Tears and fears made love and glory.


I saw a poem today at islamgreatreligion that glorifys the condition of the traditional Muslimah.  As the rabid pro-female person that I am I had to do my own version of what it means to be Muslimah.


The Slavery of a Muslimah Soul

Is Reflected Through Her Eyes

Eyes flowing with Tears unshed,
Growing resignation dimming the passion of her eyes.
Her “beauty” reduced to acts of servitude that degrade,
Overflowing with the need to comfort
The ones that deny her humanity.
She is like a blazing fire
Smothered beneath an ocean of inhumanity.
Her trust is to another’s strength,
Her slavery made glamorous;
Her ownership is preserved.
Taught to Fear Allah
She lives her life, each day; a rape of her soul.
Self worth for her comes from outside,
Her beauty a reflection of her service
With patience and kindness toward
Those who will tolerate nothing less from her.
As she gives each drop of love that remains in her soul,
Look into her eyes and see the tears unshed,
She owes you less than she is owed
For her soul is stronger than yours;
Her true beauty will only be seen
When her bondage ends, for the Love of Allah!

Islamist Report: No Fault Treason PC Style

There is a sickness in American which needs to be cured. The body infected is Western Media across the political spectrum, and the bug in this case is the idea of “Political Correctness”, picked up by the American Left after being in bed with Stalin without protection. This contagious form of insanity requires a person to apply a layer of double-think to any event that even might have political ramifications and, since politics and morality are made one by the PC germ, that covers a lot of ground.

On Nov 5th 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas the virus of Political Correctness displayed its ravages for all to see. The blind refusal of the media to see what was before its eyes was a Leftist’s dream come true. The Orwellian brain-bug of the New Left called Political Correctness came into its own that day.

Those who succumb to Political Correctness simultaneously assume a posture of complete lack of discrimination while applying a finely tuned prejudice to virtually every subset of humanity they encounter.

First, the infected mind is compelled to politically define every person or event and apply an automatic interpretation based on that prejudged identity. There are rules for virtually every racial, ethnic, religious and political grouping that exists. The one theme that seems to run through them all is that everything is always the fault of Americans and Western Europeans, heterosexual males especially.

The Left has been using Political Correctness to program the media to ask only the wrong questions since they picked up the term in the 60’s. After the Tet Offensive the media asked how a winning side could let such an attack happen, but did not care who won the battle. After Columbine reporters asked how the children had been made into monsters, not what mental problems they might have had that made them kill. And after 9/11 PC adherents asked why we deserved it, instead of asking how the terrorists could believe it was an act of glory.

Today, the last people who witnessed WWII as adults are dying off, and the Leftists, remembering the significant contribution of the Jews to Western Civilization, have re-added anti-Semitism to their list of PC-condoned bigotries. In affirmation of this change Muslims have also been added to the PC lexicon of artificial responses; as a protected species.

On the morning of 9/11 when the Leftist leaders of the PC movement realized that Islam had a grudge against the West as large as their own they welcomed the Islamists as allies to their cause. From that day it has been a PC crime for anyone to objectively analyze any action by a Muslim, especially if that action is heinous or incomprehensible to Western minds.

Examples of Muslims, moderate or conservative, acting in ways inimical to Western civilization on Western soil are too numerous to list but the PC media is not able to analyze the data it has received. Their answers are all pre-loaded with the Politically Correct Viral Operating System. All the PC bug lets them do is the simple sorting of facts into their pre-assigned slots.

This latest atrocity at Ft. Hood should highlight just how dangerous the media’s ignorance of what motivated Maj. Hasan has become. How could anyone not blinded by a need to conform to some predefined “truth” fail to ask how the military allowed someone with such blatantly obvious motives to be a commissioned officer? Why do so few reporters question how Hasan was able to become a major in the U.S. Army with the associations and attitudes he had shown? Imagine the results if he had waited until he had deployed and had easier access to even deadlier weaponry. The answer is simple; PC thought demands that such considerations be completely beyond consideration for Muslims. The diseased truth is that those so blinded consider the question itself unthinkable in regards to non-Christians.

Does it take a genius to see that the PC mindset is toxic and from which the media must be inoculated? When someone as solidly Left of Center as Bill Maher is on record as being against the ban on profiling terrorists isn’t it past time to take the Muslims off the PC list and put them back on the one labeled “human: handle with caution”? Since the 5th of Nov I think the soldiers of Fort Hood, Texas would agree.

2010 Guide to Free Speech (C.A.I.R. and O.I.C approved)

(A PC’ers for Sharia Production)
White Males
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend non-Whites, Females, non-Christians or Muslims
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend non-Whites, non-Christians, or Muslims
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend non-Whites, Females or Muslims
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend non-Whites or Muslims
It Is Hate Speech If You Offend Muslims
It Is Hate Speech To Offend Your Imam

Why are Conservatives are just plain BORING?

There is a debate in the internet land of Punditia about just what is the “counterculture” and why do Leftists dominate it.  The conservative side is pretty well summed up by this quote from one Samuel, a commenter at NewsReal Blog: 

 “A Conservative, be s/he a Christian Conservative, Deist Conservative or an Atheist Conservative, all live by fundamental principles. At the top of the list would be, that individual freedom is unlimited under the level that it remains below the infringement of others freedom.” 

What so many Conservatives don’t seem to get, is that the counter culturist types describe themselves essentially the same way!!! They seek to maximize  individual freedoms that do not infringe upon other’s freedoms. 

Isn’t that JUST what most (non-politically active) people of a counter culture bent are all about? They are drawn Left simply because there they have more opportunity to express their creativity, whether it is art, music or writing. 

Why must pundits and leaders on the Right and Left equate artistic creativity with POLITICAL movements that seek to REMOVE traditional elements from society rather than make SOME of them more optional? Things like how you dress or what you can do for a living as a man or woman or minority, and what kind of art you can produce. 

It is the FAULT of the Conservatives as well as the progressives if Leftists dominate the creative world! Conservatism is a FACET of thought, not a religion that needs to be kept pure and un-tainted. 

The political progressives seek to change entire societal systems to THEIR model; not just allow more elbow room for expression and differences in style and tone; they seek to LIMIT other’s ability to express themselves, JUST LIKE THE CONSERVATIVE EXTREMISTS. 

Why else does David Horowitz so often make the point that he is a CLASSIC LIBERAL, not a classic Conservative?!? 

A pure Leftist or pure Conservative cannot form a healthy government. NEITHER ONE! 

Just look at one of history’s examples of a truly conservative group: The Catholic Church. 

Just when in the history of the Church can it be said that there were no Liberal influences moderating the harshness of the Conservative ones? Are those times you would want to live in? As I read history the less influence classic Liberal thought had the more corruption and evil the Church did to the societies it held under its authority. 

Can progressive expression of Liberal ideas go too far in shedding traditions? Of course they can, just like Conservative ideas can go too far when unmediated by LIBERAL thought. 

On the Left we have seen the brutality of the Protestants against Catholics in the wars of religion, the horrific acts by Communist inspired groups abetted by modern technology in the 20th, and The Terror after the French Revolution. On the Right we have the Spanish Inquisition and that whole mentality which extended all across Europe at one time or another including Conservative Catholic family outings like the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. Arguments can be made that Nazi Germany had elements of BOTH Left and Right; explain THAT one in black and white partisan terms if you can!!! 

The accident of history that gave the Nazis, Japanese and Communists modern weaponry and transportation to abet their crimes does not in any way alleviate the intimate similarities between Right extremists and Left extremists; it is hypocritical to claim that as an excuse to not be critical of your “allies’s” actions. 

The simple truth is that pure conservatism is not just boring, it is stagnant. The most purely conservative group in American history that I can think of off hand were the Puritans. Does anyone on the political Right really WANT to live in a society like that? Is that really your goal? Do not forget, to protect their “Godly” society these wonderful CONSERVATIVES had no trouble hanging a couple sisters for the crime of being Quaker. They also drove one preacher right out of their colony for the truly heinous crime of insisting that a forced faith was not true faith! If the colonies had not united in the U.S. how far do you think they would have gone? Are you all unaware that it was this very Conservative extremism that prompted the majority of colonies to endorse the whole freedom of religion ideal? 

IS. THIS. REALLY. WHAT. YOU. WANT? Is THAT the America that those Liberal bastards Franklin and Paine and Jefferson and yes, even Washington wanted? 

Frankly, one of the biggest reasons it is so hard for many moderates to embrace their Conservative side publically is just how BORING most True Blue Republicans are! Why do you think Huckabee got so much attention? He actually had NUANCE to his lifestyle. 

It may come as a surprise to a lot of culturaly isolated Conservatives but, the majority of people are not content with re-runs of I Love Lucy and a stack of Frank Sinatra records. 

Heck, if you eliminated all art produced by those Limbaugh woukd CALL “Leftist” and that produced by “active” homosexuals and “drug” users, just WHAT would you have left? 


Dickens, Twain, Melville, Shakepeare, Dumas, Wilde, Elvis, Judy Garland, Ella, Billie Holiday, oh, why bother with a list; almost ALL literature, music, art, plays, blah, blah, blah, is produced by those that the True Blue Conservative ™ would ELIMINATE FROM PARTICIPATION in society!!! 

The fact that LEFTISTS in total control would destroy the balance of society just as surely does NOT excuse the partisanship of the Right. 

It comes as a constant surpise to me that people actually try to defend the idea of eliminating the influence of Liberals(or Conservatives) from politics. Can anyone truly be that ignorant, to believe that that “victory” would end up in anything but a horrific tyranny of one sort or another? 

The label of Conservative is not a shield against immorality or abuse of power, nor is Progressive. Deal with it folks! 

Oh, and while I am on a rant, if Conservative Principals are what Republicans say they are, WHO are these people who are registered as Republicans and call themselves Christians who do not seem to GET the whole free speech and freedom of religion thing, not to mention the whole “if you allow one religion to use a public platform ALL must be allowed” thing that the Supreme Court has been so adamant about? 

It seems to ME, a MODERATE, that BOTH side’s partisans just love to supress others when they get a chance. Free speech for me but not for thee. 


(Pure Leftist Mind) “Things are not the way we THINK they should be so, we must tear down everything to make it as it should be. Those who stand in the way fully support ALL evil, real and imagined, done by the current system. We are not responsible for ANY evil commited in this noble pursuit.” 

(Pure Conservative Mind)”It Ain’t the way Daddy did it so it ain’t the way I gonna do it! It must be immoral and against God; it aint’ NATURAL! IT is a slippery slope. Those who seek ANY changes fully support ALL evil Our Party must not be charged with any evil commited by the status quo.” 

Get riled if you want, but that is JUST what most Conservative arguments against change come down to! 

This attitude has saturated the Conservative stance in debates ranging from slavery to child labor, women’s votes, black votes, EVERY new form of music and ALL new styles of dress and undress. 

The Leftist attitude has successfully co-opted much of the “Liberal” world due to the Conservatives opposing ANY creative changes to society, no matter WHAT the motivation for them may be. 

Is there a single creative change that can be listed that did NOT receive immediate opposition from the “Conservative” elements of society? 

It is not often that you get a “Liberal” change that does not find support even in the bastions of Conservatism. (Abolition, child labor, minority religious rights, minority racial rights, etc. etc. ad nauseum), and the truly immoral and heinous ideals, like NAMBLA’s agenda, unites Conservatives with people across the spectrum in defense of, not tradition, but life, children and the things that matter to a harmonious society. 

Counter culture is nothing more or less than a label for CREATIVE people who seek to express themselves in ways not allowed by the straight-jacket of strict Conservatism. 

At certain times politics can intertwine with these people but, do not forget that Leftists are just as authoritarian and CONSERVATIVE about THEIR principals as “real” Conservatives” are and usualy wll offend the most creative after a while. 

How do you tell the difference from the inside between a strict Stalinist society and a strict “conservative” one in terms of how the freedom of the individual and their families differ? 

Look at a “proper” Puritan household and see how they self edit and apply double-think, and are IN NO WAY SIGNIFICANTLY different from the 1950’s Russian family watching every word and action lest they “sin” and bring down the punishment of God (The State)

One extreme wants to tear down the Constitution and replace it with Marx, the other side wants to tear down the Constitution and replace it with THEIR interpretation of what the Bible says.

Neither side should be allowed to run a society alone without adult supervision.

Heretic’s Crusade Winds Up The Year. Thanks to My Regular Readers All Over the World!


This last year Heretics Crusade has grown by leaps and bounds. According to statistics to date Heretics Crusade has regular readers in:


Citrus Heights, California
Upland, California
Center For Study Popular Culture, Sherman Oaks, California

Indianapolis, Indiana

Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin
Marshfield, Wisconsin

San Antonio, Texas
Plano, Texas
Texas Department Of Health

Arnold, Maryland

Lexington Park, Maryland
Potomac, Maryland

Eugene, Oregon

Broussard, Louisiana

NY, New York
Jackson Heights, New York
Chappaqua Central School District New York, Chappaqua, New York

Clarksville, Tennessee

Canton, Georgia
Lawrenceville, Georgia

Wood Dale, Illinois

Washington, District Of Columbia


U.s. House Of Representatives
United States Senate
Library Of Congress, Information Technology Service
U.s. General Accounting Office
In addition, the HC has gotten regular visitors from the following foreign sources:

Tel Aviv, Israel

Saskatchewan, Canada
Quebec, Canada
Ontario, Canada
British Columbia, Canada

Saint Gallen, Sankt Gallen, Switzerland

Quéven, Bretagne, France

Antipolo, Rizal, Philippines

Hjortshøj, Arhus, Denmark
Copenhagen, Staden Kobenhavn, Denmark

Sneek, Friesland, Netherlands
Nieuwerkerk, Zuid-holland, Netherlands

Brussels, Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Belgium

Bremen, Germany

South Australia, Australia
New South Wales, Australia
Queensland, Australia
Victoria, Australia
Western Australia, Australia

Steiermark, Austria

Birmingham, United Kingdom
London, United Kingdom
Manchester, United Kingdom
Westminster, United Kingdom
Birmingham, United Kingdom
Coventry, United Kingdom
Newbury, United Kingdom
Leicestershire, United Kingdom
Leatherhead, United Kingdom

Kingston, Saint Andrew, Jamaica

Helsinki, Southern Finland, Finland

Zurich, Switzerland

Taradell, Catalonia, Spain

National Institute Of Information And Communication, Tokyo, Japan

Kiev, Kyyivs’ka Oblast’, Ukraine

Wellington, New Zealand

Islamic Republic Of Iran

Manama, Al Manamah, Bahrain

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

New Delhi, Delhi, India

Thanks to everyone for their support and kind emails!!!
 Please comment more though folks! I need feedback
 : – ) Guy DeWhitney ( – :

Bible Sanctions Booze, Pot Smokers Deserve to Die part II

Well, it is not tomorrow but I think I can be forgiven for being a bit distracted for Christmas. On with the show Virginia! On with the show!
In my last piece I dissected Mary Grabar’s initial post, which regurgitated every tired and moldy anti-legalization canard to be found. David Swindle (Editor of NewsRealBlog) tossed back a mild and well thought out rebuttal based in Conservative principals. My rebuttal was not quite as restrained.
Today I will look at Mary’s response to David’s post. Buckle up, Ms. Grabar’s reasoning is a tad convoluted to say the least.

“…Your post also points to a war of ideas, a war that conservative strategists have ignored to their peril. We lost the last election because we lost the culture war….”

Right off the bat we can see that Mary has bought into the whole partisan zero-sum attitude. It is a “war” that must be “won” against “enemies” that must be defeated. There is no room for nuance or compromise or intelligent debate in Mary’s political model. It is all us vs. them and winner take all, culturally as well as politically. Need I point out the fallacies of this attitude? Need I point out that all cultures are a blend of elements, some conservative, some liberal and some radical? Need I point out that the goal of politics should be to find the healthiest BALANCE of these elements not the total domination of one mindset? I guess I guess I someone should, at least to Mary.

“Many, including those on our side, have simply forgotten the traditions and values that inform the fight.”

Now here is a statement that I can agree with! I just don’t think Mary would like my applying it to HER as I do. I would recommend the estimable Ms. Grabar go and read up on pre-prohibition attitudes toward drugs and alcohol and the control of private use thereof.

“Many of the young have been brought up on the liberalism now reigning in our culture. It is a culture that says that all values are relative, that all matters of morality are a function of personal choice. This also seems to be the tack of a certain strain of libertarianism.”

Don’t you just hate it Virginia, when partisan types consistently misrepresent the position of their opponents? Frankly I would not misrepresent the stand of anyone, not even a Nazi or klansman. Lying in the pursuit of “Truth” serves only to kill truth. Leftist pseudo-Liberals do not promote the idea that all values are equal. They promote a select set of values, just as Mary does, and seek to promote them above all others, ESPECIALLY Western values. In fact they are partisan and very conscious of the “values” of their targets. Above all, lets us not fool OURSELVES about our enemies by distorting the actual reasons we claim others should oppose them with us. That path only leads to your own partisan form of political hell.

There is something a little disturbing about someone who cuddles up with you and pretends to agree (in VERY limited ways) in order to disarm your defenses before attacking. Limiting the freedom to make personal choices to buying health care and how they spend their money (on legal things I would assume) is hardly to agree with Libertarians on personal issues.

“…These libertarians rightly want to be left alone to live their lives. They want to be free to make their own decisions about health care and how they spend their money. They want to be free to protect themselves with firearms. I agree with all these goals.”

“But I often see something very reactionary in the responses that are made whenever laws affecting such social issues as drug use or prostitution come into play. An apt display is radio talk show host Burnie Thompson’s reference to Andrew Grande [who swallowed the bag of marijuana] as “a casualty of the war on drugs.” The statement, of course, ignores a central tenet of libertarianism, which is personal responsibility.”

Mary seems to be saying that since Mr. Grande CHOSE to take the risk of being caught by draconian punishments for a harmless vice he CHOSE to die in his attempt to evade those punishments. She totally misses the point that he should not have HAD to make such a choice in regard to marijuana! She misses the point that the government FORCED him to either toe their line or take such a risk! Since Ms. Grabar feels that forcing people to CHOOSE not to use pot is just fine, I guess it is only natural that she feels Mr. Grande was personally responsible for his own death! Forgive me if I disagree rather strongly.

“I think it also points to a certain absolutist world view, which goes something like “if we put any restrictions on marijuana all our freedoms are at peril.” But this absolutist worldview is based on an either/or fallacy. It promotes anarchy more than libertarianism. It assumes that we are a society of atomistic individuals; it can exist only in a cultural vacuum. The fact that I am accused of advocating “collectivism” because I favor keeping marijuana illegal I think is indicative.”

No Mary, it indicates that you just “don’t get it”; that you can’t see the difference between restricting behavior that harms others and restricting behavior that harms only the “criminal.”

“It is displayed, I think, by your proclamation,

[D. Swindle]“The federal government does not exist to make the world better. It’s not here to eliminate poverty. . . . It’s not supposed to try and make sure people can buy homes. . . . The founders never intended a government which would require all citizens to buy health insurance. . . . When government is shifted toward bringing about some form of utopia it fails.”
I agree on all these points, but fail to see how they are connected to the legalization of marijuana. Certainly, our government regulates substances it deems dangerous, doesn’t it? It regulates certain drugs by prescription and outlaws others that are deadly. That government regulation of a substance considered harmful will necessarily lead to infringements on all our freedoms seems to be a slippery slope argument.”

Virginia, did you know that all slippery slope arguments were fallacious? Neither did I! Forgive me if I wait for more evidence on that point before I jump onto Mary’s bandwagon.

Mary, the idea is that the government is not supposed to decide FOR the citizen what they should do, or not do to be happy. The things you confuse with personal acts are actually professional and business acts that ARE rightly controlled by the government. A doctor or business is not allowed to make false claims regarding a substance and may only SELL it in ways and for uses considered “Safe.” This is to protect the public from LIES and FRUAD and FAKE cures. There are MANY deadly substances in stores across the country, available to anyone. But, they are labeled for and sold ONLY for certain uses. IF I go into a hobby shop and ask for old style model plane glue (being over 18) to sniff they won’t sell it to me. But if I tell them it is for my model plane I can buy a case full.
The government’s intrusion into the PRIVATE and INFORMED decisions of its citizens on what to do what they will with their lives is not at all the same thing as the government telling a doctor not to prescribe opium tar as a wart removal cream!

“Like many of my detractors, you point to the harmlessness of the drug. But people are not thrown “in jail” for “growing and consuming a plant.” Surely, you would have to agree that marijuana is not just a “plant” that you would grow in your garden, like spinach. In fact, a better analogy might the one of growing poppies to produce opium.”

See Virgina, you have to love how she makes the legalization debate personal with “my detractors”. Unfortunately the rest of her statement is mostly truth-free. Is Ms. Grabar unaware of the food and textile uses of the plant we are discussing? Is she also unaware that marijuana is non-toxic while opium is extremely dangerous and addictive? Mary, how about the analogy of growing potatoes to make vodka? Or growing grapes to make wine? Or growing tobacco? Coffee? My dear, you are stretching yourself all out of shape trying to avoid this analogy. The sad fact is that it is true. The plant as it grows, with no processing at all can be consumed for effect. Why doesn’t Mary advocate for the banning of coffee and tobacco and alcohol? All of them are more toxic, more addictive and just as easily produced by nature! Mary Grabar’s Answer: tradition and personal prejudice; my way is right, your way is strange and dangerous, and PLEASE do not confuse the issue with facts.

“Part of the absolutism is the refusal to acknowledge any of the dangers associated with marijuana or the concessions I made about the dangers of alcohol. In my column I compared smoking marijuana to drinking alcohol, which I think is apt, depending on the strain of marijuana. Both are used socially, both are relaxants, and both can be addictive. The debate centers on legality.”

Hold on there a minute Mary! Let us take that one bit at a time. I am not swallowing any camels today!

The most powerful strain of marijuana that I have ever heard of cannot kill someone who smokes too much the way hard alcohol can! Pot cannot kill my uncle after a joint or three a day for 30 years the way his beer addiction did! It would not have turned him yellow with liver failure and caused yeast infections to burst from his skin all over his body the way the beer did!
The rest of Mary’s comparison is also outrageous! Relaxants? One drug is associated with “relaxing” such things as inhibitions against violence, vandalism, rape and verbal assault! The other is associated with relaxing, as in being mellow. Is it really “relaxing” when you depress social restraints beyond civilized limits?
The debate centers far from simple legality, it centers on commons sense rules no matter the “drug” and equal application of the law to all harmful behavior. If one behavior is bad how can a more harmful behavior be good? THAT Mary, is the debate.

“Although marijuana is illegal, the punishment for its possession (alone) usually is very light.”

The arrogance of this statement is simply staggering! A person does something harmless and the government punishes them AT ALL, and this is all just peachy with Ms. Grabar? Who are her “detractors”, people who think instead of obey?

“What legalization proponents (including William F. Buckley) don’t say is that many of those perpetrators serving prison sentences supposedly for “drug possession” have pled their cases down or are repeat offenders with long histories of other crimes, including violent crime. So in effect they are not serving sentences for smoking a joint in their living rooms as many imply.”

Is there any logic in this statement? There is certainly no compassion! And definitely no recognition of the whole “innocent until proven guilty” concept that underlies our American concept of jurisprudence!

Mary’s Apparent Thesis: Since SOME people sentenced for simple possession really committed (but cannot be CONVICTED of) more serious crimes this makes the mistreatment and punishment of those RIGHTLY convicted of mere possession fine and dandy!
Mary, go to jail, do not pass go and do NOT collect $200.00!! Instead go and pop open a can of beer on the street (unless you live in New Orleans) and spend a weekend in jail; see to what you condemn the innocent in your zeal to keep real offenders behind bars. And then Mary, remember that jail is a hundred times easier than prison to an otherwise law abiding citizen.

“Those who do smoke in their homes (without any punishment I might add) say, “Look, I smoke every day and pull in six figures and pay my taxes, don’t beat my wife or kids, etc., etc.” That may be true. It is also true for functioning alcoholics.”

Virginia, where does Mary think those people GET the marijuana? Dropped through the chiminy by storks with diplomatic immunity?  Even if someone grows their own there are too many nosy busybodies, like Mary out there peaking over fences to make that safe. Mary, where do you stand up for and advocate the legalization of home cultivation and consumption with retention of draconian laws only for sale or distribution?

“Again, the similarities between the two substances, and I revert back to an argument based on tradition and specifically our Judeo-Christian heritage. I openly—and non-relativisticaly—assert that it is a heritage that is superior to all others. I base my arguments on this premise…”

Isn’t it amazing how Mary can use alcohol as an argument in TWO directions at once!! On the one hand she compares successful pot smokers to functional alcoholics, to the pot smokers detriment. And then she goes on to excuse the alcoholics because of some supposed Biblical mandate to “drink responsibly” while avoiding all other intoxicants.

“In order to invoke the founding fathers, one needs to understand the cultural tradition they drew from. They read deeply and drew upon the rich traditions of Western thought. They agree with George Washington as he says in his Farewell Address, “Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. . . . Who that is a sincere friend [to our form of government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?” I believe I was pointing beyond the isolated use of marijuana to the foundations.”

Which all amounts to nothing since Washington grew hemp and so did Jefferson and both were aware of the intoxicating properties of the plant! No where did they advocate for the government control of what individuals did with it. They might have even partaken of it themselves according to extant correspondence!!! Mary exists in a post prohibition mentality that she assumes has been a feature of America since its founding.

“Barry Goldwater in The Conscience of a Majority bemoaned the decay of morality, of the acceptance of the once “unthinkable” that “eventually could bring about the destruction of our free society”: “The ‘unthinkable’ says automatically that because of ‘changing times’ we not only must alter our old methods of living, but we also must change all of our previously held attitudes. Thus, you find a vicious and growing attack directed at every tradition, every standard and belief—no matter how fundamental it might be to an ordered society of freedom and justice. . .” I think we see this now with libertarian arguments that argue along lines divorced from tradition, standard, and belief. The “unthinkable” also concerns those behaviors that on their face have no harmful effects. One of these might be public nudity. I can imagine an “unthinkable” scene, of nude citizens in the public square smoking joints. It’s funny, but logically consistent with the arguments of those who would legalize marijuana and all other non-harmful behaviors. Our culture since Goldwater’s writing has accepted many, many other once “unthinkable” acts, usually to the detriment of our society.”

Ms. Grabar picks a good example to display her prejudices! In just what way would allowing people to be nude and smoke pot in public change ANYTHING about the core of our culture or REAL moral values? Mary has lit on two perfect silly “morals” that merely highlight how draconian “Biblical” values can be distorted to enforce a person’s neurotic need to “save” people from something that causes them no harm; like simple nudity. I might ask Mary just where in the teachings of Jesus he instructs people to enshrine religious faith in secular government. Where did He tell Christians to legislate His ideals into secular law and punish Christians AND non-Christians who transgressed against them? Or is Mary confusing the Bible with the Quran?

“For arguments based on practical reasons, I encourage readers to look up the comments of my friend Tina Trent who blogs on crime.”

We got a sample of Tina’s “logic” in my last post. I should give her some attention one of these days. I am sure I will find her “arguments” to be a veritable playground of silliness.

“She gives many good reasons why legalization won’t lower crime rates. In my column, I also linked an article that indicated that the legalization of marijuana in certain states has given young people the idea that it is safe. It is not safe. It has serious health effects. It is addictive. I personally know people who smoke it every day. They started young. One started after being in a motorcycle accident and used it for pain. These are people who are supporting themselves, true. But they are people who are operating way below capacity, who have lost the ability to think logically or to care enough to argue logically. Their emotional relationships are shallow. They have lost initiative and that fighting spirit that defends the idea of liberty.”

And of course America needs to take Ms. Grabar’s anecdotal evidence and personal judgments as gospel truth! The fact that we may not have the same experience that she has or that we have or own evidence that she is completely wrong should be ignored. And especially we need to ignore the school of psychology that says that it is the PERSON that controls the risks of addictions more than the substances. There are those who can become addicted to ANYTHING. Mary also ignores the concept that personality types are attracted to different things. The kind of person who becomes addicted to cigarettes and cocaine is not the same person who would likely become addicted to beer and pasta. Lifestyle and personality and personal susceptibility to TYPES of addiction are major factors.

“Why now put the imprimatur of legality on a substance that does this?”

Why not make ANYTHING that has a potential to be harmful to certain people off limits to protect those who are vulnerable? Why? Because that would be an impermissible infringement on the freedom of all those people who are NOT at high risk and who act responsibly. Ms. Grabar’s political philosophy ends with everyone locked in a padded cell with a rubber spoon lest they harm themselves or someone else! And even in that she is not sincere, since she limits herself to attacking “illegal” drugs and totally excuses all currently legal yet dangerous substances. Her hero is not health, it is Status Quo.

“One of the things that sets our culture above others is that we are a nation of laws—reasonable laws. And laws for possession of small amounts of marijuana need to remain at the misdemeanor level. This does not take away our freedom to use drugs in a legitimate manner, nor detract from our other freedoms.”

According to Mary we need to be content with whatever freedoms our paternal government allows us. The limitations are all for our own good after all. What was that Virginia? You say that it has been documented that the criminalization of marijuana in the 30’s never had a legitimate basis? That it was a ploy by BUSINESS interests with collusion by racists? Well, never mind, I am SURE it was for our good after all. Mary Grabar Says So.

“The culture warriors of the 1960s used a multi-pronged approach to effecting a change in “consciousness.” One of those was to present the “unthinkable” in libertarian terms. Nudity, sex out in the open, orgies, destruction of public places, desecration of art—why not? The acceptance of all kinds of behavior, including some extremely self-destructive behavior, by my students worries me. They cannot articulate reasons why some behaviors—even those that seemingly affect only individuals—should be condemned. They cannot articulate reasons why our culture is superior to others.”

There we have it! Marijuana is evil because Mary’s English students can’t argue! Since Mary herself has limited debate skills I think it is a bit rude for her to condemn her students for the same crime!“Law and Order” is not the same as enforcing your cultural prejudices on others regardless of the merit of the “tradition”! It is also not the same as forbidding any behavior your culture finds “weird” while defending any that are familiar REGARDLESS of the actual effects of the behaviors! As Jefferson said; (paraphrase) if it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg what business is it of mine? Or of Mary Grabar?

As I see it, this debate really is about more than whether or not you smoke a joint in your living room—which for all practical purposes neither I nor the cop on the street much cares about. What I do care about is this one more capitulation in the Culture Wars.”

“Conservatives need to focus on educating young people who have been kept in ignorance about how our culture and country have provided them the freedoms they now enjoy. As Goldwater said in 1964, there is no freedom without law and order. The debate about drug laws entails larger questions about cultural values. To argue in an arid, absolutist manner is to indicate a certain disregard for our heritage.”

Mary reminds me of those Senators who voted AGAINST a solidly moral amendment to a bill because it was proposed by a LEFTIST (Al Franken) and MIGHT be a PLOY. Forget the actual EFFECT of the amendment! WE MUST NOT LOSE OR EVEN LOOK BAD was the mantra of the ten, and in avoiding the “ploy” they ended up looking evil at worst and stupid at best.

I think the rest of us would rather recognize the nuances and admit that no one ideology should be allowed free reign in exchange for the promise of “Freedom, IF you will OBEY”!

Man Smokes Pot, Deserves to Die says Mary Grabar

Wow, ok Virginia sit down and let us take advantage of a true teaching moment. One of the most controversial issues today is the legalization of drugs. At NewsRealblog.com today there is a post by Mary Grabar responding to NRB editor David Swindle’s response to an article by Mary at Pajamas Media regarding a story about a 23-year-old Panama City man choking to death on a bag of marijuana while being subdued by Bay County sheriff’s deputies.
Mary takes the traditional view of conservative partisans. The kind that are blind as to how their dislike of the subcultures of some of those who get their jollies from substances other than alcohol, caffeine and nicotine affects their judgment. David took the position of a conservative that has actually thought about the realities of the situation.
In the initial article Mary starts off with a litany of dense doublethink extracted from a Doc Washburn’s comments on Panama City radio station WFLF:
“He invited former Congressman Ernest Istook from the Heritage Foundation and Tina Trent, who blogs on crime, to speak about the dangers of marijuana to the user and to society.”
She (Trent) talks about “the dangers to user and society” of a drug that causes less harm to users and society than CAFFIENE does??? Does she get paid for that, or is she a non-profit nut?
“Trent indicated that Grande had faced probably only a misdemeanor charge;…”
And Ms. Trent is aware of just what a misdemeanor charge means when added to a violence charge? She is aware of what the full penalties of “only a misdemeanor charge” entail? Not likely as…
…”she pointed to studies showing that the illegal drug trade flourishes despite the legality of marijuana in certain states and other countries.”
In other words since limited legalization of pot for a VERY limited group of people with limited conditions did not somehow make ALL illegal drug sellers stop their traffic the program is a failure to society? Should we also mention that some counties in the “legal” states have been fighting tooth and nail against complying with the new laws? Naw, why burst her bubble. Stout ale bubbles probably.
“And legalizing marijuana will remove the freedom employers now have to test for the judgment-impairing drug.”
This has been a pet peeve of mine since I was a clean and sober kid and the whole travesty was initiated. WHAT purpose does testing for illegal drugs do for a business, when the overwhelming majority of workplace losses attributable to chemicals are ALCOHOL related? Sick calls, accidents, deaths, you name it and alcohol is at the back of it. Or nicotine! To get down to something as trivial as pot you have to go so far down the list that you must argue in favor of testing for parenthood as a deterrent to workplace losses from stress!!!
Drug testing in the workplace has no purpose other than promoting drug testing companies! We have companies that own insurance companies and testing companies. Why should we be surprised when the insurance companies give discounts if you use a drug testing firm?
The estimable Ms. Grabar goes on to say…
“The position on the legalization of marijuana provides the point of departure from the traditional libertarianism of Barry Goldwater. In abandoning the duty to enforce social order, today’s libertarians have made a devil’s pact with the pro-drug forces of George Soros and company.”
This statement simply shows that Mary is as ignorant of history as your average Leftist is. Before 1900 it was universally considered NOT THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS to regulate what substances a person privately chose to inflict upon their body. This included such things as heroin and cocaine, not just nicotine and marijuana! What was regulated then was the REPRESENTATIONS made of something when sold and the BEHAVIOR of people when they used the product. This whole attitude is further exposed for the fantasy it is when we consider the effects of nicotine and alcohol on society and their users. Does Mary advocate IDENTICAL application of the law regarding “drugs” to THOSE deadly drugs?
At this point she descends into the gutter of innuendo and sheer sophistry. In her desperation to build her “case” she implies that the dead man’s status as an “amateur gay porn star” (whatever that means in reality) was caused by his pot smoking!
From there Mary loses all touch with reality…
”…Libertarians are fond of pointing to the wreckage caused by the abuse of alcohol: deterioration of health, traffic deaths, and domestic violence. This is true, but it is an analogy that emerges from an abstraction.”
What does those two sentences even mean? It is a solid fact that all of the above wreckage in society is caused by alcohol more than ALL other substances combined!!! Where is the abstraction here, other than in Mary’s delusion that this means nothing in relation to legalizing marijuana?
Having made this confusing assertion she goes on to state that:
“Libertarians argue that the only difference between the two is traditional: we have stamped alcohol consumption with a seal of social approval.
But I would argue that tradition should be a reason for its continued legal status and for denying legal status to marijuana.”
Again, say what? Forgetting the real damages that alcohol causes, as opposed to the negligible damages (except when the law is attacking you for it) of marijuana Mary feels that because we have historically used one and hardly used the other we should keep the harmless one illegal. I can understand her using this as an argument for keeping alcohol LEGAL but do not get why she uses it in support of keeping a harmless drug illegal.
Leaving aside Ms. Grabar’s ignorance of historical times when drugs of various sorts were not just allowed but “trendy” we now see how it is nothing but provincialism that makes her defend alcohol and attack pot:
“The prohibition against marijuana is one brick in the foundation of our society.”
Since when? Oh, right since the 30’s when yellow journalism and false testimony caused congress to outlaw marijuana.
“On a practical level the use of marijuana also works to knock out other bricks, like the work ethic, emotional engagement, sexual inhibition, and the ability to reason.”
None of which are in any way harmed by alcohol you must understand! Lazy drunk is the term as I recall it, not lazy stoner. Emotionally distant is a common description for an alcoholic by their children. Sexual inhibition? Pot causes so many rapes and assaults every day doesn’t it? Including that is not just ignorant, it is borderline hateful. And finally, drunks reason well while pot smokers cannot reason? How then does Mary account for the many pot heads who are acclaimed in intellectual areas? Influence by UFOs?
Not content with her drug dreams our esteemed English prof. goes on to combine ad hominems and the old argument by association trick with her political opium:
“For example, when one of my college students leads off in defense of the legalization of marijuana, he invariably does so in a disjointed manner, unable to muster the resources of reason and conviction to his argument. (He also does this in his essays.) One caller, “Dave,” to the Doc Washburn program displayed the same apathetic, but friendly, attitude.”
An intelligent reader can see that this has no bearing at all on which side of the argument is correct in its facts. Content that her readers are either stunned or fled Prof. Grabar now resorts to out and out lies:
“While one cannot come to class drunk without drawing attention, he can attend under the influence of marijuana, sitting in the back of the room with a glazed, though not unpleasant, expression.”
Many are the students or workers who have gone “stoned” through their days on wine or beer or whisky despite Mary’s rose color glasses. In fact, it is HARDER to detect an impairing dose of alcohol than one of pot in a regular drinker. Yet Mary does not advocate breathalyzers at the door for schools or businesses along with drug testing.
I am not sure if there is a single fallacy used by the anti legalization people that Mary does not dust off and use. She even pulls out the old “if they get stoned the Communists can invade without a fight” idiocy!
“But that’s exactly what the left wants: a nation of young zombies — indifferent, unengaged, and uncaring. They provide amenable subjects to indoctrination. Alcohol may fuel fights, but marijuana, as its advocates like to point out, makes the user mellow. The toker wants to make love, not war.”
In the 30’s and 40’s the fascist minds wanting control of the populace declared that pot smokers were violent and dangerous individuals due to their drug use. Then in the 50’s the “party line” changed to pot being evil because it made people mindless zombies ripe for Communist takeover. But, it seems to me that there are plenty of mindless zombies on the far Right as well as the far Left and that there are also MANY very militant pot smokers in the political arena. Once again it seems that the only thing Mary proves is her pre-judgment and closed mind.
Next on the list of fallacious argument techniques Mary fishes out argument by authority:
“The libertarian maintains that values are the function of the private sphere: the family and church. But as Goldwater argued in the riot-plagued year of 1964, when safety and order are not maintained by the government, our freedoms are affected. In so many ways, the legalization of drugs will lead to the further breakdown of order.”
No Mary, legalizing pot has not been shown to lead to the “breakdown” of anything! Until the late 1930’s pot and just about all other drugs were LEGAL and there was LESS organized criminal activity associated with it than there is now. Before prohibition gave the dying mafia a shot in the arm, society functioned just fine by penalizing any CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR of those on drugs rather than the fact that they were on something or other.
“To give sanction to a drug that robs the individual of reason and conviction is to give up on our way of life.”
But to Mary this doesn’t apply when that drug is already a major PART of that way of life (alcohol), in which case PARTY ON DUDES! And girls, just hold still and try to enjoy it. It is sanctioned by the Bible after all.
And you KNEW that she had to include this tired canard:
“It sends a dangerous message to young people.”
What message? That society values reason more than empty gestures? In what sick mind is that a horrible thing to teach young folks!!!
“A recent study shows that the creeping sanction through legalization of “medical” marijuana in certain states is giving young teenagers a sense of safety about marijuana use.”
Oh, the horror! You mean kids are actually finding out the truth, that pot is NOT very harmful at all? Which Bush administration DEA official said it was better for parents to lie to their kids to keep them off drugs. That they dare not tell them that the parents experimented when young and didn’t turn into bums like D.A.R.E. claims they all do? I am sure Mary agrees with him whoever he was.
In her coda Mary Grabar puts her heartlessness on view for all to see. Remember, she is referring to a man who choked to death on a bag of pot that could have put him in jail for months to years because of the “drug war”. This was not a heroin dealer, this was not a person carrying a pound of meth, this was a man with a bag of pot afraid of what “society” would do to him if he was caught in possession:
“Marijuana killed Andrew Grande, not only in the literal sense, but in the sense that it abetted his descent into a very sad, counter-cultural lifestyle. Its legalization is supported by the same forces that promote Kevin Jennings, one-world government, Gaia worship, and legalized prostitution. All these elements work against the traditional libertarian values of initiative, freedom, and honor. Libertarians need to rethink their position on drug legalization.”
Methinks Mary, that you need to rethink just about everything, from you morals to your logic. And please, shop your little article around a support group for the families of alcoholics. I would bet that you will get some rather strong responses to your “logic”. Be prepared to duck.
David Swindle makes a short but highly persuasive response to Ms. Grabar’s article at NewsRealBlog basing his arguments on Conservative principals and the (pre-prohibition) ideas of what a government is supposed to do or not do to promote society. David made his case clearly but Mary came right back and set her silly person act in stone. Tomorrow I will be looking at that response.

Tribute to Anti-Islmist Songwriter “Patrick Henry”

In dishonor of the dishonesty of the Iranian President and in honor of his honesty about his anti-Semitism I post three songs by “Patrick Henry” of http://www.patrickhenry.com/. Or at least two years ago this person existed. Since then he seems to have dropped out of the blogsphere entirely.

Damn the People, Full Speed Ahead!

What GOOD do political parties, Left or Right do today? For that matter what good have they EVER done? All parties from the beginning of politics seem to have existed for the sole purpose of taking political power from those who own it and those who have been assigned it and consolidating it into as few hands as possible.  Political parties allow a few to harness the power of many followers and apply pressure to the political process out of the sight and control of the very citizens whose power that party uses.  I fail to see that this is a good thing, especially in today’s interconnected world where everyone’s voice can carry equal weight.

Time and time again politicians will act and vote by the direction of their Party instead of their constituents. Simply put, under the present campaign finance system to be elected they HAVE to allow the party leaders to put a ring in their nose like a bull led to stud.  Parties and political donations are the rocks on which the ships of state have foundered all over the world, all through history.

Parties seem to be nothing more than a political expression of Tribalism.  A group of self interested people gather together a herd of citizens wishing for a leader and use them to not support, but subvert the political process in promotion of Me and Mine over Thee and Thine. The votes of Party politicians becomes not about following the collective will within a Constitutional framework but a zero-sum game of You-Win-I-Lose.

We see the result of this winner take all attitude in the willingness of too many politicians to give up their voters’ ideals when faced with a party issue.  This was demonstrated recently when 10 Republican Senators voted against an amendment to a bill (all the other Senators, including 30 Republicans voted Yes) that restricts the Federal government from contracting with a company that requires it’s employees to give up the right to sue or pursue criminal cases against other employees even in the case of rape and kidnapping. This amendment had been inspired by an actual case of the raping and kidnapping by Haliburton employees of another Haliburton contractee and the company’s subsequent refusal to allow civil or criminal proceedings (as per contract).

The 10 Senators felt that since the measure had been proposed by far-Left Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. that it had to be a “ploy” (it was) and so might damage the party. It is sad that it DID damage the Parry a bit simply BECAUSE the 10 feel for it and voted by Party and not common sense. But the saddest part by far is that the 10 Senators, after being beaten up by the press, and the Party, feel that THEY are the injured party due to the Democratic “slurs” against them for voting the Party Line. The quote that seems most representative of their attitude comes from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas:

“Trying to tap into the natural sympathy that we have for this victim of this rape —and use that as a justification to frankly misrepresent and embarrass his colleagues, I don’t think it’s a very constructive thing.”

In case you missed his point, the good Senator is upset that AFTER he and the other nine voted against the amendment Senator Franken used their pro-Party/pro-Haliburton vote to ridicule them for being of all things…party hacks!!! Senator Cornyn considers it to be dirty pool for Mr. Franken to have put him in the position of having to balance morals against The Party.  It is just not cricket, you know! That is how far the party system has taken us from reality! Unfortunately, this is hardly an isolated incident of partisanship.  Other examples abound from any and all parties be they past or present.

But, in this Digital Age for the first time, Humanity has the chance to apply constitutional democracy in a pure form. Let us abolish parties! They are nothing but a bad solution to the problems of pre-industrial communications. Let our politicians stand on their own platforms to campaign and by their voting record once elected, NOTHING ELSE! Let campaign donations of ALL SORTS be eliminated and instead, every candidate that qualifies for a given ballot receive the same “war chest”. Further, let no one be paid for their time working in a campaign other than contracted services such as catering, printing costs, air time or other non-creative, non-campaigning related services. In this new world direct campaign workers of all types would be solely volunteers!

Just imagine it Virginia! Politicians set apart from the influence of small groups of the self interested and forced to follow the consensus of all their constituents! Imagine politicians that have NO other forces influencing their votes than what their constituents feel should or should not be done within the limits of The Constitution. I don’t know about you Virginia, but that sends a shiver down MY leg! How about a change that actually gives us hope?

Response to Mintman

A reader took issue with my post about climate change. Here is his comment and my reponse.  Forgive me if I am a bit terse. I just finished moving and am a bit stressed. The new place is great though and the new Castle Crusader is finally in shape for Christmas. On to MintMan’s criticism.

“I do not get you climate change denialists(sp).”

What kind of ad hominem label is that? I never denied that climate changes. It is childish labels like that dominating the AGW “debate”. The GW’s rant and rave but when it comes to accurate descriptions of ANYTHING, climate or opponents they fall back on classic propaganda techniques. Your handlers must be proud of how well you have retained their teachings.

“To hold your position, you must believe at least the following three points:”

Ahh, the old “excluded third” argument. Always bull but sometimes entertaining. Pray, go on.

“1. That virtually the entire community of climate researchers is either grossly incompetent or part of an evil conspiracy.”

Here we have the first baloney term; entire community of climate researchers. What a load of garbage! Unless you only talk to the Lefties regarding this matter you know that there are many scientists who certainly disagree with many if not most of the “theories” of the AGW movement. The problem is that since the impetus for this scam came from POLITICIANS rather than scientists it has POLITICIZED climate research. It has been at least ten years since lazy “scientists” with political agendas discovered that they could get funding for just about anything if they included the words Global Warming in the proposal. The sorry truth is that despite the political solid front there is NO DATA AND NO MODEL provided by the AGW crowd that corresponds to reality. The only data they do have is so cooked as to be useless without peer review of the “Recipe” used to “normalize” it. That information has been held as an unreleasable secret by the movement’s “scientists”. IS this science? ALL data and ALL methods must be completely public ESPECIALLY when politicians are involved. Surely you would agree if it were Conservatives heading a silly science movement…like Creationism maybe? Hmm, come to think of it the tactics and methods and attitudes of BOTH movements are eerily similar don’t you think?

As to your assertion that this fictitious consensus exists I must tell you that when the list of hundreds of scientists that supported the U.N. report came out it included many people who had worked on the project but then withdrew their support!!!!! The AGW leaders refused to allow those scientists to withdraw their names from the report since they had contributed to it. No rebuttal was allowed to be amended. Many NON scientists’ names were included as “researchers”. It was as blatantly political a move as you can find.

“I do not know which is the more likely, as both ideas are completely beyond the pale. Assuming that such a world-wide conspiracy including so many people could be kept viable over such a long time is ridiculous even if you do not know from personal experience how scientists think and work. I have also never heard a plausible explanation of what the motivation for such a conspiracy would be. Do you honestly think that significant numbers of people would go to such lengths just to make others needlessly miserable and destroy their “way of live”? People are generally motivated by either self-interest or concern for others, but not by cartoonish evilness and spite that would gain themselves nothing.”

Wow, you are asking for a civics lesson and a history lesson as well as an explanation of common tactics in the more dirty of political arenas. Well, in the hopes that you might actually attempt to process some of what I say, that you will not simply reflect ALL of the information you are about to read from your shiny Leftist armor I will give it a shot.

“I have also never heard a plausible explanation of what the motivation for such a conspiracy would be.”

I told you above. It is a political movement not a scientific one. And just because this one came from the Left you have failed to be sufficiently critical of it. For Pete’s sake, Gore won the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE for his work on it! That should tell you something. Look at a list of PEACE prize winners for the last 50 years and try to find TWO that are worth the spit to drown them. That should have set off alarm bells all over your head!

“I have also never heard a plausible explanation of what the motivation for such a conspiracy would be.”

You haven’t? Who do you talk to? I can give you two huge ones. First is money. IF you look into the whole cap and trade idea and most other schemes for “managing” CO2 they all have in common the effect of making SOMEONE HUGE, fantastic OBSCENE amounts of money or at the least giving them control over those resources in an extra-national extra-constitutional “climate authority”. The second reason is that YES, there are people to whom breaking down traditional Western, Enlightenment culture is VITAL to their interests! For god’s sake they tell you so every day!!! Just go to any Leftist web site or news paper and read how the entire Constitutional system is merely the evil product of the diseased European mind and needs to be replaced with a socialist paradise on Earth where no one goes hungry and no one is offended by reality.

Do you ever THINK about the things you read or do you just wrap yourself in the warm glow of pretend righteousness and put your defense mechanisms to sleep?

In a nutshell the leadership of the 60’s and 70’s counterculture found themselves a new wagon to ride over the head of “The Man” called Global Warming. That leadership was body and soul controlled by the Soviets but were left confused when the U.S.S.R. threw n the Communist towel. They then took over the environmentalist movement and proceeded with an anti-Western scam even bigger than Communism.

“2. That the already observed increase in average temperatures and sea levels, and the loss of arctic ice and glaciers is either invented or part of a some natural process.”

Ignorance is not always bliss is it? Did you know that the arctic and Antarctic ice caps exchange mass regularly? Arctic down = Antarctic up. Check it out. Another inconvenient reality your handlers do not want you thinking about. They also do not want you thinking about the actual data collected that they base that conclusion upon. They do not want you to know that they massaged that data mercilessly to “smooth out” the known errors and inconvenient facts like temps near cities being higher than the surrounding countryside. They certainly do not want you to know that they REFUSE TO RELEASE the founding data or the methods used to massage it. Protecting the privacy of the participating “scientists” you know. SAY WHAT? This is unheard of in REAL SCIENCE my friend!

“…, see point 1. If it is a natural process, then there would still be reason for concern, because all our current population centers and agricultural areas are adapted to the current climate, and adapting to the new one will be a very painful process, euphemistically speaking.”

Do you think about what you are saying as it relates to the larger world or do yo just speak off the top of your head to refute the point you are facing?

If it is a natural process there is NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT as the only source of the change would be Sun! Do you feel that Humanity scurrying around like ants in a panic and wreaking havoc on society and the world economy somehow makes it all better? As to adaptation would it not be better if we accepted the FACT that things like warm periods and ice ages are out of our hands and that it is up to us t be ready to adapt? Oh, and you are not quite right anyway. The warmer the Earth gets the MORE hospitable it becomes for ALL life!!! FACT.

For small bands of coastline lost we gain HUGE areas of formerly arid land that will become fertile and welcoming to man, animal and plants. Your buddies at GW central never told you that for the few trees at the EDGES of a habitat that are lost in a warming trend HUGE numbers of critters and plants EXPAND their ranges. OOH, they didn’t tell you that? BAAD Pretend environmentalists!

If you care about the environment campaign against those “green” light bulbs that contain MERCURY for your kids, grandkids and great grand kids to play in after it accumulates in the landfills.

“This also as a rejoinder to the happy “warm times are fun times” argument, which, from a purely biological perspective, is correct. It just does not do the Italians any good to know that Russian agriculture has profited greatly when the Sahara has reached Rome.”

Such PROFOUND ignorance! WARM = WET you geologically uneducated fool! A few areas like Venice and parts of Holland are screwed, but you know what? They were doomed from the get go. Better enjoy them while they last like the Leaning Tower. Isn’t it “White man’s arrogance” to try to FORCE nature to allow us to keep follies like Venice for another hundred years before the inevitable?

“Nevertheless, the idea that it is a natural process is criticized quite effectively in the article you are trying to trash, but it brings me to the third point you have to believe to be a climate change denialist(sp):”

No, it wasn’t all the article proved is that the author did NOT talk to the skeptics with an open mind and ADMITS that he does not get the science. He makes a lot of ignorant assumptions based on common sense. JUST LIKE the Creationists do!!!

“3. That blowing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere does not have any effect whatsoever.”

It does, it promotes plant growth which provides food for more animals!!! Show me ANY evidence from history that it does anything else? The Jurassic and Triassic and Cretaceous had FAR higher CO2 than today, yet no fish dissolved in acid baths and the coasts were not that far from what we know. There was no water world or desert world epoch! EVER!!! In fact the closest to a desert world scenario the Earth has ever seen would be the ICE AGES!!!

You see the core of the Earth is slowly cooling off, that is why the ice ages suddenly started not that long ago. Now if the GW crap is true we should be welcoming it since the REAL data shows that the Earth most likely started sliding into an ice age about 800 years ago. Did you know that at the onset of the last chilly period England went from having Hippos in the Thames to being UNDER ALMOST A MILE OF ICE in only EIGHTY years??? And you think your buddies understand climate? They can hardly tie their shoes when it comes to modeling what the climate will actually DO. The ONLY rational response is for us to be ready to adapt to whatever happens and stop the arrogant breast beating about being responsible for something we are a flea beside.

“And sorry, that is true lunacy.”

Most science is lunacy to those without proper background.

“You can argue maybe about what the exact effects are, when they will take effect, and how strong they will be compared to those resulting from other variables, but the question whether we are influencing the earth’s equilibrium with our habit of burning fossil fuels is a no-brainer.”

No, it is not, it is arrogance to assume that a variable that has NEVER caused disaster no matter how much or how sudden the introduction in the past suddenly become deadly when WE do it.

“It is like a doctor doubling a patient’s blood salt with an injection and saying innocently, hey, it is a very complex system, I do not know what will happen, so why not do it?”

No, it is not, salt is a corrosive and toxic more than small doses. CO2 in the atmosphere is nether. Another emotional bit of “logic” does not make your case any stronger. Go, learn, come back and have a real discussion.

“Yeah, maybe you don’t, but that is no excuse to play with a life. Yeah, maybe we don’t, but that is no excuse to play with the future of humanity.”


Man, if you were in charge we would live in caves and not dare to turn our huntring weapons to defense lest the gods be offended.

The whining of the ignorant at the educated ones trying to pull the ignorant out of the mud by their shirt tails.

While you whine about a problem you admit may not even BE a problem what are you doing about the REAL and PRESENT problems of sulfur dioxide and mercury? Anything at all or has the Global Warming bandwagon swept you up and made you forget what being environmentalist is all about?