Damn the Macacas! Full Speed Ahead!

Now, even though Erik's Rants and Recipes is run by a reactionary, we try to keep it from being a reactionary broadside, in that we almost completely avoid newsy commentary on the hot button issues of the day. Part of this is our general disdain for democracy and part of it is due to our more specific disdain (and yet, curiously, also glee) of the level of political discourse that is so base and deficient that it screams from the rooftops why liberal democracy is a horrible institution.

Also, one of my all time least liked politicians, the DisHonorable Dianne Feinstein (D-California), has epitomized reactive politics. Her legislative agenda is always the morning newspaper, and her nannying instincts are immediate: any time any sort of problem gets the first whiff of media exposure, Feinstein is on the case, lickety split. Never mind deep research. Never mind measured, sober steps. Something must be done! And now! For the Children!

So, we generally let news age on the shelf for a bit before we comment.

Hence the frequent discussion of the Spanish Civil War, which remains, like it or not, the focal point of modern Western Civilization. All roads lead to the Ebro, and we are on the side of civilization, order, decency, and the Holy Faith, standing in union with JONS-FALANGE and St. Francis of Madrid, and we look on those who aren't with pity at best. Most people are against a Franco of Orwell's imagination, a Franco of the liberal press, a Franco of Socialist Pamphlets.

And Spain makes us think of Gibraltar, that blight, that pimple, that abscess on the Roman shore, a rock known for harboring barbarians and Europe's only wild monkeys (not counting the Dutch), the macaques. And macaque calls to mind Sen. Allen and his little heckler (it has been a good year for hecklers, right Mr. Richards?).

Now, we have defended Sen. Allen's use of the word "macaca" in this very space. In fact, it is about the only thing we have found defensible in this otherwise milquetoast Republican.

So it was with no small delight that this article showed up on our Yahoo page this fine (yet freezing) morning.

Which brings us back to the reactive and the reactionary.

With "macaca" being the year's "most politically incorrect word" we have decided to honor the word by making today officially "Macaca Day." Normally, we would have to see such antics as reactive, offensive simply to give offence, but upon deeper reflection we will find...that that is exactly it.

We owe our thin-skinned brethren of the Left frequent doses of abrasion. It is through these treatments that they will develop the thicker skin that will allow them to remain firmly grounded in reality, thus ignoring the minor irritations that send them flying into disproportionate hissy fits.

And when this hypersensitivity spreads beyond its nucleus into more normal areas, the whole nation is in danger. Honestly, I expect the United States to fall, not to tanks, but to a platoon of hostile troops smoking cigarettes and wearing a little aftershave. All they will have to do after the initial assault, is stand on top of the stairs, thus preventing the few of us who are not gasping in spasms of indignation from getting at them with our wheelchairs.

So, welcome to Erik's Rants and Recipes, a thoroughly offensive zone for the effete liberal, where cigars and whisky are the norm, where queers get smeared (remember that game? I betcha kids could get expelled from school for playing that one nowadays), where seatbelts are suspect, where fur is worn by the women, veal and foie gras eaten by all, where the deer and the macacas play (until shot by the local hunters).

Happy Macaca Day to you, Mr. Scrooge!
And Happy Macaca Day to each and every one of you!

Augusto Pinochet, RIP

At 91, Gen. Pinochet certainly had a good run. He saved his country from Communism, turned her economy around, stabilized her institutions, and peacably restored democracy when it was safe to do so. After his reign he was continually mocked and vilified by the left and the armchair liberals in the United States and Europe.

As I mentioned last week, Pinochet, unlike the very holy Francisco Franco y Bahamonde, was no saint. He cut some corners in the pursuit of justice that should not have been cut. There were probably a few people who should not have been shot, and, certainly, no one should have been denied burial, even Communists and PETA members deserve that basic respect, although barely, since they themselves seem to wish to renounce it. More and more it looks like Pinochet may have had slightly kleptocratic tendencies, as well, and this is too bad.

However, I find myself annoyed less and less with traditional corruption, finding it often more conducive to good government than that of squeaky clean freaks. And, unless you are an idiot or a communist, there is no way to see the government of Pinochet as anything but good government.

In interviews he gave in the last ten years, Pinochet showed the he was a consistent, well-read, thoughtful, and articulate voice on matters Latin American. His understanding of political theory and reality was deep, piercing, and astute.

Last month Augusto Pinochet took full responsibility for everything that happened under his regime, and he received the last rites before his death. Let us hope that his repeated mistreatment at the hands of the Spanish, the Englisch, and his own ungrateful countrymen, as well as his last decade of poor health is accepted as adequate penance for his sins, and that his journey to Heaven is quick and short.

By Order of the Duce!

Whereas, today, December 5, is the 73rd anniversary of the repeal of the darkest era of American politics,

Whereas our society, under the well-intentioned yet plainly evil forces of the Medico-Pharmiceutical Complex, is diving headfirst into a new prohibition,

Whereas the Enemy's tool of Puritanism has taken a nefarious, post-Christian aspect,

Whereas the forces of Good in this world deserve our encouragement, support, and a strong drink,

We duly proclaim today the 73 Martini Day! Our goal is to get pledges for the consumption of 73 martinis (or some suitable substitution cocktail) along with a prayer to deliver us from our foes, to smash Puritanism in all its forms, and for the conversion of the Mormons, Mohammedans and Baptists before midnight tonight.

Mindful that our decree might cause undue hardship on those who do not know a proper martini, we are offering the Duce's Private Reserve Martini Recipe:

Chill a martini glass with ice and water.

In a shaker with cracked ice add two shots of gin (preferably Bombay Sapphire, Plymouth, Van Gogh, or Tanqueray), one quarter to one half a shot of dry white vermouth, and a splash of water from the glass. Shake vigorously. Allow it to stand while you make the preperations for the glass.

Drain the glass of the ice water. Pour a couple of drops of single malt Scotch into the glass and gently swirl to coat the sides as thoroughly as possible.

Give the shaker a final vigorous shake, and strain into the glass. Add a Spanish, anchovy stuffed olive, put some Stan Getz on the turntable, toast the Duce, and enjoy!

Make your pledges to this spiritual bouquet in the comments box.

Mr. Bush, No One Will Blame You...

If you have your White House Plumbers take care of these guys.

OK, some folks will, but they are already blaming you for everything anyway (and not unjustly on many counts). And, of course it will not erase the stain on your own record, but this sort of disloyalty cannot be allowed to stand. At least crush their reputations.

If my advisors in the Keilholtz Dictatorship pulled one like this, they would never see another day outside the salt mines.

And, seriously, he can't be reelected anyway? He really has no choice but to declare martial law. I would.

The so-called Triumph of the Moderates

If I read one more editorial announcing the mid-term election as a triumph of moderates, I am going to...what am I going to do? Drink? Hmmm. Depends on the time of day. Scream? Pointless, might wake the neighbors. Throw up? No, not into that sort of thing, but the last time I listened to sports talk radio it sure seemed to be popular among the listeners ("If the Brutes don't sign Jimmy, I am going to be so mad I am going to throw up."). Sit down at the computer and rant?

Bingo!

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! -Barry Goldwater

I have this love-hate thing with Goldwater. On the one hand I admire his cojones, and his understanding that moderation is not some be-all, end-all. On the other hand, he was one of the pioneers of the Western "Conservatives" who hijacked conservatism (see Reagan, Ronald W.) and replaced it with the strange blend of libertarianism and highly selective sexual morality issues to produce the so-called neocons.

However, Goldwater's statement, with some modifications, is a good one. If we either remove the problematic term "liberty", which in the case of Goldwater is too saturated with the exaggerated concept of individual autonomy that his liberal ilk bow down to, or make sure that we are endorsing a thoroughly Catholic understanding of Liberty, then it is fine.

What is better is if we replace "liberty" with "the Good, the True, and the Beautiful."

Extremism in the pursuit of the Good, the True and the Beautiful is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of Holiness is no virtue.

It could be a, dare I say it, bumper sticker!

Instead we get moderate left-liberal milquetoasts and moderate right-liberal milquetoasts wringing their hands over "these ex-treeeeem-ists."

Oh, yes, we know. If only these moderates would have control of everything, and these ex-treeeeem-ists, who are really just selfish because they won't compromise THEIR truths, then the world would be one big bubble bath of peace and free markets (and, whoa! without these ex-treeeeem-ists mucking things up, we could probably even sell people and people parts on the free market. Think of the profits).

Ah, gotta love the lukewarm. Despised by both Heaven and Hell.

Right move, wrong reason

While I completely support abolishing the Pledge of Allegiance, the last reason is because of the "under God" phrase, just about the only part of the damn thing that I don't object to.

I have not said the Pledge for at least twenty years. When I am at meetings of civic organizations that do say it, I just stand silently. While I don't approve of anyone saying such a fetishistic, idolatrous thing, I leave it to them to do it or not, especially since it is such a minor thing.

Anyway, although they cite the "under God" business, I support this college. I would also like to see the elimination of the "Star Spreckled Banner" before sporting events.

Let's replace it with "Salve Regina" or something real.

Picking on the South... and your daily Dellums Watch

Over on Mark Shea's blog I read this story of Suthruners griping that the Big Bad Northern Libruls are making fun of them already. Some New York politico says "well, Mississippi gets more than its share of federal funding, but who wants to live in Mississippi?"

Fair question. Here in Oakland we have tons of people who DID live in Mississippi, aked themselves the same question, and up and left.

I have often said the same about West Virginia (Byrdland?), and the same holds true for just about any of the miserable holes on the other side of Lake Tahoe. In fact, I generally apply it to the Northeast, too (New England makes me buggy in a way that the South doesn't).

Look, of all the provinces of the confederation, the Southern ones are the most interesting (in that, well, if I can't live in California sort of way). However, these Southerners sound a little less than men whining about snide New Yorkers. After all, say what you want about Southern corruption: New Yorkers will be saying "Governor Spitzer." Frankly, I'd rather have Ron Dellums (pht! sptl!pfffthat!).

Speaking of Ron Dellums (pht! sptl! pfffthat!), there was a picture of him on the front page of the paper yesterday. He was surrounded by victorious Democrats. Going even beyond that irritating "how sweet it is" face that he has sported around here, Dellums is looking positively ecstatic, in the way that a dessicated cadaver can look ecstatic, with his face turned up, his eyes rolling to Heaven, and his hands folded in prayer: oh, yes, Ron, "thank God for the Democrat victories."

No, Ron, your master is down below.

Anyway, not wanting to hold ill-will towards the man, let's pray ourselves:

Lord, please bring about the conversion of Ron Dellums, may he repent of his sins, join the Catholic Church, gain a plenary indulgence, and have a happy death. May he go to Heaven and meet you face to face. In your time, Lord, but we wouldn't holler if you aimed for the sooner rather than the later. Amen.

Ed Bradley, RIP

OK. Maybe Ed Bradley was a real gent. I have no idea, never met him.

However, calling him a "news giant" and a "reporters' reporter" when he has been on 60 Minutes for the last 26 or so years, tells us much more about reporters and television news than it does about Ed Bradley.

If 60 Minutes is great journalism, then bring on supression of the press!

EDITED TO ADD: Note to Keilholtz (writer): "supression" would be what word, exactly? I am having trouble figuring out even what word was begun before it changed horses midstream. -Keilhotlz (editor)

PS I am leaving this abomination in the entry to humiliate you into doing a better job of reading what you post

PPS I am also leaving my own mispelling of my name, for similar reasons

Professional Sports

I like watching sports for a number of reasons: the poetry in motion of a well-tuned and well-trained athlete is a concrete example off the Good, the True and the Beautiful; the drama of the contest between the cities is a positive and healthy manifestation of human competition; complimentarily, the social cohesion formed around a team is a postitive and healthy manifestation of the tribe instinct; the statistical patterning in a sport like baseball is an interesting manifestation of the musical arts; and there is not a sport out there that does not stand as an open invitation to drink beer.

These are all good things, although each one of these aspects is periodically assaulted by various nefarious forces: the healthy manifestation of competition and tribalism becomes a bestial parody in the hands of some Raiders' fans; the invitation to drink beer is thwarted at the hands of neo-Puritans on campuses who ban its sale in the stadia; etc.

The biggest destroyer of the Good, the True and the Beautiful in sports, however, are the team owners.

Here in the Bay Area (as well as in Sacramento), the team ownership of the A's, the Raiders, the FairyNiners, and the Kings, are currently or have recently played games with their host cities to try to wrest public financing of arenas at little cost to the teams' organizations themselves.

I say, if you want socialized sports, fine. I can get behind that completely. Let the cities own their own teams, or make the teams be publicly traded among bonafide residents of the cities' metro areas. It is for this reason that I remain a Packers' fan. The team doesn't go threatening to move to Las Vegas every four years.

Barring some sort of major overhaul to the nature of professional sports, my second choice would be for all of the Bay Area's teams, excluding the Giants, to leave. Go Away. Move to Timbuktu. I don't care. In terms of economic benefit, professional sports are a wash at best. When the strains they put on the communities are really measured (traffic, police, etc.), my guess is that most (not all) teams are a complete drain on their host cities.

Now, I also include this desire for the teams to vanish to extend to major college sports. Last Saturday we were in Berkeley, and it made me appreciate going to a school without football. We had swimming, tennis, even basketball (I think, although I never went to a game), lacrosse, and all of those other minor sports, which is great. In fact, I would probably pare it down even further in scope.

Today we read in the paper that the FairyNiners are going to move away. Good riddance. Obviously, this is a best case scenario for me, as I despise that team. I would probably be a little (not much, though), less jubilant if it were the A's, a team I like. But for the FairyNiners to move to Santa Clara (even better would be San Jose, Los Angeles' little colony in the North) is like a dream come true. Now I can loathe them with a completely clear conscience, not feeling the least bit like I am betraying the Great City of St. Francis.

The FairyNiners are moving to Perugia, as it were, and the Bay Area can rejoice that we are rid of their lame-ass, losing, Mormon-promoting ways!

Alas, Poor Rummy...

Rumsfeld should have been let go two years ago, at the latest. It's too bad they waited til after Halloween, because he would have had an easy time getting a gig haunting houses.

Ugh. Politics Junkies Love/Hate Election Nights

I can't wait until the Keilholtz Dictatorship. Elections will be easy. I will sit down, decide who gets what job, what laws are to be made, and we can all go to bed.

Nearly 2am! I may have to wait until the morning news to get the final results.

My Concession Speech

I am almost convinced that I only got one vote for Governor of California.

With that in mind, I am conceding to Governor Adolf von Kennedy, who has obviously won the election. It could have been worse. By a little.

My people want him? They've got him. Idjits.

It looks like Prop 85, which would require that minors get the same consent required for them to get an aspirin in order to get a surgical abortion, is also going down.

Fellow Californians, move to higher ground and watch out for fault-lines, because any disaster we get will be well deserved. But the infrastructure bonds are passing, so maybe a few more will weather it all. Unless you think that God will not be deterred by a few levees.

The only silver lining is that the tobacco tax seems to be going down as well.

Anyway, you've got four more years of that ape in Sacramento (and I won't even get into the 84% of fellow Alamedans who voted for Babs Lee. Ron Dellums must have that "ain't it sweet" look on his mug right now.

Bah.

Santorum...

Oh Rick, maybe you can go knock on Spector's door and ask for a job. He probably needs a good coffee boy in his office. Maybe you could use a little burnt umber on your nose. It would look good.

Tee hee hee.

Chickens.
Home.
Roosting.

As my friend said, "hey, at least he can work on his MacArthur Genius Fellowship."

Har. har. har.

I hate to pick on Catholic politicos, particularly pro-life ones, but he lost that card in '04. Therefore he is nothing but another Pelosi in my book, and that means (like I said, it is hard to cast away my residual Stalinism) bayonet him first, as treacherous allies are worse than venemous enemies.

"Party man, Party man, It never felt so bad to be a Party man!"

As to New York, that %$#%$(^ Spitzer is now governor, giving me one more reason to avoid the state. Too bad, as I am dying to see the MOMA. Oh well, plenty of good art in the rest of the world.

The Big Apple is Rotten to the Core

In New York City it is illegal to smoke in bars, but your official gender is a matter of personal preference.

2006 California Voter's Guide

Here are my endorsements for the California 2006 General Election

Governor: Write-in Erik Keilholtz
Lieutenant Governor: Tom McClintock
Secretary of State: Bruce McPherson
State Controller: Tony Strickland
State Treasurere: Claude Parrish
Attorney General: Chuck Poochigian
Insurance Commissionaer: Steve Poizner
Member, State Board of Equalization, 1st District: David J. Neighbors
United States Senator: Richard Mountjoy
United States Representative, Ninth Congressional District: John Dendulk
Sixteenth State Assembly District: Write-in Erik Keilholtz
Judicial: Vote No on all candidates
Superior Court Judge, Office #21: No endorsement
City of Oakland, District 2 City Council: Patricia Kernighan
Auditor: Roland Smith
AC Transit District: Rebecca Kaplan

Ballot measures

1A - Transportation bonds: Yes
1B - Transportation bonds: Yes
1C - Housing Give-away: No
1D - Education Bonds: Yes
1E - Disaster Preparedness Infrastructure Bond: Yes
83 - Sex offender monitoring: Yes
84 - Water Quality pork: No
85 - Waiting Period and Parental Notification of Abortion: Yes
86 - Tobacco tax, Hospital pork and Medical Industry Monopoly protection: No
87 - Oil tax: No
88 - Education funding through $50 per parcel property tax hike: Yes
89 - Pseudo-reform of election financing: No
90 - Libertarian land policy nonsense: No

City of Oakland

Measure M - Removes arbitrary standards for Police and Fire retirement fund investing: Yes
Measure N - Library Bonds: Yes
Measure O - Ron Dellums Machine Power Grab: No

Immigration and the War

As I have said many times before, so it should not shock anyone, I am a bit of a bigot. I hold to double standards, because, well, cultures vary and some are better than others.

Therefore, please do not construe my dismay against the Southern Border Wall (or the Anti-Laborer Protective Barrier) as a blanket ban on ALL border walls (although I may have stated that exact thing earlier, it was just for rhetorical effect). Likewise, when I say that I am pro-immigrant, please don't think that I welcome ALL immigrants to our land.

For instance, I would be entirely happy if David Frum were deported and a wall with towers and raked sand were erected between the US and Canada (so long as it had one way gates to accomodate the tanks when we finally invade).

Seriously, though, reading the neo(pseudo)-cons falling apart at the seams is a great joy. These twits, with their joyful spreading of liberal democracy and unlimited markets, have hijacked conservatism in the West, and watching them squirm is pure entertainment.

See how they set up their president!
See how they praise their president!
That president Bush, he's a good, decent man who goes to war for morals!
See how the war drags on!
Drag on, War, drag on!
Mission Accomplished!
See how the one secular Arab state is now becoming two Mohammedan states!
Hey! Who passed the law of unintended consequences?
Don't Blame ME! I never said we should do it THIS way!
See how they blame their president when their plans did not work!

The Neo(pseudo) Cons: They did it their way (and cried afterwards).

Remember the first Yuppies? They were in their thirties. They had gotten over their hippy days. They were really into Ron Reagan. The women wore monstrous clothes and big hair, and the men had really skinny ties. It was fashionable for restaurants to paint their walls pink and green and serve "cajun" food, which meant they burnt the catfish and dipped it in pure cayenne. Then they switched to Asian fusion, but I digress.

The yuppies sat in those restaurants and sipped white zinfandel (oh how sophisticated it all seemed), listened to jazz fusion and got into all sorts of mischief: jogging, bottled water, anti-smoking, cocaine (oops, that wasn't supposed to be on the program, but, hey it made you feel so POWERFUL! it was hard to believe that Reagan wasn't really for the stuff deep down), etc.

Where was I going with this little jog down memory treadmill?

Oh yes, the rise of the neo (pseudo) cons.

Anyway, it was in this era, the culmination of thirty years of bad popular culture and boomer degeneracy, that Ron Reagan pulled a Goldwater and stole the term Conservative. He was never a conservative, except in a vague emotional sense. Without the very real menace of International Communism, the neo-cons would have been laughed off the page.

Once again we have a real menace, or two real menaces: Mohammedanism and Liberalism. The neocons have (sort of) gone to battle against the former, but only insofar as the former gets in the way of the latter.

In our culture, we can forget about defeating the Mohammedans until we have first defeated the Liberals, and that means both the left and the right side of the Liberal movement.

The neo(pseudo) cons are the bigger enemy.

Tomorrow you will go to the polls. Remember that there are almost as few genuinely pro-life Republicans as there are pro-life Democrats.

GOP apologists will say, "oh no, there is a substantial difference, it is all about the judges!" But they are whistling Dixie.

The true cause of the GOP is free markets. If there is a good market for embryos, the GOP will soften its pro-life position.

I would never say Vote Democrat (as it is I will probably be voting mostly for Republicans, just because our California Democrats represent the crust from Satan's armpits), and the Falange is not yet ready for 2006, but get ready to start weaning yourself from your GOP habit.

As to the California voting guide:

Yes on 85 (obvious)
No on 86 (even if you are in favor of outlandish tobacco taxes, which you shouldn't be, this is a bad measure designed as a cash and power grab by a couple of major hospital chains)

The rest will come tonight, so before you vote, come onto Erik's Rants and Recipes and print out your voters' guide to take into the polls.

Saddam

While I certainly endorsed the death penalty for Saddam Hussein, now that it has been delivered by a mockery of a judicial procedure, I am completely opposed to it. When he was caught he should have been thoroughly interrogated (sans torture, natch), then had a secret military hearing and executed by firing squad.

Instead the whole rule of law is being mocked by this trial (which is to be expected in a land where we have forbidden the people with any administrative experience from having the slightest participation in the new government).

Saddam is a bad guy, but he was the just about the best leader the Arab world had to offer. Right now, the best way to extract ourselves from the situation is to completely dump the GOP (and not for the Democrats, rather for the Falange), apologize for the transgressions of the liberal democrats (lowercase "d"), show our good intentions by sending all of them to work camps, rescue Saddam and put him in charge of a Sunni Arab state, keep the Shiite areas independent, and get our troops out of there. Let the Mohammedans fight nicely amongst themselves.

Ramsey Clark could be our ambassador to the area.

Free Press, Free Elections, Bah Humbug

When elections degenerate to the point of the candidates accusing each other of various degrees of insensitivity, it is time to scrap the whole thing. What is even more maddening is when the charges of
"hypocricy" are thrown around.

This, of course, brings me to the case of Haggard (not Merle, although God knows he has had his share of scandals). As any of my readers know, I consider Protestantism a devilish disease, and Protestant heresiarchs worthy of harsh punishments.

However, I take no joy in watching this nonsense about whether or not Haggard was doing really foul things with a homosexual prostitute, or whether he was just buying his meth from him. I want to see a Prottie heresiarch leave his job because he finds Truth. I want him to say, "I am sick of pretending to be the Pope. I want to be part of the Church Christ founded."

I especially don't want to see the charges coming from a homosexual prostitute and drug dealer whose newfound sense of the common good just forces him to breach client confidentiality (what ever happened to honor among thieves? I guess it does not apply to sodomitical dope pushers) a week before an election where Haggard has been working for a ballot measure.

What is worse is that these charges are being taken seriously as part of the dialog of ideas.

Whoever said that Democracy is the system where the voters get what they deserve (along with Menken's addition that they get it good and hard) is right, although the idea is not often enough seen to its fulfillment: the bad results will happen in the poorly selected administration, sure, but ultimately the center will not hold, and I don't want to hear any whining when the Authoritarian Restoration takes over.

You people had your chance, and blew it worrying about Allen's macaca, Haggard's sodomitical meth salesman, and on and on and on.

In Oakland I am designing a T-Shirt that says "He's Not My Mayor."

Perhaps I should change it to "It's Not My Liberal Democracy."

The Macaca from Virginia

Yes, I know, I should put out my election guide to let my minions know who to vote for.

Instead, here I go sticking my nose into the business of the Province of Virginia.

If you Virginians don't like it, tough. California eats little territories like yours for breakfast and poops them out before taking on real states for lunch.

Allen v. Webb.

What's the deal? Are they trying to out pansy each other? If either one of them get any softer, they could run for San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Let's see. We have George Allen, the "conservative" divorcee. He has some little fellow named S.R. Sidarth hanging around, undoubtedly making innappropriate noises and all the stuff that toadies of one polititian do to the opponent. I oughta know. I did that sort of stuff (and I plead the fifth as to which candidate it was for).

Anyway, little toadie staffers often act like monkeys. If they so happen to be smallish and monkey acting, well, being called "macaca" just comes with the territory.

Instead, Allen is climbing all over himself trying to show how egalitarian he is. I suppose he is going to donate some large sum to monkey habitat preservation or some such thing, as that is generally what "contrite" public figures do.

But that is not enough for Allen, who now is trying to paint Webb as insensitive to women, who swings his purse back at Allen by saying "no, it's you whose inthenthitive!"

I say, they deserve each other as eternal bunkmates. And if the people of Virginia elect either one, I will tolerate no more pointing out the goofiness of California from the Virginians (especially since, as I have said before, any bad idea in California will be followed three years later in your state).

The Berlin Wall, redux

President Calderon is absolutely right. Walls on borders are shameful things, and I still remember the elation when the Berlin Wall fell (just as keenly as I remember about two months prior having some GOP fellow telling me that it was simply not realistic to think that the Soviet Union would not be around within our lifetimes).

The only thing that makes me not regret voting for Bush is Kerry. Or Gore.

Don't You Love Inclusion?

Read this. If you need background information, I am sure it can be found on the web.

Where is the International Journalists' Coven standing up against power?

Turkish Hijackers

Amy Welborn mentions and links to an editorial about why coverage of the Turkish hijacking seemed to vanish when the story was no longer one of Mohammedans protesting the Pope, but one of Christians fleeing oppresive Turkey.

I think the answer is that the hijackers really have no cause, and most newspaper reporters are seeing right through their alleged grievances. Not to belittle the suffering of Christians under the hands of the Mohammedan, but my skeptic meter goes on overdrive when one is hijacking an airplane to show one's Christianity.

1. Turkey is a majority Mohammedan country, and this is sad. However, it is the most secular of all the Mohammedan countries. It is also pretty easy to leave Turkey. I guarantee that if you showed up in Greece (or Armenia) seeking asylum because you feared persescution as a Christian convert from Mohammedanism, you would not have a problem. Ditto if you found your way into the American embassy.

2. Hijacking a plane full of innocent civilians shows that perhaps the hijacker's catechesis is a little, shall we say, incomplete. This is the sort of silliness that normally comes from cradle Catholics of an Irish Massachussetts with a last name that starts with K disposition, not from converts.

3. So, when it comes down to it, the fellows are bull goose loons.

Perhaps the Turk is not so compassionate when it comes to treatment of the criminally insane. If so, then they should be hospitalized in Europe.

But however you slice it, this is not a cause for Catholics to get up in arms over. It has nearly nothing to do with Christianity and Mohammedanism and everything to do with a couple of malfunctioning brains.

The Nanny State and the Paternal State

Recently a couple of things have come up (actually three things) that have got me thinking about the proper role of the state in enforcing virtue:

1. Mohammedan jihadis blowing up restaurants during Ramadan
2. This Quatsch from Nurse Bloomberg's Nanny State
3. The recent billboard campaigns featuring a serious-looking nurse and the lines "Childhood obesity is no laughing matter" (honestly, in driving from the mechanic's shop this afternoon, I encountered four, in two languages. This is from 89th Ave to 13th Ave).

The first, the Mohammedans misbehaving strikes close to home, because I have long advocated the state outlawing the serving of meat in restaurants on Good Friday, and imposing all restaurants to close from noon to three pm. A Catholic state has the duty to impose this sort of law. What is the difference between this and the Mohammedans? First, and most importantly, we are right and they are wrong. If we are too gutless to say this, we deserve what we get from them.

Secondly, there is a question of proportionality. In the Keilholtz Dictatorship we will simply be talking about fines, perhaps a year, max, of hard labor, but only for repeat blasphemy cases. And everything must be done in the context of the rule of law, so if people have a real excuse they can ask for mercy from the Tribunal or even can appeal to the Prefect. Proportion. Due Process. Our side. Murderous, Erroneous Rashness. Their side.

Now, we have the issue of Trans Fat. Nasty stuff. I don't recommend eating it, too often. However, anyone who buys this sort of stuff is aware of what it is. If not, well, it might sound harsh, but give them a Darwin Award. You eat a Big Mac more than a few times a year, don't come whining to me when you feel lousy. I might just suggest that you go on a one year hard labor junket. But that would be for whining. Some of us eat a little trans fat (it goes great with cigarettes and martinis). We will probably live longer than these neo-puritans. And if we don't, so what? You live, you work, you suffer, you die. If you keep cheerful and do your Christian duty, well, then you will be saved. If you spend your time glumly worrying about what others are doing, and take inordinate care to avoid the dangerous stuff, and even more inordinate care to make others avoid the dangerous stuff, well, go to Hell. And I mean that with Love. Bloody Nanny.

The money quote, which is a perfect example of public ignorance is: "'Trans fat causes heart disease. Like lead in paint, artificial trans fat in food is invisible and dangerous, and it can be replaced,' New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said in a statement."

I know paint, and let me tell you, you cannot replace lead paint. Furthermore, because lead paint is ALWAYS oil based, the lead oxide particles are always fully encased in oil, which, when set is polymerized, the real risk of lead poisoning from house paint is very low. Never mind that, the official word is that lead paint is like kryptonite to Superman. You know, lead brought down the Roman Empire! Well, if that was so, then it also built it up, because lead was used in all sorts of things in Rome for many years.

My family has been in the printing industry for years. Guess who in that whole industry were known for their longevity? The linotype operators who worked with open pots of molten lead all day.

Am I saying that lead is good to eat? No. But if we are going to throw around lead as a toxin, we have to have at least a basic understanding of how toxic it is (dose) and we have to understand its chemical context.

Third. OK, little Tubby probably has an issue. Throw out the TV, stop using your welfare check to buy junkfood, quit whining. If he still has a problem at fourteen, guess what? A year of hard labor will trim him up. Is it transfat that has made him fat? Probably had more to do with the Bucket of Pop he had with his morning cereal. What event happened as America got fatter? Bingo! The Food Pyramid. Load up on them carbs!

Then we will get stern-looking actresses playing medicos to reinforce how important the medical industry is in keeping you from destroying yourself.

Big Nurse is Watching You!

When it comes down to it, the biggest health threat facing our citizens is the doctoring industry. You want to improve our health? Diminish the amount of health care we feel entitled to and we will quickly feel better.

Quit your whining. The other option is hard labor.

-Duce

Straight From the Horse's Mouth...

Now, I am convinced that someday, after I am gone and the reigns of State are passed on to someone else, people will sit around on a special day called "Erik Was Right Day" and share stories of how they once doubted me, but then it turned out that they should have agreed with me.

"Remember that time in the late 1980's when Erik said that the Soviet Union was going to be a thing of the past very soon and we all thought that was crazy? Well, it turned out that Erik was Right!"

or

"Remember when Erik said that the whole dot com revolution was more hype than anything and that current and future gains in productivity were nowhere near high enough to justify the inflation on these stocks in the market? Wow. We thought that was pretty funny. Well, I wish I had never put any money in with that venture capital firm that funded toiletpaper.com. Erik was Right!"

or even

"Yeah, there was that time when Erik said that real estate prices were hyper inflated and that the bubble would inevitably burst, in spite of the fact that real estate pr firms kept saying that, contrary to all history, what we were seeing was something different and that normal conditions no longer applied. Man, I wish I didn't spend half a million on a dilapidated shed in West Oakland."

And of course there will be this one:

"Remember when Erik said that within our lifetimes Mohammedanism would cease to be a major religion? That it would be reduced to a quaint cult in the mountains with about as much relevance to the world stage as Zoroastrianism? Once again, Erik was Right!"

Anyway, as we witness the tail of the dinosaur twitching as the beast dies in fitful agony (stay away from that tail, it has spikes that curve like scimitars), the lie of "Moderate Islam" will peel away from the truth faster and faster. Now, a year or two ago when I said that, I got a few howls of indignation from typical compassionista liberals as well as from an indignant Mohammedan girl straight from Jihad Central Casting.

After all, Imam Bush told us that Mohammedanism is a religion of peace, and isn't he authorized to issue Grand Fatwas?

Well, I have said it before, and I will say it again: Moderate Mohammedanism is a fraud. It is either a lie to the outside world, to assuage our justifiable suspicions, or it is an internal lie to make a life of comfort and ease in the West seem compatible with the "evil and inhuman" faith of Mohammed.

And you know what? There are decent and honest Mohammedans out there who will admit as much.

And you know further what? I respect the ones who admit as much. To believe in what Mohammed taught and not be an extremist is to be the sort of mealy-mouthed loser who wants to hold hands and welcome the transgendered community to our faith community gathering place, blah blah blah.

Barry Goldwater, who was one of that rara avis, an honorable Liberal, almost got it right when he said, "Let me remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. And also let me remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." His view of liberty was deeply flawed, but his understanding of certain basic truths was not.

Let me amend the words of the late, great Goldwater and remind you that extremism in the pursuit of Truth is no vice, and let me further remind you that moderation in the pursuit of the Good is no virtue.

In related news, in yesterday's cleaning, I found a box of foreign coins, including a handsome 5 peseta piece from Spain with a picture of Francisco Franco (may he be canonized soon) and the inscription "Francisco Franco Caudillo De Espana Por La G. De Dios 1957." I think I am going to frame it, alongside the other nifty coin I found, a Citta del Vaticano 200 lire piece with a portrait of "Ioannes Paulus II PM AN IX MCMLXXXVII" (may he also be canonized soon). This will remind me of my student days when I had photos of both men over my desk. I believe that I was the first Student Senate Chairman at UCSC to do so.

Someday, it will be the Feast of San Francisco Franco and some of you will be sitting around and suddenly something will pop into your mind:

Yes. Erik was Right.

Islamo-Fascists

Don Jim, who seems to be a pretty good guy for a Liberal, talks about the silly term "Islamo-fascism."

I am not exactly a fascist. I am not exactly not a fascist either, but I am not a member of any fascist party, and I differ from fascism on the role of the church and on the treatment of archaeological sites. So I see eye-to-eye with bonafide fascists quite a bit.

So, naturally, the offense I take to the "islamo-fascist" term is that it presumes that one is talking about Mohammedans when one is talking about those who practice "islam." As I have argued before, true Islam is the Catholic Church and true Muslims are Catholics.

Those who follow Mohammed are Mohammedans, not Muslims.

Now, since my own differences with fascism tend to be about the role of the Church (my own authoritarianism is really Franquismo), when it comes down to it "Islamo-fascist" is me.

Except, why mix Arabic into it? I have nothing against the Lebanese Falange, nor the Maronites, but my guess is that most Islamo-fascists (real ones, not Mohammedans, who really have nothing to do with fascism at all) are of Latin stock. So why not Romano-fascists? Except that is quite redundant, as there is no fascism without fasces, and they didn't come from Dublin. So we could go with Catholo-fascists.

Or Franquistas.

Or Keilholtzisti.

Anyway, I also agree with Don Jim over this notion that not all leftists are "Commies." I actually miss the days when they were. At least with the reds you can see, sort of, why they have that world view. With the lavenders, it's a whole different ballgame.

And that brings me to Castro, although in his old age he seems to be giving in to the lavenders. I think it is because he has a granddaughter who is into that sort of thing. Alas, the days when the soundest AIDS policy came from Cuba.

I wish Castro the best. Really.

I know, he is a brutal, horrid Commie thug. And for that he will have to pay the price.

But...

I just can't hold a grudge against anyone who dislikes Kennedys as much as I do. Can't do it. And I like a good strongman. I just about wept when Stroessner was kicked out (although he was a complete bastard. The only thing that made him tolerable was his staunch anti-communism, but that is like joining Stalin to fight Hitler. No, I did not like the man Alfredo Stroessner, rather the length of his reign and his tenacity). And, let's face it, Raul is worse, like Fidel, but without the charm.

Of course Raul will not be able to hold it together. So, the end of the Castro days is inevitable, and it will probably happen quickly and peacefully once the old goat kicks it. Hopefully he will repent of his evil and die a faithful Catholic. If Oscar Wilde could do it, Fidel could do it. And if Fidel does it, well, there will even be hope for Ted Kennedy.

Guns and Doctors

From The Christian Falangist Party of America:

SOME STARTLING STATISTICS
Number of physicians in the United States 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician 0.171
Number of firearm owners in the U.S. 80,000,000
Number of accidental firearm deaths per year 1,500
Accidental deaths per firearm owner 0.0000188
Doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than firearms owners.

PLEASE NOTE: While I agree with about 85% of the Christian Falangist Party of America, I do not endorse them and will not endorse them until they are an explicitly Catholic Party. If I wanted to join a political party with Protties, I would become a Republican. I have corresponded with Mr. Patricio Cortes, and he seems like a good guy, though.

Immigration

Well, the funny thing is, I hear Catholics who sound an awful lot like The Boy Named Chick.

The New Anti-Fascist Protective Barrier

I remember the joy of the watching the old anti-fascist protective barrier being destroyed. I even hammered on it a little bit myself and noticed that it was constructed of the same poorly-made Commie cement as everything else on that side of the Iron Curtain.

I mentioned a few days ago how nostalgic I was for the days of the Cold War. I guess the Minutemen are too, looking at their plan for a border wall. Two fences with an unpaved road between them.

I wonder if they are getting the stuff cheap from Honneger's Hardware.

Do the Minutemen have a great women's weightlifting team, too?

The Battle Lines are Getting Clearer

In many ways I miss the old days of the Cold War. Everything was cut and dry, and you could make allies with all sorts of goofs and loons, because you had a common enemy. Conservatives could hold hands with liberal sycophants like Ronald Reagan and pretend that they didn't notice the tripling of the federal government, the shell game that made the tax cuts meaningless, the empty lip service given to social issues.

However, now that the Commies are gone we can look with a much clearer lens at the various sides of the so-called conservative camp. We still have life issues, but it is becoming clearer and clearer that the Right Liberals (which is the proper term for the neocons, with their fetish for free markets, their inherent materialism, their doctrine of absolute autonomy of the individual, etc.) only use life issues to hold a coalition at election time.

We are on the verge of seeing the battle lines shift rapidly. The mainstream of the so-called Conservative movement will follow the lead of California's Governor, and once they do that, they will hold power for a very long time, because they will tap into the inherent Liberalism of our culture. The Sexual Liberals and the Economic Liberals will positively love each other: the sex industry is profitable, and once the Glory of Absolutely Unrestrained Liberty is achieved, the Left Liberals will find that their issues are pretty minor, once they can stuff more crap in their houses.

In many ways I think that Rod Dreher's thesis on Crunchy Conservatism (Disclosure: I did not read the book, but I read the initial article with interest, and was asked to submit something for the interview, which I decided not to because, from the questions it was clear that Rod was not at all sure of what Conservatism was) is going to be important to our newest Culture War in terms of setting the boundaries.

If not the book or thesis itself, the vitriolic reaction to it will be the defining moment.

One of the traits of the Right Liberals is a mistrust of aesthetics, inherited from the Puritans. Along with that goes with a fetish for the marketplace and, ultimately, a worship of the material fruits of the market. So, for a Right Liberal, the best thing is the thing with the best, most vigorous market. A large corporation is large as a reward of its hard work, dedication, commitment to its customers, etc. Any attack on a large corporation, for most Right Liberals, smacks of wanting to impose socialism.

A couple of years ago you had these Right Liberals sniffing the air of things like farmers' markets and organic, small-farmed produce, and saying, "well, it's a choice, but it seems really silly, because, hey, look at these tomatoes I can get in January at the MegaChoice Market." And that was the truce: you people might be silly, but it is your choice to be silly.

Along comes Dreher who takes this point seriously, and says that one can be a Conservative and like organic produce simultaneously. Certain sectors of the Right Liberals suddenly became unglued.

"They aren't conservatives at all. They are just pro-life Democrats."
"It is a sham."
"It is nothing but superficial aesthetic choices."
"Wal*Mart is the best thing ever, because it is big and cheap."

And you started seeing the same people who shop happily at stores that are built on Chinese slave labor suddenly worried about every little policy that Whole Foods has (another disclosure: I rarely shop at Whole Foods, not because I dislike the place, but because I can find better selection of the same sort of stuff cheaper elsewhere in the Bay Area). These Right Liberals suddenly started wringing their hands with the best of the college student activists.

The reason for the Right Liberal's hatred of organic (it has nothing to do with price, because if you really shop organic, buy directly from the farmer, shop local and seasonal, you pay a lot less for your produce. That tasteless January tomato will cost you dearly) is that it confounds the notion of popularity equating to intrinsic good. 100 million Wal*Mart fans can't be wrong: why don't you people get with the program?

Exercising the choice that these people fetishize threatens their belief in that choice.

Our battle lines are drawing up. First we will probably stand together just long enough to neutralize the threat of Mohammedanism, but then the war will be Catholics versus Liberals. It may be the last war, but I am not one to try to determine THAT date.

So, here we have the Right Liberal take on urban planning: Jane Jacobs had some good ideas, so long as they are safely ignored by being bracketed in a free market system, in which people are free to build hideous, socially expensive, sprawling suburbs.

Of course he takes on Portland, one of the best planned and most livable cities on Earth. When he notes that the cost of housing has gone up, I contend that it is expensive for the same reason that the Bay Area is expensive: lots of people want to live there. There are very few cities in America that are livable. They become expensive as a result. You want cheap? Meet Detroit.

His contention of an unused light rail is absurd. I would like to see exactly what his statistic refers to (for instance, does it take walking into consideration?), because those trains are often full.

Portland works better than any other city in America. It is one of the most pleasant places around, with a vibrant economy, varied and interesting street life, a minimum of slum areas, creative reuse of spaces abandoned by inefficient and archaic industries, creative rethinking of existing business, many thriving bookstores, caffes, artisan bakeries, restaurants, a major banking center, etc.

The Free Market position, of course, is that places like Portland or especially Berkeley, one of these heavily regulated cities, are "bad for business." Interesting. If I am looking for businesses that have longevity, I look first in Berkeley. When the dot com industry (fueled by easy capital from some of the most credulous nitwits on Earth) collapsed, many municipalities, especially those "business friendly" ones, went severely in the red. Not Berkeley. Those pie in the sky idealists, with all their social programs and expensive regulation, turned in a budget that ended in the Black.

These "superficial aesthetic" notions (which shows you just how conservative the Right Liberals are. When they demean the Beautiful, what place do they hold for the Good or the True?) are the things that will save our rapidly degenerating culture. Suburbs grow in expanding rings, with the older suburbs decaying quickly. In a few years a trajectory of growth results in a far remote stand of new growth, cut off from the urban heart by rings of violent, nasty decay.

Eventually the whole ball of wax will fall apart, compounded by the debt burden of individuals as well as our federal government.

Speaking of Fascism...

Since the topic of fascism has come up, I should probably address where I stand on the topic.

I am not exactly a fascist. I object to the secular emphasis of the movement, and harbor some mistrust of them based on their earlier anti-clerical stance. However, much of that mistrust has been mitigated by the Lateran Treaty, which created the finest model of Church and State relations for modern times. It is not as good as an Imperial Christendom (AEIOU), but it is a good second choice for modern times.

I would toss out the entire Bill of Rights, even our whole constitution if it meant that we could have a relationship with the Church like that outlined in the Lateran Treaty.

As for the rest of Fascism, it was a work in progress with some room for improvement, but I am totally on board with its economic agenda, its neo-baroque power aesthetics, its understanding of the proper role of myth in society, its authoritarianism, and its very limited system of checks and balances.

Note that all of that pertains to the political philosophy of fascism. Where the problems came in was the personal, Wilsonian nature of Mussolini himself. There was the problem of Mussolini the showman, who would pull such stunts as leaving a light burning in his study, so that the populace would think that the Duce worked all through the night micromanaging the republic, althewhile he was sleeping ten hours a night (often in the company of his mistress), and there was the problem of Mussolini the foreign adventurer. I completely endorse and support his role in the Spanish Civil War, fighting for the side of Right and Good, and my own family played a part in the Abyssinian Campaigns, although I find them a bit of a problem in terms of strategic uses of Italian resources. All of these escapades ultimately ended in the hideous alliance with the Celto-Germanic Pagan Hitler, which is where fascism loses me (and all other Catholic Authoritarians).

Certainly a few adjustments of the structure of the Fascist Government would have put the brakes on Mussolini's exuerances. A stronger Grand Council, for instance, would have had great benefits to the Kingdom of Italy.

So, for these reasons I am not a Fascist, but am very sympathetic to Fascism, and tend towards a rather favorable view of the Duce and his granddaughter.

Speaking of Mussolini's granddaughter, read this article, paying careful attention to the last line, a line I wholeheartedly endorse. There was a day I can get nostalgic for, when the Communists held some understanding of the danger of sexual deviance. Now they have even lost that, and have earned every drop of castor oil ever administered to them.

The Boycott

We supported the boycott as much as we could (I did not have time yesterday to refuel the car when I had planned, and I forgot to buy coffee beans, which are as essential around here as gas in the car), and noticed a lot of shops closed, many with signs explicitly noting why they were closed.

I really don't understand Catholics who fail to see that the anti-immigration movement (and the legal/illegal distinction is baloney, modernist crap: the result of earlier waves of anti-immigration blather that was aimed at keeping Ities and other Papists out of the country) is nothing more than yet another manifestation of Anti-Catholic Know-Nothingness.

Of course diehard anti-immigrants like Ms. REttle are yahooing around like they are personally defending the Blessed Frontier, but that is to be expected (she doesn't mention it in this bit of (silly and completely erroneously titled) chest beating (OK, Peggy, we'll "bring it on!" Whoo-hoo. What are you going to eat? Aren't you one of those ones who complains that organic food is too expensive? When we have shipped our farmworkers back, do you have any idea what your food will cost?), but her husband's little timid act of posting a sign just off his property (she mentioned it on a comment on another blog) is split-your-sides-laughing material). Wretched Rettle is one of those folks who bellyaches about any manifestation of non-Anglo culture (she even took on the Blessed Mother of Guadalupe), but other, should be more sensible Catholics, those who realize that our is the church of the immigrant, whose citizenship issues have much more to do with the City of God than anything else, have been surprising me.

When I think of fences and walls and armed fortifications at borders, or, as one MinuteMan type seriously suggested: two walls with guardposts and frequently swept sand between them, I think of different sorts of regimes. I seem to remember a wall like what this fellow suggested. The world cheered when it came down.

It is time to have a completely open border with Mexico. Tight frontiers do nothing. We cannot keep drugs out of maximum security prisons, our economy is totally dependent on the twelve million "illegal" immigrants, the terrorists in this country have come in legally, and, besides, questions of "legal/illegal" will beg the question of how Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and California ended up as part of the United States anyway. We have increased free trade with Mexico (which is a good thing, and offers some exciting potentials to the American table) as well as the potential for interesting joint-manufacturing ventures.

In terms of Homeland Security, the concern about the legality of an immigrant is nothing but a red herring. We need to be just as vigilant about the home-grown terrorist as with the imported variety. And the last I checked, none of the imported variety were flooding in from Mexico.

Erik's Rants and Recipes calls for a completely open border with Mexico, and encourages resistance to any "immigration" reform that calls for more money and energy to be wasted on Communist Style Frontier Defense.

Yellow Clad Zombies in Front of White House...Falun Gong is Goofy...My Enemy's Enemy Might Be My Enemy Too!

I heard the news on the radio. "The police have been successful in keeping the protestors at bay, except for one human rights protestor who made it past the police only to be arrested and taken away."

I am pretty familiar with human rights activists. They are the sort of snot-nosed filth magnets from the suburbs who form things like "The Third World Student Coalition" at the university. They start out as bright-eyed, naive and idealistic girls (including the boys), who start the Amnesty International Club on the high school campus and then take the plunge into the world of PIRG or whatever other madness they glom onto in college.

"Will you sign a petition for..."

Then later, they start getting more and more deranged, monomaniacal, their little ideas inflamed by leftist ideologues on the faculty. When they graduate they still have their passion for "non-profit work."

But I knew instantly that this sort was not the sort who was being hauled away on Pennsylvania Avenue.

I knew that it was an older Chinese woman, almost respectable looking, with a glazed look in her eye and clad all in yellow.

Sure enough, when I saw the picture it was all there, right down to the "Falun Gong is Good!" (uh-oh, a demotion. Last sign I saw said that Falun Dafa is Great!) sign.

Of course I saw the usual hand wringing all over the blogosphere about the miserable treatment the China gives to dissidents.

While China goes overboard in dealing with the Falun Gong, and is completely in error in its treatment of the Holy Catholic Church, the fact that they are suppressing Falun Dafa/Falun Gong should not make us lose a wink of sleep.

Again, we cannot advocate killing the poor Falun Zombies, but the use of police force to prevent the spread of this Quatsch is completely in bounds. Would that our government do the same (and expand the program to the Scientologists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnessess...).

Catholics should stand for Tolerance, but in a limited way. Error, which is the foundation of Falun Gong, Has No Rights.

Falun Gong/Dafa is neither good nor great. It is a mind control cult that should be eradicated, and we should applaud the ChiComs, in spite of their brutal treatment of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, in their effort at stamping out this Chinese version of Scientology in its early days.

Puritans on Pyres

The problem with modern day puritanism is that it is mostly free from any religious connection, beyond the same anemic spiritual poison that motivates most hedonists. In fact, many hedonists tend to attempt some sort of balance by being puritans in some way, so they might hump anything that moves, but make their atonement by vegetarianism or jogging.

In the old days a puritan was a puritan through and through. Now, we can't just go around grabbing folks with buckles on their hats and loading them into the boxcars. I wish it were so easy, but, alas...this modern age.

One can even encounter a puritan in a Catholic church these days.

This separation of the puritans from any particular creed is not only an inconvenience for the day when we can actually prosecute these weenies, but a danger that lets puritans pretend that their puritanism is beyond simple creed, that it is SCIENCE or HEALTH or whatever crap they are peddling at the time.

Take creeps like these people. What motivates someone to be active in some initiative like this? What mental illness is at work here?

This is one of the symptoms of a land where everything is framed in the binary: one is either a teetotaler or an alcoholic, a nonsmoker or a three pack a day addict. One is either among the Elect or the Damned. Since it is difficult to draw exact and meaningful lines between use and abuse, lines that will fit every individual in every circumstance, to hell with it. We'll just go with binary categories and get to work cleaning.

Since there is an obvious resonance with simple people here (look at the recurring problems of Cathari, Calvinists, Mormons, etc.), once the viewpoint is tarted up with some junk science, to the average Joe, lacking in wit, reason, and armed only with a few sayings and deeply held emotions, it seems like something pretty normal. As it is incrementally increased (remember the folks who assured us back in the eighties that it was paranoid to think that requiring non-smoking sections would eventually lead to a complete prohibition, even in bars? Probably not, because it just seems so weird to think that smoking was ever allowed anywhere, right?), a direction is given, and if you believe in progress (which you do, right, because otherwise we would all be in the dark ages again), you want to get on board with that trajectory.

Now we add to the mix the notion that to support something means that one is obviously making money at that thing. So if someone does research that shows that second hand smoke is hardly the public health menace that is repeated over and over by the same people, all the puritans have to do is find a financial connection, however slight, between the research and the thing being defended, and the presumption is on corruption. Never mind that research done with predetermined results in support of ideology gets a pass on a regular basis.

And the other thing going against the proper views on alcohol, tobacco, and the like, is that there is no way to sanely balance lunacy, and we have a society that views balance as the goal. So you have puritan nuts out there, and there are no equally monomaniacal pro-alcohol people (except for perhaps a few that can be proven as having a financial stake in the industry), and the feeling of consensus is hammered in: see, join the bandwagon, the new Mayflower, like everyone else. Science and health are on our side.

So, what is to be done?

The obvious allies on this issue are the libertarians, but they are right on these issues for the wrong reason.

What we need is a militant anti-Puritan stream. One that keeps its hands free from any financial benefit (although the puritans are certainly not practicing poverty, it's just that their filthy lucre is sanitized by foundations), but hammers with the same insistance as the enemy.

As the obvious leader of this movement, yet lacking the time to do so, I will deputize one of you, my dear readers, to take the helm of Project Anti-Plymouth. Or maybe we can create a network of cells, thwarting these bastards whenever they rear their ugly, pointy, little heads.

Immigration

Right now, as the federal government tries to outdo itself in idiocy, there are far too many Catholics, of immigrant origin, hollering for strict controls of the border.

Bosh. I say. Modernist silliness at best, anti-Catholic bigotry embraced by folks who should know better at worst.

Now, I never denied that I am a bigot, and it is based on this bigotry that I demand a heavily fortified border surrounding Canada (with gates to allow raiding parties in to help themselves to natural resources, which, if left to the Canadians, will just end up as part of some experiment in allowing the Indians to worship trees and rocks and all of the hockum that should have been exorcised out years ago). However it would be absurd to claim that my desire for a fortified border with Canada is a matter of "just wanting to see laws enforced." It is about a deep seated Anglophobia and a mistrust of anyone who thinks that Moosehead should count as beer, eh? Oot with you then.

Please note that I exempt Oscar Peterson and Diana Krall from my anti-Canadian vitriol. There are probably others, but I can't think of them now. Certainly not Margaret Atwood. Yuck.

Get rid of the "illegal" immigrants and you know what will happen? Our economy will crumble. Do you like to eat? Live in buildings? Not have to take out the garbage?

The problem is that we are working with unworkable notions of citizenship. What we need is a policy of exile in which any Mohammedan, regardless of ethnicity, place of birth, family name, income, etc., is immediately deported to Arabia (or Mormons to Utah, or Puritans to Massachussetts, I could get behind any of those initiatives). This will do more for the security of the West than keeping out the hard-working Catholics who are willing to pick strawberries for pennies, to live ten to a shack, sacrificing to save money for their families.

The Face of the New Medusa...

It so happens that I am not exactly a fan of Hillary Clinton. She strikes me as standing for everything wrong with, well, humanity.

So, imagine my delight when I logged on to AOL to find that the headlines they were flashing in the welcome screen were temporarily not matching the photos, giving me a particularly haggish shot of Clinton along with the headline "Hot New Look Not Hot on You."

It turns out that the headline was to go with some piece on makeup, and that Hillary was citing the Bible on immigration (OK, so a stopped clock is right twice a day, or once if it is digital).

Crunchy Reactionaries

I have been mildly amused by the vitriol spewed out by the Wal*Mart and Velveeta set over Rod Dreher's Crunchy Conservative book. I am, of course, mostly in favor of the Crunchy Conservative folks, but take the whole thing with a grain of bemused detachment.

Of course most "conservatives" in this country are nothing more than Liberals with a couple of conservative ideas. Around here, you will find more genuine conservatives in Berkeley than you will in the Republican strongholds, where the radical autonomy revered by the Liberals reigns supreme.

I like Dreher, albeit in a sort of patronizing way. He just strikes me as such a little man (no, I don't mean that he is short, just sometimes shrill) that I have trouble taking him seriously in cultural matters, but he is trying hard to do the right thing, and points in the right direction. In many ways he reminds me of Joseph Pearce (or does he spell it Pierce? I never know with these Englischer): they are fumbling in the right direction, but ought to learn a bit more before writing books about it.

So, what exactly is a Conservative? Let's have that be the theme for the week, now that I can spend time writing on stuff like this (the last two weeks were full of cooking for our parish's St. Joseph Festa, which went quite well).

Speaking of the St. Joseph Festa, I will be posting recipes from it, too, so if you were there and would like to know how to make one of those things, just wait and they will all be here later tonight. Or tomorrow. You know the drill. Paid writing trumps free writing.

Just don't offer to pay me to maintain the blog, because then it would be work, and I would feel guilty taking money to sit down after a couple of martinis to rage against Ron Dellums. One should rage against Ron Dellums simply for the joy of it.