Saturday, August 30, 2008

A quick note to my readers

I am still alive, but barely. I have a very vicious cold that literally swooped upon me in Olin Library yesterday while translating The Alcibiades I. One second I was perfectly well, and the next second I was sneezing snot all over my Smyth Grammar and my throat suddenly felt as if someone had jammed asbestos down it. I made a point of ignoring Obama's acceptance speech the previous evening. I wonder if this is supernatural payback for not heeding the New Sermon on the Mount.

By the way, readers should know that this cold is so bad that I might as well be radioactive. One may even get sick just by reading this. After all, I am an apostate who has defied the Messiah. I am a contaminant. I should be burned at the stake.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

A subscriber of mine asks...

Is education the best way to fight crime? The short answer is no. The idea that education will make people respect reason and the rule of law was refuted for all time when the best educated people of the twentieth century voted Nazi thugs into power in 1933. Next question.

Friday, August 22, 2008

Thou shalt not take the Lord's Name in vain

So, what happens now? Will the Catholic Church also bring back the tradition of the stoning penalty for those who dare utter the Tetragrammaton? All I said was that this halibut was good enough for Jehovah. That's all I said.

Oh, I suppose this is a good ruling. Now, I do not have to feel guilty ever again for saying, say,"Goddamn" or the like because God is not God's name. So, I am not taking it in vain. However, if I sing some very sappy St. Louis Jesuit hymn that sounds like a jingle for tampons, I am committing monstrous blasphemy. Well, I already knew that.

Well, goody, the Catholic Church is going to let us cuss with impunity. That's the (very) least she can do after bullshit like this. Some days I really don't like being Catholic. Today is one of them.

Goddamnit!

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

"if you don't vote, you can't bitch"

Yeah, well I am not gonna vote in the presidential election. What's the point? I live in Southern Illinois, and Paris Hilton will become a nun before Illinois goes for McCain. Besides it's a law in Illinois that Chicagoans get to vote twice, and we hicks drinking their toilet water get just the same rights as the Chicago dead. We get to vote only once. So, what is the fucking point?

Besides, I do not like either candidate. As I have written before, I cannot vote for Obama because he is a pro-abort wacko. But he opposed the Iraq war, and I am a big anti-war peacenik. So, why can't I just hold my nose on the abortion issue and cast a vote for peace in our time? Well, abortion is not just any issue. Legalized abortion is nothing more than the legalizing of the principle that the weak and powerless have no rights against the strong. I just cannot ignore this for if I did, I would lose my reason for opposing our insane foreign policy which operates upon the very same principle as legalized abortion. There is no difference in kind between killing helpless babies in the womb and bombing defenseless countries. Both are the tyranny of the strong over the weak.

As I have written before, Obama is not a true anti-war candidate. True, he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, but he did not oppose the principle that underpins that war, namely the Doctrine of Preventive War. No, he has repeatedly embraced that principle. He opposed the Iraq War merely because he deems it to be a stupid application of this principle, but with the principle itself, the right to bomb the bejeebers out of anyone that gives us bad vibes, he has no problems at all.

Also, for a man who says he opposed the Iraq War, he sure liked to vote to fund it. He voted against war-funding just one single time, and McCain is, as is well known, all but calling him a traitor for having done so. Anyone that Imperialist Pig calls a traitor should be a friend of mine, but not in this case. Hearing McCain speak, one would think that Obama defiantly cast his vote against war-funding in a tie-dye shirt while having a love-in with Cindy Sheehan. Well, no. Obama is hardly that brave or outrageous. The vote McCain refers to happened in February of last year, and Obama made his no known only after the Dems had already passed every fucking thing which bloodthirsty warmongers like Bush and McCain wanted. Obama cast his vote when it no longer mattered. It was as meaningful as a Deadhead Sticker on a Cadillac.

And, of course, Obama wants to rev up our war in Afghanistan, the so-called "Good War" against the evil Taliban who harbored that evil UBL (piss and feces be upon him!). Yeah, well, to fight the Taliban we've had to ally ourselves with the Warlords of the Northern Alliance, drug kingpins who love to bugger and rape little boys and girls. As bad and oppressive as the rule under the Taliban was and in many places still is, it's a Darwinian state of nature under the Warlords. Good War, my pasty white ass! Oh, by the way, the Taliban were prepared to give us UBL if we could show them hard evidence linking him with 9/11. We couldn't, and we still can't.

McCain has always been off the table for me, of course. As I will never tire of saying, he is an Imperialist Pig. He gets his jollies joking about bombing countries with millions of people. This is just sick. McCain is a very sick and demented fuck. He belongs in a rubber room and not in the White House with his senile, doddering hand on the button. Fine, he wants to overturn Roe. Like that will matter diddley shit in the wake of, say, global nuclear anniihilation. What single issue voters just can't get through their thick skulls is that something like global nuclear annihilation renders the right to life null and void, even for the unborn. Yes, I do believe McCain is at least sufficiently insane to trigger an apocalypse.

I have noticed that some pro-lifers have started comparing Obama to Hitler because of the former's pro-abortion stance. This is now a cliche of the pro-life movement: likening legalized abortion to the holocaust. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Fine. I would simply like to point out that Obama at least has not expressed his admiration for a guy full-square behind the eugenic project to rid society of "degenerates" and "morons" and thereby make the world safe for a Master Race. McCain has.

John McCain has said that he is a conservative in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt. Big shocker there. Imperialist pigs admire themselves, but TR was not just an Imperialist Pig. He was also a rabid fan of the American Eugenics Movement. This Movement led to laws that mandated the forced sterilization of those deemed "degenerate" and "moronic". It was the precursor to what happened under Hitler, and, in fact, the influence of American Eugenics upon brutal Nazi science is documented in the minutes of the Nuremberg Trials. TR was an enthusiastic proto-Nazi monster, and it is the putatively pro-life McCain who claims to be of this man's stock. I thought pro-lifers were supposed to denounce eugenics. Go figure.

The choice before me for president is a sick, vile farce, and so I am not going to bother to vote. Many people like to tell me, thinking a slogan passes for a persuasive argument, that if "you don't vote, you can't bitch". Excuse me, but nowhere in the First Amendment do I read that my right of free speech will be abridged or taken away if I do not vote. Geez, the Iraq War was supposed to be about defending our freedoms, but thus far they have been the freedom to detain and torture, the freedom to give no-bid contracts to venal political cronies, the freedom to spy and wiretap, etc, (and the trains and buses aren't even running on time). If we're going to cause all this mayhem for the sake of freedoms, I would like there to be at least one freedom that a poor, unconnected schlub like me can exercise and enjoy, and that is my inalienable and unconditional freedom to bitch whenever I damn well feel like it. Got that? I hope so.

Monday, August 18, 2008

By the way... (a post strictly for Prots)

Last Friday was the Feast of the Assumption, the day that Catholics (well, Catholics who remember their Catechism, at least) celebrate the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven. It is a very important teaching because it shows that heaven is not just for souls but for the body as well and thereby gives the body transcendent value in contradistinction to the old, hoary gnostic heresy which regards the body as indifferent at best and evil as worst.

Protestants, of course, decry the doctrine of the Assumption as utter heresy. They say it is heretical because there is no Biblical Warrant for it. Well, there is no Biblical Warrant for making tax cuts the centerpiece of a Christian Political Agenda, but that does not seem to bother the Evangelicals in the so-called Christian Coalition.

Besides, there is indeed Biblical warrant for the Assumption. It is recorded in the Book of Revelations that John sees the Covenant in heaven inside the Ark. It cannot be the Old Covenant. That's the Law, and Protestants never miss an opportunity to tell us works-obsessed Catholics that the Law is just an earthy thing, it cannot take us to heaven. So, if the Law is just an earthly matter, it cannot be what John sees in the Kingdom of Grace. So, what John sees must be the New Covenant, and that is none other than the person of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. It specifically says in Holy Writ that John sees the Covenant in the Ark. Okay, so if Christ is the New Covenant, what is the ark that contained Him? The body of his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Ergo, Mary's body is in heaven. Simple and Biblical if, that is, you believe in the authority of the Bible, and Protestants say they do. So, what's the problem?

The problem is that by saying that Mary was assumed into heaven, the Catholic Church is singling her out for special treatment. All of us other poor schlubs have to struggle through purgatory after we die, if we even get there, and then when we do get to heaven, our souls must wait until the eschaton for the General Resurrection. So, why does Mary get to go to the front of the line? The Catholic Church must think she's the Fourth Person of the Trinity, a goddess, and that's why Protestants say we worship Mary.

Well, that's ridiculous. If the Doctrine of the Assumption says anything at all to our Separated Brethren in Christ, it should say at least this much, that we do not worship Mary. If we really thought Mary was a goddess, then we would believe that she ascended to heaven by her own power. But we don't. Simple grammar will tell you that "to ascend" is in the active voice, "to be assumed" is in the passive voice. Mary is therefore the passive recipient of God's gift, just like every good Protestant is supposed to be. We say that she was assumed by God into heaven, thereby showing conclusively that we believe that Mary is a creature in need of divine power to reach the glorious end of salvation. I am frankly tired of being told that we Catholics worship Mary. That is a know-nothing claim, and the Protestants who make it should re-evaluate their professed commitment to the truth.

And, sure, Mary gets special treatment but not by the Church. God is the one who singled her out to be His mother.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Nota Bene

By the way, my last post was entirely facetious, okay? That means I do not prefer blowjobs to hugs and kisses. I put that answer down only for the sake of a really cheap laugh. I do not want a blowjob at all because, because it's a form of onanism, and onanism is a mortal sin. Even wanting a blowjob is a mortal sin that will plunge my soul into perpetual perdition, and I don't want that to happen, do I? No, I am a good Catholic, who went to Mass two days in a row this weekend. Honestly, I did. Cross my heart and hope to die, stick a needle in my eye.

So, fine, no blowjobs for me. Really, I'm good.

Well, okay, the previous post was not ENTIRELY facetious. I do believe in God. But I don't believe in God simply to piss Sam Harris off. I believe in God because, well, because right now I am listening to Shostokovich's preludes and fugues, and they are so fucking beautiful that I refuse to believe that man exists simply to eat, excrete, and then die.

Yeah, I know the Atheist's argument all too well. How the fuck can there be a transcendent, intelligent being who gives a shit for us when little kids are so impoverished, worms squirm out of their eyes, and the Church that claims to serve this allegedly benevolent God cares too much about its gilded tabernacles and hushing up sex scandals to hear the cry of the downtrodden? How can you say with a straight face that the very notion of a good God is compatible with such an evil world that is now paying homage to the country that is funding the raping and pillaging monsters in Darfur? A benevolent God could not have possibly made such warped and crooked timbre.

Fine, if you buy this argument, then you've gotten rid of God but, guess what, the evil still remains. Nice job, Einstein. Ah, but the atheist will respond, once we get rid of the superstition called God, we will no longer have our heads in the clouds, wasting our time with otherworldly fictions, and will at last be able to focus all our energies on finally getting reality right. Oh, really? If humans are indeed so evil that they disprove and therewith destroy the most powerful thing ever imagined, then what makes you think that all of a sudden such destructive power will bring about a utopia of sweetness and light?

I will concede that great evils have been done in the name of God, but for the atheist's argument to work at all he cannot just say this. He must say that every single evil that has ever happened happened because of the God superstition. I will grant the Atheist the Crusades, the Inquisition. I will even for the sake of argument say that Hitler was evil precisely because he was a Catholic. Fine, but all this does not account for all the evil in the history of the world. No, not by a long shot.

Tell me, Atheist, how do you trace the evil of the Soviet Gulags to a belief in God? Or the global sex trade? Do you really want us to believe that every single murder, rape, theft, etc. since the invention of fire happened because the perp had been corrupted by a devotion to God? Do you really think you can sell us the idea that but for the belief of God, no country would bomb hospitals for the sake of oil reserves? That if we just got rid of that silly theological fairy tale, people would stop being the greedy, rapacious, craven, gluttonous assholes that we are now? Besides, Atheist, even if this whopper were somehow true, you'd long be dust before even the conditions for this godless heaven were realized; nearly five billion people or more have to become atheists, after all, and it's a pretty safe bet that this is not going to happen in your lifetime. And you have the temerity to call us theists benighted?

We theists do not need atheists to alert us to the fact of evil. We are all too aware of it. I know I am. I do not know why the benevolent God I profess to believe in allows evil, but I do know that without Him, all I am left with is a life that will end in nothingness, which is the classic metaphysical definition of evil. If there is no eternal God, then everything is the product of nothingness to which it will return. Therefore, everything is evil. But I can look around me and see that evil is not all there is. The music I am listening to right now has already outlived its composer, and I fully expect to hear it if I ever get to heaven. Something that beautiful cannot die. And this is ultimately why I believe in God: I cannot believe in the annihilation of the good.

My mother died when I was an atheist, but I refused to believe as an atheist, that she was now just nothing. My mother was and is not an evil nullity. She was the only woman who ever loved me, and if love is not eternal, it is simply a disposable contingency--like a plastic bag. Putting my hope in an impossible atheist humanist brotherhood of man will not ever bring my mother back. But God can and will, or so I hope. Spero, ergo credo.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

A conundrum for Miss Lutheran

You're a socially conservative Protestant, right? By "socially conservative" I mean, of course, being against such things as legalized abortion, gay "marriage", condom distribution in the schools, etc., and are for more public displays of Christian Religion, the teaching of absolute moral values to the kids, and, perhaps, the systematic elimination of every damned Muslim infidel on the planet.

Now, Miss Lutheran, that above list may not describe your political beliefs exactly, but I know that you do indeed want abortion outlawed, and that alone is enough to get you stuck with the "social conservative" label. You are also a protestant who believes that sin is sin, all sin is equal in the eyes of God. Every sin is rebellion against God, thus every sin is every bit as perverse, depraved, and evil as another. So, the theft of, say, a paperclip is as heinous as, say, the systematic extermination of millions of Jews.

I think this particular Protestant Belief is raving lunacy myself, but it is not the purpose of this post to show that it is indeed raving lunacy (I would think, though, that common sense would be sufficient to demonstrate this). I want to instead put this question to you: in the light of your egalitarian view of all sins, why do you target just one, namely the sin of abortion, for criminalization? If you really believe that all sins are equal, then shouldn't you also be campaigning for the outlawing of swearing, impure thoughts, working on the Sabbath, sassing one's parents, etc., etc. Shouldn't you be up in arms that the penalties for rape are really, really harsh whereas the cops do not even bother to enforce whatever laws there may be against stealing paperclips?

You may well answer as Luther did and explain to me the theory of the Two Kingdoms, one of heaven and the other of earth. And while we are in the latter, we must concern ourselves with its mundane matters, and that includes the law. Because the kingdom of earth if ruled by totally depraved, fallen man, human law cannot match God's will perfectly. So, we must do the best we can do. Since that is especially limited, we should devote ourselves to make sure that law get rids of the really big evils such as murder and not waste our time about the nugatory ones, such as stealing paperclips. Life is too short.

But if man's reason is totally depraved, then the hierarchy of goods and evils will necessarily be fucked. We already know this, of course. Craven natural man thinks in his concupiscently deluded fleshly state that somehow the Nazi Final Solution is really, really dastardly while filching a paperclip is hardly worth even a stutter. And that's because he does not see things as God sees them, and that is why he is an utterly wretched creature who deserves nothing but eternal detention in the Lake of Fire without any right of habeas corpus. Only the utterly gratuitous gift of grace through faith will save the incorrigible fuck-up, and even then he'll be hanging by a fraying thread.

Wouldn't someone saved by grace through faith want to please the God who saved him by striving to know His ways as best he can? You can't do this if you wallow in the dark, blinding cesspool of the never-ending squabble over human laws. Because then you will be forced to judge what things should be outlawed and what things should not. Not only will you be contradicting God's judgement thereby, you will also by the very act of judging itself be setting yourself up as a rival to the only one who is supposed to judge--God, of course, and that is, of course, blasphemy--a sin like any other, to be sure, but just one sin is enough to send your sweet ass to hell.

Of course, Luther has an out for this. Since we are saved by faith alone, it does not matter that we sin or how much we sin just so long as we have faith. Therefore, one can engage in politics and judge just one sin to be the object of the law's wrath just like I can go around fucking females half my age. It does not matter as long as we just believe. Okay, fine. So, that means that in God's eyes campaigning for the outlawing of abortion is not one bit more righteous than the practice of middle-aged lechery. Everything is like filthy rags to Him.

But I suspect you think that involvement in pro-life politics is actually a very good thing and a very selfless, Christian thing to do. You might even think in the dark corners of your prideful Id that it is even--cough, cough--meritorious. Well, if so, then maybe sin is not sin after all for a middle-aged lech like myself--knowing how sick, twisted, perverse, and completely fallen he is--at the very least knows that his deeds can in no way ever be regarded as meritorious and therefore is protected from such damnable Romanist arrogance.

Just Some Obvious Thoughts

So, Hamdan, UBL's driver, got five and a half years. That's pretty much time served and a few months. He'll be out by New Year's--if, that is, Bush abides by the ruling. That's pretty soft for someone who is supposed to be one of the worst of the worst totally depraved, bloodthirsty terrorist monsters of all time, UBL's driver. Two possibilities: 1) Gitmo has been infilitrated by bleeding heart, traitorous card-carrying members of ACLU, a.k.a Al Qaeda in America, who really want the United States to lose the war on terror or 2) Even Bush's own Kangaroo Court doesn't believe his bullshit.

Doesn't expending all this time, energy, and money on a War Crimes Tribunal for a lowly driver whose only crime apparently was carting around UBL to and from dialysis trivialize the very notion of a war crime? Or does this mean we should be deathly afraid of anyone who has simply been in UBL's omnimalignant presence? Gee, I hope our troops track down that vicious motherfucker who dyed UBL's hair. I won't be able to sleep at night until they do. At least, we brought that nefarious chauffeur to justice. Thank God!

In other news, Russia has pre-emptively invaded Georgia. Bad, bad Russia. We must get the U.N. to condemn her because we can't allow a country to invade another country just because it says it feels threatened. Besides, Russia really isn't threatened. It just wants control of the pipeline that runs through Georgia, and wars for control of oil flow are just evil, and... Oh, right. Oops! Nevermind!

Geopolitical karma, baby! Gotta love it!

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Absurd

Okay, so Russia invades Georgia. Another war that will no doubt add to global instability, slaughter lots of people, drive yet more women and girls into sex slavery, and serve as an excuse for speculators to reverse the plunge in oil prices. The Washington Post reported (buried on page 12) that sleep deprivation was still being used at Guantanamo long after the Bushies said they had banned that particular torture back in 2004. For all we know, it probably is still being used. The subprime meltdown continues to turn what once were redoubts of middle-class security into crime-ridden, roach-infested slums, and I am sure that food riots continue all around the world.

So, what was the lead story on the CBS Evening News this past Friday?

Former Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards's Love Child.

No fucking wonder that more and more people are turning to The Daily Show for news.

Thursday evening I watched the premier of The Right to be Left Alone, the new hagiography of that First Amendment Saint and Martyr, Larry Flynt. Yes, a martyr because he was shot for daring to publish a picture of a naked white woman getting it on with a naked black man. Integrated pornography, after all, is a milestone of civil rights.

This alleged documentary did give at least pretense of being "fair and balanced" by giving Gloria Steinem and the late Andrea Dworkin about twenty seconds each to bitch about Flynt's shameless exploitation of women, but, of course, this complaint was immediately followed by an articulate, healthy former porn star who liked her career as a slut and did not feel exploited in the least and was now apparently thriving as a well-dressed corporate executive who obviously does not need the aid of Steinem's victimology to, er, penetrate the glass ceiling. No mention of the high suicide rate or the high rate of drug use and venereal disease in the porn industry. No, just one former pornstar atop the corporate ladder makes the adult industry worthwhile. You can fuck yourselves to the top, too, little girls!

And no mention of Hustler's glorification of its regular cartoon character Chester the (Child) Molester. Because consenting adults should be left alone to prey on children.

But what was really pathetic about this garbage was that Larry Flynt, garbage that he certainly is, was and is right to point out that the mainstream media are nothing but whores for our warmongering plutocracy. Instead of being what it should be, the Fourth Estate that speaks truth to power, it offers us distracting lurid nonsense like stories about Edwards's Bastard Child. Of course, you don't need a loathsome toad like Larry Flynt to make this really obvious point. But doesn't it boggle the mind that journalistic integrity has reached such a nadir, that even the textbook example of the sleazy pimp and pornographer can say with an entirely straight face that he is outraged by how corrupt and craven the mainstream media have become? What is even more mind-boggling is that throngs of people will go to hear him croak out this outrage. Have people become such intellectual serfs that they need to hear what should be self-evident (even to a MySpace teenybopper) confirmed by a filthy fat frog?

Anyway, before I go, I would be very much remiss if I did not stress that Larry Flynt is a monster, and that his magazine is so disgusting that it almost made me vomit. I am not being metaphorical. One of the cartoons was so sick that I literally had to run to the toilet because I feared that I would dirty the floor with vomit.

It is true that Hustler now publishes very serious writings of political journalists such as Nat Hentoff and Gregory Palast, and they should be ashamed of themselves for letting their stuff be seen amid such palpable depravity. The Right to be Left Alone lauds Mr. Flynt as a champion of Free Expression. If allowing such filth to be seen and peddled is the price for living in a free society, then give me a totalitarian dictatorship, please. I do not need Flynt to read trenchant critiques of the Bush Administration and his whores at Fox News and The New York Times. I can read Z-Mag, Harper's, The American Conservative, and The Nation, none of which have any hint of pornography, all of which are much better written (that's not saying much, of course), and all of which because they don't come with a bonus DVD (showing lots and lots of lurid distracting nonsense, by the way) are much, much, much cheaper.

By the way, no one even jokes about reading Hustler for the articles. There is a reason for this. Gregory Palast and Nat Hentoff (among others) are simply casting pearls before sewer-drenched swine. Pathetic.

Friday, August 8, 2008

An Important American Feast Day

Oh, where are my manners? I forgot to wish everyone a Happy Worship American Power Day, which was two days ago, the 63rd anniversary of our nuking Hiroshima. We just did that to show the world that we are God. You may have heard something different, namely that it was either dropping the bomb or invading Japan, and invading Japan would have cost exponentially more lives than the bomb. In other words, causing a nuclear holocaust was really the humane thing to do because it actually saved lives.

A lot of us Americans still believe this. A lot of us Americans are really, really dumb. First off, Japan was ready to surrender as early as May 8, 1945 and was trying to sue for peace all through the summer. They insisted upon one thing, keeping their Emperor, an entirely ceremonial office. That's it. We, however, insisted upon unconditional surrender. The Japanese could have just asked for a corncob pipe like MacArthur's, and we would have refused. We wanted the Japanese to prostrate themselves before us completely and worship us. We also wanted to show off our new toy to the Soviets. So, Truman ignored the Japanese pleas for surrender and proceeded to usher in the Age of Atomic Annihilation just because he could, and after Japan surrendered, we let them retain their Emperor anyway! Go figure. And now we don't want Iran to have the bomb because, well, those Iranians are not rational like we are. Yeah, right.

Truman, by the way, was a Democrat.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Ah, geez!

I just now received an angry letter from a subscriber of mine. She is insulted over what I wrote in my current "status": "A wanna-be Socrates is doing what a great majority of the MySpace population can't do. He is reading books." She thinks I mean her. Well, I meant her if and only if she considers herself to be in the great majority of the MySpace population or, to put it another way, the mindless herd. I have looked through countless profiles on MySpace, and more often than not when I scroll down to the book section, I either find it blank or, what is even more discouraging, a very insulting and churlish comment such as, "Reading is for losers," or "Who reads?" Well, such loutish anti-intellectualism is rampant on MySpace as it is in this godforsaken excuse for a country. It's one of the reasons why we have an autistic child with an out-of-whack pituitary gland as president, and if you act like stupid grunts, then you can't expect not to be called stupid grunts. This subscriber wants me to apologize. I just have in the classical sense of apologia. But that's not what she meant, of course. She meant apologize in the modern sense. I am no modernist.

I am, frankly, surprised that I did receive this letter from a regular reader of my weblog. I have always assumed she has read my profile, in which I make it very clear that I really, really love elitism. Elitism, in fact, gives me a hard-on, to be quite honest. Well, the definition of elitism is contempt for hoi poloi, the many, the rabble, the demos, the great majority. This is why no politician wants to be branded as an elitist in a democracy because he does not want to piss off the source of his power, namely the Great Majority. If the Great Majority can't handle the truth, well, then the truth is elitist, and politicians will beat eachother up in a surreal contest over who is better at defying the aloof truth in the name of the common man. But a wanna-be philosopher like me loves the truth, however despised it may be by the unwashed. If the great majority does not like what I write, then let them shove hemlock down my throat.

Now, let me hasten to add that every one of my subscribers is a fellow elitist and, therefore, not a member of the ignorant many. How do I know this? Because they all can read my weblog, of course. As can that woman who sent me the angry letter. I would suggest that this woman, instead of waiting for an apology from me (in the modern sense), review basic set theory (and circular arguments, of course).

Arrogantly yours,

an unabashed elitist.

Monday, August 4, 2008

A Request

Does anyone, perchance, have the German lyrics to "Der Letzte Tourist in Europa"? If so, would you please be so kind to send them to me? Thanks.