Think that kids today have an inflated sense of entitlement? Well, we can blame Mr. Rogers for this, according to someone who is "white, American and proud of it," never watched the show, and evidently thinks not only that pre-teen kids are better off being given guns by their fathers without any instruction about firearms safety or how to use them, but that whites are oppressed in, you guessed it, Mississippi.
 |  |
To be fair, the mind behind "No Apology" was only glomming on to an idea he got from a Wall Street Journal article. To be even more fair, he's not the most objective of commentators.
Mr. Rogers makes a good target for several reasons:
- He's dead.
- He was probably a homosexer.
- He had no guns in his home, just traffic lights and toy trains.
I suspect every adult in the Western world, after reaching a certain age, becomes convinced that the current generation of kids is somehow more lazy, greedy or possessed of unwarranted expectations than the one before it. This is probably bullshit, but seeing the theories wingers come up with to explain this phenomenon is a treat.
Comments
"In case you're worried about what's going to become of the younger generation, it's going to grow up and start worrying about the younger generation."
- Roger Allen
Whenever I catch myself doing this, I remind myself of this quote. It's reassuring.
Posted by: G. Williams | July 9, 2007 3:03 PM
Always good to see happy people. Since you see me as such a laughable, redneck conspiracy theorist - I invite you to read two of my recent posts, one today and one posted a month ago. It will: 1. give you more to chuckle at, or 2. give you pause in your quick assessment of fellow bloggers. Either way, I appreciate the hits. lol.
http://americaholds.blogspot.com/2007/07/consent-of-governed.html
http://americaholds.blogspot.com/2007/06/grieving-for-america.html
No Apology
Posted by: noapology
| July 9, 2007 6:56 PM
Sir, your passion is indeed palpable, but anyone who says he bemoans "our leftist-bias Judiciary" is living on another planet.
Moreover, when people write that "[t]he loss of any moral compass has been a deliberate agenda of the ACLU, the NEA, and Leftist professors who have a childish need to destroy the white, conservative, Judeo-Christian base," I'm at a loss as to figure out where they're coming from. Do you not think people can disagree with your politics without wanting to destroy the very country they themselves inhabit?
Look at it from my point of view: The machinations of the countless anti-science Christians presently staining America are unquestionably harmful to the country in various ways (you mention the natural environment, which most Bible-bangers conspicuously don't give a yip about), but I wouldn't say that they intend to ruin the country; they're just too stupid and brainwashed to do otherwise. To propose that they want to ruin their own homeland would imply that they're nihilistic, when in truth they're merely fuckheads. Does that make sense, sir?
"The Left will not rest until they tear down what they perceive as the power structure of the Right, which represents and stands for our national interests, as outlined in the US Constitution."
Since when has radical conservatism been a guiding principle outlined in the Constitution?
Can you actually give examples of the ACLU's deliberate destruction of American society as well as a plausible reason for why that organization, or any stateside body,would want to shit where it eats? At a minimum, can you understand why I see your kind as conspiracy-mongerers?
Posted by: Kevin Beck | July 9, 2007 7:16 PM
Oh, dat scwewy wabbit!
Posted by: Elmer Fudd | July 9, 2007 7:21 PM
In the first essay linked above, "No Apology" wrote:
The part about the Bible is in italics, so evidently it holds special importance. Why must "we" remember that? Some of "us" recognize the Bible as irrelevant at best and a sick joke at worst. If I were to take an oath with my hand on the Bible, you had better hope I was planning to tellthe truth anyway because I certainly wouldn't be any more inclined to be honest on account of a symbolic gesture rooted in superstition. I could tell myself "step on a crack, break my mother's back," and then go outside and stomp like a maniac on every sidewalk crevice within several miles without any fear of bringing harm to my dear madre.
If you're going to rue what's going on in America, rue the fact that we are, in large part, a nation of doltish fucks who believe that a bunch of cave-dwelling, plagiarizing Hebrews of yore have more to offer America's future than stem-cell research or basic humanitarian principles. That is the sad part.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I admit that I found your blog via Church and State, and when I saw that you have outgoing links to both Nathan's site and Gribbit's as well as a cavalcade of other bullshit factories, I reflexively figured you, too, would have wingnutty things to say. Egad! One of those boys is off his goddamned rocker and the other can't stop lying, although I forget which is which.)
Posted by: Kevin Beck | July 9, 2007 7:46 PM
Ok, Mr. kevin Beck, this dialogue began because I sometimes foolishly rise to the bait of ad hominem arguments. I am more and more realizing the futility of engaging such a challenge, because the implication is I have something to account for.
Anyway, coming as I am from another planet, let me describe for you the planet which I inhabit. I am conservative, which in reality means, liberal. Liberals who have moved over to the left side, I call Leftists. Leftists generally scoff at conservative (liberal) values. They are often intelligent, but using their intelligence is tiresome to most of them, so they generally opt for the abusive etc. argument, thus it is an excruciatingly difficult position to engage.
In my world a Communist is called a Communist. They are atheists. Our Constitution was based on religious beliefs, one of which was that our inalienable rights come from God, not government.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...."
The foundation of our American Government, its purpose and form and structure are found in the Constitution of the United States. Arising from the Constitution is a federal democratic form of government, out of which we currently have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States.
If your belief system is otherwise, and denies the Judeo-Christian values, that's your perogative, but the Constitution was never-the-less founded on such principles.
The ACLU at inception was devoted to tearing down our traditions, the concept of family, and ultimately replace the Constitution with whatever form of Communism is handy. ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin was a card-carrying Communist.
"I joined. I don�t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted��
Baldwin, 15 years after founding the ACLU -- wrote: "I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
What has the ACLU done, specifically, to undermine America?
For starters, the ACLU's war against the Boy Scouts, holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas, the careful installation of anti-Christian activists judges, the promotion of gay rights (which is a political ploy to further erode the family as an ideal social unit. You may scoff at defending against such goals, but they are intended to advance the ACLU's goal of distrupting traditional values which America was founded on.
Why does the ACLU do it?
Because in order for the ACLU to tear down constitutional barriers to governmental power, they must extinguish America's fundamental belief in God, since such a belief is an essential denial of the supreme power of government. According to the Constitution, our inalienable rights come from God, not government.
Judges. Any sitting federal judge who legislates by judicial fiat, in my opinion, has over-stretched himself, whatever side of the isle he is comfortable on. US Supreme Court Justices are not exempt from upholding the constitution, either. Currently, the judges who are leftist are the feminist judges like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who feel we should be guided by a "more international legal opinion", and actively promotes a more "progressive judicial activism". 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt often rails for a more progressive judicial activism, plus there is a raft of federal judges who share that opinion, and never miss an opportunity to rule accordingly.
We should let the legislators make the laws. That's what they are paid to do. Not federal judges. At least that's the view from this planet.
Have a nice day, Mr. Beck.
Posted by: noapology
| July 9, 2007 9:50 PM
Bullshit, sir. You can try to conflate "Creator" with "Judeo-Christian God" all you want, and you'll be wrong every time. Interpreting the Constitution this way is like pretending that every instance of the word "car" really refers to a four-door sedan or an SUV, or a specific model of Honda, just because these are popular varieties of the automobile.
Please read carefully: If the Framers had wanted to put the Judeo-Christian deity into the Constitution, they would have explicitly done so. There was no ACLU or "activist judges" stopping them in the 1700s. Have you heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 of which specifically states, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"? What more do you yipyaps want? A videotaped address by Thomas Jefferson or John Adams saying "LOOK, YOU ASSHOLES, WORSHIP WHAT YOU WANT, BE IT A BLUE DUDE WITH SIX ARMS, A SWARTHY GUY WITH A TURBAN, OR JESUS H. BALDHEADED CHRIST, BUT KEEP IT SEPARATE FROM GOVERNMENT"?
You clueless revisionists are too much, sir. Fortunately there's always some comic relief served with the hopelessly muddled thinking:
Ah, there's a war on Thanksgiving now, too, eh? And the ACLU, not the president, is in charge of selecting SCOTUS justices now? Do you know the differende between blind rhetoric and a considered postition? I do, and I value living here as much as you do. That's why the shimmering ignorance of people like you, who hide behind the curtain of "faith" as if just mouthing the word God makes one an upstanding citizen, needs to be exposed. Sir.
You've accused me of ad hominem attacks. There's a difference between coupling insults to arguments nad questions and substituting insults for substance. So go ahead, "No Apology," give me one example of the ACLU intentilally acting in such as way as to marginalize some person or institution in an unconstitutional way. While the ACLU is certainly zealous and not necessarily right every time, that's a little different from a genuine plot to rend the whole fabric of American society. I guarantee you that any example you can come up with, assuming you even try, will be one in which someone's rights were being protected, which cross-waving shitwads love to equate with the "persecution" of Christianity and an "erosion of family values." You're incapabable of seeing this from the perspective of gay homosexers; all you care about is that straights in your life have to see gaiety being tolerated. Well WHAAAAT A FUUUUUUUUUUCKIN' SHAME, sir!
Finally, trotting out the link between communism and the ACLU's founder, while convenient, means nothing. Does the ACLU align itself today with communist movements or governments? And what would you say if I pointed out that almost all of the history of Christianity is laced with oppression, violence, torture, and mind control as a cherished ideal? You'd probably say that the Crusades happened a long time ago, that Jesus is all about love and compassion and morals, and I'd laugh at your halfwitted hypocrisy and ad hoc nonsense.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | July 9, 2007 10:23 PM
Dude, you attracted the batshit crazy right here to your own blog. I was getting ready to click over to his blog to see the crazy with my own eyes, but all I had to do was scroll down!
Posted by: PhysioProf | July 10, 2007 10:50 PM
Aside from their sense of entitlement, appalling lack of discipline and ambition, the silly clothes they wear, and that horrendous noise they call music, kids today aren't that different than I was. Then again, I did watch that crypto-commie-atheist Sesame Street (today's episode brought to you by the letters CCCP).
You'll excuse me while I search for a handy Communism, won't you? Thanks so much.
Posted by: Dr. Eye | July 11, 2007 5:36 AM
Well, the coward at "No Apology" deleted my comment, so I'll recreate it here....
The ultimate irony is that if the wags at Faux News and their parrots like the blogger at No Apology possessed an attention span longer than a flee's like most Mr. Rogers watchers do, they'd be able to actually watch a show (not that No Apologies admits to never having seen one, and yet holds an opinion on it. Based on...ummm, what Faux tells him to believe) and discover that what he ACTUALLY presented on his show was lessons on compassion, patience, accountability, responsibility, and generosity.
Selfishness? Narcissism? Entitlement? Are you freaking kidding me? The only people who could possibly come to the conclusion that that's what Mr. Rogers taught are people who's entire belief systems are based on sound bites and bumper-sticker-philosophy. "I can interpret this one slogan to mean X, therefore his entire show was about X." Great logic there.
Mr. Rogers taught one thing, and one thing only: If you treat other people with respect, you will deserve to be treated with respect. Wow, great Satan indeed.
Sorry, but how about putting the blame on the parties ACTUALLY responsible for the obnoxious, entitled brats that are so prevalent today, namely their parents, and leave a nice man to rest in peace.
Have some freaking respect.
Posted by: Greg | July 13, 2007 2:51 PM
Fuddbloggers' compulsion to pore over referring URLs to see what people are saying about them and then leave comments on the blogs of their critics is matched only by their haste to delete any and all dissenting input, however fairly presented, from their own Fuddblogs. There is no plausible reason why your comment should not have been allowed to stand as written above.
Not only do these types hate opposing opinions, but I think it actually hurts their heads to even consider them.
Other things you'll notice about right-wing-Bible-whacker-conspiracy-theorist-blow-'em-up blogs: They have at least 500 outgoing links to people who say exactly the same thing, generally with the same absent command of English; they're usually running some fucked-up applet or bad piece of javascript code that crashes browsers or slows page loading times dramatically; and they frequently have PayPal or other beggar-buttons not seen nearly as often on non-conservative blogs, which is kind of a curiosity when you think about it.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | July 13, 2007 3:01 PM