Thursday, October 21, 2010

Chapter 28. The Penalty for Being An Uncle Juan

"We're profoundly sorry that this happened during fundraising week."
Vivian Schiller, President & CEO
National Public Radio
Internal NPR memo on the Juan Williams firing

Sorry, indeed, considering that this organization could never be successful in an open and fair market.

In a swirl of irony and injustice, NPR fired news analyst Juan Williams after comments on The O'Reilly Factor about being afraid of fellow airline passengers in Muslim garb.  In addition, Williams commented on the recent statements from would-be mass murderer Faisal Shahzad warning Americans that war with Muslims is "just beginning."


"I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Williams said.

Apparently Williams also cannot escape the fact that he is part of a segment of the American scene in which there is complete and utter intolerance of opposing viewpoints, not only in the legitimate debate of ideas and opinions, from which liberals ran away decades ago, but in the business world of uber-left wing elites who are willing to sacrifice anyone, even an honest fellow socialist like Williams, to appease their own god of political correctness.

On the other hand, Williams had it coming.  Playing with fire, he has recently begun to decry the very philosophy on which he cut his journalistic teeth, namely the high-tax, low-productivity, nanny-state redistributionist mentality of victimhood.  In his heart of hearts, he must have known this wasn't to be allowed for long.

Like the term "Uncle Tom," hijacked long ago by liberals to describe a Black flunky, and recently applied to successful Black men such as Bill Cosby, Justice Clarence Thomas, Mr. Williams and even moderate Colin Powell, who dare to express a view different from the media and political left; a new wave of intolerance has emerged in which it's simply inexcusable to quote facts about Islam and the growing existential threat to the West.  To do so invokes a visceral response that is an odd admixture of anti-Americanism, apathy, intellectual blindness and intentional cowardice.

Don't feel too sorry for Mr. Williams.  He immediately signed a lucrative contract with Fox News.  And who knows, perhaps he will soon have the distinction of a new epithet coined after him to describe the continuing journalist pogrom of the left...

A damned ol' Uncle Juan.

Quotient out.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Chapter 26. Assessing the Situation for the President

Respectfully submitted to the President:  a list of "whose ass to kick." 

1. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Iranian president and Holocaust denier who continues to move his country closer to nuclear weapons even under a whither hail of stern, stern UN warnings.
2. Hamas.  Recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States, the EU, Japan and Canada; and looks to the obliteration of Israel.
3. Vice President Joe Biden.  Also known as Uncle Mouth and Joe Who??  Semi-covert politician who, similar to groundhog Punxsutawney Phil, emerges into public view once a year.  In the open, Biden either says something stupid, in which case he is immediately sent away; or says something completely incoherent and is allowed to continue explaining himself to reporters for six more weeks.
4. Kim Jong-il.  Supreme Leader of North Korea, another dictator looking to throw nuke weight around.  Routinely flaunts sanctions and threats; recently sank a South Korean warship while the world tsk-tsks and wonders why Someone doesn't Do Something.
5. Ken Salazar.  Secretary of the Interior who did little to correct Bush-era deficiencies in his own agency's governance and oversight of deepwater oil rigs, then fiddled and blustered for weeks after the disaster began.
6. James Cameron.  Legendary film maker and tease, got America thinking that taking pictures of the dead wreck of the Titanic, creating CGI avatars that fly, and stopping a several thousand psi oil leak a mile under the sea are all equally feasible.
7. Himself.  Because the buck always stops with him, not Tony Hayward.

Quotient out.


Thursday, June 3, 2010

Chapter 25. Term Limits Au Naturel Part 2: Collecting the Data


Continuing from Chapter 22, this blog calls for a voter led action against any incumbent United States Senator who has completed three or more terms as a Senator or Representative.  Here is a list of the current Senators who qualify to be ousted.

The concept is simple:
  1. Collect the information you need to take informed action
  2. Do not elect any Senator to serve more than three terms at the national level
  3. Vote your conscience, so do not pull the lever for any candidate that doesn't meet your moral criteria (i.e. devout Catholics should never vote pro-choice)
  4. If all else fails, write in a candidate if necessary




For many, this action will be difficult.  But it is necessary to unravel the knot of corruption in our elected officials.

Quotient out.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Chapter 24. ...Same As The Old Boss.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton, a self-described loather of the military, did his presidential duty by giving a D-day speech to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Allied landing at Normandy, France.  The irony of a draft dodger who studied Russian while American boys were fighting the communists in Vietnam, was naturally lost on the press.  After the speech, Clinton strode Omaha Beach and suddenly stopped to "discover" several stones lying in the sand.  He then knelt and arranged them in a cross.  According to Maureen Dowd, Clinton's aides had preplanned the photo-op.


Fast forward 16 years.  A few days ago President Obama made his second foray down to the Gulf to help solve the crisis (his presidency, not the oil leak).  As usual he promised a lot without really promising anything:
"There are not going to be silver bullets or a lot of perfect answers for some of the challenges that we face, but we're going to keep at this every day... I'm here to tell you that you are not alone, you will not be abandoned, you will not be left behind.  The media may get tired of the story, but we will not. We will be on your side and we will see this through."
Uh, we??  Who exactly is the President talking about?  Well, as he left he did indicate that, "we've got the best minds working on it, and we're going to keep on at it."  But not before he took his own stroll along the beach, knelt down and picked at oily balls that had apparently washed onto the shore.


Like Clinton, President Obama is out of his element.  Clinton avoided the military and exploited D-day; Obama has managed to avoid working a day in his life at a job that requires profitable results, and now sanctimoniously chides the only knowledgeable corporate entity on the planet that has a direct vested interest in fixing this problem:  BP.

Louisiana shrimpers and fishermen need experienced engineers and drilling experts to keep trying potential solutions.  What they don't need are photo-ops and presidential visits or the soft, unspoiled hands of his Brain Trust whose orders amount to inspiring sage rejoinders like "just plug the damn hole."

Quotient out.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Chapter 23. President Pussycat

"Here's how you get him.  He pulls a knife, you pull a gun.  He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send you of his to the morgue.  That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone."  Officer Jimmy Malone (Sean Connery) The Untouchables  1987
In the first 16 months of his presidency, Barack Obama has carried the reputation of a Chicago hardballer, bullying slow moving liberals and recalcitrant moderates into submission as he seeks to socialize everything from health care to oil changes.  Who but a broad-shouldered enforcer could respond to a lady's question about whether her mom should have gotten a pacemaker at age 100, by saying the old gal might be better off "taking the painkiller."  That's tough.

Obama's minions are equally granite.  Take White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.  It takes a man confident in his abilities to push others around, to accost a "member" of Congress in the House gym shower, both of them naked, reportedly poking then-Representative Eric Massa in the chest and berating him for not supporting the President's budget plans.  And earlier this month Obama's Interior Secretary Ken Salazar indicated on CNN that it is the administration's job "to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum" regarding the Gulf oil rig disaster.  Press Secretary Robert Gibbs repeated the phrase at a briefing the next day.  The messages are clear:  don't mess with this President or his posse.

Unless you're a tin pot dictator or radical Muslim terrorist, that is.

Chief law enforcement officer and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stammered his way through Congressional questioning by refusing to say that radical Islam might have been a motivating factor in the Times Square bombing attempt.  One wonders if Holder might have had this much trouble if Congressman Smith had asked him whether gravity might be a factor in keeping us all from floating around the room.  A year ago Holder had the same trouble explaining why his Justice Department dropped all charges in the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.


To be fair to Holder, his boss doesn't fare any better.  While the President has bowed and groveled his way across the globe since taking office, North Korea took the opportunity to explode a nuclear bomb, fire off a couple of long-range missile tests, sink a South Korean warship, and imprison two American journalists and essentially hold them for political ransom.  Korean dictator Kim Jong Il threatens all out war if there is any retaliation. Not to be outdone, the equally diminutive and badly dressed Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad forged ahead with his nuclear weapon ambitions, and captured his own American prisoners back in July 2009 (the three hikers still await release, perhaps in exchange for the release of Iranian terror suspects).

Apparently gone are the days when a sunk ship or the harassment of a nation's citizens spurred action.  For America, it led to two world wars (and the liberation of a continent from the Nazis).  In response to Libya's role in the 1986 West Berlin discotheque bombing, in which American servicemen were killed and wounded, President Reagan ordered air strikes of Libyan targets.  At his 2002 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush famously called Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the "axis of evil."  A year later, he began the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein.


Today, President Obama's foreign affairs and national defense actions consists of unleashing the only arrow he has in his quiver:  rhetoric.  When today's bad guys do something against the U.S. or her allies, they don't fear grabbing a tiger by the tail; instead, they know they'll get complimentary admission to President Pussycat's Petting Zoo.

Quotient out.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Chapter 22. Term Limits Au Naturel

"Power tends to corrupt... Great men are almost always bad men."
Lord Acton, 1887
When we last left 18 year Utah Senate veteran Bob Bennett, he was sobbing his way out of office, having been ousted by voters in the state's GOP convention in the midst of what Bennett called the "toxic" atmosphere of anti-incumbent dissatisfaction.  Three terms in public service should be enough for any citizen, but given the money and power involved it's no wonder that Bennett is far from the most extreme example of the American Political Tick.

In fact, of the 100 current senators in office, 27 have longer tenures than Bennett (he is tied with four others).  When former stints in the House of Representative are counted, 14 additional "public servants" jump ahead of him.  Many of them have decades more, such as Senator Robert Byrd (class of 1959), Daniel Inouye (1963) and Patrick Leahy (1975).  Then there's Pat Roberts (1997) and Chuck Schumer (1999) who also formerly spent 16 and 18 years in the House, respectively, giving them each longer times at the trough than Bennett.

This also gives them longer tenures than the dictatorships of Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolph Hitler, and Joseph Stalin.

Experience shows that our politicians will generally not voluntarily give up their powerful positions in government; very few resign unless clearly facing voter rejection or perhaps under cloud of scandal, and even then they sometimes have to be forcibly shown the door.  Many would-be reformers call for imposed term limits as a solution, but such legislation must be sponsored and supported by the very men and women taking advantage of the system, so the term limitists probably shouldn't hold their breath.

No, there is only one sure way, already built into every election, to limit the time politicians remain in office:  the voters.  Voters must resolve that after a particular number of terms or years in office, they will automatically cast a ballot for another candidate in the primary and general elections.  Unfortunately, many Americans have the classic age-old opinion, "he may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch."  If we are to change the dynamic of higher stakes and lower expectations in our political system, this naive and robotic sentiment must be eliminated.

This blog calls on all American voters to pull the opposing lever against any politician who is running for a cumulative fourth term, regardless of the promises, the pork, or the winning smile.  If we don't do this, there may come a day when we lose the right to throw the bums out.  Shame on us if this happens.

Quotient out.

Monday, May 10, 2010

Chapter 21. Nothing More Than Feelings

On the May 2 edition of ABC's Sunday morning This Week show, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was asked by host Jake Tapper how concerned she was that the Times Square car bomb attempt of the evening before was not an isolated incident, after Tapper pointed out the obvious similarities between it and previous attempts in Great Britain.  Napolitano smoothly stated:
"We have no evidence that it is anything other than a one-off..."
This despite the events of the so-called "underwear bomber" only four months earlier, of which Napolitano said "the system worked."  It is as if the Secretary is a drone that is occasionally re-booted and rolled out to spout the ridiculous, so that more favored Obama cronies like Eric Holder can correct the misstatements, as the Attorney General did today when he announced what everyone besides Napolitano already knew:  this was another terrorist with Middle Eastern training and funding.  One must wonder why the "Napolitanobot" is kept in perpetual patsy-mode.  Her job seems to be to soft peddle the bad news that we're still in a war on terror, er, overseas contingency operation.  The same day she even tossed out that the Times Square attempt was amateurish.  Wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of all those professional man-caused disasterists out there.


CNN got into the act in the intervening week between respective interviews, when anchor Jim Acosta suggested that Times Square terrorist Faisal Shahzad's home foreclosure must have put a lot of pressure on him and the family.  The President was probably kicking himself for not having the Napolitanobot lead with that theory, since the financial and foreclosure crisis can be so readily linked back to George W. Bush.  At any rate, the manic suggestion that Shahzad, and those like him, may have been a victim is becoming a pattern of the left that reveals an increasing distance from common sense reality.  Not hurting the feelings of jihadists is not going to spare us any violence, and may in fact get us killed.

In a different example of feelings on display, just-deposed Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) had his feelings hurt in a big way, when Utah's GOP convention delegates voted him third behind two newcomers on Saturday.  No doubt the tears summoned as he thanked supporters and family were real; he had just seen his meal ticket torn up and tossed into the air by voters tired of career politicians bedding their nests for life.  Bennett called the political atmosphere "toxic":
"The political atmosphere obviously has been toxic, and it's very clear that some of the votes that I have cast have added to the toxic environment."
What Bennett calls toxic a lot of other folks simply call democracy.  Bennett's conservative credentials are more than respectable, but three terms in office is enough, and sometimes voters get it.  Eighteen years in a public office can corrupt just about anyone, and our political system is awash in corruption.  There will be more on term limits in upcoming posts.

Napolitano, CNN anchors and Bennett have one vexing thing in common:  the attempted shielding of the truth from the public, and all of them look silly trying it.

Quotient out.


Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Chapter 20. Quite Frankly, Fess Up

In General Motors' recent television ad, first-year CEO Ed Whitacre proudly states that GM has "repaid our government loan, in full with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule..."  President Obama repeated this report during his subsequent Weekly Address.


There has been a lot of reaction to GM's claim, mainly simple common sense about a company that is still operating in the red; still has several tens of billions of taxpayers money, and is still majority owned by the government.  The general consensus is, the "repayment" is a shell game using even more taxpayers' dollars.


But one part of Whitacre's commercial is especially galling: 
"A lot of Americans didn't agree with giving General Motors a second chance.  Quite frankly, I can respect that."
That tidbit of condescension comes from a man who is drawing a $9,000,000 salary for running a company of which the government owns 61%, and whose stock (no longer GM, but Motors Liquidation, symbol MTLQQ.PK since the company is still in receivership) has dropped nearly 50% since Whitacre took over as Chairman. 

"Quite frankly," he starts.  Quite frankly, as if the opinion of the American taxpayers, the ones who funded and continue to fund extravagant bailouts, might not have a valid concern about giving GM the money and thus need Whitacre to ground the conversation in seriousness.  As far as "I can respect that," who cares what Ed Whitacre respects or doesn't respect?  The fact is, the bailout happened despite the disagreement of "a lot of Americans."  Whitacre's respect is immaterial, but it's nice to get a gentle pat on the head from a multimillionaire now and again.

Whitacre doesn't seem to be a bad guy, and may turn GM around and get it back to profiability, no doubt a steep uphill climb.  For the sake of beleaguered Detroit, let's wish him well.

But, American taxpayers deserve to have a transparent view into their "investment," not silly and contrived fairy tales about Imperial clothing.

Quotient out.

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Chapter 19. The Firmest Ground: Principle

On Friday, the Daily Mail Online published the news that Catholic Care, the last Catholic adoption agency in Britain would be fighting the so-called Sexual Orientation Regulations  requiring agencies to accept gay couples as applicants, by an appeal to the High Court.  All previous encounters have ended in the closing of Catholic adoption agencies in the UK.
"But the Charity Tribunal ruled that it would be unlawful to allow Regulation 18 to be used as a defence by Catholic Care, saying that the proposed alteration of the objects ‘arose substantially out a desire to maintain a principled stance rather than being specifically designed to advance the ... charitable purpose of the support, relief and care of children and young people without families to care for them’."
Indeed.  The principle that a child is best raised by a father and mother, is not new to the Church or numerous other denominations and faiths.  Further, the principle not to knowingly participate in a grave evil is also a time-tested tenet of Christianity.

In a pastoral letter read at parishes in the Dioceses of Hallam, Leeds and Middlesbrough, the respective Bishops state:
"We are not judging other agencies that accept same sex couples for adoption, but feel strongly that we should not be forced to do so, nor is there a necessity for this to happen. We believe that this is a legally justifiable position to take and that it is a reasonable response to a legitimate end."
 But Catholic Care's reasonable position, based on principle but also justified within the pragmatic goal of placing at-need children into loving homes, is not good enough for the rabid forces, including but not limited to the homosexual activist community, that are now arrayed against the social structure of the western world and its primary building block, the family.  Compromise is not in their dictionary, or play book. It's not about one singular issue, but rather a radical re-making of our society.

The key to rebuffing this attack are our principles, and the willingness to stick to them when the false premises of political correctness, tolerance and an apparent short-term good make it easier to give in.

Quotient out.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Chapter 18. To Green Drivelists: Just Answer The Question

Two multibillionaires have become the revealed archetypes for the newest form of exploiter:  green.  As the catch-basket name would imply, green means making earth's foilage healthier and more abundant.  We are told this is to be accomplished by reducing our "carbon footprint" by cutting back on energy-producing processes that create greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.  But don't those plants breathe carbon dioxide, the chemical that the EPA, in December 2009, determined is dangerous?  And what about water, the most abundant greenhouse gas on the planet:  is it time to regulate water vapor?

These are a couple of the numerous Questions-Never-To-Be-Answered by the advocates of green.  Two such champions are enough for us to get a glimpse behind the curtain.

In a recent Economist interview with Shai Agassi, the Israeli-born entrepeneur stated his glorious vision for the world of the electric car, complete with fueling stations that allow the vehicle to have "infinite range."  He also states that the gas-powered car technology "has not undergone any innovation in a century."  Such exaggerations are the bread and butter of money-men like Agassi.  He also bombastically tosses out the claim that he can renovate a ten trillion dollar industry of "cars, spare parts, and everything else," without ever connecting this number to the switch to electric cars.  But, maybe spare parts are not needed for phantoms.

Mr. Agassi is an extremely bright and successful man, and maybe he is a visionary after all.  If so, can he answer the first Question-Never-To-Be-Answered:  where does the electricity come from?

The other green man is T. Boone Pickens, he of the national media blitz urging us to follow his plan to eliminate America's dependence on foreign oil in 10 years.  Pickens is a well known corporate raider from the 1980's, when he gobbled up oil companies and made his fortune off of fossil fuels.  Now he's green, at least partially.  His Pickens Plan would have created the largest wind farm in the country, supplying 4,000 megawatts of power to Texas homes.  The initial plan to purchase General Electric wind turbines became a possible purchase of 2,000 turbines, and eventually led to a single purchase of 677 turbines.  By July 2009, Mr. Pickens had abandoned his wind farm scheme, and recently turned his attention to his next money machine, natural gas.  Once again, maybe Pickens has the answer and deserves to be rewarded for it, but many doubts remain.

So, the Question-Never-To-Be-Answered:  how much power per dollar invested does a wind farm generate?

Don't hold your breath awaiting the answers to these questions from these men, or any other green advocates.  The answers exist, but have more to do with lining the pockets of green oligarchs than advancing fanciful notions that more properly belong on the cover of Popular Mechanics.

Quotient out.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Chapter 17. NOW What??

One might have thought that with all of the hype surrounding the decision of CBS to run the Super Bowl ad featuring quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, the ad itself would be a gritty re-telling of what might have happened to Timmy and the family had mom heeded the deadly advice of her doctors and had an abortion.

With a mixture of premature disgust and meaningless protestation, pro-abortion advocates awaited a gut rot straight-whiskey shot of audio-video.

The ad turned out to be more like a strawberry smoothie.

The 30 second commercial is benign, playful and somewhat vague, featuring the mother and son against a blank background, smiling and hugging amid gentle folksy guitars.  It ends with humor and an invitation to visit the Focus on the Family's website to watch the real, full story.



Prior to the ad being shown, Terry O'Neill, President of the misnomered National Organization for Women, stated to Politico.com: 

“The goal of the Focus on the Family ad is not to empower women. It's to create a climate in which Roe v. Wade can be overturned.  There are always going to be women who need abortions. In this country, one in three women will have an abortion.” Full Story

Loins girded for battle, the fembots were simply left looking silly.  Not to be deterred, however, Miss O'Neill experienced a sudden change of heart, or maybe face.  Her latest, and even shriller, objection to the ad concerns the CGI enhanced "tackling" of Mrs. Tebow by her son.  It's humorous, and at the end of spot she even says flat-out that she's tougher than him.  Apparently the sweetness and humor are lost on Miss O'Neill:

"I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it.  That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message." Full Story

Er, okay.  Right, celebration of violence.  Got it.

The fact is, Miss O'Neill and those of her ilk hate the Tebows, and for good reason.  They're Christian, successful and even good looking.  But most repulsive of all the Tebows don't suscribe to the philosophy of rending babies' limbs and crushing their skulls.  Go figure.

Quotient out.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Chapter 16. Who Is Democracy's Jonathan E.?

Anyone who has watched a 1950's "look into the future" will snicker at the predictions of the world of tomorrow, say in the 1970's or 80's, or even the turn of the century. The promises of flying cars and housework-busy robots and moon bases seem quaint and naive in the face of the reality of Communism and unpopular wars and a terror-driven Middle East.

Some predictions, however, while not literally manifested, can inform us about the dark machinations of the human psyche. If some author can imagine the future world, why not a politician, or dictator, or corporate giant? The paragons of 1984, Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 are familiar to us as cautionary tales.

Another interesting look into the future is Rollerball, the 1975 film by director/producer Norman Jewison and starring James Caan and John Houseman. The year is 2018, and nations have dissolved by conflict into six mega-Corporations: Transport, Food, Communication, Housing, Luxury and Energy. A few executives on the Directorate make all the decisions. Mankind has rid itself of famine, disease and war.

And individuality.

The deadly game of rollerball pits teams from corporate-cities in a mixture of roller derby (remember that?), football and extreme fighting. Players can be injured or killed, and the masses can return home with their innate human desire for conflict quenched, until the next game. The Game has been carefully designed to encourage allegiance to the Corporations and to its authority.

But as in all utopias, there is trouble brewing. There is Jonathan E. of Houston's Energy team; he is rollerball's best and most popular player, and its longest survivor (ten years). In fact, he's too popular, and has risen above the game itself and its purpose. So the executives "ask" him to retire, and when he refuses they begin making the game and its rules more deadly until at last, at the world championship, there will be no penalties and no time limit, meaning it will continue until all players are maimed or dead, even Jonathan.

video

There is, of course, only one way for Jonathan to make it through the final game, and you can watch the movie yourself to see what happens.

Well, 2018 is right around the corner. We don't have flying cars, or moon bases or rollerball yet. But we do have a growing public sector that rewards mediocrity and dissuades high individual achievement, as the only way to perpetuate the single truly mega-Corporation in the United States: the government itself.

Watch closely as our contemporary Jonathan's are torn down, simply from their brazen defiance of the Directorate.

Quotient out.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Chapter 15. Stinking Candy

So, what to make of Scott Brown's election in The Blue, er Bay State?

It is difficult to avoid post-electoral hyperbole to say that this is the beginning of some counter-revolutionary conservative uprising. Some claim that Massachusetts voters simply didn't like the dour Martha Coakley, at least to the tune of a 110,000 vote margin of victory for Brown. Others say it was about health care, or the President, or simple anger at Washington...

Or, perhaps it was the phantasmic fantasy of faux candy.

Perhaps voters in Massachusetts, as they did in 2009 in Virginia and New Jersey, have come to the realization that they were duped, or were victims of their own willful naivete. It's clear that many well-meaning Americans have awakened to the ideological shove to the left, even as a lot of them are breaking to the right on several important socio-cultural issues. During the election Senator Obama promised tax cuts for nearly everybody, bipartisanship, and transparency. In the last few months hundreds of millions of dollars worth of targeted "candy" was doled to various Congressmen to buy their votes on radical health care change.

A lot of Americans stood in line for the big parade, and excitedly clamored to catch the handfuls of promissory candy being thrown out by the Left.

Unfortunately, they thought they were getting a chocolate kiss, and it turned out to be a turd. Guess the decision to eat it is in the hands of the voters.

Quotient out.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Chapter 14. It's Easy To Kill Children...

...as long as you can convince yourself that they are dirty aliens, or crustaceans, or "prawns."

video

The movie District 9 gives us many things to think about: immigration, segregation, racism, and in this chilling scene, abortion. More to the point, when is life considered unworthy to be?

The character Wikus van de Merwe becomes the supervisor of an effort to control and relocate a million aliens (from another planet) who have mysteriously shown up hovering above Johannesburg, South Africa. At first they are brought down to an area near the city, but soon crime and poverty, not to mention their appearance and habits, make them unwelcome and earn them the pejorative "prawn." So it's time to move them further away, under Wikus' direction.

In the abortion scene above, he cavalierly detaches the feeding tubes keeping the prawn eggs alive. Note halfway through the scene the reaction of the reporter following Wikus around, as he refuses Wikus' offer to "pull the plug" on a prawn egg, then mutters and looks back briefly at the camera as Wikus kills the egg. Finally, the reporter gingerly takes the defunct feeding apparatus from Wikus, who cheerfully gives him a "souvenir from your first abortion."

The film direction is obviously designed to be a little over the top. Or is it?

How cavalier must abortionists treat human fetuses as they suck, carve and pith their way through 1,000,000 baby murders a year in the U.S. alone. We somehow must emerge from our euphemistic-complacent, radical feminist driven eugenic haze to again comprehend what is happening.

Everyone should watch the 1983 PBS Frontline special on abortion, featuring an abortion "clinic" in Chester, PA. It is objective, graphic and real. No actors or CGI special effects. Real women, real men, real doctors.

And real children.

Quotient out.