I am getting too intense. I am frustrated with the whole politics thing. Republicans vs Democrats, Liberals, vs Conservatives. So today I am just going to post the words to an old Scottish folk song that my girlfriend, Jeannie, loves. Here it is:
Dumbarton's Drums
Traditional
Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me
Across the hills o' burning heather
Dumbarton tolls the hour of pleasure
A song of love that has no measure
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me
Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me
It's she alone who can delight me
As gracefully she doth invite me
And when her tender arms enfold me
The blackest night can turn and flee
Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and sings tae me
Dumbarton's drums they sound sae bonnie
When they remind me of my Jeannie
Such fond delight can steal upon me
When Jeannie kneels and kisses me
In addition to that, my son, John, who is 16 years of age is a skateboarder, and a pretty good one, too. Some time back, before I had any readers on this thing, I allowed him to post an essay on my blog.
There is, for those of you who don't know, a professional skateboarder named Bam Margera, who has a television series on MTV. In it, he plays Jackass style pranks on his parents and others. The teenage skateboarder generation think he is God. My son, ever the rebellious, free thinker type, has his own opinion. Here is his essay reprinted here:
"I hate Bam Margera, usually I am okay with money-hungry jerks and the other 5% of the entertainment industry (after all, it's only their job), but Bam Margera does kinda bother me... Like some parents said, he promotes a negative image of skateboarding to kids and to the adults who chase skateboarders out of the spots. He is saying it's okay to cause trouble and to be a moron.
Have you seen the latest video games? The commercials promote stealing and vandalism and all sorts of immature, elementary habits. Why would anyone be grateful to a person who tarnishes their sport like that? He is a horrible role model and only a half-decent skateboarder.
Tony Hawk was ok. He was a revolutionary vert skateboarder and a great role model for kids. He promoted a good image and made the skateboarding industry way more money then Bam Margera ever will...but now he's seen slashing tires in the Tony Hawk's Underground video game commercial. Skateboarders in the limelight have sunk to an all time low, trying to attract kids by luring them in with disrespect. The skateboarding industry is becoming what all of those store shop keepers and men in suits always thought it was...some cheap hobby for kids who think they're punks"
not too bad for a 15 year old kid eh?
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Discrimination?
I have made two posts today, and yesterday, so be sure to scroll on down after reading the first one.
AOL reports:
"Minorities Empathize After Boutique Rebuffs Oprah
By ERIN TEXEIRA, AP
Oprah says she will no longer be shopping in Hermes stores, even though she has often plugged their products in the past.
(June 28) - Whether Oprah Winfrey was turned away from a bit of after-hours shopping in Paris because of a racist employee or a special event, news of the confrontation outside a luxury store has evoked empathy and anger from many American minorities.
In living rooms and Internet chat rooms, the Winfrey case has sparked discussion of what many see as a chronic problem for minorities: poor treatment and sometimes outright suspicion of minority shoppers no matter how well-educated or rich they are - particularly in high-end stores."
Oh, Please! This isn't about discrimination at all! This is about elitism in a most blatant form. The facts are: Oprah arrived at the store 15 minutes AFTER the store was closed, and expected them to re-open just because she wanted them to, apparently believing because she is wealthy, that she deserves "special" treatment.
Does anyone really think that if she had arrived when the store was open, that they would have refused her entrance? This is simply a matter of store employees who are finished with their day, wanting to go home and enjoy their time off, and not wanting the hassle of having to re-open the cash registers and possibly tolerate a difficult customer. I know I'm jumping to conclusions about whether Oprah is difficult, but come on, if she is raising a discrimination beef over not being let in after the store is closed, she is being difficult.
If she had arrived on time, this wouldn't even be a topic for conversation. Oprah needs to apologize, not the store.
AOL reports:
"Minorities Empathize After Boutique Rebuffs Oprah
By ERIN TEXEIRA, AP
Oprah says she will no longer be shopping in Hermes stores, even though she has often plugged their products in the past.
(June 28) - Whether Oprah Winfrey was turned away from a bit of after-hours shopping in Paris because of a racist employee or a special event, news of the confrontation outside a luxury store has evoked empathy and anger from many American minorities.
In living rooms and Internet chat rooms, the Winfrey case has sparked discussion of what many see as a chronic problem for minorities: poor treatment and sometimes outright suspicion of minority shoppers no matter how well-educated or rich they are - particularly in high-end stores."
Oh, Please! This isn't about discrimination at all! This is about elitism in a most blatant form. The facts are: Oprah arrived at the store 15 minutes AFTER the store was closed, and expected them to re-open just because she wanted them to, apparently believing because she is wealthy, that she deserves "special" treatment.
Does anyone really think that if she had arrived when the store was open, that they would have refused her entrance? This is simply a matter of store employees who are finished with their day, wanting to go home and enjoy their time off, and not wanting the hassle of having to re-open the cash registers and possibly tolerate a difficult customer. I know I'm jumping to conclusions about whether Oprah is difficult, but come on, if she is raising a discrimination beef over not being let in after the store is closed, she is being difficult.
If she had arrived on time, this wouldn't even be a topic for conversation. Oprah needs to apologize, not the store.
I oppose the war
Listening to President Bush's speech last night, it occurred to me that I have been lying to myself. I have been saying I support the war in Iraq, but I don't. I oppose it. Vehemently. I oppose the war in Iraq. I also oppose the war in Afghanistan. And the war on terror worldwide. In fact, I oppose all war. War is never the preferred option. It is a last resort.
I'm not saying that I don't support President Bush and his decision to go to war. Unfortunately, war is a necessary evil that has to be waged in order to free enslaved, oppressed people when negotiation fails.
There are those who say that Bush fabricated a reason to go to war. I would hesitate to believe that of even the most reprehensible of politicians. How depraved must one be to "make up" a reason to go to war? I don't think anyone would intentionally send young men into a foreign land to die without a reason, unless that person is a madman. Do the Libs think Bush is a madman?
I suppose, in the Liberal's utopia, there is never a reason to go to war, and negotiation always solves all differences. Yes, and in this wonderful, fantasy world, men like Dennis Rader, otherwise known, back in my hometown of Wichita, Kansas, as BTK, would not have murdered ten people. And nobody would ever get sick and die horrible painful deaths. And health care would be free to all, although, in this world no one gets sick. And steak and gas prices would be affordable. And Saddam and Bin Laden would be nice reasonable men that would be willing to compromise in the interest of peace. I dearly wish that were true in the real world. But this is not Utopia.
I no longer care why we are fighting in Iraq. Does it make a difference that Saddam possibly had nothing to do with the attack on the World trade Center? Does it matter that Saddam refused to allow inspectors into Iraq in direct violation of the UN resolutions? Does it matter that his refusal was the real reason we invaded his country? Does it really matter?
The only thing I want to know now is, when can we get out? The President and Donald Rumsfeld says we will leave Iraq when we accomplish the task. What is the task now? I know it was originally to oust Saddam Hussein and to help set up a democratic form of government, governed by the Iraqis themselves. We have accomplished those tasks. Now we are training Iraqi soldiers and policemen to defend their own country. We need to do that, also, I suppose.
The Democrats are asking Bush to set a timeline for when we can get out of Iraq. I think that is a good idea. Bush says that is not a good thing for it undermines our efforts to rid Iraq of insurgents. But that is predicated on a timeline that is made public. Why can't he have a timeline in mind that will go unannounced to the world? I think maybe he does. He just isn't tipping off our enemies.
But what do I know? I'm just a simple, uneducated blogger that see's a wrong, and is powerless to right it. I am just sick of the political in-fighting and the insinuations that my President is a liar and a murderer. I just want closure. Or answers.
I'm not saying that I don't support President Bush and his decision to go to war. Unfortunately, war is a necessary evil that has to be waged in order to free enslaved, oppressed people when negotiation fails.
There are those who say that Bush fabricated a reason to go to war. I would hesitate to believe that of even the most reprehensible of politicians. How depraved must one be to "make up" a reason to go to war? I don't think anyone would intentionally send young men into a foreign land to die without a reason, unless that person is a madman. Do the Libs think Bush is a madman?
I suppose, in the Liberal's utopia, there is never a reason to go to war, and negotiation always solves all differences. Yes, and in this wonderful, fantasy world, men like Dennis Rader, otherwise known, back in my hometown of Wichita, Kansas, as BTK, would not have murdered ten people. And nobody would ever get sick and die horrible painful deaths. And health care would be free to all, although, in this world no one gets sick. And steak and gas prices would be affordable. And Saddam and Bin Laden would be nice reasonable men that would be willing to compromise in the interest of peace. I dearly wish that were true in the real world. But this is not Utopia.
I no longer care why we are fighting in Iraq. Does it make a difference that Saddam possibly had nothing to do with the attack on the World trade Center? Does it matter that Saddam refused to allow inspectors into Iraq in direct violation of the UN resolutions? Does it matter that his refusal was the real reason we invaded his country? Does it really matter?
The only thing I want to know now is, when can we get out? The President and Donald Rumsfeld says we will leave Iraq when we accomplish the task. What is the task now? I know it was originally to oust Saddam Hussein and to help set up a democratic form of government, governed by the Iraqis themselves. We have accomplished those tasks. Now we are training Iraqi soldiers and policemen to defend their own country. We need to do that, also, I suppose.
The Democrats are asking Bush to set a timeline for when we can get out of Iraq. I think that is a good idea. Bush says that is not a good thing for it undermines our efforts to rid Iraq of insurgents. But that is predicated on a timeline that is made public. Why can't he have a timeline in mind that will go unannounced to the world? I think maybe he does. He just isn't tipping off our enemies.
But what do I know? I'm just a simple, uneducated blogger that see's a wrong, and is powerless to right it. I am just sick of the political in-fighting and the insinuations that my President is a liar and a murderer. I just want closure. Or answers.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Truth is funnier than fiction
I ran across this news item while surfing the blogwaves. Ahhh, revenge is a dish best served cold. If this works, We can hit the remaining Justices who abused their power.
Will Smith Urges Rappers to Be Role Models
Will Smith has won my respect. Read this from Yahoo news:
Will Smith has one big introduction to make at Tuesday night's BET Awards: Gangster rappers, meet the rest of the world. Smith told The Associated Press he hopes to impress the global significance of U.S. black culture on the show's audience and artists.
"The kids that are making these trends, making these songs, don't understand the level of effect that black Americans have around the world," he said in an interview. " ... Black Americans are so elevated, it's almost worship."
Smith, co-host of the show (8 p.m. EDT) at Hollywood's Kodak Theater with wife Jada Pinkett-Smith, said he witnessed the phenomenon recently while in Africa. Touring a village in Mozambique, he came across a shack on which someone had scrawled the name of slain rapper Tupac Shakur.
"I was asking the kids: What is it about Tupac? Why is that there? I kept asking why. They were saying we want to dress like you dress, wear all the things you wear, talk how you talk."
"The impression is that black Americans are the dragon slayers. Here we are 13 percent minority in a foreign land, and yet we can make laws, change laws. If Jesse Jackson shows up at Coca-Cola, something changes."
Smith, who won the first rap Grammy in 1988 for his squeaky-clean "Parents Just Don't Understand," said he wants hip-hop artists to recognize their importance and shift away from thuggish themes.
"It's real important to have balance of the imagery. Yes, there are people who fire guns in the street, but there's also doctors who go to work in those areas to feed their children."
The gangster lifestyle is celebrated in black communities for its strength, Smith said. "That's the image of survivors. The dude that sells the drugs or has the guns or is most willing to kill somebody is the dude that has the greatest potential for survival, or at least that's the perception. So that's what people strive for.
"What I'm trying to present and what a lot of other artists are presenting is a different approach to survival and a more sound approach to survival. It's a more long-term approach based on intellect and skills that can't be taken away from you: The smartest dude survives the best."
Smith picks out Common and Mos Def as other artists "that really have something to say that don't necessarily fit on the `106th & Park' top 10."
Now more well-known as a movie star ("Men in Black," "Bad Boys," "Independence Day") than rapper, the 36-year-old Smith maintains on his latest album "Lost And Found" that his nice guy image has worked against him.
"Black radio, they won't play me though," he raps in one song. "Guess they think that Will ain't hard enough. Maybe I should just have a shootout ... just ignorant, attacking, acting rough. I mean then, will I be black enough?"
Though his current single "Switch" is a top 40 hit, the man once known as the Fresh Prince said he no longer worries about album sales.
"I'm an entertainer. I make it and close my eyes," he said. "Sometimes it sells 14 million, sometimes it sells 300,000. For me it's about just doing what I do, and hoping that my artistry makes a difference."
Ordinarily, I couldn't care less what those Hollywood people think, but in this case, I think Mr. Smith shows a remarkable understanding of the influence Hollywood culture has on our youth. Thanks for "keeping it real", Will. I think that's the first time I ever understood what that means.
___
Will Smith has one big introduction to make at Tuesday night's BET Awards: Gangster rappers, meet the rest of the world. Smith told The Associated Press he hopes to impress the global significance of U.S. black culture on the show's audience and artists.
"The kids that are making these trends, making these songs, don't understand the level of effect that black Americans have around the world," he said in an interview. " ... Black Americans are so elevated, it's almost worship."
Smith, co-host of the show (8 p.m. EDT) at Hollywood's Kodak Theater with wife Jada Pinkett-Smith, said he witnessed the phenomenon recently while in Africa. Touring a village in Mozambique, he came across a shack on which someone had scrawled the name of slain rapper Tupac Shakur.
"I was asking the kids: What is it about Tupac? Why is that there? I kept asking why. They were saying we want to dress like you dress, wear all the things you wear, talk how you talk."
"The impression is that black Americans are the dragon slayers. Here we are 13 percent minority in a foreign land, and yet we can make laws, change laws. If Jesse Jackson shows up at Coca-Cola, something changes."
Smith, who won the first rap Grammy in 1988 for his squeaky-clean "Parents Just Don't Understand," said he wants hip-hop artists to recognize their importance and shift away from thuggish themes.
"It's real important to have balance of the imagery. Yes, there are people who fire guns in the street, but there's also doctors who go to work in those areas to feed their children."
The gangster lifestyle is celebrated in black communities for its strength, Smith said. "That's the image of survivors. The dude that sells the drugs or has the guns or is most willing to kill somebody is the dude that has the greatest potential for survival, or at least that's the perception. So that's what people strive for.
"What I'm trying to present and what a lot of other artists are presenting is a different approach to survival and a more sound approach to survival. It's a more long-term approach based on intellect and skills that can't be taken away from you: The smartest dude survives the best."
Smith picks out Common and Mos Def as other artists "that really have something to say that don't necessarily fit on the `106th & Park' top 10."
Now more well-known as a movie star ("Men in Black," "Bad Boys," "Independence Day") than rapper, the 36-year-old Smith maintains on his latest album "Lost And Found" that his nice guy image has worked against him.
"Black radio, they won't play me though," he raps in one song. "Guess they think that Will ain't hard enough. Maybe I should just have a shootout ... just ignorant, attacking, acting rough. I mean then, will I be black enough?"
Though his current single "Switch" is a top 40 hit, the man once known as the Fresh Prince said he no longer worries about album sales.
"I'm an entertainer. I make it and close my eyes," he said. "Sometimes it sells 14 million, sometimes it sells 300,000. For me it's about just doing what I do, and hoping that my artistry makes a difference."
Ordinarily, I couldn't care less what those Hollywood people think, but in this case, I think Mr. Smith shows a remarkable understanding of the influence Hollywood culture has on our youth. Thanks for "keeping it real", Will. I think that's the first time I ever understood what that means.
___
Monday, June 27, 2005
Supreme court decisions
When the Supreme Court issued it's decision on the government seizure of private property for tax revenue purposes, I held my peace. I am a renter, and so, I have no choice in whether my home gets taken away, although I have to say, that if I were a home or business owner, I would be as outraged as everyone else. In fact, it is hard for me to fathom why anyone, regardless of political ideology, would support this obvious abuse of power now handed to the government. There is a good essay on this subject here.
But now, there is news of an even more outrageous mis-interpretation of the Constitution. Today, by a vote of 5-4, our esteemed Supreme Court has struck down our first amendment right to the free exercise of religion. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the first amendment, I will submit it for your perusal:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I suppose the argument can be made that since the Supreme Court is not Congress, they can get away with this. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought the Supreme Courts job was to INTERPRET the Constitution, not to CHANGE it! And I think the first amendment is pretty self explanatory. This goes directly to the line, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Removing the Ten Commandments from anything is a violation of the first amendment, period. No one said if you are not Judeo/Christian, that you have to abide by them, although, if you don't there is a strong possibility that you are breaking some civil law. Why? Because United States law is BASED on the Ten Commandments!
I think it's about time we avail ourselves of the latter part of the First amendment: To petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is speculation that at least one of the Justices will announce retirement this week, possibly even as early as today. Both Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Sandra Day-O'Connor may step down. Then, President Bush will have to appoint replacements. We know any sitting president will always appoint judges who support his own ideology, indeed, we thought a couple of the Justices that voted against the First amendment in this case, were supposedly conservative appointees. It will be interesting to see who Bush will select, and for what reason the Democrats will decide he or she meets the criteria for another judicial filibuster.
You know? I don't really care if it's a conservative or a liberal judge who is chosen to replace any justices stepping down, as long as they do what they are supposed to do, that is, interpret the Constitution rather than change it according to his/her own ideologies.
But now, there is news of an even more outrageous mis-interpretation of the Constitution. Today, by a vote of 5-4, our esteemed Supreme Court has struck down our first amendment right to the free exercise of religion. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the first amendment, I will submit it for your perusal:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I suppose the argument can be made that since the Supreme Court is not Congress, they can get away with this. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought the Supreme Courts job was to INTERPRET the Constitution, not to CHANGE it! And I think the first amendment is pretty self explanatory. This goes directly to the line, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Removing the Ten Commandments from anything is a violation of the first amendment, period. No one said if you are not Judeo/Christian, that you have to abide by them, although, if you don't there is a strong possibility that you are breaking some civil law. Why? Because United States law is BASED on the Ten Commandments!
I think it's about time we avail ourselves of the latter part of the First amendment: To petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is speculation that at least one of the Justices will announce retirement this week, possibly even as early as today. Both Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Sandra Day-O'Connor may step down. Then, President Bush will have to appoint replacements. We know any sitting president will always appoint judges who support his own ideology, indeed, we thought a couple of the Justices that voted against the First amendment in this case, were supposedly conservative appointees. It will be interesting to see who Bush will select, and for what reason the Democrats will decide he or she meets the criteria for another judicial filibuster.
You know? I don't really care if it's a conservative or a liberal judge who is chosen to replace any justices stepping down, as long as they do what they are supposed to do, that is, interpret the Constitution rather than change it according to his/her own ideologies.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
A Turtle on a fence post
Billy Graham is 86 years old. He is frail, and sick, and still brilliant. I pulled this story off AOL news:
As his final American revival meeting continued Saturday, a fragile Billy Graham was met onstage by former President Clinton, who honored the evangelist, calling him "a man I love."
Clinton spoke briefly before Graham's sermon and recalled how the man known as America's pastor had refused to preach before a segregated audience in Arkansas decades ago when that state was in a bitter fight over school desegregation.
"I was just a little boy and I'll never forget it," said Clinton, who was joined by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I've loved him ever since. God bless you, friend."
Graham called the Clintons "wonderful friends" and "a great couple," quipping that the former president should become an evangelist and allow "his wife to run the country."
It bothers me when Rev. Graham says things like that, for surely he knows that possibly one of the worse things that could happen to our country is to have Hillary in charge, however, I think this is indicative of the way that Rev. Graham has endeared himself to the world. He just loves, unconditionally. Just as God would want him to do.
I heard an interview with Franklin Graham, Billy's son, on the radio on Friday, in which he was asked what makes his father so effective in his ministry. Franklin replied that his father was like a "turtle on a fence post". That turtle didn't get there on his own, he had to have been put there by someone else. He said his father is a man of God and took special care that he would never allow himself to be put in positions in which he would look as if he was anything other than a man of God. I agree with that. I have heard that he will never allow himself to be alone with a single woman. If he is on an elevator alone, for instance, and a woman gets on, he will step off, to avoid any possiblility that someone will suspect impropriety. With that said, I have to say that I believe Franklin doesn't get it.
In my opinion, the reason that Billy Graham is so effective in his ministry is because of the intangible. That is, The Holy Spirit. If you really sit and listen to his sermons, you will notice that Rev. Grahams sermons aren't complicated explanations of theology. They are simple. They simply state the message of God's unconditional love for all humans, and how one can be saved. This is a message that everyone has heard countless times but rarely does one take heed. But it works for Graham because he has the Spirit of God in him, and that spirit speaks to our hearts through him. In other words, it isn't Billy Graham or his message at all. It is the Holy Spirit that makes the difference. Rev. Graham is just the anointed messenger.
I believe we can all learn from this great man. I, along with millions of other people, have been touched by his ministry. But I'm not sure I am ready to love Hillary Clinton.
As his final American revival meeting continued Saturday, a fragile Billy Graham was met onstage by former President Clinton, who honored the evangelist, calling him "a man I love."
Clinton spoke briefly before Graham's sermon and recalled how the man known as America's pastor had refused to preach before a segregated audience in Arkansas decades ago when that state was in a bitter fight over school desegregation.
"I was just a little boy and I'll never forget it," said Clinton, who was joined by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I've loved him ever since. God bless you, friend."
Graham called the Clintons "wonderful friends" and "a great couple," quipping that the former president should become an evangelist and allow "his wife to run the country."
It bothers me when Rev. Graham says things like that, for surely he knows that possibly one of the worse things that could happen to our country is to have Hillary in charge, however, I think this is indicative of the way that Rev. Graham has endeared himself to the world. He just loves, unconditionally. Just as God would want him to do.
I heard an interview with Franklin Graham, Billy's son, on the radio on Friday, in which he was asked what makes his father so effective in his ministry. Franklin replied that his father was like a "turtle on a fence post". That turtle didn't get there on his own, he had to have been put there by someone else. He said his father is a man of God and took special care that he would never allow himself to be put in positions in which he would look as if he was anything other than a man of God. I agree with that. I have heard that he will never allow himself to be alone with a single woman. If he is on an elevator alone, for instance, and a woman gets on, he will step off, to avoid any possiblility that someone will suspect impropriety. With that said, I have to say that I believe Franklin doesn't get it.
In my opinion, the reason that Billy Graham is so effective in his ministry is because of the intangible. That is, The Holy Spirit. If you really sit and listen to his sermons, you will notice that Rev. Grahams sermons aren't complicated explanations of theology. They are simple. They simply state the message of God's unconditional love for all humans, and how one can be saved. This is a message that everyone has heard countless times but rarely does one take heed. But it works for Graham because he has the Spirit of God in him, and that spirit speaks to our hearts through him. In other words, it isn't Billy Graham or his message at all. It is the Holy Spirit that makes the difference. Rev. Graham is just the anointed messenger.
I believe we can all learn from this great man. I, along with millions of other people, have been touched by his ministry. But I'm not sure I am ready to love Hillary Clinton.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
A Lib meeting
The scene is an office, or a meeting room, or a motel room, it really doesn't matter where. There are 2 people, both liberals, watching C-span on the TV. Dick Durbin is speaking on the floor of the Senate:
Durbin: "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime Pol Pot or others that had no concern for human beings,"
Lib 1: Did I hear that right? Did he really say that?
Lib 2: I'm not sure. Did you hear him compare Gitmo guards with Pol Pot, the Nazi's and the Gulags?
Lib 1: Oh, God, I was hoping I was just hearing things.
Lib 2: Well, he said it. So now we are going to have to do some major damage control. Get on the phone. Call all the captains, tell them to contact all their people, and tell their people to tell their people....monitor all TV networks, talk radio programs...
Lib 1: Aren't we going to call Durbin and tell him to apologize?
Lib 2: If it comes down to it, he may have to, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. If we act fast enough, he may not have to.
Lib 1: OK. What are we looking for?
Lib 2: Anything. Anything that any conservative says that we can twist and demand an apology for. You know sooner or later one of them will say something we can object to. Let's just hope it's sooner rather than later.
Fast forward to a little more than a week later: The same two Liberals are meeting:
Lib 1: Well, we tried but we can't stall any longer. Durbin's going to have to apologize now.
Lib 2: Yes, he will. Send him the draft of that "non-apology" apology. Have him recite that one. That will cool the moderates down until we can find something on the conservatives.
Fast forward a couple of days later:
Lib 2: OK, So what do we have?
Lib 1: Not much, there is this Karl Rove thing where he said "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." But we can't use that. It's the truth!
Lib 2: No, wait. We CAN use that. All we have to do is act righteously indignant and call for his resignation. You know, just make enough noise to distract the media from the fact that Durbin didn't really apologize. They're mostly all on our side. It won't take any effort to convince the media to go along with us.
Lib 1: But won't the American people see through that ruse?
(pregnant pause, as both seem to be considering the possiblility)
Lib 2: YEAH, RIGHT!
Both Together: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Durbin: "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime Pol Pot or others that had no concern for human beings,"
Lib 1: Did I hear that right? Did he really say that?
Lib 2: I'm not sure. Did you hear him compare Gitmo guards with Pol Pot, the Nazi's and the Gulags?
Lib 1: Oh, God, I was hoping I was just hearing things.
Lib 2: Well, he said it. So now we are going to have to do some major damage control. Get on the phone. Call all the captains, tell them to contact all their people, and tell their people to tell their people....monitor all TV networks, talk radio programs...
Lib 1: Aren't we going to call Durbin and tell him to apologize?
Lib 2: If it comes down to it, he may have to, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. If we act fast enough, he may not have to.
Lib 1: OK. What are we looking for?
Lib 2: Anything. Anything that any conservative says that we can twist and demand an apology for. You know sooner or later one of them will say something we can object to. Let's just hope it's sooner rather than later.
Fast forward to a little more than a week later: The same two Liberals are meeting:
Lib 1: Well, we tried but we can't stall any longer. Durbin's going to have to apologize now.
Lib 2: Yes, he will. Send him the draft of that "non-apology" apology. Have him recite that one. That will cool the moderates down until we can find something on the conservatives.
Fast forward a couple of days later:
Lib 2: OK, So what do we have?
Lib 1: Not much, there is this Karl Rove thing where he said "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." But we can't use that. It's the truth!
Lib 2: No, wait. We CAN use that. All we have to do is act righteously indignant and call for his resignation. You know, just make enough noise to distract the media from the fact that Durbin didn't really apologize. They're mostly all on our side. It won't take any effort to convince the media to go along with us.
Lib 1: But won't the American people see through that ruse?
(pregnant pause, as both seem to be considering the possiblility)
Lib 2: YEAH, RIGHT!
Both Together: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Friday, June 24, 2005
An open letter to Karl Rove
At a dinner for the New York state republicans on Wednesday, Karl Rove had this to say:
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,"
This has ignited a firestorm of indignation from the liberals similar to the firestorm ignited by Senator Dick Durbin's remarks about the Gitmo detainee camp in Cuba, but not as deserved.
Liberals are calling for an apology and I, for one, agree. With that in mind I have prepared an open letter for Mr. Rove. This is it:
Dear Mr. Karl Rove:
In light of the recent statements you made at the dinner for New York Republicans We, as concerned Americans feel that you owe an apology to the Liberals. Although the remarks are completely true, as evidenced by the very words of certain liberals soon after 9/11, in the interest of fostering good will among your peers, I have taken the liberty to prepare a statement for you. You may use it verbatim:
More than most people, a senator lives by his words, but occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies.
We believe if you apologize forthwith, the country can get back to the business at hand, and that is the continual distraction and stalling of governing the country.
sincerely,
Concerned Conservatives
I think that should appease the liberals. After all, It worked for Durbin!
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,"
This has ignited a firestorm of indignation from the liberals similar to the firestorm ignited by Senator Dick Durbin's remarks about the Gitmo detainee camp in Cuba, but not as deserved.
Liberals are calling for an apology and I, for one, agree. With that in mind I have prepared an open letter for Mr. Rove. This is it:
Dear Mr. Karl Rove:
In light of the recent statements you made at the dinner for New York Republicans We, as concerned Americans feel that you owe an apology to the Liberals. Although the remarks are completely true, as evidenced by the very words of certain liberals soon after 9/11, in the interest of fostering good will among your peers, I have taken the liberty to prepare a statement for you. You may use it verbatim:
More than most people, a senator lives by his words, but occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies.
We believe if you apologize forthwith, the country can get back to the business at hand, and that is the continual distraction and stalling of governing the country.
sincerely,
Concerned Conservatives
I think that should appease the liberals. After all, It worked for Durbin!
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Torture or Interrogation?
Just when I thought I was finished with this whole sordid "Dick Durbin" thing, my friend ER, takes it up again. He has quite an interesting thread going on over at his place. But this time it's more about what constitutes torture than what Senator Dick said. And about whether what is happening in Gitmo is really happening.
I have so many points to make about this, that I am going to devote an entire post to the subject here, rather than continue to add comment after comment ad nauseum over there.
To begin with, let me refer you to the previous post I made about this on June 17, wherein I pointed out that the "FBI memo" he read his statement from was repudiated by a spokesman for the FBI. This is one fact of this case that hasn't received much attention from the press.
Next, although there may be some incidents of over-zealousness on the part of some prison guards at Gitmo, these incidents pale in comparison with the gross human rights abuses exhibited by the Nazi's, Pol Pot, or the Soviet Gulags.
The point was made over on ER's blog, that these prisoners were arrested seemingly for no reason, however there is no validity to that point. Those detainees were taken prisoner directly from the fields of battle, and they were trying to kill us. And, not to belabor that point, but they really haven't been arrested at all, but detained for the duration of the war. The reason for this is to prevent them from rejoining the fight against our people, and by so doing, prevent them from attacking America again. To say that we are detaining these people for no reason is patently ridiculous.
Those detainees that accuse our soldiers of torture and/or inhumane treatment should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. There was recently an Al-Quaida training manual found in Iraq by American forces that outlines the procedure to be followed should an Al-Quaidan be captured and detained. It instructs the detainee to accuse his captors of abuse. That of course, should go without saying, after all, our own domestic prisons are full of prisoners that are innocent. Don't believe that? Just ask any of them, they'll tell you.
I am tired of discussing this. I really believe that whenever a senator or congressman of any party stands up in public and makes any kind of controversial statements, it's because his party is trying to distract the other party and America from the issues at hand. Especially a PREPARED statement, which was the case in this instance. Quite different from an off-the-cuff statement made at a birthday party.
I am sure I can "filibuster" at length about this subject further, but I have neither the time nor the inclination.
I have so many points to make about this, that I am going to devote an entire post to the subject here, rather than continue to add comment after comment ad nauseum over there.
To begin with, let me refer you to the previous post I made about this on June 17, wherein I pointed out that the "FBI memo" he read his statement from was repudiated by a spokesman for the FBI. This is one fact of this case that hasn't received much attention from the press.
Next, although there may be some incidents of over-zealousness on the part of some prison guards at Gitmo, these incidents pale in comparison with the gross human rights abuses exhibited by the Nazi's, Pol Pot, or the Soviet Gulags.
The point was made over on ER's blog, that these prisoners were arrested seemingly for no reason, however there is no validity to that point. Those detainees were taken prisoner directly from the fields of battle, and they were trying to kill us. And, not to belabor that point, but they really haven't been arrested at all, but detained for the duration of the war. The reason for this is to prevent them from rejoining the fight against our people, and by so doing, prevent them from attacking America again. To say that we are detaining these people for no reason is patently ridiculous.
Those detainees that accuse our soldiers of torture and/or inhumane treatment should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. There was recently an Al-Quaida training manual found in Iraq by American forces that outlines the procedure to be followed should an Al-Quaidan be captured and detained. It instructs the detainee to accuse his captors of abuse. That of course, should go without saying, after all, our own domestic prisons are full of prisoners that are innocent. Don't believe that? Just ask any of them, they'll tell you.
I am tired of discussing this. I really believe that whenever a senator or congressman of any party stands up in public and makes any kind of controversial statements, it's because his party is trying to distract the other party and America from the issues at hand. Especially a PREPARED statement, which was the case in this instance. Quite different from an off-the-cuff statement made at a birthday party.
I am sure I can "filibuster" at length about this subject further, but I have neither the time nor the inclination.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
The Mouth that roared
Listening to an interview with 2 of the soldiers that were assigned to guard Saddam Hussein, something that he reportedly said struck a chord. (I waited too long to post this. Now I can't find the interview.) But the gist of it is: He told his guards that he is still president of Iraq and even invited them to come visit him when he is back in power. Now, some may see this is arrogance, some may see it as delusional. I think he has an even more insane plan in mind.
Stay with me here. Do you remember a little known book by an author named Leonard Wibberly called, "The Mouse That Roared"? If you haven't, or, even if you have, let me offer a brief synopsis of the concept.
The Grand Duchy of Fenwick, a very small country in the western part of Europe, possibly nestled in between bigger countries such as Luxembourg and Litchenstein, was facing dire financial difficulties, indeed, they were facing bankruptcy. So they hatched an ingenious plan. Noting that the whenever the United States won a war, they would then start donating foreign aid to the defeated countries. The Fenwickians reasoned that if they declared war with the US and lost, then the U S would bail them out of their financial difficulty. But something went wrong with the plan. They won!
I won't get into the particulars of how that happened. I will just say that maybe Saddam had something similar in mind when he knowingly refused to allow the U N inspectors into his country to search for WMD's that he claimed he didn't have. After all, he had been warned that failure to comply with the U N resolutions was tantamount to an overt act of war. Knowing this, he thumbed his nose at America and the U. N. Anyway.
Possibly, Saddam and his son's extravagant lifestyle was depleting the countries coffers to the point that they were beginning to be alarmed. Yes, I know that millions were discovered all over the country after we went in. But to someone as wealthy as Saddam, ONLY millions may appear close to the bottom of the barrel. Maybe, just maybe, he was hoping for a typical American bail out.
OK, it was just a thought. Someone offered a comment that all the conservatives seemed to find one or two news reports, link to them, and then say basically the same things that everyone else is saying about them. I was just offering a different take. I hope this satisfies you.
Stay with me here. Do you remember a little known book by an author named Leonard Wibberly called, "The Mouse That Roared"? If you haven't, or, even if you have, let me offer a brief synopsis of the concept.
The Grand Duchy of Fenwick, a very small country in the western part of Europe, possibly nestled in between bigger countries such as Luxembourg and Litchenstein, was facing dire financial difficulties, indeed, they were facing bankruptcy. So they hatched an ingenious plan. Noting that the whenever the United States won a war, they would then start donating foreign aid to the defeated countries. The Fenwickians reasoned that if they declared war with the US and lost, then the U S would bail them out of their financial difficulty. But something went wrong with the plan. They won!
I won't get into the particulars of how that happened. I will just say that maybe Saddam had something similar in mind when he knowingly refused to allow the U N inspectors into his country to search for WMD's that he claimed he didn't have. After all, he had been warned that failure to comply with the U N resolutions was tantamount to an overt act of war. Knowing this, he thumbed his nose at America and the U. N. Anyway.
Possibly, Saddam and his son's extravagant lifestyle was depleting the countries coffers to the point that they were beginning to be alarmed. Yes, I know that millions were discovered all over the country after we went in. But to someone as wealthy as Saddam, ONLY millions may appear close to the bottom of the barrel. Maybe, just maybe, he was hoping for a typical American bail out.
OK, it was just a thought. Someone offered a comment that all the conservatives seemed to find one or two news reports, link to them, and then say basically the same things that everyone else is saying about them. I was just offering a different take. I hope this satisfies you.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Bolton blocked again
Well, I knew this would happen as soon as the news came out, in May, that 14 senators, 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans, had reached a compromise regarding the filibuster of Presidential nominees.
I said at the time, This compromise was no compromise at all, but a strategic win for the Democrats. It is incredible to me that Senators, who are supposed to be intelligent, would agree to a compromise with such an obvious, huge loophole. In this blog, I stated that most of these guys are lawyers and who knows better how to create and exploit loopholes better than lawyers? And to think, I used to say one had to be smart to be a lawyer. I think I'm about to change my mind about that. Maybe only Democrat lawyers are smart. Or so it would seem in this case.
So, it happened exactly as I said it would. The Democrats would use the "extraordinary circumstances" loophole that they created and to which somehow they fooled the 7 Republican lawmakers into agreeing. These 7 Republicans, in my opinion, had to know to what they were agreeing. I believe they knew this would happen. Why, then, did they agree to this preposterous compromise? Perhaps the 2006 elections will give us a clue, but for now, we can only speculate.
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who voted in May to advance the nomination, switched positions and urged Bush to consider another candidate, while only three Democrats crossed party lines. Well, we all suspected that he had another agenda then.
So, it appears that President Bush will have to exercise his option to make Bolton a recess appointment, which is a temporary solution, but hopefully, it will convince the Democrat senators and those few turncoat Republican senators that Bolton is the right choice after all.
I said at the time, This compromise was no compromise at all, but a strategic win for the Democrats. It is incredible to me that Senators, who are supposed to be intelligent, would agree to a compromise with such an obvious, huge loophole. In this blog, I stated that most of these guys are lawyers and who knows better how to create and exploit loopholes better than lawyers? And to think, I used to say one had to be smart to be a lawyer. I think I'm about to change my mind about that. Maybe only Democrat lawyers are smart. Or so it would seem in this case.
So, it happened exactly as I said it would. The Democrats would use the "extraordinary circumstances" loophole that they created and to which somehow they fooled the 7 Republican lawmakers into agreeing. These 7 Republicans, in my opinion, had to know to what they were agreeing. I believe they knew this would happen. Why, then, did they agree to this preposterous compromise? Perhaps the 2006 elections will give us a clue, but for now, we can only speculate.
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who voted in May to advance the nomination, switched positions and urged Bush to consider another candidate, while only three Democrats crossed party lines. Well, we all suspected that he had another agenda then.
So, it appears that President Bush will have to exercise his option to make Bolton a recess appointment, which is a temporary solution, but hopefully, it will convince the Democrat senators and those few turncoat Republican senators that Bolton is the right choice after all.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Headlines in 2029
Someone sent this to me in e-mail. Somehow I don't think it's far off:
Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia formally known as California. White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's third language.
Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock.
Baby conceived naturally. Scientists stumped.
Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.
Last remaining Fundamentalist Muslim dies in the American Territory of the Middle East (formerly known as Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon).
Iraq still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.
France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica.
Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.
George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036.
Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.
85-year, $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise is the key to weight loss.
Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.
Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed, they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.
Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.
Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights.
Average height of NBA players now nine feet, seven inches.
New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2036.
Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign accounts.
Capitol Hill intern indicted for refusing to have sex with congressman.
IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.
Florida voters still having trouble with voting machines.
Natalee Holloway still missing, Aruba police to begin investigation.
Actually, I have in my twisted little mind an idea for a book which will seek to show what life will be like in the future, if current trends continue at the present rate. Some of these will no doubt be included. If any of you professional writers out there would be interested in co-authoring a book with me, please e-mail me. The link to my e-mail is in my profile.
Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia formally known as California. White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's third language.
Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock.
Baby conceived naturally. Scientists stumped.
Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.
Last remaining Fundamentalist Muslim dies in the American Territory of the Middle East (formerly known as Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon).
Iraq still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.
France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica.
Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.
George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036.
Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.
85-year, $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise is the key to weight loss.
Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.
Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed, they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.
Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.
Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights.
Average height of NBA players now nine feet, seven inches.
New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2036.
Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign accounts.
Capitol Hill intern indicted for refusing to have sex with congressman.
IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.
Florida voters still having trouble with voting machines.
Natalee Holloway still missing, Aruba police to begin investigation.
Actually, I have in my twisted little mind an idea for a book which will seek to show what life will be like in the future, if current trends continue at the present rate. Some of these will no doubt be included. If any of you professional writers out there would be interested in co-authoring a book with me, please e-mail me. The link to my e-mail is in my profile.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Father's Day
Being the youngest of 6 children in My family, It is perhaps more difficult than my siblings for me to remember much of the things that my father did, or said, that makes him special to me. So, I sent e-mails to all my brothers and sisters, asking them to send me a short story or anecdote that best describes what our father meant to each of us. For some reason, I didn't get any replies. So, I will simply tell what he means to me.
My father and I had what many would probably agree was the typical rebellious teen/loving but firm father relationship. We fought on numerous occasions over what I wanted to do versus what he wanted me to do, which were, of course, the "right" things. Somehow we made it through and I grew to respect the man on so many levels as time went on.
At this point, I am reminded of something Mark Twain once said:
"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."
Now for some memories. I remember more than a few times that my mother would tell me to "Go help your dad" when he was working on the washing machine, or the car, etc. I would go and stand there looking bored and he'd say, "what do you want?" and I'd say "Mom told me to help you." he'd say, "You wanna help? stay out of the way!"
We were a church going family, but I was not the best behaved boy in church. I remember specifically 2 occasions when my father responded to my behavior unusually. By that I mean he didn't respond the way I would have expected. Both times I had been caught doing something I shouldn't have done in church. I expected, both times, to really get a beating when I got home, (not really beating, just a good spanking, in retrospect) but instead once he dropped by the Dairy Queen on the way home and bought me a pineapple sundae. The other time, he just said nothing about the incident. Years later, I realized what he was thinking. The fear and humiliation I was already feeling was punishment enough. And he was right.
Fast forward on to his final days. My father died of a long lasting painful disease called Chronic Respiratory Pulmonary Disease. Once, while visiting him at his bedside on a day that I sincerely believed was very nearly his last, he astounded me with a revelation. He told me about 2 times when he had been proud of me. Perhaps it would be important to say at this time that my dad was not one given to displays of effusion, however, on this occasion he spoke about a time, years before, that I had stood up in church and told the congregation that I was glad that my parents made me go to church with them when I didn't want to go. Personally, I had forgotten that I did that. But he hadn't. He also told me he was always proud of how good a basketball player I was. Knock me over with a feather! I had no idea he even knew I played much basketball! Incidentally, I wasn't that good. I tried out for the 7th grade team and was cut, and was so devastated, that I never tried out for another sport in school. But he never said a word about it.
My older brother told me, just last year, that Dad believed if you didn't make any money from the things that you did that it wasn't important. I know that sounds like a pretty shallow man, but you have to see the man the way I do to understand and realize just how special that made him. I wish my siblings had responded to my request, those anecdotes would tie this together so much better.
Dad didn't die in the next few days. Instead, a very different and miraculous thing occurred. He entered the hospital shortly thereafter with severe breathing difficulties, and the Doctor told my mother that he would be surprised if Dad lived through the night. That day, my father prayed to God, asking him to either take him or cure him as he could no longer go on in his present condition. And, contrary to what you are supposed to do, he gave God a timeframe to work with. He told God he wanted to be cured or dead by 2:00 PM the next day. At precisely 2:00 the next day, Dad drew the first unobstructed breath he had drawn in years! From there, he made a complete recovery and was running up steps in a matter of weeks! Dad didn't just sit back and enjoy this new lease on life he had received. Not my dad. He applied for and was given a mission from the state home mission board of the Southern Baptist Convention. In the next few years, he planted and pastored a small church in Claflin, Kansas. I believe that was the work God had been grooming him for his entire life. And so did he. After establishing that church, and making sure it was self sufficient, his disease returned and shortly thereafter, he died in my mother's arms.
I don't have many more memories of him that are worth sharing. They are just little things that are special to me alone, that I'm quite sure no one else would be able to appreciate. One thing that I have always been grateful for: I got the chance that so many people never get, and that is, I was able to reconcile all the differences I ever had with my father before he died. I don't feel guilty. I don't feel sorry I never got the chance to say "I love you, Dad". Because, you see, I did tell him I loved him.
Happy Father's Day and God bless you, Dad, rest in peace.
My father and I had what many would probably agree was the typical rebellious teen/loving but firm father relationship. We fought on numerous occasions over what I wanted to do versus what he wanted me to do, which were, of course, the "right" things. Somehow we made it through and I grew to respect the man on so many levels as time went on.
At this point, I am reminded of something Mark Twain once said:
"When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."
Now for some memories. I remember more than a few times that my mother would tell me to "Go help your dad" when he was working on the washing machine, or the car, etc. I would go and stand there looking bored and he'd say, "what do you want?" and I'd say "Mom told me to help you." he'd say, "You wanna help? stay out of the way!"
We were a church going family, but I was not the best behaved boy in church. I remember specifically 2 occasions when my father responded to my behavior unusually. By that I mean he didn't respond the way I would have expected. Both times I had been caught doing something I shouldn't have done in church. I expected, both times, to really get a beating when I got home, (not really beating, just a good spanking, in retrospect) but instead once he dropped by the Dairy Queen on the way home and bought me a pineapple sundae. The other time, he just said nothing about the incident. Years later, I realized what he was thinking. The fear and humiliation I was already feeling was punishment enough. And he was right.
Fast forward on to his final days. My father died of a long lasting painful disease called Chronic Respiratory Pulmonary Disease. Once, while visiting him at his bedside on a day that I sincerely believed was very nearly his last, he astounded me with a revelation. He told me about 2 times when he had been proud of me. Perhaps it would be important to say at this time that my dad was not one given to displays of effusion, however, on this occasion he spoke about a time, years before, that I had stood up in church and told the congregation that I was glad that my parents made me go to church with them when I didn't want to go. Personally, I had forgotten that I did that. But he hadn't. He also told me he was always proud of how good a basketball player I was. Knock me over with a feather! I had no idea he even knew I played much basketball! Incidentally, I wasn't that good. I tried out for the 7th grade team and was cut, and was so devastated, that I never tried out for another sport in school. But he never said a word about it.
My older brother told me, just last year, that Dad believed if you didn't make any money from the things that you did that it wasn't important. I know that sounds like a pretty shallow man, but you have to see the man the way I do to understand and realize just how special that made him. I wish my siblings had responded to my request, those anecdotes would tie this together so much better.
Dad didn't die in the next few days. Instead, a very different and miraculous thing occurred. He entered the hospital shortly thereafter with severe breathing difficulties, and the Doctor told my mother that he would be surprised if Dad lived through the night. That day, my father prayed to God, asking him to either take him or cure him as he could no longer go on in his present condition. And, contrary to what you are supposed to do, he gave God a timeframe to work with. He told God he wanted to be cured or dead by 2:00 PM the next day. At precisely 2:00 the next day, Dad drew the first unobstructed breath he had drawn in years! From there, he made a complete recovery and was running up steps in a matter of weeks! Dad didn't just sit back and enjoy this new lease on life he had received. Not my dad. He applied for and was given a mission from the state home mission board of the Southern Baptist Convention. In the next few years, he planted and pastored a small church in Claflin, Kansas. I believe that was the work God had been grooming him for his entire life. And so did he. After establishing that church, and making sure it was self sufficient, his disease returned and shortly thereafter, he died in my mother's arms.
I don't have many more memories of him that are worth sharing. They are just little things that are special to me alone, that I'm quite sure no one else would be able to appreciate. One thing that I have always been grateful for: I got the chance that so many people never get, and that is, I was able to reconcile all the differences I ever had with my father before he died. I don't feel guilty. I don't feel sorry I never got the chance to say "I love you, Dad". Because, you see, I did tell him I loved him.
Happy Father's Day and God bless you, Dad, rest in peace.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
That "memo"
I said if and when I find the actual "Downing Street Memo" that I would have a comment on it. Well, here it is. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I can't see anything in this thing that indicates President Bush was planning anything underhanded. In fact, it seems to me, that it proves him right.
The memo does mention this, which some might construe as plans to illegally wage war with Saddam: "The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD."
But, notice that it does say: "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors." That means that the decision to go to war was in Saddam's court. History tells us he did exactly what he needed to do to ensure war. He refused, again, to let the UN inspectors into the country. Another related thing I would like to bring up here: Common sense tells us, that if Saddam DIDN'T have WMD's, then he would certainly have avoided war by LETTING IN THE INSPECTORS! In my opinion, Bush has once again proven that he is a man of integrity, and his detractors have proven they are not.
The memo does mention this, which some might construe as plans to illegally wage war with Saddam: "The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD."
But, notice that it does say: "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors." That means that the decision to go to war was in Saddam's court. History tells us he did exactly what he needed to do to ensure war. He refused, again, to let the UN inspectors into the country. Another related thing I would like to bring up here: Common sense tells us, that if Saddam DIDN'T have WMD's, then he would certainly have avoided war by LETTING IN THE INSPECTORS! In my opinion, Bush has once again proven that he is a man of integrity, and his detractors have proven they are not.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Reaction to DICK Durbin
Today, I ran across this item on the FOX news web site.
GOP leaders called on their Democratic counterparts Friday to denounce the comments of Sen. Dick Durbin, who earlier this week blasted the Guantanamo detainee camp.
In the remarks first expressed on the Senate floor late Tuesday, the Illinois Democrat read the report of an FBI agent who described treatment of prisoners at the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Among the descriptions, the report noted one case in which a detainee was held in such cold temperatures that he shivered, another in which a prisoner was held in heat passing 100 degrees, one in which prisoners were left in isolation so long they fouled themselves and one where a prisoner was chained to the floor and forced to listen to loud rap music.
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime Pol Pot or others that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said.
But here is the part of the story that made me say, "What the......?"
"One knowledgeable official familiar with the memo cited by Durbin as well as other memos said the FBI agent made no such allegation and that the memo described only someone chained to the floor. Anything beyond that is simply an interpretation, the official said."
The FBI agent made no such allegation???
Well now, not only was the senator making anti-American and anti-military accusations, but now that it appears they aren't even true!
I have a suggestion for Senator DICK....If you are going to make serious allegations about the inhuman treatment of enemy combatants by the American military prison guards, perhaps you could make them sound like REAL abuse. Say American prison guards are torturing and murdering innocent civilians including women and children. I mean, as long as we're lying anyway, why not go all out? But come on...turning the air conditioner on and off? making him sit in one place all day? Please.
Further, it has been reported that DICK tried to backtrack on his statements today by saying he only meant, when reading the aforementioned memo, that it brought to his mind the treatment of prisoners by those regimes.
Do you know what I think of when i read that memo? I think, "Is that all? Is that all we are doing to get this animal to talk?" If in some off chance that this type of interrogation technique fails to illicit the desired results, I support falling back on the old tried and true rubber hose. Whatever it takes! If it prevents further terrorist attacks against the innocent civilian men, women, and children of our country, I say GO FOR IT! But that's just me.
GOP leaders called on their Democratic counterparts Friday to denounce the comments of Sen. Dick Durbin, who earlier this week blasted the Guantanamo detainee camp.
In the remarks first expressed on the Senate floor late Tuesday, the Illinois Democrat read the report of an FBI agent who described treatment of prisoners at the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Among the descriptions, the report noted one case in which a detainee was held in such cold temperatures that he shivered, another in which a prisoner was held in heat passing 100 degrees, one in which prisoners were left in isolation so long they fouled themselves and one where a prisoner was chained to the floor and forced to listen to loud rap music.
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime Pol Pot or others that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said.
But here is the part of the story that made me say, "What the......?"
"One knowledgeable official familiar with the memo cited by Durbin as well as other memos said the FBI agent made no such allegation and that the memo described only someone chained to the floor. Anything beyond that is simply an interpretation, the official said."
The FBI agent made no such allegation???
Well now, not only was the senator making anti-American and anti-military accusations, but now that it appears they aren't even true!
I have a suggestion for Senator DICK....If you are going to make serious allegations about the inhuman treatment of enemy combatants by the American military prison guards, perhaps you could make them sound like REAL abuse. Say American prison guards are torturing and murdering innocent civilians including women and children. I mean, as long as we're lying anyway, why not go all out? But come on...turning the air conditioner on and off? making him sit in one place all day? Please.
Further, it has been reported that DICK tried to backtrack on his statements today by saying he only meant, when reading the aforementioned memo, that it brought to his mind the treatment of prisoners by those regimes.
Do you know what I think of when i read that memo? I think, "Is that all? Is that all we are doing to get this animal to talk?" If in some off chance that this type of interrogation technique fails to illicit the desired results, I support falling back on the old tried and true rubber hose. Whatever it takes! If it prevents further terrorist attacks against the innocent civilian men, women, and children of our country, I say GO FOR IT! But that's just me.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Terri Schaivo autopsy
The Terri Schaivo autopsy results were made public on Tuesday. In order to get the facts straight, I sent a correspondent, Emily Lutella, to Tampa, Florida, to interview the medical examiner firsthand. The following is the interview in it's entirety:*
Emily: Dr. Thogmartin, I understand that Mrs. Schaivo's autopsy report confirms that she was in a persistent vegetative state.
M.E.: the autopsy showed that Ms. Schiavo's condition was consistent with a person in a persistent vegetative state.
Emily: So does that mean she was or she wasn't?
M.E. "This damage was irreversible. No amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons. That term refers to a clinical diagnosis, not a pathological diagnosis. There was nothing in the autopsy that is inconsistent with persistent vegetative state."
Emily: Do we now know why she collapsed in the first place?
M.E.: "I consider the manner of her death to be undetermined."
Emily: Is there any evidence that her collapse was caused in any way by her husband?
M.E.: "The autopsy showed that physical abuse or poison did not play a role in her collapse."
Emily: What about the assertion that she was bulimic?
M.E.: "There was no evidence she had had an eating disorder before she collapsed, although a disorder was widely suspected because she had diminished levels of potassium in her blood."
Emily: What about the fact that she was able to follow that balloon with her eyes?
M.E.: despite a widely televised video that appeared to show Ms. Schiavo responding to voices and other movement in her room, the autopsy said that Ms. Schiavo was blind in her final days. She would not have been able to eat or drink had she been fed by mouth, as her parents had requested. The autopsy found no evidence that she suffered a heart attack, or that she had been given harmful drugs that may have accelerated her death.
Emily: In spite of her being in that state, it seems that starvation is a particuarly cruel and painful means of euthanasia. In your opinion, does being in a PVS justify starving her to death?
M.E.: "Ms. Schiavo technically died of marked dehydration - not starvation - after her feeding tube was removed."
Emily: Dehydration? Well. That's very different. Nevermind.
Point is: I can accept that Mrs. Schaivo was in a persistent vegetative state as her husband and his lawyer asserts. But, if you are going to euthanize someone, anyone, why starve that person to death (or dehydrate them)? Isn't there a quicker, less painful way to do it? And why was killing her necessary in the first place? Her parents only wanted her husband to release her into their care. Why couldn't he have dome that? This whole sordid episode is just sickening. And, I am afraid, it leads to the proverbial "slippery slope" towards wholesale euthanasia of anyone that we feel has "outlived their usefulness".
* The above interview is a parody, however everything attributed to Dr. Thogmartin is a direct quote from the New York Times' article on the press conference. Emily Lutella is a character from "Saturday Night live" played by the Late Gilda Radner.
Emily: Dr. Thogmartin, I understand that Mrs. Schaivo's autopsy report confirms that she was in a persistent vegetative state.
M.E.: the autopsy showed that Ms. Schiavo's condition was consistent with a person in a persistent vegetative state.
Emily: So does that mean she was or she wasn't?
M.E. "This damage was irreversible. No amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons. That term refers to a clinical diagnosis, not a pathological diagnosis. There was nothing in the autopsy that is inconsistent with persistent vegetative state."
Emily: Do we now know why she collapsed in the first place?
M.E.: "I consider the manner of her death to be undetermined."
Emily: Is there any evidence that her collapse was caused in any way by her husband?
M.E.: "The autopsy showed that physical abuse or poison did not play a role in her collapse."
Emily: What about the assertion that she was bulimic?
M.E.: "There was no evidence she had had an eating disorder before she collapsed, although a disorder was widely suspected because she had diminished levels of potassium in her blood."
Emily: What about the fact that she was able to follow that balloon with her eyes?
M.E.: despite a widely televised video that appeared to show Ms. Schiavo responding to voices and other movement in her room, the autopsy said that Ms. Schiavo was blind in her final days. She would not have been able to eat or drink had she been fed by mouth, as her parents had requested. The autopsy found no evidence that she suffered a heart attack, or that she had been given harmful drugs that may have accelerated her death.
Emily: In spite of her being in that state, it seems that starvation is a particuarly cruel and painful means of euthanasia. In your opinion, does being in a PVS justify starving her to death?
M.E.: "Ms. Schiavo technically died of marked dehydration - not starvation - after her feeding tube was removed."
Emily: Dehydration? Well. That's very different. Nevermind.
Point is: I can accept that Mrs. Schaivo was in a persistent vegetative state as her husband and his lawyer asserts. But, if you are going to euthanize someone, anyone, why starve that person to death (or dehydrate them)? Isn't there a quicker, less painful way to do it? And why was killing her necessary in the first place? Her parents only wanted her husband to release her into their care. Why couldn't he have dome that? This whole sordid episode is just sickening. And, I am afraid, it leads to the proverbial "slippery slope" towards wholesale euthanasia of anyone that we feel has "outlived their usefulness".
* The above interview is a parody, however everything attributed to Dr. Thogmartin is a direct quote from the New York Times' article on the press conference. Emily Lutella is a character from "Saturday Night live" played by the Late Gilda Radner.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Dick Durbin gets stupid
I found this on Laura Ingraham's web site today. When I heard on her radio program that Durbin compared Gitmo to Pol Pot's regime I was not sure I heard it right. What kind of un-American jerk is this guy? In my opinion, it is treasonous for elected representatives of our government to spread anti-Americanism hate speech throughout the world. He needs to apologize to America for this one.
DURBIN COMPARES U.S. INTERROGATIONS TO POL POT AND NAZIS! Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), speaking on the Senate floor, described our interrogation practices at Gitmo (keeping the 20th hijacker cold or hot, or playing of loud rap music) as akin to something that "happened by [sic] the Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some madman regime like Pol Pot." Not only is this absurd and hideously inaccurate, but Durbin's comments makes our military's job more difficult, and encourages anti-Americanism around the world. Thanks, Dick.
In other news, President Bush blasted the Democrat party at a kick off dinner for the 2006 republican campaign yesterday, saying that they are a party of obstructionist and adding that "that is not leadership". This is a departure from the President's usual attitude of respectfulness that has characterized him in the past. And I say it's about time he took the gloves off. Democrats need to learn that they are not serving the best interests of the American people by constantly belittling and tearing down the progress that President Bush has accomplished in his tenure as president. The things that Democrats and Liberals say about Bush is just evidence of the misplaced hate that they have for him and the Republicans. I still don't understand why they hate him so much, but in my opinion, if they spent 1/10 the energy hating the actual enemies of our country that they expend hating the President, we might be able to bring this war to an end, and consequently, our men home to their families.
DURBIN COMPARES U.S. INTERROGATIONS TO POL POT AND NAZIS! Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), speaking on the Senate floor, described our interrogation practices at Gitmo (keeping the 20th hijacker cold or hot, or playing of loud rap music) as akin to something that "happened by [sic] the Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some madman regime like Pol Pot." Not only is this absurd and hideously inaccurate, but Durbin's comments makes our military's job more difficult, and encourages anti-Americanism around the world. Thanks, Dick.
In other news, President Bush blasted the Democrat party at a kick off dinner for the 2006 republican campaign yesterday, saying that they are a party of obstructionist and adding that "that is not leadership". This is a departure from the President's usual attitude of respectfulness that has characterized him in the past. And I say it's about time he took the gloves off. Democrats need to learn that they are not serving the best interests of the American people by constantly belittling and tearing down the progress that President Bush has accomplished in his tenure as president. The things that Democrats and Liberals say about Bush is just evidence of the misplaced hate that they have for him and the Republicans. I still don't understand why they hate him so much, but in my opinion, if they spent 1/10 the energy hating the actual enemies of our country that they expend hating the President, we might be able to bring this war to an end, and consequently, our men home to their families.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
The Verdict is in
Back on April 30, I posted a comment on Michael Jackson, where I predicted he would be acquitted. This was back when I didn't make paragraphs and typed in all lower case letters. Here is an excerpt from that post:
let me shed some heretofore never addressed light on this mess. Several years ago, I did some research on pedophilia and I have some insights into this case that the media hasn't really bothered to touch on, at least as far as I know. To begin with, Michael Jackson says he loves children and would never hurt a child. Believe him. He really does love children. All pedophiles do. And molesting a child, in a pedophiles twisted mind, is not hurting them, rather it is an expression of the love they have for the child. He really believes he has done nothing wrong. pedophiles cannot differentiate between love and sex. When he molests children he is showing the child that he loves him. Is there hope that Michael can be cured? Studies have shown the answer is no. There is no evidence to suggests that pedophilia can ever be cured, however, if the pedophile can be brought to the point that he can acknowledge that he has a problem, he can control the urge to "show love". The problem with this is that one can never know if the sexual urges of a pedophile will stay controlled. There is always a chance that he will molest again. From the press and media reports concerning Michaels childhood and lifestyle, I can say with reasonable confidence that he fits the psychological profile of the textbook pedophile and in my opinion, he is one of the few that will never admit responsibility for his crimes. Therefore, if Michael Jackson is acquitted this time, he will not stop. And even if he is found guilty, he better be locked away or he will continue molesting children the rest of his life, especially if he can continue to find mothers and fathers that are willing to whore their son out for a few dollars and jewelry. With that said, let me say that Michael Jackson should not have to bear the burden of his crimes alone...He could not have gotten away with this for this long had he not had the cooperation of greedy parents, who care more for monetary gain than their own children. In short, even if Michael Jackson has never touched a child in a sexual way, the psychological evidence suggests that he will eventually.
Now, let me add one thing about the outcome of this trial. I tried, unsuccessfully, to find out if the prosecution had put a psychologist on the stand to testify as to the psychological makeup of a pedophile. I don't think he did. I think this may have been the reason he lost his case. Pedophiles are hard to spot unless one knows what to look for. Michael Jackson appears to be weird and freaky, but on the outside, there is little to suggest that he is anything worse than that. Had a psychologist been called to testify, I believe the jury could have seen him for what he is.
Geraldo Rivera, on Fox news, said Michael has assured him that he will never sleep with children again, but, coming from a pedophile, that is a promise that means nothing, in the same way a wife beater tells his wife he will never touch her again or an alchoholic will never drink again. (I can't believe someone with Geraldo's intelligence could be so naive)
If he continues to molest children, (and now that he has been acquitted, there is no reason to suspect he won't) There will undoubtedly be another chance for a prosecutor to do it right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
let me shed some heretofore never addressed light on this mess. Several years ago, I did some research on pedophilia and I have some insights into this case that the media hasn't really bothered to touch on, at least as far as I know. To begin with, Michael Jackson says he loves children and would never hurt a child. Believe him. He really does love children. All pedophiles do. And molesting a child, in a pedophiles twisted mind, is not hurting them, rather it is an expression of the love they have for the child. He really believes he has done nothing wrong. pedophiles cannot differentiate between love and sex. When he molests children he is showing the child that he loves him. Is there hope that Michael can be cured? Studies have shown the answer is no. There is no evidence to suggests that pedophilia can ever be cured, however, if the pedophile can be brought to the point that he can acknowledge that he has a problem, he can control the urge to "show love". The problem with this is that one can never know if the sexual urges of a pedophile will stay controlled. There is always a chance that he will molest again. From the press and media reports concerning Michaels childhood and lifestyle, I can say with reasonable confidence that he fits the psychological profile of the textbook pedophile and in my opinion, he is one of the few that will never admit responsibility for his crimes. Therefore, if Michael Jackson is acquitted this time, he will not stop. And even if he is found guilty, he better be locked away or he will continue molesting children the rest of his life, especially if he can continue to find mothers and fathers that are willing to whore their son out for a few dollars and jewelry. With that said, let me say that Michael Jackson should not have to bear the burden of his crimes alone...He could not have gotten away with this for this long had he not had the cooperation of greedy parents, who care more for monetary gain than their own children. In short, even if Michael Jackson has never touched a child in a sexual way, the psychological evidence suggests that he will eventually.
Now, let me add one thing about the outcome of this trial. I tried, unsuccessfully, to find out if the prosecution had put a psychologist on the stand to testify as to the psychological makeup of a pedophile. I don't think he did. I think this may have been the reason he lost his case. Pedophiles are hard to spot unless one knows what to look for. Michael Jackson appears to be weird and freaky, but on the outside, there is little to suggest that he is anything worse than that. Had a psychologist been called to testify, I believe the jury could have seen him for what he is.
Geraldo Rivera, on Fox news, said Michael has assured him that he will never sleep with children again, but, coming from a pedophile, that is a promise that means nothing, in the same way a wife beater tells his wife he will never touch her again or an alchoholic will never drink again. (I can't believe someone with Geraldo's intelligence could be so naive)
If he continues to molest children, (and now that he has been acquitted, there is no reason to suspect he won't) There will undoubtedly be another chance for a prosecutor to do it right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, June 13, 2005
Inhuman torture
Oh my God! We must close Guantanamo Bay down right now! It has been reported there has been inhumane treatment of detainees, even to the point of playing Christina Aquilera music to the prisoners! I don't know about you, but that would certainly be torture to me!
I don't care who you are, that's funny.
Seriously,I am just sick to my stomach at the way the media and some politicians are sucking up to the terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. Does anyone care about what they are doing to our people? And who says the way we are treating the detainees is inhumane or torture? Oh, that's right. TIME MAGAZINE DOES! And so does Newsweek, and The New York Times, and the Washington Post..etc.. My God, don't these organizations understand what kind of enemy we are fighting? Do they think our prisoners would be treated better by them? Some examples of what horrible things we are doing to the detainees in Gitmo: Dripping water on their heads to wake them up. They wake him every morning at 4 and sometimes question him until midnight.They promise better treatment; they show him pictures of 9/11 victims, particularly children and the elderly. They talk about God's will and his guilt. They tell him that he failed on his mission and hint that other comrades have been captured and are talking about his role in the plot. They play on his emotions, saying he should talk if he ever wants to see his family or friends or homeland again. They make him sit in a metal chair immobile. And oh, yes, they play Christina Aquilera music to keep him awake.
All these things we do to detainees in Gitmo.I have to admit, I don't feel sorry for him, for what the media does NOT report is that we also feed them muslim approved meals, give him his own copy of his holy book, the Q'uran, allow him to pray to Allah whenever he wants. Even point him in the direction of Mecca. We don't beat them, or starve them, or attach electric wires to his testicles, or shove bamboo shoots under his fingernails, or insert a glass tube up his penis and then break it. In other words, we don't do any of those things that they do to us. And WE DON"T CUT THEIR HEADS OFF! One more thing...Those detainees are hostile combatants, not journalists or contractors sent here to help us, or teachers, or diplomats,or tourists. I have a suggestion for what my father used to call "those bleeding heart sob sisters" in the media and the congress and elsewhere...Why don't you go ask some of the terrorists victims if we are being too hard on the detainees? Daniel Pearl, for instance. (one of your own, I might add) Oh, that's right. You can ask him but he won't answer. He was beheaded by those same people you feel so sorry for. I'm closing out now. I feel sick.
I don't care who you are, that's funny.
Seriously,I am just sick to my stomach at the way the media and some politicians are sucking up to the terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. Does anyone care about what they are doing to our people? And who says the way we are treating the detainees is inhumane or torture? Oh, that's right. TIME MAGAZINE DOES! And so does Newsweek, and The New York Times, and the Washington Post..etc.. My God, don't these organizations understand what kind of enemy we are fighting? Do they think our prisoners would be treated better by them? Some examples of what horrible things we are doing to the detainees in Gitmo: Dripping water on their heads to wake them up. They wake him every morning at 4 and sometimes question him until midnight.They promise better treatment; they show him pictures of 9/11 victims, particularly children and the elderly. They talk about God's will and his guilt. They tell him that he failed on his mission and hint that other comrades have been captured and are talking about his role in the plot. They play on his emotions, saying he should talk if he ever wants to see his family or friends or homeland again. They make him sit in a metal chair immobile. And oh, yes, they play Christina Aquilera music to keep him awake.
All these things we do to detainees in Gitmo.I have to admit, I don't feel sorry for him, for what the media does NOT report is that we also feed them muslim approved meals, give him his own copy of his holy book, the Q'uran, allow him to pray to Allah whenever he wants. Even point him in the direction of Mecca. We don't beat them, or starve them, or attach electric wires to his testicles, or shove bamboo shoots under his fingernails, or insert a glass tube up his penis and then break it. In other words, we don't do any of those things that they do to us. And WE DON"T CUT THEIR HEADS OFF! One more thing...Those detainees are hostile combatants, not journalists or contractors sent here to help us, or teachers, or diplomats,or tourists. I have a suggestion for what my father used to call "those bleeding heart sob sisters" in the media and the congress and elsewhere...Why don't you go ask some of the terrorists victims if we are being too hard on the detainees? Daniel Pearl, for instance. (one of your own, I might add) Oh, that's right. You can ask him but he won't answer. He was beheaded by those same people you feel so sorry for. I'm closing out now. I feel sick.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Believe me
I have writer's block today so I will sing to you....
Believe me, if all those endearing young charms
Which I gaze on so fondly today
Were to change by tomorrow and fleet in my arms
Like fairy gifts fading away.
Thou wouldst still be adored, as this moment thou art
Let thy loveliness fade as it will
And around the dear ruin each wish of my heart
Would entwine itself verdantly still
For it's not while beauty and youth are thine own,
And thy cheeks unprofaned by a tear
That the fervour and faith of a soul can be known
That in time would but make thee more dear.
For the heart that has truly loved never forgets
And as truly loves on till the close.
As the sunflower turns to her God when he sets
The same face that she turned when He rose.
Believe me, if all those endearing young charms
Which I gaze on so fondly today
Were to change by tomorrow and fleet in my arms
Like fairy gifts fading away.
Thou wouldst still be adored, as this moment thou art
Let thy loveliness fade as it will
And around the dear ruin each wish of my heart
Would entwine itself verdantly still
For it's not while beauty and youth are thine own,
And thy cheeks unprofaned by a tear
That the fervour and faith of a soul can be known
That in time would but make thee more dear.
For the heart that has truly loved never forgets
And as truly loves on till the close.
As the sunflower turns to her God when he sets
The same face that she turned when He rose.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Natalee Holloway
For those of you who have been living in a cave the last week, Natalee Holloway is the 18 year old girl that vanished while on a senior class trip to Aruba. Holloway, a straight-A student who won awards for volunteer work, had earned a full scholarship at the University of Alabama, where she planned to study medicine.
I suppose I should wait for a conclusion to this case before I weigh in on it, but I just read the story in AOL news, and as I have stated before, when something in a story makes me say, "What the.......?", I have to make a comment.
Since the beginning of this story, we have been more or less led to believe that this was just a nice innocent little celebratory senior class trip. Nothing perverse or unseemly here. I don't mean to seem naive here, but up to now, I believe the media has portrayed this trip to Aruba as a sort of church ice cream social. Apparently, it wasn't. Now, quite a different picture is beginning to emerge that is disturbing, to say the least.
To begin with, now we find that this sweet innocent 18 year old girl was drunk and allowed herself to be picked up in a casino. Then, we find that she was in the company of 3 men, one of which she was reported to be "kissing" in the back seat of the car.
We all know what goes on at these senior trips. I don't mean to detract from the tragic nature of this story. If she is dead, or injured, it is indeed a tragedy, and every effort should be explored to see that those responsible are caught and punished. This should send a wake-up call to all the parents of all students that come to them and ask to be allowed to go on one of these junkets. Just because your child is a smart, responsible, straight "A" student and, as far as you know, has never done anything irresponsible before, you should remember that they are still very young and naive and they still need protection. After all, not all adults will have your child's best interest at heart. I don't blame the parents. They most likely didn't suspect their daughter of being irresponsible, and they certainly couldn't have foreseen that someone would take advantages of their child. Those that did the deed are the ones that are to be held responsible. Let's not add insult to injury by dragging the parents through the speculation that they are partly responsible. They are suffering enough. Rather, let's treat this as what it appears to be. A kidnapping and murder perpetrated by criminals. But additionally, let's resolve to learn from this experience. Tell your children that they are not bullet proof and that there are dangerous people out there in the world. That is the best we can do. The rest is up to them.
I suppose I should wait for a conclusion to this case before I weigh in on it, but I just read the story in AOL news, and as I have stated before, when something in a story makes me say, "What the.......?", I have to make a comment.
Since the beginning of this story, we have been more or less led to believe that this was just a nice innocent little celebratory senior class trip. Nothing perverse or unseemly here. I don't mean to seem naive here, but up to now, I believe the media has portrayed this trip to Aruba as a sort of church ice cream social. Apparently, it wasn't. Now, quite a different picture is beginning to emerge that is disturbing, to say the least.
To begin with, now we find that this sweet innocent 18 year old girl was drunk and allowed herself to be picked up in a casino. Then, we find that she was in the company of 3 men, one of which she was reported to be "kissing" in the back seat of the car.
We all know what goes on at these senior trips. I don't mean to detract from the tragic nature of this story. If she is dead, or injured, it is indeed a tragedy, and every effort should be explored to see that those responsible are caught and punished. This should send a wake-up call to all the parents of all students that come to them and ask to be allowed to go on one of these junkets. Just because your child is a smart, responsible, straight "A" student and, as far as you know, has never done anything irresponsible before, you should remember that they are still very young and naive and they still need protection. After all, not all adults will have your child's best interest at heart. I don't blame the parents. They most likely didn't suspect their daughter of being irresponsible, and they certainly couldn't have foreseen that someone would take advantages of their child. Those that did the deed are the ones that are to be held responsible. Let's not add insult to injury by dragging the parents through the speculation that they are partly responsible. They are suffering enough. Rather, let's treat this as what it appears to be. A kidnapping and murder perpetrated by criminals. But additionally, let's resolve to learn from this experience. Tell your children that they are not bullet proof and that there are dangerous people out there in the world. That is the best we can do. The rest is up to them.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Illegal aliens
U.S Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was on Laura Ingraham's radio program today, and he was asked about what the Bush administration was planning to do about the illegal immigration problem. When he mentioned the worker's permit program, I had to say, "what the....?" Excuse me? How in the world does giving legal immigrants a temporary work permit stop thousands of non U.S. citizens from sneaking over our border? I like President Bush and, overall, I think he's doing an admirable job, but his administration has really dropped the ball on this one. Certainly there are thousands of Mexicans, South Americans, and even Muslims that want to enter our country to make a better life for themselves, and certainly, I think we can do a better job of cutting through the red tape to expedite the process of legally entering our country. I don't begrudge a person who wants to come here and fulfill his dream, as long as his dream isn't the annihilation of the United States. The problem is we don't currently have anything in place to prevent terrorists from entering our country through the sieve that is the Mexico/America border or the Canadaian border. The administration has done a fine job in the homeland security department so far, except for the immigration problem. What's so complicated here? Put more Border patrol along the border. Build a fence, or a wall. And if they are coming in by air, Don't be afraid to profile to protect us. If a visitor to our country looks like a middle eastern national, check him out! Yes, I know that's not politically correct, and some people would be upset to be delayed simply because they "look" suspicious, but we are talking about the safety of our innocent citizens here. And if the legitimate visitors to our country can't understand the reasons for being extra careful, they will just have to deal with it. Just like us American citizens that don't look a thing like a terrorist have to do. I dealt with this subject back on my very first blog post ever, back in April, and then I offered the suggestion (tongue firmly planted in cheek)that once we identify and capture anyone that has entered the country illegally, we should make them slaves. I bet that would discourage any further illegal intrusion onto our soil. And besides, I can use the free help.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Some Fluff
I have perused the news today and there is nothing that I care to rant about just yet, although the jury (literally) is still out on some things. So today I am just going to have some fun.
Following yesterday's post I received 2 comments, both more or less voting on whether Howard Dean is a secret Republican operative or just an idiot. So I had an idea! Let's have a vote! vote here on Dean. Is he an idiot? Or is he a Secret Republican? Post your vote in the comments section.
Have you noticed that since major league baseball started scrutinizing the use of steroids that the number of homeruns hit has decreased dramatically? Is that just a coincidence or what?
Has anyone noticed that there are now more Iraqi citizens and police officers and armed forces being killed in terrorist attacks than Americans? Maybe terrorists really just want to kill and maim and it doesn't have anything to do with America's presence over there. Just a thought.
I am going to revise my "Babes I want to date" list here:
1. Michelle Malkin....Attractive, intelligent, and Asian! I've always had a thing for Asian women.
2. Condoleeza Rice......Again, attractive and intelligent I love intelligent women!
3. Ann Coulter....Attractive and intelligent, and a bonus: she is FUNNY! I love sarcasm as long as it is funny sarcasm and she is a master (mistress?) at it.
4. Laura Ingraham....Attractive and intelligent. Only this far down the list because I have trouble dealing with possibly incurable diseases..Well, not really the diseases themselves as much as the treatment for them. (translated... She may soon be bald.)
5. Kim Komando...Attractive and intelligent..How does she know so much about computers? I appreciate her knowledge since I am a techno-moron myself.
6. Geena Davis...Yes I know she isn't conservative but I never said that is a major criteria...Her presence on my list is because she is a mensa member and like I say, I find intelligent women sexy.
7. Paris Hilton....Paris Hilton? OK...Listen, she has looks and she has money but she's dumber than a box of rocks....Well, 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Besides, every list of this type has to have a token babe.
8. Suze Ormond.... Did I spell her last name right? Anyway, she is attractive and she could balance my checkbook for me.
Geeeez, I hope I have something important to talk about tomorrow. Bye.
Following yesterday's post I received 2 comments, both more or less voting on whether Howard Dean is a secret Republican operative or just an idiot. So I had an idea! Let's have a vote! vote here on Dean. Is he an idiot? Or is he a Secret Republican? Post your vote in the comments section.
Have you noticed that since major league baseball started scrutinizing the use of steroids that the number of homeruns hit has decreased dramatically? Is that just a coincidence or what?
Has anyone noticed that there are now more Iraqi citizens and police officers and armed forces being killed in terrorist attacks than Americans? Maybe terrorists really just want to kill and maim and it doesn't have anything to do with America's presence over there. Just a thought.
I am going to revise my "Babes I want to date" list here:
1. Michelle Malkin....Attractive, intelligent, and Asian! I've always had a thing for Asian women.
2. Condoleeza Rice......Again, attractive and intelligent I love intelligent women!
3. Ann Coulter....Attractive and intelligent, and a bonus: she is FUNNY! I love sarcasm as long as it is funny sarcasm and she is a master (mistress?) at it.
4. Laura Ingraham....Attractive and intelligent. Only this far down the list because I have trouble dealing with possibly incurable diseases..Well, not really the diseases themselves as much as the treatment for them. (translated... She may soon be bald.)
5. Kim Komando...Attractive and intelligent..How does she know so much about computers? I appreciate her knowledge since I am a techno-moron myself.
6. Geena Davis...Yes I know she isn't conservative but I never said that is a major criteria...Her presence on my list is because she is a mensa member and like I say, I find intelligent women sexy.
7. Paris Hilton....Paris Hilton? OK...Listen, she has looks and she has money but she's dumber than a box of rocks....Well, 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Besides, every list of this type has to have a token babe.
8. Suze Ormond.... Did I spell her last name right? Anyway, she is attractive and she could balance my checkbook for me.
Geeeez, I hope I have something important to talk about tomorrow. Bye.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Howard Dean
Howard Dean continues to amaze, astound, and embarrass his own party, the Democrats. So much so, that even the other leaders of the Democrat party are distancing themselves from him and his out of control rhetoric. Here are a few examples of the things that Dean has been saying....On the GOP
"It's pretty much a white, Christian party.''
-- June 6 remarks to audience of journalists and minority leaders
(a note from Mark) Hmmm... How does he explain Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, and Janice Brown?
On Republicans
"...A lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.''
-- June 2 speech in Washington, D.C., at Campaign for America's Future conference
(note from Mark) Sean Hannity, take notice here...he said "a lot", not all. Actually there is likely a lot of truth to this statement, but then it is true of many Democrats as well.
On Tom DeLay, House GOP Leader
"I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence."
-- May speech to Massachusetts Democratic Convention
(note from Mark) Maybe he should be charged with a crime and then tried first, ya think? Where is the proof that he even committed a crime?
I really don't know what else to say about this. I think it speaks for itself. Howard Dean is either a secret Republican operative, or an idiot. The leaders are making the point that he doesn't speak for the party, but if the Democrat party national chairman doesn't speak for the party, who does? In any case, the prudent thing for the Democrats to do is get him out of there before the whole party implodes. But they won't listen to me, and since i favor the Republicans on nearly all political issues, that may be a good thing, at least in this case.
"It's pretty much a white, Christian party.''
-- June 6 remarks to audience of journalists and minority leaders
(a note from Mark) Hmmm... How does he explain Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, and Janice Brown?
On Republicans
"...A lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.''
-- June 2 speech in Washington, D.C., at Campaign for America's Future conference
(note from Mark) Sean Hannity, take notice here...he said "a lot", not all. Actually there is likely a lot of truth to this statement, but then it is true of many Democrats as well.
On Tom DeLay, House GOP Leader
"I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence."
-- May speech to Massachusetts Democratic Convention
(note from Mark) Maybe he should be charged with a crime and then tried first, ya think? Where is the proof that he even committed a crime?
I really don't know what else to say about this. I think it speaks for itself. Howard Dean is either a secret Republican operative, or an idiot. The leaders are making the point that he doesn't speak for the party, but if the Democrat party national chairman doesn't speak for the party, who does? In any case, the prudent thing for the Democrats to do is get him out of there before the whole party implodes. But they won't listen to me, and since i favor the Republicans on nearly all political issues, that may be a good thing, at least in this case.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
What Bush haters don't want you to know
The Liberals are fond of making the claim that George W. Bush is less than intelligent, sometimes even stupid. However, yesterday, John Kerry's transcripts from Yale University were released, showing that his grades and that of the president were almost exactly the same. In their respective freshman semesters, in fact, Bush received the equivalent of 1 "D", while Kerry received 4 "D"s. But, overall, their grades were about the same. Kerry repeatedly refused to release his transcripts during his failed presidential campaign, and now, it appears we know why. During the race Kerry once was overheard saying, "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot." This is the overall attitude displayed by the libs. Denigrate your opponent and hopefully, you can cast enough doubt as to his capabilities to lead as to "steal" the election from him.....Bush, on the other hand, steadfastly refuses to trash talk his opponents, even to the point of outright praise for their leadership and abilities. Case in point: Does anyone remember how Bush complimented Kerry and thanked him for his service in Vietnam during the race for president? I do, but from what I have read on many liberal blogs, the liberals seem to have forgotten that, and have even indicated that ran a dirty campaign. Just a few moments ago, (and the reason I chose this subject for today's comment) I heard a couple of sound bytes on Rush Limbaughs radio program. The first sound byte was a recording of President Bush's remarks upon the unveiling of Hillary Rodham Clinton's portrait in the White House. Were his remarks mean spirited? No. Quite the contrary, his remarks outlined Hillary's career from high school to her present position in the U S senate. All of his remarks were positive, and, believe it or not, truthful! On the other hand, the other sound byte he played was a few comments Hillary made about Bush. As usual, he was portrayed by the former first lady and now senator from New York as a liar and a crook. How he can allow this denigration of his character is a mystery to me. I guess it supports what I have been saying all along, that president Bush is a man of integrity, honesty and class. Oh, and intelligence. And how in the world can anyone say otherwise, given the preponderance of evidence?
Monday, June 06, 2005
61st anniversary of "D" Day
Today we celebrate the 61st anniversary of the invasion of Normandy in France in 1944, otherwise known as D day here in America. This was a pivotal battle in world war II as it spelled the beginning of the end of the Third Reich of Nazi Germany. From the shores of Omaha Beach, the allied forces battled their way into central France, eventually entering and liberating Paris. Today I am apalled at the lack of knowledge and the apathy concerning this day in history. Try this experiment on your own. Go anywhere you please and announce to whomever you please that today is the anniversary of D day, and see what happens. Most likely, if my experience is any indication, you will be met with first, a blank stare, and then an attitude of complete indifference. someone once said, and I apologise for not knowing who, that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This has been proven time and time again by the people in our society that insist the holocaust never happened, or that socialism is a preferred form of government over democracy, or any number of other wacko's with whom the news media seems to have a love affair. I would recommend that you go out today and procure a copy of "Saving Private Ryan" or "The Longest Day" and watch it and then thank God for delivering us from tyranny in the form of the United States and her allies' armed forces. I know i will. God bless America.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
More on stem cell research
I found this story at Newsmax.com by clicking a link on my friend, pero's blog, http://therightisright.blogspot.com....thanks for the info, pero............. Monday, May 30, 2005 8:47 a.m. EDT
Adult Stem Cell Breakthrough Ignored
Scientists at Australia's Griffith University have engineered a breakthrough in the field of adult stem cell research that's so significant, say experts, that it could render the debate over embryonic stem cell research moot.
The results of the four-year research project showed that olfactory stem cells can be turned into heart cells, brain cells, nerve cells, indeed, almost any kind of cell in the body without the problems of rejection or tumors forming, a common side effect with embryonic stem cells.
The poorly funded Griffith University team which conducted its research with a mere $200,000 in grants appears to have found a direct and non-controversial alternative to the use of stem cells derived from leftover embryos created during fertility treatment, reported the Australian newspaper.
"Our experiments have shown adult stem cells isolated from the olfactory mucosa have the ability to develop into many different cell types if they are given the right chemical or cellular environment," research team leader Alan Mackay-Sim told the paper.
Mackay-Sim's team of scientists managed to grow nerve cells, glial cells, liver cells, heart cells and muscle cells from cells harvested from the human nose.
The breakthrough, first announced two months ago, has been largely ignored by the U.S. media, which has focused on embryonic stem cell research as the only option to cure debilitating ailments like Hodgkin's, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.
As a result of the lopsided press coverage, California voters passed a $6 billion referendum to fund embryonic stem cell research last November, with similar programs proposed around the U.S. - though embryonic stem cell research has yet to show any significant medical progress.
In Australia, however, the medical community is excited over Mackay-Sim's adult stem cell breakthrough.
Brisbane neurologist Peter Silburn, a member of Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council, said the fact that researchers have been able to take adult stem cells from patients with Parkinson's disease and turn them into neurons shows great promise.
"We can now learn about the condition in ways we never could before," Silburn told the Australian.
Unlike embryonic stem cells, which reportedly can trigger tumors in one in five cases at the point of injection, adult stem cells grow in a controlled fashion and don't revert to their original tissue form.
Another significant benefit: Because adult stem cells can be harvested from the patient, there's no risk of the body rejecting them as alien, eliminating the need for immune system-suppressing drugs.
Still, two months after Australia's adult stem cell breakthrough was first announced, it has played little or no role in the ongoing U.S. debate over government funding for embryonic stem cell research.
"One of the complicating factors is that a lot of people have a lot of money tied up in embryonic stem cells," noted Australia's Catholic Archbishop George Pell, who helped secure funding for the Mackay-Sim project....Let.let me add here, the fight over stem cell research currently going on in congress is not over the research itself, but over whether the government should fund the research, especially the harvesting of stem cells from embryonic tissue. The chief objection to this is that opponents are afraid that unborn babies will be aborted for the express purpose of harvesting their stem cells. I would like to think that no one would be that heartless but then, I remember Ted Kennedy drowned his secretary.
Adult Stem Cell Breakthrough Ignored
Scientists at Australia's Griffith University have engineered a breakthrough in the field of adult stem cell research that's so significant, say experts, that it could render the debate over embryonic stem cell research moot.
The results of the four-year research project showed that olfactory stem cells can be turned into heart cells, brain cells, nerve cells, indeed, almost any kind of cell in the body without the problems of rejection or tumors forming, a common side effect with embryonic stem cells.
The poorly funded Griffith University team which conducted its research with a mere $200,000 in grants appears to have found a direct and non-controversial alternative to the use of stem cells derived from leftover embryos created during fertility treatment, reported the Australian newspaper.
"Our experiments have shown adult stem cells isolated from the olfactory mucosa have the ability to develop into many different cell types if they are given the right chemical or cellular environment," research team leader Alan Mackay-Sim told the paper.
Mackay-Sim's team of scientists managed to grow nerve cells, glial cells, liver cells, heart cells and muscle cells from cells harvested from the human nose.
The breakthrough, first announced two months ago, has been largely ignored by the U.S. media, which has focused on embryonic stem cell research as the only option to cure debilitating ailments like Hodgkin's, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.
As a result of the lopsided press coverage, California voters passed a $6 billion referendum to fund embryonic stem cell research last November, with similar programs proposed around the U.S. - though embryonic stem cell research has yet to show any significant medical progress.
In Australia, however, the medical community is excited over Mackay-Sim's adult stem cell breakthrough.
Brisbane neurologist Peter Silburn, a member of Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council, said the fact that researchers have been able to take adult stem cells from patients with Parkinson's disease and turn them into neurons shows great promise.
"We can now learn about the condition in ways we never could before," Silburn told the Australian.
Unlike embryonic stem cells, which reportedly can trigger tumors in one in five cases at the point of injection, adult stem cells grow in a controlled fashion and don't revert to their original tissue form.
Another significant benefit: Because adult stem cells can be harvested from the patient, there's no risk of the body rejecting them as alien, eliminating the need for immune system-suppressing drugs.
Still, two months after Australia's adult stem cell breakthrough was first announced, it has played little or no role in the ongoing U.S. debate over government funding for embryonic stem cell research.
"One of the complicating factors is that a lot of people have a lot of money tied up in embryonic stem cells," noted Australia's Catholic Archbishop George Pell, who helped secure funding for the Mackay-Sim project....Let.let me add here, the fight over stem cell research currently going on in congress is not over the research itself, but over whether the government should fund the research, especially the harvesting of stem cells from embryonic tissue. The chief objection to this is that opponents are afraid that unborn babies will be aborted for the express purpose of harvesting their stem cells. I would like to think that no one would be that heartless but then, I remember Ted Kennedy drowned his secretary.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Quran abuse confirmed
The Drudge report has broken the story about reported abuses of the Quran at Gitmo detainee camp in Guantanamo Bay. According to a pentagon source there were indeed some reports of Quran abuse by some guards there. But the surprising part of this story is that it appears the Quran was abused by the detainees themselves much more often than by the guards. Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, the commander of the detention center in Cuba, said in a written statement released with the new details that his investigation "revealed a consistent, documented policy of respectful handling of the Quran dating back almost 2 1/2 years." He also stated, that of nine mishandling cases that were studied in detail by reviewing thousands of pages of written records, five were confirmed. He could not determine conclusively whether the other four took place.
In one of the unconfirmed cases, a detainee in April 2003 complained to FBI and other interrogators that guards "constantly defile the Quran." The detainee alleged that in one instance a female military guard threw a Quran into a bag of wet towels to anger another detainee, and he also alleged that another guard said the Quran belonged in the toilet and that guards were ordered to do these things.
Hood said he found no other record of this detainee mentioning any Quran mishandling. The detainee has since been released. Hood said last week he found no credible evidence that a Quran was ever flushed down a toilet. He said a prisoner who was reported to have complained to an FBI agent in 2002 that a military guard threw a Quran in the toilet has since told Hood's investigators that he never witnessed any form of Quran desecration.
Other prisoners who were returned to their home countries after serving time at Guantanamo Bay as terror suspects have alleged Quran desecration by U.S. guards, and some have said a Quran was placed in a toilet.
There are about 540 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Some have been there more than three years without being charged with a crime. Most were captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 and were sent to Guantanamo Bay in hope of extracting useful intelligence about the al-Qaida terrorist network.
...........Keep in mind that these are DETAINEES making these allegations. It has been reported that, when an Al Quaida training manual was discovered, that among the other instructions for Al Quaida training procedures, they are instructed to report false abuses if in custody. With all that we now know about these alleged abuses, I hardly think that it compares with the Russian dictator Stalin's gulags, as was asserted in a release by Amnesty International. In the Gulags in Russia, I understand, more than 20,000,000 Russian citizens were brutally tortured and murdered during Stalin's reign of terror. But I don't mean to minimize the alleged abuses at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. I just think that Amnesty International's comparison is ludicrous at best. Surely they could have found a more appropriate comparison.
In one of the unconfirmed cases, a detainee in April 2003 complained to FBI and other interrogators that guards "constantly defile the Quran." The detainee alleged that in one instance a female military guard threw a Quran into a bag of wet towels to anger another detainee, and he also alleged that another guard said the Quran belonged in the toilet and that guards were ordered to do these things.
Hood said he found no other record of this detainee mentioning any Quran mishandling. The detainee has since been released. Hood said last week he found no credible evidence that a Quran was ever flushed down a toilet. He said a prisoner who was reported to have complained to an FBI agent in 2002 that a military guard threw a Quran in the toilet has since told Hood's investigators that he never witnessed any form of Quran desecration.
Other prisoners who were returned to their home countries after serving time at Guantanamo Bay as terror suspects have alleged Quran desecration by U.S. guards, and some have said a Quran was placed in a toilet.
There are about 540 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Some have been there more than three years without being charged with a crime. Most were captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 and were sent to Guantanamo Bay in hope of extracting useful intelligence about the al-Qaida terrorist network.
...........Keep in mind that these are DETAINEES making these allegations. It has been reported that, when an Al Quaida training manual was discovered, that among the other instructions for Al Quaida training procedures, they are instructed to report false abuses if in custody. With all that we now know about these alleged abuses, I hardly think that it compares with the Russian dictator Stalin's gulags, as was asserted in a release by Amnesty International. In the Gulags in Russia, I understand, more than 20,000,000 Russian citizens were brutally tortured and murdered during Stalin's reign of terror. But I don't mean to minimize the alleged abuses at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. I just think that Amnesty International's comparison is ludicrous at best. Surely they could have found a more appropriate comparison.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Fruity fruit flies?
This morning I was listening to the Imus in the morning show, and they presented a news story that made me blow a gasket. Since I have learned long ago not to believe everything I read, I decided to check this story out myself. I couldn't find anything about it on the internet, until I remembered that Imus gets most of his news stories from the New York Times or the Washington Post. So, I went to New York Times online and there it was. Here are some excerpts:..............When the genetically altered fruit fly was released into the observation chamber, it did what these breeders par excellence tend to do. It pursued a waiting virgin female. It gently tapped the girl with its leg, played her a song (using wings as instruments) and, only then, dared to lick her - all part of standard fruit fly seduction.
One gene, apparently by itself, creates patterns of sexual behavior in fruit flies.
The observing scientist looked with disbelief at the show, for the suitor in this case was not a male, but a female that researchers had artificially endowed with a single male-type gene.
That one gene, the researchers are announcing today in the journal Cell, is apparently by itself enough to create patterns of sexual behavior - a kind of master sexual gene that normally exists in two distinct male and female variants. "We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior," said the paper's lead author, Dr. Barry Dickson, senior scientist at the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.....
The article goes on to explain that this research will go a long way towards establishing that homosexuality is genetic, not a choice. However, something jumped put of me that Imus didn't report. Read for yourself:............
Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University. "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."
He added: "I never chose to be heterosexual; it just happened."........
This is nothing more than another blatant attempt to convince the public that homosexuality is normal. Many tests and much research has been offered by the scientific community in the past that purportedly supports this theory. But it has one flaw. In every case, the results were later proven to be wrong. Also, in every case, it turned out that the "scientist" making the results public were homosexual themselves. As in this case. Another point I would make here: Why would a scientist even think to perform this experiment? To me, it is obvious. He is trying to prove to the world that he, as well as all other homosexuals were born that way. And, in addition to that, I think he is trying to convince himself. I will go out on a limb here (although a very sturdy limb).I will make 2 predictions right here. Mark my words. Prediction number 1.....More scientist will research this finding and, ultimately conclude that the findings are (1) flawed (2) manipulated,(3)false and/or (4) all of the above.....Prediction number 2...The New York Times will not print the results of the second finding. Look, if you want to be homosexual, fine. Be homosexual. Just don't try to convince normal people that it is genetic. Be honest and admit that you chose your lifestyle, and you weren't born that way. That way, the only person you will have to answer to is your Creator.
One gene, apparently by itself, creates patterns of sexual behavior in fruit flies.
The observing scientist looked with disbelief at the show, for the suitor in this case was not a male, but a female that researchers had artificially endowed with a single male-type gene.
That one gene, the researchers are announcing today in the journal Cell, is apparently by itself enough to create patterns of sexual behavior - a kind of master sexual gene that normally exists in two distinct male and female variants. "We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior," said the paper's lead author, Dr. Barry Dickson, senior scientist at the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.....
The article goes on to explain that this research will go a long way towards establishing that homosexuality is genetic, not a choice. However, something jumped put of me that Imus didn't report. Read for yourself:............
Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University. "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."
He added: "I never chose to be heterosexual; it just happened."........
This is nothing more than another blatant attempt to convince the public that homosexuality is normal. Many tests and much research has been offered by the scientific community in the past that purportedly supports this theory. But it has one flaw. In every case, the results were later proven to be wrong. Also, in every case, it turned out that the "scientist" making the results public were homosexual themselves. As in this case. Another point I would make here: Why would a scientist even think to perform this experiment? To me, it is obvious. He is trying to prove to the world that he, as well as all other homosexuals were born that way. And, in addition to that, I think he is trying to convince himself. I will go out on a limb here (although a very sturdy limb).I will make 2 predictions right here. Mark my words. Prediction number 1.....More scientist will research this finding and, ultimately conclude that the findings are (1) flawed (2) manipulated,(3)false and/or (4) all of the above.....Prediction number 2...The New York Times will not print the results of the second finding. Look, if you want to be homosexual, fine. Be homosexual. Just don't try to convince normal people that it is genetic. Be honest and admit that you chose your lifestyle, and you weren't born that way. That way, the only person you will have to answer to is your Creator.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
The problem I have with Sean Hannity
First of all, let me state that I like Sean Hannity and I like his radio program. I have a great deal of respect for him and I believe he is sincere in his beliefs, which is a breath of fresh air in today's media. I watched a video taken of him between on-air segments when he was in Florida covering the Terri Shaivo story. He proved to me then that he cares. But, having said that, I cannot let his comment concerning the impoverished in our country on yesterday's program go by without objection. What he said was this: "You don't want poverty? Get a job." I take exception to this comment. There are a great many people in this country, hard working people, that have jobs with incomes that are still below the national poverty level. Take anyone other than store management and higher that works at Walmart for example. There are many occupations around that don't pay enough money to live on. This is one of the problems that the liberal democrats say they want to solve, although they don't seem to have a workable solution in mind. All poor people in this country are not welfare whores and brats. When will conservatives address the problem of the WORKING POOR? Also, I noticed that occasionally, Mr. Hannity will cut off a caller when they start to complain about flaws in the conservative republican ideals. Recently, a caller started to complain that her family didn't get the compensation they were promised and/or entitled to when her son was killed in Iraq and he cut her short and then went on a diatribe about what his audience was doing to raise money for the children of sevicemen killed in the service of their country. I wanted to hear the rest of what she was saying but he didn't allow her to continue. One thing I did hear, that he didn't seem to, was that her son died without children, so her family would apparently not be eligible for help from his organization. While I wholeheartedly support his unselfish efforts to provide for the children of the servicemen, I think he should acknowledge the flaws in the system as well. Now, that would be fair and balanced to me. Don't get your hopes up, liberals, I am still 85% conservative.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Felt but not seen
When I heard the news that "Deep Throat" had been finally identified, My first reaction was "Oh, that's nice, now we know. Ho hum. Now lets get back to business as usual." But after hearing what the pundits and bloggers and talk show hosts have to say on the subject, I have come to an opinion. And that opinion is this: Mr. Felt betrayed the trust of the FBI and his president. Ben Stein (actor, lawyer, and one of Nixon's speech writer's) has this to say:...."Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POW's, ended the war in the Mideast, opened relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved Eretz Israel's life, started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?...Oh, now I remember. He lied....That is his legacy. He was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering up peacemaker. He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war starter like LBJ, a lying, conniving seducer like Clinton -- a lying, conniving peacemaker. That is Nixon's kharma.
When his enemies brought him down, and they had been laying for him since he proved that Alger Hiss was a traitor, since Alger Hiss was their fair-haired boy, this is what they bought for themselves in the Kharma Supermarket that is life:
1.) The defeat of the South Vietnamese government with decades of death and hardship for the people of Vietnam.
2.) The assumption of power in Cambodia by the bloodiest government of all time, the Khmer Rouge, who killed a third of their own people, often by making children beat their own parents to death. No one doubts RN would never have let this happen.
So, this is the great boast of the enemies of Richard Nixon, including Mark Felt: they made the conditions necessary for the Cambodian genocide. If there is such a thing as kharma, if there is such a thing as justice in this life of the next, Mark Felt has bought himself the worst future of any man on this earth. And Bob Woodward is right behind him, with Ben Bradlee bringing up the rear. Out of their smug arrogance and contempt, they hatched the worst nightmare imaginable: genocide. I hope they are happy now -- because their future looks pretty bleak to me."........ So now we know. Ho hum. Now let's get back to business as usual.
When his enemies brought him down, and they had been laying for him since he proved that Alger Hiss was a traitor, since Alger Hiss was their fair-haired boy, this is what they bought for themselves in the Kharma Supermarket that is life:
1.) The defeat of the South Vietnamese government with decades of death and hardship for the people of Vietnam.
2.) The assumption of power in Cambodia by the bloodiest government of all time, the Khmer Rouge, who killed a third of their own people, often by making children beat their own parents to death. No one doubts RN would never have let this happen.
So, this is the great boast of the enemies of Richard Nixon, including Mark Felt: they made the conditions necessary for the Cambodian genocide. If there is such a thing as kharma, if there is such a thing as justice in this life of the next, Mark Felt has bought himself the worst future of any man on this earth. And Bob Woodward is right behind him, with Ben Bradlee bringing up the rear. Out of their smug arrogance and contempt, they hatched the worst nightmare imaginable: genocide. I hope they are happy now -- because their future looks pretty bleak to me."........ So now we know. Ho hum. Now let's get back to business as usual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
