third world county

Safe Search

April 2014
« Mar    

Never Forget!


Great Hosting!


Recent Posts

Recent Comments


Site menu:

Site search


Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us--eternal life. (1 John 2:24-25, ESV)


Cool Links

Good Reads

More Good Reading


April 2014
« Mar    

“Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide.” — James Burnham

No Gravatar

Re-”printing” this from January 20th, 2010.

It’s interesting to me that simple common sense is so completely forsaken that such things as this can even gain an audience in a Western society:

Muslim police say Islam not to blame for terror attacks

Muslim police officers have rebelled openly against the [British] Government’s anti-terrorism strategy, warning that it is an “affront to British values” which threatens to trigger ethnic unrest.

The plain fact of the matter is that so-called “radical” Muslims are at the dead solid center of Islam. It is those vanishingly few genuine “moderates” who are apostate Muslims, heretics, deniers of Islam and its prophet, the Butcher of Medina, and his diktat of hate, intolerance and jihad against any who refuse to embrace his cult. Those who are genuine followers of Mohamed are either open jihadists or enablers pretending to be “moderates” while practicing al taqiyah and acting as enablers for their openly jihadist brothers in arms.

Anyone who can allow such behavior as that linked above by police officers in a Western society is simply an active participant in societal sabotage, an enemy of the West and of human rights, decency and honesty.

h.t. Atlas Shrugs

Slight update:

Note another practice permitted–yea! encouraged–by the “prophet” that closely resembles the outright lying that characterizes taqiyyah is the Muslim practice of kitman. Kitman is quite similar to the most common lies told us by politicians, academicians and Mass MEdia Podpeople here in the West. It is lying by omission, telling a part of the truth in such a way as to remain “factual” while still committing a lie. Decent people in the West find such behavior reprehensible, but MOhamed taught such behavior as being not just permissible but in many cases desirable. Most such cases with Muslims are, of course, desirable when dealing with non-Muslims (although Mohamed also allowed lying to fellow Muslims in some cases. Try to get a Muslim to admit that).

One place kitman and taqiyyah are most effective in bamboozling stupid people in the West is on the very nature if Islam, “the religion of peace”. Of course, the “peace” of Islam is simply the religious, social, cultural, legal, and behavioral submission of a slave to a master, but Islamic apologists don’t want to (and so do not) go there, and roundly condemn anyone who does (because truth is anathema to these scum). Regularly cited by these liars are the so-called “peaceful verses” of the Koran (yeh, yeh, Islamic apologists have insisted that “Qu’ran” is more respectful. Eat my shorts.). What they do not want you to know is that not only are the so-called “peaceful verses” outnumbered at about 7-3 by the verses advocating violence, but that Mohamed’s own exegetical principle, which scholars call “abrogation,” dictates that any “apparent” conflict between his sayings is to be resolved by a saying uttered later taking precedence, abrogating an earlier, conflicting saying. Interestingly enough, the “peaceful verses” came early in Mohamed’s career as a con man, while the verses advocating violence against unbelievers came later.

That is why I hold the opinion that a more accurate descriptive of Islam is “Islam: Hate Cult.”

Surrender to Islam on any front by the West is stupid, immoral and suicidal.

Have you ever had a Muslim “friend”? If so, only one of two things obtained:

1. The Muslim who was your friend was an apostate or
2. The Muslim who was your “friend” deceived you, because Mohamed was adamant that his followers could not have friends who were unbelievers, and it is universal Islamic doctrine that his words are eternal, unchangeable, inerrant and infallible. (Koran 5:51, 5:80, 3:28, 3:118 and many others.)

Now and then. . .

No Gravatar

. . .our cat goes on a binge of sticking his butt in my face. What’s up with that, anyway? I TELL him, “Hey! I don’t like your a$$ in my face!” but all the glare he gives me seems to say in return is, “Why not? I like it just fine.”

*sigh* Cats. Can’t live with ‘em, can’t find a good Chinese recipe.

Why Should One Do One’s OWN “Homework”?

No Gravatar

Almost daily, online, in “the real world,” in books and other media, I encounter folks making assertions based solely because someone else they accepted as authoritative said such and so.

Frequently “such and so” ain’t necessarily so. . . and the authority depended upon knows it full well.

Do your own homework.

I used to research topics by seeking out voices people I trusted about other things recognized as authoritative. Now, those “voices” could be texts by multiple authors, single authors, institutional proclamations or whatever, but even then, I always at least performed a rough “gut check” concerning what was said.

That was not enough.


Late on, though in early young adulthood, I began to see strange things in an acclaimed and widely accepted compilation of various ancient texts into one text likely to be “closest” to original source texts available only in fragments, performed by widely-recognized and respected historical-literary-linguistic critics and translators. The strange thing I noticed was that pieces of texts selected from various manuscripts sometimes did not follow, not even at all closely, the principles of historical-literary-linguistic criticism that the compilers clearly claimed to use in compilation. In fact, whole sentences, paragraphs, passages of what the compilers claimed to be the oldest, most reliable texts available were sliced and diced, with bits and pieces of manuscripts and passages the compilers themselves labeled as less reliable!

“Why?” I asked myself. Now, what I did in this particular case ran close to an ad hominem fallacy, but I believe I skirted that fallacy just to the side of legitimacy. What did I do in this case? I read the compilers’ own statements about their personal beliefs and, lo and behold! those beliefs were always reflected in the passages where they violated their own criteria!

Now, does this completely invalidate their work? No. I still use the text they compiled, but I do so fully aware of its flaws and fully aware of the legitimate readings of the text that simply disagree with the compilers’ own biases. I can, and do, make my own assessment of what texts are valid using both the compilers’ strict guidelines (which they asserted–falsely–that they followed) and older and newer scholarship to guide my decisions.

Now, is this an earth-shattering issue? For some, yes. For me, no. I do however much refer honesty in such things, and so my respect for the work of these scholars is seriously diminished, and as a result, I always squint a bit with a skeptic’s eye when I examine their work. Rightly so, I believe.

I know a great many others who simply and blindly and uncritically accept their work as “gospel”–the last word on the subject. They’ll do no serious harm, but I believe they’d do far, far more good were they to DO THEIR OWN HOMEWORK!

And so it is in life in general. Uncritically accept as “gospel” whatever a teacher, Mass MEdia Podperson, preacher, politician or even doctor tells me? No, never. I examine what they write/say and try to verify their facts and reasoning. Actually, more useful, I’ve recently discovered, is to use a principal scientific principle and attempt to falsify their message. If I cannot and instead find verification, I can at least provisionally work forward using the information as a basis for my own acts. If, however, their assertions/report is falsifiable by me, using the best sources I can discover, then I can place those assertions in the circular file. If falsification is rock solid (pertinent, verifiable text, audio or video that falsifies, along with sound reasoning), then that teacher, Mass MEdia Podperson, preacher, politician or even doctor really, really ought to recant, because if not, as far as I’m concerned, they’re toast.

There you have it: a non-rigorous proposal, with anecdotal commentary, for why one ought to do one’s own homework, especially before opening one’s mouth to provide proof of one’s status as a fool.

Just sayin’.

Fun, Fun, Fun

No Gravatar

Sometimes, Internet discussions can be a blast. I especially love it when some recent college grad (“recent” to me is somewhere in the last 30 years or so *heh*) gets all huffy and insulted when specific errors in their argument (fact, egregious word mis-usage, fallacy of reasoning–and the effect it has on his* argument–etc.) is pointed out to him*, is monumentally insulted, hurt and angry, instead of bucking up, growing up, getting a pair and doing his* own homework.

I really enjoy it when a po’ widdle baby interlocutor’s argument is a vehement “refutation” of an assertion I’ve made and. . . he* ends up accidentally supporting my argument, or when he* latches onto a word or term I’ve used (“Ooo! That sounds smart. I’ll use it too!”) and uses the word or term in a manner completely antithetical to its meaning, proving he* has no idea what he’s* just said.

Now, I’ll admit that some of the reasons I get such a laugh out of these kinds of things are not exactly flattering. For example, some are,

1. I DGARA about some illiterate blowhard’s tender lil feewings. Suck it up buttercup.
2. I enjoy watching metaphorical steam coming out of self-made idiots’ ears. They worked hard to earn my disrespect and they deserve it.
3. (Positive!)One in a hundred–with luck–will actually ask serious questions about how to repair the “holes and gaps, lacks and losses, absences, insipidies and the like” in their education/knowledge base.

I recall one such po’ soul from about 20 years ago. Head of the English department at a prestigious East Coast university. Emailed me privately to ask me–quite seriously–if my final comment about a post of his (well after deconstructing and pretty well demolishing it) were a reference to Faulkner. Well, except that he didn’t inflect the subjunctive mood in his question. Oh, the comment? To the effect that his argument was “sound and fury, signifying nothing” (and yes, it was in quotation marks). He quite literally (and I use the term accurately here) had NO idea that the quote was from The Scottish Play. No, seriously. The head of an English department at a prestigious East Coast university was essentially illiterate. He had never even read any of Shakespeare’s works. That qualifies an English professor as illiterate.


But, since he emailed me privately, sincerely asking to be enlightened, I simply referred him to The Bard (with act, scene and line citation–Act V, Scene 5, in context, lines 20-31(? IIRC) for the soliloquy.).

Any English prof who’s unfamiliar with that soliloquy is taking his pay under false pretenses, IMO.

But those kinds of folks turn out the illiterate boobs I run across every now and then, illiterate boobs who are adamant in their obdurate fantasy that they “know stuff” and can actually reason.

I do them and the world at large a kindness when I disabuse them of their fantasies.

Wonderful! I get to have fun and perform a public service at the same time! Win-win for me! (And, in those rare cases when the illiterate boob actually wakes up and smells the coffee, a win for the illiterate boob, too.)

Yeh, I don’t do the PC “his/her, s/he” crap much. It’s stupid. And I find “their” used as a singular to be offensive, too, although I have gotten sucked into using it every now and then. Bad influences. ;-)

N.B. I still only claim to be about half as literate as my grandfathers, some of my uncles and others I have known well for decades. And I enjoy having opportunities to repair my “holes and gaps. . .” etc. when they’re pointed out to me, so please feel free to note errors I make. Yeh, including typos. *sigh* But do be careful making an argument about word misuse. Some of my fav reading material is still my collection of dictionaries. :-)

Self-Made Morons: Giving the Gift of Laughter

No Gravatar


I’m really late to this thing, and I don’t really have anything to add, but that’s never stopped me before, so why now, eh? ;-)

The book that’s the subject of the kerffuffle mentioned below has won the 2014 Compton Crook Award, arguably one of the awards most insulated from influence by the agenda-driven GHH crowd. It’s a reader-driven award for best sci-f/fantasy first novel by an individual author

So, some guy wrote a (pretty good, IMO) space opera/first, et al, contact novel and someone else obviously trying to influence some upcoming awards (one of which the novel had been nominated for) wrote a “review” wherein she openly admitted she hadn’t really read the book, just cherry-picked things that offended her. (Apparently she wrote another that was even more over-the-top, but it seems to have disappeared from all the places links point to. Wonder why. Not.)

The review’s here: Fire with Fire: The Most Interesting Man in ALL TEH WORLDS (The book’s here or here, in case you want to make your own comparison to what the reviewer who DIDN’T read the book has to say about it.)

Here, perhaps this will push your curiosity button. One of the things that sends the “reviewer” around the bend was this cherry-picked sentence (quoted in more context at the “review”):

Downing shook Corcoran’s wide, strong hand.

Yeh, that’d give me the willies too. I would greatly prefer to shake a “narrow, weak, limp-wristed” pussy metrosexual paw. Yep. Oh, wait. That’s not me; that’s the po’ widdle baby who cherry-picked things to be offended at and who refused to read the whole thing before “reviewing” it. Might run into another scary “wide, strong hand”!


To the po’ widdle baby who apparently “thinks” she has a glittery hoohah, but who obviously has simply spent too many hours playing with her autolobotomy kit, I have only this to offer: life won’t get any better until you put down the autolobotomy kit and stop sniffing the unicorn farts, buttercup. (Yeh, yeh, I’d offer this at the offending post, but I’m not wasting even a throwaway email address on obtaining a login there.)

As to Gannon’s book, well, below the fold, mmmK?

A Reader’s Lament. . . OK, Gripe

No Gravatar

Yeh, yeh: I read far too many books. Blah-blah-blah.

Sadly, I had competent instruction in English when I was a lad. Occasionally I even choose to write as though I paid attention during class, even though I do not ask folks to pay me for what I write. But folks who expect me to pay them for their writing really ought to pay attention to proper grammar (I allow some leeway for dialog, since one can’t expect all the characters in a piece of fiction to be literate *heh*), spelling and word usage.

A couple of examples from today’s readings illustrate my lament/gripe:

From a “real” publisher comes a book sprinkled with loads of grammar, usage, spelling and punctuation errors. One sample: “The McCarthy’s [sic] did not comment. . . ” Apostrophe Abuse is prevalent and shows up in many ways, but I really hate it that more and more writers (and proofreaders and editors) have NO idea how to form plurals from proper nouns.

From the preface material in a self-pub (although I understand “Indie Published” is the preferred term nowadays) book, I gathered the author was tickled pink with his wife’s “proofreading” and his editor’s “professionalism”. *shudder* Not often a good sign. Sure enough, the thing’s littered with errors most commonly found in works written by hormone-lobotomized seventh-graders. *argh!*

Read two more by another author yesterday. Were it not for the *cough* “indifferent” *cough* editing/proofreading, I might have given the books as many as four out of five stars on Amazon for books of the genre. As it was, I was generous to give the books three stars. I would prefer to have the author, any proofreaders and editors at hand to personally dope slap. *sigh* Of course, the author was another of those who thanked his proofreader(s)/editor(s). (As I said earlier, usually a bad sign.)

Yeh, yeh, on top of my other reading (*sigh* mostly background to “news” and other fictional non-fiction), five novels in the past two days. One of them was competently written/proofread/edited. One. So far. . .

Welcome to the post-literate society, where published works must rise only to almost the literary quality of a Twitter or FarceBook post.

The Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind is Largely Illiterate

No Gravatar

I’ll cite just one example I saw today–there are others today and many, many more every day, but one will do for now–of evidence that the Hivemind is made up of ignorant doofuses. In a USA Today article, reproduced from The Des Moines Register, Hivemind member Jennifer Jacobs wrote,

The Trail of Tears was the name given to the route the Cherokee people walked in the late 1890s when the U.S. government forcefully removed them from their homelands in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee to live in Indian Territory, now Oklahoma.

OK, I’ll admit this one is more than a year old, and yes, I just saw it today. That’s more of an indication of how much I avoid USA Today than anything else, but not really germane to my point.

No one–not Jennifer Jacobs, not her editor(s) at the Des Moines Register and certainly not any editorial staff at USA Today–saw anything wrong with that statement. But. *sigh* The Trail of Tears stretched between 1831 and 1838, NOT “the late 1890s,” and the Cherokee were the last of the Five Civilized Tribes to be dispossessed and “relocated” via that “Trail of Tears.” The experiences of the Choctaw, the Seminole, the Creek and the Chickasaw all preceded the Cherokee “relocation” in 1838, and it was a Choctaw leader who, in 1831, first referred to a “trail of tears and death.” (BTW, Alexis de Tocqueville is a primary source witness to the removal of the Choctaw during his stay in Memphis Tennessee in 1831.)

That NO ONE at either Hivemind organ (nor in any of the comments by similarly illiterate readers of USA Today) noticed the egregious error last year or in the year since (well, until my own comment made today) is reason enough to avoid these crap journalism organs, especially since this sort of illiterate content (and illiterate editing) seems to be more and more par for the course in Hivemind organs all around.

Just sayin’.

Oh, yeh, the article’s about a Dhimmicrappic Congresscritter tweeting that the results of a basketball game evoke #trailoftears. *gagamaggot* Yeh, Congresscritter Braley is an ass and a jackwagon, but he’s not a patch on THE prototypical Democrat who is tied in my mind with for the title of worst president of the country’s first 200 years and was a major force bringing about the Trail of Tears: Andrew Jackson, bigot supreme, THE force behind the foundation of the Democratic Party.

BTW, lest someone doubt my quote of the illiterate Jennifer Jacobs, here:


Taming the Wild Loa

No Gravatar

I may need to look for a dreadlock wig and chicken bone rattle to deal with a client’s connectivity issues tomorrow. Sorry. Prayer and fasting ain’t cuttin’ the mustard.


Hard Questions with Easy Answers

No Gravatar

N.B. This is not intended to in any way be some sort of an exhaustive and definitive disquisition on the subject dealt with below. Think of it more as a sort of outline and indicator of where and how to direct your own homework, if you want to do any and find my comments useful.

Often, especially when moral equivalency arguments are regurgitated1 in response to truthful statements about the facts of Islamic dogma, questions are posed about “genocide” in the Old Testament. These questions are, of course, intended to indicate that the scriptures that inform and direct the lives of devout Jews and Christians are morally equivalent to those that direct the lives of devout Muslims. Is this true? No.

First, as to mass violence against others either directly attributed to God or as individuals or groups were commanded by God to commit mass violence, examples of both exist. The first includes the Flood account, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the destruction of Ninevah and the annihilation of Pharaoh’s army by drowning in the Red (?) Sea.  The latter is pretty much limited to the waging of herem against the Canaanites. It is this that is almost always referred to by the arguers of “moral equivalence” as evidence that the God of the OT commanded genocide and so Jewish and Christian scripture is thus on the same moral plane as foundational Islamic texts.

I’m not going to press theological arguments, because those making the “moral equivalence” argument have proven in my experience to either have no grasp of such things or to simply sneer at the information. Fine. My first objection, then, is that the on-again/off-again obedience by the Israelites to the command to engage in herem was never genocidal, that those who make such an argument are using “genocide” as a facile slur, fully aware that such an accusation is both false and tendentious. The plain text of the OT, not often actually quoted by such persons (often, I have found, because they simply have never actually read the texts but are merely parroting the slur), disproves the “genocide” accusation.

Yes, herem did mean mass slaughter of those indicated in the command, including those we think of as innocents (particularly, children).  Genocide or even the less inclusive “ethnic cleansing”? The texts do not support such an accusation. (Should I cite the relevant texts? Nope. Since the accusers almost never do, I’ll go ahead and leave that as a very easy exercise for any interested parties. Easy-peasy.) Next objection: this kind of mass slaughter was limited in scope by both time and place. It was not commanded to be unending, forever. Today, the genetic inheritors of Canaanite blood (genetic progeny exist because, urm, no genocide, *duh*) are actually welcome in Israel and by the Christian community at large, as long as they do not engage in unlawful conduct harmful to others, in other words, as long as they meet the same minimal standards of civilized behavior demanded by such societies of all participants.

While these avenues allow a great deal of scope for further examination of the false accusation of “genocide” as normative for Jews and Christians, we can go to extrabiblical examples often cited by those who argue “moral equivalence” as a slur. How about the Crusades, hmm? Fine, let’s go there. While political leaders (both church and civil political leaders) made appeals for the Crusades based on tainted theological arguments (some, “just war” arguments and some even more silly ones), all such arguments fail the central test: “Why do you call me ‘lord, lord’ and do not the things I tell you to do?” [Luke 6:46]

Hello! “Christian” means “like Christ” and so those who have committed acts of mass murder, rape, torture, etc., claiming to do so in the name of the founder of Christianity are simply liars, because their actions contradict the words and deeds of the one they claim to follow. That includes such things as found in the Crusades, the Inquisition(s) and more, even up to contemporary times. Jim Jones, Fred Phelps and legions of “celebrity” faux-christian leaders are all excellent examples of people falsely claiming to be disciples of a religious leader while acting in direct contradiction of that leader’s life and work. “Why do you call me ‘lord, lord’ and do not the things I tell you to do?”

Now a question of my own. How is that contradiction of the life and work of Christ the equivalent of some who faithfully emulate the life and commandments of one who was a mass murderer, rapist, thief, slaver, and torturer, and who commanded his followers to continue to commit mass murder, rape, theft, slavery and torture on those who would not accept his teachings? On the one hand, those who claim to be Christian who say they commit their mass murder, rape, theft, slavery and torture in the name of Christ are clearly, plainly liars. On the other hand, those who say they commit their mass murder, rape, theft, slavery and torture in the name of Mohamed and his god are clearly, plainly, honestly, faithfully following the teachings of Mohamed. How do these two classes indicate that Christianity and Islam are morally equivalent? Hmm?

Those who fail to follow Christ but instead contradict him by word and deed are considered by those who make the moral equivalence argument to be “like Christ”? Yes. Those who faithfully and accurately follow Mohamed’s example and commandments are, on the other hand, usually presented by such persons as atypical of Islam. How can such persons live with their fundamentally dishonest argument? *shrugs* Oh, it’s probably easy, since they apparently simply have no interest in truth anyway.

[N.B. Minor edits for sentence clarity and to reintroduce paragraph breaks that disappeared from the draft version of this post upon publication. *shrugs* Need dreadlock wig and chicken bone rattle, I suppose. . . ]

You Like?

No Gravatar

Thinking of having the local print shop print something like one of these on heavy card stock and having them laminated. . .

no trespassing

A “fair warning” No Trespassing sign, because Woody Guthrie* doesn’t have any cachet here in America’s Third World County, except among the growing population of illiterates (and even worse, a-literates) one increasingly finds everywhere nowadays.