Ok, I got emailed this picture of our merry group hanging out with the star of the show….
I’m the old guy. Geez.
Long Time Gone
Ok, I got emailed this picture of our merry group hanging out with the star of the show….
I’m the old guy. Geez.
Jeff,
The Wizard of Oz is a satirical fable illustrating how the state personified as the Wizard (“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”)insidiously appropriates from religion the existential guilt system of a society(our value system of right and wrong) — in order to exploit the people’s minds for the state’s own use, making them compliant within the mental state prison of groupthink.
Compliance to this state cult is what you are exhibiting in your unreflective worship of Democracy and Freedom …a worship willing to sacrifice young lives … throwing them into the fires… as if worshipping the demon god Molech.
Thus, because you unreflectively support Ranger Bill’s delusional state religion (Democracy brings salvation without Christ) … the Wizard has bestowed upon you the honorary title of “Patriot Boy” with a badge for your blog in written form: “Thank you for your service”.
Wow! You bust your buttons with pride (Just like the strawman, lion, and tinman honored by the Wizard): an example of how state controlled groupthink enslaves its citizens with their own pride.
This state controlled groupthink tells you:
“There is no connection between religion and Democracy” — you believe this even when the founding fathers of America completely disagree with you.
It seems you are not really an American by conviction, but a citizen of the “People’s Republic of North America”. Thus, explaining your innate antagonism to the convictions of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and dismissing them as ignorant dead guys.
For the same reason these Korean actors can’t have a clue what the Wizard of Oz is about, you also don’t have a clue. How can an Asian or totalitarian dupe, criticize the collective they culturally idealize? Can’t!
“Truth is hate, to those who hate the truth.”
Oh, by the way! The above comment was directed to John (Not Jeff).
John, we see you have reached the years of wisdom, please teach us kids about how Democracy saves without Christ.
Seperation of church and state, dude. Look it up, it’s in the Constitution. People like you give Christianity a bad name. I don’t see much difference between fantatics like you and the Islamofacists who want to destroy us.
You are free to believe whatever you want. That’s the beauty of it. If I choose to not share your beliefs, that is my right as well.
Get used to it pal.
Dear God!!
A simple post about a trip to see the Korean version of TWOO turns into a rambling lecture by Jeff.
Jeff, everyone has a right to freedom of speech, and although i dont agree with your comments (and sometimes Johns), havent you got something better to do with your time??
John and Thirsty,
I can see your level of comprehension regarding the American constitution is as profound as our Korean stage player’s comprehension of the essential satirical meaning of the Wizard of Oz.
Be on note: There is NO separation of church and state in the US Constitution. Where did you hear that soundbite? And furthermore, why do you so easily believe soundbites bandied about?
Such easy credulity is best left to the Korean groupthink … but really doesn’t become an old white-boy from the states.
Consider what this certain man had to say that is appropriate to our discussion on the “separation of state and religion” canard: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” –Joseph Goebbels
Then you (John) use your blog to declare: “You are free to believe whatever you want. That’s the beauty of it.” And furthermore, you and Thirsty go about trying to dismiss and shoo away my challenge to your peculiar Democratic and Freedom cult.
John, since you appear wizened with age, I would love to hear you expiate why it’s “beautiful” to believe and propagate lies and delusional opinions. Where is the beauty in this? Am I missing something? Aren’t we free in our attempts to reach the truth … or, are you simply suggesting there is beauty in believing lies.
Since you obviously have been educated in the PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF NORTH AMERICA, allow me to supplement your socialist college education. The 1st Amendment of the Constitution says ‘Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’
There is no separation, merely preservation of religion against the encroachments of state power.
The Declaration of Independence states that to secure the above stated right, governments are instituted amongst men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’
George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin warn us very clearly that the “consent of the governed” MUST be informed by religion and the virtues instilled by religion… otherwise, Democracy is a sham. Democracy will not save Muslims because this Western political system — without Christ — has no efficacy to do so. Worship of such a sham is idolatry… and especially egregious when young men are being thrown into the sacrificial fires for this demonic error.
In other words, our founding fathers strongly admonished the Church is above, not separate, from the government.
Thirsty, you are wrong … everyone DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Try telling that canard to North Koreans. And when Americans begin demonstrating this sad level of understanding you and John exhibit … Americans will soon be free only to parrot the soundbites of CNN … lest they be marginalized by the American groupthink — in the same way you marginalize my challenge to you.
John, I have a question for you: Since I am not a Christian, what kind of fanatic are you suggesting I am. I am intrigued.
Finally, John … may I ask if you are a Christian? A “moderate” Christian possibly?
Jeff,
You missed my point entirely. Here it is really simple.
Why all the long rants?
I dont agree with what you say and sometimes with what John says but i respect your right to say it.
However…..you arent really getting anywhere here so why not stop wasting your time and do something else?
all the best.
Thirsty
Jeff you are simply confused.
Carol,
Yes, I am confused. John’s blog has attracted a fan — me. I see you really like him, too. Thirsty, however, seems to want to possess John all for himself. Thirsty, please don’t see me as sexual competition … I just want to be a friend to John.
But yes, I am confused … when I try to gain insights from John — through challenging dialogue and hoped for understanding — he strangely waxes subtly abusive — for example, the above forceful platitudes and cliches thrown at me with a feeling of contempt.
For example John snarls this: “Seperation of church and state, dude. Look it up, it’s in the Constitution. People like you give Christianity a bad name. I don’t see much difference between fantatics like you and the Islamofacists who want to destroy us.
You are free to believe whatever you want. That’s the beauty of it. If I choose to not share your beliefs, that is my right as well.
Get used to it pal.”
Wow! What a tough guy! I am just curious if this rough manhandling is a manifestation of Christian tough-love or a border-line personality disorder. He seems to distance himself from “extremist Christians”, so you know — maybe he’s a “moderate” Christian who doesn’t like to be bothered by pesky questions that interfere with his socialist belief system.
I am trying my best to logically and rationally explain my positions, but John merely blusters, spits out incomprehensible platitudes, and then remains suspiciously silent after I try my best to dialogue with rationality. I thought Americans valued rational discussions on important issues. What is the purpose of this blog? Merely mental masturbation with his own thoughts?
Please, John … at least take a minimal stand for Jesus; please tell me — Are you a Christian or not? If you confess Him before men, Christ will confess you before the Father.
What say ye?
Jeff,
lol, believe me i have no intentions of keeping John for myself nor do i see you as sexual competition!!
I do have a request for John though….lets have more pool, darts and drinking (And falling over) reports!!
Thirsty,
Wait a minute! You silly boys are leading me on. My gay-dar is NEVER wrong. From the back-stage photo shoot pictured above, everyone has that subtle gay sparkle in their eyes — except the Korean stage-players. No, really. Take another look at those boys. There! Do you see it! Yea, that’s right. Now, you know what I am talking about.
I assumed this blog site was a pick-up front for sweet love with one’s own tender gender. There is alot of that going on in USFK.
Come on, from what I can see … you boys play more than darts together. I just assumed John’s visceral hate for extremist Christianity — and his bogus separation of Church and state canard — is a personal back-lash against fundamentalism’s hard-core stand against homosexuality.
I assume John, is what you call … a tolerant Christian filled with the creamy love of the Christian brotherhood.
John, tell us … what kind of Christian are you?
If you are not an extremist, are you a “moderate” Christian?
Thirsty,
By the way, Thirsty … just what are you thirsty for? Beer? The living water Jesus promised! Fluids that slide down the throat like egg yolk? What’s with you and John. Do you also consider a nice boy like me … as no better than them Islamo-fascists deserving a cluster-bomb baptism.
It’s apparent with John’s rough exterior that he is the butch. Are you the more gentle — receptive one — in the relationship? Why so reserved, merely trying to shoo me away. Why don’t you speak out and give me your manly opinion about are topic discussions? John seems to need your help.
Are you a man, or a mouse — squeak up!
Wow Jeff you are confused. John is mine. Has been for ages. We have 5 kids. Your gaydar is not working. I’m the Christian liberal. John is the deist neoconservative. The kids (all grown) are all over the place both politically and spiritually.
As John is well aware the Wizard of Oz is one of my all time favorites. I own the movie, forced the family to listen to Dark Side of the Moon while watching with the sound off, collect the figures, etc. I love the story, I love the music, I love Judy Garland. Note: I see nothing political in the movie. It is a fine example of pure escapism entertainment. You are entitled to make of the movie what you wish of course. Whatever floats your boat.
I am perplexed as to why you feel compelled to come to what is essentially a family site-our family and the occassional friend, and behave so rudely. We love a robust debate but we have little time for the ignorant, conspiracy nuts or bad behavior. Like you I do not think Ranger Bill or whatever his handle was portrayed an accurate depiction of Iraq but you were quite frankly so ugly in your response that I had no intention of lending any credence to your stance. So be forwarned. Either you come ready to debate with logic, common sense, decency and facts or expect to be ignored.
Hi, Carol.
You know, I have to admit I was a bit rash. Now, looking at your site with further inspection, I am embarassed to see this blog site is family oriented, and set up for personal friends… not set up as a public forum for all contenders coming your way. I came to this site by way of GI Korea — assuming this blog was more public oriented.
Yes, I came ignorant of the total context. Yet, my radar did pick up something too delicious to resist; a subtle redefined Christianity lurking within the presuppositions of your husband’s worldview. I would assume his relationship with you, has rubbed off on him — thus, his feral worldview is somewhat constrained by your Christianity.
It is apparent now, that the spiritual force I am intuitively contending with — emanates from you. Your husband appears merely to be a spiritually kept man … under the religious auspices of his ever-seeing wife.
First, lets understand your husband: you say, he is a Neo-Conservative deist. A deist is simply a functional atheist. In otherwords, he can see the intelligence behind the creation, but ignores the creator’s claim over his life… thus, his behavior is not constrained by any consideration of a moral God. He is merely a conventional man who follows the law and the law of his wife — in order to stay out of trouble. He looks moral, but essentially is as feral as a wild dog. This means “reasonable” good times for him — darts and beer with Thirsty. He makes you think this is an acceptable life deal. But, is he really happy? That’s where the Thirsty and sexual orientation issues come in. More on that later. Yes, he does have a Neo-Con streak: I can feel his will-to-power by the way he manhandles me. This Darwinian worldview recognizes some cultures are better than others, and thus it’s incumbent that superior forces dominate the lesser… it’s the essence behind Neo-Conservativism, and the reason why he looks upon my dissenting self — as no better than those God-damn Islamo Fascists. There is an implied threat he would send out a missile-ladened drone after me — if he could. I think both you and I would agree, he is cute in his own gruffy way.
Now, for you. Your husband feels he is in a box … wanting to go beyond darts and beer. He dearly loves his children, and you … but wants to expand. When wearing his beer goggles he can see the possibilities — other women? Thirsty? Yes, he has done you wrong in the past. But, that doesn’t really concern you, because you know what he is all about. That’s part of the pleasure — you control this man. He secretly wants to be free — he pines for the pleasures of this world before he dies … but you won’t let him. He is yours. A life long project to deny him his atheistic freedom. That’s your revenge.
Yes, indeedy … you are a Christian. A woman whose spiritual dominance over her husband keeps her in control of her needy man-child, and places her on the moral high-ground. You know your husband would disintegrate into a hollow shell of a man — without you. Yes, power corrupts.
First, lets establish something. My gaydar is NEVER wrong. Behind your husband’s discussion- stopping bluster, and empty platitudes … is an essence — quite effeminate. He also runs with younger boys … to see Dorothy.
But, these boys are devious. Have you ever thought of what things your husband and Thirsty are capable of — right under your conniving eyes? These boys are smarter than you think, and have ways to subvert your queenly authority. Pride goeth before a fall.
My question: What is your liberal Christian stance on homosexuality. Is it an abominable sin, or acceptable in the context of a loving relationship?
Let’s get down to brass tacks. Shall we?
Acceptable in the context of a loving relationship.
You are assuming too much. Are you gay? Be honest.
Dude, get a life! Living your fantasies through me is just not gonna be fulfulling. I don’t swing that way, but I’m sure if you step away from the keyboard, get out there in the real world and look around, you will find some nice man to love you.
Good luck with that.
Hi Jeff…I have been watching this for a while and now feel I need to make a comment myself
Fortunately or unfortunately I don’t have the gift of gay-dar. Nevertheless I can reason so I can’t help but wonder how or why you would turn an ordinary blog into homosexual discussion. I can read writing but I can’t write reading so I can’t really explain the things I want to say. But I can tell you this…this ol’ dog has trotted down lots of alleys…lifted my leg on lots of corners and you sir sound like a cock-sucker, butt fucker or whatever you folks like to do. No offense intended. Enjoy.
LOL!
This Jeff sounds like one sick, although articulate mother. But he does have a point. Many middle aged men with the kids out of the house do feel trapped by their controlling wives. Urges awaken in these men, suddenly beer partners take on a whole new meaning. Greek homosexuality was a case where older males sodomized younger males, and it was a respected thing. A special kind of love where the older male injected his essence into the younger as a way to symbolically replicate his self into the other, sort of making the younger male a lover and son at the same time. Carol, you might want to watch Thirsty and your husband’s relationship a bit closer. This thing really does come out of left field, and can throw a naive wife into a spiraling tizzy they sometimes never recover from. Just a thought.
Ah, the assumption is that I am a controlling wife. My friends, my family-yeah including the kids, my coworkers all know that I am dick-dominated. No I did not coin the expression rather a gentleman who knew both my husband (John) and I coined it. The truth of the matter was born out by John’s laughter and my pained expression. So do I still need to worry now that we have firmly established the fact that John is the domineering partner, the control freak so to speak, the head of household, in the family? Cause quite frankly if I do it won’t do much good as I have no control or influence over what he does or who he does it with. My choice, as it has always been, is whether I accept his actions and learn to deal with it or not and move on. In other words I can control what I do but not him.
Carol,
Dick-dominated. I understand the meaning, and am glad to hear you consider yourself susceptible to male domination and its influence. It’s a very healthy thing in a wife. I think you are telling me you are NOT a self-absorbed narcissistic queen controlling her irresponsible man-child. Your candor indicates this.
The concern is your union with a man whose inner self-governance is unrestrained by fear of any god-ideal. Such a man will perform a good outer show of conventional morality … in order to enjoy the good opinion of others, and maintain his job status … but deep down … he is inclined to follow his illicit pleasures. If, no-body is looking — his dark pleasures. Why not, he is fifty-one years old, it’s now or never… and God simply isn’t in the calculation to hold him back.
Among all the Wizard of Oz characters we can liken your husband to, it would be the gruffy lion. He is full of bluster with little substance: we have established this awareness through prior dialogue revealing his character structure. It’s obvious his relationship with his father was problematic. He rankles inwardly at anything that would oppress him with pesky morality — thus, he takes on a deist approach to his relationship with God… colored by a blustery Neo-Con facade. He is a conventional man, with conventional desires — unrestrained by the fear of God.
I believe John when he says he hasn’t “swung” to the gay lifestyle … his conventional up-bringing and fear of other’s opinion adequately contains him. What my Gay-dar has picked up, however, is an inner gayness that radiates throughout his every pore. The essence of gayness is a life philosophy: the contractual exchange of one pleasure unit, for an equal amount of pleasure: in other words, an inner avoidance of the sacrifice in a relationship. The homosexual orientation seeks pleasure in a contractual manner with others — pleasure exchanged for equal amounts of pleasure with no strings attached. Even practicing hetero-sexuals have this gay orientation; they don’t necessarily go broke-back Mountain, but seek opposite-gendered partners who will give equal measures of what they get. This, orientation, however, is NOT the sacred hetero-sexual love of your Bible. True hetero-sexuality requires sacrifice. In hetero-sexual love, a man obtains a small amount of sexual pleasure in exchange for a lifetime of sacrificial anxiety-inducing responsibility of raising kids, and loving only ONE sexual partner in life. It’s not a fair deal — it’s sacrifice. Gay love, however, eschews the sacrificial element in love.
Your husband went through the motions in his life with you raising children, but his heart did not embrace it. But, now he is free searching for and experimenting with his pleasure. You can’t stop him, nor can God… I think, John may not be able to even stop himself.
This has been the deep-down sorrow you feel in your relationship with this blustery lion … a lack of godly love from him — to you. Yes, I understand you when you say that you have no control nor influence over his life … that’s because nobody does … not even the Creator, nor the Godly love the Creator demands of John toward his wife. John, probably redefines his license to seek self-pleasure, as “American Freedom” in which our soldiers are dying for in Iraq. This is an example of how the Freedom and Democracy Cult redefines license, and calls it virtue. Very convenient for feral people like your husband.
Yes, I know …there has been an inner grief, a longing for godly love from John. Instead John only offers you “gay love” … the hedonistic affection of an ungodly man glued to you by a past history. He is like a wild dog who shows affection because someone gave him food and comfort … but, does he have inner loyalty, or God-inspired devotion to you?
NO, don’t fool yourself by John’s outward compliance to conventional morality … his inner condition is as gay as they get. Pray he doesn’t cross the line and go broke-back … or come back to you declaring he is a woman trapped in a man’s body.
John, the only way you can truly love your wife … is to make amends with God. That involves sacrifice.
Gee, I rather like hedonistic love! The more the better has always been my motto. Just because you believe in God doesn’t mean you can’t like sex and more sex. If John has a deeply hidden gay condition that accounts for his hedonistic impulses then I thank God (literally) for it. Yes John has let his libido rule him on occasion but I would not change him. I think I am probably one those occasions when his libido got the best of him. LOL! Actually, I know I am.
Also John didn’t go through the motions of the whole raising kids aspect of our marriage. So you are only partially right there too. He was not interested in any of them until they hit their teens and became interesting people. He didn’t even pretend to be interested unless they did or said something actually interesting. The day-to-day parenting he had no interest in and he made no bones about it. He is a very large man with a very deep voice and he looks intimidating even when he isn’t frowning. Some of the kid’s friends were very intimadated by him. He taught the kids to be interesting, he taught them not to be easily intimidated. The kids love and admire him because he is what they aspire to be.
You’re wrong about the Oz character that typifies John by the way. I’m the lion. John is Dorothy. You figure it out.
Carol,
A healthy libido intensifies when it is laser- concentrated onto “one” love object. The more INTENSITY of desire from John onto “one” god-ordained love object(you) — the better. Alot of John’s libido, however, appears to have been dissipated by his lack of discriminating and unrestrained sexual imagination. Thus, explaining — the assumed — less than stellar love life between you two… including his less than stellar mind. Not age, nor boredom from over familiarity is the cause. The culprit I suspect is his diffused sexuality chasing every sexual thought that runs through his deistic Neo-Con head. The problem is — he’s a man who doesn’t submit his desires to moral restraints, nor recognize moral boundaries for these desires. He merely plays the outward rules that keep him in the good opinion of others, and doesn’t jeopardize his job status. Thus, John may not go Broke-Back on us yet, but his graspy inner-nature is identical to a homosexual on the make… even if it remains sublimated by playing darts with his platonic catamite.
If you would not change this in John, then you are colluding with his sinfulness: your condoning of John’s “gay nature” is the reason why I suspect you are the conniver in the whole family dysfunction. Why are you conniving? Why this secret understanding between you and John about his sinfulness? Are you too … enjoying a life unsubmitted to the Creator? Are you a sinister insurgent against God’s government?
Carol, something is wrong with your thinking … if John taught his kids to bluster without backing it up with any substance, and conveniently denounce any dissent to his preferred worldview as simple Islamo-fascism … and then inculcate in these young victims the notion such banality is “interesting” — then I am afraid, he has warped your children, and maybe “touched” your own take on reality. They call it brain-washing. Would it be too much to say he is the Saddam Hussein of your family?
John, appears to be a combination of Oz characters: he certainly is a cowardly lion, blustering with no substance behind his bluff. Yes, I can also agree with you — the coward behind this gruffy demeanor can also be an effeminate Dorothy. Maybe we should see him as a hybrid of Dorothy and the cowardly lion … a boorish goof just wanting to be happy, and pining over his elusive bliss — by looking somewhere over the rainbow. His romantic strivings, however, ain’t going to find it in Itaewon … that’s for sure.
If, John has truly warped your perception on life, then he is — the Wizard of Carol.
Now, Carol … I would have taken you to be a hybrid of Glenda — the “allegedly” good witch, and Dorothy. A mother/daughter self-identity… who has been victimized by other witches, and a monkey-brained husband.
Why, pray tell me … are you the cowardly lion?
Jeff, pray tell me—why don’t you take your warped little mind and go play somewhere else? You have more than worn out your welcome here and of all my faults lack of patience and a low tolerance for assholes like you are near the top of the list.
You don’t know of what you speak and you most certainly do not have a clue about God’s plan or anything else of substance or relevance. You are a pathetic loser. Don’t mistake my pity for you and your apparently empty life for caring a bit about what you say, think, or do.
I would call you a worthless piece of dung, but that would be unfair to dung in general. Don’t be the first to be banned from LTG, just move on and take your delusions of intelligence with you.
Carol, DO NOT feed this troll. His babble should not be dignified with a response.
John,
It’s obvious you are an ordinary decent man, however, without moral constraints compelled by any god-ideal that I can detect. Maybe this explains your rude blustery cyber-demeanor. The point I am driving at: an inner morality driven by a God-ideal truly believed in — must be achieved in a society at a critical threshold — in order for a democracy to function without oppressive police measures. Muslim culture is not driven by an inner restraint — only an outer restraint of religious edicts — and thus demands autocratic and dictatorial forms of government. The Muslim inner-character, I suspect, is similar to your own psychic make-up. Take a look at what constrains you inwardly to act moral. What is it? Fear of outer consequences, and public opinion, or an inward obligation to a God-ideal?
Think about it.
The subtle undertones of effete morality is a reasonable conjecture to me from our discussions, your revealed interests, and your sparsely disclosed worldview.
If you say, however, I am way off-base — then I accept that. My opinion is not infallible. Your wife has curiously egg-ed me on in this conversation, but — if I am asked to leave… then I do so.
Enjoy Korea.
Ah shucks! And I was having so much fun stringing him along. Please please please let finish dicking with him. You know I wouldn’t ask but since is you that I am painting is such colorful terms, I guess he decent thing to do, is obtain your acquiescence. But be forwarned if you say no I am going to be so disappointed.