Ann Coulter Quote of the Day

"What the arms-control faithful really want is a world without violence -- not a world without weapons. These are the ideological descendants of the authors of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which purported to outlaw war. But we can't have a world without violence, because the world is half male and testosterone causes homicide. A world with violence -- that is to say, with men -- but without weapons is the worst of all possible worlds for women. As the saying goes, God made man and woman; Colonel Colt made them equal." -- Ann Coulter "How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)"

Quote of the day.

"If any other industry were doing as much public harm by producing a similarly substandard product, the press would be screaming for the government to take action." -- Glenn Reynolds of instapundit.com referring to the mainstream media and their anti-Semitic one-sided reporting of the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

Even more Survivor!

I do no not want this blog turned into a Survivor Blog.

But in response to even more absurd handwringing and pants-wetting about the new season of Survivor, I'll add this:

I do not pretend to understand why a racially segregated Survivor is a big deal. This is TV, after all, and anyone who watches Survivor knows that the segregated tribes will only be segregated for the first couple of episodes. After that, you'll see the four tribes become two tribes.

As I stated the other day, Survivor has always been about segregation. Last season the original tribes were segregated by sex and age. In past seasons, we've seen tribes segregated by sex and by popularity.

The idea that a TV show--a GAME show of all things--will set back race relations fifty years is absurd.

Does anyone really believe that only whites will be rooting for the white team and so on?
The answer is no. Most men (black, white, whatever) will be rooting for the team with the hottest women. And from a cursory glance at the CBS website, it looks like that'll be either the white team or the Asian team. Most Americans in my estimation don't care much about race. I could be wrong.

If Survivor shows us anything about race this season, it'll be how racial categories are meaningless. Have you seen the contestants? Not all the black contestants are that black, some of the Hispanic contestants look white to me (yes, I know, the term Hispanic is supposed to denote ethnicity, not race).

The reaction by many to this season of Survivor--which no one has even seen yet--is over-the-top. As I reported in a earlier post, I heard one local radio talk show host call it "just about the most despicable thing he's ever seen". I wonder if he really believes that. It seems in the history of crimes against humnanity, Survivor rates pretty low.

People need to sit back and think about what this really means in the greater scheme of things: Nothing.

Go blacks!

More Survivor plus some Star Trek..

Last night as I drove home from work I listened to a local radio talk show. The hosts were discussing the upcoming season of Survivor in which four racially segregated tribes will square off against one another. The host--in a moment of sheer stupidity--said "it was just about the most despicable thing he's ever heard of".

Moron. Idiot. It a @#$%! TV show, for heavens sake. This is the kind of over-the-top nonsense the media--and in this case--television viewers are engaging in with what should be a non-issue. I might add there is some inconsistency here from folks critical of CBS for this move. Ever watch a television comedy over, say, the last thirty years? Ever notice how many of those half-hour sitcoms are mixed racially?

Not so many, huh?

So I ask what the Hell is the big deal and why is this any different?

----------------------

When I was fifteen, I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation. I became a huge fan of the entire Trek universe from the classic series to The Next Generation and even on up through Voyager and Enterprise. I rarely missed an episode, I worshipped Spock and even recorded over four hundred--four hundred!--episodes of Star Trek.

I was obsessed with it.

I was an idiot. Star Trek is truly an awful concept set up in an awful universe with awful characters and horrendous storylines. With the exception of three or four seasons of Deep Space Nine, Star Trek is completely unwatchable to me now. How could I have been so foolish as to get sucked in to the idiocy that is Trek? Why couldn't I see the destrutive moral relativism and backward socialist values shown on The Next Generation back then? How could I have stomached the anti-capitalism (re: anti-freedom) screed so prevalent on Deep Space Nine? What about the silly techno-babble and pseudo-science? I'm actually nauseated by the fact that I used to love Trek.

Do you know what showed me the light? It wasn't my conversion to conservatism that saved me (I was still in denial even then), it was real science fiction that saved me. It was shows like Lost and Babylon 5 and Firefly and, especially, the new Battlestar Galactica that showed me the light. After watching the first few episodes of Galactica, I suddenly realized how infantile, how juvenile Star Trek really was. I mean, Galactica is real. Not true, mind you, because its obviously a science fiction show. But real in the sense that this is how real people act. This is how real people handle impossible circumstances. This is what people would really be like in the future. Same thing goes for Firefly and Babylon 5. It's no coincidence that Ronald D. Moore, Galactica's producer, created the only watchable trek series in Deep Space Nine. Now free of the ridiculous restraints of the Star Trek universe, Moore has made what is possibly the best science fiction television series ever. His ideas are challenging. He takes on modern issues in a real way, not a superficial, cowardly way like Trek almost always has done.

You want controversial issues handled intelligently? Galactica tackles abortion and comes to the conclusion--surprising for television--that because of humanity's dire circumstances, abortion makes little sense and is thusly outlawed. They're saying, yeah, when things are going great and our society is in no danger of becoming extinct, we can afford liberal silliness. But when the crap hits the can and you're out of toilet paper, only good ol' pragmatic classic conservatism will save the day. Meanwhile Trek's take is stunningly stupid. The crew of the Enterprise finds out that a bunch of colonists have secretly and without permission cloned them (the crew) and what do they do? They simply and stupidly murder the fully grown clones!

That's just one example.

So, to sum up this, uh, rant: Galactica good. Star Trek bad.

Go blacks!

Survivor segregated.

So the new season of CBS's Survivor will have four tribes segregated by race (black, white, Asian and Hispanic). This has caused quite a stir in the internet community.

I'm a Survivor fan, I admit it. I guess you could call it a guilty pleasure of sorts. I've followed the show from the beginning. (Important note: I'm not a reality show fan and I still maintain my boycott of reality shows. Survivor is most certainly not a reality show. It is simply a game show that lasts thirty-nine days).

I'm fine with tribes segregated by race. They always start the season with two to four tribes which are, obviously, segregated. They've segregated tribes by sex, by popularity, by age, by age and sex so why not race? Race relations will hardly be influenced by a popular game show. So those of you who are upset, settle. It's TV and TV is not the real world--err, no pun intended.

Lighten up. Watch and enjoy. Go blacks!

Great article on "world opinion".

Dennis Prager has written an extemely important and timely article which you can read by going to townhall.com.
Prager has a knack for clarifying the differences between the right and the left. In his recent article, he nails why America (and Israel) should not pay attention to "world opinion.

Hurricanes and dikes.

My work computer--which I share with five other employees--has its homepage set to msn.com. One of the flashing haedlines reads: "Grim warning from hurricane chief; megadisaster worse than Katrina will hit U.S. someday".

Why is this a headline? Why is this news? Do the media widely believe that Katrina was the hurricane to end all hurricanes? I guess when you believe that global warming is a serious threat to mankind (yes, I said mankind!), you'll believe anything.

------------------------------

Some conservatives are acting stupid. Many are disillusioned by the Republican party and are threatening to not vote come November. Apparently, they want to send the GOP a message by putting, by default, Nancy Pelosi in as Speaker of the House and Ted Kennedy in as Senate Majority Leader.

How stupid can you get? How childish. "I can't get my way! The Republicans in congress won't give me what I want! Wahhhh!" This foolishness seems to be fairly widespread. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but I don't expect miracles out of our GOP representatives in congress. This is what I expect (and I'm paraphrasing Dennis Prager): I expect the GOP in congress to be a dike (not that kind of dike). I don't expect a dike to give me tax breaks or make me laugh or be my best friend. I simply expect a dike to hold back the sea. I expect a dike to stop the waters from over-running my home, my family, my country. I expect the Republicans in congress to keep the Democrats out of power. Because as much as people cry about the GOP, if the Democrats get into power, the dike will burst and your home, your family, your country will be overrun.

Vote Republican, keep the ocean at bay.