Here's all I'll say for now about the current hurricane debacle:

Seems that some displaced people in New Orleans, seeking aid, got permission from someone to cross a Mississippi bridge. They found nothing on the other side but more journalists/cameras! Some of these reporters, we've noticed, weren't above questionably emoting over the victimage. What I'd like to know is--did they help anyone? Or did they content themselves with ranting at their viewers?

Here is one of the vilest proposals I have ever seen.

Bloody academaniacs.

A spirit of fairness requires me to note a sort of postscript to that business I ranted about early this year: the NYT feature on sex trafficking. I understood it might well be, to say the least, inaccurate--as I hoped, in fact, it might prove, not being motivated to wish the whole thing true. Well, I finally ran across a series of items questioning the entire Times report. Interesting--that's all I'll say.

This latest item sat on my desktop for over a month before I got around to Fisking it. I don't even recall who posted this letter from the ELCA's head bishop to the US Senate's majority leader, but it looks like a blast from the Religious Left.

April 19, 2005

The Honorable Senator Bill Frist
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Frist:

I am writing to you as the Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the fifth largest Protestant church body in the United States with a membership of nearly five million people of faith.

How do you know who's got faith?

As Lutherans, we share a common faith in Jesus Christ, a love of the gospel and, in the tradition of Martin Luther, a healthy respect for the separation of church and state.

Oh really? How do you explain cujus regio, ejus religio then? Or the state Lutheran churches in northern Germany and Scandinavia?

We are a church body deeply committed to unity in the body of Christ and to mission for the sake of the world.

The membership of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America includes conservatives, moderates, and liberals. As Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, we are all “people of faith” who take our faith seriously and attempt to live out Christ’s love in love for and service to our neighbor. Discerning God’s will for all people and creation challenges each of us individually, and our church corporately, on a daily basis.

No kidding. You got that right.

This discernment is never clear cut and it certainly is never subject to a political party litmus test on any issue. The rhetoric that some people of faith—Republicans, conservatives, or fundamentalists—“have it right” and all other people of faith have it wrong not only is self righteous, but inappropriately polarizes people of faith for political purposes.

Who said this? Did you ever notice such "self righteous" rhetoric on the left, or is it only objectionable when conservatives (ostensibly) use it?

I am not writing to express a view on the proposed rule change affecting judicial nominations, but to respectfully ask that you cease judging whether or not people have faith by how they choose to express that faith on political issues.

So when did Sen. Frist actually commit the heinous offense of "judging whether or not people have faith"? What bad, wicked, naughty, evil deed did he do?

You honor neither yourself, this country, nor people of faith by such political manipulation.

So whom do you honor with this letter of condemnation?

In the strongest terms, I urge you to use your position of significant responsibility to lead this country to a healthy respect not only for dissent, but for all people of faith.

As if dissent were a scarce commodity, or the GOP intolerant concerning "people of faith."

In God’s grace,

Mark S. Hanson
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

http://www.elca.org/advocacy/

I wonder what else we might find at this "advocacy" page. I don't even want to check it out.

For my next (fortunately) little rant, I quote a proverbial unimpeachable source: Myself.

Time for a little more media criticism. I'll start with a TV show I have a certain amount of respect for--the one about forensic investigators in Las Vegas...

Speaking of violence, Mr. Quincy Turpentine has another (stupid-looking) film out about idiots killing each other. Naturally the critics find it ever so awesome. Funny how the cultural left loves homicide. My opinion: Artistic dreck is still dreck.

Well, it happened: The said Mr. Turpentine got involved in this very show, directing the season finale and evidently writing some of it. He turned it into a grotesque cartoon unworthy of sitting through (I didn't). What a schlockmeister.

My latest little blast is against the (global) warmists, who might also be called globalarmists. In what should have been a legitimate scientific article, I ran across propaganda such as this:

Overall, the reports say, Earth's climate has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. In the Arctic, where a number of processes amplify the warming effects of carbon dioxide, most regions have experienced a temperature rise of 4 to 7 degrees in the last 50 years.

That warmth has reduced the amount of snow that falls every winter, melted away mountain glaciers and shrunk the Arctic Ocean's summer sea ice cover to its smallest extent in millennia, according to satellite measurements...

These changes seriously threaten animals such as polar bears, which live and hunt on the sea ice. The bears have already suffered a 15 percent decrease in their number of offspring and a similar decline in weight over the past 25 years. If the Arctic sea ice disappears altogether during the summer months, as some researchers expect it will by the end of the century, polar bears have little chance of survival.

This immediately brings to mind the question: What happened to polar bears 1000 years ago, when the earth was warmer than today? What did they do 5000+ years ago, when the earth was even warmer? And how many "millennia" of satellite measurements really exist?? It's political, folks; science is being perverted!

In response, I'd like to direct honest inquirers to a decent site such as this.

Interrupted rant, continued:

In the center of town here, opposite the touristy waterfront in front of a touristy business, stands a big, rather corny statue depicting a topless native man raising his right hand, presumably in greeting. The gesture so obviously resembles the old German National Socialist stiff-arm salute, I've long ridiculed this tacky figure as a "Nazi Indian." At the same time it seemed clear that no aboriginal American would have any reason to affiliate with Nazis. Just a few days ago I happened to catch a program confirming my guess about Hitler's attitude toward the red man: he approved of treating Indians as an inconvenience to the white occupiers, to be cleared out like the Slavs for German Lebensraum. Given this official racism, it's incredible that Blood Lake's alleged perpetrator called himself "native nazi" online and interacted with others of supposed like mind. Apparently he was drawn to an alleged organization of neo-(pseudo?) nazis who welcomed all races, so long as they remained separate. The group's name contains the oxymoronic phrase "Libertarian Socialist," suggesting it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Another thing about this teen killer, which may have received less attention, is that he was evidently getting a mix of psychoactive prescription drugs: easily a possible contributing factor. Perhaps more fundamental was his family background; I've heard a little about that through back channels; whether true or not, it wasn't pretty. Then there's the question of whether anyone else was involved, still under investigation though I'm not aware of actual evidence for that.

So what does the left think of in response to Yet Another School Shooting? That's right, gun control. Well, that dog won't hunt. I don't even need to argue that subject, because it doesn't apply here. Seems Mr. Suspect brought a .22--a handgun of typically low stopping power (compare the round to other calibers some time) but perhaps easily concealed and favored by punks--to his police-sergeant grandfather's home, where he commenced his murder project. More than a month later, we still haven't heard where this pistol came from. But when he got to the school, Nutty Grandson went in armed with his granddad's police weapons.

In conclusion: This case has its own peculiarities, rendering it of little use as a typical object lesson. But I do wish to generalize on this subject, noting that it seems we started seeing these incidents in the 1990s. Why? Firearms weren't just introduced into society. Somewhere I once encountered commentary by a guy who went to high school in the '50s. He noted that students in his marksmanship(?) class brought rifles to school, stowed them in their lockers, and thought little of it. Perhaps homicidal/suicidal teens were less common then; I'll leave readers (if any!) to try figuring it out. Something's changed over the decades, that's for sure.

OK: In the interests of full disclosure, I'll admit that yesterday I picked up my first handgun (all right, first modern handgun, not counting two black-powder derringers), a fancy, expensive edition of the Colt Model 1991, a more recent version of the trusty old 1911. It's so nice, the literature recommends not firing it. Guess I need a cheap .45 for real shootin'. Still, I expect my main weapon will remain my WW-II-vintage, multi-barrelled psychoacoustic device of a type developed in the Caledonian mountains on that big rugged island off the northern coast of western Asia, evidently based on the Romans' tibia utricularis.

My rant is hereby further postponed in recognition of a great man's passing.

Ave Johannes Paulus Secundus! Ave atque vale!

"Superpope," as I sometimes called him (not from disrespect), is manifestly a tough act to follow.

Before I rant further on the subject of Blood Lake, the New York Times has given me another topic to kick around, though maybe it wasn't that firm's doing; it could have been someone else's link on the page where I was reading one of their annoying columnists, which I don't often do. The guy's tilted take on religion convinced me not to go to the second page, but this looked possibly interesting. Turns out an author's selling a book promoting his own "take on religion." As it happens, I'm not necessarily opposed to what he's preaching, which may derive from Hindu mysticism. But his marketing slants to the left, replete with references to "fundamentalism"--that f-word which nobody, it seems, wants to define. (I'm reminded of Orwell's postwar quip about another f-word, fascism, which people, as he said, didn't bother defining except to agree it was something undesirable.) This guy, a Jew who went to study Eastern spirituality (not the first such case I've known of), gives the impression he believes himself the first and only purveyor of great truth--when even in the West these ideas have been around a while. (See Ralph Waldo Emerson.) Furthermore, he comes across as making the same error he finds elsewhere: Dividing the world into "us" and "them." Possibly he just needs better PR.

I may wind up blogging for a while here on more or less a single subject: the Blood Lake "Massacre," which just occurred on the closed reservation not far to our north--and briefly knocked the USA's #1 melodramatic story out of the spotlight. Wanting to make several points, I'm not sure what to say first. As background, let me note that my family has done business there regularly for decades, though I've hardly ever been there myself.

For a Western Civ guy, I consider myself a little more qualified to opine on the subject--merely due to circumstances--than you'd expect, more qualified in fact than your average pontificating pundit. Even without these "qualifications," though, two assertions already seemed clear enough: Teenagers are stupid; and unarmed guards are easily defeated by those who are armed.

As we all know by now, perhaps the most loathed newsman in America has relinquished his anchor post at the Evil Eye Network after 24 years, leaving it under a cloud--invisible to him, since he doesn't get it. My brother, who's long loved to hate the guy, threw a little party to celebrate his departure. One (questionable) highlight: He'd found a recipe for a drink called the "double standard" and mixed us up some, renamed for the occasion the "dirty Dan".

Yeah, as with Ol' Stubblemug, it's been nice losing him.

I've already noticed so much crap to criticize in those TV shows this year that I'm not even going to start with it. Enough drivel!

My original, unimaginative thoughts on blogging for the new year involved more TV criticism, as usual about the forensic-police shows--in which perhaps the most basic design flaw is that the characters who solve homicides in the lab are often the same who run around after the bad guys. Somehow nobody here considers that realistic.

I'll spare my hypothetical readership further complaints about improbably twisted plot lines and get to what's really riled me up. The New York Times can take credit--and, contrary to reasonable expectations, it's not due to a disgustingly slanted piece of "news" or an absurd editorial. While I never have occasion to mess with the paper's analog version, I currently subscribe to a NYT business-news email service (though one might ask why, since I'm not in business, and currently lack resources to invest). It was a NYT service I signed up with in connection with a Yahoo! account, incidentally giving me limited online access to the Times. Recently the purveyors of "all the news that's printed to fit" sent a message linking to their top ten stories of 2004. One, published a year ago, detailed the sordid organized criminal pursuit known as sex trafficking. This is not mere prostitution; in fact, it gives prostitution a bad name. Hell, it gives sex a bad name! The vile practice might as well be known as--and perhaps is sometimes aptly labeled--sex slavery. I'm tempted to remark that this gives even slavery a bad name, which may be overreaching. Yet what I know about slavery in the United States, as legally carried on before abolition, suggests that these old-American slaves' owners treated their human chattel with greater regard--even if merely because of their value as property--than the bloody perpetrators whose racket is described in this article (referenced here but not directly available for free) evidently can find in their miserable psyches for the people whose lives they deliberately ruin and, often, destroy. These parasites don't care.

A word of caution before I rave on: This information was published in the NYT, which has been known, like some other periodicals, to run stories later exposed as false. Editors' confidence in reporters is an insufficient guarantee of truth. I have to wonder, then, how accurate this lengthy account really is. Frankly, I'd prefer it prove totally false; the less reality in it, the better! Maybe I've gotten riled up over nothing. Wouldn't be the first time.

But get riled up I did; I may not have been so murderously inclined toward an evil organization since some seven years ago, when I imagined what I might do to the Algerian terrorists then in the news. Here's the basic story: children and young women from Latin America and Eastern Europe are acquired/recruited through pretenses/shanghaied and smuggled into the United States, generally via Mexico, and, we're told, typically brought to our big urban centers to serve as sex slaves for the unconcerned enjoyment of paying customers (call them clients of evil) and the profit of a particularly low breed of mafiosi. The parallels with the illegal drug trade are obvious.

Yet the greater depravity, when compared with drug trafficking, is also obvious. Rather than dwell on the differences, I'll offer my reaction--which is what journalists really want, isn't it? Four words: Not in MY country! So say I, Derrick Edgar Ronald Hohenburger of Lacus Transversus. It's one thing for the godfathers of whoremongery to lord it over towns they corruptly control in the middle of Mexico, and another to push their foul tentacles into the US and its cities--as if there weren't enough criminals here already!

Just as well (for the bad guys) that I'm on the other side of the country without my own wheels. Should I hit it big, I might look into buying cheap border property in Arizona, where I already have some tenuous connections, just so I could make an impact. A less ambitious option would be to join these guys (more power to them & others who've undertaken similar operations).

Should I ever run across any of these white slavers (to use an old term), if I felt as I did when reading the Times article, I'd be inclined to shoot all the slave-driving bastards on the spot. That wouldn't be enough for their victims, though, who need--to appropriate an expression--kinder, gentler treatment. Sounds like a cause for church/charity--too big a project, admittedly, for a would-be lone ranger.

There, I said it. Don't we feel better now?

A little more about Salami--since this quote from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/) came to my attention.

Referring to Bin Slobberin's latest recorded refuse, this article notes:

[T]he tape asserts that anyone who participates in the upcoming Iraqi or Palestinian elections is an "infidel," in effect demanding that Iraqis accept bin Laden as the supreme Islamic religious authority.

My reaction is, as we say in my country, "Who died and made you God?" IIRC, this gobbler never even studied theology. He thinks he can buy the caliphate with his family fortune--that, and his long beard, plus a turban. Aside from deluded disciples, that's all he's got. Whether he even believes his own rantings is questionable. Maybe he's just in it for the power trip. Personally I don't care.

It's like this bit I thought up in perhaps a different context: sort of Thomas Jefferson meets (the old Johnny Carson character) Art Fern: "Want to preach no god? We don't care! Want to preach 20 gods? We don't care! Want to sacrifice poultry and goats? We don't care! Want to kill people? That's when we care!"

Seems every time I start an entry, I feel like apologizing. Well--yes, I've ignored this blog for more than a month now. Tonight I'm ready for something different. For better or worse, I'm joining an organized blogospheric movement:

www.blogsagainsthillary.com/

There it is, folks, a current Noble Cause. It may not come as much of a surprise to Hohenblogger's readers--if it has any yet! By way of confession, I'm a member of the Republican National Committee, though I also have ties to the Libertarian Party. At any rate partisan activity is probably less fundamental to me than to a major portion of the politically active.

As for the Clintons--well, I'm not so violently opposed to them that I wouldn't associate with them myself if I thought it might advance my career! Not that I'd be up to misrepresenting myself, but if (in my estimation) it did no harm, I'd be ready to exploit their standing. More of this later, maybe. I'd prefer, of course, that the reviled Rodwoman not become President.

At any rate I'm aware that we have more dangerous enemies. Like many of you all, I'd be happy to personally put Salami been Slobberin and his Islamofascist pals, as well as their current Saddamite allies of convenience, out of our misery. Lacking the means, we mere Netizens can at least attack electronically, if only to mock these deluded dorks.

Almost seems I need to begin with an apology again. It's been over a month once more since I started my last entry--and some month it's been, eh?

Before going further, since I started this post on 20 Nov, I'd like to salute the Archduke formerly known as (Crown) Prince: Dr. Otto von Habsburg, grand old man of Europe, who now turns 92. I'm slowly catching up with him; about two years ago I reached half his age!

Meanwhile, so long to Ol' Stubblemug, grand old Moloch of the Middle East, at 75--it's been nice losin' ya! One hopes the practice of child sacrifice will now wane, though such optimism has yet to be justified.

I apologize for devoting so much of this log to criticism of dopey media output, but the subject matter's all too easy to come by--and unfortunately it doesn't have a lot of competition. Anyhow, I regettably mentioned this forensics-spinoff show, which nowadays boasts other siblings as well. This time my mistakenly paying attention to the living-room tube revealed a fine target for conservative types to blast away at: This stupid-sode's villain turns out to be a chaplain who's obsessed with the 1950s. There were formulaic details I also found offensive (maybe there always are), but this implied anti-moral--the '50s were evil, & religion is bad--is about as subtle as one of that era's monster films, and about as realistic.

Flash: CBS News stands by its error.

Well, folks, I'd hoped to be writing up an account of a trip to New York City and the Republican National Convention. Author and readership (if any!) can relax; no such piece will appear, because I wasn't invited and ultimately couldn't afford it anyway. (I was invited to serve as an alternate four years ago but passed on that opportunity.) Then, as if to rub it in, came this mailing, of which my journal reads:

A GOP outfit invited me to a private St. Paul reception & dinner with the First Lady. Dinner alone costs $10K. Wish I had that kind of money.

My financial picture has turned rather bleak of late--ironic, considering how my family has long known me as a frugal spender. Unfortunately I've never been so great on the earning side and am still working on Plan B. (Plan A is the common standby involving a lottery win! :-))

Here's a curiosity, to put it mildly.

A roundabout investigation of a newly-discovered and interesting website led me to the pages of an individual with much to say. (Sorry, folks, I'm posting no links and don't feel like including too many specifics.) What particularly got my attention was a reference to a certain unpopular church I regarded highly in my youth. One residual opinion of mine: Maybe these people were wrong for the right reasons--though I've naturally wondered how that might compare with being right for the wrong reasons! Anyhow, this other blogger described in some detail her experience with an outfit ("cult," to use her fashionable pejorative) she described as an offshoot of this church after its partial breakup in recent decades. In retrospect, she didn't have much positive to say about the guys running it, which is not entirely surprising.

What did surprise was the religious system of her own she apparently assembled to replace her earlier faith. I found it off-putting enough without the inclusion of what she presumably considered her inspired prophecies--and then there was her recognition of her own virgin birth. Folks, I think we can agree that this is kinda weird--over the top, in fact. No thanks.