Monday, October 31, 2005

More on the MSM and Liberal foolishness

Best encompassed by this outstanding essay from the Anchoress.

Read it all and take it in.

Friday, October 28, 2005

Odds and Ends

Some loose ends to clear up 'round here.

From dictionary.com:

Extinction:

3. (Psychology). A reduction or a loss in the strength or rate of a conditioned response when the unconditioned stimulus or reinforcement is withheld.

Referent? Well, I'll let you folks speculate.


I've not commented upon the various follies surrounding the White House lately, mainly due to an inability to make informed commentary. But recently -with the whole often seeming to be greater than the sum of its parts- a number of issues have come to a head, resulting in the following comments:

What with affaire de Miers and affaire de Plame, the Bush admin does not come off looking good. The first always smacked of cronyism (not that this denigrated the woman's ability to adjudicate), and looked bad, and now the withdrawal ALSO looks bad (but a pasting in the Senate by fellow GOPs would have looked even worse). The second makes the administration look further bad in manipulating the press into settling personal vendettas.

Couple this with Bush's seeming love of increasing big government while the ghost of Reagan spins in his grave, I find myself wishing more and more that the Democrats would finally get to the point of moral coherence and come out against abortion. While their apparent self-loathing of all things American would still be an issue, it would certainly offer a breathtaking alternative to the GOP.

And Bush's GOP is appearing less and less attractive (at least on domestic issues).


Finally, there is this very depressing post on michellemalkin.com.

The next time someone says there is no liberal bias in the media, I will direct them to this travesty of journalism.

There is no other way to parse the rampant liberalism at the country's "newspaper of record." They are clearly torquing the news into something it is not, simply so they can further their own spin on "Bush and the war are evil, and no one supports him." The Times' work on this story sat the reality on its head. . .there is no other way to parse it.

And as goes the Times, so go the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, the MSM networks and so on.

In the mainstream, natioanl media, there is no objective reporting. Only liberal spin.

Remember, 89% of editors, reporters and publishers polled in the DC area voted for Kerry last time around. There is NO WAY that you will convince me that New York media is significantly different. There is NO WAY they all force themselves to remain objective.

And so, you get twisted stories like these.

The MSM is liberal. Get used to it.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Mozart on hold

Thank heaven. It has been postponed (wisely) until March. In the meantime, I now get to play a funky French chef in a really cheesy dinner theater murder mystery, being put on as a fundraiser for the local chapter of the American Diabetes Association. That piece runs on December 3rd. No rest for the weary!!

Sunday, October 23, 2005

GodofBiscuits is actually brilliant

I take back everything I have ever said about the arguing ability of the GodofBiscuits. Just visit this site and see if you agree.

Apparently he has been hiding his real lite under a bushel all of these months. The sheer brilliance of that first post. . .well, as you can see, it simply hasn't been outdone yet.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

When is a Biscuit a Cracker?

From Dictionary.com:

bis·cuit
n. pl. bis·cuits

1. A small cake of shortened bread leavened with baking powder or soda.
2. Chiefly British.
A. A thin, crisp cracker.


Therefore, what is a cracker?

crack·er
3. Offensive.
b. Used as a disparaging term for a white person.


In other words, when one calls himself a biscuit (or biscuits), it is just another term for a white man who disparages himself?


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Friday, October 21, 2005

Teeing off on foolish parents

Lemme tell you a quick story.

My brother is also a teacher in a different corner of my home state. He is also that school's soccer coach (boys and girls). Up till this week, the girl's team was undefeated, leading the league. Now, the team suffered two losses this past week to very good teams within the league. Part of those losses can be attributed to the fact that his lead sweeper was injured, creating a huge hole in the line-up to be fixed.

Now, the moronic, Monday-morning quarterback parents who have said little in support of him during this run now send him an anonymous letter, giving my brother player-placement advice, telling him he is not coaching from the sideline (how the **** can they TELL this when they are sitting in the bleachers? Unless they expect him to march up and down the field like a nervous cat, screaming at the players?), tell him he is not using "soccer sense" (which is insane. He has played and coached for OVER 30 YEARS), and then end the letter telling him it was "not indignant".



Whatever. That last bit was taken straight from the sfgate.com article I linked on the last post. Sit there and cart out every condescending, arrogant posture in the book and then claim that they are actually trying to be KIND?


Cowardly, foolish, chair-bound pencil pushers.


YES I am mad!!!! Later on, I might comment about the idiocy that sports madness seems to create in the more mindless of our parents. . .but that is for another time.

RIght now, I'm only fit for ranting.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Freaks from Frisco sound off on Arkansas mom

Know the woman who has had her 16th kid in Arkansas? Well, a "writer" for something called "sfgate.com" wrote this in objection to the poor woman.

I got ticked reading his fantastically sententious and disingenuous "article", so I zapped this off to him in response:

""the more than slightly creepy 39-year-old woman from Arkansas who just gave birth to her 16th child
" No doubt, you find natural processes creepy. But, my experiences with people from SF shows that this is not uncommon.

"And furthermore, who are you to suggest that her equally troubling husband isn't more than a little numb to the real world, and that bringing 16 hungry mewling attention-deprived kids (and she wants more! Yay!) into this exhausted world zips right by "touching" and races right past "disturbing" and lurches its way, heaving and gasping and sweating from the karmic armpits, straight into "Oh my God, what the hell is wrong with you people?"


But that would be, you know, mean."
Nope, no disingenuous trollop from YOU!! YOU are CLEARLY polite. (For the humor impaired, that is sarcasm).

"It's wrong to be this judgmental"
So saith the liberals. Tolerance for all, right? But then, you proceed right on to show your true colors. At least your hypocrisy is right there on the surface.
"Wrong to suggest that it is exactly this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony that's making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of homophobic neo-Christians . . ."
and so on.

"no, no, it is not for this space to visualize frighteningly capacious vaginal dimensions. It is not for this space to imagine this couple's soggy sexual mutations. We do not have enough wine on hand for that."
Well, a moment of good taste. Leave it to an SF sex freak to focus on what sex might look like for others, in that the topic was even brought up in the first place.

"Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who, along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring. . ."
Ah, the real meat. You're afraid of being bred out of business. Not to worry. So long as there IQ 60s and below out there following the Left Line without thought, you will have an audience for your screeds.

"Why does this sort of thoughtfulness seem so far from the norm? Why is having a stadiumful of offspring still seen as some sort of happy joyous thing?"
Of course, to the basic Relativist Tyrant, the idea of reason behind such love of family is beyond your ken, and therefore must be labeled as "thoughtless." It ain't thoughtless, it just stems from thoughts that you cannot hope to understand. Don't bother trying to get it. Leave real love to the experts.

"God does not want more children per acre than there are ants or mice or garter snakes or repressed pedophilic priests."
Ah. Moral Relativist Tyrants don't believe in God, but when they speak of Him, they know what He is thinking. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Mo.

"Every other child in the world (one billion of them) lives in abject poverty. "
And what do YOU do, Mr. Holier than Thou, to address this? Drive a car? Eat out? Watch TV and keep the lights on? How about heat? AC? Buy trucked food at the market? Give those things up, then begin preaching about how the needy need help, and YOU actually try to help them. In the meantime, I advise you to either (sic) stop sucking at the public teat that provides for you if you intend to slap at it and call it evil at the same time. Smacks of conflicting ethics.

"No, no one says that. That would be mean."
Yeah, they do. Cause basically, you are mean.


-hoody (demolition65.blogspot.com)

Yeah, that "sic" is in there because I couldn't type fast enough to capture my thoughts correctly. Oh well.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Long Island Catholic School Cancels Prom

Drama rears its head again

I have been asked -based upon my success playing Crazy Ol' Maurice- to now play Mozart in a benefit show. I am once again highly flattered.

There are some good points and bad points to this:

Good:

1) The only other performer is my son, Eric, who will be playing the part of Mozart's son Karl. Lots of opportunity for fun there, not to mention that fact that most of the rehearsals can take place in the comfort of my own home.
2) There will be one performance (1). Much less stress there.
3) This is a piece that is similar to Peter and the Wolf, in that it is a kids piece to play along with an orchestra. The dialog Eric and I manage serve to augment our orchestra introducing Mozart (most notably, the Magic Flute) to local kids. Great fun potential there as well.

The bad:
1) Not the strongest script ever written, AND
2) I have four weeks to memorize 40 pages of dialog!!! This is hands down the most intense line memorization load I have ever encountered. I've had more wordy roles, but I also have had at least 10 weeks to put them together. 4 weeks is insane.

Here we go again.

Friday, October 14, 2005

Is this a joke or not?

I found this on the Anchoress's site.

Truly bizarre. Then I read the testimonials, and I began thinking I had stumbled into a combination Saturday Nite Live/Monty Python skit. What does anyone else think?

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Princeton gets something right

Though it had to come from the students. The faculty and admin are still totally bleeped up in that they continue to allow the deranged Peter Singer to run their ethics department, which is still akin to allowing the village alcoholic to run the local pub.

Three cheers for chastity at Princeton!!!!

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Tain't got a Frigging Clue

Just a total cluebat. Pick most any post. . .it matters not.

This fellow has targeted me on his blog in the past, and while I have made one singular appeal to him on this blog, I have attempted to refrain from direct addresses. But his latest madness deserves some special attention, as I discovered another component to his pathology today, from the following comments to a previous post:

But if if came to declaring that their relations are coeval with the one I have with my wife... (This is in quotes, as he is quoting something I had said previous)

Well, Hoody, why the hell DOESN'T it?

You're willing to be entertained, enriched, helped, supported and befriended by these gay people, so long as they don't have the bad taste to assume that their relationships are just as valid as yours?

Why DON'T you bring up the topic with your "friends"?
God of Biscuits | Homepage | 10.01.05 - 4:53 pm | #


I had been saying that my gay friends would be corrected if they were to bring up the licitness of gay marriage (vs. civil unions. Unions are another topic for another time).

My initial response:
I knew it was too good to be true.

Really amazing how you can attempt to turn such a statement into one that makes it appear as though I am. . .somehow. . .exploiting these friends.

But again, it makes sense coming from one who sex and sexuality is the be all and end all of humanity. Try broadening your horizons some.

I don't bring it up for the same reason they don't ask if we are having any more children. It has to do with good taste, charity. . .virtues I suppose I shouldn't be talking to you about, since you have exactly zero clue about them.
hoody | Homepage | 10.02.05 - 1:59 am | #


The resultant "riposte":
More like that they wouldn't be your friends any more if they knew what you really thought of their relationships, and the superiority of yours.
God of Biscuits | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 11:26 pm | #


And my final answer:
Cute. More playground idiocy.

The FACT is that they are well aware of the fact that I am a more orthodox Catholic. Despite this reality -which in your eyes is a serious handicap, but in more enlightened minds is not- they ARE friends.

And they have not been afraid to announce the fact that they are gay to me.

Beyond that, again, "I don't bring it up (nor do they) for the same reason they don't ask if we are having any more children. It has to do with good taste, charity. . ..

Yet you, in your ad hom brilliance, continue to reduce this to a playground taunt. For you, friendship with "the enemy" is (not surprisingly) impossible.

Seemingly impossible for you is also rational discourse with "the enemy."
hoody | Homepage | 10.12.05 - 7:38 pm | #


And I believe that my last response catches part of this fellow's enormous obstinacy: He cannot be civil. To be civil is in some fashion to "bless" the "backward ravings of lunatics from Eastern Washington".

The man is not civil. My friends, gay or straight, from Beauty are. And not only are they civil, they are at least partially sane, somewhat for the aforementioned reason that they can identify themselves as something other than gay. They are car salesmen, teachers, actors and actresses.

On the other hand, Mr. Biscuits is disordered; in his inability to engage in civil discourse (under any circumstances beyond minimal acceptance of condolence in extreme turmoil) and his screaming demand that he be first recognized as gay. All other roles, caregiver, partaker of parties and haircuts, employee, engineer, take second place to his shout that his is a homosexual.

The one blessing I can find in this entire nest of senile adders is that his lurking here and on teen sites such as bloghogger has slowly but surely declined, almost to the point of non-existence.

Or, perhaps I am over-analyzing. Perhaps he simply cannot wrap his head around the fact that there are people with competing viewpoints that can still be friends.

There is a precedent: Pat Buchanan, the well-known ultra-conservative blowhard is known (by the late Hunter S. Thompson) to be good friends with Rick Stearns, one of the architects of the McGovern campaign in '72, and described as one of the most "left-bent ideologues" in the '72 race. When asked why Buchanan liked Stearns, Buchanan replied: "I don't agree with Rick on anything of substance, but he's honest and I respect his integrity."

So, MrBiscuits, it IS possible, even with members of "your world." And I am not near so to the Right as Buchanan; neither are my friends from the Left out in StearnsWorld.

But, I suspect that the friendship requires -again- a certain civility.


And there seems to be a dearth of that sentiment emanating from the Frisco area.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Bitter and Sweet

As in the show is over (bitter), and all the moreso in that it really was the greatest show I've ever been associated with. Full of good people (as I've mentioned before).


But there is the sweet; the wonderful memories, the community notices (this show is the closest thing to an "event" I've been around in some time), and the fact that I now get my life back. . .no more rehearsals and weekends consumed by performances.

Pix of those good people (courtesy of Jessica Fletcher):

This is my younger daughter Annie (glasses) with a couple of other members of the cast
_________________________________________________________________________________

The incomparable Sam Shick as Lumiere














The "Prince", and good friend Marty Evans














Melissa, who played the wardrobe, in a goofy moment with Maddison aka "Babbette"










The only marginally good shot of our orchestra. My lovely wife the violinist is on the far left



My elder daughter Monica (purple) with some of her friends and castmates





Matt, our "Beast" in a decidedly unbeastly moment













Korry Watkins, "Cogsworth" and I, contemplating yet another few hours in these goofy costumes


Janet Krupin, "Belle", my stage daughter, and a great talent too!!














The woman on the left is the incomparable Heather Steach, our costumer, who worked like a dog since May (for NO MONEY) to make this show work


Nick, aka "Gaston", doing his best impersonation of Spock.













One more picture of Janet and her baby sister Katie. They were performing a spontaneous concert for some of us during intermission Saturday nite. . .and what a treat. A very gifted set of sisters.







Sigh. Too bad it had to end. . .

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Rex Redux

We restarted the show today, once again for schoolchildren, after a badly needed three day hiatus.

It was wonderful.

Though the real reason I am writing is the blessing in discovering just how much better I am feeling now after a week of fighting this virus. Today was a literal copy of last Thursday in terms of physical demands being put on me in the show. Temperature was the same. . .everything. Yet I barely broke a sweat today, I hit all of my notes. . .easily. . .whereas last week was a tremendous, sweat-soaked, near-disastrous chore.

Another blessing is that my in-laws, both of whom as serious music snobs, saw the show and remarked upon how surprisingly good my singing and Rexing is, given my near-total greenness in terms of stage singing.

I had no idea how poorly I was feeling last week. . .until I could compare it to how good I feel this week.

Illness serves many purposes, I am sure. But for today, I thank it for reminding me how GOOD it feels to be normal and healthy.



Crime of the Scene
Audition Update
Theater Teaching Parenting
Beauty Opens Tomorrow
How Rex Harrison Saved My Bacon
The Real Opening

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Trolls and Aversion/Compulsion

a·ver·sion Pronunciation Key (-vûrzhn, -shn)
n.
1. A fixed, intense dislike; repugnance: formed an aversion to crowds.

com·pul·sion Pronunciation Key (km-plshn)
n.
1. The act of compelling.
2. The state of being compelled.
or
1. An irresistible impulse to act, regardless of the rationality of the motivation:


Aversion/Compulsion is popularly thought to be a diagnostic category in the APA's DSM IV, but it is not.

I offer the above dictionary.com definitions as basic building blocks to understand the two seemingly opposed concepts, and how they relate to trolls.

There can be no doubt that trolls lend a certain excitement to one's blog. No mistake that being called names tends to increase one's heart rate and blood pressure; and while these symptoms may not be healthy, they certainly aren't indications of boredom. And, if for whatever reason one finds himself suffering from the Doldrums, he can just scroll back to the most recent post from the most common (or most egregious, as the case may be) troll and voila. The Doldrums are cast away like fog before broken wind.

Therein lies the compulsion; the sick, bent desire to see what latest atrocities, idiocies and outright foolishness your own pet troll has perpetrated in the recent past.


Sometimes the compulsion goes deeper, to actually visit the homesite of your own troll and see what filth is oozing from the blogosphere over there. Still more exciting is to read references to you -always put forth in the most sarcastic, uncharitable way possible- and up go your vital signs once again.

I once equated viewing the ravings of a troll with the sick tendency we all have to both gawk at carny gross-out shows and to slow down and rubberneck at car accidents on the side of the highway. And upon reflection, that analogy just keeps fitting better and better. You look over at the accident (or the freakshow) in ghoulish fascination, taking in the carnage all the while telling yourself, "Thank God I'M not the one in that mess."

The only difference is that the people in the accident also wish they weren't there. The trolls, on the other hand, delight in living inside the carnage. And worse, they would love it if you would join them in their ruin.


From there comes the aversion, the repugnance (as opposed to hatred), the desire to get away from the scene as fast as possible. The sinking feeling you get in your belly when you look at the comments upon your post and you see that. . .yes. . .THAT troll has befouled your work once again.


The saddest part of all of this is the fact that the troll keeps coming here (or there, or there, or there, or there) thinking he is doing his job in "smiting the ignorant", when in fact he is a lost little boy, as cited here, tantrumming against those who know better, all in the hopes that if he screams loud enough, the truth he fears so badly will go away.


In the end, it matter not how many names the troll calls, how many times he smears, how many times he deliberately misunderstands and obfuscates and ad homs his way out of the corners he paints himself into: The Truth is always still there, waiting silently, patiently, lovingly, for the troll to open his eyes, re-embrace his full humanity and return Home.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Daily Kos calls for Bloody Revolution

A diarist at the Daily Kos posted this idiot diatribe:

"It's become more and more apparent to me over the past five years that all the activism and non-violent protesting in the world will do precisely squat. When you're dealing with evil people who have no shame, the old rules of the game don't and, indeed, can't apply if you have any hope for success. Hundreds of thousands of people have marched, millions of letters have been written, tens of millions of votes cast, and hundreds of trillions of electrons expended pontificating on blogs...for nothing. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. Not unless it comes in the form of something akin to the French Revolution.

We need terror. We need horror. We need the streets running awash in rivers of blood of these thugs and criminals and zealots. Activism didn't prevent 60,000 deaths in Vietnam. All the activism of the Civil Rights era has gotten African Americans precisely nowhere. Segregation may not be the law of the land anymore, but it's still the de facto state of America.

When y'all want to start throwing molotovs and sniping from windows come and talk to me. Until then, I will be content to retire, be a hermit, and laugh at everyone. Even then, I may still just feel like laughing as the world falls apart around me, but at least I'll be willing to listen."


And there you have it. The mainstream Left's most popular blog advocating for violence in the streets.

"The people don't know any better, so we must use violence to teach them."

Didn't work for Robespierre, in the end it didn't work for Hitler, nor for Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot or any of the others. Yet it is a mainstream spokesfreakbat for the Left that is now calling for the blood to flow once again.

And people wonder why the Left is so often criticized for its naked hypocrisy.

First Things Blogsite!!!!

Check it out here.

Tip to Dev Thakur at Against a Dictatorship of Relativism for the discovery.

Been reading FirstThings for almost 15 years now. . .and I got beat to the punch. Oh well.

Saturday, October 01, 2005

The real opening, and some odds and ends

We had our REAL opening last night (and thank you again REX). Played to the fullest house I have ever played in front of and frankly, we ROCKED!!!

It was wonderful folks. You shoulda been there.

I went back to work yesterday, yet had to race home at the first free moment when my 3rd son Eric, broke his arm while acting like a fool on my dining room floor. He broke it so badly it required general anesthesia to re-set it. He is now home, elevating a big blue cast and "casting" about for signatures. Life sure isn't dull around here.


I stumbled across the fact that the Governator down in Sacramento vetoed AB849,the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act". What it was designed to do was,
amend. . . Section 300 of the Family Code to define marriage as a civil contract between two persons instead of a civil contract between a man and a woman.


In other words, the bill was not meant to safeguard civil unions, but to re-define marriage. Ahnold said "no", as he should have. (And the serious MRTs are squealing as you might well imagine).


Why am I talking about this? Partially because of last night. I have been involved in theater in some form or another, off and on, for over 25 years. And in that time, Kinsey's reputed and over-estimated 10% of the normal population that is homosexual has appeared more often than 10% of the time. Heaven knows why, but the fine arts (at least music and drama) draw more than their fair share of gays and lesbians. Last night is no exception. At least one if not two of our principal (and more talented) actors are gay.

Why is he telling this? Because I want to present bona fides that any "hatred" I may have is not due to the unknown. I worked with them in college. My professor at the time was also gay. (In fact, he made a very obvious pass at me during my last show there. . .that is a story for another time) (and YES, I turned the pass down. Good grief). I am working with them now. I know whereof I speak.

And I find them to be talented, skilled, entertaining and fun. I consider them to be friends. Yeah, I know it sounds like, "But some of my best friends are. . ." Frankly, I wouldn't even be considered commenting upon their sexuality save for reflections upon some ravings by a (blessedly) former lurker. THAT fellow loved to turn all things discussed into one of sexuality. The guy was a gay first.

But my fellow actors are not. They are actors first, onstage. Then they are professionals; engineers, teachers, nurses, family people. . .whatever, offstage. Sexual orientation is not broadcast. THAT in the end is why they are friends. They are competent -fiercely so- onstage, and funny and personable offstage, without the in-you-face mentality that screams "I'M GAY AND YOU'D BETTER LOVE IT RIGHT NOW!!"

And if one of them, over a beer after a performance, were to discuss the issue, I would be more than ready to listen. They are friends, after all. Medical benefits, retirement, the right to share a household, I GET all of that. . .and I cannot say that I am opposed to those rights being available.


But if if came to declaring that their relations are coeval with the one I have with my wife, I have to object. The reasons are deep, but in the end boil down to this; my wife and I, by virtue of our opposed and complementing genders, can complete one another in a way that same-sex unions cannot. And marriage (as opposed to the nebulous civil union) must be reserved for that mysterious, complementary union.

So, among other things, the next time someone uses that over-used verb hate in relation to some action of mine, they need to read this post.

In the meantime, there is tonight, and yet another channeling of Rex.


Crime of the Scene
Audition Update
Theater Teaching Parenting
Beauty Opens Tomorrow
How Rex Harrison Saved My Bacon
<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >>