Lies. Deceit. Misdirection. Obfuscation.
These are the tools of the few who cannot operate on the playing field of the many who seek to live with the decisions and responsibilities of a civil society. The liar lurks behind the curtain of made-up facts, and thrives on the coSuch as it is with the gun control efforts of our deliberately misinformed fellow citizens.
Since before the heinous actions of a mentally deranged kid in Connecticut, anti-Second Amendment clowns have sought to curtail a fundamental right granted by the Constitution. The gun haters and their lobby have worked tirelessly for many years to ‘correct’ something they see as a flaw in understanding by those rights given to us by our Founders. Primary to their efforts is deceit.
As a society, we are being bombarded by a slew of vile and venomous attacks on our liberties with no concern for truth. This onslaught comes from all quarters. The biased media, the Liberal professoriate, elected officials, and even our Chief Executive are all waging our war against us. Their primary weapon is the lie, pure and simple.
To someone who has an end-goal in mind, there are always many paths to victory. Sometimes a plan may be having a rational and honest conversation. Other times, there may be the ad hominem attack on the opposition. It may be a part of the strategy to confuse the argument, while still being a principled participant in the game. The lowest of the low, in a fit of trying to win at all cost, may just simply tell us something that is patently untrue in order to gain advantage or save face.
The Christ said that any without sin could cast the first stone. Sage advice, that, if not a direct commandment. Indeed, I would not try to moralize about truth. Who among us doesn’t have the occasional white lie in our hip pocket? We have all called-in to work as being sick when we really could have appeared. We’ve made excuses as to why we couldn’t attend this or that event, and we’ve told our kids things which were not exactly true, all in the name of protecting them.
Opposite of these ideas are the beliefs that the ends of all actions justify the means. Marx and Engels were adherents of this idea that, no matter what one did, as long as it furthered their goal, it was okay. A lie to an individual or the general populace was preferred over the truth if it moved the marker in their direction. It is consequentialism, writ large. We as individuals practice this on a daily basis, albeit on a smaller scale. To most of us, a small lie, as long as it protects us from harm or admonishment, is preferable to facing up to the truth.
It is not the same with our anti-gun detractors. In the name of saving us from ourselves, the forces on the Left are marshaling every lie they can to make sure that we are unarmed and unprotected.
Foremost in this assault is the idea that our Founders did not mean for us to protect ourselves from the tyranny of government. One after another on the Left tries to confuse us with the falsehood that our fathers meant for us to only own firearms if we belonged to a militia. They put forth the premise that the signers of the Constitution did not envision ‘assault weapons’. This flies in the face of the Founder’s intentions, since they knew that whatever weapon was at hand was a weapon to be used against an overreaching government. None of the signers of the Constitution would have shied away from the modern musket, the AR-platform rifle, as something which needed intervention or regulation.
Another lie in the anti-gun lobby argument is the belief that less legally-owned weapons make less crime. John Lott, economist and gun rights advocate, showed definitively that those counties in America who had easy gun laws had less criminal activity. In fact, when one looks at places that have free and open gun laws, we see a lessening of violence. Legal gun owners are far less to commit crime. Period.
Contrasting that, look at the areas that have had traditionally strong gun control, Chicago (the President’s home), Baltimore, Detroit, Washington D.C. These cities are representative of the worst of what our country is about.
The anti-gun lobby looks at this and they see something different than we do. They see an inherent propensity toward criminal activity with anyone who owns a modern sporting rifle. This flies in the face of both science and common sense. Any gun owner who is willing to legally own a sporting firearm is the least likely person to commit a crime. Handgun users, by far the most contributors of violent crime, are divided amongst those who legally have a sidearm and those who steal or buy their gun for felonious intentions. The folks who purchase and abide by whatever state regulations are in place are the least likely to commit crimes. Criminals do not register their handguns.
They also see something evil with gun shows. That thought process derives from the fact that most anti-gunners have NEVER BEEN TO A GUN SHOW. It is a lie that criminals are getting their guns from these expositions. If you try to purchase a handgun from an exhibitor, you still have to pass a background check and wait for your handgun to be shipped to a licensed dealer in your state to be picked-up. There is no way around this.
Which leads us to another big lie, in that our government tries to make us believe that handing down a firearm to someone is dangerous. The fact is that gun owners pass down firearms to their progeny in a manner which is responsible.
None of us want to see crime. Gun owners are usually the folks who adhere to the law. Let us not devolve into the group who buys into the lies that somehow we are wrong for supporting the Constitution and believing that being honest is punished.
nfusion of others. Deception is the last refuge of the opportunist, who may wield it both as a blunt club and as a sharp sword.
25 March 2013
Lying liars and the liars who lie about them
Lies. Deceit. Misdirection. Obfuscation.
These are the tools of the few who cannot operate on the playing field of the many who seek to live with the decisions and responsibilities of a civil society. The liar lurks behind the curtain of made-up facts, and thrives on the coSuch as it is with the gun control efforts of our deliberately misinformed fellow citizens.
Since before the heinous actions of a mentally deranged kid in Connecticut, anti-Second Amendment clowns have sought to curtail a fundamental right granted by the Constitution. The gun haters and their lobby have worked tirelessly for many years to ‘correct’ something they see as a flaw in understanding by those rights given to us by our Founders. Primary to their efforts is deceit.
As a society, we are being bombarded by a slew of vile and venomous attacks on our liberties with no concern for truth. This onslaught comes from all quarters. The biased media, the Liberal professoriate, elected officials, and even our Chief Executive are all waging our war against us. Their primary weapon is the lie, pure and simple.
To someone who has an end-goal in mind, there are always many paths to victory. Sometimes a plan may be having a rational and honest conversation. Other times, there may be the ad hominem attack on the opposition. It may be a part of the strategy to confuse the argument, while still being a principled participant in the game. The lowest of the low, in a fit of trying to win at all cost, may just simply tell us something that is patently untrue in order to gain advantage or save face.
The Christ said that any without sin could cast the first stone. Sage advice, that, if not a direct commandment. Indeed, I would not try to moralize about truth. Who among us doesn’t have the occasional white lie in our hip pocket? We have all called-in to work as being sick when we really could have appeared. We’ve made excuses as to why we couldn’t attend this or that event, and we’ve told our kids things which were not exactly true, all in the name of protecting them.
Opposite of these ideas are the beliefs that the ends of all actions justify the means. Marx and Engels were adherents of this idea that, no matter what one did, as long as it furthered their goal, it was okay. A lie to an individual or the general populace was preferred over the truth if it moved the marker in their direction. It is consequentialism, writ large. We as individuals practice this on a daily basis, albeit on a smaller scale. To most of us, a small lie, as long as it protects us from harm or admonishment, is preferable to facing up to the truth.
It is not the same with our anti-gun detractors. In the name of saving us from ourselves, the forces on the Left are marshaling every lie they can to make sure that we are unarmed and unprotected.
Foremost in this assault is the idea that our Founders did not mean for us to protect ourselves from the tyranny of government. One after another on the Left tries to confuse us with the falsehood that our fathers meant for us to only own firearms if we belonged to a militia. They put forth the premise that the signers of the Constitution did not envision ‘assault weapons’. This flies in the face of the Founder’s intentions, since they knew that whatever weapon was at hand was a weapon to be used against an overreaching government. None of the signers of the Constitution would have shied away from the modern musket, the AR-platform rifle, as something which needed intervention or regulation.
Another lie in the anti-gun lobby argument is the belief that less legally-owned weapons make less crime. John Lott, economist and gun rights advocate, showed definitively that those counties in America who had easy gun laws had less criminal activity. In fact, when one looks at places that have free and open gun laws, we see a lessening of violence. Legal gun owners are far less to commit crime. Period.
Contrasting that, look at the areas that have had traditionally strong gun control, Chicago (the President’s home), Baltimore, Detroit, Washington D.C. These cities are representative of the worst of what our country is about.
The anti-gun lobby looks at this and they see something different than we do. They see an inherent propensity toward criminal activity with anyone who owns a modern sporting rifle. This flies in the face of both science and common sense. Any gun owner who is willing to legally own a sporting firearm is the least likely person to commit a crime. Handgun users, by far the most contributors of violent crime, are divided amongst those who legally have a sidearm and those who steal or buy their gun for felonious intentions. The folks who purchase and abide by whatever state regulations are in place are the least likely to commit crimes. Criminals do not register their handguns.
They also see something evil with gun shows. That thought process derives from the fact that most anti-gunners have NEVER BEEN TO A GUN SHOW. It is a lie that criminals are getting their guns from these expositions. If you try to purchase a handgun from an exhibitor, you still have to pass a background check and wait for your handgun to be shipped to a licensed dealer in your state to be picked-up. There is no way around this.
Which leads us to another big lie, in that our government tries to make us believe that handing down a firearm to someone is dangerous. The fact is that gun owners pass down firearms to their progeny in a manner which is responsible.
None of us want to see crime. Gun owners are usually the folks who adhere to the law. Let us not devolve into the group who buys into the lies that somehow we are wrong for supporting the Constitution and believing that being honest is punished.
nfusion of others. Deception is the last refuge of the opportunist, who may wield it both as a blunt club and as a sharp sword.
08 March 2013
Better Living Through the New World Order (c)
The New World Order (NWO). Black UN helicopters. Illuminati.
FEMA concentration camps. Sinister executive orders and a Zionist-CIA-UN-World
Bank-Leftist-Rightist-military-industrial complex-globalist conspiracy to keep
us all from earning a collecting our own rainwater, tinkering with the value of
money, and looking for ways to harness our body’s electrical energies, a’ la ‘The
Matrix’.
These sure are dangerous times we live in, folks.
Yep, to hear it from nutsy and normal people alike, we are
but lambs being led to the slaughter house. No less than a former presidential
candidate, ‘Dr.’ Ron Paul, has sounded the alarm about such pitfalls, and even
the average Johnny Lunchbox can expound at length about the UN convoy full of
coffins that passed him on the way to work. One can hardly sit down to dinner
without seeing a devilish, greedy Jewish banker hiding under the table with
shackles and a wallet magnet. Peanuts character Charlie Brown would mutter, ‘good
grief’, while in modern parlance we are left :smh:.
Far be it from me to deny that we are under an assault in
this country. This attack comes not just from terrorists outside our borders,
but also from those within who wish to dismantle our way of life, only to piece
it back together in an unholy, Frankenstein’s monster of Socialism and hippy
virtue. Our Dear Leader has taken it upon himself to lead the charge in
fundamentally changing the fabric of American society. Ivory Tower elites in
our schools and universities litter lectures with lies and slander, dumping their
twisted ideas in the minds of young students like Peter North on the face of (former)
Miss Teen Delaware USA -- the end-of-scene vacant stare and idiotic giggles are
the same, too.
Later, when technology leapt forward again, the leaders of
that new era, with the Revolution still fresh in memory, did not amend the
Constitution to disallow lever action repeating rifles. Bolt action repeaters
and semi-automatics followed, and still citizens were allowed to possess and
use those tools. Granted, the gummint saw fit to make difficult the ownership
of fully automatic ‘machine guns’ during the 1930s with the National Firearms
Act (1934). This was due directly to stem the amount of gangster crime being
committed because of the ill-conceived prohibition of alcohol production and
sales a few years earlier. Machine guns are still owned by US citizens to this
day, but they are registered, highly regulated, and are of virtually no factor
in any crime committed for the past 70 years or so.
Step forward with me to the more modern era, when those on
the Left try to do everything to prevent citizens from owning any firearm. We
all know the restrictions offered up by Liberal Democrats are simply steps
leading to full bans on guns, their protestations notwithstanding. This stance
is a direct attack on our liberties, it is well-orchestrated, and it is direct
in approach. But it does not rise to the level of a ‘conspiracy’, in the truest
sense of the term.
Likewise, the Socialist elements of our country are looking
to subvert our rights and liberties in myriad other ways. Obama wants to open our
borders to flood our country with new Democrat voters. Radical anti-capitalists
are working to throttle business to make us all more dependent upon the
gummint. Leftist legislators do everything they can to expand the scope of
gummint bureaucracy to build up a loyal class of self-interested voters.
Unions, true to their Communist roots, try to strangle free enterprise with the
end goal of enslaving the American worker. Class and racial strife in this
country is the new guerilla warfare of the Left.
These are our problems: real, defined, and certain. Not so
certain are the hyped and fictitious dangers from our well-meaning but
misguided friends on our side.
That time of uncertainty and fright finds a parallel today.
Everyday people are not schooled in the complicated machinations of a global
economy. The idea of working for a company for 30+ years and retiring with a
pension like our dads and granddads did lies in the dark corners of our brains
like the salmon’s urge to spawn every year. We long for the ‘good ol’ days’…which
wasn’t always so good. We trend toward the simple things to fight what we don’t
understand. And for the monster we can’t see, we give it claws and fangs and a
forked tail of our own devising.
Good and decent people adopt the title ‘Patriot’ and try to
give shape and form to the beast under the bed. The media of exchange for our
ideas, the Internet, Facebook, etc., offers a rich canvas from which to color
in those lines. What one numbskull can post, another may take as Gospel.
Common today, and actually for the past 20 years, has been
the idea that the All-Powerful United Nations is somehow using our soil to
establish a foothold from which to steal the life essence of our rights. UN
helicopters spy on US citizens; UN dignitaries are infiltrating our gummint and
guiding elections and policy decisions. The Interwebs abound with stories of
convoys of unmarked trucks, piloted by foreigners, conveying all sorts of
instruments of imprisonment. Innocuous websites tell horror stories about how
we are allowing our Federal Emergency Management Agency to construct a series
of gulags, in every state, in order to prepare for a mass incarceration and
liquidation of undesirables. From every backwoods Bubba to the self-styled
freedom fighter, the hysterical cry of ‘Wolf!’ sounds around the country about
an insubstantial vampire, sucking the lifeblood of liberty from us under our
very noses.
Call me a skeptic, because I am.
I abhor hysterics in any manifestation…believe it. I think I
have established my bona fides as someone who is distrustful of our current
administration and its supporters. However, we look stupid by perpetuating such
nonsense. I would call it the ‘Glenn Beckisonation’ of our struggle, though the
fault does not fall squarely upon his shoulders. Our misguided brothers and
sisters are simply misinterpreting many things.
I draw the analogy to this mindset with the Christians who
spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about the book of Revelation, about
the end times, and the such. Matthew 24:36 states that no one shall know the
day nor hour or Christ’s return, except God, yet reams of writing is spent trying
to
While I will never discount history and the attempts of the
State to try to take it upon themselves to try to rule us with a heavier hand,
the evidence is there that these dubious claims are harmful to our true goal.
It takes very little research to find that the Amtrack station in Beech Grove
is just that…a station. Closed-off areas at the old Jefferson Proving Grounds
are simply areas that are still under gummint control, and should be. The much
reported FEMA caskets are nothing more than photos of a facility which stores
necessary and required burial vaults constructed by a company which makes
vaults. And military training areas are just that.
The battle is here and now; it is not in the ether. Spread
the word and let’s keep our eyes on the 25-meter target.
28 February 2013
Maxine Waters Ups the Ante On Sequestration
Always one to not let facts get in the way of her stupidity, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has said that Obama's sequestration will cost the US 170 MILLION JOBS. I'm just surprised she could even pronounce it.
If that isn't enough of her, try her take on her belief in Socialism:
If that isn't enough of her, try her take on her belief in Socialism:
Obama's Muse
It has been quite awhile since I have posted anything here, but given the assault on our liberties by the Obama administration and his cronies on the Progressive Left/Socialist cabal in our country, it seems again imperative that I put thought to screen.
What has happened to the lofty goals and empty promises of Comrade Obama? One need not skip down the path of reminisence to 2007 to see that the 'Hope and Change' train has ran off of the tracks. But to indulge that line of thought, who remembers Obama promising a new way of doing business in Washington? Or his assertion that there would be a new era of openness and transparency? Or the worst, his promise that he would work across the aisle with Republicans to make things better for all of us.
For better or worse, as a country we had a weariness about us over the previous eight years. I was a big supporter of President Bush. He was someone who acted with resolve, refused to vacillate, he stood firm for what was right, and by all accounts, he was a workhorse as a leader. The president started his term with a Left who was angry and bitter for having to leave eight years of Clinton, and who desperately wanted another eight years of Gore. Then, he was hit with being at the helm during the national tragedy that was 9-11. Before the dust was settled, Left-wing nuts were doubting his ability, questioning his right and just response to retaliate, and even going so far as to suggesting that he or Vice President Cheney had something to do with the attack. It wasn't long until the peacenik crowd was demanding that we pull back to within our borders and make nice with our enemies.
Eight years of Leftist attacks on President Bush left an unsavory taste in the mouths of citizens, and they yearned for something new. And they got it.
Now, with one horrific term under his belt, Obama has shown that he is nothing of the man he pretended to be. An article today showed the comparisons between Obama and former president Richard Nixon. To be sure, they both have targeted their detractors and made them enemies. They've both bullied the press, as (former) Liberal media darling Bob Woodward can attest, as Fox News can attest, and as former White House counsel and Joe Lieberman PAC treasure Lanny Davis can attest.
Obama's bullying goes beyond the pale, and he encourages this behavior in his acolytes. Woodward, who helped bring down a man who was seen as the devil by the numbskulls of the 60s, has now been roundly attacked by the Leftist media who support Obama to the end. MSNBC, ABC, et. al., have questioned his sanity, questioned his age, have said in his advancing years he has failing judgement.
Remember the same media attacking Hillary Clinton when she ran against the Black Messiah? Remember the media and the ivory tower elites in academia propping-up one foolish notion after another that anyone to the right of the middle was somehow lacking in intelligence or suffering from a mental disorder? It is the same thought process that former Communist regimes used to declare those who questioned the Party to be apostate and in desperate of political 're-education'.
'By any means necessary' has been less a rejoinder, and more of a battle cry, for those who wish to fundamentally change our society for the worse. Comrade Obama has shown that he is not afraid to raise that flag.
What has happened to the lofty goals and empty promises of Comrade Obama? One need not skip down the path of reminisence to 2007 to see that the 'Hope and Change' train has ran off of the tracks. But to indulge that line of thought, who remembers Obama promising a new way of doing business in Washington? Or his assertion that there would be a new era of openness and transparency? Or the worst, his promise that he would work across the aisle with Republicans to make things better for all of us.
For better or worse, as a country we had a weariness about us over the previous eight years. I was a big supporter of President Bush. He was someone who acted with resolve, refused to vacillate, he stood firm for what was right, and by all accounts, he was a workhorse as a leader. The president started his term with a Left who was angry and bitter for having to leave eight years of Clinton, and who desperately wanted another eight years of Gore. Then, he was hit with being at the helm during the national tragedy that was 9-11. Before the dust was settled, Left-wing nuts were doubting his ability, questioning his right and just response to retaliate, and even going so far as to suggesting that he or Vice President Cheney had something to do with the attack. It wasn't long until the peacenik crowd was demanding that we pull back to within our borders and make nice with our enemies.
Eight years of Leftist attacks on President Bush left an unsavory taste in the mouths of citizens, and they yearned for something new. And they got it.
Now, with one horrific term under his belt, Obama has shown that he is nothing of the man he pretended to be. An article today showed the comparisons between Obama and former president Richard Nixon. To be sure, they both have targeted their detractors and made them enemies. They've both bullied the press, as (former) Liberal media darling Bob Woodward can attest, as Fox News can attest, and as former White House counsel and Joe Lieberman PAC treasure Lanny Davis can attest.
Remember the same media attacking Hillary Clinton when she ran against the Black Messiah? Remember the media and the ivory tower elites in academia propping-up one foolish notion after another that anyone to the right of the middle was somehow lacking in intelligence or suffering from a mental disorder? It is the same thought process that former Communist regimes used to declare those who questioned the Party to be apostate and in desperate of political 're-education'.
'By any means necessary' has been less a rejoinder, and more of a battle cry, for those who wish to fundamentally change our society for the worse. Comrade Obama has shown that he is not afraid to raise that flag.
29 June 2010
Justice Stevens: One Final Middle Finger to America
The four justices who voted against the majority were the most liberal judges on the bench, including Obama’s addition to the court, Justice Sotomayor.
At issue was the unconstitutionality of a handgun ban enforced by the city of Chicago, and nearby Oak Park, for the past 30 years. While the court didn’t specifically strike down the ban, they made it clear that such nanny-state measures would not pass constitutional muster.
Retiring Justice Stevens wrote a most ridiculous dissent. Absent was the sharp, penetrating legal acumen one expects from a Supreme Court Justice. But rather, he blathered on about safety and the threat to our collective liberties by increased gun violence.
Well, pardon me, but Stevens is a fucking gun-hating Leftist, and I’m glad he’s retiring.
This moron has consistently sided with those opposed to freedom. He has been an enemy of the Second Amendment, and has in previous written dissents opined that this provision in the Bill of Rights doesn’t pertain to individual citizens. His predilection for being a constitutional termite doesn’t end there, as he has also written that entities such as states and municipalities should be allowed to ‘experiment’ with the 2nd.
Would he be so inclined to allow states to experiment with the First Amendment and regulate members of the press corps and their writing? Probably not.
Stevens is hostile to gun rights, period. He suffers from the same delusion as other’s on the left by believing that people are inherently bad, and the government needs to regulate them as much as possible. Joining many others of his ilk with liberal bias, Stevens ignores the facts. FBI statistics show that counties with a high percentage of legal gun ownership also have the lowest crime rates. It is also clear that legal gun owners do not commit violent crimes. So for years, law-abiding citizens in places like Chicago and D.C. kept the guns out of their homes while criminals continued to menace them.
You see, when the government can make you a victim, the government will try to be the one to save you. This is why Obama, and Stevens, and soon-to-be Justice Elena Kagan, and legions of liberal bureaucrats and politicians all over America do what they do.
How long will we let them?
Soccer: Stupid, Boring, AND Progressive
Let me preface this by saying I am not a sports fanatic. I do not wait anxiously for the start of college basketball season, nor sit for hours watching the grass grow during a golf tournament. That's not to say I don't enjoy sports; indeed I do. Often I watch Formula One, (along with other motorsports), and I am an avid fan of tennis. Snowskiing is a favorite, as well. From this you may gather that I prefer individual sporting activities over team sports, so perhaps I approach this from an already skewed perspective.
Whatever the case, I am sure of one thing: World Cup Soccer is absolutely ridiculous.
Now please don't misunderstand me. I don't intend to only degrade the World Cup, because all soccer is ridiculous. At very least, it is ridiculous on the surface, and it has rather palpable and distinct undercurrents of populism.
My first introduction to the game - if one can seriously call it that - came in primary school. Finley Elementary was a tiny block building containing six classrooms and a cafeteria room. Tucked away in the rolling countryside of rural Scott County, IN, Finley served some of the poorer students of the local area. I recall one student who lived with a family of eight in an old two-room trailer; he shared a bunkbed with his brother that was in the corner of the kitchen. Hunting for these folks was more than mere sport, but rather it was part of their critical need to provide necessary protein and calories to their diet. Needless to say, this was not the environment that would foster a greatly expanded world view. My family was more fortunate than many of my classmates, but even with educated parents I wasn't exposed to many things outside of the norm at that time.
Still, a kid's gotta play. One doesn't need to be Howard Cosell to know that in amongst the cornfields of Indiana, basketball is the game to play. And play we did, basketball mostly. Thrown in was the occasional dodgeball, or softball or the like. Recess was the same all over, sans soccer.
My first inkling of soccer came in the seemingly innocuous textbooks we had. Not only did they have the required information for our age group, but they were sly primers on multiculturalism, as well. I seem to recall so many of these texts showing kids happily kicking around an odd black-and-white ball. These children, as I later learned, were representative of other schools, schools with other kids and other problems. The textbook pictures always depicted school kids as an ethnic stew, happily bubbling away as they simmered with cultural harmony. It also seemed that this soup contained a rather healthy dose of that equalizing ingredient, soccer.
It was only later in life, when my life experience and understanding expanded that I truly learned to despise soccer and what it represents.
In essence, the game can be summed up thusly: players run, for what seems like hours, up and down a grassy field. During this running, players who look to be gay take turns theatrically falling to the ground with mock injuries, and spectators drink themselves silly with boredom and fight each other about whose team runs prettier. I think somewhere in this they try to score a point by kicking the ball, but often they are able to overcome the trouble of scoring altogether, whereby intoxicated fans are left wondering why they paid to get toasted in a stadium instead of a proper pub. But the poor, stupid fools keep supporting it.
This isn't to say that other sports, and their fans, can't be equally as meaningless. Take baseball, for example. America's Game is about a five hour affair where the greatest strategic plan is whether to hit the ball left or right. Duh. And baseball's fans are meticulous followers of the games stats. Of course they are, since they records of a game are really more interesting than the game itself. And who knew that some baseball fans can actually read?
Baseball fans aren't alone. Legions of knuckleheaded college basketball fans blather on endlessly about the latest freshman phenom recruited by 'us', as if they were part of the team. Worse still, they always mention 'Coach' with an icky familiarity that borders on homoeroticism. Then we come to the pinnacle of college ball stupidity: the school tattoo. This misguided attempt at team loyalty is made funnier by the fan who tattoos himself without having actually attended said school. How funny.
Regardless of how idiotic sports people can be, they are at least trying to find merit in what they do. Baseball, boring as it is, still has elements that demonstrate purpose. Basketball, even a lame college game, is three dimensional whereas soccer exists in a paltry two. American football has a variety of skill sets, and has been described by commentator Micharel Medved as 'ritualized' combat. Tennis is an expert blend of power and precision.
Soccer, on the other hand, seems merely to be a dramatic representation of a couple of natives kicking a bundle of rags between some coconut trees.
This is precisely why progressive liberals love the game. Soccer to them represents the great equalizer. Anyone with a ball can run and kick it. Absent are the huge powerful defensive line of the NFL, or the multimillion motorcars of Laguna Seca. One doesn't need money or natural ability or finely tuned equipment to play soccer, you see, one only needs a ball and the ability to run.
To a liberal, soccer meets with their approval in a number of ways. Soccer is un-American, for starters. What that means, really, is that there is nothing quintessentially American about soccer. Soccer is a dish with a distinct flavor of some far flung land, and it doesn't evoke memories of Mom and apple pie.
Liberals also like a sport where any overt display of power or strength is downplayed. Again, there is nothing warlike about simply running away, unless of course you're French. Soccer is also a sport where one team rarely is able to dominate another team. There is nothing resembling combat, or the raw strength of will...only guys running endlessly around a field with an afterthought of scoring. Taking the battle out of a contest is part of what Laura Ingraham refers to as the 'wussification' of America, and it is but the most modern example rooted in the days of folks protesting football and boxing as being to brutal.
Finally, progressives love soccer as the great equalizer. Even with it's allowable jingoism, soccer is to them a game that defies the supposed imperalism they see lurking under every rock. Soccer is way for backward banana republics to stand up to world powers on an equal field and feel...well, equal. NY Times sportswriter William Rhoden demonstrated this sentiment when he wrote of the US-Ghana match, saying that even as an American his heart was with Africa. Not Ghana, Africa. Rhoden likened a Ghana win to 'a psychological boost' for this 'important giant'.
Gimme a break.
Nevermind that Rhoden's best known writings are based upon black athletes being treated unfairly in sports. More likely is that at the heart, Rhoden reveled in seeing America knocked down a notch. This type of attitude is woven into the fabric of progressive's cloak and it pervades their thinking to the point where their moral compasses are always taking them off course. This journalist was black, and he saw this contest as a racial and cultural equalizer.
Not only is soccer infinitely boring and lacking in any redeeming qualities, but for many it is a tool for social engineering. I saw it start some 30 years ago in the textbook for elementary children, and everyone who supports it is passively giving aid and comfort to those who would change our way of life 'by any means necessary'.
Writing this almost makes me long for that simpler time, a time when a picture of kids kicking a ball between coconut trees looked like genuine fun. Too bad.
Whatever the case, I am sure of one thing: World Cup Soccer is absolutely ridiculous.
Now please don't misunderstand me. I don't intend to only degrade the World Cup, because all soccer is ridiculous. At very least, it is ridiculous on the surface, and it has rather palpable and distinct undercurrents of populism.
My first introduction to the game - if one can seriously call it that - came in primary school. Finley Elementary was a tiny block building containing six classrooms and a cafeteria room. Tucked away in the rolling countryside of rural Scott County, IN, Finley served some of the poorer students of the local area. I recall one student who lived with a family of eight in an old two-room trailer; he shared a bunkbed with his brother that was in the corner of the kitchen. Hunting for these folks was more than mere sport, but rather it was part of their critical need to provide necessary protein and calories to their diet. Needless to say, this was not the environment that would foster a greatly expanded world view. My family was more fortunate than many of my classmates, but even with educated parents I wasn't exposed to many things outside of the norm at that time.
Still, a kid's gotta play. One doesn't need to be Howard Cosell to know that in amongst the cornfields of Indiana, basketball is the game to play. And play we did, basketball mostly. Thrown in was the occasional dodgeball, or softball or the like. Recess was the same all over, sans soccer.
My first inkling of soccer came in the seemingly innocuous textbooks we had. Not only did they have the required information for our age group, but they were sly primers on multiculturalism, as well. I seem to recall so many of these texts showing kids happily kicking around an odd black-and-white ball. These children, as I later learned, were representative of other schools, schools with other kids and other problems. The textbook pictures always depicted school kids as an ethnic stew, happily bubbling away as they simmered with cultural harmony. It also seemed that this soup contained a rather healthy dose of that equalizing ingredient, soccer.
It was only later in life, when my life experience and understanding expanded that I truly learned to despise soccer and what it represents.
This isn't to say that other sports, and their fans, can't be equally as meaningless. Take baseball, for example. America's Game is about a five hour affair where the greatest strategic plan is whether to hit the ball left or right. Duh. And baseball's fans are meticulous followers of the games stats. Of course they are, since they records of a game are really more interesting than the game itself. And who knew that some baseball fans can actually read?
Baseball fans aren't alone. Legions of knuckleheaded college basketball fans blather on endlessly about the latest freshman phenom recruited by 'us', as if they were part of the team. Worse still, they always mention 'Coach' with an icky familiarity that borders on homoeroticism. Then we come to the pinnacle of college ball stupidity: the school tattoo. This misguided attempt at team loyalty is made funnier by the fan who tattoos himself without having actually attended said school. How funny.
Regardless of how idiotic sports people can be, they are at least trying to find merit in what they do. Baseball, boring as it is, still has elements that demonstrate purpose. Basketball, even a lame college game, is three dimensional whereas soccer exists in a paltry two. American football has a variety of skill sets, and has been described by commentator Micharel Medved as 'ritualized' combat. Tennis is an expert blend of power and precision.
Soccer, on the other hand, seems merely to be a dramatic representation of a couple of natives kicking a bundle of rags between some coconut trees.
This is precisely why progressive liberals love the game. Soccer to them represents the great equalizer. Anyone with a ball can run and kick it. Absent are the huge powerful defensive line of the NFL, or the multimillion motorcars of Laguna Seca. One doesn't need money or natural ability or finely tuned equipment to play soccer, you see, one only needs a ball and the ability to run.
To a liberal, soccer meets with their approval in a number of ways. Soccer is un-American, for starters. What that means, really, is that there is nothing quintessentially American about soccer. Soccer is a dish with a distinct flavor of some far flung land, and it doesn't evoke memories of Mom and apple pie.
Liberals also like a sport where any overt display of power or strength is downplayed. Again, there is nothing warlike about simply running away, unless of course you're French. Soccer is also a sport where one team rarely is able to dominate another team. There is nothing resembling combat, or the raw strength of will...only guys running endlessly around a field with an afterthought of scoring. Taking the battle out of a contest is part of what Laura Ingraham refers to as the 'wussification' of America, and it is but the most modern example rooted in the days of folks protesting football and boxing as being to brutal.
Finally, progressives love soccer as the great equalizer. Even with it's allowable jingoism, soccer is to them a game that defies the supposed imperalism they see lurking under every rock. Soccer is way for backward banana republics to stand up to world powers on an equal field and feel...well, equal. NY Times sportswriter William Rhoden demonstrated this sentiment when he wrote of the US-Ghana match, saying that even as an American his heart was with Africa. Not Ghana, Africa. Rhoden likened a Ghana win to 'a psychological boost' for this 'important giant'.
Gimme a break.
Nevermind that Rhoden's best known writings are based upon black athletes being treated unfairly in sports. More likely is that at the heart, Rhoden reveled in seeing America knocked down a notch. This type of attitude is woven into the fabric of progressive's cloak and it pervades their thinking to the point where their moral compasses are always taking them off course. This journalist was black, and he saw this contest as a racial and cultural equalizer.
Not only is soccer infinitely boring and lacking in any redeeming qualities, but for many it is a tool for social engineering. I saw it start some 30 years ago in the textbook for elementary children, and everyone who supports it is passively giving aid and comfort to those who would change our way of life 'by any means necessary'.
Writing this almost makes me long for that simpler time, a time when a picture of kids kicking a ball between coconut trees looked like genuine fun. Too bad.
23 June 2010
Obama's Feelings Hurt; Afghan War Expert Shown the Door
One of the best known and well respected Special Ops soldiers, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been forced out of his leadership of the war in Afghanistan. The general's recent comments about our naive civilian leadership necessitated his removal, according to Obama.
God bless him for speaking his mind.
----------
Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
