Pet Peeve

Alright, time to get back to actual work. Let's start with something light. I can't stand stories that try to make us believe that predatorial species are interacting with each other in friendly and totally unnatural ways. (I'm certain that Ransom's distrust of child-friendly (much like the Masons) Disney draws in large part from their unnatural propaganda called the Fox and the Hound)

"This is unusual and would never happen in the wild," said zoo keeper Sri Suwarni, bottle-feeding a baby chimp on Wednesday. "Like human babies, they only want to play."

"LIKE HUMAN BABIES"???? Are you serious. They are not like human babies, but I know that this article exists because that is what we are supposed to believe.

"When the time comes, they will have to be separated. It's sad, but we cant' change their natural behavior," she said. "Tigers start eating meat when they are three months old."

In other words, this story is worthless and certainly shouldn't qualify as news. Its cute for sure, but I will absolutely enjoy the sweet comfort of inevitability when the follow up story breaks, "Orangutan missing. Friend, Tiger, found picking teeth with twig."

The Day France Killed Bach's Viola

Today is February 16. Yes, one of the darker days in history. We remember these days in their infamy. D-Day, V-Day, VE Day, Vday Day, Election day 2000 and the like are enshrouded by clouds of gore and death. (Awesome pun definitely intended).

But February 16th is the day that we should all remember as the point in history where the Enlightenment took its smiley social science to ruin the first of the seven artes liberales, the music of the spheres.

Here is the scene, pitch in music (the fundamental frequency of notes/sounds) was consistently defined according to different composers based on the nature of the music and instruments that were being utilized. For example, one may note.. (ahem) that pitch in Bach's organ fugues (as distinct from some of his other works) are relatively high owing to his own Leipzig pitchpipe placing A at near 500 Hz. This is unlike his English counterparts who placed the A at would be around an F or E# on Bach's organs. Therefore, Handel's work (Primarily written with English instruments in mind) translate inconsistently in Germany where Bach's well-tempered clavier set the standard for how keys are separated.

I know what you are thinking. This is crazy, how can this be, why cant we all have one standard? Well, start with this, what has standardization done for us lately? Standardized testing in the schools, standardized railways at the Civil War, standardized professional necessities for lawyers... they haven't done much other than squelch creativity in favor of the soft glow of mediocrity. So for the WTO people out there loving on the internet revolution and a women in pants in every country, this isn't for you.

France in 1859 was the first nation to, by legislation, standardize pitch. They standardized the A at 435 hz which is a very democratic and tolerant pitch comporting well with Enlightenment values. I would have moved that it be named the "Robespierre Pitch" in a sly honorarium to the great leader of our positivist past hung in the gallows of his own rational promulgation.

Ok, so here is the thing with all of this. I am ok with a standard pitch as long as it is taught as an innovation. The "hertz" unit is a modern designation that has a certain grounding in empirical science again owing to its Enlightenment forebears. Science and music is a lot like science and religion. You can talk about the same things, but your language is essentially different.

Before tuning forks and electronic tuners grounded musical expression according to accepted standards (though after Quantum theory, I don't see it lasting) people interpreted music an a generally "interpretive" way. That is to say, without the faux exactness of science, the impetus was much like reading a poem and augmenting tone and pitch in a way to express the author's intent. This is the essence of interpretation which the modern mind has collapsed in favor of meta-analytical schemes designating art according to social values rather than as human expression. That all began on this day in France, our divorce from awe.

Let music be music. Let it catch us up and connect us to the heavens. Let Hildegard von Bingen's tonal lowness bring us to prayer and Allegri's haunting High C in the Miserere bring us to contrition. Let the telos guide the praxis and burn to ashes this tradition of placing mind over matter, and nature over grace. There is an intelligible order to it all. It is enshrouded in mystery but only takes a willing mind. It cannot be broken down into its mereological constituents and those that try will be doomed in their humanist quest. Death to protestant and modern crafts that defy the order, long live the musicians who preserve our Father's creation.

Chouans!!!

Do (re) Be

"Without a 'music of the spheres' to approximate, modern music, like the other arts, begins to unravel. Music's self-destruction became logically imperative once it undermined its own foundation."

The SPLC

Well, it is February so I figure that it is time to post about the celebration of black America. For the most part, I don't have a big problem with black history month. I think that it is pretty uneventful. It is pushed as a sort of secular liturgical moment, but no one really feels that it is anything deeper than an advertisement for 20th c. revolutionaries.

I am not black and never really identified with blacks all that much as a child and certainly never ever wanted to become a baptist preacher or rapper. (See Qahal for X-Dash merch). So for me, it is kind of an annoyance that there is all this talk about being black where I could easily spout off 100 facts regarding my particular Western European heritage that includes religious persecution under Bismark, nobility and title, Catholic orthodoxy, etc... that pound for pound outrivals anything I have ever heard come from black America. But that really isn't a problem because some of us have learned to deal with this phenomena from an early age. (I once was slated to wrestle a girl in high school but after I hurt another male opponent by wrenching his wrist, she forfeited, I was relieved).

Now in Indianapolis, the North of the north, I am constantly surrounded by attempts of people to make me aware that there are black people around me and that they are distinct. Fine, I see that and I notice them every time I go to work. I work with them and enjoy a collegial and friendly atmosphere of which many different races are a part. Things are fine, there is no elephant in the room.

Now, I won't go into the idiocy of the liberal education establishment to push white guilt to the point of totally obfuscating the serious moral depravity of a person like King. That is an either/or in our world. Either you know that what you are being told is pretty much scripted or you are a lemming worried more about your quotidian diversions than anything. What has driven me nuts this month is that the greatest proponents of race conscious laws, civil rights reform, and movements for black rights (an not inconsequently black solidarity) are Jews.

Some quick facts. After DuBoise left, the NAACP was run by Jews until 1977, over 60 years. The SPLC has been Jewish run forever and came under fire for not hiring blacks and offering hearty salaries to the East coast Jew elites. (Remember: P stands for poverty). The persecution of Marcus Garvey was almost totally Jewish as was much of the resistance to Malcolm X (solidarity is not their M.O.). Many of the Jews were associated with Soviet Bolsheviks and their speech bears striking resemblance to the tenants of early-stage Bolshevism. There is more out there, go to Michigan Law School for a class and you will hear all about how Jews saved everything from whites. Thank God for Michigan!

Well, as we sit in the world of the height of Jewish legal/cultural hegemony, I think that some organizations are getting too big for their britches. For example, in Indy, the Jewish organizations around here almost universally support cloning and stem-cell research not to mention abortion on demand. I believe that most people will for a small part see these issues as civil rights issues which has proved to be problemmatic for a socially conservative black population. "Aegrescit medendo" I say. Black leaders in the last 15 years or so have become uncomfortable with Jewish dominance of their movement and have since pushed for more black voices. (Like Kwase Mfume and Julian Bond). I welcome this as a push for solidarity amongst blacks which is sorely needed as minorities that have been used by the Jewish elite.

What I think this shows is that Jews supported civil rights not necessarily because of their identification with injustice, but rather because it offered them an opportunity to eschew a social order through law, litigation, and media. They were not welcomed universally but made a lot of money in areas of prostitution, pornography, and other "unclean" industries. That power was used to leverage the civil rights movement away from solidarity to democratic pluralism and tolerance-speak. (Look at what happened to Fr. Coughlin for a great example) That is just my theory, it is incomplete, but that I what I see at this point.

Now today, I see the SPLC, still Jewish, has just come out against some of the Catholic church's faithful sons and daughters. This has never been so overt and I am glad that the SPLC has found the chutzpah to show exactly what they are. They are people who really don't like traditional Catholics. They loved to see Chicago and Detroit fall into their present ethnic nonsense and get really nasty on abortion issues as Catholics are their number one foe. This is really what they want, to destabilize Christianity rooted in tradition and family. Read their "Dirty Dozen" list of dangerous anti-Semites. (The Remnant??? WTF?) I'd like to hear what you guys have to say about this.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=719

Duebster

The Best Baseball Video Game Ever Made

MVP '07 NCAA Baseball was just released on PS2. Here's what Sports Illustrated had to say about it:

MVP 06 was the best baseball game released last year, and saying that it might be the best baseball video game ever made shouldn't be considered hyperbole. So when MVP 07 hit my grubby hands this week, I was stoked. I convinced my wife I was tired and would be falling asleep on the couch, and once she went off to bed I hopped up, grabbed the game from my bag and fired up my PS2. And for the next few hours, I immersed myself in a haze of peppy fight songs, junior college transfers demanding playing time, the ping of aluminum bats and Rosenblatt Stadium.

Who wouldn't play possum to grab a late night treat like MVP '07?

In case my wife is reading this, I will let them try to explain:

For those of you who aren't gamers, you may think video games by their very definition are soulless; simple burned discs of plastic carrying an endless series of 0's and 1's which somehow translate into a series of images on our TV screens. This is understandable, though video games -- at least the really good ones -- absolutely have something there more than just images and sounds. In my opinion, this is what differentiates ultra-successful games like Grand Theft Auto, Halo and Madden from all the series that imitate them. If you play video games, you probably understand what I'm talking about.

Yes, I do.

What Am I, A Farmer?

If I were to ask you if there were any occupations that were beneath you, how would respond? Would you ever pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas? I know, that's crazy talk. How about document review?

On the list of political issues that get me fired up, immigration is pretty far down the chain. But I think that this blogger is tinkering with a larger truth and that's what has me interested. As one of our former non-Catholic classmates would say: "It all comes back to the dignity of the human person." That's right buddy and defense wins championships. *wink* But certainly, there is truth in the author's point that there is no such thing as work that is beneath us.

At the same time, his approach seems insincere. He would have everyone take on manual labor, including his own children. Well, at least in their youth. I mean, we don't want them to have to do it their whole life. And naturally, if someone works hard as a lawn mower or hamburger-flipper, then they are bound to move on at some point right?

As Tocqueville wrote: "In the United States professions are more or less laborious, more or less profitable; but they are never either high or low: every honest calling is honorable." The farther we move from that notion, the closer we come to the idea that the lawyer is somehow better than the parking-lot attendant, undercutting the very foundation of republican government.

Not surprising that he uses the lawyer as his "better-than-thou" exemplar. Again, I think that it is true to say that a lawyer is not better than a parking-lot attendant. But I'm afraid that the attendant is largely stuck with the lot he has drawn. Pun very much intended. And the lawyer isn't likely to ever quit his document reviewing job to go work at a parking lot. In real life, princes don't end up working at a fast food chain in the big city like Eddie Murphy in Coming to America. And in real life, beggars don't end up working on Wall Street like... Eddie Murphy in Trading Places.

The problem isn't the President's immigration plan. I'm sorry, but its not going to undercut the very foundation of republican government. As if that is something that is supposed to make us take up arms. The problem here is that the United States is wearing two faces. Tocqueville and the American Dream are two different things entirely. And this writer is trying to have both at the same time. Either all honest callings are honorable or they are only good inasmuch as they allows the person to progress in status. And our nation as a whole has progressed so far that we can now say that there are certain occupations that are beneath us. And we can all pat each other on the back because we earned it through hard-work and determination.

I'm not really sure what my point is here. I would like to hear what you guys may have to offer on this topic, but I will leave you with this little tidbit that came to mind when I read this article. Watch all the way until the end:



P.S. If America has a democracy Bible, Tocqueville is the gospel writer and the Federalist Papers are the epistles. Am I right?

The Un-P.C. Detectives

My mother-in-law happens to be a grade school librarian with access to many old children's books and often provides the Ransom family with literary treasures. The one I am currently reading is "The Hardy Boys: Footprints Under the Window." As a young lad, I read a substantial portion of the Hardy Boys series, but I can't say that I remember many of the details of these adventures. This masterpiece by Franklin W. Dixon is at least as good as the books about that Harry Potter kid (which, despite the cries from Qahal, is unfortunately the new standard by which we must judge). But what has amused me most about this nostalgic book, copyright 1933, is its political uncorrectness. A few quick examples:

In a moment before the mystery has begun, Frank and Joe Hardy need their shirts laundered:

"We'll take them down to Sam Lee," decided Joe. "He's the best Chinese laundryman in town . . ."

This innocent errand leads to a series of escalating run-ins with Chinamen (despite what Walter Sobchak says about the proper nomenclature, this is Dixon's word choice throughout) whose dialog is all similar to this:

"No good. Catchee much tlouble sometime. No Likee."

And then there is this little narration, when Frank and Joe have discovered a spy lurking nearby:

Was he friend or foe? Chinaman or white man?

But Dixon won't just infuriate the overly-sensative when it comes to nationalities; he provides fuel for the feminists, too. There is a point when one of the good Chinamen has to disguise himself as a woman to escape the Chinese gang that is hunting him down. According to the story, his disguise makes him look like an attractive woman, so it will pass a visual test, but the good detectives want the disguised man to convincingly play the part of the woman, so they offer him this advice:

"You'll get away with it as long as you don't talk too much. And you musn't forget to giggle every few minutes, for no reason at all, and powder your nose whenever you see a mirror."

I don't have anything else to add, but now that I know the Duebster is having a child I figured I would let him know about the quality literature he should invest in if it is a boy.

What's In A Name?

Hopefully I didn't completely destroy my credibility by referencing a cartoon. Even if it is an awesome one.

I've been meaning to carry over a conversation that was recently begun by the Duebster regarding the language used by John Paul II (or as the Duebster fondly refers to him, St. John Paul the Great) and the postconciliar Church in general. I think there are a range of Catholics that have viewed the change in language (and I don't mean translation) that took place after Vatican II as affecting a change in meaning. These vary from Pope Michael through sede vacantists to "normal" SSPX-ers and on to those like the Abbe de Nantes, who do not seek to separate from the Roman Church but still believe that the modern Church has become corrupt by heresy. They all seem to agree that changing the wording has changed the meaning, but they differ regarding the degree of damage that has been done and what should be done in response.

I've been trying to find a balanced article looking into this debacle, and I found this. Though not entirely on point, it certainly provides a solid foundation to discuss this issue. Here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite:

Vatican II had placed upon us all the necessity of restating Catholic doctrine in a way which carried a meaning to contemporary society. There were all sorts of reasons for this. But the primary reason was that of compassion and love. The Church, like Christ, had compassion on the multitude. It wanted to share its treasures with the world. It realized that the Church and the world had drawn apart and were speaking a different language. Pope John had prepared the way for this, and the Council was an acceptable time for implementing it, offering the truth to the world in its own language and without rubbing their noses in it. The whole ecumenical movement was born of this compassion, a sincere and lively compassion. But its very compassion, if misplaced, could be its worst enemy. We carry the precious gift of the Faith in frail ecumenical vessels, and any false concealment, any false accentuation born of false compassion, and we have a heresy on our hands. The ecumenist who, knowing that a particular truth of the Faith carries little meaning or conviction to contemporary man, thereby plays it down or conceals it, instead of painfully searching for a language which would be relevant, is a false shepherd who feeds nobody but frightens everybody. He may not have angry sheep on his hands, but he still has hungry ones.

The overriding necessity here is to recognize that speaking this new language is the most difficult task that the Church has ever assigned herself. We are exploring new country, cutting new trails, balancing truth on a razor's edge.

If the ears are itching, it is up to us to speak our old doctrines in a language which takes care of the itch. This is never easy. It is not made any easier by those who are too ready to see heresy in very turn of phrase, or by those who are too ready to repudiate the magisterium.

I gather several things out of this article that I find compelling. First, it doesn't really ask the question of whether Vatican II was necessary. And perhaps this is because, for the purpose of analyzing the Church's actions after Vatican II, it is a moot point. Second, the author clearly believes that it is possible to rightly carry out the desire of the Council, albeit an extremely difficult task. So whether or not Vatican II was necessary, its goals are achievable. If this is true, then these accusations of heresy should be directed to individual men and not the institution of the Church itself. The institution has not faltered, it has set out to accomplish a difficult, but possible task. That is why I believe this author places both the challenge and the fault upon the "ecumenist" rather than the Church itself.

We all agree that the doctrines of the Church have not changed after Vatican II. At the same time, we could find many instances where members of the modern Church have communicated these ancient truths in very different ways than before. Perhaps many have failed in walking the line and have betrayed these ancient doctrines, but I don't believe that is an indictment upon the institutional Church.

The new language of the Church is not meant to replace the ancient one, but to extend it. The new language is not meant for those of us who already believe, but rather for the world. And we hope that when they respond to this new evangelization that they in turn come into the depth of the ancient language of the Church.

The American Dream

Apparently by taking my lowly position as a contract attorney, I've thrown away all of my accomplishments from law school. I've recently been informed that the firm has a policy regarding contract attorneys. They can't even be considered for a position within a year of their employment. And even then, don't get your hopes up because it is very rare. This policy is partially a product of the contractual relationship the firm has with my employer. But the more inquiring I do about it, the more I'm convinced that my employer is actually doing the firm a favor.

At the time of employment, no mention is ever made of said restriction. In fact, the employee is led to believe that there is always the possibility of getting hired on as a permanent attorney. At the same time, by accepting the contract position, the employee becomes a member of a class of people, all equal in the eyes of the firm. All distinctions based on prior achievements and raw abilities are thrown out. You are now judged solely on your ability to perform your contract work in relation to your fellow class-members. (This process in many ways reminds me of the first-year moot court exercise, where the oral advocates, on a scale of 50 points, all received grades within the 45-50 range and then four were [randomly] chosen out of 100 as the most exceptional)

As one begins to inquire about permanent employment, they are finally notified of said restriction. While there are ways around it, the firm just couldn't consider such possibilities. After all, the employee is just a lowly contract worker. In fact, the employee is now led to believe that if he just "kicks ass" at document review, pays his dues and sticks with it, there remains the possibility after one-year (maybe two) that he could be one of the chosen few. Perhaps being so lucky as to be raised to the position of Staff Attorney, and at some point down the road Associate, well on his way to that prestigious Of Counsel limbo we all dream about. The jackass, nonattorney manager who came up with this policy was himself a temp worker when he first got hired on, and we are supposed to look at his success story not as an inspiration, but as the only way. Its the real life American Dream. All other paths to success are now viewed as subversive to the firm and to my fellow class-members. They are considered short-cuts, as though I was somehow cheating somebody out of their place in line. A place that has nothing to do with legitimate legal experience and no rational evaluation of their actual possibility of ever getting hired on here. I would be "cheating" them of their false hope and misplaced optimism, fed by the firm itself to keep their lemmings happy and willing to continue shoveling the legal poop of litigation. And so that becomes the objective truth. Everyone that I speak to worships this restriction as though it was implemented by the Almighty, himself, and they are without any power to affect its change or allow for an exception.

All of this is exactly why I've never wanted to work for the large firm, which are in fact not firms but corporations. They care nothing of one's legal prowess or ability, they care only about office politics and servitude. This situation reminds me of a great movie that subtly tackled these issues:

I have been told to do my best, with a huge asterisk next to it stating "at document reviewing". Clearly this is not what I was trained for and not what I have devoted my last four years pursuing.

Dash: You always say 'Do your best', but you don't really mean it. Why can't I do the best that I can do?

Helen: Right now, honey, the world just wants us to fit in, and to fit in, we gotta be like everyone else.

Dash: But Dad always said our powers were nothing to be ashamed of, our powers made us special.

Helen: Everyone's special, Dash.

Dash: [muttering] Which is another way of saying no one is.

And if I do my best, I might just get lucky and get promoted to Staff Attorney. Oh, the sweet taste of the American Dream, how I long for your milk and honey.

Helen: I can't believe you don't want to go to your own son's graduation.

Bob: It's not a graduation. He's moving from the 4th grade to the 5th grade.

Helen: It's a ceremony!

Bob: It's psychotic! They keep creating new ways to celebrate mediocrity, but if someone is genuinely exceptional...

And one of my personal favorites. Mr. Incredible is forced to work in an awful corporate environment, and what makes his boss unhappy? Mr. Incredible is subverting the bureaucracy.

Gilbert Huph: I'm not happy, Bob. Not happy. Ask me why.

Bob: Okay. Why?

Gilbert Huph: Why what? Be specific, Bob.

Bob: Why are you unhappy?

Gilbert Huph: Your customers make me unhappy.

Bob: Why? Have you gotten complaints?

Gilbert Huph: Complaints I can handle. What I can't handle is your customers' inexplicable knowledge of Insuricare's inner workings. They're experts! Experts, Bob! Exploiting every loophole! Dodging every obstacle! They're penetrating the bureaucracy!

Time out

There are plenty of stupid relationship books out there, so it is probably hard to say that one is the stupidest. However, this has to be up there:

“If women understand the terminology, they can talk to their man in ways that he is going to understand,” Shiendling said. “The crucial point is men make a lot of relationship penalties, and just like with football teams, too many penalties gets in the way of winning.”

Not convinced? Here is an example:

Delay of game — In football, if the offensive team takes too long to hike the ball this penalty is called. “In relationships, men are frequently guilty of delay of game. The man messes up. The woman hopes he will come talk to her. But he puts his head in the sand and doesn’t deal with it … The relationship cannot go forward unless the issue is addressed in a timely manner.”

When this happens, women need to call “delay of game.” “Men will understand exactly what is happening,” Shiendling says.

If the author thinks a bad relationship can be fixed simply by wifey using football jargon, I hope he also explains the term "free-agent" to her.

Pragmatism and Licentiousness in Holland

It is not very often that the WSJ Opinion Journal lets me down, but this guy just doesn't get it. The author tries to demonstrate that Amsterdam is not immoral, but merely pragmatic. He fails miserably.

First, he gives us a little background:

Holland has legalized prostitution and euthanasia, and it tolerates the use of soft drugs. The state makes sure that children as young as 12 receive sex education, and contraceptives if they want them.

Yet, the author believes that the Dutch are not immoral:

The modern Dutch consensus is that making outlaws of prostitutes and soft-drug users only pushes them underground and into the hands of real criminals. Better to control and regulate such behaviors by legalizing--or in the case of cannabis, tolerating--the otherwise objectionable. The Dutch word for this is gedogen, which has no equivalent in English yet roughly means permitting what is officially illegal.

The author apparently does not understand that the tolerance and acceptance of immoral actions is in fact a statement of morality. But even he gets confused later:

Practicality is sometimes taken for licentiousness. Yet the Dutch don't offer sex education and contraception at an early age as part of a social experiment to promote or condone teenage sex. They are simply attempting to regulate the inevitable, or at least what's believed to be inevitable.

First he said that the Dutch aren't immoral, they only allow tourists to act immoral, but here he changes his approach and admits that it is inevitable that Dutch teenager will act immorally.

There is one more thing that must be noted:

The Dutch hope that this approach will let authorities focus on fighting serious crimes, such as the forced prostitution of human trafficking, and allow soft-drug users to hang out in places where they aren't so likely to bump into dealers of more dangerous narcotics, like heroin.

I have been to the "cesspool of sin" and my experiences were much different. Outside of every bar and coffee shop that sold legal drugs were three or four of the more dangerous drug dealers; the two worlds have not been separated by the permissive laws. The author is either completely ignorant or intentionally trying to deceive. Of course, he lives in Amsterdam, where sex, drugs, and any other behavior is tolerated. Why would they care about lying?

A Few Good Men

ESPN continues to demostrate its total ineptitude by writing this column about two black coaches being in the Super Bowl this year. Apparently there is more to this game than just football, apparently the forward progress of black Americans depended on the achievements of a few black coaches in the NFL. Well, ESPN asked those coaches what they thought and here's some of what they had to say:

"I talk about the day when we're not talking about the day when we're the first African-American coaches to lead their team to the Super Bowl. That day is coming." - Lovie Smith

"It's more about the game. It's more about their teams. It's not about the color of their skin. There's going to be a lot mentioned about this -- it's historic -- and it's probably good, because it's going to go away. And we don't have to talk about this anymore." - Herm Edwards

I couldn't agree more. But don't count on ESPN shutting up about this kind of stuff anytime soon. Its a first, I can't argue with that, but is it really a big deal? Its almost like we are supposed to surprised or even shocked that this is happening. I think my feelings on this whole issue can best be summed up with the words of one of these heroic men:

"[They] are who we thought they were. That's why [they] took the damn field. Now if you want to crown 'em, then crown their a$$. But they are who we thought they were!"

Thoughts on Groundhog Day

When will we carry this pagan ritual out to its natural conclusion, by slaughtering the pig upon the stump from which it is drawn?


Or, I guess we could attempt to integrate this festival into the liturgy of the Church (I think some of my old roommates attempted to do this with MLK, Jr., Day). The Feast of St. Peter Pan, who may or may not see his shadow. I don't know, I'm just going stream-of-consciousness here. Sort of like freestyle walking.

Who Isn't Like Hitler? Part XLI

I rather enjoyed the recent remake of The Producers and thought I would share a scene with you. In case you don't know the plot, the two producers are trying to stage a Broadway flop. So they find a play written by Will Ferrell's character who happens to be a neo-Nazi. His play is called Springtime for Hitler and it focuses on all those wonderful aspects of Hitler's life that so often get overlooked, like his penchant for singing and dancing. This scene is the audition for the part of Hitler:

This Is Just A Tribute

I offer the following image as a tribute to my least favorite blog in the entire blogosphere. I think we all know of that which I speak. This image has always been a favorite of mine, but henceforth it will take on a whole new meaning for me. This is what I think of those who contribute to that other blog. Think about it:

And with that I vow to never visit that website ever again.