Politics and Culture

**update**

People in New Jersey can leave the house now. The culprit has been caught! Is it possible to bring back capital punishment in New Jersey?

(CNN) -- New Jersey authorities are investigating an announcement made over a public address system at a southern New Jersey Wal-Mart telling "all blacks" to leave the store.

Shortly before 5 p.m. Sunday, an unidentified male accessed the public address system at the Turnersville, New Jersey, Wal-Mart Supercenter Store, Gloucester County prosecutors said.

"All blacks need to leave the store," the voice announced.

Store management contacted the Washington Township Police Department, which opened an investigation in conjunction with the county prosecutor's office, Deputy Police Chief John Dalesandro said.

"The incident is being investigated by both law enforcement agencies as a suspected bias intimidation crime," local authorities said.

Wal-Mart corporate spokesman Lorenzo Lopez said the company is "just as appalled by this as anyone."

He emphasized that Wal-Mart, the world's largest public corporation, is working with law enforcement officials in investigating the incident.

"Whoever did this is wrong and acted in an inappropriate manner," Lopez said. "Clearly this is unacceptable."

Let me get this strait: A guy gets on the Walmart PA and says something about blacks and we need an investigation? It goes to show you that people need to stamp out blasphemy, provided it's directed against something they care about.

The commercial with Tebow will probably make the case that women should choose life because abortion cuts off an enwombed baby's potential. This is an oblique argument, the type made when no consensus exists on the morality of the act itself due to a disagreement over which if any moral authority has provenance over the action, and the parties, as a result, resort to common, often practical arguments.

Other oblique arguments are that torture is wrong because it recruits terrorists, homosexual adoption because it leads to worse grades; that vivisection isn't effective, cutting carbon emmissions will lead to green jobs, and legalizing marijuana will enable us to make stronger rope. I can cite others of varying degrees of sincerity and/or validity.

Not every child will grow up to be a football star and many parents wouldn't care anyways. It would still be wrong to abort even a sickly baby likely to struggle to a 6-second 40 and with an innacurate arm because unborn babies have souls and are innocent, making their killing unjust.

Saying that aborting a baby is murder probably wouldn't go over well with about 45% of the nation because they don't agree with it and another 45% because the Super Bowl should be a match between the AFC and NFC, not the sides in our culture wars. That's my oblique argument against CBS showing it.

**update**

As California judges decide the same-sex marriage issue based on who tells the weepiest story; it's important to realize that when traditionalists say that making marriage a financial extension of an emotion will harm it, they're right. Conservatives are always right on social issues: from abortion to Rock music to crime to sex education: everything they've predicted has come to pass (yes, we all like Rock and there may be countervailing goods for some stuff. More on this later).

I previously noticed that blurring the line between the sexes and types of sex ("skin is skin," somebody told me) will lead to more bisexual behavior. I saw this statement by Katy Perry:

“I have a soft spot for women--I’m not afraid of it. Some women walk into the room, and they’re so beautiful and you’re like, I wanna smell you,’ you know? I have certain girlfriends who I just think are the most angelic, beautiful creatures. And if any of my boyfriends ever fail me, I’ll turn to them!”

You might not care or think it's a good idea, but you can't deny that many predicted this state of affairs.

In case you're not aware of the significance of the statement, it's the difference between sexuality being to one degree or another, a malleable, chosen behavior and one that's fixed, impervious to any policy or societal attitude.

The latter must be true in order for homosexuality to be somewhat analogous to race.

**update**

This report shows that human sexuality isn't merely a matter of biology; culture has a lot to do with it, unless you're saying that Afghan men consume large quantities of soy milk.

An unclassified study from a military research unit in southern Afghanistan details how homosexual behavior is unusually common among men in the large ethnic group known as Pashtuns -- though they seem to be in complete denial about it.

The study, obtained by Fox News, found that Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually -- yet they completely reject the label of "homosexual." The research was conducted as part of a longstanding effort to better understand Afghan culture and improve Western interaction with the local people.

The research unit, which was attached to a Marine battalion in southern Afghanistan, acknowledged that the behavior of some Afghan men has left Western forces "frequently confused."

The report details the bizarre interactions a U.S. Army medic and her colleagues had with Afghan men in the southern province of Kandahar.

In one instance, a group of local male interpreters had contracted gonorrhea anally but refused to believe they could have contracted it sexually -- "because they were not homosexuals."

Apparently, according to the report, Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot "love" another man -- but that doesn't mean they can't use men for "sexual gratification."

The group of interpreters who had contracted gonorrhea joked in the camp that they actually got the disease by "mixing green and black tea." But since they refused to heed the medics' warnings, many of them re-contracted the disease after receiving treatment.

The U.S. army medic also told members of the research unit that she and her colleagues had to explain to a local man how to get his wife pregnant.

The report said: "When it was explained to him what was necessary, he reacted with disgust and asked, 'How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong.'" ...

...The report also detailed a disturbing practice in which older "men of status" keep young boys on hand for sexual relationships. One of the country's favorite sayings, the report said, is "women are for children, boys are for pleasure."

The report concluded that the widespread homosexual behavior stems from several factors, including the "severe segregation" of women in the society and the "prohibitive" cost of marriage.

Though U.S. troops are commonly taught in training for Afghanistan that the "effeminate characteristics" of Pashtun men are "normal" and not an indicator of homosexuality, the report said U.S. forces should not "dismiss" the unique version of homosexuality that is actually practiced in the region "out of desire to avoid western discomfort."

Of course, pedophilia was common before Christianity.

Here's a video of Paulina Rubio's "Y Yo Sigo Aqui." I like the song. You can see that Latino culture isn't immune to the new "skin is skin" paradigm.

Bill O'Reilly asked this question a couple of years back and answered it in the affirmative. This prompted a reaction amongst Christmas War denialists. Let's see:

Who does it hurt to celebrate Christmas?

I grew up in Pico Rivera which is an over 90% Mexican-American, Democratic community. My parents were Cuban and conservative. Whenever they'd have Mexican cultural events in school or at city hall, I'd grumble a little about how it was unfair that they didn't have Cuban things or why we had celebrate Mexican holidays in the United States. If I wasn't busy reading books on fighter pilots or watching Six Million Dollar Man, I'm sure I would have contacted whoever cared about this stuff at the time.

So, I know how it feels to be left out of the festivities. Yet, I don't sympathize with those who wish to shut down Christmas celebrations. It's childish (I was a child in school) to deprive the majority of their festivities unless those celebrations are truly harmful or coercive; and, attending a concert or looking at a Christmas tree is dumbing-down coercion and harm to meaninglessness.

Not only doesn't Christmas cause any actual financial or emotional harms, it's totally illogical to de-Christianize Christmas. We have a holiday on Christmas. Kids are out of school. The government shuts down. Mind you, the only reason we have it is to celebrate the birth of Christ, yet no public institution can mention this fact. It reminds me of the profound stupidity of B.C.E. and other Christophobic initiatives.

To the credit of his logic, if not his wisdom, at least one man sees this contradiction.

Nor is it unconstitutional, necessarily. Christmas celebrations were constitutional for 200 years. Are our judges much wiser than those of the past? The first amendment needn't be interpreted in any other way than that the federal government can't establish a religion, like England had done. That judges say it means the dis-allowance of any religiously-tinged material in school assemblies only reflects the feelings of the judges. Different judges, different results.

Is there a war?

Yes. Just like I complain about publicly-supported political messages that don't agree with me (here and here and here), people who don't want to see Christianity propagated will do what they can to stop Christmas celebrations. They can't do anything about people's homes or radio stations playing music; they can't win at the ballot box, but they can use the legal system.

Not evil, just what they think is best.

I imagine that some Christians want to advance Christianity through public celebrations.

Not evil, just what they think is best for society.

Therefore, we shouldn't pretend it's not a kind of war.

Consolation for Christians.

Christ must be pretty powerful to create such opposition from his enemies.

(In fact, leftists have always known that the greatest threat to the imposition of their initiatives is Christianity. Get rid of Christianity and open the left floodgates. Non-liberals who hate Christmas are either extreme Libertarians or grumpy old guys.)

Action?

Cities and schools are notoriously unprincipled and cowardly. They will travel the path of least resistance. Unless parents complain, schools won't react. Even if school boards get pressure from parents, they may not react because they fear legal costs more.

Stores care about money. It's a mere financial calculation: "will I lose more money by saying 'Merry Christmas' or 'Happy Holidays?'" This is not evil. I completely understand stores not wanting to alienate part of their clientele.

If you wish to preserve Christmas and while we still have a choice of stores, you might want to redirect some of your money towards pro-Christmas stores.

Look what supporters of the Martin Luther King holiday did to Arizona.

Therefore, I don't blame anybody for the diminution of Christmas except Christians or the lack thereof.

Personal Policy

I don't wish people a Merry Christmas unless I know that they're Christians: It's a greeting to be used amongst the faithful. If I know that people are Jewish, I say, "Happy Hanukkah." I don't say "Happy Holidays," as that's just dumb, as is mentioning anything having to do with Christophobia, like solstice worship. I admit that my activism is very minimal. I don't drive tens of miles to spend considerably more on products. I do try to support those things that have to do with Christmas.

Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukkah!

Six Million Dollar Man: The Secret of Bigfoot Pass by Mike Jahn

Great American Fighter Pilots of World War II (Landmark Books, 96) by Robert D Loomis

Today:

According to reports, Tiger Woods' prenup would have guaranteed Elin $20 million after 10 years of marriage. But she could get a $5 million payout instantly.

I guess flowers won't work this time. I see marriage going in this direction, transforming into a mere business transaction, once we toss all of the religious/cultural baggage overboard.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. The combination of no-fault divorce and community property/alimony is untenable: It should be one or the other. Imagine a guy or girl getting married, working hard for the other spouse, and then their spouse deciding to split.

Pre-nups are one response.

1. Obama said that the Fort Hood massacre is "incomprehensible." Let me help him: The killer thought that the God in which he believes would like that he murder those who, according to him this time, are harming Muslims. At least that's what he said. Understand?

2. I added on my Fort Hood post that it's true that if a person murders (unjust killing) for his religion, he's a religious fanatic. It follows, however, that a person who kills for material things, like money, is a materialist fanatic. The Orlando killer, Jason Rodriguez, is a materialist nut.

3. Brookstone should be able to fire people who don't agree with a strongly-held corporate belief. It's their money. I also think that corporations can make people speak politely or with a certain accent, have appropriate hair styles, not dress like the opposite sex, and pretty much anything else. It's their money.

4. And, why isn't the boss wrong for creating a hostile work environment for Christians?

5. Some people without strong feelings on gay marriage might be swayed against it by the sense that stating a negative opinion about homosexuality might get them in trouble and that allowing same-sex marriage would make it downright forbidden. Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage has said that the Carrie Prejean incident helped their cause. The pro-traditional-marriage-only side in the Maine vote used the case of a counselor who got in trouble for expressing an anti-same-sex marriage opinion as an example of what can happen to dissenters if gay marriage were allowed. The anti-Mormon demonstrations reinforced the idea that pro-same-sex marriage types will not tolerate dissent once they gain the power to impose their view of the world onto everybody else.

6. Man, I wish I didn't have to talk about this stuff.

Jane Velez Mitchell on CNN, interviewing Larry Whitten, Marine and small business owner:

Larry Sanchez replies:

My last name is gē[r]ădō with a rather difficult rolling of the "r." First, I think it would sound ridiculous to say my name the way abuelo did, in the middle of a torrent of Anglicisms: "Good evening. Welcome to the first annual gē[r]ădō turkey shoot and barbacoa." Second, I'd be held liable for the mouth damage caused by inflicting the correct pronunciation (not to mention the inconvenience of driving them to the hospital) on unsuspecting Anglos.

Anglicizing Spanish names to people whose primary language isn't Spanish and who speak English is a very considerate thing to do: It's easier for them to understand and lets people off the hook for pronouncing it.

So, why is Jane Velez Mitchell so angry (I wonder if she tortures the Mitchells this way)? Well, she's a liberal (left-type). Liberals are often very angry because their philosophy is based on Marx. Marx thought of history as forces in opposition, a "dialectic" that spurs progress until the forces are equal, at which time history ends.

The result of this thinking is that progressives are always on the lookout for offense, lest their side give power away to the enemy. Originally, it was economics. Eventually, the race-conscious and feminists began using this model.

Now, Ms. Velez-Mitchell might be too stupid to realize this, but that doesn't mean that Marxism didn't influence her.

Ms. V-M thinking:

"A white man is forcing a brown man to do something. The brown man should resist or the white man, sensing advantage, will press the brown man until he enslaves us- either physically or psychologically."

Now, would anybody care, complain were Americans working in Mexico forced to say "esmith"?

Other dumminess:

It's lost on Ms. V-M that he just asked those who worked on the phone to Anglicize their names. In other words, those for whom changing the pronunciation of their names would help people be more comfortable. I assume that Spanish-speaking customers would still be able to hear the sound of Martin's name in a glorious Mexican accent.

New Mexico (why doesn't she pronounce it [nuevo mehicō]?) was part of Mexico and...what?

The names of all of those cities are religious ("the angels," "Saint Francis," "the sacrament"). What does that mean?