Yes, I'm Still France-Bashing

Jacque Chirac defending his foreign policy:

"Bonjour, my name is Jacque Chirac. I lead a country where the people eat snails, make heterosexuality look like a bad thing, and share a common language with baboons. Unfortunately, these virtues make us rather ineffective in war, so I cover up our weaknesses by cozying up to every dictator I can find. And you know what? Once you get past their genocidal side, these guys are pretty nice (go figure)! It's those freedom-mongers across the sea that you have to look out for; if they had their way, I'd have no despots to associate with! Without these vital associations, I would have no way to cover up France's military weakness."

"Therefore, it is crucial that France oppose freedom and its supporters WHEREVER they may raise their ugly heads; our national security depends on such dictatorial oppression. I am confident that not only France will benefit from this foreign policy, but that the entire world will also. By opposing freedom and and turning a blind eye toward the activities of totalitarian heads-of-state, we will prevent a repeat of WWII. Instead of all that nasty conflict, we will instead live in peace as tyrants destroy their own people, and passively plot against Western civilization. Such safety as I have guaranteed you has not been seen since Saddam was still in power, and I am confident that it will last at least as long as the current Pope."

"VIVE LE FRANCE!"

Least Interesting Headline of the Month

Elton John to "Marry" His Partner

Wow. So what am I supposed to do with this bit of info? I'm glad someone was there to tell me about it...

Seriously, I don't care who STRAIGHT celebrities marry, so why would Elton John's lust life be of any interest to me?

It's nothing but National Enquirer fodder. Even Yahoo should be above posting that waste of bandwidth.

Just Give Her Candy

Wow, this is a story that would make me lose faith in humanity, if it didn't happen in "How-do-you-work-this-thing" Florida.

So a little hellion down in Florida pitches a hissy-fit, and the teachers and administrators called her mom to come restrain her. The child climbed on desks, tore paper off of a bulletin board, and became violent with the teachers, kicking and punching several of them.

According to the articles I have read, the mother couldn't come to restrain the child, so after many pleas to calm the child down, the powerless school administrators called the cops. The police came and, recognizing the child from a previous incident, handcuffed her (gently).

Now, from an irrational point of view, this is obviously unacceptable! The school should have found a way to calm the girl down! "Talk to her calmly to defuse the situation," says the imbecile lawyer! Nevermind the fact that that had already been done... Maybe we should just give her some cookies, for cryin' out loud!

This irrational point of view is where the mother is coming from, as she is now suing the police department for handcuffing her daughter.

Now let's look at this logically...

The child was having a *violent* temper tantrum. She hit teachers, was destructive, and distracted the other students. The first thing the teachers did was talk to her, trying to get her to calm down. Good move, but unfortunately it didn't work. Next step? Send her to the principal. Well, the principal (or assistant principal) tried talking to the girl, and that didn't work either. She continued being violent. Next, the school did the logical thing and called the girl's mom. The mom, as I understand it, couldn't come to restrain the girl, which put the school in an awkward position.

The school had exhausted all its resources for dealing with this unruly girl. They could not restrain her, and she was being violent, which is quite unacceptable and must be stopped. The only option that the school had left was to call in a higher authority, and that's what they did by calling the cops, who handcuffed the violent child.

John Trevena, the lawyer for the girl's mother, said it is incomprehensible that the police officers would take such action over a youngster's behaviour. Heaven forbid anyone should teach the child a lesson she apparently wouldn't learn otherwise.

The police were perfectly justified in what they did. I don't care if you are 5 or 55, if you are violent, you need to deal with the consequences. Now, I'm not advocating locking the girl up, but she needed to learn where such behavior can lead. If no one can intervene (the girl's mom is obviously opposed to this), then the girl is setting patterns that will be very harmful for herself and others in the future.

The behavior that this girl exhibited was entirely unacceptable, and I'm all for finding other ways to punish the girl besides calling the cops. However, there was no other option available in this situation, as the school is not allowed to punish children adequately. If the parents won't give a child consequences, and the schools can't, then the cops are going to have to do it sooner or later. Should they do it now, while the girl won't be locked up and can't really hurt anyone, or should they wait until she commits a serious crime and spends time in jail?

The impotence of the school administrators is just more proof that the public school system is broken... I pray for my peers who are stuck in it.

A Long-Awaited Post

Ah... I've GOT to post something!

The Cardinals have finally elected a Pope, Benedict XVI. Word is he's very conservative, which means that we've still got a Conservative ally in the worldwide Catholic church. For now, anyway... he seems rather old, don't you think? I'm glad he was elected, though I didn't have too strong an interest in the election because I, obviously, am not Catholic.

I look forward to having a cultural ally, even if I don't agree with Catholicism.

And those are my thoughts. Please stand by for real blog posts... I'm very busy at present, but I'm going to do my best to bring you more of the Neo you know and love (or simply tolerate).

Peace (through strength) y'all,
Neo

A Joke I Heard Recently

Highlight the rest of the post for the answer to this joke...



What did Napoleon Dynamite say to Michael Jackson?



The defect in this one is bleach...

You Guys Are Great!

Hey, I just wanted to give a shout out to all the great people who read and comment on this blog! Whether your Conservative, Liberal, or even if you just don't care, it's great to have you here reading and commenting. I love seeing what you have to say about my posts, and I'm firmly convinced I have the coolest group of blogfriends this side of cyberspace.

You guys rock!
Neo

"I agree with you completely." -Saddam Hussein 

"Who Would Want To Live Like That?"

That is the question asked by Beth Gaddy, referring to her grandmother's glaucoma and heart problems. Mrs. Gaddy, because of her grandmother's heart problems and glaucoma, is attempting to have her starved by the removal of her feeding tube. The kicker? The grandmother, Mae Magouirk, has a living will that states she does not want food or water withheld from her UNLESS she is comatose or in a PVS. She is neither of these things.

Check out Reggienation and Grizzly Mama for the story.

My question is this: How long have pro-lifers been warning that acceptance of euthanasia can lead to more and more human beings getting killed? I'm not going to go all alarmist on you just yet, but when a granddaughter can trump a living will, just because of the value she places on a life, I get a little worried.

In response to Mrs. Gaddy's question, "who would want to live with disabilities like these?"

I tell you that I would. Keep me alive until I am comatose, the majority of my body is not functioning on its own, and it is known beyond shadow of a doubt that I can not recover. I would rather live than die. It's that simple. If it's tough, if I've got some disabilities, so did Helen Keller. So did Beethoven. So did FDR. Countless people have lived with disabilities, and I'm not going to be the one to dishonor them by saying "a life like that isn't worth living." It is worth living. It is life, and whether it is made more difficult by deafness, paralyzation, a coma, heart problems, or an array of other disabilities, it is still a life, and it is worth fighting for.

If we lose our respect for life, then what can we respect? Life is the most basic thing we have; we can lose our jobs, our pets, our money, our houses, our families, and our friends. We can lose every single thing we own, but we will have our lives as long as we remain alive. Life is the thing that sticks with us until our dying day, and if we can't even respect it and find it worth fighting for, then how can we respect anything else we own? If we can't respect our own lives, then how can we respect our friends lives? If we are like Mrs. Gaddy and we can't even respect our family's lives, then how can we respect the life of a total stranger?

And if we can't even respect a stranger's life, my friend, then what kind of society do we live in?

Sorry, Yes, but I've Got a Lucky Horseshoe!

"... As a matter of fact, I didn't want this for the oppressed Iraqis or underprivileged kids stuck in failing schools either. I'd rather keep all the freedom for myself, thank you."

"So yeah, I'm sorry."

Sorry Liberals

...And the other half misspell it.

Your daily dose of sorry liberals at sorryeverybody.com

Democracy vs. Oligarchy

According to Yahoo! News, Kansas has banned gay marriage as well as civil unions. The legislature approved it, and the voters did too. That, my friends, is democracy in action.

Democracy, meet Oligarchy. Oligarchy in this country is characterized by a group of people in black robes with an apparent disdain for the Constitution as it was written. They attempt to bypass proper democratic means of creating laws, instead creating a common law that looks nothing like the written law it claims to uphold.

Democracy and Oligarchy are directly opposed to each other. Democracy, by definition, involves rule by the people, while oligarchy is rule by the few. In the imminent court battles over the ban on gay marriage, we will see which form of government prevails in our country. Do the people rule, or do the judges? I vote that the people do, but the if we live in an oligarchy, then my vote doesn't really matter, does it?

Judicial tyranny must end. Impeachment is an option; maybe soon the judges will have to face the consequences of their usurpation of power.

We're the citizens of the United States, and we'd like our voices back.

Paying Respect

On Saturday, Pope John Paul II died at age 84. As the world mourns, the College of Cardinals is preparing to elect a successor. Here is an interesting article on potential successors.

Although I'm obviously not Catholic, I feel that JPII was a great man who took a strong stance on important cultural issues. May he rest in peace.