For those not in the know, Bloody Nib Manor is in an area of Los Angeles County heavily populated by illegal immigrants.
Since the influx of border jumpers the neighborhood has become much more trash ridden. But trash I mean such things as corn cobs tossed on the sidewalk, beer cans tossed in the yard, dirty diapers thrown in the gutter. This article illustrates the problem: Crossers burying border in garbage www.azstarnet.com ®
And while I have in the past promised to avoid any illegal immigrant tirades, I thought it may be interesting to share this: 6 + 4 = 1 Tenuous Existence - Los Angeles Times Note the comments of the mother of ten's sister near the end of the article.
Perhaps the name of Bloody Nib Manor should be changed to Casa Bloody Nib.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Saturday, July 29, 2006
The Deterioration of the World Continues
The war between Israel and Hezbollah continues. Europe, Great Britain and Scandinavia continues to look at their shoes while the West is assaulted by barbarians.
Some Britons understand the danger posed by Islam: Telegraph News Unpicking the philosophy of faith schools,
Other Britons realize that it is more than a matter of schools: Melanie Phillips’s Diary » War notes (1) and Melanie Phillips’s Diary » The war against Israel (2)
And for those of you who are interested, this website finally picks up the story after more than 7 months: Mr. Barnett Check in after 12:00 AM Monday morning.
Some Britons understand the danger posed by Islam: Telegraph News Unpicking the philosophy of faith schools,
Other Britons realize that it is more than a matter of schools: Melanie Phillips’s Diary » War notes (1) and Melanie Phillips’s Diary » The war against Israel (2)
And for those of you who are interested, this website finally picks up the story after more than 7 months: Mr. Barnett Check in after 12:00 AM Monday morning.
Friday, July 21, 2006
How Things Have Changed
We here at Bloody nib Manor have never been physical culturalists, but as we grow older we realize the importance of keeping in some sort of shape and eating wisely.
Those of a "certain age" may recognize the ad to the left from comic books or the old style mens' magazines such as Argosy and Stag.
For many, many years Charles Atlas was the paradigm of manly strength and form. More than a few adolescent boys and young men sent Mr. Atlas their hard earned money in order to learn to develop into the Atlas type form. And the best thing, for the Atlas student, was the fact that the incident in the ad's cartoon was based on Charles Atlas' real life.
Your faithful correspondent, when first married, weighed 135 pounds at 6'1". His ever lovely bride, well a woman's weight is always a secret, but she was not a stick, but a pocket Venus.. Some thirty some odd years later yours now weighs 155 pounds and Lady Nib has only gained about five pounds. We've been very fortunate in that way, but as we grow older it becomes a chore to keep the fat away and the muscle present.
Charles Atlas, as corny as he have may been by today's standards, seems to have had the answer. Mr. Atlas was concerned with strength and health, not body building. Modern body builders are, in fact, freaks, When photographed for magazine covers or for competitions, usually starve themselves for three or for days before presenting themselves to the public. Mr. Atlas always presented himself as he was. He was a strong, fit man. The ever lovely Lady Nib, when queried on this matter, said that she much preferred the Charles Atlas physique to the modern body builder physique.
But that being said, your faithful correspondent has been reading over some old Charles Atlas material and he came across something that he found of interest.
Before recounting Mr. Atlas' words, let your faithful correspondent let the reader know that Mr. Atlas was concerned about more than just the musculature of his students. He was concerned about the whole person -- something that your modern "health spa" pays little attention to. ... Mr. Atlas wrote this back in the 1930s.
"Do not overlook the values of good music. Like attracts like. Music is pure and clean. Good music inspires and lifts you into higher realms. I strongly recommend that you take what I will call a Musical Bath daily. If you own a musical instrument, let its beneficial harmonies elevate and refresh your mind, body and soul. It should be as much a part of your regular day's routine as working, eating and sleeping. See that you listen to good music. Good music is to the soul what the water bath is to the body. Make it a point to listen to it often. These simple instructions, if faithfully observed and followed, will have a profoundly good influence on your life. Because of their simplicity do not neglect them. After all, the methods I am teaching are a natural and a better way of living, so that you may become healthy, strong and magnetic. I have exploded the idea that to be a strong man you must be a rough neck. Personality is also of great importance. Throughout your course I shall be giving advice on this subject as well as Health and Strength."
And in this modern age where body builders use steroids, and a hip-hop, or rap talker is considered musician, we find that the natural man has been replaced by the chemical and the base.
It's enough to make a person believe in de-evolution.
A Thought From T.R.
"It is not the critic who counts; ant the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly so the his place shall never be with those timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."We live in troubled times. There are two choices: act or bitch. The United States and Israel act. Europe bitches. If the Islamists win Europe will be kissing the dagger that holds a knife to its throat. If the U.S. and Israel win Europe will bitch. That's what the Europeans do -- bite the helping hand and kiss the whip.
More Anglican Nonsense
The Anglican Church in England and its American counterpart (the Episcopal Church USA) seem to have more and more fallen into the realm of religious irrelevancy. They seem to have abandoned the first principle of a Christian church -- to preach and teach the Gospel --, and have decided that the more important thing is to preach and teach social liberalism.
There are two recent items that bring this to the fore.
The first is that the prelates of the Church of England are considering replacing Saint George as the patron saint of England with Saint Alban. The reasons are because Saint George offends the sensibilities of Muslims living in England, and the fact that Saint George, as well as slaying a dragon, was a warrior.
This article from England's Daily Mail has the details -- Will George be slayed as England's patron saint? The Daily Mail
Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church USA has elected a woman to be the next Presiding Bishop over the ECUSA. Her name is Rt. Rev. Mrs. Katherine Jefferts Schori. It is likely that her election to the position of Presiding Bishop will result in some conservative parishes leaving the ECUSA. And that will result in lawsuits over property. And that will result in less money being available to be shared with the poor and destitute.
Mrs. Schori said the following when asked about the direction she would like to take the ECUSA, "Our primary emphasis needs to be feeding people, educating children, and looking for health care for everybody."
She does not say how she expects the ECUSA to do these things, but I suspect that she expects the government to do it while the ECUSA spends its money on lawsuits against dissenting congregations.
And by the way, note that she said not word one about Jesus Christ or the Gospel or spreading the Word.
Meanwhile, the Salvation Army tries it's best to do the things Mrs. Schori aspires to do while spreading the Gospel and rolling up its sleeves.
There are two recent items that bring this to the fore.
The first is that the prelates of the Church of England are considering replacing Saint George as the patron saint of England with Saint Alban. The reasons are because Saint George offends the sensibilities of Muslims living in England, and the fact that Saint George, as well as slaying a dragon, was a warrior.
This article from England's Daily Mail has the details -- Will George be slayed as England's patron saint? The Daily Mail
Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church USA has elected a woman to be the next Presiding Bishop over the ECUSA. Her name is Rt. Rev. Mrs. Katherine Jefferts Schori. It is likely that her election to the position of Presiding Bishop will result in some conservative parishes leaving the ECUSA. And that will result in lawsuits over property. And that will result in less money being available to be shared with the poor and destitute.
Mrs. Schori said the following when asked about the direction she would like to take the ECUSA, "Our primary emphasis needs to be feeding people, educating children, and looking for health care for everybody."
She does not say how she expects the ECUSA to do these things, but I suspect that she expects the government to do it while the ECUSA spends its money on lawsuits against dissenting congregations.
And by the way, note that she said not word one about Jesus Christ or the Gospel or spreading the Word.
Meanwhile, the Salvation Army tries it's best to do the things Mrs. Schori aspires to do while spreading the Gospel and rolling up its sleeves.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
A Blast From the Past
Back in 2002 Oriana Fallaci wrote this: FrontPage magazine.com :: I Stand with Israel: I Stand with the Jews by Oriana
Considering the current state of the Middle East the article may be worth a re-read. And as you read it keep in mind that Miss Fallaci has been sued and tried at least twice for "hate speech." And remember that when the article was written John Paul II was the Bishop of Rome. Now Benedict is the Bishop of Rome and the position of the Vatican has not changed. The supposed center of Christianity (for Roman Catholics, at least) has indicated their willingness to contribute to its own extinction.
It may sound unkind, but consider the fact that in nations where Christians (whether nominal or devout), Hindus or Buddhists control the government life progresses. Where Muslims rule life goes backwards. And not in a good way.
Considering the current state of the Middle East the article may be worth a re-read. And as you read it keep in mind that Miss Fallaci has been sued and tried at least twice for "hate speech." And remember that when the article was written John Paul II was the Bishop of Rome. Now Benedict is the Bishop of Rome and the position of the Vatican has not changed. The supposed center of Christianity (for Roman Catholics, at least) has indicated their willingness to contribute to its own extinction.
It may sound unkind, but consider the fact that in nations where Christians (whether nominal or devout), Hindus or Buddhists control the government life progresses. Where Muslims rule life goes backwards. And not in a good way.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Euro-Sissies and such
In the past two weeks the North Koreans (hereafter referred to as Norks) launched a few missiles in the direction of Japan and the US. Hamas kidnapped as Israeli soldier. Hezbollah kidnapped several Israeli soldiers (in this case, Druze Muslims) into Lebanon.
Prime Minister Koizumi, of Japan, told the Norks to knock it off, otherwise Japan would be forced to take hostile action. The Israelis undertook an invasion of the Gaza Strip and of Lebanon.
The reaction of the UN was something like, "Hold on, Little Elvis. Don't even think about defending yourself against the Norks. They only meant it in good fun." And "Hey, Israel. Don't you realize that you're supposed to be the Muslim world's punching bag? Put on a Band-Aid and get over it."
Isn't it interesting that the UN, and the European faction in particular, are talented in telling other countries what to do when they are not in danger? Within the last year the French prime minister (no capitalization for the French) Jack Chirac (I know it's really Jacques, but who cares?) told the world that any attack on La Belle France by a terrorist nation would result in a nuclear response. But, for some reason, he and his Gallic government feel that the Israelis should take a bunch of punches before responding. But that's the French for you -- philosophizing when the problem isn't their pidgin and cowering when it is. The rest of Europe isn't any better. For the love of God, even Britain seems to have swallowed Chamberlainism instead of learning from the great Winston.
Here's the deal. Kim Il Jong (or is it Kim Jong Il?) is an evil little man. Not only has he threatened Japan and the US with his missiles, he has, in the past, actually sanctioned the kidnapping from Japan Japanese citizens for the purpose of teaching Japanese to his minions. He is reputed to have actually had kidnapping Asian actresses so that he can have sex with them. Is this the type of guy that the UN wants to defend?
As far as Lebanon goes, at one time Beruit was called the Paris of the Middle East. At that time the country was controlled by Marionite Christians. Then in the late 70s the resident Muslims protested and started a civil war that resulted in Beruit being known as the Balck Hole of the Middle East. Late last year there was an attempt among the moderate Lebanese to mount a protest against militant Muslim control, but the the protests came to nothing. Hezbollah still retain seats in the parliament and controls the army in the south of the nation.
Hezbollah decided to take on Israel and Israel, instead of folding like your typical Euro-weenie, decided to fight back. And that's what pisses off Europe. Israel, a little country, decided to fight back against Jihad while Europe sits wringing its hands about being "inclusive."
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have Israel watching my back than France or Germany or even Great Britain.
Finally, and I know that I'm being scattershot in this post, no country in the world has benefited by being ruled by an Islamic government. A Christian government, or even a non-communist secular government equal progress in freedom and technology Islamic rule equals mud houses or reed houses and Sharia law.
Which would you choose?
Prime Minister Koizumi, of Japan, told the Norks to knock it off, otherwise Japan would be forced to take hostile action. The Israelis undertook an invasion of the Gaza Strip and of Lebanon.
The reaction of the UN was something like, "Hold on, Little Elvis. Don't even think about defending yourself against the Norks. They only meant it in good fun." And "Hey, Israel. Don't you realize that you're supposed to be the Muslim world's punching bag? Put on a Band-Aid and get over it."
Isn't it interesting that the UN, and the European faction in particular, are talented in telling other countries what to do when they are not in danger? Within the last year the French prime minister (no capitalization for the French) Jack Chirac (I know it's really Jacques, but who cares?) told the world that any attack on La Belle France by a terrorist nation would result in a nuclear response. But, for some reason, he and his Gallic government feel that the Israelis should take a bunch of punches before responding. But that's the French for you -- philosophizing when the problem isn't their pidgin and cowering when it is. The rest of Europe isn't any better. For the love of God, even Britain seems to have swallowed Chamberlainism instead of learning from the great Winston.
Here's the deal. Kim Il Jong (or is it Kim Jong Il?) is an evil little man. Not only has he threatened Japan and the US with his missiles, he has, in the past, actually sanctioned the kidnapping from Japan Japanese citizens for the purpose of teaching Japanese to his minions. He is reputed to have actually had kidnapping Asian actresses so that he can have sex with them. Is this the type of guy that the UN wants to defend?
As far as Lebanon goes, at one time Beruit was called the Paris of the Middle East. At that time the country was controlled by Marionite Christians. Then in the late 70s the resident Muslims protested and started a civil war that resulted in Beruit being known as the Balck Hole of the Middle East. Late last year there was an attempt among the moderate Lebanese to mount a protest against militant Muslim control, but the the protests came to nothing. Hezbollah still retain seats in the parliament and controls the army in the south of the nation.
Hezbollah decided to take on Israel and Israel, instead of folding like your typical Euro-weenie, decided to fight back. And that's what pisses off Europe. Israel, a little country, decided to fight back against Jihad while Europe sits wringing its hands about being "inclusive."
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have Israel watching my back than France or Germany or even Great Britain.
Finally, and I know that I'm being scattershot in this post, no country in the world has benefited by being ruled by an Islamic government. A Christian government, or even a non-communist secular government equal progress in freedom and technology Islamic rule equals mud houses or reed houses and Sharia law.
Which would you choose?
Sunday, July 09, 2006
The World Cup
The World Cup final soccer game was played today. Italy won. France lost and America yawned.
While listening to the Drudge Report radio program this evening your faithful correspondent (and others) was treated to a tirade about how the US was out of it by not paying attention to the game. Various accusations were leveled: ignorance, lack of attention span, ignorance again and chauvinism.
Yours truly was in church during the game worshipping something other than a soccer ball, but even if he hadn't been he would have been searching for a baseball game, lacrosse game or golf tourney.
The fact of the matter is that Americans, generally, do not care for soccer. For thirty years I have heard the predictions of soccer promoters that Americans will embrace soccer because so many of their kids play soccer. It hasn't happened yet. Even when the United States women's soccer team won two World Cups the reaction in the US was five minutes of jubilation and then the question, "Are the Sox playing today?" ... Americans like soccer as a kid's game. They don't much care for it as a sport for adults. Soccer is seen as rather effete when men play it. Part of the reason is because since about 1965 the game has emphasized defense. Americans are about offense and aggression in sports. If soccer were played as it was in England in 1959 Americans might take to the game. But it isn't.
Now one watches soccer and sees a bunch of grass divers. Men fall down claiming injuries when no one has been near them to injure them. A football player prides himself on the albility to play hurt. A baseball player gets hit by a ball and keeps playing. But a soccer player has an opposing player come within five feet of him, falls down, grabs his leg and retires to the sidelines as an injured player only to go back onto the field as spunky as he was at the start of the game. Soccer players are actors. Americans like to separate acting from sports.
So it can be said that Americans are chauvinistic about their sports. But the have good reason. They have better sports to watch.
While listening to the Drudge Report radio program this evening your faithful correspondent (and others) was treated to a tirade about how the US was out of it by not paying attention to the game. Various accusations were leveled: ignorance, lack of attention span, ignorance again and chauvinism.
Yours truly was in church during the game worshipping something other than a soccer ball, but even if he hadn't been he would have been searching for a baseball game, lacrosse game or golf tourney.
The fact of the matter is that Americans, generally, do not care for soccer. For thirty years I have heard the predictions of soccer promoters that Americans will embrace soccer because so many of their kids play soccer. It hasn't happened yet. Even when the United States women's soccer team won two World Cups the reaction in the US was five minutes of jubilation and then the question, "Are the Sox playing today?" ... Americans like soccer as a kid's game. They don't much care for it as a sport for adults. Soccer is seen as rather effete when men play it. Part of the reason is because since about 1965 the game has emphasized defense. Americans are about offense and aggression in sports. If soccer were played as it was in England in 1959 Americans might take to the game. But it isn't.
Now one watches soccer and sees a bunch of grass divers. Men fall down claiming injuries when no one has been near them to injure them. A football player prides himself on the albility to play hurt. A baseball player gets hit by a ball and keeps playing. But a soccer player has an opposing player come within five feet of him, falls down, grabs his leg and retires to the sidelines as an injured player only to go back onto the field as spunky as he was at the start of the game. Soccer players are actors. Americans like to separate acting from sports.
So it can be said that Americans are chauvinistic about their sports. But the have good reason. They have better sports to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)