I've been largely absent from this blog, the internet, news, and so on for much of the last two weeks. I guess I've posted a little bit, but not as much as I normally do. I've been busy with unusual tasks and I've tried to devote the rest of my time to rest. If you didn't notice, the comments sections of a couple of my posts were hijacked during this time. Somebody whose opinion isn't unique or rational enough to attract readers to a blog of his own decided to put his intelligence on display in my comments sections.

The reader's intelligence may be summed up in this comment: "Kerry and Liberman are moderates who hide their liberalism because they were trying to reach a broader constituency." This is, of course, one of the most asinine statements I've ever heard. Lieberman actually is a moderate. He doesn't really have liberalism to hide. That's why he's being lynched right now by liberal Democrats. He has failed to bow down to the Mother Sheehan crowd who dominates the money supply of the Democratic Party with donations from rich liberals who are obsessed with easing their wealth-guilt by sending money to people who claim to "support human rights" and "believe in reproductive freedom." The idea that John F. Kerry is a moderate is just funny, and it reveals how ignorant of the real world the reader is. My guess is that the reader is a college student. Their brains are usually not fully-developed and that is a likely explanation for this massive, though hopefully not eternal, lapse of reason.

Do you see the phrasing game here? Lightweights think peace supporters support peace, human rights supporters support human rights, and so on. Yet one would get the impression from these groups that the United States is the only nation guilty of "human rights violations," "violating international treaties" and so on. The nations who exercise restraint in warfare, arguably too much restraint, are accused of war crimes, targeting civilians, and so on. Groups like Hezbollah who hide missiles under civilians' beds aren't condemned. Israel is condemned for blowing up the building. People who detonate suicide bombs in crowded markets and mosques in order to deliberately target the innocent, however, need to be understood. Moreover, the international community needs to recognize that the person who committed the crime was himself a victim of the United States and/or Israel and that is what led him to commit the heinous act. This is all wrong. Isaiah 5:20 says, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness..." That's what this is, regardless of whether or not you want to admit it.

The reader apparently also believes that a Nobel Peace Prize serves as confirmation that a president's policy was correct and effective. First off, the only reason Jimmy Carter was given the Nobel Prize was because he traveled around the world bad-mouthing Bush. Secondly, the U.N., with all of its peacekeeping minor-rapists and fraudulent officials, also received a Nobel Peace Prize. The prize doesn't mean anything of substance. It doesn't validate true peace, or true and effective efforts to hold peace. The Nobel people and American liberals only care about the idealistic version of peace. This is a world in which you sit down and converse with terrorists and solve your problem verbally. It leaves out the part where they saw your head off and publish a video of the decapitation on the internet. It also leaves out the slightest possibility that dropping an atomic bomb on an island ruled by nationalist fanatics could yield a peaceful nation friendly to the nation that bombed it.

As for charges that I am an angry name-caller, whatever. Read all of my posts and you will find that I am always respectful. Even when I am, in truth, angry - I reign it in and I am almost always composed. Calling someone a liberal is not "name-calling." During political discourse, it is often verbally expedient to classify groups of people. If someone is, for all intensive purposes, a liberal - it is not "name-calling" to call them that. The word "liberal" is just an adjective. In the previous paragraph when I mentioned "peacekeeping minor-rapists," that wasn't really an insult or a label so much as it was just an invocation of fact. It's not necessarily my job to explain to people the ways in which people are liberal or peacekeeping minor-rapists. I may choose to do that sometimes, but a lot of times people already know what makes the person liberal or a minor-raping peacekeeper. So, I don't really need to explain it.

I asked the reader to send comments directly to me at my email because I didn't really like the idea of my blog becoming his platform. However, as long as the comments section looks like a message board with many participants and not just a megaphone for the intellectually deficient I will leave the comments alone. I encourage participation and engagement on my blog, but if one person has a whole lot to say - he needs to get his own blog.