summer patriot, winter soldier

celebrating cowboys and indians: the "pendleton roundup" rodeo ... my perspective ...

celebrating cowboys and indians: the "pendleton roundup” rodeo  …  my perspective  …

a cowboy (that’s “bull rider” to you slickers) interfaces with an 1800 pound bull with his butt clad in denim and his left hand wrapped in the very tight loop of a rope wrapped around the chest and shoulders of the bull, sitting on cow hide.  an indian (brave) relay race rider interfaces with 900 pounds of horse with his butt clad in not very much at all, and his two legs around the horse, heels buried in the horse’s front “arm pits,” sitting on horse hair: he rides “bare back,” with no saddle, no cinch and just a halter for “steering.”  the bull rider mounts the bull is a very ginger process, in which he descends into a chute in which the bull waits, sits astride the bull and wraps his hand in the loop, and nods to the gate worker that he is ready for all hell to break loose, and the gate is opened: what happens next is 8 seconds in which the rider flirts with injury and death, and struggles to stay on the back of a very antagonistic foe.  the indian riders enter the arena and come onto a track from a gate under the stadium, ride toward the start line opposite the direction of the race, cross the line and attempt to turn their excited mounts in the right direction, and somewhere in the milling around a rodeo official mounted on a horse pulls a six gun from a holster and fires a shot in the air, and it seems to matter little if the horses are pointed in the right direction or if “milling around” best describes their posture.

the culture of the western cowboy, be he vaquero or buckaroo (which is obviously the same word when you say them aloud, but the cowboy cultures are different, from dress, to rigging, to hats, to rope preferences, to methods of conducting the cattle business), is still very much alive in the west and north west, and the culture of the american indian is still very much alive.  the rodeo, and the roundup in particular, reflects the vitality of the two cultures, and also strives to preserve them.  the rodeo celebrates the craft of the cowboy, and the events are the tasks a cowboy performs on the open range, which is everywhere a cow is, that is not a feed lot: cowboys still rope calves for various reasons, including branding, and they still wrestle steers but use a little known practice of taking the bull/steer down with a single rider roping the steer over the horns, getting the rope on the far side of his neck, and then flipping him all from the back of a horse: it’s impressive, when you see it done right.  they do not generally ride bulls during routine work, unless succumbing to a suicidal urge.  the indian culture lives in the old practices of food gathering, work with leather and beads, and in the indian dance and ritual culture, as well as efforts to preserve the use and integrity of language, though i am not too sure just how successful this is, nor am i convinced that very many successful speakers of the native tongues exist.

both are cultures of great independence, physical vitality and vigor, great risk taking, stoic suffering, lustful exuberance and the preservation of manly and womanly virtues as understood running centuries back.  these cultures, and rodeo involving these cultures especially, are enterprising, but not the cultures of “doing” business, or the staid existence of the middle class, but a rollicking and raucous celebration of life, and accepting the darker side of things associated with such risk taking behaviors, perhaps the closest thing we have in our world to the spanish bull fight.  the cowboys and the indians who participate in the matters described herein are pretty close to the knight errant, doing things for the love of the things done, much as don quixote loved the pursuit of the safety and chastity of the fair dulcinea,  thought cowboys at the rodeo and braves at the pow wow do not openly pursue chastity as a virtue.

it is the world of men, based on muscle and guile and the embrace of risk to bring terror to the ordinary burgher,  and it is the world of companion womanhood as alluring as only a high slung rump and long legs stuffed into denim jeans w/ a white linen blouse tucked into those britches over a flat belly and breasts spilling from a low buttoned bodice can be.  there is nothing like a cowboy in his duster bedecked in a cowboy hat and high heeled boots w/ pointed toes, with a cowgirl tucked under his armed, suitably accoutered with butt cheeks struggling to get loose from those jeans, and the pride and perkiness of youthful breasts tucked under his arm, in a matching pair of tooled leather uppers and high heels to turn the head in frank admiration.

it is sexy, it is elemental, and it is exuberant and raw.  and, did i mention sexy?

and, this celebration of the cowboy and the indian life in the "pendleton roundup," a premier event in north america, has involved both cowboys and indians for the last 100 years.  when the promoters of the roundup first staged the event in 1910, the members of the umatilla tribe and their  confederated tribes, the yakima, the warm springs, the walla walla and the cayuse were invited to the rodeo as participants, to put forth their skills and attributes.  the umatillas considered the matter,  decided to accept the invitation and attend the rodeo, to show the larger white community that even though they had suffered defeats and degradation,  and even though they had ceded vast lands in “exchange” for confinement on the reservation, that they had survived and still existed with their mores and customs intact.   and so they came, and set up an encampment of teepees on the rodeo grounds, and lived there for the duration of the rodeo, according to their customs, one of which involved the “whip man” who enforced discipline on children who did not obey their rules, just as the name implies.  and the umatilla nation and their confederated tribes have been there every year since the first rodeo.

a brilliant post at atlas shrugs, about the reach of islam in american affairs ....

.... , and, it is simply brilliant, and you should read it.  seminal.  protean.

word for word.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/09/there-is-at-the-end-of-this-month-a-conference-on-islam-and-muslims-in-america-in-chicago-it-is-a-summit-of-islamic-suprem.html .

 

john jay @ 09.22.2010

all of which is not to say that i cannot enjoy a good knee slapping laugh ever "now&agin" as we say out here ...

lower intestine powell spoke up the other day, and it was riotously funny.

he intoned, in that oh-so-serious manner of his, that the "tea party" needed an "agenda."   what???

colon powell for president, no doubt!!

this from the man who endorsed barak hussein obama for president.  

i haven't stopped laughing.  it makes me smile, every time i think of that pompous ass.  what a fucking dunderhead.   he wants to be the "tea party" agenda.   he doesn't understand the "tea party" any more than nancy pelosi or harry reid or b. insane obama, if he thinks that he could ever be the agenda, or supply it.   a truly bugs bunny moment.

john jay @ 09.21.2010

as a community we deserve that which we have wrought .... and, that which we will reap ....

as a community we deserve that which we have wrought, through our own moral rot.

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2009/08/ps-the-left-has-won.html 

nations spring from family, tribe and community.  in the best of such situations in addition to the drive for stability we also find the values of inquiry and intellect that examine and strive for good, and morality and ethic.

empire springs from successful nation, or perhaps an association of successful nations.

in the beginning vibrant empire retains the causes of nations, and in the best of those situations, the values of inquiry and intellect that strive for good and morality and ethic remain vibrant.  rome began at a republic where integrity and rectitude and justice were paramount, as was the allegiance to the roman nation.  it became an empire where republic virtue and vitality was preserved and honored.

and, at some point it became an empire where stability and commerce and predictability, and imposed political rule became paramount as the old republican virtual and vitality receded.  oh, it did not die, completely, but it ceased to be the wellspring of the vigor of the empire, and when it became tired the republic virtues and integrity receded.

and, the empire became tired.

nothing wrong with tired, with weary, nothing wrong with the perspective and vision of age, nothing wrong with being a bit world weary and fatalistic.

cynicism, on the other hand, always just a heartbeat away, just a step removed and distanced from maturity, is fatal to a nation and a republic.  and, it is fatal as well to empire.

and, it will prove well nye fatal to us.

there is nothing antithetical about being tired and weary and a bit fatalistic, with retaining virtue, and rectitude and piety and integrity.  it is, as a matter of fact, the difference between newly made soup and the tastes which are distinct and vibrant therein, and soup which has been in the pot for a couple of days, and which gains texture and a mouth feel all its own.  but note, as soup ages, it does not loose its constitute ingredients, rather it melds and synthesizes them.  you do not discard the themes of celery and carrot in a good navy bean soup as it matures, you simply make the themes and functions more subtle and harmonious.

but cynicismis death to all that is good in politics, and it is the source of rot, and mold and spoilage.  cynicism is not the melding and blending of virtue, and piety, and rectitude, and integrity into a harmonious theme, rather it is the obliteration of these constituent ingredients, one by one by one until that which was good in the community is destroyed, and is the death of the community.

for the empire that is comprised of cynics is a polity with no adherents, no loyalty to either individual virtues or public virtue.  it is in fact, not a polity, but a divided conglomeration of interests and rivalries, and, ultimately of spoils, and when that fails to gather adherents because it foretells the end of faith and vision and values and the striving for truth and accommodation, it is ultimately the imposition of rule by force and intimidation.

cynicism is rot and decay and death of nation.  it is not the foretelling of the end of virtue and rectitude and piety, it is the clinical confirmation of the death of virtue and integrity, it is the clinical death of nation.

for various reasons which are absolutely none of your damned business i am tired.  not yet cynical, but well on my way to fatalistic.

in the post which is linked above, i confessed some hesitancy to kill in order to protect your rights and liberties, because i do not see the same adherence to the values that lead moral authority for me to do so in my own behalf in the rest of you.  i am old, i am sick, and i am not going to live forever.  it is pretty easy for me at this point, to simply watch and coast on in. 

now, in the past several years i have striven to rouse in some of you some fervor for you to rise up and defend yourselves.  i do not see that i have created much an audience in that endeavor, and indeed, were it not for the "tea party" movement and several fiery little jewish women bloggers, and a couple other women of stalwart character, i would be entirely resigned and cynical, convinced of the ruin of our nation.

i see very little remnant of it remaining in the american empire, very little of the civic virtue and integrity of the romans exhibited in either our public or our private lives.  and, quite frankly, as i consider the questions posed in the essay linked above, i see very little in you that excites me to your defense.  and, more to the point, i see in very few of you adherence to the virtues and values and beliefs that made this a great nation, ... , hell, not only do i not see much adherence to those virtues in you, for the most part you are fundamentally ignorant of what made this country, in terms of either history at its simplest, and in terms of total ignorance of the political doctrines rising out of the enlightenment which were the motive force to the creation of the country.

you are, for the most part, butt wipe ignorant of how we got here, and you are equally ignorant of who and what we were.  for christ's sake, you don't even know what free market economics is, let alone understand it.  you are certainly incapable of explaining or defending it.  and, there are not 5% of you who have the slightest idea of who locke and blackstone were, or of the political thought and theory which serve as the bedrocks for our institutions.

and, you give every indication of being too g_d damned lazy to learn.

you are as dumb, ignorant and indifferent to what goes on around you as the day i wrote the above essay.  to say that i am discouraged at the failure of my efforts to improve things very much, is, at this moment, something of an understatement.

were it not that the guitar comes along, although slowly, i would be in absolute despair.  as it is, i am lonely and despondent and at something of a low ebb, and i see nothing in you that invigorates me.  nothing.

you deserve what is coming to you.  to use a metaphor, once again, often used in these pages, you are as the herder in the asian steppes who looks up to see the massive dirt cloud on the horizon, and bends again without thought to raking the horse shit in the corral, oblivious to that which ought to be foreboding on the horizon.  and, so is the dust bin of history filled.

from inattention.  from ignorance.  from sloth.

you are shallow nitwits.  and, from what i can see, entirely content to remain that way.

john jay @ 09.22.2010

hilary clinton resigns secretary of state post ... aligns herself with west virginia christian sect that includes rattlesnakes in religious rites ... she was a snake in the grass, the whole time ...

yes, you read the headline right.  hilary clinton resigns her post as secretary of state for the united states, in order to move to west virginia and live on the grounds of an obscure church in the foothills of the mountains, which congregation is a small christian sect that includes rattlesnakes in its religious rites, and if they bite you, you die.

yes, you read the headline right.

and, no, it didn't happen, it hasn't happened, and so far as i know it ain't gonna happen.  but, it got your attention, didn't it.

and, just as surely, an article that appeared in the thursday, august 26, 2010 edition at page a-11 of the wall street journal (author, ashraf khalil) did not get you attention.  i saw no hint of the report in any other newspaper (not that i read the yellow rags all that much), nor in the television news (fat fucking chance), and nor in the right wing blogs which i do frequent (frequently).

unremarked upon, for the most part, a momentous event.--

the article announced and discussed that mohamed elbaradei, the former head of the u.n.'s international atomic energy agency has joined political league with egypt's muslim brotherhood to promote "constitutional change" in the structure of egypt's politics.

now, in contrast to the lead in about hilary clinton and the improbability of that, the above has happened, and though some of the cocktail literati and intelligentsia in this country may find it improbable, ... , it has happened.

the man who was the u.n. "watchdog" over the iranian nuclear weapons program has joined forces in egypt with the muslim brotherhood.

i am hoping that i do not have to delve too deeply into things in order to give you some pause for reflection on that.  the u.n.'s nuclear "watchdog," the man charged with stemming nuclear proliferation in the world, and especially in the powder keg that is the middle east, has joined league with precisely those people who quite gleefully touted iran's right to nuclear energy, and to nuclear weapons.

gosh, do you suppose anyone in israeli politics gave this passing note?  do you suppose?

and, in this country, except for the wall street journal article, not a fucking peep.

the article notes:

"mohamed elbaradei, former head of the united nations nuclear watchdog and egypt's most prominent advocate for political change, has quietly joined forces with the muslim brotherhood, an islamist group that is officially banned but tolerated here.  in 2005, the brotherhood, banned from running as  a party, instead fielded independent candidates who captured 20% of the seats in parliament.  now mr. elbaradei, who has refused to join one of egypt's government licensed parties, and the brotherhood have teamed in a nation-wide signature drive aimed at winning popular backing for constitutional change.

...

the nobel laureate returned to egypt this year to a hero's welcome, promising to campaign for political change.  [hey, there's a phrase in connection with muslim politics that will make your pee pee water run ice cold: jjjay.]  his organization, the national association for change, is pushing a list of demands that includes repealing egypt's longstanding state of martial law and altering the constitution to eliminate obstacles to an independent presidential candidacy."

now, as to these proposals front my mr. elbaradei, just how do you think the muslim brotherhood might interpret such measures?  since the activities of the muslim brotherhood had more to do that just a little bit with precipitating the egyptian government's imposition of martial law, what with a longstanding jihadi campaign that included several assassination attempts and much violence and unrest, i am guessing that the muslim brotherhood would view the cessation of martial law as a positive license to begin anew their violent agitation and subversive opposition to egypt's secular politics.  and, i would suspect that the muslim brotherhood would view with some favor the ability to back mr. elbaradei's candidacy for president, free from any constraint of having to be fronted by elbaradei's membership in a licensed party.

gosh, do you suppose elbaradei's election as president back by the muslim brotherhood might have some portent, of an adverse nature, to such political stability in the middle east as does exist?  for years israel has benefited by a stable and secular egypt.  egypt's politics are perhaps not ideal as they relate to israeli statehood, but any imperfections presented by egypt pale in comparison to the early history of egypt as an outright adversary and military belligerent.  in case anyone suffers from a short memory, i will remind you that egypt is a potent military force, especially within the context of the middle east.

as a consequence of egypt's recent political stance, israel has had to contend with only the prospect of invasion or attack by syria, and iran, and the proxies operated by these two belligerents.  though not perfect by any means, such a situation has been a lot easier to deal with than the old situation when egypt was a military and political and social ally of syria.

let us consider for a second, a situation in which the following would obtain in fact, and in diplomatic situation.--

1.)a belligerent iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons.  2.)a belligerent syria. inept, inefficient and bumbling as ever, but, still to be contended with in defending the golan, and in its "control" over hezbollah.  3.)a newly again belligerent egypt, under the guidance of a president who knows as much about israel's nuclear weapons profile as anyone, and under the guidance of a president firmly in league with the muslim brotherhood.

even the dullest amongst you has to realize that this would not be a good situation, and would also be a situation in which any influence the american's might currently have over the saudi's to moderate the wahabbi influence in the house of saud, would simply be neutralized.  hell, even jordon might be forced out of its position.

if you add into this mixture the potential force that a newly fundamentalist and resurgent turkey might bring to the situation, even to the extent of overt military attack upon israel, you have to view this whole thing with some alarm.

this is, friends, 1948 all over again, and now with a fundamentalist islam in the middle east armed with very advanced weapons, perhaps several muslim states armed with nuclear weapons.

it has never been easy being israel.

with the reality that this wall street journal article reflects it hasn't gotten any easier.  and, if we look ahead to a newly fundamentalist egypt along with the prospect of an increasingly fundamentalist turkey joining the axis of syria and iran bent on israel's destruction, then things look very bleak for long term peace in the middle east, if any chance every existed for it except in the fevered imagination of western diplomats intent on deluding themselves that their quisling betrayal of israel is anything but that.

all of this adds up to one position to me.

israel has to destroy iran's nukes, and has to destroy the mullah's and the theocracy in the process.  yes, a tall order.  to my mind, the alternative is simply destruction as a viable state and society.   the answer is simple.  israel and the west have to nip this islamic fundamentalism in the bud, and destroy it militarily, while it is capable of being driven back into the bottle.

and, the west must abandon this idiotic foreign policy of appeasement and delusion which has allowed things to come to this pass.

and, a final note of mr. mohamed elbaradei.--

hey, slick as a fucking whistle, says all the placating things at the cocktail parties and diplomatic receptionists.

and, he is a member of the muslim brotherhood, all along.  he is a muslim, and a brother, the entire time.  hey, figure it out.

he was a snake in the grass, the entire time he plied his "diplomacy:" if he bites you, you will die.  he was a member of the muslim brotherhood, the whole time.  he is no less dangerous now.

john jay @ 09.21.2010

ahmedinejad threatens the u.s. with "war without boundaries" ... in related news, vaudeville returns to the new york stage ...

in one sentence president of iran, ahmadinejad, proves that he has no brains and no balls.

the lead sentence from the msnbc article says, "iranian president mahmoud ahmedinejad warned the obama administration today that if iran's nuclear facilities are attacked, the u.s. will face a war that 'would know no boundaries.'"  update:  i could have sworn that i read this at msnbc, ... , but, ... , i forgot to put the hyperlink in before i posted, and i went back to msnbc to see if i could find the article.  i could not.  but, i found an almost identical article at abc news on the net, with the same nearly the identical lead sentence.  so, i leave the link for that.  http://abcnews.go.com/International/iran-president-threatens-us-war-boundaries-nuclear-faclities/story?id=11689305 .  i don't know where the msnbc article went.  it makes no difference, they are all about the same. end update.

first, the proof that he has not a fucking brain in his little pea head.--

ahmedinejad forgets that he has no ability to wage conventional war against anyone.  he has antiquated jets that cannot get off the ground, helicopters upon which the rotors do not spin for want of parts and/or mechanics smart enough to put them on, and "naval" forces made out of rubber.

he forgets, and forgets mightily, that he exists at the forbearance of the west.  and, the threat of asymmetrical war?  hell, the little fucking piss pot dictator wages it against the united states as best he can already, what with excursions of his "elites" into iraq, and his sponsorship of hezbollah and hamas and abbas, and his "training" of troops for afghanistan.  and, doing the best he can, he can barely get noticed for doing anything at all.

he is a piss ant floating down a river on a piece of bark, nursing his little pathetic hard on, yelling, "raise the drawbridge."  that is n.e. oregon-speak for "pretentious bastard," ... , the texas equivalent would be "... all hat and no cows."

second, that he has no balls.--

he threatens "war" against the state executive, against the only administration, least likely on the face of the earth to take offense.  you will notice that he did not threaten russia with war, nor china, nor britain, nor france (hey, his best chance to win), nor italy, nor saudia arabia, nor any of the rest of the world's nations that will also give the go ahead to the israeli's to go ahead and take the iranian nuclear facilities out, if they are to be attacked.

come on, ahmadinejad, have some balls, threaten everybody else with "war" as well.  and, order some more of those speed boats with the robber bladders around the outside so that you idiot elite troops won't drown themselves trying to get the outboard motors started in rough seas.  yeah, they call that "mobilization."

do you remember his last war provocation?

he was going to send "iranian naval forces" to reinforce the second humanitarian flotilla from turkey and syria to run the israeli blockade of "palestine."  that was weeks ago.  so far he hasn't reached the med.

and, in a related news item, it appears that vaudeville has returned to the new york stage, at the warwick hotel in new york's manhattan.  a clown, name of ahmadinejad, got up on a stage and did a magnificent imitation of an organ grinder's monkey, begging for money and attention.  he made the major news, confused with being a head of state carrying out diplomatic policy, but people recognized him for the mullah's collar he had around his neck, prominently secured by a large bolt and nut set throught the collar.

members of the press confused it with a "cock and ball set," usually ascribed to persons with large "huevos" or "cajones."  this monkey, upon examination, was determined to have no "huevos" whatsoever, and a little shriveled peter with absolutely no strategic reach.

the only other critical comment i could make about this vile vaudeville act is that the monkey was sans his monkey hat and lacked a proper monkey's tie.  otherwise, he was a pretty good and appropriately simian rendition of a monkey.  just a stupid one, with no balls.

the dickless, clueless fucking wonder.  that he continues to draw breath is an affront.

john jay @ 09.21.2010

p.s.  and, he was observed to defecate in the corner and to wipe his arse with his left hand.

p.s.s.  oh, yeah, ... , if you think this demented little piss ant asswipe would have had the effrontery to come to the united states, on our soil, and utter an asinine threat like this to the u.s. while ronald reagan was president, then you are fucking crazy stupid as mahmoud ahmedinejad.

larry, the cable guy said it best ... from the internet ...

hat tip irwoodguy.

this, making the rounds on the internet, and attributed to "larry, the cable guy."--

“even after the recent super bowl victory of the new orleans saints, i have noticed a large number of people implying with bad jokes that cajuns aren't smart.  i would like to state for the record that i disagree with that assessment.  anybody that would build a city 5 feet below sea level in a hurricane zone and fill it with democrats is a damn genius”.

in n.e. oregon we didn't used to have any democrats, ... , well, not very many, anyhow.  we also didn't used to work in the winter, we just took "rocking chair" and poached deer and hunted elk and cut cord wood for stoves, and worked on the old dilapidated cars and trucks and pickups we had, to see if we could get one more year out of the motor, and to time it right so the tires wore out at exactly the same time as the motor gave up the ghost.

no, it was no a lifestyle associated with a lot of money.  or, a whole lot of fancy eating over the winter.  i can remember many a "chili bean & corn bread" winter as we called the "lean times" at my house, the "carne" being some poor old deer that my brother shot.  and, shot.  and, shot.  but, that's another story.

at any rate, when times got lean, the democrats started disappearing from around these parts.  that's because we ate them.  stringy old grandpa's first, good looking girls we converted to the way of the righteous, and taught them first how to bathe, then how to read, and finally how to spell "republican" and fill out the little boxes on the ballots.  some of them made damn fine wives, and some recalcitrant or stubborn ones made the stew pot: hey, you can only invest so much time and effort into some people, and then you just concede the loss.

we did, however, appreciate the victuals.

take it for what it's worth, but, we still don't have too many democrats around.  you can look it up.

john jay @ 09.21.2010

this post for those of you who thought journalists had either courage or integrity ...

this post for those of you who may have thought, may have had a lingering belief, that journalists had either courage or integrity, or that, they felt particularly beholden to report the truth to you.

journalists have died in mexico reporting on the siege the drug cartels have laid down upon the mexican public and the mexican government. 

the mexican journalists have waved the white flag, and simply asked the drug cartels to tell them what to report.  it is that simple.  so much for courage, so much for the truth, so much for "journalistic integrity."  as bugs bunny says, "it is to laugh, it is to cry." 

"explain what you want from us, ..." cries the plaintiff "editorial."   it is, in short, abject surrender to the cartels.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39270102/ns/world_news-americas/ .  

do you really think american journalists have any more courage, any more integrity, any greater interests in the truth such as exhibited in the cowardice of these mexican editors?  as for me, i think that they are birds of a feather, cut from the same cloth, part of the same commodity.

and, it illustrates a point that i made long ago, if we on the right have to "influence" the mainstream media to treat us fairly, to dissuade them from being the propaganda arm of the american radical left.  and, it shows that the drug cartels in mexico, and in the united states, understand quite clearly what it is that must be done to get "good press." 

this is, friends, why those who disagreed with editors in the old days, just destroyed press rooms and lynched the editors.  just consider the techniques as advanced polling or consulting & review groups.

i wrote the post "towards a coherent stragtegy of fighting the 'terror' ..." january 6, 2008.  in it i postulated that journalists are physical and intellectual cowards, and that they could be "nudged" towards favorable opinion with the application of judicious pressures.  i see in the events in mexico absolute confirmation of my views, and confirmation of the fact that just a little bit of pressure would force journalists and others in the "intelligentsia" into abject surrender, servitude and compliance.

it didn't take much in mexico, did it?

john jay @ 09.20.2010

 

 

 

 

somebody's watchin' ... i won't let them through the door ...

interesting.

opened up typepad this morning, to see the readership.

somebody has come through and done a complete indexing of all my posts, utilizing the typepad function.

now, who might that be?  laughing.   i cannot remember her name, but the lyrics  ...  "somebody's watchin',  ..." just bounced/bounce through my head.  (i cannot for the life of me remember the name of the singer, a blind female pianist, who performed that song.  anybody?)

when i was in law school i took constitutional law from hans linde, who later served with distinction on the oregon state supreme court.  he was, as they say, one scary bright dude.

sometimes he sort of left me groping, as he did others.  but, he gave a series of lectures on the 1st amendment to the u.s. constitution that i have never forgotten.  i am not sure that i agree with all his points, to the extent i can even remember them to this day, but i will never forget the overall thrust of his lectures.

he asked us first what we thought of the text of the first amendment, and how it has been interpreted.

straightforward enough.

he then asked us how others who have not grown up in our cultural and legal tradition might view the amendment and the "judicial gloss", e.g., the case law interpretation and application to specific cases of the amendment, have come to interpret and summarize our law of the 1st amendment.

and, he then announced this context.--  at various times other countries have looked to the united states constitution for guidance in establishing their own legal and political structures.  and, of necessity, they have looked to our courts for guidance in interpreting the framework of our government, as found in those organic documents we know as the constitution to the united states, the declaration of independence, and the great seminal explanation of these matters as found in the collected works known as the federalist papers, written by madison, hamilton and jay.

he asked, how did these scholars, jurists and lawyers summarize the first amendment?--

well, i will never forget his summary.  forgive me, professor linde, but you were working with a flawed instrument when you imported this to my mind, so it comes somewhat garbled after all this time, as it probably was in my mind the day after you spoke it.  laughing.  and, friends, please don't hold professor linde accountable for this, absent his chance to clarify and defend.

it was based upon the german efforts to build a government from the ashes of wwii.  they summarized 1st amendment jurisprudence roughly as follows.  you can say any damn thing you want, so long as no one pays any particular attention to what you are saying, or takes any particular offense or derives any particular insult from it, and just so long as it is apparent that no one is to take any action inspired by your remarks, no matter how incendiary.  but, at the moment someone pays attention or is likely to act upon your remarks and/or thinking, including doing anything to disrupt or end recognized and legitimate government, then your remarks become subject to governmental regulation, the extent of which depends upon the nature of the remarks and how dangerous they are to the established order as a practicable matter, depending upon the circumstances.

well, ridiculous you say.  and, "ridiculous" i said then.

well, say "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.  remember the alien and sedition acts, and remember those who speak against popular wars.  defame a public figure with malicious disregard for the nature of the falsehood you speak.  burn the flag.  threaten the president.

and, now, speak against islam.

this, friends, is the coming fight.  there are those who will attack the primacy of our institutions via international treaty and united nations agreement.  there are those who will be proponents of hate speech legislation as patterned on the euro union example.  and, for this, we have the example of our increasingly limp dicked neighbors to the north, no longer sturdy and stalwart lovers and adherents to liberty as they once were, who no longer wear sturdy wool garments, trap beavers and cut timber and show proudly two front teeth absent because of a love for hockey in a show of national essence.  they change into euro mollusks, before our eyes, as orianna fallaci might have wryly observed.

and, understand, that professor linde's summation of our first amendment is grandly enshrined in the united nations and euro union universal declaration of rights, which has turned the 1st amendment on its ear, and made it a community feature subject to the regulation of government in the interests of general societal harmony.  hey, read them.

they took the exceptions, and the places where intellectual strain shows, and made them the main features, and said as an after thought, subject to these limitations, say what you damn well please.

so, whoever took the index of my posts.

know this.

i know precisely what i write, and precisely why i write it.  and, if you don't like it, fuck you, and fuck the horse you rode in on.

i understand what i am about.  and, i understand precisely what i will do to assert my rights to think and say as i please.  so, come and get it.  the porch light is on for you.  and, i don't mind if you come to my house, because it just saves me trouble the trouble and expense of travel.  it is really very convenient for me that way.

john jay @ 09.15.2010

p.s.  and, i can imagine herr law-professor-supreme-court-justice linde shaking his bald head in law professor/judge heaven, laughing, and saying out loud, of all the people to have gotten the point, mr. jay ... .  how does an intellectual say, "don't that jest beat all?"  lois ackerman, who ran the law school as secretary to the dean, would be very pleased, however, as she always liked me.  (probably single handed got me graduated.)  "see, i told you there was a reason to give him, of all people, that membership in the 'american judicature society.'  see?"  and, just laughing in pleasure.  you were a good egg, mrs. ackerman, and always so very kind.

the demographic assault upon europe ... france swoons to a senegalese penis ...

friends:

some time ago, i published a post entitled, "the radical left so despises europe that it intends to destroy it by muslim immigration."  this post, well received by the right, was scoffed at by euro lefties and derided as a fabrication.  a fantasy.

well, it seems the "fantasy" not so far fetched.  in the news this day.--

it seems that the demographic conquest of europe by north africa, this war of fecundity, continues apace.  a "frenchman," a senegalese bar keep who has enough wherewithal to travel back and forth between france and various african nations and to take his cock and ball set, and motile sperm with him, may have fathered as many as 55 children and then sponsored their registration in france as citizens, so that the mothers may claim welfare benefits for their offspring.  and.  live in luxury in france, under the tender ministration of the euro union womb to tomb welfare system.

for this he was paid a fee, and to receive a cut of the welfare payments from the french government.  the french tax payers subsidized his fucking business, quite literally, and most likely his recreational fucking as well, to put it bluntly.  (hey, there is a metaphor tucked away in all of this, isn't there?  there must be!!  laughing.) 

this is all very tricky conceptually, but depending on the "fertilization sessions" involved, this maybe was, ... , what, ... , quadruple dipping?  you gotta admire his, ... , cheek is not exactly the right word here, ... , i have never been paid for my services.  perhaps the wrong cock and ball set, not good enough sperm? ... , i do not know.  laughing.  i do know that "ruefully" does not quite adequately describe the laugh.

there is no mention in the articles i have found as to whether this man is muslim?  i am going out of a limb, and "taking the risk" of guessing that he is.  but, what difference does it make?  it illustrates perfectly wonderfully the demographic reality that if you put your soldiers in swaddling and snotty noses and drippy diapers, you may achieve conquest of an entire civilization without firing a shot: so much easier crossing borders w/ bosoms than with swords.  the penis and the vagina have always been more powerful than the sword and the sheath/scabbard in reality, and almost as swift, and just as sure, and apparently so much easier to unsheathe: and the ravening mouths of welfare recipients strip the land as bare, eventually, as any march by any sherman to any sea.

conquest is conquest, and all of it involves dripping fluids, it would seem.

at any rate, the links, here: 

http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/178865 

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978517180 

at msnbc:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39099506 

john jay @ 09.14.2010

p.s.  if you think all of this a bit, ... , well tasteless, and perhaps over prurient, it just means that you have not yet developed the ability to look at reality directly without shrinking from it.  you need to toughen up a little bit, put your toe in the water.  hey, this senegalese guy got past the toe in the water stage a long time ago, and he is way out in front of you.  he is thoroughly immersed in the reality of things, as it were, and you cannot bring yourself to look at it forthrightly.  best you unsheathe your swords, and gird your loins for battle, my squeamish little friends.  as with all battle gear, keep it well "oiled" and protected from dings.