Okay, by now, pretty much everybody (and my brother) has commented on Mike Lange's little meltdown. Be sure to watch the video (I especially like the uncensored version). Even the Dark Lord in his Orange Hell has weighed in. So, apparently all that's left is for Montana's proud and curmudgeonly R-rated blogger to take a stance and give comment, Right? It's what you're all waiting for, AMIRIGHT? Okay, probably not so much. But I do have a few comments to share.
1) I expected that from John Sinrud well before Mike Lange. Kudos to Lange for taking the initiative.
2) Anyone who was surprised by this is pretty silly. This stuff is diriger for hard line Republicant's. It's their way or the highway, and if you don't agree then you can shove it up your ass. Seriously, how can anyone be surprised by this when Vice President Dick Cheney told a sitting Senator to go fuck himself? This isn't the exception, it's the norm.
3) As you've probably guessed, I have no problems with the profanity at all, and in fact, find it amusing that there are those who do, left or right. Our children are not so fragile that hearing words spoken in anger and disgust will scar them. Yes, words have power, but only so much as we give them (individually). No, the amusing part of this foul little meltdown on Mike Lange's part is that he represents the party of personal responsibility and family values. And yet he accepts none of the former and cares not a whit for the latter. No, the problem here isn't dirty words; it's stupid hypocrisy.
4) I am upset that Mike Lange gives those of us who cuss a bad name. Stick it up your ass? God Bless in the same paragraph as I don't give a shit? Mikey, Mikey ... you're doing it all wrong. You really need to unleash, man. If you're pissed off and you have a point, then let it flow. You presented theater, not invective. It just doesn't ring true.
Ya' see, Mikey hasn't really got a point, other than that the Governor won't flow his way. He's not appearing to be pissed off; he's just being petulant. Like the little boy who screams poopy to hear himself stretch a boundary, Mikey thinks that telling the Governor to stick it up his ass is high dungeon. No, no no no no. No. You tell the Governor to shove it up his ass. You call him a sonofabitch, not an SOB. You don't whimper about how you'll follow your buds off a cliff when you're attacking the cocksucking muckraking motherfucking asshole who stands in your way. Take charge, you pissant. Jesus Christ in a jumped up fucking sidecar, you are pathetic, Mikey!
The simple fact is this. As Ed Kemmick well points out, Schweitzer attempted no bribe; he attempted statesmanship. And Lange threw a hollow tantrum that helped the Governor. Lange had no reason for anger, and so his invective resounded with stupidity. There are many reasons to use profanity. Lange had to search for one, and couldn't find it in the end. He wasn't tough in stance, he was silly. Most of us laugh at the silly. Schweitzer certainly did.
5) The real reason behind all of this is that there will be a special session. They were the one's shouting "Stay Till May", right? That was the Republicant goal all along, to derail the process and make their betters look bad. To call their efforts a dismal failure would be kind. Schweitzer's popularity has risen. I'd shudder to think what harm Lange has done to his political future. But I strongly suspect that a special session will be greeted with horror ... as it should be. After all, it will mean that brave citizen legislators are torn from their homes just as our soldiers in Iraq are. I don't doubt that there will be those who will point out that the Governor's actions will mirror those of the President who sadly had to extend the term of our soldiers serving in Iraq. As Truly Tragic as this is, we must think of Kim Sinrud.
We have Fred Thompson, savior of the tough-guy right, talking smack about VT and making not a bit of sense. This is the guy that a whole lot of folk are drooling over to run for President. Apparently they want another tough talking moron like George Bush. Let's see what he has to say about Monday's little incident, shall we?
One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples'
minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time
and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia
Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in
policies put in place by the university itself.
Uhhm, he walked? BAN WALKING on campus, right now! Since Fred is hiding his meaning, let's us just be clear. How could this raving loony have been 'allowed' to yadayada. He wasn't allowed. It happened. This is a pathetic appeal to the authority that wouldn't have allowed this to happen. That's kind of the point of criminal behavior: one doesn't stop because authority says one should. Fred seems to miss the not so subtle difference between shit happens, and shit happens because his hard-ass wasn't their to stop it, nor any other hard ass. He wants you to think that no one had the capability to stop this from happening because of policy, and yet relies on the idea that somehow, different policy could have made stopping this certain. That's goofy. But that won't stop Fred from feeling superior in his NON-Candidate rhetoric.
Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal
permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians
regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed
citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who
responsibly carry firearms -- and are far safer than they would be in
San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington,
D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.
My God. The assumptions here are overwhelming. Do I rub shoulders every day with CC capable folk? Yes, I do, except that they break the law if they carry on the campus I work at. Is that campus violent because no one is "allowed" to carry on campus? No. It's not. Is America vastly more violent (from guns) than England where guns are strictly controlled? Hell yes it is. He desires acceptance of a lie, that folk like the Big Swede are oh so willing to swallow. Pick your stats, and I'm certain that you can prove anything. Yet obviously, the truth won't make a difference to someone who *isn't* running for President ... yet.
The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second
Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower
incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point,
incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun
laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where
they will do so.
Some proof of this would be nice, pal, because I don't think it is clear at all. And if any wish to raise this flag in Thompson's weak defense, we're not talking about violent crime', we're talking about gun crime.
Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion
that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least
many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a
convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state
law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto
Yep, those people are out there. So ... Fucking ... What? Freddy, you are attributing viewpoints to the VT administration that you have no evidence with which to do so. You're fostering fear. I don't consider that a leadership quality. And, a funny thing this, I find it tragically ironic that you speak to the safety of those surrounding others who willfully possess firearms in the face of a tragedy caused by a guy who willfully (and apparently legally) possessed firearms.
Let's not miss what little Freddy wannabe is actually saying here: He's just claimed that a University subverted the law, and claimed powers that they don't have. That's not just factually incorrect; it's stupidly wrong. This guy served in the Congress and he doesn't even understand the legalities involved in a very clear case? He's either lying for favor, or he's incompetent to run the country due to his poor understanding of what really is the law. Your choice.
In recent years, however, armed Americans -- not on-duty police officers
-- have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders.
Okay, I actually respect people who understand the use of language as well as i do, and Fred just showed his metal. He's obviously alluding to the fact that a Salt Lake City wacko was brought down by an armed citizen. Of course that guy was a cop ... but fuck me, he was off duty!!! I would love to see his other examples, though I doubt he'll have many that apply to the VT shootings.
Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks,
I really need stats from Little Freddy here, because I'm not in agreement. Since he doesn't really desire factual agreement, but rather a sympathetic and stupid nod of "yeah, that sounds good..." , I'd like to ask, do any of you actually consider Israel a safe place?
Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict
gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is
also common knowledge.
Gun crime, kitten. We're talking about gun crime, remember? And you are showing a weak understanding of 'cause and effect'. Don't be stupid. Your running for President, right?
So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's
"concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who
have passed background checks and taken training classes. The
university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator
subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.
"Training Classes'. I love that bit. That's got Yellow Elephant written all over it. As for background checks, Cho passed one of those, even though he shouldn't have. What Thompson is relying on here is a trust of authority, when arguing that we shouldn't have trusted the authorities. If your brain goes boom, don't blame me. Blame the idiot non-candidate.
The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do
with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power
should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the
authorities" for protection.
Say what? You just claimed the efficacy of background checks .., the very checks that would have shown Cho to be a fricking nutter! That would be "power should exist only at the top". Thompson really is an idiot. And yet people are buying into his crap. No wonder at all why this country is in serious trouble. Since I don't think you're smart enough to get it, Freddy, you just asked people to rely on authorities to keep them safe. Well done, asshole.
Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the
front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and
Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal
people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up
an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers.
Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show
that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes
WTF? The Center for Disease Control? I need to see this. My Googlefoo isn't great, but it doesn't suck poorly enough that I would hold up the CDC as the defender of the 2nd amendment. I can't find this. Will somebody please show me that this asswipe isn't just blowing smoke out his rectum?
When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or
denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the
selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia
Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed
himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what
extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.
This is the money quote right here. This is the quote that Freddy is relying on to get him the White House bid. And it's also the quote that blames the students of VT for not fighting back against their attacker. If I have a fricking tank, and some asshole is shooting up a dorm, am I heroic for blasting his bits to oblivion? Of course I am, in the parlance of little Freddy. But if I'm denied a tank, and the heroism that goes with it, then society is to blame for not providing me the things that I could have used to counter the ridiculously unforeseen. I want a tank. I want a tank right now, assholes. And I want body armor to wear to work. And a Tec-9. A Tec-9 with a 30 round clip. That way, I will be able to be a hero ... when I must be. And if it never happens, well maybe I'll just lethally piss off the cops. Whatever. BLAM, BLAM, BLAM!
Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology.
These are not the same, you ignorant shit.
I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their
decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their
campuses -- and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.
Come on, Freddy. Give me my tank. Give it to me now. RIGHT NOW!!!
There are people who want this jackoff to be the President of the United States. Those people are my enemies. Not because I disagree with them ideologically, but because they are too fricking stupid to make choices for the rest of us.
I've had, in the past, no small amount of respect for Mike Harris. I've defended him against detractors, and argued on behalf of his beliefs. I truly believe the guy deserves a great deal of respect for what he's accomplished in the world. He's changing it for the better ... for the most part. Then again, there's times he suffers deeply from a case of the bonehead. Witness thus:
We all remember the PBB, right? That would be the Pickle Barrel Brouhaha. A Saudi student was kicked out because the manager supposedly remembered him from a drunken altercation several weeks before. Concerning this incident, Mike put up one of the most racist, fear inducing pieces of crap ever read in the Montana blog-o-tubes. Apparently, being pissed about being kicked out of a business is good because at least that raghead didn't blow up the Sears tower. Give me a freaking break.
It seems that there's been a resolution in this dreadful case. Mike calls it a stalemate. I call it a well deserved apology. Obviously, that isn't the point to Mike. The Saudi didn't get what he wanted (even though no statement was had from the Saudi student.) Haha, take that towel-kopf!
According to the Kaimin, Alijama is no longer 86'd from the Pickle Barrel.
“From the very beginning we’ve always contended that we’re just trying
to get through this and put it behind us,” said Pickle Barrel owner
John Wills, who is also an accounting associate at UM. “(Aljama) is
more than welcome to come back if he chooses to in the future.”
That right there should speak volumes. This dangerous guy who threatened the PB manager is welcomed back to the place of business. Duh. After mediation, the business owner isn't willing to stick to his principles to deny service to the awful people. He just wants the thing gone. That's what he says.
But not Mike. To Mike it remains a mystery .. how could a good follower of Islam have chosen to eat in a shop where pork is served? One must wonder! ... Pull your head out, dude.
The Saudi student in question, Abdulaziz
Aljama, gets an apology from The Pickle Barrel but at the same time
seems to surrender his defense that he was no where in the area at the
time of the alleged incident... the question still remains how a
"devout Muslim," which would presumably adhere strictly to Halal, would
or could eat at a sandwich shop which is obviously not in compliance
regarding the serving of pork products and the mixing of meat and dairy.
The Pickle Barrel serves sandwiches which would be well within the rules of Halal. And yet somehow, to Mike, this proves that Alijama was involved in the drunken incident concerning the cab. Can you say, not related at all? Of course you can. But Mike can't. Here's a tip, bud. People don't live according to the rules that you specify for them. Ever.
And here's the statement that truly and deeply proves how fucked up Mike is about this whole thing:
“He felt very confident that
day that he was addressing the right individual,” Wills said. “But he
also recognizes that he can make a mistake.”
make a mistake" still places the burden of proof on Aljama. Notice that
Dutton specifically did not admit or imply that a mistake was made in
No, Mike. No it doesn't. Have you ever heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty?" The burden of proof is squarely on Dutton. You know that. You're very phrasing shows it. You're trying to pull a flim-flam on those who want desperately to believe that you're right. I don't. You're wrong. Dutton accused Alijama of a crime, not vice-versa. Alijama has nothing to prove here. You, on the other hand, do.
In the statement, Wills also
apologized for his disrespectful treatment to the UM personnel who came
to the store following the incident with Aljama.
anyone really doubt that the foundation of this entire incident
revolved not about the treatment of Aljama but rather the fact that,
G-d forbid, a Vice President at the University of Montana felt insolent
over being thrown out of a sandwich shop?
Considering that you just, stupidly, entered facts into evidence that haven't been established, yes. Yes I do.
“What we got into was a little bit of word-smithing,” (Foley) said.
The statement they agreed on acknowledges that Aljama “may well” have
been misidentified, but stresses that race was not a factor.
Yeah, right. They all do look alike, don't they? As for Mike's silly challenge, you'll be hard pressed to find any outside of the Bush administration that defends the House of Saud. Your money is safe, I guess.
Shane had a great post up today at Montana Netroots, showing his trepidation towards reactive policy making concerning the Virginia Tech massacre. I couldn't agree with him more. That's why I reacted so negatively to the instantaneous unleashing of agenda on the day of the event. As soon as I heard the news, I knew what was coming. So did most others. Calls for tighter gun controls, calls for 'tighter' campus security, and calls for everyone to be as armed to the gills as possible. None of these are sensible in the context of shock and grief. But how does one put the Genie back in the bottle?
By Tuesday morning, the Gun Owners of America had released the charming graphics to the left of these words. I can only surmise that they keep such things on file drooling in wait for the day some whack job offers them the opportunity to make others afraid, and themselves feel strong. By Wednesday morning, Carolyn McCarthy had submitted H.R. 1859. By Wednesday afternoon, righty pundits like John Derbyshire were claiming that guns don't kill people, liberal cowardice and American culture of weakness kills people. Those damned victims should have made the rest of us proud! All hail the passengers of flight 93 ... God rest their sorry souls.
Shane is right. Knee jerking accomplishes very bad things. But knee jerking appears to be our way. You can't take shampoo on a fricking flight any more, because of knee jerk reactions to what might maybe have been a forming plan to maybe have brought down airplanes ... maybe. Knee jerking has given us legislation that revokes the Writ of Habeas Corpus and a dunce of an AG who claims it was never guaranteed in the Constitution in the first place.
Now it's really all that easy for folks to start knee-jerking about guns ... *BOO*. Knee jerking for their ban and for their defense. Shane is correct that this shouldn't be our issue right now, but yet it is. The Genie is out of the bottle, and we can't put it back. Except that we're looking at the wrong bottle. The reactions to Monday's horror say less about firearms and much more about how we've come to deal with issues as a society. We are reactive. We are needy. We want something done, even when that something will have consequences that we will rue for many years. We are trying to deal with situations so complex that all we can do is react to the pressure of the moment.
We need a corrective shift. That's not a national 10 second time out. We need to quit thinking in terms of reaction, and reject those who do. If you ask how I'd do that, I honestly couldn't answer. I don't know. I don't think it's possible for any given individual to know. The system itself has reached a point of complexity that it will break down. Reach a singularity, if you will.
No, what scares me isn't having a national debate over gun control, or building fences with concertina wire around institutions of higher learning. What scares me is that we are so committed to reacting that our only corrective acts will be violent. And that is the way that history goes.
The anti gun folks really need to realize that just because we like
guns, and talk about guns, and shoot guns, doesn’t mean that we
entertain any kind of fantasies about killing people. There’s a word
for those kind of people, and that word is “criminal”. I’m not a
criminal, and I hope to God that I’m never threatened by another human
being to the point that I would even consider pointing a weapon in so
much as their general direction let alone firing it. I just don’t
happen to have any desire to be a victim. I would like nothing more
than to live out my life in peace, and never have to take up arms
against another human being, but unfortunately there seems to be more
and more people every day that are hell bent on making that an
I honestly doubt that I ever will have to take
up arms in defense of myself or my family, but I’d rather have it and
not need it, than need it and not have it. To me it’s no different than
putting away money for a rainy day, or keeping some extra canned food,
bottled water, and extra flashlight batteries around in case the power
goes out. Hopefully, my guns will never be used for anything except
hunting and target shooting, but should the need arise, a gun in the
hand beats a cop on the phone every time. I’ve never bought a gun for
the purpose of defense, but any of the firearms that I own could be
used for that purpose should it become necessary. I think I speak for
pretty much all law abiding gun owners when I say that anyone in favor
of gun control really needs to attend a sanctioned shooting event at
least once in their life just to see “how the other half lives” so to
speak. There’s millions of gun owners that didn’t kill anyone
yesterday, they won’t kill anyone today, and they’re not going to kill
anyone tomorrow either. If you want to reduce crime, go after the
criminals, don’t make law abiding folks defenseless against them.
Justin is so correct, and in light of current events, this statement couldn't be more timely. I do confess that I have bought a weapon for defense. Not against humans, mind you, nor against the Zombies. Humans and zombies announce their presence, and that's one of the reasons to keep dogs (that and they are big fuzzy love buckets!) No, I bought a weapon that will take down a bear and that is my defense in the Montana mountains. The rest of my firearms I have because I want them. Now please tell me that I don't need them and that should somehow give you a voice about whether or not I have them. I dare you, heh.
(Yes, my eyes are bugging out at the irony of what's been displayed over the last 48 hours.)
Holy England be ye lands largest maker and seller of ye blades'o'death, ye Axe. But yet, that land's free ways with Axe provision hath disturbed bile 'mongst her noble neighbors. Verily, all lands face wrath from such harsh tool.
Ye aft-Sabbath slaughter in ye academy o' ye Queen's holy library, offering a score and thirteen souls to our Holy Lord, were ample display o' ye plague which ye axe doth visit upon our realms. Sadly, ye knight, black be his array, didst fall upon the unarmored supplicants.
"Mother England doth stand as example and exemplar o' ye plague o' Axe" crieth Alun, o' ye House o' Howard, advocate for the Many Lands Guild o' Axe Removal, as told this, thy humble crier.
Ye King offers boon to the people, and defends all Axe needs in his balcony address on these, ye day o' woe.
"As befits our suit, ye king holds to ye use of Axe as tool and implement of righteous justice" cried ye King's fool. "Yet all must obey Kingly dictate forsooth in all matters. That one must pay for defying ye King's pleasure holds without doubt, for ye King's will stands in affront."
Ye Guild o' Axemen, garnering support oft useful peasantry to whom ye Axe be icon, tarried in taxing ye King's will, nor that o' any other, and post letter stating their sorrow in face of ye Black Knight's use o' Axe.
I was going to do the whole thing, and probably shoulda. But I'm really too tired to try. The upshot of the whole thing is that America has a gun culture that we're exporting to the rest of the world. No kidding. What's missing from this article is that America has birthed something that can't be revoked. We can't, we won't, just remove shooting from our lives. Nor should we. The rest of the world has to figure out it's own way of dealing with guns. We obviously haven't figured it out for ourselves. But trying to lay the burden of a world epidemic of guns in our lap is just stupid ... silly ... counter-productive.
I think I was so pissed at the outcome of yesterday's events in Virginia because I saw this coming, on so many levels. Agendas trump human life; always have and likely always will. For now, let's deal with our own black knights, and let the rest of the world deal with theirs.
In case you're completely clueless, you should take that as a "foul language" warning. It stands for "Shut the fuck up!" And I couldn't mean it more sincerely at this moment.
Some headcase went off at Virginia Tech this morning. I link to the briefest article I could find, because brevity should be the soul of our sorrow. 33 people are dead, and it's possible that that number will climb.
This post is directed squarely at the beyond retardedfuckingmorons who seem to think that this is a 2nd amendment issue. No, it's not, you dimwitted fucks. It was just some asshole who decided he could kill. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm certain that Michelle will look for any way possible to tie this to Muslimofascist terrorism, but we already know that she's unhinged, so it won't matter. This was just some guy who freaked with deadly force. Quite effectively, I might add.
But no, to the asswipes in question, somehow this could not have been prevented if VT were an armed camp(us). Nice assumption, dumbshits. There is absolutely no telling what would have happened if some student in the dorms had had a rifle with him. Maybe he'd have cowered under the bed. Maybe he'd have bravely stopped this rapscallion after two bloody deaths. Maybe he'd have shot himself in the fucking foot. We don't know, nor will we. Ever. Supporting gun ownership wouldn't have changed that. It would simply have caused a different outcome in bizarro world that isn't the really real one we live in. Funny, that doesn't stop these asswipes from using this incident to promote their pet agendas. Death is good for business, I guess.
And just for the record, Michelle Malkin is lying her ass off. When gunfire went off in the dorm, the RAs went around telling people to stay put. Malkin the Unhinged wants to blame this on the University. She couldn't be more fucked up. She should blame this on the butthead who went around killing folk, but that doesn't support her agenda, so she will rape the memory of the dead to get your agreement. Misha and Kim DuTwat follow suit by cravenly alluding to the idea that guns in the hands of the victims might ... might, mind you ... have made a difference. Fuck that. What happened, happened. This should be sad all around. Apparently not for those who have a crusade to fight.
I would seriously piss on those 3 folk, unless they were on fire. That might actually help them, and I've no interest in doing that. This was a tragedy, not a fucking cause. Shut the fuck up, you asswipes.
I know Michelle Malkin thinks that she means well. I'm certain that she's convinced that she's clever. I'd even go so far as to state with no equivocation that Michelle believes that she thinks things through. But it's a faith based belief. Those of us who do think things through have a rather good hold on the obvious about our dear Michelle Malkin. She's an idiot. If you look in a book of common phrases, you'll find her picture next to the words "Dumber than a box of rocks". That becomes so readily apparent when the vapors swirling around in that huge melon on top of her neck pass downward, and she farts her tune of holy self-righteous outrage.
Case in point: Michelle has Jesse hold the ladder while she climbs her leaden ass and ferrous head onto her high hobby horse to screech unhinged woe onto an artist who has offended her fine sensibility. Video artist Eric Medine is displaying his work, a first person shooter featuring hordes of blood thirsty sons-of-God as the object to be put in the cross-hairs. Offensive? To many folks, I've no doubt at all. Michelle's response, on the other hand, should offend most everyone with any reasonable nature or human capacity for thought.
That's it. The display isn't offensive to Michelle because it's pointedly anti-Christian (a rather valid view for many) but because it isn't as "edgy" as those who support it think it is. And she actually has the brass balls (borrowed from Ann Coulter, no doubt) to think that line of argument makes sense. No Michelle, it doesn't. If the point of "edgy", and it is, is to shock, provoke and offend, then it seems, without you ever having witnessed it, to have worked stunningly well on you. I'd say he's got your attention, and that edgy is a given thereby.
Rather than state her objection to the artwork as anti-Christian, and defaming of a holy personage (truly rational), Michelle flops her unhinged baggage straight into Islamic hate.
You want edgy? Go ahead and create "Mohammed Killa." Replace the
Homicidal Jesus Christs with Homicidal Mohammeds mumbling cliched
messages of peace from the Koran. Fill the "game landscape" with
Googled images of Muslim propaganda and sacred mosques while the
Homicial Mohammeds blow themselves up in crowded schools, restaurants,
buses, and markets.
I hate mosquitoes. I really do. They may have some role in God's great plan, or fill some niche in biological diversity, but I despise them. Now, show of hands: if I did anti-mosquito art work, what would you think of someone whose response was "Oh YEAH? Try that with a Grizzly Bear!". You'd think them nuts, right? And it would be nuts. You see, I have issues with mosquitoes, and none with grizzly bears. Similarly, isn't it incredibly likely that Medine has issues with Christianity such that he just isn't interested in slagging on Islam? The rational would have to think, yeah, probably. Let's get the point; Michelle's argument is exactly like her howling to the wind (OWWWWOOOOOO!) with all stupid anger that Bertrand Russell didn't write a book called "Why I am Not a Muslim". She's being kind of retarded, here.
But, we can go further and examine ourselves as sentient beings. Michelle thinks (poorly) that her point is that Medine wouldn't attack Muslims because Muslims are scary, and mean and violent and they would attack back. They would have a fatwa for his head. OOOhhhh, I'm scart, aren't you? Ignoring, for no reason and half a second, that Medine apparently has no reason to attack Islam, you really have to wonder why Michelle thinks that a person who is anti-Christian wouldn't have the courage to attack Islam. There's no evidence here. None.
There is evidence, however, that a good Christian like Michelle will attack. After all, she calls for her legions of drooling Malkin mud-people (or at least Jesse) to contact the hosts of this exhibit and rage against the artist, such that no one see his work. Silence this infidel, who would be too scared to attack the religion that would call for him to be silenced. ??? Anyone else see the obvious stupidity of Malkin-think here? I knew you would. ~wink~
Like I said, folks, she's dumber than a box of rocks. She even ends her screed with a five year olds playground taunt:
Double dare you, Mr. Medine.
Nyah, nyah, nyah. What a 'tard.
The real underlying point here is something that people of reason should see quite obviously. Michelle Malkin isn't concerned with a War on Terror. Michelle Malkin wants, desires, desperately puts on flimsy lingerie in hope of a Christian war against Islam. Nothing that Christians do or have done in the name of their religion can possibly be as horrific as the followers of Islam. Every poke at Christian hypocrisy or stupidity must be measured by it's weight against the same thing directed at the followers of the Prophets. God is above petty reproach (Screw you and your free will too!!!). Allah, not so much in Malkin world. Michelle is agitating for a holy war. *Sigh* It is tiring to know that she is only one of many who call for destruction in the name of the Prince of Peace.
I've been trying to avoid posting this. The facts of the case are these; at the age of 84, Kurt Vonnegut has died. I'd be willing to bet that we all knew it was coming, and even he seemed to feel the reaper's approach. He fell down, did some damage, and died. *sigh*
To say this saddens me is ... well ... kind of stupid. Obviously, I'm sad. Few, very very few, writers have entertained me as much as Kurt Vonnegut did. I still feel that Breakfast of Champions is one of the works that shaped my rather warped view of the obvious in perception. I will never ever hear the line "take a leak" quite the same way. One of the quirkiest books I've ever read was Kilgore Trout's Venus on the Halfshell. I am so gonna miss this guy.
Jay has a terrific post up with links to sites that eulogize Vonnegut. All power and credit to him. On the other hand, I have seen some of the ugly. Some of the stupid. Some of what Kurt would have us laugh at, and I do.
Pasty gives lip-service to Vonnegut's brilliance, and then alludes to the idea that Kurt has spent the last 20 years witless. Perhaps Goldstien could provide us, educated as he is (IN YOUR FACE!) , with Kurt's equal in literature? Not. But it's important to remember that Kurt Vonnegut's politics weren't up to Jeff's high standards. I'm certain that many tantrums were had while Jeff listened to A Man Without A Country as a Book on Tape, while doing the dishes, plotting his ever so seminal work of literary artistry and screeching, "I'll get you , my pretty!".
The Big Hairy Scaly Trunk of stupidity, Scott Johnson at PowderLine, reduces Kurt's writings to encouraging irresponsibility. I'm not certain that I've ever encountered something so stupidly false in my entire life. Vonnegut was all about responsibility, personal and national. He wanted us all to take pride and pleasure in the idea that we control our own choices. Sir Scott the Over Compensating Moron simply chooses to define Vonnegut's writings any way he wishes, irregardless* of what the man actually wrote. He finishes with an idiotic flurry of accusation that all liberals want is bland equality and Kurt wouldn't want that. That would be a point, if it even had any relevance to reality. It doesn't. And I'm left wondering just what kind of retard would hire Scott Johnson as a legal representative.
These are only a few of the idiocies that I have encountered on the oh so not right side of the Blog-o-world today. Ultimately, it appears that many of them celebrate the death of Vonnegut, because he was a creative and articulate thorn sticking in the side, not of their ideology, but of their stupidity. That is why I loved him as an author. That is why I will miss him as a voice. But then ... So It Goes.