Freaks and Geeks
Alrighty Campers, it's time to round up this weekend's freaks and geeks.
Freaks: Yesterday, Moscow endured its first ever Gay Pride parade. Actually, that is a bit of an overstatement. The flaming festivities were disrupted by riot police and protesters. Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1993, but the skinheads, orthodox Christians and radical nationalists who shouted the marchers down must've missed the news report. The whole event can only be described as downright strange - I mean, who knew there were skinheads in Russia? LOL.
Here's the best part of the article in my humble opinion...
Police also stood by as skinheads crowded around Beck and Scott Long of U.S.-based Human Rights Watch, who had unfurled a rainbow flag.
How revealing that Human Rights Watch was there not only to observe ad document civil rights violations but to push an agenda. Notice that Scott Long unfurled a rainbow flag - an act that hardly speaks to his objectivity. Remember that HRW also publishes Torture: A Human Rights Perspective, a compilation of essays about how the US is abusing detainees and violating international law with inhuman torture practices. Hmmm. One has to question the bias of a "watch" group that stops watching and becomes a participant...
Geeks: Parked outside the history department's academic facility this morning was a car with a "John Kerry 2004" bumper sticker on it. Can someone tell this loser that we're halfway through 2006? But I guess if John Kerry can't let it go then how can one poor psuedo historian? That's right. John Kerry is still miffed about the Swift Boat ads and he has hired a researcher to comb the naval archives to prove that he was indeed in Cambodia on 12 Feb 1969. You know what this means, don't you? We're going to be seeing Yugos with Kerry/Edwards on the bumper for years to come.....
Freaks: Did you think that only the military followed the "never leave a man behind" ethos? Not so. Apparently, drunk NBA stars share the creed. Two Washington Wizards stars were tripping the light fantastic down in Florida when they got carried away and were arrested.
As Arenas was being arrested, according to reports, he said, ``You can't arrest me. I'm a basketball player. I play for the Washington Wizards, and I'm not going to leave my teammate.''
Police clearly understood his concern and proceeded by arresting both Gilbert Arenas and his buddy Awvee Storey. After which, both players were then taken to jail for processing.
Geeks: John J. Miller over at National Review has compiled a list of the top 50 Conservative Rock Songs in an article due out in the Mags June 5th issue. Have they got nothing better to do over there at the NR?
Feel free to add your own freak or geek in the comment section.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/29 @ 09:19 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/29 @ 10:29 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/29 @ 10:35 AM — (Reply)
Hmm. Maybe we should start our own band... It could be Unplugged!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/05/30 @ 06:21 PM — (Reply)
Well, in all fairness, the right seems to think that it's hypocritical to listen to country music and be liberal. We're not allowed to do the "Boot-Scootin' Boogie" and be liberal.
Comment by Still trolling?— 2006/05/31 @ 08:43 AM — (Reply)
The example I always use to refute this premise is WILLIE NELSON! He has been staunchly against conservatives on a wide range of issues and he is among the most beloved in the country music world.
Time McGraw - flaming democrat - hasn't hurt his cd sales one bit!
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/31 @ 09:37 AM — (Reply)
Well, I agree with you, but I quote from another of your posters here:
But you did make the point that there are some country artists who might be considered "blue"... and I'm sure you know that there are rock artist who could be called "red" (not Commie red, but the nouveau Republican "red" - how did that color get switched around anyway?)
Guess I'm just saying that exclusivity and even elitism is not the exclusive domain of liberals (though they probably are more blatant about it sometimes). Can't we all just get along?!?
Comment by Your dear troll— 2006/05/31 @ 10:03 AM — (Reply)
An example: Last night, my friend Susan posted about how the people pushing reparative therapy (ex-gay- movement) are in it for the money. I see flaws in the logic of her argument but I don't really know anything about the movement so I start clicking to investigate. Off I go to a website exgaywatch.com that apparently watches ex-gays? I read the article and start to read through the long list of comments. They were jokes about how these "ex-gays" couldn't get l--d in the gay world so they turned hetero and about how they were ugly - no respect for the argument - no valid discussion. Just insult after insult without ANY rationale discourse.
So I searched scientific data, which is sadly lacking, on this matter and read reviews of such therapy by medical associations. But I'm the mindless lemming. Me. The one who went to do the research and found only vitriole and ignorance. I know this goes both ways - I've doled out plenty of my own stupid comments but with the elite media and hollywood largely supporting the left and painting conservatives as either backward trailer park dwellers or thieving rich executives there will be no end to the political madness.
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/31 @ 10:32 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/31 @ 11:15 AM — (Reply)
How can social conservatives compromise on faith - or what they ascribe to words from Deity?
How can liberals - who seem to believe that individual freedom is paramount - agree to limits that show deference to faith?
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/31 @ 10:15 AM — (Reply)
I don't know that I've seen a more succinct detailing of the fundamental issue. I wish I could give an answer that is as concise. Heck, I wish I could give an answer, period. Of course, if I could, I'd probably be halfway towards that Nobel Peace prize I've been itching for.
For me, fundamental to dialog is respect. Respect of differences, and respect fo commonalities. The debate in this country has become so polarized that it's hard for folks on one side to even believe that the folks on the other side have the same fundamental goal: We want to make this nation better. We have liberals accusing conservatives of selling out the country to the rich and greedy. We have conservatives calling liberals traitors and un-American.
Individual freedom, for me, does not mean irresponsibility, and that is one message that has become too diluted in our society. In fact, true individual freedom requires more personal responsibility. Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. A strong moral core needs to be in place for the individual, faced with a bevy of choices, to identify what are the right choices to make and to accept the consequences of those choices.
Instead, a lot of our culture seems to be focused on how to find other people to blame for the situation.
Shoot... I'm rambling again. How annoying for a troll to come in and post like this, eh? Okay, partial disclosure here. My name is Michael.
Anyway, time to turn to Shakespeare (again) for a quick answer:
"First this we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Comment by Rodney— 2006/05/31 @ 10:44 AM — (Reply)
I agree that personal responsibility is increasingly important as freedom is expanded - but between you and me and de Tocqueville - we may be in the minority.
Unfortunately, freedom unfetterd has fostered the growth of moral decay, social ambivalence and even a disregard for the welfare of the group over the pleasures of the individual. We are come undone...
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/31 @ 10:59 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/31 @ 11:13 AM — (Reply)
I think that started as a joke on the Dixie Chicks post.
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/31 @ 11:16 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/31 @ 11:17 AM — (Reply)
I agree about the effects, but not entirely about the cause. The problem, as I see it, is that we lost the intricate social network that used to regulate (in some cases, far better than any structure of laws would) what constituted 'right behavior' of its members.
Oh lord... this could be a long chit-chat of its own. I'll stop while I'm behind.
Comment by Michael— 2006/05/31 @ 11:21 AM — (Reply)
Check back with you later.
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/31 @ 11:29 AM — (Reply)
About the joke this is an example of a comment left on Amboy Times I mentioned. I believe you will see the difference. Mind you this was just a post about the 50 top conservative songs. This guys comment was typical. Amboy Times just has a partial list of the things that were said to him and about him.
Sorry Cate about this quote. I know it's not pretty but it's a good illustration
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/31 @ 11:30 AM — (Reply)
In most places in America, yeah, sure. But what does that mean? Boston was Catholic town, Atlanta Baptist (and others), Minneapolis Lutheran... were there networks all that different? They differed in some of the expectations, but not much in how they interacted. In similar vein, Chinatowns in San Fran or New York had a tight network based on Confucian/Buddhist values. Again, different expectations, but same basic interaction.
Boston is STILL a Catholic town, Minneapolis still Lutheran (for the most part), Atlanta still Baptist. The faiths haven't changed, but the networks have dissolved. Where can those networks be found in today's America? Still in the immigrant communities, close-knit from situation.
I don't see it being a question of values, but rather the closeness, the intimacy, the comfort-level of actually communicating those values to those around us. We have become insular, too busy in our workday to know our neighbors, to take interests in their comings and goings.
Why don't you see Somali teens with thong panties? Because their network would disapprove. But in a culture where peer pressure all but requires young girls to whore themselves up in order to fit in with their friends, and what marketing tells them they should be.
And here's where I'm going to be maybe foolishly optimistic about where things are headed...
The Internet has brought back a level of interaction that was lost when television arose culturally. I don't know you, EB, nor do I know the jerk who posted that obscene bit of trash you quoted, but together we agree that it is not acceptable. In our small way, we have established a boundary beyond which we don't want folks to go. Even if the original author never sees our comments, we have none the less set an agreed limitation for others who may wander into this forum. Ultimately, it's Cate who decides what is and isn't appropriate, of course, but just through dialog, and without any reference to Diety, we agree on what is NOT acceptable behavior.
I'm honestly optimistic that this still early medium of interaction will evolve past its mostly adolescent shouting, and actually start rebuilding a lot of the networks that have dissolved over the past 50 years. There's still a long way to go, I know, and most of what's out there is just like what you quote. But some of it, like what you and Cate have written, are honest and thought-provoking.
Comment by — 2006/05/31 @ 12:17 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/31 @ 03:29 PM — (Reply)
ahh but why do we agree?
If you havent' read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis may I humbly suggest it.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/31 @ 03:32 PM — (Reply)
Make you a deal. I'll read yours if you pick up "Challenge of a Liberal Faith" by George N. Marshall.
Ah, don't worry. I'll probably pick your suggestion up anyhow. I'm a hungry reader, and am currently between books. I don't expect folks to even be able to find mine out there, those relative few who actually look.
And besides, it's not my place to persuade, conjole or convert. If ya come across it, think of it, and are curious... go for it. If not, Grace keep you safe just the same.
I'll take a look at yours, though. I'm just a curious guy.
Comment by — 2006/05/31 @ 03:52 PM — (Reply)
I am game. I suggested it not to convert you merely as a possible explanation for why we might agree. The book is not meant to proselytize.
I am not a person that would suggest that the left lacks morals or faith. I enjoy conversations like this because we can converse in a way that helps us to better understand each other. Winning an argument or proving a point is much less important.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/05/31 @ 04:05 PM — (Reply)
The question is what does the party embrace as a platform? What are the main objectives of the party? How much of what I value does the party embody? How many (and which) of my values will they sacrifice to garner votes?
These are at the core of partisan politics and they explain why disappointed evangelicals still vote GOP and as-yet unable to marry homosexuals still vote Dem.
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/31 @ 04:28 PM — (Reply)
Very good points, Cate... too often it seems like the GOP is mistaken for consisting of solely disappointed evangelists, or the Dems of as-yet-unmarried gays.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/01 @ 06:27 AM — (Reply)
50 pages in, and at least have faced Lewis's assertion of a Law of Human Nature. I'll agree with this. His derivation from that law into the presupposition of a Divine suffers a titch from the want of knowledge into the human psyche at the time that he wrote it, and his assertion that atheists must assume all other religions are wrong also suffers from this same want. But taken as from the time-frame when he wrote it, it's a sweet little essay so far. I'm curious to see more of his derivation, though I will admit, he has already lost a central foundation of his whole treatise to my analysis.
But theology is another topic from this thread. Thanks for the recommendation!
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/01 @ 08:10 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/05/31 @ 04:38 PM — (Reply)
I meant "conscience" dangit I need to slow down sometimes
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/03 @ 09:14 PM — (Reply)
I do plan on picking up the book you mentioned.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/03 @ 09:15 PM — (Reply)
Michael do you agree that there is a universal sense of what is right and wrong?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/03 @ 09:47 PM — (Reply)
A simple question, so I'll give a simple answer, and reserve the option to expound in excrutiating detail at a later time... because as I'm sure you'll agree, what you may be asking may not be the exact question that I'm answering.
Yes, I agree.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/04 @ 08:06 PM — (Reply)
Just to clarify then, your disagreement with Lewis is not that there is this law it's his conclusion as to where it comes from?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/05 @ 06:24 AM — (Reply)
Yes. Conscious mind is not proof, to me, of an Ultimate Consciousness. That appears to be his initial assertion (consciousness being a pre-requisite for conscience in my opinion), and not unique to him either.
I don't refute the assertions, mind you, either of the existence of an Ultimate Consciousness, nor that it may be the origin of human consciousness. But I'm willing to entertain that there may be alternative answers that explain the nature of consciousness and, consequentially, the nature of conscience.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/05 @ 07:25 AM — (Reply)
I've also been there and indeed it was an absolute mess! I didn't understand much of what happened there. I hope that next year things will be more organized.
Comment by Drug Treatment— 2008/08/04 @ 10:30 AM — (Reply)