Let me repeat myself...just stop!

I am really really frustrated with a certain church in Kansas right now and I need to vent.

I know I have said it before, but to the members of the Westboro Baptist Church I again say...just stop!

  None of you are prophets, and no one I know who believes in God wants anything to do with your vile, reprehensible concept of a hate-filled, vengeful God.  If you want to believe this melarkey, keep it confined to your little building there in Kansas, but stop pushing it at military funerals and stop using ridiculous lawsuits like the one filed by Ernie Chambers.  Mr. Chambers is slightly more intelligent than you folks from Westboro, but not much.  His lawsuit is ridiculous, I grant you that, and has no merit.  Your brief you filed to get the suit dismissed doesn't either, unfortunately.  You may be prophets in your own mind, but you don't fit the biblical definition of a prophet.

 

What you truly are, oh Westboro Baptist, is angry, hateful, bigoted, self-appointed moral dictators.  I don't know it for sure, but I suspect that people the likes of Hitler would be welcome at your so-called church.  Just give Fred Phelps a hitleresque moustache and get it over with.  If I seem to be speaking exceedingly tongue in cheek it is because that Mr. Phelps, his wife and family and their self-proclaimed church make me so angry that if I don't inject some kind of humor into what I write here I will positively explode from sinking to their level and claiming that God will smite them for their misrepresentation of who He is.  I make no such claim, but by the same token, if God did decide to strike them all down, I can't say I blame Him.  I know how I, a mere human being, feel when people speak poorly of me or make claims about me that are untrue, unfair and unjust.  I imagine God must feel the same about the Phelps' and Westboro Baptist.  It's ironic that Westboro would tell us we're too tolerant of homosexuals. If the God they claim to believe in is the God of the bible, He was (and is), in the form of Jesus Christ, vastly more tolerant than any member of Westboro baptist could presently hope to be.  Jesus treated people that His contemporary society condemned with a respect and compassion that most people can only hope to aspire to. The adulterous woman and the woman at the well (the Samaritan woman) come most readily to mind.  The Pharisees were within moments of stoning the adulterous woman and Christ (rightly so) pointed out that they had no right, no real room to stand in condemnation of her when they, themselves, were just as sinful.

 

Let me pause here and say this: I, personally, do not think homosexuality is right. It is not what God created us for.  That said, I do not hate the homosexual person, but I do hate the sin they commit.  Having said that, however, let me say that I don't tell anyone I know who is a homosexual how to live their lives.  It isn't my place to do so.  I have my own vast number of sins I have committed (and confessed to God every day) that don't allow me the right or privelege to dictate to others how to live their lives.  I do not have an in-your-face style of expressing my beliefs.  In fact I find myself balking when I hear people who do.  A prime example are these people I have seen (during good weather) preaching at the top of their lungs outside the student union at UNL's city campus.  I don't claim these people have no right to their beliefs, but it bothers me that they feel a need to shout it as loud as they do.  It's as if they feel a need to be a voice crying in the wilderness.  I feel no such need, and honestly wonder what such preaching actually accomplishes.  I've heard people mock them in passing, and I get the general sense that no one is attracted to that preaching style.  I sure haven't seen anyone saying "Hey, I think I need to talk to that shouting preacher about God.  I really need to hear his views."

 

Now, I bring this up to make a point.  It is my firm belief that as long as they protest at military funerals and respond to childish lawsuits like Mr. Chambers filed against the Almighty, people will want nothing to do with the message of Westboro.  Even more importantly, though, as long as Westboro preaches hatred, intolerance, and a God who is vengeful and not loving, who bestows punishment and not grace and mercy, no one will want anything to do with their message either.  The old saying goes you attract more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.  Well, in much the same way, you attract more converts with love and compassion than you do with condemnation and being judgemental.

 

Okay, I got all that off my chest.  I feel better now.

Not my god!

Well, thankfully, there is some sanity in the world.  Fred Phelps and his wacko, wacked out brand of Christians now have to pay for one of their insidious misdeeds. According to an article by ALEX DOMINGUEZ, Associated Press Writer Wed Oct 31, 6:23 PM ET: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_re_us/funeral_protests_7

The jury awarded a total sum of $11 million to Albert Snyder because Fred Phelps' church protested at the funeral of his son, Matthew.

 

Rather than parrot the article, let me quote one passage I want to comment on:

"Earlier, church members staged a demonstration outside the federal courthouse. Church founder Fred Phelps held a sign reading "God is your enemy," while

Shirley Phelps-Roper stood on an American flag and carried a sign that read "God hates fag enablers." Members of the group sang "God Hates America" to

the tune of "God Bless America.""

 

If God hates America, why are these people living here?  They certainly don't speak for the God I believe in.  These delusional nut jobs lead by Mr. Phelps preach a god who, apparently, doesn't hate the sin and love the sinner, but rather hates both.  Come to think of it, that not only isn't the God I believe in and profess, but it isn't the God of the Bible.  Jesus never preached hate.  The apostles Paul, Peter and John never preached hate in their ministries.  In fact, the church of Fred Phelps must have St. Paul's words about grace torn out of their bibles.

Yes, the things they spew are protected by the first amendment, but that said, their actions went beyond cruel and disrespectful.  I hope they now understand that actions have consequences, and those actions and the subsequent consequences aren't confined to homosexuals but also apply to heterosexuals with a warped, hate-mongering view of God.

 

Mr. Phelps and his family (and his church) need prayer.  They need the mercy of the one true God.  If, however, they choose to not repent of their hate-filled preaching, one can only pray that God deals with them justly. I won't speculate on the state of their souls, I leave them to God.

 

If I could ask one thing of them, though, it is to stop doing what they do in the name of God, especially since it isn't my God.  The Westboro Baptist Churches of the world give Christians a very bad name.  It's tough enough for the world to see us in a positive light without Westboro Baptist Church and others like it casting huge, ugly and ominous shadows in the light of God.

Do we have a voice.

Today I am frustrated! I gave my voice to a cause, only to be ignored! The powers that be in the city of Lincoln, Nebraska decided that the bus system's routes needed to be changed. This despite plenty of feedback from the community that these changes were unwanted! It wasn't just people like myself who are blind, either. Today I join a group of people in this city and in places all over the world who feel that using their voice gets them nowhere. We start to wonder if we really even have voices...voices that count for more than a token gesture of looking as if we matter when, in reality, we don't. Plans we oppose will go ahead despite us. Don't be mistaken, my thinking here isn't confined to bus issues.
It could refer to people fighting for a school-related cause. It could refer to anyone who stood up at a city council meeting or some other meeting and expressed with passion their feelings on a given issue only to be ignored, passed over for whatever idea, plan, or scheme they opposed.
Are these voices really getting a fair shake, or short shrift? Do they matter in the scheme of things, or are they token voices empty of any real value?
These are questions I have regarding people all over the world today, myself and my friends and neighbors who opposed some really illogical changes in local bus routes. Personally, I have my doubts my voice mattered in the end. Thank you for nothing, StarTran.

I can't wait!

A book review, of sorts.

I just finished reading Neal Postman's "amusing ourselves to death" and I have to say, it makes for an interesting read.

Postman draws some frightening parallels between the visions of Huxley and the reality of TV in the 80's. In short his insightful book describes how we turn off our thinking and turn on TV. Not even the most serious
documentary or news show round table discussion can be taken seriously because TV filters it through the lens of entertainment, right down to music that
dictates the mood. The viewer cannot refute an argument, make any kind of rebuttal, and TV likes it that way. Postman talks about TV co-opting everything:
politics, religion, serious thought and philosophy. It is a very bleak picture indeed, but very real and very accurate.

When I say "interesting read," this is not an implicit hint that the book is boring. It isn't. I just have some trouble swallowing the entire premise, or more accurately concerns raised by the premise. Why I say this is that while I believe television can be detrimental, I don't know how much it can truly "kill" our culture. I say this because as long as people like Mr. Postman feel the way they do, our culture is not dead...merely on life support. That said, things have come down the pike that I suspect Mr. Postman would not have found surprising, but didn't live to see happen. Here I am refering to the iPod and cell phones both of which allow us to view TV programming on them. As it is, I think iPods, cell phone features such as games and the ability to play mp3's, and other mp3 players are doing more to isolate us from each other than TV ever could. At least TV gives us something to talk about over the water cooler, or around the coffee machine. iPods, mp3 players and cell phones do not. They do the opposite; cut us off from each other and isolate us from the world around us.

I am not, by any means trying to invalidate Postman's point, but I think we've gone beyond TV into other realms that would make him shudder. In fact, I am inclined to agree with a lot of what Postman said. I also tend to agree with a vastly more famous reader of the book, Roger Waters. Waters was inspired by the book and wrote a concept album called "amused to death" in which (if I understand the overall premise) advanced aliens from outer space find our world as nothing more than burned out shells (emotionally and intellectually speaking) gathered around TV's and "amused to death."

There was a time when I believed that TV would possibly the culprit of such a death, but now I tend to lean towards the idea of becoming isolated by iPods and other forms of portable entertainment. It only gets worse, however, if TV programming (or the idea of TV itself) becomes integrated into that portable technology. I already see it happening.

Maybe Waters is right, and some "alien anthropologists" will declare, very sadly, "This species has amused itself to death!" Only time will tell.

Fascinating quiz.

I took this quiz and it labeled me as a "centrist." I don't claim to disagree, but want to check and see how accurate it really is. Meanwhile, what do you, my readers, think?
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Ever hear of letting go?

Democrats and their seeming inability to let go of the past puzzles me.  No, I don't refer here to another in the endless stream of attacks on our current president.  I am talking about something further back in our history (the world's history) that the dems feel is desperately worth condemning...decades after it happened.

 

Naturally, I am humane and therefore opposed to genocide.  That said, however, I don't understand the desperate need in congress to create a resolution condeming Turkey, and risking losing an ally in the war in Iraq, because of mass murder committed between 1915 and 1923.  If the genocide were happening right now, I could see condemning it.  I cannot fathom condemning something so far in the past that the current Turkish government had nothing to do with. 

 

Personally, I am inclined to think this is just another way for congress to avoid doing true work.  So much of what the democratically -controlled congress seems to be doing at present rings of mostly symbolic work.  Nothing tangible and concrete.

Tell me, Speaker Pelosi, what will this resolution accomplish?  Will it do anything beyond symbolic closure?  Somehow, I doubt it.  The negative consequence is already beginning to show...angering the Turkish government.  Not a wise move since we are receiving significant help from them over in Iraq at the moment.  An individual  more paranoidand conspiracy-minded than I am would be prone to suggest that this was a conspiracy on the part of the left to make things look worse in Iraq.  Sadly, worse in Iraq is what things will become if this resolution passes.

 

So, dear dems and left-leaners, please, let the past stay in the past.  Forget condemning old misdeeds.  It's just wasting the valuable time and resources of a lot of people.

Excuse me?

Sometimes, a political decision doesn't make sense to me.  It doesn't matter that the person making the decision is in the party opposite the one I belong to.  It's just that, for whatever reasons, their decision defies logic and sense.Take Hilary Clinton's decision to not pull out of the Michigan primary, despite the fact her most worrysome opponent, Berack Obama, and most others decided to pull out, and for fairly good reasons.  Not Clinton.  To quote her spokesman from an article in today's Washington Times, "We're honoring the pledge, and we won't campaign or spend money in states that aren't in compliance with the DNC calendar," said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson. "We don't think it's necessary to remove ourselves from the ballot."

 

That strikes me as being like someone saying "I won't allow this magazine to interview me, or publish advertisements with my likeness, because they violated one of my personal beliefs, but I don't think it is necessary to remove myself from the cover of the magazine."

 

Perhaps this is a weak analogy.  I'm not sure, but it is the best I can do.  My point is this.  You either show compliance all the way or not at all.  This also applies to Christopher Dodd, who doesn't wish to deprive the voters of Michigan by removing his name from the ballot.  Instead, apparently, he wishes to deprive himself of a little bit of integrity.  Don't misread that statement, I am not saying he has no integrity whatsoever.  I am saying that he is choosing not to have that one bit of integrity that would provoke him to remove his name from the ballot.

 

Michigan violated DNC rules by changing the date of their primary.  Obama and others felt that they should respect their party.  Not Mrs. Clinton Or Mr. Dodd.  To tell the truth, I am not surprised by Hilary's choice.  She strikes me as just arrogant enough, just egotistical enough to think herself above the wisdom of her own party.  If the DNC feels that Michigan violated the rules by making the primary date too early, that is a decision I can respect, all partisan politics aside. Hilary Clinton and Chris Dodd might as well be thumbing their noses at their very own party.

 

Here's the Washington Times article:

www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070517-014838-8942r.htm -
 

So, here I am!

I know somewhere out there, even if it's just some alien out in outer space, someone has to have been wondering where I've been hiding myself.  I'd say that you ought to blame my going to school, but who would I be kidding?  I haven't written all summer or anything like that.

 

Anyway, so here I am.  I'm in the middle of my second semester at UNL, and excited and nervous about the future.  After a meeting I attended today with my advisor, two faculty members from the journalism college, and the director of Services for Students with Disabilities, I decided to get back into this to strengthen my writing.

 

My goal is to keep up more on the news and to write my own personal commentaries on what I read.  It may be political, it may be social, it may be demented and sad, too.  Sorry, couldn't resist the "Breakfast Club" reference there.

 

It could even be, god forbid, about Britanny spears.  You just never know with me.  It could be as simple as numbering the hairs I pulled out just prior to an exam.

 

So, keep your eyes open.  I have some ideas in the back of my head, so there is more to come in the very very near future.

Where's ol' blue eyes when you need him?

In my book, to my way of thinking, I think the Democrats/liberals have a new theme song..."My way" by Frank Sinatra.  Why?  Because I just got a news alert from Fox News that says the house and senate vow to defy Bush's veto and agreed on a bill that would include a time table for withdrawal!

 

So, now, the Dems are resorting to acting like spoiled children?  "If you tell us 'no!', we'll do it anyway!"

 

Well, let me tell you, better what Bush is doing than their lack of any plan for finishing the job in Iraq.  I wish he could veto the left wing, liberal democrats (and their weak-kneed republican counterparts) right out of the house and senate!  This is insulting to our troops, it's insulting to our country, and that they can claim to be patriotic and do so with a straight face makes me want to gag.  Hey, here's an idea, if they want the troops withdrawn s badly, and if Nancy Palosi is so power-hungry, let's send *CONGRESS* over to fight the war in Iraq and we'll make Palosi a general!  Let's see how she likes getting sand in her hair and clothes and other places that would traumatize her vanity!

 

I'm sorry, but this power trip by the left and this ballsy, in-your-face defiance of the president really ticks me off!

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled reality already in progress.

 

 

Scarred for life?

Okay, I just heard that the women team members from Rutgers described themselves as "scarred for life."

 

How?  Why?  I know words hurt...I'll be the first to say it because I've been hurt by them...but scarred for life?  Are you telling me that when one of these ladies is in her 60's, she's still going to be saying to herself, "Curse that Don Imus, I can still feel the sting of his words!"

 

I don't buy that.  I've had some hateful/hurtful things said about me because of being blind/legally blind.  Was I scarred for life?  No!!  In fact, I look back and see things for what they are.  The persons who said those things to me were either immature or ignorant.  If I'm still hurt by them, it is my choice.

 

That said, if those women are "scarred for life" that's there choice, and not Imus' fault.  They choose to be hurt or scarred and Imus cannot control that. 

 

If we let others dictate our feelings or emotions that gives them the power.  If these women want to stay empowered after their NCAA success, they could try not letting Imus have the impact on them that they claim he did.

 

 

Imus in the hot seat.

Okay, first of all, I am not a racist person.  I don't hate any minority, and in a very real sense (being blind) I am part of a minority.

 

That said, I want it understood that what I am about to say may offend some people, and maybe even surprise them, but can we shut up about Don Imus and the rather stupid remarks he made?!  He apologized, got suspended, can we please not run this into the ground, especially since, in their ever-hypocritical fashion, the media that is so viciously lambasting Imus barely blinks when Rosie O'BigMouth spouts her anti-America rhetoric. 

 

I'll be honest, there are far worse things Imus could have (and has) said.  At the same time, though, the women have the right to be offended, and I understand their reasons for being thusly offended.  I just don't want Imus raked over the coals for this remark when he's said far worse, and the media knows it.  Imus is an equal opportunity offender, and he admits it.  Everyone is fair game.  Heck, my blindness would probably get me poked fun at by the I-man, not to mention my blindingly pale skin. LOL!

 

If we're going to act as if Imus should be run out of town on a rail, could we have (at least) the courtesy to be consistent enough to want the same thing for Rosie?  That's all I'm asking.

 

 

The truth grows more inconvenient...

...for Al Gore.  Hmmm, heard about the NY Times piece on Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

 

Seems like the most inconvenient truth of all is how Al Gore is exaggerating his claims to the point of hysteria.  See for yourself.  The article is titled: "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype."

 

Personally?  I think God is in control, and no one, especially Al Gore can predict how the world will end or anything like that.   If I were to venture a guess, I would bet that God is snickering at Al and the fact that the *REAL* fate of the world would (ultimately) surprise Mr. Gore.

 

 

The Big What?

Okay, putting aside my severe disagreement with Chuck Hagel over his stance on the war in Iraq, I have to comment on his press conference today.  I say
I am putting aside the disagreement for now because it doesn't even color my opinion.  His stance on Iraq has little (if anything at all) to do with the
fact that this so-called announcement was the biggest waste of logistics and time I've seen in a long while.  I wouldn't blame the press, UNO alumni (University
of Nebraska at Omaha), and numerous others for being a bit miffed at Mr. Hagel for wasting their time. 
Wouldn't an e-mail or press release have sufficed?  I know it's spring break, but couldn't the space used on the UNO campus have been used for something
more productive than a gathering in which Mr. Hagel basically says "I'm here to announce that the real announcement will come some time next year."  
It wasn't even the whole "non-announcement" aspect of this event that has me asking this.  For the most part, Mr. Hagel had the charisma of Gerald Ford
covered in a huge wet blanket.  I began to wonder if he wouldn't go stumbling away from the microphone. 
Even if he runs for president and wins, I couldn't imagine watching him deliver a state of the union address without falling asleep.  I'd have to watch
it with two triple shot espresso mochas from Starbucks. 
I'm sorry to have to say it, Mr. Hagel, but you're not presidential material.  Again, not because of your stance on the war, but because having to watch
any press briefing, speech, or whatever given by you would inevitably put me to sleep.  I'm just glad, regarding today's press conference/non-announcement,
that you weren't the Apostle Paul and that there was no one napping in a window.  

How does this kind of thing happen?

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/cops-say-paraplegic-man-dumped-in-street/20070209163009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001 
This is awful, unjust, and something needs to be done to hold somebody accountable!

 

Just passing this along as a concerned UNL student. The opinion part? That's up to you. I'm just posting it for the info. Methinks, however, my use of the word "concerned" a moment ago ought to be a clue to my feelings on the matter.
Proposed budget lower than expected for UNL - News

Something to ponder about the war in Iraq.

I just got this in an e-mail.  I think the point it makes is extremely valid.

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlotte Thornsberry" <
goldengirlsvc@sbcglobal.net>
To: "lIST SERVE MBC" <
missouri-l@acb.org>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:07 AM
Subject: [missouri-l] A Point To Consider

 

A point to consider:
The other day, my nine year old son wanted to
know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at
me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be
honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband
would give him a good explanation. My husband thought for a few minutes and
then told my son to go stand in our front living room window.

 

He said "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"

 

"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.

 

"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the
United States of America and you are President Bush."

 

Our son giggled and said "OK."

 

"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every
house and yard on this bl ock is a different country" my husband said.

 

"OK Dad, I'm pretending."

 

"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend you
see Saddam come out of his house with his wife, he has her by the hair and
is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face,
he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death.. Their
children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are screaming and crying,
they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and they
are afraid of their father. You see all of this, son....what do you do?"

 

"Dad?"

 

"What do you do son?"

 

"I'd call the police, Dad."

 

"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations. They take your call.
They listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do
you do then son?"

 

"Dad.......... but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.

 

"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place
or you r place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my
husband
says.

 

"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.

 

"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want
you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're
pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his
children."

 

"Daddy...he kills them?"

 

"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"

 

"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next
door neighbor to help me stop him," our son says.

 

"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get
involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him,"
my husband says.

 

"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"

 

"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.

 

"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask
for help and saw that no one would help yo u stop him. He stands taller and
puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?"

 

"What Daddy?"

 

"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her
door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and
then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in the
window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"

 

"Daddy..."

 

"WHAT DO YOU DO?"

 

Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I'd close the
blinds, Daddy."

 

My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him.
"Why?"

 

"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help people who needs
them...and they won't help.... You always say that neighbors are
supposed to
HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop
him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself Daddy.....I can't look out
my window and just watch him do all these terrible things
an d...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds...
so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it
is not happening."

 

I start to cry. My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in
the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husband's
questions and he says...

 

"Son"

 

"Yes, Daddy."

 

"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door... "WHAT
DO YOU DO?"

 

My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his
tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he
says: " I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR
MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"

 

I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs our son to his
chest and hugs him tight, and says... " It's too late to fight him, he's too
strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped
him BEFORE he killed his wife, and his children and the old lady across the
way. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before
its too late." my husband whispers. THAT scenario I just gave you is
WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen son,
THAT is the greatest atrocity in the world.

 

"YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO
IT
ALONE!" BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!! SUPPORT
THEM!!!
SUPPORT AMERICA SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO
CLOSE THEIR BLINDS..."

 

This should be printed in every newspaper and posted in every school in
America. Of course that won't happen so we'll use the internet. If your
blinds are closed do nothing with this email. If they are open I do
not need to tell you what to do.

 

GOD BLESS!

 

 

 

Alan Wheeler
awheeler@neb.rr.com or alan_wheeler@neb.rr.com
redwheel1 on skype
http://alan-wheeler.blogspot.com/
“Tell the people the truth and the country will be free”
  --Abraham Lincoln

 

Sorry I kept you on hold for so long...

...and you probably think this is addressed to you, the reader.

 

Well, you'd be right...sort of.  Yes, I have kept you on hold.  For that I do genuinely apologize.  A lot has happened over the past several weeks, and rather than write about it while it's still so fresh, I wanted to take time to process it...especially the dream I put on hold...my dream of becoming a journalist.  That dream's fruition is on the distant horizon now that I've been admitted to UNL's college of journalism.  I start classes in just under a month.  That is the apology referred to in my title...I apologize to the essence of that dream for having had it on hold for so very long. 

 

I always knew the dream was there, but it seemed so fantastical, so drenched in a special kind of magic that it didn't seem possible I could make it come true.  Even as a boy, when other kids pretended to be cops, football players, or movie stars, my fantasy character of choice?  An investigative reporter.

 

So, now, the work begins.  It is going to take time.  Some would argue that it's awfully late in my life to pursue this.  I disagree.  For me, there's no better time.  I know what I want (truly know what I want) for the very first time in my life, and I am going after it.  This is no dream that rides on another's coat tails, this is a dream that belongs soley to me.  It is the dream I should have followed all along but denied even existed because (quite honestly) I was afraid to try and fail.  I'm talking about all of this (or maybe you'd call it rambling) because I am anxious, nervous, excited, and yes even a bit scared.  The University of Nebraska Lincoln is no small potato, and I hope I can live up to what being a "husker" means.  I pray for God's guidance at each and every step.

 

 

Hmmm, Freudian Liberalism,.

Okay, the subject/title is a joke of my own creation.  I came up with it because I was doing some googling to find descriptions of Freud's concept of the Id, the ego, and the super-ego.  In the process, I came across the article below.  I hope the copyright information below is sufficient.  I don't want to be in violation of such laws, and I want the author to get full credit...especially since I really like his approach here.

 

Okay, when I went to look for information about Freud's concept of the Id, the Ego, and the super-ego, this isn't what I expected to find, but it is a very fascinating read:

 

Leftists: Servants of The Id
Written by
Gabriel Garnica
Saturday, October 14, 2006

 

          I have always been fascinated by psychology despite its tendency to justify and rationalize liberal behavior and beliefs.  As a psychology major
in college, two particular notions caught my intellectual interest.  The first was Freud’s conception of the Id, Ego, and Super-ego as the triangle of
personality.  The second was Leon Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance which sought to explain how rationalization becomes reality.

 

Simplified Messages

 

          Freud’s personality triangle simply stated that our personality is composed of three parts, the Id, the Ego, and the Super-ego.  The Id represents
our base instincts, impulses, and bare emotions.  It is the core of aggression and houses the pleasure principle.

 

The Ego is the center of rational, logical reality.  It is the mediator between the physical and the spiritual.  The Super-ego, on the other hand, is the
center of conscience, spirituality and moral codes.

 

            As one of my professors put it, the Id is about what I want to do, the Ego is about what I can do and the Super-ego is about what I should do.

 

            Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance holds that people seek balance and order in their physical, emotional, and mental states and will
do whatever it takes to maintain and regain that order.  Thus if I steal and feel guilty about it, I will seek to rationalize or justify that theft in
order to relieve my mental and emotional stress and regain a state of calm in those areas.  Simply put, people will do whatever it takes to make what they
do appear acceptable, even if that means twisting reality to fit perception.

 

Leftists As Servants of The Id

 

          Anyone wishing to see leftist mentality need only look to Columbia University, where less than two weeks ago protesting punks charged the stage
to stop Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist’s speech, unfurled inflammatory banners and then gleefully jumped of the stage once they knew the entire event
had been cancelled shouting “Si se pudo, Si se pudo” which means “yes, we could.”

 

            Leftists are not about intelligent discourse or debate.  They have nothing to do with calm dialogue or reasoned discussion.  Theirs is not the
world of logic, common sense, or intellectual exchange.  Rather, as shown by this mob of animals, leftists are all about emotion, instinct, aggression,
violence, and impulse.  They derive pleasure from inflicting displeasure, satisfaction from creating dissatisfaction and purpose from instilling disorder.

 

            Those seeking a reason for why leftists act this way need only realize that their smoke is merely concealing the fact that their points, issues,
causes and methods have been repeatedly proven asinine, imbecilic and overblown.  Their crusades have been repeatedly shown to be smokescreens for a darker,
more complex inner agenda.

 

At the end of the day, leftists are all about bells and whistles concealing smoke and mirrors.

 

            Given the empty, shallow, and hollow nature of their issues, causes, methods, and beliefs, liberals are forced to make scenes to both gain attention
and distract others from just how thin their rationales are.  Taken in this light, one realizes that leftists are like the guy who starts a fire in the
barn to conceal the fact that barn was not well kept.

 

Having already sold themselves to the Id, liberals quickly become servants to its promises of prompt, undeserved satisfaction.  Once addicted the Id’s short-term
pleasure principle, leftists cannot free themselves to think about the long-term impact of their actions and beliefs.  In the Columbia episode, the protesting
punks were surprised to discover that many people frowned upon their arrogant display of disrespect.  They had ignored the real, long-term implications
and perceptions of their deed while bowing to its short-term message.  The protesting illegal immigrants who stomped on the American flag were the epitome
of impulsive behavior devoid of intellect.

 

This impulsive, arrogant and stubborn emotionality on the part of leftists, this bare reflection of genuine leftist thinking, is too much for the average
American to take, not to mention a horrible election tactic.  Thus we see that liberals spend half their time disrespecting this country and the other
half seeking ways to conceal that disrespect.

 

Slaves of Cognitive Dissonance

 

            If leftists are servants of the Id, they are also prone to become slaves of cognitive dissonance.  Once you project to the world a particular
instinctual, impulsive and emotional state, you better do something to paint that approach and perception as normal, rational and acceptable.  In comes
cognitive dissonance theory telling us that people will distort their perception of reality to carve a reality consistent with their agenda and beliefs.

 

            Thus we see mindless protests defending illegal immigration rationalized into protests defending all immigrants, a public education establishment
trying to justify its obvious liberal bias under the guise of tolerance, respect and social compassion.

 

            Nowhere is this more visible than in the abortion issue.  First, liberals and feminists tell us that the only thing that matters is what women
want and that it is their body involved and nobody should violate that.  Confronted with evidence harmful to their claims, pro-aborts then speak of the
unborn as if they were removable waste and certainly not human.  Realizing the possible public outcry against speaking of the unborn in this way, leftists
have taken to euphemisms and flowery words to conceal the blood on their hands.

 

            The past decades of Democratic dissolution from a party of noble causes to its present state as a rag-tag bunch of interests and agendas perfectly
illustrates how Democrats progressively or, should we say, digressively, boil in the soup of their own moral absurdity waiting for the next pack of fools
ready to buy the empty platitudes and promises they sell.

 

Holders of The Ego and Soldiers of The Super-ego

 

            If liberals have title rights to the Id, then where do conservatives reside?  It turns out that political conservatives call the Ego their home
and the Religious Right hangs its hat in the Super-ego.  Unlike leftists, conservatives enjoy and respect debate, discourse and the intelligent exchange
of ideas.  They get their points across by calm discussion and interaction, not by jumping stages like crazed zombies seeking new victims.

 

            The Super-ego is home to the Religious Right, which favors its conscience and moral codes.  Regardless of religious affiliation, conservatives
enjoy a society where faith, spirituality and tradition are highly valued and respected.

 

Conclusion

 

            The student ambush of speakers at Columbia University should not shock or even surprise anyone versed in where such leftists come from, namely
the Id, with its focus on emotion, impulse and aggressive.  Intelligent debate, dialogue and discussion, the cornerstones of a good education, are not
even in the vocabulary of leftist thugs like those who rushed that stage.

 

            The fact that the protesting aggressors could even dare to justify the nature of their actions combined with their imbecilic perceptions of
what transpired that day in that place is a classic serving of cognitive dissonance.  Faced with the possibility that you acted like an animal, you turn
around and express shock at such claims.  Accused of inciting misbehavior and embarrassing displays of arrogant, ignorant aggression., you turn around
and claim that your invading group was victimized by a much smaller band.

 

            Nowhere is this classic two-way skill of liberals more on display than with regard to the Clintons.  It is an accepted fact that Hillary and
especially Bill Clinton act on impulse and emotion via her mouth and his zipper.  Once they have done so, these two often proceed to twist reality, history
and public discussion to suit their agenda.  This is the reason that Bill and Hill can, with a straight face, proclaim his administration a great one and
its accomplishments, good or bad, as being all positive, watershed moments for mankind.  Despite the reality of a failed Clinton North Korea agreement,
for example, the Clintons pretend that the agreement was great and blame everything on Bush now.

 

            Once we accept that leftists live in the Id and spend their waking hours rationalizing away their foibles and failures, there is very little
that they can come up with which will surprise us.  The greatest irony may well be that precisely these leftist imbeciles who proclaim the loudest about
choice and personal morality are the ones most enslaved by the chains of the Id and the eternal battle to rationalize their mess with their image.

 

            At the end of the day, one might say that leftists are all about being below the belt, with their impulses coming from the front and the justifications
for those impulses coming from the back.

 

About the Writer: Gabriel Garnica, Esq., is an educator, licensed attorney, and resident of Long Island, New York. As a conservative Latino college professor
working in New York City, Mr. Garnica feels that his picture is found in the dictionary under the term "exception." He can be contacted at
gbgmyarticles@yahoo.com.

 

Copyright © 2006
ChronWatch.
All rights reserved.
Questions?
images/email_icon
Contact us today
!

 

 

Blind leading the blind?

Okay, I'm stepping aside from politics (for once).  I want to talk about a young man who was on Oprah Winfrey's show.  Ben Underwood was on her show to demonstrate a form of orientation and mobility for blind people known as "echo location."

 

The problem I have with this form of navigation is that, if used without a white cane, it has a potential to be dangerous.  Mr. Underwood expressed a dislike of using a white cane that I cannot fathom.

 

I realize that, for some people,  it's a source of wounded pride to admit to being blind.  For most blind people, the white cane is a sort of badge saying "I am a person who happens to be blind."  For others, however, such as Mr. Underwood, carrying the cane might as well be a stigma against him...a not-so-scarlet letter, if you will.  After all, to a lot of people Mr. Underwood's age, carrying a white cane isn't very cool.  It certainly doesn't get you into the "in" crowd.

 

As I may have stated before, or at least in my profile, I belong to the National Federation of the Blind, and subsequently, to the Nebraska affiliate of the NFB student division.  This has exposed me, obviously, to young people (I'm a sort of young 41) who see carrying a cane as both necessary and important.  To them traveling safely, confidently, and independently is more important than finding the "in" crowd.  Not that they don't have a desire to be a part of that crowd, but they won't compromise using their white cane to get there.  To them, their white cane is literally a part of them.  To them, the white cane is an indespensible tool of independence.

 

I am not knocking echo location.  It is a valuable tool for any blind person who wants to move about a city independently.  That said, however, I do not think that echo location ought to be the sole means by which someone gets around.  In conjunction with a white cane and other skills, a person can move fluidly around any city or town they wish...assuming they have proper training in the use of a white cane.  Without a cane, there are things a person may miss such as stairwells, manholes, and other potential hazards that could cause injuries of varying severity. Personally?  I'd rather have a cane in hand and find these things than rely solely on sound cues and miss something that could be, literally, right under my nose.

 

I hope that, some day, Mr. Underwood discovers a desire to use a cane as well as echo location.  Until then, in all bluntness, I fear for his safety.