Gay Patriot Header Image

Of Gay Bars & the United Nations

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:17 pm - July 24, 2006.
Filed under: Gay America,War On Terror

Back in the early 1990s when I was coming out, a friend who had come out about the same time as I used to go to gay bars alone every weekend. He never really had a good time and never succeeded in finding a boy friend there. Despite his lack of success at these establishments, he kept returning, once telling me he did so, not because he enjoyed it but because he couldn’t think of any other way of meeting guys.

All of us, including yours truly, have repeated similar behaviors — continuing to do the one thing in the hopes it would achieve a certain objective, even as experience has taught us otherwise.

As my friend continually returned to gay bars in the hope of there finding a boyfriend so too do various pundits and world leaders demand we return to the United Nations (UN) to stop the current hostilities in the Middle East. And this despite the fact that in recent years, the United Nations has been ineffective in promoting peace, stopping violence and ending mass murder, particularly in the past few decades — and especially in the Middle East.

Perhaps the reason UN Secretary General Kofi Annan didn’t mention Security Council Resolution 1559 in his address last week to the Council was that that resolution, by calling for “the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias,” was supposed to have prevented the current hostilities from taking place. But, because the UN failed to enforce this resolution, Hezbollah, a militia operating in Lebanon, remained armed and was thus more easily able to violate Israel’s border and instigate this war.

Since the United Nations failed to enforce its own resolution, Israel, whose very existence is threatened by this terrorist militia, has had to act on its own to disarm it — and so help fulfill the UN’s mandate.

Just as Israel recognizes the failure of the United Nations to provide a solution to the threat of this terror organization, so has my friend learned of the failure of gay bars to serve as meeting places for a potential partner. He has long since stopped going there as he once did.

Despite the many failures of the United Nations, all too many pundits and world leaders have not been able to learn from experience. And while the UN has proven a grave disappointment to those who believe in the lofty ideals of its founding, those who don’t see gay bars as the ideal locale to meet a boyfriend, but instead as places for gay people to hang out with their friends, realize that these places aren’t so bad after all and aren’t nearly as disappointed. At least we can find a positive aspect to these imperfect establishments.

Shorn of our idealistic expectations of gay bars, we find them to be pleasant places to have a good time. But, without our idealistic vision of the United Nations, it is nothing more than an ineffective institution whose officials put their own delusions of superiority on display while exacerbating the problems of the world. Gay bars may have their faults and may provide environments spurring some individuals to bad behavior, but they also provide an environment where responsible individuals can enjoy themselves.

And in that sense, gay bars succeed far more frequently than does the United Nations.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

UPDATE: To answer some of my critics, please note that France favors returned to the UN: “France has said a multinational force should be placed under United Nations authority.” (Via Captain’s Quarter’s).

Share

43 Comments

  1. You’re 100 percent right, Dan. It’s been a long, long time since the United Nations backed up its bark with some bite.

    One of the biggest laughs I’ve had in a long time was watching our own Ambassador John Bolton trying to convince a television audience that the UN’s recent “naughty, naughty, mustn’t do” resolutions about Iran and North Korea meant something.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — July 24, 2006 @ 10:23 pm - July 24, 2006

  2. Its the same pathology that makes excuses for every single communist state’s perpetual slave society and the belief that bowing before your enemies makes you stronger. Reality is never as important as the theory. True to form, an institution like the UN simply has to hate Isreal and the US. These two forces of achievment in action just shred every geo-political theory in operation at that embaressing hall of whores.

    My only hope is the US really will stand behind Isreal this time and actually help solve the problem. Useless organizations can be accepted but never valued. A more decentralized UN or a completely different organization will be required.

    Comment by VinceTN — July 24, 2006 @ 10:35 pm - July 24, 2006

  3. After 6 million of them were slaughtered just 60 years ago, it amazes me that the Jews have so few friends in the world. If the USA were a week nation and unable to assist, wouldn’t the countries surrounding Israel have wiped them from the face of the earth by now?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 24, 2006 @ 10:39 pm - July 24, 2006

  4. Aside from finding my OAO 9 years ago at a bar, for the most part, I mostly only found drinking buddies.

    I suggest that the U.N. finds their drinking buddies for the most part, but I also think they find plenty to fuck (sans Astroglide).

    Then again, they seem to be partial to 12 y/o African girls.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 25, 2006 @ 12:42 am - July 25, 2006

  5. Hmm…perhaps if we thought of it this way using your analogy.

    Say that within this gay bar, Hez Bollah is picking on Israel da Jew (even though he’s no innocent himself – nobody in this bar is). The most wealthy and influential patron, Sam America, who practically runs the joint along with some of his less influential associates, is a friend of Israel and sees what’s going on. Should he get himself involved? He’s already trying to get this guy, Ira Q., sobered up enough to get himself home. The guy’s a mess. Sam feels responsible since he did get him drunk in the first place trying to get a little action all the while saying it was good for Ira to just loosen up a little. But now that he’s just puking everywhere Sam just wants to get him drivable and get him the hell out. Plus Sam’s also trying to get some of his other friends to handle the psycho shorty Asian guy on speed in the corner who keeps yelling “I’ve got the bomb, I’ve got the bomb!”

    It’s turning into a really crappy night.

    The owner of the bar, Huey Nations, steps over to Sam America and asks if he can help out. He can step in, take care of things so Sam can deal with his own business, even get some of the other guys to help out, right? Sam’s not so sure. Everytime Sam leaves it up to Huey, he end up doing it his way and not the way Sam wants. So Sam angrily yells that he’s got it all under control and why is Huey charging him so much money to hang in this stinking joint in the first place!?!

    So what’s Israel to do? Hez Bolla isn’t giving up and Siri Ah and Ira N. are circling like vultures. Will Sam actually do something? Will Huey step in anyway and will it just end up causing a rift between Huey and Sam since Sam’s such a control freak in the first place and Huey has less of a problem with the thugs from Midtown East?

    Tune in tomorrow for another exciting episode of gay analogies gone stupid! (or is it an allegory?)

    Comment by Just A Question — July 25, 2006 @ 12:51 am - July 25, 2006

  6. I’ve never understood the antipathy towards to UN by conservatives. It is really only a mediocre debating society which may issue the odd resolution which the affected nations ignore depending on how it suits them. Still, it gives the little folks in the world the FEELING that they have some control over what goes on when actually the mighty pretty much do as they want. Consider Bushco and its invasion of Iraq. The UN actually provided Duhbya with a real if thin fig leaf – the various resolutions that Saddam had ignored. Really, in terms of security, the UN has little other function than to rubber stamp what the mighty decide to do. Plus they do some humanitarian work. The UN’s really a pretty good deal for the US when you think about it. But maybe “thinking” is the problem with the conservatives who rail against it.

    Comment by Ian — July 25, 2006 @ 1:27 am - July 25, 2006

  7. More interesting observations from the blissfully ignorant…

    The UN’s really a pretty good deal for the US when you think about it. But maybe “thinking” is the problem with the conservatives who rail against it.

    I first thought my dog had farted, until I realized our resident compassionate fascist had posted yet another gem.

    I’d add a retort here, but the logic of his argument makes about as much sense as Ed Wood’s belief that “Glen Or Glenda” revolutionized American cinema.

    Oy gevelt.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — July 25, 2006 @ 2:26 am - July 25, 2006

  8. Humanitarian work, Ian? Failing to provide shelter to Muslims who sought their protection when they feared Serbs might murder them in a safe haven in the former Yugoslavia?

    And, if you’ll read the post, you’ll note I was faulting those who want to return to the UN (for a solution to the current violence in the Middle East) despite its many failures. That’s what we conservatives object to. That people still look up to the UN though experience has taught us otherwise.

    And that Kofi Annan can’t even bother to mention a binding resolution which his own organization passed. If the Secretary General took the work of his own organization seriously, he would have attempted to do something to enforce 1559. And would have mentioned it in his remarks to the Security Council.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 25, 2006 @ 3:17 am - July 25, 2006

  9. Re GPW’s post (not his comment):

    Poor, naive GPW. Apparently he doesn’t understand that the UN is not an independent operator. The UN is a membership organization that won’t do anything that its controlling members–primarily the US, but to a lesser extent, the other permanent members of the Security Council–don’t want it to do. The UN won’t involve itself in any operation that the US doesn’t want it to (the other permanent UNSC members are largely irrelevant on that issue). And the US will not allow the UN to stand in the way of what it–the US–wants to do.

    The UN is not an independent actor. Sometimes the US allows the UN to give “international cover” for what the US wants to do–the US didn’t allow the UN to do that in Iraq, but that’s a side issue. Sometimes the US allows the UN to engage in “peacekeeping” operations to encourage people to believe that the UN is really relevant. In decades past, during the Cold War when the USSR still existed, the USSR acted as something of a counter-weight to US domination of the UN in the UNSC. Since the end of the Cold War and the demise of the USSR, that has pretty much gone by the wayside.

    To some specifics of the post

    Perhaps the reason UN Secretary General Kofi Annan didn’t mention Security Council Resolution 1559 in his address last week to the Council was that that resolution, by calling for “the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias,” was supposed to have prevented the current hostilities from taking place. But, because the UN failed to enforce this resolution, Hezbollah, a militia operating in Lebanon, remained armed and was thus more easily able to violate Israel’s border and instigate this war.

    Irrespective of the “reason” that Annan didn’t mention UNSC Res. 1559 in his address, let me ask you this. Just who was supposed to do “the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias” that the Res. calls for? The Res. doesn’t say, does it? It has been reported that the Hezbollah militia is stronger than the Lebanese military. So who was supposed to disband and disarm Hezbollah? The Res. is nothing more than diplomatic platitudes that were clearly intended to hoodwink people into believing that the UN was accomplishing something, while actually accomplishing nothing.

    Since the United Nations failed to enforce its own resolution…

    Unless you’re one of the “black helicopters” crowd, you should be aware that the UN doesn’t have an independent military or police force. And it cannot raise an operation to enforce its resolutions without the approval of the permanent members of the UNSC–including the US. The permanent members might be able to approve funding for such an operation, but, since such an operation could hardly be termed a “peacekeeping mission”–it would more likely be considered a policing mission–it is difficult to see how the members could justify sending in such a mission. On the other hand, since you are obviously a creative writer, please tell me how the you might justify it.

    Despite the many failures of the United Nations, all too many pundits and world leaders have not been able to learn from experience….

    As noted above, the UN is a membership organization that won’t do anything that its controlling members–primarily the US, but to a lesser extent, the other permanent members of the Security Council–don’t want it to do. If you actually believe that the UN has failed, the failure is a failure of its controlling members. It really is as simple as that.

    NB: the UN actually does do some decent work. I’m referring to branches such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and others. Each of them have specific, limited mandates. But those organizations would operate independently of the UN–indeed, some of them are headquartered in Geneva.

    Comment by raj — July 25, 2006 @ 7:33 am - July 25, 2006

  10. More on GPW

    Re GPW’s comment #8 GayPatriotWest — July 25, 2006 @ 3:17 am – July 25, 2006

    Humanitarian work, Ian? Failing to provide shelter to Muslims who sought their protection when they feared Serbs might murder them in a safe haven in the former Yugoslavia?

    Apparently, you are unaware of the fact that it was the permanent members of the UN Security Counsel who failed to provide shelter to the Muslims in Bosnia Herzegovina. The UN can’t do on its own what the permanent members aren’t willing to authorize it to do. To try to slough off responsibility from the permanent members onto the UN as an institution is a fraud.

    And, if you’ll read the post, you’ll note I was faulting those who want to return to the UN (for a solution to the current violence in the Middle East) despite its many failures. That’s what we conservatives object to.

    This is a joke, right? Aside from the fact that you haven’t cited anyone with any credibility who has called for returning to the UN “for a solution to the current violence in the Middle East,” the fact is that it is self-described conservatives who are controlling the US, the representation of the US at the UN and essentially the UNSC. If, if fact, the US wanted the UN to provide cover for what Israel is doing in Lebanon, I suspect that they would be able to do so. Although, if not, then Israel would do it anyway–like the US did in Iraq.

    And that Kofi Annan can’t even bother to mention a binding resolution which his own organization passed. If the Secretary General took the work of his own organization seriously, he would have attempted to do something to enforce 1559.

    If the permanent members of the UN Security Counsel took the work of the UN seriously, they could have done the same. Particularly, the US. I doubt very seriously that the other permanent members have any particular interest in what goes on in the region, but they might go along with a resolution proposed by the US…

    …although, resolutions alone don’t amount to very much.

    Comment by raj — July 25, 2006 @ 7:55 am - July 25, 2006

  11. Ian i would almost buy your “humanitarian” work argument, except that we all know a private organization can do better.

    When the Tsunami hit the UN was still trying to get its act together, while the US and Aussie’s were working their tails off.

    Perhaps part of the problem for the UN is that it is too beaurocratic, and the bigger the beauracracy, in general the more cumbersome and slow it is.

    But frankly I would rather save a few bucks and donate to a private oranization than toss it down the giant money sucking hole that is the UN.

    Comment by just me — July 25, 2006 @ 9:40 am - July 25, 2006

  12. raj/ian writes: “I doubt very seriously that the other permanent members (Britian, France, Russia, China) have any particular interest in what goes on in the region (Middle East)”

    raj/ian proves once again that it rarely understands or comprehends EVEN that which it writes… let alone what others write.

    On its very face, raj/ian’s comment above is just pure stupid dancing as insight. Pure stupid. France has no interest in the MiddleEast or Lebanon? Britian? Russia?

    Gheez, with insights like that it’s easy to understand why no ambulance chasers have become Secys of State, diplomats, or world leaders.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 25, 2006 @ 10:18 am - July 25, 2006

  13. And Americans privately gave more money to tsunami victims than the entire UN could raise.

    The UN is wholly ineffective, and wholly without purpose, and serves as a pro-terrorist organization. It should be disbanded.

    Comment by rightwingprof — July 25, 2006 @ 10:23 am - July 25, 2006

  14. The UN is wholly ineffective, and wholly without purpose, and serves as a pro-terrorist organization. It should be disbanded.

    My private fantasy would be to relocate the UN to Jerusalem. I wonder how much their affection for Palestinians would last when it was Swedish diplomats being blown up instead of Israeli schoolchildren.

    Comment by V the K — July 25, 2006 @ 10:57 am - July 25, 2006

  15. Dan: To the best of my knowledge the UN has very limited (non-existant) enforcement mechanisms. Who was to enforce Security Council Resolution 1559? What kept that from happening? The UN is only as strong as the committment of it’s weakest member on any issue. Unless we want to create a UN Armed Forces (not an idea I would support).

    It seems that at it’s best the UN can be used to encourage international co-operation. But it seems that all countries are moving back towards a nationalism that says: “We’ll negotiate with you once you give us what we want.”

    So, like gay bars (more like community centers, or other organizations) we should recognize the limitations and work within, or around, as necessary to

    Comment by Br. Katana of Reasoned Discussion — July 25, 2006 @ 11:04 am - July 25, 2006

  16. Good post. I also think that the UN is a bureaucratic behemoth which needs a lot of restructuring/paring down. It is absolutely ineffective as peacekeeping force. However, I do think that it has limited purpose, if none other than a venue for countries to communicate with, and to keep an eye on, one another. They’re necessary for that purpose. They also do some good humanitarian work even thought it’s limited in scope. I’ve always viewed it as a necessary evil, as I view the ACLU. I think of both organizations as being similar to garbage trucks:
    We don’t like being near them or driving behind them (especially on a hot, sticky summer day), but they’re necessary for keeping our homes, office buildings, and streets free of rotting, stinking trash (although they are FAR from 100% effective). We take them for granted, but then we reap the consequences when the trash collectors unions go on strike—same thing with the UN if it was completely disbanded, as goes with the ACLU.

    Comment by ndtovent — July 25, 2006 @ 11:05 am - July 25, 2006

  17. So, the UN skims billions in kickbacks off the oil-for-palaces program, schemes to keep despotic regimes in power, sends in peacekeepers that sexually abuse children… but we should keep them around because they’re otherwise harmless?

    Comment by V the K — July 25, 2006 @ 11:25 am - July 25, 2006

  18. I’m confused…. I thought Raj was the intellectual here?

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 25, 2006 @ 11:58 am - July 25, 2006

  19. I wonder. Are there condom machines in the UN bathrooms??? As many times as we’ve been screwed by that organization, one would hope so!

    In light of this post, this seems way too prescient.

    Comment by sonicfrog — July 25, 2006 @ 12:03 pm - July 25, 2006

  20. #5, I don’t think you have this analogy quite right. Hez Bollah is not a person, it IS the bar. Israel da Jew is the bar next door. They don’t get along, kinda like the feud between Cheers and Garys. The Israel pub gets some of it’s financial loans from Bank of America. Though Ira N. and Sy Ria deny it, as the business arrangement is not made public, they have, in fact, formed an LLC and are the owners of the Hez Bollah. Ira and Sy also control the regions mafia, and have been running the place very, very poorly, even selling illegal weapons to patrons on the premises. And they encourage it’s patrons to vandalize Isreal’s place, and even murder its patrons. They would burn the place down if given the opportunity. They are determined to put Isreals out of business, by any means necessary. Enter Huey Nations.

    Huey Nations is the property management firm for the Hez Bollah, and a lot of the properties around it. They are also in charge of security. But hey are located far, far away, in a distant land, making it difficult to police the actions of Ira and Sy. Not that the security guards they hire are very trust worthy or reliable anyway, as they have earned distrust in many establishments by employing rapist, murderers and drug dealers as security guards. Of coarse, the PM firm of Huey Nations has an incredibly large management staff, an in order to approve of any action almost all of management needs to agree on the action. This has been impossible when dealing with the Hez Bollah, because many on the PM management staff are also friends of Hez Bollah’s ownership, or are getting paid under the table by them, and will not approve of any action that would piss of their friends. There is even talk that most of the Huey Nations management staff would like to see Isreals pub go out of business, though they would never say it.

    *****

    The script writer had to go to work. Any ghost writers want to take over? V? GP? I’ll give you co-writer notice on the credits.

    Comment by sonicfrog — July 25, 2006 @ 1:12 pm - July 25, 2006

  21. Br. Katana #15–that is basically my point–who is to enforce these resolutions? Without enforcement, it is ludicrous to even consider going to the United Nations.

    You nail it in your last paragraph. Good comment.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 25, 2006 @ 1:19 pm - July 25, 2006

  22. About the best thing that can be said about the UN is that it is a fiction that outlasted Truman. Aside from that, its a failure on a grand scale.

    Gunslinger and Ambassador JohnnyB had it right: we could lose the top floors of the UN Secretariat building and no one would be the worse off. And the General Assembly building and the Hammarskjold Library and the Conferenc building… the only reason the 9/11 terrorists didn’t hit the UN HdQtrs is because they knew the UN was on their side.

    What an utter waste of capital, energy and US experts. Out official US State Dept policy should be: boycott the UN.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 25, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - July 25, 2006

  23. Lord help us!

    If the UN is a gay bar – it’s a dive!

    You’d wait a lifetime to get service and all they serve is anti American/anti Israel kool-aid. The help is rude, the bathrooms are taken over by hyper sexed trolls, the drinks cost too much and you get too little, they hate their landlord and their neighbors. You’d evict them, but nobody wants them.

    They are however very good at insulting the patrons who pay for the place, and serving up attitude by the bucketful.

    Additionally: thugs from other neighborhoods sit at the best tables and get the best service, the bar can’t enforce it’s own rules (the bouncers – in powder blue shirts – are less than useless), and the manager, Kofi (and his family), are robbing the place blind!

    Vera thinks it’s time to close this dump and evict the owners and open a new place (“Democracy’s”) for private members only who agree to the same high level of service, peaceful neighborhoods, and rules that can – and will – be enforced. The very exclusive nature of the club and its membership and benefits will serve as a beacon of hope to thirsty patrons everywhere looking for a safe, relaxing place to meet.

    One final point: At ‘Democracy’s’, Vera performs her famous cabaret act every Saturday starting at 10:00, singing the very best of the great American Songbook.

    Cheers!

    Comment by Vera Charles — July 25, 2006 @ 2:05 pm - July 25, 2006

  24. There’s our answer right there! Just replace Kofi with Vera. Problem solved.

    Comment by Dalebert (aka Dale in L.A.) — July 25, 2006 @ 4:29 pm - July 25, 2006

  25. Vera Charles for UN Secretary-General! At least it would be an improvement over what we have what passes for “leadership” there.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 25, 2006 @ 5:00 pm - July 25, 2006

  26. The issue I have with the UN as a conservative, is it rarely solves any problems. Yet leftists bow at the UN alter like it’s some fabulous problem solver. I believe we as conservatives are about solving problems. Speeches are made resolutions are passed then…what? Not much else happens. When occasionally a nation like the USA or Israel steps up and actually enforces a resolution some of the world wakes up and duhh starts whinning. When you find out that over half the nations are dictatorships or corrupt monarchies you start to under stand why the status quo is the UN template. It’s thus bizarre that this group, the UN, has this moral authority on the left. It is a talking institution it seems nothing more. Cries of “go to the UN, get the UN’s permission” for a conservative, is a joke.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 25, 2006 @ 5:58 pm - July 25, 2006

  27. Umm, RajIan re your comment “I doubt very seriously that the other permanent members (Britian, France, Russia, China) have any particular interest in what goes on in the region (Middle East)”

    The Middle East has a WHOLE LOT of this stuff called oil. It’s what makes ambulances go. So as you can see it’s important, especially for those in your professon.

    The IanRaj Coalition of the Unserious and Silly strike again.

    Comment by BoBo — July 25, 2006 @ 6:10 pm - July 25, 2006

  28. #27 BoBo — July 25, 2006 @ 6:10 pm – July 25, 2006

    The Middle East has a WHOLE LOT of this stuff called oil. It’s what makes ambulances go. So as you can see it’s important, especially for those in your professon.

    And so, what are the people who running the countries in the Middle East going to do with the oil? Eat it? I doubt it. Whoever is running the countries in the ME, they’re going to sell the oil.

    BTW, unless I’m mistaken–and I doubt that I am–neither Israel nor Lebanon have much if any oil. I’m sure that you remember the old Jewish joke that goes along the lines of: Abraham led us through the desert for 40 years and plopped us down on the only part of the Middle East that didn’t have oil. Not exactly true–Lebanon doesn’t have any, either, but that’s another matter.

    Comment by raj — July 26, 2006 @ 8:53 am - July 26, 2006

  29. Gene in PA -

    But you don’t understand – it’s their INTENTIONS that matter, not their actual results.

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 26, 2006 @ 10:35 am - July 26, 2006

  30. #27) But Bobo, the ambulances would be easier to chase down if they were solar-powered.

    Comment by Dalebert (aka Dale in L.A.) — July 26, 2006 @ 11:44 am - July 26, 2006

  31. Raj/ian seems like you’ve stepped into another patch of poo… eg, the SecCoun members have no interest in Lebanon, the Middle East, etc… and your legendary job as ambulance chaser just passed into reality.

    You really got to get some debating classes in at L-school… what’s that old saw?? Counselors who can’t advocate or persuade are forced to chase ambulances? Hmmmm.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 26, 2006 @ 11:51 am - July 26, 2006

  32. 32 — I wonder if rajian (pronounced “Ray-John” or “Rage-On” practices law the way he practices commentary. “The doctor is responsible for my client’s condition. It’s a documented fact.” Judge: “Do you have documentation?” Rajian: “Look it up yourself. It’s not my job to prove anything to you.” Judge: “Opposing counsel has produced evidence that shows your client stuck his own member into a Dust Devil while stoned on crack. Do you have any response?” Rajian: (Using a different voice)”Opposing counsel is an ignorant fascist.” Opposing Counsel: “I object, your honor.” Rajian: “It wasn’t me. Opposing council is trying to discredit me with juvenile name-calling because he can’t prove that the doctor didn’t cause my client’s condition.”

    Comment by V the K — July 26, 2006 @ 11:59 am - July 26, 2006

  33. RajIan – The Middle East that you refer to earlier is somewhat larger that just Israel and Lebanon. Trying to pretend otherwise in #28 is unserious. The first paragraph in #28 is a response, but not to anything you are supposedly commenting on except that it contains the words oil and Middle East. Sloppy.

    I thought lawyers were supposed to be precise in their language. After all, it’s their job. I advise that you be more careful in future or risk that your professional competence will be subject to question.

    Comment by BoBo — July 26, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - July 26, 2006

  34. And Really Arrogant Jerk Inserted Anal Nozzle, you MUST check your facts before stating something so totally inane like “Abraham led us through the desert for 40 years and plopped us down on the only part of the Middle East that didn’t have oil.”

    It wasn’t Abraham that led the Jews through the desert – it was Moses. Abraham lived in Canaan with his wife Sarah.

    Of course, if you read your Bible, you would know this fact. But I doubt you read the Bible. I doubt too that you can even read, but we all know that you can be a putz in at least two cultures.

    Game, set, match. You lose.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 26, 2006 @ 12:19 pm - July 26, 2006

  35. Abraham led us through the desert for 40 years

    Oh, my… good catch, Peter H.

    Comment by Frank IBC — July 26, 2006 @ 12:37 pm - July 26, 2006

  36. I noticed it, too. (I happen to be teaching the story of Abraham in my Sunday School class), but I figured Rajian just assumed Moses and Abraham were just the same people using different IP addresses.

    Comment by V the K — July 26, 2006 @ 1:23 pm - July 26, 2006

  37. #36 Well done.

    Comment by BoBo — July 26, 2006 @ 2:07 pm - July 26, 2006

  38. #34 Peter Hughes — July 26, 2006 @ 12:19 pm – July 26, 2006

    It wasn’t Abraham that led the Jews through the desert – it was Moses. Abraham lived in Canaan with his wife Sarah.

    Of course, if you read your Bible, you would know this fact.

    I don’t bother reading much with books of myths and fairy tales, but it’s obvious that you know the joke better than I do.

    Comment by raj — July 26, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - July 26, 2006

  39. #38 – You’re the joke, asshole.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 26, 2006 @ 2:48 pm - July 26, 2006

  40. VdaK writes: “… I figured Rajian just assumed Moses and Abraham were just the same people using different IP addresses.”

    Ouch, raj/ian. Ouch –that’s gotta hurt when it comes right between the squinty, narrowed eys. Ouch.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 26, 2006 @ 3:56 pm - July 26, 2006

  41. “He that hath the spirit of acontention is not of me, but is of the bdevil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.”

    Comment by V the K — July 26, 2006 @ 9:46 pm - July 26, 2006

  42. Translation of #38 “Shit, I fucked up again! The only way out of this crap is to pretend I’m too cool to care”.

    RajIan, you’re so busted.

    Comment by BoBo — July 27, 2006 @ 12:18 am - July 27, 2006

  43. but I figured Rajian just assumed Moses and Abraham were just the same people using different IP addresses.

    ROFLMAO

    Comment by Dalebert (aka Dale in L.A.) — July 27, 2006 @ 11:25 am - July 27, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.