Always Have a Backup Plan

LRC columnist Jeffrey Tucker reminds us of the importance of backing up our computer files.

Wreck the Malls with Bouts of Folly

Wreck the malls with bouts of folly
Fa la la la la la la la la!
There's no need for melancholy
Fa la la la la la la la la!



Don we now padded apparel
Fa la la la la la la la la!
Strolling into Yuletide peril
Fa la la la la la la la la!

Become a Master Debater

Vox Day has some very helpful debating tips in his essay How to Argue Like a Conservative. My personal favorite: "Rest secure in the knowledge that if you ever change your mind about something, God will change His, too."

"Out, Damned Spot!"

We all know the saying: "Let sleeping dogs lie." But no one is better at lying than the dogs of war.

Listen to what Colin Powell said in February of 2001 about Saddam Hussein's military capabilities: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Echoing Powell, Condoleezza Rice had this to say in July of 2001: "We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Then came the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Suddenly, in less than two months, Saddam was considered a grave threat to the security of the United States and had to be disarmed one way or another.

Yet Dick Cheney is upset that anyone would dare to suggest that the administration lied us into war. Begging the vice president's pardon, what other conclusion can be reached?

The fact is we knew Saddam had no WMD and we went in anyway. That is why the excuses for invading continue to change. The chicken hawks can try to justify this war all they want, but in the end, when they try to wash the blood from their hands, their efforts are as futile as Lady Macbeth's.

Uncle Sam and Fond Thanksgiving Memories

(Originally posted on EverVigilant.net on 11/21/2001)

Thanksgiving. It is one of my favorite times of year, a time to get together with loved ones and offer thanks to God for the blessings we have received.

This year will be no different. Friends and family will show up at the door bringing a dish of some sort to share in the traditional Thanksgiving meal. Among those we will be entertaining this year is our Uncle Sam—not because he was invited, but because it's tradition. He always shows up. Not just on Thanksgiving, but every other holiday as well. In fact, he seldom ever leaves.

At times I find myself wondering why we came to dislike him so. We used to actually enjoy his company.

Uncle Sammy, as we affectionately called him, was a tall, pale, lanky fellow with snow-white hair and a wispy beard. There was a classic, masculine scent about him, the smell of old parchment or a well-read, leather-bound book. He had always been a little eccentric, with his trademark red and white striped slacks and blue jacket, but was quite loveable and fun to be around.

There was a time when he was appreciated in our house. Being the loving uncle that he was, you could always count on him to lend you his ear when you had a problem to discuss and offer you his advice from the wealth of his own experiences.

He was also very interesting. I remember when we would sit for hours at his feet and listen to his stories about the exotic places he had traveled, the famous people he met and the wars in which he had fought. He was wise beyond his years, and Mom and Dad always talked about how we should respect Uncle Sam and be on our best behavior when he visited. Holidays just weren't the same without him.

My, how times have changed. Our dear old Sam is not the kindly uncle he once was. The games we used to play with him when we were kids have now become irksome rituals. There was a time when playing "Got Your Nose" was cute. Now that I am in my thirties, it's just plain annoying. I could do without the "Pull My Finger" jokes as well.

We can no longer even enjoy a game of football in the backyard. The kids can't stand the fact that Uncle Sammy always hogs the ball and insists on playing as quarterback, coach and referee. Sam, between swigs sneaked from the silver flask kept in his back pocket, would scream at everyone, adult and child alike, and would constantly change the rules as the game progressed. I recall the last time we tried to play...

"What are you doing?" Uncle Sammy shouted, waving his arms wildly above his head as Billy, the neighbor kid who liked to join in on our annual holiday festivities, crossed the goal line. "That touchdown doesn't count. You stepped out of bounds!"

Billy threw down the football in disgust. "Again? I thought we finally decided that the oak tree was out of bounds."

"No sir," Uncle Sammy said, pursing his lips and shaking his head. "It's the clothesline pole. Remember? I changed the boundary. The oak tree made the field too wide. There's also a dip in the ground over there. If you're going to play you need a nice, level playing field. Besides, Tony got you on the shoulder back by the birdhouse."

"But that was only one hand!" Billy protested. "We're playing two-hand touch!"

"Not anymore. It's unfair to the slower kids."

"Unfair?! Who are you to talk about unfair? You keep changing the rules! We were playing just fine until you came outside. Why do you have to ruin everything?" Billy's face turned red with frustration.

Uncle Sam didn't say anything. He simply walked over to where the football had landed, picked it up and went inside, leaving the rest of us adults apologizing to the kids for his demeanor. The typical excuses we used were, "He's not in a good mood," "He's a little under the weather," or "He's got a lot on his mind." No matter what excuse we threw at them, the kids never bought it. They knew better. Uncle Sam was not the man he used to be.

Similar scenes would play out whenever we would try to get a game of bocce ball or croquet going. That's just the way it's been lately with Uncle Sammy. He continues to play tired, old games that even six-year-olds have outgrown, and when he tries to involve himself in any other group activity, he inevitably ends up taking over and spoiling everyone's fun.

As kids we marveled at the many magic tricks he would perform during dessert. My favorite was when he would ask me for a quarter, claiming he could make it disappear simply by rubbing it on his forearm. He still insists on doing that trick now, although we all know the secret to it and he no longer gives the quarter back when he's done. He just grins and mutters, "Sucker," then tousles my hair, belches and proceeds to cut himself a third piece of pumpkin pie before unbuttoning his pants and flopping down onto the couch in front of the television.

Mom and Dad have also become disenchanted with Uncle Sammy. He has become quite lazy and can't seem to hold down a regular job. He is always hitting them up for money and never pays it back, and when he's not begging for a loan, he's trying to get them to invest in some wacky, get-rich-quick business scheme he saw advertised on TV at 2 am. He frequently crashes on the couch and mooches off their generous hospitality. And when he's around there is now a peculiar smell in the air—the kind that leaves a funny taste in your mouth.

Some folks think that I've been a little harsh in my criticism of Uncle Sam, but they don't know what we've had to tolerate. Sticking his nose into our business, telling us what to do, going days without showering and still trying to squeeze into those torn red and white slacks and faded blue jacket. No, he's not the same uncle we once knew. He's an old curmudgeon who's past his prime with absolutely no clue about what once made him likeable.

In the spirit of the season, I can honestly say that I am thankful for the time I was able to spend with my uncle in my younger years. After all, he's still part of the family. So, rather than focus on the senile, slovenly, bothersome brute he has become, I will try to recall the fond memories of that snowy-haired man in his brightly-colored suit who would light up a room when he walked in and made you proud to point to him and say, "That's my Uncle Sam!"

Lee R. Shelton Is Not Liked by Racists--What a Compliment!

What can I say? I'm kind of flattered that a group of racists masquerading as Christians would take time out of their busy schedule of hating everything and everyone non-white to criticize little ol' me. Here's what Badonicus (the online moniker of someone obviously too ashamed to use his real name) had to say from the Badlands:

Lee R Shelton is another CP party freak. He's been hassling Harry [Seabrook, the racist-in-chief at LittleGeneva.com,] because Harry, unlike Shelton, doesn't hate the parts of the Bible that aren't politically correct. Like the parts about half breeds not entering into the congregation, and not mixing with strangers, and, of course, he really, really hates Ezra and Nehemiah. He hates them so much that he's adopting a little female chinaman to show the world he's not a racist like them. Of course, it's funny that there are thousands and thousands of Negro infants, toddlers, and young children up for adoption in this country, yet so many of these "non racists" ignore them, and fly across the globe to get a fairly light skinned baby. White babies are just too darned expensive, because we're all equal and everything. And for my money, nothing says getting back to our Founding Fathers, and the old paths, and the Constitution, and restoring common sense, like a family consisting of a man who hates much of what the Founders stood for and much of the Constitution, his wife who sings and records "jazz" (which used to be Negro slang for "semen"), and their little imported replica of Chairman Mao. I understand the Sheltons are having trouble thinking of a name for the baby, so could everyone pitch in and help out with suggestions? Just drop some silverware on the floor, record the sound it makes, and send it to Lee!

Of course, it is rather pitiful when you realize that he actually thinks he's being funny.

The Future of Hate Crimes Legislation

For a glimpse into the future of hate crimes legislation here in the U.S., take a look at what's happening in Sweden:

Swedish Pastor Faces Jail for Preaching against Homosexuality

A Swedish pastor who preached a sermon on the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual behavior is waiting to see if the Supreme Court of Sweden will send him to jail for six months for doing so.

Ake Green, the pastor of a small-town Pentecostal church, delivered his sermon in 2003 and has been in the prosecutor's crosshairs ever since. Charged with violating a Swedish hate speech law that protects homosexuals from "intimidation" and "agitation," he was sentenced to a month in jail last year by a district court. An appeals court overturned his conviction, but the prosecutor has appealed to the Supreme Court and has asked that the 68-year-old pastor's jail term be increased to six months.

The Supreme Court heard arguments this month and is expected to rule sometime next year. ...

... California last year enacted a hate speech law very similar to the one Sweden is using against Ake Green. The Pennsylvania law used against the "Philadelphia 11" has not yet been repealed.

What with international treaties, state laws, and proposed federal laws, for how much longer will America be without a case like Ake Green's?

It's really only a matter of time, folks.

The Goal of Government-Run "Education"

The government-run school system has less to do with educating our children than it does with creating slaves for the state:

"Parent choice" proceeds from the belief that the purpose of education is to provide individual students with an education. In fact, educating the individual is but a means to the true end of education, which is to create a viable social order to which individuals contribute and by which they are sustained. "Family choice" is, therefore, basically selfish and anti-social in that it focuses on the "wants" of a single family rather than the "needs" of society.

- Association of California School Administrators

Government schools: Enter at your child's own risk.

The Education of Our Children Should Not Be Left to the State

(EverVigilant.net editorial for 11/10/2005)

Parents of elementary school children in California were upset that their kids were the targets of a sex survey conducted by the Palmdale School District. The survey, distributed in 2002, focused on how often prepubescent school kids thought about sex and touched themselves—you know, just the kind of things educators need to know to in order to effectively teach reading, writing and math skills.

The parents filed a lawsuit, claiming that the survey "violated parents' substantive due process and privacy rights." Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Fields v. Palmdale School District, dismissed the suit, saying:

We agree, and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.

The court's ruling certainly seems like a violation of the rights and privileges of parents. But is it really? First of all, the court's ruling does not create law. The Palmdale School Board can still be pressured to end such ridiculous practices. Secondly, the parents who are complaining have already shown that they do not hold the education of their children in high regard.

I know this sounds harsh, but while I sympathize for the children, it's difficult to feel sorry for the parents. After all, they were the ones who turned custody of their children over to the government school system for six or seven hours a day, five days a week. Were they really all that surprised when the schools tried to undermine their parental authority?

By placing your child in the care of a government-run indoctrination center, you are saying that you trust the government to raise your child, essentially giving up your due process and privacy rights. You are admitting that the government is able to give your child something you cannot provide. When you consider how poorly the government manages everything else, why would any reasonable person think things would be different when it comes to education?

Note that the Ninth Circuit believes the school district's actions "were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose." In other words, those in control of public education have but one concern: the welfare of the state. Seeing to it that your child receives a quality education can only conflict with that.

There really isn't any way to sugar-coat this, so I'll just come right out and say it: If you willingly submit your child to the trappings of the government school system, then you have no right to complain about what they are taught. It would be like sending your kid off to play in oncoming traffic, expressing shock and outrage and blaming someone else when he was struck by a car. Sure, you can try to be involved by going to parent-teacher conferences, attending PTA meetings or getting elected to the school board, but when you get right down to it, you are in control of the education of your child.

My wife and I are in the process of adopting a little girl from China. This will be our first child, and even though it will be about a year before we travel to China to get her, we are preparing our home for her arrival. One of our main concerns is her future education. We are still weighing options, but one thing we know for certain is that she will never see the inside of a government school classroom. Why would we rescue her from a lifetime of socialist, atheist indoctrination in one country just so she can have the same experience on the other side of the world? Believe me; if that was our goal, it would be cheaper, less stressful and much easier just to leave her where she is.

For Christian parents, education is a tremendous responsibility. Believers have a duty to ensure that their children received a God-centered education. Scripture says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7a). Why settle for anything less?

Poetic Justice

Oh, the irony:

Greenpeace Fined for Reef Damage

Environmental group Greenpeace has been fined almost $7,000 (£4,000) for damaging a coral reef at a World Heritage site in the Philippines.

Their flagship Rainbow Warrior II ran aground at Tubbataha Reef Marine Park, in the Sulu Sea, 650km (400 miles) south-east of Manila.

Park officials said almost 100 sq m (1,076 sq ft) of reef had been damaged. ...

I suppose global warming is to blame.