Saturday, 16 May 2009

Comments and Comminations

Here are some of my recent forum postings and emails around the web, offered in lieu of longer pieces which lack of time prevents me from submitting.

Letter to LA Times re: movie review:
" 'The Stoning of Soraya M.' vividly depicts the violent execution of a woman condemned by religion distorted." Oh yeah? Where's the distortion? In fact, stoning is a literal and faithful adherence to Koranic and Hadithic imperatives. And then for good equivocating measure the LA Times adds, " the film recalls evils perpetrated in the name of Christianity and other organized religions as well." Right! Now we've got it: all religions are like this! In fact the founder of Christianity saved a woman from stoning! But let's not allow that insignificant factoid to interfere with weasel journalism's higher mission of ecumenical distortion, where they always emphasize that Islam is a religion of peace. How do they know? George Bush tells them so.

On a forum about the world's worst religion wherein the author argued that humanism was in fact the prize winner:
Humanism is not a religion, except in an extended or metaphorical sense. By definition it does not enjoin one to a belief in a supreme being. Religions draw down our condemnation not so much because of the heinous acts they may perpetrate, since nations at war have caused commensurable havoc without censure, but rather because of the inconsistency of such acts with a belief in a superior moral presence. Were Nazism or Stalinism acting inconsistently when they carried out programs of mass murder? They were not. Therefore any recrimination against them begs the issue of whether in fact they are or are not "true" belief systems. A religion's criminal actions, however, always stand in implicit contradiction with its foundation belief in divine goodness and mercy. Hence ISLAM is the worst religion, since its practice of coerced conversion and execution of nonbelievers not only excites our abhorrence of murder but also impinges on our fundamental belief in the inviolability of the God-ordained human conscience.

On a piece by Thomas Fleming in Chronicles which misquotes the Washington Post: "Actually, I believe the Post’s headline was, “He came, he SPOKE, he conquered.” [emphasis added] Remember that, according to the media, this man’s prowess is always verbal, never martial. Caesar’s legacy is evoked only to be eclipsed by that of their even greater word-wielding emperor. Swords are so 2nd amendment, don’t you know? - except when it comes to the unborn child: then Obama can cut and thrust with the best of them! "

On a story about the oldest U.S. soldier, a Viet Nam vet and widower, to die in Iraq: "At sixty a symbol, perhaps, of America herself: the aging and intransigent policeman of the world, no longer attached to the late Lady Liberty, but footloose, alone and purposeless, waiting for the ineluctable blast from a younger, more agile challenger that must finally illuminate the meaning of all those past sacrifices. RIP."

To Pat Boone's recent post dismissing the torture brief against the U.S. (following his disingenuous comment that "the Bible directs all of us to 'pray for all those in authority,' "): " and the Bible (also) directs us to ... love thy neighbor as thyself. And your Constitution (Article 1 Section 9) directs you to regard the accused as innocent until proven guilty. And your conscience should direct you to stop justifying these patently brutish policies with the dubious claim of "saving American lives." Are American lives worth sacrificing America herself for, Mr. Boone?

Re: Pat Buchanan's Human Events article praising Dick Cheney's defiance of the Obabma White House : "Our usually pertinent student of history, Mr. Buchanan, appears to be unaccountably playing hooky on this one. Why, he might have asked, isn't the "courageous" Mr. Cheney out on the hunting ranch, maiming innocent attorneys to his heart's content, instead of consuming his retirement years in playing gadfly to Obama and masquerading as the conscience of the GOP? Because he's worried sick about his legacy, stained with the blood - and water - of Abu Grahib and Guantanamo, that's why! His behavior is not that of someone confident in the legality of his actions but of someone clearly at pains to justify the unjustifiable. Rejecting the label of torturer but justifying the extraordinariness of the techniques he initiated as "savers of lives," Cheney is caught in the meshes of the old axiom that the victors write the war's history. His customary apoplexy and bristling impatience with his detractors don't strike me as being unashamed but just plain shameless. Not that any intelligent person shouldn't have foreseen it all, but then again, these fools never could see past what they wanted to see."

After reading a CBC story about Skytrain pickpockets: "People seeking a photo of the felon [as some were] shouldn't hold their breath. For one thing it's becoming rare for the newsies to actually have anyone on the beat taking pictures anymore, internet revenues being what they are. It's cheaper (and safer) for the press just to pass on the barebones police release verbatim. Secondly, as someone above has already hinted, if the perp belongs to a minority group the cops won't go there out of fear of drawing imputations of racism. But take comfort in knowing that the same people doing all the non-reporting will also be juggling the stats that demonstrate how, contrary to our perception of Skytrain as a Robbers Express, crime and violence are perpetually on the decline in Canada! Welcome to our craven new Trudeauorwellian world where only those conversant with the code understand what's actually happening out there!"

Tuesday, 12 May 2009

The Belief that Dare Not Speak its Name

Just when creepy Perez Hilton thought it was safe to go back into the bathhouse, up rises Carrie Prejean like Botticellis' Venus from the waves and kicks his diaper. This beautiful girl with the fiery spirit, who was dragged through the mud over the last three weeks by the usual liberal pitch bitches, male and female, was standing tall* today as she won the endorsement of her "owner," so to speak, Donald Trump. Trump keeps reiterating the idea that other notable people, such as Barack Obama, share Prejean's point of view on traditional marriage. Prejean herself, however, emphasizes the real issue here: not whether her opinion is "right" but that it is her honest opinion and she has every right to express it without being vilified as somehow un-American. If the pageant has a homosexual test oath in place it should make it open and official, rather than the secret credo that a devious self-styled queen like Hilton (real name:Mario Armando Lavandeira) can use to trap and humiliate the naive recusants who stand before him in the modern American equivalent of a star chamber trial.
Lots of tripe being penned about these pageants, mostly on the negative, by the mainstream hacks, mostly from the spindle side, and almost all of it worthless. A beautiful young woman is really a flag to her tribe, her race, her world, of the progenitive power. The lovely girl holds the promise not just of sexual allure, but through that allure the greater promise of children and family and motherhood. And through all these the continuity of life and nation. A beauty pageant, traditionally on display at the fairs and arenas of the community, was a celebration of sexual allure integrated into the overall cycle of life. Hence Prejean merely expressed what is at base the original if unacknowledged inspiration of the pageant itself when she rejected homosexual "marriage." As it is, the liberal's quarrel with Ms Prejean would be better directed at Shakespeare, himself of somewhat fluid sexuality, who famously wrote in his eleventh sonnet: "If all were minded so, the times should cease, and three score year would make the world away." A gay prospect, indeed!
Only with the advent of feminism and its freakish brood of abortion and homosexualism and careerism, did these pageants come to be seen as something suspect and insulting to women, putting the contestants perpetually on the defensive. But as we saw three weeks ago, the most grievous insult of all was for beauty to submit to the cold and sterile gaze that regards her charms not with the ardour of a potential suitor, lover, or husband, but rather as a competitor who sees only an enemy to be discredited and destroyed. This insult is built right into the process when a cockroach like Lavandeira is allowed to sit on the panel. In the end, thankfully, it was he who was put on the defensive. Against the ineluctable right of life itself, gay rights are as so much winter chaff before the gales of spring: blown, baby!
Is it not strange how our hierophants of taste among the gelded press priests are always affecting a high regard for the primitive and the earthen and yet are always trying to set enmity between fruit and flower, always the quickest to sneer whenever the elemental connexions of sex, birth and marriage are invoked by traditionalists? Strange? Why, it's downright queer!
If the pageant had any real integrity, never mind sexiness, its emblem would be a Botticelli painting and its theme music would be either Beethoven's Seventh Symphony or Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. Alas, this year the sacrifice of the maiden almost went to the powers of darkness instead of life.
*Not quite as tall as seen above, however: I had to stretch her to get the pic to stay in place! Also: apologies for the red star: I couldn't censor, i.e., brush out, try as I might, the censor at TMZ, which I take it is short for The Moralist's Zone.