Smarter Than Thou!

CAN JOURNALISM HAVE ETHICS?

Summary: A recent scandal reveals massive defects in the profession.

THERE was a recent news story about a woman reporter, whose name is, I believe, Amy Jacobson. She was covering a story about yet another “missing” wife. Naturally, the husband is suspected of having killed her. Apparently Amy got “too close” to this guy. She was videotaped as being at his home, in a swimsuit. She also had her children with her. I suppose that the “murderer” had invited them over to use his pool. She was criticized for this. Apparently this action goes against the ethics of journalism.

This is all background. She was also criticized for another breach of ethics. She had interviewed the suspect several times. Then she briefed the police as to what he said. This action, also, is considered a breach of ethics.

So let me get this straight. A reporter is allowed, in fact required, to question a person involved in a story. He knows that she is a reporter whose job is to make public what he says. But the reporter can not tell the police… lest justice be done, or the case be solved. The code of journalism allows everyone but the police to know the facts.

And this is ethical? No wonder intelligent people suspect the Media.

Homosexual 'marriage'

Summary: The arguments for a change in the law are all wrong.

LET me summarize the case for single gender marriage. The homos (I would use the word “faggot,” but it is not fashionable to offend the perverts) hold that, because they are not allowed to marry “the one I love,” they then are being discriminated against. Discrimination is wrong, being wrong in se, and thus the laws should be changed.

There are a lot of things wrong with this argument. Let me, as a means of education in the skill of analysis, show you. Pay attention, please, as this could, and should, make you more intelligent.

EVERY law discriminates against someone. This is what laws do. So if laws are good then so is discrimination. Suppose that Tom is a burglar. He is thus not allowed to follow the vocation “which I love.” Yet, Tom points out, with perfectly validity, Sam is allowed to be a dentist, which he loves doing. Thus Sam is allowed to follow his vocational love to its logical conclusion, while Tom is not. How can a just society endure such discrimination? Tom did not choose to fall in love with the act of burglary. He was born this way. He can not help himself regarding his love of stealing the property of others. He should no more be punished for this than a Black man should be punished for his skin color… right?
If the issue is abstracted and reapplied like this, then the stupidity of the “principle” is exposed. Again, every law is intended to punish someone. To make everything equal for every one every law would have to be repealed. As Oscar Wilde (back from the dead) put it, “It is only in a world without standards that equality could be achieved. And in that world equality would be nothing to desire.”
By the way, we always punish people for what they choose to do, and not for their inherited inclinations. Should a homosexual/child molester not act on his inclination then he would be treated as any normal person is. Thus he is not discriminated against, until he does something which the law discriminates against. This tautology applies to all of us, equally so. The law does not discriminate in its discrimination.

Another related aspect in the pro-pervert marriage argument goes like this. Sam, the heterosexual, can fall in love with a woman, and then marry her. Tom, the fag, can fall in love with a man, and is not allowed to marry him/her. Thus Sam has “a right” which Tom does not have. And, as this hurts no one, Tom should be allowed equal rights with Sam… or so the argument goes.
There are two defects here (let’s call them lies), which the fag lobby advances. First, Sam has no right to marry whom he loves. I am totally heterosexual, and I have been in love a number of times, with women. And, trust me, some of them would not have married me, ever. And I could not enforce my “right” to them in court. I would have tried, if I had a case. They did not love me enough, or at all. I had, and have, no “right” to marry a loved one. The fag and I are exactly the same in this situation. I have no right which he lacks.
At times I wish that there had been laws to compel certain women to accept me. But I did not have the influence or the money to bring about the necessary legal changes. No one can force another to love him, or her. So no one has any right to marry anyone else. At best, we can make a case for a ourselves and present it to the other party…. and hope, or pray to St. Anne for her intercession.

The faggots might then argue that their marriages would cause no measurable harm to anyone. Laws should be passed to prevent harm, not to harm people, no? No, this is not true, not totally. Laws are passed, primarily, to identify a collective social morality. Regardless of the stupid cliché to the opposite, all any law can legislate is morality, i.e. what a community approves of.

The concept of a real measurable harm is not a prime factor. To prove this point I offer the following illustration. The law requiring stopping at red lights is universally accepted. Yet, if we were to accept the fag principle of law enactment, the law should read as follows. “The motorist should stop if and only if his actions would cause damage to another. When this is not the case, he my race through the intersection as he pleases.” How could anyone object? When there is no accident there is no harm. Only AFTER accidents would the police be allowed to enforce the law. Why give a guy a ticket simply because he ignores red lights? It is pure discrimination, right? Again, laws are passed to express values. They also serve as a means of seeking official revenge against wrong-doers. Even when damage does not occur the police are allowed to seek out the law breakers.

By the way, I recall that the fags used to argue, endlessly, that they want the “government out of my bedroom.” Now they want official government attention, records and approval of precisely this, namely what they do sexually. They want to be identified, openly, by what they do in their bedrooms. They do not want privacy, as they are effeminate exhibitionists…. except for the women who are too ugly. Did I miss this philosophical sea change from one pole to another? There is an old Catholic principle that sin clouds the intellect. It surely is in action with these “guys.”

P.S. I do offer the following alternative. EVERY time I hear the pro-fag lobby argue for marriage rights, they always say “for two people who want to prove their love by spending the rest of their lives together in a faithful union.” They never argue that they, like normal people, may cheat or divorce. OK, if this is what they want, then let’s give it to them, with real legal force. Let me marry… with this condition. If any of the partners cheat, or divorce, we execute them, immediately. As only the eternally faithful will marry this will be no problem, but will be a “witness to the world” how wonderfully stable these people are, right?

Giving the old master a sausage

Summary:  Once again, contrary to popular belief, which is what he wants, George Bush show that he is probably the most astute politician ever to be president (of the United States)

            THERE is an old “tradition” (?) followed by burglars.  When they enter a home they carry with them a sausage.  This way, if there is a guard dog, then they can bribe him, and thus disarm him.  The thought is that, no matter how faithful the dog is, he will still not be able to resist the gift of the sausage. 

            There is another kind of legend which is popular in Asia.  The young hot-shot Kung-Fu fighter comes to town to test him against the famous, but very old, local master.  The fight is terribly uneven, as the young man inflicts large amounts of punishment on the master.  The old man, in fact, lands only one light blow, on the bicep.  The young man leaves town, completely happy at his total victory.   And then ...

            The next day he notices a very slight bruise where the old man touched him.  The next day the discoloration has spread.  The next day he has a high fever, and can not move his arm.  He realizes that the master has used the delayed death technique, and he is dying.  He returns to the village to seek treatment, and to humble himself before the true victor.      

            What appears to be a defeat may in fact be a victory.

           Some time back, George Bush fired a bunch of federal attorneys.  This is an absolute right which he, as president, has.  However, the actions were handled in, what the media would describe as, a “clumsy way.”  The Attorney General, when asked to explain why the attorneys were fired, apparently, gave conflicting answers.  The Democrats then, like dogs smelling sausages, immediately went to the attack, claiming that the firings were totally political in nature.  Maybe they were.  The conventional explanation was that Bush is too stupid to handle anything correctly. 

            Of course, my explanation makes more sense. 

           What the (other than this one) defenders of the President argued was that he should have said:  “Hey, I did what I was empowered to do, so shut up!”  But, being the apparent goof that he is, he did the exact opposite.  He said,  "I'm not sure; someone else did it; what are you talking about?... give me a moment; I know that I have an answer around here somewhere,"  etc. 

            So what should have been a minor, one-day, news story has now gone on for months.  What a fool Bush is, right?

Wrong.  For during exactly this time, there has been a crisis in the Iraqi situation (which is NOT a "war."  The war part is over, and was won.  Check my archives for proof of this.).  So at exactly the time that Bush needs to give his troops, and his policy, a "breather" (that is to get his political enemies to look somewhere else), he invents a "blunder."  He has invaded the house and has given lots of sausages to the dog.

            As far as the delayed death touch goes, he has done this too.  I plan on explaining this in a future installment. 

            What I am telling you is that every time Attorney General Gonzalez, or Bush himself, changed a story, or got confused, or mis-replied to a question, it was all planned.  They had to appear to be so stupid that they could not do the simplest thing right. Of course, no one is that stupid.   

            I need to correct myself.  The Democrat dogs who took the sausage were.  As Sun-Tzu would have put it: "When you are brilliant, make the dogs think that you are stupid, so that they will accept the sausage, and leave you alone."