Posts Tagged ‘morals’
When dissent becomes hate

I’ve got a couple of questions: First, Is there a difference between who a person is, and what a person does? I ask this question because I see a growing trend in American culture. If I object to a behavior or disagree with someone, I am told that I am insecure in my beliefs; that I am intolerant; that my dissent is a cloak for bigotry. In its extreme form, this view says that my objections belie an intense hatred for those with whom I disagree.

The logic seems to be: you object to my behavior, therefore, you hate me. Does that line of reasoning seem rational to you? Let’s give it a test drive. I object to the behavior my children sometimes exhibit and I am quick to correct it, but ask anyone who has seen me with my children and they will tell you the love we have for one another is obvious. In fact, the correction of my children is evidence of my love for them. So the “hatred” scenario doesn’t really hold water when speaking of objecting to a particular behavior, at least in my case.

Why am I getting into this? Because there are a number of people in this country (some of them professing “Christians”) whose inflammatory rhetoric belies a hatred for homosexuals. That extreme view has become the rule and standard by which some in the gay movement judge anyone who believes the gay lifestyle is wrong.

Social liberals have picked up on this and used this tactic to minimize anyone who attempts to enter the debate. In the process, Christians who openly dissent are vilified as hateful, bigoted, unloving, etc. The campaign has been amazingly effective in intimidating Christians, (or anyone else who disagrees) and bolstering a negative stereotype for those who dissent. The message is loud and clear: "Christians hate gays!" For that matter, anyone who objects to the gay lifestyle (or by extension gay marriage) hates gays.

What about you? Perhaps you object to my moralizing about homosexual behavior. Maybe you think I’m wrong to hold these views. Should I be as the extremists are and decide that because you object to my views, your objection means that you hate me? How does objecting to a behavior, or disagreeing about what is right and wrong become hate? To accuse you of hating me because you think my view of homosexuality is wrong would be an extreme form of hyperbole on my part. Yet that is precisely the auspices under which the radical gay movement and the cultural “elite” are operating.

 
NBC’s “Average Joe” exposed in swine production ring

Earlier today, I stumbled onto a reality show called, “Average Joe.” The basic premise revolves around a beauty queen who is trying to find her soul-mate, or “someone to help her perpetuate Planned Parenthood” (it’s hard to tell). I knew that these dating shows were shallow and immoral, but I was inclined to root for the average “Joe,” seeing as how I grew up as one and have been given the old heave-ho (no pun intended) for the “pretty boy” jerk more than once. I thought to myself, “maybe I was just too soft, and maybe an ordinary ‘Joe’ with more self-confidence can do what I never could, ‘beat out the jock.’” I quickly assumed some warped personal attachment to these underdogs, and reluctantly decided to watch.

The girl, who I’ll call “Amber,” was very attractive and ironically seemed very sweet. She poured compliments on the “Average Joe” contestants, and I thought to myself, “maybe I’ve just had bad experiences.” Maybe, just maybe, a girl can be physically attractive and also adhere to the, “it’s the personality that counts,” rhetoric spewed by many women…maybe, I had just been jilted one too many times, and had grown callous from all of the wounds. :-(

Anyway, the show later introduced some new contestants, however these guys were the type of “pretty boys” I spoke of earlier (this show referred to them as “jocks”). As they sashayed into the room, Amber was reduced to a bowl of jelly, and she smiled from ear to ear as saliva dripped from her chin. She never considered the average “Joe’s” again…she was captivated. When the producers instructed Amber to choose a date for the night, she didn’t hesitate for a second. “Rocky!” she exclaimed (that’s what this jock called himself). Rocky? You’re kidding, right? Apparently, he had successfully marketed himself (and his chiseled body); because, in a brief moment, Amber had been beguiled like a 9 month-old playing with a set of keys, while being serenaded with a recitation of “this little piggy went to the market.” When interviewed, she claimed that she had “felt some connection” the moment they made eye contact.

Really? We of the “male” persuasion tend to experience that from time to time, too! It’s commonly referred to as, lust! Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to marginalize the negative effects of lust, because after all, why do women call men pigs? Because, men ARE lusting machines. Most women CLAIM to be “above that,” and when they lust, they write it off as “chemistry” or “connection.” Certainly, most women are above this primal curse (I hope), but what kind of message does this crap send to young men and women? To a young man it says, “if you work out, talk smooth and ‘act mysterious’…you will nail virtually every chick, nearly every time.” To young women it blazons, “plaster the word ‘juicy’ across your @$$, and men will love you,” when in reality, men just like “connecting” with your caboose.

How do young people stand a chance of finding happiness in today’s society when TV says, “if you pretend to be something you’re not…you’ll score”?

Continuing onward, some interesting developments arose on the show when the Joe’s and jocks were sent on a “guys’ night out” to a local bar that was “supposed” to be away from the cameras. Of course, the show’s producers made sure cameras were rolling and even took the liberty of sending in several attractive women to “flirt” with (more like seduce) the guys. Long story short, one of the guys kissed “another woman.” When Amber confronted the contestant’s infidelity, her chin quivered as the tears rolled down her sweet little, “innocent” face. She was devastated. I mean, how could he have kissed another girl? Never mind that in the past few weeks Amber herself had her tongue down the throats of no less than a half dozen different blokes.

That wasn’t the end of it, however. Like in a good ol’ monkey melee, handfuls of crap were hurled at this guy. She had indubitably been forsaken by this modern-day Judas, and he obviously didn’t care about her if he could… would… “BETRAY HER LIKE THAT!!”

Amber, along with the producers of Average Joe would have you believe that she was victimized by this guy. It matters little that he kissed one girl, ONE, and he had to be entrapped in order for that to happen. He’s just a two-timing whore of a man; a deceitful libertine that has not one decent bone in his body; a pig whose thought processes don’t rise above his basest desires. Meanwhile, sweet little Amber has EVERY right to “sample” a buffet of men. And she can do it with a clear conscience, because after all, “she’s confused and having a hard time deciding whom to choose” (poor, poor woman). It’s all very sad.

Almost every man has a story about being “the nice guy” (because that’s what women say that they want). But these stories usually end with our hero’s heart ripped from his blood soaked thorax and haughtily cast to the ground. The real she-devils are sure to give it a good stomp to eradicate any residual capacity to trust.

It’s no wonder some men are the way they are. It only takes a couple of times to get kicked in the teeth, before you start wearing a face-mask. What idiot would keep serving up his chin to his opponent, knowing the deadly uppercut is lurking behind that pretty smile and floral scent? Guard your faces fellas, because this world is messed up!

 
U.S. sells out Tibet for ticket to Beijing Olympics

Since the uprising in Tibet, Beijing has repeatedly placed the blame for the revolt squarely on the shoulders of the Dali Lama. They have gone on record to accuse him of masterminding some sort of coup in an attempt to undermine the Chinese government in the eyes of the global community. With that rhetoric in view, I have to ask the obvious question: Who do they think they’re fooling?

This is China for God’s sake. Remember??? Red China?

 

"The country which detains individuals for exercising their rights to freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom of expression, including the right to impart and receive information, and other basic rights…Many of those detained are held under circumstances that constitute clear violations of due process. Such violations include lengthy detention without charge or trial and depriving defendants of access to legal counsel."

And they’ve got the gall to call themselves the People’s Republic? What irony!

And now, we’ve got politicians like Pelosi AKA “ol’ Nantucket” and Bush Jr. otherwise known as “Chimpy of II” mouthing the empty rhetoric of, “Let’s not mix politics and sports” when it comes to the Olympics. As if there never was a political element to the games. We know better, but that doesn’t stop political mastheads like Pelosi and Bush from spewing such mindless blather. And it won’t stop the many Kool-Aid drinking Avian types out there from parroting it without ever stopping to examine whether the statement is substantive.

Trying to pretend there’s no political element to the games is like trying to pretend that the “sectarian” violence in Iraq isn’t motivated by religion.

In fact, the very reason, we aren’t boycotting the Olympics is political. We know which side of the plate our bread is buttered on and a few dead and detained Tibetans aren’t going to get us to switch sides. You see, we only care about freedom and democracy when it serves our interests, like in Iraq. As I’ve said before, if only Hussein would’ve had the foresight to invest in industry instead of yellow cake. He’d still be free to exploit and terrorize his countrymen.

Anyway, who cares about a few Tibetans and their abuse at the hands of mother China? Certainly not our government. We're far more worried about offending China, owing to our dependence on Chinese imports. Meanwhile, we happily export U.S. jobs to mainland China. Thus, we are producing capital for the oppressors. In return for that, we get cheap stuff. But now that our number one export is the U.S. job market, we really need those cheap products. After all, flippin' burgers down at the Greazy Spoon doesn't really pay all that well. So the necessity of China's "imports on the cheap" seems to be directly proportional to our so called service based economy? It's all good says Uncle Sam.

And the real kicker? Our money enriches a government which treats its citizens like subfodder. That cozy relationship is what got us complimentary tickets to the Olympics and earned us brilliant sound bites like "[the] games are an event that are supposed to be about the athletes, not politics." Thanks a lot for that empty, dull, and foolish liberwocklike statement Mr. President. And thanks to the other invertebrate leaders of the free world. You so-called beacons of truth and morality. Thank you, thank you, one and all. Yours is a shining example and a thing of beauty to the rest of humanity.