Why can't they just leave well enough alone?

Sure, I'm not paying anything to use Blogger. Nevertheless, their recent "improvements" are really pissing me off.

The Organ Transplant Industry is Immoral

The organ transplant industry is grossly immoral -- anyone paying attention and keeping in mind human nature could have predicted this sort of thing -- and it can only get worse. Via Kathy Shaidle: Dad rescues ‘brain dead’ son from doctors wishing to harvest his organs – boy recovers completely

And, by the by, the reported incident isn't a one-off -- any number of human beings have been "legally" murdered by the "caring professionals", so as to harvest their organs. And it doesn't happen just in Europe.

Why do you think that the "caring professionals" now routinely dope-up so-called "brain-dead" individuals before hargesting their vital organs? It's to keep them from being so impolite as to waking up during the surgery.

The vapors

Seemingly everyone is getting the vapors over this: Acura We're So Sorry We Excluded Dark-Skinned Blacks

Really! What naifs people are. Do they think it's Magick that commercials almost always contain actors who, if not already famous, are "nice looking, friendly", regardless of race? Do people think it's Magick that almost all commercials contain at least one black actor -- who is almost always "nice looking, friendly, not too dark" -- even when portraying social situations in which one would almost never see both blacks and whites simultaneously?

Though, in truth, it's not so much that people are naive as that they utterly loathe being made to see the ugly truth behind the pleasant fairy-tales of "liberal" rule of society.

If it is offensive that Acura explicitly and intentionally sought a black actor who was "not too dark", then why isn't it at least as offensive, if not more so, that Acura explicitly and intentionally "sought to cast an African-American in a prominent role in the commercial", in the first place?

Alternately, if it isn't offensive that Acura explicitly and intentionally "sought to cast an African-American in a prominent role in the commercial", then why is it offensive that they or their agency also had the courtesy to save everyone's time, effort, and expense by making it clear up-front that they sought a black actor who was "not too dark"?

Personally, I find it offensive that seemingly *every* commercial has to have its "token black friend" (*) in any group of friends being portrayed. Understand, it's not the fact of the black friend's race that is offensive, but rather the various leftish rationales of why the writers of the ad put him there.

(*) who is nonetheless the linchpin holding the group together

Great-granddad's Axe

"This is my great-grandfather's axe", the man said with evident pride and no little awe, pointing to an axe displayed above his mantle. "It has been in the family for 150 years; they sure don't make 'em like that anymore: with this axe, my great-grandfather started, my grandfather continued, and my father completed the clearing of all this land I work."

"Hmmm," I said, noncommittally.

"Of course," he continued, "in all that time it was being used, before I hung it there as a monument to my forefathers, we did have to replace the head five times and the handle three. In fact, I still have two other of the 'original' worn heads."

Is Obama a right-wing extremist?

John Jay Ray: Is Obama a right-wing extremist? -- a pictoral essay

I just got spammed on my phone

I generally leave my cell phone off except when I'm using it. But recently, and for the next few days, I'm leaving it on all the time.

Anyway, it just buzzed about a missed "call"; and the "call" was a spam text-messsage ... for which the phone company charged me $.20 to inform me.

It's just a simple phone, nothing but a phone (with a small display screen, as everything has these days).

Color me ticked-off.

For the Record

Molotov Mitchell, via Black and Right: For the Record -- some actual reasoning about the Treyvon Martin (TM) case.

Tulsa murder spree: 'Police identified both suspects as white'

Fox News: Tulsa police say shootings may have been revenge -- "
Two men were arrested Sunday in a shooting rampage that left three people dead and terrorized Tulsa's black community, and police said one suspect may have been trying to avenge his father's shooting two years ago by a black man.

Police identified both suspects as white, while all five victims in the rampage early Friday were black."

Look at the pictures: In another context, the police, and certainly the liberal media, would be calling the younger of the two arrested men a "Native American". You know, much as George Zimmerman was "Hispanic", until the leftists needed him to be "white".

edit:
I'm given to understand that Jake English, the younger of the two suspects, is a "white Cherokee Indian". Since I'm in part a "white(r) Cherokee Indian" (*), I was hoping at least that he was a "white Creek Indian".

(*) and considering how many offspring each generation of my ancestors were raising to adulthood before the Indian Removals, I'd not be surprised to learn that by now I'm a cousin (fourth or fifth cousin is still cousin) to most of the registered Cherokee out in Oklahoma.

A 'Jealous God'

Be thankful that our God is a 'jealous God'; for Easter is precisely because God is Jealous -- "What's mine is mine" -- and he does not give up easily on getting back what is his.

Consolidating a couple of comments made here:

… the Incarnation and Passion (and Resurrection) rightfully ought also to be seen as a "type" of what God has *always* been doing for his creation. ALL Creation -- including God-haters such as [insert name] -- has *always* lived one moment to the next by feeding off the life of The Son. The Son didn't put himself into the hands of his rebellious creation only during the Passion, he has *always* been doing this: we could not exist otherwise.


It was something a Rabbi wrote, in reference to the (often-times intellectually dishonest) objection: "Where was God in the Holocaust?" which lead me to think about, and begin to comprehend, what it means to say that "God is the ground of all being." [Or, expressing the same thought in language from the Bible: "In Christ, we live and move and have our being".]

If one is interested, the Rabbi's answer was (to paraphrase): "God is right there, being murdered with the Jew ... and murdering him with the Nazi"

God isn't watching our lives, as though we were a program on television. God is participating in our lives, in all ways, in all things -- our sins, all our sins, even the most 'petty', are offences against God precisely because in sinning we compel the Sinless One to experience sin: we compel Truth Himself to experience the Lie; we compel Life Himself to experience Death.

God didn’t have to create us, and he knows what we do to him; he knows that our creation must introduce He-Who-Is-Integral to non-integration; and still he loves us so much that he creates us and continuously upholds our existence.

God is jealous: we are his and he does not lightly give up what is his. Because he loves us so much, beyond expression, because we are his and he is jealous, he does everything to redeem us out of Death and back into Life. And, because he loves us so much, beyond expression, if what we finally set our faces toward is Death, then he shall let us go, he shall let us have what we will.

God desires us, desires you, so deeply, that Life Himself subjected himself to Death so that he might redeem us, might redeem you, out of Death. But, Kyrie eleison (*), Death isn’t big enough to hold Life Himself, and now, “death works backwards” (the sound-quality isn’t the best, but do give it a listen).

(*) I know what the Greek means, it's precisely what I meant to write.

On the latest 'Derb' kerfluffle

On National Rreview's semi-official reaction, and the reaction of "official conservatism", to the latest 'Derb' kerfluffle, vis-a-v1s "race realism" --

As with Rush Limbaugh's "tactical mistake" of using the word 'slut' to denote someone whose very own word makes clear is a slut, if you call yourself a 'conservative' and yet you allow the leftists to set the bounds of what may and may not be said in polite company, then you are no conservative. You will, in fact, constantly be training your guns on your supposed allies, rather than on the leftists.

Now, I haven't read Derbyshire's piece, and I have no intention of doing so. I gave up on that man many years ago: in part because his vapid-yet-condescending atheism made it impossible to respect his intellect (and I mean this was a good year or more before he openly came out as an atheist), and in part because, as I said to myself, "this man isn't a conservative, he's just a cranky 'liberal' who doesn't like some of the destinations of present-day liberalism."

edit:
Apparently, NR has now made it official and dumped Derbyshire -- now that he's "offended" the leftists, rather than at any point over the past few years when he has offended reason itself, to say nothing constantly insinuating that Christians are, ipso facto, morons.

AS I KEEP POINTING OUT, unless truth is your priority, you will *always* be a pushover for the enemies of truth.

Kathy Shaidle's translation: "John Derbyshire wrote stuff like this for years, and we got to brag about having a genius on staff. But then one day Other People noticed and gave us 24 hours of virtual grief, so we dumped him."

edit:
In case it's not clear, it irks me almost as much to find myslef defending Derbyshire as it did defending Dawkins over the "elevator incident", when all his "liberal" God-hating friends jumped down his throat over the mere expression of a touch of common sense vis-a-vis "sexual liberation" and the I-get-to-have-it-both-ways-at-whim mind-set of the modern "sexually liberated woman".

edit:
I hadn't intended to read Derbyshire's piece, but I now have. Except for #13, which is cynically mercenary, expressive of moral bankruptcy, and factually false in its prognostication (as see George Zimmerman), I cannot see anything that an honest man can condenm. Sure, these things he said are unwelcome, but most of them are true: call it a set of "inconvenient truths".

Here is the reason

Here is the reason that the GOP and almost all "conservative" pundits cheerfully join the Dems in demonizing anyone so uncouth as to point out that, by definition, as one of his parents was not a US citizen, one Barack Hussein Obama simply cannot be a natural born US citizen, and is thus Constitutionally barred from occupying the office of President of the United States of America -- "... (born May 28, 1971) ... His parents ... had emigrated to the United States in 1956 and were later naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975."

Did not Someone once point out that those who will not honor the fine points of the Law will not honor the large? As the GOP seems willing *always* to "compromise" with the Dems over the finer points of honoring the US Constitution, who but a fool will ever expect them to stand firm (much less consistently) for honoring the major points?