Al Gore, popularly known as "algore," "the Goracle," or "Manbearpig," won the Nobel Peace Prize for something having to do with his preaching on global warming from the confines of his massive mansion.  No doubt he will be spirited away on a private jet to pick up his prize.  No word if this jet is powered by magic dust.

Gore has been winning lots of prizes as of late, including the Oscars.  Given that the Oscars are becoming meaningless and irrelevant, it's fitting that Gore pick up another meaningless and irrelevant "honor."

First of all, what the hell does exaggerating the effects of climate change has to do with peace?  Secondly, a prize that was once awarded to Martin Luther King, Jr. has been awarded in recent years to hacks like Jimmy Carter and murderous terrorists like Yasser Arafat.  It's essentially nothing more than a popularity prize for the left-wing international elite.  Indeed, ANYONE can win the Nobel Peace Prize.  There's no scientific vetting like there is for the Nobel Prizes for science and medicine (which explains why The Inventor Of The Internet didn't win a scientific prize, since that's really the field he's dabbling with).

The MSM has been of course tossing confetti in the air all day over this.  It just goes to show you that Western Civilization is led and controlled nowadays by silly people giving each other silly honors and prizes.

Maybe I'll run for the Peace Prize next year...

I admit I don't listen to Michael Savage all that often.  I prefer Hugh Hewitt's more carefully reasoned analysis to Savage's rants.  But I have heard Savage's popular mantra "liberalism is a mental disorder."  Many conservatives agree with it, naturally.

 

I think it's a mantra though that needs a little clarification.  "Liberalism" as we once knew it, is almost extinct.  Not that it made any more correct, but once upon a time there were liberals who were sincerely patriotic, moral people who just preferred a bit more government than you and I would have and pushed boundaries on social ideas more than we would.   Well, all right, so there are still a handful of those types around.  But today's "liberalism" as espoused by the Democratic Party, the entertainment industry, the news media, academia, and the netroots is better described as leftism.  It is basically a mishmash of Marxism, political correctness, victimology, hatred for anything traditional, and cosmopolitanism.  The liberals I once knew wanted to convince people of their ideas.  Today's leftists simply want to shut everyone else up.

Every day is a lesson in leftism's mental crackup.  Teachers trying to get kids in their classes to renounce their citizenship, even sending letters home to parents.  Crackpot protests.  A town lifting its ban on smoking outdoors so that potheads can have a festival.  A prestigious university welcoming mad dictators but keeping American conservatives from speaking there.

But two things about leftism are ominous to me.  First is its long-standing and rather obvious hatred of traditional American institutions, particularly the military.  Why do you think MoveOn.org believed it was a swell idea to trash Gen. Petraeus in its infamous ad?  It's disturbing to see so many people who have greatly benefitted from living in this country seething in hatred for it and to encourage that hatred in others.  Can any great nation survive for long with the cancer of self-loathing consuming it from within?  It makes people less willing and able to defend our culture, our sovereignty, and our rights. 

The other disturbing aspect of today's leftism is its increasing comfort with anti-Semitism.  The roots of this new anti-Semitism is the left choosing to side against Israel and siding with the Palestinians.  The reasons could cover an entire separate post, but the justifications for singling out Israel and for refuting condemnation for singling out Israel lead invariably back to the World's Oldest Hatred.  Leftist cartoons use ugly caricatures straight out of some medieval woodcut.  Anyone voicing support for Israel is automatically tagged "Jewish" and lobbed every anti-Semitic slur in the book.  People buy into crazy conspiracy theories, like Israeli agents tipping off Jewish employees so that they won't show up for work at the World Trade Center on 9/11/01.  A group of marchers at this last ANSWER rally in D.C. were actually shouting, "Kill all of the Jews."   Rep. Jim Moran (Dunderhead-VA) flat out blamed Jews for the war in Iraq!  And the clown still gets re-elected!   

There are indeed nutburgers on the right, but leftism has the market cornered when it comes to crazy. 

Back in the fall of 1986, when I was applying for college, Columbia University was one of my "long-shot" choices.  Wouldn't it be fun, I thought, to go to school in NYC?  Besides, Columbia's grad school had a fine journalism program, which I was pursuing at the time.

No, I didn't get in but if I had and graduated from there, boy, would I be hopping mad today.

The same school that let a bunch of crackpots use the ol' heckler's veto to disrupt and end a speech by Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist, the same school that would not let Gilchrist come back for another shot at his presentation, is now extending a warm and hearty welcome to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran.  He is scheduled to be in town for some podium-poundin' at the United Nations and with his plans to buy some fake handbags in Chinatown and take a transom ride around Central Park cancelled, he'll be giving a chat at Columbia U.

To the so-open-minded-their-brains-are-falling-out crowd, Ahmadinejad is the leader of a country and therefore, he ought to be accorded the same respect you'd show to say, Nicholas Sarkozy or Queen Elizabeth II.  What's the harm in letting the guy talk?

The problem is this is the same guy who every other hour threatens to wipe Israel off the map and whose government is looking for the means to do via building a nuclear program.  Iran's agents are stirring things in Iraq and training "insurgents" there to lob missiles (that they've supplied) at our troops.  Iran is one of the Big Three pimps of Middle Eastern terrorism (along with Syria and Saudi Arabia).  This same bozo's government took British soldiers hostage.  Speaking of which, some accuse El Presidente of being one of the American Embassy hostage takers in 1979.  Let's also not forget his country really does stomp on every civil right imaginable.  Iran is the sort of place where men are beaten for extramarital sex, rape victims are hanged, and "wayward" women are stoned to death.  Nice, huh?

*This* is the sort of guy one of the most prestigious universities in America wants to provide a forum for.

We shouldn't be too surprised, as outrageous as it is.  Columbia is fast gaining a reputation for its virulent anti-Semitism.  The late professor Edward Said, infamous for his pro-Palestinian terrorism views, was one of its stars.  One of its Middle Eastern studies professors once called an Israeli student a murderer in class. 

I blame the decades-old Marxist stranglehold on the academia plus the flush of money from the Middle East--clearly designed to promote anti-Israel and pro-Arab/Islamist views in the academia--for this situation.  It won't change unless alumni, students, and trustees raise some heck.  

But don't hold your breath.  A lot of them have been brainwashed too.

I read the columns at Townhall every day and like most of you I have my favorites, but many of the columns I read here are pretty good.

I also will look at the column's rating and the comments from readers.  Is it just me or are there a lot of leftist trolls hanging around?  I'll read a really good piece only to be surprised at its rather meh rating and finding the comments section filled with leftist invective (what, an honest argument online?).  I suspect many of these people are lowering ratings on purpose, though with some very popular columnists like Mike Adams or Ann Coulter, it doesn't seem to have much effect.

However, the worst gets saved for social conservatives like Brent Bozell or Suzanne Fields.  Bring up atheism like Mary Graber did on 5/18/07 and the haters really come out in force.  I suspect there are besides the usual leftist suspects some conservatives and libertarians who probably hate social conservatives more than they hate liberals. 

I consider myself a social conservative; while I don't fall for nanny state solutions to social ills, I don't think it precludes us from taking on government, industry, or any other institution that wants to force feed us depravity.  If you don't like social conservatives, don't read their articles.

I'm not a Don Imus fan and I don't listen to his show.  He's pretty much a liberal and for every time he's poked say, the Clintons, in the eye, he's taken a hundred more opportunities to do the same to any sort of conservative or conservative idea.  Aside from that, he has had a long-standing reputation as a jerk off the air.  Howard Stern's book (and the movie) "Private Parts" chronicles the nasty reception Howard got when he met his "idol" Don Imus for the first time.  I can certainly see why people would find his comments on the Rutgers women's basketball team offensive and just plain not nice.

However the fallout has reached proportions of ridiculousness and I think it's dangerous.  First of all, Imus made a huge error by crawling to racial huckster/hypocrite/demagogue "Rev." Al Sharpton.  He should've just apologized over the air, apologized personally to the basketball team, and perhaps reconsider when and where to cross the line.  But now it has devolved into a pathetic drama of weepy basketball players (I suppose these gals weren't so tough after all), "civil rights" leaders who come crawling out of the woodwork when whitey misbehaves but ignore far worse problems than hurt feelings, cancelled sponsorships, and calls for Imus's head.  Figuratively, of course.  At least figuratively as of today.  All because Imus had the temerity to mess with the wrong group of people.  Had he said something offensive about Mormons, he'd be hailed as a First Amendment Hero by the cultural elites and we'd be told the rest of us intolerant insophisticates just have to live with it.

Which gets to why I find this whole pseudo-brouhaha alarming.  We have a culture that on the one hand celebrates outrageousness and on the other hand, adopts political correctness as a cheap shorthand for basic morality.  The result is thus...Staples and Proctor and Gamble have dropped sponsorship of Imus's show while they cheerfully continue to sponsor "The View," home to Rosie O'Donnell's 9/11 Truther rantings.  O'Donnell belongs to two classes considered oppressed by the PC crowd and her comments are not directed at any other oppressed class, so her brand of outrageousness is (for the moment) tolerated.  An actor on a t.v. show can utter a slur and still keep his job so long as he heads off to rehab, because he belongs to an oppressed class.  A WASP female loses her class status due to her conservative views, so her riffing on slurs and rehab trips is met with greater outrage.  Meanwhile, rappers can say whatever they like as long as they keep making millions for The Man.  What the public gets is a shellgame where the rules change depending on your racial, social, and political identity.  Not only can such a situation impede on the free speech rights of many of us if government were to get involved, it also creates an atmosphere of hostility, fear, and mistrust.  Few things are worse for the national discourse than feeling like you can never say anything for fear of not only offending someone but losing your livelihood and your reputation, while others can more or less say what they please.

 Something very, very interesting, perhaps even historic, happened on St. Paddy's Day.  It was the date set for yet another antiwar protest/freak show in the nation's capital to mark the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq as well as the 40th anniversary of the march to the Pentagon.

Imagine the moonbats' surprise when they were confronted by thousands of people, many of them Vietnam veterans, along the march route.  When word went out that the nutburgers were going to march near the Vietnam Memorial and that perhaps some of the black bloc vandals were planning some mischief, veterans and others sick of the free reign the crackpot left has been given since the '60s took action.  The end result was an antiwar protest with numbers that were matched or outmatched (depending on the source) by flag-wavers instead of flag burners.  Nothing was vandalized.  The good guys won.

The MSM didn't know what to make of it all, so it either ignored the Gathering of Eagles or played down their numbers.  But something of significance has happened and I think deep down, even the most committed lefty knows it.  Since the New Left took to the streets in the 1960s--back when they had much bigger numbers at that--the Silent Majority has stayed home.  It would always be a one-sided show for the press.  Even up through the anti-globalization marches, which became the anti-America/anti-Israel "peace" marches of recent years, most of us said, "Hey, unlike those unwashed weirdos, we have jobs, we have kids to raise, bills to pay, lawns to mow, soccer games to attend, and groceries to buy.  If we were slacker losers, we'd have loads of time to protest too."  Only a few folks like those from FreeRepublic.com or Protest Warrior would show up to counterdemonstrate and that didn't start happening until the late '90s/early '00s.

That all changed on Saturday.  Those of us who want victory in Iraq, who are tired of the Code Pinkos dominating the media, who are sick of seeing those anarchist punks damage property with impunity, and who do not want to see today's veterans spit on and called baby killers are realizing we have to take the cut-and-run movement head on.  The internet was an invaluable tool in getting the word out and getting organized in a short period of time.  It would've been nice if more folks in talk radio promoted the GOE, but perhaps next time they will.

I've long believed that the battle to save our civilization is two-pronged:  first against the people who mean to terrorize us into submission and second against the radicals in our own society who are undermining that fight.  Finally, finally the silent majority is starting to take on the second part of that fight to the streets.

 Oops, she did it again...Ann Coulter managed to stir up a ruckus at CPAC for her joke regarding "kindling," John Edwards, and rehab.  That wild little filly mixes it up wherever she goes, earning the ire of the left and some of the right.

(Note:  The term Coulter used probably is on Townhall's list of naughty words, but it is a well-known pejorative term for gays and an old term for dry wood you'd use in a fire.)

Now, the candidates of '08 are playing Bill Clinton to Ann's Sister Souljah and many conservative pundits are furious with embarrassment.  They're even arguing about it on FreeRepublic.  I can't speak for Ann and it's not the sort of joke I'd make, but at the same time, there's a reason why her on-the-nose comments delight her fans as much as they anger her detractors.  As a fellow con once told me, she says what we all wish we had the guts to say.  She's the kid in your class who says exactly what she thinks of the teacher right to Miss Kerbopple's face, and even if it is a little on the mean side, you can't help but laugh because it's true.  Ann doesn't care if you like her or whether or not you think she's a sweetie pie; she just calls it as she sees it.

It's easy to see why liberals hate her guts.  As for some conservatives who don't like her, I think reason #1 is j-e-a-l-o-u-s-y.  Ann gets in the headlines, gets booked at lectures, sells lots of books, and is in the public eye.  Many rank-and-file conservatives adore her.  Many other pundits toil away for years and because they don't have the same force of personality, they'll never reach her level of fame and popularity.  They'll never say it, but it's true.  Another reason is that many of the leather-back-chairs conservatives are well-meaning people who think we should be more adult and above the rabblerousing of the Democrats or the radical loonies. 

Others, like Michelle Malkin and Mary Katharine Ham, know that Ann can be a lightining rod for liberals who want to paint everyone with the same brush.  They're unhappy with Ann because her comments overshadowed everything else that happened at CPAC.  But they genuinely care about the movement and worry how Ann's minx-y ways can hurt getting the movement's message out to the public.  Especially since the leftist popular media likes to portray us as racist, gay-hatin', fundamentalist, gun-nut freaks.

Perhaps that is a fair point and CPAC is within its rights not to invite Ann back next year.  I'm sure there's already a lot of pressure to make sure of it.  Still, it would be unwise for conservatives to toss Ann overboard completely.  I think many rank-and-file cons are frustrated with those on our side who act as though politics are like cotillion while the left regards politics as a street brawl.  You get tired of bullies knocking off your glasses and stealing your milk money because your mommy keeps telling you to turn the other cheek.  We need a Sally Kimball who's going to stand up to the Bugs Meanys and land a few punches of her own.

More than one commentator noted that at last weekend's "antiwar-so-long-as-there's-a-Republican-in-the-White-House-and-American-power-is-involved" rally, the old outnumbered the young.  Most marchers were middle-aged to geezerly, having more than just "a touch of grey" if there was any hair left at all.  This included the celebrities who appeared at the rally.  "Hanoi and Now Jihad" Jane Fonda is sixty-something, Susan Sarandon is about to hit the big 6-0, and her "boy toy" heterosexual life partner Tim Robbins is finally looking about the same age.  The only star present who didn't yet qualify for AARP membership was Sean Penn, and he's 48.

Where were Angelina Jolie, Matt Damon, Reese Witherspoon, or Justin Timberlake?  Granted these stars are at the apex of their careers and therefore too busy to bother with the freak show on the Mall.  Nevertheless, Jolie still finds time to run off to Third World lands.  Could it be they're more conservative than their older counterparts?  Au contraire, mon frere!  Many of today's young stars are honest-to-Gaia liberals and I'm willing to bet more than a smattering of them are every bit as moonbatty as Penn or Sarandon or Fonda.  So why not lend their youth, popularity, and vitality to oppose Chimpy McHitler's evil made-up war for oil?

1.  The '60s and '70s are ancient history--To an actress born in 1979 or a pop star born in 1984, Vietnam and even the nuclear disarmament movement are a long time ago and far away.  They don't remember the "fun" of mass rallies.  They're too young to even find them quaint and romantic.  To them, and to many young people across the board, that stuff is irrelevant to their generation's experience.

2.  No draft--Jake Gyllenhaal does not live in mortal fear of getting drafted and losing everything he's worked for in Hollywood and neither does any other teen or young adult.

3.  Better ways to influence the public--Young stars are far more shrewd than their hippie elders.  They know getting up in front of a crowd of true believers is just preaching to the amen choir and it's just making you a big fat target for Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity because *everybody* sees it.  It's far better to give thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates at splashy fundraisers and spout your views during softball interviews.  Entertainment reporters and glossy mag journos are often lefties too, and even if they weren't, they're not going to risk ticking off a star by asking tough questions about his views.  The internet has made it easier to relay outrageous statements, but even now, not everyone has access to every interview all of the time.  They can make movies and t.v. shows that spread their liberal garbage instead of speechifying at some protest.  Stuff like this reaches Middle America, not unwashed throwbacks who already believe this stuff.

4.  The bottom line--Young stars worry a lot more about their images than over-the-hill performers who no longer need to worry about box office and ratings.  Leonardo DiCaprio does not want to be seen hanging with angry people holding "Socialism Is The Answer" signs.  While Cameron Diaz can go on "Oprah" and say with a straight face that not voting is making rape legal, she doesn't want to be associated with Black Bloc anarchists either.  The young stars want to convince you their left-wing views are as mainstream as their designer duds, not part of the fringe.

Of course, we know  better ;).

Right now the glitterati are all at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, UT where they can party on down at temporary exclusive clubs, pick up pricey goods for free at swag tents/rooms (don't forget that tax form...the IRS is cracking down), and pat themselves on the back for their bravery as they take in movies about bestiality, kid rape, and God knows what other deviancy.

Sundance can debut good movies such as "Napoleon Dynamite" or "Little Miss Sunshine," but it can also be a toilet bowl for lousy and disgusting fare.  Critics looove anything that "pushes the envelope," especially if it makes Brent Bozell and that Catholic League guy mad.  They love anything that sticks it to whitey, Republicans, Christians, and capitalists.  There's no such thing as going too far with this crowd.  Show them Dakota Fanning in relations with a bear and they'll be stomping their feet for an Oscar.

And it's all good because they're against war!  At least any war waged by a Republican administration.  I didn't see Robert Redford get his knickers twisted over our involvement in Bosnia.  This guy think the Bush administration owes "us" an apology.  John Cusack, an underrated actor who stars in a flick where his wife is KIA in Iraq, thinks you can't be pro-human and NOT antiwar.  Tell that to the WWII generation or the folks liberated from Nazi death camps.  Besides, does Mr. Cusack feel the same way about the abortion industry?  I'd bet a dollar to doughnuts the answer to that is, "No."

The grim milestone the antiwar posturers seldom acknowledge is one that eclipses the death toll from every war we've fought since 1775.  Over 40 million human lives have been snuffed prematurely thanks to "choice."  Think about it...that's more than the population of California.  It's a testament to the influence of a pro-abortion news media, a pro-abortion academia, and a pro-abortion entertainment industry that more people don't find this horrifying. 

It would make for a fascinating and provocative documentary.  But I doubt Sundance would show it.

 

Dear Senator Boxer,

The other day you made some snarky remark to Condoleeza Rice about not having a "personal stake" in Iraq because she doesn't have any children, right after you advertised your children and grandchildren.

Perhaps as pro-lifer, I should be thrilled the Democratic Party has at long last rediscovered fertility and family. After all, Speaker Pelosi marched up her entire large brood to the podium on her first day. Sen. Clinton is practically adopting "it's time for a mom in the White House" as her campaign slogan. This is after years of embracing the Childless Career Woman who aborts her way to independence and success or sneering down at the woman who has more than one child or takes a break from the career track as a cookie-baking baby machine who was wasting her talents.

But I'm a hardbitten cynic. I know the Democrats want to win back the married moms in Suburbland who have been voting Republican for the past several years, so out goes "Murphy Brown" and in comes "Cheaper By The Dozen." You're really saying, "Look Condi, I'm a MOM who, like, CARES. You're just a mean ol' bitter spinster who doesn't care because nobody loves you. Ha ha!" I know you're playing to your moonbat audience as well as the moms out there who honestly think there would be no wars or icky things if they were in charge. People like Joy Behar on The View. Poor Joy, always consigned to being The Other Overweight Obnoxious One. So she had to come out and say Dr. Rice got what she deserved because she supported a war people, like, lied about.

Say what you will about Dr. Rice, but at least she got to where she is because of her credentials and her hard work. She didn't need a rich, carpetbagging, ambulance-chasing husband to launch her career. Sometimes a gal just doesn't find Mr. Right like you did.

Signed,
Your Unfortunate Constituent

 Ever try to argue with anyone (especially female) who believes in the coming Apocalypse of Global Warming?  I have and it's not pretty.  Ever since the Reverend algore issued his Book of Revelations in the form of the much-gushed over movie "An Inconvenient Truth," the new converts to the Church of Gaia tremble in fear of how my driving a car to get to work will cause coastal cities to runneth over with water...just like in "The Day After Tomorrow!"

When it comes to the holy writ of Global Warming, I'm somewhat of an agnostic.  One thing I know for certain is that alarmist predictions about cataclysmic climate change have been around my entire life and none of them have come true.  Where's that new ice age?  How come we didn't fight wars over food and water in 1990?  Shouldn't we few survivors on Earth be envying the dead by now?  All of them were put forth by experts and they were all wrong.  So I'm skeptical about Reverend Al's claims of imminent doom.  The other thing I know for certain is that socialists and communists have long ago infiltrated the environmental movement.  The Reds know that their philosophy sends Americans running and screaming in the other direction.  So they couch their message in Green instead, using guilt, fear, and feel-goodism about saving the little birdies.  Clever sods.

And boy do they ever use fear.  Rev. Al has the chutzpah to rant about how President Bush "played on our fears" in regards to Iraq, but that's exactly what he does with his piece of agitprop.  Millions are gonna die!  Eeeek!  Vanity Fair, which pimped "An Inconvenient Truth" and ran scary pictures of Manhattan under water, proclaimed that global warming was a bigger threat than terrorism.  Most of the dino media and the popular culture accept this cataclysmic view of global warming as indisputable fact and seldom feature any opposing views on the issue.  This is why a populace informed by the likes of Jon Stewart, The View, and People magazine are stunned--STUNNED--when they are confronted by anyone who doesn't buy the sermon.  (In other countries, where they are taught the only reason why America has such a strong economy is that it's despoiling the planet, it's worse.)  They assume you don't care or you're not informed on the issue, because otherwise you'd be a true believer too.

Aside from shoving "dissenters" under the carpet, the Gaianists also attack their character.  "Global warming denier" is a popular perjorative, implying that disagreeing on global warming is on the same moral level as denying the historical fact of the Holocaust.  Anyone with half a brain realizes people can and do honestly disagree on scientific theory, which is what this global warming argument is about.  Theory.  Denying the cold, hard facts of the Holocaust--recorded in writing by everyone from Anne Frank to Elie Wiesel to meticulous Nazi record-keepers and recorded in photographs/films of skeletal bodies piled high in concentration camps--is based on old-fashioned anti-Semitism.  The people who try to sell the idea the Holocaust never happened or was exaggerated believe Jewish folks are sneaky, conspiratorial liars who made the sob story up just to get a little piece of real estate in the Middle East.  There's a big difference in being a bigot and being an honest skeptic.

But in the mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up relativistic world of the enviromental fundamentalist, evil is disagreeing with his theology.  These guys would burn you at the stake if they were convinced it wouldn't harm the ecosystem somehow.  It's too bad because I think it's good to find cheaper, cleaner sources of energy.  I'd be happy with giving less of my money to the likes of Saudi Arabia's terrorist-loving sheiks or Hugo Chavez.  I'm all for recycling; why waste resources that can be reused?  But there is no rationality with a movement driven by fear and guilt.  We all lose.

As a chick, I admit I'm not as big of a sports nut as 90% of the male population.  Most of what I know comes from growing up in a football-loving family (except for my mom) and listening to Jim Rome on a co-worker's radio.  But whenever I hear about people saying they support the troops even though they are against the war, it makes me think of football.  Or really, any other sport.

In England, fans of their football (our soccer) are called "supporters."  In America, we assume that if we are fans of the Chargers or the Bears or the Colts or the Seahawks, it means we support those teams, right?  You don't have to love every player.  You don't have to agree with every play; even in the best games, your team is going to fumble or make some other mistake.  You don't even have to like the coach.  But if you truly support your team, you always want your team to win. 

Well, our military is America's all-star team and if you support the troops, it ought to mean you want the troops to succeed in their mission.  But many on the left are in the loopy position of claiming they support the team but they don't seem to want the team to win the game.  Either they resent the coach so much, they hope the team loses the game just for spite (and maybe in the hopes of getting a new coach they do like) or they really don't support the team at all, because they hate their country.  Leaving your support at pity for players' injuries doesn't quite cut it either. 

At best many on the left are Fair Weather Fans, jumping on the bandwagon only when times are good, when the coach is someone of their liking, or when public opinion favors the team.  The worst of them jeer the players at the airport or actively cheer for the other team.  Can we question their fandom then?

     What is it about the Christmas season that brings out the knuckleheads?  I don't mean the guys who steal your parking spot at the mall or the crazed sweater lady who battles you a la "Gladiator" for the last electric nosehair trimmer.  I mean the parade of school and government officials who take political correctness and multiculturalism to levels of stupidity.  Or the stores that dare not mention the holiday that makes those cash registers ring with joy for fear of offending or excluding a tiny percentage of customers.  Or the Grinches and Scrooges at the ACLU hellbent on keeping Christmas out of Christmas, protecting Americans from the onslaught of those horrid nativity scenes.  Thank goodness for that; the ACLU knows a nativity scene viewed by the naked eye is far more dangerous to the average American than a child molester or a terrorist.

    A few weeks ago, the People's Soviet Socialist Republic of Chicago, fresh from banning foie gras from the plates of restauarant patrons, pressured a Christmas festival to drop the sponsorship of New Line Cinema, which was going to promote its flick "The Nativity Story."  City officials feared the outward display of religion might "offend" non-believers.  The $64,000 question is, why would an easily offended non-believer go to a CHRISTMAS festival??  Wouldn't he or she just stay home or do something else instead?  Then this morning I hear about Seattle removing Christmas trees from the airport after a couple of guys complained there was no menorah to be seen alongside the trees.  The airport officials decided it was just better to stuff the trees away and pretend Christmas didn't exist than to either set up a menorah or simply tell the guys to chill out.  (Shockingly this morning on Fox News, I actually agreed with Bob Beckel when he pointed out that unlike a nativity scene or something, a Christmas tree is a 'secular' symbol of the holiday, not an overtly religious one like a menorah, therefore the airport was within its rights to keep the trees out.)  

    The overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas in some fashion, even those of us who aren't terribly religious or people who have mixed faith families.  It is a part of American culture.  But the secular progressive crowd either out of a misguided desire to make sure no one feels excluded by the holiday (hey, nobody has ever told me, "Geez I pity you...you get one lousy day for gifts while I get eight.  God, I feel terrible!") or out of a not-so-innocent desire to stuff everything traditional out of sight, comes up with crazy things like "winter holiday," banning Santa Clauses from parades, and "holiday" trees.  Both corporate America and government officials get beaten over the head with sensitivity training and multiculti crud that makes them actually believe outward displays of Christmas cheer makes millions of poor souls miserable.  And moreover, they should CARE about that.  This is how we got the nonsense of stores forbidding its employees from wishing customers "Merry Christmas."  (I don't have a problem with "Happy Holidays," so long as it's not explicitly prohibited from wishing a customer carting a Christmas tree a "Merry Christmas.")

    Lately, Christmas fans have been fighting back.  Liberals tend to dismiss or pooh-pooh evidence there's an attempt to mess with Christmas (surprisingly, ditto for some Christian conservatives who want to keep the holiday small and strictly religious).  Sometimes it can get a little shrill from the right as well.  But it's not a case of no big deal.  It is a big deal.  Are we as a society going to surrender our culture to a tyranny of the minority in the name of "sensitivity?"  Where is that in the Constitution, exactly?

    Today, the battleground is Christmas.  Tomorrow, it could be Festivus.

So, after spending two years married to a slacker and making babies, what do you do for a comeback?  Why, show off your bits and pieces, of course!

Back in my day, starlets starving for attention would appear in a glossy pictoral in Playboy.  The old-fashioned way was to get paid a lot of money and have some guy make those soft focus touch-ups on the pictures so that you at least looked somewhat artfully presented while shocking everyone with your brazen nakedness.

But that's old school!  Nowadays, the celebrity set just makes tawdry sex tapes ("I didn't know anybody had a copy!  Honest!") and lets the paparazzi photograph them sans panties.  No touch-ups there!  The sad part is, this desperate attention-getting works.  Britney Spears may eternally be an embarrassment to her two sons (who also have an embarrassing dad) and never again reach the heights she reached in 1999-2000, but she will settle in for a fabulous career as being famous for being famous. 

Then you have babes like actress Scarlett Johanssen who have yet to pull a Sharon Stone for the paparazzi but compensate for it by revealing TMI details about their private lives instead.  Miss Johanssen recently revealed in an interview she gets tested for STDs twice a year because she's "socially aware."  Does this mean the gents in Tinseltown are aware that she is quite "social?" 

As ink space and bytes get precious with gobs of young stars vying for publicity, the more they will push the limits to get the attention in their direction.  Sure, there are things they still won't do, i.e. scream racial epithets in a nightclub or make strange slurring statements about Jews at a DUI stop.  But anything else is fair game.  To top Britney, some chick (Lindsay, maybe?) will have to just show up buck naked at a club.  Someone else will have to top ScarJo by having her next trip to the OB/GYN shown on the internet.  How about topping Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction by defecating onstage at an awards show?  Just say you're doing it as protest against the Bush administration and the celebrity butt-kissers in the media will adore you.  As it is you can cheefully make yourself look like a fool tanked up on t.v. and have everyone shrug, just as long as you trash President Bush in the process.  It's your Get Out Of Jail Free Card.

Hey, Hollywood chickies, if you really want to stand out, keep your clothes on, act like a decent human being, keep your trap shut about your medical history, and don't get sloppy drunk on the town while you have little kids at home.  Don't marry losers either.  Otherwise, you're just a cheap conformist.

 

After reading about some scholastic brainwashing about Thanksgiving on Michelle Malkin's blog and seeing the de rigeur mentions of how mean the white folks were to the Indians, er, Native Americans in some t.v. show about the Mayflower, I thought I'd whip up a quick skit that will teach the younguns the "truth" about Turkey Day.

NATIVE AMERICANS: *Peacefully waving their arms in the air, worshipping nature, giving hugs to everyone, feeding birds and deer out of their hands, and singing cheerful Native American songs. There's a big rainbow in the sky.*

NATIVE AMERICAN #1: Hey, what's that in the horizon?

NATIVE AMERICAN #2: It looks like a big canoe!

*Music gets sinister and dark clouds fill the sky. The boat lands near the shore and Pilgrims in their black outfits clamber off the boat.*

PILGRIMS: Squee! We're finally in America!

NATIVE AMERICANS: Welcome, White Christian Men and Oppressed Women, to our humble land.

MILES STANDISH: YOUR humble land? I think not! All your land are belong to us!

NATIVE AMERICANS: Huh? We're just pacifist, pan-sexual, Gaia-worshipping vegans! Why can't we all just get along?

*The Pilgrims pull out their laser weapons and begin shooting every Native American in sight. They also shoot deer, birds, and every darn living thing they can find. Then they start ruining the environment.*

GENERIC PILGRIM: Looky, I just fried this here weird looking bird. *Pulls off turkey leg and takes a bite.* It sorta tastes like chicken!

MILES STANDISH: Excellent! Let's have a feast dedicated to praying, eating meat, watching football, and promoting capitalism. We'll call it...Thanksgiving!

*Lightning flashes and thunder rumbles as all of the Pilgrims laugh wickedly.*

SURVIVING NATIVE AMERICANS: Quick, we must flee to Oregon with our tofurky! Eeek!

Th' End

Approved by the San Francisco School Board.