I'm not glad Osama's dead.  Hell isn't a fun thing to contemplate.
Assuming the news is accurate, I am glad he's no longer a threat to the nation, or to any other nation around the world.

I haven't paid that much attention to the issue, but I know that Donald Trump has been among those calling for Barack Obama to release the long form birth certificate.  I'm currently watching what I'm assuming are twitter feeds on Google, where many of them are giving the predictable catcalls about 'will Trump ask about the Death Certificate?'.

I'm also noting that many people seem to be saying that it was some kind of smart move on Obama's part to preempt Trump's 'Celebrity Apprentice' show with the news of Bin Laden's death.  The average remark is along the lines of 'Trump will never recover'.  That's the part that I'm getting confused by.  Admittedly, I haven't seen anything about the executive office's reasons, only the twitter feeds.  (And I can't help but think of it as 'twit-er'.)  It's possible this has more to do with the kind of personality who'd be willing to broadcast like that than anything else.

Either the president (or his staff members) intentionally chose that time slot, or he/they didn't.  If he/they didn't specifically choose it, then there's no point to bringing it up.  It's a pure coincidence with no special emphasis to it.  The news of the death was simply reported.

If, however, Barack Obama, or anyone on his staff, did intentionally choose this time slot, then it would appear that his/their specific intent was to use it as a hammer against Mr. Trump.  And from this, Trump is supposed to be the one taking a hit?

If the time of the announcement was specifically intended to blast Trump in some way, it simply leaves impression that the president, and/or any of his staff who may have worked toward this specific timing, are behaving, well, childishly.  The entire idea smacks of playground one-upmanship to me.  Admittedly, that does in many ways resemble current day politics.  (Except the playground version tends to be cleaner.)

I seriously hope the timing is just a coincidence.  I have enough problems with the current administration without imagining it being run by an older, but no more mature, version of a kindergarten class.

Glenn Beck is coming under fire for his statements - this time around, it's from a liberal church leader who's calling for a boycott of Mr. Beck on the grounds of his statements about 'social justice'. 

I don't know much about the topic, I admit.  And I don't know exactly what Mr. Beck said that's got everyone in such an uproar - I've read his books (and disagree with some points in them) but never heard him speak.  But I do know this: In this fallen world, there is no such thing as justice between men, save in the presence and strength of the LORD.  From what I've seen, any church that chooses to identify itself as 'liberal' in this day and age has stated that their allegience is to this fallen world, and not to the King of Kings.  (No specs on any individuals within said churches - I don't know their hearts, I'm simply looking at the odds and the scenarios.)  'Social Justice' appears to have been founded on Marxist beliefs - and therefore, to me, smacks of another hiss of the Serpent's tounge, declaring 'your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil'.  It's claiming we know enough to make those judgements, or are capable of making them, well, justly - which a quick glimpse at the world should clearly reveal we do not and cannot.  Mankind is inherently unjust due to our own fallen, sinful nature - the only One who is truly Just is the LORD Himself.

Besides this, if I understand the concept of 'social justice' correctly, these people aren't really calling for justice.  They're calling for 'fairness' - as I looked over the definition of the term on Wikipedia, the mental image I got was of a small child whining "but that's not fa~air!"  Well, no, it isn't.  This world isn't.  I'll even go one step further on that and make a claim I'm sure will scandalize many of my fellow believers, but even the LORD isn't 'fair' - and I praise him for it.  If He were, then life for us would literally be hell; the greatest act of unfairness ever was when the only man without sin, the only One for whom death should never have come, died in a manner so agonizingly painful that they had to coin a word specifically to describe the manner of it - excruciating pain, the pain of the cross.  He died when He didn't have to, in order that we might live where we should have died.  That event was unfair, yes - but it is unfair in our favor.  Had the LORD played 'fair' then, we'd all be damned without any hope of rescue.  Nothing in this fallen world is 'fair', and it won't be so long as the adjective 'fallen' still applies, no matter what men may say or try.

We are to serve the LORD, yes.  And yes, in many ways, that service is to be administered to our fellow men.  But it's supposed to be the choice of the individual upon which he will stand or fall, and the decision to serve in order that the LORD may glorified is the key part here - it's that He takes the glory from our actions, rather than us.  'Social Justice', as far as I can tell, is a 'look what I am doing for you' ideal, not a 'look at what the LORD hath done for you' one.  It appears to be not a matter based on faith, but on appearances.  It also seems to me, though again, I could be mistaken, that the essence of 'Social Justice' would allow a man to absolve himself for not having provided true ministry to someone; hey, he's already done his part, right?

I also find it interesting that MSN's search mention has it as 'evangelical leader' calls for boycott.  It's quite possible I'm wrong (I'm generalizing off of the evidence I have found), but from what I've seen, if a church chooses to describe itself as liberal in these days, it has thrown away the option to call itself evangelical - they no longer carry the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but the Message of Everyone Be Nice To Each Other.  (That's a command, so it's not the Gospel of...; there's no Good News attached.)

Warning for the humor impaired - the first of these is intended to be funny.

1) I believe I've discovered why former Vice President Albert Gore is so concerned about Global Warming...why he claims that even the slightest raising of temperatures would be harmful - even though the Medieval Warm Period indicates it would benefit humanity...and why he's still doing it even under current conditions.  It's all down to a simple matter of personal safety and wellbeing.

You've heard of Rigor Mortis, I presume?  That's only one of the various measures of how long a body has been dead.  There are several others, including one associated with the dropping of the body temperatures...note, the DROPPING of the temperature.  Turns out that's known as 'Algor' Mortis. 

After I read this, I followed it up on Wikipedia, then went on to Dictionary.com to verify the existence of the word Algor.  The definition according to Dictionary.com is "a sensation of coldness : CHILL".

My theory runs as follows: Al's talking about Manmade Global Warming, and urging others into economically destructive actions on the basis of that supposed horror to be, because he's hoping that when rising temperatures render him inactive (rising temperatures, after all, would negate the 'sensation of coldness' Algore requires), the aftermath will render the rest of us inactive as well...at least until such time as an Al 3 can show up (probably alongside another climactic minimum).

Hmmm...this might also explain why so many of his global warming speeches are faced with cold temperatures...Algore's bringing the chill with him, no doubt.


2) After the Nobel, I'd thought I'd found the perfect next Prize for Mr. Obama.   After doing a Google search, though, I'm guessing I was wrong.

The prize to which I refer is the Quisling Award - I'd thought, originally, that I'd made the name up (after all, it's a rather obvious option) - but if I did, I'm not the only one.  According to results from Google, this particular award has apparently been wandering around for some time now.

That's also, though, why it's not any good any more.  Most of the Google results were from liberals offering the thing up to various Republicans.  (Or, in some cases, insufficiently liberal liberals.)  Frankly, given what it's been bandied about for in the past, the thing's practically become a badge of honor!

It's a shame, too, because in proper terms, the award is a fairly good fit - the original Quisling, Vidkun Quisling of Norway, was a politician who sold out his country to the interests of an extranational entity - in that case, National Socialism (Quisling had himself helped form a National Socialist party in Norway).  I can't say exactly which Extranational Entity we're being sold out to, as there are many to whom the current administration seems to be bowing (I'm not just referring to Mr. Obama - the current Congress is right (left?) alongside him).  Still, that seems to be one of only two possible reasons for the stated policy plans I've heard from this government - and the other is willful ignorance of history, so it's not really any better.

Any thoughts?

Bumper stickers are, in this day and age, one of the major public signs of a person's political affiliations.  The emblems, catchprases, and decals emblazoned on the back of a person's car can, at times, tell you more about their political choices than a full conversation with them will - especially if they feel they have something they would rather not discuss during conversation.

This post will be an ongoing record of the political bumper stickers I've seen and enjoyed over time; it was sparked, believe it or not, by a clearly Democrat sticker I saw recently.  I'll be updating this of myself whenever I see something of interest, but I'd also like to make this bit of fun interactive by inviting you, my readers, to submit information about political bumper stickers you've seen that were either especially uplifiting, or especially humorous, as well as a bit of the context behind them.  I'll show you what I mean by describing the one that kicked this idea off in my head.

The vehicle: Minivan, either light brown or tan.
The stickers: Upper left of rear window was a 'Blue Dot' sticker; upper right bore an 'American O' campaign emblem.  The sticker that struck me, on the left side of the actual rear bumper, read 'Republicans for Voldemort'.  (For those who don't know [all two of you], Lord Voldemort is the name of the villain in the Harry Potter series.)
The informational content: Proves what conservatives have stated for some time; there's a class of liberal who apparently can't even bring themselves to consider conservative ideas without attempting to demonize the ones holding those ideas.
The humor content: This sticker, insulting as it may be, also carries quite a few accidental implications for liberals - on the grounds that, by comparing Republicans to the supporters of Lord Voldemort, it draws a parallel between Harry Potter and Barry Obama.
1) It provides support to the idea that liberals are looking for someone who can come along, wave a magic wand, and make things instantly better,
2) By connecting Barry with Harry, it seems to support the idea that Barry feels the rules don't apply to him (a claim some have labeled against Harry Potter the character), and
3) It indicates, albeit not intentionally, that the majority of the recent Democratic Presidential Campaign probably was fictional.

I ask you, kind readers, to join with me in this practice of the art of the gentle jest.  Our foes assaults may be broken if we can turn them aside with laughter (for levity is the best antidote to the gravity with which they regard themselves), and we thereby may encourage one another as well.  I look forward to hearing from you on this.

President Obama has now, officially, committed himself to selling out Israel, the only real ally the United States has at the moment in the Middle East.

According to this BBC article, President Obama has been arguing that there should be a Palestinian state, and from the way it's phrased, it appears he wants the US leading the way in calling for what, ultimately, amounts to a betrayal of the Israeli people.

Benjamin Netanyahu is at least holding out against the attacks so far; the article describes him as saying any agreement would be contingent on recognition of the right for Israel to exist as a Jewish state...which, given the attitude of most of the Islamic nations around Israel, is effectively the equivalent of saying 'When Pigs Fly'.   The Palestinian opposition's response was, loosely inferred, "You're being a big bully toward us, why should we bother to listen to you?" 


The article quotes a representative of Hamas as saying that Israel and the Palestinians aren't being treated equally.
Well, let's see - on the one side, we have a nation whose people have survived, miraculously, as a nation for thousands of years - who were subject to a mass genocide (that the opposition is still, apparently, calling a...what's the phrase?  'Zionist Propaganda Piece', is that it?)and numerous attacks on their people and land since regaining their homeland; on the other side, we have a terrorist organization that somehow got itself into power among a people whose only purpose seems to be the destroying of said nation.  Gee, I wonder why some people don't consider them to be equals.

Netanyahu's political opposition is claimed to have rebuked him for his missing an attempt to 'bond' with Obama, or however you want to put it.  My advice for him?  Remember the words of the beggar Matun from Kipling's 'The Truce of the Bear' - and at this point, I'm honestly not sure whether I'm referring to the Palestinians or to Obama when I attempt to evoke that.


Oh, and a direct quote from the article may, quite accidentally, have given a minor clue to Obama's place of birth.  (Note for humor-impaired readers: the Jester's being sarcastic here)

The quote is 'Mr Obama said "it is not in Iran's interest" to develop nuclear arms, and that the US would keep options open.'

Ultimately, it's in Iran's best interests to do so (although most definately NOT in the best interests of everyone else).  If President Barack Obama actually said anything like that quote regarding Iranian desire for nuclear capabilities, it's fairly obvious that he hails from Htrae, the backwards Bizarro World of the Superman comic mythos.


And, for my final note, I simply raise one point, and ask one related question.  'Palestine' is a term at least from the Roman era, possibly older, used as an insult to the people of Israel; it's a loose way of saying 'land of the Philistines'.  My question is this: How many of the so-called 'Palestinians' currently in the Middle East can provide linneal proof of Philistine descent?  (No, I'm afraid that taking up the role of the ancient Philistines as blood enemies of the nation of Israel doesn't count; I'm demanding actual bloodline proof here.)  Anyone have an answer?

Hat tip to Jesse "The Mind" Norman for sparking this idea off for me.

From what I've seen, I'm a youngling compared to many, possibly most here: I was raised in the '80s.  When I saw on Jesse Norman's blog the phrase 'Master of the Universe', my mind jumped to the old 'He-Man' cartoon...which leads me to the below - my own take, probably only slightly tweaked from reality, of how the presidential election was -really- won.  [Warning Note!  In order to fit everything together, I kind of had to make Obama the 'hero' of the scenario...sorry.]  Not really anything new here, just something I hope a few of you find amusing.

    Everyone looked on as the SorSoros held up the device he had pulled from the pedestal.
    "This is the Remote of Power, an ancient relic.  With it, Prince Obama, I believe you will have the power to defeat the enemy who threatens us all."
    The prince knelt before the SorSoros, holding his hands upwards.  "If you feel me worthy to wield it, I would be honored to do so."
    "Go forth, then, my prince."  The SorSoros gently placed the artifact in Prince Obama's hands.  "Go forth and defeat all who oppose us."
    Prince Obama stood, glancing at his lady, who gave a tight smile.  "They don't know what they're in for," she said.  "Let's see this thing in action."

    Carefully, Prince Obama took the Remote of Power in his right hand, positioning it until it felt proper in his grip.  Then, following the SorSoros's instructions, he raised his hand toward the sky, pressed the trigger button, and began the invocation, his voice taking on an echoing quality as he did so.
    "By the power of ACORN!"
    A brilliant golden light played over Prince Obama.  As it cloaked his form, traces of ruby, sapphire, and emerald danced around him, drawing the eyes of those watching.  Even the servants of Castle ACORN, normally heedless of anything save their own assigned tasks, were drawn in by the image before them.  Only the SorSoros stood, unaffected, by the display.  After several minutes, the light began to dim, although the rainbow-like glints seemed to sparkle even brighter.  As this happened, the prince drew his hand down, bringing it to where he could grasp the other end of the precious artifact with his left hand.  This done, Prince Obama finished the invocation as he had been taught.
    "I have the POWER!"
    The prince carefully secured the Remote of Power to his belt, then turned to face everyone else.  "Well," he asked, "does anyone see any changes?"
    Over half of the servants of Castle ACORN shivered or squealed in rapturous glee at the chime-like sound of Prince Obama's voice.  Gatekeeper Olbermann fainted on the spot, a beatific expression on his face.  At this, the SorSoros nodded.  "Yes, I believe you'll do nicely," he said.

First, the disclaimer: The original 'news' item this is gleaned from was first published on the Huffington Post.  I recognize the fact that this bit of information greatly enhances the chances that the information is, erm, 'differently factual' relative to reality.  However, if true, it's a nice touch.

For the record, that title's not referring to the general turmoil of DC political theater.  (Tragedy is theatrical, right?)  This is a specific incident, reported by the Huffington Post (please read disclaimer above; you'll need to find your own salt licks to take), then rebroadcast on AOL.com's 'news' service - I picked it up from there, then went to verify at least the existence of the original.  (I first saw it on April Fool's day.)

It seems Michael Moore has gone on a datafishing expedition again, this time tracking down lawmakers (and presumably Wall Street Executives) regarding the bailout.  Given Mr. Moore's previous track record with his film projects, I'm sure we can trust him to maintain his standards for accuracy and decency in this newest work, which I'm sure the media will be hyping, er, discussing sometime in the near future.  Anyway, supposedly, Moore has been walking the vicinity of Washington DC in the past week, attempting to find Lawmakers to speak with about the bailout.  The original article mentioned by name and affiliation two who spoke with him (not surprisingly, both 'D'); no indication was given of how many refused to see him, or were not present when he attempted to track them down.  While I'm sure we'll all soon be tired of hearing about how the 'R' faction was too scared to face Mr. Moore, there apparently was one minor bit of humor during this event: Supposedly, one of DC's avian residents did to Mr. Moore literally what he and those of like mind have been doing to this country metaphorically for years - fortunately for Mr. Moore, the target was his shoulder, and the payload easily disposed   I'm not sue I approve of the animal's tactics, but I can't fault its taste.

In an earlier blog posting, I made a comparison between birds and liberals.  It appears, in light of this incident, that I may owe the birds an apology.  Anyone know how to say "I'm sorry, please forgive me" in pigeon?

If you need a bit of amusement, I hope you'll find this to your taste.  It was sparked off by the comments on one of Dean D.'s posts in his blog The Baby With the Bathwater here on Townhall.  The post dealt with his, erm, 'frustration' with Al Gore and all of the nice fluffy white global warming falling on his area - and during an exchange in the comments, he stated the following:
"Yepper, I'm sitting here cringing at my computer waiting for the phalanx of Prius's from the Goracle Light Armor Brigade to surround my house and demand my immediate surrender to the inquisition."

That was too good an opportunity to pass up.  Hence, "The charge of the Light Armored Brigade", below.

Honor the Light Armored Brigade!
Oh what a charge they made!
But alack and alas,
there should come such a pass,
as to see their full force so dismayed!

With their chariots that soon they must run,
on the winds and the waters and sun,
they set for their foe,
while 'twas ten below,
but oh how their work was undone!

Th warrior they did draw nigh,
and cried "Raise your hands to the sky!"
"May I be so bold,
but aren't you cold?"
He asked with a gleam in his eye.

They glared at him all with their frowns,
clad in their thin scholar's gowns,
then declared like a shot,
"You arrogant snot!
The heat only goes up, never down!"

Then the warrior, our very own Dean,
pointed to their graphing machine,
"So you say, so you show,
but you're standing in snow!
Does that nothing at all to you mean?"

"You try to trick us, but this we know!
Our Goreacle has said it was so!
From valley to peaks,
Truth only he speaks!
So Forward! Now on with the show!"

Then stepped their leader forward, a glorious heirophant,
and from the look upon his face he was prepared to rant,
but he remained composed,
his anger undisclosed,
as he suddenly began a rapid fire chant.

"It seems we must now dazzle you with our Scientific Arts,
so gaze in awestruck wonder at our furious graphs and charts!
If you do not bow,
and obey our statements now,
we won't be responsible for when the trouble starts!"

Then declared the warrior, "You seek to cut me to the quick.
But I recognize upon this chart a brilliant Hockey Stick!
That one has been proven false for oh so very long,
that even through the murmer of your global siren song,
you certainly must know by now that it's sunken like a brick!"

"You try to trick us, but this we know!
Our Goreacle has said it was so!
From valley to peaks,
Truth only he speaks!
So Forward! Now on with the show!"

The brigade's demeanor then began to droop,
but barely had it finished when they started to regroup.
Their backs began to straighten, their eyes lit up with fire,
for they knew - they had been told! - their moral ground was higher,
and they turned once more their ire on Dean. "You poor pathetic dupe!

"If you don't stop using coal,
we'll miss Kyoto's honored goal,
and even though it's tragic,
the poles will melt like magic,
and the city of New York will be a shoal!"

Said Dean, "New York isn't on the coast.
And I know the statements of which you proudly boast.
But look upon the evidence! If you check the proof,
and view your words as testable instead of Augur's sooth,
you'll find the water's rise would be but inches at the most!"

"You try to trick us, but this we know!
Our Goreacle has said it was so!
From valley to peaks,
Truth only he speaks!
So Forward! Now on with the show!"

Then rallied again the leader, "It's very plain to see,
that you have not the slightest clue, and surely no degree!
Your statements have no meaning, all true men are on our side!
Thus behind the shirts of knaves your pretty tales must hide!
For anyone with wisdom with us must agree!

"If anyone should cry us false, they surely must be fools!
Or else of Earth's vile pillagers merely useful tools!
Consensus now is formed!  There is no more debate!
You must bow down!  The time is now!  You can no longer wait!
You will willingly obey our many eco-friendly rules!"

The warrior Dean still stood his ground, holding to his stand
"Surely you must see, though, that by the evidence at hand,
Debates now must be held! Real truth must now be sought!
For as they are your rules would end the freedom for which we fought,
With no proof that they in any way would benefit this land!"

"You try to trick us, but this we know!
Our Goreacle has said it was so!
From valley to peaks,
Truth only he speaks!
So Forward! Now on with the show!"

As their heads were covered in frost,
Dean realized their hearts had been lost,
deep in the swamp
of the Goreacle's pomp,
so his final attack he did toss.

Thus declared Dean with a jest,
"Well, I'm sure he knows best.
So take off your coats,
and those scarves from your throats,
and remove now your warmest of vests!"

Then these garments off they did take,
but soon in danger did quake,
for so strong their belief,
in the Goreacle's brief,
that shortly, they started to bake!

We all know that Obama ran for the presidency under the banner of 'change'.  Given that you don't change something that's working, I must assume that Mr. Obama believes this country is broken, and that he must now get it fixed.

I've been seeing various bits of commentary about President-Elect Obama's Cabinet choices.  The commentary mostly seems to be surprise at the choices, considered by some to be more moderate than expected.  There seems to be some question of whether or not P-E Obama maybe really can provide change - again, it seems that many believe that he really will get the nation fixed.

Looking at the evidence, I'm somewhat willing to agree.  P-E Obama will at least try to get the nation fixed.

Social Security?  He'll no doubt get it fixed.
National Health Care?  I'm sure, now, that he'll get that fixed also.
The Military, and our standing with other nations and non-national bodies?  He'll make sure those get fixed as well.

And, I note that yesterday, my local paper carried a small article about the Obamas and their attempt to choose a new dog for the White House.  I hope they find a good one, and that they have much joy of it.  And I hope that Mr. Obama is a responsible pet owner.

I hope he gets the dog fixed, too.

His name was Dalton.

At the time, he was a young man.  Not long married, he joined the marines during the second world war, and after training, was sent out to the pacific front to serve.  He even ended up on Iwo Jima during that famous battle.

He wasn't directly on the field of battle.  Having been a machinist during civilian life, Dalton was one of those tasked with maintaining the guns used by those who went out.  Still, he was there, and he easily could have been killed.  Fortunately, he wasn't, and was able to return after the war to his wife and home.  He then lived out his life, finally passing away at the age of eighty-eight earlier this year.

While I knew him, Dalton wasn't really much interested in speaking about his time in service.  His wife would gladly regale you with stories of her time as 'Rosie the Riveter' during the period while he was gone, but Dalton never really said much about his service.  Considering what I know of war (all secondhand) and what I knew of him, I'm not that surprised.

In several ways, Dalton was one of the lucky ones.  Definitely among his immediate brothers-in-arms; as mentioned, he was one of those who survived and was able to return pretty much unharmed.  Had I ever overcome my unwillingness to pry, I'm sure he could have provided me with the names of hundreds he had known who weren't given that gift.  (Whether he would have or not is another story.)  However, in at least one other way, Dalton and those who fought with him were extremely lucky.  You see, when they returned home, it was as heroes.  Fast forward a few generations, and they might have been coming home to disdain and ridicule, as those who followed in their footsteps did during the Vietnam Era.  Not among those who knew them, but those who didn't, and somehow thought that made their statements more fit.

The American people have chosen to let themselves be represented by individuals, both in the executive and legislative branches, who seem to have been raised on the same mindset as that which 'greeted' returning soldiers from Vietnam.  I sorrow over this, but the decision is made.  Still, considering the anti-military mindset of our current leading lights, and of those who have, sadly, bought into their tales,  it's possible we'll see a resurgence of the vehement anti-soldier sentiments of Vietnam, along with the general disdain for the 'brutes' who are yet willing to spend their own lives to protect the rest of us. 

The old guard is quickly fading, through sheer age as much as anything else.  Those who rise to take their place are few in number, and often doing so under a cloud of disdain, contempt, and in some cases, outright hatred.  And yet they still choose to serve.  This is the amazing part; even despite what they're subjected to, they still choose to serve - their sense of honor, and of duty, lead them to make a sacrifice those who mock them will probably never understand.

If you have ever served in the American military, any branch, then you have my sincerest thanks for what you've offered and given for this nation and those within it.  If you're still in active service at this time, you have my fervent prayers as well, for safety against assaults from without and within.

If you haven't served in the military, I'm sure you know someone who has or is.  Find them and thank them.  It's the least they deserve, even though I suspect many of them wouldn't see it that way.

Please, for those who are willing to give their all for the safety of our nation, grant honor where it is due.

I live in the middle of one of those states commonly referred to as 'Red' when talking about politics.  And, over the past year or so, I've discovered that I'm apparently seeing more and more of the 'blue dot' car stickers.  You who live in red states may have seen these.  I don't believe there's a conservative equivalent, though, so I seriously doubt you in the blue states have seen anything like them.

Anyway, as I was saying, I seem to be seeing these blue dot stickers more and more often these days.  And frankly, given some of the arguments I've heard raised against conservatives by these same liberals, I'm kind of surprised about this.

From what I've seen, liberals apparently often claim to be scared of conservatives - they seem to assume that as soon as there's a reliably conservative government in power, they'll all be rounded up and taken to concentration camps, or else just shot where they're found.  If that's so, then why are they willing to broadcast their identities within what they appear to deem enemy encampments?

I think I finally figured out the answer a few days ago.  I know now what that dot indicates.  It's the ideological equivalent of avian mating plumage.

Think about it.  Birds are attracted to each other by their displays of plumage (usually on the male, taken to an extreme with birds such as peafowl).  Similarly, this nice little splash of blue coloration in a red container serves as a draw-the-eye marker for liberals to recognize their own.  They don't have to worry about pesky acts such as conversation, where their disdain for conservative ideals might be seen and remarked on by those who uphold those ideals.  They don't have to worry about having their BDS flare up after learning the guy they were debating baseball with is a hated 'rethuglican'.  All they have to do is learn to identify the plumage, and only deal with those who bear it.  Anyone else can be rejected as unlikely to be the right match for them.

I'd originally thought this idea was merely another Jest for my own amusement.  Nope - I decided to look up the dot-sticker website before posting this.  The quotes below are taken straight from their site.


"Dots wave to each other. We smile. We nod. All to acknowledging a somewhat surprising and most welcome fact: even in a sea of red, we are not alone. (Who knew?) And the more Dots we see, the more we feel strengthened, heartened and empowered to go toe-to-right-wing toe at the polls. What's not to love about that..."

“'They make for instant bonding in parking lots, too.'
— Ms. Moderator Fantastico"

“'We proudly display them on our cars... it’s a great way to share a quick moment with
an Obama supporter.'
— Stephen, mybarackobama.com"

“'That every other vehicle I pass seems to have one or ten of the Bush propaganda stickers on it makes me want to scream...So finding the brite blue dot? Totally gave me the warm fuzzies.'
— Blue Momma, inthebowl.blogspot.com"


Plumage.  Identifying them to each other for the purpose of strengthening the flock.


However, in fairness, I do believe another quote from the site may have, for reasons other than the originator's, been accurate.

"We don't argue. We don't shout. (There are plenty of other bumper stickers out there for that.) See, we believe every person whose curiosity is piqued by our Bright Blue symbol is a potential person with whom to have a sane discussion. And healthy discourse is what helps bring other people around. Or at least it's a good start...

They don't argue, and they don't shout.  They simply flash around the plumage until someone else responds.  The can have a sane discussion with those attracted by the blue dots - in these cases, their BDS is far less likely to erupt.  After all, they're safe with others in the flock.


That said, I think I've identified at least four separate species of liberal bird.  (Libird?)

1. Mockingbirds.  Those liberals who try to deride any conservative accomplishment, leaving them, in the end, the ones being mocked.

2. Parrots.  Related to the above species; all they can do is repeat what they've been told by others.

3. Gulls.  A fast-increasing portion of the flock these days, although recent events have me hoping some of them will wing it away to the right.

And, of course, I'm sure everyone here has already run into at least one representative of the largest portion of the liberal flock: The common loon.


I'm hoping, however, that a few of the birds currently in the liberal camp will turn out to be owls, capable of looking all around the issue before reacting, or falcons spotting discrepancies and striking at them (yes, even ours...we need to be rebuked when we're wrong just as much as we believe they do).  Such would prove worthy opponents, and I would be honored to face them.



Oh, and for the record?  For those who may have (fortunately) been spared this nonsense, the website is 'britebluedot.com'.  Go on over, and either have a laugh at them, or feel disgusted at yet more proof of what liberalism seems to be doing to our nation.

I'm putting this article up because of what I read in Walter Williams' recent (as of this writing) article, "Environmentalists' Hold on Congress".  Not a direct connection, but the article reminded me of this, so I thought I would present it to you.


I didn't want to believe it when I first read about them.  From the first words of the argument, I was certain it was some kind of nonsense from the environmental elites, something which wouldn't be able to hold water when I investigated the truth.  So, I tried.  And, to my surprise, I found out that every single word of it was true.

There are numerous plants in central Texas which produce useful goods.  However, they seem, from a brief reading, to have a decidedly negative impact on the environment, and to some extent on the local ranching business as well.  Although I couldn't find good statistics on greenhouse gas production for these particular plants, others in other parts of the country which produce similar products are known to produce massive amounts of greenhouse gasses on an annual basis.  Above and beyond just the greenhouse gasses, the plants in question also produce other airborn pollutants - in some cases causing aerial pollution so severe that it can induce serious health problems in susceptible individuals.

Now, the products these plants produce are apparently quite useful, I don't deny that.  And unlike some of the products of our modern world, what they produce lasts for years.  But, really, is this worth the cost in pollution that the plants produce?  Add to this that some local ranchers seem to think they're a problem, it seems like an open and shut case, right?  Right?

I promise you, gentle reader, that every single word I've typed about this is, to the best I've been able to verify (admittedly, that's rather sketchy), true.



Don't worry, the Jester hasn't gone crazy, nor is he turning into a green gnat*.  Ready for the punchline?  (You knew, I hope, there had to be one somewhere)

As stated, every word I've typed is, as far as I can tell, technically true.  Except that I kept intentionally vague about what the plants I'm describing actually produce, choosing instead to focus on the negatives relating to them.

The products?

Wood.  Wooden fence posts, at one time wooden railroad ties and telegraph poles - the plants in question literally are plants; in this case, a species of tree called the Ashe Juniper. (Also known, if taxonomically inaccurately, as the Mountain Cedar.)  Although it does help prevent erosion and provide shade, it's apparently rather bitter, so it doesn't get eaten by grazing cattle, which means the plants can spread in overgrazed areas.  (Wikipedia's article on them describes the stuff as being considered a weed, in fact.)  The 'greenhouse gas' production I mentioned is pretty much plant-generated methane; the 'other aerial pollution' is their pollen - which does induce allergic reactions severe enough to have gained it the name 'Cedar Fever'. 

Perfectly normal plants, which produces useful goods - well, at least one good.  And being 'natural', they're something the cyannical** environmental movement would, if told about directly, probably advocate preserving at the cost of those ranchers and locals who have to put up with the downsides of them.  But how many of them, gentle reader, do you think would accept the stuff if given the original definition only?  Most of the environmental screamers and gnats I've known online (for some reason, the Jester doesn't seem to run into them in reality...I chalk that up to living in a red state) would have already been in a hissy fit to 'tear those monstrosities down' or words to that effect.   They'd automatically believe what I, by attempting to manipulate my choice of words, hoped to get you to believe, if only for a moment: That these 'plants' were factories.  I apologize, gentle reader, for the deception, and I ask your forgiveness - but I believe you see my point.  Given just enough information, the gnats and their ilk will deceive themselves...and the non-gnat enviros?  They wouldn't really care; they'd be too busy trying to figure out how to turn the idea to their own advantage, as always.


If you know of any gnats in your own life, it might be fun to look up a bit more about the Mountain Cedar, and see how they react to a presentation like this one.  Have fun!





*Green gnat: Punning on the old 'green giant' commercials, but mixed in with the idea of a gnat's annoying buzzing whine and their tendency to get in your face.

**Cyannical: Personal term describing those who hold up 'green' motives to further 'blue'*** politics.  (Blue + Green = Cyan.)  Also dovetails quite nicely with the word 'cynical'.

***Aka socialistic - when did we lose the term 'red' for that, anyway?

Short version for Liberals: The Jester speculates that, based on the current stances being shown on both sides, liberals are for increasing order, while conservatives are for increasing chaos.  Thank you.  You may now return to your previously scheduled tasks.

Long version for Conservatives:
I've been thinking about this for a while, but it was Ken Blackwell's recent column on the Fairness Doctrine that actually gave me the impetus to put this down.  I'm simply trying to offer my own viewpoint, to explain, not really to inform - I suspect most of those likely to read this already would tend to agree with me, in essence if not in the exact structure of my thoughts.

James Clerk Maxwell was a renowned Scottish physicist.  One of the things he is noted for was a thought experiment known as Maxwell's Demon (MD), basically a question about an attempt to break the second law of thermodynamics - effectively, reversing entropy and bringing order out of chaos.

The basis of the MD was a creature capable of opening and shutting a door between two compartments, both filled with air, at such speeds that individual molecules could be allowed passage, or blocked.  If the MD opened the door properly, allowing faster (hotter) molecules travel only one way, and slower (colder) ones only the other way, eventually the temperatures in the two boxes (originally the same) would differ - giving rise to what appears to be energy from nothing.

If the above process sounds familiar to any of you who didn't take physics or chemistry in high school or college, it's probably because it's roughly the same procedure the media, and their allies in 'official' political positions, are using - simply replace the words hotter and colder with conservative and liberal, and temperature with information.  I presume you've already made the connection to the Fairness Doctrine.

This definately results in an ordered informational environment.  There's none of that pesky 'alternate viewpoint' procedure to deal with inside the liberal box.  The problems come in when the liberal political-media system attempts to extract the informational equivalent to useful work.

In the 'Maxwell box'* example, the energy shift which drives useful work can only be obtained by allowing the hot side to act as a power source for something else.  The cold side would, presumably, act to take away waste heat, permitting the process to continue.  This process, however, increases entropy in the box and the outside environment - it heads toward a more chaotic, less orderly total state.

The metaphor kind of breaks down here, I'll admit.  It's not perfect.  But I think I can get the gist of my point across.  What if the hot side (and only the hot side) were never allowed to come into contact with anything?  What if, as seems to happen in the 'general' media (as opposed to reasonably accessible fora such as this one), only the cold (liberal, remember?) side came into contact with anything in the outside world?

The outside world would still gradually heat up the cold box.  The media's MD would continue to parse out anything too warm(conservative) for the cold box.  But the environment, losing its heat to the cold side of the box, would gradually become cooler and cooler - in our analogy, more and more liberal.

I stated earlier for our distinguished (just ask them!) liberal elites that they were in favor of order, we (conservatives) in favor of chaos.  By this definition, and concerning information, it's true.  They're in favor of a world where everything is neat, orderly, and utterly incapable of overturning their viewpoints.  (Example: See AGW consensus arguments.)  We're in favor of a world where all sides are allowed into action, there to be measured and weighed in the balance.  Some will fall by the wayside, others will thrive.  (I know I'm not telling the conservatives reading this anything new, but I'm kind of hoping some of the local libs ignored my earlier advice to them.)  After all, order - especially among a substance as naturally entropic as the human community - tends to be a bit brittle.

I said earlier I'm not really expecting to inform anyone with this, as most who'll bother to read past the first lines will already likely agree with me.  Still, it might be a useful way to think about the issue - and provide a bit of thought- and/or debate-fodder for the next time a liberal accuses my conservative readers of being 'opposed to science'.


*I'm sure there's an official name for these boxes, but I cannot recall it offhand.  'Maxwell box' is simply my own way of thinking about them.

"In days of old, when knights were bold,
and Royalty's wishes the law of the lands,
then any who spoke, out 'gainst such folk,
quickly would find things were out of their hands."

In putting forward my blog, I thought I'd let the first post be a quick explanation of why I chose the name I did.  We seem, at least in some areas, to be heading into what might be loosely, perhaps tounge-in-cheek, described as a neoFeudal society.  Or more precisely, we have a class of self-elevated 'nobles' who feel they know what is best for the peasants they grace with their magnificent reign...to whit, the 'ivory tower' elites of our institutions of higher education, and the politically-minded individuals who hold to the same views.  Note that the average liberal is not, in fact, one of the elites; from what I've seen, they're actually courtiers.

This isn't to say that these modern noblemen and -women don't meet the requirements; it's my understanding that several of the actual medieval noble families began (and endured) about the same way.  (Sheer bullying, with either the authority or the power to back it up.)  The nature of the noble's weapons is all that has changed, really.  The edge of the sword has been replaced with the edge of the law (which, strangely enough, always seems to favor the liberal outlook), and likewise, the army of men-at-arms has become the army of attorneys-at-law.

Historically, the right to free speech/expression, as well as most of the other rights we take for granted in this country, belonged only to the nobles and their favored few.  The popular image of this* is as follows: anyone else who chose to speak out against them would suffer for it; after a while, the peonage would no longer be able to do so, as the elder members shushed youngers who might say a word that could be misconstrued.  Sound familiar?

The same popular image, however, grants something resembling freedom of speech to another type of individual, the Court Jester.  Admittedly, it's not a very honored position; historically, the role appears to have often been filled by the mentally ill...a comment on the nature of humanity in general, I guess you could say.  Still, tradition seems to grant the Jester with a freedom not only to speak, but to openly dispute and debase the views of the nobles; the nobility could always shrug it off as 'just a jest', and therefore not need do anything about it.  Still, the points a Jester would make might cause those who heard him to think, always a good thing.

Given that our own self-proclaimed elites seem to have taken a similar tack with all conservatives ("oh, you just don't know what you're talking about"), and that I've noticed many already seem to take all openly conservative individuals as fools, I thought I'd attempt to turn the tables on them a bit.  Despite its intelligence-related connotations, 'Fool' is also another title for the Jester of lore, and they cannot slur me with a title I've taken on as a badge of honor.  For anyone to attempt it would merely reveal himself to be incapable of attempting to find another method of attack.  And maybe, just maybe, someone might be brought to think because of what I can say.

I know I'm not alone in this.  I've seen several others on this site who, by skill with words or cleverness of wit, have taken the same approach to dealing with those in our new 'nobility' and their hangers-on.  To them I say 'Thank you', and I can only hope that someday I'll be as capable at that art as you.


*I say the popular image because I don't know enough about medieval history to state for certain whether or not it was accurate historically, but this is the image given by most items of modern and near-modern culture (films, novels, etc).