God Bless America, Show Tune Style

Two comments:

1) Is there ANY powerful or high-profile republican politician out there who has NOT had an affair recently?

and ...

2) How long do you think it will be before this perverse society elects an openly homosexual president?

Then what? We all sing God bless America show tune style at the inaugural ball?

This is not going to turn around and go back in the other direction, you know.

God Bless America?

Below are a few key words from each of today's headlines as presented on
"AP Top U.S. News At 9:47 p.m. EDT":

indicted billionaire;

gay couples;

porno movie;

texting while driving;

school principal ...cheating ...arrested;

gunned down ...Holocaust Museum;

Senator... perjury charge

God bless America?

Why should He? Why would He ... any longer?
Not every individual, of course, but as a nation, collectively, we have turned our backs on Him.

To the Bruce Friedrichs of the World:
Shut Up and Get a Real Job, You Freakin' Moron

During an interview for CNBC at the White House on Tuesday, a fly intruded on Obama's conversation with correspondent John Harwood.

"Get out of here," the president told the pesky insect. When it didn't, he waited for the fly to settle, put his hand up and then smacked it dead.

"Now, where were we?" Obama asked Harwood. Then he added: "That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got the sucker."

The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wants the flyswatter-in-chief to try taking a more humane approach the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House.

PETA is sending President Barack Obama a "Katcha Bug" Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.

"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."

Friedrich said that PETA was pleased with Obama's voting record in the Senate on behalf of animal rights and noted that he has been outspoken against animal abuses.

Still, "swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect," Friedrich said, "and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't."

O.K. ... let me just go ahead and say (write) what the Deputy Press Secretary for the president wishes he could have said in response to this story instead of "no comment": Shut ... Up ... You stupid friedriching moron. If you were within reach right now, I would swat you ... right across the mouth with the back of my hand -- whether there were flies on your face or not. You are a first degree idiot, and several million more people know that now than knew it yesterday. Your lungs expanding before you speak is a waste of perfectly good oxygen. You just described a housefly as "curious".

Try not to think any more, Bruce. You might hurt yourself.

Here are some of the less significant facts about houseflies that "Bruce", of PETA, forgot to mention:

House flies feed on liquid or semi-liquid substances and solid material which has been softened by their own saliva or vomit. They constantly spit out saliva on solid foods to predigest it, and then suck it back in. They also regurgitate partly digested matter and pass it again to the abdomen. Because of their high intake of food, they deposit feces constantly, one of the factors that makes the insect a dangerous carrier of pathogens.

Flies are capable of carrying over 100 pathogens, such as typhoid, cholera, Salmonella, bacillary dysentery, tuberculosis, anthrax, ophthalmia, and parasitic worms. The flies in poorer and lower-hygienic areas usually carry more pathogens. Some strains have become immune to most common insecticides.

Each female fly can lay approximately 500 eggs in several batches of about 75 to 150, eggs. The eggs are white and are about 1.2 mm in length. Within a day, larvae (maggots) hatch from the eggs; they live and feed in (usually dead and decaying) organic material, such as garbage or feces. They are pale-whitish, 3-9 mm long, thinner at the mouth end, and have no legs. [But they are so cute and curious when they're babies!]

They live at least one week. The maggots crawl to a dry cool place to transform into pupae, colored reddish or brown and about 8 mm long. The adult flies then emerge from the pupae. After having emerged from the pupae, the flies cease to grow. Small flies are not young flies, but are indeed the result of getting insufficient food during the larval stage.

Normally the female mates only once, storing the sperm to use it repeatedly for laying several sets of eggs. [Hey! Just like human lesbians]. Males are territorial: they will defend a certain territory against other males and will attempt to mount any females that enter that territory. [Not unlike the dynamics of college dormitories housing male student athletes.]

Oh, and don't forget that they are very curious as they continuously vomit and deposit disease-laden feces all over your counter-tops, food, dishes, drinking glasses, soda cans, children's toys, baby bottles...

Some 36 hours after having emerged from the pupa, the female is receptive for mating. The male mounts her from behind to inject sperm. Copulation takes between a few seconds to a couple minutes. [Hey! Just like human males.]

A rare look into the relationship of an active fly couple:

Buzz-Boy: "BZZZZZ ... bzzz ...uhh ... bzzz..."NasTeen: "Come on shorty, time to buzz off! ... I'm ... I'm ... I think I'm regurgitating ... are you regurgitating?
Buzz-Boy: Oh yeah... check out that beautiful semi-liquid, pre-digested beef cartlidge and tomato skin right in the middle of your hot hairy back, Nasteen.
Nasteen: Oh Buzz, you have the most beautiful red eyes after you deposit a load of feces and vomit!
Buzz-Boy: Yeah. Whatever, Nasteen. I guess I just have good family pupae. Do you have to stare into every one of my eyes while I'm regurgitating? It makes me feel like ... am I making a really goofy expression again? ... like I just got swatted, but lived? Is that it?

"Buzz-Boy" and "Nasteen" on the cover of Buzz' new controversial CD:
Doin' It On A Metal Rod (Who's Your Pupa?)

Another Obam-ination

I have said it a number of times before, but I am going to write it down this time "for the record":
I believe Barack Obama is the most arrogant and corrupt president we have ever elected ... by tenfold.

Some of you may remember these statements from my Saturday, June 13th post: "That's why so few in Washington, or at any other level of government, are willing to take a stand against Baa-aa-rock Obama bin Laden: because he is dirty and ruthless and does not hesitate to use his rapidly accumulating power to punish those who oppose him." I need to amend that statement to say: "... punish those who oppose him [or his friends]."

Mr. Obama has once again shown his utter disdain for the law. Last Wednesday, he openly, and without excuse or apology, abused the office of the president by firing an Inspector General without cause and in violation of federal statute for no other reason than because a legitimate and objective investigation being conducted by that Inspector General was making one of Obama's friends and political allies uncomfortable.

I worked in several different government systems in a position analogous to that of the inspector in this case. The political pressure is constant. The statutory insulation from that pressure is thin, at best. I know what it feels like to be silenced and threatened for simply doing the job that you were hired to do. The most damaging effect of Obama's disdain for the law in this particular case is that it will have a distinct chilling effect on all future decisions and actions by other Inspectors General who are notified of allegations against some other political ally or personal friend of Baa-aa-rock.

This is not just "politics" as usual. This is much worse than that. The very purpose of the statute he so arrogantly violated is to prevent politics from interfering with the discharge of an Inspector General's duties. Obama knows that, of course, but doesn't care. He is daring anyone to challenge this most recent illegal action. The mainstream press is either so in love with him or so intimidated by him that they won't even cover the story! He has intimidated members of congress so thoroughly that none of them have challenged this illegal action, as far as I know.

We all know that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I also believe that power and corruption fuel each other. Obama has now arrogated so much power to himself that he breaks the law with impunity. Who is left to serve as a check on this man's arrogance and corruption? Me and my blog? Where is the media?! Why are they all giving this smooth-talking corrupt political thug a free pass?
If somebody doesn't stop this guy, our children and grandchildren are screwed.

Sotomayor or Judge John Doe ... It Won't Make Any Difference

Here's the bottom line on Supreme Court Justice-to-be, Sonia Sotomayor: She will be replacing a Justice who voted primarily with the liberal bunch on the court, so her appointment and confirmation will change nothing about the way the court votes now. So, chill out and choose your battles more wisely. This one is not "winnable", right-wingers. Even if Obama was forced to nominate someone else, it still wouldn't change anything, because he would simply nominate (and the Senate would ultimately confirm) someone who will vote with the "liberal" wing of the court.

Whether she votes the way she does based on empathy or prejudice, bias or arrogance, legal principle or social activism, it doesn't really matter in the end. She is still going to vote the way she's going to vote. A good lawyer or judge (or law clerk, which is who will be researching and writing for Sotomayor) can find or fabricate a plausible legal argument to support any position on any issue. Conservative Justices (strict constructionists of the Constitution) find precedent and legal arguments to support their predilections and liberal Justices find law and precedent to support theirs.

It’s not the liberal or conservative Justices that make the difference. It’s the moderate swing vote Justice. It has almost always been that way on the Supreme Court and it probably always will be. Sotomayor will not be the "swing vote", so calm down and save your energy for a more important fight. This one is just not particularly important in light of the various predilections of the current members of the court.

Are You More Like God Than a Dog Is Like God?
[I've been kind of hung up on the subject of dogs lately. Just bear with me, and I'll get through it. I think its just a phase.]

Is conscience anything more than a desire for approval and a fear of negative consequences?
Domesticated animals are also motivated by those two factors. Does that mean your dog has a conscience? ... or that you are no more like God than a dog?

What is it that differentiates us from animals, if not our conscience? [Hint: Be careful about choosing conscience as the distinguishing factor, because you may be eliminating many, many people (i.e. sociopaths, Barney Frank, used car dealers, infomercial pitch guys)].

I have answered this one to my own satisfaction. I just thought I would throw it out there for the rest of you to either ponder or ignore.

Is it nothing more than intellectual level? How is it that you have the capacity to "believe in God", but your dog does not? Can a chimpanzee or a pig or a horse "believe in" something? Are they capable of abstract thought? Is that what differentiates us?
[Hint: Don't choose intellect as the distinguishing feature, because you may be eliminating a whole bunch of people (i.e. the profoundly mentally retarded, brain injured people, George W. Bush)].

So, what is it? Are we spiritual, eternal beings and animals are not? Where is your proof of that? What evidence is there that we are spiritual beings and animals are not?
[Hint: Faith is the evidence of things not seen.]

So, does it boil down to faith? Wait. Isn't faith -- the intellectual capacity to "believe in" something or someone -- the product of intellect? So what happens to the profoundly retarded? ... and to George Bush?

By the way, where did this doctrine about an "age of accountability" come from. I like the doctrine. Its compassionate and seems to be consistent with my understanding of (or beliefs about) God. But what is the scriptural basis for it?

Look it up. Do some research. (Don't just ask someone else. Do some research of your own for a change.) And when you understand well enough to explain to someone else, please write a comment to this blog post explaining the scriptural basis for that doctrine to me. Thanks.

Go Kobe! ... you arrogant, narcissistic rapist

[This is not a sports blog. I honestly don't care who wins the NBA title. This is an comment about crime and punishment, about simple justice, and about a society that has lost its integrity.]

If you root for Kobe Bryant, you should be ashamed of yourself. Kobe Bryant is an arrogant, narcissistic rapist. He should have been tried (and convicted) for raping that woman, and he should still be in prison for that crime now ... but he bought his way out of it with his money and his celebrity.

Why did so many people think O.J. Simpson's acquittal was a travesty, but no one even blinked when Kobe went one better than O.J. by short-circuiting the criminal justice system before it even got started? His victim should be ashamed for letting him buy her off. The law enforcement people should be ashamed for wanting to see him play basketball more than wanting to see justice done. His own wife should be ashamed. I suspect she only "forgave" him and stayed with him because she didn't want to miss out on all those future millions.
Yeah, go ahead. Be offended by my frankness. Assume whatever you want to assume, if it makes you feel better -- if it helps you believe that people aren't really that cold and cynical ... and, above all else, greedy. Do you really think she would have stood by her man (the husband who raped another woman while he was married to her) if he was a poor man? Oh, hell no. She would have left him faster than a no-look pass from John Stockton to Karl Malone. Besides, if he were a poor man (or even a man of average means), he would never have been able to buy his way out if it to begin with.

One last time: The man is an arrogant, narcissistic rapist. You should prefer to watch the Lakers play without him, because you feel ashamed for our sick society every time you see Kobe Bryant prance around on television and receive accolades for his athletic abilities.
Who cares if he can run and jump (God gave him those abilities). So what? The man is a violent felon who should have been punished for what he did. He raped someone! Do you get that? He raped someone. What if his victim had been your wife? ... or your sister? ... or your daughter? Damn it! He raped the girl!

The acceptance of different rules, different values and different treatment and decisions for rich people than for the rest of us is just the American way of life, I suppose. And I hate it. It makes me sick. The obscene injustice of it makes me consider becoming a vigilante.

Yeah. I've really lost it this time, huh?
Angry -- no, enraged -- that a rapist was able to buy his way out of suffering the consequences of his act. Yeah. That's really whacked out, man ... getting all upset about something as minor as that.

No. Its not mean or radical to want the criminal justice system to work. This is not a question of being merciful or forgiving. I'm certainly in favor of forgiving people who repent of their sins. I'm not advocating eternal judgment for one crime. But I am advocating temporal, human (legal) justice. If you do the crime, you oughta have to do the time, baby.
You can be contrite and sorry all you want ... from your jail cell, where the only people idolizing you any more are a bunch of other criminals serving time with you. And if your wife really does want to stand by her man, she can do it on visiting days.

Substantial Errors ... like murdering children?

Why are American military forces killing civilians in Afghanistan?

Can anybody explain this one?

... Wait! Before you formulate your patented jingoistic, Bible thumping, Fox News Channel, God Bless America answer ... just read the essay first. You might surprise yourself and end up with a slightly broader, more open mind.

Premise:
Associated Press story published June 3, 2009 by PAULINE JELINEK :

American troops made substantial errors and did not strictly follow rules for avoiding casualties during an air assault on Taliban fighters last month, a U.S. defense official said, underscoring a central quandary for President Barack Obama's new Afghan counterinsurgency campaign.

The defense official said Wednesday that a military investigation faulted some of the actions of American troops in air strikes May 4 that killed dozens of Afghan civilians in Farah province.

"Errors were made" in the attack, the official acknowledged on condition of anonymity, discussing one of the preliminary findings on an incident that has strained relations between Washington and Kabul and bred deep resentment among the Afghan people. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan have also enraged Muslims worldwide.

[Blah, blah, blah.

Blah, blah, blah. ... keep reading...]

... According to the U.S. military, the battle in Farah began a day after Taliban fighters entered two villages, demanded money from civilians and killed three former government employees. An Afghan force rushed in, only to be ambushed by as many as 300 insurgents.

The provincial governor asked for U.S. military help, and American ground troops joined the battle, the U.S. says.

Before the battle was over, troops called in F-18 fighter jet air strikes as well as help from a B-1 bomber ...

Let’s stop there. A B-1 bomber?!
Isn't that the literal version of killing a fly with an elephant gun?

Let me interpret some of this politically sanitized bullshit for you, starting with
"substantial errors" and "did not strictly follow the rules". You know when the military openly admits to making a mistake, they must have really screwed the pooch. And when they say "dozens" of civilians, you can bet it was probably hundreds. And when they say 300 insurgents, it was probably more like seventy-five. And hey ... all you 2nd Amendment gun-toters: Do you know what "insurgents" are? They are civilian militia (a lot like an Afghan version of you and a bunch of boys from the Army National Guard) trying to keep an invading army from killing any more of their wives and children. Do you know who the invading army is? Right. Us. Our sons and daughters. So, explain to me one more time: why are our sons and daughters killing someone else's children half way around the world?

Yeah. That’s it. Get mad and stop reading. That’ll definitely keep your conscience clear before God.

Would that sentence about our sons and daughters killing someone else’s children have been less offensive to you if I had asked, “Why are our sons and daughters dying half way around the world?” Why would it make any difference? Why should it? Are American’s sons and daughters any more precious than Afghani sons and daughters? Does God love us and our children more than he loves them and theirs? [I am desperately hoping that's a rhetorical question.]

Do you think if an Iranian or Chinese or North Korean bomber blew up your children and the children of all your neighbors tomorrow morning you would consider it more than a "substantial error"? Do you know what we would call that kind of "substantial error" if the shoe were on the other foot? Terrorism and murder.

This is not an indictment or criticism of the sons and daughters. It is an indictment against the military and civilian leaders (and I use the term "leaders" very loosely here).

One last time: Why are we murdering the children of Afghani mothers? What act of terrorism did those little boys and girls commit? How about that beautiful three year-old Afghani girl with the hazel eyes? Why is her sister's torso now hanging from a rock?

Now you definitely don't want to read any more. I'm making you angry now. If you didn't dislike me already, you're beginning to now, because ... because ... this is unnecessarily graphic ... not to mention subversive and unpatriotic!

Who cares about "collateral damage"?! Right? Too bad. Sucks to be you, Afghani children! They shouldn't have chosen to ... oh, wait ... they haven't chosen anything.
All right, you think to yourself, I'll concede that point. The children haven't done anything to deserve being blown to pieces and incinerated ... but it's still unpatriotic to make us think about the reality of war. If you make us think about all the children we're killing, we might lose the will to kill any more!
This is war, by God!

... Or is it a war not "by God"? Have you been assuming, like so many other bigoted Americans, that God is automatically "on our side" whenever we prosecute a war. Think about that for a minute ... or two, if you need more time. I'm pretty sure God is not an American. I'm also pretty sure he does not approve of murdering people's children.
If after thinking about that for a minute (or two), you don't realize how small-minded and bigoted and Biblically unsound your assumptions have been, then it won't matter what else I write. You can stop reading now and go back to eating Cheetos and watching American Idol.

Footnote: Do you know what I would like to see come out in American movie theaters this year. No, not Spider-Man IV. I'd like to see a movie that portrays the lives of families in Afghanistan, from their perspective. It would be a tragic, distressing, heart-breaking drama ... and it would end the war in Afghanistan.

Can you not see this (or any other war) from the "other" side?
Because if you can't, then you are neither as wise nor as compassionate as you think you are.