Off to England

Gosh... it's 1 a.m.

And damned if my plane doesn't leave early tomorrow.

But still I'm indulging in some reading about the England of the past that we shall visit via museums.

Mark Wayne wants to go to Chartwell. Doesn't seem to be open in April. Nonetheless, I thought reading about Churchill would be a good pastime before leaving the colonies. A quote from Churchill:

"Why should we Anglo-Saxons apologize for being superior?" Winston Churchill once growled in exasperation. "We are superior."

Damn I love Churchill. He is so FREAKING politically incorrect and he saved Western Civilization only to have it raped and destroyed by a bunch of shallow, guilty liberals. Seems a waste, really.

Well! I'll no doubt be more upbeat in the morning. Cheerio! Pip Pip! And all that!

Kevin, you and I should share this blog so when I'm gone you can post away!

Kevin Willis on Danica Patrick's win (Lord she finally won something)

Remember what Rush Limbaugh said about the press being eager for a black quarterback to do well because he was a black quarterback. Same thing, basically. It's about multicultural milestones, rather than actual achievement.

The larger problem in the overall culture is the devaluing of men, boys, and maleness. Women can achieve almost anything, and enjoy equal rights and respect, without trashing men and masculinity. But feminism generally, and gender politics, is all about trashing men.

I remember several years ago hearing on NPR some feminist psychologist discussing how there might eventually be mandatory estrogen shots for men and boys to make them "better"--less agressive (ha!) and more "balanced" (ha!) and so on. Yet when I brought this obviously idiotic statement up with some chicks who considered themselves feminists, they all said I was making it up. No feminist had ever said anything like that! Who was I going to believe, them or my lying ears?

I went to art school, which was full of feminazis. I remember one Canadian uber-feminist did this huge drawing of herself as a clawed harpy, on top of her boyfriends back, talons embedded in it. Sheesh! Even one of my more liberal (male) friends just shook is head. "If some chick did something like that with me . . . "

The feminists at art school also boycotted life drawing classes, because the teacher (another very liberal guy) had been using some classic 17th and 18th century nudes as examples of line and form. That was sexist! That gender-exploitive art from the Renaissance and after should all be redacted!

One of the many reasons art school was the beginning of the end of me considering myself a liberal.

Oh she's just a genius!

Bulletin: Danica Patrick finally won an indy car race. NOT THE RACE. Not the 500.

I know most people probably thought she has been winning races for years, given the adulation she receives in the press.

But, no. She did finally, finally win something.

Big Freaking deal.

Depicting Christians as evil

We are getting ready to go to England and I'm hoping to see a lot of churches as church architecture is a love of mine.

I was studying a catalog about Durham Cathedral, since we hope to visit there, and this painting made me laugh out loud.

Amid all the glory to God in this 1,000 year old cathedral is this editorial cartoon above of St. Margaret of Scotland and her son David. This painting is actually so repulsive that I couldn't find a picture of it online and I had to scan it from the brochure. Sure there must be one online, but it wasn't easy to find. As you see, it depicts St. Margaret of Scotland as an insane, sadistic schoolmarm and her son, David, as a sort of gizmo character. Give him water and he will kill.

One other point, St. Margaret the malevolent schoolmarm also has her feet covered. In classic Catholic symbolism this is the sign of a demon. Saints, on the other hand, are always portrayed with uncovered bare feet, in part so that the faithful may kiss them. In other part so that the superstitious may see they are not, in fact, cloven hooves. In this case, I think the hooves are there. Odd that gizmo has one bare foot showing. Maybe he is half a Christian.

Given the direction of the Anglican church these days (even the Archbishop isn't a Christian), it isn't really surprising that they actually put the painting in the church. Personally I think it was probably done to deliberately enrage the congregation and I suspect it did its work. The local priestess, pictured at right in her jaunty teardrop earrings and roman collar, is still trying to sell the painting, though I note her homily promoting it was given April 1, fool's day. I'm just guessing that the handful of remaining Christians hate the thing. The local bishop characterizes the painting as 'not comfortable' but he claims it fits perfectly into the space. That sends me into gales of laughter halted only by the shocking thought that this is what the bishop of Durham thinks of one of the most beautiful cathedrals in the world.

Of course, I don't have to tell anyone that this is contemporary art -- 2002 by Portuguese painter Paula Rego.

I have a theory, maybe some of you might be interested in, but probably not, who knows. It is simply this: Church architecture -- and art-- post 1955 ALWAYS portrays Christians and Christianity as evil. In every facet of Christian building and art, artists portray Christianity as evil with confusion, criminality, hopelessness, or outright malevolence. Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes not.

For your examination, some evidence:

OLD SPARKY

The most obvious case, the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in which the bishop's chair is designed to look just like an electric chair:



Compare it to the Florida electric chair:


Eerie. A few armstraps and a little juice and we could send Cardinal Mahoney to his eternal reward. Oops. Sorry.

The Cathedral itself is built not so much as a testimony to God as a sound bite. Unlike all the great cathedrals of the world, this one you can sum up in one photo:


Isn't it kind of, really, just hilarious that Los Angeles has a cathedral that appears to be sided in aluminum? It has lots of edges, but only one dimension. Perfect for LA, really. Inside it looks like a airport terminal, some say bus station, but I think bus stations are often pretty:

>

The shot below of the nave makes the place look like a television studio:




Finally, this statue of Mary (Our Lady of Angels) is situated so that you can look up her dress as you walk in the cathedral. Thank God, the depiction isn't too literal. But the thing that leaps out at me is the architectural rendering of 'walking the plank.' She looks as if she is about to be sacrificed to the volcano gods. Strikes me as somewhat deliberate that virtually every part of this cathedral whispers 'pagan sacrifice.'


The statue caused a lot of controversy since Mary appears in a semi-protestant position, hands open and arms out but not as lifted as the protestant prayer stance so that Mary seems to be expressing hopelessness, not prayer. In addition her head is not covered, a immodest depiction of a Jewish girl that, in this case, makes her look strikingly like a dyke with a dress on.

Round up the Muslims. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between Muslims and this Mormon sect.

Reading the Associated Press story, I'm way more sympathetic to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ etc etc, than I ever thought I would be.

Let me sum up the groups apparent offenses:

Remember, the whole stampede seems to be running on the word of an angry little ex-member of the sect who claims a young girl is in trouble... but, funny, she can't produce the girl. Does anyone smell a personal vendetta here? ::sniff::

After taking all the kids from their homes, the angry little former member of the sect, who is running this stampede, makes these astonishing claims:

1. The sect also teaches chldren to fear the outside world INCLUDING THE VERY AUTHORITIES WHO REMOVED THEM (from their homes)!

I'm forced to wonder why that is insane. That seems like a teaching based on current events to me.

I fear the same authorities for damn near the same reason as those kids. They'll be coming for all the Jesus people soon enough.

2. The alleged girl who phones the ex-sect member said the church teaches these antisocial ideas!

- Outsiders will hurt her. Er... Check.

- She will cut her hair. Check.

- She will wear makeup. Check.

- She will have sex with many men. Check. And probably well before the age of 15. Hell, if you can find a 15-year-old virgin in an Indiana school, you are a freaking magician.

Damn, the church is run by a freaking prophet!

So, in other words, this sect is PRECISELY CORRECT.

3. Get ready, this is the scariest: The girls wear pioneer dresses! MANY OF THE GIRLS HAVE NEVER WORN MODERN CLOTHING!

- So to be normal, they have to have a tramp stamp on their butt and show off their modern, newly pierced nose out of which drips an ornament resembling shiny snot. Better send in counselors? Hell, I want to join the damn church.

4. And finally, their really, really worst offense is that THEY HAVE NEVER GONE TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

God love them! They are visionaries!

I guess the authorities believe that had they gone to public schools, the girls would all be vicious YouTube beasts with butt tattoos who give their boyfriends blow jobs behind the school every day (cause that's not sex). And you know... for once I agree with the authorities.

Check out Chas' column on leftist intolerance.

I'm wondering: Why aren't we rounding up polygamous MUSLIMS? There is no difference between the Muslims and this sect. They dress funny, have bad haircuts, lots of wives, and they are damn suspicious of 'The Authorities.' Plus, unlike this group, the Muslims run suicide bomb operations.

So I am asking you: Why aren't we rounding up the Muslims?

The fruits of liberalism

Teen beaten

This is the world liberals hoped for and they have it.

It's a short step for the Pulitzer committee

Here is the work of Michael Ramirez who won a Pulitzer for his 'provocative' work.
Check it out. For the most part, the cartoons (representing a body of work) were conservative and this is good.

But it is as close as the Pulitzer committee will EVER come to recognizing conservative thought and Ramirez, who is more conservative than most, is still not, in my opinion, as sharp or biting as Glenn McCoy, who, though great, is both white and conservative and thus will never work for the Washington Post because he ::sniff sniff:: smells like a Republican. (Ramirez works for Investor's Business Daily)

The Pulitizer committee was 'provoked' by Ramirez but they are absolutely apoplectic when faced with Glenn McCoy, who will always work in Belleville Illinois, thank you, because if Ramirez is provocative, Glenn McCoy is a hate crime. Short step. The Pulitzer committee does not like too much of a challenge, thank you

CBS would rather go out of the news business than simply be fair

This report on Drudge is the greatest testament to the reality that people do not always do what is in their own best interest.

CBS, long known as being the most relentlessly liberal of the networks, will not report news in a balanced fashion that could possibly win them viewers. Oh no. Even the success of Fox is not enough to convince CBS that balance and fairness could actually attract viewers. They would prefer to go out of the news business entirely.

But the harsh reality is that liberal media is divided into dozens of parts: CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNBC and hundreds of affiliates nationwide. The major news networks have audience from habit. Just as the Democrat Party has a host of aging white members too stupid or addled to see that its policies are actually arrayed AGAINST their interests, so the major networks have an aging audience that tunes in because it always has.

Today, that's just not enough. And telling the whole truth, why, that's just too much.

This just in...

The Pulitzer Prize for the best article in the Anti-America category goes to the Washington Post for their series on the Walter Reed hospital.


As a matter of fact, ALL THE ARTICLES that won Pulitzers were a preview of the Democrat Party's national platform: Why America Sucks! Check them out!

This is what you get when you pander to irresponsible morons

You get people who "purchased" a home they couldn't afford with an absurd mortgage they couldn't pay, apparently gambling that home prices would go up and they could refinance with the supposed equity in their home as a 'downpayment.'

'Course -- too bad -- bad bet, dumbass. Housing prices went down. Now the useless porkchops are blaming America.

Here's the people they should actually blame:

1. Liberals.

To wit, The New York Times who wrote a teary story about how irresponsible loans help the poor! Yippee! These weren't bad mortgages made to greedy airheads who couldn't use a calculator. No! They were INNOVATIVE.

2. Themselves.

If you are too stupid to see you can't afford a balloon loan, you are too stupid to own a house.

You know right now if you lose your house to foreclosure, what happens is that you get a bad credit score then go rent an apartment. The only people who lose are the lenders for trusting your useless ass.

Used to be that defaulting on your debts was a crime equivalent to theft. And, of course, it is theft. You went to freaking PRISON for defaulting on your debts.

We got rid of debtors prison on the premise that the risk for default should be assumed by the LENDER. Now what we are getting is a social movement, headed up by Welfare cases, who say that neither the lender nor the debtor should suffer from bad loans. Instead those of us who handle our affairs best should suffer.

Bring back debtor's prison. I think it would do wonders for this society.

Best comment on the insulting Absolut ad

From the LA Times Blog

If Mexico really stretched to Oregon, they'd all be sneaking in to Washington State.

Posted by: El T Grande | April 05, 2008 at 11:49 PM


Talk about the decline of civilization ...

HBO's John Adams series is really great

Catch it, if you can.



Part Four of the series airs this week and it is just the best of the first four. Paul Giamatti is just the embodiment of John Adams and has brought the Founding Father to life for me. Laura Linney, who plays his wife, has the most enchanting, dancing face and her portrayal of Adams' wife Abigail is pure delight.

In parts 3 and 4, we see the fat, liberal, phoney, shallow France portrayed in all its painted silliness and it seems to me that this is what America has become at the hands of liberals. But in those days the frivolous culture in France was shown transparent by the earnest culture of the young America. Today, the pampered liberal American establishment is shown to be cowardly fools by the new, evil power of Islamofascism. Like the painted France who couldn't hold its place in the world next to the hardworking upstart America , the liberal establishment in today's America can't possibly rise to the occasion to defeat evil and it won't.

The only thing I don't like about the series is the portrayal of Thomas Jefferson as a bit of a gay fob.

Dith Pran dies

I know liberals love irony, and isn't it kind of ironic that poor Dith Pran was both the victim and the darling of the New York Times? Wasn't it, in fact, liberal agitation and cowardice that caused the U.S. to abandon people like Dith Pran to the Cambodian Killing Fields?

I might have it wrong so can someone 'splain it to me?

They will have to kiss and make up

One observation on the amusing Democrat party primary spectacle:

Hill and BO will have to kiss and make up. Hill will have to settle for VP. I know, I know, you say 'Hill has already been VP!"

But, no matter how you slice it, the Dems are going to lose the black vote if BO isn't the nominee for president and they will lose the jewish vote and possibly the lesbian vote if Hill isn't the nominee.

In short, the Democrat party will fall apart if both don't run together. I just think they have to make up.

I predict they will do just that and lose. Unfortunately, the country will lose, too, because that means McCain will be president.

Man having a child?

Here is a story manufactured by political correctness.

To call this person a 'man' makes the story. But she's not a man. Oh, and neither are any of the poor souls allowed, by virtue of politically correct 'science', to indulge their morbid psychological illnesses. If all 'transgenders' had as much money as Michael Jackson, we'd see all sorts of ghastly twists on their fantasies and fears. Thank God we haven't yet made this sort of thing free.

Odd that the article runs in The Advocate. If the mother here is really a man married to a woman, isn't she therefore heterosexual? I think the truth is implicit in the context. The woman is a woman 'married' to a woman. She's a homosexual, with some twists on that sexual fantasy.

By the way, in the story linked above, don't miss the quote by the only sane person in the article: The brother.

Conservatives care more. Not me, of course.

From George Will's column:

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

I'd like to state for the record that I'm a conservative, but I am not one who gives a flying crap about 'poor people.' I do not give to people charities. So-called poor people already get too much of my money and have enough advocates ready to soak me for more. But I do give a chunk to animal charities. Save the animals.