« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »
February 24, 2007
The Independent, Fundamental Baptist Doctrine of Hairology.
Long hair is, of course, a sin.
Found here.
Enjoy.
Posted by Carl at 11:00 PM | TrackBack
February 23, 2007
Chesterton Thursdays, II.
"There is another proverb, 'As you have made your bed, so you must lie on it'; which again is simply a lie. If I have made my bed uncomfortable, please God I will make it again.
We could restore the Heptarchy or the stage coaches if we chose. It might take some time to do, and it might be very inadvisable to do it; but certainly it is not impossible as bringing back last Friday is impossible. This is, as I say, the first freedom that I claim: the freedom to restore. "
Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World
(Scarcely got that one in...)
Posted by Carl at 12:00 AM | TrackBack
February 21, 2007
Keith Ellison and Tobacco.
As if Keith Ellison wasn't absurd enough, there's this. (Found in this post here.)
"Rep. Tom Tancredo supported freshman Rep. Keith Ellison's controversial swearing-in on the Quran, but when the Colorado Republican wanted to relax in his office with a cigar, the Muslim Democrat's office called in the cops." (Emphasis mine; Story link.)
I suppose that we shouldn't be surprised that Mr. Ellison would do this, given his past antics. But what did surprise me was this next statement.
"The officer said the visit was a formality – he already had told Ellison that Tancredo was allowed to smoke in his office, The Hill reported." (Emphasis mine; IBID.)
So in this whole tobacco debate, it boils down to this. Legislators make laws against smoking in public buildings and restaurants--'cause smoking sends the wrong message; Legislators tax cigarettes and use the money for educating children--'cause using cigarette money sends the right message, I suppose; but then Legislators are given immunity to smoke wherever the heck they want.**
That seems fair, don't it?
** It is immaterial to the argument that I am making for anyone to observe that, perhaps, Rep. Tancredo did not vote for smoking restrictions. So please, don't write me letters about it.
Posted by Carl at 11:36 PM | TrackBack
February 20, 2007
"Muslim cabbie runs over students after religious argument."
This is just a warning. Please be careful who you discuss religion with. I shudder to think what might have happened if the driver had been a Christian!
Posted by Carl at 11:40 PM | TrackBack
Something I forgot to mention...
Mynym is back. Finally. (And I thought I was gone for too long.)
In a related note: Mynym is brilliant. This is not hearsay, nor am I being paid to endorse his intelligence-ness. I really believe what I here propound, that Mynym is brilliant. And although he is sometimes a 'smarty-pants,' I can neither confirm nor deny the intelligence of said pantaloons.
Posted by Carl at 11:35 PM | TrackBack
Teens and "sport killings."
These kids killed a guy! But if that isn't horrific enough,
"Then, Moore says, they took off to grab a bite at McDonald's."
Per a previous post, their actions made me wonder: is there some connection between high-fat foods and murder? Our legislature might reason so.
Of course then I remembered such reasoning is faulty. Food cannot corrupt the body.
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (And the reason for this is quite obvious.)
Posted by Carl at 11:27 PM | TrackBack
Can you say "anti-Christ?"
Yikes!!!
"De Jesus says he learned he was Jesus reincarnate when he was visited in a dream by angels."
This just in...."sources have confirmed that 'The Grub Street Plumber' is, in fact, the tooth fairy." More on this as it develops.
Posted by Carl at 11:13 PM | TrackBack
Watch out Fat people: YOU ARE NEXT.
It is clear that "Smoking cigarettes is the number one cause of PREVENTABLE death in America." (Quoted from here, who cited this site.) And although one might be disposed to argue that death is in no way preventable, I shall not.
It is also quite clear that Cigarette taxes [are] on the way. Similarly, one might argue that since the TN Legislature proposed "more than 4,600 new laws", any number of new taxes--or laws, for that matter--might be on their way in.
The point of this entry, however, is quite simple. Smoking is the leading "preventable cause" of death. This being so, the Legislature, in their infinite wisdom, and our Governor in his, are seeking to ban smoking. (Uh course, they ain't no reason not to raise the price of cigarettes, and then use it fer schools. That makes dang'd near perfect sense!)
But following the logic employed by our progressive Congress-people--cause we all know they's like unto Zeus his-own-self in they brilliance--the next logical step is to ban fat people.
"Obesity [is] on [the] verge of surpassing smoking as #1 cause of preventable death."
Although...I suppose it would be more scientific to argue that we should ban food, not fat people. I mean, if we get rid of the food, who's gonna be fat?
Sadly, beer might be next.
I guess wine doesn't make merry the hearts of God or man.
**DISCLAIMER: I do not strongly endorse civil disobedience with regard to cigarette bans. Okay, okay. I don't endorse it at all.
This disclaimer has been a community service production of Grub Street Plumbing, Incorporated. Thank you.
Posted by Carl at 10:28 PM | TrackBack
February 18, 2007
Smoking is a "criminal offense"...or will be, if HB1851 and SB1325 pass.
"HOUSE BILL 1851
By Bone
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, is amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated part thereto:
§ 39-17-1801. This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Non-Smoker
Protection Act”...§ 39-17-1803. Except at otherwise specifically authorized in § 39-17-1804, smoking is prohibited in all public places and places of employment within the state of Tennessee.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it."
The section that this bill seeks to change is this: Tennessee Code : Title 39 Criminal Offenses : Chapter 17 Offenses Against Public Health, Safety and Welfare. That is, if this bill passes then smoking will be a "class-C misdemeanor."
I don't know whether or not I shall post more about this later, but I will at least make this comment. First, our legislature--and many other legislatures around this country--are "criminalizing" an act that has been allowed for at least four-hundred years. I am not here commenting upon whether or not smoking should be a misdemeanor. I am only observing that for quite some time, it has not been a misdemeanor.
Second, even as our Legislature is seeking to make criminals out of otherwise honest citizens, our Governor is seeking to tax them. And not only that, he will use this money obtained from criminals to fund our schools.
"The argument for a cigarette tax is straightforward: Our schools need more money. (Link.)
Bredesen supports the smoking ban. I suppose, then, that he must agree with our legislators that smoking is a criminal offense. My question is, is it reasonable to fund our school-system with monies received from those who participate in criminal behaviour?
Posted by Carl at 01:01 AM | TrackBack
February 15, 2007
Chesterton Thursdays, I.
As G.K. Chesterton happens to be a favorite author of mine, I think it would be fun to quote him once a week. The fun begins today, and it is perfectly fitting that it should. Today is, after all, Thursday.
"In truth there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don't know it."
(Chesterton, Fancies Versus Fads.)
Posted by Carl at 10:13 PM | TrackBack
Stupidity from a Times Free Press Editorial.
"Georgia should enact legislation that prohibits concealed weapons under all circumstances..."( Times Free Press)
The only sane response to this is, I think, for someone to shoot the author.
DISCLAIMER: The author of this site has not ever, and does not now endorse murder. The author was only striving to do what he has not yet done: be funny. Further, I do not now desire, nor do I now advise anyone to shoot the author of such raving lunacy as was quoted. I freely admit he or she should be locked up in Moccasin Bend, but that is no reason to actually shoot a person. THIS CONCLUDES THE DISCLAIMER.
Posted by Carl at 08:51 PM | TrackBack
February 13, 2007
Someone, ANYONE! Please call PETA now!
O Humanity, Humanity!
This must be stopped!!!
"EBERSWALDE, Germany (AFP) - In a small corner of the former East Germany, a retired truck driver is hoping to alleviate the hunger of North Korea with his super-sized rabbits." (Cyril Julien, AFP; Found here, then after a cyber-leap here.)
God help us. What is the world coming to when people will breed super-sized rabbits for FOOD?!! Doesn't that fool know that super-sizing things kills people?? That's why McDonald's quit.
Someone, ANYONE, should call PETA! The super-sizing MUST be stopped...um...hold on just a sec...
...apparently PETA condones the murder of innocent animals.
My bad.
UPDATE!!!
Forget PETA, let's call these rocket-scientists instead.
Posted by Carl at 10:49 PM | TrackBack
And finally: because it is, after all, nearly Valentines Day.
Valentine's Day Poem Redux.
(Written on December 05, 2003; Originally posted by me here, and then again here.)
No more the Lupercalion feast, with all it's pagan rites.
The goats and dogs their flesh may keep, upon fair Palatine.
To purify with magic, and sacrifice to gods,
Virgil’s ode no more compels this fickle, future mob.
Nor can the edict of Claudius II, by order from his throne,
Compel true love to live its life, forever, all alone.
For faithful priest, this Valentine, tho’ not yet made a saint,
Did not obey that wicked man, and thereby sealed his fate.
Thus in two-seventy A.D., while head from body torn,
A jailer’s daughter, the story goes, had blinded eyes reborn.
And for this selfless, noble act, Pope Gelasius, by name,
Decreed, that on the fourteenth day, his honor would remain.
So ‘Patron saint of Lovers’ Valentine himself would be
And this was all accomplished in 496 A.D.
But please observe, ye loving ones, the Duke of New Orleans.
Who, while in jail, first sent his wife a valentine received.
Alas we see our tale usurped by Cupid, as his day.
All men forget what history knows, they're deaf to what she’ll say.
So send your card, your candy too, give lovers a dead plant,
For History true I now have told, and never shall recant.
Posted by Carl at 01:11 AM | TrackBack
"Sergeant Jason Hess wants a personal apology from Discount-mats.com..."
...and as far as I'm concerned, he should get one.
Faisal Khetani, replying to Mr. Hess' question about shipping mats to Iraq had this to say,
" From: contact@discount-mats.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:44 PM Subject: Re: Feedback: from discount-mats.comSGT Hess,
We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.Bargain Suppliers
Discount-Mats.com
Discount-Mats-dot-com
Story Link1
Story Link2
Story Link3
Story Link4
Found via Shock & Blog.
Posted by Carl at 01:05 AM | TrackBack
Indoor Smoking Bans Kill!
I'm tellin' ya: banning indoor smoking kills.
"A worker at a Manitoulin Island long-term care home has been charged with criminal negligence causing death in the case of a resident who died after he went out into the cold to smoke." (Link, found here.)
See also: here and here and here.
Posted by Carl at 12:49 AM | TrackBack
February 07, 2007
Abortion, "Gay Marriage," and the Ten Commandments.
I was stunned to learn today that abortion, "Gay Marriage," and the Ten Commandments are being used to "garner votes." Of course, this was even more stunning, for obvious reasons. But that is beside the point.
What is to the point is this.
That a politician wants to garner any vote, much less my vote, is irrelevant.
That some people--ahem, Mr. James--seem to believe family values are "defined by our families, is absurd. It's like saying that cowboys developed their highly romantic "cowboy-ish philosophies" because they lived out west. And just what the heck are family values anyway? Oh, that's right. Family values is only a buzzword.
"Buzzwords are typically intended to impress one's audience with the pretense of knowledge. For this reason, they are often universal. They typically make sentences difficult to dispute, on account of their cloudy meaning." (Link; Emphasis Mine.)
Well, that clears that up. Let's rephrase a quote from Mr. James now, shall we?
"Ourfamily values(updated text) sasdnvxcuoweyzzdd are defined by our families, not by our political leaders. Unfortunately for all of us, certain politicians have made abortion, gay marriage, and the Ten Commandments political footballs -doing injustice to how we should deal with these issues. These issues are being used to garner votes..." (Link)
Abortion is not a political issue. It is, as I have said, a matter of life and death.
"Gay Marriage" is not a political issue. Like lying, sodomy, homosexuality, or being gay is only an abomination. (Homosexuality=Lev. 18:22; Lying=Prov. 12:22)
The Ten Commandments themselves, are not a political issue. The historicity of their place in American Society is undeniable; although now, it is true, they have lost much of their former significance.
Jobs, education, and security; these things mean nothing without morality. And it is the height of either stupidity, or wickedness to pretend otherwise.
Posted by Carl at 10:21 PM | TrackBack
February 01, 2007
BLOGUL: Blog-Mogul
I don't claim to be a "blogul." Neither do I claim to have coined the phrase. In fact, I'm not too sure I understand the necessity of Creative Commons, or Numly, or any other such service. After all, we do have the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, do we not? But here is what I found humourous:
While reading this post on CrumleydotOrg, I noticed that she referenced blogul; and by following that link I discovered that Sunita Torres claims to have coined the word "blogul."
" ESN 7142806123163141642Document Name: Copyright for word: BLOGUL
Document Description:The word Blog-ul was coined on December 30th of the year 2006 by Sunita Torres. The meaning of BLOGul is as follows:
BLOGUL:
A mogul of blogging.
A powerful person in the blogging industry.
You may NOT use this word in conjunction with any application, program, blogging tools, names, and such without explicit permission from this copyright holder." (Link)
My question is, how could Sunita coin a word on Dec. 30, 2006 that was used, if not first at least already, on Sept. 23, 2005 (Scroll down until you find the article: "Arrianna's a Standup Gal"; Bottom of the article gives date of publication.)
Posted by Carl at 11:05 PM | TrackBack