We Win, They LoseThe Wit and Wisdom of Three Guys Named Brent, Mark and Mike
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Must read on Same-Sex Marriage
This article on today's NRO, is a must read. Go check it out.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Alive and Well
I had drafted a post regarding my status but Explorer shut down and did not save what I had written. I don't, now, have the time to recreate what I had prepared. Suffice to say that I am alive and well. I have not died, entered a witness protection plan, had a labotomy, or anything else that would prevent me from posting. The truth is I have been extremely busy. We moved twice in one month's time, bought a house, and dealing with all that goes with those things. Furthermore, although living near family is wonderful, I have found that the demands on my time are much greater than they were in the past. What with birthdays, holidays, and other family events to attend blogging has taken a back seat. We also had to wait until we had things back online.
In any event, I am back. Mark has committed me (on threat of death or seriously bodily harm) to get back into the swing of things here at We Win, They Lose. Thus, as my first comment back, go read this article at NRO. Mitt Romney is right on. As for the rest of the Massachussetts Republican Party, they ought to do us a service and stop calling themselves Republicans.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Clinton and Abortion
Kathryn Jean Lopez points out that President Clinton, like many who are pro-choice, doews not understand what Roe v. Wade means -- abortion cannot be prohibited at any time, right up to birth.
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
The Pink Lotus Bathroom
Transvestites now have their own bathroom in Beijing.
I wrote about a similar proposal at UCLA here. I wrote:
Whatever merits a "gender neutral" bathroom might have (and I can't think of a single one), such outrageous proposals do serve a purpose. They establish that the increasingly outrageous freak show that is the activist homosexual rights community in America will eventually collapse under its own weight. Indeed, by affiliating with transgenders (and other "gender identity" advocates), and supporting such things as "gender neutral" bathrooms and purported "sex-change" operations, homosexual activists are cutting their own throats. Allow me to demonstrate why.
Anybody with a brain in their head (including, presumably, even UCLA's finest, Ong and Davis) must admit that no matter how much a person spends on surgery, clothing, or make-up, no matter how much they wish, hope, or pretend, they can never change the fact that they are either male or female. Genetically, at least, they are either a man or a woman.
Sex is an absolute genetic characteristic, and a person can no more change their sex than they can their race. People cannot simply decide what sex they are - they are what they are. For instance, a man could not merely choose to become a woman, and subsequently get pregnant. His decision to become a woman could never affect his genetic framework. In other words, biology, while it may not be "destiny", is reality.
Sexual behavior, on the other hand, is a choice that is within the dominion of each of us as human beings. Every person has the inherent ability to dictate whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. While they may or may not have control over their sexual impulses, they indisputably do have control over their sexual conduct. It is a behavior, not a trait.
In spite of these facts, for far too long, homosexual activists have gotten away with the ridiculous assertion that one's sexual behavior is beyond their control. This argument is patently false. For example, if a person's sexual behavior is beyond their control, how do we justify punishing rapists? They couldn't help it, could they? How about polygamy? Pedophilia? Aren't we all just at the mercy of our sexual desires?
Indeed, the homosexual activists have it exactly backwards. They assert that transgenders, transvestites and those who have undergone "sex-change" operations can choose their sex. At the same time, however, they argue that people cannot choose their sexual behavior. They assert that sexuality is an immutable characteristic, i.e., "I was born this way." How these silly arguments have gained such widespread acceptance in our country underscores the lack of thinking actually done on such matters.
Obviously, if we allow to stand the argument that a person's behavior is beyond their control, civil society cannot last long. What if we were all free to act on every impulse, sexual or otherwise, with no restraints? Clearly, society can, and must, set certain parameters for conduct. Imagine the free-for-all that would result if we did not. Civilization would go right down the toilet.
Which, come to think of it, is exactly where these calls for "gender neutral" restrooms should go - right down the toilet. Along with all the other garbage the homosexual activists have for years been telling us.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
The Right That Dare Not Speak Its Name
Rich Lowry makes an excellent point about the pro-abortion crowd -- why do they refuse to say the word abortion?
The right to abortion is as legally secure as ever, but its advocates have never been so apparently ashamed of the practice itself. If pro-choice advocates believe in the necessity and goodness of their position, one would expect them to say something like, "We support abortion — that's A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N — so women can eliminate unwanted children." Instead, they take refuge in the foggiest corners of obfuscation.
In April, supporters of Roe v. Wade held a rally in Washington in support of the right to abortion. But you would hardly know it. The rally was called the "March for Women's Lives" — well, for the lives of women who aren't very, very young. The word "abortion" was almost verboten among people who support the right to it.
One of the nation's premier defenders of abortion rights is the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. It's a perfectly descriptive name, but the group nonetheless changed it last year to expunge the offending word. It is now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America. It's as if the National Rifle Association changed its name to avoid any association with the word "rifle."
I made a similar point about this use of language several years ago here.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
What a bunch of crap
Check out this story: Toyota runs an internet video ad which shows a person ingesting peyote and hallucinating in an effort to promote its vehicles. When contacted they first state that the character was hallucinating from lack of food and water, then later admit that it "slipped through."
Amazingly, the ad "was subject to a mandatory internal review and approval by both Toyota's Diversity Group and legal staff, according to the spokesman."
"Diversity Group"? Then there is this:
The spokesman said the "more senior people" at the marketer recognized the potential "misunderstanding" of the peyote scenes and had to explain it to the young associates there.
Adrian Si, interactive marketing manager at Scion, said it wasn't the advertiser's intent to tie the hallucinations with the peyote, admitting he understands the film could be interpreted that way.
What a bunch of crap.
Saturday, June 12, 2004
Tear Down This Wall!
From Ronald Reagan's famous speeach, delivered seventeen years ago today:
In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.
And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.
Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
What a stud.
Thou Gracious God, Whose Mercy Lends
This hymn is really good. It was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., the father of the later Supreme Court Justice. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir recently released an excellent recording of it.
Thou gracious God, whose mercy lends
the light of home, the smile of friends,
our gathered flock thine arms enfold
as in the peaceful days of old.
Wilt thou not hear us while we raise
in sweet accord of solemn praise
the voices that have mingled long
in joyous flow of mirth and song?
For all the blessings life has brought,
for all its sorrowing hours have taught,
for all we mourn, for all we keep,
the hands we clasp, the loved that sleep.
The noontide sunshine of the past,
these brief, bright moments fading fast,
the stars that gild our darkening years,
the twilight ray from holier spheres.
We thank thee, Father; let thy grace
our loving circle still embrace,
thy mercy shed its heavenly store,
thy peace be with us evermore.
Monday, June 07, 2004
Outright discrimination and intolerance all rolled into one...
"It is outright discrimination and intolerance all rolled into one," NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said last Friday, reacting to the news that Catholic University has refused to charter an NAACP chapter on campus this year.
Mfume sounds like the Johnnie-Cochrane-like lawyer from Seinfeld. It got even better in the NAACP press release: "This is outright discrimination, bigotry, prejudice and intolerance all rolled into one."
The University cited the NAACP's recent support for abortion rights as one reason for denying the group. Said Mfume: "This is not the nature of democracy as we know it, and this is not the nature of the Catholicism that others and I grew to know and respect.”
That may or may not be true, but why can't an institution preclude groups which support things which are directly opposite to the principles of the institution? How far would Mfume take his argument? Does the Catholic Church have to allow an abortion-rights group access to its church? Does the NAACP have to admit David Duke to membership?
Sunday, June 06, 2004
D-Day. Everyone should know what today is. Twenty years ago, Ronald Reagan gave one of his best speeches honoring the occasion. I have a copy on DVD, it is neat to see the real emotion he felt. One great excerpt from the speech:
Forty summers have passed since [that] battle. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.
The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next.
It was the deep knowledge - and pray God we have not lost it - that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.
You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.
It bears repeating -- "there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest."
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Ronald Reagan was a great man. The way he laughed, the way he carried himself, his outlook and disposition and his sense of humor all remind me of my dad. Today is a sad day.
One image from my childhood has always stuck with me -- it was a picture I saw in a newspaper, and it was Ronald Reagan sitting in a chair, legs crossed so you could see the bottom of one shoe. That shoe had a hole in it, and I believe the caption said something about him running so hard for President that he wore out his shoes. That year, we had a mock election in my fifth grade class in Minnesota -- I was the only kid in my class to vote for Reagan. I didn't know much about him, but I understood he was a good guy. Good thing the nation agreed with me -- four years later, Minnesota was the only state won by Mondale/Ferraro.
Good bye, Mr. President. This Nation owes you a debt of gratitude.