This is really neat stuff, people, and we really SHOULD be wondering why the major media outlets are not picking up on this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp

I guess we'll find out at some point. Enjoy.

Hal

So long a time . . . so few a post. Loyal fans (all 5 of you), I apologize for the long hiatus. Life is busy, but procrastination is so sweet! Ah, the studying I should be doing now . . .

So, on the with ranting.

First, much in the world of politics has changed since I last posted. What to say? I'll make some brief observations:

1) Democratic Primaries: Ridiculous. I've never really cared for any of the candidates, but the way the media pretty much ran this one was absurd. First, Howard Dean was the media sweetheart who was such a shoe-in for the nomination that everyone else should step aside so as to give the most liberated front against Bush. Then, a slight change occurred and suddenly John Kerry is the new darling. And the convention hasn't even been held yet! It's as if everyone has completely forgotten that there are actually several other candidates!

2) President Bush: I don't understand things sometimes. There's a lot of people out there, in the mainstream media mainly, who demonize every word, phrase, and action President Bush takes. Sometimes its hard to distinguish when he does anything right simply because you've got people on both sides screaming their heads off when he so much as sneezes. To be honest, some of his actions in the past few months have frustrated me. His whole, "temporary work permit" or whatever for illegal aliens is just wrong. Let's reward criminals because they have a strong native voting base? That sounds dangerous.

3) 9-11 Commission: What a political joke. The entire point of this thing is to simply pin blame on someone, which is not the place to be right now. What if we had done the same with Pearl Harbor? History would not be very forgiving on that, I suspect.

Well, moving on.

So, I see hear that people are protesting at the University of Illinois about their mascot, Illiniwek, today.

*sigh*

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Until I see different, the activists who take part in this are hypocrites. Surprised? Let's look at what's being said . . .

One of the arguments made is that Illiniwek is a mockery, a discriminatory symbol of oppression and stereotypes. Stereotypes? Mockery? When was the last time any of these people complained about the Vikings? Or the Cowboys? Or what about the Fighting Irish? That last one is pretty bad, but nobody seems to care about that one. Or do they? I don't see their protests, so I hope someone proves me wrong on this point.

Along the same point, the University emphasizes over and over that they handle Illiniwek with the utmost care, concern, and respect, and make certain that whoever plays him each year learns everything so that it isn't a mockery.

But then again, maybe some people actually do find it insulting. I dunno. Do the Native Americans find it insulting? I wouldn't know. I've seen maybe one or two Native Americans speak out on this issue. Everyone else is just a white person complaining about oppression and mockery.

So, oppression? Discrimination? How does a mascot cause oppression and discrimination? I've heard a lot of people complain about the horrendous conditions on the reservations . . . the poverty, the hopelessness, the corruption and unfair dealings from govt. officials. So, wait, how does a mascot cause those? And, the million dollar question, how does getting rid of the mascot solve those problems?

I maintain that if people really cared about the native people, they'd work to solve those problems, not worry about some mascot. The entire thing just smacks of politically correct "white guilt." "Let's not solve any real problems, let's just chase down rabbit trails to ease our collective guilt for being ancestors of people who may have been involved in oppressing your ancestors." Yikes. If you pity them, if you care for them, then solve the problems that really matter. Just as James said, if you wish a man well but don't care for his earthly needs, then what good have you done him?

In other news, my family likes to watch "Joan of Arcadia." I haven't heard anyone comment on this show in the time it's been on. So, I'll share my thoughts.

For those who don't know, it's about this girl from a "Catholic" family that meets God in various human forms, who tells her to do certain things. As Joan does what God tells her to do, she learns various lessons about life and people around her are bettered for it. We also see the lives of her family and friends evolve as they go about their lives. It's fun, it's exciting . . . it's religious drivel.

See, while it's really neat that God appears to Joan and says some things that do hold true, the God portrayed here is certainly not the God of the Bible. The God of "Joan" seems to use a works based salvation: Those who do the will of God are loved by God. It's just about being a good person, not about having faith in Christ. There's the next problem: "God" never, ever mentions his son. I know they have to water down the religiosity for broadcast television, but the God of the Bible testifies to Himself and will not deny the Son. We don't see that here. The third big problem is God's purposes. I understand that we don't always know what God is doing or what He intends, but "God" in this instance is just a cosmic Dr. Phil. He wants to teach Joan all these great lessons of life and show her how to be a better person . . . blah. A very well known saying (though I don't know the original source) is, "Jesus didn't come to make bad people good . . . he came to make dead men live." Joan learns great lessons about being a swell girl, but it's almost meaningless.

So, those are my thoughts. On the show, on politics, and on many, many things. Perhaps this signals a return to normalcy. Or perhaps I'm just making a temporary hiatus BACK to the blog. Either way, enjoy it while it lasts :-)

Hal