Month: October 2008

Today it is our privilege here in Memphis to host two skinheads who have checked into our federal prison after bungling a plan to rob a gun store, kill eighty eight people, behead fourteen blacks (whom, I suppose, they include among the aforementioned people), and then drive their car into Obama while firing guns at him and wearing white tuxedos.

This is all eerily reminiscent of a story I heard back in the late ’70s. Reportedly, a fellow drank a case of beer and dove into a dangerous body of water and commenced swimming to the other side. He was expected to drown and a crowd gathered to watch the sad ending–but he surprised everyone by making it! As they gathered around and pressed the question “Why’d you do it? Why’d you do it?” he stared off proudly and intoned “To prove my love for Linda Ronstadt.”

The skinheads cannot, so far as I know, claim drunkenness as a defense. Apparently they think (if we may use the term) this way whether they are drunk or sober. The good news is that murderous idiots are a somewhat self-correcting problem: either they provoke some other murderous idiot to dispatch them, or they so bungle their criminal aspirations that the government can lock them up with other stupid criminals–a sort of segregation, if you will. They want segregation, don’t they?

P.S. We want to encourage all rehabs to start managing social media and promote sober live among all group ages!

Obama voters are proving that the presidential election is a farce.

Example #1, The Howard Stern Interviews Last week the nation was treated to repeated excerpts from the Howard Stern show in which Obama voters in Harlem claimed that they chose Obama because of his positions on the issues. Then the interviewer asked “Do you favor him more for his pro-life position or because he wants to keep the troops in Iraq and finish the job?” (These, obviously, are the opposite from Obama’s positions.) The Harlemite would answer “Because he wants to keep the troops in Iraq.” “And Obama’s choice of Sarah Palin for a running mate, do you think she’ll make a good vice-president?” The answer was “Yes, I think she’ll do a good job. I support him on that.”

Example #2, The Memphis Commercial Appeal ran a front page story about a 106-year-old black woman who early-voted, and it was the first time in her entire life that she had ever voted in an election. Everyone gushed about how great it was. Does anyone think she knows one clear thing about Obama’s positions, or even what the executive branch of the national government is responsible for? Why is she now voting for the first time in her life?

Example #3, A black talk show host here in Memphis encourages everyone to get out and vote for Obama, even though Tennessee’s electoral votes are safely McCain’s. During the bailout debate, a woman called in and asked, “Don’t the Department of the Treasury print money?” The host replied, “Yes ma’m, they do.” She then pontificated, “Then why don’t they just print up their $700 billion theyselves instead a’ layin’ it on the back of the taxpayers?” His answer was “I don’t know. It sounds like a good idea to me.” These people, to a man, are voting for Obama.

Example #4: I was working for three hours in the home of a very nice old black lady and, while collecting my $117, I pointed to the news program on the television and asked, “Well, are you gonna vote for Obama?” She answered yes, because he and his wife seem like good people, he seems very smart, and she likes the idea that he is young and energetic.

Why are the Harlemites voting for him? Why is the 106-year-old lady voting for him? Why are the people who think you can print up billions of dollars for free voting for him? Why is the nice old lady voting for him? You decide.

Momentum is building for a fresh dose of economic stimulants to boost the country out of the doldrums – perhaps by putting more money in Americans’ pockets. The White House said Monday that President Bush was open to some sort of action after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned the slump could drag on without the extra bracing tonic.

Ah, yes, stimulants! There’s nothing like a dose of stimulants to improve your health, right? Some bennies here, some speed there, maybe a dexy or two if available. The healthiest people you know are speed freaks, aren’t they?

Good old Ben Bernanke, always ready to prescribe a “bracing tonic.” According to this AP news story today, Bernanke endorsed the need for a fresh and “significant” round of government action. They’re going to put “more money in Americans’ pockets,” are they? And just where do they propose to get this money they want to put in Americans’ pockets? It wouldn’t be from Americans’ pockets now, would it? After all, last week, the Treasury Department announced it would inject up to $250 billion in U.S. banks in return for partial ownership. Injection is the most direct way to feel the effects of the stimulant. But where do they get the substance they’re injecting? They get it from the very body they’re injecting it into, duh! It’s like an IV that takes blood out of one arm and feeds it into the other.

Somebody snapped a photo of what Ben Bernanke was thinking when he came up with this nonsense:

His economic IQ was registered on the meter, as well.

I wish he would refrain from calling for another round unless he’s picking up the tab.

Winter has a reputation for being gloomy. Folks complain about it and long for spring. What they may overlook, though, is the fact that one may leave his window shades open. In the summer, that heat really fights the air conditioning. Now, though, I can throw them all wide open with abandon.

Tonight I attended a speech by Darrell Castle, who is the vice-presidential candidate of the Constitution Party. Their platform is something I can endorse almost completely; but since John McCain has my state, Tennessee, firmly in hand, our electoral votes will go to him no matter who votes for Mr. Castle and Mr. Baldwin, who heads the ticket.

Mr. Castle said at one point that one has to be president to effect any change in the nation’s suicidal policies. That gives rise to the obvious question, “Since your party cannot win the presidency, of what value is this meeting?” But that idea never came up. Mr. Castle is above sixty years of age, is tired from campaigning across the country, and shows about as much dynamism as does any other elderly guy.

I’ve seen a lot of similar scenes in the past twenty five years. “Ordered liberty” is a noble dream, a dream of a just and humane society where people are allowed to live their lives in whatever way they choose, so long as it is peaceful and they fulfil their legal obligations. Government’s job is to protect such peaceful people from force or fraud, and to handle matters of public safety, health, order, and morals. People talk about it, but talk is all they do. A goal without a plan is a dream.

There are many conservative organizations in existence and they differ from one another regarding details. What most of them lack is a game plan. Does the Constitution Party really intend to do anything, or just run for president and talk?

Someone gave me a recording of a lecture from Princeton University. The speaker has nearly as much education as I, along with the distinction of having published papers and books and having received various awards and grants. Most noteworthy of all, he was hired by Princeton, so the guy ought to know his stuff.

He doesn’t.

Oh, he knows a lot, I suppose, but he doesn’t know that he’s as blind as a bat in a tanning salon. He’s lecturing, ostensibly, on the Apostle Paul, but he totally misses Paul’s point again and again and again. One example: he claims that Paul addressed the sex lives of the Corinthians because he wanted this new religion of his to have a different reputation than the Dionysian cults it competed with. It never seems to have occurred to Dr. Bat that maybe Paul condemned fornication because it is wrong.  And this is but one example among dozens.  No neophyte could ever listen to these lectures and actually learn what Paul taught.

Dr. Bat went on to say that the letter to the Colossians was spurious. (Against all of the English speaking world, he chooses to pronounce it “koe-loe-shee-ans.” I’m so impressed!) This kind of presumption is called “New Testament Criticism” or, as we said in seminary, “N. T. Crit.” It has all the orderliness of a group of flies buzzing against a window: they all make similar noises, but they never agree and they all constantly change their position for no real reason. “This is genuine, this is spurious, this paragraph is an interpolation, this was poorly redacted . . .” N. T. Crit is about as reliable as someone who tells the future by examining bird guts.

I was at a meeting of such scholars once. They never could get a discussion going about Paul’s writings because they bogged down in the debate over which writings were Paul’s and which were forgeries.

Your tax dollars at work, mind you.

Why do Christian parents send their kids to such schools?