Let's start with "Soy makes you queer" Jim Rutz, affectionately known as Rutz Carleton, Rutzie, Rutz Cracker, and my favorite, Senor Putz. Putz has a question for his readers- "how come people don't like me?" After all, Jim says, all he does is tell the truth: "After two years of writing this peaceful pillar of prose and treading oh so lightly on the toes of carefully selected interest groups, I have arrived at some objectively derived, scientific conclusions."
Uh huh.
Over these past two irenic years, I have touched gently upon the little foibles of liberals, homosexuals, Muslims, radical feminists, Nazi retreads, atheists, FDA bureauquacks, lawyers, Marxists, AP reporters, FEMA officials, Democrats, New Agers, politically correct trendoids and most recently, Hindus.I cannot claim my analysis has defined all these groups distinctly; the overlaps among them are simply too massive. In fact, their psychospiritual distinctives often get lost in the dark swirl of misanthropic bile, rather like the inky clouds squirting from a distressed octopus.
Wow. A few paragraphs down, Rutz shares this gem:
I am saying that the interest groups I've mentioned above are composed mostly of people who are morally adrift – not mere victims of aberrant ideas, but devotedly evil in at least some respects. Their hate-riddled tirades and occasional vulgar or offensive tantrums are just the visible part of their ungodly edifice of twisted concepts and values.
...Make no mistake, a majority of the e-mails I get in response to my columns from homosexuals, Muslims, Hindus and some others are seething with hatred. And the odd part of that? They constantly accuse me of being hateful! The irony never strikes them.
Irony? Jim said Hindus "have no arguments that make much sense" and that their pantheon is "totally imaginary", and that the reason Indian Hindus are converting to Christianity is because Hinduism is "incapable" of performing healing miracles- unlike, say, Benny Hinn. Exactly what's ironic about this statement?
Such folks reject not only conservative economics, libertarian politics and Christian philosophy, but our precious, underlying foundations of polite behavior and moral restraint.
Like saying someone's religion is bullshit? I must have missed that in charm school. Jim also, incidentally, predicts that "the entire population of the world would be born-again Christians, under current trends, by 2032." Keep me updated on my impending conversion, Jim. This should be fun.
The issue isn't just right vs. wrong, but good vs. bad. And that's the problem behind the problem. (For further research, can anyone send me some good statistics on how many felons and drug addicts are Republicans?)Take a look in some Southern prisons sometime, Jimmy. I kind of doubt that they're all Democrats.
Jim concludes with this pearl o'wisdom:
P.S. Did you ever notice that (apart from show biz types) beautiful women and good-looking guys are usually conservatives?
Which, considering the fact that he looks like this ==>
, is pretty hysterical.Let's see, what else? Roy Moore is at it again, showing us the "real" origin of the separation of Church & State:
The true meaning of "separation of church and state" can be traced to the Old Testament. The God of Israel separated the priests of the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron from the kings of the tribe of Judah and the family of David. And He took the separation very seriously. In 2 Chronicles 26, for example, when King Uzziah tried to usurp Azariah the priest's task of burning incense in the temple, the arrogant king was suddenly struck with leprosy for his disobedience.Hey, and maybe "checks and balances" actually refers to weighing sheaves of grain for sin-offerings at the Temple? And judicial review... well, that one's kind of tricky, but it probably involves a goat.
...This is true separation of church and state, and a recognition that God ordained both. Whether a church is healthy and growing or fractious and failing, it is not the role of the state to interfere. The higher authority to which a church and its members answer is the Supreme Judge of the World, not the Supreme Court.
And what serving of dipshits would be complete without my old bud Prager? In addition to an old column that claims that America has not lost in Iraq, JUST LIKE Israel did not lose against Hezbollah last summer (I wonder what the Israeli hawks would say about that), I'd like to look at Dennis' latest offering. What brilliant insights today, Dennis?
Every day I see at least one car, usually more than one, sporting a bumper sticker that reads, "Buck Fush."
Apparently, some of our fellow Americans on the left find this message to be profound and witty. But it is not these individuals' presence or absence of wit or profundity that interests me here -- both are so obviously absent, no comments are necessary. It's their contempt for society and their narcissism that demand commentary.
Coming up next week, Dennis takes on a liberal coffee mug that goes too far...
And why is this suddenly a liberal thing? Bush's numbers are in the toilet. You don't think there aren't conservatives who want him to take a long walk off a short pier?
Dennis claims that one can tell who respects cultural values and mores of western civilization depending on how much regard they have for keeping their little swears to themselves.
But higher civilization has always regarded the use of expletives in public (outside of, let us say, theatrical performances) as a form of assault on civilization.
Maybe the self-appointed definers of "higher civilization" needed to pull the broomstick out of their asses and let it breathe once in a while.
No one monitors my private conversations, but just about everyone, at least until the 1960s, understood that there was something very wrong in saying such words on the radio or putting them on billboards.
That is why we have, as a society, crossed a line when people put expletives on bumper stickers ("S--t Happens," "Buck Fush") or use them in public in distinguished company -- as in newspaper interviews or campaign fund-raisers. Even the individual who puts a "Buck Fush" sticker on his or her car knows that the real "f-word" would constitute an assault on whatever remains of the concept of decency.
What else, Dennis?
So what does the increasing ubiquity of such stickers tell us?
It says a lot about parts of the left. For one thing, it tells us that leftist anger -- make that hatred -- of its opponents is probably the greatest politically inspired hatred in the country. Certainly there were many on the right who hated former President Bill Clinton, and that hatred did at times reflect poorly on the right. But, to the best of my knowledge, no Clinton-hater ever put a "Cuck Flinton" bumper sticker on a car.
That's right, everything the right did to the Clintons, that's all cool, but having a fake swear word on a car, that's just crossing a line. HORSESHIT.
Tell us more, D-dog.It doesn't have to be fascism to be stupid, Dennis. I wouldn't call you Fascist, for instance. And the fact is that I recognize that there are different forums in which different standards of appropriate speech are necessary. But don't try and spin this line that you can know everything about a person's mentality, to the degree of how much they hate X or have disdain for decency, etc, based on a bumper sticker. I'm amazed you can even say this with a straight face. And you accepted money for this? What's next, analyzing the political reprecussions of belly-button lint, or "Personal grooming: How Lefty Laziness represents a Darker Threat"?
The answer is that parts of the left have little or no belief in the concept of "decency" as traditionally understood by Western civilization. They tend to dismiss such notions as bourgeois anachronisms; they place great value on individuals expressing themselves; and they view self-censorship as a form of fascism.
Take your decency and dignified public square of Western civilization, Dennis. I say fuck off.
No comments:
Post a Comment