"In Cold Blood" Expanded

In Cold Blood includes corrupt government employees and the author, Truman Capote, now according to this morning's Wall Street Journal. Capote didn't reveal that convicted killer Richard Hickock had written with Kansas journalist Mack Nations his own book about killing the family at the farmhouse. Hickock was writing it in installments at his prison and mailing them to Nations. After two hundred pages, prison officials decided that death row inmates couldn't have visitations or correspondence. The IRS charged Nations with tax evasion.
Sadistic, power-mad government employees had decided to shut them down as they didn't want the truth to get in the way of hanging Hickock or to allowing Capote to make millions off his book maybe ( who knows what and how evil- sick their motivations were?). Nations eventually was eventually found innocent of the IRS charges but by then he had lost his newspaper job and all his money.
He did complete the book which was titled High Road To Hell. Ironically, that is what writing the book caused him. The book was rejected by Random House as it had accepted Capote's In Cold Blood. Apparently Nations didn't submit the book anywhere else. Perhaps, he was beaten down by then. He got a job at a small newspaper in Colorado and in two years died supposedly in a single car accident. Bureaucrats are so tidy!
     Now In Cold Blood has expanded to include the long arm of corrupt government employees and the lowness of Truman Capote never revealing that Richard Hickock was writing his own book in prison. Instead, he libeled Hickock by writing that he was whiling away his remaining time of earth by reading erotic novels and law books.

Sharia Islam and Sex

     What is child protective services in America going to do when the Sharia Muslims start mutilating their female children- cutting off pieces of their clitoris and labia, sometimes even "erasing" them by sanding them off? What about sewing their ureters so tightly that they can only drip instead of having a stream when they pee? Do you "infidels" know that if a girl doesn't have her ureter sown up and has a steady stream, other Sharia Muslim girls can hear that in the bathrooms and call that girl a whore? So what are American social workers doing about this craziness? Probably turning a blind eye to it. But what do you do if a Sharia Muslim girl objects to having her sex organs mutilated in school, and it is reported by the teacher to social services? Is she the property of her parents and must be mutilated because it is part of their paranoid religion from the 8th Century? How about the social worker getting a court order that no mutilation be performed on the girl until she reaches the legal age at which she can decided if she wants the surgery? You "infidels' do know that this is a practice Sharia Islam insists on so the paranoiac men away on jihad will be more comfortable, knowing that the mutilation makes having sex less enjoyable, even painful so their wives will be more likely to remain faithful?
     Of course these paranoiacs could care less that sex is painful for the women.
Sharia Islam is based on the submission of women to mutilation, insecurity, and lack of individual rights. It is a complete abrogation of the sanctity of the individual. All this is necessary so the the pitiful little man can delude himself into thinking that he is the cock of the walk, just like Hitler.
     We are no longer living in the 8th Century out in the desert where life is unbelievably brutal. We don't live in isolated tribes any more. Our life is not tribal but individual. In the 8th Century in Arabia, life was tribal. The tribe was like an organism. To protect itself and to find food and more women so there would be no inbred freaks, young men had to be strong and savage. Everyone depended upon them. If young men weren't strong, the tribe would be conquered and the women seized and the men killed. Thus, strong men were rewarded by women. Women were proud to be awarded to good warriors because they kept them from being taken as sex slaves who also doubled as work slaves. But this is no longer the 8th Century. We have evolved from tribes to individuals with rights. Sharia Islam refuses to recognize that and continues to live in a distant, dark past. What sane person would want to live there?

What's Up

     I got a call from a friend urgently asking for a prayer for a young family member who had just had what looked like a heart attack. I called back, and the child had been transferred to a better hospital. The prayer had been that she get admitted to the better hospital in spite of the bureaucrats saying it was covered on her insurance. My friend said that God had "blown down doors" and made it possible for her to be admitted.
     Because I am very literal minded, I made myself look at that event in the abstract and immediately ran into problems with it. That is because there is supposedly a child dying of starvation in this world every six sentences. Why would God blow down doors to a better hospital but let millions of others die of starvation? Would you really tell one of the grieving mothers of these dead babies, that God had blown down doors for your child to get to a better hospital? Why would he favor your child over others? If you want to go Old Testament and reply that he is a capricious god, then I would ask you what evidence do you have for this capricious god even existing. As the old lady used to say, "Where's the beef?" Looked at in the abstract - as a principle- it seems pompous to credit God with any act considering the horrible suffering in the world. Why did he help you? Because you're so much better than the millions of babies and children dying of hunger?