validity of purposefully non-procreative sex, then there can be no objection to any non-procreative sex. Bestiality would fall under that category.
Coincidentally, this first argument did not originate with the homosexual movement. It originated with artificial contraception. So, to my fellow Filipinos, this argument will be coming to a government clinic near you, if useful idiot Edsel Lagman has his way.
The second argument is that it is not "unnatural", since cross-specie sexual activity is documented in nature. The Ass, for example, is a cross-bred donkey horse. And, if we accept the Darwinian premise that man is just another animal, we ought to abandon our "specieist" superiority complex and accept other animals as equals and potential mating partners.
That, in a nutshell, is the entire philosophical-moral argument for Bestiality. It is also the entire philosophical-moral argument (and no, sentiments are not arguments so keep that "we love each other" crap to yourself) for homosexuality. If we are to allow homosexuality, then we are to allow bestiality. Looks like the gay movement is going to get a new bed-partner.
"We can have our own Pride Parade too?"
Notice the language used by some "zoophiles" as noted in Saletan's article:
"I'm the first out-of-the-closet 'zoo' to be attacked because of my sexual orientation,"
"I'd like my significant other to attend by my side if possible as she was present in the house during the attack, though not an eyewitness to it, thank goodness," Buble wrote. "I've been informed your personal permission is needed given that my wife is not human."
The "zoos" are already using the language of the gay movement! Viva la Revolucion!
Saletan, ever the good liberal, tries to stave off this eventual partnership. He points to a philosophical principle that he says is well-defined and consistently applicable in creating a barrier between homosexuality and bestiality. That principle is the principle of consent.
After all, says Saletan, if we have statutory rape laws because we cannot recognize the consent of children, we ought to have laws against bestiality because we cannot recognize the consent of animals. Saletan then proceeds to call it game, set and match for his ideology. Liberalism for the win!
He has a problem though. As NAMbLA well knows, age-limits are coming under siege for their arbitrary nature. (Without a metaphysical foundation, it is arbitrary. And we've been chucking metaphysical foundations out the window since Voltaire and Descartes. Or in this case, since Heather had two mommies and one of them an out-and-proud teen.) Furthermore, if the Middle Ages can have functioning wives at 14 years of age, who is to say that age-limits are written in stone? NAMbLA and PETA, sitting in a tree...
But that is the weaker argument against it. The stronger argument against Saletan's position is a question he already asked earlier in his article while mocking conservative objections to vegetarianism and bestiality: if man can kill and eat a cow, why can't he rape it?
In effect, one could ask, if we do not obtain the consent of a cow before we eat it, why do we need its consent to rape it?
There is a ontological difference between children and animals. We never eat our children. And, we certainly will not ask a cow's permission before turning it into beef. These are two beings on opposite ends of the rational, personal spectrum. The Darwinian insistence of man's equality to animals is a fallacy that must be shed before this is understood, or we will start treating our children as animals and animals as our children. It is this, and not "consent", that is the ultimate argument against bestiality.
The thing is, it is a metaphysical argument. And when we adopt sound metaphysical arguments to prevent the rapacious monsters within us from rationalizing themselves, we will have to abjure this silly notion that purposeful non-procreative sex is a valid, licit, moral act. The "ontological shield" will save us from bestiality, but it will not save us from necrophilia, pedophilia, polygamy and other sexual perversions. Neither will the "consent shield", as age-limits do not have power if they do not have sound metaphysical reasoning behind them.
Ultimately, the best defense, and the most consistent argument, against sexual perversion is not, as Saletan claims, "consent", but the traditional preservation of procreative sex within a stable union as the only valid, licit and moral form of sex.
Monday, November 3, 2008
More Proof UK Run by the Stupids #2
Hey, guess what. The council of the city of Oxford (where the university is) just decided that it was a good idea to ban Christmas! Why? To be more fucking "inclusive", that's why. And a Merry "Winter Lights Festival" whatever to you too, good lords of Oxford. May shit forever taste like sausage in your mouths.
"Who would have thought that a city of academics would be so gullible? Ha ha!"
The funny part is, the people they sought to "include" are all up in arms. Muslims and Jews, along with Christians, have protested the exclusion of Christmas. Apparently, these guys have nothing in their traditions that would recognize a "Winter Lights Festival", so all the "inclusion" ends up excluding everybody. One would wager that those born in countries with no winter would also be protesting their exclusion.
This thing is so stupid only people exposed to Oxford, Cambridge and all the glories of higher education would buy it. After all, Oxford city is home to the university that employs this guy:
Here is Oxford's Richard "If-I-were-dyslexic-I'd-hate-Dog-too" Dawkins wondering why the rest of the world thinks he and his coterie of academically inbred atheists are bat-shit insane. (Or as they put it, "shrill and strident".) I wonder if he's ever looked into a mirror before. Don't worry, Richard. We're not that into you. You can keep your last words to yourself. Oh, by the way:
Only in Oxford. Only in the UK.
PS
If my sister Abby ever sees this: How does Oxford taste like now?
"Who would have thought that a city of academics would be so gullible? Ha ha!"The funny part is, the people they sought to "include" are all up in arms. Muslims and Jews, along with Christians, have protested the exclusion of Christmas. Apparently, these guys have nothing in their traditions that would recognize a "Winter Lights Festival", so all the "inclusion" ends up excluding everybody. One would wager that those born in countries with no winter would also be protesting their exclusion.
This thing is so stupid only people exposed to Oxford, Cambridge and all the glories of higher education would buy it. After all, Oxford city is home to the university that employs this guy:
Surprise, God-fag!
Here is Oxford's Richard "If-I-were-dyslexic-I'd-hate-Dog-too" Dawkins wondering why the rest of the world thinks he and his coterie of academically inbred atheists are bat-shit insane. (Or as they put it, "shrill and strident".) I wonder if he's ever looked into a mirror before. Don't worry, Richard. We're not that into you. You can keep your last words to yourself. Oh, by the way:
God to Oxford
Only in Oxford. Only in the UK.
PS
If my sister Abby ever sees this: How does Oxford taste like now?
More Proof UK Run by the Stupids
Some local British councils decided to ban Latin and all its works from their own little public spheres. Why? Because those poor, poor immigrants who can't speak English will be so confused. It's elitist and discriminatory, don't you know?
Latin, an indelible part of British history and law, would be banned because a few rubes don't get all of it?
You want to know what's really elitist? A bunch of wankers sitting around telling immigrants what they're too dumb to know, before turning to citizens and demanding them to dignify the latest wanker brain fart.
To these morons:
Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum.* - Cicero
Oh, and since Latin is God's language (hah!), I'd wager He'd have a few choice words for these British imbeciles as well...
...or a gesture. A gesture works...
Oh, yeah. Sic semper tyrannis**, assholes.
________
* Not to know what happened before you were born is to be a child forever.
** Death to tyranny.
Latin, an indelible part of British history and law, would be banned because a few rubes don't get all of it?
You want to know what's really elitist? A bunch of wankers sitting around telling immigrants what they're too dumb to know, before turning to citizens and demanding them to dignify the latest wanker brain fart.
To these morons:
Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum.* - Cicero
Oh, and since Latin is God's language (hah!), I'd wager He'd have a few choice words for these British imbeciles as well...
...or a gesture. A gesture works...
Oh, yeah. Sic semper tyrannis**, assholes.
________
* Not to know what happened before you were born is to be a child forever.
** Death to tyranny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)