Wednesday, December 6, 2006


Or do I mean Liboshits? Sometimes my spleling is’nt sow goud. And I have dilsexia. But my point, if you’ll ever let me make it, what with your constant interruptions and digressions, is that we do love to reveal our hearts. Didn’t know that, did you. I’m very wise. Thus: Michael Richards and his many enwords. Thus the ever more brazen attacks on Christmas and its cognates. Thus the love of abortion. Thus the hatred of America. Shibboleths. Things that betray our hearts and our loyalties, or things that reveal them.

Thus, to a certain mindset Christianity is the new enword. Unutterable -- and not in the ineffable sense. Just as only blacks can speak that certain word beyond its first letter, so might only atheists get a public hearing -- or public affirmation -- of their views. The attack, in malls and schools, is no longer upon religious songs only, but on snowmen and the colors, red and green. No kidding. It is a war on tradition.

If we did not have a long history of such decorative commemorations of Christmas, their absence would not be missed. We might even be out of line were we to demand that the livingroom custom of Christmas trees should become a town square custom. (Rather like, or unlike, what used to be bedroom practices being brought into the streets by, say, Gay Pride parades.) But history is what it is. There exists already a community standard, and it is embodied in the display of decorated trees and tinsel and festive light-displays and nativities and Santas.

Anyone who grew up in this country should be used to it -- and it wasn't an odious thing, that one had to bear up under. Where then is the offense? Any guest is reasonably expected to accommodate themselves to our mores -- as every other (non-European, non-capitulating) country in the world might expect.

We know it isn't about decorations, though. These are, in more ways than one, symbols. It’s about tradition, and not those traditions that are mere holdovers from pagan days. Tradition is heritage. Heritage is roots. Roots are family. Ah. That explains it. Families -- traditional families -- are bad. Now it makes sense.

Can’t have families without babies. Can’t have babies with abortion. See how it ties together? But let’s not be ungracious. Let’s not argue. Let’s not even debate. Let’s just look at the meaning of words. No, not enwords. Not Christmas, or abortion or baby. Human. Define human, and the debate, if there is one, is settled. It becomes a discussion. How civilized, and we have no more racism, no more abortion. How human.

Abortion? There are lots of points to be made on both sides. Points. I did not say good points. Stated simply, I see abortion as a failure of imagination. You want it complex? It is a rite of the god Moloch. But let’s keep it simple, like something that we don’t have to think about. Simple, like something we can touch, and see, and feel. Thinking is so much bother. Imagination is so, so human.

Ultrasound removes the failure of imagination that allows and justifies abortion. That's why the abortionists don’t let “mothers” see those images. It undoes their strongest asset -- darkness. As long as the "fetus" -- henceforth translated from the Latin as "young one" -- as long as the young one is enclosed in the womb, out of sight, a mere swelling of the midriff, well, who knows what it might be? It is an entirely theoretical proposition. It is as impersonal as deductive reasoning.

Ultrasound, though ... oh, ultrasound doesn't let you hear the scream. But you can see it.

Argument over.

Anything else? Well, America. My truth is that I’m a guy -- American. You know how stupid guys are … and Americans. Dint Gwyneth Paltrow just get done telling us? We have bad psychology. Michelle Malkin gives us some of Gwyneth’s views: she likes living in England because “I don’t fit into the bad side of American psychology. The British are much more intelligent and civilized than the Americans.” Seems the girl dixiechicked herself there, dint she. So her managers and publicists hustled her over to People Magazine, where she did a Kramer: "First of all I feel so lucky to be American. ... I feel so proud to be American. ... I felt so upset to be completely misconstrued, and I never, ever would have said that." What, never?

Hardly ever. Malkin gives a number of similar Paltrow quotes. It is ever so rude of us crude Amerikkkans to remember her past words and hold her to them. Don't we realize she is an actress, and makes a living saying things she doesn't mean? We're such boors. How I wish we could all be Canadian. French Canadian. Yeah, that would be wonderful. For my part, I can't even stand myself. Get away from me! You do not even want to know me!

She's "so lucky," "so proud," and "so upset". But we do understand that "so" is a adjective of degree and comparison. How much, we wonder, is "so" much, to Ms. Paltrow? About the distance between the thumb and finger (middle finger, in this case) when they're touching. Since they are touching, we must descend to the subatomic level to find the actual distance.

In truth, she is "lucky". Unspeakably, especially given her manifest ingratitude. "Proud"? That sounds like a theological concept -- something followed by a fall -- and I shan't comment. As for "upset," I know that when I'm caught out at being a hypocrite and back-stabber, as I often am, I'm very upset when there's no way I can lie my way out of it. If only there were some dissimilitude I could conjure, I think to myself, by which I might fool people into trusting me. Alas, my words have unveiled the poison in my dark soul, and I am known for the coward that I am.

The "bad side of American psychology." Hmm. Is there a difference between that, and the bad side of human psychology? One had thought that Americans were human. Apparently not. Somebody needs to define all these confusing words. Maybe Paltrow. Would she lie about such important things? Would any anti-Christian, anti-American abortionist liberal?

Hardly ever. Argument over.


No comments: