Werewolves of Congress

iOwnTheWorld: Werewolves of Congress

------------
iOwnTheWorld: Here Is Your Typical Progressive Scum

And I don’t say that lovingly.

Think about what she is saying [in the linked video]. She came to America to change it. This is applauded by the left. These are NOT your father’s immigrants. There was a time that people came here because America was the dream. The dream wasn’t socialism or entitlements. It was freedom. It was the absence of a tyrannical and intrusive government that attracted so many people to these shores. Now immigrants come here with the attitude that they are going to police America. It’s non-citizen arrest! And Trotsky, sitting there like a loser douchebag, concurs.

------------
iOwnTheWorld: Political Attack Ads, Circa 1800

Present-day politicians (and their enablers in the media) who bitch about "negative campaign ads" almost always mean something like: "Waa! He's telling the truth about me and/or my political record!" And, not infrequently, these same persons run ads which distort and misrepresent -- that is, lie -- about the persons and/or records of their opponents. Even as they are bitching about the opponents' "negative campaign."

------------
iOwnTheWorld: Found this interesting -- an anti-obamination and pro-liberty music video by 'Joe Horn' called 'Freedom' (it's pretty good)

Here is Joe Horn's Devil Went Down To Washington

'God and Evolution'

Jay Richards, in a 4:06 minute video hosted on the Discovery Institute site: 'God and Evolution'

My transcript of the video --

"In this book, 'God and Evolution,' the contributors and I, we wanted to focus on what we think are the central issues alive in the debate: both about Darwinism, about Intelligent Design, and about what's called "Theistic Evolution."

Everybody knows at an intuitive level that there's some kind of tension, or some kind of conflict, between what most people believe about God and what most people believe about Darwinian evolution. But, it's often poorly defined. I mean, you know, a lot of people spent a lot of time focused on these really detailed exegetical questions from Genesis 1, or something like that.

I think, in fact, what you have to do is you have to look at the sort of central aspects of what it means to be a theist: what does 'theism' mean, what does it entail? And, what does the mainstream neo-Darwinian 'theory of evolution' claim, and entail?

If everyone's allowed to just sort of create private definitions in their heads, so that when I say "evolution," what I mean is "a purposeful, teleological process of something that works itself out over time, but that was present in the beginning," well, sure, "Theistic Evolution," that's easy. Right? Because I've just defined 'evolution' in a totally theological and teleological sense.

The problem is that you've got to focus on what the theorists themselves mean by the word, 'evolution.' It doesn't just mean "change over time," it doesn't just mean "common descent;" it certainly doesn't mean this progressive or teleological idea, like it meant, say, 150 years ago. When English speakers use the word 'evolution,' they usually mean "Neo-Darwinian Evolution," which means that all the adaptive complexity you see is the result of random genetic mutations acted upon by 'natural selection.' And they mean that as an impersonal and purposeless process.

So, when they say 'random,' that's not just some mathematical term that's perfectly compatible with a view of God's Providence: they mean purposeless. And that's the problem; it's a logical problem: not even God can direct an undirected process. You can't have purposes for a purposeless process. This is just straightforward logic.

So, if you want to integrate your understanding of God and your understanding of 'evolution,' you've got to get the meanings of the terms straight. And you don't want to [inaudible] private definitions of these words. And then, I think you can do some real fruitful thinking and exploring.

It's not as if every aspect of the 'Word of God' and every aspect of the word 'evolution' are incompatible; it's that the general[ist?] or orthodox meanings of 'theism' and "Neo-Darwinian Evolution," as understood by the theorists themselves, are incompatible. And that's the thing, frankly, that I think a lot of theistic evolutionists don't want to face squarely.

There are probably two dozen books on "Theistic Evolution," broadly construed, that have been written in the last ten years or so. In fact, it's sort of a cottage industry. But, if you read a lot of these books, what you discover is that way too many people are trying to defend some version of "Theistic Evolution," and it ends up being an exercise in ambiguity: it's almost as if the purpose of the book is to confuse you, so that there's fog, and fuzz, and ambiguity. Because, they don't, frankly, want to face the key source of conflict.

It would be very nice if the mainstream view of 'evolution' and our religious beliefs were perfectly compatible. It's not like science and religion are intrinsically at war; but it's certainly possible that some content in a particular prevalent theory could conflict with certain religious views. And I think that's what we need to face squarely.

So, what 'God and Evolution' does, that most of the books on "Theistic Evolution" don't do, is that we focus very squarely on the key issues, and we, if anything, try to clarify, rather than muddy, the waters in this debate.

And my comments --

"Everybody knows at an intuitive level that there's some kind of tension, or some kind of conflict, between what most people believe about God and what most people believe about Darwinian evolution. But, it's often poorly defined."

I think, to some degree, it's intentional that the conflict is poorly defined. Certainly, DarwinDefenders (and, perhaps, some DarwinDeniers) have little incentive to properly define the argument, nor the terms used in it.


"I think, in fact, what you have to do is you have to look at the sort of central aspects of what it means to be a theist: what does 'theism' mean, what does it entail? And, what does the mainstream neo-Darwinian 'theory of evolution' claim, and entail?"

What we call "public education" in this country hasn't been about education for a good 50 or 60 years (the rot goes back a century, to when the "progressives" took over), but rather is geared toward indoctrination of propaganda in its captives -- toward the inculcation of "proper" attitudes as opposed to training and exercising their charges' capacity for reason.

AND STILL, most Americans come out of the public indoctrination centers rejecting Darwinism -- even if they can rarely clearly articulate *why* they reject it (and, after all, disabling their captives' capacities for clear articulation, and clear reasoning, is a selling point of the public indoctrination centers), they do grasp the heart of the issue.


"If everyone's allowed to just sort of create private definitions in their heads, so that when I say "evolution," what I mean is "a purposeful, teleological process of something that works itself out over time, but that was present in the beginning," well, sure, "Theistic Evolution," that's easy. Right? Because I've just defined 'evolution' in a totally theological and teleological sense.
.
The problem is that you've got to focus on what the theorists themselves mean by the word, 'evolution.' ... [when they use the word] it certainly doesn't mean this progressive or teleological idea, like it meant, say, 150 years ago."

Amusingly, that's what the word 'evolution' was clearly understood to mean 150 years ago. This is why Saint Chuckie avoided using the word until after his "Bulldog" had sufficiently muddied the waters.

The word 'evolution' was coined and first used in embryology to denote the structured goal-directed/teleological development of embryos, the "unrolling" of what was already there. The word -- and the concept -- was later (and before the time of Saint Chuckie's grandfather) applied to the growing social conviction (*) that there was some sort of organic relationship among and between living entities.

(*) Contrary to the hagiography, Saint Chuckie didn't invent the concept, nor convince anyone to "evolution;" the idea was widely accepted long before he was born. What Saint Chuckie did was come up with an amusing way to pretend that one could get God out of the picture.


"So, when they say 'random,' that's not just some mathematical term that's perfectly compatible with a view of God's Providence: they mean purposeless. And that's the problem; it's a logical problem: not even God can direct an undirected process. You can't have purposes for a purposeless process. This is just straightforward logic."

*Everyone* understands that this is what the DarwinDefenders mean, even if they cannot properly or clearly articulate their understanding -- that what is at stake is our very natures and the nature of reality itself.

Even though modern-day "public education" is set up to disable the capacity for reason amongst its captives, it cannot be completely done, for they are made in the image of God: they are, by their very natures, rational beings. Darwinism denies this, and everyone really does grasp, on some level, that critical fact.


"It's not as if every aspect of the 'Word of God' and every aspect of the word 'evolution' are incompatible; it's that the general[ist?] or orthodox meanings of 'theism' and "Neo-Darwinian Evolution," as understood by the theorists themselves, are incompatible. And that's the thing, frankly, that I think a lot of theistic evolutionists don't want to face squarely."

Indeed.

If words were always used logically, than "theistic evolutionist" would be but another term for "theistic proponent (*) of intelligent design." But, instead, the "theistic evolutionists" are among the most vicious opponents of ID (and, often, among the most dishonest); they are, in fact, "useful idiots" as they shill for Darwinism, scientism, and atheism.

(*) Not all proponents of intelligent design are "theists;" some, in fact, are 'atheists' or God-deniers. I don't how such persons square that particular circle, but there you have it.

Seeking God in a Socially Acceptable way

Laura Wood ('The Thinking Housewife') offers a theory of why (some) Western women convert to Islam.

A woman almost never does something that will bring about [her own personal] social annihilation. Men are more influential in shaping society through idea. Women are more influential in shaping it through form.

Mark Richardson at Oz Conservative considers the case of Lauren Booth, the sister-in-law of Tony Blair who recently converted to Islam. My guess is that she sought to embrace God in a socially acceptable form. She might have lost more friends if she had become a pious Christian than a pious Muslim. She did not risk social annihilation, not in self-annihilating Europe of today. More Western women will probably follow in her footsteps.

Mrs Wood's theory would likely never have occurred to me (doubtless because, being a man, I don't think quite like a woman does), but once comprehended, it seems so obvious.

I mean, I understand that present-day moderns are quite unhappy with the deal their parents and grandparents (and, back, all the way to the so-called "Enlightenment") made to ditch Christianity for socialism and scientism. I understand that women (as a class of persons) got the short end of that deal, and that many of them are starting to realize it. I understand that human beings *want* relationship with God ... and they want "religion" in their lives. It just never would have occurred to me that part of the appeal of the anti-religion and demon-worship known as Islam is that it is more Socially Acceptable in some social circles to be known as a Moslem than as a Christian.

And so, the philosophically shallow person, feeling the pull of "the religious impulse," who imagines that "all religions are the same" or that the God of the Bible and the God of the Koran are the same, may well evaluate the two religions not on their content, but upon their Socially Acceptability within his or her (*) circle.

(*) This was a perfect opportunity to use "gender inclusive language" (that is, to write "her" rather than "his" or even "his or her") to mock it, but I didn't. The reason using "her" would have been mockery of "gender inclusive language" is that "gender inclusive language" is never (and may never be) used in a manner that might be perceived as negative toward the grammatically incorrect "she" of one's hypothetical or subjunctive statement. Thus, one will constantly be treated to "gender inclusive" math professors or philosophers (despite that women, in general, are not too interested in either subject) or soldiers or "firefighters" (despite that women, in general, are physically, and frequently mentally/emotionally, unsuited to either role), but one will never see a "gender inclusive" bank-robber or plumber ... or philosophically shallow person.


Edit (2010/10/27):
Vox Day has a fairly good post about this (despite that he seeks to tie it into that silliness known as "Game").

Inevitable Result

Lydia McGrew: Pay Us For Harassing You -- the particular moral outrage to which Mrs McGrew points is the logically inevitable result of certain provisions of the 'Civil Rights Act of 1964,' and of the mindset behind the act, and of the entirely predictable cynical turn of the "civil rights movement." This sort of result was foreseen and predicted way back then, which is why Goldwater (no conservative, he) voted against the Act.

See also here for an attempted discussion of this mindset, and of where it *must* lead.


That you supposedly don't have the right to discriminate with respect to whom you will share your living quarters follows directly and inevitably from societal acceptance of the proposition that you do not have the right to discriminate with respect to whom you will rent your property in which you do not dwell. And, ultimately, it follows logically and inevitably from societal acceptance of the proposition that you do not have the right to discriminate with respect to whom you will serve at your lunch-counter.


If you don't want to have busy-body do-gooders (or, "Woman Involved in Public Matters," as Mrs McGrew so aptly calls the mindset) constantly meddling in the intimate details of your life -- in short, if you want to live in liberty -- then you must draw and enforce the lines well away from your own personal (or petty) concerns. If you are willing to acquiesce to the do-gooders using governmental force (including thread of violent death) to interfere in *that* fellow's use of his own property, then you really have no ground on which to object when they turn their sights on you: for you have already surrendered the principle; you have already submitted to their rationales.

If one accepts the propositions that discrimination is ipso facto immoral, and that it is a moral duty of government to stamp out all "discrimination," then one has already accepted the justification for this sort of thing. When a society accepts those propositions, this sort of thing is increasingly inevitable.


This isn't a question of: "Is it immoral to refuse to serve, due to his race, someone who sits at your lunch-counter?" Of course it is immoral! The pertinent question is: "Is governmental suppression of that sort of immorality compatible with a society of free citizens, based upon the liberty of the individual?" And it is not!

We cannot have both liberty and "anti-discrimination" laws; and I want liberty.


====
Edit: Incidentally, this particular moral outrage isn't even particularly new in outline -- what's new is the explicit involvement of government bureaucrats in harassing a citizen desiring to share living-space as conflict-free as possible. When I was at university, more than 30 years ago, one was not *allowed* to explicitly advertise in the student newspaper (which one was compelled to subsidize by one's fees) for a "Christian roommate." They simply would not run the ad (and might try to berate you as a “bigot”); one was forced to use circumlocutions, such as “quiet” or (especially) “non-partier.”

Atheism, violence and human rights

Victor Reppert: Atheism, violence and human rights

Here is the final words of a comment on a Debunking Christianity thread:

I long for the day when you people are put into camps and made sterile, so you cannot spread your destructive hate and child abuse any longer.

There you have it. I argued at some length on this site a couple of years back that the logical conclusions of some of Richard Dawkins' ideas about child abuse lead logically to violence against Christians and the forcible denial of fundamental human rights to Christians by the government. I pointed out that even if Dawkins hadn't drawn out those conclusions from his own arguments, some of his followers would eventually do so. People tried to argue that, no, it really doesn't have to come to this, and he was just talking about Christians who frighten their children with hell to get them to be obedient.

Well, I was right. I hope Loftus will post a response saying that he does NOT approve this message. In the meantime, you have to start rethinking the argument that RELIGION leads to violence.

Generally, Dawkins does the thinking for vast numbers of self-identifying atheists, including prominent ones (this is why I sometimes refer to him as "the Pope of Atheism") -- but, regarding this meme, one might well say that Dawkins was the follower, rather than the leader.

I've had this wish, sans the "child abuse" rationalization, "jokingly" tossed in my virtual face years before Dawkins infamously equated a Christian upbringing with child abuse.

The desire to make Christians "go away" is strong within the "reality-based community." If they had the power to make us "go away," they would; if they ever think they have the power to make us "go away," they will use it.

Dawkins merely supplied the rationale to justify (in their own minds) a desire they already had.


AND, by the way, the quote-of-the-day "definition" of faith which leads off the thread in which Mr Reppert encountered that expression of the deepest longing of so many God-deniers is for shit:

Faith is a belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition in spite of evidence that the belief is incorrect. Faith is clearly NOT a belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition that is SUPPORTED by the evidence, because if that belief was supported by the evidence, it ipso facto does NOT REQUIRE Faith. [See on Faith]

... and John Loftus, who posted that quote, *knows* that it, and he, are misrepresenting what faith is.

This "definition" of faith is both tendentiously false ... and a case of atheistic "projection."

Prosecution or persecution?

Michael Coren: Prosecution or persecution?

...
Whether political, religious or criminal, what appears to be happening in many parts of Europe and North America is that rather than being guardians of the people the police are taking on the role of agents of the state. Instead of protecting citizens against crime they are enforcing state policy against citizens. That’s deeply worrying in theory and even more troubling in practise.

The Western, democratic notion of an apolitical police force is beginning to evaporate as the police concern themselves with “hate crimes”, “bias” and even plain political correctness. What David Chen did was not obviously political but it did question the authority and competence of authority and the police and did show an ordinary person applying the law and common sense. That, it seems, is now the worst crime of all.

The particular incident of which Mr Coren writes happened (is happening) in Canada, but this sort of thing happens frequently in the US, also -- police departments are *just* bureaucracies with guns, and bureaucracies exist first and foremost to advance the interests of the bureaucrats.

'Call Me Senator'

“Call Me Senator” (watch the video, you'll love it)

The Question Is

It seems to me, Gentle Reader, that the proper question is: "Are there *any* real atheists?" That is why I almost always put the word atheist in single-quotes, or write "so-called atheists" or "self-identifying atheists," when referring to specific (or generic) God-deniers. And, similarly with respect to 'agnostics.'

Victor Reppert links to this page, commenting:

There are no ex-atheists

I guess this is the atheist equivalent of the Fifth Point of Calvinism: There are no ex-atheists. People who claim to be atheists but became Christians [] were never REAL atheists in the first place.

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.- I John 2:19.

Now, no one is a Christian by birth (interestingly, some 'atheists' like to claim that everyone is born an atheist ... being a Christian, I would say that that is *almost* correct, the truth being that everyone is born in a state of enmity to God). Even if there were a person now living whose every ancestor going back 1800 or 1900 years had been a Christian, that person will not be, and cannot be, a Christian by virtue of his birth or ancestry. Everyone who has ever been, or will ever be, a Christian must decide to believe that the claims of Christianity, and the reasoning advanced in support of those claims, are true and sound, respectively.

To put it into the form of an aphorism: "God has no grandchildren."

Now, the truth-claims of Christianity are not changing. The evidence advanced for those truth-claims, the evidence upon which one will reason whether to embrace or reject its truth-claims, is mostly not changing (by which I mean that such things as miracles at Lourdes are really superfluous). And, the rules of logic, the rules by which we judge an act of reasoning to be valid or invalid, are not changing.

AND, truth does not change to un-truth, nor un-truth to truth. Thus, if the truth-claims of Christianity are true, they are always true, now and forever.

And so, if a person examines the truth-claims of Christianity, and the evidence advanced in support of these truth-claims, and decides to become a Christian, but later renounces this decision, then EITHER:

1) his initial decision was based on some error; meaning that, either:
1a) the evidence advanced/presented to him did not really support the decision he made;
1b) his reasoning on that evidence was logically invalid in some way;
OR:
2) his subsequent decision to renounce the prior decision was logically invalid.

That is, EITHER his initial decision to become a Christian was logically invalid (which still doesn't tell us anything about the logical validity of Christianity itself), meaning that he didn't really understand the decision he made, OR his subsequent decision to renounce Christianity was logically invalid.

And, the above doesn't begin to address that persons have "converted" to Christianity for many reasons other than a rational examination of its claims and evidence; for instance, social convenience.

And so, this New Testament verse Mr Reppert quotes is saying something very different from the (increasingly common) atheistic claim or argument that anyone who self-identifies as an atheist and later converts to Christianity was never an atheist in the first place.

The "reasoning" of 'atheists' on this seems to be something like this:

1) There are no, nor can be any, real evidence(s) nor rational argument(s) to support the belief that God is;
1a) therefore, atheism (God-denial) is ipso facto rational;
1b) therefore, Christianity and Judaism are are ipso facto irrational;
2) Rational persons do not embrace irrational beliefs;
2a) therefore, 'atheists' (God-deniers) are ipso facto rational persons;
2b) therefore, Christians and Jews are ipso facto irrational persons;
3) Therefore, anyone who previously denied that God is, but now embraces Christianity (or Judaism) is not a rational person;
3a) therefore, he never was a rational person;
3b) therefore, he never was really an atheist in the first place.

Now, as to my initial question: "Are there *any* real atheists?"

Just as one can't *really* be a Christian (no matter what one calls oneself) while denying the divinity of Jesus, the Christ, so too, one cannot *really* be an atheist (no matter what one calls oneself) while denying the propositions which *must* be true if atheism is the truth about the nature of reality. If one calls oneself a Christian, or advocates that Christianity is true, yet denies the divinity of Christ, then either one does not *understand* what one is claiming/advocating, or one is a liar. If one calls oneself an atheist, or advocates God-denial, yet denies the logical consequences of atheism, then either one does not *understand* what one is claiming/advocating, or one is a liar.

Friedrich Nietzsche might have been a real atheist (for a *real* atheist is simultaneously a nihilist). Bertrand Russell was just a poseur.

Of living famous so-called atheists, Daniel Dennett, and Paul and Patricia Churchland seem to come closest to being real atheists ... and all three are still just poseurs. And Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous of living God-deniers? He's just a fool and a liar (there is a redundancy in that statement); he's a mere poseur -- who *knows* he's a mere poseur -- who doesn't even come close to being a real atheist.

The three I mentioned come close to being real atheists because they understand and acknowledge certain unwelcome truths (*) which logically follow from the denial, and therefore *must* be true if the denial is true, that we are creations of the transcendent God. For instance, acknowledging (some of) the inescapable logical entailments of atheism, they assert such things as:
1) consciousness in "an illusion;"
2) there is no self;
3) there is no free-will (**);
(they are fond of denigrating the concepts 'consciousness' and 'self' and 'free-will' as "folk psychology," by which they mean something like "the erroneous-and-unscientific beliefs-about-themselves-and-about-their-natures of ignorant-and-prescientific persons").

BUT, they are poseurs because they don't really believe these things they acknowledge and assert; certainly, they do not believe these things to be true of themselves ... but they also don't believe them to be true of you and me (so, they are not solipsists). For instance, they try to convince you (whom they assert doesn't even exist) that you do not exist -- the mere attempt to convince you of anything is the acknowledgement that you exist, that you are a self, that you are a reasoning self, that you are a self who may freely embrace or reject the claim being advanced.

Now, it is true that their attempts to convince you that you are an illusion are built mostly on bluster and attempted intimidation (Just LOOK at my credentials!) and hand-waving (among other things, the "folk psychology" trope); it is true that there is precious little reason in their argumentation (and, given the content and the target, how can it be otherwise?). But nonetheless, the fact remains: they're still trying to convince you to believe the false things they want you to believe about reality and about yourself. They have no choice, really:
1) since you *are* a self, a reasoning being, if they want you to believe that you are not a self, nor a reasoning being, they *must* somehow convince you to believe it;
2) since what they want you to believe is false, and anti-rational, they *must* resort to anti-rational argumentation: assertion, bluster, intimidation, equivocation, burden-shifting, and so forth.


(*) That is, these propositions are unwelcome to most self-identifying atheists and agnostics -- most of those folk will do any number and sort of logical contortion to avoid even noticing these propositions, much less admitting that they are truth-claims which logically follow from God-denial.

(**) Almost every discussion of, or reference to, "free-will" is mis-stated: it is not that we *have* something called "free-will;" rather, it is that we *are* free-wills.

Appreciating the absurd

"An appreciation of the absurd requires some recognition that the absurd is, well, absurd and not the whole story. Once existence itself is absurd, it just isn’t funny anymore." -- Laura Wood ('The Thinking Housewife')

The thing about dishonesty

The thing about dishonesty (and what I have in mind specifically is intellectual dishonesty) is that it cannot be segregated to one little aspect of one's life; it is the nature of dishonesty to spread and take over all it touches.

This is another post about the silliness (and foolish wickedness) called 'Game;' though, it's more indirectly about that. What this post is directly about is illustrating for Gentle Reader how the conscious disinclination to reason correctly and rigorously about the things we *want* to believe to be true must inevitably lead us into outright lying about things which anyone see are otherwise.

The blogger who goes by 'Aunt Haley' posted something earlier today which sounds very reasonable ... until one knows that back-story. Here is that post:

I’m tired of reading comments where posters are calling each other names like idiot, sweetheart, moron, bitch, or any of that ilk.

From now on, I’m just going to start deleting comments with name-calling insults. It’s ridiculous that grown men can’t get through a discussion without puerile mudslinging. If you want to play the neener-neener game and call each other names, take it off the blog.

Here is what I said to her in response:

Will you now?

Aren’t you at all curious as to what’s going on in your own mind?

What I mean is this — these … what was the phrase, again? … “grown men” … have been directing that sort of thing at me for days, and you only just now, after I have mildly (but effectively, and humorously) turned a couple of the intended insults back upon their owners, appear to disapprove of their behavior. AND then, to make matters worse (from my point of view), you “even-handedly” seek to lump my mild (and humorous!), and much delayed, responses in with their provocations.

Really: would you *ever* have written this post had I not finally turned some of those provocations back upon their owners? To be more blunt, had I not, with a few simple-and-non-obscene words, turned what was intended to be a group-effort mockery of me into unanswerable ridicule of the original poster, would you have said *anything* at all?

Partly, I wrote this because I am *very* well acquainted with this sort of dishonest "even-handedness."

Even one of her fellow 'Game' proponents (*) appears to get the point I was making about "even-handedness:" "It’s a well-known fact of the schoolyard that it’s the reprisal punch that gets punished."

(*) Yes, I know he has claimed in a comment on this this blog that he is not an advocate of it (even as he was defending it), but his behavior when with the gang says otherwise.


Here is Haley's dishonest response to what I said to her about her "even-handedness:"

Ilion, when you post nine replies in a row and start sounding emotionally hysterical, which you did the other day, I have little compunction about nipping that kind of behavior in the bud when it starts to cross over into schoolyard insults.

Cool down and write like a grown-up, and others will treat you like a grown-up.

Don't you just love passive-aggression? I know I do!

And, lastly, here is the back-story -- in which (unless she's the sort of person who is going to delete the evidence, now that I've written this post) anyone can see that she has seriously misrepresented both me and her gang of fellow adherents of 'Game.'

Should one choose to wade through all the comments in that last thread, one will not find me initiating "schoolyard insults" -- though, one will find me eventually responding to some of the "schoolyard insults" that had been directed my way ... and really, my responses were several grades above "schoolyard." I'd almost take insult at having my insults characterized as "schoolyard insults," except that I've already conclued that Miss Haley suffers a severe lack of discernment.

Goodness! As far as I can tell she cannot even see what is "off" about this odd statement someone made on her blog not too long ago: "Ultimately, if I were seeking advice, I would look for empirically based observations given by someone with a discerning spirit of wisdom. Like Citizen Renegade."

Nor will one find me "sounding emotionally hysterical" -- but one *will* see some of Miss Haley's fellow 'Game' proponents "sounding emotionally hysterical" (apparently because I'm presenting them arguments to establish its falsehood and/or lack of worth); and one will see a 'Game' proponent (whom I do not hesitate to judge as a quite wicked man, and whom I suspect was a bully when he was chronologically young enough for the schoolyard) seeking to goad me into "sounding emotionally hysterical" (as though he could!) and one will see that person repeatedly waving his hands to dismiss what I'd been saying as "sounding emotionally hysterical."

Shesh! Can't she even come up with her own false tropes?


Edit: In response to Miss Haley's dishonest characterization of the interaction between me and her fellow advocates of 'Game,' I said to her: " You’re dishonest, aren’t you?" (and, if you know/understand me, you realize that that was me being "nice" or non-blunt).

And her response was: " I’m not, and your further comments are going in moderation for the time being." (My point here is not that denies being dishonest.)

There are reasons, Gentle Reader, that men sometimes refer to some women as 'bitches.' And this sort of passive-aggressive dishonesty is a prime example.

If You Give A Donkey a Cookie

iOwnThe World: If You Give A Democrat a Cookie

Anatomy of an Ambush

John Ray: Anatomy of an Ambush -- only muddle-headed fools would *ever* believe anything the Arabs say about the Jews. Or what they say about us.

10:10 -- See the real mindset of 'environmentalists'

HotAir: Video: The dumbest, most self-defeating ad campaign ever

The video is truly disgusting, on many levels; as Ed Morrissey puts it: "... this appalling video that shows global-warming enforcers imagining the world they’d like to create, but beware that it includes some disturbing — and disturbed — images."

(h/t Matteo and Bob Parks)

The 'one-stitch facelift'

As a matter of general interest -- MailOnline: The 'one-stitch facelift' claims to be the ultimate quick fix for turkey necks, but does it work?