People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Thursday, April 28, 2005

For Men Only

A Note to all female readers of this weblog: This message is not for you. You will look upon the photo (above) and only see Tom Cruise, and do your histrionics thing. You are emotionally and psychically unable to grasp the information I'm about to pass on to the men out there.

To the men: For the love of all things good, yea, for the very soul of our nation and all that our ancestors have fought and died to preserve, don't ever - EVER - attempt to grow a beard when you can't.

My general rule of thumb is this: If you can count the number of hairs on your cheeks or chin, you look like - and if you let it persist, probably are - a degenerate. A beard has to be full-bodied and exude masculinity. The beard depicted above cries out for the person attempting to grow it to be beaten up. It sends the message, "Please hurt me. My ability to defend myself is no greater than my ability to put hair on my upper lip."

So, if you feel the need to try it, and all men do at least once in their lives, do it behind locked doors. Take two weeks off from work, stay in the house, and let it go. But, be man enough at the end of that period of time to look in the mirror and tell yourself honestly, if it be the case, that you look like Tom Cruise trying to grow fuzz on his face. And that, if you go outside, people are going to look upon you as being a total loser. Then shave the damn thing off.

Somebody please pass this advice on to the last samurai for me, would you?

Click on image to enlarge. Posted by Hello

What Is With These People?

I must confess. I truly believe I and the whining left have completely different thought processes. We operate in parallel universes. We see the same objects in space; our senses detect the same smells and sounds; we speak the same language - more or less. But our minds fixate on different subjects and - always - in different ways.

Take Abu Ghraib.

That was a story that deserved our attention. For a day. Some rogue national guard personnel abused a bunch of terrorists in their charge at Abu Ghraib prison a year ago, were caught, and punished. 95% of us appreciated the story, felt dreadful about the manner in which these soldiers conducted themselves, followed the process of meting out punishment to the wrongdoers, and went on with our lives.

But the bizarre left can't - for some inexplicable reason - can't let it go. It consumes them to this day. Long after sane people in this country moved on to the Michael Jackson trial, they still want to take (our) time to denounce us for having supervised, in some nebulous way, the "torture" of these poor slobs in the prison.

Yesterday we saw Ted Kennedy on the floor of the senate do everything but break down in tears and renounce his American citizenship. Today we have Bob Herbert whining about the fact that we didn't do enough to right that terrible wrong. We should have imprisoned the entire Bush administration and tortured them... for starters.

On Abu Ghraib, the Big Shots Walk
By BOB HERBERT, New York Times

When soldiers in war are not properly trained and supervised, atrocities are all but inevitable. This is one reason why the military command structure is so important. There was a time, not so long ago, when commanders were expected to be accountable for the behavior of their subordinates.

That's changed. Under Commander in Chief George W. Bush, the notion of command accountability has been discarded. In Mr. Bush's world of war, it's the grunts who take the heat. Punishment is reserved for the people at the bottom. The people who foul up at the top are promoted.

It was a year ago today that the stories and photos of the shocking abuses at Abu Ghraib prison first came to the public's attention. It was a scandal that undermined the military's reputation and diminished the standing of the U.S. around the world.

It would soon become clear that the photos of hooded, naked and humiliated detainees my emphasis] were evidence of a much larger problem.

So what happened? A handful of grunts were court-martialed, a Marine major was cashiered, and the Army plans to issue a new interrogation manual that bars certain harsh techniques. There was no wholesale crackdown on criminal behavior.

The abuses at Abu Ghraib, which seemed mind-boggling at the time, turned out to be symptomatic of the torture, abuse and institutionalized injustice that have permeated the Bush administration's operations in its so-called war against terror. (link)
I highlighted the words "hooded," "naked," and "humiliated" for a reason. Those three words sum up the abuse that was inflicted on the Iraqi terrorists at Abu Ghraib. I experienced worse in freshman beer parties in college. What the prisoners at Abu Ghraib did not experience were torture, beatings, beheadings, hangings, or firing squad-ings (.).

What I know about the leftists in our country is this: They won't give it up. We will, each year, have an Abu Ghraib Day, an occasion allowing anti-American journalists and politicians to feebly attempt to trash the USA. Again.

And for the rest of us to wonder how Ted Kennedy might have looked with those panties pulled down over his head.

Today's Lesson

The insidious rotters at the New York Times often go out of their way to say one thing and mean something else. It may be instructive herewith to provide a good lesson in point.

Take today's editorial entitled, "Leading With The Women." Here are the words;
Leading With the Women

If war breaks out in the Senate over judicial nominations, the initial battle is likely to center on two women, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. Republicans seem to think that those nominees will come off as so likeable that Democrats will be forced to back down from their threats of a filibuster. But when the American public looks beyond the photo-op, it will be clear why these women do not belong on the federal bench. Both have records of kowtowing to big business and showing contempt for ordinary people who are the victims of injustice. (

On the surface, it seems rather straightforward. But, if you're wondering how a judge kowtows to "big business" (and how did they differentiate "big" from "small") and just how these two judges showed contempt for ordinary people and still got reelected to their posts (these particular judgeships were elected positions) by those same ordinary people, you're half-way there.

Here is how you should actually read that paragraph;

They will overturn Roe-v-Wade. They will overturn Roe-v-Wade. They will overturn Roe-v-Wade. They will overturn Roe-v-Wade. They will overturn Roe-v-Wade. They will overturn Roe-v-Wade. They will overturn Roe-v-Wade. They will overturn Roe-v-Wade. They will overturn Roe-v-Wade. They will overturn Roe-v-Wade. They will overturn Roe-v-Wade. They will overturn Roe-v-Wade.
Keep that in mind next time you find yourself wading through a cumbrous - and rather freakish - editorial from the New York Times.