About Me

Name: lge
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

Anna Nicole's Body

Posted by lge on Friday, February 23, 2007 1:43:13 AM
The judge in the matter of Anna Nicole Smith's body not only acts like a buffoon, he is a buffoon. His ruling is, a total stranger shall be empowered to decide where Anna Nicole's body shall be laid to rest. What kind of fool rules like that?

The matter was, purely and simply, "Who is next of kin for this purpose?" The judge ruled the baby was next of kin! Can the baby decide where to bury Anna Nicole? No, of course, not the baby -- by proxy, the baby's guardian, who had been appointed by that self-same judge, will decide where Anna Nicole will be buried! Why not just choose Harriet Miers, and be done with it?

In the first place, the child's guardian is not and was not Anna Nicole's guardian -- so why does he have any say about her body? The child can't make the decision (even if she is the next of kin). So to me, that leaves a husband (if any) or her mother.

The judge's ruling was pure imbecility! A sixth-grader knows better than that -- but that jackass on the bench didn't know. It's disgusting, and it's a sickening revelation about our judicial system.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global-Warming Lysenkoites

Posted by lge on Monday, February 19, 2007 2:10:12 AM
The war against  global-warming skeptics is heating up.

Global-warming touts, like all left-wing activists, have plenty of time on their hands and seem to do nothing all day long but think up ad hominem attacks, propagandistic turns of phrase, and glib Orwellian evasions to use to their advantage. They have adopted the term "global-warming deniers"  to condemn their opponents; it echoes the term "holocaust deniers" and as such presumably has propagandistic value. 

But "an analogy is not a proof," to use a Yiddish proverb: comparing something to the Holocaust doesn't make it similar.

Now the warming touts want to actually punish and sanction skeptics/deniers. That is, they want to use the brute force of government or professional agencies to compel the acceptance of their theories. Dr. Heidi Cullen, a climate expert at The Weather Channel, wants the American Meteorological Society to revoke its "seal of approval" from any TV weatherman who denies global warming. David Roberts, an online blogger, wants Nuremberg-style war-crimes trials for the "bas----s" who deny warming.

As Dr. Walter Williams points out, they are "...one group of people, backed by government, who are trying to silence the dissenters."

In my mind they're global-warming Lysenkoites. You remember that Soviet pseudo-scientist, don't you? He was able to marshall the power of the Soviet state to compel acceptance of his hare-brained ideas on genetics and agriculture.As Wikipedia puts it:

Lysenko was . . . made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose faithfully, causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and the demise of genetics (a previously flourishing field) throughout the Soviet Union. This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears particular responsibility for the death of the prominent Soviet biologist, Nikolai Vavilov, at the hands of the NKVD.

Beware of people who are unable to convince the majority of what they believe, and thus resort to brute force to compel them to believe. There's a name for such people.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hooray for Gen. Petraeus

Posted by lge on Monday, February 19, 2007 1:29:44 AM
That's right, Hooray for Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, new commander of all U.S. military forces in Iraq. I was so afraid President Bush was going to choose Harriet Miers!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Three-Ring Circus In Space

Posted by lge on Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:44:16 AM
 "NASA astronaut Lisa Marie Nowak arrested"
===================================
Well, NASA has been trying to turn itself into a three-ring circus for some time now. It wasn't good enough to have just men, just pilots, as astronauts. NASA had to be "inclusive." They had to suck up to the harpies of the feminist movement.

They decided to put women, teachers, amateurs, dabblers, dilettantes, jugglers, minstrels and clowns in space. They had to reduce the whole thing to a circus act and a joke. That is how our esteemed leaders, the people in charge of us, manage their stewardship. It's another "traison des clercs," the treason or malfeasance on the part of those people we look to for responsible leadership.

I never understood even one basic thing about NASA: putting men and women together in a space capsule with no privacy, no modesty and no bathroom -- is that even decent? But decency or basic modesty is the last matter the politically-correct suck-ups worry about. Craven NASA wimps bowed to the screeching harpies of "women's lib," so they reduced the space program, and ourselves, to a travesty and a joke. The end result is the current Lisa Nowak fiasco.

Update: April 15, 2007:
 BOSTON (AP) -- All systems are go for astronaut marathoner  Suni Williams. Williams. . . was cleared for a  26.2-mile simulated run at 10 a.m.  EDT on Monday -- just when the real event  will be leaving Hopkinton down on  Earth. That would allow the U.S. Navy Commander to run at the same time as her  sister, Dina Pandya, fellow astronaut Karen Nyberg and about  24,000 others who are expected to face heavy rain and head winds on their way to Boston's Back Bay.


I think she should juggle while she runs. And maybe tell a few snappy jokes. If you're going to turn a serious matter into a farce with dilettantes and pissants, then go all the way.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Beware of "Inappropriate" People

Posted by lge on Thursday, February 01, 2007 1:46:54 AM
Have you noticed the increasing use of the mealy-mouthed, prim, prissy term of condemnation, "inappropriate"? It's favored by college presidents, spokesmen for minority groups, low-level bureaucrats and other empty suits and stuffed shirts. Does it mean anything in particular?

To give just one example: Mark Steyn, commenting on the politically-correct status of Muslims, said "Muslim is the new gay.” In reaction to his comment, "Predictably enough Mr. Amr [some Muslim] denounced my observation as 'inappropriate' ."

What does "inappropriate" mean? My theory is, "inappropriate" is used to condemn something, without giving a real reason. It means the speaker disapproves of something, but can't give a coherent, compelling reason for disapproving. It refers to something normal people don't mind, but which prim, politically-correct dictatorial types oppose. It refers to something politically incorrect.

Or this: John Cougar Mellencamp says he thinks our military response to 9/11 was "inappropriate from the beginning." The interviewer asks then, "Afghanistan was inappropriate?" He says, "Everything was inappropriate." He doesn't say "wrong" or "unjust" -- those terms require that you have some standard of rightness and wrongness. No, it's just "inappropriate" -- a lackluster, limp-brained, mealy-mouth term of disapproval.

Thus the user of "inappropriate" wants to condemn without having a reason to condemn. It means, "It's bad because I say so!"

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »