29 August 2005

Redeeming qualities of NPR (national peoples radio)

When I'm driving and scan the FM dial, I sometimes land on 91.5 WBEZ . If it is anytime between 8am to 8pm, I can't hit the scan button again fast enough to navigate away from my local NPR affilitate. WunderKraut's blog really sums up my feelings on why NPR should be treated with the utter contempt that they so richly deserve. Listen to just one hour of their programming drivel and you'll see how their politic agenda is barely concealed. They hold themselves up as champions of the "little people" but all they end up doing is blaming us for everything that is wrong with the world.

This is what drives me nuts about the Left. They are hyper-critical, morose, intolerant and condemnatory - but not when it comes to criminals, Democratic mores or our enemies overseas. Their favorite targets of contempt are Neo-Cons, Republicans, the White House and George Bush. They even invented (via Hillary Rotten Clinton) a "vast RightWing conspiracy" and named that as the ultimate bedrock of everything that is wrong with our country. They truly believe that if we just threw money and resources at every one of our domestic policy ills, they would just magicly disappear. They have selective amnesia and a blatant disregard for reality, history and human nature.

They can't or choose not to see how they support platforms that perpetuate welfare dependence, crime and a weaker state.

I wouldn't even care about all this if it was a minority that bought in to this Liberal miasma. But many people choose to have only 2 sources of 'news' in the media - NPR and the NYTimes. I know many people in this ilk and they are good folks with kind hearts and good intentions but they can't see the big picture. They parrot the Left's agenda by squawking a few key words - "halliburton", "bush lied - people died", "no weapons of mass destruction" and "no blood for oil." If you call them out on the carpet for these statements and ask for a clarification on what they mean by, let's say, "halliburton" - you're bound to hear them make some outrageous claim that Bush/Cheney only started the war so that defense contractor halliburton could make billions on the reconstruction. It has all been proven to be a flat-out lie propagated by the Democratic party as a way to delegitimatize the Bush administration.

Having said that I do sincerely enjoy two NPR programs - the Joe Frank segment and Jazz programming.

Joe Frank is a voice over announcer who puts together stories, mock-interviews and interesting monologues. The stories are riveting - all told over a background of beautiful melodic jazz which is hypnotic and energetic. Last night they rebroadcast a piece called "Summerhill: The Other Side 2001" in which a phone conversation between "Larry" and "David" touches on Wilhelm Reich and the sexual abuses commited by him and on his behalf by his deluded followers at Summerhill. Reich comes off sounding alot like "Dr." Rodolph Turcotte who is really Dr. Finch in the book "Running with Scissors." Dr. Turcotte alegedly used his position as a psychiatrist to have sexually abused/raped some of his patients, provided prescription drugs to the minor son of one of his patients, and was known to read his own bowel movements as "messages from God." The piece is also interspersed with audio lectures of the principal of Summerhill - who seduced and carried on a homosexual affair with Gregory.

Their jazz programing is wonderful. The standards are covered in full with no "smooth jazz / Kenny G" nonsense. It is just too bad that I have to sleep because I could listen to it all night long.

It is just too bad that these two wonderful programs have to be tied in with NPR. I like my media served without the demagoguery.

24 August 2005

Illegals - More rights than You?

A recent court decision in which an illegal alien couple were awarded a US citizen's ranch as settlement of the lawsuit show just how out of bounds our legal system is getting - the lawyers, the courts, and the activist judges are now in a confluence of political agendas where common sense has been dragged into a closet and beaten down.

While reading the Rescue Ranch Blog - which is a must read article - I kept flashing back to Orwell's classic "1984." The novel explores a dark world in which religion, God and family have been replaced by "Big Brother" (ie. the State). Orwell describes the slow slide of democracy as first occuring by the government stepping in and "revising" historical events, eventually inventing multiple stories and covering up murders and disappearances with "selective editing" and by manipulating the news media. There are cameras inside every home. Everything is regimented - including sleep and exercise schedules. Even sex is now regulated.

It is interesting to note that our media assigns such demagoguery to republicans. When it is a fact that with LBJ's "great society" (which was taken right out of the Joe Stalin playbook), we took a huge step down the road of big government being our be-all, end-all. Republicans and NeoCons stand for less government, lower taxes, less intrusion, more freedoms, more adherence to our laws (not making more laws), and are more tolerant than their counterparts across the aisle.

The title to this blog is a bit misleading - of course illegals don't have more rights than your average US citizen but ,in the courts it seems like illegals get more of a say and enjoy more considerations than our own citizens do. Because we have been brainwashed to be tolerant of crime, tolerant of the non-stop violation of our southern border, tolerant of free sex and the "if it feels good, do it" sub-culture, and beaten down with spurious charges of "racism" and "bigotry" - it's no wonder that we're now seeing our language, borders and culture being flushed down the drain.

23 August 2005

The People vs. Chastity

Norman Mailer on masturbation
Q: Do you think you're something of a puritan when it comes to masturbation?
A: I think masturbation is bad.
Q: In relation to heterosexual fulfillment?
A: In relation to everything -- orgasm, heterosexuality, to style, to stance, to be able to fight the good fight. I think masturbation cripples people. It doesn't cripple them altogether, but it turns them askew, it sets up a bad and often enduring tension. I mean has anyone ever studied the correlation between cigarette smoking and masturbation? Anybody who spends his adolescence masturbating generally enters his young manhood with no sense of being a man. The answer--I don't know what the answer is--sex for adolescents may be the answer, it may not. I really don't know.
[exerpted from The Presidential Papers by Norman Mailer, copyright 1960, 1961]

Nietzsche on Chastity:
I love the forest. It is bad to live in cities; there, there are too many of the lustful.
Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer than into the dreams of a lustful woman?
And just look at these men; their eye shows it —they know nothing better on earth than to lie with a woman.
Filth is at the bottom of their souls; and worse still, if their filth still has spirit in it!
Oh to be were perfect — at least as animals! But to animals belongs innocence.
Do I counsel you to deny your instincts? I counsel you to innocence in your instincts.
Do I counsel you to chastity? Chastity is a virtue with some, but with many almost a vice.
These are continent, to be sure; but doggish lust looks enviously out of all that they do.
Even into the heights of their virtue and into their cold spirit doth this creature follow them, with its discord. And how nicely can doggish lust beg for a piece of spirit, when a piece of flesh is denied it! You love tragedies and all that breaks the heart? But I am distrustful of your doggish lust.
You have too cruel eyes, and you look wantonly towards the sufferers. Hasn't your lust just disguised itself and taken the name of fellow-suffering?

Tom Wolfe on "Le Mariage blanc"

From "The joy of no sex"

"And so I began my adventures in abstinence. For about a week, I felt pretty sorry for myself: 'tis a far, far nobler thing I do, etc., etc. Then, the perks began to kick in. As Sharon's and my sex life had dwindled, I had been reduced to the status of a frantic little corgi looking to hump somebody's leg, constantly wondering whether tonight would be the night I'd get some -- Yes? No? Maybe tomorrow? Maybe if we double up on the K-Y? Maybe if we watch "Emmanuelle" first? Now I realized that for the first time in months, maybe years, I felt like a full-grown, adult male again. By taking fucking out of the marital equation altogether, I had regained some measure of control over my yapping libido, and recovered some dignity in the bargain.

My libido, of course, was not so easily convinced. It still wanted to know where the snatch was. Jacking off in my forlorn bed, like Lester Burnham auto-eroticizing in the shower at the beginning of "American Beauty," I was that most abject thing on earth: a masturbating middle-aged married man. But one of the dirty little secrets of celibacy is that, counterintuitively, the longer you go without intercourse, the less you care. Over time, I found that I'd rather read another chapter of whatever it was I was reading than get frisky with myself. I had my self-respect back, and I finally finished "A Man in Full.""

This is no harangue about the virtue of a sexless existence. I am not a "Jimmy Swaggert" who has the audacity to stand before you wagging my finger and telling you to stop having sex - all the while (for 20+ years it turned out), he was visiting a prostitute during his free nights.

I have checked my hubris at the web portal (the webmaster is kenneling it for me for a small fee while I write this).
I just think that sex has assumed an entirely overriding role in our society and it needs to be examined.

With the advent of the AIDS epidemic and all the other attendant STDs that occur as a result of sexual excess, the "need" for recreational sex/masturbation has been cast in a new light. Gone are the "free sex" mantras from the drug-addicted hippies. But there is a pale haze that exudes through our country of "if it feels good, do it." That, unfortunately, is a hangover from the 60's and 70's that doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast.

I like that quote by Norman Mailer. I think he zooms in to the center of the issue at hand and asks the tough question - Is it wrong to have too much sex? Is chastity just for priests, medieval knights and vestal virgins?

Kids who are tutored to steer towards abstinence are told that they are robots and are denying their essential human nature...

Much more on this later....

22 August 2005

The Tool that is Racial Profiling

I don't know why I subscribe to the Salon.com newsletter ... in every instance they spew pablum that not only shows their ignorance to the dangers that our society faces but their insistence that you, the good citizen, remain a guilt ridden, blind clod.

Salon.com does offer a mind-numbing array of 'political correctness' articles that tell us that all we have to do is 'respect everyone' and 'understand' our enemies and everything will be a-O.K.

The article that I am referring to is Racial Profiling doesn't Work , is a case in point.

Last month, when Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a program to randomly search New York subway passengers after the London tube bombings, two city politicians called for racial profiling instead. They insisted that the enemy's faceis an easy one to spot and that authorities shouldn't waste time randomly searching, say, Norwegian grandmothers when the real threat comes from Middle Eastern and Asian men.

New York Assembly man Dov Hikind, a Democrat, plans to introduce a bill that would roll back anti-racial-profiling legislation and allow police to stop whomever they want to stop in their efforts to prevent terrorism. Councilman James Oddo, a Staten Island Republican, promises to introduce a similar resolution in the City Council.


Contrary to what the author thinks, racial profiling is another tool that law enforcement does find effective in fighting crime and, more importantly, catching terrorists. Police in the field consistently use racial profiling to catch criminals. When a black person is found walking down an alley in a predominantly white neighborhood at 3AM, an officer will ask himself, "Hmm....what's he doing here?" When an officer observes a white person driving through a predominantly black neighborhood at 3AM the officer will make the same comment to himself. From his experience, the officer knows that seeing a white man in a black neighborhood means that usually he's down there to buy drugs.

Where is the hue and cry from the media about this "outrage"?

Thereis no hue and cry because it is acceptable to discriminate against whites but not against "people of color." Sure it is a double standard. The point is not whether it is right or wrong. It is effective. If you as a person determine through your experience that a specific type of person consistently commit crimes, are you supposed to ignore your intuition, training and experience.


The police are out there putting their life on the line every day. Those same intuitions and experiences are there to save the officers' life. Since 9/11 a harsh and realistic approach to preventing terrorist attacks has had to be put in place - despite the mewlings of the ACLU and other 'civil rights' organizations. New York city has searched 7,000 people and had only 1 complaint. I think that the rational and common sense Citizen is finally taking back our beloved streets.

Profiling is just another tool and the liberal sensitivies to the process are what should be ignored.

18 August 2005

Ignore Art at your own Risk

I haven't been a regular reader of Salon.com - I do pick and choose who I'll read. My first sally into their realm was to read the movie breakdown/review of "Mulholland Drive". It is a tremendous movie with fluid imagery, mythic symbology and - 4 hot, 'girl-on-girl' lesbian scenes....gggrrrrrrrr!

After seeing the film I had to go dig around for an appropriate source to describe and interpret what I had just seen. Thankfully that is where Salon.com came in. Their review was both hysterical and useful. You can read the review at Mulholland Drive

Back to LOTF. Rebecca Traister is a staff writer for Salon Life who penned a short piece about how she blew off a reading of Lord of the Flies before taking an examination on the contents of the novel. She did this because she had discovered a proven method of divining the contents of a book by see its cover illustration. Hhmmmm.

She probably would have been better served by reading the book. It works on a number of levels and has much to offer. (See Lord of the Flies). Her flippant dismissal of all that is Lord of the Flies makes me think that she hasn't left the dementia of high school behind.

Many people do not like "LOTF" and for very good reasons. The novel forces the reader to suspend their everyday notions that 'people are basically good' and that civilization is the end-all, be-all to our existence. Some people cannot get beyond these concepts because they're not willing to be honest with themselves about human nature. These people are the same that donate to "africa relief" with the erroneous expectation that their $50 will go into the mouths of hungry children - when anyone with an 8th grade education knows that the majority of funding in dictatorial regimes goes into the dictators' gold-enameled plumbing fixtures.

It takes courage, virtue and principles to tackle "LOTF" because it will rub your nose into the smelly underparts of our society. It makes one believe in the Devil - thereby indirectly forcing one to acknowledge God. Shock!In our Left guided society, you can't be comfortable watching a group of innocent school children butchering each other after 2 weeks of being without their beloved Government (Labor Party, no doubt).Indeed our socialist/communist handbooks are fairly explicit in their aims - Divide the family, remove God, make the State our new diety.

George Orwell would just shake his head ....

"Winston, we shall meet in the room where there is no darkness."