Monday, November 07, 2005
Conversations with Rednecks
Less than a week and I'll be in China. Lots to do, lots to do. If possible I'll try to update my blog a couple of times while I'm over there, possibly by email.
I finally finished my move this weekend and handed over the keys of my old apartment to office management. I have hardly unpacked in my new digs and likely this will wait until I get back from China.
My health feels good. In truth other than a small cough before, I never really felt bad. My cough is essentially gone. By this I mean I cough no more (and probably less) than my friends and coworkers around me. What is a normal amount of coughing? Are 3 or 4 small coughs a day a normal amount? If and when I cough today it doesn't leave a tickling sensation in my chest that lets me know another cough is just waiting a little way away. Today if and when I cough my first thought is is that a normal cough, or a cancer cough? I then put it out of my mind until hours latter and perhaps another small random cough. Add to this that it is the tail end of hay fever season and I have no idea what should be normal for me anymore, now that I'm diagnosed with allergy triggered asthma (at a minimum). It is hard to say what odds a bookie would place on me having or not having lung cancer, but I really do feel fine and am most inclined to believe what my surgeon believes, which is that the spot on my CAT-Scan and PET-scan is just a run of the mill granuloma and will be no big deal. I know it is possible to be sick and feel well, but I think it is far from the norm, most people chose to overlook symptoms when they are ill and ascribe them to other benign causes, while I truly am in the bloom of health in all ways I can perceive. Despite what the machines say (in a non-definitive statistical way) I think it will turn out I do not have cancer, and am happy for the two week delay my trip to China and marriage to Nian is providing, as I think it will allow more time for my body to put itself back to right, and leave no ambiguity that I am cancer free when they do the biopsy, my previous apartment being the largest source of irritant my lungs complained about (see previous posts).
I always mean to blog more than I do, but with big events looming I hate to detract with trivialities. Once back from China and married to Nain, and once finally done with this diagnosis treadmill I've been on with doctors, perhaps I can just post small daily thoughts and happenings. I also need to clean up my other web projects (like my bio page which is very out of date).
The other day I did a little random blog surfing and stumbled into a blog that seemed to advocate doing violence to ACLU lawyers. I will not link directly to this site, but it is info4beer.blogspot.com if you chose to type in the address (the Sunday, October 30, 2005 post). I see this man as an enabler for violence, but worry that raising his visibility might make me an enabler also. I will repost the entire post and discussion to date, but deactivate the link I find so offensive in his post. You will find I was outnumbered two to one by supporters for info4beer's stance. I'm curious about my own readers' take on these issues and plan a possible follow up post outlining my generally centrist views, probably leaning right on foreign policy and left on domestic -- but this all makes for one hell of long post already, so we will leave the possible follow up contingent on if people leave comments here about my discussion with info4beer, or express an interest in what my political views actually are.
 | Go get'm Rusty! Go find that ACLU Lawyer Son-Uma-Bitch... [No this isn't on Info4Beer's website, just kidding] |
ORIGINAL POST by Info4Beer
Locater Service for ACLU Lawyers
New technology has been developed that can locate an ACLU lawyer anywhere in the country. Now decent ethical folks can identify this incredulous scum of the public sector. The need to identify friends and supporters of this country's sexual predators and child rapists has led to this online ACLU lawyer locater.
With this link [Deactivated by DumbSwede. Go to info4beer.blogspot.com if you must] you can enter your address or another decent human beings address, and the website will identify all the dishonorable and immoral ACLU lawyers in your area. The site actually shows their exact location and the distance from your home, as well as the distance from the schools in your area. The site also color codes the ACLU's lawyers preference. For example, if the layers is fond of child molesters it will code the location yellow, or if these Fonda Savants prefer the everyday rapist it will color code their location with a red box.
You will note that the site gives their (the scumbags) exact address and the distance from your home. It also provides a picture of the child molester?since the ACLU lawyers have no soul or ethical character they cannot be photographed, a picture of the child rapist is provided instead. Just as good, if you find a child rapist, there is always an ACLU lawyer nearby to help them continue to rape and molest our children thru the court system.
5 comments (yours truly the first under my pseudonym DumbSwede)
dumbswede
dumbswede said...
I am not an ACLU member, but I have had friends that are. I don't applaud all of their causes, though I suspect the few I don't are just the tip of an iceberg of cases they champion, those being the ones brought to the attention of the public by news organizations like FOX.
I am both a Marine Corps veteran and a FOX news watcher, so don't presume to cast me in a left wing leaning mold.
I find it fine and productive to criticize individual cases brought by the ACLU, but your posts over and over suggest the ACLU is completely without merit. Central to this thesis is that the ACLU champion's immoral behavior -- behaviors that I might in the round agree with you on as being contemptible. However law isn't about morality it is about the law. As long as a behavior doesn't harm someone else, in general it is not to be legislated against.
Often times the ACLU ventures into murky territory defending this basic assumption, defending NAMBLA members comes to mind. Where does speech become encouragement to illegal behavior? Repulsive as NAMBLA's views are they are entitled to have them as long as they don't act on them.
Unfortunately you have now crossed into this murky territory of enablers like NAMBLA and abortion clinic bombing encouragers by suggesting and enabling people to easily seek out the address of lawyers associated with the ACLU. It is a standing joke in our society that lawyers are greedy and corrupt, everyone hates lawyers until they need one of course. Your most recent post seems like nothing more than a thinly veiled call to arms to do violence on ACLU lawyers -- how moral of you.
Sun Oct 30, 02:22:30 PM
info4beer
info4beer said...
Appealing to what, with your mellow rant? It is of no use, without merit; the mere fact that you [dumbswede] can justify the ACLU and their support of destroying the family is incredulous. Constitutional protection is irrelevant, to support child rapist, child pornography, and the legalization of drugs for our youths' use is a moral and ethical dilemma, no a crisis. These ACLU folks have not produced a single important fight for the majority and protection of family or society. Decent folks don't want child molesters afforded special protection by the ACLU.
Please read: A Military Officer is any person in the armed services who holds a position of authority or command; "an officer is responsible for the lives of his men." An awesome responsibility, yet these gentlemen mingle with civilians and behave accordingly, to society's expectation of moral and ethical conduct. -- How could a Veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces such as yourself associate with individuals who have no character or belief in the importance of family?
After reviewing your blogs I think I have you have you figured out. You are a truly lonely, probably wear pretty pink panties at home, love yourself more than anyone else, and have surrounded yourself with people lacking moral compass. It is a shame that you haven't maintained the lessons you learned in the marine corp., to fight for what is truly right, not to justify the rapture of young innocence because it is technically a protected form of speech.
I have spent a majority of my college and the years following focusing on ethics and morality, I would venture to say I am an expert. I get it, you don’t. Ron Mac Daddy Reagan stated "If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
NAMBLA's views are repulsive; NAMBLA's views do not meet the criteria of entitlement. You need to rethink your position, it is not a political position, it is a human position. I would most certainly support the Scarlet Letter to physically brand all child rapist and child molesters on the forehead with CR or CM respectively. Society could then protect themselves from these incurables. I would also support the same branding for the ACLU lawyers that help these people to continue assaulting our children; they should be branded with a CRL or CML so decent folks can treat them accordingly.
Thu Nov 03, 01:33:06 AM
DumbSwede
DumbSwede said...
Wow, I must have struck a nerve. Do you mind if I link to our discussion from my blog? I never claimed to have high moral standards for myself, just pointing out the hypocrisy of your own stand which by any reasonable standard can be interpreted as advocating violence against people engaging in their First Amendment right to free speech. This in my estimation makes you not much better than those you hold in such contempt.
I am curious about this sentence "NAMBLA's views do not meet the criteria of entitlement." Meaning they are not entitled to their views? I guess I should state for the record again, that I detest NAMBLA. If I may quote Voltaire however with regard to NAMBLA (and to your posts as well) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Of course this does not keep me from speaking out against you both. A view that the ACLU is evil is a view you are entitled to. Enabling people to easily seek out ACLU members and lawyers and do them violence is not a view, it is an action. All views are tolerable, not all actions are.
I'm guessing you feel some glow of moral superiority that comes from living a righteous Christian life, so all the more ironic I find your seeming advocacy of violence (and this is my one and only true complaint with your post). The suicide bombers that currently wreak so much havoc in the world are convinced of their morality, and if given the power they would impose their moral standards on everyone in the world. I see you feel and mistakenly think you know in your heart what is perfectly right and moral and that justice should be meted out in this world by you and your absolute knowledge of what is right and wrong. Thank GOD in America zealots like you don't administer justice and law.
Your attempts to insult me in a personal vane only strengthen my impression that your precious morality is really just a veneer for wanting to feel superior to others. I'm guessing your are for the death penalty and for speeding up the process (hell, you’re probably for cutting peoples hands off for stealing). So a few innocent people get killed, small prices to pay for the satisfaction of seeing some perverts get fried, same with ACLU lawyers. I'm sure they haven't all worked on defending rapists, but if someone who does pro bono work for charities and whistle blowers gets whacked -- well there are always more lawyers right? I mean we really should put the fear of God in those Lawyer bastards, so they never ever dare defend the wrong kind of person. Hmmm, it wasn't that long ago being black or Jewish was being the wrong kind of person and the ACLU was on their side. Just curious what is the full list of the wrong kind of people to defend -- anyone non-Christian? Being an agnostic, that would put me on the list. How about homosexuals? I'm not one, but I think they should have the right to get married. I really don't see how that endangers heterosexual marriages or families. Someone that marries across race lines, should they be on the wrong-kind-of-person list? You seem like the kind of person that miscegenation wouldn't sit well with.
Has the ACLU always been a den of serpents or is this a recent development? Then again maybe you pine away for those superior days of morality when blacks could be lynched for speaking to white women and a woman should know her place was in the home. Today the intolerance of our grandfathers across lines of race and gender seems incompressible (well, maybe not to you). 50 years from now our intolerance will seem equally incomprehensible to those who follow.
Sun Nov 06, 06:53:46 AM
nadom101 said...
Dumbswede must be one of those immoral ACLU lawyers or one of their buddies. He had written a lot or words that have no meaning whatso ever. Therefor the correct name dumb
Sun Nov 06, 04:42:41 PM
Daniel Levesque
Daniel Levesque said...
And to think the ACLU suports and defends the pieces of crap. ACLU-against religion and for child molestors and rapists. Un-freaking-believeable.
www.ravingconservative.com
Sun Nov 06, 06:35:17 PM
