Actually, this line was first delivered not in Pogo’s voice, but in that of Walt Kelly himself, who created the delightful Possum. Kelly’s actual words were, “. . . Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blasts on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.”

This was in his Foreword to “Positively Pogo”
[Simon and Schuster, New York; ca. 1955], a collection of the strips themselves. And I’ve always liked the mock-heroic tone and his use of the subjunctive voice “may be.” Pogo himself may have spoken with an Okefenokee twang, but Kelly’s words still compel and delight us.

who lies,
who is corrupt – twice or three times,
who wanted to ban books (two),
who wants creationism taught in schools.
who is a hypocrite – dont have sex

Another thing that makes me think is the schoolyard bully routine that this inspires too, this Palin obsession is sort of like a test if you are in ‘our gang’.

It would be interesting how much mutual hate pep talk was practiced by those people in their social groups before they decided that liking Sarah Palin is akin to something terrible, like (say) cannibalism ie something that justifies (and demands!) a strong social exclusion reaction like the ones displayed and a high aggression situation is voluntarily entered without there being an emergency situation. This kind of hysterical reaction is culturally quite alien to many western people.

As for how to deal with a Palin hater?

Remove them from your environment at the earliest opportunity — compliment the out of the door, walk away, sack them if they work for you, split up if they are your partner… anyone who obsesses to this degree is like an unexploded bomb — you don’t know what their unbridled aggression will put them up to in the future, but what you found out is that they are capable of going mad in an ungood way. Whoever it is, they are not a good person to know, the fundamentals of their personality are not sound.

Your the so-called ‘professional’ in this venue…..

…and He judges such based on their deeds.

Great idea. Let’s teach them about sex and guns. –RealityChiq

How interesting….that you should deliberately misconscrew the inference. But not unexpected.

Birth control is like keeping the safety on your gun or keeping it unloaded and locked away. Give them birth control and ammo. Let them go at it. If they engage in inappropriate sex, then it can be easily remedied by inappropriate use of guns. I may have to think about this plan a bit longer. It may need some tweaking. –RealityChiq

Birth Control is may be like ‘keeping the safety on’ the gun. But isn’t it better to educate on a higher level? That guns aren’t safe in the first place?

Keeping the safety ‘on’ on a ‘gun’ is admitting that someone has the gun in their hands and they are ready to use it. Whereas not picking up the gun in the first place because you know that if you’re handling it something bad might happen. The ‘gun’ might go ‘off’ on you and someone ‘might’ get ‘shot’. And in a manner that is ‘fatal’ to their intended Life.

You see. This analogy works VERY WELL vis-a-vis sex education. And I can make it come out as a ‘bad’ thing that (1) hurts people and (2) correlates well with the vaunted American public education systems unwillingness to teach gun safety along with sex safety.

For those who do not quite ‘grasp’ the significance, let me put it plainly before you….

Guns and sex are things that are VERY dangerous if not properly understood and used with great control.

Proper understanding requires a moral background as to when and where they, i.e., guns or sex, SHOULD be used, under certain circumstances. This is as opposed to when they CAN be used, i.e., ANYTIME someone feels like using them.

The vaunted American public education system is willing to teach a LOT about sex education. The VAST MAJORITY of it in the form of ‘how to’. And VERY LITTLE of it as with WHEN and/or WHERE.

As a result of it, we have a—statistically speaking—dramatic increase in unwed, teenage pregnancies since I was in high school; late 1960s. And these so-called ‘liberals’ appear to be totally-clueless as to the why. Are they merely ‘ignorant’? Or are they REALLY ‘stupid’? [Note: My working definition of ‘stupid’ is ‘ignorant and proud of it’.]

I suspect you don’t have children, do you? –RealityChiq

Two daughters; 32 and 22.

They’ve survived, but not without mistakes. None of which involved killing a their own children….my grandchild….to the best of my knowledge….thank God…..

What’s your point?

RE: Cancer

Cancer cure vs. management has nothing to do with lack of money but everything to do with lack of understanding of a complicated disease. –RealityChiq

Bullshit. [Note: Please pardon my ‘french’.]

Money is ALL that the medical industry, practiced today, is about. Heck. The CEO of the ‘non-profit’ hospital across the street from me is reputed to have said his raison d’etre was to improve the ‘bottom line’ of his CORPORATION. Now THERE’S a ‘killer’ indicator for you.

And if you don’t have the ‘money’….they’ll take everything you DO have. The medical industry has turned from serving the community to serving themselves.

Or maybe YOU can explain how a liter of physiological saline costs over $250.

I remember in the 1980s when people complained about how the US Air Force was charged $600 for a hammer. Well….at least they got to use the hammer more than ONCE!

Everyone likes to whine about the insurance and drug companies, vis-a-vis medical costs. But NO ONE points the finger at the other abusers of the ‘system’; the doctors, the hospitals, the government bureaucrats, the AMA, research ‘institutes’ and the likes of YOU.

What’s YOUR annual income, babe?

If one over treats, then one can easily kill the patient with too much chemotherapy or radiation. –RealityChiq

You’re stuck in the same group-think of the medical industry.

If one over treats, then one can easily induce a much more aggressive form of cancer in the patient. –RealityChiq

You’re stuck in the same group-think of the medical industry.

If one over treats, then one can also induce a secondary hematological malignancy in the patient which is then refractory to almost all forms of treatment except perhaps a bone marrow transplant. –RealityChiq

You’re stuck in the same group-think of the medical industry.

Unfortunately, most conventional therapies were designed to kill the bulk of tumor cells – which are aggressive, rapidly dividing cells. It was only recently discovered that although these may be what give rise to the bulk of the tumor mass, they are not necessarily the source of tumors. –RealityChiq

Most ‘conventional therapies’ aren’t for squadoo. That speaking from what I’ve witnessed to date…on a personal note.

The only reason anyone would take them is strictly as a matter of ‘faith’, if they have (1) no knowledge of what else is available, i.e., someone is suppressing the information about graviola, or (2) they’re so bound up in ‘The Matrix’ of conventional therapies and trusting the priesthood of modern medicine, they can’t appreciate anything ‘better’.

And the AMA does a rather thorough job of keeping them ‘ignorant’ of what else is (1) available and (2) seems—to date—to work.

[Note: Mom has developed a secondary infection. Some virus I picked up at a meeting and brought back home to be distributed to everyone in the household. It involves nausea, vomiting, fever and chills. The guy who gave it to me admitted that he was sick when he came into the room. I should have fled at once. But he was not overtly sick. He didn’t cough. Nor did he sneeze. And yet. I came down with something withing 48 hours of that meeting. Nor did I attend any other activity outside the house between then and when I noticed the symptoms coming on.

God help US if bird flu comes to pass..... Stupid idiots will go into work and distribute the virus so that all can ‘benefit’.....]

The source of tumors is a group of vaguely defined, difficult to identify, isolate or characterize, relatively quiescent (not rapidly dividing) cancer stem cells. One cannot ‘cure’ the cancer unless and until one can kill all the cancer stem cells, which – if not killed – will just give rise to more cancer cells. One can ‘manage’ the cancer by periodically knocking down using conventional therapy. –RealityChiq

S—! If the cancer ‘stem cells’ are positively charged, then the graviola will KILL THEM AS WELL.

It’s up to people like YOU, to determine whether or not graviola is effective against the source as well as it seems to be effective against the result.

What the flock are YOU doing about THAT?

One cannot specifically kill only the cancer stem cells if one cannot identify and target them. –RealityChiq

Well. As I understand this, the cancer cells have an electrical charge that healthy cells do not.

Is this true or not?

I seem to recall asking you about this before. But you never answered me.

Are you still interested in winning a Nobel Prize for Medicine? Or what?

I tell you the truth. If YOU are not interested in this. Someone else who is REALLY interesting in (1) helping humanity cure this dread disease and/or (2) truly desires to be remembered throughout history as the person who cured cancer will pick up on it. All they need do is stumble upon these missives and begin their own research into the matter….that is provided their supervisors don’t ‘object’ for some monetary reason. [Note: I doubt if the people working for the pharm company that has been trying to come up with a synthetic facsimile of what God has provided us naturally will have the opportunity to advance this research. Who knows. You might be in that particular category, for all I know.]

I leave the field on this to you. I’ve got other matters to deal with.

This field is in its infancy. Interestingly, cancer stem cells do share remarkable similarities with embryonic stem cells. The goal for curing cancer is to essentially find a molecular method for specifically aborting only the cancer stem cells without killing any other cells. We don’t know how to do that yet. –RealityChiq

Interesting. As, based on what I’ve studied to date on graviola, it would seem that God has figured that out.

Why is it you won’t pay attention to Him?

If graviola tea is specifically killing cancer stem cells, then that is great. –RealityChiq

Well….

….as the saying goes, “So far….So good.”

I explained her circumstances in the previous verbiage. And I’m thinking that if there are no opportunistic attacks that could bring her down, she’ll fully recover from this very aggressive cancer.

But there is no reliable method for determining that at this time since there is no reliable and reproducible experimental model system for growing, isolating, purifying or identifying the cancer stem cells. There may be experiments demonstrating efficacy in cancer cell lines, but these are cancer cells not necessarily cancer stem cells. –RealityChiq

Who cares? Especially if we can CURE cancer in people? Let the research mechanics follow the reality in order to understand how it works. Don’t put the cart before the horse.

That was a vastly over simplified explanation of an incredibly complex problem, but I was trying to explain in English as opposed to geek speak. –RealityChiq

You’re getting too much into the details when the simple answer could well be presented to you before your face.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[To God be the glory....]

Libertarians have some policies to recommend them, but tend to be too extreme. More like anarchists.

I’m a fiscal conservative, social moderate, and believe strongly in the Constitution over everything else, but only for our own citizens.