In Need of Prozac
Every once in awhile a reader of leftist bent makes my job a little bit easier by failing to take his prozac and sending me an e-mail in response to a post. Yesterday was just such an occasion:
You are insane. (I am willing to consider that possibility, but not without a book contract - see the Couch the Conservative entries from a few weeks ago).
Have you been popping Oxycontyn with Rush? Reagan bankrupt America and allowed all the nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of rogue psycho states that we are dealing with now. Bankrupt America! Bankrupt I tell you! I remember those days well - the rationing of gasoline, the high unemployment, the high inflation, the malaise. Disastrous!
Here are the list of countries known to have nuclear capabilities: US, UK, France, Russia, Pakistan, India, China, and Israel; North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are suspected to, although Libya has pledged to give up its WMDs due to presence of a kick-ass president. North Korea probably has them, thanks to our friends Carter and Clinton, but probably lack the technology to wipe out anything other than their own launch site, and Iran is clearly trying to get them - but it's not to late for us to nuke them first. North Korea's capabilities are probably due to purchases of old Russian stockpiles, as most likely are Iran's. I would count France among the rogue psycho states that we are dealing with now, but I am pretty sure they didn't get their nukes from Russia.
I liked it better when the Russians had them. During the cold war, you only had to worry about one vodka shooting Russian with his finger on the button. Now we have to worry about millions of angry sandy people who are trying to design a button for the bombs they bought on the black market.
Yes, the only thing we had going for us back then, when we were bankrupt, was the warm comfort of a Cold War. We only had to worry about the Russians, and all of Eastern Europe, and China, and Cuba, and Angola, and Cambodia, and Vietnam, and a good portion of South America - all in the sphere of Soviet influence. Together, those regimes accounted for a mere 100 million killings (which may be 1 out of 9 - see comments below) of their own citizens in the span of a century, but they were hardly a threat compared to a couple of mullahs and a Korean midget. We should have just let the Cold War hang around, so that more arms proliferation would occur before a bankrupt regime (I'm talking USSR now, not America) collapsed and sold off its stockpile to the highest bidder. Instead, Reagan had to go and ruin that security - but wasn't it Gorbachev who ended it? I get so confused talking to liberals.
The only thing we both agree with is Mother Theresa. With the conservative bs you were spewing I was waiting for you to give that whore Ladi Di woman of the century.
Geesh, I am no fan of Ladi Di, but I don't know that I'd call her a whore. And how would she be the choice of a conservative? I don't get this.
Go to Africa, like I did and see the shanti towns with 1 in every 9 people dying of AID's and see if you think the Pope deserves that distinction, or better yet dress up like an alter boy and get banged in the ass by a child molesting priest that the Pope protected. See what you think of him then. You won't be calling him Man of the Century after that, you'll be calling him Pimp John Paull II after that experience.
A logical tour de force, that paragraph! I think I've connected the dots - one in nine people in Africa dressed up like altar boys and got "banged" by a child molesting priest who the Pope was protecting. Therefore, the Pope is responsible for AIDS in Africa. And what is with the "Go to Africa, like I did and see" preface? I spend a whole introductory post in India parodying the moral superiority of the traveler and yet the lesson remains unlearned. Why do I need to go there to see that? Can't I just believe the statistics. And how does one actually see such a statistic. Are all Africans in shanty towns lined up in groups of nine, with the ninth in the line so obviously afflicted with AIDs that the statistic just jumps right out at ya?
posted by Hatcher at 6:04 AM
3 Comments:
See, here's a guy on my side (not that I really want to claim him) who makes some valid criticisms of the Pope, but because he is so crass and insulting, his ideas get lost amid the vitriol. This is exactly what I got on Hatch's case about in regards to his Shiavo comments, although even Hatch was never this big a nutjob (sorry, just can't resist using the term).
As for the writer's criticisms, there are some valid points hidden among the expletives. No one in the world can argue that the Church has handled its sexual abuse scandals around the world very well. Far too often pedophiles have been protected by the church and shipped around from diocese to diocese. I think the Church has finally come around and gotten it right but not before a tremendous amount of damage has been done. If I were a Catholic, I would certainly be upset by the percentage of my Sunday offerings that have gone recently to lawsuit compensation rather than the great things that the Catholic Church does such as parochial schools and Catholic Charities.
The Church's stance on birth control, strongly affirmed by John Paul II, seems out of place in a modern world as well. I would imagine that a huge percentage of the Catholics reading this blog probably agree with me rather than the Pope. Will we see a fifth little Hatch?
The fact that the Church's condemnation of birth control goes so far that the Catholic Church bans the use of condoms even when used primarily as a means to prevent the spread of AIDS appears to be downright foolish. I can understand the writer's anger at this, even if I don't agree with his methods of communicating dissent.
that neocon brainwashing hasn't worn off yet, John. I believe that the truth was found out that indeed Iraq had NO nuclear weapons, but ofcourse we probably saved the world from some lunatic getting his hands on them and gasp using them. Oh yeah, the greatest country in the universe did that 60 years ago. Oh well live and BURN, right?
First, with respect to Anonymous, who said anything about Iraq? I don't get that comment.
Next, with respect to Professor Vic, you are right that the Church handled the priest scandal abominably. No argument there. But the day to day running of different dioceses within a worldwide organization is not the job of the Pope. He is not intended to be a micro-manager - he is a spiritual leader. The blame for that crisis rests squarely on the shoulders of American bishops and priests, not the Pope.
Third, criticizing the Pope's position on birth control is like criticizing a poem for being a lousy novel. His role is to provide spiritual and moral guidance to the adherents of the faith, adherents that are under no legal compulsion to abide by his teachings, and do so when they do so voluntarily. If he has a choice between dispensing advice that he truly feels is important for the life of the soul, is he supposed to abandon that because the modern world thinks otherwise?
He also says that sex should be confined to marriage, which obviously no one in Africa is all too keen to abide by. So why do you think everyone in Africa is wedded to his views on birth control, yet apparently unconcerned with other teachings?
And, as I understand it, men in Africa (who generally have their say in these things) prefer their sex to be extremely dry - a fact not conducive to the use or efficacy of condoms, and one of the primary reasons that AIDs is so comparatively easily spread via heterosexual sex in Africa as compared to here.
Post a Comment
<< Home