This came to me via email today. I'd heard it before, but its still funny enough to post. Plus, I'm a bit swamped on the blog side by a project I'm working on that should prove to be epic. So, in the meantime I've copped out and will post this email instead of working! Enjoy.
The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
Two Different Versions ...
Two Different Morals
OLD VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:
Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'
ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, “We shall overcome.”
Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake.
President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of
the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.
The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Lying about medals now A-OK
There was recently a decision by a San Francisco court which determined that the Stolen Valor Act, a law that prohibits an individual from lying about receiving medals for military service, is unconstitutional. The defendant, one Xavier Alvarez, introduced himself at a public meeting in 2007 by claiming to be a Marine who had been awarded the Medal of Honor. Judge Milan Smith said in the majority opinion:
The story continues:
Anyone who has known me for any length of time knows how I feel about the Constitution and the rights it affords. Those rights may allow things we consider deplorable and despicable. The question here is this: Does the lying about medals, particularly one as prestigious as the Medal of Honor, do “damages” to another citizen?
The answer to this is not simple…On the one hand, having a cowardly and worthless sack of meat like Mr. Alvarez falsely and maliciously make the claim to have served courageously clearly damages the honor and reputation of those who truly did make those sacrifices. But what are these damages? How much are they worth? Is it appreciable enough to be legislated? Are lies like this akin to slander and libel, which are forms of speech that we correctly outlaw? Or are they simply one of the uncomfortable facets of the 1st Amendment that we must protect, along with distasteful things as pro-Nazi rallies?
Though it does not happen often, I am undecided...Were I forced to make a choice, I would have to err on the side of liberty and agree with the court’s decision. But I still don’t know.
I do know one thing however. It may be that they can choose to exercise their freedom of speech in this way. Should I happen upon someone who falsely claims the title of hero, I will be forced to exercise my freedoms to give them a little wall-to-wall counseling, preferably with dimensional lumber. The memory of those who gave their all demands no less.
The right to speak and write whatever one chooses - including, to some degree, worthless, offensive and demonstrable untruths - without cowering in fear of a powerful government is, in our view, an essential component of the protection afforded by the First Amendment,"Firstly, if you’re going to lie about a medal, pick something less conspicuous. The Medal of Honor? Really? Only eight men have been awarded this medal in the last twenty years, and every single one of them was awarded it posthumously. The story is quite easy to verify. Check out this website if you want to be choked up by reading of the acts of courage and sacrifice that ordinary joes like me can only imagine. Why not try something like a Distinguished Service Cross, or a Silver Star? Then again, I guess if you’re going for douche bag only the best will do.
The story continues:
"Alvarez was the first person ever prosecuted under a 2006 federal law that prohibits falsely claiming to have won a military decoration. It is punishable by up to six months in prison, or a year for elite awards such as the Medal of Honor.Very appropriately, the community service he was ordered to serve was at a Veteran’s hospital. I hope he learned some sort of lesson there.
He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation, fined $5,000 and ordered to perform 416 hours of community service. His lawyer said he completed the community service but, in an unrelated case, was convicted last year of misappropriating public funds and was sentenced to five years in state prison.”
Anyone who has known me for any length of time knows how I feel about the Constitution and the rights it affords. Those rights may allow things we consider deplorable and despicable. The question here is this: Does the lying about medals, particularly one as prestigious as the Medal of Honor, do “damages” to another citizen?
The answer to this is not simple…On the one hand, having a cowardly and worthless sack of meat like Mr. Alvarez falsely and maliciously make the claim to have served courageously clearly damages the honor and reputation of those who truly did make those sacrifices. But what are these damages? How much are they worth? Is it appreciable enough to be legislated? Are lies like this akin to slander and libel, which are forms of speech that we correctly outlaw? Or are they simply one of the uncomfortable facets of the 1st Amendment that we must protect, along with distasteful things as pro-Nazi rallies?
Though it does not happen often, I am undecided...Were I forced to make a choice, I would have to err on the side of liberty and agree with the court’s decision. But I still don’t know.
I do know one thing however. It may be that they can choose to exercise their freedom of speech in this way. Should I happen upon someone who falsely claims the title of hero, I will be forced to exercise my freedoms to give them a little wall-to-wall counseling, preferably with dimensional lumber. The memory of those who gave their all demands no less.
The Medal of Honor
The Distinguished Service Cross
The Silver Star
The Purple Heart
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Mosque at Ground Zero: Just because you can...
Unless you A) live under a rock, B) are a hermit, AND C) are currently dead, you have no doubt heard about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his plans to build a large $100 million center in the city of New York. This community center will include many features, such as a gym, a pool, a performance arts center, and yes, a mosque. Normally the construction of a mosque would cause little stir. New York City is in fact already home to over 100 mosques to serve its Muslim population. The problem and source of controversy in this instance is the intended location of the mosque: Two blocks away from ground zero.
You can read up a bit on Imam Rauf through a bit of google searching. For example, you can read an article here about his condemning the lashing of a man in Malaysia for drinking alcohol, which was said to be a violation of Sharia law. It has been said that he wishes to have Sharia law put in place in America and all other countries of the world. However, some careful reading of what he actually said is that Sharia law is compliant with the doctrines of the Constitution, and I could not find any direct quote from the man that implies he wished to use the sword as a method for conversion.
In short, despite the massive amounts of sites proclaiming the Imam as a radical Islamic terrorist, I am not convinced. What I am convinced of that this doesn't really matter, at least in the sense that it does not change the conclusions I draw. For the sake of this argument, I’m going to give him the benefit of any doubt and assume his intentions are pure.
There are actually two questions we ought to be asking.
The first: "Should they be allowed to build a mosque at this site?"
The answer to this is an overwhelming and resounding "YES!" It ought to be obvious to anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the Constitution and fundamental human rights. The First Amendment to our Constitution states:
The second question we need to ask is: "Should they build it there?" To this I will answer a much softer “No.”
I would recommend reading this article written in the NY Post by M. Zuhdi Jasser, an American Muslim who has been very active in building mosques all across our nation. Mr. Jasser writes:
I will be the first to say that political correctness is strangling our nation, and ought to be discarded. At the same time there is something to be said for the consideration of others in your actions. This is a principle that is taught in both Christianity and in “mainstream” Islam. If we allow that the purpose of this center is, in addition to being a place of peaceful worship, to teach the community about Islam in a way not associated with violence and to heal old wounds, then we must question the wisdom of choosing a site uniquely positioned to offend the entirety of its intended audience.
What is so special about this site, if tolerance and education are the Imam’s goals, that makes it impossible to move to a place less brazen and still accomplish the very same things?
I strongly believe that most Americans would applaud the construction of this center elsewhere in the City of New York, even elsewhere in Manhattan. I think that actions taken nearby by the Muslim community, such as building memorials that are, as Mr. Jasser puts it, “blind to faith, race, creed or national origin”, at Ground Zero would be laudable and would go a long way towards accomplishing his stated goals.
Under no circumstances whatsoever should Imam Rauf be stopped from building his center. Unless, of course, it is Imam Rauf himself who does the stopping.
You can read up a bit on Imam Rauf through a bit of google searching. For example, you can read an article here about his condemning the lashing of a man in Malaysia for drinking alcohol, which was said to be a violation of Sharia law. It has been said that he wishes to have Sharia law put in place in America and all other countries of the world. However, some careful reading of what he actually said is that Sharia law is compliant with the doctrines of the Constitution, and I could not find any direct quote from the man that implies he wished to use the sword as a method for conversion.
In short, despite the massive amounts of sites proclaiming the Imam as a radical Islamic terrorist, I am not convinced. What I am convinced of that this doesn't really matter, at least in the sense that it does not change the conclusions I draw. For the sake of this argument, I’m going to give him the benefit of any doubt and assume his intentions are pure.
There are actually two questions we ought to be asking.
The first: "Should they be allowed to build a mosque at this site?"
The answer to this is an overwhelming and resounding "YES!" It ought to be obvious to anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the Constitution and fundamental human rights. The First Amendment to our Constitution states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (emphasis mine)Part of the practicing of most any religion is the establishment of places of worship. Christians found churches, Jews construct synagogues, and Muslims build mosques. So long as they obey the local laws (provided those laws are not overly restrictive), legally own the land, and construct to the proper building and noise ordinance codes, building a place of worship is no different than building a shopping mall in the eyes of the law. Moreover, building a mosque of any size can NOT be regarded any differently than building a church. If we allow ourselves to simply stop the things that make us uncomfortable and eliminate the rights of the minority out of convenience we pave the way to our own enslavement. As Ayn Rand once said: "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."
The second question we need to ask is: "Should they build it there?" To this I will answer a much softer “No.”
I would recommend reading this article written in the NY Post by M. Zuhdi Jasser, an American Muslim who has been very active in building mosques all across our nation. Mr. Jasser writes:
"To put it bluntly, Ground Zero is the one place in America where Muslims should think less about teaching Islam and "our good side" and more about being American and fulfilling our responsibilities to confront the ideology of our enemies."Like it or not, the fact of the matter is that at this place nearly nine years ago a group of Muslim men murdered thousands of Americans (to include a score or so American Muslims). Like it or not, Ground Zero will always be remembered for that day and the lives that were lost. Like it or not, anything constructed on or nearby this site will be viewed through that prism.
I will be the first to say that political correctness is strangling our nation, and ought to be discarded. At the same time there is something to be said for the consideration of others in your actions. This is a principle that is taught in both Christianity and in “mainstream” Islam. If we allow that the purpose of this center is, in addition to being a place of peaceful worship, to teach the community about Islam in a way not associated with violence and to heal old wounds, then we must question the wisdom of choosing a site uniquely positioned to offend the entirety of its intended audience.
What is so special about this site, if tolerance and education are the Imam’s goals, that makes it impossible to move to a place less brazen and still accomplish the very same things?
I strongly believe that most Americans would applaud the construction of this center elsewhere in the City of New York, even elsewhere in Manhattan. I think that actions taken nearby by the Muslim community, such as building memorials that are, as Mr. Jasser puts it, “blind to faith, race, creed or national origin”, at Ground Zero would be laudable and would go a long way towards accomplishing his stated goals.
Under no circumstances whatsoever should Imam Rauf be stopped from building his center. Unless, of course, it is Imam Rauf himself who does the stopping.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Epic Fail: Sharron Angle says media isn’t being nice.
Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader, has been facing an unusually tough fight for reelection in his home state of Nevada. Fortunately for him, divine providence has given unto him a savior. Sharron Angle, the “Tea Party” backed challenger, had an…interesting interview with Fox News a couple nights ago.
Words escape me when trying to describe for you the monolithic amount of fail that is contained in such a short period. Please view the video for yourself. Caution: The viewing of this video may cause a spontaneous rip in the fabric of reality and reason, causing your brain to be violently evacuated from your brain. From the CBS article:
Yes. You’re reading that right. She just said the press should abandon its duty to examine her positions critically and simply throw her the questions she’s ready to answer so that they can help her in raising campaign finance funds.
I suppose according to Sharron Angle, Thomas Jefferson was completely off his rocker when he said “The only security of all is in a free press.”
Some investigation of her website and other sources (such as Project Votesmart) reveal what appears to be a generally conservative set of views, though exceedingly bland. Her interviews and statements are much more exciting. There are a lot of positions that Sharron has that I would agree with. Having the government get out of social security, closing down the borders, and eliminating abortion, to name a few. Check out this interview if you want some better positions.
This sort of statement, however, is tragically destructive. It would be one thing to complain of media bias, to show with evidence that the press has been acting in favor of one party or another, and that this is a violation of their duty to the people. It is quite another to whine about them not asking the questions you want so that the news could be reported the way you like.
Words escape me when trying to describe for you the monolithic amount of fail that is contained in such a short period. Please view the video for yourself. Caution: The viewing of this video may cause a spontaneous rip in the fabric of reality and reason, causing your brain to be violently evacuated from your brain. From the CBS article:
”Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle told Fox News yesterday that the media should be her friend.
"We needed to have the press be our friend," Angle told Carl Cameron, prompting Cameron to interject and say her comment sounds "naive."
"Well, no. We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported," said Angle. She added that she wants to be able to tell people to send money to her website. “
Yes. You’re reading that right. She just said the press should abandon its duty to examine her positions critically and simply throw her the questions she’s ready to answer so that they can help her in raising campaign finance funds.
I suppose according to Sharron Angle, Thomas Jefferson was completely off his rocker when he said “The only security of all is in a free press.”
Some investigation of her website and other sources (such as Project Votesmart) reveal what appears to be a generally conservative set of views, though exceedingly bland. Her interviews and statements are much more exciting. There are a lot of positions that Sharron has that I would agree with. Having the government get out of social security, closing down the borders, and eliminating abortion, to name a few. Check out this interview if you want some better positions.
This sort of statement, however, is tragically destructive. It would be one thing to complain of media bias, to show with evidence that the press has been acting in favor of one party or another, and that this is a violation of their duty to the people. It is quite another to whine about them not asking the questions you want so that the news could be reported the way you like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
