18. December 2008 by Satire V.

Barack Obama’s recent attempt at his administration’s promised transparency with reporter John McCormick revealed an interesting tendency on the PE’s part.  He occasionally engages in a practice sometimes referred to as “uptalk.”

Uptalk is the use of a rising inflection at the end of a statement.  This is normal for interrogatory statements, but not for declarative statements.  Although this practice is fairly common among Left coast residents, it is not the norm for the Midwest.  Also of note is that he doesn’t use this speech pattern very often.  In many speeches and interviews he ended his declaratives with the even inflection that denotes the completion of the statement.  When comfortable with the subject, or when interviewed by anyone left of Fox News, he rarely used uptalk.

Outside of those who use this speech pattern regularly, engaging in uptalk is potentially a sign of internal dissonance.  Most often, it indicates discomfort with, or unsureness about the statement being made.  Another common reason it comes out is that the speaker is unconsciously making a question out of the statement.  Think about when a child is questioned about doing something naughty, like the hand in the cookie jar.  When asked why or if he or she did it, the child will often try out answers, ending his or her statement with the rising inflection of a question.  Its as though the child is trying out the answer to see if the adult will bite.

I don’t think that I’m biting on this one.  Let’s see who left their prints on the Blagojevich cookie jar.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

17. December 2008 by Satire V.

One of the more foolish sentiments declared by the left during the last administration under President Bush was “Dissent is Patriotic”.

The idea in and of itself is not particularly foolish; it was the thought process, or more accurately the lack thereof, behind it.

There is much hypocrisy in the statement, rooted in the beliefs of those who make it. Those most likely to use it and stick it on the backs of their cars are those least interested in dissent. I sought out discussion with some of these people, and they had no interest in any opinion other than their own. They attempt to characterize any ideas they don’t agree with as hate speech, thus justifying in their minds that the speaker should be censored. Typically, it is Conservatives that are far more tolerant of the speech of others.

Most of the media establishment voices the same ideas as the “dissenters”. There is no shortage of time, venue, or validation from old media and Hollywood of their views.  During the Democrat convention in Denver, I personally observed leftist protesters violating the freedoms of others by blocking streets without permits, while they were allowed to freely exercise their rights to assembly and free speech. The government of Colorado and Denver went to great lengths to ensure the freedoms of those who wanted to be heard.  Some of these poor muted souls even attempted to attack a crew from Fox News.  So, with the assistance of the government,  the collusion of the media, and while physically assaulting a legitimate news organization because it doesn’t report everything from a leftist perspective, the left has still come to believe that they have been silenced. They seem to have forgotten a basic tenet of this Country; that we are each equally free to express our ideas.  That doesn’t mean that the government has to change to suit whomever shouts the loudest.

This freedom means that if, for example, I want to say that the actions of John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama lead me to question their patriotism, then that is my right.  My doubts don’t silence them, or any other person who speaks out against the defense of our Country.   I know these people don’t have the best interest of the Country at heart, and are therefore by definition not Patriots, but still they are free to speak.

Now the Democrats and others on the left are talking again about the “fairness doctrine.”. This doctrine has as its goal, the silencing of one side of the political debate. Liberals have a long history of trying to shout down or silence those who disagree with them. Although the left has gone to extreme measures to demonize and criminalize dissent, the Right will continue to express their dissatisfaction with the socialist ideas of the current government.

The left has achieved historic gains in the legislature while installing a socialist as our head of state. Given this situation, it should be expected that the minority will take issue with the upcoming administration and wish to speak out.  This opposition has every right to do so, but will the liberals defend this right?

So, the question for the left now is:

Is dissent still patriotic?

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

15. December 2008 by Satire V.

“Peace, back by popular demand”
This bumper sticker, the recent resurgence of the peace symbol, and peace rallies are viewed by many as signs of this country’s renewed desire for the end of war. This is a legitimate desire. Unfortunately, it is also a renewal of the raging ignorance and dangerous naivete of the 60’s.

There is a fundemental misunderstanding that is revealed by the simple-minded utterance of the word “peace”, or the use of the recently popular symbol. The implication is that we can simply declare peace on our enemies. This is entirely wrong.

The inverse, which is equally wrong, is perhaps the source of this mistake. Many on the left are foolish enough to believe that it requires both sides to declare war. War is not a tango, and it doesn’t take two. Even for those that fail to recognize earlier events for what these were, only a fool would not agree that on September 11th, 2001 our Islamofascist enemy declared war on us. They didn’t need our consent.

The same people that thought Woodstock was great, that burning draft cards was the ultimate expression of bravery, and that believe(d) that drugs can expand your mind are sadly teaching our children today. These people are trying to teach these children that peace is something we can simply choose of our own accord, and it will happen. This is not entirely wrong. In the same way that a child might avoid getting beaten by a bully by giving up his or her lunch money, we could possibly sell our freedoms for peace. Who would consider this price fair? I believe that freedom is far more valuable than peace without it.

Taking this peace-loving “stand” today helps the draft dodgers justify their cowardice in the 60’s. What an opportunity to make so much of the evil of war when they no longer have much to lose. They can even convince themselves that there is some risk involved in “resisting” and that they are therefore displaying great bravery.

We Americans have not had to fight often on our own ground. This is mostly because we have demonstrated an ability to, and a willingness to, wage successful war on our enemies. Sadly, because of the left in the late 60’s and now, and with the help of the “light right” in the first gulf war, the world can question our resolve. We can only pray that they don’t continue to test it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

1. December 2008 by Satire V.

ATHEIST

This was the entirety of the bumper sticker on a car in my neighborhood recently. What an interesting statement. This short statement seemed to say a couple of things.

First, I thought it must be an identification in the same way as a sticker saying “Hockey Mom”, or “Republican”, or “Raider Hater”. This person must identify himself as an atheist, I thought. 

My next thought was that this just didn’t seem like it could be right. Of the two meanings of the “a” prefix, most “a”theists claim the mantle of simple disbelief.   Why would someone declare a simple lack of belief in such a public way?  I’ve never seen anyone driving around with a bumper sticker saying “I don’t believe in dragons!”, “AUFOist”,  or “Afairyist,” or any other declaration that the driver wants everyone to know what he or she doesn’t believe in.  What a colossal waste of time to state everything one doesn’t believe in.  Even selecting one item of disbelief and plastering it on your vehicle is a bit ridiculous.

 The reasoning that makes the most sense is that the meaning is not “disbelief”, but “unbelief.”  Unbelief in that not only is there a lack of belief, but an opposition to belief.  In the same way that an unwilling person isn’t simply without will, but actively resists the intended goal, atheists seem interested in actively resisting the influence of religion.  This doesn’t seem so bad on the surface, but when many of these people feel the need to actively resist the influence of religion on those who do want it, they go too far.

 Look at writers such as Christopher Hitchens; or listen to almost any member of Amerikans United for the Separation of Church and State.  There is an apparent need to try to make those who believe out to be ignorant rubes.  Why?  Why the shrill tone, the anger, the search for anything that might have the slighest scent of God about it that must be excised from public life?  Are these people really afraid that religion is going to take over the government?

More importantly, why do atheists seem to have such an axe to grind with Christianity in particular?  Christianity has had no more evil committed in its name than any other religion of note.  Secularism has been the source of far more misery than any religion.  So, why such hatred of Christianity?  Many atheists grew up in Christian families.  (many Christians grew up in atheist families as well)  Many of these unbelievers claim that there was rampant hypocrisy in the religious life of those close to them.  I suppose it is easy to be without any hypocrisy in secularism.  All one has to do is not have faith.  Christianity may be the focus of their ire because the God of Christ will judge each person on their own merits.  There is a requirement of personal responsibility.

Perhaps it is the idea of being held to an external standard that frightens atheists, for I believe that fear is at the root of atheistic anger.  It is easier to make angry statements about the stupidity of the faithful, easier to fight any public display of symbols of religion, and easier to say that God is not, than it is to accept responsibility for their life.  The only good that comes from this is that many atheists are otherwise decent people.  Knowing that if they behave in keeping with an atheistic belief, they will be challenged for selfish and amoral behavior, they end up living by most of the Commandments.  If they truly believe that there is no higher power, and that we are random collections of molecules, they should feel free to behave in any way they want.

Back to the Atheist of the bumper sticker.  He recently removed that sticker and replaced it with another that shows arrogance and a failed thinking process.  His new sticker reads:

“Dare to Think For Yourself”

How arrogant to tell others what they should dare, and what hypocrisy to tell others that they should think for themselves.  The statement is oxymoronic on its face.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »