I've varied from my norm this year, taking time to watch a few Redskin football games. What with people getting run over or otherwise injured, I've seen the ambulance-chasing profession prosper greatly over the last few years. I've made my share of loot from the carnage. Along with the tattoo business, ambulance-chasing has seen a sharp spike in business.
Therefore, I don't feel embarrassed to state that I've idled away a few hours watching football on the tube. How about them 'skins?
Some years ago (not too many, either), there was a lively debate about whether the Redskins professional football team should change its name. Certain Indian tribal peoples sued them, as I recall. The argument seemed to be that the name was "racist." Indian proponents of change pointed out that no team would name itself with terms such as Kikes, Honkeys, Slopes, Towelheads, Wops, or Rugheads.
Unfortunately for the Indian lawsuit, the judges involved in the case were not "agents of change."
Now it should be noted that the term "Redskin" arose among early American settlers on the Atlantic seaboard because the predominant tribe(s) encountered daubed red clay (or the like) on their skin. Whether this coating was meant to be a protective coating from stinging bugs, as with elephants and other insect-afflicted beasts, I cannot say. Perhaps, as with modern women, this coating was thought a beauty-enhancing addition. Also, there may have been a desire to appear fierce, dignified, or peaceful. Hard to say right off.
That tidbit of info was just thrown in due to my living in Virginia, and we are all so concerned about education. I keep lecturing the youngsters, "Don't use crystal meth!" Also, I tell them, "Don't jaywalk like the DC people do (especially when drunk)."
The point of this blog is that I have a name-change for the Washington Redskins. I propose that the new name for the team be "Washington Skin-Of-The-Teethskins."
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
CYBER-DELINQUENTS
Thanks to the invincible chutzpah of American Jews, an "Untouchables" category of Jewish intruders into personal computers has taken place. Juvenile Jews appear to be drafted into one or more of the many Jewish domestic spying operations, operated by the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the like. They are assigned an enemies list. Provided training and technical equipment, they invade and control a personal computer before its owner's eyes.
Some readers may recall the massive dossiers accumulated illegally by the ADL in the San Francisco area. There were more than twelve thousand in that one city. It created an instant uproar, but, as with virtually any crime of this type committed by organized Jewish groups, the issue just seems to "go away." It is true that most of the great spying operations in America were run by Jews, and some of these Jews have been imprisoned. The U.S. Navy spy, Pollard, is a case in point. However, he is a hero to the Israelis, and American zionists, including the "Christian" variety, will probably have him released soon. Look to President Obama giving him a Presidential pardon before leaving office.
It is true that most of the large blogging sites that provide an opportunity to express views over the internet are controlled by Jews. That is true for Google, FaceBook, WordPress, and many another. All these sites operate as intelligence-gathering companies. The whole business of the theft of Inslaw Inc.'s Promis software improvements that allowed for "back-door" spying and which improvements were not part of the contract between Inslaw Inc. and the Department of Justice about 20 years ago by the Justice Department was as much an Israeli theft as a Justice Department theft. Earl Brian, a businessman and friend of both Ronald Reagan and Ed Meese, managed to get the stolen improvements and made a sales pitch in Tel-Aviv. Apparently both the U.S.A. and Israel were involved in selling the product to 88 or so countries. It was allegedly "tweaked" to allow spying on the countries that bought it.
In 1987 Bankruptcy Judge George Bason termed the Department of Justice's behavior in regard to the stolen Promis software as "trickery, fraud, and deceit" and as "contempt for both the law and any principle of fair dealings." These are not exactly ther sort of terms one would expect to be used about the Department of Justice.
While spying on you is a rather common procedure, neither Jews nor the federal government cotton to free speech that spotlights them in a negative way. In fact they want to outlaw such criticism. Whether they term it "hate" or "terror," fact, law and truth are hated by them and feared with profound terror. Aren't they "socially conscious?" Why would anyone criticize them? Such people must hate! Presently, all Fedcops are extremely concerned about "home-grown" terror. However, the scope of their fear does not include Jewish cyber-delinquent terrorists.
If breaking-and-entering of a house is a felony, why isn't breaking-and-entering a personal computer a felony? Why shouldn't I be able to go to the police, ask for the department of cyber-breakins, state a complaint, allow the police to "stake-out" my computer, and catch the cyber-delinquents "red-handed?" The reason is probably because that would annihilate a whole generation of Jews who are needed to guide America into the New World Order. Most likely, Jews would liken such an event to a holocaust of the computer-literate Jews. Hence, Congress and the courts would never approve.
WordPress "suspended" my blogsite ("Nomoonnight") and annihilated over 100 pithy blogs. They did not and would not explain why. They merely cited their "rules." If ninety-nine blogs were published, did the one hundreth run afoul of their rules? WordPress, as with all Jewish operations, has the chutzpah to do whatever it wishes. Among the non-Jewish leaders in America, none of the men have the "man" to criticize Jewish destructiveness. Most are willing supporters of offenses against reason. It pays off well enough for them.
Throughout the summer I have seen "unknown forces" take control of my computer and set off a wild opening and closing of windows. They control my cursor. It is clear to me that they do this as a sort of temporary employment and as a labor of love. Love? Due to my frequent citation of Jews in unflattering ways, Jews take a special pleasure out of demonstrating their power over my personal computer. There is an inescapable implication that this could be done to my life outside the cyberworld. It is a form of intimidation. It is a variety of terrorism
Not to worry! Menachem Begin stated that Jews "invented terrorism." More than a few Russian tsars and nobles could attest to that gift for violence. But don't expect that Homeland Security would acknowledge the obvious: If Jewish terrorism in America isn't ended, any fight against terrorism is futile.
Some readers may recall the massive dossiers accumulated illegally by the ADL in the San Francisco area. There were more than twelve thousand in that one city. It created an instant uproar, but, as with virtually any crime of this type committed by organized Jewish groups, the issue just seems to "go away." It is true that most of the great spying operations in America were run by Jews, and some of these Jews have been imprisoned. The U.S. Navy spy, Pollard, is a case in point. However, he is a hero to the Israelis, and American zionists, including the "Christian" variety, will probably have him released soon. Look to President Obama giving him a Presidential pardon before leaving office.
It is true that most of the large blogging sites that provide an opportunity to express views over the internet are controlled by Jews. That is true for Google, FaceBook, WordPress, and many another. All these sites operate as intelligence-gathering companies. The whole business of the theft of Inslaw Inc.'s Promis software improvements that allowed for "back-door" spying and which improvements were not part of the contract between Inslaw Inc. and the Department of Justice about 20 years ago by the Justice Department was as much an Israeli theft as a Justice Department theft. Earl Brian, a businessman and friend of both Ronald Reagan and Ed Meese, managed to get the stolen improvements and made a sales pitch in Tel-Aviv. Apparently both the U.S.A. and Israel were involved in selling the product to 88 or so countries. It was allegedly "tweaked" to allow spying on the countries that bought it.
In 1987 Bankruptcy Judge George Bason termed the Department of Justice's behavior in regard to the stolen Promis software as "trickery, fraud, and deceit" and as "contempt for both the law and any principle of fair dealings." These are not exactly ther sort of terms one would expect to be used about the Department of Justice.
While spying on you is a rather common procedure, neither Jews nor the federal government cotton to free speech that spotlights them in a negative way. In fact they want to outlaw such criticism. Whether they term it "hate" or "terror," fact, law and truth are hated by them and feared with profound terror. Aren't they "socially conscious?" Why would anyone criticize them? Such people must hate! Presently, all Fedcops are extremely concerned about "home-grown" terror. However, the scope of their fear does not include Jewish cyber-delinquent terrorists.
If breaking-and-entering of a house is a felony, why isn't breaking-and-entering a personal computer a felony? Why shouldn't I be able to go to the police, ask for the department of cyber-breakins, state a complaint, allow the police to "stake-out" my computer, and catch the cyber-delinquents "red-handed?" The reason is probably because that would annihilate a whole generation of Jews who are needed to guide America into the New World Order. Most likely, Jews would liken such an event to a holocaust of the computer-literate Jews. Hence, Congress and the courts would never approve.
WordPress "suspended" my blogsite ("Nomoonnight") and annihilated over 100 pithy blogs. They did not and would not explain why. They merely cited their "rules." If ninety-nine blogs were published, did the one hundreth run afoul of their rules? WordPress, as with all Jewish operations, has the chutzpah to do whatever it wishes. Among the non-Jewish leaders in America, none of the men have the "man" to criticize Jewish destructiveness. Most are willing supporters of offenses against reason. It pays off well enough for them.
Throughout the summer I have seen "unknown forces" take control of my computer and set off a wild opening and closing of windows. They control my cursor. It is clear to me that they do this as a sort of temporary employment and as a labor of love. Love? Due to my frequent citation of Jews in unflattering ways, Jews take a special pleasure out of demonstrating their power over my personal computer. There is an inescapable implication that this could be done to my life outside the cyberworld. It is a form of intimidation. It is a variety of terrorism
Not to worry! Menachem Begin stated that Jews "invented terrorism." More than a few Russian tsars and nobles could attest to that gift for violence. But don't expect that Homeland Security would acknowledge the obvious: If Jewish terrorism in America isn't ended, any fight against terrorism is futile.
KISS OF DEATH
The election for the Democrat candidate for mayor of the District of Columbia ("DC") is over. The current mayor was not selected to be the Democrat candidate for the Fall election. In DC the Democrat candidate is considered a "lead-pipe cinch" to be mayor after the election vote is ended. That Democrat candidate will be the invincible Vince Gray.
For the time being The People will have to endure the present mayor, Adrian Fenty. Will he be seen bicycling about with a platoon of Metropolitan police clearing a path for "His Honor?" Most likely, Mayor Fenty will plan a few trips to fabulous locations, observing and offering advice on how to ease from an automobile culture to a bike culture. (Can surries with fringe on the top be far away, Fenty-observers wonder.)
Needless to say, Adrian Fenty was supported by The Washington Post. The Post as an institution has taken a Neo-Feudalism position for years. The rich ("Lords") and their entourage of advisers should rule a peasantry made fit by hard work and restricted, healthy diets. The rich would see that the poor had a subsistence living, and the poor peasants would send their children to fight the enemies of the rich - typically people not yet willing to give it up to the Lords.
The Washington Post, as well as the great media empires, see a progressive, even evolutionary, society as the fruit of their illuminated vision. The Lords, such as Donald Graham, will demonstrate noblesse oblige toward the teeming masses yearning to be flimflammed.
But hold on! Adrian Fenty was the choice of The Washington Post. And Adrian Fenty lost. How can this be? Has the dream of the rich been betrayed?
Savants of the people have noted that The Washington Post also supported Creigh Deeds for governor in the last Virginia election. What gives? It is true that there were rumors that Donald Graham and Catharine Weymouth thought "Creigh" was "Cree." The implication was that The Washington Post supported him because its leaders thought they were supporting a Native American.
Whatever was the case in the Virginia race, the support of the Democrat by The Washington Post proved to be useless. Now, after the people rose up in DC to cast out Adrian Fenty, also loudly supported by Donald, Catharine & company at the Post, there also arose the thought: Endorsement by The Washington Post is like a "Kiss of Death."
For the time being The People will have to endure the present mayor, Adrian Fenty. Will he be seen bicycling about with a platoon of Metropolitan police clearing a path for "His Honor?" Most likely, Mayor Fenty will plan a few trips to fabulous locations, observing and offering advice on how to ease from an automobile culture to a bike culture. (Can surries with fringe on the top be far away, Fenty-observers wonder.)
Needless to say, Adrian Fenty was supported by The Washington Post. The Post as an institution has taken a Neo-Feudalism position for years. The rich ("Lords") and their entourage of advisers should rule a peasantry made fit by hard work and restricted, healthy diets. The rich would see that the poor had a subsistence living, and the poor peasants would send their children to fight the enemies of the rich - typically people not yet willing to give it up to the Lords.
The Washington Post, as well as the great media empires, see a progressive, even evolutionary, society as the fruit of their illuminated vision. The Lords, such as Donald Graham, will demonstrate noblesse oblige toward the teeming masses yearning to be flimflammed.
But hold on! Adrian Fenty was the choice of The Washington Post. And Adrian Fenty lost. How can this be? Has the dream of the rich been betrayed?
Savants of the people have noted that The Washington Post also supported Creigh Deeds for governor in the last Virginia election. What gives? It is true that there were rumors that Donald Graham and Catharine Weymouth thought "Creigh" was "Cree." The implication was that The Washington Post supported him because its leaders thought they were supporting a Native American.
Whatever was the case in the Virginia race, the support of the Democrat by The Washington Post proved to be useless. Now, after the people rose up in DC to cast out Adrian Fenty, also loudly supported by Donald, Catharine & company at the Post, there also arose the thought: Endorsement by The Washington Post is like a "Kiss of Death."
Monday, July 19, 2010
L'AMOUR ARGENTINOISE
As is often the case in the Washington, D.C. area, when driving, I find myself listening to my preferred traffic station on the radio. It is a station that tosses in weather reports, sports news, local & world news, interviews and commentaries between traffic updates. The people one encounters on it can be amusing. One such is "Dave," who is a commentator.
He had gone to theatrical lengths to build up the "macho" image of Richard "Dick" Cheney to make the point that if such a "real he-man" saw nothing objectionable about homosexuals openly "being homosexual" in the U.S. Army, how could mere mortals object.
I had offered a modest correction to this sham by noting that Cheney's daughter was a Lesbian presently enjoying connubial bliss with her bride-partner and that Cheney's wife was alleged to be an author of "hot Lesbian pulp novels." She allegedly used a nom de plume. My point was that "Dave's" peon to the manly Cheney might be overstated. Perhaps Mr. Cheney has a Village People's standard of manliness. Give him a rifle for a prop, and he's ready for the stage. Mere mortals might even be more macho than the former Veep.
Comes now again old "Dave" to comment theatrically about the decision of Argentina to make "same-sex" marriages legal and fully equal to those of "opposite-sex" marriages. "Dave" carefully built the image of the fiery Latin lover, who was the incarnation of heterosexual love, for the listener to consider. He mentioned the Tango, while sensuous Latin music played in the background. As an aside, he marvelled at this legal decision being accepted in a Roman Catholic country. Doesn't "Dave" know that priests' lead and the faithful follow?
Generally speaking, "Dave" seemed to be saying that the "Dark Ages" of heterosexual love and marriage were finally evolving into a warm, tolerant "All Love" environment. After all, weren't sodomy and fistf--king just another kind of love? If that's good enough for the U.S. Army, Dick Cheney and Argentina, why would anyone object?
I have pointed out in blogs - not necessarily this one - that, if same-sex marriages were given legal status, such "married" couples would certainly adopt children. Since they do not normally reproduce according to natural procedures, their best course for continuation and even population growth reside in persuasion and abuse of innocent children placed in their care. In the latter case the abuse would begin in the mind of a child through "broadening," through a coercive "understanding" and through "lessons" in tolerance.
Incidentally, political power usually is a function of wealth, military power or effective block-voting. Numbers can mean clout.
As the Masonic culture in America demands that all travel the four roads to harmony - Liberty, Fraternity, Equality and Tolerance, "same-sex" couples, whether married or not, should find the law bulldozing away all opposition. There will certainly not be any from the Masonically infiltrated, "shell-christian" congregations, who despise discrimination as breaking the Law of Equality. Whether Roman Catholic priest or Protestant minister, the sermon is the same: "Get down and get it on!"
Incidentally, Admiral Mullen stated that the entirety of his military service included service with homosexuals. I don't believe that he ever explained exactly how he knew that they were homosexuals. Did they know that he was a heterosexual? Does he know?
I guess that it is inevitable that American soldiers will be bringing home a whole new category of "war brides."
He had gone to theatrical lengths to build up the "macho" image of Richard "Dick" Cheney to make the point that if such a "real he-man" saw nothing objectionable about homosexuals openly "being homosexual" in the U.S. Army, how could mere mortals object.
I had offered a modest correction to this sham by noting that Cheney's daughter was a Lesbian presently enjoying connubial bliss with her bride-partner and that Cheney's wife was alleged to be an author of "hot Lesbian pulp novels." She allegedly used a nom de plume. My point was that "Dave's" peon to the manly Cheney might be overstated. Perhaps Mr. Cheney has a Village People's standard of manliness. Give him a rifle for a prop, and he's ready for the stage. Mere mortals might even be more macho than the former Veep.
Comes now again old "Dave" to comment theatrically about the decision of Argentina to make "same-sex" marriages legal and fully equal to those of "opposite-sex" marriages. "Dave" carefully built the image of the fiery Latin lover, who was the incarnation of heterosexual love, for the listener to consider. He mentioned the Tango, while sensuous Latin music played in the background. As an aside, he marvelled at this legal decision being accepted in a Roman Catholic country. Doesn't "Dave" know that priests' lead and the faithful follow?
Generally speaking, "Dave" seemed to be saying that the "Dark Ages" of heterosexual love and marriage were finally evolving into a warm, tolerant "All Love" environment. After all, weren't sodomy and fistf--king just another kind of love? If that's good enough for the U.S. Army, Dick Cheney and Argentina, why would anyone object?
I have pointed out in blogs - not necessarily this one - that, if same-sex marriages were given legal status, such "married" couples would certainly adopt children. Since they do not normally reproduce according to natural procedures, their best course for continuation and even population growth reside in persuasion and abuse of innocent children placed in their care. In the latter case the abuse would begin in the mind of a child through "broadening," through a coercive "understanding" and through "lessons" in tolerance.
Incidentally, political power usually is a function of wealth, military power or effective block-voting. Numbers can mean clout.
As the Masonic culture in America demands that all travel the four roads to harmony - Liberty, Fraternity, Equality and Tolerance, "same-sex" couples, whether married or not, should find the law bulldozing away all opposition. There will certainly not be any from the Masonically infiltrated, "shell-christian" congregations, who despise discrimination as breaking the Law of Equality. Whether Roman Catholic priest or Protestant minister, the sermon is the same: "Get down and get it on!"
Incidentally, Admiral Mullen stated that the entirety of his military service included service with homosexuals. I don't believe that he ever explained exactly how he knew that they were homosexuals. Did they know that he was a heterosexual? Does he know?
I guess that it is inevitable that American soldiers will be bringing home a whole new category of "war brides."
Thursday, April 1, 2010
THE CENSUS
Our leaders and their propagandists seemed miffed that some people seemed to be slow to comply to the mailed census form. To such people, it is a really annoying situation. They pretend to be calm, rational people, but their commentary betrays this guise.
Such an instance occurred today, as I was driving and listening to my usual traffic & weather station. One of their commentators began by mentioning the census form that had been mailed 0ut to every known household. Striking an air of surprise, he then stated that 2/3 of the households in Virginia had not yet complied. His indignation rising, he then opined that these were probably the same people who complain about their constitutional rights being lessened or threatened.
Although this hypothesis was stated without adducing any evidence, thus amounting to an ipse dixit argument, he inveighed against the paranoia exhibited by these tardy-filing Virginians. Here his voice had risen, and he had informed it with indignant emotion. Therefore, to his original, unimpressive argument he now added what amounted to argumentum ad hominem, meaning an argument against the person as opposed to what the person said, or argued. In this instance, he was denouncing the "paranoid" folly of 2/3 of Virignians, roughly, each of whom was guilty of the same charge. The fact that his argument was an informal fallacy could not possibly sway him. He was now lost in his fantasy of willful non-compliance. He fumed at the absurdity of Virginians claiming their constitutional rights had been violated when the constitution specifically stated that a census must be taken every ten years, wherein the number of citizens would be ascertained. Talk about setting up a strawman issue!
Personally, I have no idea why not all Virginians have complied. Usually, there are reasons, such as concentrating on the tax filing, Spring fever, and on and on.
Having "school-marmed" all listening Virginians on the fact that the census form was composed of only ten questions, this commentator petulantly informed them that being paranoid about the census was not a "core value."(The "core" may have been spelled differently but sounded according to the idiom.)
If setting up a non sequitur and then ranting about it is informed commentary, then I believe that such commentary will be ignored by Virginians, who will direct their attention at a sudden stretch of very pleasant weather and enjoy it. That is a Virginian's "core value." Being Hectored by Census Bureau "shills" is not.
Such an instance occurred today, as I was driving and listening to my usual traffic & weather station. One of their commentators began by mentioning the census form that had been mailed 0ut to every known household. Striking an air of surprise, he then stated that 2/3 of the households in Virginia had not yet complied. His indignation rising, he then opined that these were probably the same people who complain about their constitutional rights being lessened or threatened.
Although this hypothesis was stated without adducing any evidence, thus amounting to an ipse dixit argument, he inveighed against the paranoia exhibited by these tardy-filing Virginians. Here his voice had risen, and he had informed it with indignant emotion. Therefore, to his original, unimpressive argument he now added what amounted to argumentum ad hominem, meaning an argument against the person as opposed to what the person said, or argued. In this instance, he was denouncing the "paranoid" folly of 2/3 of Virignians, roughly, each of whom was guilty of the same charge. The fact that his argument was an informal fallacy could not possibly sway him. He was now lost in his fantasy of willful non-compliance. He fumed at the absurdity of Virginians claiming their constitutional rights had been violated when the constitution specifically stated that a census must be taken every ten years, wherein the number of citizens would be ascertained. Talk about setting up a strawman issue!
Personally, I have no idea why not all Virginians have complied. Usually, there are reasons, such as concentrating on the tax filing, Spring fever, and on and on.
Having "school-marmed" all listening Virginians on the fact that the census form was composed of only ten questions, this commentator petulantly informed them that being paranoid about the census was not a "core value."(The "core" may have been spelled differently but sounded according to the idiom.)
If setting up a non sequitur and then ranting about it is informed commentary, then I believe that such commentary will be ignored by Virginians, who will direct their attention at a sudden stretch of very pleasant weather and enjoy it. That is a Virginian's "core value." Being Hectored by Census Bureau "shills" is not.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
RICHARD "DICK" CHENEY - MACHO MAN?
Although Mr. Richard Cheney, former Vice President of the United States of America in the time of "W." was characterized as a "hard-liner" on Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan and Iran), should he be considered a tough "man's man?" Does tough-talking backed by the muscle and blood of several hundred thousand soldiers constitute the essence of manliness? Could there be any possibility that a snarling, fang-baring dog wasn't actually up to a flesh-and-blood fight?
Mr. Cheney was known to hunt with other macho men, such as Justice Scalia and various "good old boys." The fact that he shot one of the latter "accidentally" was seen as further evidence of manliness. You got the feeling that he would have been a good soldier in places like 'Nam.
Some have wondered, however, if Richard Cheney might be psycotic. In wartime such a personality could be overlooked.
These thoughts welled up in my mind as I listened to one of the commentators on my traffic radio station of choice. The commentator was trying to make a favorable statement in regard to homosexual openness among applicable military men. As the public had recently been reassured on this issue by General Mullen, who stated that his entire military career had been served amid homosexual soldiers, a little reenforecement might serve to end this discussion once and for all. Presumably, this was the impel for the radio commentator to embark on the subject of "gays" in the military. [Leftist avoid the term "homosexual" as much as possible, since this term was thought to generate "rawer" images of this "different kind of love."]
Was it "tongue-in-cheek" that caused this commentator to use Richard Cheney as the final nail in the coffin of military homophobia? I can't say.
After setting the matter skillfully by stressing signature examples of Mr. Cheney's toughness (typically, something like bomb them, torture them, occupy their country, enslave them, etc.), this commentator then revealed that Richard Cheney had pronounce open gayness in the military compatible with a strong, disciplined group of fighting men (or women). This was an issue that was, in effect, a non-issue to the former vice president.
If this most macho of high executive officials saw no problem with open homosexuality in the military services, so long as it accorded well with military procedure and discipline, why should the lesser breeds of American citizens? This was the "thought for the day" offered by this clever commentator.
What he did not relate to his listeners was that Richard Cheney's wife wrote "potboiler" novels using a pen-name. They have been described as rather torrid descriptions of lesbian romances. Nor did this commentator mention that Mr. Cheney is the father of a lesbian woman, who has taken a woman to bride/groom. This couple have adopted a child - possibly two.
Personally, I believe that this sort of background influenced the former vice president in his pronouncement on gays in the military more than any well-considered argument.
Mr. Cheney was known to hunt with other macho men, such as Justice Scalia and various "good old boys." The fact that he shot one of the latter "accidentally" was seen as further evidence of manliness. You got the feeling that he would have been a good soldier in places like 'Nam.
Some have wondered, however, if Richard Cheney might be psycotic. In wartime such a personality could be overlooked.
These thoughts welled up in my mind as I listened to one of the commentators on my traffic radio station of choice. The commentator was trying to make a favorable statement in regard to homosexual openness among applicable military men. As the public had recently been reassured on this issue by General Mullen, who stated that his entire military career had been served amid homosexual soldiers, a little reenforecement might serve to end this discussion once and for all. Presumably, this was the impel for the radio commentator to embark on the subject of "gays" in the military. [Leftist avoid the term "homosexual" as much as possible, since this term was thought to generate "rawer" images of this "different kind of love."]
Was it "tongue-in-cheek" that caused this commentator to use Richard Cheney as the final nail in the coffin of military homophobia? I can't say.
After setting the matter skillfully by stressing signature examples of Mr. Cheney's toughness (typically, something like bomb them, torture them, occupy their country, enslave them, etc.), this commentator then revealed that Richard Cheney had pronounce open gayness in the military compatible with a strong, disciplined group of fighting men (or women). This was an issue that was, in effect, a non-issue to the former vice president.
If this most macho of high executive officials saw no problem with open homosexuality in the military services, so long as it accorded well with military procedure and discipline, why should the lesser breeds of American citizens? This was the "thought for the day" offered by this clever commentator.
What he did not relate to his listeners was that Richard Cheney's wife wrote "potboiler" novels using a pen-name. They have been described as rather torrid descriptions of lesbian romances. Nor did this commentator mention that Mr. Cheney is the father of a lesbian woman, who has taken a woman to bride/groom. This couple have adopted a child - possibly two.
Personally, I believe that this sort of background influenced the former vice president in his pronouncement on gays in the military more than any well-considered argument.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
D.C. METRO BREATHES SIGH OF RELIEF
There was a collective sigh of relief when Dan Snyder finally made a choice of football coach for the Redskins 2010 season. Whispering had become gale force. Fear was in the air.
Some knowledgeable Snyder-watchers felt certain that he could not restrain his wild, impulsive nature. Gamblers were beginning to lay bets with bookies, and the name "Joe Paterno" was increasingly being offered as a "Snyder-type coach."
Joe Paterno offered the Redskins owner a stellar, "winningest-coach ever" type of reputaton. Paterno would offer Dan Snyder the sublime pleasure of fooling everyone by "pulling a rabbit out of his hat" with a coach whose reputation and record were such that even the most savage Snyder critic would have to agree that his choice was outstanding. Frankly, no one would want to criticize Joe Paterno. It would be in football culture the equivalent of "dissing" America.
Perhaps because he has had such a beating by critics of the Redskins' performance over the last few years, Dan Snyder apparently opted for a "safe" selection: a former Super Bowl-winning coach. How Mr. Mike Shanahan performs as coach of the Redskins can't be known at this time. I'm confident Washington Redskins fans will welcome and support him - at least for three games.
Yet, some of Washington's savviest fans cannot help but wonder what it would have been like to have Joe Paterno commanding the Redskins into battle.
Some knowledgeable Snyder-watchers felt certain that he could not restrain his wild, impulsive nature. Gamblers were beginning to lay bets with bookies, and the name "Joe Paterno" was increasingly being offered as a "Snyder-type coach."
Joe Paterno offered the Redskins owner a stellar, "winningest-coach ever" type of reputaton. Paterno would offer Dan Snyder the sublime pleasure of fooling everyone by "pulling a rabbit out of his hat" with a coach whose reputation and record were such that even the most savage Snyder critic would have to agree that his choice was outstanding. Frankly, no one would want to criticize Joe Paterno. It would be in football culture the equivalent of "dissing" America.
Perhaps because he has had such a beating by critics of the Redskins' performance over the last few years, Dan Snyder apparently opted for a "safe" selection: a former Super Bowl-winning coach. How Mr. Mike Shanahan performs as coach of the Redskins can't be known at this time. I'm confident Washington Redskins fans will welcome and support him - at least for three games.
Yet, some of Washington's savviest fans cannot help but wonder what it would have been like to have Joe Paterno commanding the Redskins into battle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)