November 6, 2010

Burning Holy Books

Ann Coulter is against the Quran burning. She says, "The reason not to burn Qurans is that it's unkind -- not to jihadists, but to Muslims who mean us no harm. The same goes for building a mosque at ground zero -- in both cases, it's not a question of anyone's "rights," it's just a nasty thing to do. "

The "helping them recruit Jihadists" argument is ridiculous - we had done nothing to OBL prior to 9/11 or even the WTC bombing a decade earlier. But burning books in protest? That's dumb. Let the words speak for themselves. On a personal note, Muslims were my allies in the early fight for homeschooling. I know all about HomeGrownJihad, but that isn't what these Muslims were doing. And I am certainly against using Sharia law in our country - assimilate or gtfo. America has a constitution, and we have to start using it again. But religious rights are inviolate, so long as they are your religious beliefs and not law. But burning books in protest? Religious books? WTF is the reason for that? I DO know good people who are Muslim; so long as they want to abide by America's founding intent they can be my peeps. You want to come here (legally) and enjoy what America has built and abide by our laws, I'm fine with you. Yes, I do hope you will end up rejecting what is a false religion, and I do hope to see you in heaven (minus the virgins) but it that's where you are, it's where you are. And if you're a Jihadist, then you can gtfo, too. We don't need that shit. Ok, so rambling thoughts, but mine own.

24 comments:

Stephen T. McCarthy said...

HiYa, ANNIEE! ~
I agreed with your entire blog bit. Just as I think everyone should have a right to follow their own conscience when it comes to religious beliefs, and no one system should be forced upon anyone, I also think everyone should have a right to burn the religious writings of another faith if they choose to, BUT...

....doing something like that serves no useful purpose whatsoever! It can only harden the heart of the person who follows the faith of the books you burned. If your ultimate hope is to help them "see the Light" and perhaps persuade them to embrace your own religion, burning their books is certainly going to eradicate any chance you ever had of accomplishing that.

It's a completely useless form of protest that can't help but inspire further animosity and destroy any potential there ever might have been for a meeting of the minds.
It's jus' plain D-U-M-B-!

Say, ANNIEE, one last thought: When you have a chance, please consider taking a look at the political blog that a friend of mine recently started. I think you might appreciate it. Like me, he considers himself first and foremost a "constitutionalist". But unlike me, he's not overly... uhm, what's the word? How to put this? Intense? Fiery? In-Yer-Face?

DiscConnected makes a lot of good points and often includes some humorous lines of observation within his blog bits, but I think his blog would have greater mass appeal than mine because he's not as incendiary and "mean-spirited" as I am.
;o)

Anyway, please check it out sometime and see if it's something you might consider following. His blog is titled Back In The USSR, which represents the direction he feels the USA is heading in politically, and it also hints at his great interest in Rock/Pop music.

Lemme know whatcha think of it, eh? Thanks!

~ D-FensDogg
'Loyal American Underground'

Anniee451 said...

Needless to say I won't be burning any Qurans. I don't believe in it and I know it's false, but why the hell should I burn it? It helps no one. I will surely check out your friend's blog, but Stephen...I DO like "in your face" stuff. I LIKE polemics lol. I LIKE the F bombs. So long as he can tolerate MY style, I'll enjoy his tho. And considering your last name is McCarthy, I daresay you know what I mean.

Stephen T. McCarthy said...

Howdy, ANNIEE ~
First I want to thank you for checking out my buddy's blog - I saw your comment there and I see that he's now "Following" your blog. That's good stuffs.

As far as my political blog is concerned, the two explanations I heard most from friends about why they thought it never gained any traction is that most of my blog bits are too long and the tone of my writing is too angry. They may have been right, but I wouldn't change it if I could. I gotta be me, and (to paraphrase Yogi Berra) if people don’t want to come read my blog, how am I going to stop them?

I'm not really an F-bomber, but I make up for it with my general pissy mood and my "fascistic" meanspiritedness.
:o)

Hey, I gots questions:
1) When you quit blogging for so long was it just because you were burned out on it, or because you had family matters to deal with, or a combination of those two? Or something else?

2) Just before you stopped blogging you had mentioned an interest in acquiring and reading G. Edward Griffin's book "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve". I was just wondering if you did that, and if so, what you thought of it.

3) In your comment on DiscConnected's blog, "Back In The USSR", you wrote this: "As Coulter pointed out, Goldwater wasn't our man, Reagan was."

I found that statement a shade surprising and I was wondering if you could share the source of it with me.

It's not surprising that Ann Coulter liked Reagan, but that she evidently had a problem with Goldwater.

For me it's the opposite: Reagan wasn't my man, Goldwater would have been. Goldwater was possibly the only good thing ever to emerge from Airheadzona, and what I know of him now, I view him as his era's version of our era's Ron Paul.

Also, I know that Coulter loves Joe McCarthy (have you read her book "Treason"?) And it happens that Goldwater was one of only a very small handful of Republicans who supported McCarthy even after the Army-McCarthy Hearings. He was a real friend to Joe.

So it's a bit surprising that Ann evidently doesn't care for a fellow big time pro-McCarthy person, and I'd like to read the original source of her comment.

Well, I think Ann's the best political writer today but I sometimes disagree with her - greatly. She came on the scene when the Republican party desperately needed someone like her. She had the manstones that none of the men in the party even possessed.

Unfortunately, however, after I learned the truth about "The Jersey Girls", I lost a tremendous amount of respect for Ann, and today, I view her as just the most entertaining and cutting spokesperson in the NeoCon Circle. I still read her column once in awhile, but I think of it only as a form of entertainment. She's GREAT at what she does, but, sadly, like the others (Rush, Beck, Medved, Hewitt, etc.), she's not telling the American People the whole truth.

Anyway, thanks again for visiting DiscConnected's blog, and thanks in advance for your answers to these questions.

~ D-FensDogg
'Loyal American Underground'

Anniee451 said...

Yes, your friend is very good from what I can tell. Happy to hear he's following me :) I stopped blogging for a variety of reasons - but I'd say burnout pretty much sums it up well enough. And I LOVE your in-your-face style, so long as the person doing it has the right viewpoint, the more in-your-face the better heh. IOW I like you being pissy.

Here's the source of the Coulter quote; it's where social conservatism rears its head, so I don't agree with some of it, but she is absolutely right to point out that Obama's statement that Reagan was one of the most secular presidents ever was patently false. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=387

I love Coulter too; she's like Malkin with belly laughs, she's funny and smart as hell, even if I don't always agree with her. (Hell, Stephen, if two people agree on *everything* one of them is unnecessary, right?)

I actually had a leftard ask me how in hell I knew who Limbaugh and Coulter were since I didn't watch Fox News...I was like, have you ever heard of a book? You know, movable type? Pages? No? Ok, back in your box.

I don't have any money for buying books right now, and haven't for a while, so I haven't read the one you recommended. It is most definitely on my list when the economic tide turns (if it ever does.)

Stephen T. McCarthy said...

Part 1 Of 2:

Hi, ANNIEE ~
Yes, it's me. I'm back. I'm like a bad penny: hard to get rid of.

>>...IOW I like you being pissy.

Ha! Thanks. Well, that's the mood I probably do best.

>>...Here's the source of the Coulter quote; it's where social conservatism rears its head, so I don't agree with some of it

Hmmm... Do you consider yourself politically conservative but socially something else?

>>...Hell, Stephen, if two people agree on *everything* one of them is unnecessary, right?

:o) That's a good line!

I found the Ann Coulter article interesting. Didn't really agree with all of it, but then I rarely agree with anything 100%. Sometimes I don't even agree 100% with the stuffs I myself write and post. ;o)

This was certainly the best laugh in Coulter's piece: "This week, all we've heard about is how O'Donnell once said she went on a date with a guy in high school who claimed to be a witch. (So what? Bill Clinton married one!)"

And of course, she was entirely right to point out the preposterousness of Borger's claim: CNN's Borger contrasted Goldwater with Ronald Reagan by precisely reversing their differences, claiming Reagan "was probably the most secular president we've known in our lifetime."

I am no Ronald Reagan fan myself, but that statement is idiocy on the grandest scale. Now it's true that some hardcore "Born Again"-type Christians would have a problem with Reagan's brand of "Christianity", considering the astrologers in the White House, etc. (I'm sure you remember that bit.) But to call him the most secular president of our lifetime? Yeah, right!

Of course Bubba toted his Bible to church, but I believe that was only when he'd gotten caught with "that woman" and needed to put on a big show of religiosity for the American people.

Now some of the remarks about Goldwater in the Coulter piece came as a surprise to me. I'll admit that I've never really studied the life of Goldwater, and all that I know about him is things I've gleaned in the process of studying other political personas and other political subjects.

If these statements are correct: "abortion-loving Goldwater" ... "gay-marriage-loving Goldwater" - they come as news to me, and I would have to retract my earlier statement that "Reagan wasn't my man, Goldwater would have been."

Continued Below...

Stephen T. McCarthy said...

Part 2 Of 2:

Of course, Goldwater was a bit before my time "politically" speaking (and yours as well, I guess) but it's a little difficult to imagine him being "gay-marriage-loving" because was that even an issue back then? Would the subject have ever even come up? Not sure what Coulter is basing that evaluation on, but she's not sloppy with her facts so I'll assume she knows what she's talking about.

Obviously, I am not informed about Goldwater's social views and am saddened to see them so divergent from his political conservatism. I am primarily aware of Goldwater's stance against the Elite, the Establishment, the Insiders, the Federal Reserve boys, the Illuminati - whatever you wish to call it.

And I have included the following quote from him in one of my blog bits about "The New World Order":

"DOES IT NOT SEEM STRANGE TO YOU THAT THESE MEN JUST HAPPENED TO BE C.F.R. [Council On Foreign Relations] AND JUST HAPPENED TO BE ON THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE 'FEDERAL RESERVE', THAT ABSOLUTELY CONTROLS THE MONEY AND INTEREST RATES OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF CONGRESS? A PRIVATELY OWNED ORGANIZATION, THE FEDERAL RESERVE WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!"
~ Senator Barry Goldwater from his book, ‘With No Apologies'

However, if Ann Coulter's article is accurate, I guess I'd need to amend my statement to: "Reagan wasn't my man, and neither would Goldwater have been."

The first question I ask when considering voting for ANY candidate for ANYTHING is: Where does he stand on abortion? If the candidate can't even get that one essential question correct, then he is not considered any further by me. If they can't even come down on the right side of a basic "Innocent Life" Or Death question, then I know I can't trust them with any other issues. Their judgment is automatically deemed fatally flawed by me.

I thank you for pointing me to that Coulter article because it has forced me to rethink prematurely conceived ideas I evidently held about Goldwater.

>>...I don't have any money for buying books right now, and haven't for a while, so I haven't read the one you recommended. It is most definitely on my list when the economic tide turns (if it ever does.)

Well, if that's what you're waiting for, I fear you will NEVER read the book because I don't believe "turning the economic tide" is part of the plan formulated by our Elite Planners.

ANNIEE, it would give me great pleasure to be able to acquire a copy of this essential, this exceedingly important book for you. Can I send you a copy as a gift?

If you want to take this offline and/or accept my offer, please submit a comment to my blog with your Email address included. I won't post it, but just copy it down and delete it, and then I'll Email you and we can discuss this further. But only if you'd like... you can decline without any hard feelings be retained.

~ D-FensDogg
'Loyal American Underground'

Anniee451 said...

Ok, you asked a very difficult question regarding social conservatism and where I stand on it. I am a Christian, and that is first and foremost my identity - before American, before anything else. As a human being in my life I want to live as morally as I find it possible to live, and I hope to encourage others to do the same. Though I can't pretend I always succeed or even always come close; I do try. There is overwhelming evidence that this country was founded with the intent of Christianity being a moral compass for the citizenry and for the leaders.

Then I approach the law, the Constitution and politics, and the role of government and law in our lives. I firmly believe the government exists to protect people from fraud, theft, and bodily/property harm. But to use the law itself to enforce morality is not only a losing proposition, I think it's an illegitimate use of government coercion. Those things are best left to social stigmas (nothing wrong with stigmatizing evil behavior) and the influence of families and churches, as well as leaders who aren't afraid to *speak out* as to their moral beliefs without trying to codify them into laws. And then there's the bible itself, which tells us we are to judge *the church*, the brethren, to admonish and correct *our own*, in gentleness and love...but to judge the world is folly and expressly forbidden. The "world" is already lost; you can't begin to tell them how to live as a Christian when they aren't saved. And yes, they are going to do things that we know are sinful (hence the helpfulness of stigmas and a generally religious populace.) So long as they are not defrauding, stealing, or harming anyone but themselves, I can not justify the use of government force to correct their behavior. I can certainly talk to them and witness to them; but coercion...I can't justify it Constitutionally or according to common law.

Anniee451 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anniee451 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anniee451 said...

cont'd... Those things are best left to social stigmas (nothing wrong with stigmatizing evil behavior) and the influence of families and churches, as well as leaders who aren't afraid to *speak out* as to their moral beliefs without trying to codify them into laws. And then there's the bible itself, which tells us we are to judge *the church*, the brethren, to admonish and correct *our own*, in gentleness and love...but to judge the world is folly and expressly forbidden. The "world" is already lost; you can't begin to tell them how to live as a Christian when they aren't saved. And yes, they are going to do things that we know are sinful (hence the helpfulness of stigmas and a generally religious populace.) So long as they are not defrauding, stealing, or harming anyone but themselves, I can not justify the use of government force to correct their behavior. I can certainly talk to them and witness to them; but coercion...I can't justify it Constitutionally or according to common law.

The abortion question is a hell of a lot more complex than the rest of the issues - I personally believe it IS murder and yet I have heard enough compelling argument regarding the legalities that I can't say with 100% certainty that it must be illegal. Perhaps you and I could discuss sometime soon why I say that; I haven't found a single person willing to genuinely discuss it with me on the level I need it to be at, and maybe you are just the person to do so. As of now I remain politically agnostic on that one issue while personally vehemently opposed to the practice. It's the only issue I think I'm truly ambivalent on, but I am open to honest discussion so long as the person genuinely tries to understand what I mean when I make my arguments and understands that I abhor the practice personally.

And if we're being really really honest here, I would never kill anyone, but I have never shed a tear when the likes of a Dr. Tiller is killed. I am sorry that such things happen because it makes us into the monsters, but am I sorry he doesn't get to carry out his late-term infanticide on girls as young as 11? No. And wtf was he doing in church anyway? The guy was an absolutely loathsome excuse of a human being and I do not feel sorry that he had to meet his maker. (That after much study of his medical practice - truly gruesome stuff; nightmare fodder for sure.) But that is neither here nor there; that's just my personal confession. Now if you are willing to take up a discussion of abortion with me, I'd be happy to do so, and show you how I was convinced to take such an ambivalent stand. I am absolutely open to counter-arguments that show I am wrong, but they'll have to be good.

Anniee451 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anniee451 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anniee451 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anniee451 said...

As of now I remain politically agnostic on that one issue while personally vehemently opposed to the practice. It's the only issue I think I'm truly ambivalent on, but I am open to honest discussion so long as the person genuinely tries to understand what I mean when I make my arguments and understands that I abhor the practice personally.

And if we're being really really honest here, I would never kill anyone, but I have never shed a tear when the likes of a Dr. Tiller is killed. I am sorry that such things happen because it makes us into the monsters, but am I sorry he doesn't get to carry out his late-term infanticide on girls as young as 11? No. And wtf was he doing in church anyway? The guy was an absolutely loathsome excuse of a human being and I do not feel sorry that he had to meet his maker. (That after much study of his medical practice - truly gruesome stuff; nightmare fodder for sure.) But that is neither here nor there; that's just my personal confession. Now if you are willing to take up a discussion of abortion with me, I'd be happy to do so, and show you how I was convinced to take such an ambivalent stand. I am absolutely open to counter-arguments that show I am wrong, but they'll have to be good.

Goldwater was definitely before my time - I am just old enough to remember the moon landing and I sure remember Watergate and Nixon's resignation; the nightmare of the Carter depression and the economic recovery under Reagan that led to one hell of a partying good time in the mid-to-late 80s, when upward mobility was real and jobs were something you could land on the spot with nothing more than a working brain and the ability to type. And we all know where it all goes from there.

Anniee451 said...

But I don't know enough about Goldwater to say much. But I do think Coulter is probably wrong on the gay marriage issue; it was only ten or MAYBE 15 years ago that the gay rights movement swore up and down that marriage was not even to be on the table; all they wanted was to be able to live in peace. I had openly gay teachers who everyone loved and who were very good at their jobs (no, they didn't talk to us kids about it; ffs I was in grammar school) but it wasn't a secret either. It just wasn't a big deal. Upping the ante to try to claim the religious institute of marriage is causing a hell of a lot of strife. And then of course there are disgusting spectacles like the Fulsom Street Fair or whatever and people bringing their kids to see open sex acts on the streets...just, wtf? THAT wasn't an issue at the time any more than gay marriage was. There's a difference between "leave us alone" and "let us do whatever the fuck we want wherever and whenever the fuck we want or you're a bigot."

Also, as to social issues and the law; I was at an early tea party rally in DC and met all sorts of people there - gay, straight, Christian, atheist, etc. I was mostly with the bureaucrash people (Lee Doren unfortunately didn't make it that day, though he was supposed to :( ) and I think we'd be cutting off our own noses to try and exclude people because we can't come to an understanding on the legitimacy of law regarding social issues that do not involve causing harm to others. Not to mention, a prosperous people - which is the freaking POINT of getting this economy under control and cutting the government back to size - a prosperous people are in a far better position to defend their rights than people who are starving and living one moment to the next trying to survive. Reagan was against abortion, but it became so common during his time that it was called "the lunchtime surgery" and clinics were everywhere. People cowered at his proclamations of morality, but everyone still pretty much did what they wanted and so long as they caused no one else harm, they were basically left alone. Restoring our free markets and common law are the first and foremost order of business.

Ok, so still friends right? I don't often talk about these things because most of the time it's fruitless, but you're pretty unique so I think we can grasp where the other is coming from.

Anniee451 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anniee451 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephen T. McCarthy said...

Part 1 Of 2:
ANNIEE ~

-->...Ok, so still friends right?

Of course! In fact, there is little (if anything) I disagree with in your comment(s). We would need to clarify a few things in order for me to know for certain, but we can do that.

You are a person who is reasonable and applies logic to every situation, so I don't doubt that even where we might disagree, you could provide some valid points to substantiate your positions. I believe we're both more "thinkers" than "emoters", so there's no reason to fear that a dialogue on ANY subject would get overly heated.

-->...But I do think Coulter is probably wrong on the gay marriage issue; it was only ten or MAYBE 15 years ago that the gay rights movement swore up and down that marriage was not even to be on the table; all they wanted was to be able to live in peace.

Yeah, that's the way I understood it, too, so I couldn't even imagine Goldwater taking any sort of (outrageously, over-the-top for its time) controversial stance on a total non-issue several decades ago.

But at the same time, I know Coulter must be basing that on something solid - maybe some personal remark Goldwater said behind the scenes, out of the public view, that she's been made aware of?

-->...I don't often talk about these things because most of the time it's fruitless, but you're pretty unique so I think we can grasp where the other is coming from.

Ha! I've been called a lot of other things. "Unique" is totally acceptable (and probably a major understatement).
:o)

-->...There is overwhelming evidence that this country was founded with the intent of Christianity being a moral compass for the citizenry and for the leaders.

That will be the subject of a forthcoming blog bit that I've been meaning to post at 'Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends' for a long, long time. Coming soon to a blog near you. It's one of two blog bits I know I must post before I can walk away from blogging.

-->...I firmly believe the government exists to protect people from fraud, theft, and bodily/property harm. But to use the law itself to enforce morality is not only a losing proposition, I think it's an illegitimate use of government coercion.

Well, I think we would need to first define "morality" since "Thou shalt not lie, steal, or murder" is certainly a "moral" command. "You can't legislate morality" is a commonly used phrase and yet we DO that and have ALWAYS done that, and so have most other governments, both formal and informal "governments".

So, we would need to define "morality" first, or determine a formula by which we can agree on which "morals" to enforce by law and which to leave solely to "social stigmas". But let's put that aside for now.

I absolutely agree with you, however, that we should not be attempting to enforce all "moral" issues by law, and I already suspect that we would largely agree on which to approach the one way and which the other.

Continued Below...

Stephen T. McCarthy said...

Part 2 Of 2:

-->...The abortion question is a hell of a lot more complex than the rest of the issues...

It may surprise you to see me write this but, for as strongly as I believe that abortion IS murder, I agree that it IS "a hell of a lot more complex than the rest of the issues". So complex, in fact, that, despite my almost blinding hatred of abortion, it took me YEARS of serious thought on the issue before arriving at a conclusion as to how it ought to be dealt with that I felt was fair and right.

I have definite ideas about abortion and how we as a nation ought to view and enforce it, and it may come as a surprise to you, but nowhere have I seen anyone else articulate my exact approach to it. If you imagined that the mainstream Pro-Life camp perfectly represents my view on abortion, you imagined wrong.

-->...I personally believe it IS murder and yet I have heard enough compelling argument regarding the legalities that I can't say with 100% certainty that it must be illegal.

I ABSOLUTELY believe abortion should - MUST - be declared illegal, but...

Ahh, there's the "but" that signals where my own individual thoughts on the matter begin and where the Pro-Lifers and I slightly diverge.

-->...Perhaps you and I could discuss sometime soon why I say that; I haven't found a single person willing to genuinely discuss it with me on the level I need it to be at, and maybe you are just the person to do so.

I think you're right, Anniee, I think maybe we COULD have a rather interesting discussion about abortion!

-->...Now if you are willing to take up a discussion of abortion with me, I'd be happy to do so, and show you how I was convinced to take such an ambivalent stand. I am absolutely open to counter-arguments that show I am wrong, but they'll have to be good.

Hmmm... Do we discuss this openly, in the form of public "comments" so that it will be preserved and might benefit others who stumble upon the discussion in the future?

Or is this something you would want to keep strictly private, via Email?

Or... Hmmm... Do I compose and post a blog bit on my own unique stance concerning the abortion issue, and after you've read it, you could submit a comment to it with feedback and your own opinion, we just let the dialogue take its natural course as a result of my opening statement?

Anniee, let me know your thoughts here, your preference if you have one, and I'll think about it over the weekend and we'll decide on something together. But, yeah, I think some discussion of the abortion issue, even if only fairly brief and regardless of whether it's public or private seems like an intriguing idea.

Get back to me, please.

~ D-FensDogg
'Loyal American Underground'

POSTSCRIPT: I got the Email address. Thanks! I will Email soon - possibly tomorrow (if I get back from the auto mechanic in time), but certainly no later than Saturday.

Anniee451 said...

I think a post on your blog might be the perfect format as to the abortion issue.

"If you imagined that the mainstream Pro-Life camp perfectly represents my view on abortion, you imagined wrong."

Heh, no I would never presume you have a mainstream view on anything. The reason I almost never argue it is because my own view is also unique and because I find it such a morally repugnant act that to put myself in the position of having to argue *for* it in any way makes me rather queasy. And because you then find yourself in the position of HAVING to take either a pro-life or pro-choice stance and are never allowed to have any genuine questions in either direction. It is more complex than that, and anyone who realizes that from the get-go is someone I could certainly discuss it with.

I agree with you that legislating against fraud, theft and murder are at heart moral issues, but they are moral issues that involve direct harm against another human being or his/her property. (And here's where as a human being I come up against the abortion issue; it IS another person we're talking about, but there is more to it than that.) Where the harm is only against oneself, for example if someone *really* wants to spend his time and money snorting heroin, so long as he does nothing to defraud or directly harm another, I don't see where government involvement is legitimate. So long as he doesn't come crying to the taxpayers and asking for a bailout when he ends up on the street because all his money went up his nose. That falls under the category of "his own problem." Not that I'm against rehabilitation or helping people through a rough patch to becoming better people and putting such things aside (forgiveness and all that) but I don't want to be in the position of subsidizing such behavior.

Stephen T. McCarthy said...

ANNIEE 451 ~
What does the 451 stand for?

I'm more of a 601 man myself.
Betcha could never in a million years guess what the 601 means. (I'll give you a clue: "Falling Down" in group form. But I know that won't help you.)

Now I'm very curious about your own view of abortion. We both hate it but we both know that it's not quite as easy as saying, "You're murdering a life" - even though that's what they are definitely doing.

Ha! Can it be that you and I have pretty much the same view and the same issues with it? I doubt it. I think my stance on it and the reasons for my stance are pretty unique. Primarily because I have NEVER, EVER heard or read where any other person's position on abortion and the way to deal with it was identical to mine.

If it turns out that you and I see it in an identical manner, that is going to blow my mind. But I doubt that's the situation. We shall see...

Shortly after I have written and posted my next A-List blog bit at 'Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends' (on the subject of Christianity and our Founding Principles), I will begin working on an abortion piece, and I will let you know when it has been posted. Then we can discuss it briefly or at length (whichever you prefer) in the comment section of that blog bit.

Say, have you received either of the two Emails I have sent you regarding the book I ordered for you, 'The Creature From Jekyll Island'?

~ D-FensDogg
'Loyal American Underground'

Anniee451 said...

I did get your emails and eagerly await the book!! I will wait for your abortion post and then give my opinion - and like I said, it is NOT set in stone, so I will be taking your stance into full account. It is tenuous and the ambivalence I feel towards the issue is so strange (I normally am very firm on almost every issue) that it's hard to discuss. And I most certainly agree it's the taking of a human life; on that much we're already in agreement. What led me to my ambivalence regarding legality was a thought experiment which I really, once I "got" it, could not argue effectively against. There is also the pragmatic view, in that it probably isn't going anywhere and why not allow it in the first three months and stop fighting, but...well might as well take a real stance and leave the pragmatism to those who make the decisions I guess. I am not the decider; that's Bush. ;) Will be awaiting your post!

Anniee451 said...

Oh, the 451 stands for Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury...apparently he got the temperature wrong, though, from what I've read recently lol. Go figure. And no, I can't figure out the 601; do tell!

Stephen T. McCarthy said...

ANNIEE ~
-->...Oh, the 451 stands for Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

Uhp! I'm an idiot! I should have guessed that.

From page 244 of the excellent Roger D. McGrath book 'GUNFIGHTERS, HIGHWAYMEN & VIGILANTES: Violence On The Frontier':

"601 was a popular designation for vigilance committees in Nevada."

I used to fantasize about putting together a vigilante committee that would clean up the streets of Los Angeles. We'd all wear T-shirts with a big, black "601" emblazoned across the front, and we'd put the useless L.A.P.D. out of business. Sort of like the "Guardian Angels" organization only much more violent, much more manly, and much more effective.

I guess it's just the "William 'D-Fens' Foster" in me. Ha!
:o)

My motto: "Eat a well-balanced breakfast, kick ass for lunch, and drink a well-balanced dinner."

(I just made that motto up on the spot. Not bad for an old bastard who hasn't had an original thought in 2.5 hours, eh?)

~ D-FensDogg
'Loyal American Underground'