Sep 13

New Hillary Game Available

I ordered the Conservative Version. No anesthesia involved. Couldn’t find the brain though.

Sep 08

Do all Black Lives matter?

Sep 07

Savage Blacks in America

Sep 06

Cat Watching Psycho

A Cat Video that I can love.  Spend a tender minute and watch it!

H/T to R.A. Bachert

Aug 31

Take the “Will I impose my Morality” quiz.

You don’t have to read too many news stories to get the idea that morality questions abound.  It used to be the case that “wrong was wrong even if everyone was doing it; and, right was right even if no one was doing it.”  That’s all changed, apparently.

And it’s not until the last few years that “intolerance” was even something bad.  But isn’t that a moral judgment in itself?


But there is no shortage of opportunities for us to express our moral outrage.  Whether it’s Ryan Lochte lying about whether he was robbed or America’s current favorite villain – Anthony Wiener sending photos of his, ahem, undercarriage across the internet.  And why is it more morally outrageous that he did so while his young son lay sleeping next to him?

To find out where you fall, I suggest you take the “Will I impose my Morality on Someone Else” quiz.

Here goes.

  1. It is morally wrong for Anthony Weiner to send pictures of himself because:
    1. He’s married;
    2. His child was in the picture;
    3. It’s just creepy;
    4. It’s objectively immoral for several reasons.
    5. It’s not right for me, but I can’t say it’s wrong for him.
  2. In 50 words or less, explain your basis for believing it to be immoral.
  3. The individual formerly known as Bruce Jenner should:
    1. Be called Caitlyn because self-identifying as a woman takes precedent over the fact that he has outdoor plumbing; or,
    2. Be called Bruce because he’s just a dude in a dress.
  4. Ryan Lochte was morally wrong for what he did in Rio because:
    1. Vandalism is objectively immoral;
    2. Lying is objectively immoral;
    3. Both a. and b.
    4. Neither a. nor b.
    5. He’s a jock.  Who cares?
  5. Hillary Clinton was morally wrong in lying to the American Public about her emails/private server because:
    1. Lying is objectively immoral;
    2. Compromising lives and national security is morally wrong.
    3. Both a. and b.
    4. Neither a. nor b.
    5. She’s a Clinton.  Who cares?

The point is, morality is the only thing that can be enforced.  The only question that remains is whose?  You can not cite any law, anywhere, at any time in history that is not a reflection of a moral order.

The reason that there are laws against murder is, well, because “Thou shalt not kill.”  Ditto for stealing.  But the second that we adopt any moral code that is not transcendent – that is, not bigger than ourselves – is the very same second that we have become lawless.

So when we hear some politician utter some tripe about being “personally opposed to ___________, but I don’t want to impose my morality on anyone else” know that that person (politician or otherwise) is duplicitous, cowardly, and lawless.

By the way, Bruce Jenner is just a dude in a dress.

Aug 31

Is the election rigged or not?

Just a couple of weeks ago, candidate Donald Trump claimed that the only way he could lose is if the election was “rigged.”  Of course he was immediately – and roundly – criticized for making such a ridiculous assertion:  Here, here, here, and here.

Of course, our beloved and highly esteemed Prevaricator-in-Chief didn’t miss the opportunity to mock, jeer, and generally just pile on:

And he personally assured me (and a few million others), “Of course the elections will not be rigged. . . .The federal government doesn’t run the election process.”  I had no idea that anything was outside the scope of federal control.

But wait.

Now it appears that we’re being “softened up” for some – how do you Americans say – irregularities.

U.S. News and World Reports advises:

The presidential election could be delayed or scrapped altogether if conspiracy theories become predictive and a candidate dies or drops out before Nov. 8. The perhaps equally startling alternative, if there’s enough time: Small groups of people hand-picking a replacement pursuant to obscure party rules.

The scenarios have been seriously considered by few outside of the legal community and likely are too morbid for polite discussion in politically mixed company. But prominent law professors have pondered the effects and possible ways to address a late-date vacancy.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution which requires a popular election for the electors serving in the Electoral College,” says John Nagle, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, meaning the body that officially elects presidents could convene without the general public voting.

How ridiculous can you get!  I mean, like, what are the chances of someone who is politically opposed to Hillary Rodham Clinton “suddenly” dying?  Ummm. Never mind that question.

And just when I was getting used to the idea of some vestigial utility of the Tenth Amendment (and right on the heels of the presidential promise that the feds don’t run elections), we are told that the FBI has identified at least two cyber attacks against state election processes.  and the Department of Homeland Security is suggesting that they need to take over elections because it is a “critical infrastructure”:

Even before the FBI identified new cyber attacks on two separate state election boards, the Department of Homeland Security began considering declaring the election a “critical infrastructure,” giving it the same control over security it has over Wall Street and and the electric power grid.

The latest admissions of attacks could speed up that effort possibly including the upcoming presidential election, according to officials.

“We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said.

I don’t think I’ve seen this much orchestrated drama since the last time I watched professional wrestling.

Aug 29

Obama Finally gets 1st Job; Finds pay grade.

Obama first job

Aug 25

Liar, Liar. Pantsuit on fire.

Hillary LochteI’m actually pretty glad that there was the recent tempest in a swimming pool a a result of Ryan Lochte’s antics while competing at the Olympics.

Consistent with the reputation of many athletes, he spent a night of – what used to be called – debauchery on the streets of Rio de Janiero.  If that wasn’t bad enough, he punctuated the end of his night with some vandalism.  For good measure, he then lied about it all.  Robbed at gun point, blah, blah, blah.

I say I’m glad about it because it gave me a chance to have a conversation with my own children.  Wealth, fame, power do not get you a pass on bad behavior.  You reap what you sew; if not in the here, most certainly in the hereafter.

Integrity matters.  All decisions have consequences.  Good decisions have good consequences.  Bad decisions have bad consequences.  Mr. Lochte made a series of bad decisions and it’s cost him millions.  And it’s cost him at least some level of humiliation.

I, like most parents I assume, want my children to live upright lives.  I’m want them to rightly be proud of what they’ve done – and how they’ve done it. Wealth, fame, and power are nothing compared to these.

While I was waxing eloquent on this points.  One of my children brought me back to reality and offered:

“Oh, Dad, I don’t have to worry about any of that stuff. None of those rules apply to me.  I’m going to run for President as a Democrat.”

Anyone got a response to that?  A little help please.


Aug 24

Obama’s Legacy?


Aug 24

Politically Correct Moment


Older posts «

» Newer posts