Making fun of music, one song at a time. Since the year 2000.
Check out the two amIright misheard lyrics books including one book devoted to misheard lyrics of the 1980s.
Song Parodies -> "My Disfavored Things (U.S. Left / Right Wings)"
Original Song Title:
"My Favorite Things"
(MP3)Original Performer:
Julie Andrews
Parody Song Title:
"My Disfavored Things (U.S. Left / Right Wings)"
Parody Written by:
Tommy Turtle
The Lyrics
Donald A. Smith fired the opening shot from the Left. Malcolm Higgins volleyed back from the Right with the same OS. Now, TT says, "A pox on both!" (not the writers themselves, the entire Left and Right Wings).
TT's opinion: both Left and Right: rotten
Our Constitution: both sides have forgotten
Washington's address: his final farewell:
"Foreign entanglements lead you to Hell!" [1]
Both factions guilty of empire-building
Ever since Philippines: war, lily-gilding [2]
Spanish-American: started by Hearst
Why did we enter the Great War The First? [3]
Personal liberty: both sides will stick it
Left don't believe in free Right to buy ticket [4]
Right doesn't like Michael hitting a bong
Both are my freedoms; abridging is wrong
No incentives
Success, punish
And reward the bad
The Right wing supports that for Wall Street and such
The Left wing: for worth-less cad! [5]
Egalitarian: actu'lly, hater
Bring us all down: lowest de-nominator
Humanitarian, not! Class war, breeds
Liberal preys and on envy he feeds
Right wing: conformist; won't give you free head-room
Passing more laws: what goes on in your bedroom
'Long as the door's closed, what business is yours?
Nab crooks white-collared; quit harassing whores [6]
Left wing says tax rich, though honestly earned it
Though Windows sucks, without Gates, couldn'a learned it
Puters in ev'ry home? Futurists' dream [7]
Free enterprise: to the top, goes the cream [8]
Failing: Too big?
No such thing, chump
If you suck, go broke
Let all of your assets and workers go to:
A much more success-ful bloke!
I'm free and eighteen, so pawrn? Mind your bizness
Just quit imagining me and my jizzness
Go back to praying and leave us alone
Right wing, get off of your self-righteous throne
Both sides support public (mis-)education
Firstly intended: homogenize nation
Inculcate values: majority fools
That was the purpose of those public schools [9]
Left, Right, please let me do all my own thinking
Smoking and eating; pot, coke, meth, or drinking
If I should suffer, no safety net, need
Responsibility, help it to breed
I'm my own man
Make decisions
Suffer consequence
I don't deserve taxpayers bailing me out
If I show no com-..-on sense [10] [11]
I would prefer to keep private: religion
My tax supporting yours? No, not a smidgen!
Christian, Islam, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu
What if I'm atheist? What's that to you?
President's worship: should not be endorsing
Favor displaying, coercing, enforcing
Moses' Commandments: Great movie, review!
But not on government buildings to view
We'll keep our guns in our cars and our houses
Burglars: You enter at own risk, you louses!
Rapists: My wife, try; she'll plug you right through
All the above: Bill of Rights, One and Two
Get the picture?
Founding Father:
Thomas Jeff-erson:
Which government's best? That which governs the least
In grave, he spins: Plan, undone!
[1] First POTUS, George Washington, gave a Farewell Address in which he encouraged the US to stay on good terms with all nations, so long as possible, but to avoid becoming entangled in foreign affairs. If only we'd listened...
[2] Read about it yourself. Disgusting. Strong expansionist sentiment in the United States motivated the government to develop a plan for annexation of Spain's remaining overseas territories, including the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst published inflammatory stories which many believed caused the public to support going to war. (Grandfather of Patty Hearst, convicted bank robber later pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.)
[3] "The United States originally pursued a policy of isolationism, avoiding conflict while trying to broker a peace.... When a German U-boat sank the British liner Lusitania in 1915, with 128 Americans aboard, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson vowed, "America is too proud to fight" and demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. GERMANY COMPLIED" ...(later) "Wilson's desire to have a seat at negotiations at war's end to advance the League of Nations also played a role." (in his change to a pro-war policy) "Wilson's Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, resigned in protest at what he felt was the President's decidedly warmongering diplomacy."
"Britain's cryptanalytic group intercepted a proposal from Berlin to Mexico to join the war as Germany's ally against the United States, should the U.S. join. The proposal suggested, if the U.S. were to enter the war, Mexico should declare war against the United States and enlist Japan as an ally. (WTF?) This would prevent the United States from joining the Allies and deploying troops to Europe, and would give Germany more time for their unrestricted submarine warfare program to strangle Britain's vital war supplies. In return, the Germans would promise Mexico support in reclaiming Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona." ... (And we *believed* that? Makes the "WMD" stories sound like purest Gospel by comparison.)
"Crucial to U.S. participation was the massive domestic propaganda campaign executed by the Committee on Public Information The campaign included tens of thousands of government-selected community leaders giving brief carefully scripted pro-war speeches at thousands of public gatherings. Along with other branches of government and private vigilante groups like the American Protective League, it also included the general repression and harassment of people either opposed to American entry into the war or of German heritage. Other forms of propaganda included newsreels, photos, large-print posters, magazine and newspaper articles, etc." ...
OK, so 90 years ago, a Democratic president, at first claiming to be a uniter, not a divider, changed his mind out of personal and political ambition, brought up intelligence of questionable value, and engaged in a massive propaganda campaign and repressed and harassed dissidents. Anyone on the Left still want to claim that George W. Bush invented this behavior? And, harassing Americans of German descent... pardon me, but it sounds like the Dems were (drum roll) RACISTS!
[4] While with one hand, the Government "attacks monopolies", with the other, it enforced the legalized cartelization of the airline industry: Price competition was prohibited, nor could any new airline enter a market without overcoming impossible red tape. The Left bitterly opposed airline deregulation. Yes, the incompetents (Eastern Airlines, most notably) failed, but more efficient competitors took their place, and the result: massive benefit to the consumer. Ten or twenty years after deregulation, prices for a given route were lower in nominal dollars (the ones you pay); adjusted for inflation, some prices were half or less of the pre-deregulation prices. Same with trucking. And the Left pretends to be the consumer's "friend". Hah! (S&L dereg. is a whole 'nother story, too long to discuss without my Master's thesis, but the problem was that the Gov deregulated their *lending and investing activities* while still *insuring them* with *your tax dollars*. Unh-unh, that's not how it pozed to work in a true free market. Some other time, OK?)
You wanna sell me a cheap ticket? I wanna buy it? Why is that the Gov's biz? TT motto at the time: "Conservatives support your unrestricted right to buy an airline ticket, but not marijuana. Liberals support your unrestricted right to buy marijuana, but not an airline ticket. Only Libertarians support both."
[5] Old saying: "The Left favors welfare for individuals; the Right, for corporations." The LP says screw welfare; the US was the most generous nation on earth before the Govt. decided to monopolize charity and tax us all so much that we can't afford to donate to truly worthwhile individuals and causes instead of to bureaucrats' salaries.
[6] Before raising pacing issues, please keep in mind that the original, and still correct, pronunciation is HAR-ass, and that har-ASS, though also accepted as correct, is more recent, and North American only.
[7] Actually, not. Read sci-fi from the 1940s-50s and you'll find that by the year 2000, we'll all have personal airborne vehicles or rocket packs, so much leisure we won't know what to do with ourselves (hah!), and colonies on Mars, but no mention of the personal computer or that it would be affordable in the majority of homes. Confirmed Win-basher though I be, I'm sitting here with an amazing device that cost less than a TV set did in 1950, a mere fraction if you adjust for inflation. And business productivity soared in the 1990s as IT became widespread. No one who contributed to all of this deserves any reward beyond the median salary? OK, throw it all away, NOW. ... didn't think so. You wanted it, you paid for it, you want to punish the people who provided it. Some day, like in "Atlas Shrugged" (© 1957 Ayn Rand) they're going to say, FYou and quit providing the goodies.
[8] Unless, of course, the Gov keeps propping up the bottom, as in the next verse. Incompetent Chrysler got a huge bail-out in the late 1970s, and what did we get? Continued incompetence and thirty years of prolonged agony before it died recently anyway, as it should have back then.
[9] Public schooling didn't really catch on until non-WASP immigrants entered the US; then it was decided we needed to force them to give up their national and ethnic culture and replace it with ours. This was openly touted as the argument for taxpayer-supported schooling. Now, we encourage people to maintain pride in their native culture while also being law-abiding American citizens, but we still keep those ovens of mediocrity and conformity: taxpayer-supported schools, with little choice: you have to pay the school tax even if you send your childrent to a private school, which stifles competition (not many can afford both tax and tuition). And you pay even if you don't have children. Education benefits all, you say? Fine, give each child's family a voucher and let them use it at the school of their choice: public, private, parochial, home-tutored, whatever. See what honest competition will do to raise the quality of education. (The author is a prime victim of those ovens of mediocrity.)
[10] Perhaps if all of those tax-dollar "safety nets" weren't there, people would make more responsible decisions. Like, say, "saving". The US has long had the lowest savings rate in the industrialized world, and that rate actually went negative (below zero) in 2005: people spent more than they earned, eating into their net worth. [Accounting note: Buying a home that you can afford is a "capital investment", since it produces a "return" equal to what it would cost you to rent the equivalent housing. Only "current debt" (spending, payments, and liabilities due each month, etc), e. g., the monthly payment, not the $300,000.00 total cost, is included in the above calculations.] This is yet another reason we're in the current fix. In the old days, people were told to have six months' salary in the bank, in case they were laid off or whatever. All of you who meet that criterion, raise your hand... thought so.
The Left's ideal of a socialist haven, Sweden, has a suicide rate 20% higher than that of the war-torn-asundered, divided, politicized, racist, sexist, ethnist, ageist, everything-else-ist USA. Looks like all that cradle-to-grave welfare doesn't bring increased happiness after all, but rather decreases it. Maybe humans were meant to take on challenges and earn self-esteem by their own accomplishments, rather than by handouts?
For the record: The author has been a registered Libertarian since he was old enough to vote, and a philosophic Libertarian since he was old enough to think. (i. e., about age three.) ... Don't waste your time with the 111s, because, as Rhett said to Scarlett, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". On the other hand, *all* thoughtful, respectful comments, agree or disagree, will be read and duly considered, though perhaps not until the weekend. It's been a very long week; I hadn't intended to post today; intended to hit the sack five hours ago, and I'm very tired.
© 2009 Tommy Turtle. All rights reserved. E-mail: tomm...@yahoo.com
© 2009 Tommy Turtle. All rights reserved. E-mail: tomm...@yahoo.com
Your Vote & Comment Counts
The parody authors spend a lot of time writing parodies for the website and they appreciate feedback in the form of votes and comments. Please take some time to leave a comment below about this parody.
Place Your Vote |
Voting Results
| ||||||||||||||||||
Voting Breakdown
The following represent how many people voted for each category.
| Pacing | How Funny | Overall Rating | |||||||||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 5 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
User Comments
Comments are subject to review, and can be removed by the administration of the site at any time and for any reason.
Hat's off to the "middleman"!
A veritible hodgepoge of smudge jobs!!!
Wonderful job, Tom!!
I chuckled at the bizness/jizzness rhyme. And thank you for acknowledging that (1) the real issue is extremism and (2) the right wing has done their share of taking our freedoms. You can be a liberal with being a socialist, and you can be a conservative without being a bible-thumping wing-nut.
Although the higher suicide rate could be tied to the fact that in northern Sweden they get no direct sunlight in the winter, as opposed to their form of government. Correlation does not equal causation.
Although the higher suicide rate could be tied to the fact that in northern Sweden they get no direct sunlight in the winter, as opposed to their form of government. Correlation does not equal causation.
you really do your homework...nice job
TT, the suicide rates are high on all Scandinavian states, but it is not about the socisty, but rather the climate. Winters in Scandinavia can be downright intolerable - not only the temperatures below zero, but also the darkness in winter.Scandinavian countries are basically good places to live if you can live somewhere else during the winter months. Social Democracy can sometimes be annoying, but most people here appreaciate it when the s*** hits the fan and things go really bad. I mean, life out in the streets is not fun when temperature hits minus thirty. After all, welfare is intended to be a safety net and not a hammock.Scandinavian countries can be called Leftist Libertarian, if the Political Compass (http://ww.politicalcompass.org) is to be believed: the state interferes very little in private life or bedroom.I agree with quite much on what you state, with the certain proviso of the role of the society. It should always be remembered that Liberal and Conservative aren't opposites: the opposite for Conservative is Radical, and that of Liberal is Authoritarian.
Telling it like it is...interesting writing
Hey, if you're a Libertarian, perhaps you'll like my "Bob Barr" parody that I did a while back.
http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/montypython0.shtml
And yeah; like McKludge said, your rhyming is excellent!
I'm totally illiberate when it comes to this stuff, but you're doing your best to keep up with the trend you started, so 555!!!
Over the top awesome with a right on, liberal dose of your inalienable common sense for the common man... will comment in detail this weekend when get a chance to cogitate on this treat of a treatise!
I'll be working the "Special Election" here in norCAL on the 19th; then the $hit hits the fan . . . the wonton spending must be curtailed !
Susanna - I was hoping to hear from a Scandinavian about the suicide rates. I've often heard the higher suicide rate in Sweden as an argument against socialism, but I always had a feeling they had nothing to do with each other. I've also seen news reports on studies that correlate decreased exposure to sunlight with increase in depression. I think Seattle has a similar problem.
What AFW and McKludge said
Great rhyming but don't know anything about US politics (not into any politics). We used to have left and right & blue and red but now we only seem to have middle & purple.
Outstanding write and information to go with it. Most of us want to just be left alone but govt. won't let you.
A pox indeed. Words of wisdom.
EVERYONE: I'm stunned. I never expected this Ph. D-thesis-disguised-as-a-parody to go over so well. Never underestimate the astute AmIReaders!
McKludge and Susanna: I was aware of the darkness connection (and of the logical fallacy of "cum hoc ergo propter hoc") , but a recent study showed that suicides increase in the *summer* in northern Greenland, where the sun never sets for several months. Apparently, too *much* exposure to sunlight screws up the brain chemistry, too. (Couldn't they just darken the room when they go to sleep?) Anyway, if the "long darkness" theory is correct, then we should expect to find this effect in every northern clime. Using 60 degrees north latitude as the cutoff (which includes all of Scandinavia except for the lower third of Sweden and the bottom tip of Norway), then we find Alaska, Northern Canada, Northern Russian Federation including Siberia, Greenland, and Iceland. (No one lives 60 South except the researchers in Antarctica).
But Canada, almost all of which is north of the US, has a rate only 0.1 % higher than US -- statistically insignificant. Iceland, which touches the Arctic Circle and is completely above 60N, is about 2.7% higher -- still probably within statistical variations, but no way near Sweden's 20% delta. Russia, much of which is 60N + (Moscow at almost 56N) has one of the highest rates in the world -- but also 70 years of a socialist/communist economy. That, and the upheavals since that regime's fall, might well figure into the total along with the location. No way to isolate that out. Finland's suicide rate is 80% higher than that of the US. "In the 1970s and 1980s, Finland built one of the most extensive welfare states in the world." (WikiP). Greenland's rate is one of the highest, and "The public sector, including publicly owned enterprises and the municipalities, plays a dominant role in Greenland's economy".
Among the top 10 suicide rates in the world, we find Ukraine, which is farther south than Germany, but whose rate is more than triple that of Germany's and more than double the US's. Also, Guyana, which is downright tropical -- only a few degrees above the equator. So, the "lack of sunlight" theory isn't borne out by statistics.
Clearly, many factors affect a country's suicide rate, and I did not mean to imply that socialism or the welfare state caused, or were the only cause of, suicide; only that clearly, they were not the panacea for mankind's ills that their advocates proclaim. I'm sorry for lack of clarity in stating that intention, but it seemed the footnotes were long enough already. :-) ... the rest of the replies to follow.
McKludge and Susanna: I was aware of the darkness connection (and of the logical fallacy of "cum hoc ergo propter hoc") , but a recent study showed that suicides increase in the *summer* in northern Greenland, where the sun never sets for several months. Apparently, too *much* exposure to sunlight screws up the brain chemistry, too. (Couldn't they just darken the room when they go to sleep?) Anyway, if the "long darkness" theory is correct, then we should expect to find this effect in every northern clime. Using 60 degrees north latitude as the cutoff (which includes all of Scandinavia except for the lower third of Sweden and the bottom tip of Norway), then we find Alaska, Northern Canada, Northern Russian Federation including Siberia, Greenland, and Iceland. (No one lives 60 South except the researchers in Antarctica).
But Canada, almost all of which is north of the US, has a rate only 0.1 % higher than US -- statistically insignificant. Iceland, which touches the Arctic Circle and is completely above 60N, is about 2.7% higher -- still probably within statistical variations, but no way near Sweden's 20% delta. Russia, much of which is 60N + (Moscow at almost 56N) has one of the highest rates in the world -- but also 70 years of a socialist/communist economy. That, and the upheavals since that regime's fall, might well figure into the total along with the location. No way to isolate that out. Finland's suicide rate is 80% higher than that of the US. "In the 1970s and 1980s, Finland built one of the most extensive welfare states in the world." (WikiP). Greenland's rate is one of the highest, and "The public sector, including publicly owned enterprises and the municipalities, plays a dominant role in Greenland's economy".
Among the top 10 suicide rates in the world, we find Ukraine, which is farther south than Germany, but whose rate is more than triple that of Germany's and more than double the US's. Also, Guyana, which is downright tropical -- only a few degrees above the equator. So, the "lack of sunlight" theory isn't borne out by statistics.
Clearly, many factors affect a country's suicide rate, and I did not mean to imply that socialism or the welfare state caused, or were the only cause of, suicide; only that clearly, they were not the panacea for mankind's ills that their advocates proclaim. I'm sorry for lack of clarity in stating that intention, but it seemed the footnotes were long enough already. :-) ... the rest of the replies to follow.
Wow! Wow! Wow! All of the commenters are finding something they like in this parody. TT, have you shown us that maybe we AmiRighters have more in common than we realized?
Very well written. I’m not sure I am completely with you on the religious issue, though. The separation of church and state is important; but one of the reasons that I favor small government is that, with separation of church and state, as the government grows larger, the church will grow smaller. And I think a lot more good comes out of Christianity than out of government.
Very well written. I’m not sure I am completely with you on the religious issue, though. The separation of church and state is important; but one of the reasons that I favor small government is that, with separation of church and state, as the government grows larger, the church will grow smaller. And I think a lot more good comes out of Christianity than out of government.
FOOTNOTE ON SUICIDE: Alaska does indeed have the highest suicide rate among US states. Support for the "darkness theory"? Not really: Suicide rate among rural residents averages well over double that of urban residents. Presumably, both receive similar average amounts of sunshine, so perhaps loneliness and boredom are bigger contributors than sunlight or cold, although all of these probably contribute to the state's overall top US ranking. And - BINGO! Hawaii, the only US state to lie partly in the tropics, has a higher suicide rate than such northern states as New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Illinois, and Connecticut. The sunlight theory isn't working here.
INDIVIDUAL REPLIES:
Mark Scotti, thanks.
McKludge, we do indeed have some common ground. Thanks.
alvin, thanks... just the geek part of the personality - glad it's sometimes useful.
Susanna Viljanen: "welfare is intended to be a safety net and not a hammock". Beautiful. Could you please get that embossed on the walls of Congress and the President? Re: "Liberal and Conservative aren't opposites: the opposite for Conservative is Radical, and that of Liberal is Authoritarian." Yes, that was true in the US a century or two ago, but the meanings of both have been badly perverted here. John Stuart Mill was a "Classic Liberal" (anti-authoritarian), but today's "liberals" want increasing government, increasing control over our economy, our personal decisions (What if I don't *want* a gay roommate? Or a straight one, for that matter? It's my house; shouldn't it be my choice, rather than being prosecuted for "housing discrimination"?), and many other areas. "Conservative", as you say, used to mean "adhering to the original principles of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights", but today's "conservatives" want to control what we can read (or look at), write (on the Internet, too), describe the US as a "Christian Nation" in direct contradiction to the First Amendment and the many fine citizens who are not of that belief, etc. Thanks for your time and very thoughtful comment.
AFW, thanks.
Hu's On First: Sorry I missed that the first time around ... and you gave the LP more coverage than CNN and MSNBC did during the entire campaign. Thanks for v/c, Hu.
Leo Keough (lol pun), thanks.
TJC: Will reply in detail to your detailed comment, to which I look forward; in the meantime, congrats on working in Tom Paine and Tom Jefferson. Those Tom-boys -- so intelligent, such champions of liberty! Thanks for v/pc (preliminary comment), TJ!
MadameCurTail: Good luck in curtailing the CA budget deficit -- perhaps Ahnold's proposal to legalize the herb will bring in some additional revenue if implemented. And I love wonton soup, but not wonton spending! Thanks for v/c, MCT.
PMS, thanks.
Andy Primus: IMHO, the fundamental issue: individual rights, freedom, and liberty, vs. control by one or another wing, faction, party, or whatever, is a global issue. Thanks for v/c.
Timmy1000: Well put. Thanks for v/c, Timmy.
John Barry: Welcome words from a wise man himself. Thanks for v/c, John.
John Jenkins: Thanks! Thanks! Thanks! And yes, I agree that not just AIRs, but the US population as a whole, could find far more common ground if the news media, and mostly politicians and their parties, didn't find it to their advantage to divide, ferment hatred among various groups and classes, and otherwise create more problems, which, of course, they can then claim that they alone are qualified to solve. Thanks for the enthusiastic v/c, John!
And I fully support every good deed done by Christians or any other religion or individual. I just don't want any particular belief system shoved down my throat, or to be given tax dollars that were taken from me in what amounts to "at gunpoint" (try not paying your taxes, then resist the police who come to arrest you and see what happens - not counting the current Cabinet members, of course), or for the US to be called a "Christian Nation", making those of every other belief system feel excluded or like second-class citizens. Can we agree there as well? Thanks again, John.
INDIVIDUAL REPLIES:
Mark Scotti, thanks.
McKludge, we do indeed have some common ground. Thanks.
alvin, thanks... just the geek part of the personality - glad it's sometimes useful.
Susanna Viljanen: "welfare is intended to be a safety net and not a hammock". Beautiful. Could you please get that embossed on the walls of Congress and the President? Re: "Liberal and Conservative aren't opposites: the opposite for Conservative is Radical, and that of Liberal is Authoritarian." Yes, that was true in the US a century or two ago, but the meanings of both have been badly perverted here. John Stuart Mill was a "Classic Liberal" (anti-authoritarian), but today's "liberals" want increasing government, increasing control over our economy, our personal decisions (What if I don't *want* a gay roommate? Or a straight one, for that matter? It's my house; shouldn't it be my choice, rather than being prosecuted for "housing discrimination"?), and many other areas. "Conservative", as you say, used to mean "adhering to the original principles of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights", but today's "conservatives" want to control what we can read (or look at), write (on the Internet, too), describe the US as a "Christian Nation" in direct contradiction to the First Amendment and the many fine citizens who are not of that belief, etc. Thanks for your time and very thoughtful comment.
AFW, thanks.
Hu's On First: Sorry I missed that the first time around ... and you gave the LP more coverage than CNN and MSNBC did during the entire campaign. Thanks for v/c, Hu.
Leo Keough (lol pun), thanks.
TJC: Will reply in detail to your detailed comment, to which I look forward; in the meantime, congrats on working in Tom Paine and Tom Jefferson. Those Tom-boys -- so intelligent, such champions of liberty! Thanks for v/pc (preliminary comment), TJ!
MadameCurTail: Good luck in curtailing the CA budget deficit -- perhaps Ahnold's proposal to legalize the herb will bring in some additional revenue if implemented. And I love wonton soup, but not wonton spending! Thanks for v/c, MCT.
PMS, thanks.
Andy Primus: IMHO, the fundamental issue: individual rights, freedom, and liberty, vs. control by one or another wing, faction, party, or whatever, is a global issue. Thanks for v/c.
Timmy1000: Well put. Thanks for v/c, Timmy.
John Barry: Welcome words from a wise man himself. Thanks for v/c, John.
John Jenkins: Thanks! Thanks! Thanks! And yes, I agree that not just AIRs, but the US population as a whole, could find far more common ground if the news media, and mostly politicians and their parties, didn't find it to their advantage to divide, ferment hatred among various groups and classes, and otherwise create more problems, which, of course, they can then claim that they alone are qualified to solve. Thanks for the enthusiastic v/c, John!
And I fully support every good deed done by Christians or any other religion or individual. I just don't want any particular belief system shoved down my throat, or to be given tax dollars that were taken from me in what amounts to "at gunpoint" (try not paying your taxes, then resist the police who come to arrest you and see what happens - not counting the current Cabinet members, of course), or for the US to be called a "Christian Nation", making those of every other belief system feel excluded or like second-class citizens. Can we agree there as well? Thanks again, John.
TT, actually the Finnish suicide rate has steadily _decreased_ during the decades on what it once has been. It has been far greater in the past. It was on its highest just after World War Two.
Summers here North are lovely (sun doesn't really set here in Helsinki in June at all), but winters are intolerable. Remember Finland is completely beyond 60 North. It is not the freeze nor snow, but darkness. The name for November in Finnish language, "marraskuu", means literally "The Moon of Death". It is considered as the most cruel of all months.
On Greenland: the unemployment there is astronomical, and alcoholism is rampant. Greenland is far too overpopulated compared to its ability to provide work and meaningful life.
Also tightly-knit communities contribute to high suicide rates. The more communitarian and collective a culture is, the higher the suicide rates. Japan is the utter example of a collectivistic culture - and the Japanese have eighteen different words for different suicides. A tightly-knit collective does not protect its members; it protects itself. Especially it doesn't protect its members from each other. Those trodden in the bottom of the pecking order in those collective cultures live truly miserable lives - and usually the only way out is taking your life. It is not about economy or social model, but the very model of society itself, whether it supports Individualism or Collectivism. That, on the other hand, does not necessarily correlate with the welfare model of the state: Japan is highly Capitalistic country with lousy welfare system, yet the Japanese culture is utterly collectivistic.
The Scandinavian model does not stem from Socialism per sé, but rather from Lutheranism. The Lutheran ideal of a society is one where the society provides its members their basic needs, and where the members also actively partake in the societal activities, to rectify societal injusticies. That is the basis of the concept of "lagomhet" - and that is also one of the reasons why extremist movements have never really gained foothold in North.
SUSANNA, I agree completely on the evils of Collectivism, which you put well:
"Japan is the utter example of a collectivistic culture - and the Japanese have eighteen different words for different suicides. A tightly-knit collective does not protect its members; it protects itself." Well said.
The Soviet Union was another example of monstrous collectivization, which I think was a greater cause of suicide than the latitude.
A strong social network that cares for its individual members, whether a family, a religion, a circle of friends or whatever, is definitely a powerful force for strength and happiness. What many Europeans do not allow for in judging the US is that in Europe, being many individual countries, many of them are far more homogeneous than the US. (Not the former Yugoslavia, Czech/Slovak, etc., but Germany, the Scandinavians, not so much the UK these days, but before immigration became prevalent there). If the country consists mostly of people descended from common ancestors, sharing a common religion, etc., then the model you described works very well. The US is virtually unique in being the "melting pot" of the world, with a statue welcoming "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" (although there's been a lot of backsliding on that attitude lately), having perhaps over 100 different nationalities, ethnicities, and cultures among our population. This has been our blessing -- a diverse pool from which talent can emerge and upward mobility is possible -- and our curse -- divergent core beliefs and values. So the Scandinavian model does not fit so well here. It also might explain why the US is home to so many extremist movements, in contrast to the uniform Lutheran ideals in Scandinavia. But that diversity has also produced some incredible genius and achievements, including growing from a set of rebellious agrarian colonies to the world's leading economy in the historically short span of about 170 years.
Some thoughts about the climate:
1) If it is that bad, why not move? Of course it is traumatic to leave one's family and friends, etc., but if the immediate alternative is killing yourself, it still seems emigrating would be preferable. Basic knowledge of English has become so widespread because of the Internet, that it seems the US would be a better choice than suicide. Even our colder states are not comparable to what you describe in Finland or Greenland, and have less darkness.
2) The Swedish suicide rate quoted is about 20 persons per year per 100,000 people. So every year, out of each 100,000 people, 99,998 do not kill themselves. Let's consider the high-risk years to be between age 15 and 65 (pre-teens rarely kill themselves, and sometimes older people do so rather than face infirmity, disability, dependence, loss of faculties, etc... and might have died naturally in a few months or years anyway). Then about 1% of the population will kill themselves during that 50-year period. (actually, 0.999 %, formula [1 - (0.99998^50). So 99% of the population finds some way to tolerate the cold and dark. Again, I was only trying to say that welfare-state models have not guaranteed happiness, and the more I think of it, the more I wish I'd left that issue out completely. But I would think that moving to a strange land might be preferable to suicide. Many immigrants who speak no English whatsoever have decided that struggling here was preferable to their totalitarian regimes or utter poverty of their homelands.
3) I've spent a few winters in cold places like Breckenridge, Colorado (elev. 9000' / 2744m), and Winter Park, Colorado (elev 9600' / 2927m), awakened to mornings of -30F /-34C, spent afternoons skiing in wind chill of -40 (exactly equal C and F). I understand that going to work isn't the same as skiing, and there were still about 8-9 hours of light each day, although the sun would go behind the mountains by 2:30 pm. Bright indoor lights, bright lights outdoors and in the shops, the Yuletide bonfire that somehow made it into our celebrations of a birth that took place in a hot desert, all can help. But if it didn't, I'd still say, move before you take your life.
I shouldn't have mentioned the issue at all. But the research and this discussion have been interesting. Thanks.
"Japan is the utter example of a collectivistic culture - and the Japanese have eighteen different words for different suicides. A tightly-knit collective does not protect its members; it protects itself." Well said.
The Soviet Union was another example of monstrous collectivization, which I think was a greater cause of suicide than the latitude.
A strong social network that cares for its individual members, whether a family, a religion, a circle of friends or whatever, is definitely a powerful force for strength and happiness. What many Europeans do not allow for in judging the US is that in Europe, being many individual countries, many of them are far more homogeneous than the US. (Not the former Yugoslavia, Czech/Slovak, etc., but Germany, the Scandinavians, not so much the UK these days, but before immigration became prevalent there). If the country consists mostly of people descended from common ancestors, sharing a common religion, etc., then the model you described works very well. The US is virtually unique in being the "melting pot" of the world, with a statue welcoming "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" (although there's been a lot of backsliding on that attitude lately), having perhaps over 100 different nationalities, ethnicities, and cultures among our population. This has been our blessing -- a diverse pool from which talent can emerge and upward mobility is possible -- and our curse -- divergent core beliefs and values. So the Scandinavian model does not fit so well here. It also might explain why the US is home to so many extremist movements, in contrast to the uniform Lutheran ideals in Scandinavia. But that diversity has also produced some incredible genius and achievements, including growing from a set of rebellious agrarian colonies to the world's leading economy in the historically short span of about 170 years.
Some thoughts about the climate:
1) If it is that bad, why not move? Of course it is traumatic to leave one's family and friends, etc., but if the immediate alternative is killing yourself, it still seems emigrating would be preferable. Basic knowledge of English has become so widespread because of the Internet, that it seems the US would be a better choice than suicide. Even our colder states are not comparable to what you describe in Finland or Greenland, and have less darkness.
2) The Swedish suicide rate quoted is about 20 persons per year per 100,000 people. So every year, out of each 100,000 people, 99,998 do not kill themselves. Let's consider the high-risk years to be between age 15 and 65 (pre-teens rarely kill themselves, and sometimes older people do so rather than face infirmity, disability, dependence, loss of faculties, etc... and might have died naturally in a few months or years anyway). Then about 1% of the population will kill themselves during that 50-year period. (actually, 0.999 %, formula [1 - (0.99998^50). So 99% of the population finds some way to tolerate the cold and dark. Again, I was only trying to say that welfare-state models have not guaranteed happiness, and the more I think of it, the more I wish I'd left that issue out completely. But I would think that moving to a strange land might be preferable to suicide. Many immigrants who speak no English whatsoever have decided that struggling here was preferable to their totalitarian regimes or utter poverty of their homelands.
3) I've spent a few winters in cold places like Breckenridge, Colorado (elev. 9000' / 2744m), and Winter Park, Colorado (elev 9600' / 2927m), awakened to mornings of -30F /-34C, spent afternoons skiing in wind chill of -40 (exactly equal C and F). I understand that going to work isn't the same as skiing, and there were still about 8-9 hours of light each day, although the sun would go behind the mountains by 2:30 pm. Bright indoor lights, bright lights outdoors and in the shops, the Yuletide bonfire that somehow made it into our celebrations of a birth that took place in a hot desert, all can help. But if it didn't, I'd still say, move before you take your life.
I shouldn't have mentioned the issue at all. But the research and this discussion have been interesting. Thanks.
This is fantastic. More true than funny, unfortunately, but dead on. Great job T.
Claude Prez, thanks.... yes, sometimes it's the (social) satirist's duty to go for truth at the expense of humor, but that's historically been one of the highest callings of the satirist (cf. Juvenal in ancient Rome). More than enough humor here -- including yours, Claude :-) .. thanks for v/c.
Guy DiRito has it right as always, The votes (even mentioned by yourself) are not a true reflection of the brilliance of a parody. The views and comments make this a gem. Was away for a few days. Awesome work TT
malcolm higgins, thanks not only for the kind words and vote, but for the mention of your absence -- I was indeed hoping that you'd share your views, being one of the two inspirations for this project. Do you suppose that we'll hear from Donald A. Smith, who started the whole thing? ... will be interesting to see if he shows up again, or perhaps his song was a one-time visit. (Maybe I should visit his site and invite him to this party - no pun intended?) Thanks for taking the time to read, vote, and comment, malks.
Again, this is a fantastic parody, TT, but when you make the comment that you don’t want any belief system shoved down your throat, what exactly do you mean? I don’t see that happening in the United States, unless you are referring to statements like the one made by George Washington when he resigned his commission as general of the Continental Army in 1783. "I … close this last solemn act of my official life by commending the interests of our dearest country to the protection of Almighty God and those who have the superintendence of them into His holy keeping."
Got in on this one a few days late. Marvelous song. Remember, the first reason for America is Freedom. Once upon a time, you wouldn't have had to explain the meaning of your lyrics in a history book size set of footnotes. The schools have done their job so well. I thank my late parents everyday for making the investment of a Catholic School education.
Patrick: Thanks, and I'm glad you got a good education. IMHO, our public schools are failing miserably, and I expect many readers wouldn't have been familiar with the events of 1890-1970s without the footnotes. Thansk for v/c, Patrick
John Jenkins: I 'd like to answer that question here in public as opposed to PM, but it's been a long Monday day and night, still backlogged, and your very thoughtful question deserves an equally thoughtful reply. Can you give me a day or two to get caught up on work, life, other fora, and this one? Appreciate it, and as always, thanks for your thoughtful analysis and commentary.
John Jenkins: I 'd like to answer that question here in public as opposed to PM, but it's been a long Monday day and night, still backlogged, and your very thoughtful question deserves an equally thoughtful reply. Can you give me a day or two to get caught up on work, life, other fora, and this one? Appreciate it, and as always, thanks for your thoughtful analysis and commentary.
TT, few, if any, parodists are as good as you at commenting and responding to comments. Pacholek used to be an amazing commenter, but I think he has been in a permanent state of ecstasy since Obama won the election and began accelerating the nation’s leftward surge. Anyway, take your time.
John Jenkins: First, let me say that I, and the First Amendment, support absolutely the right of anyone in the U.S. to follow any religion they choose, including not only the Western religions, but the Eastern ones, polytheistic ones, paganism, or no religion at all. And to practice the same, without interfering in the rights of others. If noon strikes and you wish to bow down and face Mecca, that's fine with me, so long as you don't block the sidewalk. Furthermore, to join any church voluntarily, contribute to it voluntarily, perform good works in its name voluntarily, etc.
And I understand from your posts that you are a devout Christian, which I totally respect.
Where I (and the FA, IMHO) have a problem is when the tax dollars that have been taken from me *involuntarily*, over which I have virtually no control (I can vote the bums out every two, four, or six years, to be replaced by new bums who will make campaign promises that they break the day they are sworn in), are channeled to any particular religion. E. g., Bush's "Faith-Based Initiatives". FBI (interesting acronym!) are excellent for those who voluntarily donate the funds to support them. Tax dollars, no. If Christian organizations are given funds, shouldn't they also be apportioned to Muslim organizations, atheist organizations, etc.? Rhetorical -- no tax dollars to any religion, please.
Another problem is the Pledge of Allegiance. It did not include the phrase "under God" until Eisenhower's administration, after a lengthy campaign by the Knights of Columbus, the world's largest fraternal Catholic service organization. (It started under Truman, but failed.) As a schoolchild, I was required to recite a pledge affirming a God in which I might or might not have believed. That is one instance of being "rammed down my throat". (Note that throughout, my own belief system will not be mentioned, to remain as impartial a commentator as possible.)
The issue is identical as far as putting "In God We Trust" on the coins that we all, by law, must use. Which God? The Christian God? The Jewish God? The Muslim God? Jove? Thor? Zeus? Why? What about the believers of others, or the non-believers? Do those with faith not have faith strong enough that they are insecure without their faith stamped on every cent? Same issue as the Pledge, so no further repetition necessary.
Same with the movement to put the Ten Commandments in Government buildings and/or schools. Why not the teachings of Mahommet? There were 370+ self-identified Muslims working in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center who were killed along with everyone else in the attacks of 9/11. Buddha was wise. Confucius was wise. And while I agree with most of the Commandments, to put in a taxpayer-paid-for government building or school, "I am the Lord thy God, and thou shalt have no other gods before Me", is an extraordinarily clear-cut endorsement of the Judeo-Christian God by the State. (Government display of the First Commandment violates the First Amendment, if you enjoy irony as I do.)
Of course, parents are free to sent their children to parochial schools, where they can be taught the tenets of their faith. Note that in the footnotes, I supported vouchers for exactly that. But with public dollars and/or public buildings, that's "rammed down my throat"
And I understand from your posts that you are a devout Christian, which I totally respect.
Where I (and the FA, IMHO) have a problem is when the tax dollars that have been taken from me *involuntarily*, over which I have virtually no control (I can vote the bums out every two, four, or six years, to be replaced by new bums who will make campaign promises that they break the day they are sworn in), are channeled to any particular religion. E. g., Bush's "Faith-Based Initiatives". FBI (interesting acronym!) are excellent for those who voluntarily donate the funds to support them. Tax dollars, no. If Christian organizations are given funds, shouldn't they also be apportioned to Muslim organizations, atheist organizations, etc.? Rhetorical -- no tax dollars to any religion, please.
Another problem is the Pledge of Allegiance. It did not include the phrase "under God" until Eisenhower's administration, after a lengthy campaign by the Knights of Columbus, the world's largest fraternal Catholic service organization. (It started under Truman, but failed.) As a schoolchild, I was required to recite a pledge affirming a God in which I might or might not have believed. That is one instance of being "rammed down my throat". (Note that throughout, my own belief system will not be mentioned, to remain as impartial a commentator as possible.)
The issue is identical as far as putting "In God We Trust" on the coins that we all, by law, must use. Which God? The Christian God? The Jewish God? The Muslim God? Jove? Thor? Zeus? Why? What about the believers of others, or the non-believers? Do those with faith not have faith strong enough that they are insecure without their faith stamped on every cent? Same issue as the Pledge, so no further repetition necessary.
Same with the movement to put the Ten Commandments in Government buildings and/or schools. Why not the teachings of Mahommet? There were 370+ self-identified Muslims working in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center who were killed along with everyone else in the attacks of 9/11. Buddha was wise. Confucius was wise. And while I agree with most of the Commandments, to put in a taxpayer-paid-for government building or school, "I am the Lord thy God, and thou shalt have no other gods before Me", is an extraordinarily clear-cut endorsement of the Judeo-Christian God by the State. (Government display of the First Commandment violates the First Amendment, if you enjoy irony as I do.)
Of course, parents are free to sent their children to parochial schools, where they can be taught the tenets of their faith. Note that in the footnotes, I supported vouchers for exactly that. But with public dollars and/or public buildings, that's "rammed down my throat"
Quoted from Wikipedia, but well sourced there:
"On January 3, 2005, a .... suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of three unnamed families. On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in their favor. Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an Order stating that, upon proper motion, he will enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God"."
"In 2006, in the Florida case Frazier v. Alexandre, No. 05-81142 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2006) "A federal district court in Florida has ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution."
Consider the Scopes trial. The State of Tennessee forbade the teaching in their public schools of any theory (read, "evolution") that denied Divine Creation as taught in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Is that not having one set of religious beliefs "rammed down (every public schoolchild's) throat"? Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution in 1925, the conviction was upheld on appeal, and it wasn't until 1968 that the Supreme Court finally ruled that such bans were unconstitutional.
Did it end there? No. The Intelligent Design theory, carefully crafted to attempt to avoid referring to any particular religion, and thus avoid the Constitutional bans, was advocated by the Discovery Institute, whose literature (and an accidentally non-overwritten copy and paste) made clear that they believed that designer to be the God of Christianity. *Still* attempting to ram one religion's beliefs down schoolchildrens' throats, regardless of scientific evidence and belief to the contrary. (For TT's take on the issue, see "Where Did Man Begin", http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/andywilliams5.shtml
(Perhaps surprisingly, the Roman Catholic Church, which some might view as among the most dogmatic of Christian denominations, does not oppose the teaching of evolution. 'The Roman Catholic church has stated that religious faith is fully compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world." Or, as has been stated in other venues, this Church allocates the physical world to science, and the spiritual world to religion, and openly admits that its doctrines must be taken on faith and cannot meet scientific test. )
The result: a massive, lengthy, and expensive trial, which concluded in December 2005 (80 years after Scopes) when the Judge, a Republican and church-going Lutheran appointed by President Bush, found the teaching of ID in taxpayer-supported schools to be unconstitutional:
“The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources,” he wrote. Yet President Bush himself was quoted as saying that ID should be taught in schools. So yes, there are still people in Government positions who support spending tax dollars to advocate for one set of beliefs of faith, but fortunately, all of those bureaucrats are in low-level positions, none of then higher than, say, the President of the United States.
"On January 3, 2005, a .... suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of three unnamed families. On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in their favor. Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an Order stating that, upon proper motion, he will enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God"."
"In 2006, in the Florida case Frazier v. Alexandre, No. 05-81142 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2006) "A federal district court in Florida has ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution."
Consider the Scopes trial. The State of Tennessee forbade the teaching in their public schools of any theory (read, "evolution") that denied Divine Creation as taught in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Is that not having one set of religious beliefs "rammed down (every public schoolchild's) throat"? Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution in 1925, the conviction was upheld on appeal, and it wasn't until 1968 that the Supreme Court finally ruled that such bans were unconstitutional.
Did it end there? No. The Intelligent Design theory, carefully crafted to attempt to avoid referring to any particular religion, and thus avoid the Constitutional bans, was advocated by the Discovery Institute, whose literature (and an accidentally non-overwritten copy and paste) made clear that they believed that designer to be the God of Christianity. *Still* attempting to ram one religion's beliefs down schoolchildrens' throats, regardless of scientific evidence and belief to the contrary. (For TT's take on the issue, see "Where Did Man Begin", http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/andywilliams5.shtml
(Perhaps surprisingly, the Roman Catholic Church, which some might view as among the most dogmatic of Christian denominations, does not oppose the teaching of evolution. 'The Roman Catholic church has stated that religious faith is fully compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world." Or, as has been stated in other venues, this Church allocates the physical world to science, and the spiritual world to religion, and openly admits that its doctrines must be taken on faith and cannot meet scientific test. )
The result: a massive, lengthy, and expensive trial, which concluded in December 2005 (80 years after Scopes) when the Judge, a Republican and church-going Lutheran appointed by President Bush, found the teaching of ID in taxpayer-supported schools to be unconstitutional:
“The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources,” he wrote. Yet President Bush himself was quoted as saying that ID should be taught in schools. So yes, there are still people in Government positions who support spending tax dollars to advocate for one set of beliefs of faith, but fortunately, all of those bureaucrats are in low-level positions, none of then higher than, say, the President of the United States.
As for why the Founding Fathers made frequent references to religion: At first, there was no United States. Other than the displaced natives and the kidnapped slaves, the occupants were mostly British subjects, presumably of either the Anglican Church founded by Henry R. when the Catholic Church objected to his personal life, or "Protest-ants" whose "protest" was against HM King Henry starting a new religion just so he could get a divorce. In either event, they were all Christians. I still think they were violating their own Bill of Rights, but it was somewhat more understandable in a small group bound by rebellion and of common religious ancestry.
During the 1800s, the massive wave of other immigrants to the US began. Catholics from Ireland, Italy, and other countries; Jews from Poland, Russia, Eastern Europe; the Eastern Orthodox; etc., continuing into the early 1900s and to the present day, where people fleeing totalitarianism in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Iran, etc., and people looking for educational and professional opportunity, perhaps from India, Japan, China, etc., and others from around the globe of diverse belief, who believe what was said in the Constitution and on the Statue of Liberty, although I do plan a parody suggesting that the latter inscription be changed, since it obviously doesn't apply to Mexicans.
In any event, I don't believe in reneging on the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights by making anyone, immigrant or native, of any belief or none, pay for the display or advocacy of one heritage by any branch of any government or taxpayer-supported institution. Instead, if you wish to spread your belief, follow the words of your Teacher, who was good and wise, and "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16 ) But with your own money, buildings, and time, please. :-)
Incidentally, I've read the Bible -- both Testaments -- cover to cover, something that probably very few people who consider themselves the most devout among Christians have done, and I missed the part where Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor, unless his religion is different from yours, or he's an atheist, or gay, or otherwise different from you". Nor did he attempt to have the Roman government force His religion (Judaism, to be exact, a minor point often overlooked) or His teachings on all people. It wasn't until some three hundred years after His death that those claiming to speak in His name converted the Emperor Constantine, and forced "their"religion, as they saw fit to interpret it, on the Roman Empire. At first, Constantine merely proclaimed tolerance, reversing the previous prosecution of Christians. But later,
"In 316, Constantine acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the validity of Donatism; after making a decision against the Donatists, Constantine led an army of Christians against the Donatist Christians. After 300 years of pacifism, this was the first intra-Christian persecution. ..."
Trivia note: During that era's intra-Christianity wars over various doctrines, heresies, and positions of power, far more Christians were killed by fellow Christians than by the Roman persecutions, by a full order of magnitude (ten times as many). Source: "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", by Gibbon.
"Constantine made new laws regarding the Jews... Jews were forbidden to proselytize or accept converts to Judaism. Any Jew found converting a Christian to Judaism by force would be burned alive. ... Congregations for religious services were restricted, but Jews were allowed to enter Jerusalem on one day each year. Constantine also supported conversion efforts in Judaea. He raised Josephus of Tiberias (a Jewish convert to Christianity) the rank of comes and gave him the money to build churches in the largely Jewish towns of Galilee."
Why the history notes? To show the inherent dangers of letting the State (any State) have anything whatsoever to do with religion (any religion). The Founding Fathers knew this; they incorporated it into their blueprints for the new nation; it's repeatedly been ignored, challenged, and battled to this day. They got it right the first time. Let's listen.
Peace and love,
TT
During the 1800s, the massive wave of other immigrants to the US began. Catholics from Ireland, Italy, and other countries; Jews from Poland, Russia, Eastern Europe; the Eastern Orthodox; etc., continuing into the early 1900s and to the present day, where people fleeing totalitarianism in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Iran, etc., and people looking for educational and professional opportunity, perhaps from India, Japan, China, etc., and others from around the globe of diverse belief, who believe what was said in the Constitution and on the Statue of Liberty, although I do plan a parody suggesting that the latter inscription be changed, since it obviously doesn't apply to Mexicans.
In any event, I don't believe in reneging on the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights by making anyone, immigrant or native, of any belief or none, pay for the display or advocacy of one heritage by any branch of any government or taxpayer-supported institution. Instead, if you wish to spread your belief, follow the words of your Teacher, who was good and wise, and "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16 ) But with your own money, buildings, and time, please. :-)
Incidentally, I've read the Bible -- both Testaments -- cover to cover, something that probably very few people who consider themselves the most devout among Christians have done, and I missed the part where Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor, unless his religion is different from yours, or he's an atheist, or gay, or otherwise different from you". Nor did he attempt to have the Roman government force His religion (Judaism, to be exact, a minor point often overlooked) or His teachings on all people. It wasn't until some three hundred years after His death that those claiming to speak in His name converted the Emperor Constantine, and forced "their"religion, as they saw fit to interpret it, on the Roman Empire. At first, Constantine merely proclaimed tolerance, reversing the previous prosecution of Christians. But later,
"In 316, Constantine acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the validity of Donatism; after making a decision against the Donatists, Constantine led an army of Christians against the Donatist Christians. After 300 years of pacifism, this was the first intra-Christian persecution. ..."
Trivia note: During that era's intra-Christianity wars over various doctrines, heresies, and positions of power, far more Christians were killed by fellow Christians than by the Roman persecutions, by a full order of magnitude (ten times as many). Source: "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", by Gibbon.
"Constantine made new laws regarding the Jews... Jews were forbidden to proselytize or accept converts to Judaism. Any Jew found converting a Christian to Judaism by force would be burned alive. ... Congregations for religious services were restricted, but Jews were allowed to enter Jerusalem on one day each year. Constantine also supported conversion efforts in Judaea. He raised Josephus of Tiberias (a Jewish convert to Christianity) the rank of comes and gave him the money to build churches in the largely Jewish towns of Galilee."
Why the history notes? To show the inherent dangers of letting the State (any State) have anything whatsoever to do with religion (any religion). The Founding Fathers knew this; they incorporated it into their blueprints for the new nation; it's repeatedly been ignored, challenged, and battled to this day. They got it right the first time. Let's listen.
Peace and love,
TT
One correction, TT:
"or "Protest-ants" whose "protest" was against HM King Henry starting a new religion just so he could get a divorce"
...I think you'll find that the protestants were protesting the Catholic church, not what ol' Hal was doing - specifically, IIRC, it was Martin Luther taking a stand against indulgences and similar corruption.
"or "Protest-ants" whose "protest" was against HM King Henry starting a new religion just so he could get a divorce"
...I think you'll find that the protestants were protesting the Catholic church, not what ol' Hal was doing - specifically, IIRC, it was Martin Luther taking a stand against indulgences and similar corruption.
PS.. could have sworn I'd commented on this one already.. but as I'm a libertarian-ish sort of bod, I completely agree with what you're saying here :-)
Phil Alexander: Thanks for the reigning in the bull-in this dissertation. (Bolyen? That's terrible! Off with TT's head!) As the research was mostly US-centric, and the post wasn't complete until after sunrise (not having slept yet), just winged it from (sleepy) memory on the Reformation, but of course, you're right. To understand how poorly the history of our immediate predecessors (politically, culturally, and religiously) is taught in US schools, please see
http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/hermanshermits130.shtml
Thanks for v/c, Phil. This parody, to the author's surprise, seems to have inspired more discussion of a much more thoughtful nature than usually occurs at "political parodies" (read, "rants") here.
Now, if only PA and TT could agree on economics :) :) :) Thanks again for vote and erudite comment, Phil.
http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/hermanshermits130.shtml
Thanks for v/c, Phil. This parody, to the author's surprise, seems to have inspired more discussion of a much more thoughtful nature than usually occurs at "political parodies" (read, "rants") here.
Now, if only PA and TT could agree on economics :) :) :) Thanks again for vote and erudite comment, Phil.
First sentence, superfluous "the", should be: "Thanks for reigning in the bull-in this dissertation." ... and, of course, typo on "Boleyn". Oh, these dang flippers -- but they're soooo good for swimming!
When I asked what you meant by not wanting to have religion shoved down your throat, I did not expect an eighteen hundred word response. Thank you for taking my question seriously. We probably agree on most issues related to the freedom of religion, especially since we share a libertarian orientation. But I do want to respond to some of your points.
The Bush Faith-Based Initiatives are wrong for (at least) two reasons. The first problem, as you point out, is the issue of deciding who gets tax dollars. The second problem is that once a religious organization receives tax dollars, it becomes accountable to government regulation, and the second problem is just as serious as the first problem.
The issue of the Pledge of Allegiance brings up the issue of public schools. You consider the P of A to be an example of religion being rammed down your throat. I would argue that the removal of “one nation under God” would be a religious statement in itself. If one phrase affirming our dependence on God is a religious position, then denying our dependence on God is just as religious. Children are required to attend public schools. Theoretically they have options; but, since tax dollars go to public schools, parents who choose to send their kids to non-public schools are paying for two educations. So until we implement a legitimate voucher system or another system that makes it practical for parents to choose their children’s schools, we essentially have mandatory attendance at public schools. We really should have freedom of education. If parents want to send their children to a school that has a secular P of A, they should have that choice. If parents want to send their children to a religious school that uses the existing P of A, that option should be available. The issues of school prayer and curriculum choices also argue for freedom of education.
I am not going to argue with you on the Ten Commandments in government buildings. I think we agree that there should be far fewer government buildings than there are. And the owners and/or tenants of private buildings should be free to choose whatever religious or non-religious artwork they want to decorate the buildings.
I think we differ on our understanding of the founding fathers. From the Declaration of Independence (all men are … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights) to the first act of the first Congress (bringing in a minister to lead Congress in prayer and read four chapters of the Bible), the freedoms that developed and were written into the Bill of Rights were intertwined with the religious beliefs of the founding fathers. I perceive that we are drifting away from their religious orientation, and the departure from the Judeo-Christian tradition is not a good trend. Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.
You are correct that Jesus did not say “Love thy neighbor, unless his religion is different from yours, or he’s an atheist, or gay, or otherwise different from you.” What Jesus did say was “Go, and make disciples of all nations.” (Matthew 28:19) This is known as the Great Commission, and most Christians, including myself, usually err on the side of doing too little to fulfill this commission. But, as a Christian, I believe that acceptance of Jesus Christ as one’s personal lord and savior is necessary for salvation. And it distresses me when I make or another Christian makes a simple attempt to share this belief, and it is interpreted as “shoving our religion down someone’s throat.”
The Bush Faith-Based Initiatives are wrong for (at least) two reasons. The first problem, as you point out, is the issue of deciding who gets tax dollars. The second problem is that once a religious organization receives tax dollars, it becomes accountable to government regulation, and the second problem is just as serious as the first problem.
The issue of the Pledge of Allegiance brings up the issue of public schools. You consider the P of A to be an example of religion being rammed down your throat. I would argue that the removal of “one nation under God” would be a religious statement in itself. If one phrase affirming our dependence on God is a religious position, then denying our dependence on God is just as religious. Children are required to attend public schools. Theoretically they have options; but, since tax dollars go to public schools, parents who choose to send their kids to non-public schools are paying for two educations. So until we implement a legitimate voucher system or another system that makes it practical for parents to choose their children’s schools, we essentially have mandatory attendance at public schools. We really should have freedom of education. If parents want to send their children to a school that has a secular P of A, they should have that choice. If parents want to send their children to a religious school that uses the existing P of A, that option should be available. The issues of school prayer and curriculum choices also argue for freedom of education.
I am not going to argue with you on the Ten Commandments in government buildings. I think we agree that there should be far fewer government buildings than there are. And the owners and/or tenants of private buildings should be free to choose whatever religious or non-religious artwork they want to decorate the buildings.
I think we differ on our understanding of the founding fathers. From the Declaration of Independence (all men are … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights) to the first act of the first Congress (bringing in a minister to lead Congress in prayer and read four chapters of the Bible), the freedoms that developed and were written into the Bill of Rights were intertwined with the religious beliefs of the founding fathers. I perceive that we are drifting away from their religious orientation, and the departure from the Judeo-Christian tradition is not a good trend. Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.
You are correct that Jesus did not say “Love thy neighbor, unless his religion is different from yours, or he’s an atheist, or gay, or otherwise different from you.” What Jesus did say was “Go, and make disciples of all nations.” (Matthew 28:19) This is known as the Great Commission, and most Christians, including myself, usually err on the side of doing too little to fulfill this commission. But, as a Christian, I believe that acceptance of Jesus Christ as one’s personal lord and savior is necessary for salvation. And it distresses me when I make or another Christian makes a simple attempt to share this belief, and it is interpreted as “shoving our religion down someone’s throat.”
John, Thank you for pointing out the second flaw in the Faith Initiatives, and of course, you are right: that is every bit as serious, if not more so.
"The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister". So are you saying that the original version, written by a Baptist minister, was an anti-religious statement denying God by omission? (he asks rhetorically) It was used and considered acceptable by the vast majority for 62 years, until one religious group pressured the Gov into including the phrase in question. Since you've elsewhere expressed approval of my training in formal logic, please permit me the following didacticism: Omission does not imply denial. If I say, "John Jenkins is an excellent parodist", that does not in any way deny that anyone else is, or imply that no one else is, or that TJC is not, etc. Removing the phrase that was added 62 years later is not making a religious statement, it is correcting a wrong that was done to the original by adding a religious statement to it. Leaving the issue out completely, as the original did, indicates that the US Gov is (properly) not taking a stand either way.
You might find it of interest to note the opposite objection: Jehovah's Witnesses, a group whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power *lesser* than God, objected to policies in public schools requiring students to recite the Pledge (to the United States). They objected on the grounds that their rights to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were being violated by such requirements. Interesting, no?
"all men are … are endowed by their Creator" ... Who is very deliberately *not* named. (Ayn Rand has some very interesting discussions of why "rights" are inherent in the concept of human civilization, so that even the concept of evolution supports Man's unalienable rights.)
"the departure from the Judeo-Christian tradition is not a good trend." So all Muslims are inherently evil, not just the extremist criminals? Are you aware of the great advances in science, medicine, etc. made by Persian civilization during the West's Dark and Middle Ages (ages of totalitarian Church rule)? Not just Al-Qaeda and Al-Jazeera, but also Al-gebra, Al-gorithms, and Al-cohol came from that religion. Cf. http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/franksinatra157.shtml, which you described as "enlightening". Are all Eastern religions evil? China was the worlds' technology leader in 1300, sending fleets of 700 ships carrying 400 men each on 16,000-mile voyages to India and Africa and back, and inventing the clock, spaghetti, gunpowder, and a host of other things I'm not going to stay up to research. Then they decided to become xenophobic, as we are becoming, and backslid to a Third-World nation. India made advances in medicine and other areas before Western Europe was anywhere near civilized. I hate to say this to someone whom I respect so much, John, but I find the statement that only the Judeo-Christian tradition (which itself has been marred by many unfortunate negative incidents, which I would rather not start reciting) is "good" or "right", to be ... bigotry.
"The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister". So are you saying that the original version, written by a Baptist minister, was an anti-religious statement denying God by omission? (he asks rhetorically) It was used and considered acceptable by the vast majority for 62 years, until one religious group pressured the Gov into including the phrase in question. Since you've elsewhere expressed approval of my training in formal logic, please permit me the following didacticism: Omission does not imply denial. If I say, "John Jenkins is an excellent parodist", that does not in any way deny that anyone else is, or imply that no one else is, or that TJC is not, etc. Removing the phrase that was added 62 years later is not making a religious statement, it is correcting a wrong that was done to the original by adding a religious statement to it. Leaving the issue out completely, as the original did, indicates that the US Gov is (properly) not taking a stand either way.
You might find it of interest to note the opposite objection: Jehovah's Witnesses, a group whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power *lesser* than God, objected to policies in public schools requiring students to recite the Pledge (to the United States). They objected on the grounds that their rights to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were being violated by such requirements. Interesting, no?
"all men are … are endowed by their Creator" ... Who is very deliberately *not* named. (Ayn Rand has some very interesting discussions of why "rights" are inherent in the concept of human civilization, so that even the concept of evolution supports Man's unalienable rights.)
"the departure from the Judeo-Christian tradition is not a good trend." So all Muslims are inherently evil, not just the extremist criminals? Are you aware of the great advances in science, medicine, etc. made by Persian civilization during the West's Dark and Middle Ages (ages of totalitarian Church rule)? Not just Al-Qaeda and Al-Jazeera, but also Al-gebra, Al-gorithms, and Al-cohol came from that religion. Cf. http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/franksinatra157.shtml, which you described as "enlightening". Are all Eastern religions evil? China was the worlds' technology leader in 1300, sending fleets of 700 ships carrying 400 men each on 16,000-mile voyages to India and Africa and back, and inventing the clock, spaghetti, gunpowder, and a host of other things I'm not going to stay up to research. Then they decided to become xenophobic, as we are becoming, and backslid to a Third-World nation. India made advances in medicine and other areas before Western Europe was anywhere near civilized. I hate to say this to someone whom I respect so much, John, but I find the statement that only the Judeo-Christian tradition (which itself has been marred by many unfortunate negative incidents, which I would rather not start reciting) is "good" or "right", to be ... bigotry.
"Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion." I respectfully disagree. You are saying, in effect, that every US citizen must choose *some* religion. Do you deny rights to agnostics and atheists, and if so, which rights do you deny, and on what grounds? I believe that a non-religious person should be allowed to be free from any Gov or tax-supported mentions of religion. They are not free from the presence of church marquees built on the church's private property but visible from the public streets, but again, that is the church's private property. Coins are US Govt-issued. No atheist needs to be reminded every time they take change out of their pocket that they are despised and hated more than any other group in this country, with few exceptions. They arouse an antipathy that would be considered totally unacceptable against gays, Blacks, Native Americans, etc. Read of the history of the harassment of the leading atheist activist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair. "... in 1964, Life magazine referred to her as "the most hated woman in America." Why? Why is this threatening to people whose faith in their own beliefs is strong? What would Jesus do? He forgave the prostitute and the adulteress. Is a non-prostituting, non-adulterous atheist lower than a whore?
If I may employ an extremely exaggerated analogy for argument's sake, suppose I enjoy viewing pornography and you do not. I strenuously object to your interfering in my First Amendment rights to print and read what I want. But neither would I want pornography displayed on Gov buildings or on its coins. You are sophisticated and intelligent enough to know that I am not equating religion and pornography, but making a point: each person is free to choose, but not to have Gov or tax dollars support their choices or force others to be confronted with them.
"And it distresses me when I make or another Christian makes a simple attempt to share this belief, and it is interpreted as “shoving our religion down someone’s throat.” If your simple attempt is to a willing listener, that is not shoving. If you use tax dollars or Gov facilities, that is. You are free to offer and distribute pamphlets (but not to the point of harassing people who are not interested); post online; stand on a soapbox on your private property or, if you don't interfere with others' use and enjoyment of it, in a public park; have evangelical meetings and invite all comers; etc. But please remember my basic tenet: every tax dollar I pay is taken from me at gunpoint (see the long post), and I don't think Jesus would want His disciples either to threaten heads of nations to convert them, nor to have such heads of nations force their population either to convert or to face the Spanish Inquisition, the ultimate embodiment of the lack of separation of Church and State. It is by tiny steps that such ultimate extremeness is reached. I prefer never to take that first tiny step.
I apologize for my prolixity, a lifelong flaw. Perhaps it comes from having been on the high school debate team, or, more likely, the latter was a result of the former. Thanks for your patience and unusual (these days) attention span. Let us agree to disagree, respectfully, and both be thankful that we still live in a country where we are (mostly) free to express our opinions and disagreements. Much of the world is not so fortunate.
If I may employ an extremely exaggerated analogy for argument's sake, suppose I enjoy viewing pornography and you do not. I strenuously object to your interfering in my First Amendment rights to print and read what I want. But neither would I want pornography displayed on Gov buildings or on its coins. You are sophisticated and intelligent enough to know that I am not equating religion and pornography, but making a point: each person is free to choose, but not to have Gov or tax dollars support their choices or force others to be confronted with them.
"And it distresses me when I make or another Christian makes a simple attempt to share this belief, and it is interpreted as “shoving our religion down someone’s throat.” If your simple attempt is to a willing listener, that is not shoving. If you use tax dollars or Gov facilities, that is. You are free to offer and distribute pamphlets (but not to the point of harassing people who are not interested); post online; stand on a soapbox on your private property or, if you don't interfere with others' use and enjoyment of it, in a public park; have evangelical meetings and invite all comers; etc. But please remember my basic tenet: every tax dollar I pay is taken from me at gunpoint (see the long post), and I don't think Jesus would want His disciples either to threaten heads of nations to convert them, nor to have such heads of nations force their population either to convert or to face the Spanish Inquisition, the ultimate embodiment of the lack of separation of Church and State. It is by tiny steps that such ultimate extremeness is reached. I prefer never to take that first tiny step.
I apologize for my prolixity, a lifelong flaw. Perhaps it comes from having been on the high school debate team, or, more likely, the latter was a result of the former. Thanks for your patience and unusual (these days) attention span. Let us agree to disagree, respectfully, and both be thankful that we still live in a country where we are (mostly) free to express our opinions and disagreements. Much of the world is not so fortunate.
Also known as long winded (prolixity) which I think describes you, but I agree completely with what you just posted. There is a distinct difference with an individual telling me their beliefs, and it being put on government tax documents, our financial papers and laws . . . I mean it's really simple. While personally, the whole "Christmas Tree" has never bothered me-as a non-religious person (or as TT put Agnostic) I can understand why some take it as a slap in my face. Personally I have a bigger problem with the laws being based on Christian morals and standards that I do not practice or believe. . .but I will not go on any long winded explanation as it's Tommy's place to do so, and since I seem to agree with his opinion on the topic anyway. Well written Tommy, though far from what I'd say a 'funny' parody, it certain achieved it's goal and then some. . .
Below Average Dave: Certainly TT writes enough words for all of AIR, and one such person is (more than) enough. If there were two, ChuckyG would run out of disk space :-)
Thanks for self-identifying and making yourself a concrete example of what TT has been discussing in the abstract. A dialogue between John Jenkins and yourself would be interesting (and MUCH shorter LOL!). ... not every parody has to be "funny"; satire as social critique has been an honored art form at least as far back as ancient Rome. Thanks for your read and comment, friend.
btw, one reason TT isn't bothered by the Christmas tree, mistletoe (which bears its fruit right around the winter solstice, near Christmas), the Yuletide log, and other similar "Christmas" traditions is that each of these originated in Scandinavian or Northern European locations and/or pagan religions, and became incorporated into Christmas celebrations by the US's British/Northern European founders and immigrants. "Robert Chambers, in his 1832 'Book of Days' asserts that the festivities of Christmas "originally derived from the Roman Saturnalia, had afterwards been intermingled with the ceremonies observed by the British Druids at the period of winter-solstice, and at a subsequent period became incorporated with the grim mythology of the ancient Saxons. Two popular observances belonging to Christmas are more especially derived from the worship of our pagan ancestors—the hanging up of the mistletoe and the burning of the Yule log."
As Susanna Viljanen points out above, in northern locations, there is little or no sunlight during the winter. LIghting fires (Yule logs) not only defeats the darkness, but to the pagans, helped to coax the Sun back from its winter hiding place ("like attracts like").
None of this has anything to do with a birth that took place in a city that is farther south than Savannah, Georgia; San Diego, California; or Tijuana, Mexico; where temperatures rarely go below freezing; and is subject to hot. dry desert winds.several months each year. Cheers!
Thanks for self-identifying and making yourself a concrete example of what TT has been discussing in the abstract. A dialogue between John Jenkins and yourself would be interesting (and MUCH shorter LOL!). ... not every parody has to be "funny"; satire as social critique has been an honored art form at least as far back as ancient Rome. Thanks for your read and comment, friend.
btw, one reason TT isn't bothered by the Christmas tree, mistletoe (which bears its fruit right around the winter solstice, near Christmas), the Yuletide log, and other similar "Christmas" traditions is that each of these originated in Scandinavian or Northern European locations and/or pagan religions, and became incorporated into Christmas celebrations by the US's British/Northern European founders and immigrants. "Robert Chambers, in his 1832 'Book of Days' asserts that the festivities of Christmas "originally derived from the Roman Saturnalia, had afterwards been intermingled with the ceremonies observed by the British Druids at the period of winter-solstice, and at a subsequent period became incorporated with the grim mythology of the ancient Saxons. Two popular observances belonging to Christmas are more especially derived from the worship of our pagan ancestors—the hanging up of the mistletoe and the burning of the Yule log."
As Susanna Viljanen points out above, in northern locations, there is little or no sunlight during the winter. LIghting fires (Yule logs) not only defeats the darkness, but to the pagans, helped to coax the Sun back from its winter hiding place ("like attracts like").
None of this has anything to do with a birth that took place in a city that is farther south than Savannah, Georgia; San Diego, California; or Tijuana, Mexico; where temperatures rarely go below freezing; and is subject to hot. dry desert winds.several months each year. Cheers!
I've been away from this website for years...I can't believe what I was missing! BRAVO!
Kat, are you "Cat"? If so, you've been missed sorely too -- and still waiting for that package in the mail! (mwahaha!) If not, disregard that... and either way, thanks for v/c :)
Nope, just someone who's been away from the site for ages and ages...I think I'm gonna change my name though, I seem to be have mixed up with someone much more prolific than I ever was....how about WUFPAKGRL?
Kat, sorry for the confusion... yes, Cat was a talented and prolific writer, and haven't seen her here in a long time either. ... Is that "Wolf Pack Girl", or an acronym for sthing (what?) Anyway, welcome back, and thanks for the vote and comment... how did you find this song, or what led ya too it? j/c.
something reminded me of the site, and I was scrolling through the stuff from the past two weeks, and happened upon this (read the first two that inspired it though)
and yes, my name translates to "Wolf Pack Girl" (GO NC STATE!) More distinctive than my nickname, agreed?
WUFPAKGRL: Agreed ... but *please* don't let the Wolf Pack harm the poor li'l Terrapins of the U of Maryland, ok? :-) ... and here's a free pass to TT's song page, to browse the 250+ and see if there might be another that ya like (no charge for special friends!) Click the author name at the top, in case it's been so long ya fergot! lol! xoxo
Not a chance Tommy Boy, my mother went to Duke, I have very little sympathy for turtles
Duke, huh? ... heard they throw some pretty wild parties there... http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/tomjonesthefantasticks0.shtml
... and no problem, no terrapin here, went to a school near nice, warm waters, as of course a turtle would do :) ... and our Hurricanes hit NC regularly! (the spot with the X on it)... did the pig sh*t ever float away? ROFLMMAO! hehe xoxoxox
... and no problem, no terrapin here, went to a school near nice, warm waters, as of course a turtle would do :) ... and our Hurricanes hit NC regularly! (the spot with the X on it)... did the pig sh*t ever float away? ROFLMMAO! hehe xoxoxox
Excuse me, what is this about pig manure?
WILMINGTON, N.C. -- State regulators have fined four large eastern North Carolina hog farms that were targeted by Gov. Mike Easley for waste storage problems.
The owner of three hog farms in Pender and Duplin counties was fined more than $43,000 for a series of environmental violations. Problems with hog farms in North Carolina have received national attention after floods during Hurricane Floyd in 1999 caused waste storage tanks to overflow and leak tons of waste into rivers..... http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcrights/1norcar2.html
The owner of three hog farms in Pender and Duplin counties was fined more than $43,000 for a series of environmental violations. Problems with hog farms in North Carolina have received national attention after floods during Hurricane Floyd in 1999 caused waste storage tanks to overflow and leak tons of waste into rivers..... http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcrights/1norcar2.html
Before my time, not my business, besides, NC State is in Raleigh
WOW!!! you were right about the 3000 + dissertation! :) Part of what you said is why I vote for the man, not the party.And usually don't say anything about the president. As long as they keep their nosy fingers out of my religion, etc. I am suitably awed and would give you all 10's if I could, but 5's.
adagio, special thanks! I know that you are devoutly religious, and it is wonderful that you believe that to be a private matter, not to be interfered with, or even discussed, by Government. John Jenkins also self-identified as devout (Christian), but as you see, we agreed on 95% but got into a small difference. Perhaps you and John could have an interesting discussion some day!
Agree completely with vote the man (or *woman*, harumph -- no sexist, TT, but not for the one who was supposed to be "coronated" in 2008) rather than the party. Thanks for taking the time to read this monster, and for vote and very thoughtful comments. Appreciate the wish to give 10s -- perhaps you could vote 5s twice? (KIDDING!) .. thanks adagio.
Agree completely with vote the man (or *woman*, harumph -- no sexist, TT, but not for the one who was supposed to be "coronated" in 2008) rather than the party. Thanks for taking the time to read this monster, and for vote and very thoughtful comments. Appreciate the wish to give 10s -- perhaps you could vote 5s twice? (KIDDING!) .. thanks adagio.
I don't need complete agreement with my ideas to have a conversation as long as those touchy subjects are taboo by both parties.
A libertarian after my own heart :) Thanks for pointing me to this.
Medemia: Always a pleasure to meet one of like mind! ... and to find that a plug is welcomed, rather than resented. Thanks for reading, voting, and commenting!
I was raised by a Libertarian grandmother, and well understand their old leanings. Have reconnected with a couple of friends, who, to my surprise, are current libertarians. What little they have explained to me, I have enjoyed and agree with. I believe I am becoming a Libertarian quickly. I LOVE political satire and parody because they establish rather accurate context for people who believe they are standing on firm groudn...and then the rug gets pulled out from under them. Excellent job and enjoyable reading it.
Connie Curts: Welcome, and please to meet you! Thank you for the vote and very kind comment. From ancient Rome, satire has been a powerful political weapon ... which reminds me, I have one coming up, probably this Wednesday, and a great idea for another, if I can find time to do it. Thanks for stopping by!
I can sum it all up in a MUCH shorter dissertation: Our country is choking to death on cluelessness AKA 'the death of common sense'.
Meriadoc: Yes, but your version wouldn't make for much of a parody, would it? ;-D
(seriously, thanks for read/comment -- and I agree wholeheartedly. As Voltaire [or was it Mark Twain?] said, "Common sense is quite uncommon.")
(seriously, thanks for read/comment -- and I agree wholeheartedly. As Voltaire [or was it Mark Twain?] said, "Common sense is quite uncommon.")
Garner Ted Armstrong once said the motto should read "In This God (Money) We Trust"
The author of the parody has authorized comments, and wants YOUR feedback.
Link To This Page
The address of this page is: http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/julieandrews121.shtml For help, see the examples of how to link to this page.
This is view # 5027
