There is none so blind as he who will not agree with me.
Saturday, May 03, 2003
Jame's Lileks ,Bleat this last Friday has a lot of interesting things to say. Make sure to check it out. There's one part where he talks about USA Interactive Chairman Barry Diller, who said, among many other things, "You can't have a more genuinely pure, liberal program .... than 'The Simpsons.'" How is it, exactly that "The Simpsons" is purely liberal? I know that liberals think that, but I've never understood why. I don't believe it to be conservative, but I do think that it's fair. Often, it seems to make fun of a liberal view of the world. For instance, when the Republican Party is seen meeting in Count Dracula's castle, and they decide on things, like to start poluting more, this mocks the liberals view of what conservatives want more than it mocks conservatives. Also, there were many great insults directed at Bill Clinton. For instance, "Marge:'That's a pretty lousy lesson.' Clinton:'Well ah'm a pretty lousy president.'" I think that "The Simpsons" isn't a liberal show so much as a satire of everything.posted by d | 7:25 PM
Thursday, May 01, 2003
This is sick. A Georgia high school has private (non school sponsored) proms, and the parents who run them have decided to hold and all-white prom and an integrated prom. How can this be? It seems so.....archaic. It almost seems like something that wouldn't happen today. This is simply disgusting. I suppose that as a private group they may discriminate if they wish, but there's no reason why they should and it's frankly disgusting that they would.posted by d | 3:13 PM
Concerned Women for America has an article up about prom night and such. Now, perhaps I shouldn't write about the prom seeing as I'm not going to mine (I meant to ask this girl, but then I didn't see her until it was too late) but I have to say I'm dismayed and disappointed by this article. I find it sad, the conduct at school dances. There's no respect. Everything is sexualized. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is. The music, the dancing, the dress, the attitudes, everything is sexual. I've never understood why this has to be. Now, people have said that the sexual revolution was bad for women but good for men, but I don't believe that. The sexual revolution was bad for everyone. It turns everyone into a sex object, with no regard for actual people. It seems to me we would be better off without the pervasive belief that unmarried sex is not just acceptable but good and normal.posted by d | 12:29 AM
This is an interesting article about hispanic parents wanting their children to be immersed in English-language schools. It makes sense. English is the language of the United States, and it only makes sense to learn it (personally I preffer the sounds of the Celtic languages, but thats another issue). Without an understanding of English, there are few high-level careers availiable for you. Also, an understanding of English allows for more interaction between Americans, which would provide more national unity.posted by d | 12:18 AM
More Townhall for you today this time from Marvin Olasky, about schools. He makes some good points. Fifty-five percent does seem a bit low to pass third-graders. I don't want to criticize it too much, because fifty-five percent is a passing grade in my A.P. Physics class, but then third grade basics are harldly college-level physics. I do believe in vouchers, because I think competition would be good for schools. I think that if parents had the choice of sending their children elsewhere, public schools would make quite an effort to be really, really good, which would improve education for both the students who left the public school and those who remained in it.posted by d | 12:10 AM
Suzanne Fields has an article on Townhall as well. It's about the neoconservatives; who they are, why they are so called, and the connection between Neocons and Jews in the minds of so many liberals. Personally, I don't like the term neocon. It has a bad, menacing sound to it. "Con" sounds like a con-man or a convict, and neo is usually heard in terms like "neo-nazi" and "neo-fascist." Thus, neocon sounds quite evil. Interestingly, the liberals seem increasingly obsessed with Jewish conspiracies and things of the sort. It seems strange. The liberals claim to be tolerant, but they seem quite suspicious of Jews.posted by d | 12:00 AM
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
Ann Coulter has a good article about the liberal positions on looting, adultery, and other such things. She makes some rather good points. The liberals do seem hypocritical to make such a big deal of Santorum's remarks. In fact, Santorum didn't say anything wrong. Obviously, a constitutional "right to privacy" would include just about anything done in one's own home. Santorum simply never made a comparison between these activities, he just made a "slipery slope" style argument.posted by d | 11:44 PM
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
Today in my government class, the teacher read us all these "revised Miranda rights" that his nephews, both police officers, wrote. Supposedly, this is what officers would rather read to suspects. Here they are. Those offended by profanity may wish not to read them:
You have the right to swing first; however, if you choose to swing first, any move you make can and will be used as an excuse to beat the sh*t out of you. You have the right to call a doctor and/or priest. If for some reason you are unable to talk or call anyone, an undertaker will be appointed for you. If you choose to run, a .38 caliber vasectomy will be performed upon you immediately. Do you understand what I just said to you, as*hole?
It's great. posted by d | 5:32 PM
It's nice to know that the majority opposes racial prefferences in college admissions. Being a high school senior, this is an issue which bothers me greatly. Why should I (as a caucasian male) be discriminated against? One argument may be that diversity helps a college, but truly, it doesn't make a difference. What matters is each individual person. I'd rather go to a college where everyone is a decent good person, even if they are all one race (even if that race isn't the one I belong to) than I would to go to a college with a diverse population of people who aren't good. Another argument may be to make up for past discrimination, but this argument does not work. I never discriminated against anyone, so the fact that white people have been racist shouldn't be held against me.posted by d | 1:57 AM
A link which does not work tells me that a man named Lemrick Nelson was involved in the killing of a man named Yankel Rosenbaum. Nelson has previously denied stabbing Rosenbaum, but is now defending himself by saying that he was motivated by drugs, not by the fact that Rosenbaum was Jewish. Now, aside from the fact that this is unlikely (Nelson said " The excitement was when that mob called out, `There's a Jew, let's get the Jew,' It was the excitement of getting the Jew."), it doesn't matter. Will Rosenbaum come back from the dead because Nelson didn't stab him due to his being Jewish? If I were attacked, I wouldn't care if it was because I'm white, or because I'm a conservative, or because someone wants to steal my car. I would just want justice. Rosenbaum is just as dead, and Nelson's motives can't change that.posted by d | 1:41 AM
This makes me mad. Read this quote. " Losing a big chunk of humanity's ancient heritage in return for removing a 65-year-old dictator and saving some oil documents qualifies the war as a failure." How dare he say this? Are the people who have suffered and died because of the Iraqi regime not worth a few artifacts? I'm really into archaeology (I subscribe to both Archaeology and Archeaology Odyssey, and moderate what I think is the internet's only archeoastronomy forum at Orbital 9) but I think that afew artifacts in a museum are worth less than the freedom of an entire people. Seriously, if you could choose between your family being drug off or an ancient shield being taken from your local museum, would you even think before saving your family?posted by d | 1:31 AM
Wow. Howard Dean says we won't always have the strongest military in the world. Now tell me, please, if any of the Democratic candidates stand a chance agaisnt Bush. Certainly not Dean, not Kerry, not Sharpton. Who among the Democrats stands a chance? I am getting very optimistic about '04.posted by d | 1:24 AM
Dennis Prager has an excellent article about heterosexuality and homosexuality. I quite agree with him on most of his points. Personally I believe that homosexuality is psychological, but as a heterosexual I really can't say that I know. I think homosexual behaviour is wrong, but I don't hate gays or consider them somehow less human. So, read the article above.posted by d | 1:14 AM
Monday, April 28, 2003
Do not read this article if you can't stand to hear things that are disgusting and shocking. If you can stand such things, read this article. It speaks of the tortures that Saddam Hussein used on the people of Iraq. Read this, and then see if you can truthfully say this war was wrong. Read this and realize the greatness and goodness of America for freeing people from this evil.posted by d | 11:06 PM
Diana West has a good article at Townhall about the need for Americans to realize how great America is. Sadly enough, too many people take the privileges being an American gets them for granted. They believe everyone lives like Americans do. They simply don't see that in many countries, people have no rights, and live in abject poverty.posted by d | 10:52 PM
Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus are good yet again today. Really, I shouldn't link to these, because everyone should look at them without being told to do so.posted by d | 10:43 PM
Jonah Goldberg on NRO has some interesting things to say about the Dixie Chicks, Santorum, and other matters of free speech. He's quite right. Free speech, of course, does not protect one from the consequences. If I started babbling on and on about things, I would expect no one to pay attention to me. So should people who say contreversial things expect to be criticized, and perhaps to lose money.posted by d | 10:30 PM
Sunday, April 27, 2003
Okay, as for the fisking of the checklist, it has come to my attention that people really don't know what this checklist is. Well, neither do I, completely. It is a list I found at D.U., and which is supposed to demonstrate that whites and males have certain privileges which women and minorities do not have.posted by d | 7:49 PM
Some republicans at UC Berkeley seem to have had a little protest in Peoples' Park. Well, I'm glad to see the students there are not all insane. I'm not going to be going anywhere as presitious (or as liberal) as Berkeley, but I'm hoping to start somewhat of a conservative movement at Santa Clara University, which is in the Bay Area as well (though further south). This gives me encouragement. Thank you to BryanFrbs from the Loyal Citizens chatroom on Emperor Misha's site.posted by d | 7:16 PM
Here is the "Checklist of White Privilege:Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" and my fisking of it:
I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
It would depend on how diverse one's area is. Of couse, in America whites are indeed a majority, so to say that whites can arrange to be with people of their race is not evidence of any sort of preferences.
If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
Maybe. It would depend upon how rich one is. Many people of all races live in bad areas where they'd rather not live.
I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
This is not the case. Many times, a person, regardless of ethnicity, will be disliked by their neighbors. There's no reason to assume that one's neighbors will be pleasant because one is white.
I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
Actually, a white person may very well be harrassed on the basis of how he looks, talks, or acts. I suspect that a store manager is more likely to follow a very suspicious-looking, dirty, long-haired homeless-type white guy than a normal-looking black guy.
I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
Yes, this is true. However, it is also true for other races. On television there are people of many different ethnicities widely represented, and if there are more white people, it isn't so much because of intitutionalized racism as it is because there are simply more white people in America than other races.
Okay, there you go. That's the first five. Five more tomarrow. posted by d | 6:57 PM
Okay, everyone! I have an idea. A while ago, on ConservativeX, I fisked this checklist of white privilege and checklist of male privilege that I found on the Democratic Underground. Every day, I'll post five of the points they made and an updated, revised, and improved version of the fisking they recieved.posted by d | 6:08 PM
Okay, everyone, I just got a comments section up. The script is from the Klink Family who seem to me to be liberals, but I have to thank them for providing the script for free. So, leave comments, give me feedback, respond to stuff I say, etc. Just click the little link that says "Shout Out!".posted by d | 2:42 PM
Apparently, some soap opera is going to have a homosexual relationship. So what. I don't believe anyone watches these shows, and I certainly don't think that seeing this will make anyone more accepting of homosexuality than they were before. However, I don't think television shows should portray such relationships as right and proper. It's their right to do so, but I think they shouldn't.posted by d | 1:44 PM
David Limbaugh has an article about Santorum's remarks. I quite agree that Santorum was not equating homosexuality with incest or polygamy. All he was doing was saying that a constitutional right to privacy would include such things. People are making too big a deal out of this.posted by d | 1:25 PM