warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/shockhor/public_html/modules/taxonomy/ on line 33.
Outbursts, ejaculations, scream therapy.

Some very poor excuses by Stanley Crouch

Thursday, September 29th, 2005

When we look at the ongoing crisis in the depths of black America,
it is sometimes hard to understand why there was such an explosion
of outrage at Bill Cosby. One would have thought that he did the
very worst thing possible when he called on the carpet the
self-destructive behavior that separates prosperity from poverty.
What Cosby showed was how dangerous defensiveness in face of the
facts can be to any serious discussion of poverty.

The Wrong Battle by Eleanor Clift

The Wrong Battle

John Roberts is the best Supreme Court nominee a left-wing partisan
could hope to get out of this White House. Could he someday be

By Eleanor Clift
Updated: 2:20 p.m. ET Sept. 23, 2005

Sept. 23, 2005 - Here\u2019s a mind game: if the vote to confirm
John Roberts were a secret ballot, would most Democrats vote for or
against him? My guess is that Roberts would rack up numbers like
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (96-3) and Stephen Breyer (87-9) -- both
appointed by President Clinton -- if Democrats didn't have
to placate party activists so angry at President Bush they believe
he should be opposed at every turn.

Hitch on Cindy

fighting words
A wartime lexicon.

Cindy Sheehan's Sinister Piffle
What's wrong with her Crawford protest.

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Aug. 15, 2005, at 11:50 AM PT

Here is an unambivalent statement: "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

And, now, here's another:

Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.

The first statement comes from Maureen Dowd, in her New York Times column of Aug. 10. The second statement comes from Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq last year. It was sent to the editors of ABC's Nightline on March 15. In her article, Dowd was arguing that Sheehan's moral authority was absolute.

I am at a complete loss to see how these two positions can be made compatible. Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore/Ramsey Clark school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive. I dare say that her "moral authority" to do this is indeed absolute, if we agree for a moment on the weird idea that moral authority is required to adopt overtly political positions, but then so is my "moral" right to say that she is spouting sinister piffle. Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority? I certainly would not ask or expect them to do so. Why, then, should anyone grant them such a privilege?

Well, <groan>, here she is, Ms. Sheehan:

New York Sun Staff Editorial
August 11, 2005

Cindy Sheehan's Crowd

It's easy to see why Cindy Sheehan, the 48-year-old mother of a
soldier killed in Iraq, has become the new face of the anti-war
movement, featured in a New York Times editorial on Tuesday and a
Maureen Dowd column yesterday morning. Camped out in Crawford, Texas,
near President Bush's ranch, she's a more sympathetic face than a lot
of the alternatives. But as sad as Ms. Sheehan's loss is - and we
don't belittle it - she has put herself in league with some extreme

Psychopathia Cyberneticus

I need to create some new entries in my list of categories. How about "Almost completely unravelled!"?

Our Special Universe

The Wall Street Journal

March 11, 2005

Our Special Universe

March 11, 2005

What is the purpose or meaning of life? Or of our universe? These are questions which should concern us all.

As a scientist, I have been primarily trying to understand our world -- the universe, including humans -- what it is and how it works. As a religiously oriented person, I also try to understand the purpose of our universe and human life, a primary concern of religion. Of course, if the universe has a purpose, then its structure, and how it works, must reflect this purpose. This obvious relation brings science and religion together, and I believe the two are much closer and more similar in nature than is usually recognized.

Syndicate content